8 ms·

I understand why Twitter might not want ISIS accounts on their service but from a national security standpoint, it seems better to have the communication happen

I understand why Twitter might not want ISIS accounts on their service but from a national security standpoint, it seems better to have the communication happening on a U.S.-based service like Twitter than some darknet or crypto-centric app.

volkk 9y ago
My guess is that the real comms already do happen outside of Twitter, and that Twitter is simply a recruitment platform/loudspeaker
- make3 9y ago
  Indeed. I would be very surprised if any real planning happened on twitter DMs. That would be unbelievably stupid, with the NSA stuff now being so well known
  - module0000 9y ago
    It's a great way to plant false plans. You don't have to carry them out unless the threat was never mitigated(if it wasn't taken seriously, then you can carry it out for 2x damage: part being the attack itself, the second part being that "they knew and did nothing!").
    - supergreg 9y ago
      How would you know if they did know and chose not to do anything to avoid showing they did know?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - im3w1l 9y ago
        Well ISIS must have some form of intelligence of their own? Although I have no idea how advanced it would be.
  - proofofstake 9y ago
    While not quite planning, announcements do occur. Found a large number of accounts connected to the attackers from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Culwell_Center_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Culwell_Center_attack when it was ongoing. Minutes before the attack: > #texasattack: "May Allah accept us as mujahideen." Minutes after: > Allahu Akbar!!!! 2 of our brothers just opened fire. Also saw Salafists retweet an old cartoon by Charlie Hebdo of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hours before the Charlie Hebdo shooting occurred. I'm divided about this issue. One the one hand, I've seen accounts that glorify the Paris attacks and link to bomb making materials, on the other hand, I've seen lots of video's from Syria and Palestine which does indeed radicalize youth, but is also not directly terrorist propaganda (a lot of this is newsworthy, but does not end up in the news, so it is valuable to share on social media). Should linking to an Anwar al-Awlaki video be grounds for a ban? Remember, these videos are on Youtube. I like to think back 10-15 years when people had to self-host their websites. Stuff that, back then, would surely get you a knock on the door, slips through daily on social networks. I say: If you can't host it yourself, you can't rely on a third party to host it for you and protect your anonymity. So yes, chase them underground, and apply more serious tracking to those that are acting more seriously (someone on Telegram writing about terrorism is way more serious than someone on Twitter writing about terrorism). Try to keep social media free of war propaganda. And be careful to not overdo it. America is a country where writing a Facebook post about Apple interspersed with quotes from Fight Club can get you SWATted [1]. [1] http://nyconvergence.com/2011/06/ny-man-uses-fight-club-quote-on-facebook-charged-with-terrorist-threat.html http://nyconvergence.com/2011/06/ny-man-uses-fight-club-quot...
- katastic 9y ago
  Your guess would be 100% correct. We built huge spy networks only to find out that the terrorists don't even use the internet for their plans. They use burner phones and other non-tech solutions (paper?! omgawdwtf.) because (surprise!) they're harder to track on a systematic level.
  - astura 9y ago
    Before he was killed Bin Laden communicated with his inner circle only by USB drives transported by sneakernet - his bunker lacked Internet connection but his communications were electronic. I think some of his communication was re-transmitted by his couriers over the Internet though but not through locations that were physically near where he was hiding.
    - Pxtl 9y ago
      Really, he didn't have internet? I remember his final video and it was so laden with modern political jargon I'm really surprised - I kind of figured he'd spent the decade in hiding surfing political forums.
      - astura 9y ago
        His communication was two way, not just one way. It was just really slow and labor intensive. I typed my last comment going from memory. I looked it up and my memory served me well, his bunker didn't have Internet. Looks like his USB drives weren't encrypted though, rookie mistake. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/how-bin-laden-emailed-without-being-detected-1.998842 http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/how-bin-laden-emailed-without-b...
        gertef 9y ago
        https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html """ I am careful in how I use the Internet. I generally do not connect to web sites from my own machine, aside from a few sites I have some special relationship with. I usually fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program (see git://git.gnu.org/womb/hacks.git) that fetches them, much like wget, and then mails them back to me. Then I look at them using a web browser, unless it is easy to see the text in the HTML page directly. I usually try lynx first, then a graphical browser if the page needs it (using konqueror, which won't fetch from other sites in such a situation). I occasionally also browse unrelated sites using IceCat via Tor. Except for rare cases, I do not identify myself to them. I think that is enough to prevent my browsing from being connected with me. IceCat blocks tracking tags and most fingerprinting methods. I never pay for anything on the Web. Anything on the net that requires payment, I don't do. (I made an exception for the fees for the stallman.org domain, since that is connected with me anyway.) I also avoid paying with credit cards. """
- BartSaM 9y ago
  Then ghosting would make much more sense, in my opinion, to keep the data just in case some information will get shared that could lead to catching terrorists/recruiters.
  - fiblye 9y ago
    Just what I was thinking. Reddit and HN shadowban people without them ever knowing. Twitter probably should too, and allow things like current location/potential plans to be farmed.
- agumonkey 9y ago
  It's already common practice for criminals to use encrypted chat system. You may get noobs and fresh recruits but anything serious would happen elsewhere.
koolba 9y ago
I think they do both. The Twitter piece is mainly propaganda to aid in radicalization and recruiting.
i_cant_speel 9y ago
I think it's more trying to stop people from finding those darknet sites in the first place. I'd imagine they are using Twitter to bring people to the sites where the real conversations go on.
- phjesusthatguy3 9y ago
  I think it's probably more about CYA at twitter than twitter trying to "do the right thing" (whatever that thing may be).
aphextron 9y ago
Agreed, and this should be the retort to any curtailing of free speech in the name of safety. Its the same argument as allowing “the_donald” to exist on Reddit. You will not stop an ideology by denying them a platform. Better to debate them in an open forum, even if they are evil. The only way to counter bad ideas is with good ones.
- softawre 9y ago
  There was a recent /r/science article that suggested the banning of coontown and fatpeoplehate resulted in less hate on the platform as a whole. Would you argue this hate moved to other avenues of the web? I'd bet some of it did, but some people just stopped being so hateful on the internet once their cesspool went away. https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/6zg6w6/reddits_bans_of_rcoontown_and_rfatpeoplehate/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/6zg6w6/reddits_ban...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - katastic 9y ago
    It's conflation to compare coontown with the_donald. Go there right now. You won't find "kill the jews" posts. You won't find "kill the gays/black people" posts. You'll find a ton of supportive people with a particular worldview--and there's nothing wrong with that. If you assume the people you disagree with are "insane" or disregard them as "full of hate" then you'll never understand why they think the way they do and the division in our world continues unabated. It still blows my mind that people who support the currently elected president, are considered a hate group. If the other candidate had won, would we consider her subreddit a hate sub? Would we care what the losing party thought about her subreddit? We all know the answer to that: "No." I have never before seen an election where "only one candidate is considered a human being." Strange times.
    - neuronexmachina 9y ago
      I was curious and peeked over to see what's currently popular over at the_donald. Some of the top-voted recent links: * "UN Globalists are on suicide watch after President Trump's speech" * "One of the best quotes of the speech. Socialist cucks BTFO!" * "This tweet from David Brock's cucks is less than 2 weeks old and has already aged terribly." * "Can you imagine a world without Islam?" * "HE TRULY IS A GOD AMONG MEN" (God-Emperor Trump) * "Since 9/11 there have been ~35,000 deadly Islamic terror attacks; that's an average of 2,000 per year... So let's (A) NEVER FORGET, (B) PRESS F, and (C) DRIVE. THEM. OUT. FROM. THE. EARTH!"
javajosh 9y ago
This is perhaps giving the USG too much credit, but it's possible that they considered this a reasonable trade-off. That is, they are reducing the amount of new radicalization, at the expense of driving the already radicalized underground. On it's face, this is a good trade-off, since already radicalized people are going to be using crypto/darknet stuff anyway.
spaceseaman 9y ago
You use twitter to radicalize and indoctrinate - not plan attacks. Attacks are typically planned alone and in solitude after someone has already been radicalized.
- robotresearcher 9y ago
  > alone and in solitude two-factor solitude.
  - katastic 9y ago
    That made me chuckle.
  - spaceseaman 9y ago
    By alone I meant "the attacks were planned by themselves". And by in solitude I mean, "in isolation from society at large".
    - robotresearcher 9y ago
      I was just kidding. The joke still works after your clarification, I think.

volkk 9y ago

My guess is that the real comms already do happen outside of Twitter, and that Twitter is simply a recruitment platform/loudspeaker

make3 9y ago
Indeed. I would be very surprised if any real planning happened on twitter DMs. That would be unbelievably stupid, with the NSA stuff now being so well known
- module0000 9y ago
  It's a great way to plant false plans. You don't have to carry them out unless the threat was never mitigated(if it wasn't taken seriously, then you can carry it out for 2x damage: part being the attack itself, the second part being that "they knew and did nothing!").
  - supergreg 9y ago
    How would you know if they did know and chose not to do anything to avoid showing they did know?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - im3w1l 9y ago
      Well ISIS must have some form of intelligence of their own? Although I have no idea how advanced it would be.
- proofofstake 9y ago
  While not quite planning, announcements do occur. Found a large number of accounts connected to the attackers from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Culwell_Center_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Culwell_Center_attack when it was ongoing. Minutes before the attack: > #texasattack: "May Allah accept us as mujahideen." Minutes after: > Allahu Akbar!!!! 2 of our brothers just opened fire. Also saw Salafists retweet an old cartoon by Charlie Hebdo of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hours before the Charlie Hebdo shooting occurred. I'm divided about this issue. One the one hand, I've seen accounts that glorify the Paris attacks and link to bomb making materials, on the other hand, I've seen lots of video's from Syria and Palestine which does indeed radicalize youth, but is also not directly terrorist propaganda (a lot of this is newsworthy, but does not end up in the news, so it is valuable to share on social media). Should linking to an Anwar al-Awlaki video be grounds for a ban? Remember, these videos are on Youtube. I like to think back 10-15 years when people had to self-host their websites. Stuff that, back then, would surely get you a knock on the door, slips through daily on social networks. I say: If you can't host it yourself, you can't rely on a third party to host it for you and protect your anonymity. So yes, chase them underground, and apply more serious tracking to those that are acting more seriously (someone on Telegram writing about terrorism is way more serious than someone on Twitter writing about terrorism). Try to keep social media free of war propaganda. And be careful to not overdo it. America is a country where writing a Facebook post about Apple interspersed with quotes from Fight Club can get you SWATted [1]. [1] http://nyconvergence.com/2011/06/ny-man-uses-fight-club-quote-on-facebook-charged-with-terrorist-threat.html http://nyconvergence.com/2011/06/ny-man-uses-fight-club-quot...
katastic 9y ago
Your guess would be 100% correct. We built huge spy networks only to find out that the terrorists don't even use the internet for their plans. They use burner phones and other non-tech solutions (paper?! omgawdwtf.) because (surprise!) they're harder to track on a systematic level.
- astura 9y ago
  Before he was killed Bin Laden communicated with his inner circle only by USB drives transported by sneakernet - his bunker lacked Internet connection but his communications were electronic. I think some of his communication was re-transmitted by his couriers over the Internet though but not through locations that were physically near where he was hiding.
  - Pxtl 9y ago
    Really, he didn't have internet? I remember his final video and it was so laden with modern political jargon I'm really surprised - I kind of figured he'd spent the decade in hiding surfing political forums.
    - astura 9y ago
      His communication was two way, not just one way. It was just really slow and labor intensive. I typed my last comment going from memory. I looked it up and my memory served me well, his bunker didn't have Internet. Looks like his USB drives weren't encrypted though, rookie mistake. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/how-bin-laden-emailed-without-being-detected-1.998842 http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/how-bin-laden-emailed-without-b...
      - gertef 9y ago
        https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html """ I am careful in how I use the Internet. I generally do not connect to web sites from my own machine, aside from a few sites I have some special relationship with. I usually fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program (see git://git.gnu.org/womb/hacks.git) that fetches them, much like wget, and then mails them back to me. Then I look at them using a web browser, unless it is easy to see the text in the HTML page directly. I usually try lynx first, then a graphical browser if the page needs it (using konqueror, which won't fetch from other sites in such a situation). I occasionally also browse unrelated sites using IceCat via Tor. Except for rare cases, I do not identify myself to them. I think that is enough to prevent my browsing from being connected with me. IceCat blocks tracking tags and most fingerprinting methods. I never pay for anything on the Web. Anything on the net that requires payment, I don't do. (I made an exception for the fees for the stallman.org domain, since that is connected with me anyway.) I also avoid paying with credit cards. """
BartSaM 9y ago
Then ghosting would make much more sense, in my opinion, to keep the data just in case some information will get shared that could lead to catching terrorists/recruiters.
- fiblye 9y ago
  Just what I was thinking. Reddit and HN shadowban people without them ever knowing. Twitter probably should too, and allow things like current location/potential plans to be farmed.
agumonkey 9y ago
It's already common practice for criminals to use encrypted chat system. You may get noobs and fresh recruits but anything serious would happen elsewhere.

koolba 9y ago

I think they do both. The Twitter piece is mainly propaganda to aid in radicalization and recruiting.

i_cant_speel 9y ago

I think it's more trying to stop people from finding those darknet sites in the first place. I'd imagine they are using Twitter to bring people to the sites where the real conversations go on.

phjesusthatguy3 9y ago
I think it's probably more about CYA at twitter than twitter trying to "do the right thing" (whatever that thing may be).

aphextron 9y ago

Agreed, and this should be the retort to any curtailing of free speech in the name of safety. Its the same argument as allowing “the_donald” to exist on Reddit. You will not stop an ideology by denying them a platform. Better to debate them in an open forum, even if they are evil. The only way to counter bad ideas is with good ones.

softawre 9y ago
There was a recent /r/science article that suggested the banning of coontown and fatpeoplehate resulted in less hate on the platform as a whole. Would you argue this hate moved to other avenues of the web? I'd bet some of it did, but some people just stopped being so hateful on the internet once their cesspool went away. https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/6zg6w6/reddits_bans_of_rcoontown_and_rfatpeoplehate/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/6zg6w6/reddits_ban...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- katastic 9y ago
  It's conflation to compare coontown with the_donald. Go there right now. You won't find "kill the jews" posts. You won't find "kill the gays/black people" posts. You'll find a ton of supportive people with a particular worldview--and there's nothing wrong with that. If you assume the people you disagree with are "insane" or disregard them as "full of hate" then you'll never understand why they think the way they do and the division in our world continues unabated. It still blows my mind that people who support the currently elected president, are considered a hate group. If the other candidate had won, would we consider her subreddit a hate sub? Would we care what the losing party thought about her subreddit? We all know the answer to that: "No." I have never before seen an election where "only one candidate is considered a human being." Strange times.
  - neuronexmachina 9y ago
    I was curious and peeked over to see what's currently popular over at the_donald. Some of the top-voted recent links: * "UN Globalists are on suicide watch after President Trump's speech" * "One of the best quotes of the speech. Socialist cucks BTFO!" * "This tweet from David Brock's cucks is less than 2 weeks old and has already aged terribly." * "Can you imagine a world without Islam?" * "HE TRULY IS A GOD AMONG MEN" (God-Emperor Trump) * "Since 9/11 there have been ~35,000 deadly Islamic terror attacks; that's an average of 2,000 per year... So let's (A) NEVER FORGET, (B) PRESS F, and (C) DRIVE. THEM. OUT. FROM. THE. EARTH!"

javajosh 9y ago

This is perhaps giving the USG too much credit, but it's possible that they considered this a reasonable trade-off. That is, they are reducing the amount of new radicalization, at the expense of driving the already radicalized underground. On it's face, this is a good trade-off, since already radicalized people are going to be using crypto/darknet stuff anyway.

spaceseaman 9y ago

You use twitter to radicalize and indoctrinate - not plan attacks. Attacks are typically planned alone and in solitude after someone has already been radicalized.

robotresearcher 9y ago
> alone and in solitude two-factor solitude.
- katastic 9y ago
  That made me chuckle.
- spaceseaman 9y ago
  By alone I meant "the attacks were planned by themselves". And by in solitude I mean, "in isolation from society at large".
  - robotresearcher 9y ago
    I was just kidding. The joke still works after your clarification, I think.