
Signs Point to Unencrypted Communications Between Terror Suspects - apress
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/signs-point-to-unencrypted-communications-between-terror-suspects/
======
rtl49
I don't mean to downplay the importance of this tragedy for the people
involved, but it's interesting to observe the media reaction to this event
with a more detached frame of mind than I was capable of as a child.

The attacks have played right into the hands of parties with political
interests lying in wait. For months articles on one or the other side of the
encryption "debate" have been produced by news organizations at a low hum. Now
that something, anything, loosely relevant has occurred, they can now point to
this as further evidence in support of whatever position was espoused over the
course of the preceding months. It strikes a person who pays attention to such
things as rather methodical.

~~~
sliverstorm
Basically, everyone has already made up their minds whether
encryption/guns/drugs/etc are good or bad, and use global events as "proof" of
why they are right. It's not just the news anchors that do it.

When was the last time you read someone say, "And this latest attack has
changed my mind...". Almost never. Mostly it's "And this latest attack proves
my agenda is right..."

~~~
noobermin
To give this a better framing, say after Sandy Hook, I'd wager that the first
response in the mind of a liberal was, "Fuck! See, guns kill! If we didn't
have the 2nd ammendment, so many children wouldn't have had to die!" For a
conservative, their first response might have been, "Fuck! This is why
teachers need guns to protect their children from crazymen! More children
didn't have to die!" May be I'm a little too naive, but I really don't think
people are insincerely manufacturing rage, both are upset about the tragedy,
they just rationalize it in the mental framework they already have, and they
sincerely respond with that mindset.

I think the better question is why can't we be more rational/scientific about
this. Forget gut feelings, put down a spreadsheet (at least) how many
instances of this statistic correlate with this hypothesis. If it doesn't
work, clearly your intuition is wrong, and there's nothing wrong with that,
you just need to sharpen your intuition. I'd like to see government work like
that, but neither side seems to want to do something like that.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_be more rational /scientific about this. Forget gut feelings, put down a
spreadsheet_

But that already presupposes the answer to one of the major arguments. There's
a fair philosophical case to be made for "it doesn't matter if the empirical
net is positive or negative: the bottom line is that I have a natural right to
defend myself and my family, even if other people cannot or choose not to do
so themselves".

Sorry, I don't mean to start the actual gun debate here. I'm just trying to
show that the underlying question presents a false choice fallacy. It's
incorrect to simply ask, "should the government make this regulation or not?".
There's space for a lot more nuance in there: "is this a good idea or a bad
idea? If it's a good idea, is it something that should be part of the private
sector's purview? If not, can government do it effectively?"

~~~
noobermin
The basic argument I have against this is that people say things that make
assumptions they don't realize and those assumptions can be testable. Let me
give an example.

Say you have a liberal who says, "regardless of whether we go into debt or
not," since that is an objectively measurable observable, "we should spend
more on education because education is something I value." That already has a
problem: it assumes spending more on education increases the quality of
education; therein lies a _testable hypothesis_ that we can demonstrate true
or false. If a liberal is offended by that notion, that is what I'm arguing
against--for me, ideas just aren't "so obvious" that they can't be
demonstrated, if it's true, there better be evidence for its truth. If, for
example, we spend more on education than other nations and we still have
subpar outcomes (which is true, actually), then the stated reasoning "go into
debt because we value education anyway" contains a false assumption and thus
the argument is fallacious.

Also, other assumptions could be violated here. To further use my analogy,
another assumption the liberal has underpinning his arguments is that a state
exists to provide education. If you're in debt to the point where your
government bonds are considered crap by the market, your decision to spend
more money on education could threaten the existence of your state. Therefore,
once again, you're making an argument and not rigorously considering whether
assumptions are/will remain true or not.

Of course, you could change the "axioms" of the universe of discourse and just
enshrine "spending on education is good regardless of whether it actually
improves education or not," as a true, and at that point, you're right that I
can no longer argue with you. However, I almost always hear an argument with a
"because": "the right for free speech for the press is good because it ensures
they report fairly and honestly and make their fellow citizens," or, "health-
care as a right is good because the government providing healthcare to
citizens increases the quality of their care and wellness." Whenever someone
says this, there is something in there that is testable and they'd better be
willing to demonstrate it, especially if my tax dollars are going to fund
their ventures.

------
riskable
The moment my wife and I heard about the attacks in Paris I said to her, "the
spooks are going to use this as an excuse to take everyone's rights away."

The media response on this was so predictable it was like clockwork:

* Conservative media immediately kicks off talking points in regards to, "if more people were carrying guns this wouldn't have happened!"

* "Where's the outrage from Muslims?"

* "Outraged Muslims say the attackers aren't true Muslims because Mohammed forbids killing innocents."

* "It had to have been Syrian refugees!"

* "Can't we just bomb the fsck out of Syria?"

* All manner of insinuations that all Muslims are dangerous and we should "kick them out" or prevent them entry into the our country.

...then, attempting to time things just right the spy organizations all over
the world ask for everyone to give up their privacy so they can "stop
terrorists".

What we _won 't_ see in the major news media/popular talking heads:

* Outrage that despite the billions upon billions invested in spying programs no one was able to predict or stop this attack. Proving that the vast spying powers granted to governmental organizations don't work.

* Factual stories pointing out that encryption with back doors won't be used by terrorists so it's useless against terrorists by definition.

* Investigations into _why_ the mass collection of everyone's personal details didn't work and can't work to stop these kinds of attacks.

* Informative stories about what every-day people or politicians can do to hurt terrorists and stop terrorism. For example, there will be no one even remotely connecting the dots between oil usage and terrorism. Or how there's a direct link between a country's oil revenues and democracy.

~~~
temuze
> * Outrage that despite the billions upon billions invested in spying
> programs no one was able to predict or stop this attack. Proving that the
> vast spying powers granted to governmental organizations don't work.

In fairness, we don't exactly find out about the successes...

~~~
beamatronic
We can't know, because that back-channel carries information that could be
useful to the enemy.

~~~
pjc50
This is a really serious problem. There's a reason why the normal process of
justice involves presenting evidence in public rather than just saying, "We
know this guy is guilty because reasons we can't tell you. Don't worry, we've
already executed him."

The fight _has_ to be done procedurally or we'll end up shelling Parisian
suburbs.

------
prawn
Spotted on Twitter:

 _" If banning encryption would stop terrorists using it, why don’t they just
make terrorism illegal and be done with it?"_

~~~
0942v8653
Also
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591621](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591621)
-

> I love how Republicans believe that outlawing guns won't stop criminals from
> having guns while at the same time believing that outlawing encryption will
> keep criminals from using encryption.

> Encryption methods are far easier to transport and spread illegally than gun
> are.

~~~
sliverstorm
My favorite is the hippies who argue that we should legalize drugs because
outlawing them didn't stop people from getting drugs- while also arguing that
we should outlaw guns to stop people from getting guns.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
One of these things is designed to hurt other humans, while the other is not.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
But both of them _do_ hurt other humans, regardless of the _design_.

------
pjc50
Well, yes: encryption is hard to use and sticks out a mile. Whereas good old
codewords defeat dragnet surveillance and are easy to use. For every single
concert and sporting event there are thousands of people discussing meeting up
and going there over SMS, discussing times, locations and who's going to be
there. How do you determine who has malicious intent?

~~~
rndmind
What a prescient and logical observation.

------
lamby
Meh. What matters are the principles; even if you could show that 100% of
terrorists always used encrypted communications without exception..I would
still not be in favour of outlawing encrypted messages.

~~~
mangeletti
I agree 100%. Getting into arguments over practicality with these slime balls
lands you right where they want you, debating with them in order to earn
rights you already have.

~~~
hodwik
Rights are established and protected by constant legislative and judicial
battle.

There are obviously a lot of people who think that hard-encryption shouldn't
be available to the public. If you're not willing to engage with them you're
just going to get steamrolled. In matters of law, the squeaky wheel gets the
grease.

~~~
woodman
Thomas Jefferson disagrees :)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights)

------
brighton36
Time to ban unencrypted communication I guess

~~~
scrollaway
Over the wire? I'm in. :)

------
rustynails
I found this to be a very interesting article on ISIS with insights to their
communications,

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-
in...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story)

When people left Bucca, they had written each other's names & numbers on the
elastic of their underwear.

They also responded to Anonymous' threat toward ISIS by suggesting techniques
to secure Comms and what to avoid.

[http://www.businessinsider.com.au/isis-anonymous-
statement-2...](http://www.businessinsider.com.au/isis-anonymous-
statement-2015-11)

I would suggest that this cell did not use protection but I am confident the
larger ISIS network is not so transparent. My suspicions would be that most
Comms is via word of mouth.

~~~
d3sandoval
Agreed. Word of mouth is still a very viable method of communication and,
given the organization's value of human life, I wouldn't be surprised if
runners are frequently used to disseminate critical communication.

------
ohitsdom
Please don't use this news as a point if you're making a defense for
encryption. Because there are going to be bad people who plan bad things using
encrypted communication, and when that happens your point is gone and people
will blame encryption.

------
msoad
Telegram is the dominant communication app in Middle East and most people
prefer unencrypted massaging because of multi-device capabilities. I don't
think ISIS people are any different

------
andrewchambers
I don't like either result of discussing whether or not terrorists use
encryption.

Terrorists used unencrypted communication -> government will want to spy on
everyone's unencrypted content more.

Terrorists used encryption -> Government wants to restrict encryption.

Instead discussion should be around what is already legal but wasn't done and
why.

------
shahryc
Whether or not this particular attack happened with unencrypted vs. encrypted
communications is irrelevant. I'm sure if we look at terror suspects and
attacks in the past year across the world --- some of them used unencrypted
means to communicate and others that use encrypted means to communicate.
99.999% of people aren't terror suspects. The real question is the following:
how do we fight against the remainder without comprising our values?

------
arca_vorago
I've been calling it for years: welcome to the return of the cryptowars. The
90's were just a stalling tactic, as admitted by a DoJ attorney to Eben Moglen
back then. Expect creeping legislation to appear declaring more encryption
"munitions grade", or some other such similar nonsense.

------
shostack
<puts on tinfoil hat>

How soon till we get a staged terrorist event, or a staged communication from
a legit one where the focus is on how they used encrypted communications?

Clearly people in power want this level of control, so the question is what
lengths they will go to in order to ensure they get it.

~~~
bediger4000
I agree: people in power, from a large number of factions inside the group of
people in power, want this level of control. The question is "Why"?

------
hatsunearu
If encryption is banned, how are the surveillance people going to filter all
the communication in the world when they can't even filter the currently
limited unencrypted traffic correctly?

------
eps
Looking at this differently though -

Encryption or not, signs point to meta data collection being absolutely
essential to tracking down these pricks' location.

------
AnimalMuppet
But they used cell phones. So we need to ban cell phones. Ban cell phones, or
the terrorists win!

Oh, nobody's arguing for doing that? Hmm, why not?

------
hodwik
Not really relevant, the day will come when no terrorists communicate in the
clear. I'm not suggesting we outlaw encrypted communications, but I do wonder
how law enforcement is supposed to track terrorist communications after they
go dark.

~~~
Alupis
The big point of this article is, given all of the NSA spying and mass
surveillance of pretty much all phone networks worldwide, they still failed to
detect anything related to this attack.

It shows two main things:

1) Mass drag-net style surveillance programs are not very effective.

2) Banning encryption will have minimal-to-no effect on improving mass drag-
net style surveillance programs.

This means, to date, the only "terrorist plot" thwarted by the NSA mass drag-
net style surveillance program remains that one guy who tried to send $8,500
to the Taliban (and was promptly arrested)[1].

[1] [http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/nsa-spying-did-not-
re...](http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/nsa-spying-did-not-result-in-
one-stopped-terrorist-plot-and-the-government-actually-did-spy-on-the-bad-
guys-before-911.html)

~~~
hodwik
Absolutely, so we as community, seeing these problems, need to be pro-active
in helping government discover more effective ways to protect the people of
this world from extremists.

The hands-up "Well, terrorism happens. Nothing to do about it." sentiment of
many in our community is obviously not resonating with the general public. If
we don't provide serious alternatives, they will continue pushing these sorts
of methods to greater and greater extremes.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
The general public are not the ones calling for encryption bans and
regulations, or really much of anything. They're virtually disenfranchised in
such matters, especially national security.

We absolutely do _not_ owe the government to protect anyone from anything. You
have more to lose from government agents like police forces than terrorists.

