Slashdot Mirror
UK Terror Bust Caught With Wiretapping
1cebird writes "In an AP story entitled Brothers Emerge As Focus of Plot Probe, British sources reveal that the UK -> US plane-bombing plot was uncovered by a UK wiretap. So it looks like they are getting results with their wiretapping program. Will this make governments and citizens more comfortable with the idea?"
So what will happen when the terrorists all begin using strong SSL chat sessions and avoid unencrypted communications entirely?
Details here:s urveillance-not-illegal.html
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/legal-
It is nice to know that wiretaps have been useful in doing this, but the question has never been whether wiretaps should be used to counter terrorism. The issue is whether or not illegal wiretaps should be used!
Register the editry.
In fact, the first reports -- before the higher ups in the real PR department got into full spin -- was that the reason these people were tracked was because after the London bombings a relative contacted the police with suspicions. You will note how that in itelf would TRIVIALLY allow the police the right to do taps under the OLD laws. No massive tapping of everyone, no carte blanche needed. Just the good old normal "We have resonable suspicion, please allow us to tap these people, Judge".
This is just "Lock The Laws In" spinning. 100% full throttle let us build a Big Brother Government so pervasive that there is no doubt that terrorism is in fact working excellently-spinning.
And it'll work. The phantom enemy, the "intelligent network", will win. Wasn't it odd that the first press conference I saw had a talking head explaning how this was ''very similar to an Al-Qaeda plot'', trying directly to instill that link to the ''network of evil'' as it were.
Sickening. Truly.
- Indiscriminate "blanket" wiretapping
- Wiretapping without warrants or judicial safeguards.
Neither of these things were necessary at any level of the U.K. investigation there; they knew who to tap ahead of time, and they were in a position to go ahead and follow correct procedures for wiretapping such as obtaining warrants. The current U.K. case in fact weakens the case for these new, neoconservative policies, since the suspects here were caught through good old fashioned police work, not through crazy new vague police powers where the police tap whoever they want whenever they feel like it.The West and Islam never fought before oil was discovered in the Middle East?
It should be mentioned that the U.S. and British governments have been killing Arabs and interfering with Arab governments for more than 40 years, and that's what started the terrorism.
And not the French, the Russians, the Chinese? In particular, have a look at France's brutal colonial record in the Arab world.
Nice try though. The world's terrorism problems are not the exclusive fault of the US and the UK.
We've had wiretapping for a long time, and most people are comfortable with it. Here in the US, you can get a warrant from a judge for wiretapping a US citizen, and we have a special court called FISA specifically for issuing warrants for international type wiretaps. It's routine and it happens *all the time*.
;) or whoever the next president is with such a massive, ongoing surveillance database?
However, as I understand, wiretapping is *not* what tipped off British officials to the group who were going to carry out this plot. It was a friend/relative of one of the plotters who tipped of the police. Then, I'm guessing, the police went and got a warrant to tap this guy's phone, and worked thier way through the group, getting more warrants and taps, until they understood the group structure and their goals.
However, what I am extremely uncomfortable with is the unaccountable and warrantless comprehensive wiretapping of all phone calls in the US. If it is not illegal in the specific wording of the law, it certainly goes against the spirit of the right to privacy and the presumption of innocence. This is very scary. Totalitarian governments love keeping records and tabs on everyone so they can harrass and dissapear them whenever some person starts speaking up.
I'm not saying that Bush is a facist, but think about it -- would you trust Hillary Clinton
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I've never seen a terrorist. To me, terrorists exist on television. What I have experienced are authority figures abusing power. Until terrorists stop hanging out with Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny and end up near me, I don't care how dangerous they are.
I'm more scared of the cops, even though I'm not a criminal.
But thank you for the canned soundbite about how the west is responsible for the crappy condition of the avg arabs life. Somehow a less biased person might look at the middle east and think that their problems stem from lousy corrupt governments that have a willingness to kill their own citizens, the subsitution of religous precepts for sane government policy and a willingness to blame everyone else in the world for their own problems.
Hope your hairshirt fits well.
Clearly, if any group were to use perfect tradecraft and communications, it would be much more difficult - if not impossible - to catch.
But perfection doesn't come easily. Look at how many CIA, KGB, MI6, DGSE and other intelligence agencies' officers have been caught because of screw-ups. These are people trained for long period of time - often years - to accomplish their jobs, yet even among their ranks screw-ups occur.
Terrorists, such as those caught in the UK, don't have such training. While they use many sophisticated (and many simple) means to avoid detection, they often lack the discipline to use them all the time and, in the case of Al Qaeda, often operate in such large groups as to make security hap hazard at best.
Consider Thursday's group and Al Qaeda's MO. A group that size had probably been in the planning and recruitment phase for several months if not several years. A group of that size needed large amounts (by terrorist standards) of outside funding, training, and support. They needed to move lots of information, stay in contact with each other, all while maintaining an outward appearance of normalcy (which they also apparently failed at, as a human intelligence source played a major part in busting the plot as well). A group of 24 - some say as big as 50 - quickly becomes unwieldy, and establishing perfect discipline amongst its often panicked members can be quite difficult.
Al Qaeda's biggest strength, and its biggest weakness, is the size of its attacks. The 9/11 attack was astounding, winning the group recognition worldwide, but it required a very large group to plan and execute. If the planned airline bombings had taken place, the result would have been perhaps equally astounding, but Al Qaeda's eyes are much bigger than its stomach - if it had targeted only one, perhaps two airliners and kept the groups small, tight, and using foreigners instead of UK citizens, it probably could have pulled it off. Look at the "shoe bomber" - he was stopped only by passengers, and his plot was unknown to counter-terrorist officials beforehand. If he'd had the smarts to try and pull it off in the airplane's bathroom, one would assume he'd have been much more successful.
Even if the group keeps 95% of its communications perfectly secure, that 5% slip can be enough to get them. Using that pre-paid cell too many times, forgetting to encrypt a chat just once, slipping up and paying with a credit card, not properly casing a facility, failing to use proper cut-outs to wire cash, etc. Insecure communications are far more efficient and, when one is panicked or when one becomes too confident, are often opted for, which is the key to getting people. By keeping the pressure up and making these groups feel nervous, most are bound to screw up in one way or another, helping them get caught.
While perfectly secure means of communication may well exist, the human element is what will always screw it up. Think about it this way - how easy is it to commit a "perfect murder", one that that leaves you with practically no chance of getting caught? If properly planned, not too hard, right? Yet most murderers are eventually caught. Why? They get lazy. They screw up. All too often it is the stupidity, poor planning, lack of discipline, panic, or overconfidence that gets them caught. Terrorists - who generally operate in sizable groups - often fall to the same problems.
I find it odd that all was quite on the western front, and all of the sudden the domestic wire tapping issue & AT&T blows up in their faces...and right in the middle of it they bust a bunch of Jamaican pot heads in Florida for being terrorist. And then all of the sudden, they start busting a few more "cells," and they always tag on, "and they were caught by monitoring the Internet or by wire tapping." ...as if it is some sort of subtle advertising campaign. I mean, really, in any other type of incident, they probably wouldn't even release how they were caught for months, if at all (yeah, why not tip off the terrorist to quit using the phones or the Net). But it is almost as if we are watching some infomericals from some PR firm, not to scare the "terrorist," but to condition us and make us pro-monitoring.
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Civil rights of 400-500 million violated...
Well, the UK has a population of 60 million, so you're going a tad OTT.
and so far one legitimate, serious attack has been prevented.
So is there some sort of quota that you want? We must stop at least one serious terrorist attack every two months before it's justified action?
The same attack could likely have been prevented by forcing everyone to check all luggage and allow no carry-ons.
Ah, so you complain about civil rights being eroded, but you'd have no problem if before 9/11 they'd have said: "Right, you're not allowed hand luggage except the bare minimum, that's passport, tickets and wallet." People would go nuts and ask why it's justified, wonder why they can't take their Gameboy, MP3 player or even a book onboard that really fun 7 hour transatlantic flight. Screw business class and business customers having the ability to work on the move, by-bye laptop, mobile phone, dictaphone and probably even pens or pencils.
As much as i dissapprove of the idea of only reacting to something after it's happened, if you'd even have suggested the security measures now 10 years ago, you'd be laughed out for costing the industry millions.
Thomas jefferson sent troops to defeat countries in the middle east.
Tripoli is no more the Middle East than is Rome or Berlin. Arab does not equal Middle East. Arab includes much of North Africa, including areas rather west of Portugal, once included most of Iberia and much of west Africa (hence Swahili). Arab does not include Iran.
KFG
*sigh* Fine, I have karma to burn, and I am feeling in a bad mood today.
Right. And you are full of it. Religion is all about gathering a group of people around a central figure. The easiest way to do this is to create "enemies of the faith". And the easiest way to create enemies is to focus on their (alleged) sexual behaviour. Read this book and that book for more information on this. The bottom line is this: group dynamics and religious propaganda will always drag people toward violence , especially if religion -- or some form of religious belief -- is there to de-humanize the so-called "enemies". By the time individuals realize this, it's a full-scale religious war and it's to late to change course.
When you have created nice enemies, violence will always be a consequence. Does not matter which religion you are following, including Buddhism. Jainism or Zoroastrianism may be exceptions, but this is mainly due to the fact they have both been extremely small minorities for centuries now, even millenias in the case of Zoroastrianism.
This is so dumb it's not even funny. First of all, I can probably quote more scriptures from the Bible (that great big piece of religious shit) than you. Second, when will you realize that human beings focus on the violence, and not on peace?
For every "Love thy neighbour" there is a "Kill all your enemies, and do not spare women and children". We could go tit-for-tat like this for centuries, and people have been doing exactly this all over the Internet. Interpretation of absurd commands and nit-picking regulations is what most religions are all about. And interpretation always responds first of all to bloodthirst. And we are bloodthirsty animals, all of us.
There was a time when good Christians launched Crusades against Moslems -- whose civilization was, at the time, the most brilliant on Earth. Now Moslems are using terrorism against "Christians". History repeats itself, nothing new under the sun, yadda yadda yadda. I am sick of people like you who blame one religion for all the problems. Religion, in general, is the problem (and especially retarded religious people).
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Hemos, you got trolled so hard I bet your ass hurts. The article never mentions any Britsh wiretap of any kind.
I am not willing to trade my constitutional rights and other civil liberties in exchange for security.
"The original information about the plan came from the Muslim community in Britain, according to a British intelligence official."
"The tip was from a person who had been concerned about the activities of an acquaintance after the July 7, 2005, terror attacks in London, the official said."
Easy way to stop terrorism, just let them blow shit up and say "so what, kill 1000 more if you like, who cares?"
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter