Assassination: Boston brakes car crash, heart attack, cancer

[TonyGosling]

'Self-driving' lorries to be tested on UK roads
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41038220
Small convoys of partially driverless lorries will be tried out on major British roads by the end of next year, the government has announced.
A contract has been awarded to the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) to carry out the tests of vehicle "platoons".
Up to three lorries will travel in formation, with acceleration and braking controlled by the lead vehicle.
But the head of the AA said platoons raised safety concerns.
The TRL will begin trials of the technology on test tracks, but these trials are expected to move to major roads by the end of 2018.
The lead vehicle in the platoons will be controlled by a human driver and humans will also control the steering in lorries to the rear - though acceleration and braking will be mirrored.
The government has been promising such a project since at least 2014.
Last year, for example, it announced its intention to carry out platooning trials but was later frustrated after some European lorrymakers declined to participate.
A Department of Transport spokesman told the BBC that the experiments are now expected to go ahead as the contract had been awarded.
The TRL has announced its partners for the project:
DAF Trucks, a Dutch lorry manufacturer
Ricardo, a British smart tech transport firm
DHL, a German logistics company
Platooning has been tested in a number of countries around the world, including the US, Germany and Japan.
However, British roads present a unique challenge, said Edmund King, president of the AA.
"We all want to promote fuel efficiency and reduce congestion but we are not yet convinced that lorry platooning on UK motorways is the way to go about it," he said, pointing out, for example, that small convoys of lorries can block road signs from the view of other road users.
"We have some of the busiest motorways in Europe with many more exits and entries.
"Platooning may work on the miles of deserted freeways in Arizona or Nevada but this is not America," he added.
Transport Minister Paul Maynard said platooning could lead to cheaper fuel bills, lower emissions and less congestion.
"But first we must make sure the technology is safe and works well on our roads, and that's why we are investing in these trials," he said.

[TonyGosling]

And guess what? Yes. It's an (ex?) Nazi company!

Here’s how Bosch teaches cars to see using artificial intelligence
[Digital Trends]
Ronan Glon
Digital Trends27 August 2017
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bosch-teaches-cars-see-using-001515490.html

A car needs to be able to see its environment before it can drive itself. Don’t let pareidolia fool you; its headlights aren’t eyes. They are made out of metal, glass, and plastic parts, and they rely on an enormous amount of computing power to remain open. Without them, the car’s brain isn’t able to make the right decision at the right time.

AI by Bosch is the brains behind many self-driving car platforms, and to see how it works — and how a car sees the world around it — the company gave us a chance to briefly explore the German countryside in one of its prototypes. It turns out Andy Warhol and the future of mobility have more in common than you might think.
Virtual 20/20 vision

The prototype we’re riding shotgun in looks like a garden-variety BMW 3 Series station wagon when you see it from the outside. There are tens of thousands of them on German roads, so what makes this one special? After settling into the leather-upholstered passenger seat we notice it’s decked out with cameras, sensors, and radars that are attached to the windshield, though we’re told only the monocular camera is turned on during our trip. There is also an additional panel on the center console with various input ports, and a tablet mounted on the dashboard.

The technology is relatively simple – at least on paper. The windshield-mounted camera records footage and sends it to a PC stuffed in the Bimmer’s trunk. The information goes through a graphic processing unit (GPU) manufactured by Nvidia before traveling to the car’s on-board brain. The tablet on the dashboard is only there for demonstration purposes.

Artificial intelligence helps our prototype split up the outside world into 19 categories. Each one is identified by a different color, which creates a Pop Art-like view of what’s ahead. It knows the difference between a street and a sidewalk, and it can identify various objects such as traffic signs, traffic lights, pedestrians, and different types of vehicles including cars, trucks, and bicycles. Much like a human driver, the car recognizes which objects are safe to drive over and which ones it needs to brake for.

It’s smart enough to identify what’s ahead with surprising speed and accuracy; it’s been taught a street sign is not a tree or a small child riding a skateboard. It’s chilling to think about. We’re riding in a BMW station wagon that knows almost as much about driving in a city as its two occupants.
Back to school

The prototype learned everything it knows from members of Bosch’s research and development department.

“We have an offline training process,” explained research engineer Dimitrios Bariamis in an interview with Digital Trends. “We give the car images that we annotate, so we say ‘in this part of the image there is a pedestrian, this part of the image is a street,’ and so on. Then we get that into the car, and we give it the image from the camera which is processed according to the parameters that have been previously learned. The system knows that this part of the image is a street because it looks like the street it saw during the training process,” he adds.

Bariamis and his team have fed the system thousands of screen shots from on-board video footage taken in German cities like Munich, Frankfurt, and Stuttgart. They also sourced images from Daimler’s Cityscapes Dataset, which breaks the world down into the exact same 19 categories. These annotated images help the car learn as it moves along, even if it’s traveling in a town it’s never been to before. “Artificial intelligence generalizes the unknown,” Bariamis tells us.

The software classifies the world around it even in a heavy rain storm, but it hasn’t been tested in the snow yet. Bariamis is optimistic, and he doesn’t think snow will impair the car’s vision. Right now, the only limitations his team has identified are linked to what the car has and hasn’t seen, and hardware issues. For example, the system has never “seen” a highway yet, so it might not be able to identify a toll booth. It also goes without saying that the car loses its eyesight if something – e.g., the viscous contents of an avian digestive system – suddenly covers up the camera.

The project is the work of Bosch’s forward-thinking research and development arm. Where it goes next depends entirely on the company’s corporate arm and its clients.

Bariamis told us the technology can be integrated into relatively basic driver-assistance features like adaptive cruise control, state-of-the-art semi-autonomous software, and even a fully-autonomous car. Crucially, it can be modified for various uses. The software we experienced in Germany sees the world in 19 colors, but it’s possible to either add more categories when more detailed information is required, or delete a few of them if they’re not needed.

The Warhol-esque view of the world showcased by Bosch’s BMW-based prototype is what will make the advent of robot cars possible in the years to come. It’s an integral part of the technology package that will help the automotive industry transition from building cars to manufacturing intelligent cars.

Intel and Mobileye plan fleet of 100 Level 4 self-driving cars

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Self-driving cars programmed to decide who dies in a crash
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/11/23/self-driving-cars -programmed-decide-who-dies-crash/891493001/
Todd Spangler | Detroit Free Press
Updated 20 hours ago
WASHINGTON — Consider this hypothetical:
It’s a bright, sunny day and you’re alone in your spanking new self-driving vehicle, sprinting along the two-lane Tunnel of Trees on M-119 high above Lake Michigan north of Harbor Springs. You’re sitting back, enjoying the view. You’re looking out through the trees, trying to get a glimpse of the crystal blue water below you, moving along at the 45-mile-an-hour speed limit.

A Waymo minivan outfitted with self-driving sensors brakes suddenly for a black car that has backed ...more
Waymo
As you approach a rise in the road, heading south, a school bus appears, driving north, one driven by a human, and it veers sharply toward you. There is no time to stop safely, and no time for you to take control of the car.
Does the car:
A. Swerve sharply into the trees, possibly killing you but possibly saving the bus and its occupants?
B. Perform a sharp evasive maneuver around the bus and into the oncoming lane, possibly saving you, but sending the bus and its driver swerving into the trees, killing her and some of the children on board?
C. Hit the bus, possibly killing you as well as the driver and kids on the bus?
In everyday driving, such no-win choices are may be exceedingly rare but, when they happen, what should a self-driving car — programmed in advance — do? Or in any situation — even a less dire one — where a moral snap judgment must be made?
It's not just a theoretical question anymore, with predictions that in a few years, tens of thousands of semi-autonomous vehicles may be on the roads. About $80 billion has been invested in the field. Tech companies are working feverishly on them, with Google-affiliated Waymo among those testing cars in Michigan, and mobility companies like Uber and Tesla racing to beat them. Automakers are placing a big bet on them. A testing facility to hurry along research is being built at Willow Run in Ypsilanti.
There's every reason for excitement: Self-driving vehicles will ease commutes, returning lost time to workers; enhance mobility for seniors and those with physical challenges, and sharply reduce the more than 35,000 deaths on U.S. highways each year.
But there are also a host of nagging questions to be sorted out as well, from what happens to cab drivers to whether such vehicles will create sprawl.
And there is an existential question:
Who dies when the car is forced into a no-win situation?
“There will be crashes,” said Van Lindberg, an attorney in the Dykema law firm's San Antonio office who specializes in autonomous vehicle issues. “Unusual things will happen. Trees will fall. Animals, kids will dart out.” Even as self-driving cars save thousands of lives, he said, “anyone who gets the short end of that stick is going to be pretty unhappy about it.”
Few people seem to be in a hurry to take on these questions, at least publicly.
It’s unaddressed, for example, in legislation moving through Congress that could result in tens of thousands of autonomous vehicles being put on the roads. In new guidance for automakers by the U.S. Department of Transportation, it is consigned to a footnote that says only that ethical considerations are "important" and links to a brief acknowledgement that "no consensus around acceptable ethical decision-making" has been reached.
Whether the technology in self-driving cars is superhuman or not, there is evidence that people are worried about the choices self-driving cars will be programmed to take.
Last year, for instance, a Daimler executive set off a wave of criticism when he was quoted as saying its autonomous vehicles would prioritize the lives of its passengers over anyone outside the car. The company later insisted he’d been misquoted, since it would be illegal “to make a decision in favor of one person and against another.”
Last month, Sebastian Thrun, who founded Google’s self-driving car initiative, told Bloomberg that the cars will be designed to avoid accidents, but that “If it happens where there is a situation where a car couldn’t escape, it’ll go for the smaller thing.”
But what if the smaller thing is a child?
How that question gets answered may be important to the development and acceptance of self-driving cars.
Azim Shariff, an assistant professor of psychology and social behavior at the University of California, Irvine, co-authored a study last year that found that while respondents generally agreed that a car should, in the case of an inevitable crash, kill the fewest number of people possible regardless of whether they were passengers or people outside of the car, they were less likely to buy any car “in which they and their family member would be sacrificed for the greater good.”
Self-driving cars could save tens of thousands of lives each year, Shariff said. But individual fears could slow down acceptance, leaving traditional cars and their human drivers on the road longer to battle it out with autonomous or semi-autonomous cars. Already, the American Automobile Association says three-quarters of U.S. drivers are suspicious of self-driving vehicles.
“These ethical problems are not just theoretical,” said Patrick Lin, director of the Ethics and Emerging Sciences Group at California Polytechnic State University, who has worked with Ford, Tesla and other autonomous vehicle makers on just such issues.
While he can’t talk about specific discussions, Lin says some automakers “simply deny that ethics is a real problem, without realizing that they’re making ethical judgment calls all the time” in their development, determining what objects the car will "see," how it will predict what those objects will do next and what the car's reaction should be.
Does the computer always follow the law? Does it slow down whenever it "sees" a child? Is it programmed to generate a random "human" response? Do you make millions of computer simulations, simply telling the car to avoid killing anyone, ever, and program that in? Is that even an option?
“You can see what a thorny mess it becomes pretty quickly,” said Lindberg. “Who bears that responsibility? … There are half a dozen ways you could answer that question leading to different outcomes.”
THE TROLLEY PROBLEM
Automakers and suppliers largely downplay the risks of what in philosophical circles is known as “the trolley problem” — named for a no-win hypothetical situation in which, in the original format, a person witnessing a runaway trolley could allow it to hit several people or, by pulling a lever, divert it, killing someone else.
In the circumstance of the self-driving car, it’s often boiled down to a hypothetical vehicle hurtling toward a crowded crosswalk with malfunctioning brakes: A certain number of occupants will die if the car swerves; a number of pedestrians will die if it continues. The car must be programmed to do one or the other.
Philosophical considerations, aside, automakers argue it’s all but bunk — it’s so contrived.
“I don't remember when I took my driver’s license test that this was one of the questions,” said Manuela Papadopol, director of business development and communications for Elektrobit, a leading automotive software maker and a subsidiary of German auto supplier Continental AG.
If anything, self-driving cars could almost eliminate such an occurrence. They will sense such a problem long before it would become apparent to a human driver and slow down or stop. Redundancies — for brakes, for sensors — will detect danger and react more appropriately.
“The cars will be smart — I don’t think there's a problem there. There are just solutions," Papadopol said.
Alan Hall, Ford's spokesman for autonomous vehicles, described the self-driving car’s capabilities — being able to detect objects with 360-degree sensory data in daylight or at night — as “superhuman.”
“The car sees you and is preparing different scenarios for how to respond,” he said.
Lin said that, in general, many self-driving automakers believe the simple act of braking, of slowing to a stop, solves the trolley problem. But it doesn't, such as in a theoretical case where you're being tailgated by a speeding fuel tanker.
SHOULD GOVERNMENT DECIDE?
Some experts and analysts believe solving the trolley problem could be a simple matter of regulators or legislators deciding in advance what actions a self-driving car should take in a no-win situation. But others doubt that any set of rules can capture and adequately react to every such scenario.
The question doesn’t need to be as dramatic as asking who dies in a crash either. It could be as simple as deciding what to do about jaywalkers or where a car places itself in a lane next to a large vehicle to make its passengers feel secure or whether to run over a squirrel that darts into a road.
Chris Gerdes, who as director of the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford University has been working with Ford, Daimler and others on the issue, said the question is ultimately not about deciding who dies. It's about how to keep no-win situations from happening in the first place and, when they do occur, setting up a system for deciding who is responsible.
Share MediaShow Caption

For instance, he noted California law requires vehicles to yield the crosswalk to pedestrians but also says pedestrians have a duty not to suddenly enter a crosswalk against the light. Michigan and many other states have similar statutes.
Presumably, then, there could be a circumstance in which the responsibility for someone darting into the path of an autonomous vehicle at the last minute rests with that person — just as it does under California law.
But that “forks off into some really interesting questions," Gerdes said, such as whether the vehicle could potentially be programmed to react differently, say, for a child. "Shouldn’t we treat everyone the same way?” he asked. "Ultimately, it’s a societal decision,” meaning it may have to be settled by legislators, courts and regulators.
That could result in a patchwork of conflicting rules and regulations across the U.S.

“States would continue to have that ability to regulate how they operate on the road,” said U.S. Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., one of the authors of federal legislation under consideration that would allow for tens of thousands of autonomous vehicles to be tested on U.S. highways in theyears to come. He says that while design and safety standards will rest with federal regulators, states will continue to impose traffic rules.
Peters acknowledged that it would be “an impossible standard” to eliminate all crashes. But he argued that people need to remember that autonomous vehicles will save tens of thousands of lives a year. In 2015, the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. said research indicated self-driving cars could reduce traffic fatalities by 90% once fully deployed. More than 37,000 people died in U.S. roads in 2016 -- the vast majority because of human error.
But researchers, automakers, academics and others understand something else about self-driving cars and the risks they may still pose, namely, that for all their promise to reduce accidents, they can't eliminate them.
“It comes back to whether you want to find ways to program in specifics or program in desired outcomes,” said Gerdes. “At the end of the day, you’re still required to come up with what you want the desired outcomes to be and the desired outcome cannot be to avoid any accidents all the time.
“It becomes a little uncomfortable sometimes to look at that."
THE HARD QUESTIONS
While some people in the industry, like Tesla’s Elon Musk, believe fully autonomous vehicles could be on U.S. roads within a few years, others say it could be a decade or more — and even longer before the full promise of self-driving cars and trucks is realized.
The trolley problem is just one that has to be cracked before then.
There are others, like those faced by Daryn Nakhuda, CEO of Mighty AI, which is in the business of breaking down into data for self-driving cars all the objects they are going to need to “see” in order to predict and react. A bird flying at the window. A thrown ball. A mail truck parked so there is not enough space in the car’s lane to pass without crossing the center line.
Automakers will have to decide what the car “sees” and what it doesn’t. Seeing everything around it — and processing it — could be a waste of limited processing power. Which means another set of ethical and moral questions.
Then there is the question of how self-driving cars could be taught to learn and respond to the tasks they are given — the stuff of science fiction that seems about to come true.
While self-driving cars can be programmed — told what to do when that school bus comes hurtling toward them —- there are other options. Through millions of computer simulations and data from real self-driving cars being tested, the cars themselves can begin to learn the "best" way to respond to a given situation.
For example, Waymo — Google's self-driving car arm — in a recent government filing said through trial and error in simulations, it's teaching its cars how to navigate a tricky left turn against a flashing yellow arrow at a real intersection in Mesa, Ariz. The simulations — not the programmers — determine when it's best to inch into the intersection and when it's best to accelerate through it. And the cars learn how to mimic real driving.
More: Driverless cars can transform lives — if we change the rules and let them
More: Your new self-driving car will be pioneered by a farmer
More: Google and AutoNation partner on self-driving car program
Ultimately, through such testing, the cars themselves could potentially learn how best to get from Point A to Point B, just by having programmed them to discern what "best" means — say the fastest, safest, most direct route. Through simulation and data shared with real world conditions, the cars would "learn" and execute the request.
Here's where the science fiction comes in, however.
PLAYING 'GO'
A computer programmed to “learn” how to play the ancient Chinese game of Go by just such a means is not only now beating grandmasters for the first time in history — and long after computers were beating grandmasters in chess — it is making moves that seem counterintuitive and inexplicable to expert human players.
What might that look like with cars?
At the American Center for Mobility in Ypsilanti, Mich., where a testing ground is being completed for self-driving cars, CEO John Maddox said vehicles will be able to put to the test what he calls “edge” cases that vehicles will have to deal with regularly —such as not confusing the darkness of a tunnel with a wall or accurately predicting whether a person is about to step off a curb or not.
The facility will also play a role, through that testing, of getting the public used to the idea of what self-driving cars can do, how they will operate, how they can be far safer than vehicles operated by humans, even if some questions remain about their functioning.
“Education is critical,” Maddox said. “We have to be able to demonstration and illustrate how AVs work and how they don’t work.”
As for the trolley problem, most automakers and experts expect some sort of standard to emerge — even if it's not entirely clear what it will be.
At SAE International — what was known as the Society of Automotive Engineers, a global standard-making group — Chief Product Officer Frank Menchaca said reaching a perfect standard is a daunting, if not impossible, task, with so many fluid factors involved in any accident: Speed. Situation. Weather conditions. Mechanical performance.
Even with that standard, there may be no good answer to the question of who dies in a no-win situation, he said. Especially if it's to be judged by a human.
“As human beings, we have hundreds of thousands of years of moral, ethical, religious and social behaviors programmed inside of us,” he added. “It’s very hard to replicate that.”
text
facebook

[TonyGosling]

Echoes of my
Assassin’s guide to Western ‘democracy’
So ridiculed by The Daily Beast and Washington Post in 2015

This dovetails nicely with his belief that Western intelligence agencies have assassinated pretty much everyone of note in the past half-century—former Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, Congolese independence leader Patrice Lumumba, Princess Diana, Dr. David Kelly (the British weapons expert), UK politician Robin Cook, John Smith (Tony Blair’s predecessor as leader of the Labour party), Yasser Arafat, Slobodan Milosevic, Hugo Chavez, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Bob Marley, John Lennon, and Michael Jackson. All were killed by “forces lurking in the unaccountable grey areas of the NATO countries’ military intelligence services.”

Confessions of an American Illuminati
RT has an Illuminati correspondent, so I guess the jig is up on the great American conspiracy that secretly runs the world.

The secrets of Israel’s assassination operations
Middle East
Jan. 25, 2018 | 12:08 AM
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2018/Jan-25/435307-the-se crets-of-israels-assassination-operations.ashx#.WmttVgfkQhY.mailto
The secrets of Israel’s assassination operations

Ethan Bronner| Bloomberg

Poisoned toothpaste that takes a month to end its target’s life. Armed drones. Exploding cell phones. Spare tires with remote-control bombs. Assassinating enemy scientists and discovering the secret lovers of Islamic holy men. A new book chronicles these techniques and asserts that Israel has carried out at least 2,700 assassination operations in its 70 years of existence. While many failed, they add up to far more than any other Western country, the book says.

Ronen Bergman, the intelligence correspondent for Yediot Aharonot newspaper, persuaded many agents of Mossad, Shin Bet and the military to tell their stories, some using their real names. The result is the first comprehensive look at Israel’s use of state-sponsored killings.

Based on 1,000 interviews and thousands of documents, and running more than 600 pages, Rise and Kill First makes the case that Israel has used assassination in the place of war, killing half a dozen Iranian nuclear scientists, for instance, rather than launching a military attack. It also strongly suggests that Israel used radiation poisoning to kill Yasser Arafat, the longtime Palestinian leader, an act its officials have consistently denied.

Bergman writes that Arafat’s death in 2004 fits a pattern and had advocates. But he steps back from flatly asserting what happened, saying that Israeli military censorship prevents him from revealing what – or if – he knows.

The book’s title, Rise and Kill First, comes from the ancient Jewish Talmud admonition, “If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first.” Bergman says a huge percentage of the people he interviewed cited that passage as justification for their work. So does an opinion by the military’s lawyer declaring such operations to be legitimate acts of war.

Despite the many interviews, including with former prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, Bergman, the author of several books, says the Israeli secret services sought to interfere with his work, holding a meeting in 2010 on how to disrupt his research and warning former Mossad employees not to speak with him.

He says that while the U.S. has tighter constraints on its agents than does Israel, President George W. Bush adopted many Israeli techniques after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and President Barack Obama launched several hundred targeted killings.

“The command-and-control systems, the war rooms, the methods of information gathering and the technology of the pilotless aircraft, or drones, that now serve the Americans and their allies were all in large part developed in Israel,” Bergman writes.

The book gives a textured history of the personalities and tactics of the various secret services. In the 1970s, a new head of operations for Mossad opened hundreds of commercial companies overseas with the idea that they might be useful one day. For example, Mossad created a Middle Eastern shipping business that, years later, came in handy in providing cover for a team in the waters off Yemen.

There have been plenty of failures. After a Palestinian armed group killed Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, Israel sent agents to kill the perpetrators – and shot more than one misidentified man. There were also successful operations that did more harm than good to Israel’s policy goals, Bergman notes.

Bergman raises moral and legal concerns provoked by state-sponsored killing, including the existence of separate legal systems for secret agents and the rest of Israel. But he presents the operations, for the most part, as achieving their aims. While many credit the barrier Israel built along and inside the West Bank with stopping assaults on Israeli citizens in the early 2000s, he argues that what made the difference was “a massive number of targeted killings of [enemy] operatives.”

One of Bergman’s most important sources was Meir Dagan, a recent head of Mossad for eight years who died in early 2016. Toward the end of his career, Dagan fell out with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu partly over launching a military attack on Iran. Netanyahu said intelligence techniques such as selling the country faulty parts for its reactors – which Israel and the U.S. were doing – weren’t enough.

Dagan argued that these techniques, especially assassinations, would do the job. As Bergman quotes him saying, “In a car, there are 25,000 parts on average. Imagine if 100 of them are missing. It would be very hard to make it go. On the other hand, sometimes it’s most effective to kill the driver, and that’s that.”

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on January 25, 2018, on page 9.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Here's how intelligence agencies and their organised crime chums get into a hundred million target cars!
good wired article

A NEW WIRELESS HACK CAN UNLOCK 100 MILLION VOLKSWAGENS
08.10.16
TIME OF PUBLICATION: 4:29 PM.
4:29 PM
JAPAN-GERMANY-AUTO-TOYOTA-VOLKSWAGEN
KAZUHIRO NOGI/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
IN 2013, WHEN University of Birmingham computer scientist Flavio Garcia and a team of researchers were preparing to reveal a vulnerability that allowed them to start the ignition of millions of Volkswagen cars and drive them off without a key, they were hit with a lawsuit that delayed the publication of their research for two years. But that experience doesn’t seem to have deterred Garcia and his colleagues from probing more of VW’s flaws: Now, a year after that hack was finally publicized, Garcia and a new team of researchers are back with another paper that shows how Volkswagen left not only its ignition vulnerable but the keyless entry system that unlocks the vehicle’s doors, too. And this time, they say, the flaw applies to practically every car Volkswagen has sold since 1995.

Later this week at the Usenix security conference in Austin, a team of researchers from the University of Birmingham and the German engineering firm Kasper & Oswald plan to reveal two distinct vulnerabilities they say affect the keyless entry systems of an estimated nearly 100 million cars. One of the attacks would allow resourceful thieves to wirelessly unlock practically every vehicle the Volkswagen group has sold for the last two decades, including makes like Audi and Škoda. The second attack affects millions more vehicles, including Alfa Romeo, Citroen, Fiat, Ford, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Opel, and Peugeot.

The $40 Arduino radio device the researchers used to intercept codes from vehicles' key fobs.
The $40 Arduino radio device the researchers used to intercept codes from vehicles’ key fobs.
Both attacks use a cheap, easily available piece of radio hardware to intercept signals from a victim’s key fob, then employ those signals to clone the key. The attacks, the researchers say, can be performed with a software defined radio connected to a laptop, or in a cheaper and stealthier package, an Arduino board with an attached radio receiver that can be purchased for $40. “The cost of the hardware is small, and the design is trivial,” says Garcia. “You can really build something that functions exactly like the original remote.”

100 Million Vehicles, 4 Secret Keys
Of the two attacks, the one that affects Volkswagen is arguably more troubling, if only because it offers drivers no warning at all that their security has been compromised, and requires intercepting only a single button press. The researchers found that with some “tedious reverse engineering” of one component inside a Volkswagen’s internal network, they were able to extract a single cryptographic key value shared among millions of Volkswagen vehicles. By then using their radio hardware to intercept another value that’s unique to the target vehicle and included in the signal sent every time a driver presses the key fob’s buttons, they can combine the two supposedly secret numbers to clone the key fob and access to the car. “You only need to eavesdrop once,” says Birmingham researcher David Oswald. “From that point on you can make a clone of the original remote control that locks and unlocks a vehicle as many times as you want.”

The attack isn’t exactly simple to pull off: Radio eavesdropping, the researchers say, requires that the thief’s interception equipment be located within about 300 feet of the target vehicle. And while the shared key that’s also necessary for the theft can be extracted from one of a Volkswagen’s internal components, that shared key value isn’t quite universal; there are several different keys for different years and models of Volkswagen vehicles, and they’re stored in different internal components.

The researchers aren’t revealing which components they extracted the keys from to avoid tipping off potential car hackers. But they warn that if sophisticated reverse engineers are able to find and publicize those shared keys, each one could leave tens of millions of vehicles vulnerable. Just the four most common ones are used in close to all the 100 million Volkswagen vehicles sold in the past twenty years. They say that only the most recent VW Golf 7 model and others that share its locking system have been designed to use unique keys and are thus immune to the attack.

Cracked in 60 Seconds
The second technique that the researchers plan to reveal at Usenix attacks a cryptographic scheme called HiTag2, which is decades old but still used in millions of vehicles. For that attack they didn’t need to extract any keys from a car’s internal components. Instead, a hacker would have to use a radio setup similar to the one used in the Volkswagen hack to intercept eight of the codes from the driver’s key fob, which in modern vehicles includes one rolling code number that changes unpredictably with every button press. (To speed up the process, they suggest that their radio equipment could be programmed to jam the driver’s key fob repeatedly, so that he or she would repeatedly press the button, allowing the attacker to quickly record multiple codes.)

With that collection of rolling codes as a starting point, the researchers found that flaws in the HiTag2 scheme would allow them to break the code in as little as one minute. “No good cryptographer today would propose such a scheme,” Garcia says.

Volkswagen didn’t immediately respond to WIRED’s request for comment, but the researchers write in their paper that VW acknowledged the vulnerabilities they found. NXP, the semiconductor company that sells chips using the vulnerable HiTag2 crypto system to carmakers, says that it’s been recommending customers upgrade to newer schemes for years. “[HiTag2] is a legacy security algorithm, introduced 18 years ago,” writes NXP spokesperson Joon Knapen. “Since 2009 it has been gradually replaced by more advanced algorithms. Our customers are aware, as NXP has been recommending not to use HT2 for new projects and design-ins for years.”

While the researchers’ two attacks both focus on merely unlocking cars rather than stealing them, Garcia points out that they might be combined with techniques like the one he and different teams revealed at the Usenix conferences in 2012 and last year. That research exposed vulnerabilities in the HiTag2 and Megamos “immobilizer” systems that prevent cars from being driven without a key, and would allow millions of Volkswagens and other vehicles ranging from Audis to Cadillacs to Porsches to be driven by thieves, provided they could get access to the inside of the vehicle.

Black Boxes and Mysterious Thefts
Plenty of evidence suggests that sort of digitally enabled car theft is already occurring. Police have been stumped by videos of cars being stolen with little more than a mystery electronic device. In one case earlier this month thieves in Texas stole more than 30 Jeeps using a laptop, seemingly connected to the vehicle’s internal network via a port on its dashboard. “I’ve personally received inquiries from police officers,” says Garcia, who added they had footage of thieves using a “black box” to break into cars and drive them away. “This was partly our motivation to look into it.”

For car companies, a fix for the problem they’ve uncovered won’t be easy, Garcia and Oswald contend. “These vehicles have a very slow software development cycle,” says Garcia. “They’re not able to respond very quickly with new designs.”

Until then, they suggest that car owners with affected vehicles—the full list is included in the researchers’ paper (see below)—simply avoid leaving any valuables in their car. “A vehicle is not a safebox,” says Oswald. Careful drivers, they add, should even consider giving up on their wireless key fobs altogether and instead open and lock their car doors the old-fashioned, mechanical way.

But really, they point out, their research should signal to automakers that all of their systems need more security scrutiny, lest the same sort of vulnerabilities apply to more critical driving systems. “It’s a bit worrying to see security techniques from the 1990s used in new vehicles,” says Garcia. “If we want to have secure, autonomous, interconnected vehicles, that has to change.”

Here’s the researchers’ full paper:


JACK STEWART
Elon Musk Proves Model 3 Production Is Way Harder Than Rocket Science.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Entirely predictable collateral damage in the transhumanist agenda

Uber suspends self-driving tests after car kills woman in Arizona
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/03/20/556033/US-Arizona-Uberselfdri ving-car-woman-dies

Tue Mar 20, 2018 06:18AM

In this file photo taken on September 13, 2016, pilot models of the Uber self-driving car are displayed at the Uber Advanced Technologies Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (Photo by AFP)

In this file photo taken on September 13, 2016, pilot models of the Uber self-driving car are displayed at the Uber Advanced Technologies Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

A woman died of her injuries after being struck by a Uber self-driving vehicle in Arizona, police said on Monday, and the ride hailing company said it had suspended its autonomous vehicle program across the United States and Canada.

The accident in Tempe, Arizona, marked the first fatality from a self-driving vehicle, which are still being tested around the globe, and could derail efforts to fast-track the introduction of the new technology in the United States.

At the time of the accident, which occurred overnight Sunday to Monday, the car was in autonomous mode with a vehicle operator behind the wheel, Tempe police said.

A spokesman for Uber Technologies Inc said the company was suspending its North American tests. In a tweet, Uber expressed its condolences and said the company was fully cooperating with authorities.

(Source: AP)

[TonyGosling]

Car-hacking scandal: How a security loophole left thousands of vehicles vulnerable to thieves
Organised criminals are finding hi-tech new ways to take control of vehicles
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/car-hacking-scandal-how-a- security-loophole-left-thousands-of-vehicles-vulnerable-to-thieves-104 59765.html

David Connett
Tuesday 18 August 2015 08:00

Tens of thousands of cars are vulnerable to thieves using electronic hacking, according to researchers whose findings were suppressed by a major manufacturer for two years.

The full details of the security loophole, which can now be revealed, show a widely used electronic security device designed to prevent thieves from breaking in and driving off with vehicles could easily be disabled by criminals.

Most modern cars cannot be “hot-wired” as they are powered by electronics. But organised criminals are finding hi-tech new ways to take control of vehicles. The problem is acute in London, where four out of 10 car thefts feature electronic hacking.

Three university researchers from Britain and Holland discovered that immobilisers fitted to more than 100 car makes had weak security that could be defeated – in some cases within a few minutes. But when they tried to publish their findings, Volkswagen took High Court legal action to stop them.

Critics claim the move could have a “chilling effect” on security research in the UK but VW defended it, stressing the firm went to “great lengths” to prevent “unauthorised individuals [gaining] access to our cars.”

The researchers, Birmingham University’s Flavio Garcia and Roel Verdult and Baris Ege, from Radbound University in Nijmegen, fought the ban, saying they identify security flaws so they can be fixed. They said their research started after police claimed cars were being stolen “and nobody can explain how”.

Beetle-AFP-Getty.jpg
Beetle cars by German car maker Volkswagen (VW)
Despite this a High Court judge agreed to the ban – saying he believed publication would “facilitate car crime”.

The researchers denied their paper teaches people to steal vehicles, and argued that the ban on publication denied the car-buying public crucial information about the security of their vehicles.

Following more than a year of negotiations between the academics and VW, the full details have now been published. The researchers say only one sentence has been removed from the original research. It reveals how they identified “several weaknesses” in a Swiss-made security device called a Megamos Crypto system.

Read more

Car-hacking: The models affected

Car thief tries to evade police helicopter by hiding on a roof

Chrysler in mass car recall over electronic hijacking fears
The device is used by a total of 26 car manufacturers including Audi, Fiat, Honda, Volvo as well as Volkswagen. Many top-range brands including Bentley, Ferrari, Porsche and Maserati are among those known to use them.

The manufacturer of the system claims to have sold over 100 million radio frequency identification chips which are designed to verify the identity of the ignition key being used to start the car engine. If thieves get into the vehicle without the right key, the engine should refuse to start.

The researchers showed how it was possible electronically to listen to signals sent between the security system and the key fob. By doing this, they were able to discover the vehicle’s secret code within 30 minutes.

The academics warn the security devices were vulnerable to “close-range wireless communication” attacks and said situations such as valet parking and car rental where attackers could have access to both the immobiliser and the keys were a particular danger. They recommend the car industry use more sophisticated systems which are harder to defeat.

Volkswagen-AP.jpg
A VW Passat, left, and a Golf Cabrio car wait in the storage building of the Volkswagen company in Wolfsburg, Germany
The researchers say they believe that some modifications have now been implemented on new models.

According to industry experts, the security flaw could cost manufacturers millions to fix. The radio frequency identity chips in the key fobs – as well as the equipment that responds in the engine starting system – will both require re-engineering or replacing.

A spokesman for Volkswagen said: “Volkswagen has an interest in protecting the security of its products and its customers. We would not make available information that might enable unauthorised individuals to gain access to our cars. In all aspects of vehicle security, we go to great lengths to ensure the security and integrity of our products against external malicious attack.”

The RAC says electronic security has led to a dramatic improvement in levels of car theft, which has fallen 70 per cent in the last 40 years.

Last year near 70,000 cars were taken in the UK. Experts warn that the overall decrease hides a spike in electronic keyless thefts.

How the scam works

The Megamos Crypto immobiliser is designed to stop a thief breaking in and “hot-wiring” a car. A device called a transponder in the key fob sends an identification code to the immobiliser informing it the correct driver is present.

Scammers overcome this by electronically eavesdropping on the key fob signal and then using a commercially available computer programme to analyse it and emulate it. The immobiliser then decodes the signal and, if it is correct, starts the engine.

Researchers found the chips use relatively simple encryption. By listening to them talk to each other twice, anyone could quickly discover the pattern and copy the key.

[TonyGosling]

Thieves can wirelessly unlock up to 100 million Volkswagens, each at the press of a button
Shared global security keys blamed
By John Leyden 11 Aug 2016 at 16:00 98 Reg comments SHARE ▼
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/11/car_lock_hack/

Security researchers will demonstrate how crooks can break into cars at will using wireless signals that can unlock millions of vulnerable vehicles.

The eggheads, led by University of Birmingham computer scientist Flavio Garcia alongside colleagues from German engineering firm Kasper & Oswald, have managed to clone a VW Group remote control key fob after eavesdropping on the gizmos' radio transmissions.

The hack can be used by thieves to wirelessly unlock as many as 100 million VW cars, each at the press of a button. Almost every vehicle the Volkswagen group has sold for the past 20 years – including cars badged under the Audi and Skoda brands – is potentially vulnerable, say the researchers. The problem stems from VW’s reliance on a “few, global master keys.”

El Reg asked Volkswagen to comment on the findings, but we didn’t hear back at the time of going to press. We’ll update this story as and when we hear anything more.

During an upcoming presentation, titled Lock It and Still Lose It — on the (In)Security of Automotive Remote Keyless Entry Systems at the Usenix security conference (abstract below) – the researchers are also due to outline a different set of cryptographic flaws in keyless entry systems as used by car manufacturers including Ford, Mitsubishi, Nissan and Peugeot.

The two examples are designed to raise awareness and show that keyless entry systems are insecure and ought to be re-engineered in much the same way that car immobilisers were previously shown to provide less than adequate protection.

While most automotive immobiliser systems have been shown to be insecure in the last few years, the security of remote keyless entry systems (to lock and unlock a car) based on rolling codes has received less attention. In this paper, we close this gap and present vulnerabilities in keyless entry schemes used by major manufacturers.
In our first case study, we show that the security of the keyless entry systems of most VW Group vehicles manufactured between 1995 and today relies on a few, global master keys. We show that by recovering the cryptographic algorithms and keys from electronic control units, an adversary is able to clone a VW Group remote control and gain unauthorised access to a vehicle by eavesdropping a single signal sent by the original remote.

Secondly, we describe the Hitag2 rolling code scheme (used in vehicles made by Alfa Romeo, Chevrolet, Peugeot, Lancia, Opel, Renault, and Ford among others) in full detail. We present a novel correlation-based attack on Hitag2, which allows recovery of the cryptographic key and thus cloning of the remote control with four to eight rolling codes and a few minutes of computation on a laptop. Our findings affect millions of vehicles worldwide and could explain unsolved insurance cases of theft from allegedly locked vehicles.

Garcia was previously blocked from giving a talk about weaknesses in car immobilisers following a successful application to a British court by Volkswagen. This earlier research on how the ignition key used to start cars might be subverted was eventually presented last year, following a two year legally enforced postponement.

The latest research shows how tech-savvy thieves might be able to unlock cars locked by the vehicles' owners without covering how their engines might subsequently be turned on.

WiReD reports that both attacks might be carried out using a cheap $40 piece of radio hardware to intercept signals from a victim’s key fob. Alternatively, a software defined radio rig connected to a laptop might be employed. Either way, captured data can be used to make counterfeit kit.

Jason Hart, CTO data protection at Gemalto, said: “The security of connected cars is one of the biggest issues that manufacturers are faced with today as it has the potential to be one of the most dangerous connected ecosystems. While no car, or device for that matter, can ever be 100% unhackable, there are some key security precautions that original equipment manufacturers must incorporate.

“Tamper-proof hardware and software is essential, and manufacturers should ensure that operating software has encryption built in and is signed with securely managed encryption keys, as well as use strong two-factor authentication solutions. To ensure the best protection, authentication and authorisation between the entities and devices exchanging data within the connected car is mandatory and ultimately, it’s about end-to-end security by design – it should never be an afterthought," Hart concluded. ®

[TonyGosling]

HACKERS NOW ABLE TO TAKE CONTROL OF CARS TO CAUSE DELIBERATE ACCIDENTS, SCIENTISTS WARN
'Any nation with the ability to launch a cyber-strike could kill millions of civilians by hacking cars'
Caroline Mortimer
@cjmortimer
Tuesday 21 November 2017 02:44
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/compute r-hackers-control-car-deliberate-accidents-national-security-issue-a80 66466.html

Modern cars are an “open door” to hackers from hostile states wanting to use them as a weapon, leading cyber security experts have warned.

It is currently possible to hack into the computer system of any car built since 2005 and hackers could already be causing accidents without the authorities knowing, according to Justin Cappos, a computer scientist at New York University.

He told The Times that the issue could become an “urgent” national security issue in the current geopolitical climate.

Read more

Nissan to trial autonomous cars in London next month

Future autonomous cars may have reclining seats and handheld devices
He said: “If there was a war or escalation with a country with strong cyber-capability, I would be very afraid of hacking of vehicles.

“Many of our enemies are nuclear powers but any nation with the ability to launch a cyber-strike could kill millions of civilians by hacking cars. It’s daunting.

“Once in, hackers can send messages to the brakes and shut off the power steering and lock people in the car and do other things that you wouldn’t want to happen.”

He has called on governments to make software updates for cars mandatory.

Meanwhile Stephen Morrow, of SQS Group which advises business on cybersecurity, said manufacturers needed to take greater responsibility for the security of the products they sell as “lives are at stake”.

“Manufacturers must be accountable. A lot only want to do the minimum — security can be expensive and too many see it only as a tickbox exercise”, he warned.

There are currently around nine million cars on the UK’s roads which are wifi-connected. This allows the user to do a range of tasks such as using the inbuilt GPS system but it also makes the electronic and automatic functions of the car vulnerable to sabotage.

UK news in pictures
Show all 50
17 November 2018
16 November 2018
15 November 2018
14 November 2018
Cars typically have between 50 and 100 electronic control units – small computers – which control many of the car’s functions from the locking system to the power steering and even the brakes.

In 2015, the makers of the Jeep Cherokee were forced to recall 1.4 million vehicles after US researchers demonstrated they could remotely hijack the car’s system over the internet.

In the experiment, detailed in Wired magazine, the car was travelling 70mph through a suburb in St Louis, Missouri when the researchers were able to interfere with the air conditioning, the radio and the windscreen wipers.

They then cut the transmission so the accelerator failed and the car slowed to a stop when it was doing 64mph on the motorway.

[TonyGosling]

Wikileaks CIA Files: Spy Agency Looked At Ways To Hack And Control Cars To Carry Out Assassinations https://t.co/ex9wHgoR94 #Vault7

— Tony Gosling ✈ (@TonyGosling) November 16, 2018

[TonyGosling]

CIA Targeted Assassinations by Induced Heart Attack and Cancer
The 1975 Church Committee hearings
By Global Research News

Published in 2010 by Signs of the Times, first posted on GR on June 27, 2013 - By Press Core
https://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-targeted-assassinations-by-induced-h eart-attack-and-cancer/5326382

In 1975, during the Church Committee hearings, the existence of a secret assassination weapon came to light. The CIA had developed a poison that caused the victim to have an immediate heart attack. This poison could be frozen into the shape of a dart and then fired at high speed from a pistol. The gun was capable of shooting the icy projectile with enough speed that the dart would go right through the clothes of the target and leave just a tiny red mark. Once in the body the poison would melt and be absorbed into the blood and cause a heart attack! The poison was developed to be undetectable by modern autopsy procedures.

Can you give a person cancer?

If cancer in animals can be caused by injecting them with cancer viruses and bacteria, it would certainly be possible to do the same with human beings!

In 1931, Cornelius Rhoads, a pathologist from the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, purposely infects human test subjects in Puerto Rico with cancer cells; 13 of them died. Though a Puerto Rican doctor later discovers that Rhoads purposely covered up some of the details of his experiment and Rhoads himself gives a written testimony stating he believes that all Puerto Ricans should be killed, he later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Fort Detrick Maryland (origin of the HIV/AIDS virus, the Avian Flu virus and the Swine Flu / A-H1N1 virus), Utah and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, where he begins a series of radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients.

The answer to the question – Can you give a person cancer – is yes. After nearly 80 years of research and development there is now a way to simulate a real heart attack and to give a healthy person cancer. Both have been used as a means of assassination. Only a very skilled pathologist, who knew exactly what to look for at an autopsy, could distinguish an assassination induced heart attack or cancer from the real thing.

Is death by heart attack, burst aneurysm, of cerebral hemorrhage a “natural cause”? Not if government agencies have found a way to influence your heart rate, blood pressure, or vascular dilatation. Neurological research has found that the brain has specific frequencies for each voluntary movement called preparatory sets. By firing at your chest with a microwave beam containing the ELF signals given off by the heart, this organ can be put into a chaotic state, the so-called heart attack. In this way, high profile leaders of political parties who are prone to heart attacks can be killed off before they cause any trouble. Jack Ruby died of cancer a few weeks after his conviction for murder had been overruled in appeals court and he was ordered to stand trial outside of Dallas – thus allowing him to speak freely if he so desired. There was little hesitancy in Jack Ruby killing Lee Harvey Oswald in order to prevent him from talking, so there is no reason to suspect that any more consideration would have been shown Jack Ruby if he had posed a threat to people in the US government who had conspired to murder the president of the United States – John F Kennedy.

Matt Simmons, an oil industry expert, was assassinated for turning whistle blower over the Obama administration coverup of the BP Gulf Oil Spill. Investment banker Matt Simmons, who died suddenly, was an energy industry insider and presidential adviser whose profile soared when he wrote that Saudi Arabia is running out of oil and world production is peaking. Simmons, 67, died at his vacation home in Maine. An autopsy by the state medical examiner’s office concluded Monday that he died from accidental drowning “with heart disease as a contributing factor.”

His 2005 best-selling book, Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, brought him a wider audience. The book argued that Saudi Arabia vastly overstated the size of its oil reserves and that the world was on the verge of a severe oil shortage as the largest oil fields become depleted. This revelation is backed up by Iran. Iran knows the Middle East oil supply is quickly drying up and for that reason it is now focusing on building nuclear reactors. Once the oil runs out Iran will be the only country in the Middle East that will be energy self-sufficient. All of the other Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia will become Third World impoverished states.

Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic was also assassinated. He was found dead in the detention center at The Hague tribunal. Mr Milosevic faced charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his alleged central role in the wars in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo during the 1990s. He also faced genocide charges over the 1992-95 Bosnia war, in which 100,000 people died.

Milosevic wrote a letter one day before his death claiming he was being poisoned to death in jail. An autopsy verified his claim as it showed that Milosevic’s body contained a drug that rendered his usual medication for high blood pressure and his heart condition ineffective, causing the heart attack that led to his death.

Former MI6 agent Richard Tomlinson told reporters that he saw documents in 1992 that discussed assassinating Milosevic by means of a staged car accident, where the driver would be blinded by a flash of light and remote controlled brake failure enacted to cause the crash. This exact same technique was utilized for real in the murder of Princess Diana.

If Milosevic was murdered, who would ultimately be responsible? NATO.

Why NATO?

Because, though the ICTY (or ‘Hague Tribunal’) presents itself to the world as a UN body, NATO officials have themselves made clear, in public, that it really belongs to NATO. NATO appointed the prosecutors, and the judges who ruled out investigating any war crimes accusations against NATO. It follows that Slobodan Milosevic, who was a prisoner of the Hague Tribunal’s Scheveningen prison when he died, was a prisoner of NATO. NATO had both motive and opportunity to kill him.

In March 2002, Milosevic presented the NATO controlled Hague tribunal with FBI documents proving that both the United States government and NATO provided financial and military support for Al-Qaeda to aid the Kosovo Liberation Army in its war against Serbia. This didn’t go down too well at the Pentagon and the White House, who at the time were trying to sell a war on terror and gearing up to justify invading Iraq.

During Milosevic’s trial for war crimes NATO alleged that the Serbs had committed a massacre of Albanian civilians in the Kosovo town of Racak. Evidence presented in the court showed that NATO’s claim was a hoax. This is especially embarrassing because the allegation of a massacre at Racak was the excuse that NATO used to begin bombing the Serbs on 24 March 1999 (the carpet bombing were done by the United States Air Force -authorized by then president Bill and Hillary Clinton). Then NATO claimed that the Serbs had supposedly been murdering 100,000 Albanian civilians. However, NATO’s own forensics reported that they could not find even one body of an Albanian civilian murdered by Milosevic’s forces. The failure to find any bodies eventually led to NATO’s absurd claim that the Serbs had supposedly covered up the genocide by moving the many thousands of bodies in freezer trucks deep into Serbia (while Bill Clinton was carpet bombing the place) without leaving a single trace of evidence. But the Hague tribunal showed these accusations to be entirely fraudulent as well.

Milosevic made several speeches in which he discussed how a group of shadowy internationalists had caused the chaos in the Balkans because it was the next step on the road to a “new world order.”

During a February 2000 Serbian Congressional speech, Milosevic stated,

“Small Serbia and people in it have demonstrated that resistance is possible. Applied at a broader level, it was organized primarily as a moral and political rebellion against tyranny, hegemony, monopolism, generating hatred, fear and new forms of violence and revenge against champions of freedom among nations and people, such a resistance would stop the escalation of modern time inquisition. Uranium bombs, computer manipulations, drug-addicted young assassins and bribed of blackmailed domestic thugs, promoted to the allies of the new world order, these are the instruments of inquisition which have surpassed, in their cruelty and cynicism, all previous forms of revengeful violence committed against the mankind in the past.”

The Death of Milosevic and NATO Responsibility
Evidence linking Milosevic to genocides like Srebrenica, in which 7,000 Muslims died, was proven to be fraudulent. In fact, Srebrenica was a ‘UN safe zone’, yet just like Rwanda, UN peacekeepers deliberately withdrew and allowed the massacre to unfold, then blamed Milosevic. Milosevic’s exposure of UN involvement in the Srebrenica massacre was another reason why tribunal transcripts were heavily edited and censored by NATO, and another contributing factor for NATO to murder him while he was in their custody.NATO’s Hague Tribunal was clearly a kangaroo court whose sole purpose was to convince ordinary people all over the world that NATO’s destruction of Yugoslavia was justified. Since NATO failed to show this in its own court (a total absence of evidence did make this difficult), there is indeed a powerful NATO motive to murder Milosevic – to prevent his acquittal. In this way, NATO can continue to claim that Milosevic was guilty, and nobody would begin to look into the mountain of evidence that showed that it was NATO leaders (particularly US president Bill Clinton) who committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Yugoslavia.

So many people have been done in by cancer at a convenient time in history that it is now time to ask the question “who is assassinating people by giving their target cancer or inducing a massive heart attack”? Who ordered the hits and why?

Mr. Charles Senseney, a CIA weapon developer at Fort Detrick, Maryland, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in September 1975 where he described an umbrella poison dart gun he had made. He said it was always used in crowds with the umbrella open, firing through the webing so it would not attract attention. Since it was silent, no one in the crowd could hear it and the assassin merely would fold up the umbrella and saunter away with the crowd.

Video footage of the assassination of John F Kennedy shows this umbrella gun being used in Dealey Plaza. Video evidence of the events of November 22, 1963 shows that the first shot fired on the fateful day had always seemed to have had a paralytic effect on Kennedy. His fists were clenched and his head, shoulders and arms seemed to stiffen. An autopsy revealed that there was a small entrance wound in his neck but no evidence of a bullet path through his neck and no bullet was ever recovered that matched that small size.

Charles Senseney testified that his Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick had received assignments from the CIA to develop exotic weaponry. One of the weapons was a hand-held dart gun that could shoot a poison dart into a guard dog to put it out of action for several hours. The dart and the poison left no trace so that examination would not reveal that the dogs had been put out of action. The CIA ordered about 50 of these weapons and used them operationally.

Senseney said that the darts could have been used to kill human beings and he could not rule out the possibility that this had been done by the CIA.A special type of poison developed for the CIA induces a heart attack and leaves no trace of any external influence unless an autopsy is conducted to check for this particular poison. The CIA revealed this poison in various accounts in the early 1970s. The CIA even revealed the weapon that fired those darts that induces a heart attack at a congressional hearing.



The dart from this secret CIA weapon can penetrate clothing and leave nothing but a tiny red dot on the skin. On penetration of the deadly dart, the individual targeted for assassination may feel as if bitten by a mosquito, or they may not feel anything at all. The poisonous dart completely disintegrates upon entering the target. The lethal poison then rapidly enters the bloodstream causing a heart attack. Once the damage is done, the poison denatures quickly, so that an autopsy is very unlikely to detect that the heart attack resulted from anything other than natural causes.

A former CIA agent disclosed that the darts were made of a frozen form of the liquid poison. She disclosed that the dart would melt within the target and would only leave a very tiny red dot at the entry point – the same type of small entrance wound that was found during the autopsy of John F Kennedy.For over 50 years assassinations have been carried out so skillfully as to leave the impression that the victims died from natural causes. Details of some of the techniques used to achieve this were brought to light in 1961 when professional KGB assassin Bogdan Stashinskiy defected to the West and revealed that he had successfully performed two such missions. In 1957 he killed Ukrainian emigré writer Lev Rebet in Munich with a poison vapor gun which left the victim dead of an apparent heart attack. In 1959, the same type of weapon was used on Ukrainian emigré leader Stepan Bandera, although Bandera’s death was never fully accepted as having been from natural causes.

Among the witnesses, important people and conspirators who might have been eliminated by induced heart attack and cancer are: Jack Rudy (died of a stroke due to an undiagnosed form of aggressive cancer, just weeks after he agreed to testify before Congress about the JFK assassination), Clay Shaw, J. Edgar Hoover, Earlene Roberts (Oswald’s land-lady), Marlyn Monroe, Slobodan Milosevic, Kenneth Lay (former CEO of ENRON – the largest political campaign contributor of George W Bush and Dick Cheney), Matt Simmons, Mark Pittman (a reporter who predicted the financial crisis and exposed Federal Reserve misdoings. Pittman fought to open the Federal Reserve to more scrutiny), Elizabeth Edwards (suddenly diagnosed with cancer while her husband was campaigning against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the presidency of the United States.

During a campaign speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in May 2007, Edwards called the War on Terrorism a slogan that was created for political reasons and that it wasn’t a plan to make the United States safe. He went further to compare it to a bumper sticker and that it had damaged the US’s alliances and standing in the world.), … enter here the names of every politically outspoken person, whistle blower or witness who died unexpectedly of a heart attack or who quickly died of an incurable cancer.