Re: [Biofuel] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed
i guess im still hung up on the microwave end. my RF instructor spent a
somewhat disturbing amount of time on encryption and spread spectrum
transmission/jamming. it involves a really wide bandpass, an inert signal
sweep, a carrier sweep, and a lot of wattage to create a white noise bubble. he
tried to pass it off as an essential part of the 801.11x networking standards,
but he really dove into jamming and disruption. maybe he suspected something
noone else did? as far as coherent signals go, the only thing that we dont have
the tech to jam yet is laser, and thats only because we dont have the
mainstream capability of reliably producing THz broadcasting frequencies
electronically.
anyway, Ontario to Australia? col :)
- Original Message -
From: Joe Street
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed
Lol I like your mind Jason;
Well actually a transmitter doesn't have to be big or powerful to have range.
I have had solid communications using CW (morse code) on a home made
transmitter about the size of a ham sandwich that operated on the 30m band
(10.1MHz) and output only one watt of power while engaged with another station
in Australia and I got very complimentary signal reports. This is using a 5/8
wave wire antenna supported by trees and an elevated ground plane of four
radial wires also supported by trees while I was camping in northern Ontario.
A frequency hopping transciever can be built to operate in these shortwave
bands as well and benefit from the awesome propagation that happens there.
Coherent techniques have allowed people to communicate with signals actually
lower than the noise floor but is an inherently slow mode but very robust.
Yeah it sure would be nice to pre-empt the programing on say fox and replace
it with your own message wouldn't it. LOL there was a guy back in the day who
went by the alias Captain Midnight who did just that. Except his 'message' was
nothing more than a computer video signal with nothing but his alias typed out
in the middle of the frame. But as with all the trail blazers, he did so at a
time when there was no protection against such an exploit. Ahh wasted
opportunities.
J
Jason& Katie wrote:
yes but to have a spread spectrum transmitter with the same kind of range
as a standard single carrier would take either a lot more repeaters- which
means more vulnerable infrastructure- or a huge honkin transmitter which means
it is a) a bigger target, and b) dependent on a heavy power supply. and as far
as messing with the satellites was concerned i meant hijacking an link just as
you mentioned (nothing like using their own gear against them...).
- Original Message -
From: Joe Street
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed
Are you joking? The military has no need of the web for thier com needs.
They have all manner of wireless networks of their own. Most of it is spread
spectrum stuff. The also have ELF for communicating with subs clandestinely
(which is slow) or can use a blue green laser from a satelite to get a message
in quickly when they are not concerned about revealing the sub's location. If
the s*** hits the fan the entire EM spectrum will be filled with jamming
signals but spread spectrum and coherent techniques are somewhat robust against
these tactics. Satelites are surprisingly difficult albeit vulnerable targets
although not impossible it takes a great deal of money and commitment to take
one out. Uplinks are a different story tho...
Joe
Jason& Katie wrote:
so... if they eliminate the entire network that means they would only have
satellite communications, and i doubt satellites are that terribly difficult
to disrupt either so hackers could play games with the fed directly and
cause some serious damage. hummm why does this not make any sense to me?
which is worse: having people speak against you with impunity, or having
those same people really pissed off and screwing with your only means of
communication?
just wondering...
jason
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:45 PM
Subject: [Biofuel] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed
... Meanwhile...
Rumsfeld is still running the War Department
Sunday, 28 January 2007
http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/175/1/
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm
Friday, 27 January 2006, 18:05 GMT
US plans to 'fight the net' revealed
By Adam Brookes
BBC Pentagon correspondent
A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US
military's plans for "information operati
Re: [Biofuel] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed
Lol I like your mind Jason;
Well actually a transmitter doesn't have to be big or powerful to have
range. I have had solid communications using CW (morse code) on a home
made transmitter about the size of a ham sandwich that operated on the
30m band (10.1MHz) and output only one watt of power while engaged with
another station in Australia and I got very complimentary signal
reports. This is using a 5/8 wave wire antenna supported by trees and
an elevated ground plane of four radial wires also supported by trees
while I was camping in northern Ontario. A frequency hopping
transciever can be built to operate in these shortwave bands as well and
benefit from the awesome propagation that happens there. Coherent
techniques have allowed people to communicate with signals actually
lower than the noise floor but is an inherently slow mode but very robust.
Yeah it sure would be nice to pre-empt the programing on say fox and
replace it with your own message wouldn't it. LOL there was a guy back
in the day who went by the alias Captain Midnight who did just that.
Except his 'message' was nothing more than a computer video signal with
nothing but his alias typed out in the middle of the frame. But as with
all the trail blazers, he did so at a time when there was no protection
against such an exploit. Ahh wasted opportunities.
J
Jason& Katie wrote:
yes but to have a spread spectrum transmitter with the same kind of
range as a standard single carrier would take either a lot more
repeaters- which means more vulnerable infrastructure- or a huge
honkin transmitter which means it is a) a bigger target, and b)
dependent on a heavy power supply. and as far as messing with the
satellites was concerned i meant hijacking an link just as you
mentioned (nothing like using their own gear against them...).
- Original Message -
*From:* Joe Street <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* biofuel@sustainablelists.org
<mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org>
*Sent:* Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:21 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed
Are you joking? The military has no need of the web for thier com
needs. They have all manner of wireless networks of their own.
Most of it is spread spectrum stuff. The also have ELF for
communicating with subs clandestinely (which is slow) or can use a
blue green laser from a satelite to get a message in quickly when
they are not concerned about revealing the sub's location. If the
s*** hits the fan the entire EM spectrum will be filled with
jamming signals but spread spectrum and coherent techniques are
somewhat robust against these tactics. Satelites are surprisingly
difficult albeit vulnerable targets although not impossible it
takes a great deal of money and commitment to take one out.
Uplinks are a different story tho...
Joe
Jason& Katie wrote:
so... if they eliminate the entire network that means they would only have
satellite communications, and i doubt satellites are that terribly difficult
to disrupt either so hackers could play games with the fed directly and
cause some serious damage. hummm why does this not make any sense to me?
which is worse: having people speak against you with impunity, or having
those same people really pissed off and screwing with your only means of
communication?
just wondering...
jason
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:45 PM
Subject: [Biofuel] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed
... Meanwhile...
Rumsfeld is still running the War Department
Sunday, 28 January 2007
http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/175/1/
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm
Friday, 27 January 2006, 18:05 GMT
US plans to 'fight the net' revealed
By Adam Brookes
BBC Pentagon correspondent
A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US
military's plans for "information operations" - from psychological
operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks.
Report: Information Operations Roadmap:[PDF File]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/27_01_06_psyops.pdf
Bloggers beware.
As the world turns networked, the Pentagon is calculating the
military opportunities that computer networks, wireless technologies
and the modern media offer.
From influencing public opinion through new media to designing
"computer network attack" weapons, the US military is learning to
fight an electronic war.
The declassified document is called "Information Operations Roadmap".
It was obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington
University using the Freedom of Information Act.
Officials in the Pentagon wrote it in 2003. The Secretary of Defense,
Donald Rumsfeld, signed it.
The "
Re: [Biofuel] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed
yes but to have a spread spectrum transmitter with the same kind of range as a standard single carrier would take either a lot more repeaters- which means more vulnerable infrastructure- or a huge honkin transmitter which means it is a) a bigger target, and b) dependent on a heavy power supply. and as far as messing with the satellites was concerned i meant hijacking an link just as you mentioned (nothing like using their own gear against them...). - Original Message - From: Joe Street To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed Are you joking? The military has no need of the web for thier com needs. They have all manner of wireless networks of their own. Most of it is spread spectrum stuff. The also have ELF for communicating with subs clandestinely (which is slow) or can use a blue green laser from a satelite to get a message in quickly when they are not concerned about revealing the sub's location. If the s*** hits the fan the entire EM spectrum will be filled with jamming signals but spread spectrum and coherent techniques are somewhat robust against these tactics. Satelites are surprisingly difficult albeit vulnerable targets although not impossible it takes a great deal of money and commitment to take one out. Uplinks are a different story tho... Joe Jason& Katie wrote: so... if they eliminate the entire network that means they would only have satellite communications, and i doubt satellites are that terribly difficult to disrupt either so hackers could play games with the fed directly and cause some serious damage. hummm why does this not make any sense to me? which is worse: having people speak against you with impunity, or having those same people really pissed off and screwing with your only means of communication? just wondering... jason - Original Message - From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:45 PM Subject: [Biofuel] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed ... Meanwhile... Rumsfeld is still running the War Department Sunday, 28 January 2007 http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/175/1/ - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm Friday, 27 January 2006, 18:05 GMT US plans to 'fight the net' revealed By Adam Brookes BBC Pentagon correspondent A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US military's plans for "information operations" - from psychological operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks. Report: Information Operations Roadmap:[PDF File] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/27_01_06_psyops.pdf Bloggers beware. As the world turns networked, the Pentagon is calculating the military opportunities that computer networks, wireless technologies and the modern media offer. >From influencing public opinion through new media to designing "computer network attack" weapons, the US military is learning to fight an electronic war. The declassified document is called "Information Operations Roadmap". It was obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University using the Freedom of Information Act. Officials in the Pentagon wrote it in 2003. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, signed it. The "roadmap" calls for a far-reaching overhaul of the military's ability to conduct information operations and electronic warfare. And, in some detail, it makes recommendations for how the US armed forces should think about this new, virtual warfare. The document says that information is "critical to military success". Computer and telecommunications networks are of vital operational importance. Propaganda The operations described in the document include a surprising range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks. All these are engaged in information operations. Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military's psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans. "Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience," it reads. "Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public," it goes on. The document's authors acknowledge that American news media should not unwittingly broadcast military propaganda. "Specific boundaries should be established," they write. But they don't seem to explain
Re: [Biofuel] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed
Are you joking? The military has no need of the web for thier com needs. They have all manner of wireless networks of their own. Most of it is spread spectrum stuff. The also have ELF for communicating with subs clandestinely (which is slow) or can use a blue green laser from a satelite to get a message in quickly when they are not concerned about revealing the sub's location. If the s*** hits the fan the entire EM spectrum will be filled with jamming signals but spread spectrum and coherent techniques are somewhat robust against these tactics. Satelites are surprisingly difficult albeit vulnerable targets although not impossible it takes a great deal of money and commitment to take one out. Uplinks are a different story tho... Joe Jason& Katie wrote: so... if they eliminate the entire network that means they would only have satellite communications, and i doubt satellites are that terribly difficult to disrupt either so hackers could play games with the fed directly and cause some serious damage. hummm why does this not make any sense to me? which is worse: having people speak against you with impunity, or having those same people really pissed off and screwing with your only means of communication? just wondering... jason - Original Message - From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:45 PM Subject: [Biofuel] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed ... Meanwhile... Rumsfeld is still running the War Department Sunday, 28 January 2007 http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/175/1/ - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm Friday, 27 January 2006, 18:05 GMT US plans to 'fight the net' revealed By Adam Brookes BBC Pentagon correspondent A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US military's plans for "information operations" - from psychological operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks. Report: Information Operations Roadmap:[PDF File] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/27_01_06_psyops.pdf Bloggers beware. As the world turns networked, the Pentagon is calculating the military opportunities that computer networks, wireless technologies and the modern media offer. From influencing public opinion through new media to designing "computer network attack" weapons, the US military is learning to fight an electronic war. The declassified document is called "Information Operations Roadmap". It was obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University using the Freedom of Information Act. Officials in the Pentagon wrote it in 2003. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, signed it. The "roadmap" calls for a far-reaching overhaul of the military's ability to conduct information operations and electronic warfare. And, in some detail, it makes recommendations for how the US armed forces should think about this new, virtual warfare. The document says that information is "critical to military success". Computer and telecommunications networks are of vital operational importance. Propaganda The operations described in the document include a surprising range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks. All these are engaged in information operations. Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military's psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans. "Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience," it reads. "Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public," it goes on. The document's authors acknowledge that American news media should not unwittingly broadcast military propaganda. "Specific boundaries should be established," they write. But they don't seem to explain how. "In this day and age it is impossible to prevent stories that are fed abroad as part of psychological operations propaganda from blowing back into the United States - even though they were directed abroad," says Kristin Adair of the National Security Archive. Credibility problem Public awareness of the US military's information operations is low, but it's growing - thanks to some operational clumsiness. Late last year, it emerged that the Pentagon had paid a private company, the Lincoln Group, to plant hundreds of stories in Iraqi newspapers. The stories - all supportive of US policy - were written by military personnel and then placed in Iraqi publications. And websites that appeared to be information sites on the politics of Africa and the Balkans were found to be run by the Pentagon. But the true
Re: [Biofuel] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed
so... if they eliminate the entire network that means they would only have satellite communications, and i doubt satellites are that terribly difficult to disrupt either so hackers could play games with the fed directly and cause some serious damage. hummm why does this not make any sense to me? which is worse: having people speak against you with impunity, or having those same people really pissed off and screwing with your only means of communication? just wondering... jason - Original Message - From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:45 PM Subject: [Biofuel] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed > ... Meanwhile... > Rumsfeld is still running the War Department > Sunday, 28 January 2007 > http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/175/1/ > > - > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm > Friday, 27 January 2006, 18:05 GMT > > US plans to 'fight the net' revealed > > By Adam Brookes > BBC Pentagon correspondent > > A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US > military's plans for "information operations" - from psychological > operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks. > > Report: Information Operations Roadmap:[PDF File] > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/27_01_06_psyops.pdf > > Bloggers beware. > > As the world turns networked, the Pentagon is calculating the > military opportunities that computer networks, wireless technologies > and the modern media offer. > > From influencing public opinion through new media to designing > "computer network attack" weapons, the US military is learning to > fight an electronic war. > > The declassified document is called "Information Operations Roadmap". > It was obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington > University using the Freedom of Information Act. > > Officials in the Pentagon wrote it in 2003. The Secretary of Defense, > Donald Rumsfeld, signed it. > > The "roadmap" calls for a far-reaching overhaul of the military's > ability to conduct information operations and electronic warfare. > And, in some detail, it makes recommendations for how the US armed > forces should think about this new, virtual warfare. > > The document says that information is "critical to military success". > Computer and telecommunications networks are of vital operational > importance. > > Propaganda > > The operations described in the document include a surprising range > of military activities: public affairs officers who brief > journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate > the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack > specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks. > > All these are engaged in information operations. > > Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its > acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military's > psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the > computer and television screens of ordinary Americans. > > "Information intended for foreign audiences, including public > diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic > audience," it reads. > > "Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much > larger audiences, including the American public," it goes on. > > The document's authors acknowledge that American news media should > not unwittingly broadcast military propaganda. "Specific boundaries > should be established," they write. But they don't seem to explain > how. > > "In this day and age it is impossible to prevent stories that are fed > abroad as part of psychological operations propaganda from blowing > back into the United States - even though they were directed abroad," > says Kristin Adair of the National Security Archive. > > Credibility problem > > Public awareness of the US military's information operations is low, > but it's growing - thanks to some operational clumsiness. > > Late last year, it emerged that the Pentagon had paid a private > company, the Lincoln Group, to plant hundreds of stories in Iraqi > newspapers. The stories - all supportive of US policy - were written > by military personnel and then placed in Iraqi publications. > > And websites that appeared to be information sites on the politics of > Africa and the Balkans were found to be run by the Pentagon. > > But the true extent of the Pentagon's information operations, how > they work, who they're aimed at, and at what point they turn from > informing the public to influencing populations, is far from clear. > > The roadmap, however, gives a flavour of what the US military is up > to - and the grand scale on which it's thinking. > > It reveals that Psyops personnel "support" the American government's > international broadcasting. It singles out TV Marti - a station which > broadcasts to Cuba - as receiving such support. > > It recommends that a global website be established that supports > America's strategic objectives. But no America
Re: [Biofuel] US plans to 'fight the net' revealed
Kept getting an error message after download for the pdf file. I then right cliked and saved. Saved version opened ok Kirk Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... Meanwhile... Rumsfeld is still running the War Department Sunday, 28 January 2007 http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/175/1/ - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm Friday, 27 January 2006, 18:05 GMT US plans to 'fight the net' revealed By Adam Brookes BBC Pentagon correspondent A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US military's plans for "information operations" - from psychological operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks. Report: Information Operations Roadmap:[PDF File] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/27_01_06_psyops.pdf Bloggers beware. As the world turns networked, the Pentagon is calculating the military opportunities that computer networks, wireless technologies and the modern media offer. >From influencing public opinion through new media to designing "computer network attack" weapons, the US military is learning to fight an electronic war. The declassified document is called "Information Operations Roadmap". It was obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University using the Freedom of Information Act. Officials in the Pentagon wrote it in 2003. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, signed it. The "roadmap" calls for a far-reaching overhaul of the military's ability to conduct information operations and electronic warfare. And, in some detail, it makes recommendations for how the US armed forces should think about this new, virtual warfare. The document says that information is "critical to military success". Computer and telecommunications networks are of vital operational importance. Propaganda The operations described in the document include a surprising range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks. All these are engaged in information operations. Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military's psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans. "Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience," it reads. "Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public," it goes on. The document's authors acknowledge that American news media should not unwittingly broadcast military propaganda. "Specific boundaries should be established," they write. But they don't seem to explain how. "In this day and age it is impossible to prevent stories that are fed abroad as part of psychological operations propaganda from blowing back into the United States - even though they were directed abroad," says Kristin Adair of the National Security Archive. Credibility problem Public awareness of the US military's information operations is low, but it's growing - thanks to some operational clumsiness. Late last year, it emerged that the Pentagon had paid a private company, the Lincoln Group, to plant hundreds of stories in Iraqi newspapers. The stories - all supportive of US policy - were written by military personnel and then placed in Iraqi publications. And websites that appeared to be information sites on the politics of Africa and the Balkans were found to be run by the Pentagon. But the true extent of the Pentagon's information operations, how they work, who they're aimed at, and at what point they turn from informing the public to influencing populations, is far from clear. The roadmap, however, gives a flavour of what the US military is up to - and the grand scale on which it's thinking. It reveals that Psyops personnel "support" the American government's international broadcasting. It singles out TV Marti - a station which broadcasts to Cuba - as receiving such support. It recommends that a global website be established that supports America's strategic objectives. But no American diplomats here, thank you. The website would use content from "third parties with greater credibility to foreign audiences than US officials". It also recommends that Psyops personnel should consider a range of technologies to disseminate propaganda in enemy territory: unmanned aerial vehicles, "miniaturized, scatterable public address systems", wireless devices, cellular phones and the internet. 'Fight the net' When it describes plans for electronic warfare, or EW, the document takes on an extraordinary tone. It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy weapons system. "Strategy should be based on the
