Netezza has settled a lawsuit in which it was accused of supplying inaccurate, illegally hacked software to the CIA's drone assassination programme. The potentially explosive case was brought by Intelligent Integration Systems (IISi), a Boston-based software firm. It was seeking an injunction which could have forced the CIA to …
With the Imperial Stormtroopers on location...
"The drones are used to kill terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen."
You mean "kill random people".
On the other hand, they got killed, so they must have been terrorists, right?
You're right, it must be a typo in the original article
Perhaps it should have read "The drones are used to kill people who are within a few hundred meters of where other people that the US government claims are terrorists might have been, or maybe might not have been, well a mobile phone that was once used by somebody we don't like anyway, wait, he left his phone is a taxi you say? Well, prices they charge for taxis there they deserve a missile up the exhaust pipe. Back to defending democracy lads."
that "The potentially explosive case" means Hellfire missiles might start raining down from the drones onto Netezza'a HQ?
I still wouldn't want to be within that range of a hellfire explosion
The phone call...
"Hello, this is Netezza here...yes, we finally admit that we ripped off your software, and yes, we agree that our salesmen shouldn't have promised the customer impossible dates for product release when the port hadn't even been started. Even if that customer scares everyone silly during sales negotiations.
Our goof. Want to retire somewhere warm and never have to work again?"
You missed a bit...
..."and in the meantime, we'll continue to take money off the CIA in return for the hacked version of your software, and they'll continue to kill the wrong people because neither we or the CIA know how to improve it, and we aren't going to ask you to finish the port since we've already paid you a bundle so we can own these fudged builds. Yes, that's right, the litigation had nothing to do with killing the wrong people, it was only ever a scrap over contractual obligations and penalties. Tally-ho!"
RE: You missed a bit...
".....and they'll continue to kill the wrong people...." The fact that champion handwringers like the Obumbler continue to sanction the use of drone strikes implies that they are more often than not hitting the intended targets and causing the Taleban and Al Quaeda serious problems. If you wish to believe otherwise, that's up to you, but before you stupidly claim that all drone victims are "innocents" I expect you to provide a complete list of all the victims, their histories, and show that they were innocents. Otherwise I'll continue to perceive you as just talking out of your underinformed and blinkered backside.
Prove they were innocent after they are dead. Nice one. How about proving there were quilty before they were killed?
".....proving there were quilty...." Hmmmm, I suggest you improve your written English first. Whether the drone victims used quilts, blankets or eiderdowns would not seem to be a contributory factor in their being targetted for extra-judicial killing.
But, if you want a little info on the effectiveness of the drone attacks, even the Pakistanis admit that strikes in the second half of 2008 killed eleven of the then top twenty Al Quaeda bosses in their hidey-holes in the Pakistani tribal areas. An ISI (that's the Pakistani intelligence service) report into the strike that killed Musataf Al Misri said the missile was so accurate it didn't just hit the house in the compaound that Al Masri was in, it hit the exact room him and his bodyguards were in!
Since then, the drones have also accounted for such lovely characters as Saleh al-Somali, who directed AQ's "external operations" - terror attacks on the West, Russia and India. Estimates for the number of deaths due to al-Somali's plans range from 300 to 8000, depending on who you ask. But at least you could say he targeted non-Mulsims, unlike the majority of AQ and Taleban operations. Or didn't you know that AQ and friends kill more than twelve Muslims for every "infidel" they kill?
Want to Kill People?
'"My reaction was one of stunned amazement that they want to kill people with my software that doesn't work," IISi's CTO Richard Zimmerman told the court.'
My reaction is one stunned amazement that they want to kill people with his -- or anyone's -- software, even if the software works. There's a big difference between wanting to kill people and self-defense. Does one hunt for the act of eating or does one hunt for the act of killing?
There is nothing in Afghanistan or Iraq or Pakistan that is worth the life of any one of our troops.
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- 20 Freescale staff on vanished Malaysia Airlines flight MH370
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked
- Sysadmins and devs: Do these job descriptions make any sense?