The Great Mysterious Landpower Robot Revolution  

, , ,

Everyone knows that unmanned systems will change everything for land forces.  However, no one is sure what those changes will be.

“It is, of course, impossible to predict exactly how the Landpower robot revolution will unfold.”

The above quote was written by Dr. Steven Metz, the Director of Research at the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) as well as research director for the Joint Strategic Landpower Task Force.  While the future is unknown, Dr. Metz argues that it is possible to identify the questions that need to be answered, at least some of them.  Writing on SSI’s websites, his questions include:

  • What is the appropriate mix of humans and robots?
  • How autonomous should the robots be?
  • What type of people will be needed for robot heavy Landpower formations?
  • What effect will robot centric Landpower have on American national security policy?
  • What to do about enemy robots?

Dr. Metz’s article is worth reading in its entirety (view it here). Below are a few highlights as well as some reactions.

Logistics and expense

Dr. Metz quotes Paul Scharre of the Center for a New American Security:

“Uninhabited systems can help bring mass back to the fight by augmenting human-inhabited combat systems with large numbers of lower cost uninhabited systems to expand the number of sensors and shooters in the fight. Because they can take more risk without a human onboard, uninhabited systems can balance survivability against cost, affording the ability to procure larger numbers of systems.”

Unmanned systems have always been seen as economical force multipliers. However, Metz’s and Scharre’s comments imply other benefits as well.

A central weakness of an army is its need for support. Even Israel’s relatively small military, which usually has short logistics lines, is vulnerable. In the run-up to the 1973 war, Egypt quickly mobilized and demobilized its forces over and over. Israel responded with its own mobilization and demobilization of its civilian-based military forces, but this played havoc with its economy.  After a while, they decided that Egypt was just playing games with them; that’s when Egypt attacked.

If the military forces had been unmanned systems, Egypt’s strategy may not have been as effective.  The costs of maintaining a large unmanned force in readiness may be less than mobilizing a large manned one.

Current events validate this way of thinking. The current administration is reducing manpower overseas, while relying more and more on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV). Although most people focus on the reduced risk to American lives, it is also clear that it is cheaper to send UAVs to Waziristan than maintain forward placed personnel.

A counterpoint is that robots may not be as cheap as people think they are. Douglas Barrie, Senior Fellow for Military Aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London wrote:

“The other element of the UAV side in the ISR arena is that people look at a UAV and think, unmanned, surely it won’t cost as much. The UAV actually just shifts to some extent, where the cost comes, in terms of the number of support people, pilots required actually to fly the air vehicle from a ground station, and then the imagery exploitation and analysis teams who run to serious numbers of personnel, obviously deriving great value, in military terms, from these things. But the, kind of, initial notion that these things were going to be cheap doesn’t actually turn out to be necessarily correct.”  (Non-traditional Airborne ISR Makes the Leap from Unconventional to Conventional Warfare – Defense IQ)

We have already seen the reluctance of the military to commit expensive systems to actual combat (some sophisticated fighter jets are rarely used). Are robots ever going to be so cheap that they are essentially expendable?

Rob Culver, AMREL’s Director of Business Development, DoD Programs sees problems.

“I have firsthand reports from soldiers and officers who have put high tech but good equipment back in the box, and chosen not to use it in operations. The one time they did use a piece of equipment, it was damaged beyond repair by errant enemy mortar fire. Subsequent investigation and paper work was so intrusive and demanding as to create a pain level that ensured the equipment would never be used again. Somewhere the worldview disconnect between operators and widget counters needs to be overcome.”

You do not need a body to be an antibody

Dr. Metz makes an interesting assertion that robots don’t become an ‘“antibody’ in a foreign culture.” This is another way of saying that no one screams “Hide the women! The robots are coming!” Robots do not loot, rape or violate local customs by refusing to take off their shoes in holy places. The author goes as far to call unmanned systems “politically palatable,” and could be useful in certain stages of counter-insurgency efforts.

This may be one of those ideas that make sense, but just isn’t true. Whether you are talking about Yemen, Gaza, or Afghanistan, locals hate and dread unmanned systems. There is a fairly vociferous “anti-drone” movement happening on a global scale. Right now, people are scared of “death from the skies,” but I suspect these negative attitudes could be projected onto Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGV) as well. Would you like an autonomous lethal killing machine running around in your neighborhood?

Robert Culver thinks that unmanned systems may actually be more culturally problematic than human soldiers. He writes:

“I do believe that there can be and is cultural rejection of ground robots.   As a hetman of my tribe I would be offended if you sent a machine instead of a man.”

What is the appropriate mix of humans and robots?

Dr. Metz discusses this question at length and considers it one of the great imponderables. Unlike the author, I do not consider the mix of humans and robots to be all that mysterious.

Is it really that difficult to decide who and when gets an ISR-oriented tactical UAV or an IED-sniffing UGV? These are more tactical questions than strategic, and the answers should present themselves as time goes on.

Unmanned systems = more war

Dr. Metz speculates that the increased use of unmanned systems will make leaders less hesitant about committing to combat. I have always been skeptical of the “Robots makes it easier to go to war” argument. As noted above, the military has shown reluctance to use some of its best technology due to its expense as well as the risk of enemies capturing and reverse-engineering advance devices. This may be regarded as an updated version of “McClellan-ism,” i.e., “I sure would hate for something bad to happen to my pretty, well-trained soldiers.”

However, I have to admit the evidence seems to support this fear. The President gets a lot of flak for being “weak,” but if you include UAV-strikes, he may have more kinetic actions going on in more countries than any other administration since WW II. He is killing a lot of people in a lot of places for someone who is supposed to be a wimp.

Where’s the revolution?

Rather than make predictions based on an agenda, Dr. Metz’s article stresses how little we know about the future effects of unmanned systems. For example, no one knows where the most influential innovations will come from.

 “Even though it is clear that a revolution will happen, it is hard to tell where it will take place. Will it be the Army’s existing network for innovation, including the schools in the professional military educational system, the battle labs, and the various ‘centers of excellence’? Will it be in the offices of mavericks outside the formal system of innovation? Will it be in cutting edge corporations? Or will it be led by America’s enemies, with the U.S. military reacting as it falls behind?”

Dr. Metz’s above quote is consistent with the overall perception that here is a lack of leadership and vision within the Defense community concerning unmanned systems. For our unmanned system developers and vendors, this may be the most important question of all.  It’s hard to build for a future that hasn’t been defined yet.

Timing is everything

Rob Culver sees the lack of vision for unmanned technology as a function of its development and the needs of the military.

“An idea can be good or bad or even great, depending upon timing. A good idea that’s too early can be viewed as down-right stupid. But a good idea when the technology is mature enough and the need is urgent is brilliant.

“I think unmanned systems and particularly unmanned ground systems are still, believe it or not, premature. Autonomy, the associated technology and other capabilities are not mature enough. Furthermore, the need (other than for counter-IED and route clearance) is not painful enough to truly generate ‘urgent’ needs statements.

“I do believe the future of warfare will include manned/unmanned teaming as we are already beginning to see with aerial platforms. But we control the environment in air space. The same reason that FAA is not quick to clear unmanned/remotely piloted aircraft in national airspace also applies to ground operations during conflict.

“Land forces operate in a different environment than air. There are no ditches, culverts, tunnels and multi-story buildings in the flying drones’ airspace as there will be on the ground. Too many people running around and no easy way to differentiate combatant from non-combatant.

“We have had endless conversations, but no ready answer. A lot of people experimented with heavier than air flight for literally decades, if not centuries before Wilbur and Orville invented ‘flight.’”

Unknown ≠ inaction

According to Culver’s analysis, as technology advances and needs become pressing, the requirements for unmanned systems will become clear.

However, I do not think this need to be a call for passivity. Indeed, the Army may not know it wants a specific solution until it is presented to them.

Vendors can and should take steps to create the future of unmanned systems, including:

  • Developing capabilities that will likely be needed, such as “sliding autonomy” and navigation.
  • Partnering to create “best-of-breed” solutions. This may even require cooperating with our competitors on occasion.
  • Interoperability, interoperability, interoperability. Not just on common control, but on more mundane elements, such as batteries and spare parts.
  • Economy will always matter. In a crisis, the military will throw money at a problem, but the vendor with the cheapest solution that matches urgent needs will have an enormous advantage.

Finally, as an industry we need to step up. We can sit around complaining about the government’s lack of vision for the future, but it is to our advantage that we collectively create that future.

To learn more about the likely future of Unmanned Ground Vehicles,

Contact Rob Culver at (603) 325-3376 or robertc@amrel.com

/by

Top Tech Trends in 2015 [VIDEOS]

, , ,

I recently viewed a lot of “Top Tech Trends in 2015” videos and I am depressed.  Not because the videos lacked typical tech-evangelist optimism. No, I am dispirited, because of sad similarities that afflicted so many videos.

Most “Top Tech Trends” videos can be categorized into 2 types.  One type is blatantly self-serving. “Everybody will be doing cloud computing. Quick, buy my suite of cloud products or all the other Chief Information Officers will call you names and make fun of you.”

The second type of video is what I call “buzzword bingo.”  The goal is not to communicate, but rather to establish the speaker is cool and hip by cramming as many faddish words as possible into a single sentence. “When you buy a taco, facial recognition will establish your identity, derive your preferences from algorithms that data-mine your social media, download the appropriate taco template from cloud storage, fabricate it with a 3-D printer (which is connected to the Internet of Things), and pay for the food with New Field Communication(NFC) from your mobile.”

The following are not necessarily the best “Top Tech Trends in 2015” videos, but rather the ones that I found the most interesting.

In spite of erroneous predictions about the timing of the iPhone 6 release and the unverified claims about its display’s durability, I liked this video below from the folks at Epic Technology.  Unlike so many other videos, I got the impression that the producers actually put some thought in what they were saying, instead of just repeating empty phrases.

Trend Hunter’s video is less about technology than about how consumers’ behavior is changing due to adoption of innovations.  More fads than technology.  Still very interesting.

The next video got my attention not because of what is said, but rather who is saying it. Futurist Jack Uldrich gives 100 lectures a year, mostly to business groups seeking guidance on navigating the rapidly-changing tech environment.  I have no idea if his prediction of gas prices dropping by half will come true. What I do know is that a lot business people will take his prediction seriously and plan accordingly.

Of course, you can ditch the videos altogether and take a look at these written forecasts from IDC and Gartner.

 

/by

New Defense Budget [TABLE SUMMARY]

,

Congress overcame its perpetual gridlock and actually passed a Defense budget. In today’s political climate, a budget for the entire fiscal year was no sure thing.  For example, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is only funded to February.

This is good news for Defense vendors who have suffered under budget uncertainty. Take a look at table below for winners and losers.

 

Who gets it How much Comments
Department of Defense $554.1 billion
  • President wanted $554.3 billion
  • $3.3 billion more than 2014 base appropriations
  • More than half of the overall federal budget
Pentagon Procurement $93.8 billion $1 billion more than 2014
Defense R&D $63.7 billion $700 million more than 2014
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) (Afghanistan)   $64 billion $21 billion less than the 2014
Anti-Islamic State Operations $3.4 billion President wanted $5.6 billion
Military Pay Raise Capped at 1%
  • DoD wanted 1.8%
  • Civilian contractors might be laid off
DoD Operation & Maintenance $161.7 billion
  • $1.8 billion more than 2014
  • O&M, traditional budget whipping boy, may have escaped its usual ax, because of worries about military readiness
A-10 Attack Plane $338 million
  • Congress blocks A-10 retirement plans
  • The Warthog lives!
Iron Dome Program $351 million President only wanted $176 million
European Reassurance Initiative $810 million Includes $175 million for Ukraine and Baltics
Navy’s E/A-18G Electronic Warfare Jets $1.4 billion Enough to buy 15 in 2015

A few other highlights

  • The F-35 fighter program gets $240 million more than requested in order to buy four additional jets.
  • The budget maintains the American aircraft carrier fleet at 11.
  • The National Guard and Reserve gets $1.2 billion more than requested for equipment.

Information for this blog post came from DefenseNews and Forbes.

/by

Global economic implications of robot penguins [VIDEOS]

, , ,

You may have seen this video of an Unmanned Ground Vehicle shaped like a penguin chick:

As strange as it may sound, penguin robots have an important role to play in the emerging world economic order of the 21st century.

Whether you believe in climate change or not, a lot of very powerful countries take it seriously. Eyes are turning to our presumably warming polar regions and their now available resources.

The Arctic has large oil and gas deposits. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, declared, “Offshore fields, especially in the Arctic, are without any exaggeration our strategic reserve for the 21st century.” United States, Canada, Greenland, Norway and Russia have already received licenses for Arctic oil exploration.

Agriculture may be the last thing you think of when you regard the Arctic, but significant increases in food production are expected to occur in Russia and Greenland. Of course, some commercial ships seeking an Asia-European route will find an ice-free northwest passage to be an attractive alternative to the Suez Canal.

The Antarctic also has its attractions. Some claim that it has “…largest underexploited fishery in the world” (East Asia Forum).  Large amounts of oil, coal and other valuable minerals have been found in Antarctica.

However, the legal status of the Arctic and Antarctic are poles apart. The Arctic Sea is surrounded by nations who have longstanding claims to the area. Arctic counties include Russia and a number of NATO members.  New resources and traditional adversaries sound like an explosive combination, but so far the conflicts have been minimal.  Still, I would not be surprised to see military strategists discussing the defense of our Northern Frontier.

Unlike the Arctic Sea, Antarctica is a kind of “no man’s land,” govern by an international “treaty regime.”  Coming into force in 1961, this treaty bans militarization, and establishes Antarctica as a “scientific preserve.”

Mining and other exploitative activities are forbidden. In a resource-starved world, many do not expect this ban to last forever. In the yet-to-be-determined date, when the Antarctic goodies are divided up, how can a country make sure that it gets it rightful share?

Since science is the sole legitimate activity in the Antarctica, nations are securing future claims through the establishment of research stations.  “You put a huge flag on a flagpole close to the research station,” says Klaus Dodds, a professor of geopolitics at the University of London. “It is not very subtle” (Economist).

Countries who are either conducting research or have expressed an interest in doing so, include Malaysia, Japan, India, Australia, China, South Korea, Argentina, Belgium, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

China alone is spending 55 million dollars a year on multiple stations. Over 350 places in Antarctica now have Chinese names.

Not everyone in the scientific community is happy about this new found enthusiasm for research.  Some studies have been criticized as being transparently worthless, and even harmful to the local wildlife.

Enter the robot penguins. Unmanned penguin vehicles enable scientists to observe and take physiological measurements of penguins without stressing everybody’s favorite flightless water fowl. The penguins are safe from harassment, research is performed, and the sponsoring country reinforces its claim to the future exploitation of Antarctic resources.

Since they have proven useful for both research and nationalistic aspirations, there are more than one type of penguin robot.

This one features a robot that glides elegantly through a flock of penguins:

Another robot encounters true love and jealousy:

Finally, if you wish to get in on this “penguin gold rush,” PBS Nature demonstrates how to build your own penguin robot:

You may decide to leave penguin robot building to another person. Just remember the next time you view a penguin robot video, you are not just witnessing the scientific investigation of a cute animal, but you are also seeing economic forces that may determine how much your grandchildren pay for a gallon of gas.

[layerslider id=”31″]

/by

Ebola and The Art of War

, , , ,

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt; if you know Heaven and know Earth, you may make your victory complete.” 

― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Fighting an epidemic is surprisingly similar to fighting a human enemy. For example, in both military and anti- epidemic campaigns there is a need for good intelligence, including situational awareness. Just as an army must determine the location of its human enemy, health-care workers must determine where the infections are occurring.

Determining the locations of Ebola infections has been extremely difficult. The affected areas have suffered from long civil wars as well as extreme political corruption. The population has a severe and probably warranted distrust of authorities. Combine this with the fact that Ebola is new in these countries, many people are reluctant to report cases or heed the advice of authorities. Thus, doctors and nurses must “win hearts and minds,” a task familiar to someone who has engaged in counter-insurgency operations.

As in any modern war, computers, networks, and information gathering /sharing play a significant role in battling this deadly disease. Just as generals worry about communicating with their front-line troops, the World Health Organization (WHO) is concerned with exchanging information with the affected population. Since approximately 40% of the affected populations use mobile phones, WHO is considering using text messages for educational outreach as well as a means for people to report cases. Mobile devices are also being used for communication between the outside world and those in quarantine.

In addition to determining the enemy/infection location, commanders of both military and anti-epidemic operations must secure the following information:

  • How many enemies /infected victims are there?
  • Where is the enemy/infection moving toward?
  • Where is the most effective place to put our resources (allied soldiers/doctors & health care workers)?

To answer the above questions, researchers who monitor military activities have utilized artificial intelligence and extensive data mining. For example, the Satellite Sentinel Project (SSP) examined publicly available satellite images and noticed unusual roads in a specific area of Sudan. Based on these images, the SSP accurately predicted a military incursion in this region.

Similar techniques are proving enormously helpful to public healthcare authorities. Let’s say there is a neighborhood in which a suspicious population is reluctant to share information with the authorities. If a satellite image reveals crowded parking lots near a hospital, and public records state there has been a jump in school absenteeism, an intelligence-gathering program can raise the index of suspicion for an outbreak in this specific area. Thus, an alarm can be raised, even when the locals are not cooperative. Indeed, among the new technologies, automated information systems may be the most significant in war against Ebola.

HealthMap may be the most important “smart machine” that gathers, analyzes, and displays information. Every hour, it uses text analysis algorithms to mine data from tens of thousands of Web pages in 15 different languages. The processed information is displayed on a Google Map (see below). HealthMap’s main claim to fame is that is spotted the current Ebola outbreak before WHO did. It has had over a million page views since mid-July.

 

Click to enlarge

HealthMap

Considering the myriad of sources it draws information from, the simplicity of the displayed information is impressive.

HealthMap is not the only disease monitoring website and computer mapping program. Others include:

  • Global Public Health Intelligence Network (GPHIN)
  • International Relief and development (IRD) EbolaResponse
  • Intelligence Advanced Research Projects (IAR) Global Data on Events, Location and Tone (GDELT) is not a disease monitoring website per se. It collects and analyzes information about all human behavior on a social scale. Based on a story that didn’t even have the word “Ebola” in it, GDELT identified the Ebola outbreak one day before HealthMap did.

Monitoring programs, such as HealthMap, are not only useful in showing what is happening today, but also in predicting the future. Foretelling the path and severity of the Ebola outbreak has been enormously helpful in marshalling and assigning resources.

They have also been helpful in raising an alarm. If it were not for EbolaResponse’s and HealthMap’s catastrophic predictions about what an untreated Ebola outbreak would look like, it is unlikely that the world would have acted as swiftly and as strongly as it did. One researcher compared it to AIDs, which was around at least 20 to 30 years before we became aware of it in the 1980s. Can you imagine how many lives could have been saved if an anti-AIDS effort had begun in the 1960s?

One possible similarity between a military and an anti-outbreak campaign is the effectiveness of post-action outcomes. The United Sates has been very good at meeting objectives in planned military actions. However, our record has been less than perfect once the official war stops. In other words, we “win the war, but lose the peace.” The US supported Afghanistan guerillas who successfully ousted the Soviets from their country. However, we failed to do the necessary follow-up actions in order to build up and stabilize that country. A similar process occurred in Iraq.

Unfortunately, this pattern could very well happen with Ebola. Right now, the world is rallying to contain the outbreak. Once this modern plague is contained, will we continue to aid the affected countries in order to prevent a reoccurrence? In this instance, we hope the anti-Ebola campaign does not resemble our recent military activities.

[layerslider id=”31″]

/by

Will the unmanned future be American?

, , , ,

droneThe unmanned community has been demoralized by the tightening of the Defense money spigot. Specifically, many are concerned that American leadership in this important field will fall behind as the Defense funding decreases. In a previous post, this blog reviewed “The Looming Robotics Gap” (Foreign policy) and found its fears of failing American unmanned superiority unwarranted.

However, it’s hard to keep a depressing idea down.  A more recent article, “Do Drones have a future?” (War on the Rocks), written by Paul Scharre, an expert with the prestigious and influential think tank Center for a New American Security, maintains the steady drumbeat of fear about American decline.

The two articles have much in common.  They both complain of the restriction of unmanned systems to niche areas (technological ghettos), and the hostility of the pilot culture to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV). Both used detailed information to support their points.  Whereas the earlier Foreign Policy article focused on competition by nation states and the threats posed by widespread commercialization, the later article is mostly concerned with attitudes within each military service.   Although, I remain skeptical of the alarm raised by the Scharre’s article, I do appreciate its comprehensive overview of each service branch.  You can follow the above link to read the whole article, or read my summary and analysis below.

 

Air Force

Considering the Air Force is the epitome of pilot culture that has restricted the development of unmanned systems, Scharre is surprisingly mild in his assessment of this service branch. He is especially complimentary of the Air Force’s new Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Vector. However, he criticizes it for not being funded.

Rob Culver, AMREL’s Director of Business Development Programs (DOD), who has many years of experience in procurement, finds this criticism wanting.

“For one thing the Vector document is not meant to be funded” he explained. “It is a ‘Vision and Enabling Concepts’ document.  It is for ‘Guidance’.”

Culver also sees the debates about the role of unmanned systems as typical for new technology.

“In some ways it mirrors the advent and adoption of armor versus horse cavalry, fixed wing aircraft versus rotary wing aircraft,” he argues. For a discussion about the adoption of machine guns, he recommends Grim Reaper: Machine-Guns and Machine-Gunners in Action by Roger Ford.

Scharre disparages the Air Force for not making the top position in overseeing unmanned systems a pathway to promotion.  He also advocates deploying autonomous, multiple, low cost, “expendable” UAVs in swarms.  It is not clear from the article if the Air Force is considering this or if Scharre is mentioning it, because he thinks it’s a good idea.

[layerslider id=”33″]

Army

Compared to the Air Force, the influence of pilot culture in the Army is minimal.  Perhaps, this is why, according to Scharre, that it is furthest along in integrating unmanned systems.  He praises (rightly, in my opinion) the development of unmanned-manned teams.

He also discusses swarms again. Specifically, he criticizes the lack of funding for autonomy research.  Culver counters that there is funding for this (at least DARPA is doing research), and wonders if Scharre’s pro-swarm agenda is the real point of this article.

 

Navy

In his discussion of the Navy, Scharre resists the urge to mention swarming.  He does criticize the specifications of Navy’s Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS). He writes that they are not “relevant against more sophisticated adversaries” (the “adversaries” to which he is obliquely referring consist of a large unidentified Asian country, whose name rhymes with “Dinah”). He also voices the often-heard suspicion that the Navy deliberately downgraded the requirements, so as to not compete with next generation of manned fighters.

Both Culver and I think Scharre is jumping the gun in regards to UCLASS.  The program is a work in progress, and the Navy has a process to follow through.

Frankly, I am amazed at the amount of progress that the Navy has already made.  One of the most difficult missions in the military is using a maritime platform for the deployment of combat aircraft. The fact that the Navy has already landed a UAV on a carrier suggests that they are not dragging their feet on unmanned systems.

 

Marines

The Marines do not have a lot going on with unmanned systems. They don’t like using the assets of other services, but their amphibious boats do not have much room for additional equipment.  Perhaps, the Marines would be more enthusiastic about adopting robots if they could find one that boasts that it’s tougher than all the other unmanned systems.

 

Conclusion

Scharre concludes that we are all doomed.  Well, no, he doesn’t actually write that.  In fact, he outlines a sophisticated vision for the role of unmanned systems, and warns that the US lead is “fragile.”

Both Culver and I feel that Scharre made some interesting points, and agree with most of what he said.  We are a little dubious of some of his criticisms and feel that the adoption of unmanned systems is facing obstacles similar to ones that challenged other new technologies in the past. Despite their skeptics, machine guns, airplanes, and armored vehicles have a firm place in modern forces. So will unmanned systems.

Speaking for myself, I am glad that the unmanned community has advocates like Scharre.  However, I still feel that in spite of bureaucratic obstinacy and funding problems, the US is in an excellent position to maintain unmanned dominance for some time to come.

To learn more about DoD’s unmanned plans, contact

Rob Culver at (603) 325-3376 or robertc@amrel.com

/by

Police & Wearable Cameras

, ,

police and wearable cameras squareIt’s a familiar scenario. After an encounter with a policeman, someone lies dead or is severely beaten. Citizens complain about police violence, while the police claim they were acting in self-defense.

It almost doesn’t matter who is telling the truth; suspicions build between law enforcement and the community that they are sworn to protect. The public becomes less cooperative, so Investigations are stalled. The police become more fearful, which leads to more force being used, which generates more distrust, and so on.

Wearable cameras are being touted as a way to break this cycle. To improve their relationship with the community, police in the troubled town of Ferguson, Missouri are getting wearable cameras. It is thought that by providing objective evidence, cameras will ease tensions between the public and law enforcement.

It is a thought that a thousand other police departments are having. Police departments adopting or experimenting with wearable cameras include those in Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City, Hartford, Fort Worth (Texas), Chesapeake (VA), Modesto (CA), San Francisco, Eugene (Oregon), New York City, Owasso (OK), and Rialto(CA).

Rialto, a medium-size city, is the one that you will be hearing about. A well-publicized study concluded wearable cameras reduced use-of force incidents by 50% and citizen complaints by over 80%.  Other cities have reported similar results.

“In addition to documenting encounters with the public, wearable cameras can help with the tricky task of identification,” explains Richard Lane, Vice-President of AMREL’s Strategic Business Development.  “If the video stream is analyzed by facial recognition software, the officer could, in theory, be informed in real time, if a civilian has warrants or has a dangerous history.  This could give officers an extra level of security, which would reduce the tensions between the public and the police.”

Typically, compact cameras are fixed to an officer’s collar, chest, sunglasses, or even a Taser. Battery packs are designed to last for a full shift. Images are uploaded automatically to a central server.

In order to minimize police “editing” the video stream to be unduly favorable, citizen-rights advocates argue that officer should be unable to turn on or off the camera. In this scenario, the camera is always turned on, running 30 second loops, i.e. the continuous video stream is erased every 30 seconds. More extended and permanent recordings are triggered by specific events, such as traffic stops, or activation of a Taser.  It is not clear how many departments have adopted these policies.

[layerslider id=”31″]

Police are suspicious

Police, like everyone else are concerned about their privacy. Remember, some are advocating that cameras record all the time, even when the officers are in the bathroom.

The lack of privacy in the modern era has been one of selling points to recalcitrant officers. “You are being video recorded anyway by close-circuit TV or smartphones” argue their superiors. “You might as well have a record that shows your side.”

Patrolmen are also frightened that the video could be used against them by their superiors. What if the higher ranks decide to go after a whistleblower or a union organizer?  It would be a relatively simple matter to review hours of video feed in order to find something incriminating. For this and other reasons, privacy activists advocate that all video not related to an investigation should be automatically erased after a week or so.

In New York City, a Federal judge, reacting to the abuses caused by the controversial stop-and-frisk program, ordered the city to investigate the use of wearable cameras. The president of one of the police unions, Patrick Lynch, complained:

“Our members are already weighed down with equipment like escape hoods, mace, flashlights, memo books, asps [i.e., batons], radio, handcuffs and the like. Additional equipment becomes an encumbrance and a safety issue for those carrying it. Given that the root cause of this stop-and-frisk problem is a significant shortage of police officers in local precincts, it seems to us that the monies spent on a bodycam pilot program would be better spent on hiring more police officers and providing them with extensive field training with an experienced officer.”

Nevertheless, it seems that familiarity breeds acceptance. Typical is the experience of the police in Scottsdale, Arizona. At first, the cameras (which are voluntary) were met with suspicions by the officers. Then they saw how the cameras backed up an officer’s version of events, when he faced a spurious complaint. Like officers in other communities, they are beginning to see cameras as their friends.

 

Cost

The union president quoted above is not the only person concerned about cost.  Cameras range usually range from $300 to $400, but can be higher. Competition between two leading providers, Vievu and Taser International, has driven the cost of the cameras down. Furthermore, it is expected that the price-sensitive mobile device industry will produce even cheaper off-the-shelf models.

However, cameras are only one part of the cost.  Consider:

  • San Francisco will spend $250,000 to put cameras on 50 officers.
  • Owasso (OK) Police spent about $31,500 for 35 cameras and approximately $13,500 for data storage.
  • NYPD will spend $60,000 to initiate a program with 60 cameras.
  • Eugene, Oregon has spent $22,000 on 18 cameras.
  • Scottsdale is reported to have spent $995 per camera, plus software.

The mathematically inclined reader will notice that the costs are exceeding the typical prices of cameras.  That’s because software and storage expenses are considerable.

Storage costs on the cloud are declining, but will remain a significant expense for years to come. Police are finding, like their counterparts in the military, that managing huge amount of video can be extremely resource intensive.

“One reason that software and information storage are expensive is that vendors typically target the very few really large police departments,” reports Mr. Lane.  “More needs to be done in providing scalable solutions to small to middle-size law enforcement entities, perhaps using month-to-month leasing models.”

There is an argument that cameras will pay for themselves. Eugene, Oregon reports that videos often eliminate the need for investigations.  Even when the number of complaints went up, the cost of expensive investigations went down. “It’s hard to argue with video,” said Sgt. Larry Crompton.

 

Privacy

Of course, the big issue is privacy. As pointed out above, police have a right to privacy. Furthermore, they are almost unique in the level of intimacy they encounter with the public. They enter people’s homes, and have physical contact with them.

Privacy activists, such as the ACLU, advocate continuous recording and the “30 second” rule as described above. They also think video images should be routinely be erased after a week or two, in order to protect both the police and the public. Hopefully, this will prevent embarrassing videos of otherwise innocent people from appearing on the internet.

Whether you like the ACLU or not, their recommendations will be a factor in how cameras are used.  Click here to see the ACLU proposals.

Access to the videos will be a critical issue. Consider the final paragraph in this article. After quoting all sorts of feel-good statements from the police about the cameras, the newspaper reports:

“Eugene police denied a records request from The Register-Guard for video and complaints against police cited in its reporting. The department cited state public records law that allows an agency to keep secret those records that relate to a personnel investigation into an officer, if no discipline has resulted.”

You see the problem?  It is precisely when the police department rules that an officer is innocent that the video should be accessible to the public. That way objective evidence can validate the department’s decision to clear the officer.

Clearly, policies will have an important effect whether cameras live up to their potential of easing civilian/police tensions.

 

Seeing is not believing

You may have seen this picture before. It is one of the most famous photographs of the 20th century.

vitenam shot in head

It looks like a man dressed as a civilian being summarily executed by a South Vietnamese official. This picture and the video of the same incident became iconic for the anti-war movement. The shooter, General Nguyen Ngoc Loan (South Vietnamese police), was plagued by this photograph for the rest of his life.

The man being shot was Captain Nguyen Van Lem, a leader of a Viet Cong assassination team.  He had been caught “red-handed” at a mass grave of 34 bound bodies, which included 7 Vietnamese police officers and their families.

In other words, what the video and picture recorded was a policeman exercising understandable (if not justifiable) revenge against a war criminal who had just murdered fellow officers and their families. What people saw was a wanton act of barbarous brutality.

I found only one source for this story. What is inconvertible is that the photographer, Eddie Adams, deeply regretted the photograph (for which he won a Pulitzer Prize), formally apologized to the shooter, and called him a “hero.” Adams wrote:

“Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them; but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths.”

What we can learn from this example is that cameras are not a panacea for easing tensions between the police and the public. Officers see things differently than civilians. Cameras may provide objective evidence. However, according to at least one celebrated photographer, they will best only provide half of the truth.

/by

Cave Computers: Installing sensor networks in a hostile environment

, , , ,

Last year, Dr. BenjaminSchwartz approached AMREL about his need for a mobile computer to install a sensor network in Virginia’s Omega Cave system.  Putting a sensor network in an extensive cave system is no picnic. Dr. Schwartz and his team needed to haul hundreds of pounds of equipment through wet mud, narrow passageways, and steep vertical inclines. The mud alone on a cave researcher’s clothes can be 60 lbs.

Dr. Schwartz needed a computer that is light, mobile, and would absolutely not fail. When you’re miles underground, there are not a lot of options if your computer breaks down.

AMREL recommended the ROCKY DB6.  It not only runs the same programs as the laptop that Dr. Schwartz had been using, but it also is substantially lighter.  Furthermore, it is has been independently certified to be fully rugged, and had been successfully deployed in harsh environments around the world.

 Learn more about the fascinating challenge of installing sensor networks in a cave, and see amazing photos.

Download the PDF to get the full story.

[layerslider id=”31″]

/by

Counter IED training & Mobile Devices

, , , , ,

C-IED & Mobile devicesWhen I researched this article about Counter Improvised Explosive Devices (C-IED) training, I couldn’t help thinking about communities near Tijuana in which the the homes are built out of discarded garage doors.  Garage doors aren’t the first thing anyone thinks of when building a house, but the people near the border didn’t have building materials.  So, they looked around and found what was available: discarded garage doors.

Similarly, the military has a problem: training.  As the land wars wind down in Asia (sort of), training domestically becomes more important.  Simultaneously, training budgets are being squeezed. Future operational goals are unpredictable, so training for diverse scenarios is necessary. Live training is expensive, so more has to be done with less.  Rapid technological change means rapid change in doctrine and tactics. It is important that feedback from ongoing missions be incorporated as soon as possible into training.

Just like the folks in Tijuana, the military looked around for available materials to solve their problems.  What they found were mobile devices.  Just like garage doors are not normally associated as the basic building materials for houses, nobody in boot camp ever told a soldier that their best friend is their smart phone.

So far, mobile devices have proven to be a pretty good fit. Mobile devices are excellent platforms for virtual programs, videos, interactive simulation systems, and smart books. Familiarity with specialized military apps allows the soldier to seamlessly transition to operations in which mobile devices are used as lightweight, mobile repositories for doctrinal manuals, as well as maintenance & technical manuals. They can even be used for educational games (in the past soldiers learned to identify soviet aircraft from specially designed playing cards).

[layerslider id=”31″]

Their single most important quality of mobile devices is that they are dynamic.  No more paper manuals or books that are outdated by the time they are printed. Mobile devices can be updated instantly.

The embrace of mobile devices for training reflects a subtle, but meaningful change. The old model of attending a class where a teacher pours knowledge into a soldier’s empty heads is fading.  Instead, the soldier is trained to learn.  He is given personal responsibility for his education and he is expected to be disciplined about continuously improving his skill sets. He will carry this self-motivated attitude into the field, where he will need to constantly refresh his knowledge. The 24/7, anywhere, anytime nature of mobile devices fits this outlook perfectly.

The old formula to deal with the ever increasing burden of training soldiers was “train the trainer.” The new model may be described as “equip the learner.”

These trends are reflected in counter IED training. Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) is tasked with countering the “number one killer of Soldiers on the current battlefields worldwide.”  As they state on their training webpage, “Because the IED threat is constantly changing, the counter-IED fight is dynamic, and maintaining effectiveness remains an enduring requirement of training solution development.”  Just like the rest of the military, JIEDDO has embraced mobile devices as a solution for the need of continuous training.

For the purposes of C-IED training, JIEDDO’s Instructional Technology Development Team (ITDT) developed what it describes as “Digital Learning Content products.”  It is telling that these “products” support several types of learning: institutional, operational, and self-development.  Just offering these options conveys an important message; a warfighter’s training never ceases.

Through its Joint Center of Excellence, (JCOE), JIEDDO has a small team of personnel located in Afghanistan conducting an exhaustive lessons-learned program.   Brigade and regimental combat team staffs are debriefed at 90-day, mid-tour, and post-deployment milestones.  Training is updated with relevant information.

Let’s formulate a hypothetical example in which updated information could be critical. The enemy favors planting IEDs on roads a military vehicle has previously used. Currently, warfighters use a map application on their mobile devices to avoid routes that have been already traveled.  Suppose the enemy wises up to this tactic? Considering the flexibility and ingenuity they have shown in the past, this is certainly possible. A sudden switch in tactics could make the most-used road the safest one. Thanks to mobile devices, a warfighter can be informed of this life-saving information in real time.

In keeping with the military’s aversion to committing to any specific hardware, these Digital Learning Content products are available on multiple platforms. The Digital Learning Content products described above were deliberately designed to function within a “Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)” environment.

However, as the distinction between training and deployment becomes blurred, the military cannot ignore basic hardware issues.  If mobile devices are used for field training (and communication, situational awareness, and other purposes), how secure is it?  Is the information on it secure if a soldier is captured with his mobile device?   Is a password log-in good enough protection?   Is there a software solution that can thoroughly wipe the hard drive if the wrong key combination is pressed?   Or does it require a physical anti-tamper device that melts the whole thing down?  If it does have wireless and/or Bluetooth, how do you make it hack/virus/malware proof?

The military has focused on creating applications, specifically to avoid committing to one hardware device. Obviously, this is completely impractical for devices carried in theater.  Logistics for heterogeneous platforms would be a nightmare.

Which brings us to the critical issue of ruggedness. Commercial mobile devices, such as smartphones, are notoriously fragile. Obviously, fully rugged devices are needed in theater. If training is designed to seamlessly blend from stateside to areas of operations, doesn’t it make sense to use the same mobile device? Rugged mobile devices for domestic training would decrease the amount of downtime due to equipment failure and breakage.

JIEDDO has made significant progress in incorporating mobile devices into their training, and adjusting their doctrine to meet contemporary needs.  Still, more needs to be done.

For more information on rugged mobile devices, contact Rob Culver, AMREL’s Director of Business Development – DoD Programs. He can be reached at (603) 325 3376 or robertc@amrel.com.

/by

How to buy a tablet for your construction business

, , ,

constructionsiteThinking of buying tablets for your construction business? Here are 5 things you should consider before you lay your money down.

1) Do you really need a tablet, rather than just keep on using paper and pencils?  This is probably a no brainer, since the advantages of tablets are so clear:

  • Save time by entering data once. No more transferring handwritten information to a computer
  • Improved communications. Fewer telephone calls to the home office since workers can make requests from the worksite.
  • Greater efficiency. Workers can bring virtually the information they need with them. No more rushing back to the office for that one diagram someone forgot to bring.
  • Decreased paper work and printing costs. Over the long run, this and other advantages more than compensates for the cost of the tablet itself.

About the only disadvantage tablet has over the traditional paper and pen method is the learning curve, i.e. it takes time and effort for the workers to learn how to use them and for the organization to adapt.  However, this initial inconvenience is overwhelmed by the eventual benefits.

2) Should you buy a rugged device? Traditionally, there are two downsides to a rugged device; expense and bulk, but both of these disadvantages are rapidly disappearing. A report by VDC Research demonstrated that in the long run, rugged computers save money.  Fewer downtimes, less lost data, and less lost work more than make up for the higher initial cost.  This is especially important on a construction site, where work can grind to a halt due to a cracked screen. In addition, rugged computer developers have made a lot of progress in reducing the size and weight of their products. Even rugged laptops have gotten smaller.  For example, the ROCKY RS11 rugged laptop is only an inch thick.

[layerslider id=”31″]

3) How can I tell if it is rugged? This can be difficult.  There is no regulatory agency that determines “ruggedness.”  In theory, I could stick a power supply on a banana and call it a rugged computer. Some unscrupulous computer manufacturers claim ruggedness, or invent marketing terms, such as “semi-rugged,” or “business rugged,” when the only things their products have in common with their more durable cousins is the higher price.  To be certain, only buy rugged computers that have been independently certified to MIL-STD 810, the military standard for environmental ruggedness.

4) Should you buy a laptop or tablet? Tablets are more mobile (smaller form factor), have quicker boot-up times, and all the cool kids use them. Laptops have a keyboard (good for quick onsite reports), more powerful processors, and your Dad uses one. However, the single most important difference is the size of the screens. When scoping out a minute detail on a blueprint, or trying to get an overall sense of a project, nothing beats a big screen.  Sometimes your Dad is right.

One laptop that has been popular with AMREL’s construction clients is the ROCKY RF10.  Its 17-inch display is the largest on the rugged laptop market.  For folks who want a laptop with a minimal footprint there is the ROCKY RS11, which is the thinnest, lightest rugged laptop in the world.

However, if you do decide to get a rugged tablet, you can get one that easily runs full Windows.  Both the 8.4” ROCKY DR10 and 12” ROCKY DK10 tablets have speedy i7 processors. If you are ambivalent, you can get a ROCKY DT10 tablet, which has a built-in keyboard, or even a convertible, such as the U12CI.

5) Batteries.  Everyone runs low on battery power. Find out if your rugged computer has an option for a second battery.

There are other issues, such as customization and End of Life, but if you can answer the 5 above questions, you’re ready to get started.

For more information, please contact Javier Camarillo, AMREL’s Senior Application Engineer at (800) 882-6735 or javierc@amrel.com

/by