4 ms·

Yes they do. The competent ones will have surveillance teams that are different from the operational teams. (A team can be a single person, obviously). Look fo

by grugq 12y ago

Yes they do. The competent ones will have surveillance teams that are different from the operational teams. (A team can be a single person, obviously). Look for a copy of the "terrorist recognition manual", the 2nd ed. has leaked in PDF, and the 3rd edition is on amazon. It goes into quite a lot of detail regarding the terrorist attack cycle. Surveillance is a significant part of planning a successful terrorist attack. If it helps, several terrorists have been caught due to conducting surveillance. It usually the best time to capture them, since they haven't conducted an attack that kills anyone yet :)

jpmattia 12y ago
> If it helps, several terrorists have been caught due to conducting surveillance. It usually the best time to capture them, since they haven't conducted an attack that kills anyone yet I have to ask: If they have not conducted an attack, how was it determined that they were a terrorist? Edit: A link to an example might be helpful.
- grecy 12y ago
  Thoughtcrime, citizen.
- phaus 12y ago
  Well, if they want to be successful terrorists, there will probably be a pretty elaborate planning phase that generates quite a bit of evidence.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  Because they were recruited by an FBI agent posing as a terrorist recruiter.
  - thret 12y ago
    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-fbi-hatched-some-crazy-terror-plots-2013-3 http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-fbi-hatched-some-crazy... It is difficult to determine the efficacy of this strategy although of course it results in successful terrorist arrests.
- grugq 12y ago
  Here is a recent example: http://www.propublica.org/article/how-hezbollah-trained-an-operative-to-spy-on-israeli-tourists http://www.propublica.org/article/how-hezbollah-trained-an-o... There are others.
learc83 12y ago
But does surveillance include photography? According to Bruce Schneier, none of the perpetrators of the major terrorist attacks of the last decade took any photos. [1] Do you have any specific examples of terrorists who photographed their sites before attacking? I don't think there is much information that a terrorist couldn't get from a combination of watching and jotting things down in a notebook, and google street view + image search. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/jun/05/news.terrorism http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/jun/05/news.terro...
- cma 12y ago
  If we stop investigating only potential surveillors who take photos as a matter of policy to to blog complaints, doesn't that make it easy to hide surveillance operations from scrutiny by just having everyone bring a camera along?
  - learc83 12y ago
    It wouldn't make sense to ignore other suspicious activity just because the suspect has a camera. My point is, are we justified in treating photography alone as a suspicious activity?
- grugq 12y ago
  Here's one example from JI http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_embassies_attack_plot http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_embassies_attack_pl... Here's a reconnaissance manual: http://ruckus.org/article.php?id=809 http://ruckus.org/article.php?id=809 In general, blacklisting or whitelisting specific techniques is not the path to security. Looking for people conducting surveillance activities around targets is a good way to catch terrorist plots before they execute. The alternative, catching them after they execute, is not particularly good.
  - learc83 12y ago
    The only mention of photography in that example was of a military base. There aren't likely to be publicly available photos of a military base, so I can see why you'd want photos for planning. This is completely different from a public landmark in the US which for which you will easily be able to find hundreds or thousands of photos from every conceivable angle. I've still yet to see any evidence that overt photography or a public landmark would be useful to a terrorist, or any evidence that this has actually happened with enough frequency to classify photographing landmarks as suspicious behavior, or for that matter ever happened at all. I'm not denying that terrorists conduct surveillance. What I'd like to see is evidence that they do so through overt photography of public landmarks and buildings.
Crito 12y ago
I wonder if Google Streetview usage information is examined for "suspicious activity", since it could very well be used in lieu of from-the-street photographs taken personally by the attackers. > "If it helps, several terrorists have been caught due to conducting surveillance." Which? And how did they react when the FBI agent left them his business card so they could have a chat on the phone?
- tzs 12y ago
  In cases of actual terrorists, the FBI almost certainly would not contact them by leaving a business card and asking them to call. The did it in this case because they already knew that he was almost certainly not a terrorist. First, an actual terrorist would probably have left as soon as the guards came out, rather than argue with them over whether or not photography from public property is allowed. Staying and arguing gives the guards more time to note identifying details that could lead their plans being disrupted. Second, since they tracked him down from his rental car, and since they FBI does in fact have basic competence, they knew by then that he was a professional photographer and everything about the incident was consistent with his expected behavior based on his profession and his publication history. So why not drop it at that point? My guess is they just wanted to make sure it really was him who rented the car in his name. A smart terrorist would use a fake identity to rent the car, and what better than to use an identity of someone who you would expect to find out photographing things like their target?
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    What you say about the business card rings true. It's a little odd that they would worry at all about the photographs, the government aerial photos there are very high detail: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3009201,-71.0456476,291m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3009201,-71.0456476,291m/dat... (there's 3 zooms left) Looking at the layout, he was probably on that little drive that parallels the freeway (that's where the nicer photo is), and it probably isn't a public street. edit: Looking at Street View, he must have been somewhere on Victory, that drive is gated. another edit: The aerials in 2004 probably would not have been quite so detailed. But they would still be pretty detailed.
c_c_c 12y ago
This would only happen if the target had not been cataloged already and repeatedly by incidentals, which, if it's a target, it has. Surveillance of operational matters wouldn't require and ,in fact, may preclude overt photography. If necessary, it could be done at a distance with compound lens. But the reasons that would require this are minimal and remote. A simple walkabout can determine personnel, schedules, traffic, routes, routines, etc. I am unconvinced a sophisticated group would risk personnel and exposure by on site photography whose value would either be minimal or better obtained by less overt means.
- grugq 12y ago
  http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/detecting-terrorist-surveillance http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/detecting-terrorist-surveilla... This is a good start on the terrorist attack cycle and the surveillance techniques that are used. One of the problems with defense is that you had to protect against all possible attacks, and that includes people conducting on the ground surveillance. As you suggest, more sophisticated groups will find better means of gathering the intelligence they need. Unfortunately, that still leaves crappy groups that don't know any better. Surveillance remains the best time to catch terrorists. I can't speak to the specific example in the article, as usual the US is paranoid and over reacts, but the fundamentals are solid. Look for people conducting surveillance to catch terrorists.
  - judk 12y ago
    Unless you are in a war zone, which USA is not, there aren't terrorists to find. USA soil is incrediy safe as a baseline, and all the security theatre doesn't stop anyone who actually tries. Nearly all the "wins" are entrapment of mentally ill people.
    - grugq 12y ago
      Yes, you're right. However, that's another issue. The question was "do terrorists take pictures of their targets?" and the answer is "yes they do". If the question is "are there terrorists in the USA?" then the answer is more complicated (I'd argue that shooting up an abortion clinic is terrorism), but in general the answer is "no". Should photographers be singled out for harassment? No, definitely not.

by grugq 12y ago

jpmattia 12y ago

> If it helps, several terrorists have been caught due to conducting surveillance. It usually the best time to capture them, since they haven't conducted an attack that kills anyone yet I have to ask: If they have not conducted an attack, how was it determined that they were a terrorist? Edit: A link to an example might be helpful.

grecy 12y ago
Thoughtcrime, citizen.
phaus 12y ago
Well, if they want to be successful terrorists, there will probably be a pretty elaborate planning phase that generates quite a bit of evidence.
seanflyon 12y ago
Because they were recruited by an FBI agent posing as a terrorist recruiter.
- thret 12y ago
  http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-fbi-hatched-some-crazy-terror-plots-2013-3 http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-fbi-hatched-some-crazy... It is difficult to determine the efficacy of this strategy although of course it results in successful terrorist arrests.
grugq 12y ago
Here is a recent example: http://www.propublica.org/article/how-hezbollah-trained-an-operative-to-spy-on-israeli-tourists http://www.propublica.org/article/how-hezbollah-trained-an-o... There are others.

learc83 12y ago

But does surveillance include photography? According to Bruce Schneier, none of the perpetrators of the major terrorist attacks of the last decade took any photos. [1] Do you have any specific examples of terrorists who photographed their sites before attacking? I don't think there is much information that a terrorist couldn't get from a combination of watching and jotting things down in a notebook, and google street view + image search. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/jun/05/news.terrorism http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/jun/05/news.terro...

cma 12y ago
If we stop investigating only potential surveillors who take photos as a matter of policy to to blog complaints, doesn't that make it easy to hide surveillance operations from scrutiny by just having everyone bring a camera along?
- learc83 12y ago
  It wouldn't make sense to ignore other suspicious activity just because the suspect has a camera. My point is, are we justified in treating photography alone as a suspicious activity?
grugq 12y ago
Here's one example from JI http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_embassies_attack_plot http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_embassies_attack_pl... Here's a reconnaissance manual: http://ruckus.org/article.php?id=809 http://ruckus.org/article.php?id=809 In general, blacklisting or whitelisting specific techniques is not the path to security. Looking for people conducting surveillance activities around targets is a good way to catch terrorist plots before they execute. The alternative, catching them after they execute, is not particularly good.
- learc83 12y ago
  The only mention of photography in that example was of a military base. There aren't likely to be publicly available photos of a military base, so I can see why you'd want photos for planning. This is completely different from a public landmark in the US which for which you will easily be able to find hundreds or thousands of photos from every conceivable angle. I've still yet to see any evidence that overt photography or a public landmark would be useful to a terrorist, or any evidence that this has actually happened with enough frequency to classify photographing landmarks as suspicious behavior, or for that matter ever happened at all. I'm not denying that terrorists conduct surveillance. What I'd like to see is evidence that they do so through overt photography of public landmarks and buildings.

Crito 12y ago

I wonder if Google Streetview usage information is examined for "suspicious activity", since it could very well be used in lieu of from-the-street photographs taken personally by the attackers. > "If it helps, several terrorists have been caught due to conducting surveillance." Which? And how did they react when the FBI agent left them his business card so they could have a chat on the phone?

tzs 12y ago
In cases of actual terrorists, the FBI almost certainly would not contact them by leaving a business card and asking them to call. The did it in this case because they already knew that he was almost certainly not a terrorist. First, an actual terrorist would probably have left as soon as the guards came out, rather than argue with them over whether or not photography from public property is allowed. Staying and arguing gives the guards more time to note identifying details that could lead their plans being disrupted. Second, since they tracked him down from his rental car, and since they FBI does in fact have basic competence, they knew by then that he was a professional photographer and everything about the incident was consistent with his expected behavior based on his profession and his publication history. So why not drop it at that point? My guess is they just wanted to make sure it really was him who rented the car in his name. A smart terrorist would use a fake identity to rent the car, and what better than to use an identity of someone who you would expect to find out photographing things like their target?
- maxerickson 12y ago
  What you say about the business card rings true. It's a little odd that they would worry at all about the photographs, the government aerial photos there are very high detail: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3009201,-71.0456476,291m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3009201,-71.0456476,291m/dat... (there's 3 zooms left) Looking at the layout, he was probably on that little drive that parallels the freeway (that's where the nicer photo is), and it probably isn't a public street. edit: Looking at Street View, he must have been somewhere on Victory, that drive is gated. another edit: The aerials in 2004 probably would not have been quite so detailed. But they would still be pretty detailed.

c_c_c 12y ago

This would only happen if the target had not been cataloged already and repeatedly by incidentals, which, if it's a target, it has. Surveillance of operational matters wouldn't require and ,in fact, may preclude overt photography. If necessary, it could be done at a distance with compound lens. But the reasons that would require this are minimal and remote. A simple walkabout can determine personnel, schedules, traffic, routes, routines, etc. I am unconvinced a sophisticated group would risk personnel and exposure by on site photography whose value would either be minimal or better obtained by less overt means.

grugq 12y ago
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/detecting-terrorist-surveillance http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/detecting-terrorist-surveilla... This is a good start on the terrorist attack cycle and the surveillance techniques that are used. One of the problems with defense is that you had to protect against all possible attacks, and that includes people conducting on the ground surveillance. As you suggest, more sophisticated groups will find better means of gathering the intelligence they need. Unfortunately, that still leaves crappy groups that don't know any better. Surveillance remains the best time to catch terrorists. I can't speak to the specific example in the article, as usual the US is paranoid and over reacts, but the fundamentals are solid. Look for people conducting surveillance to catch terrorists.
- judk 12y ago
  Unless you are in a war zone, which USA is not, there aren't terrorists to find. USA soil is incrediy safe as a baseline, and all the security theatre doesn't stop anyone who actually tries. Nearly all the "wins" are entrapment of mentally ill people.
  - grugq 12y ago
    Yes, you're right. However, that's another issue. The question was "do terrorists take pictures of their targets?" and the answer is "yes they do". If the question is "are there terrorists in the USA?" then the answer is more complicated (I'd argue that shooting up an abortion clinic is terrorism), but in general the answer is "no". Should photographers be singled out for harassment? No, definitely not.