Slashdot Mirror


NYT Quietly Pulls Article Blaming Encryption In Paris Attacks

HughPickens.com writes: Inside Sources reports that the NY Times has quietly pulled a story from its website alleging the attackers used encrypted technology. The original piece, which has since been removed, can be found on the Internet Archive. It stated, "The attackers are believed to have communicated using encryption technology, according to European officials who had been briefed on the investigation but were not authorized to speak publicly. It was not clear whether the encryption was part of widely used communications tools, like WhatsApp, which the authorities have a hard time monitoring, or something more elaborate. Intelligence officials have been pressing for more leeway to counter the growing use of encryption."

A link to the NY Times article now redirects readers to a separate, general article on the attacks, which does not contain the word "encrypt." The Times later posted a second article citing an anonymous "European counterterrorism official" who was quoted saying authorities' "working assumption is that these guys were very security aware," but clarified officials "offered no evidence."

176 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. The hilarity it keeps growing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is like watching a Hollywood spy movie where they're astounded at how the elite criminals are using Unix!

    It's an open question to me whether it's the media that is dumb, the alleged government spokespeople, or somebody is just faking it to bullshit the generally dumb public who doesn't know any better.

    Here's a hint how to defeat these terrorists. Go about your daily life as if nothing happened, and don't let the government do anything different.

    Then they'll lose and you won't lose either.

    1. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by Flavianoep · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is like watching a Hollywood spy movie where they're astounded at how the elite criminals are using Unix!

      Like... MacOS?

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    2. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps it was more like this:

      Ostensibly erudite reporter was given inside information with the carefully planted bugaboo word: encryption, so as to allow the information provider to cast a negative shadow upon encryption, so as to favor the arguments of those tireless government officials that are seeking to permit governmental backdoors into encryption methods.

      Or, perhaps more likely, the erudite reporter merely salted their story for street creds.

      In either case, it was seemingly rapidly corrected.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    3. Re: The hilarity it keeps growing. by IBME · · Score: 1

      It is hilarious for the round about pony show we get to ride only to discover...well everything. Pathetic mostly.

    4. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's an open question to me whether it's the media that is dumb, the alleged government spokespeople, or somebody is just faking it to bullshit the generally dumb public who doesn't know any better.

      I'm going with option C. The authorities want to be able to see what we're doing. Encryption interferes with that. Linking encryption with terrorism in the public mind might change public sentiment when it comes to the question of back doors. The public is largely unsophisticated in this area and the government and media like that just fine.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    5. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm going with option C. The authorities want to be able to see what we're doing. Encryption interferes with that. Linking encryption with terrorism in the public mind might change public sentiment when it comes to the question of back doors. The public is largely unsophisticated in this area and the government and media like that just fine.

      If they can also somehow tie the terrorist encryption to child pr0n, then they will have the crowd behind them to ban common citizen encryption without backdoors.

      This of the children!!

      Think of the terrorists!!

      I think the two of those are likely to be the keys to the Constitution, at least in the US>

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by phishybongwaters · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I personally read these articles to find the name of the apps they say are "hard to monitor" and make sure I in no way ever use them. Think about this long and hard. Why would they tell "them" exactly what apps to use because they can't monitor them? They wouldn't. But.... they sure as hell would like to direct as many people as possible to use the apps that have easy access to, namely any app that appears by name in any of these articles. Hell, they even tried to blame snowden.

    7. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by SecurityGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      NPR had a great piece on this yesterday where they openly stated that if strong encryption was backdoored, some kid would just write an app in his basement implementing strong encryption without a backdoor. The algorithms are public, and honestly not that complicated. The iPhone encryption that has everyone in such a lather is a Federal standard, after all.

      Some of the media gets it.

    8. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeahhhhhhhhhhhh, it ain't the media.... although they're about as useful as a bonnet in a bar fight too. It's this "grab everything and pick through it" intelligence mentality. I mean ,c'mon. These guys pulled off something horrific and the world-wide intelligence community was caught flat-footed (or so we're being told), but they nabbed Jared Fogle, goddammit.

      Yeah, he needed to be nabbed, but in comparison with what happened in Paris?

    9. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or, perhaps more likely, the erudite reporter merely salted their story for street creds.

      The reporter should have hashed it after salting.

    10. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about this, instead:

      Reporter interviewed some investigators who mentioned that the terrorists had been using encryption, and published the story including that fact. The investigators then realized that the terrorists associates might later read the article and realize that their encryption methods might now be compromised and abandon them -- so the investigators asked the newspaper to bury the article, in the hopes that the terrorists would continue using their (perhaps now compromised) encryption methods a bit longer and thereby expose themselves to capture.

      I know it doesn't exactly feed the obligatory Slashdot "government is evil and wants to hack your computer" line, but it seems equally likely to me.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    11. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by sexconker · · Score: 2

      It wasn't corrected. A correction involves printing a retraction saying "WE FUCKED UP LOL".
      This is being swept under the rug as if it never happened.

      I watched a bit of the news after the attacks (because the few shows I do watch were preempted by it).
      Every single channel kept parroting the same FUD about encryption and PlayStations.

      It's CLEARLY a government-planted narrative.

    12. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      It has all the earmarks of a plant, but no one has come forward to say why the retraction was done, so far as I know. Seems suspicious.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    13. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by andydread · · Score: 1

      Well in reality it's not news that Daesh uses telegram and has setup telegram channels. Even Greenwald at The Intercept has discovered as much and Anonymous did say they infiltrated some of their Telegram channels so hardly news.

    14. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Well, now there's this:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11...? which seems to be the NYT's contribution to the Obama Administration's propaganda arsenal.

      Read clearly the first paragraph to contrast the second one.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    15. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by mi · · Score: 1

      Go about your daily life as if nothing happened, and don't let the government do anything different.

      Then how will the next concert be different from the one last Friday?

      Something must be done. It just mustn't diminish the freedoms (including privacy), which the Western World has grown used to...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    16. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by mi · · Score: 1

      so the investigators asked the newspaper to bury the article

      And now those investigators are calling Slashdot editors with the same request? I doubt, they haven't heard of Streisand Effect...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    17. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Thing is....its not even new.

      I first became aware of encryption back when it was still being pointed out that ITAR regulations are stupid when the encryption they block from export already exists, and some of it was even patented, outside the US. There were, quite literally, two versions of the same library based on whether you were in the US or outside the US....same routines, same capabilities.

      And this was the mid 1990. How ridiculous is it to be threatening people with prison time for "exporting" something that was already out there?

      Yes blame the tools....the same tools which have been available to the entire fucking world for 3+ decades.

      Terrorists capable of using freely downloadable software that does math....yes.... big news story. Be afraid, they can do math. Somehow they can build bombs but its still shocking they can download freely available software.

      In the end its all just fearmongering, whatever people will buy and sounds scary.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    18. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      They've already "linked" terrorism with copyright 'theft', claiming that somewhere, someone is making some money somehow from it [via ads], and then given some of that money to a terrorist.

      Obviously, the same goes for child porn, somewhere, there is a terrorist that has viewed an image of child porn, therefore, investigating child porn is an important part of our war on terror.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    19. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by jkr3wslashdot · · Score: 1

      Here is an NPR article the includes some opinions from both sides: http://www.npr.org/sections/th....

    20. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The investigators then realized that the terrorists associates might later read the article and realize that their encryption methods might now be compromised and abandon them

      I'm not sure why anyone would come to that conclusion. There was nothing that indicated that encryption was compromised. Everyone can tell if you're using encryption, since it's not obviously crackable or plain-text (stenography excluded).

    21. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I personally read these articles to find the name of the apps they say are "hard to monitor" and make sure I in no way ever use them. Think about this long and hard. Why would they tell "them" exactly what apps to use because they can't monitor them?.

      It's a way to bring political pressure against the makers of the apps. Especially a good way to put public political pressure on the politicians of the countries that host the apps in question.

    22. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The people murdered by the jihadists were going about their daily lives.
      For future reference, what metric can I use to tell that the killers are losing?

      Hmm, and what percentage of the French population was killed that night? Or even just the Paris population for that matter?

    23. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      It is not yet clear whether they also used Telegram’s secret-messaging service to encrypt their private conversations.

      What the hell? What else "isn't clear" which, as we all know, means "we don't know". So, what else don't you know NYT?

      Is this anything other than a smear?

    24. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      It's not yet clear whether the NYT is a mouthpiece for special interest groups and is as we speaking borderline-choking on one of their cocks.

    25. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by barbariccow · · Score: 1

      I saw something similar on the morning news... They blamed the attacks on "Going dark", sounded like they were reading directly from an FBI-issued memo on why encryption is killing the world.

    26. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      This is like watching a Hollywood spy movie where they're astounded at how the elite criminals are using Unix!

      Quickly! Start hacking the Gibson!

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    27. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by delt0r · · Score: 1

      The government is also ignorant of this. Back doors don't work. Both practically and mathematically.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    28. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The reporter should have hashed it after salting.

      Sounds like potentially a good breakfast.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    29. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by doccus · · Score: 1

      Sadly.. "hilarity" really isn't the most appropriate word.. When a major news outlet like the NYT censors an article for containing the word "encrypt" then "freedom of the press" is under fire... However.. the evidence that itr is well and truly dead is that it only merits mention in a small clip in..yup.. slashdot. This is one instance where wider exposure might (at least) serve to accuse..or prick the disused consciences of the masses that let their freedoms rot in exchange for another episode if the Kard ass hions.
      Gawd how we have fallen.

    30. Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Throw in some corned beef and you are set!

  2. dear national security personnel: by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    do your fucking job. spying on suspects

    not hoovering everything from everyone and thinking a search query will give you magic intelligence. intelligence work is *work*

    the encryption is not important. your gumshoe work is. get out of your fucking cubicle you lardass and find these dirtbags

    and if you can't do that maybe your useless security theatre job should be axed

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:dear national security personnel: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are doing their job, spying on suspects. The problem is that you, me and everyone else ARE the suspects. We have been judged guilty as a society without any trial or due process. The government breaks the law, yet treats law-abiding citizens like criminals.

      The only solution is to dissolve these letter-agencies that answer to nobody and bear responsibility for none of their atrocities. Abolish the CIA, NSA, their traitorous Canadian counterparts in CSIS. They are out-moded agencies, a throwback to Cold War-era espionage and the only purpose they serve in the modern world is to line their pockets with defense contracts.

    2. Re:dear national security personnel: by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      do your fucking job. spying on suspects

      not hoovering everything from everyone

      Your mistake is not understanding that to "national security personnel" EVERYONE is a suspect.

      The question is not whether you've done something wrong, but exactly what you've done wrong, and whether they want to prosecute you for it, far as they're concerned....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:dear national security personnel: by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Preview is your friend. As is being able to spell "blockquote" reliably....

      do your fucking job. spying on suspects

      not hoovering everything from everyone

      Your mistake is not understanding that to "national security personnel" EVERYONE is a suspect.

      The question is not whether you've done something wrong, but exactly what you've done wrong, and whether they want to prosecute you for it, far as they're concerned....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:dear national security personnel: by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      Meh, they can't even keep their own house in order and prevent all these employees disclosing confidential information to the media - which, as they keep reminding us, was treason of the highest order when Snowden did it. Given that level of sheer incompetence, what hope have they got of actually tracking down any external suspects? Or could it be that it's all bullcrap and the press are just blindly swallowing the agenda pushing propaganda being peddled by people that have been fully briefed on what to say and authorised to lie to the press?

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    5. Re:dear national security personnel: by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Dear intigence agencies. A panopticon may make your job easier, but it also makes the dictator's life easier. As such, it is someihing we the free people of the world, deny you, the government. With no such tool existent, it cannot be abused, as it inevitably will.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    6. Re:dear national security personnel: by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      do your fucking job. spying on suspects

      So ... where were you 2 days ago? Anywhere near Paris by any chance? How can I tell you're telling the truth? Maybe it's time you open up to us a little since your refusal of our probings make you a suspect.

    7. Re:dear national security personnel: by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you, me and everyone else ARE the suspects. We have been judged guilty as a society without any trial or due process. The government breaks the law, yet treats law-abiding citizens like criminals.

      And we let them...
      Yep. Game over. The terrorists have won.

    8. Re:dear national security personnel: by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      It doesn't make the job of finding terrorists easier.

      Even if your terrorism detector algorithm is 99.99% accurate, in the USA, that would falsely identify 35,000 innocent people as terrorists.

      The number of case officers you'd need to vet them all is huge. And 99.99% is really, really optimistic. 99.9%? 350,000 suspects. 99%? 3.5 million.

      Now, the three letter agencies have people that can do maths. They know this.

      Using Occam's Razor ; the reason for blanket surveillance programs isn't terrorist detection. It's profiling and control of mass populations.

    9. Re:dear national security personnel: by easyTree · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the original Occam's Razor came with instructions :D

  3. Sudden outbreak of common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Have some newspeople actually stopped to think whether their sensationalist article had the potential to cause great harm to their own society?

    Is it snowing in hell?

  4. The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attacks by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The most shocking thing to me is that our (the US) security agencies seemed to be completely unaware that anything was being planned. No reports of chatter. No outwardly visible concern. Even the President was briefed that ISIS was "contained" and "under control," and he reported as much on national television days before the attack.

    This begs the question of where our intelligence agencies are focusing their efforts. Are they really scouring the world for terrorist activity, or are they too busy spying on their own citizens?

    We live in dark and scary times when my government knows everyone I call or email, and when, and records all of that communication, but they can't catch wind of a major terrorist attack in its planning stages.

  5. Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The terrorists already assume you can read their emails and listen to their telephone calls and act accordingly. Calling for the government to easily be able to read the common man's emails and listen to their phone calls isn't going to help against terrorists one bit. All it's going to do is to help the government keep the populace in line which is more important to them than the terrorists.

    They put out that it's encryption that allowed the attacks because it absolves them and their policies of any accountability plus it furthers their agenda of requiring that the government be able to intercept all communications. All without any proof of course. Most likely they will say they won't be able to comment further because of national security.

    1. Re:Of Course by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      I agree that it would be naive to think that trained operational terror cells do not use a variety of techniques to hide from intelligence services. Technically it would be an unwinnable war to defeat encryption so the noise about it is largely ill informed political hubris.

      Mass surveillance of un-encrypted communications and web browsing can detect people who have an interest in Daesh. It will certainly catch a lot of teenagers and put them on watch lists, which is probably the actual intention of mass surveillance.

      Having made the commons of the internet unsafe for actual operational terror cells, governments will be free to concentrate on the uncommon internet, all VPN and Tor users will be on watch lists.

      I wouldn't use Tor if I were you, it signals you as a potential criminal or terrorist. It will probably become illegal to use if it has not already been compromised by the intelligence services.

      One act that would protect Westerners from Daesh would be to prevent Western teenagers from going there and being trained to use weapons. Removing the passport from anyone who reads a Wikipedia article on Daesh would achieve that objective more easily than patrolling the border. (Protecting Europe's external boarder will prove difficult, not least because it would be against the 1951 UN refugee convention to stop taking Syrian refugees - who we should remind ourselves are fleeing from years of Daesh violence far in excess of the Paris attack last week).

      Unfortunately detecting terrorist sympathizers will be only a transient use of mass surveillance as once the resource is created it will eventually be abused - there are already morons who want to give random bureaucrats access to it, with no comprehension that this would rapidly get out of control and criminalize the entire population. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

      (It irritates me intensely that the BBC continues to call this Khawaarij cult the Islamic State - a cult which is described by most Muslims as "people who recite the Qur’an, but it will not go past their collarbones").

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  6. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "The attackers are believed to have transported themselves and their weapons using modern automobile technology, including (but not exclusively) internal combustion engines, air-pressurized tires and asphalted roads. They may even have used advanced public transportation technologies".

    Speechless.

    Are our so-called leaders *that fucking incompetent*?

  7. Eh. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This sort of 'reporting' is a farce, of which they really ought to be ashamed. Aside from the dubious wisdom of parroting 'unnamed intelligence sources who definitely wouldn't have any reason to be spinning the media after a dramatic and gruesome attack on their watch'; there's a pretty aching gap in even basic critical thinking if you treat 'the working assumption is that the guys were pretty security aware' as some sort of insight.

    FFS, any pot dealer who has stayed out of prison for a couple of years would count as 'pretty security aware' in the vacuous "well, we didn't realize that they were up to something until they had already executed it" sense of the term. Of course some degree of care was used in orchestrating a coordinated attack involving a number of people, some of who had had run-ins with the law before. Why would you expect otherwise?

    Plus, historical examples suggest that terrorists aren't complete morons about security: Al Qaeda and the Taliban both had a healthy distrust of cellphones, even before we learned what 'dirtboxing' was; and the guys who pulled the Mumbai attacks in 2008 used Blackberries specifically because BBM is way more resistant than SMS. I realize that somebody had a burning need to fill column inches; but what pitiful dreck.

    1. Re:Eh. by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      The media is being used to scare the public, and encourage even more erosion of privacy because, you know, the bad guys will get us...
      "Security Aware" is being treated in the media as something bad, something people shouldn't aspire to.
      This concerted effort after the Paris attacks isn't someone filling column inches, it is yet another example of those with the editorial influence to pressure the First World to completely give up any shred of privacy or freedom.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    2. Re:Eh. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      When Security Aware is illegal, only criminals will be Security Aware. Isn't that one of the goals?

      The liberals take the guns, the conservative all the other rights, and the fight over which rights we lose first distracts from the fact that both are working together to take all our rights.

  8. Always fun... by koan · · Score: 1
    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  9. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

    bordering on treason

    In the USA, "treason" is defined in the Constitution, and has a very narrow meaning. Do keep that in mind when tossing the word about.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  10. Here it comes by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Informative

    Paris Attacks Renew Call for Access to Encrypted Messages

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

  11. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And they still want to make the haystack even bigger! Everyone was "On Message" last Sunday!

    Face the Nation Transcripts November 15

    Interview with Michael Morell, former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency:

    DICKERSON: So, just to -- so these weren't kind of a bunch of lone wolves? These are people who have a connection to a headquarters?

    MORELL: It seems that way, yes.

    DICKERSON: And how does that communication take place?

    MORELL: So, I think what we're going to learn, we don't know for sure yet, but I think what we're going to learn is that these guys are communicating via these encrypted apps, right, the commercial encryption, which is very difficult, if not impossible, for governments to break, and the producers of which don't produce the keys necessary for law enforcement to read the encrypted messages.

  12. Re:It's a trend by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    According to the NYT, a "developing story" is subject to changes when it appears on the website and before it appears in print. They got caught several times for posting sensational stories about Hillary Clinton that they had to walk back in subsequent changes to the website article that never appeared in the print article. Online articles are temporal, print articles are permanent.

  13. Encryption, the REAL villain, I KNEW IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nevermind that they have no fucking CLUE how they communicated, LET'S BLAME ENCRYPTION because it aligns with our existing (Bullshit!) policies!

    WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK IS WRONG WITH THE PSEUDO SECURITY APARATUS!?

  14. NPR is doing it too. by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 2

    NPR interviewed some numbskull NY police person yesterday who used the Paris attacks as an attack vector against encryption.
    How many times can someone say "Going Dark"?

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    1. Re:NPR is doing it too. by dwpro · · Score: 1

      On Face the nation it was front and center. Appalling, but expected.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    2. Re:NPR is doing it too. by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      Here is a link to the NPR story.

      http://www.npr.org/sections/al...

  15. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Intelligence briefings to Congress say ISIS is not contained and getting stronger. This is from D. Feinstein, head of the security group in the Senate. The head of the FBI also told Congress that it is impossible to vet the Syrian refugees coming to the US.

    Obama came out and gave a speech filled with lies, according to his people and other members of the DNC. They know things are going on, Obama just doesn't want to recognize that there is a problem because he would then have to deal with it.

  16. NBC Nightly News As Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    NBC Nightly News also manufactured a story last night about the evils of encryption and its use by terrorists. It went something like this.

    We have no clue how the terrorists communicated, but it's likely they used encryption like Viber and Telegram(apps) and Playstation. Be afraid of the evil chat apps. The government has got to do something about the evils of encryption or they can;t protect us and keep us safe. Encryption is teh evil.

  17. We don't need "backdoors" by daveschroeder · · Score: 3, Informative

    And the NYT has a new and extensive story that absolutely "mentions" crypto.

    We don't need "backdoors". What we need is a clear acknowledgment that what increasingly exists essentially amounts to a virtual fortress impenetrable by the legal mechanisms of free society, that many of those systems are developed and employed by US companies, and that US adversaries use those systems against the US and our allies, and for a discussion to start from that point.

    The US has a clear and compelling interest in strong encryption, and especially in protecting US encryption systems used by our government, our citizens, and people around the world from defeat. But the assumption that the only alternatives are either universal strong encryption, or wholesale and deliberate weakening of encryption systems and/or "backdoors", is a false dichotomy.

    1. Re:We don't need "backdoors" by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      Care to elaborate further?

    2. Re:We don't need "backdoors" by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Sure. One hypothetical example:

      The communication has to be decrypted somewhere; the endpoint(s) can be exploited in various ways. That can be done now. US vendors could, in theory, be at least a partial aid in that process on a device-by-device basis, within clear and specific legal authorities, without doing anything like key escrow, wholesale weakening of encryption, or similar with regard to software or devices themselves.

      The point is that when US adversaries use systems and services physically located in the US, designed and operated by US companies, there are many things that could be discussed depending on the precise system, service, software, or device. Pretending that there is absolutely nothing that can be done, and it's either unbreakable, universal encryption for all, or nothing, is a false choice.

      To sit here and pretend that it's some kind of "people's victory" when a technical system renders itself effectively impenetrable to the legitimate legal, judicial, and intelligence processes of even democratic governments operating under the rule of law in free civil society is curious indeed.

    3. Re:We don't need "backdoors" by heypete · · Score: 1

      Sure. One hypothetical example:

      The communication has to be decrypted somewhere; the endpoint(s) can be exploited in various ways. That can be done now. US vendors could, in theory, be at least a partial aid in that process on a device-by-device basis, within clear and specific legal authorities, without doing anything like key escrow, wholesale weakening of encryption, or similar with regard to software or devices themselves.

      What if the endpoints aren't accessible to the vendors?

      For example, one could easily exchange encrypted emails with a correspondent and not decrypt the messages on an internet-connected system. A Raspberry Pi is cheap and can easily act as a secure, offline system: the sender could write their sensitive messages on the offline system, encrypt them, transfer the encrypted messages to a USB stick, use the USB stick to transfer the message to an internet-connected computer, then email the encrypted message to the recipient who does the reverse.

      Sure, it's an extra step compared to en/decrypting the message on the internet-connected system, but a relatively minor one.

      Short of compromising the firmware on the USB stick (which is a possible, albeit non-trivial thing) or doing something extreme such as TEMPEST-type monitoring of the offline system, how would compromise such a system? Vendors would be unable to do anything to help authorities.

      Alternatively, things like OTR can be overlaid on common protocols like XMPP, AIM, etc. but the keys are managed by the endpoints. The OTR software is not dependent on nor communicates with any "vendor" who could assist authorities. Same thing with other security software like GnuPG (which is developed in Germany, outside of US jurisdiction).

      Put simply, there exist plenty of systems and techniques that don't depend on a third-party who could possibly grant access to secure communications. These systems aren't going to disappear. Why would terrorists or other criminals use a system that could be monitored by authorities when secure alternatives exist? Why would ordinary people?

    4. Re:We don't need "backdoors" by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Put simply, there exist plenty of systems and techniques that don't depend on a third-party who could possibly grant access to secure communications. These systems aren't going to disappear. Why would terrorists or other criminals use a system that could be monitored by authorities when secure alternatives exist? Why would ordinary people?

      That's a really easy answer -- terrorists use these simple platforms for the same reason normal people do: because they're easy to use. Obviously a lot of our techniques and capabilities have been laid bare, but people use things like WhatsApp, iMessage, and Telegram because they're easy. It's the same reason that ordinary people -- and terrorists -- don't use Ello instead of Facebook, or ProtonMail instead of Gmail. And when people switch to more complicated, non-turnkey encryption solutions -- no matter how "simple" the more savvy may think them -- they make mistakes that can render their communications security measures vulnerable to defeat.

      I'm not saying that the vendors and cloud providers ALWAYS can provide assistance; but sometimes they can, given a particular target (device, email address, etc.), and they can do so in a way that comports with the rule of law in free society, doesn't require creating backdoors in encryption, and doesn't require "weakening" their products. And of course, it would be good if we were able to leverage certain things against legitimate foreign intelligence targets without the entire world knowing exactly what we are doing, so our enemies know exactly how to avoid it. Secrecy is required for the successful conduct of intelligence operations, even in free societies.

    5. Re:We don't need "backdoors" by heypete · · Score: 1

      Put simply, there exist plenty of systems and techniques that don't depend on a third-party who could possibly grant access to secure communications. These systems aren't going to disappear. Why would terrorists or other criminals use a system that could be monitored by authorities when secure alternatives exist? Why would ordinary people?

      That's a really easy answer -- terrorists use these simple platforms for the same reason normal people do: because they're easy to use. Obviously a lot of our techniques and capabilities have been laid bare, but people use things like WhatsApp, iMessage, and Telegram because they're easy. It's the same reason that ordinary people -- and terrorists -- don't use Ello instead of Facebook, or ProtonMail instead of Gmail. And when people switch to more complicated, non-turnkey encryption solutions -- no matter how "simple" the more savvy may think them -- they make mistakes that can render their communications security measures vulnerable to defeat.

      If the choice was between (easy & insecure) and (hard & secure), you'd have a point, but there's plenty of easy ways to have secure communication: for example, OTR-over-(any IM protocol) is about as simple as it gets (it's literally a one-click thing, and can be set to automatically go secure with no user interaction), doesn't depend on a provider for keys, and can work with any IM network. If someone can install an executable file, they can install and use OTR.

      Sure, it doesn't conceal metadata, but most (all?) IM networks leak metadata as well. XMPP-over-Tor-hidden-service can help mask that, and isn't really complicated for the users ("Open Tor, click 'Connect' and wait for the green light, then open your IM client.").

      Tox is another option: anonymous, distributed, and with no single point of failure. It's as easy to use as any other IM client.

      Even if secure communications weren't as easy as non-secure methods, there's plenty of easy-to-follow guides on how to setup and use secure methods. It's hardly rocket science, and those methods aren't going away, so there's no reason to expect that bad guys that are motivated to keep their communications private will avoid them simply because they may be slightly more difficult.

      I'm not saying that the vendors and cloud providers ALWAYS can provide assistance; but sometimes they can, given a particular target (device, email address, etc.), and they can do so in a way that comports with the rule of law in free society, doesn't require creating backdoors in encryption, and doesn't require "weakening" their products. And of course, it would be good if we were able to leverage certain things against legitimate foreign intelligence targets without the entire world knowing exactly what we are doing, so our enemies know exactly how to avoid it. Secrecy is required for the successful conduct of intelligence operations, even in free societies.

      Sure, a company could do that (and several do), but there's certainly a lot of interest from users to have secure systems (devices, accounts, etc.) that cannot be remotely unlocked or decrypted by the company or authorities (see Apple). Considering how massively the US Government abused its position of power and authority through massive, warrantless surveillance of people, hacking and snooping corporate networks, doing shady things like parallel construction, and generally violating everyone's trust, it should come as no surprise that there's some pushback from users and industry.

      Statistically, the risk posed by terrorists is so low as to not be a concern in my day-to-day life. I'm in far graver danger from occasionally eating hamburgers or riding a bike than I am from terrorists. Considering that "free societies" are hardly permanent things, and that a major event or political upset can dramatically change the nature of government, I'm more worried abo

  18. Trigger Happy by Dega704 · · Score: 2

    I would imagine more than a few officials went running for their "Edward Snowden has blood on his hands" fanfiction with their tongues cartoonishly flapping out the sides of their mouths the second news of the attack broke.

    1. Re:Trigger Happy by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      I would imagine more than a few officials went running for their "Edward Snowden has blood on his hands" fanfiction with their tongues cartoonishly flapping out the sides of their mouths the second news of the attack broke.

      James Clapper did this morning on NBC, that's for sure.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  19. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The most shocking thing to me is that our (the US) security agencies seemed to be completely unaware that anything was being planned. No reports of chatter. No outwardly visible concern. Even the President was briefed that ISIS was "contained" and "under control," and he reported as much on national television days before the attack.

    ....

    And you believe Obama because????

    You don't know what Obama was briefed. He's been openly trying to downplay ISIS for several years - because their existence imperils his "be nice to everyone and everyone will be nice to you" approach to international relations in a way that would make Neville "Peace for our time" Chamberlain proud.

  20. Re: The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attac by IBME · · Score: 2

    Oh the terror. I read france was prepared that very day for just such an attack. Too much similarity with 911 for me.

  21. Everyone is using encryption by GuB-42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nowadays encryption becoming the norm. Most sites use https when dealing with private data, and if you are looking for something more secure, there are plenty of easily accessible end-to-end encryption tools. It's pissing off government agencies BTW.
    There are people who use strong encryption for their cat pictures. For terrorist to communicate without encryption is almost like wanting to be discovered and should be seen as very suspect.
    Also "encrypted technology" is so wide that it is like saying that they used "vehicle technology" for movement. Watching a DVD is using encryption technology, even though it is just a totally broken DRM.

  22. high-tech by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the Paris attackers had used some kind of encrypted communication

    Which requires the incredibly rare high-tech skill of installing a readily available app on your smartphone.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:high-tech by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Even simply connecting to the cellular network you use encryption from the phone to the tower.

    2. Re:high-tech by Tom · · Score: 1

      Which authorities can and routinely do tap. That's obviously not the kind of encryption they are referring to.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:high-tech by Tom · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.

      Authorities tap the telephone networks. Not by breaking its encryption, but by going in behind the encryption, at the switching points. Every Telco has equipment for legal interception installed, because it's mandated by law.

      I worked in the Telco industry for 10 years. Authorities don't worry about the encryption your phone uses, it doesn't even touch them. They worry about end-to-end encryption.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  23. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by misexistentialist · · Score: 4, Informative

    Brennan also said the United States had strategic warning about the terrorist attack in Paris, but did not provide details, other than to say it was not a surprise.
    The same subordinate status that makes it OK for the ruling class to violate citizens' privacy means it's not a big deal if they are blown up. Sheep are herded, sheep are slaughtered.

  24. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Even the President was briefed that ISIS was "contained" and "under control" in Iraq and Syria, and he reported as much on national television days before the attack.

    FTFY - If you're going to quote the president, quote the whole thing. Too many people run off at the mouth with half a quote that lacks any context. While ISIS is "contained" and "under control" in Iraq and Syria, it doesn't prevent the offshoot terrorists from launching attacks in non-combat zones far removed from the main battlefield.

  25. If it's true, print it by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

    Did I miss something here or are we trying to protect people from an idea that they might "misunderstand"? If we're going to ban the word encryption from discussions about security, then we're no better than those monsters in our paranoid dreams.

    --
    Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
  26. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    Wow. If you think people in NYC, LA or Chicago don't "pack nothing smaller than 0.40", then I've got a bridge to sell you.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  27. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How do you fit the fact that all of the identified attackers so far are european nationals into your narrative?

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  28. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by eam · · Score: 1

    Here is a discussion of the definition and the purpose for the narrow meaning:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1861/01...

  29. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They're not going to go to the heart of Texas or Louisiana where half of the concert goers pack nothing smaller than 0.40.

    Well, no, they wouldn't. The hundred something shot dead wouldn't stand out much in that environment. The terrorists in Europe have a lot of work ahead of them if they want to match the more than 10000 gun homicides that the US has per year.

  30. They did it to themselves... by coolmoose25 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've been watching the media coverage (and listening - NPR) on this whole encryption mudslinging by law enforcement. The media is eating it up, and while they are careful to say that the jury is out on whether or not the terrorists in Paris used encrypted communications, they are quick to say that law enforcement and intelligence agencies had no inkling that this attack was on the horizon. I will leave aside the notion that Occum's Razor can be used to evaluate the two scenarios - one where the agencies and law enforcement were simply incompetent and are now blaming this evil encryption for being caught flatfooted, vs. their premise that the terrorists MUST be using encryption now...

    What is lost on all of them (agencies, law enforcement) is THAT THEY DID THIS TO THEMSELVES either way. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been "hoovering up" all available communications data and metadata. They demanded and got kangaroo courts (FISA - I'm looking at you) where secret search warrants are being executed. There is no regulation by the citizenry, only by government "you can trust us" types who don't understand that when the stories about this stuff break, consumers begin to demand secure communications. Every time the government executed these warrants on the communications and computer industries, they gave them both an incentive to ditch the whole cooperation thing, and finally those companies started encrypting things in a way that they did not have the ability to "listen in" because lets face it, that is a pain in the neck and takes them away from their core mission.

    Now they are crying about encryption, without understanding that the ship already sailed... And they are the ones that kicked it out of the harbor.

    --
    Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
  31. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1

    I believe the poster was pointing to strict concealed laws there. I am not entirely sure, but I am guessing New York, Illinois, and California either do not allow concealed carry firearms or have extremely low percentage of carriers. I assume you are referring to the illegally carried firearms which I am sure the cities have plenty of due to gang activity. I work in a rocky mountain state, and I know that over half of my coworkers are armed most days (and myself included). An event like the Paris attack happening in a city in the rocky mountains would most likely have return fire from the civilians.

  32. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You don't know what Obama was briefed. He's been openly trying to downplay ISIS for several years - because their existence imperils his "be nice to everyone and everyone will be nice to you" approach to international relations in a way that would make Neville "Peace for our time" Chamberlain proud.

    That image too is for public consumption. American foreign policy has nothing to do with "be nice to everyone and everyone will be nice to you".

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  33. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by c · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because that is easier than blaming Merkel and like-minded leaders for self-righteously taking a position that they knew, beyond any reasonable doubt, would give ISIS incredibly easy access to their streets.

    ISIS would have access to their streets whether or not refugees were accepted; what, you think an ISIS terrorist is going to take his chances going across the Mediterranean in a swamped, sinking refugee boat? They've got the money, documents, and connections needed to take a plane and rent an apartment like any normal person. He'll be wearing a nice suit, carrying quality luggage, and probably show a student visa or EU passport or something.

    The main problem with the refugees is that if, rather than integrating and educating them, they dump them into refugee ghettos and don't provide them with decent opportunities then in 30 years there will be a whole new crop of "home grown" converts to whatever extremist cult is popular at that time.

    The only long-term solutions to extremism are integration, education and wealth. Period.

    --
    Log in or piss off.
  34. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

    "BOO!" - you poor frightened people in the "home of the brave" unwilling to stand up and defend your freedom from your own government. Your grand experiment is dissolving into a surveillance/police state. A least in Europe there are many who will defend freedom .....even if bad things can happen. Because they know bad things WILL happen in a police state.

    As you can see above, Americans these days have been frightened into valuing safety over an open society. I believe this is by design, but reasonable people can disagree.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  35. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They're not going to go to the heart of Texas or Louisiana where half of the concert goers pack nothing smaller than 0.40. They're going to go to NYC, LA or Chicago. You know, "progressive" places where the average person thinks that no civilized person would "feel so inadequate" that they'd want to carry a gun.

    Yes. Chicago. Where the body count is approaching ISIS levels without ISIS. Please. If those foreign dumb-shits so much as set foot in the wrong (read: any) gang's territory and wave a gun around, they've just made the evening news as a casualty, not an attacker.

    That's the difference between the US and Europe. The US is armed and stupid. Inner city areas are just one step shy of Syria, and it's "normal". People here will even fight to keep it that way. And it's been that way for decades. It's like a porcupine. It's scary as hell and somewhat inconvenient during relatively peaceful times, but during high-threat times, that "scary" part suddenly becomes useful.

    Let ISIS try. The street gangs here have way more experience, and they have home field advantage. ISIS wouldn't stand a chance. Oh, and Chicago is entering winter, which is usually brutally cold. Enjoy the ice and snow in a temperate rainforest, you low-latitude desert-dwellers. Hope you don't freeze your lack of balls off.

  36. Stop complaining on slashdot by mrxak · · Score: 1

    Complain to the media directly. Ask them why they won't hold intelligence services responsible for a lack of human intelligence.

  37. Doing a great job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They certainly are doing their job. It's just that their job isn't what you think it is (or even what they think it is). Their job is to expand the business of government, and spying on everyone (including innocents) is clearly a more lucrative way to expand the business of government than spying on a few select individuals. Obviously the administration costs more, but the real pot of gold is the precedent it sets for subsequent expansions of government.

  38. encyption by deodiaus2 · · Score: 1

    I seriously doubt that any spy, agent or terrorist carries along encrypted plans. Even plans are not communicated. This has been understood for well over a thousand years of warfare. At best, there are a series of code words which are clues to events, but alone, are meaningless. Hence, if you are going to go through with a plan, you might communicate, "The match is on." But even that is suspicious. Probably something more along the lines of quoting some obscure text.

    1. Re:encyption by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt that any spy, agent or terrorist carries along encrypted plans. Even plans are not communicated. This has been understood for well over a thousand years of warfare. At best, there are a series of code words which are clues to events, but alone, are meaningless. Hence, if you are going to go through with a plan, you might communicate, "The match is on." But even that is suspicious. Probably something more along the lines of quoting some obscure text.

      "Winter is coming".

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  39. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    The easiest way to learn is to have your enemy brag about how they got you.

    We've seen a lot of officials brag about how they achieved something when they brag about achieving it. But I guess they have to brag in order to justify the crap to the public.

  40. weight watchers by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    The attackers may have been friends who met at Weight Watchers. Holy shit, ban Weight Watchers!
    hmm no proof of that OR of the attackers using encryption.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  41. Re:It's a trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    LOL get ready for the real truth - they optimize the stories by rolling out many different versions of them, using algorithms to carefully place/remove certain buzzwords for maximum demographic effect.

  42. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They can catch wind of it, they have the information. They choose to monitor citizens illegally instead.

    Maybe the real question people need to be asking is not why the CIA and NSA didn't have any advanced notice of the attacks, but why they choose to ignore that information and focus their spying efforts on domestic targets?

  43. Yes, I absolutely do by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    ISIS would have access to their streets whether or not refugees were accepted; what, you think an ISIS terrorist is going to take his chances going across the Mediterranean in a swamped, sinking refugee boat? They've got the money, documents, and connections needed to take a plane and rent an apartment like any normal person. He'll be wearing a nice suit, carrying quality luggage, and probably show a student visa or EU passport or something.

    And money, documents, connections, etc. don't scale if your goal is to move 1,000 fighters into Europe, not a squad's worth of men. It is far easier to take a battalion or two of fighters, tell them to put on dirty old clothes and mingle with a vast wave of refugees than make fake IDs, itineraries, money transfers, etc. for them. Not to mention it looks damn suspicious if you have 40 combat age arabic-speaking men milling around in an airport acting like they might or might not know each other.

    1. Re:Yes, I absolutely do by c · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And money, documents, connections, etc. don't scale if your goal is to move 1,000 fighters into Europe, not a squad's worth of men.

      If ISIS actually had 1000, or even 100, hardcore fighters who could be integrated into the refugee streams without the cat being let out of the bag somewhere along the way, then Europe is fucked no matter what.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    2. Re:Yes, I absolutely do by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You start a charity. You fly support from Berlin to ISIS affected areas. Only you fly out nothing, and fly back 200 people. Repeat 5 times. Regular flights from a relief organization won't be that suspicious, and you might even get some anti ISIS people donating to your cause.

      It's easy to move 1000 people.

      The refugees would be the dumbest way to move them. They will be watched, suspected, and scrutinized. Smuggled in a relief plane or commercial boat will not get noticed.

    3. Re:Yes, I absolutely do by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      "The refugees would be the dumbest way to move them. They will be watched, suspected, and scrutinized."

      WTF are you talking about? The EU rules allow anyone who lands on their shores to be let in and given public assistance. There is no scrutiny at all.

    4. Re:Yes, I absolutely do by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Oh, so when I traveled around Europe and they checked my passport and such, I should have refused to identify myself and demand my welfare check?

    5. Re:Yes, I absolutely do by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1
      You are a documented traveller, so you go through normal border checkpoints. My point is that many of the refugees are undocumented. If they simply make it onto EU soil, they will get protections and can apply for asylum. Because of very porous external borders in some EU member states, people can basically just walk in. I tried to research this further to confirm, but it's too convoluted. I'm not going to spend hours interpreting EU laws.

      Here's one documentary that mentions that if they make it across the border, they are "in": https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      When you see footage of thousands of refugees, do you think they all went through a checkpoint and had their passports stamped? It is not like that.

      If true, then it would be trivial for ISIS or other lunatic fringe groups to simply infiltrate the refugee flows. In fact ISIS said they would do just that. Why should we not take them at their word?

      Whether or not sending terrorists in as migrants is the smartest approach, I can't say. But to say that they will be "watched, suspected, and scrutinized" is nonsense.

    6. Re:Yes, I absolutely do by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You are a documented traveller, so you go through normal border checkpoints.

      Right, so all I'd need to have done to get special treatment is to lose my documentation once I'm in the EU and claim asylum, and be on the dole.

      When you see footage of thousands of refugees, do you think they all went through a checkpoint and had their passports stamped? It is not like that.

      When you see people legally migrating into a country do you think that the government didn't check a single ID or ask a single person what their name is?

      But to say that they will be "watched, suspected, and scrutinized" is nonsense.

      So the, what is it now? 27? US states that have pledged in the US to do just that are all governed by liars?

      I've known a number of asylum seekers in the US. They faced scrutiny. They didn't come in a mass migration, but they were still asylum seekers that ended up in the US. And what you say is 100% wrong. Stop listening to the lying fear mongers.

    7. Re:Yes, I absolutely do by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      You are moving the goal posts. We are talking about Europe!

      Do you assert that nearly all of the 1-1.5 million migrants and refugees who entered Europe over the past few years from Africa and the mid-East were processed through normal border crossings, had passports and/or applied for asylum on the spot, and received visas or other official government approval before entering the EU?

      YES or NO?

    8. Re:Yes, I absolutely do by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes. That is the process. What proof do you have that member nations are not following the asylum process?

      And the lies about immediately collecting welfare are a conservative joke. If it were that easy, why would anyone not just "lose" their travel papers, then apply for asylum?

  44. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by flacco · · Score: 1

    > The most shocking thing to me is that our (the US) security agencies seemed to be completely unaware that anything was being planned.

    Why does this shock you? Do you expect security agencies to be aware of every single time a handful of nut-jobs decide to shoot up a public place?

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  45. Re:It's a trend by Renaissancing · · Score: 3, Informative

    Exactly. In March 2011, a month after the Japanese Fukushima tsunami, there was a NYTimes article critical of Japan's leadership during the disaster. However, after re-reading it 8 hours post-original online publication, I noticed that it had become watered down and so I inquired to the NYTimes public editor about the discrepancy. I received the following response a month later from the Office of the Public Editor:

    "To answer your question, yes, stories can be edited if they are part of the continuous news cycle. Mr. Brisbane [NYT public editor at the time] asked assistant managing editor Jim Roberts to address this in one of his first letters columns: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10... ... Hopefully Roberts’ response gives you some more info on how The Times processes material as part of the continuous news cycle. It seems that this article was constantly being updated with new information due to the changing nature of events right after the tsunami."

    I tried to find the article just now, originally entitled "Flaws in Japan's Leadership Deepen Sense of Crisis," (March 16, 2011) only to find that even the title had been altered to the less damning "Dearth of Candor from Japan's Leadership," and the even weaker "In Tokyo, a Dearth of Candor" for the print edition. I always suspected that someone in the JST time zone made a last minute call in those critical hours between online print and hard copy, lots of "new information" right there.

  46. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

    If they're offshoots, then they aren't contained. That's like saying that a bunch of kudzu is contained because only the offshoots have taken over the next yard.

  47. Especially stupid because ENCRYPTION by honestmonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Hey there, we're all going to meet up in London in two weeks. Be sure to bring a sweater because it'll be cold. We're stopping at Bill's place first, then going out to eat. Maybe we'll catch a concert. How's that sound?"

    Come to Paris in three days. Bring AK-47 and ammo. Akmed will provide suicide vests to attack the restaurants and concert hall. Allah Akbar!

    Seriously, nobody with a brain is going to use actual encryption, that's a red flag. They'll come up with a code first, something that sounds normal. I can just see the CIA now: "Oh no, these two people say they're going to the movies! Code Red! Code Red!"

    --
    Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
  48. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

    Because that is easier than blaming Merkel and like-minded leaders for self-righteously taking a position that they knew, beyond any reasonable doubt, would give ISIS incredibly easy access to their streets. The FBI director admitted that they have literally no meaningful body of information by which to screen our "refugees" for terrorist ties, and our president is likewise bringing them in anyway.

    You are aware that since the beginning of Syrian crisis there have been 200,000 refugees in Germany alone and millions overall. From what we know, 8 men were involved in the attacks. Of those 8, the latest information I have is that we are not sure even IF any of them were refugees. But let's go with your argument from ignorance.

    A handful of men did this attack in Europe. How many more "handfuls" of similarly capable men got through? Probably a lot.

    So you admit a "handful" of people did this but then are willing to extrapolate to all of the refugees. I see. And handful of Christians have bombed abortion clinics in the US. Should we round up all the Christians and imprison them as well? Who knows what those Christians are planning.

    They're not going to go to the heart of Texas or Louisiana where half of the concert goers pack nothing smaller than 0.40.

    And yet that didn't save a military base in Texas. Or do you remember Fort Hood shooting(s). There were 2. One in 2009 and one in 2014. The one in 2009 was even done by a Muslim.

    They're going to go to NYC, LA or Chicago. You know, "progressive" places where the average person thinks that no civilized person would "feel so inadequate" that they'd want to carry a gun. And when the police are 10 minutes away, there will be a body count identical to Paris or worse.

    They might go to places with higher population density. As for 10 minute away, I don't know if you've actually lived in these cities.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  49. Re:bet they spoke french damnit! by njnnja · · Score: 1

    Or ask a 7 year old kid from Montreal.

  50. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by flacco · · Score: 1

    > If these asshats are smart, and they are, they are using one-time pads

    Or communicate in person. How much electronic coordination is required to gather some small arms, and to agree on a time and place?

    > there are thousands of them streaming into Europe

    Not controlling immigration will be looked back upon as a profound strategic blunder, even though (as I disagree with you) there is no conscious invasion motivation on the part of the immigrants.

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  51. Sure, It Was Encryption by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Clearly there's an assumption in the community that if they hadn't been using encryption, the intelligence community would have known about the attacks. Would they have known if none of the communication had ever taken place on the internet or cellular networks? It sounds like some of the attackers were actually related, so they could have just as easily discussed their plans over coffee. It's not even all that hard to meet up in person, possibly leaving the cell phone at home or handing it off to someone to run it around town for you if you're really paranoid. I'm sure it's in no way that we're complacent in the idea that things that don't happen online don't exist at all. After all, no wars were ever fought and no countries were ever invaded prior to the invention of the Internet, right? There's no possible way you could organize tens of men, much less tens of thousands of men without some sort of electronic medium. Or without your neighbors knowing.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  52. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by flacco · · Score: 2

    > MORELL: So, I think what we're going to learn, we don't know for sure yet, but I think what we're going to learn is that these guys are communicating via these encrypted apps, right, the commercial encryption, which is very difficult, if not impossible, for governments to break, and the producers of which don't produce the keys necessary for law enforcement to read the encrypted messages.

    Christ, you can hear in the transcript the internal discomfort that must come with the awareness that you are being a mouthpiece.

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  53. Re:How do I explain it? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

    It's kinda important though when a large number of politicians are demanding we stop letting refugees in because somehow that'll somehow stop terrorism.

    And it's especially important when actually the terror group we're worried about, ISIL, would have its power bolstered by such an action - a sizable number of the refugees the politicians are talking about banning are trying to escape from ISIL.

    Pinning terrorism on "refugees" and then whispering "although not necessarily these refugees" is probably not a helpful thing to say right now, in that it's likely to result in support for bad policies.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  54. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  55. It's a blame game by C3ntaur · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This article https://theintercept.com/2015/11/15/exploiting-emotions-about-paris-to-blame-snowden-distract-from-actual-culprits-who-empowered-isis/ is a pretty good discussion of what's in play. Kudos to the NYT for pulling the article. Shame they published it in the first place.

    --
    Loading...
  56. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And when the police are 10 minutes away, there will be a body count identical to Paris or worse.

    This attack killed 129 people [1], but let's get some perspective. France has a traffic-related death rate of 4.9 per 100,000 per year [2], and Paris has a population of 2.24 million [3]. A naive estimate suggests that roughly 110 people die a traffic-related death in Paris every year. That's comparable to the death toll resulting from this attack.

    ISIS could commit an attack like this in Paris every single year and it wouldn't be significantly worse than the death caused by motorists. Let's keep some perspective, please. While this attack was despicable, it doesn't represent anything like an existential threat. Giving ISIS "incredibly easy access to their streets" is not significantly more dangerous than allowing people to drive cars. "Bordering on treason" may sound like a level-headed analysis of the situation to some, but I question how accurate it is.

    --
    Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  57. Re:How do I explain it? by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, look at the attackers. None of them came with the recent wave of refugees (the one Syrian passport found has since been identified as a fake). So closing the borders now accomplishes - pretty much nothing.

    We need to figure out why there are people living in our countries that hate those same countries so much they are willing to die just for the joy of expressing their hatred.
    We didn't and we let it foster, that is our first fault.
    Our second fault was not facing the problem, believing too much in a peaceful co-existence and multi-cultural society to not see that some parts of the same want to fucking kill us.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  58. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Are these men disguised as women and children? Can you explain how the 750,000 refugees that the USA has taken in since 9/11 have not done anything terroristy? Do you just make shit up and post it as AC because you know that you just make shit up?

  59. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by Cederic · · Score: 1

    ISIS isn't stupid.

    8 people with the benefit of surprise, automatic firearms and explosives died to kill 129. I'd say that's pretty stupid, they could easily have managed that many and survived, then done it again in a couple of weeks.

    Or killed 224 with 1kg of explosives.

    No, ISIS is supported by a lot of stupid people. Shit, most of them are fucking delusional believers in some mythical gay sky fairy.

  60. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How is this shocking?

    The team leader gets his general, not specific, verbal instructions from some guy in a tent in the middle of some desert wasteland. He goes back to Europe and recuits a half dozen guys.

    They all manage to plan it secretly, don't tell anybody, and nobody gets busted doing something stupid, like getting pulled over with AK-47s and Semtex in the back seat.

    How the fuck do you stop that with electronic surveillance?

    The only thing that would seem to even put a dent in that kind of operation is going full-on totalitarianism, ie, sending in the jackboots to every house with "Mohammed" on the nameplate and turning the place upside down, hemming them into their own neighborhoods and not letting them out without checkpoints and searches.

    I think everyone sees the drawbacks to such an approach. Even the people who manage to pull it off halfway decent STILL have problems and have all the other problems that go alone with such a system. The Israelis aren't 100% effective, even the goddamn Chinese can't seem to squeeze the Uighurs tight enough to shut that problem down and their playbook has rules like "if anyone objects, shoot them in the head and ship everyone they know to a gulag".

    About the only country that makes it work is North Korea, and that just might be because we don't know what doesn't work there.

  61. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by truck_soccer · · Score: 2

    The TLAs always toot their horns about how effective their surveillance programs have been at stopping many attacks just like these. So yes, I expect results, since these programs are so "effective." Otherwise what the fuck are we paying their salaries for? We knew Osama was coming for us at least a decade before it happened. The conservatives blocked slick willie's attempts to hunt him down in 1998. Then we had knowledge that an attack was about to be carried out 2 months before it happened. Then the attack was carried out and it wasn't stopped. And then our glorious and omniscient leader sat with eyes glazed over, drooling from the corner of his mouth for 8 minutes when he was informed that the attack was carried out.

  62. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by truck_soccer · · Score: 1

    My point is that world governments are comprised of a bunch of incompetent idiots who need diapers and sippie cups.

  63. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by truck_soccer · · Score: 1

    My boss conceal carries. I live in NY. I have to tell him to take it off sometimes because when he is working at the desk in front of mine, the barrel of the gun is aimed directly at my face when he bends down to type something.

  64. Made Up, on Condition of Anonymity by Crypto+Cavedweller · · Score: 1

    'Reporter', if you don't tell me who the quote is from, I assume you made it up. What other lesson could Judith Miller teach me? No source means I can't evaluate motive or credibility, so I'll assume you made it up.

  65. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by Jeremi · · Score: 1

    This begs the question of where our intelligence agencies are focusing their efforts.

    I'd imagine that US security agencies are concentrating their efforts on... the US.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  66. Re:How do I explain it? by chill · · Score: 2

    You know your definition with "ancestors...for centuries" describes just about every European-descended person in North America short of the few with family lines back to before the American Revolution, right?

    The whole point of having a path to becoming a citizen (any country) is flushed down the toilet with your post.

    Speaking about the U.S., until you amend the Constitution -- too fucking bad. That is the system we have and your whining about it is counterproductive.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  67. The most shocking thing about spying by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Are they really scouring the world for terrorist activity, or are they too busy spying on their own citizens?

    From Fox:
    "Three of the seven Islamist suicide bombers have already been identified as French citizens, as was at least one of seven other people arrested in neighboring Belgium in connection to the deadly attacks."

    So four of fourteen were, in your words, their own citizens. I can pretty much guarantee that the intelligence agencies don't really care that much about the nationality of who they spy on; they spy on everyone to try and get intelligence. But, of course, you would like them just to spy only on the "bad guys". But if they knew who the bad guys were to begin with, the wouldn't really need to do any spying now, would they?

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  68. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    Well these terrorists don't initially seem like the run of the mill, the I'm surprised they haven't choked on their own tongues stupid, terrorists. It seems the simplest way to not get caught before hand is simply to shut your fucking pie hole about your plans. When you do have to discuss your plans don't do them in public view but instead over secure channels, with only those who need to know the plan and not Hadji the clerk at the local halal market.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  69. Temporary crises lead to permanent rights-losses by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It sure passes the "don't let a crisis go to waste" smell test to me.

    Well, of course! The Statist types always complain about encryption and anonymity (and personal weapons, BTW) making their jobs more difficult. They are sincere, and what they say is true. It is just that at normal times we can rationally resist their urging, while at the times of crisis our collective rationality weakens and we allow major freedom-infringements to happen...

    Rolling them back is hard, because the things like having to present an ID or even submit to a pat-down are not too tedious and the burden never reaches a crisis level of its own, despite occasional trouble-making by some prominent figures.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  70. Encryption the new terror by jriding · · Score: 1

    The new war on Encryption. Watch it live!

    --
    love the taste, hate the texture
  71. The solution: Muslim profiling by unixisc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You are partly, but only partly right. The reason that you, me and everyone else are suspects is b'cos of political correctness. The compulsion to see Muslims as innocent, despite all the evidence to the contrary since 9/11. It started w/ the TSA in airports post 9/11, when they avoided profiling Muslims and scanned little girls and grandmothers, as opposed to Muslim men and women. The emboldening of Jihadi groups like CAIR just kept making things worse, so that every investigation's first priority was to NOT stigmatize Muslims, and that anything else came later.

    Ed Snowden did a service in exposing the global surveillance regime. However, the solution to that issue is not to make it impossible for the security people, be it FBI, CIA, NSA, et al to do global wiretaps, but to proactively wiretap Muslims. That would include people who convert to Islam, since the overwhelming majority of it happens at the behest of people who have Jihadi links somewhere or the other - be it ISIS, al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbullah, Jamait e Taghlibi, et al. B'cos converting people to Islam is step 1 in the recruitment of Jihadis in the West: they either start w/ people already Muslim, be it of Arab, Turkic, Iranian or Paki nationalities, or they start w/ people who are willing to convert to Islam and then go from there. So once someone converts to Islam, that should trigger the flags, and get the feds to start investigating.

    I don't expect this to happen while Obama is around, or even if Clinton becomes president. But that's the only way to prevent another Paris attack from happening again in the West.

    1. Re:The solution: Muslim profiling by drooling-dog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean Muslims like Timothy McVeigh, or the IRA?

    2. Re:The solution: Muslim profiling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Rounding errors compared to Islamic terrorism. The fact that, in *principle*, any ideology can lead to terrorism, should be contrasted with the *reality* that, in fact, most do not. Most specifically modern Islam.

      One of the problems is one of labels- modern extremist forms of Islam, such as Wahhabism, are much later injections into the overall body of Islam. The fact that they spread so virulently, and the fact that we are so shit at distinguishing them (in the way that you would be able to effortlessly distinguish from a few sentences, a Lutheran from a Seven Mountains Dominionist- even if you've never heard of that second guy, you'd know he was different from his belief in theocracy), means that we necessarily paint them with a broad brush. Conservatives tend to believe that a large number of them are "radical Muslims", and liberals tend to believe that they are "mostly moderate", and both of those opinions are useless- unless you're the sort of person that would confuse a Christian like Obama for the type that wants a theocracy in the US.

    3. Re:The solution: Muslim profiling by easyTree · · Score: 2

      Rounding errors compared to Islamic terrorism.

      And Islamic Terrorism is a rounding error compared to the terror perpetrated by the US / Israel over the last few decades. That's why there's blow-back. Blow-back is retaliation.

    4. Re: The solution: Muslim profiling by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Profiling is a terrible "solution". Trivial stealth for the actual bad actors. Just get someone who doesn't look the part say a convert, or mercenary and suddenly you have an agent. So then they wonder how Jihadi John was able to plant 50 tons of fertilizer in the capital while they were busy harassing Sihks.

      All it gets you is security theatre without inconveniencing the majority. It is as evil as it is stupid.

      It also divides people based on religion and race - both fairly stable, so the division is easy to maintain. Nothing is better if you profit from disharmony the way a certain section of society does.

    5. Re:The solution: Muslim profiling by unixisc · · Score: 1

      It's interesting that drooling-dog had to fish out one man who's been executed years ago, and an organization that is for all practical purposes pretty much extinct. As opposed to all the Jihadi groups that operate across the world from North Africa to the Philippines today, as well as their cells in the West.

      The distinctions you are trying to draw don't actually undermine my original point of Muslims from anywhere in the world being Jihadis. Main reason for this being that Jihad is a central tenet of Islam, and has never undergone any reformation like Christianity, for example (I am not Christian, so please don't bother bringing up the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition or the Thirty Year War). In Islam, 'bida' or innovation is something that's verboten: even though it's been tried several times in several Muslim countries, people trying it have met w/ a bloody end. That brings up another important fact about Islam: unlike every other religion, Islam doesn't believe in 'live and let live': it's more like 'kill and let die'. So if one disagrees w/ an implementation of Islam in one's home Islamic country, either stay shut, or risk getting killed. Which has been the story throughout the Islamic world.

      Wahhabism was a 17th century invention, but it wasn't something that contradicted Islam as it was practiced the previous thousand years. In Islam, there are 4 schools of jurisprudence based on 9th and 10th century theologians, mainly from the Khorasan region of Iran: Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki and Hanbali. Wahhabi is a particular version of Hanbali, and the only reason it's noticed is that it's native to Saudi Arabia, the home to Mecca and Medina. But that's the only country that is Hanbali. Most Sunni Muslim countries in Asia are Hanafi - Pakistan, Bangladesh, the ex-Soviet stans, Afghanistan and partly Syria and Egypt. Most North African countries, as well as the Emirates, are Maliki. Countries like Yemen, Somalia, parts of Egypt and Syria, Sudan, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia are Shafi'i.

      My point is that regardless of whether they are Wahhabi or not, Islamic fanaticism is there in all countries where there are Muslim. Let's start from the East. In the Philippines, there is Abu Sayyaf and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, which wants to do a Pakistan style secession of Mindanao from the Philippines, since that island has a lot of Muslims. In Indonesia, Christians are under constant persecution, and Aceh has become another Raqqa. In Malaysia, they run an apartheid regime known as Bhumiputra that the old South African regime would envy, where they systematically discriminate against Christians, Buddhists and Hindus. In Bangladesh, Hindus and Buddhists were always persecuted, and now, it's a growing ISIS base, since its border w/ India would make the current US-Mexican border look like the Berlin wall - and that without 'Trump's beautiful wall'. Pakistan and Afghanistan - need I say more? Pakistan has always been a hotbed of Jihadi activity, and has always supported Jihadi forces in both India and Afghanistan. Further north, in Central Asia, there has been the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and Uyghur separatists in China, that want to topple regimes in all the stans and bring back the Timuride empires. Iran has been busy influencing Shia groups in the Arab world where its influence is limited, but has a free reign in countries like Afghanistan or Tajikistan where people ethnically, if not theologically similar, are present. Iraq, Syria, Palestinian authority and Egypt are all places where offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood run riot. Then you have Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which are Islamic theocracies, and Yemen, which is a Shia-Sunni battlefield. Stabbing westwards, you have the Sudanese, who have finally stopped their war against Christians only b'cos the south has successfully seceeded, and then Egypt and Libya. Libya being a de facto ISIS base like Raqqa. Then in Algeria you have the FIS, and you have Jihadis in Mali and finally, Boko Haram, now af

    6. Re: The solution: Muslim profiling by unixisc · · Score: 1

      People who can't distinguish Muslims from Sikhs don't deserve jobs in security forces. Profiling doesn't mean simply looking at someone and jumping to conclusions. It includes interviewing them and seeing whether that matches profiles of past terrorists. The Israelis do that brilliantly. Ethnically, there is little difference b/w Jews and Arabs, but after talking to someone, they know from the conversation the origin of a person - if Arabic speaking, whether he's from Egypt, the Pali territories, Jordan, Syria, et al. And from other mannerisms, whether they are a likely security risk. Usually, people who are not a security risk - including Arabs and Muslims who're not - do go past, but they get to intercept those who are.

      As one Israeli security official once noted, the US doesn't have Airport Security: all they have is a system for inconveniencing people.

    7. Re: The solution: Muslim profiling by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Also, profiling doesn't have to be racist. I did mention that people who convert to Islam - be they White Caucasian or Blacks - should be profiles, since converts are more likely to be inclined towards Jihadi activity

    8. Re:The solution: Muslim profiling by unixisc · · Score: 1

      How would you like to describe Islamic terror that was unleased throughout the ages b/w 700AD and 1775 - long before either the US or Israel existed?

    9. Re:The solution: Muslim profiling by easyTree · · Score: 1

      'Pre-emptive response' against the imminent US threat? ^_^

      Anyhow, we're talking quantities here not lineage.

    10. Re: The solution: Muslim profiling by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The religion one, I grant you, since the religion in question explicitly divides the world into believers and infidels, and declares that the only way to get the ultimate salvation is to kill as many of the latter.

      The race one makes no sense whatsoever. Granted that the overwhelming majority of Arab, Turkic and Farsi people are Muslims. However, Muslims are there in all races. In South Asia, Muslims of Pakistan or Bangladesh belong to the same race as Hindus. In the Middle East, Arabs are Semites, just like Semitic Jews. Turkic people are largely Muslim, but closely related to non-Muslim Mongols. You have Hui Chinese, who are racially the same as Han Chinese. In North Africa, Muslim Barbers are of the same race as non-Muslim ones. In Europe, Bosniaks are the same Slavonic race as Serbs. Albanians are the same race as Romanians.

      And that's w/o even beginning to address the issue of Western converts to Islam - the John Walker Lindhs, the Adam Gadahns, the Jose Padillas of this world. They are White, Hispanic and Jewish origins, but it's their conversion to Islam that set them on the road to Jihad. What I advocated above - profiling of Muslims - would automatically include them as well, since converts to Islam are the most likely to indulge in Jihadi activities (since there is little other reason to convert).

      A good reason not to go after Muslims, but pander to them instead, like Obama and Clinton are doing, is so that you get a permanent voting bloc on your side. Not profiting so much from disharmony as much as en enforced groupthink by pandering to such a group

    11. Re:The solution: Muslim profiling by quenda · · Score: 1

      You mean Muslims like Timothy McVeigh, or the IRA?

      Totally different. The IRA bore some resemblance to the PLO - remember them?
      In the 70's and 80's the stereotypical terrorist was middle-eastern, and probably muslim but that was not their defining characteristic.
      They were political, not religious in essence, like the IRA. No suicide bombers back then. They held hostages for ransom, instead of simply murdering them.
      Nowadays Islam is absolutely central to the violence.

    12. Re:The solution: Muslim profiling by unixisc · · Score: 1

      In the 70s and 80s, your average terrorist group was Marxist - backed by either the Soviets or Chinese. Groups like the IRA, Red Brigades in Italy, Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Carlos the Jackal, et al. The PLO as well as Gadaffi's Green Brigades were in the intersection of Muslim and Communist. As you say, the non-Muslim Communist guerillas weren't suicide bombers: MAD worked w/ them. That's no longer the case w/ Jihadis.

    13. Re:The solution: Muslim profiling by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Then the terrorists will just get people called "Tom Whiteguy" who look like carpet salesmen from Wisconsin and your pathetic knee-jerk racist reaction will be shown as the farce it is.

      You are pathetic.

    14. Re: The solution: Muslim profiling by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You are a terrible human being. Seriously. You can't even see the nonsense in your posts. Racial or religious profiling doesn't work. What you are pushing for is intelligence-based profiling, which is something entirely different. The fact you don't understand the difference speaks volumes.

    15. Re: The solution: Muslim profiling by unixisc · · Score: 1

      That intelligence you are talking about includes factoring in one's religion, and then narrowing the search that way in order to make it more effective. Like I said elsewhere, race based profiling would be irrelevant here, given all Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, et al who've converted. Point is that any consideration of religion would be denounced as 'islamophobic' by not just CAIR (which has Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas ties) but also by anarchist organizations like the ACLU, SPLC and so on

    16. Re:The solution: Muslim profiling by unixisc · · Score: 1

      First thing they always do is covert them to Islam. If Tom Whiteguy converts to Islam, he would be screened under the plan I've stated.

  72. or it is a BS keyword by aepervius · · Score: 2

    "Brennan also said the United States had âoestrategic warningâ about the terrorist attack in Paris, but did not provide details, other than to say it was âoenot a surprise.â He said he believed the attack was planned over âoeseveral months.â
     
      If they really had a precise they would have reported in the news article or to the relevant french department. That they use the unqualified keyword "strategic warning" is more like "somebody mentioned they wanted to attack apris a few time" and that is so vague as to be useless and probably happen for a lot of other country. The translation is more "we only had the regular gossips we catch all the time".

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  73. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by MooseTick · · Score: 1

    "And? is he fiddling with the trigger or something? or is it properly holstered and you're more likely to die from a freak lightning strike than it going off?"

    Have you never had an accident of any kind? Never bumped into a door, tripped, snagged your clothing on an object?

    I would guess that having a loaded weapon pointed at your face 8 hours a day, even if there is no malicious intent, has a higher likelihood of you being harmed than a lightening strike.

    This site (http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/) indicates that ~600 people die a year from accidental gun deaths in the US. This site (http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/fatalities.shtml) shows there are ~35 lightening deaths per year. Guns are fun, but to compare the likelihood of being accidentally shot to being struck by lightening is disingenuous at best.

  74. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by hrvatska · · Score: 1

    Do you really believe that preventing legitimate Syrian refugees from entering the U.S. will prevent a single existing terrorist from an organization like ISIS from entering the U.S.? Even if no Syrian citizens are permitted to enter the U.S., terrorist organizations will pick another route to enter the U.S. Fake passports are not that difficult to come by. Hell, the Syrian passport found near the body of one of the Paris suicide bombers was a fake. Serbian police arrested a man Saturday with the same passport information except for the photo. But why even bother with coming in with false passport when you can use nationals who are already in place. Federica Mogherini, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission, stated, “Let me underline—the profile of the terrorists so far identified tells us this is an internal threat. It is all EU citizens so far. This can change with the hours, but so far it is quite clear it is an issue of internal domestic security."

  75. OT: NPR by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

    It's a pity NPR has such a negative rep in my neck of the woods. If people would only listen to it, they would hear that it's clearly about as balanced as reporting can get. They frequently lob softballs at Republicans for fear of being accused of being on a witch hunt. I don't know why they bother; the average redneck can't tell the difference between Pacifica Radio and All Things Considered anyway.

  76. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

    Well, I would maintain that by their actions they have pretty much excluded themselves from any reasonable definition of "national" or "citizen".
    Indeed, this is the nub of the problem; different peoples from different regions - both within and outside what we now call Europe - have integrated more or less well over the centuries. Frequently their differences, at first feared, enriched our cultures.
    But there were always a few who did not bring postives, and instead violently fought their new homes...
    The fault was often on both sides - both the majority was stronger, did not give a damn, and so the new arrivals either eventually conformed or entered the road accident statistics, died while "resisting arrest" or were packed off to the army or prison where they could vent their anger well away from "civilisation".

    These days, a few bitter whackjobs, often with a record of violent behaviour then criminal activity before "discovering god", get to organise using the infrastructure the same "civilisation" they profess to wish to destroy has provided.
    They're just mentally ill...nothing to do with Islam or anything else.

    And certainly not worthy of the title of "national"...

  77. The Newspaper of Record by doom · · Score: 1

    Kudos to the NYT for pulling the article. Shame they published it in the first place.

    You got it half-right. They deserve no "kudos" for hiding a mistake. Once upon a time, this was supposed to be "the newspaper of record", now they regularly let the text of stories morph for inscrutable reasons, without so much as a "Correction" notice appended to it.

  78. Smith Mundt act by NetNed · · Score: 1

    Soooo no one has mentioned the repeal of the Smith Mundt Act in 2013 as a reason this story was floated out there then quickly gone away when the masses called FUD on it???? Hey, but I'm sure it's just "bad reporting" or "inept people in charge", which seems to happen A LOT. And no way could the whole "PS4" story be native advertising floated across thousands of media outlets. I mean, someone would really relish that kind of PR if a story could be tossed to the ethos and media outlets snag it like a piece of velcro that mentions their product over and over and over again, hitting website and all sorts of social media. I mean "who" would do that????

  79. Re:bet they spoke french damnit! by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

    Or Jean-Claude Van Damme. He can cope with the ass-kicking as well.

  80. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

    he only long-term solutions to extremism are integration, education and wealth. Period.

    Many of the 9/11 terrorists were well-off educated people. I recall at least one of them was an engineer, apparently assimilated.

    I don't know what the long-term solution is, short of things decent people don't want to contemplate. My biggest fear is that, at some point, a solid majority is going to decide that decency is overrated.

  81. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    This is asymmetric warfare. The main body of ISIS is in Iraq and Syria. Kill off the main body, the offshoots will die off.

  82. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
    I'd bet that 99% of terrorist traffic is unencrypted and in plain language. The issue is that it's "The shipment is in, meet at the usual place" or "Cafe on 6th at noon". You have to have context to make meaning from it. THey don't print up documents with timelines, goals, and schedules and send those via electronic means. It doesn't matter what you use, that hasn't worked since before Bletchley Park.

    If I were running a terrorist organization, I'd order everyone to communicate everything. "Go to the place for the thing at 3 p.m." would be sent to everyone when you want someone to pick up your dry cleaning. The wheat can't be plucked from the chaff when all there is is chaff. When you want something done right, and a bit more secret, you do it in person. They can record 100% of your electronic communications and still have nothing.

    Not controlling immigration will be looked back upon as a profound strategic blunder, even though (as I disagree with you) there is no conscious invasion motivation on the part of the immigrants.

    So far, every terrorist I've seen identified was born a French Citizen (well the first 2 were, I don't follow such things in super-great detail. I can wait until they know something to read reports with more detail). Though, there was one "mastermind" suspected who was born a Belgian citizen.

    So this isn't about immigration unless we are talking about the French Algerians, oppressed for 200 years. But is unrelated to today's immigration issues.

  83. New York City police commisioner blamed encryption by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    I live in the NYC area, listening to news radio stations out of NYC, so this got equal airplay to the unattributed "security agency" quotes about "going dark". There was also a lot of official amazement at the degree of coordination and planning involved. Somehow it doesn't seem any more complicated than a bunch of friends getting together for a movie, even before the existence of cellphones - certainly not as complex as many flash-mob events. "The attacks were totally synchronized!" - like, ever hear of wearing a watch? All you have to do to avoid online detection is NOT WRITE ONLINE, just converse by phone, and keep the topic general.

  84. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    A handful of men did this attack in Europe. How many more "handfuls" of similarly capable men got through?

    Got through what? The terrorists I've seen identified so far were born French citizens. They weren't ISIS migrants to France. They were born French. How do the facts work for your narrative?

    The NYT is not going to call these policies what they are: bordering on treason for the level that they endanger the host societies.

    The treason is what? Pointing out that citizens with guns don't stop gun violence? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... It's not like shooting up a military base is unheard of. And the military has access to arms. In that case, the incident was stopped by civilian cops. I remember at the time, Islamic terrorists were suspected by the media, but in the end, it was a lone gunman who was a US citizen.

  85. Re:How do I explain it? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Citizenship is almost meaningless as a determining factor in affinity for the host society. We could rubber stamp all of our illegal immigrants and call them US citizens, and at the end of the day their loyalties would rightfully be primarily with the countries they came from and continue to send remittances to support.

    So US born US citizens should be rounded up in concentration camps? We did that in WWII.

    Look at the attackers. None of them were native-born French whose ancestors were French for centuries. They're all the sons of recent arrivals or actual refugees by way of Greece. You can't pull this shit and expect it to fool anyone who is paying attention.

    They were native born French, and I've not seen anyone detail their lineage back to Greece. Are you lying to support your personal views, or have you actually seen something about it? I suspected native born French before the first identifications came back. French Algerians (only "French" for 200 years or so, probably longer than you've been American) are always the go-to terrorists in France.

    The big issue is that the media had lots of early claims (or speculation) that the terrorists were new to Europe. But all of them so far were citizens born in Europe. Letting in the current wave of immigrants is irrelevant to this and similar acts.

  86. Guns did it by easyTree · · Score: 1

    In the same sense as 'guns kill people', encryption did it! ...so ...lets have encryption advertised in every single film and have the encryption lobby pay for laws.

    Woohoo! Free communication with family members without some creepy NSA freak reading all our private messages is just around the corner. Let's legislate!!

  87. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by c · · Score: 1

    Many of the 9/11 terrorists were well-off educated people. I recall at least one of them was an engineer, apparently assimilated.

    Individually, sure. But they came from a restrictive, barbaric, extremist culture. It's about the environment, not the individuals.

    I doubt we'll see western culture take the long view, anyway. We're too stuck on instant gratification, quick fixes, and reactionary thinking.

    --
    Log in or piss off.
  88. HTML woes by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Actually, in /., quote works. The trick is to remember where to insert /quote.

  89. Re:Temporary crises lead to permanent rights-losse by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1

    Never let a crisis go to waste!

    --
    Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
  90. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by Mr.CRC · · Score: 2

    Gun safety rules demand strict "muzzle discipline." A gun must be kept pointed away from anyone, regardless of being holstered, safety on, round in chamber, etc. So if someone asked me to take off a CCW because somehow my movement was making it point at them, I'd do it, or find a better way to holster so the gun doesn't point at people when I'm doing whatever. Yes, it's extremely unlikely to go off. But with safety issues, there is also the consequence side of the equation. The consequence of a gun accident is unacceptable.

  91. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

    Yes, but it's not stupid in the context of mission accomplished.

    Which is more than can be said for the real stupid of serially laying waste to multiple predominantly Muslim nations, followed by permitting an unrestricted flow of migrants and refugees from those same nations into the western nations that collectively committed this serial crime.

    The left cries "racism" if you propose not letting the refugees in.

    The right (and left) cries "more war" in response to every catastrophe resulting from the prior interventionist war.

    We are more committed to our ideologies than we are to the survival of our own nations. Ironically, we have a lot more in common with the terrorists than we realize.

  92. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

    "It's not like shooting up a military base is unheard of. And the military has access to arms. In that case, the incident was stopped by civilian cops."

    Locked up guns are as good as no guns, when there's an active shooter, don't you think?

    That's the whole point, that even military officers were prohibited from carrying side arms or other guns in a usable manner while on active duty domestically.

  93. Re:The Most Shocking Thing About the France Attack by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    This is asymmetric warfare. The main body of ISIS is in Iraq and Syria. Kill off the main body, the offshoots will die off.

    Not quite. It has more the earmarks of an infectious disease. How many terrorist org. heads/leaders has the US claimed to have killed since 9/11? Others take their place. Propaganda/religious 'infection' leads to 'self-radicalizing' operatives in new areas.

    "I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humansW^W^violent religious fanatics do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resourceW^W^opposing society, culture, government, and religion is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beingsW^W^violent religious fanatics are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we...are the cure."

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  94. Are we going back to using Enigma Machines? by arduinoenigma · · Score: 1

    If so, we are ready....

  95. Re: Temporary crises lead to permanent rights-loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Please please don't take our encryption away, or our guns in the USA. Without guns, a few asshats WITH ILLEGAL GUNS could take out like, I dunno, 160 people in no time...

  96. Re:Of course they'd blame technology by Tom · · Score: 1

    I don't disagree with that at all.

    But the GP was about refugees, not immigrants one or two generations ago.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  97. It was removed because... by bencook2 · · Score: 1

    It was removed because it was a story produced out of whole cloth by the anti-encryption politicians in Europe. And when the story was given scrutiny that was an obvious choice. "Encryption" is the next boogie man. It will be treated like "Terrorism and Child Porn" .... mean it will grant extra-constitutional powers to the government that are totally illegal... but who wants to support Child Pornographers and Terrorists?

  98. Non-Human by NewYork · · Score: 1

    If you're not from my caste/religion, you're non-human to me; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
    Expel Brahmin From Your Country; http://wh.gov/iyhMK