Open-Source Warfare. Terrorists are leveraging information technology to organize, recruit, learn

IEEE Spectrum ^ | November 2007 | Robert N. Charette

[John Jorsett]

ROAD TO PERDITION: In early 2005, engineers stationed in Iraq were ­inspecting this road when an improvised explosive device went off. An officer and his interpreter died in the blast. At the upper right is an iRobot PackBot used to ­investigate IED sites.

On the afternoon of Thursday, 8 April 2004, U.S. troops stationed in Iraq deployed a small remote-controlled robot to search for improvised explosive devices. The robot, a PackBot unit made by iRobot Corp., of Burlington, Mass., found an IED, but the discovery proved its undoing. The IED exploded, reducing the robot to small, twisted pieces of metal, rubber, and wire.

The confrontation between robot and bomb reflects a grim paradox of the ongoing conflict in Iraq. The PackBot's destruction may have prevented the IED from claiming a soldier's life—as of 31 August, IEDs accounted for nearly half of the 3299 combat deaths reported by coalition forces. But the fact remains that a US $100 000 piece of machinery was done in by what was probably a few dollars' worth of explosives, most likely triggered using a modified cellphone, a garage-door opener, or even a toy's remote control. During the past four and a half years, the United States and its allies in Iraq have fielded the most advanced and complex weaponry ever developed. But they are still not winning the war.

Although there has been much debate and finger-pointing over the various failures and setbacks suffered during the prolonged conflict, some military analysts and counterterrorism experts say that, at its heart, this war is radically different from previous ones and must be thought of in an entirely new light.

“What we are seeing is the empowerment of the individual to conduct war,” says John Robb, a counterterrorism expert and author of the book Brave New War (John Wiley & Sons), which came out in April. While the concept of asymmetric warfare dates back at least 2000 years, to the Chinese military strategist Sun-tzu, the conflict in Iraq has redefined the nature of such struggles [see photo, “Road to Perdition”]. As events are making painfully clear, Robb says, warfare is being transformed from a closed, state-sponsored affair to one where the means and the know-how to do battle are readily found on the Internet and at your local RadioShack. This open global access to increasingly powerful technological tools, he says, is in effect allowing “small groups to…declare war on nations.”

Excerpt. For full text of article, click here

[Zhang Fei]

All life began when you were born, for the self centered generation ... reading history is so boring.

I think too many people prefer writing to reading. The problem is that without reading a lot of background information, what gets written can be a bunch of nonsense. Why do the legwork when you can BS your way through?

[Tarpon]

Yes, I agree.

[Vision Thing]

I make no IEDs at home, but I suppose Johnny Jihad will inject a little more intelligence into his device. I doubt he’ll set up the device to blow up on a mere phone call. More than likely, not only must he call it, but he must then enter in a code to trigger the device.

[FastCoyote]

That guy is a nutjob/theif, well known and ridiculed in the pulsejet community. He’s lucky someone didn’t take him out and kill him.

He stole a bunch of money from people who bought his pulsejets.

[Travis McGee]

You could load a lot more demo into a Cessna or a Learjet, and use commercial off the shelf avionics/GPS to steer that sucker right into the target of your choice, give or take 30 feet.

[Pontiac]

but he must then enter in a code to trigger the device.

I don’t think Johnny Jihad has to get that complicated.

He simply does not turn on the phone until it is in place and he is ready to leave or bury it. (or however it is placed).

[CodeMasterPhilzar]

Slightly different idea then...

Cell phones are set up to lock on to the strongest signal. This will generally be the closest cell tower, or the one with the best line of sight. Added on top of that is a preference for “home” system towers. eg. a T-Mobile phone would prefer a T-Mobile tower, etc.

Suppose your convoy is led by, and accompanied by, several vehicles with mobile cell towers. Now, they’re not really hooked into the phone grid. The on-board computer is just smart enough to do the exchange/handshake with cell phones. Thus, your antenna(s) “capture” all the phones nearby, over-riding the cell towers by virtue of a stronger signal.

The upshot is, for anyone nearby - dropped call as you approach. While passing - no calls in or out since your mobile cell towers don’t go anywhere. Result - no incoming calls, no IED detonations...

Just another thought. If they’re using technology, we ought to be able to use it against them...

[Pontiac]

Sounds like the idea would work. (It would certainly irritate the populace.)

One problem with the idea is the expense. I don’t think the DoD budget could handle the cost of outfitting every convoy with mobile cell towers.

The other problem is the terrorist would quickly catch on and shift to another method. They could switch to the new walkie talkies that have encrypted recognition that will only receive from their mates.