4 ms·
I would disagree with this reasoning. Yes, french HUMINT has heavily infiltrated extremist organizations, and failed to prevent this attack. It does not mean t
by wuschel 11y ago
I would disagree with this reasoning.
Yes, french HUMINT has heavily infiltrated extremist organizations, and failed to prevent this attack. It does not mean that it was the use of encryption that allowed ISIS/extremist organizations to execute this attack on french soil.
The french secret service approach is fundamentally different from the US, as they historically rely less on SIGINT.
I am not sure where I read it, but in presume the number of prevented attack is in the thousands.
- davorb 11y ago> I am not sure where I read it, but in presume the number of prevented attack is in the thousands. Then why don't we have thousands of prosecuted and convicted terrorists in our jails?
- wuschel 11y agoI am not speaking necessarily about prevented live assaults, but about pre-emptive action as well. But I get your point. I need to check that article back then.
- mercurial 11y ago> they historically rely less on SIGINT. But they still happily installed only-now-legal "black boxes" at major providers to siphon data, don't you worry.