Showing posts with label Green Hills Software. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Green Hills Software. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

John B. Douglas - The Reebok Man who found a home at Green Hills Software, Inc.

Who are these people who are willing to make money by destroying the lives of other people? Perhaps, today, our values are changing.  Perhaps, but likely not.  We each own ourselves, body and soul, and seeking to shock others is abusive.  Jack's actions were abusive and if people had looked and laughed it is likely he would have sought out other targets.  

Jack had been a highly respected professional. Then, suddenly, he was glad to work from home in Massachusetts and do consulting for GHS.  

Why did Dan need Reebok Man as a consultant?  Glenn Hightower had made it possible for Little Dan to have a shot at real success?  Where was the gratitude?  

What is it like  working at a company where the Senior Vice President routinely takes women into his office to rape?  What can you say about a president of such a company who orders that the people be paid to just go away - or destroyed?   These are the conditions which existed at GHS when Jack showed up.  


Foxboro man in kilt charged with open and gross lewdness in Taunton










Wednesday, September 27, 2017

This report studies the global Embedded Hypervisor market, analyzes and researches the Embedded Hypervisor development status and forecast in United States, EU, Japan, China, India and Southeast Asia. This report focuses on the top players in global market, like IBM Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, Vmware, Inc., NXP Semiconductors N.V., QNX Software Systems Limited, SYSGO AG, Mentor Graphics, WindRiver Systems, Inc., ENEA, Sierraware, TenAsys Corporation, Lynx Software Technologies, Inc., Green Hills Software, Acontis Technologies GmbH, Citrix Systems, Inc., Proxmox Server Solutions GmbH.

From:  SATPRNews 

Commentary and interviews available: Again, we must comment on the singularlack of ethics and callousness of corporations today, especially, those who are contractors for the Department of Defense or supply essential products to other DoD Contractors.  Notice the below list from the article on the Embedded industry for software: 

"This report studies the global Embedded Hypervisor market, analyzes and researches the Embedded Hypervisor development status and forecast in United States, EU, Japan, China, India and Southeast Asia. This report focuses on the top players in global market, like IBM Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, Vmware, Inc., NXP Semiconductors N.V., QNX Software Systems Limited, SYSGO AG, Mentor Graphics, WindRiver Systems, Inc., ENEA, Sierraware, TenAsys Corporation, Lynx Software Technologies, Inc., Green Hills Software, Acontis Technologies GmbH, Citrix Systems, Inc., Proxmox Server Solutions GmbH."

It is deceptive to view all corporations as bastions of enterprise.  So often this is just not the case.  The example of Green Hills Software, Inc., is not even that unusual.  This is only one of the articles written to raise the alarm on those without conscience who are driving the use of military violence for profit.  When Psychopaths Cooperate.  This article was published in 2011.  Warnings have continued.  


This market research study is based on the Embedded Hypervisor market across the globe analyzes the historical as well as the present performance of the global Embedded Hypervisor and makes predictions on the future status of this market based on this analysis. The report focuses the market for Embedded Hypervisor across the globe taking the existing industry chain, the statistics, and the market dynamics of demand and supply of Embedded Hypervisor into consideration.

Monday, May 20, 2013

Government Tests Gun-Sensing Drones in Oklahoma

From:   Opposing Views

COMMENT -  Sad to state, the great state of Oklahoma has been struggling to eliminate drones from their skies and lives for some time now and meeting with less success than many areas because their vixenish, blond, governor is determined to keep those exciting machines coming, and coming, along with the cool cash which accompanies them.  

You would think the revelation in this article from Opposing Views would have had some impact, dampening ardor for these sleekly expensive machines of mass control and surveillance.  But no, they are still on fast forward in Oklahoma.  

Governor Mary Fallin fell in love with drones because of her close relationship with the Department of Homeland Security, by reports.   We will be tracing Mary's relationship with the world of drones and looking over the linkages to Green Hills Software.  Life holds many surprises.  

So, we are happy to introduce Mary to our audience, if you had not previously followed her political career. 


The U.S. government is testing drones that are a civil rights double whammy – not only can they spy on you from above, but they can also determine whether you’re carrying a gun.
The drone will be able to "distinguish between unarmed and armed (exposed) personnel." Citizens carrying around an assault rifle or a holster might send up a red flag, but people with concealed weapons will evade the drone’s gun-seeking camera.
The Oklahoma Training Center for Unmanned Systems, a unit of the University Multispectral Laboratories under Oklahoma State University and Anchor Dynamics, has been performing research with the new drone. They hope to eventually employ the drone to aid first responders and frontline homeland security professionals in search-and-rescue missions, radiological and chemical emergencies, wildfires and “to catch the bad guys.”
The Department of Homeland Security’s chief privacy official assured the public that the testing would not violate any privacy issues, but that may not do much to ease the concerns of gun rights and privacy advocates. Testing may be harmless, but what about the eventual application?
Attorney David Slane said: “The general application of helping people in a rescue situation or a lost child – great. But that doesn’t mean that we should be giving up our privacy rights.” Military consultant Toney Stricklin added, “We don’t want to do anything that infringes on an Oklahoman’s privacy because that would be infringing on our own privacy.” The DHS added that the program “is not linked to any intended procurement action, nor does it imply intent to initiate such action.”
It will likely be hard for gun rights advocates to accept these assurances. Gun rights, privacy and distrust of the government often fit together like three pees in a pod, so a drone that infringes on both of those rights while giving more power to the government is sure to ruffle some feathers.
Gun rights advocates may have to put their hopes in the Oklahoma courts because they are in the unique position of being able to address the privacy concerns of citizens. Their rulings – if they make any – could potentially shape domestic drone laws on a federal level.  MORE and VIDEO


Sunday, May 19, 2013

What does it take to expose Droners?


COMMENT -  Most people now believe, on the evidence, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are psychopathic, thus accounting for the highly unethical and ugly actions of the George W. Bush Administration. 

Dr. Hare estimates at any time there are around 20,000 active psychopaths with I. Q.'s over 180 within the United States.  That is a sobering thought.  Since these individuals work well in politics, where they can directly profit from psychopathic behavior, and also in the corporate world, as indicated below, you would expect the population of drone contractors to include a percentage of those who are disordered. 

 Please read the material below and participate in our poll at your right.  


 What will it take to expose the highly disordered among such drone contractors as Dan O'Dowd, represented above in a kilt, in recognition of Jack Douglas, his senior vice-president?


From:  FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin


The Corporate Psychopath
By Paul Babiak, Ph.D., and Mary Ellen O’Toole, Ph.D.

Psychopathy is one of the most studied personality disorders. It consists of variations of 20 well-documented characteristics that form a unique human personality syndrome—the psychopath. Many of these traits are visible to those who interact with the psychopath who possess some or all of these characteristics. For some, superficial charm and grandiose sense of self make them likable on first meeting. Their ability to impress others with entertaining and captivating stories about their lives and accomplishments can result in instant rapport. They often make favorable, long-lasting first impressions. This personality disorder is a continuous variable, not a classification or distinct category, which means that not all corporate psychopaths exhibit the same behaviors.
Beneath the cleverly formed façade—typically created by psychopaths to influence their targets—is a darker side, which people eventually may suspect. They can be pathological liars who con, manipulate, and deceive others for selfish means. Some corporate psychopaths thrive on thrill seeking, bore easily, seek stimulation, and play mind games with a strong desire to win. Unlike professional athletes moved by a desire to improve performance and surpass their personal best, psychopaths are driven by what they perceive as their victims’ vulnerabilities. Little research exists on their inner psychological experiences; however, they seem to get perverted pleasure from hurting and abusing their victims.
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) research indicates that psychopaths are incapable of experiencing basic human emotions and feelings of guilt, remorse, or empathy.1 This emotional poverty often is visible in their shallow sentiment. They display emotions only to manipulate individuals around them. They mimic other people’s emotional responses. Some lack realistic long-term goals, although they can describe grandiose plans. The impulsive and irresponsible psychopath lives a parasitic and predatory lifestyle, seeking out and using other people, perhaps, for money, food, shelter, sex, power, and influence.
Psychopathy is a personality disorder traditionally assessed with the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R).2 Often used interchangeably with psychopathy, the term sociopathy is obsolete and was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) in 1968. Currently, there is no formal diagnosis of psychopathy in the DSM-Fourth Edition-Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR); however, it is being considered for the 2013 DSM-V list of personality disorders.
babiak-otoole-bylines.jpg
Façade

It is fascinating that psychopaths can survive and thrive in a corporate environment. Day-to-day interactions with coworkers, coupled with business policies and procedures, should make unmasking them easy, but this does not always hold true. Large companies’ command-and-control functions ought to make dealing with them simple and direct; however, this may not be the case.
Psychopathic manipulation usually begins by creating a mask, known as psychopathic fiction, in the minds of those targeted. In interpersonal situations, this façade shows the psychopath as the ideal friend, lover, and partner. These individuals excel at sizing up their prey. They appear to fulfill their victims’ psychological needs, much like the grooming behavior of molesters. Although they sometimes appear too good to be true, this persona typically is too grand to resist. They play into people’s basic desire to meet the right person—someone who values them for themselves, wants to have a close relationship, and is different from others who have disappointed them. Belief in the realism of this personality can lead the individual to form a psychopathic bond with the perpetrator on intellectual, emotional, and physical levels. At this point, the target is hooked and now has become a psychopathic victim.
Corporate psychopaths use the ability to hide their true selves in plain sight and display desirable personality traits to the business world. To do this, they maintain multiple masks at length. The façade they establish with coworkers and management is that of the ideal employee and future leader. This can prove effective, particularly in organizations experiencing turmoil and seeking a “knight in shining armor” to fix the company.
Con

How is it possible for psychopaths to fool business-savvy executives and employers? They often use conning skills during interviews to convince their hiring managers that they have the potential for promotion and the knowledge, skills, and abilities to do an outstanding job. Using their lying skills, they may create phony resumes and fictitious work experience to further their claims. They may manipulate others to act as references. Credentials, such as diplomas, performance awards, and trophies, often are fabricated.
Once inside the organization, corporate psychopaths capitalize on others’ expectations of a commendable employee. Coworkers and managers may misread superficial charm as charisma, a desirable leadership trait. A psychopath’s grandiose talk can resemble self-confidence, while subtle conning and manipulation often suggest influence and persuasion skills. Sometimes psychopaths’ thrill-seeking behavior and impulsivity are mistaken for high energy and enthusiasm, action orientation, and the ability to multitask. To the organization, these individuals’ irresponsibility may give the appearance of a risk-taking and entrepreneurial spirit—highly prized in today’s fast-paced business environment. Lack of realistic goal setting combined with grandiose statements can be misinterpreted as visionary and strategic thinking ability; both are rare and sought after by senior management. An inability to feel emotions may be disguised as the capability to make tough decisions and stay calm in the heat of battle.
Damage

Evidence suggests that when participating in teams, corporate psychopaths’ behaviors can wreak havoc. In departments managed by psychopaths, their conduct decreases productivity and morale. These issues can have a severe impact on a company’s business performance.
There also is the risk for economic crimes to be committed. For the corporate executive and the criminal justice professional, the issue is the possibility of fraud. Today’s corporate psychopath may be highly educated—several with Ph.D., M.D., and J.D. degrees have been studied—and capable of circumventing financial controls and successfully passing corporate audits.
Investigation

Investigators should familiarize themselves with the typical traits and characteristics of psychopaths. They must understand the manipulation techniques used to create and manage the psychopathic bonds established with victim organizations. Their reputations, as judged by those in power with whom they have bonded, known as patrons, often provide added protection from closer investigation. As a result, the investigator may need to build a case with management for the use and broad application of more sophisticated techniques.

Psychopaths can be expert liars often immune to traditional deception-revealing techniques. Some practice avoiding detection in anticipation of being caught and interrogated. Therefore, investigators independently should corroborate any information provided by these individuals.3
Psychopaths often compartmentalize their behavior, enabling them to present themselves differently to various people. This can help them hide their manipulation and control over victims. Coworkers may have knowledge or suspicions about the psychopath’s actions that can be useful to the investigator. However, they either may fear repercussions or fall under the influence of the psychopathic bond. If investigators establish rapport and trust with coworkers, information that will make their work easier may be forthcoming. The difficulty comes when these associates are persons of interest. Fortunately, some companies have hotlines for employees to report coworker fraud and other complaints. This information provides an invaluable source of leads.
Corporate psychopaths with exceptional verbal skills make crafty interviewees. This ability provides an opportunity embraced by many of them to fool law enforcement officers. In these cases, investigators should proceed with caution.4 Specific interview strategies should focus on exposing psychopaths’ vulnerabilities. Possession of a sense of superiority and lack of empathy can enable them to boast about the brilliance of their latest fraud scheme. They often believe that only someone equal in intelligence to them could understand their actions. Strategies specifically designed to elicit such boasting can result in a wealth of information for the investigator.
Corporate psychopaths are successful because they single out and isolate their targets. They sometimes manipulate several victims at the same time. Investigators never should assume they are immune to a psychopath’s approach. One conversation may be enough for the bond to be established. Investigators must know themselves so that psychopaths’ attempts at bonding fail. It is valuable for investigators to allow psychopaths to believe they have established rapport with someone inside law enforcement.
Investigators must work as a team, communicate openly, and take all observations seriously. This is necessary for personal self-defense, proficient investigative work, and successful prosecution. Officers must take heed to avoid being impressed with a suspect’s credentials and success.
Occasionally, when psychopathic white-collar offenders are identified, they seek out the media and give interviews. They may believe their skills of persuasion are effective enough to convince the public that they have done nothing wrong and are being targeted unjustly by law enforcement. To prevent serious problems with the investigation and prosecution, investigators must remain prepared for all possibilities.
Conclusion

Psychopathy, one of the most studied personality disorders, can cause numerous problems for investigators. Therefore, law enforcement officers must become familiar with psychopaths’ traits and characteristics, prevent psychopathic bonds from forming, corroborate information, and take all observations seriously. Investigators must know themselves, work together, communicate with one another openly, and be prepared to deal with the corporate psychopath.
Endnotes

1 Functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) registers blood flow to functioning areas of the brain.
2 Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) is an assessment tool. Psychopathy, as determined by the PCL-R, is indicated by an overall score of 30 or above out of a possible 40. Many point configurations could result in the overall score, determined by adding up the total points for each of the 20 individually listed traits.
3 Research on psychopathy and lie-detection equipment has yielded conflicting results and remains inconclusive.
4 Once established that a perpetrator truly is a psychopath, reviewing the videotaped interrogation can be a lesson in their subtle, yet sophisticated manipulation techniques. This is the same method used by psychopathy researchers.

Thursday, May 16, 2013

The personal and business ethics of a drone contractor.

by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, previously Vice President of MIG for Rebuild America, now CEO and President for Freedom Interactive TV Networks.


If any drone contractor deserves to be the poster boy for drones, and all they signify, it is Dan (Drone Boy) O'Dowd.

Dan was already married to Amy Chang and living in Glendale near CalTech, his alma mater, when he went to work for Glenn Hightower, the owner of APh Technology Consultants, Pasadena, California. In 1982, with fellow Cal Tech graduate Carl Rosenberg, Green Hills Software, Inc., was founded. This is published widely on the web, but it is not accurate and a correction has long been in order.

O'Dowd and Rosenberg were able to realize their ambition because of a substantial loan from Glenn Hightower, who had graduated from the Pasadena university himself in 1972.  Of course, Carl would soon be dumped unceremoniously. Dan and his wife, Amy Chang, had reasons for not wanting the company to go public.  But that is a story for later. 

Hightower started his own company, APh Technology Consultants (located in Pasadena, CA) in 1975. The consultancy was, by reports, successful. The next year, 1976, the company was hired by Mattel to help design what became the Intellivision system. The name, APh, was derived from the Applied Physics courses offered at CalTech.

An article published in the Cal Tech News in April, 1975, describes Aph, as, “a firm that was conceived to match Caltech's student talent with short-term technological needs of business, industry, and the scientific community. Hightower described the students as "an enormous reservoir of expertise."

Hightower continued to pay forward through the University by counseling students in entrepreneurship, which he was involved with by 1981, when, according to Caltech, he gave a seminar with Willis Drake ('70), president of Teleproducts. It is very possibly through his work with students and new graduates that he met Dan O'Dowd originally.

Despite the representations online at the time Green Hills was founded there were three original partners, all of whom were founders of Green Hills Software, Inc., according to the meaning and use of the word. The three were, Glenn Hightower, who provided the original, and substantial, funding and worked with the company in various capacities, Dan O'Dowd, and Carl Rosenberg, each of whom contributed only sweat equity.

With Craig Franklin, then my husband, I had dinner with Dan and Amy in their snug place, very much like married student's housing in 1987. Glenn was then very active in GHS management. Craig had gone to work for Green Hills at their Glendale office the year prior, 1986 moving from his career specialization of compilers and managing technical teams to providing for Green Hills marketing expertise he in no way had. Gaining the experience took three years.

But Dan was determined Craig work for Green Hills because it was through Craig's recommendations Dan had narrowly avoided the need to return to Glenn for more capital in 1985. Craig, still at Microtec Research as Vice President of Engineering and manager for Microtec's XRAY embedded development tools, had ignored Dan's promotional materials and read the code directly, sending his comments on to associates. Microtec was located in northern California.

Craig's background was deep in software development and embedded systems. Before moving on to Microtec Research he had previously been compiler development manager at Daisy Systems, Data General and Digital Research Corporation. Mr. Franklin was a software developer for the Apollo moon-landing project at North American Rockwell, having received a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics from Stanford University in 1966.

Craig knew, and never modest, provided regular updates on Green Hills and their prospects. Green Hills Software was flat lining in profits in 1985, after three years of operations. Located in a suite of offices in Glendale, it was a small operation, unable to sell their excellent products because they were flunking on marketing. Dan was looking glumly at the need to return to Hightower for more funding, which would, necessarily, dilute his shares.

Dan, Craig told me, wanted to absolutely control Green Hills. Carl Rosenberg was 'bought out,' though forced out would be more appropriate terminology, in the early 90s using the same 'sudden death partnership agreement which would later be used to get rid of Glenn.

Official histories of the corporation also state they were immediately successful. Nothing could be further from the truth. Source



Contracts awarded by the U. S. government began in 2003.


Is Green Hills Software, Inc., hiding something? Yes, many things.

If you google Green Hills Software, Inc., you cannot find a mention of Hightower. Rosenberg, who was eliminated much earlier, is mentioned, but no details on him are available. The corporate histories are, at best, very incomplete. We will explain the reasons for these 'historical revisions' in this short series of articles, also exposing the corporate culture of a company which, today, is a major supplier of the irreplaceable software, the 'brains,' of drone technology. We focus far too much on the hardware of drones, which can cause no harm without the operating systems which drive them.

American government is predicated on the concept of checks and balances. Clearly, this is not working, but one of the elements which was never accounted for by the Constitution was the growing influence of contractors who owe no allegiance to the founding principles of our nation and are, effectively, invisible and shielded from liability for their actions by the fiction of corporate personhood.

Because of his lack of ethics and values Dan O'Dowd had no compunction about the use of drones against civilians, here and abroad. The money to be made is enormous.

Dan's ideas resonance perfectly with those of Attila the Hun or George W. Bush. He and Craig Franklin have much in common, sharing the same values and ethics. Their personal goals are different but their cooperation, along with others in the tightly drawn group, impact each of us today.

Corporations are used as shields for liability. We can, and must pierce the shield to understand these individuals and hold them accountable for what they have done to our world. 

The next segment of the story shows Dan's lack of conscience appeared in other areas as well, not just killing abroad but maiming those he knew personally.   US National Library

Homeland Security increasingly lending drones to local police

From:  The Washington Times 

COMMENT - The article illustrates the fact that military drones are already being used against civilians in the U. S.   No one involved in calling it in considered the fact such use violates the Constitution because none of them considers the document relevant to their choices.  Now, why is that?  Could it be it has ceased to referenced as limiting what actions they can legally take?   Looks like it. 
  And the same people are freely  spending tax money so hard up local law enforcement can have drones, despite concerns, about the cost, expressed by Congress.  They seem to have missed, during their search for policy, the fact there is an official policy. The Constitution,  forbids the use of military on U. S. soil.  States and counties, which have legal standing under the Constitution, should take note. 

There is a wild and free-with-our-money as they ignore the law feel about these agencies, which are, themselves, not provided for under the Constitution.  

This is a rogue government, armed by Green Hills Software, and friends.  


ARTICLE


By Kimberly Dvorak-Washington Guardian


Monday, December 10, 2012
Far from the battlefields of Afghanistan, a Predator drone was summoned into action last year to spy on a North Dakota farmer who allegedly refused to return a half dozen of his neighbor’s cows that had strayed onto his pastures.
The farmer had become engaged in a standoff with the Grand Forks police SWAT team and the sheriff’s department. So the local authorities decided to call on their friends at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to deploy a multimillion dollar, unarmed drone to surveil the farmer and his family.

The little-noticed August 2011 incident at the Lakota, N.D., ranch, which ended peacefully, was a watershed moment for Americans: it was one of the first known times an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) owned by the U.S. government was used against civilians for local police work.

Since then, the Washington Guardian has confirmed, DHS and its Customs and Border Protection agency have deployed drones — originally bought to guard America’s borders — to assist local law enforcement and other federal agencies on several occasions.

The practice is raising questions inside and outside government about whether federal officials may be creating an ad-hoc, loan-a-drone program without formal rules for engagement, privacy protection or taxpayer reimbursements. The drones used by CPB can cost between $15 million and $34 million each to buy, and have hourly operational costs as well.

In addition, DHS recently began distributing $4 million in grants to help local law enforcement buy its own, smaller versions of drones, opening a new market for politically connected drone makers as the wars overseas shrink.

The double-barreled lending and purchasing have some concerned that federal taxpayers may be subsidizing the militarization of local police forces and creating new threats to average Americans’ privacy.

“We’ve seen bits and pieces of information on CBP’s Predator drones, but Americans deserve the full story,” said Jennifer Lynch, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) that studies privacy issues and has sought information on drone use in the United States. “Drones are a powerful surveillance tool that can be used to gather extensive data about you and your activities. The public needs to know more about how and why these Predator drones are being used to watch U.S. citizens.”

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), another privacy advocate which is pursuing litigation to force the disclosure of more information from DHS on drones, says it has found that the government has no official policies for how the drones can be used by local police, does not seek compensation from local law enforcement to recoup taxpayers’ expenses and claims it doesn’t keep records on how many times its drones have been deployed for local use.

“CBP’s drone program is shrouded in secrecy and legal ambiguity. Despite a specific mission to protect the border from illegal immigration and drug smuggling, CBP continues to let other federal agencies and local law enforcement bureaus use (its drones) for unrelated purposes,” said Amie Stepanvich, Associate Litigation Counsel for EPIC.

Indeed, when the Washington Guardian inquired about how many times DHS or CPB lent drones to local authorities, officials responded they didn’t have a formal loan-a-drone program but did on occasion lend the UAVs to help local police. But they declined to provide an exact number or a list of localities.

“While CBP does not have a ‘loan a drone’ program, we do work with national and sometimes state and local agencies for assistance,” said Ian Phillips, a spokesman for Customs Border and Protection.

Such answers aren’t satisfying to members of Congress worried about the costs to taxpayers and the implications of letting machines built for war to potentially impact privacy inside the United States in the name of security.

“We should not run from our basic constitutional principles because we have fear. That’s the best way I know for us to lose liberty.  And you eventually give up your liberty if fear is your No. 1 guide,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., an influential voice on the federal budget.

Local police departments, stretching from the Canadian border in the Midwest to the Mexican border in Texas, confirmed to the Washington Guardian they have summoned CPB drones to help in local police matters ranging from the service of arrest warrants to armed standoffs.

Local SWAT commanders, in fact, said DHS and CPB encouraged the use of the drones to give its unmanned pilots training opportunities. And they argue the collaborations and deployments have helped saved lives.

”CBP reached out to us for training. We have developed a relationship with them, and we can call them when we feel we need their help,” explained Sgt. Bill Macki, the leader of the Grand Forks, N.D., SWAT team that summoned the drone back in August 2011 at the North Dakota ranch during the farmer standoff.

Macki said his department has asked to use CPB drones three times –inclement weather prevented one of those deployments — and he personally knows of other local departments in the Dakotas that have also used the unmanned aerial vehicles in the last year.

“The Predator drone helps us pull back and (gives us) the ability to control the perimeter and de-escalate the scene significantly,” Macki explained. “The (drones) have been a tremendous asset to our high-risk operations.”

An added bonus for law enforcement is that so far federal officials haven’t asked the local cops to repay the costs. “We have not been charged by CBP for the use of the Predator drone,” Macki said.

While ad hoc deployments continue, in May the Department of Homeland Security launched its “Air-based Technologies Program” to hand out grants to help underwrite local law enforcement purchases of their own drones, said John Appleby of DHS Science and Technology Directorate’s division.


Wednesday, May 15, 2013

No! No! Jack, you have it all wrong - that's the Buchanan Tartan.


The future always holds the unexpected, moments which astound and change us, in ways no one anticipates until we reflect and someone says, "Oh, no, I wasn't really surprised, after all, he was wearing yellow Reeboks."




Listen, watch, and you can't miss understanding their values and limitations, if any. 

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Understanding Drone Contractors, a series


We will be posting information on psychopathy here to improve understanding of the kind of individual who creates the culture in which the world of drone technology, a subculture of Greedville,  today exists.  



Friday, May 10, 2013

Drones Over America

From:  Slate 

COMMENT - Senator Rand Paul warned Americans of the danger in which they stand with the wave of death, now being visited on people of other nations, being drawn back to the United States as a means of eliminating dissenting elements in America. The article ignores the real issues, instead focusing on polling and the opinions expressed by people who can be chosen as uninformed for the purpose of raising non-issues.  

America is engaged in illegal wars around the world.  These actions violate the Geneva Convention and were undertaken during the Bush Administration as a means of extending and solidifying an American hegemony globally.  

The policies are being continued by the Obama Administration, in direct contradiction of his promises, to continue the same agenda.  

Let's agree most Americans are uninformed, both Right and Left.  Now, what are we going to do about the human rights violations both abroad and within our own borders?  

I suggest we compile a list of those who are accountable, in accordance with  the Geneva Accords, and then inform them of their legal vulnerabilities.  

ARTICLE

We’ve seen what drones can do in Pakistan. So we’re not exactly thrilled about being watched by them at home.

163275666
Sen. Rand Paul warned of drone strikes on U.S. citizens as he filibustered John Brennan's nomination to be CIA director Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images


This article arises from Future Tense, a partnership of Slate, the New America Foundation, and Arizona State University. On Tuesday, May 7, at 9:15 a.m., Future Tense will host an event in Washington, D.C., on the use of drones in the United States. For more information and to watch the webcast live, visit the New America Foundation’s website.
Drones are coming home. For many years, we’ve used them to hunt and kill enemies in faraway places: Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia. Now we’re deploying them in the United States, not to kill but to help with civilian missions such as land surveys, livestock monitoring, and search and rescue. But psychologically, the transition is hard. Like soldiers coming home from a war, we’ve become so accustomed to the mentality of combat that we’re having trouble adjusting to the idea of remotely piloted aircraft as a peaceful technology.
In recent months, drones have moved from the shadows of our national security debate to center stage. They dominated the fight over John Brennan’s nomination to be CIA director. Because of drones, protesters disrupted his hearing, and senators blocked his confirmation. But you don’t have to be a news junkie to feel the surge of alarm. Last year, in The Bourne Legacy, Hollywood brought us the specter of drone warfare against an American citizen, perpetrated not by a foreign enemy, but by our own scheming government.
Advertisement
The constant drone (if you’ll pardon that old-fashioned use of the term) of military chatter about remotely piloted vehicles has skewed our thinking about them. We see them as weapons. So we don’t like it when the discussion turns to using them in our own country. Among young people, drone has become a verb, synonymous with targeted killing. As the T-shirt puts it: “Don’t Drone Me, Bro.”
Polls reflect a consistent pattern: The more American the target, the less comfortable we are with deploying drones. In a February Fox News survey, the percentage of Americans who approved of drones declined precipitously as the suggested applications turned from foreign terrorist suspects overseas to U.S. citizens on American soil.
In the first week of March, Sen. Rand Paul transfixed the Senate with his paranoid filibuster about U.S. military drones annihilating ordinary Americans sitting in a café. The scenario was preposterous—it would be much easier for a corrupt U.S. president to kill you in a café using operatives on the ground—but it seems to have affected public opinion. By late March, when Gallup asked the same questions Fox News had asked, the percentage of respondents who favored the use of drones to hit suspected U.S. citizen terrorists on American soil had plunged from 45 to 13. Andy Borowitz, the political humorist, captured our feelings in a fake poll report showing that 97 percent of Americans strongly agreed with the statement, “I personally do not want to be killed by a drone.”
Within the U.S. population, you can see potential divisions over drones, driven by the same worry about who controls the technology and who might be targeted. When Fox News asked about the “United States” using drones to kill a suspected U.S. citizen terrorist on American soil, there wasn’t much difference based on race or party affiliation. But when the same survey asked about “the president of the United States, on his own” making the decision, big gaps opened up. Whites and Republicans sharply opposed the idea, while nonwhites and Democrats were more closely divided. Presumably, that’s because Democrats and nonwhites are more likely to identify with President Obama and trust him.
As the discussion pivots from military to civilian applications, some of these differences persist. A poll taken last year by Monmouth University found that within the U.S. population, there wasn’t much difference between racial and ethnic groups over the use of drones to track runaway criminals (which we overwhelmingly support) or to issue speeding tickets (which we overwhelmingly oppose). But when the poll asked about using drones to control illegal immigration on the border, again, a big gap opened up. Whites support that idea by a margin of 50 percentage points. Among Hispanics and blacks, the margin of support is much lower: 25 and 10 points, respectively.
Why the difference? Some of it may be that if you’re a racial or ethnic minority, it’s easier to imagine yourself as the target of a spy drone hunting illegal immigrants. And polls do suggest that the more easily you can picture yourself as a target, the more you worry about drones. Earlier this year, for instance, a Reason-Rupe survey found that while 32 percent of Americans worry “a lot” about U.S. drones hunting suspected citizen-terrorists, 40 percent worry “a lot” that their local police department might use spy drones to invade their privacy. The latter scenario feels more personally plausible.  MORE

Thursday, May 9, 2013

The advantage of technologized warfare is also its most worrying: The perception of decreased risk to the aggressor

From: Salon

COMMENT - All too many ordinary Americans are also ready to accept  the use of drones as a way to increase the safety of those they love who may otherwise be in the line of fire.  A friend of mine expressed this sentiment, to my shock last summer as her voice vibrated with her fear for a beloved nephew - who had chosen to return to  Afghanistan several times.  At the time, he was back on leave.  Two months later he was dead doing the work he had chosen. 

Those living there do not have a choice.  

Beyond the choices of individuals remains the stark fact there is no just war in question here.  We are not 'defending' ourselves from aggression, we are simply defending the profits of corporations who, we must now recognize, have hijacked our government and are manipulating us emotionally through the use of our love of  country.  

We, those funding this war, are being bled dry for the profit of these same corporations, Green Hills Software among them.  There is no honor, no glory, no courage here, only deceit, and a growing hunger for more.  

Confronting those who are guilty because of their refusal to see is essential to our survival.  Some will understand, others will quit their jobs because they cannot take the truth.  But every time we speak we dim the cacophony of lies which enable them to act. 


The advantage of technologized warfare is also its most worrying: The perception of decreased risk to the aggressor 

How drones deceive us
A ground-based cockpit during a training mission flown from Syracuse, New York. (Credit: AP/Tsgt Ricky Best)

In the brave new world of technologized warfare, every week seems to bring a new sci-fi-movie-worthy revelation about America’s ongoing drone operations. This past week was no exception. From the lawyer who first outlined White House policy on drone attacks, we learned that the government is likely using such attacks instead of capturing alleged terrorists, all to avoid the thorny legal issues that come with prisoner detainment. From the United Nations, we learned that the world may be closer to seeing its first self-directed Terminator-style killing machines — technically called “Lethal Autonomous Robots” — than many may have previously thought.These kind of stories will continue for one big, if unstated, reason: robotic warfare seems to hold the promise of making many things easier, cheaper and less risky, at least for the countries that operate the drones. But the operative word is “seems,” for drones involve a problematic illusion that distorts our perception of the risks we face.
Before examining that illusion, let’s first review why drone technology seems so appealing to policymakers:
  • Low cost: Because drones — unlike human soldiers — don’t need stuff like healthcare, food and pensions, they allow the Pentagon to cut its budget while also maintaining strike capabilities. Similarly, drones’ long-range surveillance capabilities mean the Pentagon may eventually feel it doesn’t need as many forward-deployed bases.
  • Brutal efficiency: As mentioned above, drones make it easier for the government to simply execute terrorism suspects rather than deal with complicated stuff like due process.
  • Violence at a distance: Drones have allowed the United States to kill thousands of foreigners — many of them civilians — without having to fear that American pilots will be killed or that American ground troops will be in harm’s way.
This latter characteristic explains the genie-out-of-the-bottle quandary in trying to curtail the drone war. In short, once a technology purporting to simplify and reduce risk hits a market, it is difficult to constrain that technology because its seemingly beneficial attributes prove irresistible.
The trouble with drones, of course, is that those positive attributes are also their most problematic. Indeed, the perceived risk reduction and simplicity of drone strikes ends up removing a critical deterrent to unnecessary violence, namely, the perceived possibility of casualties for the aggressor. Though nobody would — or should — hope for any kind of casualties, the fact remains that without that deterrent, drone-armed nations run the risk of seeing robot-administered violence as the best — if not the only — problem-solving option.
A little-noticed study from the British government’s Ministry of Defence explained how this works in practice. The report quotes Robert E. Lee saying, “It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.” It then asked: “If we remove the risk of loss from the decision-makers’ calculations when considering crisis management options, do we make the use of armed force more attractive? Will decision-makers resort to war as a policy option far sooner than previously?”
British government actions suggest the answer is “yes.” As the report notes, the United Kingdom’s decision to wage war in Pakistan and Yemen came about precisely because Britain possessed drones and could therefore prevent British casualties.
“The use of force is totally a function of the existence of an unmanned capability,” the report concluded. “It is unlikely a similar scale of force would be used if this capability were not available.”
The same principles apply to the United States’ military actions. Throughout history, the one proven check on the unbridled militarism has not been Congress, the Constitution, foreign casualties or unsustainable Pentagon budgets; it has been the perception of life-and-death risk to the wider citizenry. When conscription ended in 1973, that perceived risk for most Americans was reduced and, not coincidentally, we’ve seen our government feel freer to engage in longer and more risky military adventures than ever, and without fear of widespread opposition.
Now with drone warfare, the same government perceives that violence comes with even less immediate life-and-death risk for our country, and consequently our technologized violence is expanding. Indeed, according to the New York Times, the U.S. government feels so uninhibited that it has moved beyond targeted killing to “drone attacks based on patterns of activity” — attacks aimed at locations without actually “know(ing) the identity of the targets.” Among the general population, it’s much the same dynamic: With drones seeming to make war less risky, there hasn’t just been little opposition to the drone war; polls actually show strong support for continuing the robot onslaught, even as we learn about its deplorable civilian casualties.
But in those casualties exist the pernicious lie of drone technology, the lie that suggests drone warfare is ultimately a consequence-free endeavor for the drone-wielding nation.
With mounting evidence that America’s massacre of foreign civilians is creating more terrorists than it is neutralizing, and with terrorists citing our drone operations as motivations for their plots against us, there are consequences; they are just different than what we’re accustomed to. They aren’t, say, traditional counter-volleys on a declared battlefield. Instead, they are more like the Boston bombing, aka asymmetrical terrorist attacks against nearly impossible-to-protect soft targets.
Even if you are a coldhearted boor who proudly claims not to care about dead children in faraway places, self-interest should help you understand the problem. It’s simple: Drones are deceiving us into believing we face no consequences to violence, even though the principles of blowback are every bit as powerful as they ever have been. Put another way, machines are tricking us into believing that actions no longer generate reactions when, alas, they still do.  MORE