4 ms·
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 l
by 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 agoThe 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 agoAbsolutely, 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 agoThe 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.
- marcosdumay 11y agoIf those governments were trying to get terrorists, they'd be investing on something that catches terrorists. They are investing in total surveillance because they want to make their civilian population submit to their wills. Just stop giving credence to their lies.
- rustynails 11y agoWhile I question the effectiveness of current practices, a number of people identified the ringleader but it was ignored. I suspect he was identified because there was a person on the ground, talking and interacting with real people. Anyone that thinks this war will be won in an armchair using a PC or by dropping bombs is deluding themselves.
- Alupis 11y agoThe ringleader (Abdelhamid Abaaoud) was already on counter-terrorism watchlists from previous activities, including a previous terror attack in Belgium.[1] [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/abdelhamid-abaaoud-suspected-mastermind-of-paris-terror-attacks http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/abdelhamid-abaa...
- korethr 11y agoThe same way they track them now -- with all the other investigation and intelligence methods they have now. It's not like cyrpto makes investigation impossible or magically makes terrorists immune to OpSec errors that enable the authorities to find them.
- celticninja 11y agoWell they haven't got a good track record when it comes to unencrypted communication so...