Could Tech Have Stopped ISIS From Using Our Own Heavy Weapons Against Us? 448
JonZittrain writes: This summer, ISIS insurgents captured Mosul — with with it, three divisions' worth of advanced American military hardware. After ISIS used it to capture the Mosul Dam, the U.S. started bombing its own pirated equipment. Could sophisticated military tanks and anti-aircraft missiles given or sold to countries like Iraq be equipped with a way to disable them if they're compromised, without opening them up to hacking by an enemy?
We already require extra authentication at a distance to arm nuclear weapons, and last season's 24 notwithstanding, we routinely operate military drones at a distance. Reportedly in the Falkland Islands war, Margaret Thatcher was able to extract codes to disable Argentina's Exocet missiles from the French. The simplest implementation might be like the proposal for land mines that expire after a certain time. Perhaps tanks — currently usable without even an ignition key — could require a renewal code digitally signed by the owning country to be entered manually or received by satellite every six months or so.
I'm a skeptic of kill switches, especially in consumer devices, but still found myself writing up the case for a way to disable military hardware in the field. There are lots of reasons it might not work — or work too well — but is there a way to improve on what we face now?
We already require extra authentication at a distance to arm nuclear weapons, and last season's 24 notwithstanding, we routinely operate military drones at a distance. Reportedly in the Falkland Islands war, Margaret Thatcher was able to extract codes to disable Argentina's Exocet missiles from the French. The simplest implementation might be like the proposal for land mines that expire after a certain time. Perhaps tanks — currently usable without even an ignition key — could require a renewal code digitally signed by the owning country to be entered manually or received by satellite every six months or so.
I'm a skeptic of kill switches, especially in consumer devices, but still found myself writing up the case for a way to disable military hardware in the field. There are lots of reasons it might not work — or work too well — but is there a way to improve on what we face now?
Like DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)
As desirable as it would be in the case if ISIS, wouldn't implementing such kill switches on weapons be as ineffective as DRM for copyrighted material, with undesirable side-effects for "legitimate uses" and plenty of workarounds for "illegitimate" users?
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Could sophisticated military tanks and anti-aircraft missiles given or sold to countries like Iraq be equipped with a way to disable them if they're compromised, without opening them up to hacking by an enemy?
No. Next question.
Any system that's trusted to grant or revoke capabilities must have done way to be authenticated. Any authentication system can be faked with sufficient knowledge. You can control how difficult faking the system can be, or how much knowledge is needed. But it cannot be eliminated.
Could sophisticated military tanks and anti-aircraft missiles given or sold to countries like Iraq be equipped with a way to disable them if they're compromised, without opening them up to hacking by an enemy?
shooting yourself in the foot (Score:4, Insightful)
So what the enemy needs to do to win is to get disable codes?
Given Pentagon's contractor efficiency and reporting requirements, the choices will probably be in a plaintext file accessible from the internet, in a budget report.
Re:Silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Theft is not piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
I assumed it was like how pirates would steal ships, and then use them.
Here's an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that is not a popular opinion here, but it is the truth.
Easiest "Fix" (Score:5, Insightful)
Bring it all back home. For all the hullabaloo about letting technology getting into "enemy hands", including export restrictions, the "let's just leave a bunch of military hardware in the Middle East" scenario was apparently never considered a risk.
Of course, it's too late now for the Mosul equipment, but the same thing could happen anywhere else in Iraq or Afghanistan.
It's almost as if the belligerent, short-sighted idiots are still in charge.
No one wants a DRM'd weapon (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Like DRM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not left the country until we'd established a true core of military lifers with a culture to stand behind it.
Collected all of the previous Iraqi military's weapons and not left them with the ex-soldiers that we fired.
Not disbanded the previous Iraqi military, and instead molded them into the defense and Gendarmerie to actually keep the country from going into chaos post-defeat.
Put enough boots on the ground that the country wouldn't have gone into chaos post-defeat.
Not kicked-over the government so completely that its leader fled, leaving the power vacuum.
Not invaded in the first place.
Re:Here's an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we just stop invading other countries where we know people don't like to see Americans? If we had opted out of the second Iraq war, we could have saved thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and our own collective faces on the international stage. To top it all off we wouldn't need to be having this discussion at all. We didn't accomplish anything with that war. I know that is not a popular opinion here, but it is the truth.
Under the sanctions, Iraqis were suffering. The child death rate was soaring, there were food shortages and there were thousands of deaths. The power of Saddam Hussein was actually growing and he was getting richer and more powerful while the population was suffering.
Which was all caused by the first Iraq war which was the result of arming Saddam Hussein so that he would fight Iran. We were fighting Iran because they were hostile to us because of supporting the unpopular Shah dictator. We supported a military coup that put the Shah in power because oil was nationalized by then Iranian government. The Iranian government nationalized the oil fields because they were outright owned by foreign oil companies and didn't think it was fair. I don't know what happened before that.
Just a chain of dick moves and greed all the way.
Other nearby countries using their oil resources wisely have done very well and are the countries with the highest per capita.
Re:Like DRM? (Score:2, Insightful)
Or when they are being overrun they should just destroy the hardware so that it doesn't fall into enemy hands. Of course there is also an argument for why you don't sell hardware to unstable regions. Course we have a long history of doing it so stopping now would be problematic at best.
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, but if you want to disable them remotely, you have ton include a radio receiver. To disable the disable switch, I just have to damage/remove the receiver or its antenna so you can't get your signal to my weapon.
Conversely, if you DO make the disable switch both remote and password-based, all I have to do is set up radio transmitters that try every possible password. Will I get every one? Not likely. Will I be able to cause enough of them to fail that countries stop buying them? Probably.
Re:Here's an idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Like DRM? (Score:4, Insightful)
You forgot one: not letting European colonial powers draw an arbitrary line and declare that "Iraq". As it is, the British created a country that was doomed by baked-in ethnic (Arabs, Kurds) and religious (Sunni, Shia) divisions.
Re:Like DRM? (Score:4, Insightful)
"We" is the US and it's citizens which are responsible for putting politicians in office. "We" are responsible for educating people in society about basic concepts like Liberty and Freedom, and what a Republic is supposed to be. "We" are responsible for warning and educating people to tyranny and where it has taken hold in the US. "We" are responsible for demanding an end to the escalation of the Police state within our borders and the lack of protecting the same. "We" are responsible to take action, and "We" have not yet done so at scale.
I am partially responsible for where we are today, and admit myself as part of the problem. I spend several hours a day doing my part to educate others to issues and educate myself to keep reality in focus. When will "you" admit to yours and do something other than claim it's that other guys fault?