Showing posts with label IARPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IARPA. Show all posts

Sunday, December 09, 2012

New Weapons Systems Could Give Pentagon Unprecedented Power Over The Plane



Combining Biometrics, Cyberwarfare, and A Potential Future Aerospace Shield, The Pentagon Is Rushing Toward Uncharted Territory, and Domination.

By Alfred W. McCoy,
Courtesy Of "Alter-Net"

It’s 2025 and an American “triple canopy” of advanced surveillance and armed drones fills the heavens from the lower- to the exo-atmosphere.  A wonder of the modern age, it can deliver its weaponry anywhere on the planet with staggering speed, knock out an enemy’s satellite communications system, or follow individuals biometrically for great distances.  Along with the country’s advanced cyberwar capacity, it’s also the most sophisticated militarized information system ever created and an insurance policy for U.S. global dominion deep into the twenty-first century.  It’s the future as the Pentagon imagines it; it’s under development; and Americans know nothing about it.


They are still operating in another age.  “Our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917,” complained Republican candidate Mitt Romney during the last presidential debate.
With words of withering mockery, President Obama shot back: “Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed... the question is not a game of Battleship, where we're counting ships. It's what are our capabilities.”
Obama later offered just a hint of what those capabilities might be: “What I did was work with our joint chiefs of staff to think about, what are we going to need in the future to make sure that we are safe?... We need to be thinking about cyber security. We need to be talking about space.”
Amid all the post-debate media chatter, however, not a single commentator seemed to have a clue when it came to the profound strategic changes encoded in the president’s sparse words. Yet for the past four years, working in silence and secrecy, the Obama administration has presided over a technological revolution in defense planning, moving the nation far beyond bayonets and battleships to cyberwarfare and the full-scale weaponization of space. In the face of waning economic influence, this bold new breakthrough in what’s called “information warfare” may prove significantly responsible should U.S. global dominion somehow continue far into the twenty-first century.
While the technological changes involved are nothing less than revolutionary, they have deep historical roots in a distinctive style of American global power.  It’s been evident from the moment this nation first stepped onto the world stage with its conquest of the Philippines in 1898. Over the span of a century, plunged into three Asian crucibles of counterinsurgency -- in the Philippines, Vietnam, and Afghanistan -- the U.S. military has repeatedly been pushed to the breaking point.  It has repeatedly responded by fusing the nation’s most advanced technologies into new information infrastructures of unprecedented power.
That military first created a manual information regime for Philippine pacification, then a computerized apparatus to fight communist guerrillas in Vietnam.  Finally, during its decade-plus in Afghanistan (and its years in Iraq), the Pentagon has begun to fuse biometrics, cyberwarfare, and a potential future triple canopy aerospace shield into a robotic information regime that could produce a platform of unprecedented power for the exercise of global dominion -- or for future military disaster. 
America’s First Information Revolution 
This distinctive U.S. system of imperial information gathering (and the surveillance and war-making practices that go with it) traces its origins to some brilliant American innovations in the management of textual, statistical, and visual data.  Their sum was nothing less than a new information infrastructure with an unprecedented capacity for mass surveillance.
During two extraordinary decades, American inventions like Thomas Alva Edison’s quadruplex telegraph (1874), Philo Remington’s commercial typewriter (1874), Melvil Dewey’s library decimal system (1876), and Herman Hollerith’s patented punch card (1889) created synergies that led to the militarized application of America’s first information revolution. To pacify a determined guerrilla resistance that persisted in the Philippines for a decade after 1898, the U.S. colonial regime -- unlike European empires with their cultural studies of “Oriental civilizations” -- used these advanced information technologies to amass detailed empirical data on Philippine society.  In this way, they forged an Argus-eyed security apparatus that played a major role in crushing the Filipino nationalist movement. The resulting colonial policing and surveillance system would also leave a lasting institutional imprint on the emerging American state.
When the U.S. entered World War I in 1917, the “father of U.S. military intelligence” Colonel Ralph Van Deman drew upon security methods he had developed years before in the Philippines to found the Army’s Military Intelligence Division.  He recruited a staff that quickly grew from one (himself) to 1,700, deployed some 300,000 citizen-operatives to compile more than a million pages of surveillance reports on American citizens, and laid the foundations for a permanent domestic surveillance apparatus.
A version of this system rose to unparalleled success during World War II when Washington established the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) as the nation’s first worldwide espionage agency. Among its nine branches, Research & Analysis recruited a staff of nearly 2,000 academics who amassed 300,000 photographs, a million maps, and three million file cards, which they deployed in an information system via “indexing, cross-indexing, and counter-indexing” to answer countless tactical questions.
Yet by early 1944, the OSS found itself, in the words of historian Robin Winks, “drowning under the flow of information.”  Many of the materials it had so carefully collected were left to molder in storage, unread and unprocessed. Despite its ambitious global reach, this first U.S. information regime, absent technological change, might well have collapsed under its own weight, slowing the flow of foreign intelligence that would prove so crucial for America’s exercise of global dominion after World War II.
Computerizing Vietnam         
Under the pressures of a never-ending war in Vietnam, those running the U.S. information infrastructure turned to computerized data management, launching a second American information regime.  Powered by the most advanced IBM mainframe computers, the U.S. military compiled monthly tabulations of security in all of South Vietnam’s 12,000 villages and filed the three million enemy documents its soldiers captured annually on giant reels of bar-coded film.  At the same time, the CIA collated and computerized diverse data on the communist civilian infrastructure as part of its infamous Phoenix Program.  This, in turn, became the basis for its systematic tortures and 41,000 “extra-judicial executions” (which, based on disinformation from petty local grudges and communist counterintelligence, killed many but failed to capture more than a handfull of top communist cadres).
Most ambitiously, the U.S. Air Force spent $800 million a year to lace southern Laos with a network of 20,000 acoustic, seismic, thermal, and ammonia-sensitive sensors to pinpoint Hanoi’s truck convoys coming down the Ho Chi Minh Trail under a heavy jungle canopy.  The information these provided was then gathered on computerized systems for the targeting of incessant bombing runs. After 100,000 North Vietnamese troops passed right through this electronic grid undetected with trucks, tanks, and heavy artillery to launch the Nguyen Hue Offensive in 1972, the U.S. Pacific Air Force pronounced this bold attempt to build an “electronic battlefield” an unqualified failure.
In this pressure cooker of what became history’s largest air war, the Air Force also accelerated the transformation of a new information system that would rise to significance three decades later: the Firebee target drone.  By war’s end, it had morphed into an increasingly agile unmanned aircraft that would make 3,500 top-secret surveillance sorties over China, North Vietnam, and Laos. By 1972, the SC/TV drone, with a camera in its nose, was capable of flying 2,400 miles while navigating via a low-resolution television image.
On balance, all this computerized data helped foster the illusion that American “pacification” programs in the countryside were winning over the inhabitants of Vietnam’s villages, and the delusion that the air war was successfully destroying North Vietnam’s supply effort.  Despite a dismal succession of short-term failures that helped deliver a soul-searing blow to American power, all this computerized data-gathering proved a seminal experiment, even if its advances would not become evident for another 30 years until the U.S. began creating a third -- robotic -- information regime.
The Global War On Terror          
As it found itself at the edge of defeat in the attempted pacification of two complex societies, Afghanistan and Iraq, Washington responded in part by adapting new technologies of electronic surveillance, biometric identification, and drone warfare -- all of which are now melding into what may become an information regime far more powerful and destructive than anything that has come before. 
After six years of a failing counterinsurgency effort in Iraq, the Pentagon discovered the power of biometric identification and electronic surveillance to pacify the country’s sprawling cities.  It then built a biometric database with more than a million Iraqi fingerprints and iris scans that U.S. patrols on the streets of Baghdad could access instantaneously by satellite link to a computer center in West Virginia.
When President Obama took office and launched his “surge,” escalating the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, that country became a new frontier for testing and perfecting such biometric databases, as well as for full-scale drone war in both that country and the Pakistani tribal borderlands, the latest wrinkle in a technowar already loosed by the Bush administration. This meant accelerating technological developments in drone warfare that had largely been suspended for two decades after the Vietnam War.
Launched as an experimental, unarmed surveillance aircraft in 1994, the Predator drone was first deployed in 2000 for combat surveillance under the CIA’s “Operation Afghan Eyes.” By 2011, the advanced MQ-9 Reaper drone, with “persistent hunter killer” capabilities, was heavily armed with missiles and bombs as well as sensors that could read disturbed dirt at 5,000 feet and track footprints back to enemy installations. Indicating the torrid pace of drone development, between 2004 and 2010 total flying time for all unmanned vehicles rose from just 71 hours to 250,000 hours. 
By 2009, the Air Force and the CIA were already deploying a drone armada of at least 195 Predators and 28 Reapers inside Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan -- and it’s only grown since.  These collected and transmitted 16,000 hours of video daily, and from 2006-2012 fired hundreds of Hellfire missiles that killedan estimated 2,600 supposed insurgents inside Pakistan’s tribal areas. Though the second-generation Reaper drones might seem stunningly sophisticated, one defense analyst has called them “very much Model T Fords.” Beyond the battlefield, there are now some 7,000 drones in the U.S. armada of unmanned aircraft, including 800 larger missile-firing drones. By funding its own fleet of 35 drones and borrowing others from the Air Force, the CIA has moved beyond passive intelligence collection to build a permanent robotic paramilitary capacity.
In the same years, another form of information warfare came, quite literally, online.  Over two administrations, there has been continuity in the development of a cyberwarfare capability at home and abroad. Starting in 2002, President George W. Bush illegally authorized the National Security Agency to scan countless millions of electronic messages with its top-secret “Pinwale” database. Similarly, the FBI started an Investigative Data Warehouse that, by 2009, held a billion individual records. 
Under Presidents Bush and Obama, defensive digital surveillance has grown into an offensive “cyberwarfare” capacity, which has already been deployed against Iran in history’s first significant cyberwar. In 2009, the Pentagon formed U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), with headquarters at Ft. Meade, Maryland, and a cyberwarfare center at Lackland Air Base in Texas,staffed by 7,000 Air Force employees. Two years later, it declared cyberspace an “operational domain” like air, land, or sea, and began putting its energy into developing a cadre of cyber-warriors capable of launching offensive operations, such as a variety of attacks on the computerized centrifuges in Iran’s nuclear facilities and Middle Eastern banks handling Iranian money.
A Robotic Information Regime  
As with the Philippine Insurrection and the Vietnam War, the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have served as the catalyst for a new information regime, fusing aerospace, cyberspace, biometrics, and robotics into an apparatus of potentially unprecedented power. In 2012, after years of ground warfare in both countries and the continuous expansion of the Pentagon budget, the Obama administration announced a leaner future defense strategy.  It included a 14% cut in future infantry strength to be compensated for by an increased emphasis on investments in the dominions of outer space and cyberspace, particularly in what the administration calls “critical space-based capabilities.” 
By 2020, this new defense architecture should theoretically be able to integrate space, cyberspace, and terrestrial combat through robotics for -- so the claims go -- the delivery of seamless information for lethal action. Significantly, both space and cyberspace are new, unregulated domains of military conflict, largely beyond international law.  And Washington hopes to use both, without limitation, as Archimedean levers to exercise new forms of global dominion far into the twenty-first century, just as the British Empire once ruled from the seas and the Cold War American imperium exercised its global reach via airpower.
As Washington seeks to surveil the globe from space, the world might well ask: Just how high is national sovereignty? Absent any international agreement about the vertical extent of sovereign airspace (since a conference on international air law, convened in Paris in 1910, failed), some puckish Pentagon lawyer might reply: only as high as you can enforce it. And Washington has filled this legal void with a secret executive matrix -- operated by the CIA and the clandestine Special Operations Command -- that assigns names arbitrarily, without any judicial oversight, to a classified “kill list” that means silent, sudden death from the sky for terror suspects across the Muslim world.
Although U.S. plans for space warfare remain highly classified, it is possible to assemble the pieces of this aerospace puzzle by trolling the Pentagon’s websites, and finding many of the key components in technical descriptions at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). As early as 2020, the Pentagon hopes to patrol the entire globe ceaselessly, relentlessly via a triple canopy space shield reaching from stratosphere to exosphere, driven by drones armed with agile missiles, linked by a resilient modular satellite system, monitored through a telescopic panopticon, and operated by robotic controls. 
At the lowest tier of this emerging U.S. aerospace shield, within striking distance of Earth in the lower stratosphere, the Pentagon is building an armada of 99 Global Hawk drones equipped with high-resolution cameras capable of surveilling all terrain within a 100-mile radius, electronic sensors to intercept communications, efficient engines for continuous 24-hour flights, and eventually Triple Terminator missiles to destroy targets below. By late 2011, the Air Force and the CIA had already ringed the Eurasian land mass with a network of 60 bases for drones armed with Hellfire missiles and GBU-30 bombs, allowing air strikes against targets just about anywhere in Europe, Africa, or Asia.
The sophistication of the technology at this level was exposed in December 2011 when one of the CIA’s RQ-170 Sentinels came down in Iran.  Revealed was a bat-winged drone equipped with radar-evading stealth capacity, active electronically scanned array radar, and advanced optics “that allow operators to positively identify terror suspects from tens of thousands of feet in the air.”
If things go according to plan, in this same lower tier at altitudes up to 12 miles unmanned aircraft such as the “Vulture,” with solar panels covering its massive 400-foot wingspan, will be patrolling the globe ceaselessly for up to five years at a time with sensors for “unblinking” surveillance, and possibly missiles for lethal strikes. Establishing the viability of this new technology, NASA’s solar-powered aircraft Pathfinder, with a 100-foot wingspan, reached an altitude of 71,500 feet altitude in 1997, and its fourth-generation successor the “Helios” flew at 97,000 feet with a 247-foot wingspan in 2001, two miles higher than any previous aircraft.
For the next tier above the Earth, in the upper stratosphere, DARPA and the Air Force are collaborating in the development of the Falcon Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle.  Flying at an altitude of 20 miles, it is expected to “deliver 12,000 pounds of payload at a distance of 9,000 nautical miles from the continental United States in less than two hours.” Although the first test launches in April 2010 and August 2011 crashed midflight, they did reach an amazing 13,000 miles per hour, 22 times the speed of sound, and sent back“unique data” that should help resolve remaining aerodynamic problems.
At the outer level of this triple-tier aerospace canopy, the age of space warfare dawned in April 2010 when the Pentagon quietly launched the X-37B space drone, an unmanned craft just 29 feet long, into an orbit 250 miles above the Earth. By the time its second prototype landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base in June 2012 after a 15-month flight, this classified mission represented a successful test of “robotically controlled reusable spacecraft” and established the viability of unmanned space drones in the exosphere.
At this apex of the triple canopy, 200 miles above Earth where the space drones will soon roam, orbital satellites are the prime targets, a vulnerability that became obvious in 2007 when China used a ground-to-air missile to shoot down one of its own satellites. In response, the Pentagon is now developing the F-6 satellite system that will “decompose a large monolithic spacecraft into a group of wirelessly linked elements, or nodes [that increases] resistance to... a bad part breaking or an adversary attacking.” And keep in mind that the X-37B has a capacious cargo bay to carry missiles or future laser weaponry to knock out enemy satellites -- in other words, the potential capability to cripple the communications of a future military rival like China, which will have its own global satellite system operational by 2020.
Ultimately, the impact of this third information regime will be shaped by the ability of the U.S. military to integrate its array of global aerospace weaponry into a robotic command structure that would be capable of coordinating operations across all combat domains: space, cyberspace, sky, sea, and land. To manage the surging torrent of information within this delicately balanced triple canopy, the system would, in the end, have to become self-maintaining through “robotic manipulator technologies,” such as the Pentagon’s FREND system that someday could potentially deliver fuel, provide repairs, or reposition satellites.
For a new global optic, DARPA is building the wide-angle Space Surveillance Telescope (SST), which could be sited at bases ringing the globe for a quantum leap in "space surveillance.”  The system would allow future space warriors to see the whole sky wrapped around the entire planet while seated before a single screen, making it possible to track every object in Earth orbit.
Operation of this complex worldwide apparatus will require, as one DARPA official explained in 2007, "an integrated collection of space surveillance systems -- an architecture -- that is leak-proof." Thus, by 2010, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency had 16,000 employees, a $5 billion budget, and a massive $2 billion headquarters at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, with 8,500 staffers wrapped in electronic security -- all aimed at coordinating the flood of surveillance data pouring in from Predators, Reapers, U-2 spy planes, Global Hawks, X-37B space drones, Google Earth, Space Surveillance Telescopes, and orbiting satellites. By 2020 or thereafter -- such a complex techno-system is unlikely to respect schedules -- this triple canopy should be able to atomize a single “terrorist” with a missile strike after tracking his eyeball, facial image, or heat signature for hundreds of miles through field and favela, or blind an entire army by knocking out all ground communications, avionics, and naval navigation.
Technological Dominion Or Techno-Disaster?
Peering into the future, a still uncertain balance of forces offers two competing scenarios for the continuation of U.S. global power. If all or much goes according to plan, sometime in the third decade of this century the Pentagon will complete a comprehensive global surveillance system for Earth, sky, and space using robotics to coordinate a veritable flood of data from biometric street-level monitoring, cyber-data mining, a worldwide network of Space Surveillance Telescopes, and triple canopy aeronautic patrols. Through agile data management of exceptional power, this system might allow the United States a veto of global lethality, an equalizer for any further loss of economic strength.
However, as in Vietnam, history offers some pessimistic parallels when it comes to the U.S. preserving its global hegemony by militarized technology alone. Even if this robotic information regime could somehow check China’s growing military power, the U.S. might still have the same chance of controlling wider geopolitical forces with aerospace technology as the Third Reich had of winning World War II with its “super weapons” -- V-2 rockets that rained death on London and Messerschmitt Me-262 jets that blasted allied bombers from Europe’s skies. Complicating the future further, the illusion of information omniscience might incline Washington to more military misadventures akin to Vietnam or Iraq, creating the possibility of yet more expensive, draining conflicts, from Iran to the South China Sea. 
If the future of America’s world power is shaped by actual events rather than long-term economic trends, then its fate might well be determined by which comes first in this century-long cycle: military debacle from the illusion of technological mastery, or a new technological regime powerful enough to perpetuate U.S. global dominion.

Wednesday, December 05, 2012

U.S. To Replace Human Surveillance With Computers



The U.S. government has funded the development of so-called automatic video surveillance technology by a pair of Carnegie Mellon University researchers who disclosed details about their work this week -- including that it has an ultimate goal of predicting what people will do in the future.
"The main applications are in video surveillance, both civil and military," Alessandro Oltramari, a postdoctoral researcher at Carnegie Mellon who has a Ph.D. from Italy's University of Trento, told CNET yesterday.
Oltramari and fellow researcher Christian Lebiere say automatic video surveillance can monitor camera feeds for suspicious activities like someone at an airport or bus station abandoning a bag for more than a few minutes. "In this specific case, the goal for our system would have been to detect the anomalous behavior," Oltramari says.
Think of it as a much, much smarter version of a red light camera: the unblinking eye of computer software that monitors dozens or even thousands of security camera feeds could catch illicit activities that human operators -- who are expensive and can be distracted or sleepy -- would miss. It could also, depending on how it's implemented, raise similar privacy and civil liberty concerns.
Alessandro Oltramari, left, and Christian Lebiere say their software will "automatize video-surveillance, both in military and civil applications."
Alessandro Oltramari, left, and Christian Lebiere say their software will "automatize video-surveillance, both in military and civil applications."
(Credit: Carnegie Mellon University)
A paper (PDF) the researchers presented this week at the Semantic Technology for Intelligence, Defense, and Security conference outside of Washington, D.C. -- today's sessions arereserved only for attendees with top secret clearances -- says their system aims "to approximate human visual intelligence in making effective and consistent detections."
Their Army-funded research, Oltramari and Lebiere claim, can go further than merely recognizing whether any illicit activities are currently taking place. It will, they say, be capable of "eventually predicting" what's going to happen next.
This approach relies heavily on advances by machine vision researchers, who have made remarkable strides in last few decades in recognizing stationary and moving objects and their properties. It's the same vein of work that led to Google's self-driving cars, face recognition software used on Facebook and Picasa, and consumer electronics like Microsoft's Kinect.
When it works well, machine vision can detect objects and people -- call them nouns -- that are on the other side of the camera's lens.
But to figure out what these nouns are doing, or are allowed to do, you need the computer science equivalent of verbs. And that's where Oltramari and Lebiere have built on the work of other Carnegie Mellon researchers to create what they call a "cognitive engine" that can understand the rules by which nouns and verbs are allowed to interact.
Their cognitive engine incorporates research, called activity forecasting, conducted by a team led by postdoctoral fellow Kris Kitani, which tries to understand what humans will do by calculating which physical trajectories are most likely. They say their software "models the effect of the physical environment on the choice of human actions."
Both projects are components of Carnegie Mellon's Mind's Eye architecture, a DARPA-created project that aims to develop smart cameras for machine-based visual intelligence.
Predicts Oltramari: "This work should support human operators and automatize video-surveillance, both in military and civil applications."

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

The Crowd-Sourcing Project

Ken Dilanian reports that,

Nine years ago, Congress blocked a Pentagon agency from setting up a website that would have allowed anyone with a credit card to bet on the likelihood of foreign assassinations, coups and terrorist attacks.

The idea was to take advantage of the "wisdom of crowds," a social science maxim that contends the average of a group of forecasters, under certain circumstances, tends to be more accurate than even the most knowledgeable single forecaster.

But lawmakers worried the proposed predictions market could allow terrorists to profit from their own misdeeds. Congress forced the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency — the military's cutting-edge research arm, known as DARPA — to scuttle the program.

Now terrorism futures are back.

DARPA's sister agency — the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity, which funds experimental projects for the U.S. intelligence community — is running a four-year, $50-million program that pays people willing to predict major world events, including wars and terrorist strikes. Unlike the earlier scheme, participants can't profit from their predictions.

Now in its second year, the so-called crowd-sourcing project involves competing corporate and university teams, including UC Irvine. Each team includes more than a dozen social scientists and as many as 2,000 participants, who can answer hundreds of questions each if they want.

The study, known as Aggregative Contingent Estimation, is designed to see whether the 17 agencies in the U.S. intelligence community can aggregate the judgment of its thousands of analysts — rather than rely on the expertise of just a few — to issue more accurate warnings to policy makers before and during major global events.

Participants in the project give their best guesses on whether the Free Syrian Army will gain control of Aleppo, for example, or whether Kim Jong Un will resign as the leader of North Korea before April 1, 2013, according to project websites.

Initial results are promising, according to Philip Tetlock, aUniversity of Pennsylvania professor who leads one of the teams. His 2005 book, "Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?" showed that political pundits often fared worse in predictions than the proverbial dart-throwing monkey.

"The idea that the average of a group of forecasters is more accurate than any one forecaster goes back 100 years," Tetlock said. In 1906, British scientist Francis Galton determined that the average of 787 guesses about the weight of an ox at a county fair was startlingly accurate.

The teams are trying to beat the average by using algorithms that, over time, give greater weight to the most successful crystal gazers among their participants and weed out the worst. Tetlock's group, the Good Judgment Project, is in the lead so far.

"In year one, we beat the unweighted average by about 57%, which was big," he said. A control group, run by Mitre Corp., averages scores without giving weight to participants who tally the best results.

Predicting world-changing events is never easy. U.S. intelligence agencies failed to foresee the fall of the Soviet Union, to predict the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and, more recently, to anticipate political upheaval across the Arab world.

The CIA and other agencies tend to rely on small groups of experts who hash out consensus judgments. If there is strong disagreement among the analysts, or between different agencies, an intelligence report will note that.

Crowd-sourcing would mean, in theory, polling large groups across the 200,000-person intelligence community, or outside experts with security clearances, to aggregate their views about the strength of the Taliban, say, or the likelihood that Iran is secretly building a nuclear weapon.

For now, there is deep skepticism in intelligence circles.

"I don't believe in the wisdom of crowds," said Mark Lowenthal, a former senior CIA and State Department analyst (and 1988"Jeopardy!" champion) who now teaches classified courses about intelligence. "Crowds produce riots. Experts produce wisdom."

Others argue that intelligence analysis can benefit from data-driven social science. The CIA's venture capital arm, In-Q-Tel, was an early investor in a private company called Recorded Future, headquartered in Cambridge, Mass., and Göteborg, Sweden, which uses data on the Internet, from securities filings to Facebook posts to government statistics to make connections and spot trends.

A National Academy of Sciences report last year commissioned by former National Intelligence Director Dennis C. Blair found that intelligence practices "have been only weakly informed by the behavioral and social sciences." It recommended that "science and evidence-based protocols" be introduced and evaluated alongside the spy agencies' traditional reliance on expert judgment.

The crowd-sourcing project is one result. Each team recruited its own forecasters, whose names are not made public. A few are or have been affiliated with intelligence agencies, organizers said. Some teams require participants to have college degrees, while others take all comers.

"We would prefer people who actually have a background and an interest in current events," said Charles Twardy, who is co-directing the team at George Mason University in Virginia. "But it's open to anyone who wants to participate."

Pure futures markets using real money, such as an Irish company called Intrade, allow participants to buy shares in a prediction. For example: "Bashar al-Assadto no longer be President of Syria before midnight ET 31 Dec 2012."

If Assad is out by year's end, the contract will pay $10 a share. If he stays in power, it will pay zero. Intrade's website recently had five shares available for $5.99, meaning the market set the probability of Assad's ouster by Dec. 31 at about 60%.

Intrade's consensus called every state correctly in the 2004 U.S. presidential election and all but two right in 2008. But it also estimated a 77% chance the U.S. Supreme Courtwould throw outPresident Obama's signature healthcare legislation (it didn't) and recently predicted a cautious vice presidential pick by Mitt Romney (he surprised many when he chose Rep. Paul Ryan).

Tetlock praised the willingness to fund a study that could expose weaknesses in how spy services do their work.

"It's not often that government agencies do something that has the potential to make them look not so good," he said.

Via: "The LA Times"

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Super-Silent Owl Drone Will Spy Without You Ever Noticing



By Robert Beckhusen
July 19, 2012


For spy tools, drones are pretty easy to spot. And hear, because they’re as loud as a gut-busting rock concert. But now the intelligence community’s research division, Iarpa, plans to start designing a silent drone inspired by quiet, creeping, flying owls.

IARPA has reportedly awarded a $4.8 million contract to Connecticut firm D-Star Engineering to develop the ultra-quiet droneAviation Week reports. It’s the next step in developing a workable drone as part of the agency’s Great Horned Owl Program, which the agency hopes will let the military collect intelligence “without anyone knowing you are there,” (.pdf) according to an agency briefing.
Sound, after all, is the number one signature “that gives away the location of low-altitude UAVs and gives away their presence.” Which sort of defeats the point of having a secret surveillance eye in the sky. In some cases, you might want people to know you’re watching. At other times, you want to sneak up quietly.
But it’s hard to do without sacrificing payload. The added weight of sensors, and the ability to operate for longer periods, comes with trading out stealthiness. Drones powered by batteries: They’re quiet, but can’t stay in the air for long. Then there’s the added noise caused by airflow generated from propellers, and noise from gasoline or diesel engines (not counting batteries), with their moving pistons, turbofan and gears.
IARPA wants to keep these efficent and relatively noisy engines for normal flight. But when the drone needs to be stealthy, its operator would switch to battery power, like a hybrid car. That means — for the duration of battery flight — the noisy gears would shut off. The propellers would also likely be ducted, which would mean less noise from vortices whipped up by the propellers and fewer moving parts. Likely, the drone will take off vertically.
The agency doesn’t expect the drone to stay ultra-quiet for more than 30 minutes, though, at which point the gasoline-powered turbine engine would switch back on, recharging the batteries. Not enough for (say) a sustained surveillance operation, but quiet enough to take a peek at an enemy without being noticed.
The first step is keeping the sound levels in battery mode below 100 decibels, about equivalent to a chainsaw when up close. But give perhaps a few thousand feet of distance, and the noise drops. Iarpa also wants to reduce noise by cutting down the drone’s “phon curve” — or the level of sound pressure interpreted by the human ear. Iarpa plans to start by testing the sound levels of an uninstalled version of the engine.
IARPA’s owl drone is also not the first talk of an owl-inspired aircraft. NASA has looked into the owl’sstealthy feathers for inspiration. But it may take years before owl-based aircraft migrate into service.

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Claytronics: Shape-Shifting Robots




Scientists at Carnegie Mellon University and Intel Research Labs Pittsburgh are just a few years away from bringing to life a futuristic simulation system that can morph nearly any object imagined into another object with different size, shape, color and function.

The building units that make this amazing system possible include tiny micro robots called claytronic atoms, or ‘catoms’, which interact with each other. They behave like atoms in the sense that they become the basic building blocks of the objects they are programmed to form.

Each component becomes part of a computerized network of objects and identifies itself based on function; for example, a catom might see itself as part of a human body. On command, millions, or even billions of catoms working together would fall in place to create, in this case, a replicate of a live person.

With claytronics, matter can be transformed into any shape for any purpose. Furniture could change shape; blank walls could grow doors or windows. Catoms could form into people that we would find difficult to discern from the real person. They would appear as an actual physical being, not a hologram.

DARPA is also developing shape-shifting robots that can flow like mercury through small openings to sneak into caves and bunkers (think the liquefying robot in Terminator2). Another far out dream for this futuristic-thinking organization is programmable skin that could change racial features on command.

However, the biggest advantage in claytronics may lie in communications. People on both ends of a phone call could be copied; and these copies would mimic the exact looks and movements of the person being replicated. At each end of the line, a real person is interacting with a replica. ThinkSkype; but instead of viewing each other on a screen, you can touch, kiss, or hug, as if you are physically together.


Wednesday, June 27, 2012

The Insects Are Watchin



The Future Of Government Surveillance Technology

Post by "Sayf Maslul"


In June of 2011, the US military admitted to having drone technology so sophisticated that it could be the size of a bug.

European Phoenix -- In what is referred to as the “microaviary” on Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, drones are in development and design to replicate the flight patterns of moths, hawks and other air-borne creatures of the natural world.

Greg Parker, aerospace engineer, explains: “We’re looking at how you hide in plain sight” for the purpose of carrying out espionage or kill missions.

Cessna-sized Predator drones, used to carry out unmanned attacks, are known around the world. The US Pentagon has an estimated 7,000 aerial drones in their arsenal.

In 2011, the Pentagon requested $5 billion for drones from Congress by the year 2030.

Their investigative technology is now moving toward “spy flies” equipped with sensors and mircocameras to detect enemies and nuclear weapons.

Parker is using helicopter technology to allow his computer-driven drone “dragonflies” to become precise intelligence gathering weapons.

 
To have a computer do it 100 per cent of the time, and to do it with winds, and to do it when it doesn’t really know where the vehicle is, those are the kinds of technologies that we’re trying to develop.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has unveiled hummingbird drones that can fly at speeds of 11 miles per hour.

DARPA is also inserting computer chips into moth pupae in the hopes of hatching “cyborg moths”.

Within DARPA is the Hybrid Insect Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems project (HIMEM), whose aim is to develop shutterbugs – insects with cameras attached to their very nervous system that can be controlled remotely. Under HIMEM, there are researchers working on cyborg beetles.

Other institutions are hard at work for the US government, developing more insect technology.

The California Institute of Technology has created a “mircobat ornithopter” that flies and fits comfortably in the palm of your hand.

A team at Harvard University has successfully built a housefly-like robot with synthetic wings that buzz at 120 beats per second.

Back in 2007, at the International Symposium on Flying Insects and Robots, Japanese researchers unveiled a radio-controlled hawk-moth.

While the US military would have the American public believe that these new “fly drones” are used for overseas missions, insect drones have been spotted surveilling streets right here in the US.

It is believed that these insect-like drones are high-tech surveillance tools used by the Department of Homeland Security.

The US government is experimenting with different types of micro-surveillance capabilities, such as cultivating insects with computer chips in them in the hopes of breeding software directly into their bodies to control flight patterns remotely.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been working on this technology since the 1970s. Known as the “inscetothopter”, it was developed by the Office of Research and Development for the CIA.

It appears to be a dragonfly; however, it contains a tiny gasoline engine to control its four wings. It was subsequently classified as a failure because it could not maintain flight against natural wind patterns.

Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) has created a butterfly-shaped drone that is the smallest built thus far. It can hover in mid-flight, just as a helicopter and take pictures with its 0.15 gram camera and memory card.

The “butterfly” imitates nature so well, that birds and other insects are convinced it is real and not man-made.


Monday, June 11, 2012

Soldiers To Increasingly Tap Military Apps

Image

By S. William Matthews
Monday, June 4, 2012
Courtesy Of "The Daily"

Modern warfare? There’s an app for that.

Well, not from Apple, but there are a handful from the Pentagon — and more to come. They’re being downloaded on tablets and smartphones to help combat troops complete their missions.

Right now, in transports and fighters, pilots and navigators are on Air Force-issued iPads, checking their orders and reviewing their flight plans.

And this summer, the Army is putting Droids in the hands of grunts headed to Afghanistan so they can receive streaming surveillance video from drones, scan their surroundings for threats, call for fire support and request medical evacuations. Sailors and Marines are connected, too.

Though not a nuclear warhead or an M-16 rifle, the smartphone and the tablet are indeed weapons — helping the warfighter defeat the enemy.

The Air Force has led the electronics revolution and understandably so since it is considered the most technical of the services. The Army is close behind and the Navy and Marines are coming on board, too.

This spring, the Air Force bought 20,000 iPad 2s so air crews in Air Mobility Command and Special Operations Command no longer have to haul around 70 pounds of technical orders, flight manuals, charts and the like. These new “electronic flight bags,” which weigh about a pound apiece, are expected to speed up responses to in-flight emergencies and will most definitely eliminate stacks of paper that can quickly clutter cockpits, officials with the commands said.

Inter-service rivalry might make the Air Force want to claim credit for the Army’s entry into the world of gadgetry, but the Big Green Machine came into it on its own.

Soldiers have their own apps store, which the Army opened in March with prototypes of training manuals mostly.

But dozens of warfighting applications are in development: one tracks the blood pressure and temperature of a wounded troop still on the battlefield, another searches continuously for updated information on nearby enemy activity and yet another translates English into Pashto and Dari. 

The next step is to get all that information to every soldier by making smartphones, and someday tablets, standard equipment, just like boots and rain gear.

The first smartphones and tablets go to Afghanistan in a matter of weeks. Some will use whatever connectivity is available on the battlefield — satellites, cellphone antennas attached to aerostats, aircraft and towers, tiny cellular base stations. Others will boost the brain power of standard military radios for communication.

Michael McCarthy has spent two years testing smartphones and tablets in simulated combat on ranges at Fort Bliss, Texas, and he’s convinced the devices are ready to go to war.

“Imagine getting off a helicopter on a moonless night at 3 a.m. The first thing you have to do is to determine where you’re at,” said McCarthy, director of operations at the Army Brigade Modernization Command.

A smartphone’s global positioning capability can pinpoint its location to within a meter. The phone can then connect to Army databases to download “situational awareness” intelligence — where nearby friendly forces are, where the enemy is, what recent attacks and ambushes were in the vicinity.

A few doubters had worried that a commercial smartphone wouldn’t be rugged enough for combat, but the Army made it more durable by putting it an inexpensive silicon case and sticking a thin film glass protector on the screen, McCarthy, said.

“We don’t have to spend a couple thousand dollars to harden a $200 phone,” he said.

Still, there are limits. McCarthy learned the hard way that a smartphone won’t survive being run over by an armored vehicle, even in a protective case.

“That kind of thing is going to happen,” he said.

In a program called Nett Warrior, the Army uses smartphones to get more out of its Rifleman Radios.

A Droid smartphone is plugged into the radio, and the phone’s ability to run applications and process data transforms the radio into a “dismounted situation awareness and command and control tool,” said Maj. Gregory Soule, one of the officers overseeing the project.

The slick new radio and smartphone combination weighs about 3 pounds, significantly lighter than the clunky radio and computer combo, and costs substantially less. The computers they replace ran $15,000; smartphones cost a few hundred dollars.

As Soule aptly puts it: “This is designed for someone at the tactical edge.”