Slashdot Mirror
Does Anonymity In Virtual Worlds Breed Terrorism?
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."
no more than anonymity in the real world breeds bank robbery.
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).
I always knew those gnomes in the tram were up to something!
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
I don't see a problem with creating a virtual tower and airplane... Maybe we should have a virtual reality world where you can blow yourself up and be reborn in heaven. If it is addictive enough it may curb real life terrorism.
because the Government can't currently monitor all the communication and interaction, terrorists will plot and scheme in such environments.
If by "terrorists", you mean "furries" and "furry sympathizers", then I would have to agree with you.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
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.
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.
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.
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.
: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.
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.
hookers and grits.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Virtual worlds come about last in the list of options. If you were a terrorist and you wanted to communicates would you:
- Talk in a virtual world, where you could be monitored if suspected
- Talk in the real world in some random location
- Use a off prepaid mobiles, brought for cash
- Use heavily encrypted emails, where they would know who you were talking too but not what you said
- 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....
- 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.