14 ms·

Signs Point to Unencrypted Communications Between Terror Suspects

226 points by apress 11y ago

brighton36 11y ago
Time to ban unencrypted communication I guess
- scrollaway 11y ago
  Over the wire? I'm in. :)
lamby 11y ago
Meh. What matters are the principles; even if you could show that 100% of terrorists always used encrypted communications without exception..I would still not be in favour of outlawing encrypted messages.
- mangeletti 11y ago
  I agree 100%. Getting into arguments over practicality with these slime balls lands you right where they want you, debating with them in order to earn rights you already have.
  - hodwik 11y ago
    Rights are established and protected by constant legislative and judicial battle. There are obviously a lot of people who think that hard-encryption shouldn't be available to the public. If you're not willing to engage with them you're just going to get steamrolled. In matters of law, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
    - woodman 11y ago
      Thomas Jefferson disagrees :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
prawn 11y ago
Spotted on Twitter: "If banning encryption would stop terrorists using it, why don’t they just make terrorism illegal and be done with it?"
- 0942v8653 11y ago
  Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591621 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591621 - > I love how Republicans believe that outlawing guns won't stop criminals from having guns while at the same time believing that outlawing encryption will keep criminals from using encryption. > Encryption methods are far easier to transport and spread illegally than gun are.
  - PKop 11y ago
    Don't assume all, or even many, Republican voters believe this. Those of a more libertarian bent unequivocally do not. Sure, many of the politicians seem to support outlawing encryption. But that's true of both parties is it not?
    - riskable 11y ago
      Considering the average age of Republicans I doubt the majority of them even understand what encryption is let alone what the impact of outlawing it would be... http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/the-gop-is-dying-off-literally-118035 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/the-gop-is-dy... http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/ http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-part...
  - hueving 11y ago
    Stop spreading partisan crap. Read the first response to that comment.
    - rtl49 11y ago
      It's true that many, if not most, Democratic politicians could be termed "anti-encryption." Diane Feinstein is perhaps the most notorious example of a Democrat who has promoted this and other "authoritarian" views. But the fact remains the hypocrisy noted is more applicable to Republicans, who tend to oppose gun control much more frequently than Democrats.
hodwik 11y ago
Not really relevant, the day will come when no terrorists communicate in the clear. I'm not suggesting we outlaw encrypted communications, but I do wonder how law enforcement is supposed to track terrorist communications after they go dark.
- Alupis 11y ago
  The big point of this article is, given all of the NSA spying and mass surveillance of pretty much all phone networks worldwide, they still failed to detect anything related to this attack. It shows two main things: 1) Mass drag-net style surveillance programs are not very effective. 2) Banning encryption will have minimal-to-no effect on improving mass drag-net style surveillance programs. This means, to date, the only "terrorist plot" thwarted by the NSA mass drag-net style surveillance program remains that one guy who tried to send $8,500 to the Taliban (and was promptly arrested)[1]. [1] http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/nsa-spying-did-not-result-in-one-stopped-terrorist-plot-and-the-government-actually-did-spy-on-the-bad-guys-before-911.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/nsa-spying-did-not-re...
  - hodwik 11y ago
    Absolutely, so we as community, seeing these problems, need to be pro-active in helping government discover more effective ways to protect the people of this world from extremists. The hands-up "Well, terrorism happens. Nothing to do about it." sentiment of many in our community is obviously not resonating with the general public. If we don't provide serious alternatives, they will continue pushing these sorts of methods to greater and greater extremes.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      The general public are not the ones calling for encryption bans and regulations, or really much of anything. They're virtually disenfranchised in such matters, especially national security. We absolutely do not owe the government to protect anyone from anything. You have more to lose from government agents like police forces than terrorists.
msoad 11y ago
Telegram is the dominant communication app in Middle East and most people prefer unencrypted massaging because of multi-device capabilities. I don't think ISIS people are any different
rtl49 11y ago
I don't mean to downplay the importance of this tragedy for the people involved, but it's interesting to observe the media reaction to this event with a more detached frame of mind than I was capable of as a child. The attacks have played right into the hands of parties with political interests lying in wait. For months articles on one or the other side of the encryption "debate" have been produced by news organizations at a low hum. Now that something, anything, loosely relevant has occurred, they can now point to this as further evidence in support of whatever position was espoused over the course of the preceding months. It strikes a person who pays attention to such things as rather methodical.
- Swizec 11y ago
  > It strikes a person who pays attention to such things as rather methodical. There's a reason journalists are also referred to as vultures. If you're interesting in how media spin works, I have found Trust Me, I'm Lying by Ryan Holiday eye opening. It focuses more on the marketing aspect, but it works for anything. He for instance described how you can spin controversy out of nothing in order to promote products.
- qrendel 11y ago
  I agree with the general comment about people rushing to politicize events, but it doesn't seem just "loosely relevant" either. Governments claim they need to backdoor software or outlaw encryption to prevent attacks. They're spending hundreds of billions of dollars (just in the US) and still failing to do so. Some people think allowing refugees will lead to more violence. Others don't want millions left to suffer because of the actions of a few radicals. These are all pretty big issues directly related to the events. How long should we wait before it's appropriate to analyze them in public discourse? Imo, worse than appearing eager to capitalize on others' suffering is all the speculation before having hard details about the matter. But some pundit inevitably lights a match in a room full of fireworks (figuratively speaking), and everyone else rushes to defend their position as well.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    They're spending hundreds of billions of dollars (just in the US) and still failing to do so. How do you know how many attacks would have taken place if not for that spending?
pjc50 11y ago
Well, yes: encryption is hard to use and sticks out a mile. Whereas good old codewords defeat dragnet surveillance and are easy to use. For every single concert and sporting event there are thousands of people discussing meeting up and going there over SMS, discussing times, locations and who's going to be there. How do you determine who has malicious intent?
- rndmind 11y ago
  What a prescient and logical observation.
rustynails 11y ago
I found this to be a very interesting article on ISIS with insights to their communications, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-in... When people left Bucca, they had written each other's names & numbers on the elastic of their underwear. They also responded to Anonymous' threat toward ISIS by suggesting techniques to secure Comms and what to avoid. http://www.businessinsider.com.au/isis-anonymous-statement-2015-11 http://www.businessinsider.com.au/isis-anonymous-statement-2... I would suggest that this cell did not use protection but I am confident the larger ISIS network is not so transparent. My suspicions would be that most Comms is via word of mouth.
- d3sandoval 11y ago
  Agreed. Word of mouth is still a very viable method of communication and, given the organization's value of human life, I wouldn't be surprised if runners are frequently used to disseminate critical communication.
riskable 11y ago
The moment my wife and I heard about the attacks in Paris I said to her, "the spooks are going to use this as an excuse to take everyone's rights away." The media response on this was so predictable it was like clockwork: * Conservative media immediately kicks off talking points in regards to, "if more people were carrying guns this wouldn't have happened!" * "Where's the outrage from Muslims?" * "Outraged Muslims say the attackers aren't true Muslims because Mohammed forbids killing innocents." * "It had to have been Syrian refugees!" * "Can't we just bomb the fsck out of Syria?" * All manner of insinuations that all Muslims are dangerous and we should "kick them out" or prevent them entry into the our country. ...then, attempting to time things just right the spy organizations all over the world ask for everyone to give up their privacy so they can "stop terrorists". What we won't see in the major news media/popular talking heads: * Outrage that despite the billions upon billions invested in spying programs no one was able to predict or stop this attack. Proving that the vast spying powers granted to governmental organizations don't work. * Factual stories pointing out that encryption with back doors won't be used by terrorists so it's useless against terrorists by definition. * Investigations into why the mass collection of everyone's personal details didn't work and can't work to stop these kinds of attacks. * Informative stories about what every-day people or politicians can do to hurt terrorists and stop terrorism. For example, there will be no one even remotely connecting the dots between oil usage and terrorism. Or how there's a direct link between a country's oil revenues and democracy.
- temuze 11y ago
  > * Outrage that despite the billions upon billions invested in spying programs no one was able to predict or stop this attack. Proving that the vast spying powers granted to governmental organizations don't work. In fairness, we don't exactly find out about the successes...
  - beamatronic 11y ago
    We can't know, because that back-channel carries information that could be useful to the enemy.
    - 11y ago
eps 11y ago
Looking at this differently though - Encryption or not, signs point to meta data collection being absolutely essential to tracking down these pricks' location.
hatsunearu 11y ago
If encryption is banned, how are the surveillance people going to filter all the communication in the world when they can't even filter the currently limited unencrypted traffic correctly?
ohitsdom 11y ago
Please don't use this news as a point if you're making a defense for encryption. Because there are going to be bad people who plan bad things using encrypted communication, and when that happens your point is gone and people will blame encryption.
shahryc 11y ago
Whether or not this particular attack happened with unencrypted vs. encrypted communications is irrelevant. I'm sure if we look at terror suspects and attacks in the past year across the world --- some of them used unencrypted means to communicate and others that use encrypted means to communicate. 99.999% of people aren't terror suspects. The real question is the following: how do we fight against the remainder without comprising our values?
shostack 11y ago
<puts on tinfoil hat> How soon till we get a staged terrorist event, or a staged communication from a legit one where the focus is on how they used encrypted communications? Clearly people in power want this level of control, so the question is what lengths they will go to in order to ensure they get it.
- bediger4000 11y ago
  I agree: people in power, from a large number of factions inside the group of people in power, want this level of control. The question is "Why"?
arca_vorago 11y ago
I've been calling it for years: welcome to the return of the cryptowars. The 90's were just a stalling tactic, as admitted by a DoJ attorney to Eben Moglen back then. Expect creeping legislation to appear declaring more encryption "munitions grade", or some other such similar nonsense.
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
But they used cell phones. So we need to ban cell phones. Ban cell phones, or the terrorists win! Oh, nobody's arguing for doing that? Hmm, why not?
andrewchambers 11y ago
I don't like either result of discussing whether or not terrorists use encryption. Terrorists used unencrypted communication -> government will want to spy on everyone's unencrypted content more. Terrorists used encryption -> Government wants to restrict encryption. Instead discussion should be around what is already legal but wasn't done and why.

226 points by apress 11y ago

brighton36 11y ago

Time to ban unencrypted communication I guess

scrollaway 11y ago
Over the wire? I'm in. :)

lamby 11y ago

Meh. What matters are the principles; even if you could show that 100% of terrorists always used encrypted communications without exception..I would still not be in favour of outlawing encrypted messages.

mangeletti 11y ago
I agree 100%. Getting into arguments over practicality with these slime balls lands you right where they want you, debating with them in order to earn rights you already have.
- hodwik 11y ago
  Rights are established and protected by constant legislative and judicial battle. There are obviously a lot of people who think that hard-encryption shouldn't be available to the public. If you're not willing to engage with them you're just going to get steamrolled. In matters of law, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
  - woodman 11y ago
    Thomas Jefferson disagrees :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

prawn 11y ago

Spotted on Twitter: "If banning encryption would stop terrorists using it, why don’t they just make terrorism illegal and be done with it?"

0942v8653 11y ago
Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591621 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591621 - > I love how Republicans believe that outlawing guns won't stop criminals from having guns while at the same time believing that outlawing encryption will keep criminals from using encryption. > Encryption methods are far easier to transport and spread illegally than gun are.
- PKop 11y ago
  Don't assume all, or even many, Republican voters believe this. Those of a more libertarian bent unequivocally do not. Sure, many of the politicians seem to support outlawing encryption. But that's true of both parties is it not?
  - riskable 11y ago
    Considering the average age of Republicans I doubt the majority of them even understand what encryption is let alone what the impact of outlawing it would be... http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/the-gop-is-dying-off-literally-118035 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/the-gop-is-dy... http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/ http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-part...
- hueving 11y ago
  Stop spreading partisan crap. Read the first response to that comment.
  - rtl49 11y ago
    It's true that many, if not most, Democratic politicians could be termed "anti-encryption." Diane Feinstein is perhaps the most notorious example of a Democrat who has promoted this and other "authoritarian" views. But the fact remains the hypocrisy noted is more applicable to Republicans, who tend to oppose gun control much more frequently than Democrats.

hodwik 11y ago

Not really relevant, the day will come when no terrorists communicate in the clear. I'm not suggesting we outlaw encrypted communications, but I do wonder how law enforcement is supposed to track terrorist communications after they go dark.

Alupis 11y ago
The big point of this article is, given all of the NSA spying and mass surveillance of pretty much all phone networks worldwide, they still failed to detect anything related to this attack. It shows two main things: 1) Mass drag-net style surveillance programs are not very effective. 2) Banning encryption will have minimal-to-no effect on improving mass drag-net style surveillance programs. This means, to date, the only "terrorist plot" thwarted by the NSA mass drag-net style surveillance program remains that one guy who tried to send $8,500 to the Taliban (and was promptly arrested)[1]. [1] http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/nsa-spying-did-not-result-in-one-stopped-terrorist-plot-and-the-government-actually-did-spy-on-the-bad-guys-before-911.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/nsa-spying-did-not-re...
- hodwik 11y ago
  Absolutely, so we as community, seeing these problems, need to be pro-active in helping government discover more effective ways to protect the people of this world from extremists. The hands-up "Well, terrorism happens. Nothing to do about it." sentiment of many in our community is obviously not resonating with the general public. If we don't provide serious alternatives, they will continue pushing these sorts of methods to greater and greater extremes.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    The general public are not the ones calling for encryption bans and regulations, or really much of anything. They're virtually disenfranchised in such matters, especially national security. We absolutely do not owe the government to protect anyone from anything. You have more to lose from government agents like police forces than terrorists.

msoad 11y ago

Telegram is the dominant communication app in Middle East and most people prefer unencrypted massaging because of multi-device capabilities. I don't think ISIS people are any different

rtl49 11y ago

I don't mean to downplay the importance of this tragedy for the people involved, but it's interesting to observe the media reaction to this event with a more detached frame of mind than I was capable of as a child. The attacks have played right into the hands of parties with political interests lying in wait. For months articles on one or the other side of the encryption "debate" have been produced by news organizations at a low hum. Now that something, anything, loosely relevant has occurred, they can now point to this as further evidence in support of whatever position was espoused over the course of the preceding months. It strikes a person who pays attention to such things as rather methodical.

Swizec 11y ago
> It strikes a person who pays attention to such things as rather methodical. There's a reason journalists are also referred to as vultures. If you're interesting in how media spin works, I have found Trust Me, I'm Lying by Ryan Holiday eye opening. It focuses more on the marketing aspect, but it works for anything. He for instance described how you can spin controversy out of nothing in order to promote products.
qrendel 11y ago
I agree with the general comment about people rushing to politicize events, but it doesn't seem just "loosely relevant" either. Governments claim they need to backdoor software or outlaw encryption to prevent attacks. They're spending hundreds of billions of dollars (just in the US) and still failing to do so. Some people think allowing refugees will lead to more violence. Others don't want millions left to suffer because of the actions of a few radicals. These are all pretty big issues directly related to the events. How long should we wait before it's appropriate to analyze them in public discourse? Imo, worse than appearing eager to capitalize on others' suffering is all the speculation before having hard details about the matter. But some pundit inevitably lights a match in a room full of fireworks (figuratively speaking), and everyone else rushes to defend their position as well.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  They're spending hundreds of billions of dollars (just in the US) and still failing to do so. How do you know how many attacks would have taken place if not for that spending?

pjc50 11y ago

Well, yes: encryption is hard to use and sticks out a mile. Whereas good old codewords defeat dragnet surveillance and are easy to use. For every single concert and sporting event there are thousands of people discussing meeting up and going there over SMS, discussing times, locations and who's going to be there. How do you determine who has malicious intent?

rndmind 11y ago
What a prescient and logical observation.

rustynails 11y ago

I found this to be a very interesting article on ISIS with insights to their communications, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-in... When people left Bucca, they had written each other's names & numbers on the elastic of their underwear. They also responded to Anonymous' threat toward ISIS by suggesting techniques to secure Comms and what to avoid. http://www.businessinsider.com.au/isis-anonymous-statement-2015-11 http://www.businessinsider.com.au/isis-anonymous-statement-2... I would suggest that this cell did not use protection but I am confident the larger ISIS network is not so transparent. My suspicions would be that most Comms is via word of mouth.

d3sandoval 11y ago
Agreed. Word of mouth is still a very viable method of communication and, given the organization's value of human life, I wouldn't be surprised if runners are frequently used to disseminate critical communication.

riskable 11y ago

The moment my wife and I heard about the attacks in Paris I said to her, "the spooks are going to use this as an excuse to take everyone's rights away." The media response on this was so predictable it was like clockwork: * Conservative media immediately kicks off talking points in regards to, "if more people were carrying guns this wouldn't have happened!" * "Where's the outrage from Muslims?" * "Outraged Muslims say the attackers aren't true Muslims because Mohammed forbids killing innocents." * "It had to have been Syrian refugees!" * "Can't we just bomb the fsck out of Syria?" * All manner of insinuations that all Muslims are dangerous and we should "kick them out" or prevent them entry into the our country. ...then, attempting to time things just right the spy organizations all over the world ask for everyone to give up their privacy so they can "stop terrorists". What we won't see in the major news media/popular talking heads: * Outrage that despite the billions upon billions invested in spying programs no one was able to predict or stop this attack. Proving that the vast spying powers granted to governmental organizations don't work. * Factual stories pointing out that encryption with back doors won't be used by terrorists so it's useless against terrorists by definition. * Investigations into why the mass collection of everyone's personal details didn't work and can't work to stop these kinds of attacks. * Informative stories about what every-day people or politicians can do to hurt terrorists and stop terrorism. For example, there will be no one even remotely connecting the dots between oil usage and terrorism. Or how there's a direct link between a country's oil revenues and democracy.

temuze 11y ago
> * Outrage that despite the billions upon billions invested in spying programs no one was able to predict or stop this attack. Proving that the vast spying powers granted to governmental organizations don't work. In fairness, we don't exactly find out about the successes...
- beamatronic 11y ago
  We can't know, because that back-channel carries information that could be useful to the enemy.
  - 11y ago

eps 11y ago

Looking at this differently though - Encryption or not, signs point to meta data collection being absolutely essential to tracking down these pricks' location.

hatsunearu 11y ago

If encryption is banned, how are the surveillance people going to filter all the communication in the world when they can't even filter the currently limited unencrypted traffic correctly?

ohitsdom 11y ago

Please don't use this news as a point if you're making a defense for encryption. Because there are going to be bad people who plan bad things using encrypted communication, and when that happens your point is gone and people will blame encryption.

shahryc 11y ago

Whether or not this particular attack happened with unencrypted vs. encrypted communications is irrelevant. I'm sure if we look at terror suspects and attacks in the past year across the world --- some of them used unencrypted means to communicate and others that use encrypted means to communicate. 99.999% of people aren't terror suspects. The real question is the following: how do we fight against the remainder without comprising our values?

shostack 11y ago

<puts on tinfoil hat> How soon till we get a staged terrorist event, or a staged communication from a legit one where the focus is on how they used encrypted communications? Clearly people in power want this level of control, so the question is what lengths they will go to in order to ensure they get it.

bediger4000 11y ago
I agree: people in power, from a large number of factions inside the group of people in power, want this level of control. The question is "Why"?

arca_vorago 11y ago

I've been calling it for years: welcome to the return of the cryptowars. The 90's were just a stalling tactic, as admitted by a DoJ attorney to Eben Moglen back then. Expect creeping legislation to appear declaring more encryption "munitions grade", or some other such similar nonsense.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

But they used cell phones. So we need to ban cell phones. Ban cell phones, or the terrorists win! Oh, nobody's arguing for doing that? Hmm, why not?

andrewchambers 11y ago

I don't like either result of discussing whether or not terrorists use encryption. Terrorists used unencrypted communication -> government will want to spy on everyone's unencrypted content more. Terrorists used encryption -> Government wants to restrict encryption. Instead discussion should be around what is already legal but wasn't done and why.