Semper WiFi 176
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)."
Troops (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Troops (Score:1)
Re:Troops (Score:1)
Re:Troops (Score:1)
Re:Troops (Score:1)
Gmail is accessible at http://gmail.google.com/ wherever you have access to the Internet via a PC, Linux, or Mac computer with IE 5.5 or above, Mozilla 1.4 or above, Netscape 7.1 or above, Firefox 0.8 or above, or Safari 1.2.1 installed.
The second statement I made is subjective. Obviously some demand more from their email services. But for a free service, it is fantastic.
Re:Troops (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Troops (Score:2)
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
Re:Troops (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Troops (Score:2)
Re:11,000 dead civilians in iraq (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:11,000 dead civilians in iraq (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:11,000 dead civilians in iraq (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:11,000 dead civilians in iraq (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:11,000 dead civilians in iraq (Score:2)
Just because you do not agree with something does not make it "illegal".
Re:Fighting for us ? really ? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fighting for us ? absoulutely! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fighting for us ? absoulutely! (Score:2)
The occupiers have an absolute responsibility to leave. It is not for the United States or any other foreign country to decide who should govern Iraq. This is a well-established principle of international law.
What the resistance understand, and what many in the west do not, is that the occupying forces represent the interests of the western ruling classes. They will not willi
The Bush family is invested in the Carlyle Group. (Score:2, Offtopic)
You're right about people in the U.S. making a lot of money from U.S. government violence. George W. Bush's family is heavily invested in the Carlyle Group, which owns weapons manufacturing companies. See: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [futurepower.org].
If U.S. government leaders truly respected the soldiers, the soldiers would not need charity.
It's illogical to vote Republican in 2004. [futurepower.org]
Re:The Bush family is invested in the Carlyle Grou (Score:1)
Protection is not the goal; it's money. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Know your government. (Score:2)
The Bush administration depends on ignorance to stay in power. Most U.S. citizens do not understand what their government is doing.
Osama bin Laden, according to him, wants two things: 1) He wants the U.S. government to stop interfering in the politics of Saudi Arabia. 2) He wants the U.S. government to stop giving money to the Israeli government to buy weapons made by U.S. manufacturers (like those owned by the Carlyle Group, a company partly owned by the Bush family) which are used to kill Arabs.
Lo
However you explain it, they die. (Score:2)
"The divine sword of God" is another way of saying that the Jews die.
Of course, they can always save their lives by converting to evangelical Christianity, but that won't happen, for numerous reasons.
Anyone who thinks that the Christian Bible is accurate should read The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy [amazon.com].
Just what we need.... (Score:3, Funny)
ofcourse it will be secure. (Score:1)
Re:ofcourse it will be secure. (Score:1)
oh year
Re:ofcourse it will be secure. (Score:1)
Re:ofcourse it will be secure. (Score:1)
its 2-12am (here),
G/
Re:ofcourse it will be secure. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:ofcourse it will be secure. (Score:1)
(ofcourse you have to way all benefits...)
G/
Are you saying security isn't an issue here? (Score:2)
Is that... Wi-Fi? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Is that... Wi-Fi? (Score:1)
Major security issues... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Major security issues... (Score:2)
No offense intended, but why are you talking about top secret data when the article describes how to best communicate with families back home?
Unless the spouse of the soldier has a military classification and a "need to know", Top Secret or other classified data should not be communicated to the soldier's home.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Major security issues... (Score:2)
Understood, but more than a few post have been generated that have made references to military secrets being compromised on WiFi networks. Undoubtedly, there are secure WiFi apppliances or the USDOD and the USDOE would not allow them on their networks.
That said, your question is an interesting one, moreso than you know. Let's look at it from an axiomatic viewpoint - any network connection in harm's way is going to be considered se
Re:Major security issues... (Score:2)
Obviously the post was talking about Harris's secure network just to show that security on a WiFi network is possible.
The issue about family information on WiFi networks is this: The face of war and the enemy has changed. We no longer fight organized militias exclusively, but decentralized organizations that attack soft targets by preference. Terrorists could get
Re:Major security issues... (Score:1)
I too was wondering about the security issues as well... I know where I work, WiFi is strictly prohibited (sensitive data and whatnot) even though I have a secure wireless network in my house. Now, I couldn't see my hick neighbors trying to hack my network, but obiously the situation would be a little different in Iraq and Afganistan. I don't think it would be feasible to censor outgoing transmissions, so I think it would be up to the users not to broadcast any sensitive information.
Re:Major security issues... (Score:2)
Re:Major security issues... (Score:2)
Re:Major security issues... (Score:2)
Wifi Rifles (Score:3, Funny)
"Better than MARS" FAQ (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Re:"Better than MARS" FAQ (Score:2)
Re:"Better than MARS" FAQ (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:"Better than MARS" FAQ (Score:4, Informative)
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!
Security Nightmare... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, information wants to be free...
No less secure than .... (Score:2)
The most important security is in the minds of the people connecting. Apply the same rules about what is on your computer to what you talk about to a civilian.
Re:Security Nightmare... (Score:2)
Unless the Bad Guys are looking for information on how often Billy has crapped his diapers and whether Daisy needs braces on her teeth, there shouldn't be much to glean from this information stream.
The folks in the military are trained to keep operational details out of personal conversations with their family for several reasons, including national security, personal safety, and
Did you ever get the feeling... (Score:2, Interesting)
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]
Re:Did you ever get the feeling... (Score:2)
Wikipedia has a small blurb [wikipedia.org] on the phrase.
Hoorah!
Other Prominent Corps Mottos (Score:4, Funny)
"In case anyone doesn't get it, "Semper Fi" is the Marine Corp motto."
Other prominent mottos we've use include:
Re:Did you ever get the feeling... (Score:2, Insightful)
Marines have dedication to the Corps, their fellow Marines, and to soldiers.
A Marine is only a Soldier if you're looking to get your butt kicked.
Grandpa was a career Marine, Dad was Navy. You learn these things early around my parts.
It is more a case of terminals (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Hmmm... (Score:1)
Troups need to shut the mouth and open the ears when in combat. The CO is the only thing/person to listen too if you want to live. The person they love will be at home when they return. If they are not then they did not love them anyway.
I wish them all a good safe deployment...
PS>
Re:It is more a case of terminals (Score:1)
after all, we are talking email and video messaging, nothing secret?
The problem is that a lot of the information that is likely to be passed via email or video messaging may well be secret, or at least sensitive. Even if nothing secret is passed over one of these links, someone who is listening could easily pick up on clues to troop movements, upcoming operations, etc..
It would not be very smart to put one of these up without taking extensive steps to secure it, lives could literally be at stake. Loos
Re:It is more a case of terminals (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:It is more a case of terminals (Score:2)
"that doesn't even account for the problems of signal range"
WiFi is a simple solution so remove wireless connecitons, hence it's name. If it was for long range, secure comminucations it would be called LoRaSeCo or something daft.
The point is we are asserting that nothing more sensitive that a saucey shot of thier missus is gonna be transmitted.
Also my point actually was - why the heck hasn't the military budgeted for this.
It is like an airli
Call me ignorant perhaps.. (Score:1)
Re:Call me ignorant perhaps.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Call me ignorant perhaps.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Call me ignorant perhaps.. (Score:1)
Wifi != Fi (Score:1)
Semper Wifi is a joke.
Re:Call me ignorant perhaps.. (Score:2)
Old Computers (Score:3, Informative)
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
Not a great thing (Score:2, Funny)
How about a missile that homes in on a particular MAC address?
Unrestricted WiFi connectivity to soldiers... (Score:2)
Modern-day censors? (Score:2, Insightful)
And, in response to the article, does anyone see a security issue with a "privately-funded,
Re:Modern-day censors? (Score:2)
Give soldiers equipment which broadcasts on known frequencies and you hand anyone with an interest, a way to trace or triangulate their location.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of the present situation, this can't be good.
Re:Modern-day censors? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Modern-day censors? (Score:2)
Giving a whole new meaning (Score:5, Funny)
wither Halliburton (Score:2)
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?
When the troops pull out..... (Score:3, Insightful)
If I could turn back time...If i could find a way (Score:2)
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
naive wifi technology/config question (Score:2)
are briefly gathered arbitrarily "close" to each other,
can they communicate with each other over wifi,
WITHOUT a hotspot or other infrastructure,
i.e. using only their personal portable devices (e.g., PDAs or laptops)?
Can such a wifi swarm form-up easily and on short notice,
spanning any/all change in the set of initial participants?
Is there particularly terminology associated with this kind of usage, so I can google it?
No Need For Alarm (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Help Needed in Iraq with Internet Access (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Clue Bat (Score:2, Informative)
(1) Just as a note, pay for use phones are already at several Middle East locations courtesy of AT&T.
(2) I would be concerned about soldiers discussing sensitive info with their family. This happens anyway but even telephone and unclass network signals are encrypted by the military before being blasted out over open airway
Deployed (Score:2, Informative)
First of all wireless is not all that uncommon here. Though I will admit of the two marine bases I've been on one of them didn't have squat. I didn't take my laptop to the other. As far as it being restricted, nobody is reading over our shoulders to see what we say. They must be using some kind of proxy as we know some soldiers got caught looking at porn. However, when I was in Kuwait the cybercafe there actually charged for the time but provided co
Re:Iraq (Score:3, Funny)
Reminds me of the USA Today headline a couple of months ago: Occupation of Iraq to End. Troops will Remain Indefinitely .
Re:Iraq (Score:1)
Occupation of Iraq to End. Troops will Remain Indefinitely**,/b>
* Occupation will infact not end.
** More people will die during the Occupation then during the war.
The forgot the side note me thinks..
Re:Iraq (Score:1, Insightful)
The other effort, charity morale for the troops, is privately funded.
And yes, yes you are trolling.
Re:Iraq (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, and I don't consider the grandparent a troll, it seems a valid point to me. If people are so concerned about rebuildin
Re:Iraq (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, even though you're trolling you have somewhat of a point...
Re:Iraq (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
Re:Iraq (Score:2)
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:2)
That is what the military personnel are supposed to be stopping (and the true continuing failure of this thing).
I can see there are enough flag-waving fanboys here to make this debate one big cry-in
If you think supporting the personnel putting their lives on the line, regardless of the validity of the war action itself, you are a sad individual indeed - and we are better off w/o you. Go jazzercise w/Jane Fond
Re:Iraq (Score:1, Troll)
I'm not anti-troop, but anti-policy. I'm anti the fact that funding and training is withheld from US troops, and instead used to buy new technology (instead of training them how to use it properly).
And for your last point, you seem to be confusing what the military is. When I say "military" I'm not talking about the actual soldiers, but the institution. When you mention that the government is overseeing it, that's the military rebuildi
Re:Iraq (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Iraq (Score:2)
I seriously hope you're not expecting a platoon to be driving semis through Iraq. Or, having someone from the Army erecting a building and fixing wiring. This isn't exactly their forte. They are warriors with side vocations and nothing more. And they are certainly doing their jobs well as warriors.
We, the civilians of America and the civilians of Iraq, have to rebuild Iraq.
That is the way it has always been and I don't see
Re:Iraq (Score:1)
What makes you think this equipment won't end up as infrastructure there? Quite a lot of the things shipped to our troops will be AIPed to the local population, that's normally how it's done. Shipping back a six month old mesh transciever is going to make a lot less sense then handing it to a local school.
Re:Iraq (Score:2)
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.
Re:Iraq (Score:2)
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:Why not use Internet at home ? (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:secruity? (Score:1)
Re:Donations? (Score:2)
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?
Re:Donations? (Score:2)
todays empire, tomorrows ashes [g7welcomingcommittee.com]