Paris Attacks Plot Was Hatched in Plain Sight(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Paris Attacks Plot Was Hatched in Plain Sight
http://www.wsj.com/articles/paris-attacks-plot-was-hatched-in-plain-sight-1448587309
116 コメント
We don't exactly have data on foiled terrorism attempts and so it is difficult to say "no benefit". That being said we need a way to gauge risk/reward as citizens regarding terrorism/privacy. There should be openness regarding the actual terrorism risks and what giving up certain freedoms/privacy actually gains us in protection from said risks. A system where terrorism scorecard is openly available so we can weigh pros/cons is probably never going to happen though.
Did you thought about the fact that other acts of terrorism where prevented and most of them keep secret because of the nature of investigations?
Yes, I think about it all the time but when pressed for numbers the CIA/NSA/FBI never reveal any.
What isn't discussed here is the numerous times that these institutions have actually created terrorists. Or lead people to a course of action of their choosing.
What isn't discussed here is the numerous times that these institutions have actually created terrorists. Or lead people to a course of action of their choosing.
"Because of the nature" is not a reason for keeping victories secret. A democratic government is responsible to its people.
Moreover, you do not do a very good job of preventing terrorism by keeping secret all the times terrorism fails and publicly over-reacting every time it does.
Moreover, you do not do a very good job of preventing terrorism by keeping secret all the times terrorism fails and publicly over-reacting every time it does.
Genuinly curious: why would they hide their successes? It would change public perception about the surveillance, and it would also act as a deterrent to potential terrorists. I get that they don't want to reveal their methods, but I can't see any issues with sharing their successes.
Revealing their successes would probably just lead skeptics to believe they were engaging in propaganda, and it probably wouldn't act as a deterrent to terrorists at all.
Maybe... On the other hand, keeping silent doesn't seem to convert a whole lot of skeptics either. And revealing a couple of successes would probably result in a lot more votes for your administration the next elections, right?
It certainly could bring in political capital, but aren't politicians who do that already accused of manufacturing terrorist plots and ratcheting up fear for points during election season? How valuable is public relations for the US intelligence community versus keeping their methods secret (within a culture of secrecy?) It's not as though the CIA or NSA are likely to be defunded soon, regardless of who gets elected.
Revealing how the plots were foiled might teach future would-be terrorists how to better avoid detection. Just to play devil's advocate.
You make a good top level point that I think most would agree with - successful terror plots degrade our freedom because we fearfululy grant our government more power.
But to broadly call spying apparatus ineffective and incompetent weakens your argument.
There have been dozens of publicly disclosed terror plots interrupted against the USA alone, surely many more we will never know about.(1)
There is a clear underlying reason for survellience - it works.
The complexity in the discussion is that it clearly doesn't work 100% of the time and comes at a significant cost
But this isn't a black and white issue, we are in the grey.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrori...
But to broadly call spying apparatus ineffective and incompetent weakens your argument.
There have been dozens of publicly disclosed terror plots interrupted against the USA alone, surely many more we will never know about.(1)
There is a clear underlying reason for survellience - it works.
The complexity in the discussion is that it clearly doesn't work 100% of the time and comes at a significant cost
But this isn't a black and white issue, we are in the grey.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrori...
>There have been dozens of publicly disclosed terror plots interrupted against the USA alone
Many of these terror plots are orchestrated by the FBI. Source: https://theintercept.com/2015/03/16/howthefbicreatedaterrori...
Many of these terror plots are orchestrated by the FBI. Source: https://theintercept.com/2015/03/16/howthefbicreatedaterrori...
> There is a clear underlying reason for survellience - it works.
It works, but not (just) for terrorism prevention. It also works great for other things, such as preventing political ideologies you don't like from spreading. Or just in general as a power play over citizens.
It works, but not (just) for terrorism prevention. It also works great for other things, such as preventing political ideologies you don't like from spreading. Or just in general as a power play over citizens.
Ah yes, the Brooklyn Bridge terrorist that was trying to use a jackhammer to bring it down. Thank you NSA for preventing this tragedy that could only prevented with pervasive surveillance.
The Talk section of the Wiki article lists the many problems with that list.. You really should stop citing it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_unsuccessful_terr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_unsuccessful_terr...
The real complexity of the discussion comes from the unknown number of attacks that would be prevented with very mild pre-9/11 security measures.
Earlier this year, I read The Looming Towers, an overview of various historical factors that led to the 9/11 attacks. Its focus is really more on the origins on Islamic extremism, not logistical planning of the 9/11 attacks, but it did cover several aspects of 9/11 specifically that were very interesting. Importantly, the FBI and CIA - between them - had enough information to stop the attacks but did not collaborate well enough, mostly due to the differing goals between the CIA and the FBI. To the CIA, a potential terrorist is an asset - they hope that person, if left on the street, will attempt to contact someone higher up in (say) al Qaeda and therefore generate more data for the agency. To the FBI, such a person is a suspect, and really needs to be taken off the street as soon as enough evidence has been gathered to build a criminal case against him. During the summer of 2001, the FBI was blocked form getting the full CIA info on several important 9/11 figures because the CIA knew they'd be immediately arrested with that information.
(that is, of course, a broad overview, but the main point is more or less correct)
It's frustrating to see so many people embracing their lack of freedom as a security blanket. We don't need to use terror to grant our governments more control over our lives, we need just need to hold those who claim to be keeping us safe accountable.
Earlier this year, I read The Looming Towers, an overview of various historical factors that led to the 9/11 attacks. Its focus is really more on the origins on Islamic extremism, not logistical planning of the 9/11 attacks, but it did cover several aspects of 9/11 specifically that were very interesting. Importantly, the FBI and CIA - between them - had enough information to stop the attacks but did not collaborate well enough, mostly due to the differing goals between the CIA and the FBI. To the CIA, a potential terrorist is an asset - they hope that person, if left on the street, will attempt to contact someone higher up in (say) al Qaeda and therefore generate more data for the agency. To the FBI, such a person is a suspect, and really needs to be taken off the street as soon as enough evidence has been gathered to build a criminal case against him. During the summer of 2001, the FBI was blocked form getting the full CIA info on several important 9/11 figures because the CIA knew they'd be immediately arrested with that information.
(that is, of course, a broad overview, but the main point is more or less correct)
It's frustrating to see so many people embracing their lack of freedom as a security blanket. We don't need to use terror to grant our governments more control over our lives, we need just need to hold those who claim to be keeping us safe accountable.
If every single one of the plots you noted (including the ones that were actually reverse stings organized by the FBI) was wildly successful, terrorism would kill about as many Americans as accidental gun discharges do. And that's not realistic.
Terrorism is bullshit. Sadly, we can't do the right thing because the country is full of cowardly morons who think that the solution is toppling more governments, killing more people, and hoping that somehow this time will be different.
Terrorism is bullshit. Sadly, we can't do the right thing because the country is full of cowardly morons who think that the solution is toppling more governments, killing more people, and hoping that somehow this time will be different.
...actually reverse stings organized by the FBI
The transparency report I'd love to see, which I doubt will ever be released, is the number of stings which end up being LEOs on both sides, in which e.g. one handler is hoping to sting a weapons dealer and the other is hoping to sting a weapons buyer.
The transparency report I'd love to see, which I doubt will ever be released, is the number of stings which end up being LEOs on both sides, in which e.g. one handler is hoping to sting a weapons dealer and the other is hoping to sting a weapons buyer.
> The transparency report I'd love to see, which I doubt will ever be released, is the number of stings which end up being LEOs on both sides, in which e.g. one handler is hoping to sting a weapons dealer and the other is hoping to sting a weapons buyer.
That would be a great Pink Panther sketch/scene :)
That would be a great Pink Panther sketch/scene :)
No there won't be degradation of encryption, the politicians no longer have any weight against megacorp like Apple and Google, and open source isn't bound by the wants of the USA.
The failing of the french spying agencies is one of scale, they didn't scale to the exponential progression of jihadist x100 in few years.
The failing of the french spying agencies is one of scale, they didn't scale to the exponential progression of jihadist x100 in few years.
Actually, this article does not say anything about how the plan was "hatched" (i.e. thought up and planned), it just talks about the final days/hours.
Car rentals seem like a weak point for terrorists. The options for obtaining a private vehicle are very limited. Stealing a car is a good way to get busted. So it hijacking a car.
If the "Do Not Fly" list is a good idea, it probably makes sense to apply it to car rentals if they don't already.
If the "Do Not Fly" list is a good idea, it probably makes sense to apply it to car rentals if they don't already.
>If the "Do Not Fly" list is a good idea, ...
It isn't.
It isn't.
I don't necessarily disagree, but any reasoning?
Cutting people off from economic activity without due process or even explanation violates several different conceptions of justice.
If there's no cause to arrest the person on sight, then there's no cause to prohibit their travel.
Anything less is simply amateur hour counter-terrorism technique, and a massive civil liberties violation to boot.
Anything less is simply amateur hour counter-terrorism technique, and a massive civil liberties violation to boot.
You could always just buy a used car. Makes things a little more expensive, but not much more.
Terrorists will find a way to terrorize if they want to. The world is so chaotic and leaky that you can't stop people from doing stuff like this.
Terrorists will find a way to terrorize if they want to. The world is so chaotic and leaky that you can't stop people from doing stuff like this.
[deleted]
Requiring police verification to buy a used car doesn't seem crazy. If that's the only other way of getting a car, it seems like an easy loophole to close.
> The options for obtaining a private vehicle are very limited.
Let's not forget that not so long ago, terrorists were doing attacks with public vehicles.
They have time to plan and prepare, so they'll always chose a cost-effective way. Block one, and they'll pick another.
Let's not forget that not so long ago, terrorists were doing attacks with public vehicles.
They have time to plan and prepare, so they'll always chose a cost-effective way. Block one, and they'll pick another.
[deleted]
This was an intelligence community failure - and even though they clearly failed to thwart the attacks, they are asking for more power. If this article proves anything to me, it shows that these attacks are not preventable. So giving up more freedom and supporting dragnet policies is obviously not going to do anything, given they used their real names and public websites (as opposed to encrypted communication).
I wonder what is stopping people from seeing it this way?
I wonder what is stopping people from seeing it this way?
A generation or two of very calculated, expensive propaganda put toward instilling immense amounts of fear among the general population - any moment now, you could die of a terrorist attack. It's wildly irrational, and being pushed 24/7 by the most powerful and richest entities on earth (huge central governments), how do you counter that?
There's only one way to counter it: you have to change the culture of a nation, which ultimately determines its politics.
300,000 people will die in car accidents over ten years in the US. In a typical ten year span, maybe 0.5% as many will die from terrorism in the US (and really, only 9/11 skews that, otherwise it'd be so small as to be completely irrelevant). It shouldn't take anything more than that simple comparison to get people to understand the context. But then you throw in: propaganda of random sudden death by a foreign attacker, a foreign culture, or the idea of massive scale death from wmd - then you get wild, irrational panic among the vast majority of any people anywhere on earth.
I'd argue we should all be willing to accept an extremely small risk of terrorism death, in exchange for a proper vast amount of liberty. It's a trivial compromise, if a person is not a coward and prefers to live free. There was a time the general population agreed, but that was long ago now. Today, what I just said is more often considered very offensive, politically incorrect, and will be shouted down nearly anywhere it is proposed.
It's clear you often can't stop a terrorist from killing a room full of people. Governments around the world accumulate more power by pandering and pretending you can. If a terrorist is willing to die for it, there is nothing that can stop most small scale attacks. The best a nation can do, is try to limit that, act on intelligence if there is any, and try to prevent large terrorism attacks. That reality however, doesn't win votes, and very few politicians would ever dare tell that truth.
The population wouldn't be nearly so afraid of terrorism, if they weren't being constantly told to be, and or intentionally terrified by the propaganda. The risks were just as high in the 1970s and 1980s, and people were not nearly as terrified.
There's only one way to counter it: you have to change the culture of a nation, which ultimately determines its politics.
300,000 people will die in car accidents over ten years in the US. In a typical ten year span, maybe 0.5% as many will die from terrorism in the US (and really, only 9/11 skews that, otherwise it'd be so small as to be completely irrelevant). It shouldn't take anything more than that simple comparison to get people to understand the context. But then you throw in: propaganda of random sudden death by a foreign attacker, a foreign culture, or the idea of massive scale death from wmd - then you get wild, irrational panic among the vast majority of any people anywhere on earth.
I'd argue we should all be willing to accept an extremely small risk of terrorism death, in exchange for a proper vast amount of liberty. It's a trivial compromise, if a person is not a coward and prefers to live free. There was a time the general population agreed, but that was long ago now. Today, what I just said is more often considered very offensive, politically incorrect, and will be shouted down nearly anywhere it is proposed.
It's clear you often can't stop a terrorist from killing a room full of people. Governments around the world accumulate more power by pandering and pretending you can. If a terrorist is willing to die for it, there is nothing that can stop most small scale attacks. The best a nation can do, is try to limit that, act on intelligence if there is any, and try to prevent large terrorism attacks. That reality however, doesn't win votes, and very few politicians would ever dare tell that truth.
The population wouldn't be nearly so afraid of terrorism, if they weren't being constantly told to be, and or intentionally terrified by the propaganda. The risks were just as high in the 1970s and 1980s, and people were not nearly as terrified.
> It's wildly irrational
I'm not completely disagreeing with you, I know that the probability of dying in a terror attack is small.
But I have a Muslim colleague that went to Mecca last year. He came back transformed, not smiling anymore, refusing to shake hands with female colleagues and has been surprised praying in the toilets and in a bus (he's a bus driver) and made a big scandal about having to take of his woolly hat (which apparently he attached religious significance to).
So now I wonder if one morning he'll decide to come at work with an AK-47. And living in France, I'm sure you would agree it's not irrational to think that.
I'm not completely disagreeing with you, I know that the probability of dying in a terror attack is small.
But I have a Muslim colleague that went to Mecca last year. He came back transformed, not smiling anymore, refusing to shake hands with female colleagues and has been surprised praying in the toilets and in a bus (he's a bus driver) and made a big scandal about having to take of his woolly hat (which apparently he attached religious significance to).
So now I wonder if one morning he'll decide to come at work with an AK-47. And living in France, I'm sure you would agree it's not irrational to think that.
It is irrational because you're scared due to recent events. You're proving OP's point.
You can't apply reason and logic to his going to Mecca, and arrive at a conclusion that he may come in to work with an AK-47.
You can't apply reason and logic to his going to Mecca, and arrive at a conclusion that he may come in to work with an AK-47.
It would be irrational to be scared of him just because he's a Muslim. For the record I have several other Muslim colleagues that are absolutely not worrying me.
I don't find it irrational to be scared of someone that shows signs of radicalization.
I don't find it irrational to be scared of someone that shows signs of radicalization.
In the Western world, we generally rely on the fact that people are capable of compartmentalizing religious beliefs that are incompatible with liberal society. In the grand scheme of things, it works pretty well.
> So now I wonder if one morning he'll decide to come at work with an AK-47.
That is exactly the "wildly irrational [propaganda that is] being pushed 24/7 by the most powerful and richest entities on earth" 'adventured was talking about. Sadly, this kind of association is so present in our culture now that we need to work hard to stop thinking like that.
> And living in France, I'm sure you would agree it's not irrational to think that.
France is big and - like every country - mostly uninteresting to terrorists. Do you live in Paris?
That is exactly the "wildly irrational [propaganda that is] being pushed 24/7 by the most powerful and richest entities on earth" 'adventured was talking about. Sadly, this kind of association is so present in our culture now that we need to work hard to stop thinking like that.
> And living in France, I'm sure you would agree it's not irrational to think that.
France is big and - like every country - mostly uninteresting to terrorists. Do you live in Paris?
> France [...] mostly uninteresting to terrorists
Seriously, are you uninformed or trolling ? The French wikipedia page [0] (sorry it's not as detailed in English) lists 8 terrorists attacks (3 failed attempts) for the year 2015. I don't want to become an interesting target !
> Do you live in Paris?
I don't and Hervé Cornara[1] didn't either.
So I'm not cowering in fear, ready to accept "fortress Europe" [2] however I'm legitimately (or so I think) worried.
[0] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorisme_en_France#2015
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Quentin-Fallavier_attack
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_Europe
Seriously, are you uninformed or trolling ? The French wikipedia page [0] (sorry it's not as detailed in English) lists 8 terrorists attacks (3 failed attempts) for the year 2015. I don't want to become an interesting target !
> Do you live in Paris?
I don't and Hervé Cornara[1] didn't either.
So I'm not cowering in fear, ready to accept "fortress Europe" [2] however I'm legitimately (or so I think) worried.
[0] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorisme_en_France#2015
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Quentin-Fallavier_attack
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_Europe
> Seriously, are you uninformed or trolling ?
Uninformed. Thanks for the links, I didn't realize there were more than 2 attacks in France this year.
English Wikipedia has a nicely formatted list[0].
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_France#List_of_si...
Uninformed. Thanks for the links, I didn't realize there were more than 2 attacks in France this year.
English Wikipedia has a nicely formatted list[0].
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_France#List_of_si...
No you are not irrational at all. Keep an eye on him and better if you tip him off to the authorities so he lands on some watch list. Not shaking hands with females is a sign that he's become DEEPLY fundamental and it only would take him just a few steps up the Islamic ladder to reach the Jihadi level and starts viewing the world into two dominions; Land of Islam "دار الاسلام "and Land of Infidel "دار الكفر"
There is so many ways one can contact each other without 3rd party being able to know, that it makes whole "make encryption illegal!" thing seem to be a work of terrorists. People holding office and demanding backdoors of any sort, should be investigated or simply removed from the office, because they are not fit for the job.
I think they need to do more to cross check data, one person making multiple car rentals and room reservations and of course cross check this with the various watch lists.
Like staunch commented, if someone is on a no fly list, flag car rentals, room reservations, etc too.
Like staunch commented, if someone is on a no fly list, flag car rentals, room reservations, etc too.
Are you legitimately suggesting intelligence agencies should be permitted unfettered realtime full-take access to arbitrary private companies' registration systems?
That is what people "think" will help. Let's just allow the government and all business unfettered access to everything we do. That will "make us safer".
Parisian sysadmin here.
I'm so appalled by this article. Our government voted absurd laws allowing law enforcement to sniff all Internet traffic in France (and beyond). They did this while taking advantage of post-January ruckus. Yet they cannot stop terrorists using their real id. On top of that, I read that policemen were aware of an imminent terrorist attack on 11/13 (but I've not yet confirmed this with reliable sources).
What can we do when nobody gives a damn about their freedom? Most acquaintances I hit up with this topic just don't care "as long as I'm safe". We're rolling down a dangerous hill which will lead to the defeat of our freedom and the victory of terrorists.
Pardon my French.
I'm so appalled by this article. Our government voted absurd laws allowing law enforcement to sniff all Internet traffic in France (and beyond). They did this while taking advantage of post-January ruckus. Yet they cannot stop terrorists using their real id. On top of that, I read that policemen were aware of an imminent terrorist attack on 11/13 (but I've not yet confirmed this with reliable sources).
What can we do when nobody gives a damn about their freedom? Most acquaintances I hit up with this topic just don't care "as long as I'm safe". We're rolling down a dangerous hill which will lead to the defeat of our freedom and the victory of terrorists.
Pardon my French.
I'm not sure how much freedom I actually have considering how much of my life has to be sold to someone else so I don't starve to death in the cold and rain.
You need to look up "freedom." It doesn't mean "other people are required to meet all of your needs."
Much of our seeming choices are predetermined by a corporation/politician, the de rigueur political/economic philosophy of the day and also by the era we are born into. It's unfortunate this topic is out of bounds in most places. Even here on hackernews you're shutting him down. This conversation is potentially one of the most important we could be having today.
> You need to look up "freedom." It doesn't mean "other people are required to meet all of your needs."
There are quite a few definitions of freedom that actually require that (to a certain degree), even on wikipedia.
As in the theory of justice, there are two broad views on freedom: one side seeing freedom as something abstract (by law you are free to vote; the constitution does not discriminate against skin color, gender etc.) and the other side sees freedom as the concrete opportunity space of an individual (therefore studying should be free of cost, access to healthcare should be free etc.).
Interestingly, the abstract interpretation seems to match the common meaning in the U.S. and the concrete meaning of the word is more common in Europe. That seems to explain quite a few misunderstandings in spaces like HN :)
I can really recommend Amarty Sen's book 'The idea of justice' as a quite approachable introduction into the topic.
There are quite a few definitions of freedom that actually require that (to a certain degree), even on wikipedia.
As in the theory of justice, there are two broad views on freedom: one side seeing freedom as something abstract (by law you are free to vote; the constitution does not discriminate against skin color, gender etc.) and the other side sees freedom as the concrete opportunity space of an individual (therefore studying should be free of cost, access to healthcare should be free etc.).
Interestingly, the abstract interpretation seems to match the common meaning in the U.S. and the concrete meaning of the word is more common in Europe. That seems to explain quite a few misunderstandings in spaces like HN :)
I can really recommend Amarty Sen's book 'The idea of justice' as a quite approachable introduction into the topic.
While I agree that it's true "freedom doesn't mean others should have to meet your needs" I find it a damn shame we can't stand on a little piece of ground hardly anywhere without paying someone.
We are born on earth and we are entitled to a little piece of it. Powerful people shouldn't get to own everything.
We are born on earth and we are entitled to a little piece of it. Powerful people shouldn't get to own everything.
> Henry David Thoreau wrote that "[i]t is hard to have a Southern overseer; it is worse to have a Northern one; but worst of all when you are the slave-driver of yourself."
> Some abolitionists in the United States regarded the analogy as spurious. They believed that wage workers were "neither wronged nor oppressed". Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans argued that the condition of wage workers was different from slavery, as laborers were likely to have the opportunity to work for themselves in the future, achieving self-employment. The abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass initially declared, "now I am my own master", upon taking a paying job. But later in life, he concluded to the contrary, "experience demonstrates that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other". Douglass went on to speak about these conditions as arising from the unequal bargaining power between the ownership/capitalist class and the non-ownership/laborer class within a compulsory monetary market. "No more crafty and effective devise for defrauding the southern laborers could be adopted than the one that substitutes orders upon shopkeepers for currency in payment of wages. It has the merit of a show of honesty, while it puts the laborer completely at the mercy of the land-owner and the shopkeeper.".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery
> Some abolitionists in the United States regarded the analogy as spurious. They believed that wage workers were "neither wronged nor oppressed". Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans argued that the condition of wage workers was different from slavery, as laborers were likely to have the opportunity to work for themselves in the future, achieving self-employment. The abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass initially declared, "now I am my own master", upon taking a paying job. But later in life, he concluded to the contrary, "experience demonstrates that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other". Douglass went on to speak about these conditions as arising from the unequal bargaining power between the ownership/capitalist class and the non-ownership/laborer class within a compulsory monetary market. "No more crafty and effective devise for defrauding the southern laborers could be adopted than the one that substitutes orders upon shopkeepers for currency in payment of wages. It has the merit of a show of honesty, while it puts the laborer completely at the mercy of the land-owner and the shopkeeper.".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery
In securing your "freedom" in your own eyes, you clearly require the product of someone else's labor to consume.
Why what virtue are you worthy of such freedom and by what vice should someone else be required to provide for you? Or do you not realize that you require a worse oppression for someone else... that they should spend much of their life sold to someone else and for their own benefit.
Why what virtue are you worthy of such freedom and by what vice should someone else be required to provide for you? Or do you not realize that you require a worse oppression for someone else... that they should spend much of their life sold to someone else and for their own benefit.
> the defeat of our freedom and the victory of terrorists
I think by terrorists here, you mean the oligarchs within the regime who are either complicit by standing down or plotting outright against the citizenry or completely incompetent by not catching criminals before they wreck havoc, and not those scruffy bearded nutjobs in the desert?
I think by terrorists here, you mean the oligarchs within the regime who are either complicit by standing down or plotting outright against the citizenry or completely incompetent by not catching criminals before they wreck havoc, and not those scruffy bearded nutjobs in the desert?
[deleted]
Yes. This is, and always has been, the problem with society. Oligarchs wield their power to incite fear in the citizenry which in turn yields more power. It's a vicious cycle that's only occasionally punctuated by violent revolutions.
Sorry but you live in an other world, terrorist killing 130 is enough to be scary, no need for politicians conspiring whatever your paranoid mind is thinking.
> ... Yet they cannot stop terrorists ..
The 'incompetence theories' are getting thinner by day. Analog to this is the "Muslim" terrorist du jour group's 'oil production' in plain sight of God knows how many intelligence platforms are in use in air and space over the area.
Possible that they don't want to stop these attacks?
Possible that they actually create these events?
Is is possible? Or is the narrative that the Western civilization managed to get to their pinnacle of achievement in spite of being governed and guided by "incompetent" leaders, systems, and institutions?
The 'incompetence theories' are getting thinner by day. Analog to this is the "Muslim" terrorist du jour group's 'oil production' in plain sight of God knows how many intelligence platforms are in use in air and space over the area.
Possible that they don't want to stop these attacks?
Possible that they actually create these events?
Is is possible? Or is the narrative that the Western civilization managed to get to their pinnacle of achievement in spite of being governed and guided by "incompetent" leaders, systems, and institutions?
> getting thinner by day
Source? Any proof at all that they aren't just incompetent? Its not a stretch to believe gov agencies are just incompetent, considering how useless they are in general when it comes to technology.
Source? Any proof at all that they aren't just incompetent? Its not a stretch to believe gov agencies are just incompetent, considering how useless they are in general when it comes to technology.
Neither hypothesis is likely. Governments are neither perfectly malicious, nor perfectly incompetent.
[deleted]
See Opeation Gladio.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
In the ideal world, the people with the clearest and most honest understanding of the world win. Within a society, those are the people who get elected. Between societies, those are the ones that survive.
There is a very real distinction to be made between people who require proof for belief and those who don't. In this case, people believe that their security is proportional the the privacy they give up. That unfounded assertion, tacit in all conversations on this (even tacit in liberal conversations about it), needs to be clearly labelled as wrong and evil, and those who willfully promulgate it (like virtually all politicians in the US and Europe) need to be told: you are saying something that is wrong and evil, as bad as anything Hitler asserted about race and national power.
This isn't a joke, or a goof, or a HN thread thing. This is a very real, globe-spanning conflict that will define this Age. Governments by their control of violence can do anything they want, it is up to the people to ensure it's self-restraint--and if it stops restraining itself, it is the people's right to replace that government entirely. We are now transitioning from a government hiding behind secrecy and Byzantine legal structures to government boldly asserting it's right to know everything about everyone within it's borders. It was always going to be about security. And it was always a lie.
There is a very real distinction to be made between people who require proof for belief and those who don't. In this case, people believe that their security is proportional the the privacy they give up. That unfounded assertion, tacit in all conversations on this (even tacit in liberal conversations about it), needs to be clearly labelled as wrong and evil, and those who willfully promulgate it (like virtually all politicians in the US and Europe) need to be told: you are saying something that is wrong and evil, as bad as anything Hitler asserted about race and national power.
This isn't a joke, or a goof, or a HN thread thing. This is a very real, globe-spanning conflict that will define this Age. Governments by their control of violence can do anything they want, it is up to the people to ensure it's self-restraint--and if it stops restraining itself, it is the people's right to replace that government entirely. We are now transitioning from a government hiding behind secrecy and Byzantine legal structures to government boldly asserting it's right to know everything about everyone within it's borders. It was always going to be about security. And it was always a lie.
People keep spreading stories about a secret government conspiracy to know everything and use that power for shady means, and in an uncertain world, that's kind of comforting.
The actual conspiracy is just a group of incompetents getting together to make a quick buck from the ambitious or the afraid. But just like the patent medicines sold by their 19th century counterparts, "Doesn't work" and "Doesn't hurt" aren't the same thing.
Actually creating a all-knowing, all-powerful security state would require resources and competence well beyond the capabilities of present-day western governments, but in trying they can leave devastation in their wake as the dangerous mistakes they make enable new and interesting kinds of abuse, crime, and fear.
The actual conspiracy is just a group of incompetents getting together to make a quick buck from the ambitious or the afraid. But just like the patent medicines sold by their 19th century counterparts, "Doesn't work" and "Doesn't hurt" aren't the same thing.
Actually creating a all-knowing, all-powerful security state would require resources and competence well beyond the capabilities of present-day western governments, but in trying they can leave devastation in their wake as the dangerous mistakes they make enable new and interesting kinds of abuse, crime, and fear.
Sorry, yeah, I guess I still vacillate between those two views (ignorance vs. evil - and what that implies about capability).
There is another possibility: the hubris of the geeks-cum-heroes at the NSA. They have a science-fictional desire to do the Batman surveillance trick (from Dark Knight Rises? I forget) and Save Us All From the Bad Guy. That's dumb, because Bad Guys statistically arise equally inside and outside government. Literally every programmer at the NSA should quit and go make a cool video game or something.
There is another possibility: the hubris of the geeks-cum-heroes at the NSA. They have a science-fictional desire to do the Batman surveillance trick (from Dark Knight Rises? I forget) and Save Us All From the Bad Guy. That's dumb, because Bad Guys statistically arise equally inside and outside government. Literally every programmer at the NSA should quit and go make a cool video game or something.
> People keep spreading stories about a secret government conspiracy to know everything and use that power for shady means, and in an uncertain world, that's kind of comforting.
Unfortunately, it is not comforting at all because we are not talking about one coherent group holding all the strings behind the scenes. No, there are many cabals fighting in the "shadow" government for domination and power and since they're above the law in theory and practice, it's really a scary scenario for all of us.
Unfortunately, it is not comforting at all because we are not talking about one coherent group holding all the strings behind the scenes. No, there are many cabals fighting in the "shadow" government for domination and power and since they're above the law in theory and practice, it's really a scary scenario for all of us.
That's exactly what disgusts me. I listen to politician's speech that takes advantage of those attacks to push for more censorship, for more sniffing, for a ban on encryptions. It's a tragedy yet the actions of politicians after that makes it even more tragic by destroying our freedom.
It's at times like this that I am ashamed of being French but then I realize that it would be the same in any other country and I become ashamed at the irrationality of my fellow human beings.
It's at times like this that I am ashamed of being French but then I realize that it would be the same in any other country and I become ashamed at the irrationality of my fellow human beings.
"some" countries, not all. Media wants you to believe all countries have those problems, but that is not true. There is at least two dozens countries that would act on such an event rationally. Damn, even Germany would probably do something about it.
I wish it were so but I'm not very optimistic. In the past 20 years, I've seen overreaction from politicians in the face of any terrorist attack.
And Germany doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to spying on it's own citizens despite having a substantial percentage of the population who had experience with the Stasi. But you're right that at least things seem to be getting better in Germany.
And Germany doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to spying on it's own citizens despite having a substantial percentage of the population who had experience with the Stasi. But you're right that at least things seem to be getting better in Germany.
The Snowden revelations plainly showed that all of Western Europe participates in Five Eyes mass surveillance of their populaces snd others
Encryption limitation only come from CIA, FBI and US politicians.
Censorship of Islamist propaganda is needed when we have 1500 terrorists citizen in Syria and Iraq.
Censorship of Islamist propaganda is needed when we have 1500 terrorists citizen in Syria and Iraq.
We had French politicians talking about limiting encryptions this time.
Censorship doesn't work. It just drives the discourse underground and often enough makes it even more attractive. The only way for censorship to work is to take it to at least the same extremes as China and have a system of delation in place to denounce people guilty of forbidden speech.
I, for one, am not ready to sacrifice my freedom like this for an hypothetical increase in security.
Censorship doesn't work. It just drives the discourse underground and often enough makes it even more attractive. The only way for censorship to work is to take it to at least the same extremes as China and have a system of delation in place to denounce people guilty of forbidden speech.
I, for one, am not ready to sacrifice my freedom like this for an hypothetical increase in security.
I think these two paragraphs are the most important words of our times, the century we were alive in.
I don't think this inefficiency will be permanent. This surveillance is a new thing, the tools are not yet used to their full potential. It will take time before many police officers understand all the possibilities and use the tools effectively. It is also possible that they are already used in their full potential against the adversaries that matter. Terrorist don't really matter in the power balance - they might be a nuisance - but only indirectly - via the public pressure. They don't pose any direct threat. They might be even useful.
Also if it was so ineffective than the lose of privacy would also be as ineffective. After all we fear the lose of privacy because we believe that the government, or the business could act upon the data they gather about us.
Also if it was so ineffective than the lose of privacy would also be as ineffective. After all we fear the lose of privacy because we believe that the government, or the business could act upon the data they gather about us.
Mass surveillance is effective for gathering data about the past of a certain target so you can blackmail them. It's obviously not effective in preventing anything. There's just too much data to analyze and keyword based searches are a weak tool.
You also need to realize that people that were doing unpleasant surveillance in parked cars, at night, trying to figure out what a known arms dealer was up to, are now enjoying the comfort of a desk, looking at a database of intercepted SMSes that don't make any sense, and waiting for the shift to end.
You also need to realize that people that were doing unpleasant surveillance in parked cars, at night, trying to figure out what a known arms dealer was up to, are now enjoying the comfort of a desk, looking at a database of intercepted SMSes that don't make any sense, and waiting for the shift to end.
It is probably more useful for blackmail than in prevention - this is a good point. But it is far from obvious that it is ineffective in the letter case. If you believe that it is obvious - then please explain.
There is also another case which is finding out who did it - and in recent reports of police investigations there is always about use of surveillance cameras. The surety of being caught is also important in prevention. Maybe less in the case of suicide terrorists - but they are really a minority of all crime.
I have the feeling that people are so much against surveillance that they cannot stand any analysis of the arguments used. This is counterproductive.
There is also another case which is finding out who did it - and in recent reports of police investigations there is always about use of surveillance cameras. The surety of being caught is also important in prevention. Maybe less in the case of suicide terrorists - but they are really a minority of all crime.
I have the feeling that people are so much against surveillance that they cannot stand any analysis of the arguments used. This is counterproductive.
> It is probably more useful for blackmail than in prevention - this is a good point. But it is far from obvious that it is ineffective in the letter case. If you believe that it is obvious - then please explain.
Have you watched the news these last few days? Known extremists managed to get AK-47s and explosives in the middle of Paris, at the highest alert level of a military-on-the-streets Vigipirate program, while the borders were closed and the city's security was further elevated for an upcoming international meeting about climate.
They were known to law enforcement, they communicated over cleartext intercepted channels, they lost themselves in the noise of tens of millions of people joyfully filling some Stasi's storage units with their private conversations.
And all this less than a year since a similar event lead to the incompetents asking for even more data that they can stash for after the fact investigations. So there's a valid use: finding out, in retrospect, exactly how they failed to do their jobs. And maybe ask for even more funding, even more privacy invasions, even more power.
Have you watched the news these last few days? Known extremists managed to get AK-47s and explosives in the middle of Paris, at the highest alert level of a military-on-the-streets Vigipirate program, while the borders were closed and the city's security was further elevated for an upcoming international meeting about climate.
They were known to law enforcement, they communicated over cleartext intercepted channels, they lost themselves in the noise of tens of millions of people joyfully filling some Stasi's storage units with their private conversations.
And all this less than a year since a similar event lead to the incompetents asking for even more data that they can stash for after the fact investigations. So there's a valid use: finding out, in retrospect, exactly how they failed to do their jobs. And maybe ask for even more funding, even more privacy invasions, even more power.
No. It will never be effective. Here's why:
> Let's look at some numbers. We'll be optimistic -- we'll assume the system has a one in 100 false-positive rate (99 percent accurate), and a one in 1,000 false-negative rate (99.9 percent accurate). Assume 1 trillion possible indicators to sift through: that's about 10 events -- e-mails, phone calls, purchases, web destinations, whatever -- per person in the United States per day. Also assume that 10 of them are actually terrorists plotting.
This unrealistically accurate system will generate 1 billion false alarms for every real terrorist plot it uncovers. Every day of every year, the police will have to investigate 27 million potential plots in order to find the one real terrorist plot per month. Raise that false-positive accuracy to an absurd 99.9999 percent and you're still chasing 2,750 false alarms per day -- but that will inevitably raise your false negatives, and you're going to miss some of those 10 real plots.
This isn't anything new. In statistics, it's called the "base rate fallacy," and it applies in other domains as well. For example, even highly accurate medical tests are useless as diagnostic tools if the incidence of the disease is rare in the general population. Terrorist attacks are also rare, any "test" is going to result in an endless stream of false alarms.
This is exactly the sort of thing we saw with the NSA's eavesdropping program: the New York Times reported that the computers spat out thousands of tips per month. Every one of them turned out to be a false alarm.
And the cost was enormous -- not just for the FBI agents running around chasing dead-end leads instead of doing things that might actually make us safer, but also the cost in civil liberties. The fundamental freedoms that make our country the envy of the world are valuable, and not something that we should throw away lightly.
https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2005/03/why_data_mi...
> Let's look at some numbers. We'll be optimistic -- we'll assume the system has a one in 100 false-positive rate (99 percent accurate), and a one in 1,000 false-negative rate (99.9 percent accurate). Assume 1 trillion possible indicators to sift through: that's about 10 events -- e-mails, phone calls, purchases, web destinations, whatever -- per person in the United States per day. Also assume that 10 of them are actually terrorists plotting.
This unrealistically accurate system will generate 1 billion false alarms for every real terrorist plot it uncovers. Every day of every year, the police will have to investigate 27 million potential plots in order to find the one real terrorist plot per month. Raise that false-positive accuracy to an absurd 99.9999 percent and you're still chasing 2,750 false alarms per day -- but that will inevitably raise your false negatives, and you're going to miss some of those 10 real plots.
This isn't anything new. In statistics, it's called the "base rate fallacy," and it applies in other domains as well. For example, even highly accurate medical tests are useless as diagnostic tools if the incidence of the disease is rare in the general population. Terrorist attacks are also rare, any "test" is going to result in an endless stream of false alarms.
This is exactly the sort of thing we saw with the NSA's eavesdropping program: the New York Times reported that the computers spat out thousands of tips per month. Every one of them turned out to be a false alarm.
And the cost was enormous -- not just for the FBI agents running around chasing dead-end leads instead of doing things that might actually make us safer, but also the cost in civil liberties. The fundamental freedoms that make our country the envy of the world are valuable, and not something that we should throw away lightly.
https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2005/03/why_data_mi...
This is a good argument - but I don't entirely buy it - because a system like that does not need to lead the investigations, but can also be an additional source of information. A very powerful one - if the police is already investigating someone than the possibility to browse all his history, his contacts etc. would be very useful.
That's even worse - "Give me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough in them to hang him" - if you're looking for guilty-seeming people, you'll find them.
And if you're trying to prevent atrocities, you'll convict them before they've done anything wrong.
And if you're trying to prevent atrocities, you'll convict them before they've done anything wrong.
>Most acquaintances ... just don't care "as long as I'm safe".
Moxie Marlinspike wrote a great blogpost 2 years ago titled "Why we should all have something to hide". [0]
I suggest that you read it so that you have some ammunition against those who are uninformed about why their privacy matters so much in the future.
[0] http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/we-should-all-have-somethin...
Moxie Marlinspike wrote a great blogpost 2 years ago titled "Why we should all have something to hide". [0]
I suggest that you read it so that you have some ammunition against those who are uninformed about why their privacy matters so much in the future.
[0] http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/we-should-all-have-somethin...
voynich61(3)
So what are your suggestions ?
Every rental car company should forward the identity of every client to the secret service ?
Every hotel and airbnb host should send the name of their client to the DGSE ?
Don't you see that most of the laws they voted are just the transposition from what where done in the real world to the internet ? For example hidden microphone in a suspect home applied to the internet is a spyware.
Unconfirmed report didn't that said that policemen but the CIA equivalent the DGSE listened a conversation where a woman said she wanted to be a martyr. A meeting was scheduled with the FBI equivalent the DGSI but too late. This is undeniably a failure and the services should be quicker and more cooperative between them. But we don't know if they listen to the same threats every days, when there is 11000 extremist Muslims for 5000 secret agent and less than 10000 in both services.
Don't you see that most of the laws they voted are just the transposition from what where done in the real world to the internet ? For example hidden microphone in a suspect home applied to the internet is a spyware.
Unconfirmed report didn't that said that policemen but the CIA equivalent the DGSE listened a conversation where a woman said she wanted to be a martyr. A meeting was scheduled with the FBI equivalent the DGSI but too late. This is undeniably a failure and the services should be quicker and more cooperative between them. But we don't know if they listen to the same threats every days, when there is 11000 extremist Muslims for 5000 secret agent and less than 10000 in both services.
If you own a car or live somewhere, you actually have to register with the police. In that light it doesn't seem so far fetched to me to demand the same for temporary rentals.
You have to draw the line somewhere. It is a balance between reasonnable information for the police and privacy.
Except when you're linked to an investigation, you don't have to proove you're innocent of any crime. Still, all those laws seems to think the opposite : police will have access to all your data like if you were convicted. Guilty until prooven innocent.
Beside, it's not like governments never abuse this kind of info.
Except when you're linked to an investigation, you don't have to proove you're innocent of any crime. Still, all those laws seems to think the opposite : police will have access to all your data like if you were convicted. Guilty until prooven innocent.
Beside, it's not like governments never abuse this kind of info.
I'm just saying what is the status quo, at least in my country. But I assume it is the same in the US. If you have a car, you need to register a license plate. If you live somewhere, you have to announce your residency to the administration of your city.
I am not advocating anything.
I am not advocating anything.
In a world without privacy and freedom, democracy has issues and government abuses are going wild.
It's even worse. Apparently a critical phone call was intercepted by the DGSE (the french intelligence) before the attacks (Thursday), and transferred to the DGSI (the french counter-intelligence). The two are supposed to cooperate but the threat level could not be assessed by the first one. So, the second one scheduled a meeting on Monday (3 days after). The attacks took place between the two events.
Further infos, in french, here: http://www.canalplus.fr/c-emissions/c-le-petit-journal/pid65... [VIDEO]
Further infos, in french, here: http://www.canalplus.fr/c-emissions/c-le-petit-journal/pid65... [VIDEO]
This is very interesting. I have mixed feelings about focusing on these types of things too much, because I don't want to accept the premise that we can stop everything if we just try hard enough. But it can at least demonstrate that we should think hard before making further compromises of our values, if we can't even properly handle the capabilities we currently have.
After the attacks one of the attackers while on the run was stopped a total of 3 times and never apprehended.
> [...]suggests the challenges in identifying would-be terrorists and preventing further attacks in the fluid, digital and transnational world of today, especially when they are European citizens.
> Likewise, Mr. Abaaoud exploited Europe’s porous border system,[...]
> [...]where he and another man took a ferry to Patras, Greece, Italian officials said. “We are talking about citizens with regular European passports and with the right to travel freely,”[...]
I guess they're trying to explain us that Europeans have too much freedom ... better take it from them, for the children you know.
> Rental companies in Belgium don’t vet clients as long as their driver’s license, government identification and credit cards are valid.
Of course every rental company should ask their customers if they plan to commit a terrorist act before renting a car ... lying will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law !
> [...]Appart’City hotel, where clients have access to a secondary stairwell that leads directly to a parking lot without ever passing the front desk. The two-star hotel doesn’t require guests to register their cars to use the parking lot. Nor does it have security cameras.
A pity, with cameras and registration they surely could have thwarted the attacks (do I really need to put a sarcasm tag here ?).
This is not journalism, it's pushing a political agenda and a shitty one at that. You don't need to watch all EU citizen to prevent terrorism.
By the way, I'm French but I refuse to be guided by fear.
> Likewise, Mr. Abaaoud exploited Europe’s porous border system,[...]
> [...]where he and another man took a ferry to Patras, Greece, Italian officials said. “We are talking about citizens with regular European passports and with the right to travel freely,”[...]
I guess they're trying to explain us that Europeans have too much freedom ... better take it from them, for the children you know.
> Rental companies in Belgium don’t vet clients as long as their driver’s license, government identification and credit cards are valid.
Of course every rental company should ask their customers if they plan to commit a terrorist act before renting a car ... lying will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law !
> [...]Appart’City hotel, where clients have access to a secondary stairwell that leads directly to a parking lot without ever passing the front desk. The two-star hotel doesn’t require guests to register their cars to use the parking lot. Nor does it have security cameras.
A pity, with cameras and registration they surely could have thwarted the attacks (do I really need to put a sarcasm tag here ?).
This is not journalism, it's pushing a political agenda and a shitty one at that. You don't need to watch all EU citizen to prevent terrorism.
By the way, I'm French but I refuse to be guided by fear.
And coming from the WSJ I'm even more surprised: you can argue that the US has a porous border system, given you can get a ferry from New Jersey to New York City, talking about citizens with regular American passports and with the right to travel freely.
The problem is supposedly with people getting into Europe, via the poorly resourced Greek islands, using false passports. Once they're in they can travel across the Shengen area.
For your US example to work you'd need terrorists to travel from Mexico through a poor and overworked US border town.
For your US example to work you'd need terrorists to travel from Mexico through a poor and overworked US border town.
>And coming from the WSJ I'm even more surprised
Well given its current owner, not all that shocking even if he insists they maintain independent editorial integrity.
Well given its current owner, not all that shocking even if he insists they maintain independent editorial integrity.
Couple thousand disgruntled young men capable of being terrorists. Its a numbers game. Insufficient resources to follow all of them. Only a few have to sneak through.
The questioned is how to prevent young ethnic men from becoming dissatisfied and and radicalized.
The questioned is how to prevent young ethnic men from becoming dissatisfied and and radicalized.
Cultural integration, social welfare, education.
It's amazing how you well WSJ has spun everyday things. Of course car companies only care about your license and ability to pay? What the else should they be checking? Apparently it's also terrible that the terrorists stayed in a hotel.
I just realized something else that was left out of the article. The terrorists were probably buying food too. You know those grocery stores don't vet their customers other than requiring payment. Scary, right?
I don't normally wear my tinfoil hat in public, but it's hard to see this article as anything but an attempt to sway public opinion on encryption and monitoring laws.
I just realized something else that was left out of the article. The terrorists were probably buying food too. You know those grocery stores don't vet their customers other than requiring payment. Scary, right?
I don't normally wear my tinfoil hat in public, but it's hard to see this article as anything but an attempt to sway public opinion on encryption and monitoring laws.
I think the suggestion they're making is that if intelligence agencies instead tracked data like who is renting cars/ hotels etc they would be able to better track potential extremists activities.
Tracking license plates + who is renting hotel rooms is common place in many parts of the world and is less intrusive than reading everyones email.
Tracking license plates + who is renting hotel rooms is common place in many parts of the world and is less intrusive than reading everyones email.
So then low-paid hotel night-clerks are part of the front lines of the intelligence services. I just rented a hotel room with no reservation in the US a few nights ago. I gave ID, credit card, and car's license plate number. I was like 80% sure I had my license plate number memorized, but didn't feel like going outside to check, so I just wrote what I thought it was (without even indicating which US state it was from, I realized later) because I figured it didn't matter if they weren't going to verify it. Hopefully my memory was right, or it's a good thing my ID was not a convincing fake and that I'm not a terrorist, because the clerk would have failed to feed Big Brother good data even if there was a real-time national system to enter it into.
After writing that, I realized your "tracking license plates" may have referred to automated plate scanners. I think it would still be too easy to fake or mislead that, and it's going to cost a lot to deploy everywhere. After they are in every conceivable public location, another attack will happen and somebody will write, "if we had just known X car was in Y private house's garage..." and now we have to put surveillance equipment in every home, or concede that we're founded on ideas that preclude surveillance that intrusive and there will be times when that prevents law enforcement or national security.
After writing that, I realized your "tracking license plates" may have referred to automated plate scanners. I think it would still be too easy to fake or mislead that, and it's going to cost a lot to deploy everywhere. After they are in every conceivable public location, another attack will happen and somebody will write, "if we had just known X car was in Y private house's garage..." and now we have to put surveillance equipment in every home, or concede that we're founded on ideas that preclude surveillance that intrusive and there will be times when that prevents law enforcement or national security.
You can probably use fake ID + fake plates & a fraudulent credit card... However in this situation in France the terrorists - who were on watch lists - did none of these things.
Not saying that data would have helped identify that an operation was in progress but it's data that exists that isn't being recorded. Meanwhile they want access to our metadata and more.
Not saying that data would have helped identify that an operation was in progress but it's data that exists that isn't being recorded. Meanwhile they want access to our metadata and more.
The media is slowly preparing us ... for something.
As someone who has been to Israel many, many times I feel that the French would benefit greatly by consulting with the Israelis regarding running their anti-terrorist security apparatus.
As things stand, the French and the EU in general have been quite critical of Israel's attempts to fight Islamic terror.
As things stand, the French and the EU in general have been quite critical of Israel's attempts to fight Islamic terror.
Since the spies can't find people using the data we have now in the clear, we should not give them access to encrypted comms, because that would be even more data that they can't deal with; it would make their jobs harder, not easier. (That is, depending on what we and they think their jobs actually are.)
How can we take the powers above seriously when they can't even catch a fairly large network of terrorists scheming over the clearnet?
This is a lesson in the ineffectiveness and incompetence of the spying apparatus of the free world.
We've given up so much already for no benefit, and whenever they fail it's never because they were bad at their job, they just didn't have enough power or money to do their job.