<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_17_1311218</id>
	<title>$26 of Software Defeats American Military</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1261057680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>reporter writes <i>"A computer program that can be easily purchased for $25.95 off the Internet can read and store the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html?mod=WSJ\_hpp\_MIDDLETopStories">data transmitted on an unsecured channel</a> by an unmanned drone.  Drones are crucial to American military operations, for these aerial vehicles enable Washington to conduct war with a reduced number of soldiers. '... the intercepts could give America's enemies battlefield advantages by removing the element of surprise from certain missions and making it easier for insurgents to determine which roads and buildings are under US surveillance.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>reporter writes " A computer program that can be easily purchased for $ 25.95 off the Internet can read and store the data transmitted on an unsecured channel by an unmanned drone .
Drones are crucial to American military operations , for these aerial vehicles enable Washington to conduct war with a reduced number of soldiers .
'... the intercepts could give America 's enemies battlefield advantages by removing the element of surprise from certain missions and making it easier for insurgents to determine which roads and buildings are under US surveillance .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reporter writes "A computer program that can be easily purchased for $25.95 off the Internet can read and store the data transmitted on an unsecured channel by an unmanned drone.
Drones are crucial to American military operations, for these aerial vehicles enable Washington to conduct war with a reduced number of soldiers.
'... the intercepts could give America's enemies battlefield advantages by removing the element of surprise from certain missions and making it easier for insurgents to determine which roads and buildings are under US surveillance.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472710</id>
	<title>Seems Expensive</title>
	<author>Clovis42</author>
	<datestamp>1261061940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I doubt a "terrorist" is the kind of person who would actually spend money on software. I know perfectly reasonable teenagers who access software for free all the time on this thing called the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt a " terrorist " is the kind of person who would actually spend money on software .
I know perfectly reasonable teenagers who access software for free all the time on this thing called the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt a "terrorist" is the kind of person who would actually spend money on software.
I know perfectly reasonable teenagers who access software for free all the time on this thing called the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477886</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261083180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but this is total bullshit. At minimum that data was FOUO (for official use only), which BTW, is unclassified. FOUO data needs to be encrypted, using FIPS-120 approved encryption. Bottom line.</p><p>The article mentions that the data was unencrypted because the software used on the drones is proprietary, and doesn't work with the encryption technologies being used. In other words, there are three major failures here:</p><p>1. The contract for the drones was written without STIG compliance required. This is a common and utterly stupid mistake. Anyone who writes a software or hardware contract for DoD without STIG compliance required should be fired. No questions asked.<br>2. The DoD hasn't fixed the problem themselves. They should require the contractor to hand over the source code, and they should add it themselves.<br>3. They didn't extend the contract to add the encryption support in.</p><p>Total, utter, failure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but this is total bullshit .
At minimum that data was FOUO ( for official use only ) , which BTW , is unclassified .
FOUO data needs to be encrypted , using FIPS-120 approved encryption .
Bottom line.The article mentions that the data was unencrypted because the software used on the drones is proprietary , and does n't work with the encryption technologies being used .
In other words , there are three major failures here : 1 .
The contract for the drones was written without STIG compliance required .
This is a common and utterly stupid mistake .
Anyone who writes a software or hardware contract for DoD without STIG compliance required should be fired .
No questions asked.2 .
The DoD has n't fixed the problem themselves .
They should require the contractor to hand over the source code , and they should add it themselves.3 .
They did n't extend the contract to add the encryption support in.Total , utter , failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but this is total bullshit.
At minimum that data was FOUO (for official use only), which BTW, is unclassified.
FOUO data needs to be encrypted, using FIPS-120 approved encryption.
Bottom line.The article mentions that the data was unencrypted because the software used on the drones is proprietary, and doesn't work with the encryption technologies being used.
In other words, there are three major failures here:1.
The contract for the drones was written without STIG compliance required.
This is a common and utterly stupid mistake.
Anyone who writes a software or hardware contract for DoD without STIG compliance required should be fired.
No questions asked.2.
The DoD hasn't fixed the problem themselves.
They should require the contractor to hand over the source code, and they should add it themselves.3.
They didn't extend the contract to add the encryption support in.Total, utter, failure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473570</id>
	<title>Re:Oh noes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, there is the possibility that this whole story is merely a portion of some conspiracy that the uber-hip generals are using against insurgents who regularly read slashdot. </p><p>...it's possible, but if you honestly believe that this is the only possibility, or even the most likely scenario, then you have blind faith in the military and will rationalize away any shortcoming they possess. You would be the absolutely worse person to comment on, or participate in, the military. </p><p>It is more likely that bureaucratic red tape is keeping someone from stepping up and implementing some god damned encryption on both ends of the comm. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , there is the possibility that this whole story is merely a portion of some conspiracy that the uber-hip generals are using against insurgents who regularly read slashdot .
...it 's possible , but if you honestly believe that this is the only possibility , or even the most likely scenario , then you have blind faith in the military and will rationalize away any shortcoming they possess .
You would be the absolutely worse person to comment on , or participate in , the military .
It is more likely that bureaucratic red tape is keeping someone from stepping up and implementing some god damned encryption on both ends of the comm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, there is the possibility that this whole story is merely a portion of some conspiracy that the uber-hip generals are using against insurgents who regularly read slashdot.
...it's possible, but if you honestly believe that this is the only possibility, or even the most likely scenario, then you have blind faith in the military and will rationalize away any shortcoming they possess.
You would be the absolutely worse person to comment on, or participate in, the military.
It is more likely that bureaucratic red tape is keeping someone from stepping up and implementing some god damned encryption on both ends of the comm. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475394</id>
	<title>Re:Oh noes</title>
	<author>Locutus</author>
	<datestamp>1261073760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>sounds like they really don't know who they are up against. ie, they don't know their enemy and that tends to be a very bad thing.<br><br>LoB</htmltext>
<tokenext>sounds like they really do n't know who they are up against .
ie , they do n't know their enemy and that tends to be a very bad thing.LoB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sounds like they really don't know who they are up against.
ie, they don't know their enemy and that tends to be a very bad thing.LoB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475194</id>
	<title>Modern Warfare</title>
	<author>Mekkah</author>
	<datestamp>1261072860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand, this should be a good thing... <br> <br>I kill those DirkaDirka bastards all the time when they are staring at laptops, so I can call another UAV.  I mean seriously, how else am I gonna to the Tactical Nuke...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand , this should be a good thing... I kill those DirkaDirka bastards all the time when they are staring at laptops , so I can call another UAV .
I mean seriously , how else am I gon na to the Tactical Nuke.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand, this should be a good thing...  I kill those DirkaDirka bastards all the time when they are staring at laptops, so I can call another UAV.
I mean seriously, how else am I gonna to the Tactical Nuke...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473604</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously would it have been difficult</title>
	<author>n9891q</author>
	<datestamp>1261066500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They get a signal today so they must have an error-correction protocol sufficient to the task.  So the answer is: encrypt the payload first, then error-correct it, and then transmit.  And remember that the value is the real-time viewing of the video to see where the drone is heading.  So the encryption doesn't have to be brilliant, leading edge stuff like Blowfish or even AES, it just has to be difficult enough to crack that the, uh, payload is delivered before the bad guys can decrypt the stream and view it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They get a signal today so they must have an error-correction protocol sufficient to the task .
So the answer is : encrypt the payload first , then error-correct it , and then transmit .
And remember that the value is the real-time viewing of the video to see where the drone is heading .
So the encryption does n't have to be brilliant , leading edge stuff like Blowfish or even AES , it just has to be difficult enough to crack that the , uh , payload is delivered before the bad guys can decrypt the stream and view it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They get a signal today so they must have an error-correction protocol sufficient to the task.
So the answer is: encrypt the payload first, then error-correct it, and then transmit.
And remember that the value is the real-time viewing of the video to see where the drone is heading.
So the encryption doesn't have to be brilliant, leading edge stuff like Blowfish or even AES, it just has to be difficult enough to crack that the, uh, payload is delivered before the bad guys can decrypt the stream and view it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30492954</id>
	<title>Re:Germans had great confidence in ENIGMA</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1261129980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I remember the cracking of ENIGMA correctly, there was a ton of user error that helped the allies, which no encryption system has ever been shown to protect against. <br> <br>Sure, we can't put all our confidence in the unbreakability of an encryption system, but to protect a video stream from a small number of crafty, but not well educated people hiding in the mountains? They're not China; a simple XOR todays video feed with last weeks video feed from across the country would probably be enough of a key to stop this current issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I remember the cracking of ENIGMA correctly , there was a ton of user error that helped the allies , which no encryption system has ever been shown to protect against .
Sure , we ca n't put all our confidence in the unbreakability of an encryption system , but to protect a video stream from a small number of crafty , but not well educated people hiding in the mountains ?
They 're not China ; a simple XOR todays video feed with last weeks video feed from across the country would probably be enough of a key to stop this current issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I remember the cracking of ENIGMA correctly, there was a ton of user error that helped the allies, which no encryption system has ever been shown to protect against.
Sure, we can't put all our confidence in the unbreakability of an encryption system, but to protect a video stream from a small number of crafty, but not well educated people hiding in the mountains?
They're not China; a simple XOR todays video feed with last weeks video feed from across the country would probably be enough of a key to stop this current issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477334</id>
	<title>its a ploy</title>
	<author>mbuimbui</author>
	<datestamp>1261081320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its a ploy to make people spend $26, see who buys it, monitor their ip address, monitor all their other purchases on their credit card, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its a ploy to make people spend $ 26 , see who buys it , monitor their ip address , monitor all their other purchases on their credit card , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its a ploy to make people spend $26, see who buys it, monitor their ip address, monitor all their other purchases on their credit card, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472630</id>
	<title>All your drone are belong to us</title>
	<author>tedgyz</author>
	<datestamp>1261061520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF?!?!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF ? ! ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF?!?!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473116</id>
	<title>Re:The Pentagon is full of idiots</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1261064340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're of course assuming that this is just a hole and not a trap, the possibilities for miss-information abound in situations like this. Imagine the stress involved in seeing a video feed tracking your every movement from a machine that can spit silent death at any second and waits for weeks for you to make that one lethal mistake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're of course assuming that this is just a hole and not a trap , the possibilities for miss-information abound in situations like this .
Imagine the stress involved in seeing a video feed tracking your every movement from a machine that can spit silent death at any second and waits for weeks for you to make that one lethal mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're of course assuming that this is just a hole and not a trap, the possibilities for miss-information abound in situations like this.
Imagine the stress involved in seeing a video feed tracking your every movement from a machine that can spit silent death at any second and waits for weeks for you to make that one lethal mistake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472992</id>
	<title>"Skygrabber", the software they speak of...</title>
	<author>HansWurst</author>
	<datestamp>1261063740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...is just a dvb-s grabber, see:<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.skygrabber.com/en/skygrabber.php" title="skygrabber.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.skygrabber.com/en/skygrabber.php</a> [skygrabber.com] <br> <br>

And all it does is intercept unencrypted IP packets from satellites which use IP over dvb-s for internet connections (most of them are one-way connections, uplink via pots modem/isdn).<br> <br>

So this is \_definitly\_ \_NOT\_ "spying on drones", I highly doubt that the drones themselves have an dvb-s transmitter in the same frequency range as "public" communication sats. It \_might\_ be that some of the drone data was/is routed through the internet and therefore could be intercepted with above software \_IF\_ some military dudes use any of the commercial ip-via-sat-providers (or even their \_unencrypted\_ own), but this isn't different from normal ethernet/wifi/whatever carrier ist used - sniffing.<br> <br>

Oh and btw., open source terrorists get their awsome drone sniffing software for FREE!!!!1111:<br> <br>

 <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/skynetr32/skynet.\%3Ar32\_index\_en" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://sites.google.com/site/skynetr32/skynet.\%3Ar32\_index\_en</a> [google.com]

(in case you're to lazy to klick on the link: basically another dvb-s file sniffer, but open sauce).</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is just a dvb-s grabber , see : http : //www.skygrabber.com/en/skygrabber.php [ skygrabber.com ] And all it does is intercept unencrypted IP packets from satellites which use IP over dvb-s for internet connections ( most of them are one-way connections , uplink via pots modem/isdn ) .
So this is \ _definitly \ _ \ _NOT \ _ " spying on drones " , I highly doubt that the drones themselves have an dvb-s transmitter in the same frequency range as " public " communication sats .
It \ _might \ _ be that some of the drone data was/is routed through the internet and therefore could be intercepted with above software \ _IF \ _ some military dudes use any of the commercial ip-via-sat-providers ( or even their \ _unencrypted \ _ own ) , but this is n't different from normal ethernet/wifi/whatever carrier ist used - sniffing .
Oh and btw. , open source terrorists get their awsome drone sniffing software for FREE ! ! !
! 1111 : http : //sites.google.com/site/skynetr32/skynet. \ % 3Ar32 \ _index \ _en [ google.com ] ( in case you 're to lazy to klick on the link : basically another dvb-s file sniffer , but open sauce ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is just a dvb-s grabber, see: 

http://www.skygrabber.com/en/skygrabber.php [skygrabber.com]  

And all it does is intercept unencrypted IP packets from satellites which use IP over dvb-s for internet connections (most of them are one-way connections, uplink via pots modem/isdn).
So this is \_definitly\_ \_NOT\_ "spying on drones", I highly doubt that the drones themselves have an dvb-s transmitter in the same frequency range as "public" communication sats.
It \_might\_ be that some of the drone data was/is routed through the internet and therefore could be intercepted with above software \_IF\_ some military dudes use any of the commercial ip-via-sat-providers (or even their \_unencrypted\_ own), but this isn't different from normal ethernet/wifi/whatever carrier ist used - sniffing.
Oh and btw., open source terrorists get their awsome drone sniffing software for FREE!!!
!1111: 

 http://sites.google.com/site/skynetr32/skynet.\%3Ar32\_index\_en [google.com]

(in case you're to lazy to klick on the link: basically another dvb-s file sniffer, but open sauce).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475938</id>
	<title>Re:Some real kneejerk reactions above</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261076100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Profound lack of creativity on behalf of you slashdot readers.  They could use the feeds in a variety of ways:</p><p>1.  Understand exactly what the drone can and cannot see.  This would allow them to more easily evade surveillance.</p><p>2.  Know the buildings and areas being targeted and avoid them.</p><p>3.  Learn more about other capabilities of the platform, time in the air, targeting, etc.</p><p>4.  Post on youtube</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Profound lack of creativity on behalf of you slashdot readers .
They could use the feeds in a variety of ways : 1 .
Understand exactly what the drone can and can not see .
This would allow them to more easily evade surveillance.2 .
Know the buildings and areas being targeted and avoid them.3 .
Learn more about other capabilities of the platform , time in the air , targeting , etc.4 .
Post on youtube</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Profound lack of creativity on behalf of you slashdot readers.
They could use the feeds in a variety of ways:1.
Understand exactly what the drone can and cannot see.
This would allow them to more easily evade surveillance.2.
Know the buildings and areas being targeted and avoid them.3.
Learn more about other capabilities of the platform, time in the air, targeting, etc.4.
Post on youtube</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474116</id>
	<title>Just use standard movie disclaimers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261068300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't they just add a standard disclaimer similar to the ones shown before a movie at the theatre? That should be enough to discourage the enemy from making a copy and showing it for public use etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they just add a standard disclaimer similar to the ones shown before a movie at the theatre ?
That should be enough to discourage the enemy from making a copy and showing it for public use etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they just add a standard disclaimer similar to the ones shown before a movie at the theatre?
That should be enough to discourage the enemy from making a copy and showing it for public use etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475252</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261073040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>" This type of communication is critical to tomorrow's battlefield"

It is critical to today's battlefield.  It is pathetic that the video feeds are wide open putting lives at risk when a relatively simple solution exists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" This type of communication is critical to tomorrow 's battlefield " It is critical to today 's battlefield .
It is pathetic that the video feeds are wide open putting lives at risk when a relatively simple solution exists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" This type of communication is critical to tomorrow's battlefield"

It is critical to today's battlefield.
It is pathetic that the video feeds are wide open putting lives at risk when a relatively simple solution exists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472752</id>
	<title>I hope the steering channel is encrypted.</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1261062240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be scary/interesting/awesome/horrible [make your pick] if the insurgents could subvert the drones, take over them, land them, load full of explosives, upgrade to encrypted software and use to bomb american bases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be scary/interesting/awesome/horrible [ make your pick ] if the insurgents could subvert the drones , take over them , land them , load full of explosives , upgrade to encrypted software and use to bomb american bases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be scary/interesting/awesome/horrible [make your pick] if the insurgents could subvert the drones, take over them, land them, load full of explosives, upgrade to encrypted software and use to bomb american bases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473126</id>
	<title>LISTEN UP TARDS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261064400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you fucking know it was not intentional in order to fool the goat lovers? Its called deception, look it up.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Sometimes you fucking people are just so full of yourselves</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you fucking know it was not intentional in order to fool the goat lovers ?
Its called deception , look it up .
      Sometimes you fucking people are just so full of yourselves</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you fucking know it was not intentional in order to fool the goat lovers?
Its called deception, look it up.
      Sometimes you fucking people are just so full of yourselves</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472674</id>
	<title>It doesn't defeat them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261061760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Defeating them would be gaining control of the drones (a really scary proposition)
</p><p>
This seems to be an information leak..   something that ought to be fixable by using some sort of encryption.
</p><p>
Or even by making slight changes to the stream format,  since  SkyGrabber  seems to just be off-the-shelf software.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Defeating them would be gaining control of the drones ( a really scary proposition ) This seems to be an information leak.. something that ought to be fixable by using some sort of encryption .
Or even by making slight changes to the stream format , since SkyGrabber seems to just be off-the-shelf software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Defeating them would be gaining control of the drones (a really scary proposition)

This seems to be an information leak..   something that ought to be fixable by using some sort of encryption.
Or even by making slight changes to the stream format,  since  SkyGrabber  seems to just be off-the-shelf software.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477106</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Concern</author>
	<datestamp>1261080480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm trying to understand how you can justify this.</p><p>We don't need to make excuses for the military. They don't need that kind of "support." They need a clear-eyed assessment of the consequences of our aerial surveillance videos falling into the hands of the enemy. They need accountability and better decision-making in the future.</p><p>If I could watch these videos, shot from drones over the terrain I lived and grew up in, I could avoid rocket attacks; eventually, with enough study, even predict the habits and patterns of drone deployment altogether.</p><p>If you think this is not a big deal, imagine if our enemies had unencrypted video broadcasting from their planes (if they had any), or their trucks, or their persons. Could we find no way to exploit this? <b>Really?</b></p><p>From an engineering perspective, this is unquestionably a massive embarrassment for the US military. If you had come on slashdot yesterday and argued that any part of the data stream from these drones was unencrypted, you would have been laughed out of the metaphorical room. Even with the WSJ covering the story, it is hard to believe. Then again, they're a Murdoch paper now. Who knows.</p><p>If this story is true, it's a mistake so severe that it hurts our credibility and stature and emboldens our enemies. If our (very expensive) drone effort was comrpomised, there were very likely missed opportunities to hit targets, and an indirect cost in the lives of American troops. That's not complicated reasoning. It's obvious.</p><p>The justification is if it was a net win - in other words, the compromised drones were all we could field in time, and they were more effective than no drones. But the article rules that out. No one here will believe that with 10+ years and the world's largest budgets, America really lacked the ability to encrypt this video stream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm trying to understand how you can justify this.We do n't need to make excuses for the military .
They do n't need that kind of " support .
" They need a clear-eyed assessment of the consequences of our aerial surveillance videos falling into the hands of the enemy .
They need accountability and better decision-making in the future.If I could watch these videos , shot from drones over the terrain I lived and grew up in , I could avoid rocket attacks ; eventually , with enough study , even predict the habits and patterns of drone deployment altogether.If you think this is not a big deal , imagine if our enemies had unencrypted video broadcasting from their planes ( if they had any ) , or their trucks , or their persons .
Could we find no way to exploit this ?
Really ? From an engineering perspective , this is unquestionably a massive embarrassment for the US military .
If you had come on slashdot yesterday and argued that any part of the data stream from these drones was unencrypted , you would have been laughed out of the metaphorical room .
Even with the WSJ covering the story , it is hard to believe .
Then again , they 're a Murdoch paper now .
Who knows.If this story is true , it 's a mistake so severe that it hurts our credibility and stature and emboldens our enemies .
If our ( very expensive ) drone effort was comrpomised , there were very likely missed opportunities to hit targets , and an indirect cost in the lives of American troops .
That 's not complicated reasoning .
It 's obvious.The justification is if it was a net win - in other words , the compromised drones were all we could field in time , and they were more effective than no drones .
But the article rules that out .
No one here will believe that with 10 + years and the world 's largest budgets , America really lacked the ability to encrypt this video stream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm trying to understand how you can justify this.We don't need to make excuses for the military.
They don't need that kind of "support.
" They need a clear-eyed assessment of the consequences of our aerial surveillance videos falling into the hands of the enemy.
They need accountability and better decision-making in the future.If I could watch these videos, shot from drones over the terrain I lived and grew up in, I could avoid rocket attacks; eventually, with enough study, even predict the habits and patterns of drone deployment altogether.If you think this is not a big deal, imagine if our enemies had unencrypted video broadcasting from their planes (if they had any), or their trucks, or their persons.
Could we find no way to exploit this?
Really?From an engineering perspective, this is unquestionably a massive embarrassment for the US military.
If you had come on slashdot yesterday and argued that any part of the data stream from these drones was unencrypted, you would have been laughed out of the metaphorical room.
Even with the WSJ covering the story, it is hard to believe.
Then again, they're a Murdoch paper now.
Who knows.If this story is true, it's a mistake so severe that it hurts our credibility and stature and emboldens our enemies.
If our (very expensive) drone effort was comrpomised, there were very likely missed opportunities to hit targets, and an indirect cost in the lives of American troops.
That's not complicated reasoning.
It's obvious.The justification is if it was a net win - in other words, the compromised drones were all we could field in time, and they were more effective than no drones.
But the article rules that out.
No one here will believe that with 10+ years and the world's largest budgets, America really lacked the ability to encrypt this video stream.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472706</id>
	<title>note to self:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261061880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it is generally a bad idea to piss off people who have access to thermonuclear weapons and killer robots when I don't.</p><p>since this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. I'll throw in a conspiracy theory + dumb meme: is the program really a CIA honeypot which just reports fake data? in the post 9/11 era, does your tracking software track you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it is generally a bad idea to piss off people who have access to thermonuclear weapons and killer robots when I do n't.since this is / .
I 'll throw in a conspiracy theory + dumb meme : is the program really a CIA honeypot which just reports fake data ?
in the post 9/11 era , does your tracking software track you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is generally a bad idea to piss off people who have access to thermonuclear weapons and killer robots when I don't.since this is /.
I'll throw in a conspiracy theory + dumb meme: is the program really a CIA honeypot which just reports fake data?
in the post 9/11 era, does your tracking software track you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474206</id>
	<title>Re:Can't add encryption?</title>
	<author>querist</author>
	<datestamp>1261068660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm going with "age".

Keep in mind how old these drones are.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going with " age " .
Keep in mind how old these drones are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going with "age".
Keep in mind how old these drones are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473294</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261065060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple explanation here.</p><p>Back in the early days of this design, someone designated drone-originated video as unclassified.  Otherwise there's no way in hell it would be unencrypted.</p><p>This isn't an oversight - there's guaranteed a loooong paper trail going back to a conscious decision regarding the classification level of the drone video here, and following conscious decisions regarding the design.</p><p>If you use encryption in a military system that is not NSA Type 1 approved, there's a LOT of paperwork required to prove that your encryption is not being used to protect classified information.</p><p>Type 1 approved crypto is a royal pain in the ass. - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type\_1\_encryption" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type\_1\_encryption</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>It often proves significantly easier in terms of cost and paperwork to not encrypt than to prove that your encryption isn't being used to protect classified information.  Security guys ask, "If it's unclassified, why are you encrypting it?", with "It's good design practice." resulting in massive beancounter agro.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple explanation here.Back in the early days of this design , someone designated drone-originated video as unclassified .
Otherwise there 's no way in hell it would be unencrypted.This is n't an oversight - there 's guaranteed a loooong paper trail going back to a conscious decision regarding the classification level of the drone video here , and following conscious decisions regarding the design.If you use encryption in a military system that is not NSA Type 1 approved , there 's a LOT of paperwork required to prove that your encryption is not being used to protect classified information.Type 1 approved crypto is a royal pain in the ass .
- http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type \ _1 \ _encryption [ wikipedia.org ] It often proves significantly easier in terms of cost and paperwork to not encrypt than to prove that your encryption is n't being used to protect classified information .
Security guys ask , " If it 's unclassified , why are you encrypting it ?
" , with " It 's good design practice .
" resulting in massive beancounter agro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple explanation here.Back in the early days of this design, someone designated drone-originated video as unclassified.
Otherwise there's no way in hell it would be unencrypted.This isn't an oversight - there's guaranteed a loooong paper trail going back to a conscious decision regarding the classification level of the drone video here, and following conscious decisions regarding the design.If you use encryption in a military system that is not NSA Type 1 approved, there's a LOT of paperwork required to prove that your encryption is not being used to protect classified information.Type 1 approved crypto is a royal pain in the ass.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type\_1\_encryption [wikipedia.org]It often proves significantly easier in terms of cost and paperwork to not encrypt than to prove that your encryption isn't being used to protect classified information.
Security guys ask, "If it's unclassified, why are you encrypting it?
", with "It's good design practice.
" resulting in massive beancounter agro.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472698</id>
	<title>The Pentagon is full of idiots</title>
	<author>SirGarlon</author>
	<datestamp>1261061880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're flying missions halfway around the world and not even bothering to encrypt the video stream. I can understand that in the rush to get drones in the field they might have had to cut a few corners on the system design -- but for crying out loud they've had 8 years to patch this hole.  *Sigh*  Your tax dollars at work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're flying missions halfway around the world and not even bothering to encrypt the video stream .
I can understand that in the rush to get drones in the field they might have had to cut a few corners on the system design -- but for crying out loud they 've had 8 years to patch this hole .
* Sigh * Your tax dollars at work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're flying missions halfway around the world and not even bothering to encrypt the video stream.
I can understand that in the rush to get drones in the field they might have had to cut a few corners on the system design -- but for crying out loud they've had 8 years to patch this hole.
*Sigh*  Your tax dollars at work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474010</id>
	<title>Re:Oh noes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261067880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It could be a deliberate ploy to manipulate what the enemy "sees". Why not have a "leak"?<br>It's a bit like leaving USB keys around for the unsuspecting to pick up...</p></div><p>Yes, but the enemy will take this into account.<br>So they transmit the real data unencrypted, since the enemy will think it is a fake and therefore definitively wrong.<br>This is the age old principle that confusion is stronger than encryption.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It could be a deliberate ploy to manipulate what the enemy " sees " .
Why not have a " leak " ? It 's a bit like leaving USB keys around for the unsuspecting to pick up...Yes , but the enemy will take this into account.So they transmit the real data unencrypted , since the enemy will think it is a fake and therefore definitively wrong.This is the age old principle that confusion is stronger than encryption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could be a deliberate ploy to manipulate what the enemy "sees".
Why not have a "leak"?It's a bit like leaving USB keys around for the unsuspecting to pick up...Yes, but the enemy will take this into account.So they transmit the real data unencrypted, since the enemy will think it is a fake and therefore definitively wrong.This is the age old principle that confusion is stronger than encryption.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472716</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261062000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Turns out the drones use bluetooth. Just the other day my laptop asked me to sync to one when I was put a pringles can on the antenna.</p><p>"Windows has found a MQ-9 Reaper, would you like to connect?"</p><p>At this point I was (a.) terrified and (b.) glad that somebody with some clout was going to do something about the increased crime in the area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Turns out the drones use bluetooth .
Just the other day my laptop asked me to sync to one when I was put a pringles can on the antenna .
" Windows has found a MQ-9 Reaper , would you like to connect ?
" At this point I was ( a .
) terrified and ( b .
) glad that somebody with some clout was going to do something about the increased crime in the area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Turns out the drones use bluetooth.
Just the other day my laptop asked me to sync to one when I was put a pringles can on the antenna.
"Windows has found a MQ-9 Reaper, would you like to connect?
"At this point I was (a.
) terrified and (b.
) glad that somebody with some clout was going to do something about the increased crime in the area.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473056</id>
	<title>An opportunity for the DMCA</title>
	<author>MasterPatricko</author>
	<datestamp>1261064040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Finally, a case where the DMCA and anti-piracy laws COULD actually improve national security! <br> <br>

Of course, trying to serve terrorists with DMCA DRM circumvention notices could be even more pointless than sending them to The Pirate Bay...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , a case where the DMCA and anti-piracy laws COULD actually improve national security !
Of course , trying to serve terrorists with DMCA DRM circumvention notices could be even more pointless than sending them to The Pirate Bay.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, a case where the DMCA and anti-piracy laws COULD actually improve national security!
Of course, trying to serve terrorists with DMCA DRM circumvention notices could be even more pointless than sending them to The Pirate Bay...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30478240</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261041180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should be a little more careful... NSA will pick you up before x-mas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should be a little more careful... NSA will pick you up before x-mas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should be a little more careful... NSA will pick you up before x-mas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30480586</id>
	<title>Re:Can't add encryption?</title>
	<author>arkenian</author>
	<datestamp>1261050240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually one of the primary Command and Control Networks has no encryption.  It drives me nuts on a regular basis (mostly because it makes the network unusable for vast portions of C2 work.)  A lot of the legacy comms for various (primarily airborne) platforms have either no encryption or insufficient encryption.  As noted by others, its a lot of work to fix this, and then get it flight certified, and deploy it theatre-wide, etc. etc. etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually one of the primary Command and Control Networks has no encryption .
It drives me nuts on a regular basis ( mostly because it makes the network unusable for vast portions of C2 work .
) A lot of the legacy comms for various ( primarily airborne ) platforms have either no encryption or insufficient encryption .
As noted by others , its a lot of work to fix this , and then get it flight certified , and deploy it theatre-wide , etc .
etc. etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually one of the primary Command and Control Networks has no encryption.
It drives me nuts on a regular basis (mostly because it makes the network unusable for vast portions of C2 work.
)  A lot of the legacy comms for various (primarily airborne) platforms have either no encryption or insufficient encryption.
As noted by others, its a lot of work to fix this, and then get it flight certified, and deploy it theatre-wide, etc.
etc. etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30482644</id>
	<title>So what.</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1261062780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless they can intercept and alter the signal, they're still going to get blown up. It's just their commanders (or subordinates if a UAV strikes a HQ) can do a real post mortem on why "UAVs" &gt; "sticks and stones".
<br>
And in TFA, it's a video feed. Video feeds are not use in command and control of UAV--but instead target verification and post analysis--which is useless intel to an adversary during a unfolding mission. Also, you know if they encrypt it, they need more processing power. If an unencrypted stream barely provides <b>real-time</b>, low-latency video through a satellite network (thousands of miles wirelessly), and moving at a few hundred miles an hour, adding encryption will surely kill the performance and add a boat load of latency on the vehicle side...
<br>
Is this a surprise to non-military, web-programmers, h*ll yes. But to the milspec programmer I can see there was a bunch of technical tradeoffs involved in going 'unencrypted'.
<br>
<br>

And sure, you probably could get wireshark sniffing packets off their connection...for FREE.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless they can intercept and alter the signal , they 're still going to get blown up .
It 's just their commanders ( or subordinates if a UAV strikes a HQ ) can do a real post mortem on why " UAVs " &gt; " sticks and stones " .
And in TFA , it 's a video feed .
Video feeds are not use in command and control of UAV--but instead target verification and post analysis--which is useless intel to an adversary during a unfolding mission .
Also , you know if they encrypt it , they need more processing power .
If an unencrypted stream barely provides real-time , low-latency video through a satellite network ( thousands of miles wirelessly ) , and moving at a few hundred miles an hour , adding encryption will surely kill the performance and add a boat load of latency on the vehicle side.. . Is this a surprise to non-military , web-programmers , h * ll yes .
But to the milspec programmer I can see there was a bunch of technical tradeoffs involved in going 'unencrypted' .
And sure , you probably could get wireshark sniffing packets off their connection...for FREE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless they can intercept and alter the signal, they're still going to get blown up.
It's just their commanders (or subordinates if a UAV strikes a HQ) can do a real post mortem on why "UAVs" &gt; "sticks and stones".
And in TFA, it's a video feed.
Video feeds are not use in command and control of UAV--but instead target verification and post analysis--which is useless intel to an adversary during a unfolding mission.
Also, you know if they encrypt it, they need more processing power.
If an unencrypted stream barely provides real-time, low-latency video through a satellite network (thousands of miles wirelessly), and moving at a few hundred miles an hour, adding encryption will surely kill the performance and add a boat load of latency on the vehicle side...

Is this a surprise to non-military, web-programmers, h*ll yes.
But to the milspec programmer I can see there was a bunch of technical tradeoffs involved in going 'unencrypted'.
And sure, you probably could get wireshark sniffing packets off their connection...for FREE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474694</id>
	<title>Re:And the big deal is what?</title>
	<author>secretcurse</author>
	<datestamp>1261070880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And extending your point, we want the insurgents to know the drones are up there watching all the time.  We have thousands of them up and are making more as quickly as we can.  We want the enemy to think we're watching every single move he makes.  Drones are an important part of psychological warfare.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And extending your point , we want the insurgents to know the drones are up there watching all the time .
We have thousands of them up and are making more as quickly as we can .
We want the enemy to think we 're watching every single move he makes .
Drones are an important part of psychological warfare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And extending your point, we want the insurgents to know the drones are up there watching all the time.
We have thousands of them up and are making more as quickly as we can.
We want the enemy to think we're watching every single move he makes.
Drones are an important part of psychological warfare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472964</id>
	<title>Re:More important question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261063560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>From what I could make out, it's just the video stream transmitted by the drone that's unencrypted, not communications that control the drone. The obvious reason this might be done is to save on the computational requirements onboard the drone by not making it encrypt the presumably immense data stream of the video. Decrypting the rest of the communication the drone receives is probably an order of magnitude less processing load, or even two.<br> <br>
If received and understood by the enemy in a timely manner, very useful information. But if it is just the image unencrypted and not GPS coordinates, etc, the enemy would have to have enough people watching the feeds to recognize the terrain that was being photographed... it's easy to see why this might not be considered likely and lead to the poor judgement to leave it unencrypted when the drones were designed, many years ago with less powerful processors available.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I could make out , it 's just the video stream transmitted by the drone that 's unencrypted , not communications that control the drone .
The obvious reason this might be done is to save on the computational requirements onboard the drone by not making it encrypt the presumably immense data stream of the video .
Decrypting the rest of the communication the drone receives is probably an order of magnitude less processing load , or even two .
If received and understood by the enemy in a timely manner , very useful information .
But if it is just the image unencrypted and not GPS coordinates , etc , the enemy would have to have enough people watching the feeds to recognize the terrain that was being photographed... it 's easy to see why this might not be considered likely and lead to the poor judgement to leave it unencrypted when the drones were designed , many years ago with less powerful processors available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I could make out, it's just the video stream transmitted by the drone that's unencrypted, not communications that control the drone.
The obvious reason this might be done is to save on the computational requirements onboard the drone by not making it encrypt the presumably immense data stream of the video.
Decrypting the rest of the communication the drone receives is probably an order of magnitude less processing load, or even two.
If received and understood by the enemy in a timely manner, very useful information.
But if it is just the image unencrypted and not GPS coordinates, etc, the enemy would have to have enough people watching the feeds to recognize the terrain that was being photographed... it's easy to see why this might not be considered likely and lead to the poor judgement to leave it unencrypted when the drones were designed, many years ago with less powerful processors available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472612</id>
	<title>IN soviet russia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261061400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...you observe uav</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...you observe uav</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you observe uav</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473390</id>
	<title>The communication channel between a combat UAV...</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1261065540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and ground control is NOT ENCRYPTED?  That's simply unbelievable.  I'm speechless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and ground control is NOT ENCRYPTED ?
That 's simply unbelievable .
I 'm speechless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and ground control is NOT ENCRYPTED?
That's simply unbelievable.
I'm speechless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474814</id>
	<title>Re:you have a good point</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1261071300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's also likely that our SIGINT people could detect these operations and... er... neutralize them. The UAVs are only part of a huge web of intel gathering operations, and even irregularities as minor as our tars pods picking up stuff that our predators never see would be noticed. Like most<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. stories about the military, there is a lot going on under the surface that the average reader doesn't know about. Which, when it comes to intel, is a good thing (for us). People should also keep in mind that the UAV field is brand new, relatively speaking. New developments go from the drawing board to the battlefield in record time- there are bound to be misadventures along the course to a fully operational battlefield asset. And while we've had 8 years to fix this, it hasn't been an issue yet.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's also likely that our SIGINT people could detect these operations and... er... neutralize them .
The UAVs are only part of a huge web of intel gathering operations , and even irregularities as minor as our tars pods picking up stuff that our predators never see would be noticed .
Like most / .
stories about the military , there is a lot going on under the surface that the average reader does n't know about .
Which , when it comes to intel , is a good thing ( for us ) .
People should also keep in mind that the UAV field is brand new , relatively speaking .
New developments go from the drawing board to the battlefield in record time- there are bound to be misadventures along the course to a fully operational battlefield asset .
And while we 've had 8 years to fix this , it has n't been an issue yet.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's also likely that our SIGINT people could detect these operations and... er... neutralize them.
The UAVs are only part of a huge web of intel gathering operations, and even irregularities as minor as our tars pods picking up stuff that our predators never see would be noticed.
Like most /.
stories about the military, there is a lot going on under the surface that the average reader doesn't know about.
Which, when it comes to intel, is a good thing (for us).
People should also keep in mind that the UAV field is brand new, relatively speaking.
New developments go from the drawing board to the battlefield in record time- there are bound to be misadventures along the course to a fully operational battlefield asset.
And while we've had 8 years to fix this, it hasn't been an issue yet.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472974</id>
	<title>ASS-U-ME</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1261063620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So they recorded unencrypted OTA video feeds?  While yes, they probably should have been encrypted in the first place and . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p><p> <i>The U.S. government has known about the flaw since the U.S. campaign in Bosnia in the 1990s, current and former officials said. But the Pentagon assumed local adversaries wouldn't know how to exploit it, the officials said.</i> </p><p>Yea that's kinda bad and lazy of them,</p><p> <i>Senior military and intelligence officials said the U.S. was working to encrypt all of its drone video feeds from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, but said it wasn't yet clear if the problem had been completely resolved.</i> </p><p>they're fixing it.</p></div><p>#1: Someone once said "Assumption is the mother of all fuckups".  My only hope is that this unencrypted intel is somehow time-sensitive enough that adversaries are getting their hands on it about 3 seconds before the target is destroyed, but I'm not going to "assume" that any operation or procedure is THAT efficient.</p><p>#2: "They're fixing it" is the worst fucking excuse I've ever heard for a problem that is over 15 years old.  Don't sit here and try and convince me that crypto hardware(or software for that matter) is a foreign concept with military communications.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So they recorded unencrypted OTA video feeds ?
While yes , they probably should have been encrypted in the first place and .
. .
The U.S. government has known about the flaw since the U.S. campaign in Bosnia in the 1990s , current and former officials said .
But the Pentagon assumed local adversaries would n't know how to exploit it , the officials said .
Yea that 's kinda bad and lazy of them , Senior military and intelligence officials said the U.S. was working to encrypt all of its drone video feeds from Iraq , Afghanistan and Pakistan , but said it was n't yet clear if the problem had been completely resolved .
they 're fixing it. # 1 : Someone once said " Assumption is the mother of all fuckups " .
My only hope is that this unencrypted intel is somehow time-sensitive enough that adversaries are getting their hands on it about 3 seconds before the target is destroyed , but I 'm not going to " assume " that any operation or procedure is THAT efficient. # 2 : " They 're fixing it " is the worst fucking excuse I 've ever heard for a problem that is over 15 years old .
Do n't sit here and try and convince me that crypto hardware ( or software for that matter ) is a foreign concept with military communications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they recorded unencrypted OTA video feeds?
While yes, they probably should have been encrypted in the first place and .
. .
The U.S. government has known about the flaw since the U.S. campaign in Bosnia in the 1990s, current and former officials said.
But the Pentagon assumed local adversaries wouldn't know how to exploit it, the officials said.
Yea that's kinda bad and lazy of them, Senior military and intelligence officials said the U.S. was working to encrypt all of its drone video feeds from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, but said it wasn't yet clear if the problem had been completely resolved.
they're fixing it.#1: Someone once said "Assumption is the mother of all fuckups".
My only hope is that this unencrypted intel is somehow time-sensitive enough that adversaries are getting their hands on it about 3 seconds before the target is destroyed, but I'm not going to "assume" that any operation or procedure is THAT efficient.#2: "They're fixing it" is the worst fucking excuse I've ever heard for a problem that is over 15 years old.
Don't sit here and try and convince me that crypto hardware(or software for that matter) is a foreign concept with military communications.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472622</id>
	<title>opps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261061460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lol looks like they need a better software team.<br>Just Imagine what someone with actual resources (e.g. a government) could do if Militants could hack them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lol looks like they need a better software team.Just Imagine what someone with actual resources ( e.g .
a government ) could do if Militants could hack them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol looks like they need a better software team.Just Imagine what someone with actual resources (e.g.
a government) could do if Militants could hack them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30482088</id>
	<title>Guessing incorrectly, AC</title>
	<author>lenski</author>
	<datestamp>1261058820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plenty of people on this site have been there, done that and know how much it costs.</p><p>Assuming that Murdoch's rag isn't lying about the story (a point that's been made and worth considering), those of us who both do comms security and have worked with profit-oriented military contractors, know all too well that there are too many times when incompetence is the rule not the exception.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plenty of people on this site have been there , done that and know how much it costs.Assuming that Murdoch 's rag is n't lying about the story ( a point that 's been made and worth considering ) , those of us who both do comms security and have worked with profit-oriented military contractors , know all too well that there are too many times when incompetence is the rule not the exception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plenty of people on this site have been there, done that and know how much it costs.Assuming that Murdoch's rag isn't lying about the story (a point that's been made and worth considering), those of us who both do comms security and have worked with profit-oriented military contractors, know all too well that there are too many times when incompetence is the rule not the exception.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30478184</id>
	<title>DISINFORMATION</title>
	<author>billraper</author>
	<datestamp>1261040880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Imagine how this so-called flaw can be exploited.

The Power of Disinformation

Send the unencrypted drones on jolly little excursions looking at non-targets.  Then use the encrypted drones to gather your proper intel.

Use the old-style to distract, confuse, confound and deceive your enemy.

Then</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine how this so-called flaw can be exploited .
The Power of Disinformation Send the unencrypted drones on jolly little excursions looking at non-targets .
Then use the encrypted drones to gather your proper intel .
Use the old-style to distract , confuse , confound and deceive your enemy .
Then</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine how this so-called flaw can be exploited.
The Power of Disinformation

Send the unencrypted drones on jolly little excursions looking at non-targets.
Then use the encrypted drones to gather your proper intel.
Use the old-style to distract, confuse, confound and deceive your enemy.
Then</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30481604</id>
	<title>Re:Oh noes</title>
	<author>didroe84</author>
	<datestamp>1261056120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When the choices are some elaborate disinformation campaign and someone (like everyone at some point) fucking up and deciding encryption wasn't required - I know what I would say the more likely choice is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the choices are some elaborate disinformation campaign and someone ( like everyone at some point ) fucking up and deciding encryption was n't required - I know what I would say the more likely choice is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the choices are some elaborate disinformation campaign and someone (like everyone at some point) fucking up and deciding encryption wasn't required - I know what I would say the more likely choice is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472998</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously would it have been difficult</title>
	<author>Eivind</author>
	<datestamp>1261063740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should've been encrypted, for sure. Agreed.</p><p>However, it does need to be encryption that works over a noisy channel, with possible gaps in the datastream. Your typical block-cipher using chaining thus doesn't qualify. (If you wonder why, try encrypting a one-megabyte file, then change a few characters randomly in the first half of the file, then decrypt it)</p><p>It's still not a hard problem mind you, just slightly more so than "grab AES, set it to CBC-mode"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should 've been encrypted , for sure .
Agreed.However , it does need to be encryption that works over a noisy channel , with possible gaps in the datastream .
Your typical block-cipher using chaining thus does n't qualify .
( If you wonder why , try encrypting a one-megabyte file , then change a few characters randomly in the first half of the file , then decrypt it ) It 's still not a hard problem mind you , just slightly more so than " grab AES , set it to CBC-mode "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should've been encrypted, for sure.
Agreed.However, it does need to be encryption that works over a noisy channel, with possible gaps in the datastream.
Your typical block-cipher using chaining thus doesn't qualify.
(If you wonder why, try encrypting a one-megabyte file, then change a few characters randomly in the first half of the file, then decrypt it)It's still not a hard problem mind you, just slightly more so than "grab AES, set it to CBC-mode"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473458</id>
	<title>Yawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261065900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$26 software <i>defeats American military?</i>  OMG, we've been beaten?</p><p>Oh, wait... you're just saying that insurgents have a tactical advantage in some missions because they've exploited a security vulnerability using $26 software.  So maybe $26 software used as weapon aganist US military?</p><p>Ah... but the military discovered the problem in the field, and is working to plug the security hole.  <i>$26 software annoys American military temporarily</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 26 software defeats American military ?
OMG , we 've been beaten ? Oh , wait... you 're just saying that insurgents have a tactical advantage in some missions because they 've exploited a security vulnerability using $ 26 software .
So maybe $ 26 software used as weapon aganist US military ? Ah... but the military discovered the problem in the field , and is working to plug the security hole .
$ 26 software annoys American military temporarily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$26 software defeats American military?
OMG, we've been beaten?Oh, wait... you're just saying that insurgents have a tactical advantage in some missions because they've exploited a security vulnerability using $26 software.
So maybe $26 software used as weapon aganist US military?Ah... but the military discovered the problem in the field, and is working to plug the security hole.
$26 software annoys American military temporarily.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474062</id>
	<title>Re:Some real kneejerk reactions above</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261068060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear your concerns. But what really worries me is that in the WSJ report regarding the issue, authors SIOBHAN GORMAN, YOCHI J. DREAZEN and AUGUST COLE say:</p><p>"Predator drones are built by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. of San Diego. Some of its communications technology is proprietary, so widely used encryption systems aren't readily compatible, said people familiar with the matter."</p><p>It concerns me that what this company considers its property (that's how proprietary should be read) is something open enough to be read by anyone. And the taxpayers are paying megabucks this.</p><p>The real conspiracy theory should be that of plagiarism, or intellectual property theft.<br>Some defense contractors seem to be ripping off GPL and the American taxpayer with contracts gained through their friends in Washington.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear your concerns .
But what really worries me is that in the WSJ report regarding the issue , authors SIOBHAN GORMAN , YOCHI J. DREAZEN and AUGUST COLE say : " Predator drones are built by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. of San Diego .
Some of its communications technology is proprietary , so widely used encryption systems are n't readily compatible , said people familiar with the matter .
" It concerns me that what this company considers its property ( that 's how proprietary should be read ) is something open enough to be read by anyone .
And the taxpayers are paying megabucks this.The real conspiracy theory should be that of plagiarism , or intellectual property theft.Some defense contractors seem to be ripping off GPL and the American taxpayer with contracts gained through their friends in Washington .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear your concerns.
But what really worries me is that in the WSJ report regarding the issue, authors SIOBHAN GORMAN, YOCHI J. DREAZEN and AUGUST COLE say:"Predator drones are built by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. of San Diego.
Some of its communications technology is proprietary, so widely used encryption systems aren't readily compatible, said people familiar with the matter.
"It concerns me that what this company considers its property (that's how proprietary should be read) is something open enough to be read by anyone.
And the taxpayers are paying megabucks this.The real conspiracy theory should be that of plagiarism, or intellectual property theft.Some defense contractors seem to be ripping off GPL and the American taxpayer with contracts gained through their friends in Washington.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477390</id>
	<title>Re:More important question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261081500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From what I could make out, it's just the video stream transmitted by the drone that's unencrypted, not communications that control the drone. The obvious reason this might be done is to save on the computational requirements onboard the drone by not making it encrypt the presumably immense data stream of the video. Decrypting the rest of the communication the drone receives is probably an order of magnitude less processing load, or even two.</p></div><p>I do wonder how much of an issue the computational requirements can be because I compare it to pay-per-view TV, which as HD probably means an order of magnitude more data (I don't know about the quality of those streams but I really doubt that it's good). A number of the conax keys have lasted for years without being broken even though the people that try to break them have (1) access to the physical hardware, (2) can dump an encrypted stream and compare it to the decrypted one and (3) have huge distributed computing power available since key breaking clients seems much more meaningful than SETI@home for satellite dish owners. Because the hardware needed for watching pay-per-view doesn't cost or weigh much, I doubt that it could be an issue on a drone. Anything that can fit on a tiny PCI card can probably be redesigned to fit in a matchbox, if size and weight is an issue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I could make out , it 's just the video stream transmitted by the drone that 's unencrypted , not communications that control the drone .
The obvious reason this might be done is to save on the computational requirements onboard the drone by not making it encrypt the presumably immense data stream of the video .
Decrypting the rest of the communication the drone receives is probably an order of magnitude less processing load , or even two.I do wonder how much of an issue the computational requirements can be because I compare it to pay-per-view TV , which as HD probably means an order of magnitude more data ( I do n't know about the quality of those streams but I really doubt that it 's good ) .
A number of the conax keys have lasted for years without being broken even though the people that try to break them have ( 1 ) access to the physical hardware , ( 2 ) can dump an encrypted stream and compare it to the decrypted one and ( 3 ) have huge distributed computing power available since key breaking clients seems much more meaningful than SETI @ home for satellite dish owners .
Because the hardware needed for watching pay-per-view does n't cost or weigh much , I doubt that it could be an issue on a drone .
Anything that can fit on a tiny PCI card can probably be redesigned to fit in a matchbox , if size and weight is an issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I could make out, it's just the video stream transmitted by the drone that's unencrypted, not communications that control the drone.
The obvious reason this might be done is to save on the computational requirements onboard the drone by not making it encrypt the presumably immense data stream of the video.
Decrypting the rest of the communication the drone receives is probably an order of magnitude less processing load, or even two.I do wonder how much of an issue the computational requirements can be because I compare it to pay-per-view TV, which as HD probably means an order of magnitude more data (I don't know about the quality of those streams but I really doubt that it's good).
A number of the conax keys have lasted for years without being broken even though the people that try to break them have (1) access to the physical hardware, (2) can dump an encrypted stream and compare it to the decrypted one and (3) have huge distributed computing power available since key breaking clients seems much more meaningful than SETI@home for satellite dish owners.
Because the hardware needed for watching pay-per-view doesn't cost or weigh much, I doubt that it could be an issue on a drone.
Anything that can fit on a tiny PCI card can probably be redesigned to fit in a matchbox, if size and weight is an issue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30476446</id>
	<title>Re:Hubris</title>
	<author>eth1</author>
	<datestamp>1261078140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Germans did not think the Poles could break their codes. The Japanese did not think the US and the Australians would break their codes.</p></div><p>Can't remember who said it:<br>Anyone can build a cipher that they themselves can't break!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Germans did not think the Poles could break their codes .
The Japanese did not think the US and the Australians would break their codes.Ca n't remember who said it : Anyone can build a cipher that they themselves ca n't break !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Germans did not think the Poles could break their codes.
The Japanese did not think the US and the Australians would break their codes.Can't remember who said it:Anyone can build a cipher that they themselves can't break!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473682</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let them watch themselves be blown up</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let them watch themselves be blown up</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let them watch themselves be blown up</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474428</id>
	<title>Re:Some real kneejerk reactions above</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261069560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your argument is rendered meaningless by the fact that drones are not smart missiles that go to an intended "known" target. They do patrols. What the information provides to the enemy are the "PATROL ROUTES"!!!!!! This means that the enemy know WHEN and WHERE NOT TO GO. Once you determine the patrol routes of the drones, you can then start to make reasonable assumptions regarding troop deployments because one of the reasons we send the drones to certain locations is so that we don't have to send people!</p><p>Underestimating the usefulness of the information provided by the drones is a big mistake, especially when the drones are an integral part of the troop increase.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your argument is rendered meaningless by the fact that drones are not smart missiles that go to an intended " known " target .
They do patrols .
What the information provides to the enemy are the " PATROL ROUTES " ! ! ! ! ! !
This means that the enemy know WHEN and WHERE NOT TO GO .
Once you determine the patrol routes of the drones , you can then start to make reasonable assumptions regarding troop deployments because one of the reasons we send the drones to certain locations is so that we do n't have to send people ! Underestimating the usefulness of the information provided by the drones is a big mistake , especially when the drones are an integral part of the troop increase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your argument is rendered meaningless by the fact that drones are not smart missiles that go to an intended "known" target.
They do patrols.
What the information provides to the enemy are the "PATROL ROUTES"!!!!!!
This means that the enemy know WHEN and WHERE NOT TO GO.
Once you determine the patrol routes of the drones, you can then start to make reasonable assumptions regarding troop deployments because one of the reasons we send the drones to certain locations is so that we don't have to send people!Underestimating the usefulness of the information provided by the drones is a big mistake, especially when the drones are an integral part of the troop increase.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473350</id>
	<title>Re:Oh noes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261065360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What they should do is encrypt the video signal, then have the drones broadcast fake video transmissions exclusively for the benefit of snoopers.  Could be as simple as video from another drone, or old video, or "look Ahmed, boobies!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What they should do is encrypt the video signal , then have the drones broadcast fake video transmissions exclusively for the benefit of snoopers .
Could be as simple as video from another drone , or old video , or " look Ahmed , boobies !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they should do is encrypt the video signal, then have the drones broadcast fake video transmissions exclusively for the benefit of snoopers.
Could be as simple as video from another drone, or old video, or "look Ahmed, boobies!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472846</id>
	<title>Dear Secretary Gates..</title>
	<author>wiredog</author>
	<datestamp>1261062840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you <i>trying</i> to lose the fucking war?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you trying to lose the fucking war ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you trying to lose the fucking war?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474858</id>
	<title>Re:Some real kneejerk reactions above</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261071480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Russians don't encrypt ICBM telemetry now because treaties won't let them (or us).  Though I think it's true that back in the days before they knew they were being monitored, they didn't - but then again, back in those days encryption hardware took up a room.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Russians do n't encrypt ICBM telemetry now because treaties wo n't let them ( or us ) .
Though I think it 's true that back in the days before they knew they were being monitored , they did n't - but then again , back in those days encryption hardware took up a room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Russians don't encrypt ICBM telemetry now because treaties won't let them (or us).
Though I think it's true that back in the days before they knew they were being monitored, they didn't - but then again, back in those days encryption hardware took up a room.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473692</id>
	<title>decoy</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1261066740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it hard to believe these big-budget, high-tech killing machines don't use RSA (or hell, OTP!) encryption with every transmission. More likely, this is a decoy transmission designed to mislead the enemy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it hard to believe these big-budget , high-tech killing machines do n't use RSA ( or hell , OTP !
) encryption with every transmission .
More likely , this is a decoy transmission designed to mislead the enemy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it hard to believe these big-budget, high-tech killing machines don't use RSA (or hell, OTP!
) encryption with every transmission.
More likely, this is a decoy transmission designed to mislead the enemy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473466</id>
	<title>Re:Some real kneejerk reactions above</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1261065960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the lives of the soldiers inside these drones is at risk!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the lives of the soldiers inside these drones is at risk !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the lives of the soldiers inside these drones is at risk!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472946</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't defeat them</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1261063440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the mission is to see without being seen and gather intelligence then intercepting the video feed would seem to be defeating the drone.</p><p>The article mentions that they didn't bother with encryption because it would cost money and just assumed no one would notice.</p><p>And of course the new $10 million a pop model have the same problem, even though they new about it before work on that one was even started.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the mission is to see without being seen and gather intelligence then intercepting the video feed would seem to be defeating the drone.The article mentions that they did n't bother with encryption because it would cost money and just assumed no one would notice.And of course the new $ 10 million a pop model have the same problem , even though they new about it before work on that one was even started .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the mission is to see without being seen and gather intelligence then intercepting the video feed would seem to be defeating the drone.The article mentions that they didn't bother with encryption because it would cost money and just assumed no one would notice.And of course the new $10 million a pop model have the same problem, even though they new about it before work on that one was even started.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474662</id>
	<title>Re:So instead of leaking this to the news...</title>
	<author>sampas</author>
	<datestamp>1261070760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Instead of sending fake video, just feed porn. That will keep them occupied for a while.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of sending fake video , just feed porn .
That will keep them occupied for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of sending fake video, just feed porn.
That will keep them occupied for a while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475920</id>
	<title>Re:Can't add encryption?</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1261076040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Either this quote is a lie, or someone did something monumentally stupid.</p></div><p>I've worked around defense contractors and I vote for monumentally stupid. Stupid on the DoDs part, that is.
</p><p>From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Some of its communications technology is proprietary, so widely used encryption systems aren't readily compatible, said people familiar with the matter.</p></div><p>What's proprietary about it is probably that they ran down to the local video store and purchased some commercial h/w for the video downlink. Probably Chinese made to boot. Then they adapted it to the drone and declared it to be "proprietary". That way someone in Congress won't realize that they had just paid GA millions of dollars for parts that they picked up at Best Buy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Either this quote is a lie , or someone did something monumentally stupid.I 've worked around defense contractors and I vote for monumentally stupid .
Stupid on the DoDs part , that is .
From TFA : Some of its communications technology is proprietary , so widely used encryption systems are n't readily compatible , said people familiar with the matter.What 's proprietary about it is probably that they ran down to the local video store and purchased some commercial h/w for the video downlink .
Probably Chinese made to boot .
Then they adapted it to the drone and declared it to be " proprietary " .
That way someone in Congress wo n't realize that they had just paid GA millions of dollars for parts that they picked up at Best Buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either this quote is a lie, or someone did something monumentally stupid.I've worked around defense contractors and I vote for monumentally stupid.
Stupid on the DoDs part, that is.
From TFA:Some of its communications technology is proprietary, so widely used encryption systems aren't readily compatible, said people familiar with the matter.What's proprietary about it is probably that they ran down to the local video store and purchased some commercial h/w for the video downlink.
Probably Chinese made to boot.
Then they adapted it to the drone and declared it to be "proprietary".
That way someone in Congress won't realize that they had just paid GA millions of dollars for parts that they picked up at Best Buy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473314</id>
	<title>Re:Some real kneejerk reactions above</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1261065180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately there are plenty of assholes out there who will exaggerate anything in order to claim that they are more security conscious than the next person (and perhaps hope to get a contract for their company). But this is surely small war, no-one dead, move along please.</p></div><p>And those same people don't know (or remember) the first rule of intelligence:</p><p> <i>Those who know, don't talk.  Those who talk, don't know.</i> </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately there are plenty of assholes out there who will exaggerate anything in order to claim that they are more security conscious than the next person ( and perhaps hope to get a contract for their company ) .
But this is surely small war , no-one dead , move along please.And those same people do n't know ( or remember ) the first rule of intelligence : Those who know , do n't talk .
Those who talk , do n't know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately there are plenty of assholes out there who will exaggerate anything in order to claim that they are more security conscious than the next person (and perhaps hope to get a contract for their company).
But this is surely small war, no-one dead, move along please.And those same people don't know (or remember) the first rule of intelligence: Those who know, don't talk.
Those who talk, don't know. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474686</id>
	<title>Re:Some real kneejerk reactions above</title>
	<author>Lazarian</author>
	<datestamp>1261070880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The Russians never bothered to encrypt the telemetry on their ICBM tests, because after all even assuming someone was reading it, they had no way of stopping the thing."

Back in the 70's the Soviets conducted missile tests with unencrypted telemetry, since they believed that since the testing ranges were deep within Russia the US couldn't intercept the signals. However, the States built satellites that could (Rhyolite/Aquacade), and when a couple of spies sold secrets revealing the program, the Soviets began encrypting telemetry.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhyolite/Aquacade" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhyolite/Aquacade</a> [wikipedia.org]

There were more details in the book An Illustrated Guide to Electronic Warfare. (I can't remember the author(s).</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Russians never bothered to encrypt the telemetry on their ICBM tests , because after all even assuming someone was reading it , they had no way of stopping the thing .
" Back in the 70 's the Soviets conducted missile tests with unencrypted telemetry , since they believed that since the testing ranges were deep within Russia the US could n't intercept the signals .
However , the States built satellites that could ( Rhyolite/Aquacade ) , and when a couple of spies sold secrets revealing the program , the Soviets began encrypting telemetry .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhyolite/Aquacade [ wikipedia.org ] There were more details in the book An Illustrated Guide to Electronic Warfare .
( I ca n't remember the author ( s ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Russians never bothered to encrypt the telemetry on their ICBM tests, because after all even assuming someone was reading it, they had no way of stopping the thing.
"

Back in the 70's the Soviets conducted missile tests with unencrypted telemetry, since they believed that since the testing ranges were deep within Russia the US couldn't intercept the signals.
However, the States built satellites that could (Rhyolite/Aquacade), and when a couple of spies sold secrets revealing the program, the Soviets began encrypting telemetry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhyolite/Aquacade [wikipedia.org]

There were more details in the book An Illustrated Guide to Electronic Warfare.
(I can't remember the author(s).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472762</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261062300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps the smart play would be to quietly encrypt actual data, while continuing to broadcast placebo or manipulated data in the clear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the smart play would be to quietly encrypt actual data , while continuing to broadcast placebo or manipulated data in the clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the smart play would be to quietly encrypt actual data, while continuing to broadcast placebo or manipulated data in the clear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473136</id>
	<title>Re:The Pentagon is full of idiots</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1261064400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've had over 14 years to fix it since they noticed it. Note, they've designed and built and put into service the next model which has the same problem since then. So clearly they just don't care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've had over 14 years to fix it since they noticed it .
Note , they 've designed and built and put into service the next model which has the same problem since then .
So clearly they just do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've had over 14 years to fix it since they noticed it.
Note, they've designed and built and put into service the next model which has the same problem since then.
So clearly they just don't care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30481710</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>easyTree</author>
	<datestamp>1261056600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, the American military has been embarrassed again - let's play spin-the-giant-finger of blame.</p><p>beep... beep... beeeeeeeeeeeeeeep</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary\_McKinnon" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Gary McKinnon</a> [wikipedia.org] - come on down!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , the American military has been embarrassed again - let 's play spin-the-giant-finger of blame.beep... beep... beeeeeeeeeeeeeeepGary McKinnon [ wikipedia.org ] - come on down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, the American military has been embarrassed again - let's play spin-the-giant-finger of blame.beep... beep... beeeeeeeeeeeeeeepGary McKinnon [wikipedia.org] - come on down!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472878</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>ArcherB</author>
	<datestamp>1261063020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, demodulating a signal is not news. But not encrypting it in the first place ought to be.</p><p>(And TFA had a red herring in its focus on the software used to record the signal--the software is probably the easy part, once you've captured the signal).</p></div><p>We were using SINCGARS in the early 90's.  SINCGARS is a frequency hopping, encrypted method of voice communication.  We were just starting to use it to network military vehicles and personnel with HQ and each other.  If SINCGARS could have been cracked, it would have put a beacon on every vehicle and soldier on and off the battlefield, not to mention eavesdropping.  However, the inventor of SINCGARS could not decrypt the signal without the software and hardware keys.  The software keys were changed at will.  Usually weekly, but could easily be done daily.  I am shocked that this signal does not use better encryption and/or frequency hopping.  This type of communication is critical to tomorrow's battlefield.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , demodulating a signal is not news .
But not encrypting it in the first place ought to be .
( And TFA had a red herring in its focus on the software used to record the signal--the software is probably the easy part , once you 've captured the signal ) .We were using SINCGARS in the early 90 's .
SINCGARS is a frequency hopping , encrypted method of voice communication .
We were just starting to use it to network military vehicles and personnel with HQ and each other .
If SINCGARS could have been cracked , it would have put a beacon on every vehicle and soldier on and off the battlefield , not to mention eavesdropping .
However , the inventor of SINCGARS could not decrypt the signal without the software and hardware keys .
The software keys were changed at will .
Usually weekly , but could easily be done daily .
I am shocked that this signal does not use better encryption and/or frequency hopping .
This type of communication is critical to tomorrow 's battlefield .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, demodulating a signal is not news.
But not encrypting it in the first place ought to be.
(And TFA had a red herring in its focus on the software used to record the signal--the software is probably the easy part, once you've captured the signal).We were using SINCGARS in the early 90's.
SINCGARS is a frequency hopping, encrypted method of voice communication.
We were just starting to use it to network military vehicles and personnel with HQ and each other.
If SINCGARS could have been cracked, it would have put a beacon on every vehicle and soldier on and off the battlefield, not to mention eavesdropping.
However, the inventor of SINCGARS could not decrypt the signal without the software and hardware keys.
The software keys were changed at will.
Usually weekly, but could easily be done daily.
I am shocked that this signal does not use better encryption and/or frequency hopping.
This type of communication is critical to tomorrow's battlefield.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30480610</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously would it have been difficult</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261050360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed and well said.   Also, people don't have a grasp on what is decoding these streams.   Not all of them are going back to some server farm in Langley, some are used directly in the field.   Those field uses might not have the cpu power to decrypt the stream in a timely fashion.    Use your imagination.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed and well said .
Also , people do n't have a grasp on what is decoding these streams .
Not all of them are going back to some server farm in Langley , some are used directly in the field .
Those field uses might not have the cpu power to decrypt the stream in a timely fashion .
Use your imagination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed and well said.
Also, people don't have a grasp on what is decoding these streams.
Not all of them are going back to some server farm in Langley, some are used directly in the field.
Those field uses might not have the cpu power to decrypt the stream in a timely fashion.
Use your imagination.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30479244</id>
	<title>Re:DROID App</title>
	<author>Tanmi-Daiow</author>
	<datestamp>1261044900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obligatory <a href="http://xkcd.com/652/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">xkcd</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obligatory xkcd [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obligatory xkcd [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30476686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472702</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>brusk</author>
	<datestamp>1261061880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, demodulating a signal is not news. But not encrypting it in the first place ought to be.

(And TFA had a red herring in its focus on the software used to record the signal--the software is probably the easy part, once you've captured the signal).</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , demodulating a signal is not news .
But not encrypting it in the first place ought to be .
( And TFA had a red herring in its focus on the software used to record the signal--the software is probably the easy part , once you 've captured the signal ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, demodulating a signal is not news.
But not encrypting it in the first place ought to be.
(And TFA had a red herring in its focus on the software used to record the signal--the software is probably the easy part, once you've captured the signal).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30478788</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1261043340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>resulting in massive beancounter agro.</p></div><p>Yes, but do they add?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>resulting in massive beancounter agro.Yes , but do they add ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>resulting in massive beancounter agro.Yes, but do they add?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475968</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1261076280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As you rightly point out, this type of communication is critical to *yesterday's* battlefield.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As you rightly point out , this type of communication is critical to * yesterday 's * battlefield .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As you rightly point out, this type of communication is critical to *yesterday's* battlefield.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473506</id>
	<title>security through obscurity...</title>
	<author>cadience</author>
	<datestamp>1261066140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...never works. This has been known for nearly two decades (TFA): "The U.S. government has known about the flaw since the U.S. campaign in Bosnia in the 1990s, current and former officials said. But the Pentagon assumed local adversaries wouldn't know how to exploit it, the officials said."</htmltext>
<tokenext>...never works .
This has been known for nearly two decades ( TFA ) : " The U.S. government has known about the flaw since the U.S. campaign in Bosnia in the 1990s , current and former officials said .
But the Pentagon assumed local adversaries would n't know how to exploit it , the officials said .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...never works.
This has been known for nearly two decades (TFA): "The U.S. government has known about the flaw since the U.S. campaign in Bosnia in the 1990s, current and former officials said.
But the Pentagon assumed local adversaries wouldn't know how to exploit it, the officials said.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472888</id>
	<title>Re:The Pentagon is full of idiots</title>
	<author>physicsphairy</author>
	<datestamp>1261063080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if the military has arranged a backdoor in this particular software package?  That could result in an awful lot of valuable intelligence for them.  Handing out a few unencrypted drone feeds to bait the trap might not be such a terrible tradeoff.

</p><p>Not saying that's how it is, of course, but it's a possibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if the military has arranged a backdoor in this particular software package ?
That could result in an awful lot of valuable intelligence for them .
Handing out a few unencrypted drone feeds to bait the trap might not be such a terrible tradeoff .
Not saying that 's how it is , of course , but it 's a possibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if the military has arranged a backdoor in this particular software package?
That could result in an awful lot of valuable intelligence for them.
Handing out a few unencrypted drone feeds to bait the trap might not be such a terrible tradeoff.
Not saying that's how it is, of course, but it's a possibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475728</id>
	<title>Re:Some real kneejerk reactions above</title>
	<author>Mr 44</author>
	<datestamp>1261075200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The risk to this is not a danger to troops. The risk of this is having a completely un-edited video source available to people who would have a field day if the official US proclamation of what happened was visibly different from the recorded video strea</p></div></blockquote><p>Awesome point!  And of course, since they've had access to these feeds for over a year, can we then assume that there hasn't been an incident where showing the footage would have disproved the US version of events?</p><p>Of course, they would be hestitant to tip thier hand that they've got access to the footage, but if they really caught us in a lie, don't you think they'd show it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The risk to this is not a danger to troops .
The risk of this is having a completely un-edited video source available to people who would have a field day if the official US proclamation of what happened was visibly different from the recorded video streaAwesome point !
And of course , since they 've had access to these feeds for over a year , can we then assume that there has n't been an incident where showing the footage would have disproved the US version of events ? Of course , they would be hestitant to tip thier hand that they 've got access to the footage , but if they really caught us in a lie , do n't you think they 'd show it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The risk to this is not a danger to troops.
The risk of this is having a completely un-edited video source available to people who would have a field day if the official US proclamation of what happened was visibly different from the recorded video streaAwesome point!
And of course, since they've had access to these feeds for over a year, can we then assume that there hasn't been an incident where showing the footage would have disproved the US version of events?Of course, they would be hestitant to tip thier hand that they've got access to the footage, but if they really caught us in a lie, don't you think they'd show it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475212</id>
	<title>Re:All your drone are belong to us</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1261072920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. I expect better from Slashdot, but they seemed to have turned their headline writing over to the DrudeReport.</p><p>What they don't say is that this report going back to January of this year, and that the military has been working on fixing the problem since then. They "hackers" can only pick up the video signal, not other info, and could not control the drones, which is what is implied from the headline.</p><p>I do think it is embarrassing and kind of hard to imagine that you couldn't see this coming, especially with North Korea regularly developing and selling anti-US technologies. This should have been in the design, or at least identified as a risk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
I expect better from Slashdot , but they seemed to have turned their headline writing over to the DrudeReport.What they do n't say is that this report going back to January of this year , and that the military has been working on fixing the problem since then .
They " hackers " can only pick up the video signal , not other info , and could not control the drones , which is what is implied from the headline.I do think it is embarrassing and kind of hard to imagine that you could n't see this coming , especially with North Korea regularly developing and selling anti-US technologies .
This should have been in the design , or at least identified as a risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
I expect better from Slashdot, but they seemed to have turned their headline writing over to the DrudeReport.What they don't say is that this report going back to January of this year, and that the military has been working on fixing the problem since then.
They "hackers" can only pick up the video signal, not other info, and could not control the drones, which is what is implied from the headline.I do think it is embarrassing and kind of hard to imagine that you couldn't see this coming, especially with North Korea regularly developing and selling anti-US technologies.
This should have been in the design, or at least identified as a risk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475540</id>
	<title>Re:Hubris</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1261074360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Germans did not think the Poles could break their codes. The Japanese did not think the US and the Australians would break their codes.</i> </p><p>The problem was never breaking the codes.</p><p>The problem was breaking the codes more or less instantaneously.</p><p>You need time to frame and execute an appropriate response - and far too often the correct response will be to do nothing.</p><p>Since to do anything will invite suspicion.</p><p><a href="http://www.americanheritage.com/people/articles/web/20090817-Bernard-Weisberger-World-War-2-World-War-II-Japanese-Translation-Codebreaking-History-Purple-Pacific-Theater.shtml" title="americanheritage.com">Eavesdropping on the Rising Sun</a> [americanheritage.com] <br>
&nbsp; <a href="http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2000/1/2000\_1\_36.shtml" title="americanheritage.com">The Code War</a> [americanheritage.com]<br><a href="http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/1994/1/1994\_1\_34.shtml" title="americanheritage.com">The Edison of Secret Codes</a> [americanheritage.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Germans did not think the Poles could break their codes .
The Japanese did not think the US and the Australians would break their codes .
The problem was never breaking the codes.The problem was breaking the codes more or less instantaneously.You need time to frame and execute an appropriate response - and far too often the correct response will be to do nothing.Since to do anything will invite suspicion.Eavesdropping on the Rising Sun [ americanheritage.com ]   The Code War [ americanheritage.com ] The Edison of Secret Codes [ americanheritage.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Germans did not think the Poles could break their codes.
The Japanese did not think the US and the Australians would break their codes.
The problem was never breaking the codes.The problem was breaking the codes more or less instantaneously.You need time to frame and execute an appropriate response - and far too often the correct response will be to do nothing.Since to do anything will invite suspicion.Eavesdropping on the Rising Sun [americanheritage.com] 
  The Code War [americanheritage.com]The Edison of Secret Codes [americanheritage.com] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472860</id>
	<title>All part of the plan...</title>
	<author>knuckledraegger</author>
	<datestamp>1261062900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a great way to spread disinformation.  Encrypt what you want to look at and don't encrypt what you want the enemy to see.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a great way to spread disinformation .
Encrypt what you want to look at and do n't encrypt what you want the enemy to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a great way to spread disinformation.
Encrypt what you want to look at and don't encrypt what you want the enemy to see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473052</id>
	<title>you have a good point</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1261063980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>furthermore, there's nothing to say they still can't do that, or aren't actually doing that already. in fact, a big story in the international press about how dumb the military is on these video feeds is a good cover. one can hope, anyways, that the military is smarter than depicted in this story</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>furthermore , there 's nothing to say they still ca n't do that , or are n't actually doing that already .
in fact , a big story in the international press about how dumb the military is on these video feeds is a good cover .
one can hope , anyways , that the military is smarter than depicted in this story</tokentext>
<sentencetext>furthermore, there's nothing to say they still can't do that, or aren't actually doing that already.
in fact, a big story in the international press about how dumb the military is on these video feeds is a good cover.
one can hope, anyways, that the military is smarter than depicted in this story</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474790</id>
	<title>Re:So instead of leaking this to the news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261071180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah they should broadcast M.A.S.H. episodes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah they should broadcast M.A.S.H .
episodes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah they should broadcast M.A.S.H.
episodes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472870</id>
	<title>This is a fucking disgrace.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261063020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whoever made this decision at General Atomics should be put up against the wall and shot.  I assume it was management not wanting to get stuck with $100 bill of materials for a slightly faster CPU or DSP that can do realtime encryption, or by underbidding enough to get the contract only to cheap out and fuck it up.</p><p>Whoever accepted this for the military should be court-martialed, put up against a wall, and shot.  Folks that stupid should be nowhere near technology.  This is also likely some form of typical military graft, and at this point the folks involved probably have cushy General Atomics mob jobs.</p><p>We (the Allies we) cracked Enigma and Purple, and we get down to this..  It's not like uncrackable crypto isn't available FOR FREE, often designed by folks on the military payroll in some fashion years or decades ago.</p><p>Thanks, GA, for ruining my morning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoever made this decision at General Atomics should be put up against the wall and shot .
I assume it was management not wanting to get stuck with $ 100 bill of materials for a slightly faster CPU or DSP that can do realtime encryption , or by underbidding enough to get the contract only to cheap out and fuck it up.Whoever accepted this for the military should be court-martialed , put up against a wall , and shot .
Folks that stupid should be nowhere near technology .
This is also likely some form of typical military graft , and at this point the folks involved probably have cushy General Atomics mob jobs.We ( the Allies we ) cracked Enigma and Purple , and we get down to this.. It 's not like uncrackable crypto is n't available FOR FREE , often designed by folks on the military payroll in some fashion years or decades ago.Thanks , GA , for ruining my morning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoever made this decision at General Atomics should be put up against the wall and shot.
I assume it was management not wanting to get stuck with $100 bill of materials for a slightly faster CPU or DSP that can do realtime encryption, or by underbidding enough to get the contract only to cheap out and fuck it up.Whoever accepted this for the military should be court-martialed, put up against a wall, and shot.
Folks that stupid should be nowhere near technology.
This is also likely some form of typical military graft, and at this point the folks involved probably have cushy General Atomics mob jobs.We (the Allies we) cracked Enigma and Purple, and we get down to this..  It's not like uncrackable crypto isn't available FOR FREE, often designed by folks on the military payroll in some fashion years or decades ago.Thanks, GA, for ruining my morning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30497806</id>
	<title>You're All Missing the Point</title>
	<author>n8r0n</author>
	<datestamp>1261226880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has very little to do with UAVs, or whether old ones have the capability to encrypt, etc.
<br> <br>
This has to do with the fact that there are far more receivers in the field than UAVs, or other transmitters.  And those receivers cannot decrypt, so everything in the arsenal that wants to transmit to these ROVER portable receiver units has to do it unencrypted.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/41782-insurgents-hack-u-s-drones-3.html" title="defence.pk" rel="nofollow">http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/41782-insurgents-hack-u-s-drones-3.html</a> [defence.pk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has very little to do with UAVs , or whether old ones have the capability to encrypt , etc .
This has to do with the fact that there are far more receivers in the field than UAVs , or other transmitters .
And those receivers can not decrypt , so everything in the arsenal that wants to transmit to these ROVER portable receiver units has to do it unencrypted .
http : //www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/41782-insurgents-hack-u-s-drones-3.html [ defence.pk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has very little to do with UAVs, or whether old ones have the capability to encrypt, etc.
This has to do with the fact that there are far more receivers in the field than UAVs, or other transmitters.
And those receivers cannot decrypt, so everything in the arsenal that wants to transmit to these ROVER portable receiver units has to do it unencrypted.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/41782-insurgents-hack-u-s-drones-3.html [defence.pk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473730</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1261066920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No kidding.</p><p>The SINCGARS is the standard today, though a few versions later.</p><p>I flew RQ-11A Ravens in Iraq, and even THOSE aren't plain text transmitions. WFT?</p><p>I'm sure a small mod will be pushed out now and the other UAV's will be encrypted and freq-hoping like it's no big deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No kidding.The SINCGARS is the standard today , though a few versions later.I flew RQ-11A Ravens in Iraq , and even THOSE are n't plain text transmitions .
WFT ? I 'm sure a small mod will be pushed out now and the other UAV 's will be encrypted and freq-hoping like it 's no big deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No kidding.The SINCGARS is the standard today, though a few versions later.I flew RQ-11A Ravens in Iraq, and even THOSE aren't plain text transmitions.
WFT?I'm sure a small mod will be pushed out now and the other UAV's will be encrypted and freq-hoping like it's no big deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474008</id>
	<title>Twenty six bucks!?</title>
	<author>buttfscking</author>
	<datestamp>1261067880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's OUTRAGEOUS! torrent pl0x!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's OUTRAGEOUS !
torrent pl0x !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's OUTRAGEOUS!
torrent pl0x!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474224</id>
	<title>Re:The Pentagon is full of idiots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261068780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the drones are manufactured by private industry contractors. I hold them mostly responsible even if the pentagon did not specifically request that the information be encrypted. One would think that would be an "automatic". Perhaps the military contractors think that money that could be used for increasing security in their products is best spent on lobbyists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the drones are manufactured by private industry contractors .
I hold them mostly responsible even if the pentagon did not specifically request that the information be encrypted .
One would think that would be an " automatic " .
Perhaps the military contractors think that money that could be used for increasing security in their products is best spent on lobbyists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the drones are manufactured by private industry contractors.
I hold them mostly responsible even if the pentagon did not specifically request that the information be encrypted.
One would think that would be an "automatic".
Perhaps the military contractors think that money that could be used for increasing security in their products is best spent on lobbyists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018</id>
	<title>Some real kneejerk reactions above</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1261063860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really this is a huge fuss over nothing, and some of the more wacko conspiracy theories about CIA honeypots and the like (above) are just as silly as the "shoot General Atomics" mob.<p>Is there any real security risk in this? I suspect it is very small. The Russians never bothered to encrypt the telemetry on their ICBM tests, because after all even assuming someone was reading it, they had no way of stopping the thing. Even if you know where the drone is, it is going to be very hard to shoot down; RPGs and IEDs really aren't much use. And given that this is a video feed, how do you ray trace back to the actual position of the camera?</p><p>Unfortunately there are plenty of assholes out there who will exaggerate anything in order to claim that they are more security conscious than the next person (and perhaps hope to get a contract for their company). But this is surely small war, no-one dead, move along please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really this is a huge fuss over nothing , and some of the more wacko conspiracy theories about CIA honeypots and the like ( above ) are just as silly as the " shoot General Atomics " mob.Is there any real security risk in this ?
I suspect it is very small .
The Russians never bothered to encrypt the telemetry on their ICBM tests , because after all even assuming someone was reading it , they had no way of stopping the thing .
Even if you know where the drone is , it is going to be very hard to shoot down ; RPGs and IEDs really are n't much use .
And given that this is a video feed , how do you ray trace back to the actual position of the camera ? Unfortunately there are plenty of assholes out there who will exaggerate anything in order to claim that they are more security conscious than the next person ( and perhaps hope to get a contract for their company ) .
But this is surely small war , no-one dead , move along please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really this is a huge fuss over nothing, and some of the more wacko conspiracy theories about CIA honeypots and the like (above) are just as silly as the "shoot General Atomics" mob.Is there any real security risk in this?
I suspect it is very small.
The Russians never bothered to encrypt the telemetry on their ICBM tests, because after all even assuming someone was reading it, they had no way of stopping the thing.
Even if you know where the drone is, it is going to be very hard to shoot down; RPGs and IEDs really aren't much use.
And given that this is a video feed, how do you ray trace back to the actual position of the camera?Unfortunately there are plenty of assholes out there who will exaggerate anything in order to claim that they are more security conscious than the next person (and perhaps hope to get a contract for their company).
But this is surely small war, no-one dead, move along please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473176</id>
	<title>Real impact is close to zero</title>
	<author>rzei</author>
	<datestamp>1261064520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>UAVs are to detect hostiles, observe movements (spying if you will) and perhaps engage them. You can't really use the UAV information to kill the ones benefiting from it -- unless someone is stupid enough to observe/admire their own camp from an UAV, which at wartime sounds pretty stupid. As an opposing force member you could see yourself in it's video feed, or gain information that you are not. That information can however be gained other ways too; for example:</p><ul>
<li>If the other side knows about you, and have assessed you as a significant threat, they will take action. Nevertheless, you must be prepared to be taken action upon; it's not like any trained militia is going to party high until they are certain they are going to get hit, they'll always keep high alertness. With the modern UAV's carrying air-to-ground missiles you really can't move your terrorist training camp out of the way before UAV operator gets permission to blow you up, even if you knew that they had just learned about you -- there just is not enough time.</li><li>If the other side doesn't know about you, they can't take any straight action against you. Simple as that.</li></ul><p>
Information sent by this UAV becomes a problem if it's decode able by the opposing forces while it's landing to or taking off from the airforce base. Then again, there cannot be too much to learn from there. As an opposing force member you most likely already have information (googled up perhaps) about their airforce base, the kind of security they have behind their lines. If someone was decoding your UAV transmissions to learn about your airbase, you'll most likely been already compromised as they ought to be in the visual range as well.
</p><p>Of course this is mostly from army point of view, intelligence gathering can't be stupid enough transmitting anything unencrypted/unobfuscated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>UAVs are to detect hostiles , observe movements ( spying if you will ) and perhaps engage them .
You ca n't really use the UAV information to kill the ones benefiting from it -- unless someone is stupid enough to observe/admire their own camp from an UAV , which at wartime sounds pretty stupid .
As an opposing force member you could see yourself in it 's video feed , or gain information that you are not .
That information can however be gained other ways too ; for example : If the other side knows about you , and have assessed you as a significant threat , they will take action .
Nevertheless , you must be prepared to be taken action upon ; it 's not like any trained militia is going to party high until they are certain they are going to get hit , they 'll always keep high alertness .
With the modern UAV 's carrying air-to-ground missiles you really ca n't move your terrorist training camp out of the way before UAV operator gets permission to blow you up , even if you knew that they had just learned about you -- there just is not enough time.If the other side does n't know about you , they ca n't take any straight action against you .
Simple as that .
Information sent by this UAV becomes a problem if it 's decode able by the opposing forces while it 's landing to or taking off from the airforce base .
Then again , there can not be too much to learn from there .
As an opposing force member you most likely already have information ( googled up perhaps ) about their airforce base , the kind of security they have behind their lines .
If someone was decoding your UAV transmissions to learn about your airbase , you 'll most likely been already compromised as they ought to be in the visual range as well .
Of course this is mostly from army point of view , intelligence gathering ca n't be stupid enough transmitting anything unencrypted/unobfuscated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UAVs are to detect hostiles, observe movements (spying if you will) and perhaps engage them.
You can't really use the UAV information to kill the ones benefiting from it -- unless someone is stupid enough to observe/admire their own camp from an UAV, which at wartime sounds pretty stupid.
As an opposing force member you could see yourself in it's video feed, or gain information that you are not.
That information can however be gained other ways too; for example:
If the other side knows about you, and have assessed you as a significant threat, they will take action.
Nevertheless, you must be prepared to be taken action upon; it's not like any trained militia is going to party high until they are certain they are going to get hit, they'll always keep high alertness.
With the modern UAV's carrying air-to-ground missiles you really can't move your terrorist training camp out of the way before UAV operator gets permission to blow you up, even if you knew that they had just learned about you -- there just is not enough time.If the other side doesn't know about you, they can't take any straight action against you.
Simple as that.
Information sent by this UAV becomes a problem if it's decode able by the opposing forces while it's landing to or taking off from the airforce base.
Then again, there cannot be too much to learn from there.
As an opposing force member you most likely already have information (googled up perhaps) about their airforce base, the kind of security they have behind their lines.
If someone was decoding your UAV transmissions to learn about your airbase, you'll most likely been already compromised as they ought to be in the visual range as well.
Of course this is mostly from army point of view, intelligence gathering can't be stupid enough transmitting anything unencrypted/unobfuscated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475916</id>
	<title>Re:Some real kneejerk reactions above</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261075980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The drones fly patterns, you stay out of the pattern. Bin laden knew about satellite feeds and when the birds were overhead, and so was able to hide some activity during those hours. That is a simple use of stealing the feed. It does not need to be real-time to be useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The drones fly patterns , you stay out of the pattern .
Bin laden knew about satellite feeds and when the birds were overhead , and so was able to hide some activity during those hours .
That is a simple use of stealing the feed .
It does not need to be real-time to be useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The drones fly patterns, you stay out of the pattern.
Bin laden knew about satellite feeds and when the birds were overhead, and so was able to hide some activity during those hours.
That is a simple use of stealing the feed.
It does not need to be real-time to be useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472744</id>
	<title>Chinese?</title>
	<author>sbrowne</author>
	<datestamp>1261062180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The English text on the main SkyGrabber page could use some polishing. Is this from China?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The English text on the main SkyGrabber page could use some polishing .
Is this from China ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The English text on the main SkyGrabber page could use some polishing.
Is this from China?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475570</id>
	<title>Re:Some real kneejerk reactions above</title>
	<author>Tekfactory</author>
	<datestamp>1261074540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One: As we talked about in the new Stealth UAV story Afghans have Stingers we gave them when they were fighting the Russians.</p><p>Two: Does anyone know if video from the new Stealth UAV is Encrypted/Unencrypted?</p><p>Three: Announcing a -flaw- in the Predator, not just theorhetical, but its use in the wild shortly after the announcement of the Stealth UAV is either bait for the adversary to rely on exploiting the Predator more, or a ploy to sell more Stealth UAVs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One : As we talked about in the new Stealth UAV story Afghans have Stingers we gave them when they were fighting the Russians.Two : Does anyone know if video from the new Stealth UAV is Encrypted/Unencrypted ? Three : Announcing a -flaw- in the Predator , not just theorhetical , but its use in the wild shortly after the announcement of the Stealth UAV is either bait for the adversary to rely on exploiting the Predator more , or a ploy to sell more Stealth UAVs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One: As we talked about in the new Stealth UAV story Afghans have Stingers we gave them when they were fighting the Russians.Two: Does anyone know if video from the new Stealth UAV is Encrypted/Unencrypted?Three: Announcing a -flaw- in the Predator, not just theorhetical, but its use in the wild shortly after the announcement of the Stealth UAV is either bait for the adversary to rely on exploiting the Predator more, or a ploy to sell more Stealth UAVs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474820</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously would it have been difficult</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1261071300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this essentially what ZRTP/Zfone accomplishes? VoIP to work at all should be quite resistant to packet loss, and in this case it is even encrypted...and available to anyone. I can't imagine somebody with few millions to spare having troubles dealing with similar problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this essentially what ZRTP/Zfone accomplishes ?
VoIP to work at all should be quite resistant to packet loss , and in this case it is even encrypted...and available to anyone .
I ca n't imagine somebody with few millions to spare having troubles dealing with similar problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this essentially what ZRTP/Zfone accomplishes?
VoIP to work at all should be quite resistant to packet loss, and in this case it is even encrypted...and available to anyone.
I can't imagine somebody with few millions to spare having troubles dealing with similar problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475926</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261076040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe my understanding on this issue is not up to everyone else's, but doesn't encryption take up bandwidth?  And, isn't bandwidth the single largest problem with battlefield communication?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe my understanding on this issue is not up to everyone else 's , but does n't encryption take up bandwidth ?
And , is n't bandwidth the single largest problem with battlefield communication ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe my understanding on this issue is not up to everyone else's, but doesn't encryption take up bandwidth?
And, isn't bandwidth the single largest problem with battlefield communication?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472832</id>
	<title>What about the control channel?</title>
	<author>FauxPasIII</author>
	<datestamp>1261062780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the data feed coming \_from\_ the drone is cleartext, what about the commands being sent to it?  TFA says there's "no evidence" that insurgents have been able to commandeer the drones yet, but doesn't say whether that's because the channel is secure, or that they just haven't reverse-engineered the protocol yet.  O\_o</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the data feed coming \ _from \ _ the drone is cleartext , what about the commands being sent to it ?
TFA says there 's " no evidence " that insurgents have been able to commandeer the drones yet , but does n't say whether that 's because the channel is secure , or that they just have n't reverse-engineered the protocol yet .
O \ _o</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the data feed coming \_from\_ the drone is cleartext, what about the commands being sent to it?
TFA says there's "no evidence" that insurgents have been able to commandeer the drones yet, but doesn't say whether that's because the channel is secure, or that they just haven't reverse-engineered the protocol yet.
O\_o</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475580</id>
	<title>Okay, so they transmit unencrypted...</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1261074600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>that's quite worrisome. I really hope that they only <i>receive</i> encrypted data or, at the very, very least, need some sort of secure authentication that can't be easily falsified. If you could transmit <i>to</i> the drones with $30 software and have them listen, I would be absolutely terrified.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's quite worrisome .
I really hope that they only receive encrypted data or , at the very , very least , need some sort of secure authentication that ca n't be easily falsified .
If you could transmit to the drones with $ 30 software and have them listen , I would be absolutely terrified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's quite worrisome.
I really hope that they only receive encrypted data or, at the very, very least, need some sort of secure authentication that can't be easily falsified.
If you could transmit to the drones with $30 software and have them listen, I would be absolutely terrified.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477740</id>
	<title>Re:Seems Expensive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261082700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I doubt a "terrorist" is the kind of person who would actually spend money on software. "</p><p>Why do people (slashdot readers, American, etc) think that terrorists are a bunch of backwoods living hippies.  Terrorists are often engineers and are very smart.  They live in caves not because they like the simple life and or want to be antisocial.. they live there because it helps them plot and carry out their objectives which to kill other people.  If you were plotting such a feat, wouldnt you hide too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I doubt a " terrorist " is the kind of person who would actually spend money on software .
" Why do people ( slashdot readers , American , etc ) think that terrorists are a bunch of backwoods living hippies .
Terrorists are often engineers and are very smart .
They live in caves not because they like the simple life and or want to be antisocial.. they live there because it helps them plot and carry out their objectives which to kill other people .
If you were plotting such a feat , wouldnt you hide too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I doubt a "terrorist" is the kind of person who would actually spend money on software.
"Why do people (slashdot readers, American, etc) think that terrorists are a bunch of backwoods living hippies.
Terrorists are often engineers and are very smart.
They live in caves not because they like the simple life and or want to be antisocial.. they live there because it helps them plot and carry out their objectives which to kill other people.
If you were plotting such a feat, wouldnt you hide too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475208</id>
	<title>Can't Ray trace???</title>
	<author>alfoolio</author>
	<datestamp>1261072860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not a graphics expert and so am probably off base here, but can't one take a still from the video feed and ray trace back to the camera?  If so could they not do this repeatedly to determine reasonably close to the camera's actual position?</p><p>Why would they even need ray tracing if they have the live feed and multiple competent sets of eyeballs?  I am not a pilot either, but I can certainly recognize the general areas of my home region from the traffic congestion video feeds from the rush hour helicopters.  (Well I could before they stopped flying thanks to high fuel costs and low crowd source costs for traffic reporting!)  Are we to assume they are not capable of this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not a graphics expert and so am probably off base here , but ca n't one take a still from the video feed and ray trace back to the camera ?
If so could they not do this repeatedly to determine reasonably close to the camera 's actual position ? Why would they even need ray tracing if they have the live feed and multiple competent sets of eyeballs ?
I am not a pilot either , but I can certainly recognize the general areas of my home region from the traffic congestion video feeds from the rush hour helicopters .
( Well I could before they stopped flying thanks to high fuel costs and low crowd source costs for traffic reporting !
) Are we to assume they are not capable of this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not a graphics expert and so am probably off base here, but can't one take a still from the video feed and ray trace back to the camera?
If so could they not do this repeatedly to determine reasonably close to the camera's actual position?Why would they even need ray tracing if they have the live feed and multiple competent sets of eyeballs?
I am not a pilot either, but I can certainly recognize the general areas of my home region from the traffic congestion video feeds from the rush hour helicopters.
(Well I could before they stopped flying thanks to high fuel costs and low crowd source costs for traffic reporting!
)  Are we to assume they are not capable of this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472708</id>
	<title>Seriously would it have been difficult</title>
	<author>DarkOx</author>
	<datestamp>1261061880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why did nobody slap AES or blowfish block ciphers around the video packets?  I admit I am assuming the video is digital.  There are inexpensive (in terms of the cost of a drone) silicon implementations of both   for the planes and BSD licensed software for the stations.  If they just used preshared keys its would have been trivial to do and probably would have prevented this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did nobody slap AES or blowfish block ciphers around the video packets ?
I admit I am assuming the video is digital .
There are inexpensive ( in terms of the cost of a drone ) silicon implementations of both for the planes and BSD licensed software for the stations .
If they just used preshared keys its would have been trivial to do and probably would have prevented this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did nobody slap AES or blowfish block ciphers around the video packets?
I admit I am assuming the video is digital.
There are inexpensive (in terms of the cost of a drone) silicon implementations of both   for the planes and BSD licensed software for the stations.
If they just used preshared keys its would have been trivial to do and probably would have prevented this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477708</id>
	<title>Re:So instead of leaking this to the news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261082580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Send a fake feed of the viewers location being surrounded, just to fuck with him. Or of ordinance being dropped on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Send a fake feed of the viewers location being surrounded , just to fuck with him .
Or of ordinance being dropped on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Send a fake feed of the viewers location being surrounded, just to fuck with him.
Or of ordinance being dropped on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473636</id>
	<title>Re:So instead of leaking this to the news...</title>
	<author>rcb1974</author>
	<datestamp>1261066560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't a fake feed would consume precious over-the-air bandwidth?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't a fake feed would consume precious over-the-air bandwidth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't a fake feed would consume precious over-the-air bandwidth?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475670</id>
	<title>Re:So instead of leaking this to the news...</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1261075020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't Al qaeda just start passing fake feeds form the drone ? they seem to have a bunch stored up. At least they know which frequency to jam now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't Al qaeda just start passing fake feeds form the drone ?
they seem to have a bunch stored up .
At least they know which frequency to jam now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't Al qaeda just start passing fake feeds form the drone ?
they seem to have a bunch stored up.
At least they know which frequency to jam now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475546</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously would it have been difficult</title>
	<author>ImprovOmega</author>
	<datestamp>1261074420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, bear in mind that it's probably sending the video signal compressed in the first place, and compression is just as prone to catastrophic errors as encryption is.  It's encoded either way.  As others in this thread have mentioned, you just do some error correction and carry on.  Encapsulate the encrypted payload with some kind of error handling stream.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , bear in mind that it 's probably sending the video signal compressed in the first place , and compression is just as prone to catastrophic errors as encryption is .
It 's encoded either way .
As others in this thread have mentioned , you just do some error correction and carry on .
Encapsulate the encrypted payload with some kind of error handling stream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, bear in mind that it's probably sending the video signal compressed in the first place, and compression is just as prone to catastrophic errors as encryption is.
It's encoded either way.
As others in this thread have mentioned, you just do some error correction and carry on.
Encapsulate the encrypted payload with some kind of error handling stream.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474716</id>
	<title>And they knew about the vulnerability too in 90s</title>
	<author>0x537461746943</author>
	<datestamp>1261071000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The U.S. government has known about the flaw since the U.S. campaign in Bosnia in the 1990s, current and former officials said. But the Pentagon assumed local adversaries wouldn't know how to exploit it, the officials said"<br>
<br>
They know about it and didn't fix it then?  That should have been one of the first questions asked when they were developed.  Is all sensitive data encrypted?  Yes video is very sensitive data.  Just that fact that they know what the military is looking at is sensitive data in itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The U.S. government has known about the flaw since the U.S. campaign in Bosnia in the 1990s , current and former officials said .
But the Pentagon assumed local adversaries would n't know how to exploit it , the officials said " They know about it and did n't fix it then ?
That should have been one of the first questions asked when they were developed .
Is all sensitive data encrypted ?
Yes video is very sensitive data .
Just that fact that they know what the military is looking at is sensitive data in itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The U.S. government has known about the flaw since the U.S. campaign in Bosnia in the 1990s, current and former officials said.
But the Pentagon assumed local adversaries wouldn't know how to exploit it, the officials said"

They know about it and didn't fix it then?
That should have been one of the first questions asked when they were developed.
Is all sensitive data encrypted?
Yes video is very sensitive data.
Just that fact that they know what the military is looking at is sensitive data in itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30478336</id>
	<title>Can't use DMCA here</title>
	<author>systemeng</author>
	<datestamp>1261041540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be a pedant, the video seems most assuredly to be a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government and therefore in the public domain upon creation.  See 17 USC 105. <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/105.html" title="cornell.edu">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/105.html</a> [cornell.edu]</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be a pedant , the video seems most assuredly to be a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government and therefore in the public domain upon creation .
See 17 USC 105. http : //www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/105.html [ cornell.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be a pedant, the video seems most assuredly to be a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government and therefore in the public domain upon creation.
See 17 USC 105. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/105.html [cornell.edu]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30481780</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1261056900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I flew RQ-11A Ravens in Iraq, and even THOSE aren't plain text transmitions. WFT?</p></div><p>I thank you for your service and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic\_brain\_injury" title="wikipedia.org">your sacrifice</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I flew RQ-11A Ravens in Iraq , and even THOSE are n't plain text transmitions .
WFT ? I thank you for your service and your sacrifice [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I flew RQ-11A Ravens in Iraq, and even THOSE aren't plain text transmitions.
WFT?I thank you for your service and your sacrifice [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473906</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously would it have been difficult</title>
	<author>b0bby</author>
	<datestamp>1261067520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:<br>"The difficulty, officials said, is that adding encryption to a network that is more than a decade old involves more than placing a new piece of equipment on individual drones. Instead, many components of the network linking the drones to their operators in the U.S., Afghanistan or Pakistan have to be upgraded to handle the changes."<br>So they didn't do it because it's complicated and expensive and until July, they hadn't seen that anyone was grabbing the streams.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " The difficulty , officials said , is that adding encryption to a network that is more than a decade old involves more than placing a new piece of equipment on individual drones .
Instead , many components of the network linking the drones to their operators in the U.S. , Afghanistan or Pakistan have to be upgraded to handle the changes .
" So they did n't do it because it 's complicated and expensive and until July , they had n't seen that anyone was grabbing the streams .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:"The difficulty, officials said, is that adding encryption to a network that is more than a decade old involves more than placing a new piece of equipment on individual drones.
Instead, many components of the network linking the drones to their operators in the U.S., Afghanistan or Pakistan have to be upgraded to handle the changes.
"So they didn't do it because it's complicated and expensive and until July, they hadn't seen that anyone was grabbing the streams.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473394</id>
	<title>Re:Some real kneejerk reactions above</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1261065540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's some small security risk, if Ahmed the Terrorist is monitoring communications over Chief Turban the Magnificent, he might be able to tell his Turban-headedness to not go to the local 7-11 for cigs and another wife until the craft left the area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's some small security risk , if Ahmed the Terrorist is monitoring communications over Chief Turban the Magnificent , he might be able to tell his Turban-headedness to not go to the local 7-11 for cigs and another wife until the craft left the area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's some small security risk, if Ahmed the Terrorist is monitoring communications over Chief Turban the Magnificent, he might be able to tell his Turban-headedness to not go to the local 7-11 for cigs and another wife until the craft left the area.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474180</id>
	<title>Re:Hubris</title>
	<author>querist</author>
	<datestamp>1261068540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Never underestimate your opponent.

Anyone who forgets that rule is doomed to failure.

The safe rule is always to assume that your opponent is AT LEAST as well trained and capable as you are. You may be able to make intelligent suppositions regarding supplies and equipment, but never underestimate training, intelligence, and skill.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never underestimate your opponent .
Anyone who forgets that rule is doomed to failure .
The safe rule is always to assume that your opponent is AT LEAST as well trained and capable as you are .
You may be able to make intelligent suppositions regarding supplies and equipment , but never underestimate training , intelligence , and skill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never underestimate your opponent.
Anyone who forgets that rule is doomed to failure.
The safe rule is always to assume that your opponent is AT LEAST as well trained and capable as you are.
You may be able to make intelligent suppositions regarding supplies and equipment, but never underestimate training, intelligence, and skill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472966</id>
	<title>USRP</title>
	<author>autocracy</author>
	<datestamp>1261063560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wide bandwidths, and ultimately covers just about everything from 100kHz to 3GHz. Transmit, receive, etc. Using this device, which costs about $1-2 thousand for a full kit and transmitter, you can listen to entire bands at once (the $750 unit handles 8MHz). These units have been used to create cell phone base stations.<br><br>Yum.<br><br>http://www.ettus.com/</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wide bandwidths , and ultimately covers just about everything from 100kHz to 3GHz .
Transmit , receive , etc .
Using this device , which costs about $ 1-2 thousand for a full kit and transmitter , you can listen to entire bands at once ( the $ 750 unit handles 8MHz ) .
These units have been used to create cell phone base stations.Yum.http : //www.ettus.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wide bandwidths, and ultimately covers just about everything from 100kHz to 3GHz.
Transmit, receive, etc.
Using this device, which costs about $1-2 thousand for a full kit and transmitter, you can listen to entire bands at once (the $750 unit handles 8MHz).
These units have been used to create cell phone base stations.Yum.http://www.ettus.com/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474520</id>
	<title>Re:Some real kneejerk reactions above</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1261070040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also keep in mind that receiving this means comparatively easy to spot antennas or sat dishes.</p><p>So to gain access to video that likely may not have location info (hard to tell EXACTLY what you're looking at without such info), these guys may have to give up their own location.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also keep in mind that receiving this means comparatively easy to spot antennas or sat dishes.So to gain access to video that likely may not have location info ( hard to tell EXACTLY what you 're looking at without such info ) , these guys may have to give up their own location .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also keep in mind that receiving this means comparatively easy to spot antennas or sat dishes.So to gain access to video that likely may not have location info (hard to tell EXACTLY what you're looking at without such info), these guys may have to give up their own location.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474612</id>
	<title>Re:Some real kneejerk reactions above</title>
	<author>ThreeGigs</author>
	<datestamp>1261070580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those drones have to land. And the pilots need the video feeds to see where they're landing.</p><p>So the drones are broadcasting a birds-eye view of their base.... to the enemy.</p><p>Yes, the security risk is real, and severe. Telling an enemy where your drone base is and giving him an arial view of it, live, doesn't make for sound sleeping at night, in my book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those drones have to land .
And the pilots need the video feeds to see where they 're landing.So the drones are broadcasting a birds-eye view of their base.... to the enemy.Yes , the security risk is real , and severe .
Telling an enemy where your drone base is and giving him an arial view of it , live , does n't make for sound sleeping at night , in my book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those drones have to land.
And the pilots need the video feeds to see where they're landing.So the drones are broadcasting a birds-eye view of their base.... to the enemy.Yes, the security risk is real, and severe.
Telling an enemy where your drone base is and giving him an arial view of it, live, doesn't make for sound sleeping at night, in my book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477542</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>Pentagram</author>
	<datestamp>1261081980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Windows has found a MQ-9 Reaper, would you like to connect?"</p></div><p>"MQ-9 Reaper" is my new SSID<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Windows has found a MQ-9 Reaper , would you like to connect ?
" " MQ-9 Reaper " is my new SSID : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Windows has found a MQ-9 Reaper, would you like to connect?
""MQ-9 Reaper" is my new SSID :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473814</id>
	<title>Slashdot is full of ignorant know-it-alls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261067220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, and some linux geek on slashdot has *all* the information and has studied the situation more than the folks who do it for a living. Right. Go back to your room, kid, and watch more movies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and some linux geek on slashdot has * all * the information and has studied the situation more than the folks who do it for a living .
Right. Go back to your room , kid , and watch more movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and some linux geek on slashdot has *all* the information and has studied the situation more than the folks who do it for a living.
Right. Go back to your room, kid, and watch more movies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473348</id>
	<title>Proprietary software</title>
	<author>pmontra</author>
	<datestamp>1261065360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA:<blockquote><div><p>Predator drones are built by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. of San Diego. Some of its communications technology is proprietary, so widely used encryption systems aren't readily compatible, said people familiar with the matter.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

No more words needed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : Predator drones are built by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. of San Diego .
Some of its communications technology is proprietary , so widely used encryption systems are n't readily compatible , said people familiar with the matter .
No more words needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:Predator drones are built by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. of San Diego.
Some of its communications technology is proprietary, so widely used encryption systems aren't readily compatible, said people familiar with the matter.
No more words needed.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30476866</id>
	<title>Or, Oh Shit</title>
	<author>pgmrdlm</author>
	<datestamp>1261079580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474898</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1261071720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(b.) glad that somebody with some clout was going to do something about the increased crime in the area.</p></div><p>Hey, is that my stolen car?  *keystrokes*  It is!  You son of a bitch.  *more keystrokes*.... *hellfire missile streaks away towards the SOB that stole your car*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( b .
) glad that somebody with some clout was going to do something about the increased crime in the area.Hey , is that my stolen car ?
* keystrokes * It is !
You son of a bitch .
* more keystrokes * .... * hellfire missile streaks away towards the SOB that stole your car *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(b.
) glad that somebody with some clout was going to do something about the increased crime in the area.Hey, is that my stolen car?
*keystrokes*  It is!
You son of a bitch.
*more keystrokes*.... *hellfire missile streaks away towards the SOB that stole your car*
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474362</id>
	<title>Re:Time to copyright!</title>
	<author>Pvt\_Ryan</author>
	<datestamp>1261069380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually I think the 1st step should be to issue a DMCA takedown notice to the insurgents.<br>
The 2nd step should be to threaten them with legal action and a steep fine. <br>
3rd step is clearly any insurgents captured with said recordings are clearly committing acts of piracy (USAF clearly owns the copyright to the streams) and as such after they have finished a stint at the latest terrorist holding facility should be transfered to a US Court and promptly sued for copyright infringement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I think the 1st step should be to issue a DMCA takedown notice to the insurgents .
The 2nd step should be to threaten them with legal action and a steep fine .
3rd step is clearly any insurgents captured with said recordings are clearly committing acts of piracy ( USAF clearly owns the copyright to the streams ) and as such after they have finished a stint at the latest terrorist holding facility should be transfered to a US Court and promptly sued for copyright infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I think the 1st step should be to issue a DMCA takedown notice to the insurgents.
The 2nd step should be to threaten them with legal action and a steep fine.
3rd step is clearly any insurgents captured with said recordings are clearly committing acts of piracy (USAF clearly owns the copyright to the streams) and as such after they have finished a stint at the latest terrorist holding facility should be transfered to a US Court and promptly sued for copyright infringement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472638</id>
	<title>Sh.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261061520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't tell the DoD.  They've been paying $7,000 per license for that software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't tell the DoD .
They 've been paying $ 7,000 per license for that software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't tell the DoD.
They've been paying $7,000 per license for that software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473248</id>
	<title>Famous Last Words...</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1261064880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Hey I can see my house from here! Oh Wai..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hey I can see my house from here !
Oh Wai... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hey I can see my house from here!
Oh Wai..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472898</id>
	<title>2004 News Release on encryption used by ScanEagle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261063200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A quick search on Google came up with this article indicating that Boeing/Insitu's ScanEagle UAV is capable of encrypted transmission:<br>http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q4/nr\_041221n.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A quick search on Google came up with this article indicating that Boeing/Insitu 's ScanEagle UAV is capable of encrypted transmission : http : //www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q4/nr \ _041221n.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A quick search on Google came up with this article indicating that Boeing/Insitu's ScanEagle UAV is capable of encrypted transmission:http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q4/nr\_041221n.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30479066</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>Fuzzpault</author>
	<datestamp>1261044360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So let me get this straight.  Because of RED TAPE we're allowing insurgents to view the same video as what the military commanders see.  You can make all the excuses you want, but what matters is the equipment put in the field with our soldiers.  What no one has noticed is our own UAV's are probably being used against us!  Any chance those cameras view our own positions on the battlefield?  Well, sorry but that unclassified feed has just alerted the insurgence to the approaching convoy.  Amazing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So let me get this straight .
Because of RED TAPE we 're allowing insurgents to view the same video as what the military commanders see .
You can make all the excuses you want , but what matters is the equipment put in the field with our soldiers .
What no one has noticed is our own UAV 's are probably being used against us !
Any chance those cameras view our own positions on the battlefield ?
Well , sorry but that unclassified feed has just alerted the insurgence to the approaching convoy .
Amazing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let me get this straight.
Because of RED TAPE we're allowing insurgents to view the same video as what the military commanders see.
You can make all the excuses you want, but what matters is the equipment put in the field with our soldiers.
What no one has noticed is our own UAV's are probably being used against us!
Any chance those cameras view our own positions on the battlefield?
Well, sorry but that unclassified feed has just alerted the insurgence to the approaching convoy.
Amazing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472690</id>
	<title>Time to copyright!</title>
	<author>jsnipy</author>
	<datestamp>1261061820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps the US can put an IP copyright on the data then sue anyone who looks at it without a licesnce!

More money!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the US can put an IP copyright on the data then sue anyone who looks at it without a licesnce !
More money !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the US can put an IP copyright on the data then sue anyone who looks at it without a licesnce!
More money!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477828</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261083000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm... I'm not that interested personally. I think <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary\_McKinnon" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Gary McKinnon</a> [wikipedia.org] serves as a salutary reminder of what can happen to you when you make the US military look like a bunch of security compromised amateurs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm... I 'm not that interested personally .
I think Gary McKinnon [ wikipedia.org ] serves as a salutary reminder of what can happen to you when you make the US military look like a bunch of security compromised amateurs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm... I'm not that interested personally.
I think Gary McKinnon [wikipedia.org] serves as a salutary reminder of what can happen to you when you make the US military look like a bunch of security compromised amateurs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472814</id>
	<title>Hubris</title>
	<author>mruizcamauer</author>
	<datestamp>1261062660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"U.S. military personnel in Iraq discovered the problem late last year when they apprehended a Shiite militant whose laptop contained files of intercepted drone video feeds. In July, the U.S. military found pirated drone video feeds on other militant laptops, leading some officials to conclude that militant groups trained and funded by Iran were regularly intercepting feeds."


The Germans did not think the Poles could break their codes. The Japanese did not think the US and the Australians would break their codes. The British did not think Argentina would finish assembling the Exocets on their own without the French manuals or use them in a way differently than designed.


The Afghan and Iraqi insurgents have the money and the brains to break into Western weapon systems, don't underestimate them (or the probable help from Iran, Syria, Korea, etc...)

The prospect of getting killed is a powerful motivator.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" U.S. military personnel in Iraq discovered the problem late last year when they apprehended a Shiite militant whose laptop contained files of intercepted drone video feeds .
In July , the U.S. military found pirated drone video feeds on other militant laptops , leading some officials to conclude that militant groups trained and funded by Iran were regularly intercepting feeds .
" The Germans did not think the Poles could break their codes .
The Japanese did not think the US and the Australians would break their codes .
The British did not think Argentina would finish assembling the Exocets on their own without the French manuals or use them in a way differently than designed .
The Afghan and Iraqi insurgents have the money and the brains to break into Western weapon systems , do n't underestimate them ( or the probable help from Iran , Syria , Korea , etc... ) The prospect of getting killed is a powerful motivator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"U.S. military personnel in Iraq discovered the problem late last year when they apprehended a Shiite militant whose laptop contained files of intercepted drone video feeds.
In July, the U.S. military found pirated drone video feeds on other militant laptops, leading some officials to conclude that militant groups trained and funded by Iran were regularly intercepting feeds.
"


The Germans did not think the Poles could break their codes.
The Japanese did not think the US and the Australians would break their codes.
The British did not think Argentina would finish assembling the Exocets on their own without the French manuals or use them in a way differently than designed.
The Afghan and Iraqi insurgents have the money and the brains to break into Western weapon systems, don't underestimate them (or the probable help from Iran, Syria, Korea, etc...)

The prospect of getting killed is a powerful motivator.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473526</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't defeat them</title>
	<author>gnieboer</author>
	<datestamp>1261066200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, defeating them could be just eliminating -anyone- from having control.</p><p>All you have to do to do that is jam the control signal.  Then it doesn't get any control inputs, and eventually will crash.</p><p>You can do this regardless of whatever encryption may or may not be on the control signal.  It's an RF problem, not an encryption problem. (but not as simple of one as it sounds)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , defeating them could be just eliminating -anyone- from having control.All you have to do to do that is jam the control signal .
Then it does n't get any control inputs , and eventually will crash.You can do this regardless of whatever encryption may or may not be on the control signal .
It 's an RF problem , not an encryption problem .
( but not as simple of one as it sounds )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, defeating them could be just eliminating -anyone- from having control.All you have to do to do that is jam the control signal.
Then it doesn't get any control inputs, and eventually will crash.You can do this regardless of whatever encryption may or may not be on the control signal.
It's an RF problem, not an encryption problem.
(but not as simple of one as it sounds)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30476818</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>hax4bux</author>
	<datestamp>1261079400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's right.  I'm not sure this is even a problem.   So you can see the video.  BFD.  You know, the fun really begins when we start broadcasting bogus video.  Much cheaper than launching real platform and just as fun.</p><p>I worked on a UAV system in the mid 80's and we didn't encrypt anything (everybody remain calm:that was then, this is now).  I did the entire RF system using off the shelf packet radio systems at 1200 baud.  Encryption adds overhead and we were just a POC demo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's right .
I 'm not sure this is even a problem .
So you can see the video .
BFD. You know , the fun really begins when we start broadcasting bogus video .
Much cheaper than launching real platform and just as fun.I worked on a UAV system in the mid 80 's and we did n't encrypt anything ( everybody remain calm : that was then , this is now ) .
I did the entire RF system using off the shelf packet radio systems at 1200 baud .
Encryption adds overhead and we were just a POC demo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's right.
I'm not sure this is even a problem.
So you can see the video.
BFD.  You know, the fun really begins when we start broadcasting bogus video.
Much cheaper than launching real platform and just as fun.I worked on a UAV system in the mid 80's and we didn't encrypt anything (everybody remain calm:that was then, this is now).
I did the entire RF system using off the shelf packet radio systems at 1200 baud.
Encryption adds overhead and we were just a POC demo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475666</id>
	<title>Re:More important question</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1261075020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it might also be the case that being able to see where the drone is doesn't really help you escape the missiles.  By the time you realize that the drone is looking at your house it's a bit too late to run.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it might also be the case that being able to see where the drone is does n't really help you escape the missiles .
By the time you realize that the drone is looking at your house it 's a bit too late to run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it might also be the case that being able to see where the drone is doesn't really help you escape the missiles.
By the time you realize that the drone is looking at your house it's a bit too late to run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473766</id>
	<title>Terrorism.  There's an app for that.</title>
	<author>pbot</author>
	<datestamp>1261067040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You'd think the DOD would be interested in hiring more people with a background in IT<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd think the DOD would be interested in hiring more people with a background in IT . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd think the DOD would be interested in hiring more people with a background in IT ..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475032</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>acklenx</author>
	<datestamp>1261072140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just to be clear
<p> <b>frequency hopping != encryption</b> </p><p>
<i>especially</i> if you are the only transmitter in that spectrum nearby.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to be clear frequency hopping ! = encryption especially if you are the only transmitter in that spectrum nearby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to be clear
 frequency hopping != encryption 
especially if you are the only transmitter in that spectrum nearby.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30478902</id>
	<title>It is worse...</title>
	<author>Big Smirk</author>
	<datestamp>1261043760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if you can't decrypt the signal, just knowing its there could tell you that a drone is nearby....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if you ca n't decrypt the signal , just knowing its there could tell you that a drone is nearby... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if you can't decrypt the signal, just knowing its there could tell you that a drone is nearby....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473468</id>
	<title>Too expensive?</title>
	<author>boxxa</author>
	<datestamp>1261065960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Billions of dollars in military funding and they couldn't even MD5 hash the transmitted data?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Billions of dollars in military funding and they could n't even MD5 hash the transmitted data ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Billions of dollars in military funding and they couldn't even MD5 hash the transmitted data?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473172</id>
	<title>how about ..</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1261064520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>how about encrypting the downlink DOH!</htmltext>
<tokenext>how about encrypting the downlink DOH !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how about encrypting the downlink DOH!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30480200</id>
	<title>Software 20 years obsolete destroyed Earth</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1261048680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Soviet military lacked a consistent record keeping system. A supply unit created one using the Russian Apple II clone and AppleWorks 1.2. It worked so well that AppleWorks 1/3 was hacked to support the Cyrillic font in the clone. Eventully the Sovient military became the #1 pirate of AppleWorks world wide.</p><p>The Soviets had thousands of thermonuclear weapons as did the US. Had one side used them, the other would also. The combined megatonnage could have sterilized the Earth's crust over a meter down. All higher life would have perished either immediately or in a cascade of die-offs.</p><p>This post is a direct challanger to the summary post for being both true in substance and best use of hyperbole and non-use of tense in order to put together a marginally interesting article with an absolutely untrue title to draw people in, and dumpt them nearly flat out after providing a tiny bit of information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Soviet military lacked a consistent record keeping system .
A supply unit created one using the Russian Apple II clone and AppleWorks 1.2 .
It worked so well that AppleWorks 1/3 was hacked to support the Cyrillic font in the clone .
Eventully the Sovient military became the # 1 pirate of AppleWorks world wide.The Soviets had thousands of thermonuclear weapons as did the US .
Had one side used them , the other would also .
The combined megatonnage could have sterilized the Earth 's crust over a meter down .
All higher life would have perished either immediately or in a cascade of die-offs.This post is a direct challanger to the summary post for being both true in substance and best use of hyperbole and non-use of tense in order to put together a marginally interesting article with an absolutely untrue title to draw people in , and dumpt them nearly flat out after providing a tiny bit of information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Soviet military lacked a consistent record keeping system.
A supply unit created one using the Russian Apple II clone and AppleWorks 1.2.
It worked so well that AppleWorks 1/3 was hacked to support the Cyrillic font in the clone.
Eventully the Sovient military became the #1 pirate of AppleWorks world wide.The Soviets had thousands of thermonuclear weapons as did the US.
Had one side used them, the other would also.
The combined megatonnage could have sterilized the Earth's crust over a meter down.
All higher life would have perished either immediately or in a cascade of die-offs.This post is a direct challanger to the summary post for being both true in substance and best use of hyperbole and non-use of tense in order to put together a marginally interesting article with an absolutely untrue title to draw people in, and dumpt them nearly flat out after providing a tiny bit of information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473376</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously would it have been difficult</title>
	<author>pushf popf</author>
	<datestamp>1261065480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>Why did nobody slap AES or blowfish block ciphers around the video packets? I admit I am assuming the video is digital. There are inexpensive (in terms of the cost of a drone) silicon implementations of both for the planes and BSD licensed software for the stations. If they just used preshared keys its would have been trivial to do and probably would have prevented this.</strong>
<br> <br>
My best guess is that it:
<ol>
<li>Doesn't matter if they know we're watching. OR:</li>
<li>It's to our advantage for them to know we're watching.</li>
<li>The only stuff they can watch is stuff we want them to watch.</li>
</ol><p>
If you were planning Something Evil, and noticed that there was a live video feed of your "hideout", you might want to think about postponing your plans for a while.
My $600 laptop has various forms of encryption ranging from "Secret Decoder Ring" to "GFL". I'm pretty sure if we wanted an encrypted video feed, we'd have it.<br> <br>
In fact, one of the huge advantages during the Cold War was that the Soviets knew we were watching them, and we knew they were watching us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did nobody slap AES or blowfish block ciphers around the video packets ?
I admit I am assuming the video is digital .
There are inexpensive ( in terms of the cost of a drone ) silicon implementations of both for the planes and BSD licensed software for the stations .
If they just used preshared keys its would have been trivial to do and probably would have prevented this .
My best guess is that it : Does n't matter if they know we 're watching .
OR : It 's to our advantage for them to know we 're watching .
The only stuff they can watch is stuff we want them to watch .
If you were planning Something Evil , and noticed that there was a live video feed of your " hideout " , you might want to think about postponing your plans for a while .
My $ 600 laptop has various forms of encryption ranging from " Secret Decoder Ring " to " GFL " .
I 'm pretty sure if we wanted an encrypted video feed , we 'd have it .
In fact , one of the huge advantages during the Cold War was that the Soviets knew we were watching them , and we knew they were watching us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did nobody slap AES or blowfish block ciphers around the video packets?
I admit I am assuming the video is digital.
There are inexpensive (in terms of the cost of a drone) silicon implementations of both for the planes and BSD licensed software for the stations.
If they just used preshared keys its would have been trivial to do and probably would have prevented this.
My best guess is that it:

Doesn't matter if they know we're watching.
OR:
It's to our advantage for them to know we're watching.
The only stuff they can watch is stuff we want them to watch.
If you were planning Something Evil, and noticed that there was a live video feed of your "hideout", you might want to think about postponing your plans for a while.
My $600 laptop has various forms of encryption ranging from "Secret Decoder Ring" to "GFL".
I'm pretty sure if we wanted an encrypted video feed, we'd have it.
In fact, one of the huge advantages during the Cold War was that the Soviets knew we were watching them, and we knew they were watching us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474586</id>
	<title>Re:So instead of leaking this to the news...</title>
	<author>Matje</author>
	<datestamp>1261070460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is modded insightful? how would this work in practice? you can't just loop a video file of say 10 hours. anyone monitoring the signal would figure out in at most 20 hours that they've been a fake.<br>And how are you going to broadcast something that fits the current daylight and weather conditions to look sufficiently fake? You would be investing *a lot* of money to create something slightly believable, only to have the whole thing fall apart as soon as someone figures out the feeds they've been watching didn't match reality.</p><p>Mind you TFA mentioned they found days and days of intercepted video feeds. it's widespread apparently.</p><p>Again TFA mentioned that adding encryption would require hardware changes not only to the drones but also to the receiving equipment, which is also used by allies and in many diverse settings (thus different equipment types). adding encryption will thus require large structural changes, making it a slow and very costly process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is modded insightful ?
how would this work in practice ?
you ca n't just loop a video file of say 10 hours .
anyone monitoring the signal would figure out in at most 20 hours that they 've been a fake.And how are you going to broadcast something that fits the current daylight and weather conditions to look sufficiently fake ?
You would be investing * a lot * of money to create something slightly believable , only to have the whole thing fall apart as soon as someone figures out the feeds they 've been watching did n't match reality.Mind you TFA mentioned they found days and days of intercepted video feeds .
it 's widespread apparently.Again TFA mentioned that adding encryption would require hardware changes not only to the drones but also to the receiving equipment , which is also used by allies and in many diverse settings ( thus different equipment types ) .
adding encryption will thus require large structural changes , making it a slow and very costly process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is modded insightful?
how would this work in practice?
you can't just loop a video file of say 10 hours.
anyone monitoring the signal would figure out in at most 20 hours that they've been a fake.And how are you going to broadcast something that fits the current daylight and weather conditions to look sufficiently fake?
You would be investing *a lot* of money to create something slightly believable, only to have the whole thing fall apart as soon as someone figures out the feeds they've been watching didn't match reality.Mind you TFA mentioned they found days and days of intercepted video feeds.
it's widespread apparently.Again TFA mentioned that adding encryption would require hardware changes not only to the drones but also to the receiving equipment, which is also used by allies and in many diverse settings (thus different equipment types).
adding encryption will thus require large structural changes, making it a slow and very costly process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475132</id>
	<title>Re:So instead of leaking this to the news...</title>
	<author>5KVGhost</author>
	<datestamp>1261072560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I strongly suspect that they have been creating fake feeds for some time. And that they now know that it's no longer an effective strategy.</p><p>The military employs a lot of very clever people, and they do these things for a living. They just don't post about them on Slashdot, or talk about them to the WSJ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I strongly suspect that they have been creating fake feeds for some time .
And that they now know that it 's no longer an effective strategy.The military employs a lot of very clever people , and they do these things for a living .
They just do n't post about them on Slashdot , or talk about them to the WSJ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I strongly suspect that they have been creating fake feeds for some time.
And that they now know that it's no longer an effective strategy.The military employs a lot of very clever people, and they do these things for a living.
They just don't post about them on Slashdot, or talk about them to the WSJ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473718</id>
	<title>And What If Al-Qida Sees A Beat Cop Overhead?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not use the Drones as a way to help folks?  Afghanistan does not need an Aggressor Sniper Team for every flat tire problem.  How about applications like Snow Fall Levels? Lake Levels?  Traffic?  Crop Pests? River and Lake Levels? Civil Engineering Project Completions?  Sometimes just walking up to the person and saying, "Would you please stop flipping off the Reapers as they fly by.  To Americans it means 'I going to empty my bladder'."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not use the Drones as a way to help folks ?
Afghanistan does not need an Aggressor Sniper Team for every flat tire problem .
How about applications like Snow Fall Levels ?
Lake Levels ?
Traffic ? Crop Pests ?
River and Lake Levels ?
Civil Engineering Project Completions ?
Sometimes just walking up to the person and saying , " Would you please stop flipping off the Reapers as they fly by .
To Americans it means 'I going to empty my bladder' .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not use the Drones as a way to help folks?
Afghanistan does not need an Aggressor Sniper Team for every flat tire problem.
How about applications like Snow Fall Levels?
Lake Levels?
Traffic?  Crop Pests?
River and Lake Levels?
Civil Engineering Project Completions?
Sometimes just walking up to the person and saying, "Would you please stop flipping off the Reapers as they fly by.
To Americans it means 'I going to empty my bladder'.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474070</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously would it have been difficult</title>
	<author>jittles</author>
	<datestamp>1261068060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well that depends on the QoS that the military demands, as well as how they broadcast the data, the encoding they use for compression and other factors.  If all you send are I frames then you have a lot more flexibility at the cost of increased bandwidth.  Of course you could also use various error correction schemes as well to handle packet loss.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that depends on the QoS that the military demands , as well as how they broadcast the data , the encoding they use for compression and other factors .
If all you send are I frames then you have a lot more flexibility at the cost of increased bandwidth .
Of course you could also use various error correction schemes as well to handle packet loss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that depends on the QoS that the military demands, as well as how they broadcast the data, the encoding they use for compression and other factors.
If all you send are I frames then you have a lot more flexibility at the cost of increased bandwidth.
Of course you could also use various error correction schemes as well to handle packet loss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473114</id>
	<title>Make the enemy see what you want them to see</title>
	<author>Ch*mp</author>
	<datestamp>1261064340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fake footage sent in clear.<br>The real footage encrypted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fake footage sent in clear.The real footage encrypted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fake footage sent in clear.The real footage encrypted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474774</id>
	<title>2  years..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261071120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sad side is they've known about this for over 2 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sad side is they 've known about this for over 2 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sad side is they've known about this for over 2 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475366</id>
	<title>Re:The communication channel between a combat UAV.</title>
	<author>Ksevio</author>
	<datestamp>1261073640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also simply not true since the communication channels ARE ENCRYPTED.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also simply not true since the communication channels ARE ENCRYPTED .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also simply not true since the communication channels ARE ENCRYPTED.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30476228</id>
	<title>Re:Real impact is close to zero</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1261077360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US uses UAVs in Afghanistan to keep track of who is coming and going from a particular place.  If someone you want to kill goes into a house and you know there aren't any people you don't want to kill in that house (because you've been watching it constantly for the last week), then you can put a missile into it.  Otherwise you probably won't.</p><p>If the other guy knows when you're watching a particular house, he might be a little more careful to a) not have meetings with his important buddies there or b) make sure to invite Joe from down the road's teenage daughter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US uses UAVs in Afghanistan to keep track of who is coming and going from a particular place .
If someone you want to kill goes into a house and you know there are n't any people you do n't want to kill in that house ( because you 've been watching it constantly for the last week ) , then you can put a missile into it .
Otherwise you probably wo n't.If the other guy knows when you 're watching a particular house , he might be a little more careful to a ) not have meetings with his important buddies there or b ) make sure to invite Joe from down the road 's teenage daughter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US uses UAVs in Afghanistan to keep track of who is coming and going from a particular place.
If someone you want to kill goes into a house and you know there aren't any people you don't want to kill in that house (because you've been watching it constantly for the last week), then you can put a missile into it.
Otherwise you probably won't.If the other guy knows when you're watching a particular house, he might be a little more careful to a) not have meetings with his important buddies there or b) make sure to invite Joe from down the road's teenage daughter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474090</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261068180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is nuts. Can we come up with better things to do with our time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is nuts .
Can we come up with better things to do with our time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is nuts.
Can we come up with better things to do with our time?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30481380</id>
	<title>Re:All your drone are belong to us</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1261054860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Obviously they don't think it's a big issue. And they're right. What's the worst case scenario here?</p></div><p>The worst case scenario is that the drone is a reconnaissance drone used to identify enemy positions during an engagement, but showing positions of allied troops in its video feed as well (I would imagine, given how high it flies, it wouldn't be uncommon to get such a "big picture"). If the enemy taps into said video feed, he now has information about the position and movement of your individual troops as well, and as a defender, it may well be able to use that information more effectively.</p><p>Even outside direct engagements, consider if they're able to tap into the feed when the drone leaves its base of operations (I assume it's live all the time) - this would give a live view into the base. I wonder how useful that can potentially be for, say, accurate mortar fire intended to take out specific assets, or inflict maximum possible damage to people within...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously they do n't think it 's a big issue .
And they 're right .
What 's the worst case scenario here ? The worst case scenario is that the drone is a reconnaissance drone used to identify enemy positions during an engagement , but showing positions of allied troops in its video feed as well ( I would imagine , given how high it flies , it would n't be uncommon to get such a " big picture " ) .
If the enemy taps into said video feed , he now has information about the position and movement of your individual troops as well , and as a defender , it may well be able to use that information more effectively.Even outside direct engagements , consider if they 're able to tap into the feed when the drone leaves its base of operations ( I assume it 's live all the time ) - this would give a live view into the base .
I wonder how useful that can potentially be for , say , accurate mortar fire intended to take out specific assets , or inflict maximum possible damage to people within.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously they don't think it's a big issue.
And they're right.
What's the worst case scenario here?The worst case scenario is that the drone is a reconnaissance drone used to identify enemy positions during an engagement, but showing positions of allied troops in its video feed as well (I would imagine, given how high it flies, it wouldn't be uncommon to get such a "big picture").
If the enemy taps into said video feed, he now has information about the position and movement of your individual troops as well, and as a defender, it may well be able to use that information more effectively.Even outside direct engagements, consider if they're able to tap into the feed when the drone leaves its base of operations (I assume it's live all the time) - this would give a live view into the base.
I wonder how useful that can potentially be for, say, accurate mortar fire intended to take out specific assets, or inflict maximum possible damage to people within...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472704</id>
	<title>Stupid question time...</title>
	<author>ErnieD</author>
	<datestamp>1261061880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...why in the world wasn't all the data feeds sent to &amp; from a drone encrypted ALREADY? It took someone sniffing the wireless feed for someone to realize this?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...why in the world was n't all the data feeds sent to &amp; from a drone encrypted ALREADY ?
It took someone sniffing the wireless feed for someone to realize this ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...why in the world wasn't all the data feeds sent to &amp; from a drone encrypted ALREADY?
It took someone sniffing the wireless feed for someone to realize this?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472784</id>
	<title>And the big deal is what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261062480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, what is the big deal?

</p><p>FTA:  '... the intercepts could give America's enemies battlefield advantages by removing the element of surprise from certain missions and making it easier for insurgents to determine which roads and buildings are under US surveillance.'"

</p><p>An advantage? How? You know how the insurgents can figure out what roads and building are under US surveillance? It's the ones we keep flying drones over! I mean they can see the drones, they can hear the drones, they know what they're doing when the drones fly over them, they know the drones are taking video and pictures, and they should already have a pretty good idea what is in the video and pictures already.
</p><p>
Now if they somehow figured out how to tap into the cameras and have the drones relay video and pictures when they were flying back into base then I would say they've got an advantage, or if they tapped into actual satellite and spy plane footage.

</p><p>Sure it's a bit stupid they didn't encrypt the actual feed but is the enemy getting any information they didn't know about already?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , what is the big deal ?
FTA : '... the intercepts could give America 's enemies battlefield advantages by removing the element of surprise from certain missions and making it easier for insurgents to determine which roads and buildings are under US surveillance .
' " An advantage ?
How ? You know how the insurgents can figure out what roads and building are under US surveillance ?
It 's the ones we keep flying drones over !
I mean they can see the drones , they can hear the drones , they know what they 're doing when the drones fly over them , they know the drones are taking video and pictures , and they should already have a pretty good idea what is in the video and pictures already .
Now if they somehow figured out how to tap into the cameras and have the drones relay video and pictures when they were flying back into base then I would say they 've got an advantage , or if they tapped into actual satellite and spy plane footage .
Sure it 's a bit stupid they did n't encrypt the actual feed but is the enemy getting any information they did n't know about already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, what is the big deal?
FTA:  '... the intercepts could give America's enemies battlefield advantages by removing the element of surprise from certain missions and making it easier for insurgents to determine which roads and buildings are under US surveillance.
'"

An advantage?
How? You know how the insurgents can figure out what roads and building are under US surveillance?
It's the ones we keep flying drones over!
I mean they can see the drones, they can hear the drones, they know what they're doing when the drones fly over them, they know the drones are taking video and pictures, and they should already have a pretty good idea what is in the video and pictures already.
Now if they somehow figured out how to tap into the cameras and have the drones relay video and pictures when they were flying back into base then I would say they've got an advantage, or if they tapped into actual satellite and spy plane footage.
Sure it's a bit stupid they didn't encrypt the actual feed but is the enemy getting any information they didn't know about already?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474702</id>
	<title>If they're really terrorists....</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1261070940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A computer program that can be easily purchased for $25.95 off the Internet</p> </div><p>...they probably downloaded it from pirate bay.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A computer program that can be easily purchased for $ 25.95 off the Internet ...they probably downloaded it from pirate bay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A computer program that can be easily purchased for $25.95 off the Internet ...they probably downloaded it from pirate bay.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474458</id>
	<title>Re:All your drone are belong to us</title>
	<author>HaZardman27</author>
	<datestamp>1261069800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A coworker sent me a link to the same story on Fox news, and the title of that one was "Iranian-Backed Insurgents Hack U.S. Drones."</htmltext>
<tokenext>A coworker sent me a link to the same story on Fox news , and the title of that one was " Iranian-Backed Insurgents Hack U.S .
Drones. "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A coworker sent me a link to the same story on Fox news, and the title of that one was "Iranian-Backed Insurgents Hack U.S.
Drones."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472770</id>
	<title>No risk?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261062360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, unencrypted or not, what's the risk here?</p><p>Do you think that Osama bin Keanu Reeves is going to record the footage from the drone, then loop it and play it back with a competing signal while he slips out the door in the floor?</p><p>Frankly, if the signal was encrypted, you could still use triangulation to determine the location of the drone, and you'd have the same knowledge of what's being surveilled.</p><p>This is a cool hack, and nothing more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , unencrypted or not , what 's the risk here ? Do you think that Osama bin Keanu Reeves is going to record the footage from the drone , then loop it and play it back with a competing signal while he slips out the door in the floor ? Frankly , if the signal was encrypted , you could still use triangulation to determine the location of the drone , and you 'd have the same knowledge of what 's being surveilled.This is a cool hack , and nothing more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, unencrypted or not, what's the risk here?Do you think that Osama bin Keanu Reeves is going to record the footage from the drone, then loop it and play it back with a competing signal while he slips out the door in the floor?Frankly, if the signal was encrypted, you could still use triangulation to determine the location of the drone, and you'd have the same knowledge of what's being surveilled.This is a cool hack, and nothing more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472852</id>
	<title>Yes, keep looking at the unencrypted channel...</title>
	<author>MiniMike</author>
	<datestamp>1261062900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, keep looking at the unencrypted channel playing a video loop of some clouds, while those watching the encrypted channel see the drone get closer and closer to you...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , keep looking at the unencrypted channel playing a video loop of some clouds , while those watching the encrypted channel see the drone get closer and closer to you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, keep looking at the unencrypted channel playing a video loop of some clouds, while those watching the encrypted channel see the drone get closer and closer to you...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472696</id>
	<title>Special offer!</title>
	<author>Luxusleben</author>
	<datestamp>1261061820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>New in stock: The missile pack!<br> <br>
Buy your voucher now and for just 5.99 $, you'll get your chance to fire an onboard missile. <br>No hits guaranteed, maker cannot be held responsible for eventual damage. Offer valid for limited time only.</htmltext>
<tokenext>New in stock : The missile pack !
Buy your voucher now and for just 5.99 $ , you 'll get your chance to fire an onboard missile .
No hits guaranteed , maker can not be held responsible for eventual damage .
Offer valid for limited time only .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New in stock: The missile pack!
Buy your voucher now and for just 5.99 $, you'll get your chance to fire an onboard missile.
No hits guaranteed, maker cannot be held responsible for eventual damage.
Offer valid for limited time only.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30476686</id>
	<title>DROID App</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1261078920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm, so that realistic bombing game app I bought for my Droid was really killing people in Afghanistan?  Thank god I didn't spend my points on the Thermonuclear upgrade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , so that realistic bombing game app I bought for my Droid was really killing people in Afghanistan ?
Thank god I did n't spend my points on the Thermonuclear upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, so that realistic bombing game app I bought for my Droid was really killing people in Afghanistan?
Thank god I didn't spend my points on the Thermonuclear upgrade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472798</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>AlexiaDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1261062600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reading the information in the article and deducting from the software used, all you need is satellite internet card, satellite dish and the SkyGrabber, a bit of software that records anything video like it finds in satellite data stream. Pretty much off the shelf hardware for a place with limited infrastructure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading the information in the article and deducting from the software used , all you need is satellite internet card , satellite dish and the SkyGrabber , a bit of software that records anything video like it finds in satellite data stream .
Pretty much off the shelf hardware for a place with limited infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading the information in the article and deducting from the software used, all you need is satellite internet card, satellite dish and the SkyGrabber, a bit of software that records anything video like it finds in satellite data stream.
Pretty much off the shelf hardware for a place with limited infrastructure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475374</id>
	<title>Sounds like a honey-pot to me</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1261073700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) Spread rumors that cheap software can defeat Predator drones.<br>
2) Offer software for sale on the internet.<br>
3) Include tracking device with every copy of software sold.<br>
4) Trace every shipment to it's destination.<br>
5) Send Predator drone to attack destination.<br> <br>
Yep, sounds like a winning plan to me!</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Spread rumors that cheap software can defeat Predator drones .
2 ) Offer software for sale on the internet .
3 ) Include tracking device with every copy of software sold .
4 ) Trace every shipment to it 's destination .
5 ) Send Predator drone to attack destination .
Yep , sounds like a winning plan to me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Spread rumors that cheap software can defeat Predator drones.
2) Offer software for sale on the internet.
3) Include tracking device with every copy of software sold.
4) Trace every shipment to it's destination.
5) Send Predator drone to attack destination.
Yep, sounds like a winning plan to me!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472682</id>
	<title>Oh noes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261061760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they recorded unencrypted OTA video feeds?  While yes, they probably should have been encrypted in the first place and . . .</p><p><i>The U.S. government has known about the flaw since the U.S. campaign in Bosnia in the 1990s, current and former officials said. But the Pentagon assumed local adversaries wouldn't know how to exploit it, the officials said.</i></p><p>Yea that's kinda bad and lazy of them,</p><p><i>Senior military and intelligence officials said the U.S. was working to encrypt all of its drone video feeds from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, but said it wasn't yet clear if the problem had been completely resolved.</i></p><p>they're fixing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they recorded unencrypted OTA video feeds ?
While yes , they probably should have been encrypted in the first place and .
. .The U.S. government has known about the flaw since the U.S. campaign in Bosnia in the 1990s , current and former officials said .
But the Pentagon assumed local adversaries would n't know how to exploit it , the officials said.Yea that 's kinda bad and lazy of them,Senior military and intelligence officials said the U.S. was working to encrypt all of its drone video feeds from Iraq , Afghanistan and Pakistan , but said it was n't yet clear if the problem had been completely resolved.they 're fixing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they recorded unencrypted OTA video feeds?
While yes, they probably should have been encrypted in the first place and .
. .The U.S. government has known about the flaw since the U.S. campaign in Bosnia in the 1990s, current and former officials said.
But the Pentagon assumed local adversaries wouldn't know how to exploit it, the officials said.Yea that's kinda bad and lazy of them,Senior military and intelligence officials said the U.S. was working to encrypt all of its drone video feeds from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, but said it wasn't yet clear if the problem had been completely resolved.they're fixing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475772</id>
	<title>Re:More important question</title>
	<author>Jeng</author>
	<datestamp>1261075440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would imagine that the software necessary to take video feeds from the drone and then comparing them to satellite images would be rather simple.</p><p>Knowing where we are searching is valuable intelligence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would imagine that the software necessary to take video feeds from the drone and then comparing them to satellite images would be rather simple.Knowing where we are searching is valuable intelligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would imagine that the software necessary to take video feeds from the drone and then comparing them to satellite images would be rather simple.Knowing where we are searching is valuable intelligence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472806</id>
	<title>So instead of leaking this to the news...</title>
	<author>a\_nonamiss</author>
	<datestamp>1261062600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>why didn't the DoD just start passing a fake feed from the drone? They could have added another encrypted channel for the real feed, which I would assume is trivial given the military's budget. Then pass fake data over the unencrypted channel. Sometimes disinformation to the enemy is far more valuable than real intelligence. I can see a bunch of jihadis sitting around watching a tv screen. "Look at those infidels. They are going to blow up the wrong building! Our secret base is 100 kilometers away! Say, does anyone else hear that noi..." [BOOM]</htmltext>
<tokenext>why did n't the DoD just start passing a fake feed from the drone ?
They could have added another encrypted channel for the real feed , which I would assume is trivial given the military 's budget .
Then pass fake data over the unencrypted channel .
Sometimes disinformation to the enemy is far more valuable than real intelligence .
I can see a bunch of jihadis sitting around watching a tv screen .
" Look at those infidels .
They are going to blow up the wrong building !
Our secret base is 100 kilometers away !
Say , does anyone else hear that noi... " [ BOOM ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why didn't the DoD just start passing a fake feed from the drone?
They could have added another encrypted channel for the real feed, which I would assume is trivial given the military's budget.
Then pass fake data over the unencrypted channel.
Sometimes disinformation to the enemy is far more valuable than real intelligence.
I can see a bunch of jihadis sitting around watching a tv screen.
"Look at those infidels.
They are going to blow up the wrong building!
Our secret base is 100 kilometers away!
Say, does anyone else hear that noi..." [BOOM]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473652</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>dov\_0</author>
	<datestamp>1261066680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The hardware costs are not really so important when the military is concerned - even in otherwise poor nations the military can have some very expensive toys.</p><p>If I could pick up the UAV's broadcast, I'd probably be far more interested in being able to overpower any control frequency long enough to crash the thing and/or stopping the signal getting back to base. I'd say the control signals are far more likely to be encoded than the vid stream, so selective frequency jamming would be the way to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The hardware costs are not really so important when the military is concerned - even in otherwise poor nations the military can have some very expensive toys.If I could pick up the UAV 's broadcast , I 'd probably be far more interested in being able to overpower any control frequency long enough to crash the thing and/or stopping the signal getting back to base .
I 'd say the control signals are far more likely to be encoded than the vid stream , so selective frequency jamming would be the way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hardware costs are not really so important when the military is concerned - even in otherwise poor nations the military can have some very expensive toys.If I could pick up the UAV's broadcast, I'd probably be far more interested in being able to overpower any control frequency long enough to crash the thing and/or stopping the signal getting back to base.
I'd say the control signals are far more likely to be encoded than the vid stream, so selective frequency jamming would be the way to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475702</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously would it have been difficult</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1261075140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>However, it does need to be encryption that works over a noisy channel, with possible gaps in the datastream.</p></div></blockquote><p>The term you're looking for is "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream\_cipher#Self-synchronizing\_stream\_ciphers" title="wikipedia.org">self-synchronizing stream cipher</a> [wikipedia.org]". As the article explains, you can use a normal block cipher in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block\_cipher\_modes\_of\_operation#Cipher\_feedback\_.28CFB.29" title="wikipedia.org">CFB mode</a> [wikipedia.org] to implement such a beast.</p><p>By the way, there's no good reason to use CBC mode these days. There are modes that are either faster, more parallizable, or both.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , it does need to be encryption that works over a noisy channel , with possible gaps in the datastream.The term you 're looking for is " self-synchronizing stream cipher [ wikipedia.org ] " .
As the article explains , you can use a normal block cipher in CFB mode [ wikipedia.org ] to implement such a beast.By the way , there 's no good reason to use CBC mode these days .
There are modes that are either faster , more parallizable , or both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, it does need to be encryption that works over a noisy channel, with possible gaps in the datastream.The term you're looking for is "self-synchronizing stream cipher [wikipedia.org]".
As the article explains, you can use a normal block cipher in CFB mode [wikipedia.org] to implement such a beast.By the way, there's no good reason to use CBC mode these days.
There are modes that are either faster, more parallizable, or both.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475280</id>
	<title>Re:Some real kneejerk reactions above</title>
	<author>Swarm Master</author>
	<datestamp>1261073220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You miss the point. if the insurgents capture the video they know (from the metadata) exactly where we are looking and therefore where we are not. Based on that information they can decide when to do what they want and when they need to be covert. Other commenters are correct. We've known about this problem for a long time and it should have been fixed. But its now gotten very complicated because we have hundreds of systems in theater that expect to receive that video feed unencrypted and ALL of those systems need to be upgraded before you can begin encrypting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You miss the point .
if the insurgents capture the video they know ( from the metadata ) exactly where we are looking and therefore where we are not .
Based on that information they can decide when to do what they want and when they need to be covert .
Other commenters are correct .
We 've known about this problem for a long time and it should have been fixed .
But its now gotten very complicated because we have hundreds of systems in theater that expect to receive that video feed unencrypted and ALL of those systems need to be upgraded before you can begin encrypting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You miss the point.
if the insurgents capture the video they know (from the metadata) exactly where we are looking and therefore where we are not.
Based on that information they can decide when to do what they want and when they need to be covert.
Other commenters are correct.
We've known about this problem for a long time and it should have been fixed.
But its now gotten very complicated because we have hundreds of systems in theater that expect to receive that video feed unencrypted and ALL of those systems need to be upgraded before you can begin encrypting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474272</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously would it have been difficult</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1261069020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because AES didn't exist when this system was designed, and design changes during the design process are really expensive and have a bad habit of killing programs, with post-deployment design changes being even more expensive?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because AES did n't exist when this system was designed , and design changes during the design process are really expensive and have a bad habit of killing programs , with post-deployment design changes being even more expensive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because AES didn't exist when this system was designed, and design changes during the design process are really expensive and have a bad habit of killing programs, with post-deployment design changes being even more expensive?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474692</id>
	<title>WEP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261070880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>ZOMG! our WEP WiFi connection has been p0wnd!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. oh wait, we weren't even using WEP<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..

Somebody deserves the Most Incompetent Spy Tech Designer Ever award or the Worlds greatest I Can Sell The Government Anything No Matter How Fucked It Is salesmanship award<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. or both.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ZOMG !
our WEP WiFi connection has been p0wnd !
.. oh wait , we were n't even using WEP . . Somebody deserves the Most Incompetent Spy Tech Designer Ever award or the Worlds greatest I Can Sell The Government Anything No Matter How Fucked It Is salesmanship award .. or both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZOMG!
our WEP WiFi connection has been p0wnd!
.. oh wait, we weren't even using WEP ..

Somebody deserves the Most Incompetent Spy Tech Designer Ever award or the Worlds greatest I Can Sell The Government Anything No Matter How Fucked It Is salesmanship award .. or both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475338</id>
	<title>Re:So instead of leaking this to the news...</title>
	<author>Ksevio</author>
	<datestamp>1261073520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm thinking they could just start broadcasting the latest American Idol or whatever and drive off anyone who might be monitoring them forever!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm thinking they could just start broadcasting the latest American Idol or whatever and drive off anyone who might be monitoring them forever !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm thinking they could just start broadcasting the latest American Idol or whatever and drive off anyone who might be monitoring them forever!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474554</id>
	<title>FLYING BOMBS</title>
	<author>hovercycle</author>
	<datestamp>1261070220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As much as I hate to admit, I am a talented weapons designer.
The first thing I thought about when thinking of a conventional 'MAD' style peenemunde retaliatory base was
banking a shitload of encrypted com modules for the "flying bomb" I designed.
The first damn thing I thought of was a secure link. And our own military can't hack this?
This is why I hate paying taxes. We should have the best but we fuck ourselves and let others fuck us.


The fact that this 'type' of technology has existed since WWII tells us:

1.There's simply not as much intrigue or educated radicals as you might think.
2.Your money truly is being wasted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I hate to admit , I am a talented weapons designer .
The first thing I thought about when thinking of a conventional 'MAD ' style peenemunde retaliatory base was banking a shitload of encrypted com modules for the " flying bomb " I designed .
The first damn thing I thought of was a secure link .
And our own military ca n't hack this ?
This is why I hate paying taxes .
We should have the best but we fuck ourselves and let others fuck us .
The fact that this 'type ' of technology has existed since WWII tells us : 1.There 's simply not as much intrigue or educated radicals as you might think .
2.Your money truly is being wasted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I hate to admit, I am a talented weapons designer.
The first thing I thought about when thinking of a conventional 'MAD' style peenemunde retaliatory base was
banking a shitload of encrypted com modules for the "flying bomb" I designed.
The first damn thing I thought of was a secure link.
And our own military can't hack this?
This is why I hate paying taxes.
We should have the best but we fuck ourselves and let others fuck us.
The fact that this 'type' of technology has existed since WWII tells us:

1.There's simply not as much intrigue or educated radicals as you might think.
2.Your money truly is being wasted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473164</id>
	<title>Re:All your drone are belong to us</title>
	<author>HateBreeder</author>
	<datestamp>1261064460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sensationalist... i would expect this from a tabloid.</p><p>Title should have been: Unencrypted data broadcasted everywhere<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... can be received by anyone!</p><p>The leap from that to "$26 of Software Defeats American Military" is quite a big leap in my opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sensationalist... i would expect this from a tabloid.Title should have been : Unencrypted data broadcasted everywhere ... can be received by anyone ! The leap from that to " $ 26 of Software Defeats American Military " is quite a big leap in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sensationalist... i would expect this from a tabloid.Title should have been: Unencrypted data broadcasted everywhere ... can be received by anyone!The leap from that to "$26 of Software Defeats American Military" is quite a big leap in my opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473834</id>
	<title>Re:All your drone are belong to us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261067280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously they don't think it's a big issue.  And they're right.  What's the worst case scenario here?</p><p>Last words overheard from an Al Qaeda satellite-intercept house:  "Hey, look, I'm on TV!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously they do n't think it 's a big issue .
And they 're right .
What 's the worst case scenario here ? Last words overheard from an Al Qaeda satellite-intercept house : " Hey , look , I 'm on TV !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously they don't think it's a big issue.
And they're right.
What's the worst case scenario here?Last words overheard from an Al Qaeda satellite-intercept house:  "Hey, look, I'm on TV!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475246</id>
	<title>Re:More important question</title>
	<author>Swarm Master</author>
	<datestamp>1261072980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Correct: just the video feeds are unencrypted. However, those streams include metadata such as the GPS coordinates of the current view.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct : just the video feeds are unencrypted .
However , those streams include metadata such as the GPS coordinates of the current view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct: just the video feeds are unencrypted.
However, those streams include metadata such as the GPS coordinates of the current view.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474578</id>
	<title>Re:Some real kneejerk reactions above</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261070340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Erm, at the very least anyone watching the feed will find out where they are launching them from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Erm , at the very least anyone watching the feed will find out where they are launching them from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Erm, at the very least anyone watching the feed will find out where they are launching them from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30476512</id>
	<title>Re:All your drone are belong to us</title>
	<author>GasparGMSwordsman</author>
	<datestamp>1261078380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The technical details are trivial and not really the story.  The issue is that we are broadcasting real time battlefield info to our opponents.<br> <br>

Think of it as having someone photocopy 50\% of all espionage (spy) reports and then faxing them to every foreign power.  To use a Civil War (US) reference, it would be the equivalent of having the Confederate army cavalry give copies of their reports to the Union army.<br> <br>

What is the D.o.D. response to this?  "We didn't think they would find out..." (paraphrased)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The technical details are trivial and not really the story .
The issue is that we are broadcasting real time battlefield info to our opponents .
Think of it as having someone photocopy 50 \ % of all espionage ( spy ) reports and then faxing them to every foreign power .
To use a Civil War ( US ) reference , it would be the equivalent of having the Confederate army cavalry give copies of their reports to the Union army .
What is the D.o.D .
response to this ?
" We did n't think they would find out... " ( paraphrased )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The technical details are trivial and not really the story.
The issue is that we are broadcasting real time battlefield info to our opponents.
Think of it as having someone photocopy 50\% of all espionage (spy) reports and then faxing them to every foreign power.
To use a Civil War (US) reference, it would be the equivalent of having the Confederate army cavalry give copies of their reports to the Union army.
What is the D.o.D.
response to this?
"We didn't think they would find out..." (paraphrased)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474166</id>
	<title>no need to turn on encryption yet</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1261068480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the targets are still rather unsophisticated.
Theres lots of latent security in the system should the need arise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the targets are still rather unsophisticated .
Theres lots of latent security in the system should the need arise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the targets are still rather unsophisticated.
Theres lots of latent security in the system should the need arise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473536</id>
	<title>Re:Some real kneejerk reactions above</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there any real security risk in this? I suspect it is very small.</p> </div><p>The risk to this is not a danger to troops.  The risk of this is having a completely un-edited video source available to people who would have a field day if the official US proclamation of what happened was visibly different from the recorded video stream</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any real security risk in this ?
I suspect it is very small .
The risk to this is not a danger to troops .
The risk of this is having a completely un-edited video source available to people who would have a field day if the official US proclamation of what happened was visibly different from the recorded video stream</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any real security risk in this?
I suspect it is very small.
The risk to this is not a danger to troops.
The risk of this is having a completely un-edited video source available to people who would have a field day if the official US proclamation of what happened was visibly different from the recorded video stream
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474484</id>
	<title>Propoganda!!!</title>
	<author>AthleteMusicianNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1261069860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Grandma's get intrigued by these types of tabloids.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Grandma 's get intrigued by these types of tabloids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Grandma's get intrigued by these types of tabloids.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30478304</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261041420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... even it it's encrypted, they'll know a drone is around just by detecting the (encrypted) video signal. Just like a car radar detector can detect the signal regardless of how the radar data is encoded. Or a wi-fi detector detecting encrypted 802.11g.</p><p>The drone needs to be upgraded with burst transmission or spread spectrum capability to help avoid signal detection.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burst\_transmission" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">burst transmission</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>(FYI - Spread spectrum was invented by actress Hedy Lamarr and is the basis for DSL, 802.11(a,g,n), and CDMA cell transmissions. Cool stuff.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However ... even it it 's encrypted , they 'll know a drone is around just by detecting the ( encrypted ) video signal .
Just like a car radar detector can detect the signal regardless of how the radar data is encoded .
Or a wi-fi detector detecting encrypted 802.11g.The drone needs to be upgraded with burst transmission or spread spectrum capability to help avoid signal detection.burst transmission [ wikipedia.org ] ( FYI - Spread spectrum was invented by actress Hedy Lamarr and is the basis for DSL , 802.11 ( a,g,n ) , and CDMA cell transmissions .
Cool stuff .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However ... even it it's encrypted, they'll know a drone is around just by detecting the (encrypted) video signal.
Just like a car radar detector can detect the signal regardless of how the radar data is encoded.
Or a wi-fi detector detecting encrypted 802.11g.The drone needs to be upgraded with burst transmission or spread spectrum capability to help avoid signal detection.burst transmission [wikipedia.org](FYI - Spread spectrum was invented by actress Hedy Lamarr and is the basis for DSL, 802.11(a,g,n), and CDMA cell transmissions.
Cool stuff.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474380</id>
	<title>Re:Too expensive?</title>
	<author>BronsCon</author>
	<datestamp>1261069440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, they could, but how would they decrypt it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , they could , but how would they decrypt it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, they could, but how would they decrypt it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475980</id>
	<title>Germans had great confidence in ENIGMA</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1261076340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Germans had great confidence in ENIGMA as well.  But, the Allies could read it and it made us look stupid.  Granted, cracking some of the current Allied codes would require a fundamental breakthrough in computing - like a proof that P=NP and the utility to solve these problems, but...</p><p>What if the Chinese had it?</p><p>We would be screwed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Germans had great confidence in ENIGMA as well .
But , the Allies could read it and it made us look stupid .
Granted , cracking some of the current Allied codes would require a fundamental breakthrough in computing - like a proof that P = NP and the utility to solve these problems , but...What if the Chinese had it ? We would be screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Germans had great confidence in ENIGMA as well.
But, the Allies could read it and it made us look stupid.
Granted, cracking some of the current Allied codes would require a fundamental breakthrough in computing - like a proof that P=NP and the utility to solve these problems, but...What if the Chinese had it?We would be screwed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472820</id>
	<title>More important question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261062720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they were able to intercept the unencrypted, a more important question is why weren't these communications encrypted?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they were able to intercept the unencrypted , a more important question is why were n't these communications encrypted ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they were able to intercept the unencrypted, a more important question is why weren't these communications encrypted?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30495728</id>
	<title>Re:but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>ikeman32</author>
	<datestamp>1261147800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would imagine since the UAV's are controlled via satellite a simple satellite dish and receiver system would be all that you need. Plus the 26 dollar software of course.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would imagine since the UAV 's are controlled via satellite a simple satellite dish and receiver system would be all that you need .
Plus the 26 dollar software of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would imagine since the UAV's are controlled via satellite a simple satellite dish and receiver system would be all that you need.
Plus the 26 dollar software of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472858</id>
	<title>Re:Oh noes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261062900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It could be a deliberate ploy to manipulate what the enemy "sees". Why not have a "leak"?<br>It's a bit like leaving USB keys around for the unsuspecting to pick up...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could be a deliberate ploy to manipulate what the enemy " sees " .
Why not have a " leak " ? It 's a bit like leaving USB keys around for the unsuspecting to pick up.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could be a deliberate ploy to manipulate what the enemy "sees".
Why not have a "leak"?It's a bit like leaving USB keys around for the unsuspecting to pick up...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30478836</id>
	<title>Obligatory pr0n reference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261043520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should stream pr0n movies from their drones. That'll keep the adversaries busy...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should stream pr0n movies from their drones .
That 'll keep the adversaries busy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should stream pr0n movies from their drones.
That'll keep the adversaries busy...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473968</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously would it have been difficult</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261067760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your right you can't just encrypt with a block cipher and send. You need to encrypt with a block cipher, then add ECC, then send.</p><p>We do this in HDDs, I don't think that drones are that much worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your right you ca n't just encrypt with a block cipher and send .
You need to encrypt with a block cipher , then add ECC , then send.We do this in HDDs , I do n't think that drones are that much worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your right you can't just encrypt with a block cipher and send.
You need to encrypt with a block cipher, then add ECC, then send.We do this in HDDs, I don't think that drones are that much worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30478152</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously would it have been difficult</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1261040820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Random access block ciphers are quite common place, readly availlable at free or closed solutions from $0 to any amount you are wiling to pay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Random access block ciphers are quite common place , readly availlable at free or closed solutions from $ 0 to any amount you are wiling to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Random access block ciphers are quite common place, readly availlable at free or closed solutions from $0 to any amount you are wiling to pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474254</id>
	<title>Re:All your drone are belong to us</title>
	<author>computersareevil</author>
	<datestamp>1261068960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that the WSJ is a Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece, <i> <b>it is a tabloid.</b> </i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that the WSJ is a Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece , it is a tabloid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that the WSJ is a Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece,  it is a tabloid. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475842</id>
	<title>But, but, but...!</title>
	<author>Simon Brooke</author>
	<datestamp>1261075680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That video is <i>copyright!</i> It's piracy! The government must issue Al Qaeda with a DMCA takedown notice immediately!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That video is copyright !
It 's piracy !
The government must issue Al Qaeda with a DMCA takedown notice immediately !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That video is copyright!
It's piracy!
The government must issue Al Qaeda with a DMCA takedown notice immediately!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474100</id>
	<title>Re:Hubris</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1261068240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The irony is that it was probably a good assumption eight years ago that no one would decrypt this stuff. But after eight years of occupation, the tools are readily available on the open markets we've created and nurtured.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The irony is that it was probably a good assumption eight years ago that no one would decrypt this stuff .
But after eight years of occupation , the tools are readily available on the open markets we 've created and nurtured .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The irony is that it was probably a good assumption eight years ago that no one would decrypt this stuff.
But after eight years of occupation, the tools are readily available on the open markets we've created and nurtured.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474604</id>
	<title>Re:Time to copyright!</title>
	<author>VoxMagis</author>
	<datestamp>1261070520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an additional bonus, the only people that could find Bin Laden would be lawyers with a copyright ruling!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an additional bonus , the only people that could find Bin Laden would be lawyers with a copyright ruling !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an additional bonus, the only people that could find Bin Laden would be lawyers with a copyright ruling!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616</id>
	<title>but what are the hardware costs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261061400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, demodulating an unencrypted digital signal is not news.</p><p>I am more interested in what kind of RF equipment one would need to capture it off the air.<br>It's not like you can do this with your WiFi card.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , demodulating an unencrypted digital signal is not news.I am more interested in what kind of RF equipment one would need to capture it off the air.It 's not like you can do this with your WiFi card .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, demodulating an unencrypted digital signal is not news.I am more interested in what kind of RF equipment one would need to capture it off the air.It's not like you can do this with your WiFi card.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473212</id>
	<title>Can't add encryption?</title>
	<author>RealErmine</author>
	<datestamp>1261064700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The difficulty, officials said, is that adding encryption to a network that is more than a decade old involves more than placing a new piece of equipment on individual drones. Instead, many components of the network linking the drones to their operators in the U.S., Afghanistan or Pakistan have to be upgraded to handle the changes.</p></div><p>As an engineer in the defense industry and with experience integrating communication systems, I can't even think of one military data radio system in use that doesn't have encryption ability.  Even if they are using off-the-shelf wifi (doubtful) they wouldn't need to change hardware to at least have some encryption.  Either this quote is a lie, or someone did something monumentally stupid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : The difficulty , officials said , is that adding encryption to a network that is more than a decade old involves more than placing a new piece of equipment on individual drones .
Instead , many components of the network linking the drones to their operators in the U.S. , Afghanistan or Pakistan have to be upgraded to handle the changes.As an engineer in the defense industry and with experience integrating communication systems , I ca n't even think of one military data radio system in use that does n't have encryption ability .
Even if they are using off-the-shelf wifi ( doubtful ) they would n't need to change hardware to at least have some encryption .
Either this quote is a lie , or someone did something monumentally stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:The difficulty, officials said, is that adding encryption to a network that is more than a decade old involves more than placing a new piece of equipment on individual drones.
Instead, many components of the network linking the drones to their operators in the U.S., Afghanistan or Pakistan have to be upgraded to handle the changes.As an engineer in the defense industry and with experience integrating communication systems, I can't even think of one military data radio system in use that doesn't have encryption ability.
Even if they are using off-the-shelf wifi (doubtful) they wouldn't need to change hardware to at least have some encryption.
Either this quote is a lie, or someone did something monumentally stupid.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473748</id>
	<title>Satellite TV VS. military communications</title>
	<author>zerofoo</author>
	<datestamp>1261066980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hacking makes systems more resistant and secure over time.  It's a lot like biological systems that develop immunity to infection over time.</p><p>Satellite TV is remarkably resistant to hacking and theft due to its long and tumultuous evolution driven by hackers.</p><p>Hopefully military communications will evolve as fast now that the rest of the world is becoming technologically adept.</p><p>-ted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hacking makes systems more resistant and secure over time .
It 's a lot like biological systems that develop immunity to infection over time.Satellite TV is remarkably resistant to hacking and theft due to its long and tumultuous evolution driven by hackers.Hopefully military communications will evolve as fast now that the rest of the world is becoming technologically adept.-ted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hacking makes systems more resistant and secure over time.
It's a lot like biological systems that develop immunity to infection over time.Satellite TV is remarkably resistant to hacking and theft due to its long and tumultuous evolution driven by hackers.Hopefully military communications will evolve as fast now that the rest of the world is becoming technologically adept.-ted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30476072</id>
	<title>They can learn</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1261076760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not just where we are looking and when. But what the capabilities of our systems are.
</p><p>If they know what we are looking at, they know which of their assets are at risk. If they can get an idea of how well we can see, they can try out different methods of camouflaging them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not just where we are looking and when .
But what the capabilities of our systems are .
If they know what we are looking at , they know which of their assets are at risk .
If they can get an idea of how well we can see , they can try out different methods of camouflaging them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not just where we are looking and when.
But what the capabilities of our systems are.
If they know what we are looking at, they know which of their assets are at risk.
If they can get an idea of how well we can see, they can try out different methods of camouflaging them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472780</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't defeat them</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1261062420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Defeating them would be gaining control of the drones (a really scary proposition) </i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; If the outgoing stream wasn't encrypted, what makes you think the control stream was? It probably wasn't encrypted either - apart from the fact that the commands themselves are a form of substitution cypher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Defeating them would be gaining control of the drones ( a really scary proposition )       If the outgoing stream was n't encrypted , what makes you think the control stream was ?
It probably was n't encrypted either - apart from the fact that the commands themselves are a form of substitution cypher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Defeating them would be gaining control of the drones (a really scary proposition) 
      If the outgoing stream wasn't encrypted, what makes you think the control stream was?
It probably wasn't encrypted either - apart from the fact that the commands themselves are a form of substitution cypher.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474042</id>
	<title>Re:Can't add encryption?</title>
	<author>decsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1261068000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an engineer in the defense industry you probably also know how long defense systems live and how hard it can be to get upgrades pushed out into the field. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it wasn't technically feasible to encrypt the video stream at the time this system was first deployed and since then upgrading it has never been a priority for anyone with enough clout to make it happen. Now that its on SecDef's radar how long do you think its gonna take before this gets fixed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an engineer in the defense industry you probably also know how long defense systems live and how hard it can be to get upgrades pushed out into the field .
It would n't surprise me at all if it was n't technically feasible to encrypt the video stream at the time this system was first deployed and since then upgrading it has never been a priority for anyone with enough clout to make it happen .
Now that its on SecDef 's radar how long do you think its gon na take before this gets fixed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an engineer in the defense industry you probably also know how long defense systems live and how hard it can be to get upgrades pushed out into the field.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if it wasn't technically feasible to encrypt the video stream at the time this system was first deployed and since then upgrading it has never been a priority for anyone with enough clout to make it happen.
Now that its on SecDef's radar how long do you think its gonna take before this gets fixed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474648</id>
	<title>Re:And the big deal is what?</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1261070760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have underestimated the capability of U.S. UAVs. If you are being watched, you will not know. You can't hear them, you can't see them, and you can't hide from them. We can see people hiding under tarps or bushes- we can even see where you've been walking or driving, which vehicles have been used lately, and where a mortar has been fired. We can tell if you've been running, and where you have run from. We can see a gun and can tell if it's been fired lately. We can follow fresh tire tracks for miles.</p><p>In short, having access to a UAV's video feed would be a huge deal to our opponents. Not to mention that even if you knew there was a UAV overhead, you'd have no way of knowing what it's looking at (sensors have 360 degree coverage but like any camera, it can only look at one thing at a time.</p><p>I became a believer in the capabilities of the Predator/Reaper from seeing them in action first-hand.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have underestimated the capability of U.S. UAVs. If you are being watched , you will not know .
You ca n't hear them , you ca n't see them , and you ca n't hide from them .
We can see people hiding under tarps or bushes- we can even see where you 've been walking or driving , which vehicles have been used lately , and where a mortar has been fired .
We can tell if you 've been running , and where you have run from .
We can see a gun and can tell if it 's been fired lately .
We can follow fresh tire tracks for miles.In short , having access to a UAV 's video feed would be a huge deal to our opponents .
Not to mention that even if you knew there was a UAV overhead , you 'd have no way of knowing what it 's looking at ( sensors have 360 degree coverage but like any camera , it can only look at one thing at a time.I became a believer in the capabilities of the Predator/Reaper from seeing them in action first-hand.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have underestimated the capability of U.S. UAVs. If you are being watched, you will not know.
You can't hear them, you can't see them, and you can't hide from them.
We can see people hiding under tarps or bushes- we can even see where you've been walking or driving, which vehicles have been used lately, and where a mortar has been fired.
We can tell if you've been running, and where you have run from.
We can see a gun and can tell if it's been fired lately.
We can follow fresh tire tracks for miles.In short, having access to a UAV's video feed would be a huge deal to our opponents.
Not to mention that even if you knew there was a UAV overhead, you'd have no way of knowing what it's looking at (sensors have 360 degree coverage but like any camera, it can only look at one thing at a time.I became a believer in the capabilities of the Predator/Reaper from seeing them in action first-hand.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472816</id>
	<title>my favorite part:</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1261062660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The militants use programs such as SkyGrabber, from Russian company SkySoftware. Andrew Solonikov, one of the software's developers, said he was unaware that his software could be used to intercept drone feeds. "It was developed to intercept music, photos, video, programs and other content that other users download from the Internet -- no military data or other commercial data, only free legal content," he said by email from Russia.</p></div></blockquote><p>can you hear the RIAA licking its chops? "see? we told you: media piracy software directly supports terrorism!" be on the lookout for media company fearmongering after this fiasco</p><p>otherwise, it looks like cyberpunk science fiction is now reality: insurgents hacking airbourne military robots. those 5 words are straight out of 1980s science fiction. skynet indeed</p><p>and thats some awesome security you have on those video feeds there mr. pentagon! what kind of military intelligence does it require to conclude that gee, i dunno, maybe those feeds should be encrypted? pffffft</p><blockquote><div><p>A senior defense official said that James Clapper, the Pentagon's intelligence chief, assessed the Iraq intercepts at the direction of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and concluded they represented a shortcoming to the security of the drone network.</p></div></blockquote><p>you guys are fucking brilliant. you concluded unencrypted live video feeds of battlefields represented a shortcoming? your enemy now knows where you are looking, and where you aren't. what your concerns and priorities are, and what you may know about what the enemy is doing. in real time. you morons are truly a credit to the union. i wonder how many soldiers on the ground have had their lives put in danger by this stunning demonstration of cunning military intelligence?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The militants use programs such as SkyGrabber , from Russian company SkySoftware .
Andrew Solonikov , one of the software 's developers , said he was unaware that his software could be used to intercept drone feeds .
" It was developed to intercept music , photos , video , programs and other content that other users download from the Internet -- no military data or other commercial data , only free legal content , " he said by email from Russia.can you hear the RIAA licking its chops ?
" see ? we told you : media piracy software directly supports terrorism !
" be on the lookout for media company fearmongering after this fiascootherwise , it looks like cyberpunk science fiction is now reality : insurgents hacking airbourne military robots .
those 5 words are straight out of 1980s science fiction .
skynet indeedand thats some awesome security you have on those video feeds there mr. pentagon ! what kind of military intelligence does it require to conclude that gee , i dunno , maybe those feeds should be encrypted ?
pffffftA senior defense official said that James Clapper , the Pentagon 's intelligence chief , assessed the Iraq intercepts at the direction of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and concluded they represented a shortcoming to the security of the drone network.you guys are fucking brilliant .
you concluded unencrypted live video feeds of battlefields represented a shortcoming ?
your enemy now knows where you are looking , and where you are n't .
what your concerns and priorities are , and what you may know about what the enemy is doing .
in real time .
you morons are truly a credit to the union .
i wonder how many soldiers on the ground have had their lives put in danger by this stunning demonstration of cunning military intelligence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The militants use programs such as SkyGrabber, from Russian company SkySoftware.
Andrew Solonikov, one of the software's developers, said he was unaware that his software could be used to intercept drone feeds.
"It was developed to intercept music, photos, video, programs and other content that other users download from the Internet -- no military data or other commercial data, only free legal content," he said by email from Russia.can you hear the RIAA licking its chops?
"see? we told you: media piracy software directly supports terrorism!
" be on the lookout for media company fearmongering after this fiascootherwise, it looks like cyberpunk science fiction is now reality: insurgents hacking airbourne military robots.
those 5 words are straight out of 1980s science fiction.
skynet indeedand thats some awesome security you have on those video feeds there mr. pentagon! what kind of military intelligence does it require to conclude that gee, i dunno, maybe those feeds should be encrypted?
pffffftA senior defense official said that James Clapper, the Pentagon's intelligence chief, assessed the Iraq intercepts at the direction of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and concluded they represented a shortcoming to the security of the drone network.you guys are fucking brilliant.
you concluded unencrypted live video feeds of battlefields represented a shortcoming?
your enemy now knows where you are looking, and where you aren't.
what your concerns and priorities are, and what you may know about what the enemy is doing.
in real time.
you morons are truly a credit to the union.
i wonder how many soldiers on the ground have had their lives put in danger by this stunning demonstration of cunning military intelligence?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474270</id>
	<title>Classic Man-in-the-Middle Attack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261068960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know why they have days upon days of video feed... So that they can JAM the signal from the drone and upload their own version of what's going on, on the ground.  Wow... I can't believe that they have had 19 years to perfect this attack...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know why they have days upon days of video feed... So that they can JAM the signal from the drone and upload their own version of what 's going on , on the ground .
Wow... I ca n't believe that they have had 19 years to perfect this attack.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know why they have days upon days of video feed... So that they can JAM the signal from the drone and upload their own version of what's going on, on the ground.
Wow... I can't believe that they have had 19 years to perfect this attack...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30480586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30481710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30476512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30492954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30481380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30495728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30476818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30480610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30478304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30481780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30476686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30479244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30478788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30476228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30476446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30478902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30478240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30476866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30482088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30478152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30481604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1311218_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30479066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30495728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30478304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472878
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475032
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30478240
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475980
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30492954
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473294
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30479066
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30478788
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475926
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477886
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30476818
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475252
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475968
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473730
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30481780
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30478902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30481710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30476446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30481604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30478184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30480586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475666
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30476686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30479244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30477106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30476512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30481380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30476866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30482088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30476228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30480610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30474820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30475546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30478152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30473376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1311218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1311218.30472744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
