David Wareham

Roughyed

[墓碑科技 @mubeitech]

基辅上空最近悄悄扣上了一个看不见的罩子。

乌克兰军方把它叫作电子战穹顶。
这不是爱国者防空导弹，也不是以色列那种会发射拦截弹的铁穹。
天空中一颗炮弹都没打，呼啸而来的自杀无人机一扎进市区，立刻就瞎了。

事情得从俄罗斯无人机的进化说起。
过去两年里，俄军打过来的见证者无人机，基本就是个大号航模装上炸药。
起飞前把经纬度坐标敲进系统，一按发射，它就靠着机载卫星导航和惯性制导硬飞。
只要飞行路线是固定的，防空部队其实不难对付。
地面上架好探照灯和重机枪，或者拿大功率电子干扰机去伪造卫星信号。
无人机被诱骗之后，自己就会偏离航线，掉进农田和空地里。

但从今年下半年开始，乌克兰防空部队发现不对劲了。
天上的无人机飞到半路上，居然开始拐弯了。
看到前面有地面机枪阵地，它会主动绕着走。
飞进基辅市区，它还能在半空盘旋，专门挑雷达站和供电变电站一头扎下去。
原本只知道死板直线飞行的自杀无人机，怎么突然长出了眼睛？

乌克兰工程人员拆开被击落的无人机残骸，看清了里面的新零件。
俄罗斯在无人机肚子里，加装了 MESH 网状无线电调制解调器。

这个改动为什么极度危险？
无线电通信一直有个物理死穴，叫视距限制。
地球表面是有曲率的，无线电波直来直去。
无人机为了躲避雷达，通常贴着两三百米的低空飞行。
飞出几十公里之后，地平线就会把控制信号挡得严严实实。
坐在几百公里外俄罗斯本土基地的操控员，根本不可能隔着大山和地平线去实时操控低空飞机。

但装上 MESH 之后，整套逻辑全变了。
这种网状通信模块，能把每一架在天上飞的无人机，都变成一个空中无线路由器。
第一架无人机把信号传给第二架，第二架接力传给第三架。
几架甚至十几架无人机在几百公里的航线上排成一条空中长队，数据信号一棒接一棒往前送。
哪怕最前面的无人机已经飞到了基辅城外，远在几百公里外的飞手，屏幕上依然能收到机头摄像头传回来的实时高清画面。
更难缠的是自组网特性。
半路上被打掉一架，剩下的无人机几秒钟内就能自动重新配对，接力网络自己就把缺口补上了。
原本只要几万美元的自杀无人机，硬生生被升级成了有人实时遥控的廉价巡航导弹。

面对这种空中局域网，常规防空手段全被逼到了墙角。
派战斗机去空中拦截？
基辅周围每天夜里几十上百架无人机呼啸而过，没有那么多战机和飞行员能天天空战。
打防空导弹？
一枚爱国者 PAC-3 拦截弹要 400 万美元。
对面的见证者无人机造价只要两三万美元。
拿 400 万美元的导弹去撞 3 万美元的航模，没有哪个国家的国库能扛得住这种消耗。
在几栋重点大楼顶上装大功率干扰机行不行？
也不行。
对方从四面八方低空突防，单个制高点的电磁覆盖有限，而且开机就会暴露自己，很容易招来反辐射导弹精准打击。

乌克兰总统办公室防务顾问别斯克列斯诺夫公布了破局的方案。
乌克兰总参谋部、国防部和本土几家电子战设备公司联手，花了几个星期做了一场全城改造。
他们把基辅全城彻底切分成一个个细密网格。
在全市几百个建筑屋顶、居民楼高点和铁塔上，密密麻麻装满了专门针对 MESH 无线电频段的压制天线与发射机。
几百个点位连成一张无缝覆盖全城的电磁干扰网。
这就是他们所说的基辅电子战穹顶。

只要挂着无线电模块的无人机一头扎进基辅空域，穹顶的天线阵列会同时释放定向射频噪声。
这相当于在无人机耳边开了上千台大功率音响，机间中继链路瞬间被淹没。
远在几百公里外的操控员，屏幕立刻黑屏。
遥控链路一断，无人机瞬间被打回原形。
它只能退回老旧的惯性制导模式瞎飞，命中精度直接暴跌几百米，大多栽进荒地，或者被地面防空机枪轻松扫落。

华尔街日报刊登了德国先进材料学者罗伯特·布吕尔的一篇分析文章。
他提醒北约各国：必须把基辅头顶这个电子战穹顶当成现代战争的必修课。
因为这给未来的防空账本敲响了警钟。
面对规模化的无人机蜂群，昂贵的大型导弹根本无力承担日常消耗，电子战是唯一能把单次拦截边际成本压到几乎只剩电费的手段。
但全城高密度电磁压制，本身也是一把双刃剑。
全城充斥着高能电磁干扰，如果防空部队自己的传感器、雷达和前线通信没有做足防护，最先被烧坏或致盲的可能就是自己人。
布吕尔在文章里特别提到，未来的军工制造必须在出厂那一刻就解决轻量化电磁屏蔽问题。
下一轮空中攻防，拼的已经不是单纯的导弹射程，是看谁能在烈度拉满的电磁风暴里，让自己的天线和芯片活下来。

[Marcin Tyc @MarcinTyc]

Hey @elonmusk! A message from Poland’s Foreign Minister, @sikorskiradek

– Poland pays $50 MILLION a year for 29,000 Starlink terminals for Ukraine. We're your customers, Elon. Customers expect a service, not political games. And remember: politics is harder than you thought. 😉
One more thing. Did any Russian money help you buy Twitter? Care to answer, Elon? 🎥👇

Watch our exclusive interview at @sprawdzamto_pl

[Andrew Neil @afneil]

The curious case of Mohammed Alfatih Naim is worrying evidence that Britain really has lost the plot.
His father was a senior Hamas politician.
He’d been a bodyguard for Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.
He’s been detained in Egypt on suspicion of helping Hamas smuggling.
He entered Britain illegally in 2014.
Yet a year later we granted him asylum.
Then British citizenship.
Facing trial for an altercation with a bailiff at his Brum home, some numpty of a magistrate ruled he couldn’t be named for 100 years.
Thankfully The Sunday Times challenged that, which is why he can now be named.
He is now facing extradition to Germany, where prosecutors accuse him of orchestrating a planned massacre of Jews in Berlin and Vienna last year.
This is how he thanks us for asylum and citizenship.
Which he was given under a Tory government.
But has this Labour one, as it welcomes ‘refugees’ from Gaza, learned any lessons.
Not if we’ve lost the plot.

[David Wareham @Roughyed1963]

@brianralston @TimothyDSnyder You brain dead fool

[Timothy Snyder @TimothyDSnyder]

Jet-powered Russian drones with Nvidia chips are now breaking into Ukrainian airspace and killing people because Starlink restrictions hinder Ukrainian air defense.

[wokeandwoofing @wokeandwoofing]

I will be auctioning off some of my old genders. These are all top quality genders, all certified as stunning and brave, so serious offers only please.

[Andrew Neil @afneil]

Recent indications, including in the Budget, that UK government was edging away from net zero.
But that didn’t stop PM Burnham from flying thousands of miles by private jet to Turkey to make a <six-minute speech about net zero to a nearly net zero audience (the hall was deserted).
Burnham only G7 leader to bother.
He delivered the usual banalities about Britain leading the way (nobody believes that) and ‘Britain is back’ (sadly, under the Tories it never went away re net zero). What a waste of time and jet fuel.

[Matt Cartoons @MattCartoonist]

My latest cartoon for tomorrow's Telegraph

Buy a print of my cartoons at https://t.co/ADuWHWom7N

Original artwork from https://t.co/Wcrx6Vu6YW

[Max Klinger @maxklingerpol]

There were publicly available photos of this guy standing right next to some of the most senior jihadists in the world, who he worked for. So the UK…granted him ‘asylum’. And then, because that wasn’t good enough, they granted him full citizenship. So to repay them, he went and stabbed an innocent bloke.

Oh and he did that *while* he was being watched by security services (raising the questions 1. Why grant him citizenship if he’s considered so likely to commit a jihadist attack that we have to then get security services to track him endlessly? and 2. If you do bother to track him, why then let him stab someone while he’s being tracked?).

And while all this was going on, he was *also* reported to the UK by Germany for suspected involvement in a plot to murder Jews.

Where to even begin. The people who oversaw all of this are the so-called ‘adults in the room’, btw.

A story for our deranged age.

[Giles Dilnot @reporterboy]

@ApsanaBegumMP Why do Hamas hide in hospitals?

[David Wareham @Roughyed1963]

@TonyCope56789 @Michael81469385 @Starlink 🤡🤡🤡

[Felicity Campbell @feli_campbell]

I have absolutely no idea why my timeline is completely ignoring the suspension of Labour MP Perran Moon today. He was just caught trying to dissolve his private company without paying back a £50,000 taxpayer-funded Covid loan. Right as this government prepares to hammer ordinary families with tax hikes in the Budget.

Here is what they desperately hope stays quiet!🧵

[Łukasz Kozłowski @LKKozlowski]

🇵🇱 1060 lat historii Polski w 60-sekundowym skrócie

[Andrew Neil @afneil]

This is government gaslighting to a high degree.
1. It’s not a new announcement. The Norfolk East and West offshore wind projects were announced earlier this year as part of the AR7 round of contracts.
2. No way does it bring down prices. Those behind it, energy giant RWE + global investors KKR, were guaranteed an above-market strike price of £91.20/MWh based on 2024 prices — indexed linked for 20 years. That guarantee is already worth £97/MWh in 2026. This is v expensive energy.
3. What is new is that the costs of developing offshore wind have soared. So the government has now had to chip in £1 billion of the £12 billion investment needed from the National Wealth [Destruction] Fund. So more state subsidy on top of the massive subsidies for two foreign companies implicit in the price guarantees embedded in AR7.
4. Far from cheaper electricity this embeds high-cost electricity in the system for 20 years.
5. So much for the Chancellor’s Budget pledge to ‘only build new projects when they lower prices’. This does the opposite — and at enormous expense to the taxpayer and electricity user.
Gaslighting indeed.

[Paul Walsh @Paul__Walsh]

I'm working on a technical analysis to expose how The Telegraph is selling compulsory phone surveillance as child protection on behalf of the British Government.

Charles Hymas reads more like a government mouthpiece than a journalist. A glance through his Telegraph articles reveals a pattern of amplifying government announcements without challenging their technical claims or explaining the consequences so Telegraph readers can be better informed.

What makes this especially dangerous is what he fails to explain to his own readers. The compulsory surveillance and identity verification capabilities being proposed threaten the digital privacy and anonymity that investigative journalists, their confidential sources and whistleblowers rely on.

Hymas appears remarkably unconcerned that the very protections journalism relies on are being dismantled under the pretext of protecting children, despite the serious risks these proposals could introduce for children themselves.

Follow my free Substack to be notified when it's published - link in my bio. I'm using it as a research and discussion community, not a traditional newsletter.

I'll publish as much of my work here as possible too, because I don't want to force anyone onto a specific platform. I don't get paid to write. My goal is to help people understand what governments and tech companies are actually doing, so journalists, lawyers, policymakers and others in positions of influence have the technical evidence they need to challenge colleagues who are pushing through laws that will effectively outlaw online anonymity. Everyone's civil liberties is at stake.

When people are forced to identify themselves before they're granted permission to use basic apps and services like their camera phone, they lose the freedom to speak, investigate and share information anonymously.

The British government is also attacking end-to-end encryption by demanding that private images and communications be inspected before they're encrypted or after they're decrypted. That undermines the entire purpose of end to end encryption.

This is dangerous. The UK is on fire when it comes to digital privacy and personal safety when using digital devices.

[Paul Walsh @Paul__Walsh]

Journalists who interview other journalists about technology related legislation that threatens everyone’s right to digital privacy are going to get bitten in the ass when they realise that they, their whistleblowers and confidential sources will be forced to verify their real identities before they can communicate privately.

The British government is trying to outlaw online anonymity under the false pretext of child safety. None of this has anything to do with protecting children. I advised John Carr and the British government in 2012 during the first parliamentary inquiry into online child safety. He was the biggest lobbyist behind this agenda, yet he doesn’t know the first thing about the legislation he advocated.

I’ve been an expert in online child safety, content classification and moderation since 1996. I don’t know anyone else who started that early and went on to spend decades founding open standards and advising governments and organisations including IWF, CEOP, NCMEC and the US DOJ on child exploitation technology and techniques. I’m one of the two people who invented the very concept of classifying and labeling user accounts online.

As politicians like to say, let me be clear. Not a single politician or child safety advocate I’ve encountered is interested in protecting children. I’m 99.9% confident their real objective is to use child safety as an excuse to force compulsory identity verification on entire populations. This is the opinion of every technical expert you’ll find.

More than 25 countries now claim child safety is a top priority, judging by their legislative proposals, daily announcements and media coverage. Yet they continue to push identity verification instead of educating parents about the effective parental controls already built into smartphones.

People are already censoring themselves for fear of being investigated, arrested or banned for expressing their opinions in the UK. Compulsory identity verification will make that worse because everything people read, write and share online, and everyone they communicate with, will be linked to their real identities.

When you get banned, your real name gets blacklisted. You won’t be able to create a new account under a different email address.

What more does the government have to do before journalists start interviewing technical experts who can explain the consequences and properly inform the public?

If compulsory identity checks on services like eBay and Vinted aren’t already making journalists’ skin crawl, where exactly do they draw the line?

[David Wareham @Roughyed1963]

@KingBobIIV He wasn't Turkish

[David Wareham @Roughyed1963]

@wallaceme Well I saw this on the "For You" timeline

[David Wareham @Roughyed1963]

@ru23052 🤡🤣🤡

[Jemima Goldsmith @Jemima_Khan]

I am going to describe some painful and personal things in relation to Russell Brand because I have been put in a position now where I feel that I have no choice other than to do so, given the misleading reports and speculation around the facts of a harassment injunction that was taken out to protect me and my family.

Firstly, and most importantly, I am and have always been strongly and unequivocally on the side of all of Brand’s victims. I am in awe of the courageous women who came forward at Brand’s trial, told their stories, testified and ensured justice was done. I have had my own personal experience of his violence, coercive control and abuse. I had to call the police to have him removed from my house in 2014 during a violent incident. I chose not to press charges at the time and not to go public with this, as I was worried about the impact of the press attention on my then teenage children. I have neither seen nor spoken to Brand since that period in 2014. Whilst my pain in relation to this, pales in comparison to what the women have testified in court have suffered, this was a difficult period in my life which has had a lasting impact.

Over several years, I assisted the journalists who finally exposed him; Ros Urwin, Louisa Compton and Dorothy Byrne.  I also undertook to testify in court to his abusiveness, if the newspaper that published the victims’ accounts were ever to be sued.

I have spent much of my professional career trying to support unfairly demonised and silenced women, such as Monica Lewinsky and defending free speech.

In 2014, a harassment injunction was taken out against a woman called Szilvia Berki which was made final in 2015. 

I fully understand the good intentions of those now advocating on her behalf online and agree with their demand for this harassment injunction to be varied, as my lawyer made clear to Berki’s lawyer in December last year.

However, the commentary and media reporting this week has presented an untrue narrative, which has opened me up to vile hatred and abuse online.

For this reason, and to correct the record, I am providing the factual background to that injunction to explain why The High Court found the campaign of harassment by Berki against me to be, "oppressive and unacceptable” and made the order permanent.

The background to this is that Ms Berki came to my house for roughly 30 minutes in June 2014, after I booked her to give a massage to Brand. By the time she arrived he had decided he didn’t want a massage and asked her to leave. She was clearly offended. I was present the whole time he was with her, and I did not see anything untoward, despite the fact that he was later found guilty of sexually assaulting other women and he later physically assaulted me. If I saw any man abuse any woman under any circumstances, I would do my utmost to stop them, without hesitation.

Ms Berki later reported to the police that Brand had pushed her in the back whilst she was leaving the house and that she also said she was “attacked” by my dog, which she described in her police statement as my dog licking her face. The police rightly investigated Ms Berki’s complaint. I cooperated fully with the investigation, provided a truthful statement about what I saw and also provided CCTV footage, which showed my overly exuberant but totally unaggressive dog jumping up.  

Following an investigation into Ms Berki’s allegations, police concluded that there was no case to answer and that no criminal offence had been committed.

According to the police, at no time did Ms Berki ever state to them that she had been assaulted, threatened or falsely imprisoned.

There was also a subsequent review of the investigation by the IPCC and Thames Valley Police Professional Standards which found that the original police investigation had been correct in its findings.

In the meantime, several untrue stories appeared in the tabloid papers. Ms Berki forwarded an email to me confirming a payment for one such story she had received from The Sun newspaper. Articles were also published in The Telegraph, The Mail and The Mirror at Ms Berki’s instigation which contained her account of the alleged incident.

Then having at first said in a story published by the Daily Mail that she had found me to be “really very nice, very, very nice,” she later embarked on a campaign of vicious antisemitic and threatening abuse online and in emails.

Below is just a sample of some of those tweets and messages sent over many months (which were submitted to the judge who granted the harassment injunction)-

(Jemima is a) “deeply rotted JEWISH Bitch”

“Did you know that if your life is in danger you can LAWFULLY kill your attacker as defence?! … by now I could have lawfully kill at least 5-6 people who were hurting me”

“Also happy birthday (Jemima). I hope you have more. In other words I hope you don’t die this year.”

EMAIL- “If you make me very upset…you can expect the worts from me – I think you know this – without that I need to remind you”

“What is going on in Britain is a dictatory of J evils. English Jewish Evil dictatory”

“Would like to see justice, and I do not think that I should do it myself but what can I do when every organisation is scared of Jevils! ;)”

“They say … Do not hate all Jews because you know a few Jewish evils. They are on top always decadent and evils”

“Fortunately there are many mansions outside of the UK where Jewish money aristocrats are still not welcomed

#Germany #Austria #Italy #Hungary”

"Judge on High Court: I ordered her to shut up Jew. Do I have a case or not? soon we will kill her then".

“A pity that I was in the UK. BB In Hungary if you would report the Police they would for sure find it without an investigation already that the Jews are guilty. Sad”

“Every organisation is scared of JEVILS”

“When my great grandparents see what Jews did to me they do something in heaven to solve this. I will not make my hand dirty with Jews.”

“J evils … Rob, lie, crime”

“I am so happy I am free from the English Jewish Evil dictator and outside of England the High Court cannot rule”

“Probably I wait a bit more and than go public. What is going on in Britain is a dictatory of J evils.”

She sent an enormous volume of similarly disturbing emails and tweets to or about me, to my family, to my workplace, to journalists from the national media to members of my family, to UNICEF UK where I had been a goodwill Ambassador for decades, and to organisations my ex-husband was associated with, and to MPs.

She began disseminating on social media wild and untrue allegations about me, ranging from kidnap to cyberhacking, to having someone bump into her and laugh at her in the tube station, having her followed by two men, bribing the police, paying off a judge, and other false and alarming conspiracy theories based on my Jewishness.

The number, tone and content of these messages was extremely frightening. It was distressing for my then teenage children and my family. I was concerned that Ms Berki was potentially a real danger to my family and me. I have had stalkers before and this behaviour felt similarly threatening.

Although I was at this point no longer in contact with Brand, I agreed to the suggestion by his lawyer of a harassment order. My sole reason was to stop Ms Berki targeting me and my family. The harassment injunction was upheld by the High Court and Court of Appeal on several occasions.

I engaged a lawyer of my own when I was made aware that Berki was applying to the court to vary the terms of the injunction. And I instructed my lawyer in December last year to approach Ms Berki’s barrister to say that I agreed to vary the injunction so that she could speak to the police again if she wanted to. I also instructed my lawyer to engage on her other requests.

I did this despite my real fears that the harassment would re-commence and that her threatening antisemitism, if again unleashed, might exacerbate the danger to my children and me that we continue to face because of our Jewish heritage and their father’s political career and incarceration in Pakistan.

Her barrister has not responded to my lawyer since May of this year despite trying to engage him. I was informed by her lawyer that any change to the injunction must also be agreed by Brand.  I have no ability to compel Brand in this matter, as I have not seen or spoken to him in over a decade.

I hope this information will help clarify speculation about my involvement in the anti-harassment order.

I am glad and relieved that Russell Brand has finally faced justice.