A pilotless U.S. drone fired two missiles into a Taliban communication center in an ethnic Pashtun tribal region on the Afghan border, killing five militants, intelligence officials said Saturday.
The attack on the center run by Baitullah Mehsud, Pakistani Taliban chief and an al Qaeda ally, took place late Friday in the South Waziristan region.
Here are some facts about the U.S. missile attacks, the controversy they have caused, and a list of some of the more prominent militants killed, according to Pakistani officials.
WHY DOES THE UNITED STATES ATTACK?
Many al Qaeda members and Taliban fled to northwestern Pakistan's ungoverned ethnic Pashtun belt after U.S.-led soldiers ousted Afghanistan's Taliban government in 2001. From their sanctuaries there the militants have orchestrated insurgencies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United States and Afghanistan have pressed Pakistan to eliminate the sanctuaries. Apparently frustrated by Pakistan's inability to do so, the United States is hitting the militants itself.
HOW MANY ATTACKS?
The United States has carried out about 48 drone air strikes since the beginning of last year, most since September, killing about 465 people, including many foreign militants, according to a tally of reports from Pakistani intelligence agents, district government officials and residents.
SOME OF THE PEOPLE REPORTED KILLED
January 28, 2008 - A senior al Qaeda member, Abu Laith al-Libi, was killed in a strike in North Waziristan.
July 28 - An al Qaeda chemical and biological weapons expert, Abu Khabab al-Masri, was killed in South Waziristan.
November 22 - Rashid Rauf, a Briton with al Qaeda links and the suspected ringleader of a 2006 plot to blow up airliners over the Atlantic, was killed in an attack in North Waziristan. An Egyptian named as Abu Zubair al-Masri was said to be among the dead in the same attack.
January 1, 2009 - A U.S. drone killed three foreign fighters in South Waziristan, Pakistani agents said. A week later, a U.S. counter-terrorism official said al Qaeda's operational chief Usama al-Kini and an aide had been killed in South Waziristan. The U.S. official declined to say how or when they died.
WHERE ARE THE DRONES LAUNCHED FROM?
A senior U.S. lawmaker, Senator Dianne Feinstein, told a U.S. Senate hearing in February that drones were being operated and flown from an air base inside Pakistan. Pakistan denied that, saying there was no permission for the strikes, nor had there ever been.
U.S. POSITION?
The United States has shrugged off Pakistani protests. It says the missile strikes are carried out under an agreement with Islamabad which allows Pakistani leaders to decry the attacks in public.
U.S. officials also say the United States has been giving Pakistan data on militants in the Afghan border area gathered by surveillance drones in Pakistani airspace under an agreement with Pakistan.
PAKISTAN'S POSITION?
Although the army is preparing an offensive against Mehsud, Pakistan officially objects to the drone strikes, saying they violate its sovereignty and undermine efforts to deal with militancy because they inflame public anger and bolster support for the fighters.
Pakistan denies that the drone attacks are carried out under a secret agreement. It also denies any agreement under which it gets data from U.S. surveillance drones. Pakistan has pressed the United States to provide it with drones to allow it to conduct its own anti-militant operations.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
French FM meets Hizbullah legislator
France's foreign minister held talks Friday with a Hizbullah legislator in the latest European outreach to the Iranian-backed terror group.
The European Union and Britain have also sought to engage the Shi'ite organization in recent months in an effort to encourage the group to abandon violence and play a constructive political role in the deeply divided country. The United States, however, shuns Hizbullah, which it considers a terrorist organization.
Hizbullah suffered a setback in Lebanon's June 7 parliamentary election at the hands of a Western-backed coalition that held onto a majority in the legislature.
The prime minister-designate, Saad Hariri, however, is trying to form a government that could include Hizbullah and its partners, though some of Hariri's allies are vowing to strip Hizbullah of the veto power it had in the outgoing government.
Hizbullah had negotiated the power to veto government decisions after Shi'ite gunmen overran Sunni neighborhoods in Beirut in May 2008.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner discussed the efforts to form a new government in his meeting with Hizbullah lawmaker Nawaf Musawi and in separate meetings with senior Lebanese officials.
Kouchner defended the meeting.
"Hizbullah is part of the parties that participated in the recent parliamentary elections. It is natural to meet with its representatives," Kouchner told reporters.
Last month, the European Union's foreign affairs chief, Javier Solana, held talks in Beirut with another Hizbullah legislator in the first meeting between a senior EU diplomat and an official from the militant group.
On Thursday, visiting British lawmakers met with the head of Hizbullah's 12-member bloc in parliament, Mohammed Raad.
Britain's Foreign Office announced in March that it had contacted Hizbullah's political wing in an attempt to reach out to its legislators. It said its ultimate aim was to encourage the group to turn away from violence and become a positive force in Lebanon's politics.
During Friday's meeting, Musawi said he briefed Kouchner on what he said were Israel's almost daily military flights over Lebanon in breach of a UN resolution that ended the Second Lebanon War.
He also spoke of the alleged Israeli spy networks in Lebanon. Lebanese authorities have arrested about 100 people suspected of spying for or collaborating with Israel in recent weeks.
Kouchner is to visit neighboring Syria on Saturday.
The European Union and Britain have also sought to engage the Shi'ite organization in recent months in an effort to encourage the group to abandon violence and play a constructive political role in the deeply divided country. The United States, however, shuns Hizbullah, which it considers a terrorist organization.
Hizbullah suffered a setback in Lebanon's June 7 parliamentary election at the hands of a Western-backed coalition that held onto a majority in the legislature.
The prime minister-designate, Saad Hariri, however, is trying to form a government that could include Hizbullah and its partners, though some of Hariri's allies are vowing to strip Hizbullah of the veto power it had in the outgoing government.
Hizbullah had negotiated the power to veto government decisions after Shi'ite gunmen overran Sunni neighborhoods in Beirut in May 2008.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner discussed the efforts to form a new government in his meeting with Hizbullah lawmaker Nawaf Musawi and in separate meetings with senior Lebanese officials.
Kouchner defended the meeting.
"Hizbullah is part of the parties that participated in the recent parliamentary elections. It is natural to meet with its representatives," Kouchner told reporters.
Last month, the European Union's foreign affairs chief, Javier Solana, held talks in Beirut with another Hizbullah legislator in the first meeting between a senior EU diplomat and an official from the militant group.
On Thursday, visiting British lawmakers met with the head of Hizbullah's 12-member bloc in parliament, Mohammed Raad.
Britain's Foreign Office announced in March that it had contacted Hizbullah's political wing in an attempt to reach out to its legislators. It said its ultimate aim was to encourage the group to turn away from violence and become a positive force in Lebanon's politics.
During Friday's meeting, Musawi said he briefed Kouchner on what he said were Israel's almost daily military flights over Lebanon in breach of a UN resolution that ended the Second Lebanon War.
He also spoke of the alleged Israeli spy networks in Lebanon. Lebanese authorities have arrested about 100 people suspected of spying for or collaborating with Israel in recent weeks.
Kouchner is to visit neighboring Syria on Saturday.
Biden and the Iran Attack Scenario by Amir Taheri
Until even a month ago, few thought about it, but most believed it to be unthinkable.
Now, however, many seem to be thinking about it and none seem to consider it unthinkable.
The “it” in question is the idea of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear installations.
Last weekend, US Vice President Joseph Biden pushed it into the headlines by announcing, in effect, that Washington would have no objection if Israel did just that.
Biden’s remarks merit special attention for a number of reasons.
To start with, Biden has always been recognised as a supporter of the Islamic Republic in Iran, having welcomed the Khomeinist revolution from the start. For years, he was one of few American politicians who argued in favour of engaging the mullahs rather than exerting pressure on them. That even such a person is now prepared to talk of an Israeli attack without even hinting at its potential downsides shows that, as far as the global analysis of the Iranian situation is concerned, we are facing a new situation.
The second reason why Biden’s remarks deserve attention is that they were not “put into context” by President Barack Obama or his aides. Biden is known as a loose cannon who has forced the Obama administration to “correct” his impolitic words and deeds on a number of occasions in the past four months. This time, however, there were no corrections. It is clear that the administration as a whole wanted to send a message: the US would do nothing to stop an Israeli attack on Iran.
And that brings us to the third reason why Biden’s remarks are important.
For years, Israel has been trying to persuade the US to keep the military option alive. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon even raised the issue with President George W Bush by asking for logistical help, including the right to fly through the Iraqi air space, in case of an attack on Iran. Bush, however, rejected the idea, insisting that the issue of Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions be pursued through the Security Council.
What is remarkable is that Biden’s remarks, and a subsequent report about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s supposed warning to Obama that Israel cannot wait beyond the end of this year before deciding “what to do about Iran”, have aroused little hostile reaction outside the Islamic Republic. A month ago, that would have inspired editorials and op-eds across the Western world warning against pre-emptive war, the supposed speciality of the much-maligned Bush.
What is one to make of this new situation?
It is possible that the Obama administration wishes to prepare for all eventualities. Although still keen on engaging the Khomeinist leadership, it is not certain that such a course is sustainable. Even if formal talks start before the end of the year, as Obama clearly hopes, no one could guarantee that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would remain in power long enough to conclude a deal.
With Iran’s post-election crisis unlikely to fade away anytime soon, the Obama administration may find itself engaged in negotiations with a losing faction in a bitter power struggle in Tehran.
It is also possible that the post-election crisis would strengthen those in Tehran who reject any engagement with the United States and preach what is known as the “mongoose” strategy. According to their analysis, the Islamic Republic has nothing to gain from talking to the US and everything to lose. Thus the best bet for the Khomeinist regime is to cultivate its image of the challenger, claiming the leadership of all anti-American forces across the globe.
The post-election crisis has certainly wakened the Islamic Republic by undermining its legitimacy and splitting its dominant elite.
President Ahmadinejad has already had to cancel much advertised visits to Libya, for the African Union summit, and to Egypt for the summit of the non-aligned movement. His declared ambition of assuming the leadership of the non-aligned has been put on hold, perhaps gone for ever. He has also been forced to cancel visits to Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, El Salvador, Brazil and Bolivia. During a brief visit to Russia to attend the summit of the Shanghai Group of nations last month, Ahmadinejad was pointedly denied a tête-à-tête with his Russian counterpart Dmitri Medvedev. (On the same occasion, the Russian leader held one-on-one meetings with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, clearly snubbing Ahmadinejad.)
Another sign that the Islamic Republic’s image has been tarnished is the decision by a number of foreign leaders to postpone or cancel long scheduled visits to Tehran, among them the Sultan of Oman and the presidents of Ukraine and Azerbaijan.
Biden’s remarks, and the unprecedented chorus of approval they inspired show that, if attacked, the Islamic Republic will not attract the level of sympathy and support it would have secured before the 12 June presidential election. The dispute over the declared results has alienated many of Tehran’s long-time supporters and tactical allies. Even hard-core anti-Americans are no longer prepared to serve as human shields for a regime that is accused of having cheated in an election organised by itself, and contested only by individuals enjoying its approval.
Ahmadinejad’s controversial re-election has made the Islamic Republic more vulnerable than anytime in its 30 year history.
As always in politics, however, things may not be as simple as they look.
Today, an Israeli military operation against the Islamic Republic appears less likely to attract international opprobrium because the outcome of the power struggle in Tehran remains uncertain.
However, that very uncertainty makes an Israeli attack more problematic, and, perhaps, less likely. Why should Israel risk re-uniting the Khomeinist elite and possibly even rallying the entire Iranian nation behind them by launching an attack that could not even guarantee the end of the controversial nuclear project?
Sabre-rattling is no substitute for policy. What everyone needs to do is to seek a sober analysis of what is happening in Iran and the likely identity of the faction with the best chance of winning the current power struggle.
Launching a war against a regime heading for the precipice may be as unwise as trying to negotiate with it.
Now, however, many seem to be thinking about it and none seem to consider it unthinkable.
The “it” in question is the idea of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear installations.
Last weekend, US Vice President Joseph Biden pushed it into the headlines by announcing, in effect, that Washington would have no objection if Israel did just that.
Biden’s remarks merit special attention for a number of reasons.
To start with, Biden has always been recognised as a supporter of the Islamic Republic in Iran, having welcomed the Khomeinist revolution from the start. For years, he was one of few American politicians who argued in favour of engaging the mullahs rather than exerting pressure on them. That even such a person is now prepared to talk of an Israeli attack without even hinting at its potential downsides shows that, as far as the global analysis of the Iranian situation is concerned, we are facing a new situation.
The second reason why Biden’s remarks deserve attention is that they were not “put into context” by President Barack Obama or his aides. Biden is known as a loose cannon who has forced the Obama administration to “correct” his impolitic words and deeds on a number of occasions in the past four months. This time, however, there were no corrections. It is clear that the administration as a whole wanted to send a message: the US would do nothing to stop an Israeli attack on Iran.
And that brings us to the third reason why Biden’s remarks are important.
For years, Israel has been trying to persuade the US to keep the military option alive. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon even raised the issue with President George W Bush by asking for logistical help, including the right to fly through the Iraqi air space, in case of an attack on Iran. Bush, however, rejected the idea, insisting that the issue of Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions be pursued through the Security Council.
What is remarkable is that Biden’s remarks, and a subsequent report about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s supposed warning to Obama that Israel cannot wait beyond the end of this year before deciding “what to do about Iran”, have aroused little hostile reaction outside the Islamic Republic. A month ago, that would have inspired editorials and op-eds across the Western world warning against pre-emptive war, the supposed speciality of the much-maligned Bush.
What is one to make of this new situation?
It is possible that the Obama administration wishes to prepare for all eventualities. Although still keen on engaging the Khomeinist leadership, it is not certain that such a course is sustainable. Even if formal talks start before the end of the year, as Obama clearly hopes, no one could guarantee that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would remain in power long enough to conclude a deal.
With Iran’s post-election crisis unlikely to fade away anytime soon, the Obama administration may find itself engaged in negotiations with a losing faction in a bitter power struggle in Tehran.
It is also possible that the post-election crisis would strengthen those in Tehran who reject any engagement with the United States and preach what is known as the “mongoose” strategy. According to their analysis, the Islamic Republic has nothing to gain from talking to the US and everything to lose. Thus the best bet for the Khomeinist regime is to cultivate its image of the challenger, claiming the leadership of all anti-American forces across the globe.
The post-election crisis has certainly wakened the Islamic Republic by undermining its legitimacy and splitting its dominant elite.
President Ahmadinejad has already had to cancel much advertised visits to Libya, for the African Union summit, and to Egypt for the summit of the non-aligned movement. His declared ambition of assuming the leadership of the non-aligned has been put on hold, perhaps gone for ever. He has also been forced to cancel visits to Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, El Salvador, Brazil and Bolivia. During a brief visit to Russia to attend the summit of the Shanghai Group of nations last month, Ahmadinejad was pointedly denied a tête-à-tête with his Russian counterpart Dmitri Medvedev. (On the same occasion, the Russian leader held one-on-one meetings with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, clearly snubbing Ahmadinejad.)
Another sign that the Islamic Republic’s image has been tarnished is the decision by a number of foreign leaders to postpone or cancel long scheduled visits to Tehran, among them the Sultan of Oman and the presidents of Ukraine and Azerbaijan.
Biden’s remarks, and the unprecedented chorus of approval they inspired show that, if attacked, the Islamic Republic will not attract the level of sympathy and support it would have secured before the 12 June presidential election. The dispute over the declared results has alienated many of Tehran’s long-time supporters and tactical allies. Even hard-core anti-Americans are no longer prepared to serve as human shields for a regime that is accused of having cheated in an election organised by itself, and contested only by individuals enjoying its approval.
Ahmadinejad’s controversial re-election has made the Islamic Republic more vulnerable than anytime in its 30 year history.
As always in politics, however, things may not be as simple as they look.
Today, an Israeli military operation against the Islamic Republic appears less likely to attract international opprobrium because the outcome of the power struggle in Tehran remains uncertain.
However, that very uncertainty makes an Israeli attack more problematic, and, perhaps, less likely. Why should Israel risk re-uniting the Khomeinist elite and possibly even rallying the entire Iranian nation behind them by launching an attack that could not even guarantee the end of the controversial nuclear project?
Sabre-rattling is no substitute for policy. What everyone needs to do is to seek a sober analysis of what is happening in Iran and the likely identity of the faction with the best chance of winning the current power struggle.
Launching a war against a regime heading for the precipice may be as unwise as trying to negotiate with it.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Neurosecurity: Security and Privacy for Neural Devices by Tamara Denning, B.S., Yoky Matsuoka, Ph.D., and Tadayoshi Kohno, Ph.D
An increasing number of neural implantable devices will become available in the near future due to advances in neural engineering. This discipline holds the potential to improve many patients' lives dramatically by offering improved—and in some cases entirely new—forms of rehabilitation for conditions ranging from missing limbs to degenerative cognitive diseases. The use of standard engineering practices, medical trials, and neuroethical evaluations during the design process can create systems that are safe and that follow ethical guidelines; unfortunately, none of these disciplines currently ensure that neural devices are robust against adversarial entities trying to exploit these devices to alter, block, or eavesdrop on neural signals. The authors define “neurosecurity”—a version of computer science security principles and methods applied to neural engineering—and discuss why neurosecurity should be a critical consideration in the design of future neural devices.
DOI: 10.3171/2009.4.FOCUS0985
DOI: 10.3171/2009.4.FOCUS0985
The Next Hacking Frontier: Your Brain?
Hackers who commandeer your computer are bad enough. Now scientists worry that someday, they’ll try to take over your brain.
In the past year, researchers have developed technology that makes it possible to use thoughts to operate a computer, maneuver a wheelchair or even use Twitter — all without lifting a finger. But as neural devices become more complicated — and go wireless — some scientists say the risks of “brain hacking” should be taken seriously.
“Neural devices are innovating at an extremely rapid rate and hold tremendous promise for the future,” said computer security expert Tadayoshi Kohno of the University of Washington. “But if we don’t start paying attention to security, we’re worried that we might find ourselves in five or 10 years saying we’ve made a big mistake.”
Hackers tap into personal computers all the time — but what would happen if they focused their nefarious energy on neural devices, such as the deep-brain stimulators currently used to treat Parkinson’s and depression, or electrode systems for controlling prosthetic limbs? According to Kohno and his colleagues, who published their concerns July 1 in Neurosurgical Focus, most current devices carry few security risks. But as neural engineering becomes more complex and more widespread, the potential for security breaches will mushroom.
For example, the next generation of implantable devices to control prosthetic limbs will likely include wireless controls that allow physicians to remotely adjust settings on the machine. If neural engineers don’t build in security features such as encryption and access control, an attacker could hijack the device and take over the robotic limb.
“It’s very hard to design complex systems that don’t have bugs,” Kohno said. “As these medical devices start to become more and more complicated, it gets easier and easier for people to overlook a bug that could become a very serious risk. It might border on science fiction today, but so did going to the moon 50 years ago.”
Some might question why anyone would want to hack into someone else’s brain, but the researchers say there’s a precedent for using computers to cause neurological harm. In November 2007 and March 2008, malicious programmers vandalized epilepsy support websites by putting up flashing animations, which caused seizures in some photo-sensitive patients.
“It happened on two separate occasions,” said computer science graduate student Tamara Denning, a co-author on the paper. “It’s evidence that people will be malicious and try to compromise peoples’ health using computers, especially if neural devices become more widespread.”
In some cases, patients might even want to hack into their own neural device. Unlike devices to control prosthetic limbs, which still use wires, many deep brain stimulators already rely on wireless signals. Hacking into these devices could enable patients to “self-prescribe” elevated moods or pain relief by increasing the activity of the brain’s reward centers.
Despite the risks, Kohno said, most new devices aren’t created with security in mind. Neural engineers carefully consider the safety and reliability of new equipment, and neuroethicists focus on whether a new device fits ethical guidelines. But until now, few groups have considered how neural devices might be hijacked to perform unintended actions. This is the first time an academic paper has addressed the topic of “neurosecurity,” a term the group coined to describe their field.
“The security and privacy issues somehow seem to slip by,” Kohno said. “I would not be surprised if most people working in this space have never thought about security.”
Kevin Otto, a bioengineer who studies brain-machine interfaces at Purdue Universty, said he was initially skeptical of the research. “When I first picked up the paper, I don’t know if I agreed that it was an issue. But the paper gives a very compelling argument that this is important, and that this is the time to have neural engineers collaborate with security developers.”
It’s never too early to start thinking about security issues, said neural engineer Justin Williams of the University of Wisconsin, who was not involved in the research. But he stressed that the kinds of devices available today are not susceptible to attack, and that fear of future risks shouldn’t impede progress in the field. “These kinds of security issues have to proceed in lockstep with the technology,” Williams said.
History provides plenty of examples of why it’s important to think about security before it becomes a problem, Kohno said. Perhaps the best example is the internet, which was originally conceived as a research project and didn’t take security into account.
“Because the internet was not originally designed with security in mind,” the researchers wrote, “it is incredibly challenging — if not impossible — to retrofit the existing internet infrastructure to meet all of today’s security goals.” Kohno and his colleagues hope to avoid such problems in the neural device world, by getting the community to discuss potential security problems before they become a reality.
“The first thing is to ask ourselves is, ‘Could there be a security and privacy problem?’” Kohno said. “Asking ‘Is there a problem?’ gets you 90 percent there, and that’s the most important thing.”
In the past year, researchers have developed technology that makes it possible to use thoughts to operate a computer, maneuver a wheelchair or even use Twitter — all without lifting a finger. But as neural devices become more complicated — and go wireless — some scientists say the risks of “brain hacking” should be taken seriously.
“Neural devices are innovating at an extremely rapid rate and hold tremendous promise for the future,” said computer security expert Tadayoshi Kohno of the University of Washington. “But if we don’t start paying attention to security, we’re worried that we might find ourselves in five or 10 years saying we’ve made a big mistake.”
Hackers tap into personal computers all the time — but what would happen if they focused their nefarious energy on neural devices, such as the deep-brain stimulators currently used to treat Parkinson’s and depression, or electrode systems for controlling prosthetic limbs? According to Kohno and his colleagues, who published their concerns July 1 in Neurosurgical Focus, most current devices carry few security risks. But as neural engineering becomes more complex and more widespread, the potential for security breaches will mushroom.
For example, the next generation of implantable devices to control prosthetic limbs will likely include wireless controls that allow physicians to remotely adjust settings on the machine. If neural engineers don’t build in security features such as encryption and access control, an attacker could hijack the device and take over the robotic limb.
“It’s very hard to design complex systems that don’t have bugs,” Kohno said. “As these medical devices start to become more and more complicated, it gets easier and easier for people to overlook a bug that could become a very serious risk. It might border on science fiction today, but so did going to the moon 50 years ago.”
Some might question why anyone would want to hack into someone else’s brain, but the researchers say there’s a precedent for using computers to cause neurological harm. In November 2007 and March 2008, malicious programmers vandalized epilepsy support websites by putting up flashing animations, which caused seizures in some photo-sensitive patients.
“It happened on two separate occasions,” said computer science graduate student Tamara Denning, a co-author on the paper. “It’s evidence that people will be malicious and try to compromise peoples’ health using computers, especially if neural devices become more widespread.”
In some cases, patients might even want to hack into their own neural device. Unlike devices to control prosthetic limbs, which still use wires, many deep brain stimulators already rely on wireless signals. Hacking into these devices could enable patients to “self-prescribe” elevated moods or pain relief by increasing the activity of the brain’s reward centers.
Despite the risks, Kohno said, most new devices aren’t created with security in mind. Neural engineers carefully consider the safety and reliability of new equipment, and neuroethicists focus on whether a new device fits ethical guidelines. But until now, few groups have considered how neural devices might be hijacked to perform unintended actions. This is the first time an academic paper has addressed the topic of “neurosecurity,” a term the group coined to describe their field.
“The security and privacy issues somehow seem to slip by,” Kohno said. “I would not be surprised if most people working in this space have never thought about security.”
Kevin Otto, a bioengineer who studies brain-machine interfaces at Purdue Universty, said he was initially skeptical of the research. “When I first picked up the paper, I don’t know if I agreed that it was an issue. But the paper gives a very compelling argument that this is important, and that this is the time to have neural engineers collaborate with security developers.”
It’s never too early to start thinking about security issues, said neural engineer Justin Williams of the University of Wisconsin, who was not involved in the research. But he stressed that the kinds of devices available today are not susceptible to attack, and that fear of future risks shouldn’t impede progress in the field. “These kinds of security issues have to proceed in lockstep with the technology,” Williams said.
History provides plenty of examples of why it’s important to think about security before it becomes a problem, Kohno said. Perhaps the best example is the internet, which was originally conceived as a research project and didn’t take security into account.
“Because the internet was not originally designed with security in mind,” the researchers wrote, “it is incredibly challenging — if not impossible — to retrofit the existing internet infrastructure to meet all of today’s security goals.” Kohno and his colleagues hope to avoid such problems in the neural device world, by getting the community to discuss potential security problems before they become a reality.
“The first thing is to ask ourselves is, ‘Could there be a security and privacy problem?’” Kohno said. “Asking ‘Is there a problem?’ gets you 90 percent there, and that’s the most important thing.”
Preliminary List of Al Qaeda Leader Abu Yahya al-Libi by Asymmetric Warfare (Internet | OSINT | HaYishuv)
This is the most recent address of the internet distributed book written by self-styled theologian and emerging Al Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al-Libi.
This is the Arabic Version. I am trying to find the English version.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16944864/The-Ruling-Concerning-Muslim-Spies
This is the link to his profile page.
http://www.scribd.com/Cmdr
This is the Arabic Version. I am trying to find the English version.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16944864/The-Ruling-Concerning-Muslim-Spies
This is the link to his profile page.
http://www.scribd.com/Cmdr
Pakistani President Asif Zardari Admits Creating Terrorist Groups by Dean Nelson
Asif Zardari told a meeting of former senior civil servants in Islamabad, it was time to be honest about their deployment.
"Let us be truthful to ourselves and make a candid admission of the realities," he said. "The terrorists of today were the heroes of yesteryears until 9/11 occurred and they began to haunt us as well."
His comments amount to an admission that Pakistan trained Islamic terrorists to launch attacks on India as part of its long war over its claim on Kashmir.
It came as at least 40 people were killed in a suspected US missile strike in north-west Pakistan.
Three US drones are believed to have fired missiles at militants near Ladha in South Waziristan. It is the third strike in two days and follows strikes in which 19 reportedly died.
Mr Zardari first confirmed that many of the Islamic militants now waging war against his government were once "strategic assets" in an interview with the Daily Telegraph earlier this week.
"I don't think anybody in the establishment supports them any more. I think everybody has become more wise than this," he said and confirmed the military was now targeting those it had previously used as proxies in attacks on India.
Islamic militant groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, have long been regarded as Pakistan proxy forces by diplomats and intelligence services but Islamabad has, until now, always denied any links.
The LeT is believed to have been created to fight with the Afghan Mujahideen against the former Soviet-backed Najibullah regime in Kabul and to attack Indian forces in Jammu and Kashmir.
It is believed to have been responsible for the commando attack on Delhi's Red Fort in December in which two soldiers and a civilian were killed. It was involved with another Pakistan-backed terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammed in the 2001 attack on the Indian parliament before it was banned by Islamabad in 2002.
Pakistan terrorists were also behind the 1999 hijacking of an Indian Airlines jet which forced the Indian government to release three jailed militants, including Masood Azhar, the founder of Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Omar Saeed Sheikh, who was later arrested for the murder of Daniel Pearl.
The Indian government believes links between Islamabad and these terrorist groups remain intact and prime minister Manmohan Singh has accused elements within Pakistan's security apparatus of aiding the Lashkar-e-Taiba's commando attack on Mumbai last November.
"Let us be truthful to ourselves and make a candid admission of the realities," he said. "The terrorists of today were the heroes of yesteryears until 9/11 occurred and they began to haunt us as well."
His comments amount to an admission that Pakistan trained Islamic terrorists to launch attacks on India as part of its long war over its claim on Kashmir.
It came as at least 40 people were killed in a suspected US missile strike in north-west Pakistan.
Three US drones are believed to have fired missiles at militants near Ladha in South Waziristan. It is the third strike in two days and follows strikes in which 19 reportedly died.
Mr Zardari first confirmed that many of the Islamic militants now waging war against his government were once "strategic assets" in an interview with the Daily Telegraph earlier this week.
"I don't think anybody in the establishment supports them any more. I think everybody has become more wise than this," he said and confirmed the military was now targeting those it had previously used as proxies in attacks on India.
Islamic militant groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, have long been regarded as Pakistan proxy forces by diplomats and intelligence services but Islamabad has, until now, always denied any links.
The LeT is believed to have been created to fight with the Afghan Mujahideen against the former Soviet-backed Najibullah regime in Kabul and to attack Indian forces in Jammu and Kashmir.
It is believed to have been responsible for the commando attack on Delhi's Red Fort in December in which two soldiers and a civilian were killed. It was involved with another Pakistan-backed terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammed in the 2001 attack on the Indian parliament before it was banned by Islamabad in 2002.
Pakistan terrorists were also behind the 1999 hijacking of an Indian Airlines jet which forced the Indian government to release three jailed militants, including Masood Azhar, the founder of Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Omar Saeed Sheikh, who was later arrested for the murder of Daniel Pearl.
The Indian government believes links between Islamabad and these terrorist groups remain intact and prime minister Manmohan Singh has accused elements within Pakistan's security apparatus of aiding the Lashkar-e-Taiba's commando attack on Mumbai last November.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
A Chilling Look at Central American Gangs and Why They Are a Threat by Douglas Farah
For those interested in exploring one of the greatest internal and transnational threats to the United States, there is a new book out today by Samuel Logan, This is For the Mara Salvatrucha: Inside the MS-13, America's Most Violent Gang.
The book traces the history of Brenda Paz, a young Honduran who joins MS-13 and eventually becomes the most effective police witness against the organization, before she was killed. But besides the individual story, the book shows just how powerful and ruthless the MS-13 has become. Given that it now has chapters in thousands of cities across the United States, and maintains its transnational structure through the clan structure in Central America, the gang (or mara in Spanish) presents a significant challenge.
But it is not just a local law enforcement issue. It is truly a transnational threat that can destroy countries. Yesterday I heard Carlos Castresana Fernandez, head of the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (Comision Internacional Contra la Impunidad en Guatemala-CICIG) discuss the serious problems of the organized criminal networks operating out of Guatemala.
He noted how the already-disturbing situation in Guatemala had gotten dramatically worse in the past three years and Mexican and Colombian cartel operatives, particularly Los Zetas, moved in and took control of local criminal operations.
The cartels were aided and abetted in their takeover efforts by the local gangs, primarily MS-13. On Guatemala's northern border with Mexico, Castresana Fernandez said, the organized criminal groups and gangs are the only authority, in the face of the complete absence of the state. "Maras plus organized crime has proven deadly," he said.
That is the reality on the ground in much of Central America. The gangs are increasingly moving from local criminal operations, coordinated with their partner gangs in the United States, to move illicit products like stolen cars, methamphetamine and weapons, into the muscle for the drug cartels.
The consequences, as Castresana Fernandez noted, is that already weak and corrupt police forces and militaries are simply overwhelmed or bought, allowing the gangs to grow in power both in their home countries and in this country. The richer they become the bigger threat they become, both here and south of our border.
The book offers an inside look at how the gangs operate at granular level. For those of us who spent time with the gangs (I did for a Washington Post series in 1998), it is a harrowing and accurate description of the amazing and disturbing world that gang members inhabit. It also places the development of the gangs and the recruitment of gang members in its proper context of displacement, social dislocation and family separation that has helped define the Central American immigrant narrative.
I am not one who worries a great deal about the use of Hezbollah or other terrorist groups of gang-controlled pipelines to enter the United States. With embassies in Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua etc. all willing to issue valid travel documents to them, it is hard to see why they would bother with the riskier and more vulnerable method of moving over the land border clandestinely.
But it is clear that these gangs and cartels are, in their own right, becoming increasingly strong transnational threats, and that they offer other services to Hezbollah and other groups that would be useful-drug trafficking routes, protection of the pipelines they use etc. To understand why the gangs are a threat, this book is a good place to start.
The book traces the history of Brenda Paz, a young Honduran who joins MS-13 and eventually becomes the most effective police witness against the organization, before she was killed. But besides the individual story, the book shows just how powerful and ruthless the MS-13 has become. Given that it now has chapters in thousands of cities across the United States, and maintains its transnational structure through the clan structure in Central America, the gang (or mara in Spanish) presents a significant challenge.
But it is not just a local law enforcement issue. It is truly a transnational threat that can destroy countries. Yesterday I heard Carlos Castresana Fernandez, head of the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (Comision Internacional Contra la Impunidad en Guatemala-CICIG) discuss the serious problems of the organized criminal networks operating out of Guatemala.
He noted how the already-disturbing situation in Guatemala had gotten dramatically worse in the past three years and Mexican and Colombian cartel operatives, particularly Los Zetas, moved in and took control of local criminal operations.
The cartels were aided and abetted in their takeover efforts by the local gangs, primarily MS-13. On Guatemala's northern border with Mexico, Castresana Fernandez said, the organized criminal groups and gangs are the only authority, in the face of the complete absence of the state. "Maras plus organized crime has proven deadly," he said.
That is the reality on the ground in much of Central America. The gangs are increasingly moving from local criminal operations, coordinated with their partner gangs in the United States, to move illicit products like stolen cars, methamphetamine and weapons, into the muscle for the drug cartels.
The consequences, as Castresana Fernandez noted, is that already weak and corrupt police forces and militaries are simply overwhelmed or bought, allowing the gangs to grow in power both in their home countries and in this country. The richer they become the bigger threat they become, both here and south of our border.
The book offers an inside look at how the gangs operate at granular level. For those of us who spent time with the gangs (I did for a Washington Post series in 1998), it is a harrowing and accurate description of the amazing and disturbing world that gang members inhabit. It also places the development of the gangs and the recruitment of gang members in its proper context of displacement, social dislocation and family separation that has helped define the Central American immigrant narrative.
I am not one who worries a great deal about the use of Hezbollah or other terrorist groups of gang-controlled pipelines to enter the United States. With embassies in Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua etc. all willing to issue valid travel documents to them, it is hard to see why they would bother with the riskier and more vulnerable method of moving over the land border clandestinely.
But it is clear that these gangs and cartels are, in their own right, becoming increasingly strong transnational threats, and that they offer other services to Hezbollah and other groups that would be useful-drug trafficking routes, protection of the pipelines they use etc. To understand why the gangs are a threat, this book is a good place to start.
Support for Hizb ut-Tahrir America May Be Surprising by Madeleine Gruen
After close to twenty years of activity in the United States, Hizb ut-Tahrir America (HTA) entered the public stage in June 2009; transitioning into the second phase of the implementation of its strategy to establish a Caliphate. Over the past few months, and particularly in the last few weeks, I have posted updates for Counterterrorism Blog readers on the maturation of HTA and its plans to host a conference titled "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam," which is scheduled for July 19 at the Hilton in Oak Lawn, Illinois. In response to my articles, I have noticed speculation on the prospective turnout to the event. It is certainly important to wonder the exact size of a group that opposes the United States and its policies, however, until the day of the conference, it will be difficult to determine how large a support base HTA has, or whether its American adherents will be willing to demonstrate their affiliation publicly by attending the conference.
There are some small but visible signs of prospective attendance. In the last two weeks, three Facebook pages have been created to promote HTA's Khilafah Conference. More than 100 of those invited on the Facebook pages have indicated that they may attend, and approximately 40 have confirmed that they will definitely attend.
The Facebook page with the largest number of invitees to the conference (more than 1000) is administered by Abdur Rafay. Rafay belongs to the "Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine & Science Grad Student '12" and the "N. Illinois Alum '06" networks on Facebook. The second Khilafah Conference page is administered by Meenara Jamal Khan, who is part of the "Chicago" network on Facebook. The third page, and the least popular of the three, is administered by someone who uses the name Kalifat Hamza.
If conferences held by young branches of HT in other countries are any indication of prospective turnout in Oak Lawn, the attendance for HTA's first publicly promoted conference will be relatively small. Also, as the United States is a large country, HTA's membership is scattered from coast to coast, and some may find it difficult to travel to Chicago for a one-day conference. Chicago appears to be the most active chapter of HTA, however, even some members and supporters in the immediate area may be reluctant to appear in person at an event that would publicly reveal their affiliation.
Older, well-established branches of HT, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, attract several hundred attendees to most of their events. Generally speaking, however, most branches in western democracies do not attract as many supporters to rallies and conferences. By contract, the Indonesian branch of HT held its Khilafah conference in a sports stadium in August 2007. The conference was attended by tens of thousands of members and supporters. Smaller branches are able to fill a large hotel conference room. In HTA's case, it anticipates hosting enough attendees to fill the Grand Ballroom of the Hilton Oak Lawn.
There are some small but visible signs of prospective attendance. In the last two weeks, three Facebook pages have been created to promote HTA's Khilafah Conference. More than 100 of those invited on the Facebook pages have indicated that they may attend, and approximately 40 have confirmed that they will definitely attend.
The Facebook page with the largest number of invitees to the conference (more than 1000) is administered by Abdur Rafay. Rafay belongs to the "Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine & Science Grad Student '12" and the "N. Illinois Alum '06" networks on Facebook. The second Khilafah Conference page is administered by Meenara Jamal Khan, who is part of the "Chicago" network on Facebook. The third page, and the least popular of the three, is administered by someone who uses the name Kalifat Hamza.
If conferences held by young branches of HT in other countries are any indication of prospective turnout in Oak Lawn, the attendance for HTA's first publicly promoted conference will be relatively small. Also, as the United States is a large country, HTA's membership is scattered from coast to coast, and some may find it difficult to travel to Chicago for a one-day conference. Chicago appears to be the most active chapter of HTA, however, even some members and supporters in the immediate area may be reluctant to appear in person at an event that would publicly reveal their affiliation.
Older, well-established branches of HT, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, attract several hundred attendees to most of their events. Generally speaking, however, most branches in western democracies do not attract as many supporters to rallies and conferences. By contract, the Indonesian branch of HT held its Khilafah conference in a sports stadium in August 2007. The conference was attended by tens of thousands of members and supporters. Smaller branches are able to fill a large hotel conference room. In HTA's case, it anticipates hosting enough attendees to fill the Grand Ballroom of the Hilton Oak Lawn.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Mobile DTV in US is Almost Official: ATSC-M/H Voted to Proposed Standard Status by Glen Dickson
Broadcasters are one step closer to having a formalized system for transmitting video and data to mobile and portable devices, as the Advanced Television Systems Committee has raised the candidate ATSC-Mobile/Handheld (ATSC-M/H) standard to "proposed standard" status.
The vote of approval by the ATSC Technology and Standards Group is the penultimate step in making ATSC-M/H a formal standard. The final step is a four-week ballot by the full membership, which could come by early August or sooner. That means the formal standard could be approved by September.
ATSC began the mobile DTV standards process in May of 2007, and the effort has been fast-tracked by broadcasters and technology vendors who believe in the potential of using local DTV spectrum to broadcast to cell phones and other mobile devices.
Much of the standards work, including technology evaluations and field trials, has been spearheaded by the Open Mobile Video Coalition, a group of some 800 stations who have come together to promote mobile DTV. It was OMVC members who helped broker a deal in May 2008 between consumer electronics giants LG and Samsung to work together on a mobile DTV standard and avoid a prolonged standards battle between the two companies' competing mobile DTV systems.
"It's amazing, if you think about it," says OMVC Executive Director Anne Schelle. "We basically did this within a year, and it's a huge accomplishment. [The industry is] well at the point of developing devices."
Schelle says the approval to proposed standard status keeps ATSC-M/H on track for being approved by the end of the third quarter, as per OMVC's previous timetable. She says that 70 stations are also on schedule to launch mobile DTV services later this year, though real consumer devices probably won't hit the streets until 2010.
The vote of approval by the ATSC Technology and Standards Group is the penultimate step in making ATSC-M/H a formal standard. The final step is a four-week ballot by the full membership, which could come by early August or sooner. That means the formal standard could be approved by September.
ATSC began the mobile DTV standards process in May of 2007, and the effort has been fast-tracked by broadcasters and technology vendors who believe in the potential of using local DTV spectrum to broadcast to cell phones and other mobile devices.
Much of the standards work, including technology evaluations and field trials, has been spearheaded by the Open Mobile Video Coalition, a group of some 800 stations who have come together to promote mobile DTV. It was OMVC members who helped broker a deal in May 2008 between consumer electronics giants LG and Samsung to work together on a mobile DTV standard and avoid a prolonged standards battle between the two companies' competing mobile DTV systems.
"It's amazing, if you think about it," says OMVC Executive Director Anne Schelle. "We basically did this within a year, and it's a huge accomplishment. [The industry is] well at the point of developing devices."
Schelle says the approval to proposed standard status keeps ATSC-M/H on track for being approved by the end of the third quarter, as per OMVC's previous timetable. She says that 70 stations are also on schedule to launch mobile DTV services later this year, though real consumer devices probably won't hit the streets until 2010.
Robot Invented to Crawl through Veins by Sylvie Barak
Scientists from Israel's Technion University have unveiled a tiny robot, made using Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) technology, purportedly able to crawl through a person's veins in order to diagnose and potentially treat artery blockage and cancer.
The little robot - with a diameter of just one millimeter - has neither engine nor onboard controls, instead being propelled forward by a magnetic field wielded on it from outside the patient's body.
Controlling the tiny bot externally means boffins have been able to shrink it to a previously impossibly tiny scale, allowing it to crawl its way through the typical human body's veins and arteries using miniscule outstretched arms which grip the vessel walls. Yes, that made us shudder too.
Scientists reckon the mini bot can even withstand massive blood flow and is able to push forward regardless of the magnetic field actuation direction, doing away with any need for exact localisation and direction retrieval.
A controller can move the little crawly creature in increments, with its speed of up to nine millimeters a second regulated by varying external magnetic field frequencies. Outside control also means the robot can be made to work for an unlimited amount of time, rather than suddenly - not to mention inconveniently - keeling over to die of battery failure in the middle of a medical procedure.
A small cross sectional area on the tiny robot apparently allows fluids to flow with minimal interference making intra-vascular motion more feasible, and opening up the possibility of minimally invasive medical treatments, as well as diagnosis within the body. Researchers are also apparently toying with the idea of attaching miniscule cameras to the bot, as well as other "tools" it may need to perform internal surgery.
As if getting under people's skin wasn't enough, Technion researchers say they're also looking at putting the ant-like creature to work in urban water distribution systems, to look for any leaks that need plugging.
We hear that research is going swimmingly.
The little robot - with a diameter of just one millimeter - has neither engine nor onboard controls, instead being propelled forward by a magnetic field wielded on it from outside the patient's body.
Controlling the tiny bot externally means boffins have been able to shrink it to a previously impossibly tiny scale, allowing it to crawl its way through the typical human body's veins and arteries using miniscule outstretched arms which grip the vessel walls. Yes, that made us shudder too.
Scientists reckon the mini bot can even withstand massive blood flow and is able to push forward regardless of the magnetic field actuation direction, doing away with any need for exact localisation and direction retrieval.
A controller can move the little crawly creature in increments, with its speed of up to nine millimeters a second regulated by varying external magnetic field frequencies. Outside control also means the robot can be made to work for an unlimited amount of time, rather than suddenly - not to mention inconveniently - keeling over to die of battery failure in the middle of a medical procedure.
A small cross sectional area on the tiny robot apparently allows fluids to flow with minimal interference making intra-vascular motion more feasible, and opening up the possibility of minimally invasive medical treatments, as well as diagnosis within the body. Researchers are also apparently toying with the idea of attaching miniscule cameras to the bot, as well as other "tools" it may need to perform internal surgery.
As if getting under people's skin wasn't enough, Technion researchers say they're also looking at putting the ant-like creature to work in urban water distribution systems, to look for any leaks that need plugging.
We hear that research is going swimmingly.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Preliminary List of 98 Hizb Ut by Asymmetric Warfare (Internet | OSINT | HaYishuv)
The list includes a range of sites: active sites, inactive sites, suspended sites, sites that have clearly not been updated in some years, sites of Hizb ut-Tahrir's leadership, sites of various national affiliates, sites of short-term campaigns, sites of front organizations, sites of individual members and/or supporters, not to mention at least one YouTube account, a Facebook account, and a number of Twitter accounts. There are static sites, forums, blogs, and news sites with varying degrees of honesty regarding their connection to Hizb ut-Tahrir.
A detailed report regarding these sites, what can be learned about them, and the networks that operate them, will be forthcoming. Some time soon. Insha'allah...
Meanwhile, if anyone has any sites to add to this list, or any other insights regarding HuT online, I'm right here.
1924.org
facebook.com/mediaa
khayma.com/alkhilafa/
politische-einheit.com
1ummah1state.com
financial-crisis.eu
khilafah-fighters.blogspot.com
qirim-vilayeti.org
al-aqsa.org
freepowerboards.com/seslenis/
khilafah.com
ramadhan.org
al-islam.or.id
gaza.nu khilafah.com.pk
risalet.net.tc
al-nahda.com
geocities.com/I_R_D_L
khilafah.eu
site.mynet.com/akideokulu/akide/
al-nahda.org
halifat.net
khilafah.dk
sreislamic.wordpress.com
al-ummah.org
haltlasterenvanislam.nl
khilafah.net
statsterror.dk
al-waie.org
hilafet.com
khilafah.org
stoppt-den-hass.com
al-wayi.org
hilafet.diyari.com
khilafahconference2009.com
terror-gegen-muslime.com
albadil.edaama.org
hizb-australia.org
khilafat.org
the-caliphate.blogspot.com
alkifah.org
hizb-pakistan.org
khilafahnubuwwah.wordpress.com
turkiye-vilayeti.org
alokab.com
hizb-ut-tahrir.com
kokludegisim.com
turkiyevilayeti.org
alokab.info
hizb-ut-tahrir.dk
leid-kultur.com
twitter.com/aboyousuf
alquds.nl
hizb-ut-tahrir.info
members.lycos.co.uk/aahw51
twitter.com/halifat
alummah-voice.net
hizb-ut-tahrir.org
mindspring.eu.com
twitter.com/hizbuttahrir
azeytouna.net
hizb.org.ua
mitglied.lycos.de/comnet/ twitter.com/khaledez
benimblog.com/darulummah
hizb.org.uk
msuj.org
twitter.com/noorudeen
darulummah.blogcu.com
hizbut-tahrir.or.id
muslimrulers.com
vasallen.org
darulummah.sitemynet.com
islam-in-poland.org
muslimsinkenya.wordpress.com
war-on-pakistan.info
devletgeray.googlepages.com
islam-projekte.com
muslimuzbekistan.com
war-on-pakistan.net
dhipolitics.com
islamdevleti.org
muslumangencler.kk5.org
wilayah.wordpress.com
economischecrisis.org
islamic-state.org mykhilafah.com
www-personal.umich.edu/~luqman/
elfurkan.kk5.org
islamicsystem.blogspot.com
newcivilisation.com
youtube.com/user/andrumeda24
expliciet.nl
kalifaat.org
oneummah.forumup.dk
explizit-islam.de kalifat.org
pal.tahrir.info
facebook.com/mediaa
khayma.com/alkhilafa/
politische-einheit.com
1ummah1state.com
financial-crisis.eu
khilafah-fighters.blogspot.com
qirim-vilayeti.org
al-aqsa.org
freepowerboards.com/seslenis/
khilafah.com
ramadhan.org
al-islam.or.id
gaza.nu khilafah.com.pk
risalet.net.tc
al-nahda.com
geocities.com/I_R_D_L
khilafah.eu
site.mynet.com/akideokulu/akide/
al-nahda.org
halifat.net
khilafah.dk
sreislamic.wordpress.com
al-ummah.org
haltlasterenvanislam.nl
khilafah.net
statsterror.dk
al-waie.org
hilafet.com
khilafah.org
stoppt-den-hass.com
al-wayi.org
hilafet.diyari.com
khilafahconference2009.com
terror-gegen-muslime.com
albadil.edaama.org
hizb-australia.org
khilafat.org
the-caliphate.blogspot.com
alkifah.org
hizb-pakistan.org
khilafahnubuwwah.wordpress.com
turkiye-vilayeti.org
alokab.com
hizb-ut-tahrir.com
kokludegisim.com
turkiyevilayeti.org
alokab.info
hizb-ut-tahrir.dk
leid-kultur.com
twitter.com/aboyousuf
alquds.nl
hizb-ut-tahrir.info
members.lycos.co.uk/aahw51
twitter.com/halifat
alummah-voice.net
hizb-ut-tahrir.org
mindspring.eu.com
twitter.com/hizbuttahrir
azeytouna.net
hizb.org.ua
mitglied.lycos.de/comnet/ twitter.com/khaledez
benimblog.com/darulummah
hizb.org.uk
msuj.org
twitter.com/noorudeen
darulummah.blogcu.com
hizbut-tahrir.or.id
muslimrulers.com
vasallen.org
darulummah.sitemynet.com
islam-in-poland.org
muslimsinkenya.wordpress.com
war-on-pakistan.info
devletgeray.googlepages.com
islam-projekte.com
muslimuzbekistan.com
war-on-pakistan.net
dhipolitics.com
islamdevleti.org
muslumangencler.kk5.org
wilayah.wordpress.com
economischecrisis.org
islamic-state.org mykhilafah.com
www-personal.umich.edu/~luqman/
elfurkan.kk5.org
islamicsystem.blogspot.com
newcivilisation.com
youtube.com/user/andrumeda24
expliciet.nl
kalifaat.org
oneummah.forumup.dk
explizit-islam.de kalifat.org
pal.tahrir.info
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Open Letter to Apple: Let us Augment Reality with the iPhone by Ori Inbar
Dear Apple,
We are a collection of augmented reality (AR) enthusiasts and professionals (from business and academia), who have been working on a multitude of AR apps for the iPhone. These apps are poised to change the way people interact with the real world.
But here is the rub: we are currently unable to publish these apps on the app store because the iPhone SDK lacks public APIs for manipulating live video.
We are asking Apple to provide a public API to access live video in real time, on the iPhone.
We will be happy to offer additional technical details.
The impact of augmented reality (AR) on our lives could be as significant as the introduction of the PC.
In 10 years, we believe augmented reality will change the way everyone experiences travel, design, training, personal productivity, health care, entertainment, games, art, and advertising (videos).
Looking back just a few years, AR pioneers had to hack a slew of components into ridiculously large backpacks and HUDs, and be confined to rigged environments. Nowadays, it comes in friendly, affordable packages and the iPhone is one of the first devices to have it all – except for a public API.
The battle to determine the winning device has already begun; a public API to access live video will give the iPhone a lucrative ticket to compete.
We believe Apple has a window of opportunity of about 3 months before developers start looking elsewhere. If Apple decides to publish the API in that time frame – in the next 10 years, everyone might be using the iPhone as the preferred device to interact with the real world.
Here is how augmented reality could open up new opportunities for the iPhone this year:
These are apps that are practically ready to go. There is a whole bunch of apps and games that are just waiting for the API to be available.
…And Apple, we know you can’t share your plans…so please surprise us soon!
Many many thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Signed:
Michael Gervautz – Managing Director Imagination GesmbH
Robert Rice – CEO Neogence
Georg Klein – PhD PTAM creator from Oxford University
Stephane Cocquereaumont - President & Lead Developer Int13 (Kweekies)
Maarten Lens-FitzGerald – Founder & Partner SPRXmobile, developer of Layar
Ori Inbar – Author of GamesAlfresco.com and CEO and founder – Ogmento (formerly Pookatak Games)
Philippe Breuss – Lead developer, Mobilizy
Philip R. Lamb – CTO, Artoolworks
Noora Guldemond – Metaio
Takahito Iguchi – CEO, Tonchidot
Blair MacIntyre – Associate Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology
Bruno Uzzan – CEO, Total Immersion
Michael Zoellner – Fraunhofer IGD
Andrea Carignano – CEO, Seac02
We are a collection of augmented reality (AR) enthusiasts and professionals (from business and academia), who have been working on a multitude of AR apps for the iPhone. These apps are poised to change the way people interact with the real world.
But here is the rub: we are currently unable to publish these apps on the app store because the iPhone SDK lacks public APIs for manipulating live video.
We are asking Apple to provide a public API to access live video in real time, on the iPhone.
We will be happy to offer additional technical details.
The impact of augmented reality (AR) on our lives could be as significant as the introduction of the PC.
In 10 years, we believe augmented reality will change the way everyone experiences travel, design, training, personal productivity, health care, entertainment, games, art, and advertising (videos).
Looking back just a few years, AR pioneers had to hack a slew of components into ridiculously large backpacks and HUDs, and be confined to rigged environments. Nowadays, it comes in friendly, affordable packages and the iPhone is one of the first devices to have it all – except for a public API.
The battle to determine the winning device has already begun; a public API to access live video will give the iPhone a lucrative ticket to compete.
We believe Apple has a window of opportunity of about 3 months before developers start looking elsewhere. If Apple decides to publish the API in that time frame – in the next 10 years, everyone might be using the iPhone as the preferred device to interact with the real world.
Here is how augmented reality could open up new opportunities for the iPhone this year:
These are apps that are practically ready to go. There is a whole bunch of apps and games that are just waiting for the API to be available.
…And Apple, we know you can’t share your plans…so please surprise us soon!
Many many thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Signed:
Michael Gervautz – Managing Director Imagination GesmbH
Robert Rice – CEO Neogence
Georg Klein – PhD PTAM creator from Oxford University
Stephane Cocquereaumont - President & Lead Developer Int13 (Kweekies)
Maarten Lens-FitzGerald – Founder & Partner SPRXmobile, developer of Layar
Ori Inbar – Author of GamesAlfresco.com and CEO and founder – Ogmento (formerly Pookatak Games)
Philippe Breuss – Lead developer, Mobilizy
Philip R. Lamb – CTO, Artoolworks
Noora Guldemond – Metaio
Takahito Iguchi – CEO, Tonchidot
Blair MacIntyre – Associate Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology
Bruno Uzzan – CEO, Total Immersion
Michael Zoellner – Fraunhofer IGD
Andrea Carignano – CEO, Seac02
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)