US Army picks Android to power its first smartphone
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
What's interesting is they aren't using proprietary software from Microsoft. Microsoft has a history of bending over backwards for Military contracts and I have no doubt they did everything in their power to get Windows Embedded on these phones. So the fact that Android won out shows proprietary software can't count on guaranteed government contracts like it used to.
So even Windows is open source to the Military (though in fairness it's also available to other select partners).
Sometimes, contracts are written such that the contractor must provide all of its source code to the military. In these cases, DoD pays a significant premium. As budgets tighten, this practice has become less and less common. Nowdays it's typically only done if there is an expectation that the code will be used, built upon, and modified for a significant length of time, in which case it would be cost-effective for the government to own the code so that they can bid out future work competitively.
So if anyone "heard wrong," it was you.
Obviously they need an OS that is highly customizable, and I assume that's why Android is an easy choice. But to me, it seems like the OS is fairly unimportant on such a purpose-built device.
What I'm more interested is how they intend on setting up reliable communications between the devices. Obviously they can't go into a warzone and expect there to be Verizon cell towers every few miles. I assume there is already a system in place, but the article doesn't explain any of this, or how the hardware will have to adapt to the existing system. Or how the OS will have to be modified to use the different hardware.
All around a pretty stupid article. I've seen much better from ars.
Android is opensource so they can use and modify it as they please, as for sending location data, it's the maps app that sends triangulation data when used to refine it's location capabilities, it's covered in the TOS and the data is anonymous.
And since people evidentially don't like wardriving this method is a more efficient and less costly alternative and the benefit to the user is obvious.
Doesn't the US spend enough on the military already?!
I wonder how much information an enemy could obtain if they got a hold of one of these?
And then the realization that the answer is probably "not much" and that by an enemy holding on to one, they are almost certainly giving away their position. So I wonder if a lot of the utility in the long run will come from tracking phones that get lost and stolen on a battlefield.
As far as air strikes they're only called in if you have eyes on the target. The whole process is fairly complicated in that a commander on the ground has to order the air strike from an Analyst (usually in Florida). The analyst then reviews satellite and low altitude surveillance air craft footage to confirm the target and only then is it passed on to the drone pilot (usually in Nevada).
To the best of my knowledge only 2 U.S. soldiers have ever been killed by air-based friendly fire in the modern (aka Predator Drone) era (and I remember because it was only a couple weeks ago and the articles cited it as the first time that had ever happened)
(And for those who think we've handed Libya over to NATO I'd point out that over 80% of NATO's military resources are U.S. Resources and the Supreme European Commander of NATO is an American Admiral)
Second any communication device used by the military is both encrypted like crazy and has remote wipe capabilities. Their walkie talkies use rotating, encrypted digital channels these days. So I don't think a cell. phone is going to be a gold mine of information. In fact, on the theory that smartphones could give soldiers access to documents they'd normally have to carry physical copies of the cell. phone actually increases security on the ground
Edit: To elaborate on the NATO point count the Aircraft Carriers. The U.S. has 12 in service. Every other country in NATO combined has 6.
Personally I think the military budget should be drastically cut. This includes cutting back on military commitments. I don't see how it is efficacious for the U.S. to spend around 5% GDP on defense matters while European countries spend much leas as a percent of GDP. It does not appear to me that the average American benefits enough to justify this expense.
What's happening now is we're sending soldiers into harm's way with insufficient protection because we can't afford enough body armor.
Think about this for a second. From Bush's first day in office to now the National Debt increased from $5.73 Trillion to $14.3 Trillion dollars yet with all that money our Soldiers are having to ask their families to buy them body armor with personal funds because the Government won't. That's obscene.
Obama campaigned on escalating Afghanistan as that was the actual war where the Taliban were suspected of hiding bin Laden.
"while their budget is being cut"
I seem to recall that all the "cuts" of late are being led almost exclusively by the new "anti-establishment" conservatives and tea party republicans, of which you seem to be, so joke's on you.
Now a question for you: Has it occurred to you that your "Us vs. Them" attitude has perverted your view of the world? I said nothing Conservative or Tea Party-esque in my original post. In fact I attacked the idea of Presidents starting wars which Bush did at least twice as much as Obama did. So assuming I was either was simply not rational.