#adversarial interoperability

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Netflix wants to chop down your family tree

Netflix has unveiled the details of its new anti-password-sharing policy, detailing a suite of complex gymnastics that customers will be expected to undergo if their living arrangements trigger Netflix’s automated enforcement mechanisms:

https://thestreamable.com/news/confirmed-netflix-unveils-first-details-of-new-anti-password-sharing-measures

If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/02/nonbinary-families/#red-envelopes

Netflix says that its new policy allows members of the same “household” to share an account. This policy comes with an assumption: that there is a commonly understood, universal meaning of “household,” and that software can determine who is and is not a member of your household.

This is a very old corporate delusion in the world of technology. In the early 2000s, I spent years trying to bring some balance to an effort at DVB, whose digital television standards are used in most of the world (but not the USA) when they rolled out CPCM, a DRM system that was supposed to limit video-sharing to a single household.

Their term of art for this was the “authorized domain”: a software-defined family unit whose borders were privately negotiated by corporate executives from media companies, broadcasters, tech and consumer electronics companies in closed-door sessions all around the world, with no public minutes or proceedings.

https://onezero.medium.com/the-internet-heist-part-iii-8561f6d5a4dc

These guys (they were nearly all guys) were proud of how much “flexibility” they’d built into their definition of “household.” For example, if you owned a houseboat, or a luxury car with seatback displays, or a summer villa in another country, the Authorized Domain would be able to figure out how to get the video onto all those screens.

But what about other kinds of families? I suggested that one of our test cases should be a family based in Manila: where the dad travels to remote provinces to do agricultural labor; the daughter is a nanny in California; and the son is doing construction work in the UAE. This suggestion was roundly rejected as an “edge case.”

Of course, this isn’t an edge case. There are orders of magnitude more people whose family looks like this than there are people whose family owns a villa in another country. Owning a houseboat or a luxury car makes you an outlier. Having an itinerant agricultural breadwinner in your family does not.

But everyone who is in the room when a cartel draws up a standard definition of what constitutes a household is almost certainly drawn from a pool that is more likely to have a summer villa than a child doing domestic work or construction labor half a world away. These weirdos, so dissimilar from the global majority, get to define the boxes that computers will shove the rest of the world into. If your family doesn’t look like their family, that’s tough: “Computer says no.”

One day at a CPCM meeting, we got to talking about the problem of “content laundering” and how the way to prevent it would be to put limits on how often someone could leave a household and join another one. No one, they argued, would ever have to change households every week.

I put my hand up and said, “What about a child whose divorced parents share custody of her? She’s absolutely going to change households every week.” They thought about it for a moment, then the rep from a giant IT company that had recently been convicted of criminal antitrust violations said, “Oh, we can solve that: we’ll give her a toll-free number to call when she gets locked out of her account.”

That was the solution they went with. If you are a child coping with the dissolution of your parents’ marriage, you will have the obligation to call up a media company every month — or more often — and explain that Mummy and Daddy don’t love each other any more, but can I please have my TV back?

I never forgot that day. I even wrote a science fiction story about it called (what else?) “Authorized Domain”:

https://craphound.com/news/2011/10/31/authorised-domain/

I think everyone understood that this was an absurd “solution,” but they had already decided that they were going to complete the seemingly straightforward business of defining a category like “household” using software, and once that train left the station, nothing was going to stop it.

This is a recurring form of techno-hubris: the idea that baseline concepts like “family” have crisp definitions and that any exceptions are outliers that would never swallow the rule. It’s such a common misstep that there’s a whole enre* called “Falsehoods Programmers Believe About ______”:

https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood

In that list: names, time, currency, birthdays, timezones, email addresses, national borders, nations, biometrics, gender, language, alphabets, phone numbers, addresses, systems of measurement, and, of course, families. These categories are touchstones in our everyday life, and we think we know what they mean — but then we try to define them, and the list of exceptions spirals out into a hairy, fractal infinity.

Historically, these fuzzy categorical edges didn’t matter so much, because they were usually interpreted by humans using common sense. My grandfather was born “Avrom Doctorovitch” (or at least, that’s one way to transliterate his name, which was spelled in a different alphabet, but which was also transliterating his first name from yet another alphabet). When he came to Canada as a refugee, his surname was anglicized to “Doctorow.” Other cousins are “Doctorov,” “Doctoroff,” and “Doktorovitch.”

Naturally, his first name could have been “Abraham” or “Abe,” but his first employer (a fellow Eastern European emigre) decided that was too ethnic and in sincere effort to help him fit in, he called my grandfather “Bill.” When my grandfather attained citizenship, his papers read “Abraham William Doctorow.” He went by “Abe,” “Billy,” “Bill,” “William,” “Abraham” and “Avrom.”

Practically, it didn’t matter that variations on all of these appeared on various forms of ID, contracts, and paperwork. His reparations check from the German government had a different variation from the name on the papers he used to open his bank account, but the bank still let him deposit it.

All of my relatives from his generation have more than one name. Another grandfather of mine was born “Aleksander,” and called “Sasha” by friends, but had his name changed to “Seymour” when he got to Canada. His ID was also a mismatched grab-bag of variations on that theme.

None of this mattered to him, either. Airlines would sell him tickets and border guards would stamp his passport and rental agencies would let him drive away in cars despite the minor variations on all his ID.

But after 9/11, all that changed, for everyone who had blithely trundled along with semi-matching names across their official papers and database entries. Suddenly, it was “computer says no” everywhere you turned, unless everything matched perfectly. There was a global rush for legal name-changes after 9/11 — not because people changed their names, but because people needed to perform the bureaucratic ritual necessary to have the name they’d used all along be recognized in these new, brittle, ambiguity-incinerating machines.

For important categories, ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. The fact that you can write anything on an envelope (including a direction to deliver the letter to the granny flat over the garage, not the front door) means that we don’t have to define “address” — we can leave it usefully hairy around the edges.

Once the database schema is formalized, then “address” gets defined too — the number of lines it can have, the number of characters each line can have, the kinds of characters and even words (woe betide anyone who lives in Scunthorpe).

If you have a “real” address, a “real” name, a “real” date of birth, all of this might seem distant to you. These “edge” cases — seasonal agricultural workers, refugees with randomly assigned “English” names — are very far from your experience.

That’s true — for now (but not forever). The “Shitty Technology Adoption Curve” describes the process by which abusive technologies work their way up the privilege gradient. Every bad technological idea is first rolled out on poor people, refugees, prisoners, kids, mental patients and other people who can’t push back.

Their bodies are used to sand the rough edges and sharp corners off the technology, to normalize it so that it can climb up through the social ranks, imposed on people with more and more power and influence. 20 years ago, if you ate your dinner under an always-on #CCTV, it was because you were in a supermax prison. Today, it’s because you bought a premium home surveillance system from Google, Amazon or Apple.

https://pluralistic.net/2021/07/29/impunity-corrodes/#arise-ye-prisoners

The Netflix anti-sharing tools are designed for rich people. If you travel for business and stay in the kind of hotel where the TV has its own Netflix client that you can plug your username and password into, Netflix will give you a seven-day temporary code to use.

But for the most hardcore road-warriors, Netflix has thin gruel. Unless you connect to your home wifi network every 31 days and stream a show, Netflix will lock out your devices. Once blocked, you have to “contact Netflix” (laughs in Big Tech customer service).

Why is Netflix putting the screws to its customers? It’s part of the enshittification cycle, where platform companies first allocate surpluses to their customers, luring them in and using them as bait for business customers. Once they turn up, the companies reallocate surpluses to businesses, lavishing them with low commissions and lots of revenue opportunities. And once they’re locked in, the company starts to claw back the surpluses for itself.

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys

Remember when Netflix was in the business of mailing red envelopes full of DVDs around the country? That was allocating surpluses to users. The movie companies hated this, viewed it as theft — a proposition that was at least as valid as Netflix’s complaints about password sharing, but every pirate wants to be an admiral, and when Netflix did it to the studios, that was “progress,” but when you do it to Netflix, that’s theft.

Then, once Netflix had users locked in and migrated to the web (and later, apps), it shifted surpluses to studios, paying fat licensing fees to stream their movies and connect them to a huge audience.

Finally, once the studios were locked in, Netflix started to harvest the surplus for its shareholders: raising prices, lowering streaming rates, knocking off other studios’ best performing shows with in-house clones, etc. Users’ surpluses are also on the menu: the password “sharing” that let you define a household according to your family’s own idiosyncratic contours is unilaterally abolished in a quest to punish feckless Gen Z kids for buying avocado toast instead of their own Netflix subscriptions.

Netflix was able to ignore the studios’ outraged howls when it built a business by nonconsenually distributing their products in red envelopes. But now that Netflix has come for your family, don’t even think about giving Netfix some of what it gave to the MPAA.

As a technical matter, it’s not really that hard to modify Netflix’s app so that every stream you pull seems to come from your house, no matter where you are. But doing so would require reverse-engineering Netflix’s app, and that would violate Section 1201 of the DMCA, the CFAA, and eleventy-seven other horrible laws. Netflix’s lawyers would nuke you until the rubble bounced.

When Netflix was getting started, it could freely interoperate with the DVDs that the studios had put on the market. It could repurpose those DVDs in ways that the studios strenuously objected to. In other words, Netfix used adversarial interoperability (AKA Competitive Compatibility or ComCom) to launch its business:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interoperability

Today, Netflix is on the vanguard of the war to abolish adversarial interop. They helped lead the charge to pervert W3C web-standards, creating a DRM video standard called EME that made it a crime to build a full-featured browser without getting permission from media companies and restricting its functionality to their specifications:

https://blog.samuelmaddock.com/posts/the-end-of-indie-web-browsers/

When they used adversarial interoperability to build a multi-billion-dollar global company using the movie studios’ products in ways the studios hated, that was progress. When you define “family” in ways that makes Netflix less money, that’s felony contempt of business model.

[Image ID: A Victorian family tree template populated by tintypes of old-timey people. In the foreground stands a menacing, chainsaw-wielding figure, his face obscured by a hoodie. The blade of the chainsaw is poised to chop down the family tree. A Netflix 'N' logo has been superimposed over the man's face.]

#pluralistic #enshittification #shitty technology adoption curve #cpcm #interoperabiltiy #comcom #adversarial interoperability #interop #netflix #family #ambiguity #digitizatio #nym wars #authorized domain #dvb #dvds #password sharing

[ahmetasabanci]

It's People All the Way Down

It’s People All the Way Down

Once again, we’re talking about moving from one major social media platform to other alternatives. This time, it’s because Elon Musk, one of the main villains of the comic book we live in, bought Twitter and everyone is pretty much sure that things will only get worse from here on. I agree with this observation and guessing I’ll add another dead social media platform on my belt soon (RIP…

View On WordPress

#adversarial interoperability #Cory Doctorow #elon musk #internet #interoperability #mastodon #serendipity #social media #switching costs #twitter

[walkingthroughthisworld]

Soldiers with the 1st Battalion, 9th Cavalry Regiment from Fort Hood, Texas and multinational partner forces engage in a Combined Arms Live Fire Exercise (CALFEX) that was attended by the U.S. Emassador to Lithuania, Robert Gilchrist, on Feb. 12, 202… (Photo Credit: U.S. Army)

PABRADE, Lithuania - Soldiers with 1st Battalion, 9th U.S. Cavalry Regiment from Fort Hood, Texas, working side by side with multinational and allied forces, concluded their Combined Arms Live Fire Exercise training Feb 13, 2020.

Dutch artillery, Croatian mortar, Lithuanian and Norwegian fire support and the Baltic Air Police were some of the major assets involved in the execution of this enormous military exercise.

"A successful CALFEX is when my company commander walks out of here with a standard operating procedure and every single one of my leaders, whether it's a tank commander, a Bradley commander, a squad leader, a team leader…They walk out of here understanding their SOP's, having codified the lessons that they've learned throughout the entire train-up," said Lt. Col. Stephen Johnson, commander of the 1-9 CAV.

This large scale combined exercise involved assets from across the entire battlefield spectrum operating in a seamless, synchronous fashion.

Mortar teams working cooperatively were no exception.

"The goal for mortars here is to enable the maneuver elements in the company CALFEX to be able to get onto their objectives with ease," said 1st Lt. Alexander Shuler, a 1-9 CAV mortar platoon leader. "The thing that's really cool about working with the European nations, including Croatia, is that they're so used to working with other nations. A large part of us coming here to Europe is building upon that interoperability."

Indeed, Croatian Soldiers were an essential component of the mortar exercises as they worked closely with 1-9 CAV Soldiers throughout the CALFEX.

"The non-commissioned officers that we work closely with were really helpful," said 2nd Lt. Ante Validzic, with the 3rd mechanized infantry of the Croatian Land Forces. "They assisted us with everything we needed. If we combine our strengths, and work on our weaknesses, we can be strong together."

Training in Lithuania offered the Soldiers many tactical benefits that are not as readily available back in the United States.

"One of the great things about the 1-9 being up here in Lithuania is that they have the training facilities right here at their doorstep," said Brigade Command Sgt. Maj. Alexander Yazzie. "During this exercise, they had the fuelers come, they brought in ammo, they executed a Logistics Resupply Point (LRP) after contact. They were able to not only incorporate the fire maneuver, the shoot - move - communicate portion, but they incorporated the sustainment portion as well which was great because that's the first time I've seen that done in a CALFEX."

Command Sgt. Maj. Christopher Carey, the battalion command sergeant major was equally impressed with his Soldiers' ability to engage and take down potential enemy opposition.

"The one thing that really stood out to me was the violent execution of Battle Drill Six (room clearing exercise) by our infantry. There's a lot of training that leads up going into that live fire drill," said Carey. "They've trained for several weeks in preparation for this, and again the violence of action was very impressive. We're here to train and we're here to deter our adversaries. We don't have any distractors, that's our focus here."

The CALFEX is an enormous undertaking in scale and scope. This exercise allows leadership to assess and increase the military readiness and lethality of all the joint participants. Combining forces on such an enormous scale showcases our interoperability, and promotes regional stability, thereby enhancing relationships with our allies.

"We actually got to shoot gunnery with the Germans and the Norwegians, just being able to interact with them - I actually got to grade them, I got to VCE (Vehicle Crew Evaluator) them through their gunnery," said Staff Sgt. John Waite, an M1A2 B Co., 3rd platoon tank commander. "They were phenomenal. Their platforms and tank crews were amazing. They're always just thirsting for knowledge, the same as us. It's been one of the most amazing experiences during my time in the army."

The CALFEX is a very fast paced, multi faceted, strategic exercise. The ability of Soldiers to adapt and adjust to a fluid, ever changing battlefield environment is key to their success.

Of course, everything doesn't always go as planned.

"A Platoon leader's track (U.S. Bradley Fighting Vehicle) went down, just cut off on him. He worked through it, and what was great is the battalion commander let him work through it, he didn't give him the answer," said Yazzie. "So when a platoon sergeant's vehicle goes down, you have to jump track. Ultimately, he worked through it, he did really well and continued on with the mission."

Countless hours of training, endless logistics and the Soldiers' collective fighting spirit make for a very formidable fighting force that continues to protect the freedoms and independence of all within the European theater.

"This was just a world class amazing exercise, and I'm really proud of the Soldiers. Moving forward, we're going to document all the lessons learned. We're going to make sure that we don't make the same mistakes that we learned from this time, and that we can pass them off to the future leaders," said Johnson. "We all transition. We're going to switch out leaders, we're going to switch out Soldiers and they've got to be able to pick up where we left off. We're going to continue to be lethal, we're going to continue to train and continue to get better."

#check out the name on that last tank #hilarious

[planesawesome]

F-15E Strike Eagles assigned to the 48th Fighter Wing taxi to the flight line during Point Blank 22-04, an exercise conducted at Royal Air Force Lakenheath, England, Aug. 24 & 25, 2022. Point Blank is a multilateral exercise that increases interoperability and collective readiness, deters potential adversaries and ensures the skies within the European theater remain sovereign. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Gaspar Cortez)

[usafphantom2]

More tankers, E-7s, and better comms: lessons from Air Force’s Red Flag

The exercise featured U.S. Navy Carrier Strike Group Carl Vinson.

Audrey DeckerAugust 17, 2023

U.S. Navy Aviation Structural Mechanic Petty Officer 3rd Class Tyler Ritchie assigned to the Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 138, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Washington, prepares an EA-18G Growler for a Red Flag 23-3 mission at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, July 18, 2023.

The latest iteration of the U.S. Air Force’s Red Flag wargame revealed some kinks to be worked out before the service can fully interoperate with the U.S. Navy in the Indo-Pacific region.

The air combat exercise, which ran from July 17 to August 4, started at Nellis Air Force Base and extended hundreds of miles off the California coast. It included a Navy carrier strike group—and that was useful, said Lt. Col. Andrew Stevens, deputy commander of the 414th Combat Training Squadron during Red Flag 23-3.

“What we learned from it, what we can improve—that's all about coordination between the operational [command and control] on the Navy side and going through down to get that coordinated list of requirements to the tactical operator on the Air Force side so that we can layer in timing, coordinated effects, as well as basically sorting out the targeting so that we can be as efficient as possible with our low-inventory, high-value weapons systems,” Stevens said.

However, the Air Force still needs more training before it can fully interoperate with the Navy, he said.

“Right now, I think that we're only education and training away from being functional, if not optimized. So I think that whenever we were talking in terms of the plan, everybody kind of understands exactly what the other agencies need and want to do, we just need to see it more in training to smooth out some of those little wrinkles,” Stevens said.

Related articles

Logisticians battle distance, weather, red tape in giant Pacific exercise

How Air Mobility Command is prepping for possible conflict in the Pacific

A Pacific fight will also require better-equipped tankers, Stevens said.

“I'd say the first critical capability that I would think of is our tanker roster, so how many tankers we have, how reliable they are, and I would want to increase the amount of comms-suite capability on those tankers to build out long-range bridges for our line-of-sight comms to enable redundancy to our space-enabled comms,” Stevens told Defense One.

Another must-have: multiple survivable next-gen command-and-control aircraft—i.e., the E-7 Wedgetail currently in development by Boeing, Stevens said.

“I would like to see a constellation of E-7s,” Stevens said. “I not only want a single E-7 out in the [battle]space—I want three, minimally.”

Pentagon officials have said they need E-7s to handle airborne domain awareness and to maintain air superiority in the Pacific region as they retire E-3 Sentry AWACS-carrying radar planes. Lawmakers who agree have been pushing the service to accelerate the program, which is currently slated to deliver the first test E-7 in 2027.

Another large part of the exercise was recreating enemy threats for pilots to train against. Nellis reactivated its F-35 aggressor squadron last year, and in May stood up a new F-16 aggressor squadron to replicate enemy threats. Both aggressor squadrons participated in Red Flag—using tactics based on intel on adversary capabilities to accurately recreate “what’s a realistic and relevant threat,” Stevens said.

While he couldn’t detail the exact threats aggressor squadrons recreated, Stevens said they were “the most technologically advanced adversary assets that we project potentially having to engage depending on our civilian leadership's request.”

They also trained against “aggressor naval surface vessels”—aka U.S. vessels pretending to be Chinese ships. “So that helps us practice those [tactics, techniques, and procedures] for countering advanced surface capabilities over the water,” Stevens said.

Stevens said future iterations of Red Flag will continue to feature its sister service.

“I can tell you definitively that our efforts are to continue the Navy integration and over-water counter maritime TTPs for the foreseeable future in Red Flag,” Stevens said.

[alwayscrazyninja]

A Thunderhead High-Altitude Balloon System, launched by U.S. Army Pacific Soldiers, takes flight during Balikatan 22 on Fort Magsaysay, Nueva Ecija, Philippines, in April. Balikatan is an annual exercise between the Armed Forces of the Philippines and U.S. military designed to strengthen bilateral interoperability, capabilities, trust, and cooperation built over decades of shared experiences. Credit: Spc. Darbi Colson/DVIDS

Blockchain-backed, open standard-based decentralized identity (aka self-sovereign identity) technologies can provide warfighters with combat identification (CID) of the networked digital forces that comprise the modern military’s multidomain sensor-to-shooter kill chains.

High confidence in the digital identity and capabilities of every networked kill-chain participant (i.e., digital CID) is required before military decision-makers will trust collapsing information stovepipes, automating high-value decision making and separating command from control to the degree needed to significantly accelerate the “sense, make sense and act” command and control (C2) functions needed to act inside an adversary’s decision cycle.

The problem: uncertainty in the identity and capabilities of each entity communicating from behind its networked Internet Protocol (IP) address hinders information sharing and automation in the “sense, make sense and act” C2 functions.

Per the March 2022 U.S. Department of Defense Summary of the Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) Strategy, warfighting is becoming more and more digitalized to “use increasing volumes of data, employ automation and AI [artificial intelligence], rely upon a secure and resilient infrastructure, and act inside an adversary’s decision cycle.” The JADC2 vision for joint warfighting is an Internet of Things connecting digitalized sensors-to-shooters “to sense, make sense, and act at all levels and phases of war, across all domains, and with partners, to deliver information advantage at the speed of relevance.” These digitalized sensors, shooters and their directing C2 work together in coordinated kill chains to put weapons on target with maximal effect and minimal collateral damage. Because the targeting information they originate and exchange results in literal life-or-death outcomes, every participant in the kill chain and their information must be trustworthy and reliable to a high degree of certainty.  

Identification is the root of all trust because it provides accountability. Unidentified, misidentified or compromised digital forces participating in a kill chain jeopardize the trustworthiness of the targeting information and the reliability of execution. Online digital identification and authentication in the battlespace is a form of CID, which is generally recognized as the “process of attaining an accurate characterization of detected objects throughout the operational environment sufficient to support engagement decisions.” CID traditionally applies to positive identification of targets and nearby friendlies and neutrals to avoid fratricide and minimize total casualties. But in digitalized kill chains, positive identification and verification of the identity, capabilities and information provided by the digital participants are needed to prevent or detect inadvertent or purposeful targeting misinformation and execution mishandling that could result in unintended outcomes.

But trustworthy network digital identification has historically been difficult, especially at scale, because online entities communicate from behind nonidentifying IP addresses. And herein lies the problem for JADC2. Battlespace commanders, planners and operating forces communicating electronically with each other in a contested battlespace environment feel too uncertain in the digital identities and capabilities of in-area networked forces (people, organizations and things) to trust them with the degree of independent decision making, ad hoc information exchanges and artificial intelligence-based automation that would significantly shorten the kill chain.  

They rightly question the trustworthiness of digital identities because networked devices and their hosted applications:

Are not largely public key enabled at the application layer and instead rely on the encrypted transport layer for security.

Rely heavily on third-party identity providers, directories and boundary security enforcement points outside the control of the device owner and its applications.

Communicate with each other via complex network routes spanning multiple connection points and protocols. The application layer payloads exchanged are typically not encrypted end-to-end across all these route segments, thus making them vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks and manipulation.

Exchange no cryptographically verifiable identifying and nonidentifying claims/credentials issued by trusted authorities that assert identifying attributes and capabilities.

Trustworthy CID of networked forces will only get harder as the number and type of digital forces explode due to the ongoing military digitalization of traditional forces and the growing deployment of autonomous vehicles and other types of attritable Internet of Things devices. These small, low-cost, attritable devices and other types of digital forces require a commensurately small, low-cost, assured identity solution that is open, standards-based, interoperable, de-centrally implemented and administered to affordably secure the internet-scale networked battlespace.

The blockchain-enabled CID solution

Distributed ledger technology (aka blockchain) solves the digital identity problem by providing a scalable, decentralized, low-cost, highly secure way to cryptographically bind an entity’s identifier to its private and public key pair while also distributing it widely and securely. In a blockchain-based digital identity solution, the immutable hash of the chained blocks of transactions stored on the ledger immutably binds a new kind of globally unique, unchanging digital identifier (W3C decentralized identifiers or DIDs) to its public key. The blockchain consensus mechanism ensures that each distributed ledger in the blockchain network independently writes the bound identifier/public keys on its ledger. Therefore, an entity’s DID and cryptographically bound public key are automatically and immutably distributed across all physically disparate and independently operated nodes of a distributed blockchain network. To verify an identity’s digital signature, a relying party looks up the subject’s DID on a local blockchain ledger node and retrieves the immutably bound public key.  

After this seminal use-case for blockchain technology was recognized, several open-source organizations emerged to develop an overall Trust over IP architecture framework and the supporting open standards and implementations. The resultant highly secure digital identity solution became known as self-sovereign identity, decentralized identity and decentralized public key infrastructure.

In deployment, these standards and technologies take the form of small footprint software agents and secure digital wallets installed on each participating networked device. Software agents and secure digital wallets use standardized protocols and cryptography to automate assured CID. The agents of any communicating digital forces automatically establish a secure channel (exchange pair-wise public keys) and then use the encrypted channel to exchange cryptographically verifiable claims about their identities, capabilities and data via small, lightweight, machine-readable, schema-defined, digitally signed verifiable credentials. The verifiable credentials are issued to digital forces (representing people, organization and thing entities) by recognized authoritative trustworthy issuers registered on a blockchain ledger. Verifiers of a verifiable credential look up the issuer’s DID on the blockchain, retrieve the associated public key and confirm the issuer’s digital signature on the verifiable credential.  

CID is performed by the agents when they validate the signatures of exchanged verifiable credentials and use the attributes to perform mutual identification, authentication and authorization. Once trusted CID is complete, the devices use the established trusted relationship to perform various use cases.

For example, a sensor device passes collected images to its controller over some complex multi-hop route. Because the sensor and its controller hold each other’s relationship-specific identifier bound to its public key, the sensor data and the controller’s acknowledgments are all digitally signed and encrypted end-to-end between the devices, independent of any transport-layer encryption. The receiving controller has high assurance that the image data came from the trusted sensor and hadn’t been tampered with. The sensor has high assurance that the trusted controller really received it.  

The sensor could also hold in its wallet nonidentifying types of verifiable credentials asserting various claims about the sensor itself—the manufacturer-certified resolution of a camera, for example. In this way, the controller could make better decisions about how best to employ that sensor. For example, if the camera only took wide-angle images, the controller wouldn’t try to assign it a collection task requiring a zoom capability.

[nanodefenseproget]

Nondefense Pro: Revolutionizing Defence Technology

Introduction:

In the ever-evolving landscape of defence technology, innovation is key to staying ahead of emerging threats. As technology advances, so too do the capabilities of those seeking to exploit vulnerabilities in security systems. In response to this constant challenge, the development of NanoDefense Pro represents a significant milestone in the field of defence technology. This article delves into the groundbreaking features, applications, and implications of NanoDefense Pro, shedding light on its potential to revolutionize the defence industry.

Introduction to NanoDefense Pro

NanoDefense Pro is a cutting-edge defence technology platform that leverages nanotechnology to enhance security and defence systems. Developed by a team of leading scientists and engineers, NanoDefense Pro embodies the convergence of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence (AI), and advanced materials science. At its core, NanoDefense Pro aims to provide superior protection against awide range of threats, from cyber-attacks to physical breaches, by harnessing the power of nanoscale materials and intelligent algorithms.

Click here to Learn More NanoDefense Pro Coffee

Key Features of NanoDefense Pro

Nanomaterials Integration: NanoDefense Pro incorporates advanced nanomaterials, such as carbon nanotubes and graphene, known for their exceptional strength, conductivity, and other unique properties. These nanomaterials form the building blocks of various components within the system, enabling lightweight yet robust defence solutions.

AI-Powered Threat Detection: One of the most significant capabilities of NanoDefense Pro is its AI-powered threat detection system. By analysing vast amounts of data in real-time, the system can identify potential threats with unprecedented accuracy. This proactive approach allows for rapid response and mitigation of security risks before they escalate intofull-blown attacks.

Adaptive Defence Mechanisms: NanoDefense Pro is equipped with adaptive defence mechanisms that continuously learn and evolve based on emergingthreats. Through machine learning algorithms, the system can adapt its defence strategies dynamically, staying one-step ahead of adversaries who attempt to bypass traditional security measures.

Interoperability and Scalability: Another key feature of NanoDefense Pro is its interoperability and scalability. The platform is designed to integrate seamlessly with existing defence systems and infrastructure, allowing for easy deployment and integration into Pro can various environments. Furthermore, NanoDefense scale to meet the evolving needs of defence organizations, from small-scale deployments to large-scale operations.

CLICK HERE TO Purchase — “NanoDefense Pro”

Applications of NanoDefense Pro

Cybersecurity: In an increasingly digitized world, cybersecurity is a top priority for defence organizations. NanoDefense Pro offers advanced cybersecurity solutions, protecting critical infrastructure, networks, and data from cyber threats such as malware, ransomware, and hacking attempts. Its AI-driven threat detection capabilities enable proactive defense against evolving cyber threats, safeguarding sensitive information and ensuring operational continuity.

Physical Security: Beyond cyberspace, NanoDefense Pro also enhances physical security measures to protect facilities, borders, and assets. Through the integration of nanomaterials and intelligent sensors, the platform provides real-time monitoring and surveillance, detecting unauthorized access, intrusions, and other security breaches. This comprehensive approach to physical security helps prevent unauthorized access and mitigate potential threats before they escalate.

Counterterrorism: NanoDefense Pro plays a crucial role in counterterrorism efforts by enhancing threat detection and response capabilities. Its AI-powered algorithms analyse vast amounts of data from various sources, including surveillance cameras, sensors, and intelligence databases, to identify suspicious activities and potential threats. By providing early warning and rapid response capabilities, NanoDefense Pro enables security forces to thwart terrorist attacks and protect civilian populations.

Border Security: Securing national borders against illegal immigration, smuggling, and other illicit activities is a complex challenge faced by many countries. NanoDefense Pro offers innovative solutions for border security, including advanced surveillance systems, autonomous drones, and intelligent sensors. By monitoring border regions in real-time and detecting suspicious activities, the platform helps border patrol agencies intercept illegal crossings and prevent threats from entering the country.

Implications of NanoDefense Pro

Enhanced Defense Capabilities: The development and deployment of NanoDefense Pro signify a significant advancement in defense capabilities, enabling military and security forces to address modern threats more effectively. By leveraging nanotechnology and AI, NanoDefense Pro offers a multifaceted approach to defense, encompassing cybersecurity, physical security, counterterrorism, and border security.

Deterrence against Adversaries: The advanced capabilities of NanoDefense Pro serve as a deterrent against potential adversaries, signalling a strong commitment to national security and defense. The proactive nature of the platform's threat detection and response capabilities sends a clear message that attempts to compromise security will be met with swift and decisive action.

Global Impact: As NanoDefense Pro gains traction and adoption across the globe, its impact on the global defense landscape is likely to be profound. Nations that embrace this technology will gain a competitive edge in safeguarding their interests and protecting their citizens, while those who lag behind may find themselves vulnerable to emerging threats.

Ethical and Legal Considerations: While NanoDefense Pro offers tremendous potential for enhancing security and defense capabilities; it also raises ethical and legal considerations. Questions regarding privacy, surveillance, and the use of autonomous systems in security operations must be carefully addressed to ensure that the benefits of the technology are balanced with respect for individual rights and freedoms.

Applications Across Industries

The versatility of NanoDefense Pro makes it suitable for a wide range of applications across various industries and sectors. From healthcare and emergency response to manufacturing and construction, NanoDefense Pro finds use wherever there is a need for reliable protection against hazardous substances and environmental contaminants. Some of the key industries that stand to benefit from NanoDefense Pro include:

Exclusive Details: NanoDefense Pro Read More Details on Official Website!

1. Healthcare

In healthcare settings, NanoDefense Pro plays a crucial role in safeguarding frontline workers against infectious diseases and airborne pathogens. Whether in hospitals, clinics, or research laboratories, NanoDefense Pro provides a vital layer of defense, enabling healthcare professionals to carry out their duties with confidence and peace of mind.

2. Industrial

In industrial environments where exposure to chemicals and pollutants is a constant concern, NanoDefense Pro offers indispensable protection for workers. From chemical manufacturing plants to oil refineries, NanoDefense Pro helps mitigate the risks associated with hazardous substances, ensuring the safety and well-being of personnel operating in these high-risk settings.

3. Emergency Response

During emergency response operations, such as firefighting, hazardous material cleanup, and disaster relief efforts, NanoDefense Pro provides essential protection for first responders and rescue workers. By shielding them from toxic fumes, airborne contaminants, and other environmental hazards, NanoDefense Pro enhances their ability to perform critical tasks in challenging and unpredictable conditions.

4. Construction

In the construction industry, where workers are exposed to a multitude of occupational hazards, NanoDefense Pro offers a welcome solution for ensuring worker safety. Whether dealing with dust, debris, or chemical fumes, construction workers can rely on NanoDefense Pro to provide reliable protection without compromising mobility or comfort, allowing them to focus on their job with confidence.

Conclusion

Nano Défense Pro represents a paradigm shift in defence technology, combining the power of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and advanced materials science to create a new standard in security and defence systems. With its ground-breaking features, applications, and implications, Nano Défense Pro has the potential to revolutionize the defence industry and shape the future of national security. As the threat landscape continues to evolve, innovations like Nano Défense Pro will play a crucial role in safeguarding against emerging threats and ensuring the safety and security of nations around the world.

Official website:  https://newsofdesk.com/nanodefensepro/

Pinterest:  https://in.pinterest.com/nanodefenseget/

#healthcare #healthyskin #nanodefensepro

[nmsc-market-pulse]

Navigating the Future: Trends in the Air Defense System Market

Introduction

In an era marked by geopolitical tensions, rapid technological advancements, and evolving threats, the air defense system market stands at the forefront of defense innovation. Nations worldwide are constantly striving to safeguard their skies and protect against airborne threats, propelling the demand for advanced air defense solutions. This comprehensive article explores the trends shaping the air defense system market, highlighting technological advancements, strategic shifts, and global market dynamics.

According to the study by Next Move Strategy Consulting, the global Air Defense System Market size is predicted to reach USD 62.23 billion with a CAGR of 5.2% by 2030.

Request a FREE sample, here: https://www.nextmsc.com/air-defense-system-market/request-sample 

Rising Threats, Evolving Strategies

The landscape of modern warfare is undergoing a profound transformation, driven by the emergence of diverse and sophisticated airborne threats. From unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to hypersonic missiles, adversaries possess an array of capabilities that challenge traditional defense mechanisms. In response, defense agencies and armed forces are investing heavily in next-generation air defense systems capable of detecting, tracking, and neutralizing these threats with precision and efficiency.

One significant trend in air defense system development is the integration of advanced sensor technologies. Radar systems equipped with phased-array antennas and active electronically scanned arrays (AESA) offer enhanced detection capabilities, enabling early warning and tracking of incoming threats. Moreover, the integration of infrared and electro-optical sensors provides additional layers of surveillance, improving situational awareness in complex operational environments.

Technological Advancements Driving Innovation

Advancements in sensor technology, data analytics, and artificial intelligence (AI) are driving innovation in air defense systems. Integrated sensor networks, powered by AI algorithms, enable real-time threat assessment and decision-making, enhancing situational awareness and response capabilities. Machine learning algorithms analyze vast amounts of sensor data to identify patterns and anomalies, enabling predictive maintenance and proactive threat mitigation.

Furthermore, the integration of directed energy weapons (DEWs) and electronic warfare (EW) systems is expanding the defensive arsenal. DEWs, such as high-energy lasers and microwave weapons, offer precise and rapid engagement of airborne threats, complementing traditional kinetic interceptors. Similarly, EW systems disrupt and deceive adversary sensors and communications, providing a layered defense against electronic attacks.

Shift Towards Network-Centric Warfare

The concept of network-centric warfare is reshaping air defense operations, emphasizing interoperability and collaboration among defense platforms and systems. Integrated air defense networks leverage data fusion and communication technologies to enable seamless coordination between ground-based radars, airborne surveillance platforms, and missile defense systems. This holistic approach enhances the effectiveness of defensive measures and minimizes response times, enabling rapid adaptation to dynamic threats.

Interoperability is further facilitated by the adoption of open standards and modular architectures, allowing for the integration of diverse systems from multiple vendors. Additionally, the use of secure communication protocols and encryption ensures the integrity and confidentiality of data shared within the network, safeguarding critical information from exploitation by adversaries.

Focus on Sustainability and Affordability

Amidst growing budget constraints and environmental concerns, there is a heightened focus on sustainable and cost-effective air defense solutions. Defense contractors and technology providers are leveraging innovations in materials science and manufacturing processes to develop lightweight and energy-efficient systems that minimize operational costs and environmental impact. Advanced composites and additive manufacturing techniques enable the production of complex components with reduced weight and increased durability, enhancing system performance and longevity.

Furthermore, the adoption of modular and scalable architectures enables flexibility and adaptability, allowing defense agencies to tailor their air defense capabilities to evolving threats and budgetary constraints. Modular systems facilitate incremental upgrades and technology refresh cycles, ensuring that air defense platforms remain operationally relevant throughout their lifecycle. Additionally, the use of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components and open architectures lowers acquisition costs and reduces reliance on proprietary systems, promoting interoperability and vendor diversity.

Inquire before buying, here: https://www.nextmsc.com/air-defense-system-market/inquire-before-buying

Global Market Dynamics

The global air defense system market is characterized by intense competition and a diverse supplier base, comprising both established defense contractors and emerging technology startups. While developed nations continue to dominate defense spending, emerging economies are increasingly investing in indigenous air defense capabilities to enhance their national security posture. Regional dynamics, geopolitical tensions, and strategic alliances also play a significant role in shaping market trends and demand patterns.

In Asia-Pacific, for example, rising geopolitical tensions and territorial disputes have fueled demand for advanced air defense systems. Countries such as China, India, and South Korea are investing heavily in indigenous research and development initiatives to strengthen their air defense capabilities and reduce reliance on foreign suppliers. Similarly, in the Middle East, ongoing conflicts and security threats have spurred investments in missile defense systems and integrated air defense networks.

Technological Collaboration and Joint Ventures

In the increasingly interconnected global defense industry, technological collaboration and joint ventures play a crucial role in driving innovation and expanding market reach. Defense contractors from different countries often collaborate on joint development programs to leverage each other's expertise and resources. These partnerships enable the sharing of technological know-how and the pooling of resources, resulting in the development of cutting-edge air defense systems that meet the evolving needs of customers worldwide.

Regulatory Environment and Export Controls

The air defense system market is subject to stringent regulatory requirements and export controls imposed by governments to safeguard sensitive technologies and prevent proliferation risks. Export controls dictate the transfer of defense-related technologies and equipment between countries, requiring exporters to obtain licenses and comply with strict regulations. Changes in export control policies and international agreements can significantly impact market dynamics, influencing the flow of defense exports and collaborations between countries.

Emerging Threats and Adaptive Strategies

As adversaries continue to innovate and adapt their tactics, defense agencies and armed forces must stay ahead of emerging threats by developing adaptive strategies and capabilities. The proliferation of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and low-cost drones poses a particularly challenging threat, requiring agile and scalable air defense solutions. In response, defense contractors are investing in counter-UAS technologies, such as kinetic interceptors, electronic warfare systems, and drone detection platforms, to mitigate the risks posed by these emerging threats.

Commercialization and Dual-Use Applications

The commercialization of defense technologies and the emergence of dual-use applications are reshaping the air defense system market landscape. Many defense technologies, originally developed for military purposes, are finding civilian applications in sectors such as aerospace, transportation, and telecommunications. This dual-use approach enables defense contractors to diversify their revenue streams and leverage economies of scale, driving down costs and accelerating technological innovation. Additionally, commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components and software solutions are increasingly integrated into air defense systems, reducing development time and costs while enhancing interoperability and performance.

Conclusion

As the global security landscape continues to evolve, the importance of air defense systems in safeguarding national sovereignty and protecting critical assets has never been greater. By embracing technological innovation, fostering collaboration, and prioritizing sustainability, the air defense industry is poised to navigate the challenges of the future and ensure the safety and security of nations around the world. With ongoing advancements in sensor technology, AI, and network-centric warfare, air defense systems will continue to evolve to meet the dynamic threat environment, providing reliable protection against airborne threats for years to come.

#air defense systems #aerospace and defense #global market #market research #industry analysis

[olivalibereo]

The Orca Fighter Jet: Pushing the Boundaries of Aerial Warfare

The Orca Fighter Jet has emerged as a groundbreaking development in Indian military aviation, promising advanced capabilities and strategic advantages for the country's defense forces. Let's delve into the details of this cutting-edge aircraft and its significance in the context of Indian military aviation.

Introduction to Orca Fighter Jet

The Orca Fighter Jet, developed indigenously by India's aerospace industry, represents a significant leap in technological prowess and defense capabilities. Designed to meet the diverse needs of modern warfare, this next-generation aircraft incorporates state-of-the-art features, advanced weaponry, and enhanced performance metrics, making it a formidable asset in India's defense arsenal.

Key Features and Capabilities

Stealth Technology: The Orca Fighter Jet integrates stealth technology to minimize radar detection and enhance survivability in hostile environments. Its low observable design, radar-absorbing materials, and reduced infrared signatures contribute to stealth capabilities, enabling strategic operations with reduced risk of detection.

Advanced Avionics: Equipped with cutting-edge avionics systems, the Orca Fighter Jet offers enhanced situational awareness, mission planning, and precision targeting capabilities. Its integrated sensor suite, including radar, electronic warfare systems, and communication modules, enables real-time data gathering and decision-making during combat scenarios.

Multirole Capabilities: Designed for multirole operations, the Orca Fighter Jet can perform a wide range of missions, including air superiority, ground attack, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare. Its adaptability and versatility make it suitable for various combat scenarios, from air-to-air engagements to precision strikes against enemy targets.

High Maneuverability: With advanced aerodynamics and propulsion systems, the Orca Fighter Jet exhibits exceptional maneuverability and agility in aerial combat. Its fly-by-wire controls, thrust vectoring capability, and high thrust-to-weight ratio enable dynamic maneuvering and superior performance in dogfights and tactical maneuvers.

Weapon Systems: The Orca Fighter Jet is equipped with a diverse array of advanced weapon systems, including air-to-air missiles, precision-guided munitions, standoff weapons, and integrated gun systems. These weapons, combined with the aircraft's targeting capabilities, ensure precise and effective engagement of targets across different ranges and threat environments.

Significance in Indian Military Aviation

Strategic Independence: The development and deployment of the Orca Fighter Jet signify India's commitment to enhancing self-reliance and indigenous defense capabilities. By leveraging domestic expertise and technology, India aims to reduce dependence on foreign imports and strengthen its strategic autonomy in military aviation.

Operational Flexibility: The Orca Fighter Jet enhances the Indian Air Force's (IAF) operational flexibility and combat readiness across diverse operational theaters. Its multirole capabilities, advanced technologies, and interoperability with existing platforms enable the IAF to respond effectively to evolving threats and security challenges.

Force Modernization: The introduction of the Orca Fighter Jet reflects India's ongoing efforts towards modernizing its armed forces and maintaining a credible deterrent against potential adversaries. By incorporating cutting-edge platforms like the Orca, India enhances its deterrence posture and defense preparedness in an increasingly complex security environment.

Technological Advancement: The Orca Fighter Jet represents a significant technological leap for Indian military aviation, showcasing the country's prowess in aerospace engineering, research, and development. Its advanced features, stealth capabilities, and integrated systems demonstrate India's ability to innovate and compete on the global stage of defense technology.

Strategic Defense Partnerships: The development of the Orca Fighter Jet also fosters strategic defense partnerships and collaboration between India's defense industry, research institutions, and international stakeholders. Collaborative ventures, technology transfers, and knowledge exchange contribute to mutual benefit, innovation, and capacity building in defense capabilities.

Future Prospects and Challenges

While the Orca Fighter Jet signifies a major milestone in Indian military aviation, its successful integration, operational readiness, and sustained maintenance pose ongoing challenges. Ensuring seamless interoperability with existing platforms, addressing logistical requirements, and maintaining technological superiority are key priorities for maximizing the Orca's potential in defense operations.

In conclusion, the Orca Fighter Jet stands as a testament to India's progress in aerospace technology, defense innovation, and strategic defense capabilities. Its advanced features, multirole capabilities, and significance in Indian military aviation underscore the country's commitment to self-reliance, operational excellence, and national security. As the Orca takes flight, it heralds a new era of indigenous defense prowess and contributes to shaping the future of India's defense landscape.

#Orca fighter jet #indian military aircraft

[todaysdg]

What are some challenges in implementing AI systems?

Implementing AI systems can present various challenges, including:

Data quality and quantity: AI systems heavily rely on data for training, testing, and fine-tuning. However, ensuring the data used is of high quality, representative, and sufficient in quantity can be challenging. Biases and inaccuracies in data can lead to biased or unreliable AI models.

Data privacy and security: Handling sensitive data raises concerns about privacy and security. AI systems may inadvertently expose personal or confidential information if proper measures are not in place to protect data throughout its lifecycle.

Interpretability and transparency: Many AI models, especially deep learning models, are often considered as black boxes, making it difficult to understand how they arrive at their decisions. Ensuring transparency and interpretability is crucial, particularly in high-stakes applications such as healthcare and finance.

Computational resources: Training complex AI models requires significant computational resources, including high-performance hardware like GPUs and TPUs. Managing these resources efficiently, especially for large-scale projects, can be challenging and costly.

Ethical considerations: AI systems can perpetuate or amplify existing societal biases present in the data used for training. Ensuring fairness, accountability, and transparency in AI systems requires careful consideration of ethical implications throughout the development and deployment process.

Regulatory compliance: Compliance with regulations such as GDPR, HIPAA, and others is essential when handling personal or sensitive data. Navigating the legal landscape and ensuring AI systems adhere to regulatory requirements can be complex and time-consuming.

Integration with existing systems: Integrating AI systems into existing infrastructure and workflows can be challenging, particularly in legacy systems or environments with diverse technologies. Compatibility issues, data format mismatches, and interoperability concerns may arise during integration efforts.

Human-AI collaboration: In many cases, AI systems are designed to augment human decision-making rather than replace it entirely. Ensuring effective collaboration between humans and AI systems, including providing meaningful explanations and interfaces for human interaction, poses its own set of challenges.

Robustness and reliability: AI systems may encounter unforeseen scenarios or adversarial attacks in real-world environments, leading to unexpected behavior or failures. Ensuring the robustness and reliability of AI systems against such challenges require thorough testing and validation procedures.

Continuous learning and adaptation: AI systems often need to adapt to evolving data distributions, changing environments, or user preferences over time. Implementing mechanisms for continuous learning and adaptation while avoiding performance degradation or drift poses a significant challenge.

Addressing these challenges requires a multidisciplinary approach, involving expertise in areas such as data science, computer science, ethics, law, and domain-specific knowledge relevant to the application context.

#ai #technology #ai art generator

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Forcing your computer to rat you out

Powerful people imprisoned by the cluelessness of their own isolation, locked up with their own motivated reasoning: “It’s impossible to get a CEO to understand something when his quarterly earnings call depends on him not understanding it.”

Take Mark Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg insists that anyone who wanted to use a pseudonym online is “two-faced,” engaged in dishonest social behavior. The Zuckerberg Doctrine claims that forcing people to use their own names is a way to ensure civility. This is an idea so radioactively wrong, it can be spotted from orbit.

From the very beginning, social scientists (both inside and outside Facebook) told Zuckerberg that he was wrong. People have lots of reasons to hide their identities online, both good and bad, but a Real Names Policy affects different people differently:

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/01/22/social-scientists-have-warned-zuck-all-along-that-the-facebook-theory-of-interaction-would-make-people-angry-and-miserable/

For marginalized and at-risk people, there are plenty of reasons to want to have more than one online identity — say, because you are a #MeToo whistleblower hoping that Harvey Weinstein won’t sic his ex-Mossad mercenaries on you:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/harvey-weinsteins-army-of-spies

Or maybe you’re a Rohingya Muslim hoping to avoid the genocidal attentions of the troll army that used Facebook to organize — under their real, legal names — to rape and murder you and everyone you love:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/

But even if no one is looking to destroy your life or kill you and your family, there are plenty of good reasons to present different facets of your identity to different people. No one talks to their lover, their boss and their toddler in exactly the same way, or reveals the same facts about their lives to those people. Maintaining different facets to your identity is normal and healthy — and the opposite, presenting the same face to everyone in your life, is a wildly terrible way to live.

None of this is controversial among social scientists, nor is it hard to grasp. But Zuckerberg stubbornly stuck to this anonymity-breeds-incivility doctrine, even as dictators used the fact that Facebook forced dissidents to use their real names to retain power through the threat (and reality) of arrest and torture:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/25/nationalize-moderna/#hun-sen

Why did Zuck cling to this dangerous and obvious fallacy? Because the more he could collapse your identity into one unitary whole, the better he could target you with ads. Truly, it is impossible to get a billionaire to understand something when his mega-yacht depends on his not understanding it.

This motivated reasoning ripples through all of Silicon Valley’s top brass, producing what Anil Dash calls “VC QAnon,” the collection of conspiratorial, debunked and absurd beliefs embraced by powerful people who hold the digital lives of billions of us in their quivering grasp:

https://www.anildash.com/2023/07/07/vc-qanon/

These fallacy-ridden autocrats like to disguise their demands as observations, as though wanting something to be true was the same as making it true. Think of when Eric Schmidt — then the CEO of Google — dismissed online privacy concerns, stating “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place”:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-dismisses-privacy

Schmidt was echoing the sentiments of his old co-conspirator, Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy: “You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it”:

https://www.wired.com/1999/01/sun-on-privacy-get-over-it/

Both men knew better. Schmidt, in particular, is very jealous of his own privacy. When Cnet reporters used Google to uncover and publish public (but intimate and personal) facts about Schmidt, Schmidt ordered Google PR to ignore all future requests for comment from Cnet reporters:

https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/how-cnet-got-banned-by-google/

(Like everything else he does, Elon Musk’s policy of responding to media questions about Twitter with a poop emoji is just him copying things other people thought up, making them worse, and taking credit for them:)

https://www.theverge.com/23815634/tesla-elon-musk-origin-founder-twitter-land-of-the-giants

Schmidt’s actions do not reflect an attitude of “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” Rather, they are the normal response that we all have to getting doxed.

When Schmidt and McNealy and Zuck tell us that we don’t have privacy, or we don’t want privacy, or that privacy is bad for us, they’re disguising a demand as an observation. “Privacy is dead” actually means, “When privacy is dead, I will be richer than you can imagine, so stop trying to save it, goddamnit.”

We are all prone to believing our own bullshit, but when a tech baron gets high on his own supply, his mental contortions have broad implications for all of us. A couple years after Schmidt’s anti-privacy manifesto, Google launched Google Plus, a social network where everyone was required to use their “real name.”

This decision — justified as a means of ensuring civility and a transparent ruse to improve ad targeting — kicked off the Nym Wars:

https://epeus.blogspot.com/2011/08/google-plus-must-stop-this-identity.html

One of the best documents to come out of that ugly conflict is “Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names,” a profound and surprising enumeration of all the ways that the experiences of tech bros in Silicon Valley are the real edge-cases, unreflective of the reality of billions of their users:

https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/

This, in turn, spawned a whole genre of programmer-fallacy catalogs, falsehoods programmers believe about time, currency, birthdays, timezones, email addresses, national borders, nations, biometrics, gender, language, alphabets, phone numbers, addresses, systems of measurement, and, of course, families:

https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood

But humility is in short supply in tech. It’s impossible to get a programmer to understand something when their boss requires them not to understand it. A programmer will happily insist that ordering you to remove your “mask” is for your own good — and not even notice that they’re taking your skin off with it.

There are so many ways that tech executives could improve their profits if only we would abandon our stubborn attachment to being so goddamned complicated. Think of Netflix and its anti-passsword-sharing holy war, which is really a demand that we redefine “family” to be legible and profitable for Netflix:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/02/nonbinary-families/#red-envelopes

But despite the entreaties of tech companies to collapse our identities, our families, and our online lives into streamlined, computably hard-edged shapes that fit neatly into their database structures, we continue to live fuzzy, complicated lives that only glancingly resemble those of the executives seeking to shape them.

Now, the rich, powerful people making these demands don’t plan on being constrained by them. They are conservatives, in the tradition of #FrankWilhoit, believers in a system of “in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect”:

https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288

As with Schmidt’s desire to spy on you from asshole to appetite for his own personal gain, and his violent aversion to having his own personal life made public, the tech millionaires and billionaires who made their fortune from the flexibility of general purpose computers would like to end that flexibility. They insist that the time for general purpose computers has passed, and that today, “consumers” crave the simplicity of appliances:

https://memex.craphound.com/2012/01/10/lockdown-the-coming-war-on-general-purpose-computing/

It is in the War On General Purpose Computing that we find the cheapest and flimsiest rhetoric. Companies like Apple — and their apologists — insist that no one wants to use third-party app stores, or seek out independent repair depots — and then spend millions to make sure that it’s illegal to jailbreak your phone or get it fixed outside of their own official channel:

https://doctorow.medium.com/apples-cement-overshoes-329856288d13

The cognitive dissonance of “no one wants this,” and “we must make it illegal to get this” is powerful, but the motivated reasoning is more powerful still. It is impossible to get Tim Cook to understand something when his $49 million paycheck depends on him not understanding it.

The War on General Purpose Computing has been underway for decades. Computers, like the people who use them, stubbornly insist on being reality-based, and the reality of computers is that they are general purpose. Every computer is a Turing complete, universal Von Neumann machine, which means that it can run every valid program. There is no way to get a computer to be almost Turing Complete, only capable of running programs that don’t upset your shareholders’ fragile emotional state.

There is no such thing as a printer that will only run the “reject third-party ink” program. There is no such thing as a phone that will only run the “reject third-party apps” program. There are only laws, like the Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that make writing and distributing those programs a felony punishable by a five-year prison sentence and a $500,000 fine (for a first offense).

That is to say, the War On General Purpose Computing is only incidentally a technical fight: it is primarily a legal fight. When Apple says, “You can’t install a third party app store on your phone,” what they means is, “it’s illegal to install that third party app store.” It’s not a technical countermeasure that stands between you and technological self-determination, it’s a legal doctrine we can call “felony contempt of business model”:

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

But the mighty US government will not step in to protect a company’s business model unless it at least gestures towards the technical. To invoke DMCA 1201, a company must first add the thinnest skin of digital rights management to their product. Since 1201 makes removing DRM illegal, a company can use this molecule-thick scrim of DRM to felonize any activity that the DRM prevents.

More than 20 years ago, technologists started to tinker with ways to combine the legal and technical to tame the wild general purpose computer. Starting with Microsoft’s Palladium project, they theorized a new “Secure Computing” model for allowing companies to reach into your computer long after you had paid for it and brought it home, in order to discipline you for using it in ways that undermined its shareholders’ interest.

Secure Computing began with the idea of shipping every computer with two CPUs. The first one was the normal CPU, the one you interacted with when you booted it up, loaded your OS, and ran programs. The second CPU would be a Trusted Platform Module, a brute-simple system-on-a-chip designed to be off-limits to modification, even by its owner (that is, you).

The TPM would ship with a limited suite of simple programs it could run, each thoroughly audited for bugs, as well as secret cryptographic signing keys that you were not permitted to extract. The original plan called for some truly exotic physical security measures for that TPM, like an acid-filled cavity that would melt the chip if you tried to decap it or run it through an electron-tunneling microscope:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/12/05/trusting-trust/#thompsons-devil

This second computer represented a crack in the otherwise perfectly smooth wall of a computer’s general purposeness; and Trusted Computing proposed to hammer a piton into that crack and use it to anchor a whole superstructure that could observe — and limited — the activity of your computer.

This would start with observation: the TPM would observe every step of your computer’s boot sequence, creating cryptographic hashes of each block of code as it loaded and executed. Each stage of the boot-up could be compared to “known good” versions of those programs. If your computer did something unexpected, the TPM could halt it in its tracks, blocking the boot cycle.

What kind of unexpected things do computers do during their boot cycle? Well, if your computer is infected with malware, it might load poisoned versions of its operating system. Once your OS is poisoned, it’s very hard to detect its malicious conduct, since normal antivirus programs rely on the OS to faithfully report what your computer is doing. When the AV program asks the OS to tell it which programs are running, or which files are on the drive, it has no choice but to trust the OS’s response. When the OS is compromised, it can feed a stream of lies to users’ programs, assuring these apps that everything is fine.

That’s a very beneficial use for a TPM, but there’s a sinister flipside: the TPM can also watch your boot sequence to make sure that there aren’t beneficial modifications present in your operating system. If you modify your OS to let you do things the manufacturer wants to prevent — like loading apps from a third-party app-store — the TPM can spot this and block it.

Now, these beneficial and sinister uses can be teased apart. When the Palladium team first presented its research, my colleague Seth Schoen proposed an “owner override”: a modification of Trusted Computing that would let the computer’s owner override the TPM:

https://web.archive.org/web/20021004125515/http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/2002-07-05.html

This override would introduce its own risks, of course. A user who was tricked into overriding the TPM might expose themselves to malicious software, which could harm that user, as well as attacking other computers on the user’s network and the other users whose data were on the compromised computer’s drive.

But an override would also provide serious benefits: it would rule out the monopolistic abuse of a TPM to force users to run malicious code that the manufacturer insisted on — code that prevented the user from doing things that benefited the user, even if it harmed the manufacturer’s shareholders. For example, with owner override, Microsoft couldn’t force you to use its official MS Office programs rather than third-party compatible programs like Apple’s iWork or Google Docs or LibreOffice.

Owner override also completely changed the calculus for another, even more dangerous part of Trusted Computing: remote attestation.

Remote Attestation is a way for third parties to request a reliable, cryptographically secured assurances about which operating system and programs your computer is running. In Remote Attestation, the TPM in your computer observes every stage of your computer’s boot, gathers information about all the programs you’re running, and cryptographically signs them, using the signing keys the manufacturer installed during fabrication.

You can send this “attestation” to other people on the internet. If they trust that your computer’s TPM is truly secure, then they know that you have sent them a true picture of your computer’s working (the actual protocol is a little more complicated and involves the remote party sending you a random number to cryptographically hash with the attestation, to prevent out-of-date attestations).

Now, this is also potentially beneficial. If you want to make sure that your technologically unsophisticated friend is running an uncompromised computer before you transmit sensitive data to it, you can ask them for an attestation that will tell you whether they’ve been infected with malware.

But it’s also potentially very sinister. Your government can require all the computers in its borders to send a daily attestation to confirm that you’re still running the mandatory spyware. Your abusive spouse — or abusive boss — can do the same for their own disciplinary technologies. Such a tool could prevent you from connecting to a service using a VPN, and make it impossible to use Tor Browser to protect your privacy when interacting with someone who wishes you harm.

The thing is, it’s completely normal and good for computers to lie to other computers on behalf of their owners. Like, if your IoT ebike’s manufacturer goes out of business and all their bikes get bricked because they can no longer talk to their servers, you can run an app that tricks the bike into thinking that it’s still talking to the mothership:

https://nltimes.nl/2023/07/15/alternative-app-can-unlock-vanmoof-bikes-popular-amid-bankruptcy-fears

Or if you’re connecting to a webserver that tries to track you by fingerprinting you based on your computer’s RAM, screen size, fonts, etc, you can order your browser to send random data about this stuff:

https://jshelter.org/fingerprinting/

Or if you’re connecting to a site that wants to track you and nonconsensually cram ads into your eyeballs, you can run an adblocker that doesn’t show you the ads, but tells the site that it did:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/07/adblocking-how-about-nah

Owner override leaves some of the beneficial uses of remote attestation intact. If you’re asking a friend to remotely confirm that your computer is secure, you’re not going to use an override to send them bad data about about your computer’s configuration.

And owner override also sweeps all of the malicious uses of remote attestation off the board. With owner override, you can tell any lie about your computer to a webserver, a site, your boss, your abusive spouse, or your government, and they can’t spot the lie.

But owner override also eliminates some beneficial uses of remote attestation. For example, owner override rules out remote attestation as a way for strangers to play multiplayer video games while confirming that none of them are using cheat programs (like aimhack). It also means that you can’t use remote attestation to verify the configuration of a cloud server you’re renting in order to assure yourself that it’s not stealing your data or serving malware to your users.

This is a tradeoff, and it’s a tradeoff that’s similar to lots of other tradeoffs we make online, between the freedom to do something good and the freedom to do something bad. Participating anonymously, contributing to free software, distributing penetration testing tools, or providing a speech platform that’s open to the public all represent the same tradeoff.

We have lots of experience with making the tradeoff in favor of restrictions rather than freedom: powerful bad actors are happy to attach their names to their cruel speech and incitement to violence. Their victims are silenced for fear of that retaliation.

When we tell security researchers they can’t disclose defects in software without the manufacturer’s permission, the manufacturers use this as a club to silence their critics, not as a way to ensure orderly updates.

When we let corporations decide who is allowed to speak, they act with a mixture of carelessness and self-interest, becoming off-the-books deputies of authoritarian regimes and corrupt, powerful elites.

Alas, we made the wrong tradeoff with Trusted Computing. For the past twenty years, Trusted Computing has been creeping into our devices, albeit in somewhat denatured form. The original vision of acid-filled secondary processors has been replaced with less exotic (and expensive) alternatives, like “secure enclaves.” With a secure enclave, the manufacturer saves on the expense of installing a whole second computer, and instead, they draw a notional rectangle around a region of your computer’s main chip and try really hard to make sure that it can only perform a very constrained set of tasks.

This gives us the worst of all worlds. When secure enclaves are compromised, we not only lose the benefit of cryptographic certainty, knowing for sure that our computers are only booting up trusted, unalterted versions of the OS, but those compromised enclaves run malicious software that is essentially impossible to detect or remove:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/07/28/descartes-was-an-optimist/#uh-oh

But while Trusted Computing has wormed its way into boot-restrictions — preventing you from jailbreaking your computer so it will run the OS and apps of your choosing — there’s been very little work on remote attestation…until now.

Web Environment Integrity is Google’s proposal to integrate remote attestation into everyday web-browsing. The idea is to allow web-servers to verify what OS, extensions, browser, and add-ons your computer is using before the server will communicate with you:

https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md

Even by the thin standards of the remote attestation imaginaries, there are precious few beneficial uses for this. The googlers behind the proposal have a couple of laughable suggestions, like, maybe if ad-supported sites can comprehensively refuse to serve ad-blocking browsers, they will invest the extra profits in making things you like. Or: letting websites block scriptable browsers will make it harder for bad people to auto-post fake reviews and comments, giving users more assurances about the products they buy.

But foundationally, WEI is about compelling you to disclose true facts about yourself to people who you want to keep those facts from. It is a Real Names Policy for your browser. Google wants to add a new capability to the internet: the ability of people who have the power to force you to tell them things to know for sure that you’re not lying.

The fact that the authors assume this will be beneficial is just another “falsehood programmers believe”: there is no good reason to hide the truth from other people. Squint a little and we’re back to McNealy’s “Privacy is dead, get over it.” Or Schmidt’s “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”

And like those men, the programmers behind this harebrained scheme don’t imagine that it will ever apply to them. As Chris Palmer — who worked on Chromium — points out, this is not compatible with normal developer tools or debuggers, which are “incalculably valuable and not really negotiable”:

https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/Ux5h_kGO22g/m/5Lt5cnkLCwAJ

This proposal is still obscure in the mainstream, but in tech circles, it has precipitated a flood of righteous fury:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/07/googles-web-integrity-api-sounds-like-drm-for-the-web/

As I wrote last week, giving manufacturers the power to decide how your computer is configured, overriding your own choices, is a bad tradeoff — the worst tradeoff, a greased slide into terminal enshittification:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/#kitt-is-a-demon

This is how you get Unauthorized Bread:

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/unauthorized-bread-a-near-future-tale-of-refugees-and-sinister-iot-appliances/

All of which leads to the question: what now? What should be done about WEI and remote attestation?

Let me start by saying: I don’t think it should be illegal for programmers to design and release these tools. Code is speech, and we can’t understand how this stuff works if we can’t study it.

But programmers shouldn’t deploy it in production code, in the same way that programmers should be allowed to make pen-testing tools, but shouldn’t use them to attack production systems and harm their users. Programmers who do this should be criticized and excluded from the society of their ethical, user-respecting peers.

Corporations that use remote attestation should face legal restrictions: privacy law should prevent the use of remote attestation to compel the production of true facts about users or the exclusion of users who refuse to produce those facts. Unfair competition law should prevent companies from using remote attestation to block interoperability or tie their products to related products and services.

Finally, we must withdraw the laws that prevent users and programmers from overriding TPMs, secure enclaves and remote attestations. You should have the right to study and modify your computer to produce false attestations, or run any code of your choosing. Felony contempt of business model is an outrage. We should alter or strike down DMCA 1201, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and other laws (like contract law’s “tortious interference”) that stand between you and “sole and despotic dominion” over your own computer. All of that applies not just to users who want to reconfigure their own computers, but also toolsmiths who want to help them do so, by offering information, code, products or services to jailbreak and alter your devices.

Tech giants will squeal at this, insisting that they serve your interests when they prevent rivals from opening up their products. After all, those rivals might be bad guys who want to hurt you. That’s 100% true. What is likewise true is that no tech giant will defend you from its own bad impulses, and if you can’t alter your device, you are powerless to stop them:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar

Companies should be stopped from harming you, but the right place to decide whether a business is doing something nefarious isn’t in the boardroom of that company’s chief competitor: it’s in the halls of democratically accountable governments:

https://www.eff.org/wp/interoperability-and-privacy

So how do we get there? Well, that’s another matter. In my next book, The Internet Con: How to Seize the Means of Computation (Verso Books, Sept 5), I lay out a detailed program, describing which policies will disenshittify the internet, and how to get those policies:

https://www.versobooks.com/products/3035-the-internet-con

Predictably, there are challenges getting this kind of book out into the world via our concentrated tech sector. Amazon refuses to carry the audio edition on its monopoly audiobook platform, Audible, unless it is locked to Amazon forever with mandatory DRM. That’s left me self-financing my own DRM-free audio edition, which is currently available for pre-order via this Kickstarter:

http://seizethemeansofcomputation.org

I’m kickstarting the audiobook for “The Internet Con: How To Seize the Means of Computation,” a Big Tech disassembly manual to disenshittify the web and bring back the old, good internet. It’s a DRM-free book, which means Audible won’t carry it, so this crowdfunder is essential. Back now to get the audio, Verso hardcover and ebook:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/doctorow/the-internet-con-how-to-seize-the-means-of-computation

If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/02/self-incrimination/#wei-bai-bai

[Image ID: An anatomical drawing of a flayed human head; it has been altered to give it a wide-stretched mouth revealing a gadget nestled in the back of the figure's throat, connected by a probe whose two coiled wires stretch to an old fashioned electronic box. The head's eyes have been replaced by the red, menacing eye of HAL 9000 from Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey.' Behind the head is a code waterfall effect as seen in the credits of the Wachowskis' 'The Matrix.']

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

#pluralistic #chaffing #spoofing #remote attestation #rene descartes #adversarial interoperability #war on general purpose computing #canvas attacks #vpns #compelled speech #onion routing #owner override #stalkerware #ngscb #palladium #trusted computing #secure enclaves #tor #interop #net neutrality #taking the fifth #right to remain silent #real names policy #the zuckerberg doctrine #none of your business #the right to lie #right to repair #bossware #spyware #wei web environment integrity

[ubaid214]

Demystifying 3D Information Formation: Ideas and Tips for Novices

In an increasingly digitized world, the demand for immersive experiences and energetic visualizations has forced 3D information development to the forefront of technological innovation. From architects developing buildings to researchers visualizing complex datasets, the applications of 3D information generation are vast and multifaceted. In this information, we delve to the particulars of 3D data creation, exploring its practices, tools, and transformative possible across different industries.

Knowledge 3D Knowledge Generation

At their key, 3D information development requires the conversion of organic data into three-dimensional types or visualizations. This method often starts with information purchase, where information is collected through various indicates such as receptors, scanners, or simulations. Subsequently, the acquired information is refined and manipulated using particular computer software to generate 3D versions that correctly symbolize the main information.

Methods and Techniques

Many methods and techniques are employed in 3D knowledge formation, each designed to specific demands and applications. Photogrammetry, as an example, involves recording numerous pictures of an object or atmosphere from various perspectives and using computer software to reconstruct a 3D product based on the aesthetic data. Similarly, LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) engineering employs laser impulses to calculate distances and build step-by-step 3D representations of areas and landscapes.

In addition to these practices, breakthroughs in unit understanding and synthetic intelligence have enabled the growth of innovative techniques to 3D data creation. Generative adversarial communities (GANs), for example, can generate realistic 3D models by learning from big datasets, while voxel-based methods allow for the creation of volumetric representations suited to medical imaging and simulation. 3Dデータ作成

Tools and Computer software

Various instruments and application packages can be found to facilitate 3D data formation, catering to varied person demands and ability levels. Industry-standard software such as for instance Autodesk Maya, Mixer, and Theatre 4D present detailed fits of resources for modeling, building, texturing, and rendering 3D assets. Meanwhile, specific application like Agisoft Metashape and Pix4D focus on the precise needs of experts in fields such as archaeology, surveying, and geospatial mapping.

Programs Across Industries

The applications of 3D data creation span across numerous industries, operating creativity and performance in fields ranging from entertainment and gaming to engineering and healthcare. In structure and construction, 3D modeling enables architects and designers to visualize building designs in a realistic manner, facilitating greater connection and decision-making throughout the style process.

Equally, in the world of healthcare, 3D information generation plays a essential role in medical imaging, medical planning, and prosthetic design. By transforming medical scans into 3D designs, doctors can get useful insights into patient structure, ultimately causing more exact diagnoses and individualized treatment plans.

Issues and Potential Recommendations

Despite their major potential, 3D data creation is not without its challenges. From knowledge acquisition and control bottlenecks to interoperability dilemmas between various pc software platforms, practitioners face numerous hurdles in recognizing the full potential of 3D data.

Seeking ahead, continuous improvements in hardware and pc software systems are positioned to handle a number of these difficulties, paving just how for even more advanced applications of 3D information creation. From real-time rendering and electronic fact experiences to generative style and electronic twins, the future of 3D data creation holds boundless possibilities, shaping the way we interact with and interpret information in the digital age.

Conclusion

In summary, 3D data creation represents a convergence of art and research, offering a strong way of visualizing and understanding complex data in three-dimensional space. As technology remains to evolve, therefore also may the programs and functions of 3D knowledge development, unlocking new realms of creativity and development across industries. Whether it's developing virtual sides, simulating bodily phenomena, or discovering the mysteries of the body, the journey of 3D knowledge development is one of endless exploration and discovery.

[fromjasonxp]

Pluralistic: My McLuhan lecture on enshittification (30 Jan 2024) – Cory Doctorow

But every pirate wants to be an admiral. When Facebook, Apple and Google were doing this adversarial interoperability, that was progress. If you try to do it to them, that’s piracy.

[thxnews]

AUKUS Advances AI and Autonomy in Defense Collaboration

A Leap Towards Technological Superiority

The UK's Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) and the armed forces, in a groundbreaking collaboration with Australia and the United States, have taken significant strides in the AUKUS trial held in Australia. This trial not only underscores a collective commitment but also signifies a shared determination to harness artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous systems. Moreover, it promises to redefine the future of military operations, marking a transformative moment in the field of defense technology and cooperation among the three nations.  

The Essence of the TORVICE Trial

Addressing Vulnerabilities in Robotic Warfare The AUKUS Trusted Operation of Robotic Vehicles in Contested Environments (TORVICE) trial represents a critical step. Moreover, it is a crucial step toward identifying and mitigating vulnerabilities that affect the operational reliability of robotic vehicles and sensors. By gaining a deeper understanding of these challenges, the AUKUS nations aim to enhance the effectiveness of autonomous systems in future missions. This initiative underscores the commitment to advancing technological solutions for more secure and efficient military operations.   A Path to Integration Following the inaugural AUKUS AI and autonomy trial in the UK in April 2023, defense ministers announced plans to integrate Resilient and Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Technologies (RAAIT) into national programs by 2024. The TORVICE trial is a pivotal move towards actualizing this vision, particularly in the land domain.  

Trial Highlights

Tested Under Fire In a series of missions, autonomous vehicles from the US and UK demonstrated their capabilities under various adversarial conditions simulated by Australia. This included electronic warfare, laser attacks, and GPS disruptions. The outcomes are expected to bolster the resilience of AUKUS AI and autonomy systems against modern battlefield threats. Expert Insights Guy Powell, Dstl’s technical authority for the trial, emphasized the importance of understanding the robustness of robotic and autonomous systems in contested environments. Similarly, Dstl military advisor, Lt Col Russ Atherton, highlighted the transformative potential of these technologies in expanding operational capabilities and ensuring an operational advantage.  

A Tri-Nation Endeavor for Superiority

Enhancing Interoperability and Innovation This tri-nation collaboration facilitates access to resilient AI and autonomy technologies. Furthermore, it streamlines efforts and leverages collective scientific and technological expertise. The TORVICE AI trial is a testament to AUKUS's commitment, highlighting its dedication to improving interoperability and fostering innovation across the defense sector. In essence, this initiative underscores the alliance's drive to enhance its defense capabilities through collaborative endeavors and advanced technology adoption.   Security and Stability in the Indo-Pacific AUKUS stands as a landmark defense and security partnership aimed at bolstering security and stability in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond. Through initiatives like the TORVICE trial, the partnership seeks to ensure that allied forces remain equipped to face rapidly evolving threats, adhering to international law while promoting the safe and responsible use of AI.   Looking Forward to Implications and Impact The successful execution of the TORVICE trial marks a significant milestone in the AUKUS partnership's journey. Moreover, it represents a pivotal step toward integrating cutting-edge military technologies. By accelerating the development and deployment of AI and autonomous systems, AUKUS nations are poised to achieve a substantial enhancement in coalition military capabilities. This not only reduces risks to warfighters but also ensures a technological edge in the face of evolving global security challenges. In essence, TORVICE exemplifies the collaborative effort to strengthen military readiness and innovation within the alliance.   Sources: THX News & Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. Read the full article

#AIindefense #AUKUSAItrials #AUKUScollaboration #autonomousmilitarysystems #defenseinteroperability #Dstlinnovation #Indo-Pacificsecurity #militarytechnologyadvancements #roboticwarfareresilience #TORVICEtrial

[militaryleak]

Northrop Grumman’s Distributed Mission Operations Network Ensures Mission Readiness Through Virtual Training Event

Northrop Grumman Corporation’s Distributed Mission Operations Network (DMON) enabled the Combat Air Force (CAF) Distributed Training Center (DTC) at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to successfully execute a large-force, virtual training event. DMON Argonne 23 provided training against peer adversaries in a complex, multi-domain threat scenario using networked aircraft simulators. DMON delivers secure connectivity and network interoperability between unique simulator platforms across the globe, allowing aircrews to train together in a high-fidelity virtual environment.

Northrop Grumman Corporation’s Distributed Mission Operations Network (DMON) enabled the Combat Air Force (CAF) Distributed Training Center (DTC) at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to successfully execute a large-force, virtual training event. DMON Argonne 23 provided training against peer adversaries in a complex, multi-domain threat scenario using networked aircraft simulators. DMON delivers…

View On WordPress

[emily0976]

Unveiling the Pinnacle of Aeronautical Excellence: The Best Fighter Aircraft in the World

Soaring through the skies, cutting through the air with unparalleled agility and precision, fighter aircraft stand as the epitome of technological prowess in the realm of aviation. In the competitive landscape of military aviation, nations strive to possess the best fighter aircraft, a symbol of their commitment to national defense. Join us on a journey as we unravel the marvels of the sky, exploring the top contenders for the title of the best fighter aircraft in the world.

The Evolution of Aerial Dominance

The quest for air superiority has been a driving force behind the continuous evolution of fighter aircraft. From the early days of dogfights in World War I to the cutting-edge technology of today, these flying machines have come a long way. Modern fighter jets are not just weapons; they are feats of engineering, combining speed, stealth, and firepower to establish dominance in the skies.

1. Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II: Mastering Versatility

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II stands tall as a testament to the capabilities of 21st-century aviation. Designed with versatility in mind, the F-35 is a multi-role fighter that can seamlessly transition between air-to-air combat, ground attack, and reconnaissance missions. Its advanced avionics, stealth technology, and interoperability make it a force to be reckoned with on the global stage.

2. Sukhoi Su-35: The Russian Bear's Roar

Hailing from Russia, the Sukhoi Su-35 has earned its place among the best fighter aircraft globally. With its supermaneuverability and state-of-the-art avionics, the Su-35 boasts an impressive air-to-air combat capability. Its combination of speed, range, and advanced sensors make it a formidable adversary in any aerial engagement.

3. Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: Naval Supremacy

Designed for carrier-based operations, the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a stalwart defender of naval forces. Its ability to take off and land on aircraft carriers, coupled with its potent air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities, makes it a linchpin in modern naval aviation. The Super Hornet is renowned for its adaptability and has undergone continuous upgrades to maintain its cutting-edge status.

4. Eurofighter Typhoon: A European Powerhouse

A collaborative effort between several European nations, the Eurofighter Typhoon exemplifies the strength of international partnerships in the field of military aviation. With its agile design, advanced radar systems, and impressive combat capabilities, the Typhoon is a stalwart defender of European skies. Its success in both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions cements its position as one of the best fighter aircraft in the world.

5. Chengdu J-20: China's Stealthy Pioneer

As China emerges as a major player in the global arms race, the Chengdu J-20 takes center stage as a symbol of the nation's technological prowess. This fifth-generation stealth fighter is designed to penetrate enemy air defenses with ease, boasting advanced avionics and a sleek, radar-evading design. The J-20 is a testament to China's commitment to achieving air superiority in the modern era.

6. Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider: The Future Stealth Bomber

While not a traditional fighter jet, the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider deserves mention for its role in shaping the future of aerial warfare. As a long-range strategic bomber, the B-21 Raider is designed to operate in contested airspace, delivering precision strikes with unmatched stealth. Its development marks a shift towards incorporating advanced technology and stealth capabilities in strategic bombers.

The Criteria for Greatness

Determining the "best" fighter aircraft involves evaluating various factors, including speed, range, agility, stealth, and the ability to carry a diverse range of weapons. Additionally, a fighter's effectiveness in electronic warfare, its avionics suite, and its compatibility with allied systems play crucial roles in defining its overall capabilities.

The Future Horizon: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)

Looking ahead, the landscape of military aviation is set to undergo a significant transformation with the rise of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). These autonomous flying machines, often referred to as drones, are changing the dynamics of air combat. As nations invest in developing and deploying UAVs with advanced artificial intelligence, the definition of the "best" fighter aircraft may evolve to include unmanned counterparts.

Conclusion: A Sky Full of Marvels

In the ever-evolving world of military aviation, the quest for the best fighter aircraft remains a dynamic and competitive endeavor. From the iconic F-35 Lightning II to the stealthy Chengdu J-20, each aircraft brings its own set of strengths to the table. As technology continues to advance, the future promises even more awe-inspiring innovations in the realm of aerial dominance. The skies above, once ruled by propellers and pistons, are now a playground for cutting-edge engineering and technological marvels. In this relentless pursuit of excellence, nations strive to secure their positions in the air, unveiling aircraft that not only defend borders but also push the boundaries of what is possible in the vast expanse above.

#aircraft #fighter aircraft