Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Does Anonymity In Virtual Worlds Breed Terrorism?

Posted by samzenpus on from the threat-of-the-week dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes "The Washington Post has an article about the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity's take on the numerous virtual worlds (e.g. Second Life) that have cropped up in recent years. IARPA's thesis is that because the Government can't currently monitor all the communication and interaction, terrorists will plot and scheme in such environments."

37 of 295 comments (clear)

  1. no more than anonymity in the real world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    no more than anonymity in the real world breeds bank robbery.

    1. Re:no more than anonymity in the real world... by _merlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure once They realize how comic their attempts to justify their jobs are, they will return all the tax money and do something productive.

      I hope you're being sarcastic. It's not like government bodies to ever admit mistakes. Unless it's mistakes of their predecessors, of course.

  2. Monitor this! by _merlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The government can't monitor what I'm saying to my co-workers at this moment, either. Maybe terrorists will plot things in our work environment, too. They can't monitor what I say to my friends on the street. Better make going outside illegal. Who pays these people to say stupid stuff? Oh, I forgot - that's where taxes go. Maybe Ron Paul really is onto something with his talk about cutting unnecessary parts of the government (I'm Australian, so I can't vote for him).

    1. Re:Monitor this! by mrxak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well realistically, I'm sure terrorists do meet in person to plot. This article needs a big stamp labeled [Obvious].

      --
      -mrxak
      Onions Will Kill You
    2. Re:Monitor this! by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This article needs a big stamp labeled [Obvious].

      No, it needs a big stamp labeled [Government Out Of Control]

      The "problem" is not that people can have unmonitored discussions in virtual worlds, the "problem" is unmonitored discussions. You know, like you might want to have in your living room with your sister's new husband, Khalid Al Automatic Terrorist Suspect. Or your friend, Sir Knight of the Holy Order of Pot Smokers. Or your wife, She who Blew You When You Were Underage. There is literally no difference between the idea that "they" have to monitor discussions in one place, as compared to "they" need to monitor discussions in another. The idea they are actually pushing is that unmonitored discussions are a threat. The issue at hand is specifically, do "they" need to monitor discussions at all, and the answer, both legally and in the sense of rational degrees of privacy, is a resounding no.

      I refer you to the 4th amendment of the constitution:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

      Some would say that there is no right to privacy in the constitution, but I say there it is, staring you in the face, as the underlying presumption that created the first phrase in the fourth amendment. Just ask, why would people have this right? It all descends from privacy, that social boundary that we all know better than to cross.

      That bit about "papers" is the key; at the time, "papers" were what was used to communicate long distance, and there they are, right in the boilerplate that LIMITS the federal government's rights by trumping with the people's rights. This idea was rationally extended in the right to privacy for your mail, and again, in right to privacy with regard to telecommunications and cell calls and so forth. The idea that these people are pushing that packets are not the same as an envelope carrying your remarks in the degree of privacy deserved, and the reason for that privacy, is simply ridiculous.

      If you put up with this, mark my words, you'll be asked to put up with monitoring gear in your home before too much longer.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:Monitor this! by mpe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The government obviously needs to place surveillance cameras and microphones in every single room of very single building, and on every street.

      Except for government buildings and police stations of course...

    4. Re:Monitor this! by Bert64 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, a virtual world is actually much easier to monitor than a real one...
      If someone is communicating through a public system like second life, which has servers in a central location, you can get a court order and monitor those servers without the suspect having any idea it's happening.
      In real life, you need to physically plant bugging devices, which carries significant risks, not only of the devices being found but also of you're operatives being caught planting them. It's also considerably more expensive, paying someone to read text on a screen is much cheaper than paying someone to risk their life planting bugging equipment in a location known to be frequented by dangerous terrorists.
      Similarly sending an undercover agent, the anonymity of the internet allows an undercover agent to work with little risk, especially compared to the dangers of what might happen to a real life undercover operative if he's discovered.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    5. Re:Monitor this! by evanbd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some would say that there is no right to privacy in the constitution, but I say there it is, staring you in the face, as the underlying presumption that created the first phrase in the fourth amendment.

      It doesn't need to be in the Constitution. It is a basic right. The Constitution was written on the principle that it does not grant rights. It prevents the government from taking away rights you *already possess*. It is abundantly clear, both from the text itself and the discussions that led to it, that the Constitution enumerates a subset of our rights. The fact that it is not mentioned in the Constitution does not mean you don't have it -- quite the opposite. If it isn't mentioned, that means the government has no right to touch it.

      But then, no one actually reads it any more.

    6. Re:Monitor this! by ATMAvatar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

      The problems are that:

      • Those in power have successfully convinced a large portion of the public that we only have those rights specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And, many have been sold on the idea that even those rights have limits.
      • The 4th Amendment is, unfortunately, a little ambiguous.
      The big, gaping hole in the amendment is the inclusion of the word "unreasonable." It's quite easy to convince the more timid that all monitoring is reasonable if it can protect us from terrorists or protect our children from pedophiles.

      That, and we've chipped-away at the 4th Amendment for a long time, with concepts like "reasonable expectation of privacy" that can be waved around whenever someone objects to the newest form of surveillance. For example, you can bet the framers of the Constitution would have been horrified at the prospect of putting up cameras everywhere to monitor anyone out in public, but it's defended heavily by the assertion that anyone could see you in public, so it's ok.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  3. "trust us, the panopticon will keep you safe" by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Our (the US) government and its intelligence agencies are getting a little out of hand.

    1. Re:"trust us, the panopticon will keep you safe" by rhizome · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Our (the US) government and its intelligence agencies are getting a little out of hand.

      Actually I think it's the reverse. Overreaching surveillance and torture tells me that the US intelligence agencies are way behind in their capabilities and skills, so they have to fall back on cruder methods. Some might say incompetent, but that tends to be taken as perjorative. I'm thinking more "developmentally disabled," because they may simply not be capable of researching good intelligence anymore.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
  4. So, basically... by ikarous · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These people were paid to say, "Hey, um, terrorists might use the global communications network to communicate with one another." Better tear it down. Glad our taxes are going to good use.

  5. Of Course It Does... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just like free-thinking and education breeds terrorism...

    Be A Patriot! Don't Read!

  6. Q and A by Husgaard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Will terrorists will plot and scheme where the government cannot monitor them?

    Yes, of course!

    Will it help to let the government monitor everywhere?

    Maybe a bit, if it is possible. But it would mean that we destroy the kind of society we are trying to defend against the terrorists.

  7. Being a Government breeds Terrorism by itsybitsy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The simple fact that humans organize into Governments that think that they can with impunity kill other human beings in other parts of the world is what breeds terrorism. When you bomb people a fraction of those that survive, or their relatives, or descendants, may at their choice become fighters against those bombers or those who otherwise terrorized them. It's simple primitive brain response to being killed and all humans still have that primitive brain, it's known as our lizard brain. It's responsible for the fight, flight or freeze response.

    So YES, any place that people gather, or communicate one on one, one on many or many on many will be a place where potential plans for evil deeds are carried out. The Pentagon is one such place for those with organized power centers while other places, real or virtual are places where those kinds of communications can occur.

    Those in power are those that kill. They are often the ones that also need to be stopped along with the - so called - terrorists that they fight. They both carry out evil deeds including killing.

    1. Re:Being a Government breeds Terrorism by itsybitsy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your analysis isn't any less simplistic than mine.

      The facts are complex, yes. Not all people retaliate. Some time quite some time. Yes, ideologies such as intense religious fervor and extreme dogmas do come into play as well.

      However, when a major Government directly supports repressive governments, for many decades, across a region of the planet how can you expect to have no retaliation from those within that region? That's what I wonder. At least be honest about this aspect of it.

      It's hard looking in the mirror and seeing the evil that ones collective does for it's often justified by ones own self centered survival. How about simply counting the dead as the measure of evil regardless of the political reasons? If you do that then many (if not most) governments - and other active groups - on the planet have a lot to be held accountable for.

      Force and killing are not the answer. It's about time politicians got that. It's about time that those with the weapons and the desire to use them got that. It's about time that those without the weapons but with the desire to use them learned that. Unfortunately they all have seemed to have learned the opposite lesson since killing on the mass scale is so easy in reality and so easy politically since the body politic either directly supports it, are placated sheep, are brainwashed, have been hoodwinked or think that they have no power or say in the matter.

      Peace is the way forward for the human race as weapons of mass destruction technology spreads to any with the skills, knowledge ability, and - worst of all - desire to use them. People need to feel heard, but also need to respect others. You can't create respect with bombs or troops. What you create is fear and loathing regardless of who you are.

    2. Re:Being a Government breeds Terrorism by itsybitsy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, the only response to a particular brain to being killed is "dying". I wasn't referring to a particular brain that would seek revenge or retaliation though. That's why a list of other possibly agents of retaliation was listed. I thought that you could use your brain to figure that out. I'm happy to clarify and since your comment was funny I enjoyed it too.

      Yes, you can say that most terrorism requires or has planning, patience, and execution phases. The notion of the reptile brain is that it's part of our base emotional response: fight, flight, or freeze. It's the part that gets pissed off when someone cuts you off in traffic or when someone kills your loved ones.

      I don't think that any of us are qualified to know for sure that terrorism is a uniquely human trait. It wouldn't surprise me if other species engaged in it to.

      Your self defense is terrorism to those you defend against.

      The so called double speak "War on Terrorism" is a war of state sponsored terrorism against an amorphous enemy - sometimes targeting well known geographic areas.

      To think that one has the right to violate people's private speech is the arrogance of State Power that the few with the delusion that they are the Government think that they can also do with impunity. Eventually it will bite them back as people like their privacy as well as liking being alive.

      Just because it's self defense to your society doesn't make it any less State Sponsored Terrorism to those that are defended against!

      Let me ask you this. If you support fighting those that attack you, don't you think that your countries enemies also think the same, that fighting is the answer?

      The Japanese were defeated by the detonation of TWO nuclear bombs in the worst single acts of State Sponsored Terrorism the World has ever seen. 100,000+ dead within moments and days. A man made disaster that only Mother Nature had been able to match. It broke their will to fight. Their cultural leader, the Emperor of Japan, ordered them to stop fighting and they complied. That's why you don't have Japanese terrorists being a problem. In that case ultimate force crushed the will of a highly organized militant society.

      That won't work with the distributed religious zealots of radical Islam. They are not organized into a hierarchy but are loose nit groups of small hierarchies. They are also fighting back against who they perceive as a Goliath with the next to nothing that they have. Ok, some have more than the others. There are also many other power games going on.

      The central thesis still stands: if you kill people their friends will want to kill you back. Basic instinct.

      Sometimes it's overcome and other times it isn't.

      One such time of not being overcome was time that the Bush gave his clearly Revenge Oriented Speech atop the rubble of the WTC. This and subsequent orders sent hundreds of thousands of people into action seeking revenge. I used to live one and a half blocks from there and I was aghast that the US President would seek revenge from the pile of rubble. It doesn't bode well for life on Earth when the man with the most powerful weapon systems seeks revenge. No well indeed as we've seen since.

      I suppose only the privileged few with the weapons at their disposal think that they are entitled to do what they will including seeking revenge with those weapons.

      As a result I treat any with weapons of any sort as potential terrorists and especially those in uniforms and authority.

  8. and why would... by Lordfly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And why would terrorists download a special client, usually made for graphics-intensive computers, and pay a monthly fee to hop in and "PM" Osama405_bigluv their nefarious plans? I thought terrorism's aims were generally low-budget and crass, not web 2.0.

    Ever heard of IRC? Email? Smoke signals?

    Just chatting in virtual worlds is too time consuming if you want to convey information quickly and easily. I should know, I work in them. :P Whenever there's a bunch of people trying to get a meeting done, it's done in Skype, or email, or IRC, or Basecamp.

    --
    hookers and grits.
  9. Let 'em by gambolt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing terrorists can do is a bigger threat to our freedom and way of life than nincompoops who think all communication should be government monitored.

  10. GOP should make US citizens carry lightning rods. by leftie · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Republicans should force everyone in the US to carry around lightning rods everywhere they go first. Since people are more likely to be hit by lightning than they are to be a victim of terrorist attack, we need to spend that money on the threat from evil lightning bolts.

    My Gawd, are the vast majority of the GOP the biggest bunch of sniveling cowards you have ever seen?

    "I MUST BE PROTECTED FROM BOOGIE MEN HIDING UNDER MY BED! SAVE ME!"

    Can you imagine one of these yellow-streak-down-their-back right wingers ever loading all their possessions in a Conestoga Wagon and heading out west into the unknown on the Oregon Trail? What made so many Americans such cowards?

  11. Farce on Terrorism by secondhand_Buddah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Terrorism is a phenomena that is internal to countries. Terrorists regard themselves as freedom fighters. terrorism occurs where people have been suppressed by a regime, and want their freedom back. They are not well armed, or have large numbers of forces at their disposal, so they rely on tactics to pressurise the population of a country to invoke change. Generally only small numbers of people are killed by terrorism, but the technique invokes fear, which in turn prompts for change.

    What is happening in America is not terrorism. It bears none of the characteristic traits. It is something else. Terrorism is probably something that will emerge in America in the next few years as/if the government becomes more suppressive. People seeking their liberty back will unite and work together to return liberty to USA. The current legislation being put in place is a strategy to counter the ability of people to unite and rise up against a government.

    If I was American or British right now, I would be very concerned.

    --
    Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
    1. Re:Farce on Terrorism by secondhand_Buddah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have you noticed that your society has transcended before your eyes into a surveillance society. Do you know that you can now be detained indefinitely without trial? Do you know that there are elements within the British government that want total surveillance on your life?

      The thing is, the only terrorism you know was from the IRA, which is what I was describing. This new thing, labelled as terrorism is not. It is something else. As a British citizen you may remember that the IRA had clear objectives.

      This current wave of violence is not terrorism. It is something else. It has been designed to coerce you as Joe Citizen, into agreeing with passing the laws that will enable a surveillance society. And it it working, as you can witness by the laws being passed. Since the turn of the century, the freedoms enjoyed by ordinary citizens in USA and Britain have been severely eroded.

      Unfortunately this is just the beginning. there is however still time to stop it before it spirals out of control - before you get your first dictators. If you think it cant happen, ask the older Germans, they will tell you that it pretty much started in this way. Also ask the Jewish people how their freedoms were curtailed in Nazi Germany, and how it turned out for them. they ALLOWED it to happen to them because they were law obeying citizens of Germany at the time. they had faith that the balance of law and order would have been restored in Germany, but it was not. Wherever freedoms are being curtailed, it is in order to control people. Once the control begins, it is VERY DIFFICULT to undo the control.

      --
      Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
  12. Are you serious? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Using Second Life and "virtual worlds" to formulate terrorist plans? Why? Don't telephones, email, and real world meetings (that's when you are actually in the same room with someone, or outside near them, look it up) all work for these people? I don't know much about plotting against governments, but if I want to plan to go out for dinner tomorrow night, I am not going to make sure I have a computer running Second Life, create an account, wait for my friends to login, then make plans online; much easier to call them on the phone, send an email, or drop by to see them. Silly. Out of all forms of communication, I'd have to rank Second Life, etc. as about the most cumbersome and least convenient.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  13. Re:GOP should make US citizens carry lightning rod by pclminion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Carrying a lightning rod around will actually increase your chances of being struck.

    Just so you know. I mean, I wouldn't want to see somebody get hurt.

    What made so many Americans such cowards?

    It has been a slow, degenerative process. The causes will probably all be obvious in the end, but that will be too late.

  14. Terrorists never plan anything at home... by freezingweasel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course if I'm a terrorist I'm going to get people in place all over the US, and openly discuss my plans AFTER everyone is in place, in front of countless online witnesses, any one of which might not want us to kill them as opposed to making the plans before we came over and NOT EVER MENTIONING THEM.

    If the terrorists are really that incompetant, we don't need to stop them, because they're just going to mess their own plan up anyway.

    So two possibilities remain:

    1. This is a blatant move towards a police state, leaving people too afraid to speak their mind (ala China).

    2. There's legitimate reason to fear a massive uprising of "terrorism" from AMERICANS themselves. This sort of thing doesn't just happen in a vacuum. If this is expected, it begs the question, what are those pushing this bill planning to do that's so horrible Americans would revolt in large numbers? This is not a fear of legitimate governments that AREN'T looking to do something horrible.

    Someone might speculate that perhaps they aren't worried about ordinary citizens or terrorists, but that perhaps there's another secret group we don't know about (or the extent of) seeking to infiltrate the government. Darn those commies trying to sneak back in! If there was such a group, and they were well coordinated enough to make such an attempt, don't you think they'ed have their own encrypted communications, and possibly face to face IRL meetings that left no record?

    One way or another, this doesn't pass the smell test.

  15. Re:Virtual Security by pclminion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anonymity breeds terrorism. end of sentence.

    s/anonymity/desperation and you have a valid argument. Anonymity is completely counter to all the goals of terrorism. You cannot effect political change, if you do not reveal yourself or your motivations. Anonymous terrorism is just plain old murder. Doing it in secret defeats the purpose.

    It helps to be anonymous when you are in the planning stages, but it is pointless to remain anonymous after the fact.

  16. In fact less by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If the government suspected someone of plotting in a virtual world they could probably subpoena logs from the ISP, find who else was habitually on line at similar times and monitor future access.

    Virtual worlds come about last in the list of options. If you were a terrorist and you wanted to communicates would you:
    1. Talk in a virtual world, where you could be monitored if suspected
    2. Talk in the real world in some random location
    3. Use a off prepaid mobiles, brought for cash
    4. Use heavily encrypted emails, where they would know who you were talking too but not what you said
    5. Post stenographic encrypted images on Flicr (images which hold a hidden coded message, not visible to normal users), where they could not tell what you said or who you sait it to. Possibility of finding out people who regularly checked images, though if it was good porn....
    6. Get a spam company to send a message to millions of people with stenographic encrypted messages or pre-arranged phrases. (other terrorists don't need to regualrly check images)
    I am sure that most of you can think up some more "better than second life" means of covert communication.
    1. Re:In fact less by houghi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Usenet. That would be my prefered way of comunication. That together with other means of encription. The advantage over Flicr is that there is no proof of contact between the sender and the reciever.

      e.g. I post daily to alt.binaries.pictures.wallpaper and put sometimes a message encrypted in the series I post. It has been a while, but still. I post them at my provider.

      The target (whom I might not even know) can pic it up at his provider, decrypt it and read the message. Now as I am posting on-topic and often, there is no reason why you wouldn't download them. Many thousands do so.

      Yes, they could arrest me. However I might not know the reciever. the reciever will most likely be warned that I do not send anything anymore and take apropriate action.

      Basicaly it is the Internet version of broadcasting 'Jean has a large moustache'. The thing with messages is often not so much what is in them, but who is talking to whom. So if you make it harder to detect the network, that would be better (from a terorist point of view)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:In fact less by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know what really promotes terrorism?

      File Sharing! No, really. They could put a stenographic message in a torrent of Beowulf and post it on TPB.

      Wait, while we're at it, I think that ripping music CDs to mp3 files promotes terrorism too, oh, and skipping the commercials with my DVR. Skipping commercials REALLY promotes terrorism.

      They must really think we're stupid.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  17. IARPA Missed The Point by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does Anonymity In Virtual Worlds Breed Terrorism?

    No, it is repression and colonialism in real world that breeds terrorism.

    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
  18. Re:Virtual Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If I had my way, my vote wouldnt be anonymous in anything requiring a vote. ...Its an expression of your opinion, ideal, morality, etc. and im fairly sure that if everyone could find out who voted for who, it might fix some of the voting "issues".

    Hey genius, have you considered the possibilities of bribery and intimidation?

  19. Re:Farce on Terrorism - Nonsense! by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Generally only small numbers of people are killed by terrorism" - well just 10,500+ since 9/11... no big deal right. You won't care if they kill you then?

          I find it interesting the way you can pull numbers out of your ass. 10,500 people? Oh wait, are you including troops and contractors who invaded foreign countries without a formal declaration of war (against the Rules of War) and who persist on foreign soil in a de facto state of war, without any clear goals for withdrawal (against the Geneva conventions), and have been killed by nationals of those countries who resent being occupied by foreigners? Seems to me a certain nation told the British just where they could stick it a few hundred years ago too. But THAT wasn't "terrorism" back then, was it?

          See when I was young, a "terrorist" was someone who blew things up for political reasons, like the IRA, ETA, PLO, etc. They'd hijack airplanes, blow up discos and hotels, etc. But NOW it seems that the very ambiguous word "terrorist" has been broadened to include "anyone who shoots at American troops" or even better "anyone who is shot at by American troops". In fact soon it will include "Anyone we call a terrorist". 10,500 people since 9/11. Right.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  20. It's already monitored... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    All public chat and instant messages are logged by Linden Lab for the purposes of abuse reporting. Communication in Second Life is just bolted on with an IRC server anyway. It's all unencrypted, logged, plain text. The problem is where, exactly?

  21. Any uncontrolled medium "breeds terrorists"... by JetScootr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If it supports anonymous free speech. Any uncontrolled arena in life will be viewed by government as a threat. That's why the Bill of Rights was written in the first place.

    --
    Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
  22. Just speak in a foreign language by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Given that our government keeps firing translators, terrorists would just have to speak in a foreign language. No other measure would be necessary.

  23. I guess the only answer is a Police State... by ProteusQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's just too hard to govern when we act as if the Constitution meant something. It would just be easier for overworked bureaucrats, politicians, and CEO's if we just submitted our will to a Larger Program. Don't you think?

    Oh, wait... I said "think". Slip of the tongue! I may need more reeducation.

  24. What breeds terrorism? by ukemike · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What breeds terrorism?

    Lets see...

    Turning a country into a war zone;
    Turning whole populations into refugees;
    Military occupations with checkpoints, no knock searches, arbitrary detentions, torture, etc.;
    Desperation;
    Hopelessness; and
    Training religious fanatics in terrorist techniques, arming them, and funding them, until they defeat your enemy for you and then abandoning them.

    Yep all of those things are really good at breeding terrorism, but I don't see anonymity in virtual worlds anywhere on the list. Nope. Sorry.

    --
    -- QED