Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Semper WiFi

Posted by michael on Thu Aug 19, 2004 08:53 AM
from the better-than-MARS dept.
Roblimo writes "Armed Forces personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan increasingly use the Internet to communicate with their familes back home, but there are not nearly enough computers and connections for them. Lt. Phillip Geiger, Medical Officer with the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines, suggested using a privately-funded, long-range WiFi network to help troops stay in touch. The idea has grown from there, all funded privately with cash and equipment donations. Joe Barr has the details on NewsForge (which, like Slashdot, is part of OSTG)."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Troops (Score:5, Informative)

    by Klar (522420) * <curchin AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday August 19 2004, @08:55AM (#10011868) Homepage Journal
    Things like this are great. Troops fighting for us deserve to be able to communicate with their friends and family to keep them sane. This really reminds me of the http://www.gmail4troops.com/ [gmail4troops.com] project. If you have an extra gmail invite around in you inbox, why not give it to someone who could use it to receive video and pictures from loved ones.
    • Re:Troops (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rackrent (160690) on Thursday August 19 2004, @09:12AM (#10012054)
      Having received e-mails from a friend in Iraq....I think this a great idea. Their time is often limited when they can gain any kind of Internet access and the access points are few. I was happy just to hear a few words from him when he was able to have access.

      The logistics and security of a WiFI system obviously would take a lot of work; let's hope independent developers can work it out instead of our ummm "thrifty" federal government.
      • Having received e-mails from a friend in Iraq....I think this a great idea. Their time is often limited when they can gain any kind of Internet access and the access points are few.

        For usage limited to "morale" (to friends & family) traffic it's usage may be okay.

        The proposal seems to ignore filtering, not only to stay within DoD harassment policy, but filtering & confidentality (against network sniffing) is also important to ensure stragetic information is not leaked through benign comments fro

          • by Emperor Igor (106953) on Thursday August 19 2004, @09:43AM (#10012366)
            Well, some people went into the military because it was the best choice for them. They're not blood-thirsty or enjoy killing. Most were likely just poor, were trying to escape a bad household, or just were not suited for a regular school. Some were just fooled into believing that the military is just piloting million dollar equipment and having honor.

            They took the risk of having to hurt someone to get what they wanted. There is no way you can blame their youthful ambition or ignorance. If you are young, you have it. And if you are older, you laugh at yourself for having so much of it (but you still miss it).
          • by staticx0085 (794487) on Thursday August 19 2004, @10:07AM (#10012716)
            However, US soldiers who enrolled (i.e. all US soldiers in Iraq), did so willingly...they're hired killers and they're this administration's accomplices in starting this illegal war and invasion of a sovereign country.

            Wow, you really are ignorant. Given the choice, most people wouldn't risk their lives overseas just to "see some action." Most of these people are doing it because they have no other choice. It certianly doesn't pay well, especially for the risks involved. Maybe you're somehow not aware of current tuition costs, but I know of alot of people who cannot even afford to go to a state or community college. Going into the military for a few years then having them pay your tuition is a great way to go to college and be able to get a job that is better than being in the military. Consider yourself lucky that you didn't have to take this route and don't condemn other people who have no other options. You can disagree with the war in Iraq, but the troops did not make those political decisions.
          • However, US soldiers who enrolled (i.e. all US soldiers in Iraq), did so willingly. They didn't get that job to play tennis, they knew they could very well be asked to go do some killing on behalf of the government. So, I don't care if they went there to get money for tuition, or to make their families proud, or just to "see some action", they're hired killers and they're this administration's accomplices in starting this illegal war and invasion of a sovereign country.

            So, what are you saying?

            Are you saying that all soldiers in all armies in the world are "hired killers"? Is it your position that no good person should ever join the military?

            Or are you saying that soldiers should independently evaluate each conflict that comes along and decide whether or not they think this one is "moral"?

            Or are you saying that people should only join the military whey they know there's a war coming up that they think is worth fighting in?

            Or are you saying something else? Please explain, so we can tell you why you're wrong.

              • I don't think you can claim that soldiers aren't killing people for pay.

                So do cops.

                Most soldiers never kill anyone. It's a possibility that comes with the job, just as it does with being a policeman. It's the unfortunate nature of the world that, sometimes, killing people is a good thing to do.

                My suggestion is that should your country be invaded, then you arm yourself and fight - no one can hold a country when the populace is motivated to resist.

                This is technically true, but the brutal reality o

      • That has nothing to do with the troops. The troops, if you ask them, are fighting for their countrymen.

        They didn't go over there to make money for someone, they went over there because they were told it would make the US safer.

        Now, you can argue whether or not that's true, and you can certainly accuse the top of the chain of command of betraying the country, but don't blame the troops for it. They still want to believe they're doing it for us.
      • The people there now are most certainly "fighting for us"

        Now Saddam Hussain has gone, the occupying force has an absolute responsibility to hand the country over to responsible governance. The alternative would be balkanisation and the development of mini states led by fanatics. Many of these warlords would benefit greatly from supporting global terrorism.

        Dont kid yourself, Iraq is most deffinitely a threat now and it is a vital responsibility of the occupying forces to support the development of the new government - for our sakes as much as for the Iraquis

        For many people opposition to the war before it began was for this very reason - that we doubted that the US would be capable of returning Iraq to peace and prosperity after removing their vile dictator. In particular we doubted that the American electorate had the stomach to take responsibility for the winning of the peace after the war.

        Whatever the rights and wrongs of starting the thing, it is now of vital importance to finish the job.

          • Making money from an unnecessary invasion is not protecting your family. Your family is now in far more danger now that the U.S. government has invaded an oil-rich Arab country that was, at the time, not threatening other countries. Nothing a Madison Avenue advertising company could do would have given more support to crazed terrorists. It was an effective move for those who want more war, because there is profit in war.
  • by Nos. (179609) <andrewNO@SPAMthekerrs.ca> on Thursday August 19 2004, @08:55AM (#10011869) Homepage
    ...front line forces surfing slashdot.
  • by BubbaThePirate (805480) on Thursday August 19 2004, @09:00AM (#10011912)
    Eight Oh Two dot Eleven Be. Full Speed Packet.
  • by L0neW0lf (594121) on Thursday August 19 2004, @09:01AM (#10011932)
    I want very much for our troops to be able to communicate with their families back home. It's good for morale both in the service and for their families. But the lack of security in a WiFi network, IMO could easily put those military forces in jeopardy. All it would take would be the wrong information packet-sniffed by the wrong person to cause danger to the soldiers there. Is it truly possible to make a WiFi network secure enough to avoid this?
    • Yes. The Harris company has produced a WiFi network [harris.com] that is capable of carrying Top Secret data. You need a waiver from an appropriate authority to even get this gear, and you'd best be government.

      That said, they aren't talking about deploying one here. This is commercial off the shelf equipment they are talking about in the article. Grossly insecure.

      In Iraq, this might work. Good line of sight and all. In Afghanistan - listen, i've seen pictures people brought back from Afghanistan in the last 2 ye
  • Wifi Rifles (Score:3, Funny)

    by kaleco (801384) <greig@marshall2.btinternet@com> on Thursday August 19 2004, @09:02AM (#10011940)
    Makes you look at WiFi rifles in a whole new light (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/03/wi-fi_aer ial_gun/ [theregister.co.uk]).
  • by dogfart (601976) on Thursday August 19 2004, @09:03AM (#10011949) Homepage Journal
    MARS stands for Military Auxiliary Amateur Radio System. It's a long standing ham radio network designed to assist military personnel with contacting the folks back home (among other things military-like).

    FAQ is at http://public.afca.af.mil/LIBRARY/MARS1.HTM [af.mil]. Another article explaining the Air Force MARS is http://www.asc.army.mil/mars/history.htm [army.mil]

    • Oops meant to say "Army" not "Air Force". Teaches me to post before my first morning coffee.
    • When I was stationed in South Korea back in 1987, MARS was a great way for me to get information back to by wife and parents. My dad still talks about how nice it was to get a phone call from someone in town letting him know that I was doing OK. It even gave him the incentive to go out and get his ham radio license.
    • MARS was a godsend when I was on a "cruise" to Somalia in '94. For those too lazy to read up on it, it basically worked like this:
      1. You'd type out a phone number and a short message (limited to something like 64 words) to a loved one and save it to a floppy in a special format.
      2. Give said floppy to the guy onboard who was running our end of the MARS network - basically, one of your shipmates entertaining his off-duty hobby.
      3. He'd batch up all of the outbound messages and blast them out via packet modem.
      4. Your message would be routed through HAMs until it reached one in your local area code, who would call your recipient on the phone and read the message to them.
      5. If they wanted to reply, the HAM would transcribe their message, route it back to the stateside MARS station, and broadcast it back to the ship.
      6. The shipboard MARS guy would print out a few pages of messages, cut the page into strips (one per message), and send them out via the intra-ship mail envelopes.
      The total turnaround time from when you first typed your message to when you received the response was on the order of 48 hours. Compared with a roughly two-month turnaround on snail mail, it just practically like making the phone call yourself.

      Did I mention that this was completely free of charge for both of the end parties involved? I've never actually met a MARS operator, but if I do, first drink's on me.

      As a side note, MARS is directly responsible for me working with computers. I was a surgery tech on ship, but I knew enough programming to write a little BASIC app to run on our 8086 laptop to let anyone type their message, apply the appropriate constraints on it (checking for word length, number of words, etc.), and correctly save it to a floppy. People in the department would wander by, type their little message, and get a nice surprise two days later. My coworkers were happy enough to tell my boss, who was good enough to point out that while I didn't seem to like being a surgery tech, I definitely liked programming, and I should get out of the Navy and go to college to study CompSci. Ken Schnapp, in the unlikely chance that you read Slashdot: thanks, man!

  • by pedestrian crossing (802349) on Thursday August 19 2004, @09:04AM (#10011958) Homepage Journal
    This sounds like an Operational Security nightmare. Unless it is well secured (and fully encrypted end-to-end), it could well be a valuable source of information for the Bad Guys.

    Remember, information wants to be free...
  • that sometimes, just sometimes, entire news stories are written around a pun the author thought of for a title while sitting on the throne or diving home from work?

    I did check it out though, and the term 'Semper Wi-Fi' was used previous to mean wireless Internet for Marines... by the Marine Corps itself. http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/0/B2C90 2831D9E2D8A85256E7D004BA4A5?opendocument [usmc.mil]

    • In case anyone doesn't get it, "Semper Fi" is the Marine Corp motto. It's short for the latin phrase "Semper fidelis" which means "always faithful". It's used to show the dedication each marine has to the Corp and their fellow soldiers.

      Wikipedia has a small blurb [wikipedia.org] on the phrase.

      Hoorah!
      • by MooseByte (751829) on Thursday August 19 2004, @09:35AM (#10012274)

        "In case anyone doesn't get it, "Semper Fi" is the Marine Corp motto."

        Other prominent mottos we've use include:

        • "Semper Gumby": Always Flexible. Good for when your supply drop lands in the middle of the neighboring swamp.
        • "Semper Scrotum": Always On The Ball. Good for damn near any operational situation.
  • by tod_miller (792541) on Thursday August 19 2004, @09:04AM (#10011966) Journal
    There is nothing much new in the setup they are proposing, perhaps the biggest thing is that they are proposing it.

    I would suggest wireless dumb terminals with certificate based security, going through a WEP that is MAC configured and keeping a tabs on all terminals as much as possible.

    No, the thing that shocks me is the reference to ehowa...

    Governments spend unbelievable ammounts of money on military equiptment, can't some of it be appropriated to communications?

    I thought 'battlefield' communications would be very good - I am utterly mystified how a country can have so many troops in a place and not have a solid redundant communciation netwrok that could be accessible to the troops.

    Perhaps this could be an oppourtunity for some community aid? Let the students get involved in configuring the units (after all, we are talking email and video messaging, nothing secret?)

    This may be nice.
    • Governments spend unbelievable ammounts of money on military equiptment, can't some of it be appropriated to communications?

      The military views this much like entertainment, it is not an operational priority, and for the DoD that is in a massively spending spreed yet knows it needs to limit it's spending, it cuts from the bottom of "non-operational" activities not the top like Space Weapons.

      I thought 'battlefield' communications would be very good - I am utterly mystified how a country can have so many t
  • Old Computers (Score:3, Informative)

    by stateofmind (756903) on Thursday August 19 2004, @09:05AM (#10011983)
    If you have older computers lying around, fix 'em up and donate them to local families who have family in the war.

    The military has special sites setup for where the families can get free webmail, inet access, etc..

    I took two old P3-450s and gave one to my wife's friend and another to the local Marine Reserve base, that they can pass out to other family members.

    Josh
  • All an opposing military need develop now is a missile that homes in on the frequency that 802.11b/g/a uses.

    How about a missile that homes in on a particular MAC address?
  • ...will not happen. 3 words: Abu Ghraib photos.
  • As a non-military-type (hell, I'm Canadian, we don't even know what a tank is) I'm curious how the US military is able to rein in information of a militarily-sensitive nature, as they did with letter censors in previous conflicts? Is this still something that is a concern for the US military? How do they restrict information in the digi age, when any lowly private can jump on gmail or hotmail and send off messages?

    And, in response to the article, does anyone see a security issue with a "privately-funded,
    • by slutdot (207042) on Thursday August 19 2004, @10:08AM (#10012730)
      I can't respond to this with today's Army but I can tell you that for the most part, you are trusted and reminded to do the right thing. I was a communications specialist with the Army during the first gulf war and when we finally got in contact with an AT&T operator to allow calls back home over the radios we had, I had to remind the soldiers that any sensitive information they passed out could result in their death and that of their buddies due to us not knowing who was listening. Everyone seemed to heed that warning. The Army doesn't have a bunch of AOLers in their ranks.
  • by BubbaThePirate (805480) on Thursday August 19 2004, @09:16AM (#10012097)
    to War Driving...
  • Armed Forces personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan increasingly use the Internet to communicate with their familes back home, but there are not nearly enough computers and connections for them.

    Doesn't Halliburton [halliburton.com] provide these services (among many others) to the troops? Why not start there and see if a couple of those billions of dollars of tax payer money can be spent meeting this need?

  • by amran (686191) on Thursday August 19 2004, @09:40AM (#10012334) Homepage
    ...it would be nice if they left the network in place, if this were at all possible. I'm sure the Iraqis could make great use of it.
  • [Sorry in advance for the Cher lyric title]

    If the US, Europe, and all other developed states could rebuild the infrastructure from a clean slate, wouldn't they implement WiFi (and GPS & cellular/PCS) solutions instead of the mesh(mess) of wires that criss-cross our landscapes and obscure our views?

    If the above is true, then Wifi (and the aforementioned GPS & cellular/PCS) solutions are obvious in a place like Iraq that does not have the infrastructure that can support the needs of thousands of 21s
  • No Need For Alarm (Score:3, Informative)

    by geomon (78680) on Thursday August 19 2004, @10:54AM (#10013377) Homepage Journal
    As this [slashdot.org] poster and this [slashdot.org] AC have pointed out, this is non-operational, family information trafficing between a small base (probably known to the enemy) and the US for the expressed purpose of letting loved ones know that they are alive and, for the time, okay.

    This is not a situation where military details will be disclosed or data stolen from the hard drives of military planners laptops (they have to go to Los Alamos for that - groan).

    This is an initiative to send equipment to troops who need to keep their families apprised of their condition.

  • by aghy (136130) on Thursday August 19 2004, @01:06PM (#10015065)
    Hello Fellow Slashdotters,

    My name is Michael and I'm a civilian contractor out here in Fallujah, Iraq working with the Marine Headqaurters in their Information Office. On my free time my roomate and I keep the current internet cafe running on base for a large number of Marines and service members.

    I can tell you want is needed. There are over 20 internet cafes, which consist of one 1mb/512 satellite and 20 computers and 8 IP's phones. Some cafes have multiple satellites with this configuration. We have 3, which is 60 computers with webcams and IP phones.

    The problem is that there was no support included with this package. Most cafe's are not working becasue there aren't any IT or computer geeks to keep them running. And if there are any Marines who could they are busy doing other things.

    A wide wireless LAN is risky. The reason is Operational Security. Information is easier to leak if not controlled. So when a Marine sits down in the internet cafe we have signs posted and of course their background reminds them about OPSEC.

    Also I have been looking for simple Internet Cafe software on Freshmeat and other places but have not found a good solution.

    Currently we are reworking the contract. We are going to use this Internet cafe as a template for all others. I would LOVE suggestions from the Slashdot community on what they think. Please drop me an email or IM on your thoughts.
    • ...for the inva^H^H^H^H^H liberating forces?

      Reminds me of the USA Today headline a couple of months ago: Occupation of Iraq to End. Troops will Remain Indefinitely .

    • Re:Iraq (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NeoSkandranon (515696) on Thursday August 19 2004, @09:05AM (#10011975)
      Probably because most people know a guy down the road or from school or in the family who's over there, and especially those who have family in service know what it's like to be out of touch for long periods of time and would want to fix that. It's human nature to care more about people who are closer to you. Also I'd guess most people have a mindset that makes them think whatever they put in would be so small as to be a drop in the bucket in the rebuilding effort (whether that's true or not i can't say)...with this wireless thing you can donate equipment and know you put a piece of it in place.

      That said, even though you're trolling you have somewhat of a point...
    • Re:Iraq (Score:4, Interesting)

      by grunt107 (739510) on Thursday August 19 2004, @09:07AM (#10012007)
      Troop morale is an important issue - especially since many of these great people have been forced to be away from their families longer than originally planned.

      If more frequent contact can be made, their morale will increase, and this leads to more effective troops.

      If YOU wish to start a Rebuild Iraq fund, feel free to do so. Like a Habitat for Iraq-ity.

      Our military is not supposed to rebuild Iraq (they are demolition/enforcement, not construction). The rebuilding is supposed to be done by the 'contractors' already hired (and a fine job they are doing, too).
      • People not getting shot when they go to the shops is AN EVEN BIGGER ISSUE, and for more people.

        I can see there are enough flag-waving fanboys here to make this debate one big cry-in, so I'm outta here.

        One last thing - the Army IS supposed to rebuild Iraq. That's their job. If they can't put back all the stuff they blew up, then they can't do their jobs properly. The contractors are the muscle.

        • Re:Iraq (Score:4, Insightful)

          by aelbric (145391) on Thursday August 19 2004, @09:49AM (#10012452)
          With all due respect, I think you have it backwards. The Army and military in general is NOT trained for rebuilding infrastructure or even for "peacekeeping" or law enforcement. The military is trained for one thing: Achieve their military objectives as quickly and efficiently as possible. Military objectives generally fall into 3 categories.

          1. Kill that guy.
          2. Keep that guy from killing someone else (method: see #1).
          3. Train for 1 and 2.

          This is the reason Vietnam turned out the way it did. If you expect the military to effectively do anything but kill the enemy, be prepared to be disappointed.

          IMHO, Civilian contractors, US, Iraqi, or otherwise, should be doing the reconstruction. It is the Iraqi government's responsibility to oversee this task and the US government's responsibility to assist as appropriate.
      • What part of "I'm not trolling..." in a prefactly reasonably post did the mods miss.??

        They're probably reacting to the fact that you didn't read the story which is about a privately funded network before posting a suggestion on how the government should spend its money.
        • It wasn't Bob that posted the original comment - it was me. He was merely standing up to a blatant modding clusterfuck.

          Where did I once mention the Government should fund it? Oh, I didn't. I'm suggesting that if people really want to spend their money helping people, then maybe those without food and water should be helped, before installing satellite & wireless internet access for the troops. Kind of like how they should turn the power back on before creating an Iraqi national soccer team.

      • Re:Iraq (Score:2, Interesting)

        I have to disagree, the troops are there on the orders of the government, and so their morale should be the governemnt's concern (and cost) too. You should not run a modern army on charity donations - this reminds me of various private initiatives by people to buy decent equipment, body armour and so on for troops. It is disgraceful that they are not properly equipped to start with.

        Oh, and I don't consider the grandparent a troll, it seems a valid point to me. If people are so concerned about rebuildin

    • Because many of them signed up for the 'One weekend a month and two weeks a year" National Guard and may have overlooked or ignored the fine print saying "in case of military action, you may be used... or more likely didn't think it likely.

      None the less, while it's fine to say why don't they come home... I suggest you take that up with the leaders in Washington who call the shots regarding such things.
    • Re:secruity? (Score:3, Interesting)

      Shhh, you're going to spoil the fun a friend of mine has been having.

      When he shipped out earlier this year, he made sure to bring is entire war driving setup including cantenna... although when we do see him on it's always been from the local and legitimate network connection from where he is stationed.
    • You're a bit naieve aren't you?

      Consider this - the gov is contracting civilian security personnel who are paid many times more than the normal troops are. Both the troops and these contractors are paid with your tax dollars. Is that the act of a government that cares?