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."

15 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

  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 Ultra64 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sure terrorists do meet in person to plot

      How could you know that? Unless...

      I FOUND ONE! Call DHS!
    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. Terror Gnomes by mrxak · · Score: 5, Funny

    I always knew those gnomes in the tram were up to something!

    --
    -mrxak
    Onions Will Kill You
  4. whats wrong by Kinobi · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  5. they dress up like bears by User+956 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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.