Clearly then, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency is irrational. Claims like this make him look like a fool. Although it appears that he didn't name Snowden directly, it was certainly implied.
The argument, insofar as he and others have articulated
it, seems to be that terrorists are becoming more
cautious and more interested in encryption
This bugs me because it makes the assumption that terrorists were previously stupid.
We only have to look at the cartels, who in the last ten years have started building their own high-tech communications systems. They have even gone so far as to employ (sometimes by force), experienced programmers in order to defeat surveillance from the authorities. That predates Snowden, and I'm sure you could find evidence to show that al-Qaieda used encryption before Snowden as well.
ISIS are fighting a war against us. They use guerilla tactics that are terroristic in nature because one does not face the might of a large immovable force head on. It would be like a small wave lapping against a massive sea wall. More effective is to slowly creep into the cracks of the wall, wait for the water to freeze and then split the wall open from inside.
The terrorists were cautious in the first place. They don't use smart phones. Many of them use mobile phones once then throw them away, afraid of being the next drone strike target.
ISIS have a plan to fulfil their prophesy of a Islamic State or 'caliphate'. They want to provoke the west to war, whilst simultaneously isolating moderate Muslims in the west. The suicide bombers and terrorists aren't given this as the primary reason for blowing themselves up and shooting innocent civilians. They are being shown videos of their peers being violently tortured and killed, in order to make them angry. They are being given inspiration to join with their peers against the "oppressors". Then they get given a gun, a bag of amphetamines and in some cases a suicide belt.
The ones we need to worry about are the young men who are being radicalised in the west. Why is it so easy to radicalise these youths? The answer is obvious. Look at the opportunities these youths have in front of them. Racism in France is endemic. I've lived there and witnessed it first hand. The riots in the Paris "ghettoes" in 2005 were a warning sign that got ignored. Now some radical Mullah comes along and gives you a sense of purpose, a sense of belonging, a target for your anger and frustration.
It is no wonder that we are losing this battle. The war isn't in Syria. It's right in front of our noses. It's the racism and lack of opportunity combined with the isolation of a disenfranchised angry youth group. Ironically it is Al-Qaieda and ISIS or Daesh (of whatever we want to call them), who have managed to turn us to (quite naturally) be suspicious, angry and racist towards this ethnic and religious groups in our own countries.
One positive thing to take away, is that we could actually do something about this problem. We might not be able to help the ones we already missed, but we can certainly catch the young ones who are about to fall into the same pit that their older brothers and uncles did.
>Why is it so easy to radicalise these youths? The answer is obvious. Look at the opportunities these youths have in front of them.
That doesn't explain high school students joining ISIS from most affluent area in Finland. These people had wealthy parents and most unrestricting passport in the world. Why ISIS, why not Bahama, Egypt, Quatar, Saundi-arabia, UAE, Indonesia?
Finnish specialists say that radicals come from all walks of life. Only typical things are weak identity, muslim heritage and young age.
Let's say 90% of ISIS supporters in France come from poor homes. If 90% of muslim homes in France are poor, we can't make any conclusions.
If you look who provides ISIS most fighters per capita of population, the leading countries in europe seem to be Belgium, Sweden and Denmark.[1] These are the countries which often rank "least racism in europe", though such rankings are not accurate.[2]
What's worrying about the Double ROT-13 cipher is that its use can be completely undetectable. It's thought to be the most common encryption method used by terrorists.
I live in Sweden, and the prime minister just went public with plans to increase surveillance and give the police extended rights to "surpass encryption", ie hack phones.
I do think the police should have the ability to, after a court ruling, to hack a phone, but the whole increased surveillance is just crazy. The terrorists attack our society for what it is, and the response is not to stand tall, but to change?
> I do think the police should have the ability to, after a court ruling, to hack a phone
How do you think the smartphone would be secured against unlawful hacking?
How would it discriminate against lawful vs. unlawful attempts?
Phones should be unhackable to anybody, and any loophole should be treated as
what it is in fact: an error that should be fixed.
Or maybe you meant that police should have computer security hacking forces,
that is, personnel trained in breaking computer protection. In this case it
would be OK.
He did say it would only occur after a court order. But still it makes me uneasy, how will they put the trojan (he specifically said trojans) in suspects computers/phones?
13 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 44.2 ms ] threadWe only have to look at the cartels, who in the last ten years have started building their own high-tech communications systems. They have even gone so far as to employ (sometimes by force), experienced programmers in order to defeat surveillance from the authorities. That predates Snowden, and I'm sure you could find evidence to show that al-Qaieda used encryption before Snowden as well.
ISIS are fighting a war against us. They use guerilla tactics that are terroristic in nature because one does not face the might of a large immovable force head on. It would be like a small wave lapping against a massive sea wall. More effective is to slowly creep into the cracks of the wall, wait for the water to freeze and then split the wall open from inside.
The terrorists were cautious in the first place. They don't use smart phones. Many of them use mobile phones once then throw them away, afraid of being the next drone strike target.
ISIS have a plan to fulfil their prophesy of a Islamic State or 'caliphate'. They want to provoke the west to war, whilst simultaneously isolating moderate Muslims in the west. The suicide bombers and terrorists aren't given this as the primary reason for blowing themselves up and shooting innocent civilians. They are being shown videos of their peers being violently tortured and killed, in order to make them angry. They are being given inspiration to join with their peers against the "oppressors". Then they get given a gun, a bag of amphetamines and in some cases a suicide belt.
The ones we need to worry about are the young men who are being radicalised in the west. Why is it so easy to radicalise these youths? The answer is obvious. Look at the opportunities these youths have in front of them. Racism in France is endemic. I've lived there and witnessed it first hand. The riots in the Paris "ghettoes" in 2005 were a warning sign that got ignored. Now some radical Mullah comes along and gives you a sense of purpose, a sense of belonging, a target for your anger and frustration.
It is no wonder that we are losing this battle. The war isn't in Syria. It's right in front of our noses. It's the racism and lack of opportunity combined with the isolation of a disenfranchised angry youth group. Ironically it is Al-Qaieda and ISIS or Daesh (of whatever we want to call them), who have managed to turn us to (quite naturally) be suspicious, angry and racist towards this ethnic and religious groups in our own countries.
One positive thing to take away, is that we could actually do something about this problem. We might not be able to help the ones we already missed, but we can certainly catch the young ones who are about to fall into the same pit that their older brothers and uncles did.
That doesn't explain high school students joining ISIS from most affluent area in Finland. These people had wealthy parents and most unrestricting passport in the world. Why ISIS, why not Bahama, Egypt, Quatar, Saundi-arabia, UAE, Indonesia?
Finnish specialists say that radicals come from all walks of life. Only typical things are weak identity, muslim heritage and young age.
Let's say 90% of ISIS supporters in France come from poor homes. If 90% of muslim homes in France are poor, we can't make any conclusions.
If you look who provides ISIS most fighters per capita of population, the leading countries in europe seem to be Belgium, Sweden and Denmark.[1] These are the countries which often rank "least racism in europe", though such rankings are not accurate.[2]
[1] http://www.rferl.org/contentinfographics/foreign-fighters-sy...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15...
I do think the police should have the ability to, after a court ruling, to hack a phone, but the whole increased surveillance is just crazy. The terrorists attack our society for what it is, and the response is not to stand tall, but to change?
How do you think the smartphone would be secured against unlawful hacking? How would it discriminate against lawful vs. unlawful attempts?
Phones should be unhackable to anybody, and any loophole should be treated as what it is in fact: an error that should be fixed.
Or maybe you meant that police should have computer security hacking forces, that is, personnel trained in breaking computer protection. In this case it would be OK.