Slashdot Mirror
Terrorists Move to Cyberspace
Dreamwalkerofyore writes "The Washington Post has an article on how Al Quaeda is now using the 'net for its new HQ. From the article: 'With laptops and DVDs, in secret hideouts and at neighborhood Internet cafes, young code-writing jihadists have sought to replicate the training, communication, planning and preaching facilities they lost in Afghanistan with countless new locations on the Internet.'"
I'm a computer geek, not a terrorism expert but from my understanding, Al Queda is much more a brand name than it is an omnipresent, neboulous, James Bond-like organization. Bin Laden/Al-Zawahri isn't holed up in some Bat Cave, directing his mindless minons in yet another half-baked, but grand scheme at ruling the world. But painting Al Queda as such makes it easier to scare a populace who's grown up with comic book bad guys into complacency.
Al Queda is just a cause; it's a flag that militant Islamic zealots hoist in order to feel part of a worldwide movement. They're a ragtag bunch of criminals who want to spread their message as far and wide as possible. There are no definate leaders (Bin Laden is just a spokesman), nor do they have a cohesive strategy. Therefore it makes perfect sense that they use the Internet to communicate. This isn't news. It's just another way to make us feel that a Muhammad with a Kalashnikov just might be invading an ubiquitous part of most Americans' daily lives. Pair that anxiety with most people's complete lack understanding concering the Internet (ignorance begets fear) and suddenly it becomes much easier to curb our digital liberties just a bit more. Not to mention it helps to sell Washington Post newspapers.
I mean, come on... how many headlines read "Confirmed: Terrorists using telephones to communicate"?
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
This is all the more reason the US govt and the CIA need to invest heavily in recruiting and training Arabic translators.
This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
I love how the Bush administration keeps the Terrorist "threat" at the forefront of the American peoples' lives. It really makes me wonder if we are not moving closer to an Orwellian future. "War Is Peace" is beginning to sound more and more like Bush's rhetoric every day.
Ads? What ads?
I might as well have read a post titled "Terrorists use the phone to communicate". You and I might call them terrorists but, they are still people. And people generally tend to use any piece of technology around them (assuming they are aware pf the technology and they are skilled enought to use it) to achieve their goal. They should not be underestimated and thought of as primitive because even they will adapt and develop new means and methods if need be.
This abuse of the Internet to sow hatred and terrorism will mean that governments will monitor the Internet much more closely, and will close down any web sites and stop any activities that are potentially dangerous. The Wild West Period of the Internet is definitely ending. There will be things you can and can not do. Like it or not the rule of law will be enforced with increasing strictness. (It is just like us humans to abuse a good thing.)
I once saved an article, I think from the NY Times, about gangs moving onto the Internet. They could not, however, gather any useful information from these "barely computer literate" gang members because they used CODE WORDS in place of what they really meant. Now imagine, no heavy encryption, no PGP, just plain text from teenage punks...and they couldn't get anything useful because they used CODE words.
Intercepting terrorists messages isn't their goal. If they can't stop LA gangbangers from using the Net to communicate, they sure can't stop hard core terrorists, who are surely smart enough to use more than just code words.
What they really want to keep tabs on is the 99.9% of the Net who aren't terrorists and aren't using encryption and simple code words.
Man, I wished I could find that article!
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
Islam is a religion with millions of adherents who have never bombed anyone, killed anyone, threatened anyone, or attempted to take over the world and destroy Christianity in the process.
Islam is definitely engaged in an internal struggle right now, but those who condemn violence are starting to do so more forcefully, and the notion that the majority of Muslims want to do in America and Europe is to the best of my knowledge unsubstantiated.
The Christian Identity Movement espoused by the Aryan Nation purports to be a true interpretation of Christ's teachings. Because they call themselves Christians doesn't mean that they speak for the millions of other Christians, does it?
Sure the leaders are the same folks who run Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc... The Strategy is to take over the world, pretty simple to me.
Bin Laden hates the Saudi royal family and would love nothing better than to have it destroyed. That hardly puts them on the same side. The fact that Iran is a Shiite nation and most of the rest of the Middle East (save Iraq) is dominated by Sunnis is also a very important factor. Just as Catholics and Protestants clashed in Europe for generations, so it is with the Muslim Arabs. That doesn't mean they can't and haven't been cooperating, but they certainly don't all share the same vision of what is right for Islam, much less the entire world.
Remember that the world communist movement had a very clear ideological platform and a very clear plan. They even had two giant countries, the USSR and China, in their camp. But nope, the whole "take over the world" goal was just too difficult to obtain. Communism imploded specifically because the West successfully pursued a strategy of containment, which forced communism to slowly collapse under its own contradictions.
Because of course they haven't invaded other parts of our lives like air travel and public transportation?
They have attacked us and inflicted damage, absolutely. But the effectiveness of terrorists can be minimized, and they can be isolated and slowly choked off. Deterrence and patient police work are the key to this, as the British know.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
It seems that the majority of people on /. cannot take this article seriously and think it is part of some FUD campaign. I do not think it is at all on the otherhand and I think there are a disproportional amount of comments on this article which are immature.
/. in my opinion.
The article simply seeks to disseminate information which is interesting. It contains many facts including the URLS of former websites run by Al Quaeda. It even speaks about organizations who devote all of thier time to tracking the websites of Jihadists.
Since the Washington Post is the most liberal major newspaper in the US right now I doubt they will be doing this administration any favors. I do not think that they intended to spread fear or even to imply that tighter controls on the Internet were needed. Actually I think talking about the real tacticts of Jihadists will be the best argument AGAINST tighter controls. That is because whatever restraints we make on our networks here domestically will not affect the rest of the internet and besides there are ways around even the best policies. The Internet is a network that was designed for the easy transfer of information and that is how it is being used.
I think some of the information in the article is useful in the posturing of agencies looking to track down terrorists. If people neglect to think about this channel for imformation dissemination then many things will be missed. In addition the article pointed out that Businesses who do not take thier security seriously have thier websites hacked and used by Al Quaeda operatives. I think this is the best motivation ever for companies to finally get off thier lazy behinds and lock down open servers. Getting you corporate site hacked and turned into a commercial for Jihad is not good for PR.
In conclustion I think the article was good. It was not all new information but the article pulled a lot of info that was scattered and put it in one place. I think that is also deserved to be posted on
Please define doing something wrong. Exercizing my 4th amendment rights in the face of tyrranical government?
Are there guidelines published somewhere that say when I should start acting against a government when it has become too insane? I'd like to know, other wise I'm forced to make it up.
Besides, I only said Big Bro would disappear the website. The operators probably just get a heavy-handed dose of "doing-your-country-a-service-by-shutting-up", with an appetizer of "fed-waving-a-gun-in-your-face".
I might need a tin-foil hat, but I could also use a government that lets me sleep soundly at night.
Actually, the Constitution says exactly the opposite: the first amendment guarantees our right to criticize the government. Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Whether you like the patriot act or not, the president has a duty to do something and I'd rather have a president that is overreacting than one who is doing nothing so as to avoid labels like fascist
Actually, no -- the president's duty is not to "do something", but to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." If you think fascism can't happen here, you may be right -- but only if the American people are willing to defend the Constitution even when it isn't convenient to do so. If people don't take their freedoms seriously, they will likely lose them.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Going over the article, it seems to focus a lot on the mostly benign while overlooking the real danger.
It's not these scary terrorist webpages. Heck, I could start my own webpage tomorrow called "People's Jihad of America", or some such rubbish, then provide a link under "training" entitled "How to detonate a nuclear bomb"
The body could be something like: First you find a nuclear bomb. Bring the bomb into America. This is the tricky part because you might get caught, so we suggest trying to smuggle it in as discreetly as possible. Once you've got it in the United States, take it a city like New York or Los Angeles. You should do this because those are dense cities and the denser the city, the more people the bomb will kill. Finally, take the bomb to the center of the city because that's where most of the people live, and detonate it".
The next day, there would be news reports that "An American website affiliated with terrorist organizations published a training manual for a nuclear attack against the United States. Singling out either New York or Los Angeles for attack, the manual provides tips on how to smuggle a bomb into the country, and even instructs on the proper placement of the nuclear device to have maximum effectiveness.
Well . . . um . . . duh.
The real scary part is communication, not webpages. Anonymous emails and chat rooms abound where parent terrorist cells can disseminate orders and information to subordinate cells. Simply handwriting a note and scanning it, emailing the message as a jpg can defeat pretty much all of our best detection methods. This--which is the real threat--is all but ignored in the media.
But some yahoo puts up a website after thumbing through the Anarchist's Cookbook, and we're supposed to be scared of that.
The Internet is generally stupid