4 ms·

> 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 absol

> 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
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    I think the distinction isn't generally don't use it all - they are perfectly fine with recruiting and claiming responsibility with it. Instead it is in op sec. The San Bernadino shooters shot their personal phones beyond recovery and the FBI precedent fishing expedition was to theie work phones which they started with access to.
baron_harkonnen 6y ago
I do stats for a living, and while I think it's good to back up claims with data when possible, inductive reasoning is still a validate tool for understanding the world. The logic is that active, dedicated terrorist groups already know: "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." The reasoning that knowing this information you would be very careful about what you communicate over the internet is very sound to me. To convince me that this reasoning is incorrect would require an abundance of data to the contrary.
- kingkawn 6y ago
  "inductive reasoning is still a validate tool for understanding the world." Thank you so much for saying this.
- remram 6y ago
  You assume that every terrorist (or most terrorists) acts rationally and has the knowledge you know. That is a huge assumption for your reasoning to work. I think terrorists make mistakes (or take risks), and I'm not convinced that we catch all of those either.
  - pyronik19 6y ago
    In the context of droning terrorist, I think the anthropic principle applies. The ones who don't act rationally or have that knowledge are dead.
    - azinman2 6y ago
      You’re assuming a static world.
    - remram 6y ago
      Once again, that is just your opinion, presented as fact. Personally I would argue that people acting rationally stay away from the terrorism business.
piffey 6y ago
https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/EncryptedExtremism.pdf https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Encrypt... Yeah. The truth is that groups like ISIS use Telegram pretty heavily. Same with some of the Persian threat actor groups, Hezbollah, others.
- JoeSmithson 6y ago
  IS was/is a quasi nation state! What do these people think it runs off of carrier pigeons and smoke signals?
faitswulff 6y ago
The Boston marathon bombing was carried out through plain text messages if I recall correctly. They weren’t even encrypted and no one caught them.
kabdib 6y ago
A little searching will reveal some of the opsec apparently used by Osama bin Laden. Use of couriers with thumb drives rather than risk electronic communications, and other things.
Izkata 6y ago
I know one piece of evidence contrary to that - the time 4chan used youtube videos posted by terrorists to find one of their training camps.

> 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
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  I think the distinction isn't generally don't use it all - they are perfectly fine with recruiting and claiming responsibility with it. Instead it is in op sec. The San Bernadino shooters shot their personal phones beyond recovery and the FBI precedent fishing expedition was to theie work phones which they started with access to.

baron_harkonnen 6y ago

I do stats for a living, and while I think it's good to back up claims with data when possible, inductive reasoning is still a validate tool for understanding the world. The logic is that active, dedicated terrorist groups already know: "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." The reasoning that knowing this information you would be very careful about what you communicate over the internet is very sound to me. To convince me that this reasoning is incorrect would require an abundance of data to the contrary.

kingkawn 6y ago
"inductive reasoning is still a validate tool for understanding the world." Thank you so much for saying this.
remram 6y ago
You assume that every terrorist (or most terrorists) acts rationally and has the knowledge you know. That is a huge assumption for your reasoning to work. I think terrorists make mistakes (or take risks), and I'm not convinced that we catch all of those either.
- pyronik19 6y ago
  In the context of droning terrorist, I think the anthropic principle applies. The ones who don't act rationally or have that knowledge are dead.
  - azinman2 6y ago
    You’re assuming a static world.
  - remram 6y ago
    Once again, that is just your opinion, presented as fact. Personally I would argue that people acting rationally stay away from the terrorism business.

piffey 6y ago

https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/EncryptedExtremism.pdf https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Encrypt... Yeah. The truth is that groups like ISIS use Telegram pretty heavily. Same with some of the Persian threat actor groups, Hezbollah, others.

JoeSmithson 6y ago
IS was/is a quasi nation state! What do these people think it runs off of carrier pigeons and smoke signals?

faitswulff 6y ago

The Boston marathon bombing was carried out through plain text messages if I recall correctly. They weren’t even encrypted and no one caught them.

kabdib 6y ago

A little searching will reveal some of the opsec apparently used by Osama bin Laden. Use of couriers with thumb drives rather than risk electronic communications, and other things.

Izkata 6y ago

I know one piece of evidence contrary to that - the time 4chan used youtube videos posted by terrorists to find one of their training camps.