Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Business Insider)   US Military wants to microchip troops to track them. It's cheaper than buying them all iPhones   (businessinsider.com) divider line 108
    More: Scary, iPhones, computer chips, Katherine Albrecht, DIA, armed forces  
•       •       •

2334 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 May 2012 at 6:03 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



108 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-06 11:18:56 PM  
...then we feed this information into the tactical computer network, along with ammo load, GPS position and helmet cam uploads and compute fields of fire, along with compiling statistical data on enemy position and data feeds from drones reporting on battlefield conditions.

sometimes I can't tell if the military is reading Shadowrun or if the Shadowrun developers are reading DARPA reports....
 
2012-05-07 12:04:27 AM  

Weaver95: ...then we feed this information into the tactical computer network, along with ammo load, GPS position and helmet cam uploads and compute fields of fire, along with compiling statistical data on enemy position and data feeds from drones reporting on battlefield conditions.

sometimes I can't tell if the military is reading Shadowrun or if the Shadowrun developers are reading DARPA reports....


I know. This is totally awesome, right?
 
2012-05-07 12:38:12 AM  
wherebadmovieslive.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-05-07 02:20:41 AM  
Considering the linked article is citing WND as a source for information, I'm gonna say that this is pretty far out there in terms of happening.
 
2012-05-07 03:46:48 AM  
...and the first time a whole platoon hits a brothel, the system's going to flag them as in combat and call in a few JDAM strikes on likely firing positions near by.
 
2012-05-07 04:24:10 AM  
"Bob Unruh at WND reports..."

There goes my Bullshiat Detector*, that's all I need to read.

*patent pending.
 
2012-05-07 04:29:43 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: [wherebadmovieslive.files.wordpress.com image 300x196]


The chip must have a USB port.
 
2012-05-07 04:37:41 AM  
mos.totalfilm.com

Snot a problem?
 
2012-05-07 06:15:48 AM  
ui01.gamespot.com

Not impressed.
 
2012-05-07 06:30:21 AM  
So would conservatives support these if they were required for voting?
 
2012-05-07 06:35:43 AM  
I don't know why anyone would be surprised by this.
 
2012-05-07 07:00:19 AM  
Came for Snake reference.
Leaving happy.....
 
2012-05-07 07:38:08 AM  
There are many good reasons why, and probably similar reasons they'll argue for chipping citizens next.
Its quite the slippery slope.

/Who needs a national ID card when they can scan you at any doorway?
 
2012-05-07 07:48:03 AM  
I think we'll go to something like this, but on our own terms. It probably won't be something under the skin. People are squeemish and someone will come up with an alternative that sells better.

It's easy to see some practical applications for this that could really help people, but it will also lead to a lot of unflattering analysis. There will be data and the wrong people will, one way or another, get ahold of it. What if a potential employer wanted to know how much you get out and about? What if your current employer starts timing production losses from bathroom breaks? What if a thief who's not in the system wants to know if you're long gone for a while? Stalking becomes easier. Ensuring that there aren't any witnesses becomes easier. I suppose you'll know if your spouse is on their way home from work and if your kids are in the wrong parts of town. The problem is that the public will use this information, and information has a way of becoming public. Helicopter parents can now ruin a childs life well into adulthood. We're creating a system where we can't escape while opening ourselves up to dehumanizing criticism. So, it's basically the internet.
 
2012-05-07 07:52:15 AM  

Weaver95: ...then we feed this information into the tactical computer network, along with ammo load, GPS position and helmet cam uploads and compute fields of fire, along with compiling statistical data on enemy position and data feeds from drones reporting on battlefield conditions.

sometimes I can't tell if the military is reading Shadowrun or if the Shadowrun developers are reading DARPA reports....


Well, we already have trolls....
 
2012-05-07 07:53:14 AM  
What soldier wouldn't want a hackable computer embedded in their body that might be exploited to give away their position as well as their health status, while being completely inaccessible for reasonable, immediate removal if such a thing happens?

An enemy who hacks this system could view the positions of all our troops, and see the effectiveness of any chemical/biological warfare attack they make in real time. Doesn't the danger of this scenario outweigh the benefit of detecting battlefield illness a bit sooner?
 
2012-05-07 08:00:39 AM  
Might be useful to monitor the homeless population when they get home.
 
2012-05-07 08:01:23 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Might be useful to monitor the homeless population when they get homeback.


That sounds better.
 
2012-05-07 08:04:57 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: What soldier wouldn't want a hackable computer embedded in their body that might be exploited to give away their position as well as their health status, while being completely inaccessible for reasonable, immediate removal if such a thing happens?

An enemy who hacks this system could view the positions of all our troops, and see the effectiveness of any chemical/biological warfare attack they make in real time. Doesn't the danger of this scenario outweigh the benefit of detecting battlefield illness a bit sooner?


Maybe. It depends on how secure the system is. This would prevent a lot of friendly fire casualties. Smart bombs still get dropped on friendly troops because they report the wrong position and that report has to go through multiple humans to get to the targeting computer. It would be nice to take the human error out of preventing friendly fire.
 
2012-05-07 08:16:24 AM  
Heh. Yeah, let's chip those semi-literate rejects like dogs. They've voluntarily become slaves anyway so might as well take them down another level. Makes it easier to identify the pile of twitching meat when it's blown to shiat by an ied in some corporate-driven invasion or other.
 
2012-05-07 08:25:17 AM  
After perusing the rest of that site, I'll take its predictions on Big Brother with a metric ton of salt.
 
2012-05-07 08:28:35 AM  
I just assumed they already did that.
 
2012-05-07 08:36:39 AM  

RedPhoenix122: "Bob Unruh at WND reports..."

There goes my Bullshiat Detector*, that's all I need to read.

*patent pending.


You can't patent prior art.
 
2012-05-07 08:40:55 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: What soldier wouldn't want a hackable computer embedded in their body that might be exploited to give away their position as well as their health status, while being completely inaccessible for reasonable, immediate removal if such a thing happens?

An enemy who hacks this system could view the positions of all our troops, and see the effectiveness of any chemical/biological warfare attack they make in real time. Doesn't the danger of this scenario outweigh the benefit of detecting battlefield illness a bit sooner?


That was my thought.

Any tracking system you can use can be used against you by your enemies.
 
2012-05-07 08:43:12 AM  
This is so the Muslim in the White House can report troop positions to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
 
2012-05-07 08:47:50 AM  

crab66: So would conservatives support these if they were required for voting?


I'm sure it would be supported for welfare recipients and illegal aliens that have been caught. If you try to put in them, I'm sure it would be take as the sign of the beast.
 
2012-05-07 08:49:37 AM  
Reminds me of the premise of Broken Saints...
 
2012-05-07 08:51:16 AM  

Freakman: BraveNewCheneyWorld: What soldier wouldn't want a hackable computer embedded in their body that might be exploited to give away their position as well as their health status, while being completely inaccessible for reasonable, immediate removal if such a thing happens?

An enemy who hacks this system could view the positions of all our troops, and see the effectiveness of any chemical/biological warfare attack they make in real time. Doesn't the danger of this scenario outweigh the benefit of detecting battlefield illness a bit sooner?

Maybe. It depends on how secure the system is. This would prevent a lot of friendly fire casualties. Smart bombs still get dropped on friendly troops because they report the wrong position and that report has to go through multiple humans to get to the targeting computer. It would be nice to take the human error out of preventing friendly fire.


Meh. If it's run anything like AKo, half the time it won't work, and the other half of the time we'll probably have to insert out CAC cards up our ass just for basic access.
 
2012-05-07 08:51:50 AM  
It is a little more proactive than just having you send in their picture to the local animal shelter.
 
2012-05-07 08:54:38 AM  
So, uh, what if the other side can hack our troops' electronics?
 
2012-05-07 08:55:32 AM  

Freakman: BraveNewCheneyWorld: What soldier wouldn't want a hackable computer embedded in their body that might be exploited to give away their position as well as their health status, while being completely inaccessible for reasonable, immediate removal if such a thing happens?

An enemy who hacks this system could view the positions of all our troops, and see the effectiveness of any chemical/biological warfare attack they make in real time. Doesn't the danger of this scenario outweigh the benefit of detecting battlefield illness a bit sooner?

Maybe. It depends on how secure the system is. This would prevent a lot of friendly fire casualties. Smart bombs still get dropped on friendly troops because they report the wrong position and that report has to go through multiple humans to get to the targeting computer. It would be nice to take the human error out of preventing friendly fire.


Let's say you make that chip absolutely secure from a cryptological standpoint. Can't be broken, period.

OK, fine. It's still *RADIATING*, at least upon request. Even if you can't tell what the chip is communicating, it's a relatively simple matter to figure out where it is. Think of it like a flashing infrared beacon on each soldier: All the enemy would need is a special set of goggles to see where every enemy soldier is. They don't have to know what the sequence of flashes means. The equipment requirements to "see" radio signals are a bit more complex, to be sure, but the basic principle is the same. Even if you can't hack into the chips or break their encryption, unless they only work by direct hard-wired connection*, they have to radiate some kind of radio signal, and in doing so they open up the individual soldier to the possibilities of being targeted by SIGINT assets.

They don't even have to be very complex assets, either: A simple device that consists of a wideband receiver, a GPS receiver, a basic signal processing computer, and a beacon would be fine. You could probably mass produce something like that for $100 a unit. Set them in a perimeter around your position, or perhaps at a choke point. When the local radio noise reaches a certain threshhold, the unit beacons it's location and the noise level/signal characteristics/etc. Until then, it's silent, just sitting there patiently waiting. Chipped soldiers walk within range, device detects it, bingo, you know where they are.

*And what would be the point of that?
 
2012-05-07 09:09:54 AM  
I agree, dittybopper. Send out a triggering pulse, get responses from the embedded chips, all soldiers' positions are compromised.

Also, how can anyone with an embedded chip go into a closed area with this idea? Instead of using their badges, they use the back of their necks instead?

I say stick with dog tags, fingerprints, and DNA. We've not had too many Unknowns for a while with those proven technologies.
 
2012-05-07 09:22:34 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: What soldier wouldn't want a hackable computer embedded in their body that might be exploited to give away their position as well as their health status, while being completely inaccessible for reasonable, immediate removal if such a thing happens?

An enemy who hacks this system could view the positions of all our troops, and see the effectiveness of any chemical/biological warfare attack they make in real time. Doesn't the danger of this scenario outweigh the benefit of detecting battlefield illness a bit sooner?


I wouldn't expect the soldier's health to be anything but a marketing gimmick.
 
2012-05-07 09:27:05 AM  
My wife just read this article. She said she'd resign her commission before she let the Army put a chip in to monitor her.
 
2012-05-07 09:44:30 AM  
It may come down to the signal range.
dl.dropbox.com

These are soldiers we're talking about, so a magic device that says "there is an enemy over there!" which requires you be within 200 yards of "there"... that won't help much.
Its like searching for a sniper with a metal detector.

The whole vulnerability of this is in the back end. If they can hack into the system (and assuming their guys are good enough not to be tricked and fed false info), that information might be used against you.
...Of course this also means they need some way to disseminate that information to their forces. All of this takes time and a clear line of command.

I'd imagine if we go to war with the likes of any army able to do all this, the fight itself will probably be over before either side can put this info to use.
In the mean time, for all the war's we're actually fighting, being able to spot the signs of PTSD or exhaustion by remote could give us a much bigger advantage.

Once they have the tech in hand, they'll probably decide its worth the risk.
 
2012-05-07 09:46:57 AM  

devildog123: My wife just read this article. She said she'd resign her commission before she let the Army put a chip in to monitor her.


What if it isn't optional? I thought they did something like this already.
 
2012-05-07 09:52:25 AM  

devildog123: My wife just read this article. She said she'd resign her commission before she let the Army put a chip in to monitor her.


I suspect they do far worse already.
To be fair to the Army, there are times in the past when they lost more soldiers to disease and fatigue than enemy action. They have a vested interest in your health, whether you agree or not.

/So long as they take the tag out afterwards, it may not even be a thing to worry about.
 
2012-05-07 09:55:13 AM  
images.wikia.com
it begins!
 
2012-05-07 09:59:45 AM  
OMG Adam has a 3.5'' floopy in his chest.
LOL
 
2012-05-07 10:15:36 AM  

AirForceVet: Also, how can anyone with an embedded chip go into a closed area with this idea? Instead of using their badges, they use the back of their necks instead?

I say stick with dog tags, fingerprints, and DNA. We've not had too many Unknowns for a while with those proven technologies.


But think of the poor government contractor who wants to sell, install and administer the chips and monitoring systems. Why use a system that costs about $100 / soldier to administer when you could be using one that costs $1000?
 
2012-05-07 10:16:13 AM  
A chip can only broadcast when it has a source of power. Damn batteries, always a hassle, have to change often, and they are big.
 
2012-05-07 10:19:04 AM  

AbbeySomeone: devildog123: My wife just read this article. She said she'd resign her commission before she let the Army put a chip in to monitor her.

What if it isn't optional? I thought they did something like this already.


She's an officer that is past any mandatory service date, no DEROS, no time owed for schools anymore. She can resign whenever she wants at this point.
 
2012-05-07 10:21:10 AM  
Here's a better idea: Don't fight wars in the first place.

I've got a spot they can microchop after kissing it, my hairy white ass.
 
2012-05-07 10:29:08 AM  
Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre think chips are magical.
 
2012-05-07 10:31:19 AM  
I've often wondered why they don't already tag soldiers' weapons or gear - things a servicemember can ditch in an emergency, but can be expected to stay with them until such an emergency. Or in a helmet or wristband - which can also monitor vitals like pulse and temps.

But chipping them like dogs or head of cattle? No farking thanks.
 
2012-05-07 10:38:04 AM  
intelligencebriefs.com

It's going in the butt.
 
2012-05-07 10:59:30 AM  
thesnakesoup.org

No, not a bad idea at all.
 
2012-05-07 11:24:24 AM  
WND, for when Foxnews and MSNBC just aren't derpy enough.
 
2012-05-07 11:39:43 AM  

Dr Dreidel: I've often wondered why they don't already tag soldiers' weapons or gear - things a servicemember can ditch in an emergency, but can be expected to stay with them until such an emergency. Or in a helmet or wristband - which can also monitor vitals like pulse and temps.

But chipping them like dogs or head of cattle? No farking thanks.


They are people who joined a "standing army", so to speak, abdicating their autonomy and conscience to an institutional chain of command and to the whims of a political-economic elite. Why in the fark would they have a problem with getting a rfid? What imaginary line does that cross?
 
2012-05-07 11:40:38 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: What soldier wouldn't want a hackable computer embedded in their body that might be exploited to give away their position as well as their health status, while being completely inaccessible for reasonable, immediate removal if such a thing happens?

An enemy who hacks this system could view the positions of all our troops, and see the effectiveness of any chemical/biological warfare attack they make in real time. Doesn't the danger of this scenario outweigh the benefit of detecting battlefield illness a bit sooner?


Don't worry! Our impenetrable hubris will protect us from all attacks!
 
Displayed 50 of 108 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report