Libya SIGINT Jamming Satellites, Towers 463
h00manist writes "Libya's Gaddafi apparently loves radio hacking. Signal jamming is being used to disable Thuraya satellite phones. Also being jammed is satellite TV network provider Arabsat, affecting vast areas in the Middle East, Gulf, Africa and Europe. Cellphone and internet transmissions are working only intermittently. Soldiers are confiscating electronics, too. This has gone on for days, allowing killing to be carried out largely hidden from the rest of the world, quite different from what happened in Egypt. The locations of the jamming signals are known to company executives — around the capital, Tripoli — but nobody can do anything. Only POTS is available, and it is monitored. Technically speaking, could this happen everywhere? Alternatives?"
Could be worse (Score:5, Funny)
They could be going with SIGKILL. Of course, SIGQUIT would be a nice improvement.
Re:Could be worse (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, kill doesn't seem to be setuid, and I think they're about to revoke his sudo rights.
Re: (Score:3)
lol. hallucinogens in your Nescafe.
Solution? (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly my thoughts. A stealth bomber strike to get some (not much needed, but some) plausible deniability armed with those things.
Takem the fuck out. Ill be rootin'
Re: (Score:2)
A better solution and less risk would be to use cruse missiles like the Apache, Storm Shadow or SLAM-ER. The jamming sites are fixed and should be easy to target. Thing is that the US should not do this. Libya has used the US as a boogieman for a long time. Hey the EU is capable if they want to. ANd if you are going to do that you might as well take out the air bases as well. Over all I would say that tactic would be unwise at this time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
even a HARM is fairly expensive. A standard JDAM (originally JATO) would suffice.
I'd say just airdrop some Russian plastique and let the locals take em out - maybe put the coords on a map with the case.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just what the world needs, another reason to shoot at hospital ships. Real smart.
Re:Solution? (Score:5, Funny)
The damned place is on the brink of civil war, with angry mobs and half the army on one side, smaller mobs with the rest of the army and some foreign mercenaries on the other. Do you realy think handing out assult rifles at the dockside to whoever wants one is really the best idea? Are you the kind of person who thinkgs the best way to clear up a petrol spill at a filling station is with matches?
Actually, don't answer that.
Re:Solution? (Score:4, Interesting)
Thing is that the US should not do this. Libya has used the US as a boogieman for a long time.
The UK shouldn't have any problems, now that Libyan diplomats are flat-out saying Gaddafi ordered the Lockerbie bombing. And they aren't attacking Libya, they're attacking Gaddafi. Gaddafi and Libya are currently at war with one another.
Re:Solution? (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you know that this isn't Psy Ops to get us to attack oil-rich Libya?
Ah, Psy Ops, the new catch-all conspiracy theory.
We aren't attacking Libya, we're attacking Gaddafi. Gaddafi and Libya are at war, and the world has appeared to side with Libya.
There's also no reason why the US has to be the one to defend Libya from Gaddafi. There are plenty of other nations, including much of the Arab League, that aren't very fond of him.
And if we wanted Libya's oil, we would have made him a deal for it. There are already plenty of international oil companies operating there.
Re: (Score:3)
And another thing - I don't know if you've heard, but the head of Haliburton is no longer running the government.
Re: (Score:3)
That would probably depend on your definition of "running". He's not in a very visible place any more, but if you for a moment imagine that POTUS doesn't take orders from them, or more specifically follow the aligned interests of US military industrial complex, you're beyond help.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ceausescu was replaced by a fairly organized albeit shadowed group of people who used the power of the masses to their own interest. As a direct result, 21+ years later, some of them still rule over Romania.
(diacritics won't work, they are replaced by... nothing. Nice job Slashdot!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Solution? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fun stuff, but the US shouldn't be the ones firing them or it will taint the process.
For people to appreciate freedom they must suffer to obtain it, and for peoples justice to be respected the people must kill their masters themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Commonwealths in partnership with England you mean. Quite possibly with more real freedoms then you currently have.
I know as a citizen of a commonwealth, I feel like I have more freedom then most Americans and worst, America is currently the chief threat to my freedoms.
If France hadn't helped you, you might be more free today. Plus as a bonus, you wouldn't have been on the side of the French monarchy during their revolution and the French may have experienced more freedom sooner.
Re:Solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Solution? (Score:4, Informative)
People are afraid of that sort of intervention, because of what happened last time: after two US servicemen were killed by a nightclub bomb that was probably connected to Gadaffi, the US conducted widely condemmed airstrikes on some basically random Libyan government targets, killing at least 15 civilians (not counting those working for the government in a non-military capacity), and Gadaffi's 15 month old adopted kid.
The overall result was massive damage to the reputation of the United States in the middle east, internation sympathy for Gadaffi, who had otherwise looked like a nutter, and of course no change in the regime's behaviour, since they were already completely uncooperative.
So, the world is now very nervous about intervening...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_El_Dorado_Canyon [wikipedia.org]
What next? (Score:4, Interesting)
Clearly Qadafi is going to do the full Tiananmen Square on his people, and yet Europe is not doing anything because 9-10% of their oil was coming from Libya.
It's ridiculous, Libya's own ambassadors are resigning to protest him, and the Libyan UN delegation broke from Qadafi and is publicly demanding from New York that the UN step in and do something. Will anyone at least do something now that he's jamming regional TV and phone?
Re:What next? (Score:5, Informative)
Clearly Qadafi is going to do the full Tiananmen Square on his people
Tiananmen Square was Army firing on unarmed demonstrators. The situation in Libya is way past that already - Ghaddafi has been using fighter jets to do airstrikes, and ships to shell areas, while opposition has taken over several regions of the country entirely (organizing brand new power and law enforcement structures in place in a grassroot manner), and in large cities, has captured large amounts of weapons. At this point, it's pretty much a civil war already.
Re:What next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What next? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was thinking more along the lines of he'll have purged the majority of his supporters before the UN forms a committee on it. As it's going right now, you've got his thugs running around hacking people up(house to house). You have mercs from some of the bloodiest intra-africa conflicts there, opening fire on people and dragging the bodies away.
Of course there is some heartening stuff like the fighter pilots who ran to malta, or the couple that ditched in the desert and ran like hell. He doesn't have absolute control on his military, but he has enough that a lot of people are going to die.
And regardless of that, this is going to be the status-quo for the next 10 years in the middle east.
Re:What next? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was thinking more along the lines of he'll have purged the majority of his supporters before the UN forms a committee on it. As it's going right now, you've got his thugs running around hacking people up(house to house). You have mercs from some of the bloodiest intra-africa conflicts there, opening fire on people and dragging the bodies away.
Of course there is some heartening stuff like the fighter pilots who ran to malta, or the couple that ditched in the desert and ran like hell. He doesn't have absolute control on his military, but he has enough that a lot of people are going to die.
And regardless of that, this is going to be the status-quo for the next 10 years in the middle east.
Unfortunately, it may be worse than that. Gaddafi has been successful enough in squishing all opposition over the last 40 years that after his toppling the likely result is not "Yay, we're magically transformed into a liberal market democracy" but "Now the tribal leaders get their turn at fighting each other for power in various regions, and tearing any civillians caught in the middle to shreds". The dilemma for the UN and Europe is that there are no certain good options here.
They are scratching for options and desperately hoping a good one will appear.
You can tell the West is stuck for options by what they say -- they still stop short of saying Gadaffi must go. Obama, Cameron, and other western leaders all troop up to say how deplorable and illegal Gadaffi's actions are and that they must stop -- but they all still stop short of calling on him to resign, even after he has already lost control of most of the country and launched attacks on his own civilians that would presumably be considered crimes against humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much a civil war? Hell, at the rate it's going, the civil war will be over before the UN even forms a committee on it.
I think the jam at the UN Security Council is that several countries don't really want to be targeted in the future, when they find themselves wanting to shoot unarmed demontstators or civilians. Russia, China, France, and the US have killed unarmed civilians more than a few times, though not usually their own. And all these countries have veto power. Something would likely get decided if it went to the general council, but it's the security council that decides in armed confrontations.
Re:What next? or why no UNSC action (Score:2)
China is vetoing action.
They're worried that they'll be next in 3-6 months, and they've already had at least four cities launch Net-instilled protests for freedom.
NATO could act alone, but won't due to the oil dependency of the EU players.
Re: (Score:3)
You guys spelled "Khaddafi" wrong.
So did you, honestly the correct spelling of Muammar al-Gaddafi [wikipedia.org] cannot be submitted on slashdot due to the lack of UTF-8 support (which is disabled out of security concerns as I understand).
Re: (Score:2)
If gaddafi is let to his crazyness, tiananmen will look like a boy scouts meeting.
Re:What next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the Libyan UN delegation will be in favor of UN intervention. But before we go into a Muslim country YET AGAIN and start fucking around with their affairs YET AGAIN after we've been told repeatedly for decades that our continual meddling in Muslim affairs is the prime reason behind Islamic terrorism, maybe we should, you know, ask whether the Libyans really want our involvement? It's true that people are being killed, but it also seems like the revolt is gaining the upper hand over the old regime.
Do you really think a UN or American intervention in Libya is going to end with freedom for Libyans, or don't you think it's more likely that we'll just install another puppet regime like we have done dozens of times in this region of the world? Do you think the people of Libya are too stupid to realize that would happen?
Gaddafi's government is defecting left and right, the man is on TV saying bin Laden is drugging the children of his country with hallucinogens, the man has clearly COMPLETELY lost his mind and will not be in power for much longer. Let the Libyans handle this their own way. Treat them like adults.
Re:What next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post pretty much explains why nobody - the U.S. included - is exactly going in with blazing guns there.
As tempting as it is to say "Europe should go in!" or "USA should go in!" (or Russia, or China, or the Australians), I'm not entirely sure it would actually -help- the population. It may end the killing a little sooner, but then what?
Libya doesn't really have a modern political and legal structure. If outsiders were to go in now, they'd have to commit to 10-20 years of essentially building a country from scratch with many of its inhabitants extremely displeased with the status quo and who emotionally want to see complete change overnight - blinding them from rational thought and understanding that this takes time.
Drop out of the 10-20 years and you antagonize the people because they feel you've abandoned them (Afghanistan/Russia skirmishes). Stay there for the 10-20 years and you antagonize them because clearly you're the western oppressor simply replacing the old oppressor (Iraq, current).
If Libyans in the street (not the embassy workers/etc. - the people seen in the few videos that make it out of the country) were clearly calling for intervention from outsiders, that would be a different thing. As it is, though, they're in their own revolution not calling for any such help.
Gaddafi has indeed completely lost it - first blaming western (U.S.) pressure (much like Mubarak did in Egypt), now blaming Al Qaida, tomorrow.. who knows - the Pope?
Re: (Score:2)
Will anyone at least do something now that he's jamming regional TV and phone?
Jamming has been going on for days. Reestablishing full communications would be a serious blow to the dictatorship, which would suddenly have their mercenaries under thousands of cameras that broadcast worldwide.
Re:What next? (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't "clear" at all.
He's got a pretty small fighting force comprised of mercenaries and what amounts to a small Praetorian guard left on his side; there have been mass defections from him and his hold on actual real estate is pretty small.
My sense is that he might hold out another week or two, but the whole thing is running on a cash and carry basis and with the chaos and world opinion, cash won't hold out. The defections are already legion.
I'm not sure what Europe is supposed to "do", either -- occupy Libya? Mount an air campaign against Qadafi's strongholds? Even if the Europeans had a sea lift capability, European public opinion -- and public treasuries -- would not support it. It would probably also be counter-productive to the Arab "street" and larger Arab diplomacy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Will anyone at least do something now that he's jamming regional TV and phone?
If this really does turn into a civil war, I would assume that the US would pick a side and then start training/arming them like the good old Cold War days.
Funny, everyone who says the west should do someth (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, this. When Saddam killed Kurds, people cried out for western intervention. Then the west invades to dispose and it isn'y right either. Somalia erupts and again the same people cry out for intervention, but then complain when some war mongers get killed. Same with Afghanistan. Women get stoned, intervene! Intervention happens: GET OUT!
So, are you pro Iraq invasion? Pro-war? Pro-increased military budgets? Pro-conscription? Then what exactly do you mean with intervention.
The simple fact is that the real world is a hellishly difficult place and western governments are dealing with an electorate incapable of keeping a coherent train of thought in a single sentence. How can you make policy of any kind when one moment people want peace and war the next? When we should leave other nations alone but also stop them from doing anything we disagree with?
And do the Libyans even want intervention? By who? The reports coming from Libya are far from reliable. One thing that has been noted is that foreigners who have gotten out speak of plenty of HEARED violence and even some theft but not a single sign of the hardcore violence reported. Covering their tracks? Violence happens elsewhere or maybe the violence is over stated? Who knows for sure and you wish western officials to commit to what might turn into an extended decades long war based on this?
And if you start intervening, how soon? Intervene at any protest where people die at the hand of the police? That would have seen the US invaded by the west to stop its police killing protestors pretty much throughout its history. What of the many race riots, intervention?
Intervention is rarely used, it is just to drastic a tool.
And of course it would play right into the dictators hand, see, the rioters are lead by foreigners seeking to re-establish their colonies. You are away that Libya used to be a colony of, I believe, France? Send in the Foreign legion? Yeah, that would go over well.
No, the cries for intervention are best ignored by a politician because the exact same kids will be protesting ten seconds after you intervene about that as well. Best to ignore them.
Let the Libyans choose their own destiny. When they win, it will have been their own freedom they have won on their own terms. Imposed freedom will never taste as sweet as freedom you won yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
When it comes to the Kurds, the problem is that the US was so bloody inconsistent. When Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988, the US tried to frame Iran for it, and sent Rumsfeld in to reassure Saddam that the war was going well and he had the US backing (remember that famous video of them shaking hands?). In 2002-2003 Bush and his ilk kept bringing it up as a justification to invade (as if suddenly noticing it 14 years later) , but when they finally arrest him, they decline to charge him in court with neither t
Re:What next? (Score:5, Insightful)
and yet Europe is not doing anything because 9-10% of their oil was coming from Libya.
Are you sure it's about oil? Perhaps it's more standard things like:
1) Cowardice
2) Unwillingness to put their soldiers lives and their nations funds on the table for something that isn't vital to their interests
3) In combination with number 2, unwilling to sign up for a multi-year commitment to see through what they start
4) Unable to react competently to such a rapidly unfolding scenario
5) Materially unprepared to intervene with military might
6) Suffering from plain old paralysis by analysis and/or standard indecision
"It's all about oil" is rather bland fare, given how long that worthless sentiment has been floating around.
Re:What next? (Score:5, Insightful)
So your option is to play it like US does and do yet another re-enactment of "elephant in a porcelain shop"? Only this time, some poor EU country being the dumbass elephant with no clue?
You do realise that most of NATO members learned a LOT from last two adventures that had a goal of "bringing freedom and democracy"? Reality is, when it's time for a civil war, you supply humanitarian aid and stay the fuck out and let locals figure out who's right and who's dead. If you're really smart, you'll supply guns to the side that is most likely to win, or one that has world views that most align with yours. But you stay the fuck out. Nothing is as dumb as getting in between two of those who are certain of themselves being RIGHT. You're not going to convince anyone that they're wrong, and at best you'll have them kill each other anyway, and at worst, they'll kill you first, and then each other a la Iraq.
Re:What next? (Score:4, Insightful)
Libya is increasingly relevant to Europe's interests, both in terms of oil flow and trying to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Italy, Spain, France, and Greece have reached out to Qaddafi over the past several years, because they think there's no way they can close the borders without his help. Given all the fearmongering on Iran's supposed threat to Europe, you'd think Libya would loom even larger if it goes down the tubes and goes Somali on them.
Europe can do a heck of a lot without sending soldiers in and bombing the cities. Condemnation, severing diplomatic ties, freezing Qaddafi's assets, threatening war crimes charges at the ICC Hague if this continues, sanctions, canceling the recent economic agreements (Italy alone gives billions in both reparations and an attempt to stop immigration), etc. are all ways they can exert some power over Qaddafi.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what do you propose Europe do? Attack the country? Won't that also be because of oil on the eyes of many (particularly the always so anti-western lefties)? Or a holy war (as usual)?
I propose they initially enable all communications. Starting with disabling the signal jamming.
Hidden from world view? (Score:2)
allowing killing carried out largely hidden from the world view
Really? I see events in Libya plastered all over my news feeds, with numerous reports of killings, use of unprecedented amount of force (fighter jets bombing residential areas, artillery strikes) etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Your reports count less than a thousend dead, but we also know that he is using big boats to shell and bombers to attack the people or, as it is sometimes depicted, "soft targets" or "personel".... so no, you are not getting the full picture.
I've mentioned bombings in my original post. And yes, ship bombardments were in the news, too. We might not be getting the casualty figures, but it doesn't take much imagination to picture what ship artillery can do to heavily populated residential areas. So the overall picture may be lacking details, but you don't really need those to see how bleak it is (and I don't think extra details would change it much).
Network of nodes using Uucp, USENET (Score:2)
You need not be up 24x7, in fact it is pr
Re:Network of nodes using Uucp, USENET (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were there right now
Either you'd be:
1. Shitting in your pants hiding in the basement, praying not to get blown up
or
2. At the port, begging for a ride on a ferry out.
Sadly, our western, basement dwelling nerdiosity doesn't begin to comprehend the potential of violence in such a situation.
Re: (Score:3)
Of *course* it is dangerous to resist an autocracy. But ensuring good information flow is a vital part of any mass political effort, why would we not follow the same spectrum of committment that the people who are actually there do?
Re: (Score:2)
If you were there right now: (Score:2)
You would be to busy trying to skoop the shit out of your pants while quaking in your mothers basement.
Heroes are far and few between and NONE are on slashdot.
The Libyans ain't fighting with fancy gadgets. The twitterers are BEHIND the front lines. The real heroes are attacking army bases with tractors and rocks. Not worrying about some facebook page that won't load.
When the going gets though, the slashdotter hides under his bed. Don't pretend otherwise until you have proven yourself in battle which I hope
Re: (Score:3)
Or make a stand, right now. KILL a US arms dealer whose weapons are RIGHT now being used to kill civilians. Yes, the US didn't know how fast to sell weapons once it lifted its own embargo.
Yea, that damn US making all those AK-47's, RPD's, T-72 tanks and Mig fighters and then selling them to Libya in the 70s and 80s. Though if you're going to turn Soviet Union into an acronym shouldn't the 'S' come first?
My Favorite Quote (Score:2)
"Unfortunately there is deliberate jamming by Libya
I'm pretty sure Gaddafi stopped caring about what is legal when he had his army open fire on the protests.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Unfortunately there is deliberate jamming by Libya ... which is illegal," .
I'd like to know how things being legal and illegal there works, as there seems to be no constitution. There is international business however, so some sort of agreement exists. All poinless now... it'll be another country entirely in a few days.
Re: (Score:2)
That reflects the modern fetish for law.
Law is shit unless you have a gun to back it up.
Alternatives (Score:2)
IPoAC - IP over Avian Carriers
Should of finished the job Days Ago (Score:2)
We should of finished the job while he was talking in front of his bombed house. I'm sure Regan was in his grave trying to push a launch button.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that, or Zombie Regan was trying to push the "Sell weapons to our enemies" button.
If you support democracy, leave Libya alone (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, people die, that's horrible. But Libya's problems are their own internal problem. It's ultimately a healthy thing that Libyans are revolting against their dictator. This is democracy at its finest. If all goes well, this is going to be their 1776.
If the West were to intervene, that would kill all of the legitimacy that this movement has. The West is pro-Kadaffi, just Google a bit and you will find pictures of Kadaffi shaking hands the hands of smiling people like Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Silvio Berlusconi. The West doesn't give a flying fuck about Libyans as long as their own citizens can buy cheap oil and that is why the West is so embarrassed when a regime they support falls. That is what happened in Egypt, Tunisia and now, possibly, in Libya. That is what happened in a dozen Latin American countries two decades ago. The West is part of the problem here, not the solution. Leave them alone. This could be the blood bath that will end all future blood baths.
Re:If you support democracy, leave Libya alone (Score:5, Insightful)
Shaking hands, that's your evidence? Shaking hands with someone doesn't mean you like them, particularly if you're a politician or a diplomat. It's true that NOT shaking hands with them is a rather major public snub, but in politics you can shake hands with someone and declare war on him the next day.
Re:If you support democracy, leave Libya alone (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but the French (believe it or not) helped us out in 1776, changing the course of our War for Independence. They hated the English, so their enemies enemy was their friend. We should assist anyone who is fighting for democracy if asked. Pay it forward with a couple of well aimed HARM missiles. Put a well armed ship off the coast (screw the 12 mile limit) to receive wifi broadcasts and retransmit to the world. Gaddafi needs to relive the whupping we gave the Barbary pirates in Tripoli.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If you support democracy, leave Libya alone (Score:5, Interesting)
This is also to put into perspective that what US consider a "local" revolution, many other parties involved had experienced as war.
Re: (Score:3)
Look, people die, that's horrible. But Libya's problems are their own internal problem. It's ultimately a healthy thing that Libyans are revolting against their dictator. This is democracy at its finest. If all goes well, this is going to be their 1776.
If the West were to intervene, that would kill all of the legitimacy that this movement has.
Right, just like the French intervention killed all the legitimacy of the American Revolution. After all, the French were clearly helping the nascent US as a way of striking against England.
Re: (Score:3)
A truly insightful analogy, except for the actual facts... the US received help in 1776, quite a lot of it. More French troops and more French ships were fighting that war by the end of it than American troops and American ships. The conclusion from your analogy would be: let's go right in.
You know who has experience dealing with Libyans? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure Doc Brown is still around somewhere, haven't talked to him in a while since he got married and had a couple kids.
The law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is to say... not at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, I'm no expert on International law. But, I'd hazard a guess that creating radio interference outside of your territorial borders is against international law, and probably can be considered an act of war.
Point two: "The people of Libya haven't asked for outside aid." How could they? Their communications have been cut off?
If someone is getting beat up, shot, or raped on the street, you don't wait until they ask for help - there is a *presumption* that anybody with an ounce of sense will agree to, t
You realize the Iraq war was legal, right? (Score:3)
A bad idea and started on a shitty pretext, but legal. For one, nations do have a right to make war against each other. There are consequences of that, but war itself has not been outlawed among nations. There is no world government tot do so and treaties do not forbid it.
However that didn't matter because a de-facto state of war already existed between the US and Iraq. There was no peace treaty after the first Gulf War. The allied forces just stopped kicking Iraq's ass. No treaty was signed, relations were
Re: (Score:2)
That'll work great, till they break the door down to get to you -- or at least to your transmitter, if in a separate location. They're stepping on all sorts of international treaties here, what makes you think being licensed would mean a damn thing to them?
Re: (Score:2)
Bust out the ham radios and brush up on your CW!
I really need to up my license to General.
CQ CQ CQ oh shit help guys with guns are here
Mobile 2-meter stuff might be an option. Don't count on repeaters lasting long though.
Re: (Score:2)
Bust out the ham radios and brush up on your CW!
I really need to up my license to General.
CQ CQ CQ oh shit help guys with guns are here
Mobile 2-meter stuff might be an option. Don't count on repeaters lasting long though.
The guy with the Bunga Bunga party is now sending the commercial.
Re: (Score:2)
Bust out the ham radios and brush up on your CW!
If the dictatorship is there for 40 years, and they're radio nuts trying to censor everyone, they know your address. Especially with that big antenna on the roof.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean ... nobody IS doing anything, not nobody CAN do anything.
Correct. So do something.
get the captain midnight guy to over ride this (Score:2)
get the captain midnight guy to over ride this he still alive right?
the roomer is that the guy who did the max headroom incident is dead.
Re:Alternatives? (Score:4)
A NATO stealth bomber strike to take them out with missiles intended for that (i understand some ordinance can fry electronics). Enough is enough. Fuck Gaddafi!
You mean an American stealth bomber. We're the only ones who have them. Of course it will be done, under the auspices of NATO or the UN. Some ordinance can indeed fry electronics, but I doubt we're going to go full EMP-burst on them. HARM works well enough and has the added bonus of not being a weapon of mass destruction. It's going to happen, by the way. Just a matter of the weather in Tripoli.
Re: (Score:2)
A NATO stealth bomber strike to take them out with missiles intended for that (i understand some ordinance can fry electronics). Enough is enough. Fuck Gaddafi!
I am not generally in favor of the US getting involved in these sorts of disputes, but when a government starts slaughtering civilians perhaps it is time. It would absolutely be best to do this under NATO or UN sanction, but that may take too much time.
I'm sure we can figure out the locations of the transmitters, and rather than a stealth bomber this sounds like a perfect use of cruise missiles. No risking our own air crew, or the political down side of killed or captured military folks. Heck, with no co
Re: (Score:2)
clearly not from libya.
Actually twitter is full of information from Libya all the same. But live video, or any video, is hard to come by. The same shooting with video is quite different than just a text report!
Al Jazeera live from Libya (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Al Jazeera (or someone) is manipulating the news from Libya (or at the very least, posting doctored images).
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/sites/default/files/imagecache/FeaturedImagePost/images/game.jpg [aljazeera.net]
Open that image in an editor, then look closely at the bullet hole at the final "a" in Al Jazeera. The paint goes right over it. Zoom in closely. There is another to the left.
Photo-shopped.
Re:Al Jazeera live from Libya (Score:4, Insightful)
Alternatively, someone may have painted the graffiti on the wall after the bullet holes had been made.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Zoom in on a JPEG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jpg [wikipedia.org] and find what ever the hell you want to find. Compression routines can generate all kinds of random artefacts and defects. What to see how really badly jpeg can futz things up, get any highly detailed black and white vector drawing and then run it through JPEG compression and see what you end up with.
The real problem here is cross international boundary signal jamming by Libya, that is bordering upon an act of war, really, really dangerous stuff. Defini
Re: (Score:3)
In the days of print images, every image was "manipulated" in as far as color and contrast go. Color filters were used to print the negative, papers of appropriate contrast were selected. In the modern age, the question becomes, "Did the photographer feel he could better select the colors than the camera's algorithm could?" Color and contrast should be adjusted for most images, including journalistic ones.
Your understanding of color as a person, and the reality of color seen by a machine are two very differ
Re:first post (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The USSR tried to block the spread of bootlegs of Western music in the 70s and 80s. They did not have much success.
Re: (Score:2)
Nowadays, information about what's happening should reach the world in minutes. When it doesn't, something's afwully wrong there. I don't care if the data (records, videos and so on) becomes available after 3 years. I want to know NOW.
Re: (Score:2)
My example is an *extreme*, involving no computers. Once computers are involved, it is easy to make things happen much more quickly - and in the example of Libya, getting data out of the country in 12-24 hours (to make a news cycle in the West) could easily be done, given a group of dedicated volunteers. Libya is doing nothing to lock down its borders right n
Re: (Score:2)
There ARE no alternatives. That is why when I hear people say the "MPAA/RIAA/government/etc cannot shut us down we will just do it this other way" I cringe. They can block the Internet and communication. How effective they are at it depends on how much effort they want to put into it. Don't think for a minute it can't happen where you live if they get desperate enough.
It's much easier to shut down communication than it is to block just unwanted communication. Cut the Internet routers, the cell phone/landline centrals, send army squads to shut down anyone running a wireless network and you'll pretty soon be back in the stone age.
The downside is, so will the rest of society. Even if you tried whitelisting "good" communication you'd throw the country into total chaos. That may not matter much if the country is already in chaos and civil war, but it can't last. How many comp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
to the extent it affects neighboring states?
I think that's one of the glaring unanswered questions of the day. But I think it is indeed an act of war - and blowing up the sources would seem like a very proportionate, acceptable response to it. Given all the chaos, it may not even generate much reaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Get a big Dish that can broadcast and over power what they useing to jam just like how HBO was takeovered
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And put up a big billboard in Arabic that says something along the lines of "AIM SHELLS HERE."
Re: (Score:2)
Hack cheap 49 MHz FRS/GMS walkie talkies, Arduinos andf WiFi to create an ersatz packet radio communication network. Post the "How To" online in multiple languages. For extra credit, add long distance WiFi links using Pringles can antennae and program everything to sleep and wake up in unpredictable intervals so they're hard to find.
The FRS/GMS radios are computer controlled already, so it's not that hard, but not trivial either as there's a lot of information to collect.
The radios already frequency hop, so there's lots of clever tricks that you can implement.
Ok, first invent a time machine so you can go back 6 months, gather all this stuff, and get it programmed.
The problem is now, and you only have the equipment you already have.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe steganography is what you're thinking of.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes it takes more fortitude to stand by and let history happen. The Libyans need to do this for themselves. They have enough history of people doing things for them, they call that period colonialism.
Re: (Score:3)