7 ms·

Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms. They literally get a drone strike for having called a

Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms. They literally get a drone strike for having called a known terrorist or for going to a wedding other terrorists with cell phones go to. For home grown terrorism, how many school shootings happen when the people who know the shooter literally tell police/fbi beforehand about the state of the shooter. Are school shooters not terrorists? They have a social/political gripe and the terror is their way to get their voice out, avenge (like jihad) or inflict change. So why are they failing so bad even after almost 20 years of patriot act? Politicians don't want to be blamed because they know the next terrorist attack will happen soon and it can't be prevented,except the politicians that gut the patriot act will be blamed for it. On the flip side,information on voters,tracking them like this helps politicians

lonelappde 6y ago
Terrorism has been removed of its meaning since 2001. Terrorism means using violence or threat of violence to influence social or political decisions. Not everything bad is terrorism. A mentally ill person going on a murder-suicide rampage after beijg ignored by a girl is not a terrorist. A person acting in their self-interest in a way that contributes to systemic racism or oppression is not a terrorist. Hunting or threatening people of a certain race or gender or orientation or hobby to scare them and others away is terrorism. Blowing up buildings to pressure decision makers into a policy change is terrorism. Maybe manipulating a single individual via threats or minor violence could be considered small scale terrorism (but their are better words, like harassment or abuse or stalking or assault).
- KittenInABox 6y ago
  > Terrorism means using violence or threat of violence to influence social or political decisions. So like the shooting of a black church by a white supremacist explicitly for the purposes of espousing white supremacy? > Hunting or threatening people of a certain race or gender or orientation or hobby to scare them and others away is terrorism. So like the lgbtq club shooting, or the black church, or the 1989 shooting specifically targeting women?
  - MichaelApproved 6y ago
    Yes, clearly.
  - atomi 6y ago
    Or the El Paso shooting targeting Hispanics.
  - hedora 6y ago
    But to stay on topic, reading this article is clearly also terrorism, since only a minority(+) of congress disagrees. (+) “minority” has apparently been redefined to be 60-66% whenever the goal is to stop congress from doing something reprehensible.
- MichaelApproved 6y ago
  I agree but I’d take it a bit further. Trying to change the behavior of a group of people by using violence is what I’d consider to be terrorism. By that definition, some school shooters would qualify as terrorists. When they target a category of people (like athletes) who haven’t bulled them, they’re trying to scare all people away from becoming athletes. I’d say, if you target specific people who directly hurt you, you’re seeking revenge. If you target a category of people, you’re saying that those people who haven’t done anything to you are targets and you’re trying to influence their behavior through fear.
  - curryst 6y ago
    Their perception is that everyone in that group did hurt them. School shooters frequently blame everyone in the school for not helping them, and for having a higher social status than they do. I think their motivation is to flip the social hierarchy so they are at the top, and to punish people they think have wronged them (i.e. basically everyone). The fact that it strikes fear into the rest of the nation is ancillary. They're usually more interested in the notoriety they gain than trying to create some kind of policy change.
- badrabbit 6y ago
  When a girl ignores him,he attacked not that girl but a social group out of misogyny or some other socio-political perception of injustice. So it is still terrorism. The point of the attack is to affect political(at the social level) change. This really is similar to jihadist terrorism,jihadism took away american's privacy and mass shooters with gripes against american socio-politics have americans living in trauma over active shooter drills and gun toting teachers. Not only are they both terrorism, they both won! Al-qaeda is eradicated but they won, I fear many would credit 9/11 as the begining of the end of america. Much like insurgent warfare,terrorism will be studied as a means of warfare where due to extreme imbalances on weaponry and digital surveillance the only way to fight is by terrorizing your enemy. War is horrible but terrorism is a cancerous form of war where destroying your enemy does not translate to success.
  - curryst 6y ago
    The term terrorism refers to intended effect by the perpetrator. If the goal is to effect change by creating fear, it is terrorism. If the goal is revenge for perceived wrong doing, it is not terrorism. I would argue most school shootings are also not terrorism. They do create fear, but my impression is that the intended goal is revenge rather than fear. It would be hard to frame them as terrorists; most of them leave behind notes expressing a clear desire for revenge but mentioning no kind of policy changes they want. I do think most of the race/religion inspired mass shootings were terrorist acts though. Their goal seemed to be spreading fear in those communities.
  - kiba 6y ago
    Al-qaeda is eradicated but they won, I fear many would credit 9/11 as the begining of the end of america. Much like insurgent warfare,terrorism will be studied as a means of warfare where due to extreme imbalances on weaponry and digital surveillance the only way to fight is by terrorizing your enemy. War is horrible but terrorism is a cancerous form of war where destroying your enemy does not translate to success. Won what? As far as I know, they didn't achieve their goal of driving out the Americans out of the Middle East. The loss of privacy and rights is incidental to their goals.
thedudeabides5 6y ago
Well for security minded folks, the fact they can't use traditional comms (likely because of existing snooping techniques) is a good thing. Now, does all that snooping and invading countries increase the background desire and willingness for bad guys to do terrorist-type things, almost certainty.
isoskeles 6y ago
> Are school shooters not terrorists? They are not. Terrorism is supposed to be a political tool. Whereas school shooters are often just deranged or troubled people lashing out.
- taneq 6y ago
  Terrorism is violence with the intention of creating fear to further a political goal. If a kid feels victimized and wants to hurt the people they feel responsible, that's not terrorism. If a kid wants to hurt bullies with the intention that it will make other bullies afraid and so reduce the overall amount of bullying in schools then that would fit the definition.
  - hedora 6y ago
    By your definition (which I think is overly broad), most police officers are terrorists, and so is anyone that engages in self defense, or even jurors that vote “guilty” in the hope of deferring future crimes. You either need to narrow the definition or carve out explicit exceptions. If you are carving out exceptions, the definition is just “people we don’t like”. I guess that is pretty close to the definition prosecutors like to use in the US.
    - bsanr2 6y ago
      "Individuals acting in support of the rule of law" is generally the exception, but there is something useful in the implications you've brought up. That is, the uncomfortable proximity unlawful judgment and execution has to lawful judgment and execution; they're both ideologically-driven. That they're similar in this manner doesn't mean that we can't have laws and law enforcement because they're inherently violent and tyrannical or anything, but it does inform how seriously and dispassionately we should approach their means and ends. I don't think that it's particularly radical to call an abuse of judicial power terrorism. What else to call, for example, a judge who robs entire communities of their youth in exchange for backroom deals with private prisons?
  - isoskeles 6y ago
JoeSmithson 6y ago
> Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms Shit like this is said all the time on HN with absolutely nothing to substantiate it.
- tadhgds 6y ago
  I'm not really sure why you think this needs substantiation. The logic goes like this: It would be utterly stupid for terrorist groups to rely on digital communications simply because of how well locked down the various government agencies have made it. We assume that they are not utterly stupid. I don't think it's a crazy statement or needing further justification. I doubt terrorist groups are that sophisticated but I would assume they have plugged the simplest holes.
  - JoeSmithson 6y ago
    It needs further justification because it's contradicted by the evidence cited to support it. "Terrorists don't use digital communications[0] [0] Example of a terrorist identified and killed via surveillance of their digital communications"
- StreamBright 6y ago
  Do you know many terrorists who use digital communication to back your claim? What the above is talking about well known, even privacy-aware people tend to not use digital communication that much, no facebook, or other social media, no smartphones. In the post-Snowden era, I am not sure why somebody thinks otherwise. 3 letter agencies have the means, the reason, the legitimacy, and the resources to penetrate every type of telecommunication, the worst-case just trojan the entire GSM infrastructure if necessary. The USA conducted thousands of drone strikes. What do you think drives locating the target? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-drone-strikes/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-drone-strikes/
  - JoeSmithson 6y ago
    > Do you know many terrorists who use digital communication to back your claim? Yes. In fact I don't know of a single terrorist who doesn't use digital communication of some kind. I'm slightly confused because you seem to be justifying your belief that no terrorists use digital communication on the back of examples of terrorists identified and killed via surveillance of their digital communication use
VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
> they know the next terrorist attack will happen soon and it can't be prevented, you have no idea what you're talking about. but here you are on the internet talking like you have a clue. get off this website.
dontbenebby 6y ago
>Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms Then why is terrorist content discussed so much in content moderation circles, specifically the fact that content moderators are viewing it so often it induces PTSD in them? ISIS has put out high definition videos of executions. That's the opposite of "not touching digital comms" https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/12/21255870/facebook-content-moderator-settlement-scola-ptsd-mental-health https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/12/21255870/facebook-content...
- economicslol 6y ago
  They're not doing that to plan things, it's used intentionally for PR. Drive fear into those that watch it and recruit others who are excited. Pretty clear those are different.
  - dontbenebby 6y ago
    But they're carrying complex recording devices, and sometimes laptops, to move the footage. The original incidents are terrorism, and the people doing them are targeted.
- vlan0 6y ago
  >ISIS has put out high definition videos of executions. That's the opposite of "not touching digital comms" I don't think you're being fair to the context. They've been showboating killing online for decades. But showboating should not be conflated using digital communications to coordinate their efforts. I'm not saying they don't use digital communications. But this is hardly proof of that.
- badrabbit 6y ago
  You're conflating propaganda and recruitment with organization,coordination and communication. How long did bin laden evade capture? 20-30 years? And did they catch him because he used the internet?
polskno288 6y ago
Washington politicians know American workers won’t organize a work stoppage Or even put up a serious threat of one Tech workers especially have little excuse, since it’s a matter of leaving that work laptop closed No one in tech seems to remember SOPA Workers seem oblivious to what recent teacher strikes achieved Hong Kong protests in the face of a tyrant Y’all bloviate all over your screens Who is more exceptional?
- cde-v 6y ago
  A lot has changed in the almost 10 years since SOPA, we are fully into the disinformation age and strategies that worked 10 years ago are not going to work now.
kube-system 6y ago
> Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms. They literally get a drone strike for having called a known terrorist or for going to a wedding other terrorists with cell phones go to. Terrorists don't use cell phones because terrorists use cell phones?
- jdc 6y ago
  Smart terrorists don't use cellphones because stupid terrorists do.
  - jeffdavis 6y ago
    So let's catch the stupid ones then?
    - danharaj 6y ago
      Maybe the FBI should stop making them first.
    - badrabbit 6y ago
      Even the stupid ones slip through! It takes one smart cell to repeat 9/11. The way you catch them is by targeted surveillance not by dragnet collection of information. The IC does this all the time,they do a powergrab make noise about it, achieve nothing and retain their power. Look at wmds in iraq,torturing,drone bombing,mass surveillance. Theatrics to make it look like they are doing enough. Truth is, if someone immigrated or gets radicalized without detectio, the IC is relying on them not having good opsec. Spying on everyone (instead of with a warrant) , E2EE subversion,and these silly laws won't give them additional capacity when the actual terrorists and mass shooters that slip through already have bad opsec,don't use mainstream platforms or E2EE

lonelappde 6y ago

Terrorism has been removed of its meaning since 2001. Terrorism means using violence or threat of violence to influence social or political decisions. Not everything bad is terrorism. A mentally ill person going on a murder-suicide rampage after beijg ignored by a girl is not a terrorist. A person acting in their self-interest in a way that contributes to systemic racism or oppression is not a terrorist. Hunting or threatening people of a certain race or gender or orientation or hobby to scare them and others away is terrorism. Blowing up buildings to pressure decision makers into a policy change is terrorism. Maybe manipulating a single individual via threats or minor violence could be considered small scale terrorism (but their are better words, like harassment or abuse or stalking or assault).

KittenInABox 6y ago
> Terrorism means using violence or threat of violence to influence social or political decisions. So like the shooting of a black church by a white supremacist explicitly for the purposes of espousing white supremacy? > Hunting or threatening people of a certain race or gender or orientation or hobby to scare them and others away is terrorism. So like the lgbtq club shooting, or the black church, or the 1989 shooting specifically targeting women?
- MichaelApproved 6y ago
  Yes, clearly.
- atomi 6y ago
  Or the El Paso shooting targeting Hispanics.
- hedora 6y ago
  But to stay on topic, reading this article is clearly also terrorism, since only a minority(+) of congress disagrees. (+) “minority” has apparently been redefined to be 60-66% whenever the goal is to stop congress from doing something reprehensible.
MichaelApproved 6y ago
I agree but I’d take it a bit further. Trying to change the behavior of a group of people by using violence is what I’d consider to be terrorism. By that definition, some school shooters would qualify as terrorists. When they target a category of people (like athletes) who haven’t bulled them, they’re trying to scare all people away from becoming athletes. I’d say, if you target specific people who directly hurt you, you’re seeking revenge. If you target a category of people, you’re saying that those people who haven’t done anything to you are targets and you’re trying to influence their behavior through fear.
- curryst 6y ago
  Their perception is that everyone in that group did hurt them. School shooters frequently blame everyone in the school for not helping them, and for having a higher social status than they do. I think their motivation is to flip the social hierarchy so they are at the top, and to punish people they think have wronged them (i.e. basically everyone). The fact that it strikes fear into the rest of the nation is ancillary. They're usually more interested in the notoriety they gain than trying to create some kind of policy change.
badrabbit 6y ago
When a girl ignores him,he attacked not that girl but a social group out of misogyny or some other socio-political perception of injustice. So it is still terrorism. The point of the attack is to affect political(at the social level) change. This really is similar to jihadist terrorism,jihadism took away american's privacy and mass shooters with gripes against american socio-politics have americans living in trauma over active shooter drills and gun toting teachers. Not only are they both terrorism, they both won! Al-qaeda is eradicated but they won, I fear many would credit 9/11 as the begining of the end of america. Much like insurgent warfare,terrorism will be studied as a means of warfare where due to extreme imbalances on weaponry and digital surveillance the only way to fight is by terrorizing your enemy. War is horrible but terrorism is a cancerous form of war where destroying your enemy does not translate to success.
- curryst 6y ago
  The term terrorism refers to intended effect by the perpetrator. If the goal is to effect change by creating fear, it is terrorism. If the goal is revenge for perceived wrong doing, it is not terrorism. I would argue most school shootings are also not terrorism. They do create fear, but my impression is that the intended goal is revenge rather than fear. It would be hard to frame them as terrorists; most of them leave behind notes expressing a clear desire for revenge but mentioning no kind of policy changes they want. I do think most of the race/religion inspired mass shootings were terrorist acts though. Their goal seemed to be spreading fear in those communities.
- kiba 6y ago
  Al-qaeda is eradicated but they won, I fear many would credit 9/11 as the begining of the end of america. Much like insurgent warfare,terrorism will be studied as a means of warfare where due to extreme imbalances on weaponry and digital surveillance the only way to fight is by terrorizing your enemy. War is horrible but terrorism is a cancerous form of war where destroying your enemy does not translate to success. Won what? As far as I know, they didn't achieve their goal of driving out the Americans out of the Middle East. The loss of privacy and rights is incidental to their goals.

thedudeabides5 6y ago

Well for security minded folks, the fact they can't use traditional comms (likely because of existing snooping techniques) is a good thing. Now, does all that snooping and invading countries increase the background desire and willingness for bad guys to do terrorist-type things, almost certainty.

isoskeles 6y ago

> Are school shooters not terrorists? They are not. Terrorism is supposed to be a political tool. Whereas school shooters are often just deranged or troubled people lashing out.

taneq 6y ago
Terrorism is violence with the intention of creating fear to further a political goal. If a kid feels victimized and wants to hurt the people they feel responsible, that's not terrorism. If a kid wants to hurt bullies with the intention that it will make other bullies afraid and so reduce the overall amount of bullying in schools then that would fit the definition.
- hedora 6y ago
  By your definition (which I think is overly broad), most police officers are terrorists, and so is anyone that engages in self defense, or even jurors that vote “guilty” in the hope of deferring future crimes. You either need to narrow the definition or carve out explicit exceptions. If you are carving out exceptions, the definition is just “people we don’t like”. I guess that is pretty close to the definition prosecutors like to use in the US.
  - bsanr2 6y ago
    "Individuals acting in support of the rule of law" is generally the exception, but there is something useful in the implications you've brought up. That is, the uncomfortable proximity unlawful judgment and execution has to lawful judgment and execution; they're both ideologically-driven. That they're similar in this manner doesn't mean that we can't have laws and law enforcement because they're inherently violent and tyrannical or anything, but it does inform how seriously and dispassionately we should approach their means and ends. I don't think that it's particularly radical to call an abuse of judicial power terrorism. What else to call, for example, a judge who robs entire communities of their youth in exchange for backroom deals with private prisons?
- isoskeles 6y ago

JoeSmithson 6y ago

> Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms Shit like this is said all the time on HN with absolutely nothing to substantiate it.

tadhgds 6y ago
I'm not really sure why you think this needs substantiation. The logic goes like this: It would be utterly stupid for terrorist groups to rely on digital communications simply because of how well locked down the various government agencies have made it. We assume that they are not utterly stupid. I don't think it's a crazy statement or needing further justification. I doubt terrorist groups are that sophisticated but I would assume they have plugged the simplest holes.
- JoeSmithson 6y ago
  It needs further justification because it's contradicted by the evidence cited to support it. "Terrorists don't use digital communications[0] [0] Example of a terrorist identified and killed via surveillance of their digital communications"
StreamBright 6y ago
Do you know many terrorists who use digital communication to back your claim? What the above is talking about well known, even privacy-aware people tend to not use digital communication that much, no facebook, or other social media, no smartphones. In the post-Snowden era, I am not sure why somebody thinks otherwise. 3 letter agencies have the means, the reason, the legitimacy, and the resources to penetrate every type of telecommunication, the worst-case just trojan the entire GSM infrastructure if necessary. The USA conducted thousands of drone strikes. What do you think drives locating the target? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-drone-strikes/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-drone-strikes/
- JoeSmithson 6y ago
  > Do you know many terrorists who use digital communication to back your claim? Yes. In fact I don't know of a single terrorist who doesn't use digital communication of some kind. I'm slightly confused because you seem to be justifying your belief that no terrorists use digital communication on the back of examples of terrorists identified and killed via surveillance of their digital communication use

VWWHFSfQ 6y ago

> they know the next terrorist attack will happen soon and it can't be prevented, you have no idea what you're talking about. but here you are on the internet talking like you have a clue. get off this website.

dontbenebby 6y ago

>Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms Then why is terrorist content discussed so much in content moderation circles, specifically the fact that content moderators are viewing it so often it induces PTSD in them? ISIS has put out high definition videos of executions. That's the opposite of "not touching digital comms" https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/12/21255870/facebook-content-moderator-settlement-scola-ptsd-mental-health https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/12/21255870/facebook-content...

economicslol 6y ago
They're not doing that to plan things, it's used intentionally for PR. Drive fear into those that watch it and recruit others who are excited. Pretty clear those are different.
- dontbenebby 6y ago
  But they're carrying complex recording devices, and sometimes laptops, to move the footage. The original incidents are terrorism, and the people doing them are targeted.
vlan0 6y ago
>ISIS has put out high definition videos of executions. That's the opposite of "not touching digital comms" I don't think you're being fair to the context. They've been showboating killing online for decades. But showboating should not be conflated using digital communications to coordinate their efforts. I'm not saying they don't use digital communications. But this is hardly proof of that.
badrabbit 6y ago
You're conflating propaganda and recruitment with organization,coordination and communication. How long did bin laden evade capture? 20-30 years? And did they catch him because he used the internet?

polskno288 6y ago

Washington politicians know American workers won’t organize a work stoppage Or even put up a serious threat of one Tech workers especially have little excuse, since it’s a matter of leaving that work laptop closed No one in tech seems to remember SOPA Workers seem oblivious to what recent teacher strikes achieved Hong Kong protests in the face of a tyrant Y’all bloviate all over your screens Who is more exceptional?

cde-v 6y ago
A lot has changed in the almost 10 years since SOPA, we are fully into the disinformation age and strategies that worked 10 years ago are not going to work now.

kube-system 6y ago

> Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms. They literally get a drone strike for having called a known terrorist or for going to a wedding other terrorists with cell phones go to. Terrorists don't use cell phones because terrorists use cell phones?

jdc 6y ago
Smart terrorists don't use cellphones because stupid terrorists do.
- jeffdavis 6y ago
  So let's catch the stupid ones then?
  - danharaj 6y ago
    Maybe the FBI should stop making them first.
  - badrabbit 6y ago
    Even the stupid ones slip through! It takes one smart cell to repeat 9/11. The way you catch them is by targeted surveillance not by dragnet collection of information. The IC does this all the time,they do a powergrab make noise about it, achieve nothing and retain their power. Look at wmds in iraq,torturing,drone bombing,mass surveillance. Theatrics to make it look like they are doing enough. Truth is, if someone immigrated or gets radicalized without detectio, the IC is relying on them not having good opsec. Spying on everyone (instead of with a warrant) , E2EE subversion,and these silly laws won't give them additional capacity when the actual terrorists and mass shooters that slip through already have bad opsec,don't use mainstream platforms or E2EE