It's a great feel-good story, but the whole thing is just intelligence theater, à la Bruce Schneier's security theater.
That is, the coded message serves no intelligence or military objective. It sounds to me like the government concocted this idea because they felt they should be doing something, anything, no matter how useless( * ).
What's a hostage supposed to conclude from hearing, "19 people rescued. You’re next. Don’t lose hope". Should I run? Run now? Hide in the jungle? Run when the rescue starts? Stay put? Fight during the rescue? Don't fight? If you asked 10 different people what specific action you're supposed to take based on this message, you'd get 10 different answers.
If this message had any tangible effect, why aren't there any first hand accounts from the hostages explaining what they did differently as a result of hearing the message?
So 3 million people heard this song, yet the only ones who understood it were some of the hostages? Not one of the several thousand militants and no one in the public decoded it? This just proves the point that it's un-actionable. Case (1): Lots of people got it besides the hostages, but there's nothing to blow the whistle on. It's not as if the message says, "Raid at dawn". Case (2): Nobody got it, which also implies that the message had no effect.
( * )If the government claimed that the message was simply a way to make the hostages keep up hope, then OK (though it still seems like a lot of expense for little gain). But they're trying to make it sound like a big intelligence or military coup, which it is not.
Me : I think it should mean, you might be the next to be rescued.
>If this message had any tangible effect, why aren't there any first hand accounts from the hostages explaining what they did differently as a result of hearing the message?
From the article : In his military psychological evaluation, Col. Espejo says that the soldier spoke of hearing "the code hidden in the song," and revealed how the message was passed from soldier to soldier. The song was even enjoyed by the FARC, who were oblivious to its secret message. "It makes me very happy to think of the hostages listening to our song," Ortiz says.
From the article : Someone who is a hostage, for over a decade, would think there is still hope. But I too find the article lacking in this.
> who understood it were some of the hostages? This just proves the point that it's un-actionable.
From the article : Operation Chameleon — a sixth-month operation that involved 300 government soldiers and secret raids. Because the FARC shoots hostages dead at the first sight of a military invasion.
From the article : Espejo reasoned, "The FARC were peasants from the fields, they wouldn’t know [Morse].
> But they're trying to make it sound like a big intelligence or military coup, which it is not.
Me : No, they are not. It's an extension of Operation Chameleon - That's what I think.
> If the government claimed that the message was simply a way to make the hostages keep up hope, then OK.
Me : Exactly, but it's an understatement. For those who are suffering, this news would mean a world to them.
> Me : I think it should mean, you might be the next to be rescued.
You are entirely right. The original message is in spanish, where "you" (singular) is different than "you" (plural). The form used in the message is the plural one. Now it's clear that your interpretation is the correct one ;)
> Me : I think it should mean, you might be the next to be rescued.
But what specifically would you have done differently if you were a hostage and had received this message? Don't answer, "I'd keep up hope." "Not losing hope" is not an action.
The message has no particular call to action. That's my main point. My second point is that even if you named some specific action you'd take, someone else would have had a different idea because it's so vague.
A compassionate message could mean the world to a hostage. That's true. But a compassionate message and a useful message are not the same thing.
As far as I understand, this messages was used in conjunction with Operation Chameleon. On it's own this message wasn't supposed to do anything, but it had to be discrete because this operation was clandestine.
The goal was to give them hope. That's the point. To let them know that there is help on the way, but there in't no accurate account by how far.
The `action` here is the Operation Chameleon, which is a secret.
From what I gathered, the idea was supposed to be that when fighting broke out, the hostages would know that the fighting was a rescue mission and be able to act accordingly. Imagine if there was just suddenly fighting, with no context; hostages would /know/ the FARC was on edge and would be extra careful not to try anything stupid and get killed. However, with this message, they would know that the fighting is a sign of a rescue mission and try to escape.
FARC hostages had no room to act when there was fighting nearby; I read Betancourt's book about her captivity and the first thing the FARC would do is to put a gun to their heads (literally or figuratively, can't remember) with orders to execute them if the army came close.
> However, with this message, they would know that the fighting is a sign of a rescue mission and try to escape.
What makes you think that a sign of a rescue mission means that you should try to escape?
If anything, popular culture teaches exactly the opposite. Think of any Hollywood movie involving a bank robbery or hijacking. The hostages lie down and duck while the police swarm in and shoot the bad guys. The hostages do not try to escape.
I'm not saying which is better (staying put vs trying to escape), and I don't know.
I'm saying that the message--"19 people rescued. You are next. Don’t lose hope"--is useless and open to whatever interpretation you desire.
Popular culture in a country at war is probably going to somewhat differ from your personal experience where Hollywood is a primary authority on conflict. These hostages would have context you're probably missing.
Yes, you read the article. But the hostages didn't!
All the hostage heard is "19 people rescued. You are next. Don’t lose hope". How does a hostage conclude "you should try to escape" from the preceding message?
The hostages were mainly soldiers of the colombian army who had been fighting against the FARC's guerrilla tactics for a long time. There are many hostages, held at different locations throughout the jungle by different captors. And they just know better than you and me, no need to read any article.
Now, the message is not a call to direct action because there is no possible action that would benefit all hostages getting it. It's just providing them hope and information (we're busting our assess off on active operations, so if something makes you think we're coming or around, there's actually a good chance we are). Do as you see fit if/when that happens.
Also, your whole reasoning is fairly solid, but you are building it on top of a wrong context. The hostages are not the average american and the captors are not the bad guys from a movie. Your popular culture is wildly different than the cultures of the involved parties. You should get that straight before making any reasoning using your own context instead.
That's exactly what I thought. When I read the translation I thought they were telling the hostages to not get into trouble so that they would not be chained up to a tree by their neck or otherwise handicapped. If I was in that situation I would have interpreted the exact opposite of the messages.
As your interpretation, it is a sign that your time as a hostage might come to an end, because something might happen, as it happened to other 19 hostages.
And that `goodness` is what this message is all about.
The morse is subtle but if you listen closely you can hear it. Set the Soundcloud player to 1:25 or so and you'll hear singing as they finish up the chorus. As the chorus completes at about 1:31 the singing stops and instruments play. Listen closely, and try to remember what morse sounds like in the movies. It's there in the background, and once you hear it it's obvious. Don't listen to the drums or tambourine, it's not there in the beat. It's "behind" the beat as if a background instrument was playing.
(edit: it also kicks in again around 2:30 and 3:30. So the start times are at approximately 1:30, 2:30, and 3:30.)
> Listen closely, and try to remember what morse sounds like in the movies. It's there in the background, and once you hear it it's obvious.
I'm a ham operator from the days when Morse was required for all licenses. They really relied on the fact that the captors were not trained (otherwise they would have picked it off, it is obvious if you've spent quality time with a keyer), as well as the captive soldiers were trained to receive at a fairly good speed (it's too fast for me, but it's been years since my last conversation via morse code. Damn internet.)
I thought it was pretty obvious, it plays at a pitch higher than the rest of the chorus and doesn't fit the rhythm. But then again, I was waiting for it.
Though I don't know morse code (beyond S-O-S), I know of morse code and roughly what it ought to sound like. I really wish the article had started out with the SoundCloud player, saying "Listen to this first... notice anything peculiar about the song?" since because I knew it contains morse code, I instantly recognized it in the chorus. I wonder if I would have been as oblivious to its inclusion as the FARC members had I not been made aware beforehand.
It reminds me of Evanescence's "My Immortal" song where people have speculated there's a hidden message in it. Take a listen and see if you can hear it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5anLPw0Efmo
It's also in one other place that I can detect, though you may need to play it with sufficient volume to hear it. That you only heard it at the end lends credibility to the effectiveness of hiding morse code in a song.
If you had been trained in sending and receiving Morse code, as some of these soldiers had been (rather than just knowing about it conceptually), your brain would probably catch on to the patterns much more naturally.
Clever! It reminds me of another story of broadcasting information such that only interested parties will receive it.
In 1997, during an auction of wireless spectrum by the FCC, some of the participants colluded by stealthily signaling the geographic region of the licenses they most valued. They made the last few digits of their bids (in dollars), which were visible to all, the area codes of those regions.
I think I hear an additional bit of trickery that the article didn't mention: the morse signal keeps oscillating between the left and right stereo channels, which on headphones or a nice speaker system make it sound more like artsy synth and less like a coded message.
If the illustration in the article is accurate, the hostages are probably listening on a monophonic radio or one with limited stereo separation, which would make the code easier to pick out and understand.
This is a pretty great story. I was in Bogotá in July of 2008 just after Ingrid Betancourt and several other hostages were rescued. In the face of such jubilation of their rescue, there was a small demonstration in Plaza de Bolívar to remind everyone that there were still people who needed help. https://www.dropbox.com/sc/93d9g1ycgxamg3o/AAD4g5xPPyT3R-AWJ...
It is inspiring seeing the steps that the government took, the planning, the rescue, and the demonstration of genuine care for all involved.
Anyway, there are more creative methods to insert coded messages in radio shows, for example, some years ago, the italian police confiscated a commercial radio in Naple. That radio was controlled by a mafia family and used to send message to the inmates of Poggioreale prison. They used fake "inscription" related to the songs transmitted:
I wonder if anyone would've picked it up? You would have to listen to the song over and over. Then figure out morse code and what letter each signal represented.
Former Colombian soldier over here, at that time, only radio operators were trained in Morse code; regular soldiers would have a hard time to get the message.
That is, the coded message serves no intelligence or military objective. It sounds to me like the government concocted this idea because they felt they should be doing something, anything, no matter how useless( * ).
What's a hostage supposed to conclude from hearing, "19 people rescued. You’re next. Don’t lose hope". Should I run? Run now? Hide in the jungle? Run when the rescue starts? Stay put? Fight during the rescue? Don't fight? If you asked 10 different people what specific action you're supposed to take based on this message, you'd get 10 different answers.
If this message had any tangible effect, why aren't there any first hand accounts from the hostages explaining what they did differently as a result of hearing the message?
So 3 million people heard this song, yet the only ones who understood it were some of the hostages? Not one of the several thousand militants and no one in the public decoded it? This just proves the point that it's un-actionable. Case (1): Lots of people got it besides the hostages, but there's nothing to blow the whistle on. It's not as if the message says, "Raid at dawn". Case (2): Nobody got it, which also implies that the message had no effect.
( * )If the government claimed that the message was simply a way to make the hostages keep up hope, then OK (though it still seems like a lot of expense for little gain). But they're trying to make it sound like a big intelligence or military coup, which it is not.