Finnish Police Respond To The Norwegian Tragedy By Increasing Internet Surveillance
from the another-attempt-to-prevent-the-unpreventable dept
In response to the tragedy in Norway, Finland law enforcement has decided to increase its internet surveillance in hopes of picking up "weak signals" that could possibly indicate a terrorist threat. As Cato's Jim Harper points out, this sort of thing just doesn't work:...random violence (terrorist or otherwise) is not predictable and not "findable" in advance -- not if a free society is to remain free, anyway.
The problem with attacks like the shooting/bombing in Norway is that they are isolated instances. The shock and horror of the event tends to overwhelm the common sense of politicians, law enforcement and the press itself, leading to unfortunate efforts like these, often combined with commentary from ad hoc armchair quarterbacks whose hindsight is endless but whose foresight is severely restricted.
The civil rights of citizens are trampled underfoot by politicians and law enforcement officials wishing to appear to be doing "something" to make their homelands safer. These "somethings" usually combine rush-job legislation with political theatrics, resulting in a hastily applied veneer of safety that extends the government's reach into the personal lives of its citizens.
We've seen it here in the US via the PATRIOT Act and the corresponding growth of the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA. Once a law gets on the books, it rarely gets removed. There may be discussions about oversight issues or possible detrimental effects, but bad legislation tends to be permanent.
The problem with an effort like Finland's is that there is only one guaranteed outcome to this effort: more internet surveillance. In light of Breivik's known interests, this heightened attention means anyone whose gaming choices include Call of Duty or World of Warcraft could possibly find themselves under surveillance. People with strong opinions on major world religions or political organizations could very well be flagged as possible suspects.
No one truly knows what they're looking for when they implement programs like these, and because of that, nearly anything can be considered "suspect." Even worse, this attack was characterized as pro-Islamic by the media before the information surfaced that Breivik was anti-Islamic. Knowing who's actually the "risky" party isn't always so clear, meaning that anyone can be the risky party. When you combine large amounts of speculation with the tendency of politicians to twist laws into vehicles of self-service, the originally well-meaning legislation soon becomes a weapon against any display of political or religious dissent:
As former FBI agent (and current ACLU policy counsel) Mike German advises, any ideology can become a target of the government if the national security bureaucracy comes to use political opinion or activism as a proxy or precursor for crime and terrorism.
It's very hard for anyone in power to respond to a horrific tragedy by doing nothing, but if the track record of post-terrorist-attack legislation is anything to go by, "nothing" would be a refreshing change.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: civil rights, finland, internet, norway, surveillance, terrorism
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Security Theater
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Indeed, because Government *CAN* in fact guarantee rights or at least attempt to and be mostly successful.
Government CANNOT EVER guarantee your safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not like once this type of situation starts - that a camera can do anything to stop it, and I doubt the response time would improve.
If the time and energy devoted to 'control' and 'surveillance' was put into making the world a better place, these problems would likely go away on their own - at least many of them. There will always be nut-jobs out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Findable
But a lot are findable with some sacrifce of perceived freedom. Is everything ok if there's a pre-911 warrant?
So far nothing huge has been found and publicized, but if there were a plot to set off nukes in a city where loved ones were, I would hope some CTU agent was on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Findable
Citation needed. One of the things I took out of the 9/11 investigations was that the information was already there it just wasn't correctly prioritised or filtered to enable prevention to take place. Sacrificing freedom does nothing to change that, and in fact increases the garbage the authorities have to sift through.
"if there were a plot to set off nukes in a city where loved ones were, I would hope some CTU agent was on it."
Sadly, life doesn't work like an episode of 24. Your safety doesn't depend on a bunch of wannabe Jack Bauers running around violating your freedom in order to save it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
disenting opinion
while wiretapping and such things may be beyond the pale, an investigation into this kind of behavior is the least law enforcement can do. in no way would his freedoms be curtailed, but an examination of his intentions is certainly warranted. has he purchased large quantities of fertilizer without being a farmer? does he own a large number of powerful weapons (not necessarily a bad thing, but certainly an indicator)?
there was a lengthy post here recently about the difference between basic security precautions (metal detectors at airports) and overzealous security theater (full body naked scanners and groping children). this is a classic example of the 80/20 rule. a simple measure can prevent a majority of the security risks. but to go further requires some very intrusive measures that really don't add much to security.
we know about fertilizer and bombs from timothy mcveigh. the simple step of treating large purchases of it like any other controlled product can go a long ways toward preventing large bombings. i believe the u.s. actually does this now.
unfortunately, i don't have a quick answer to mass shootings, but i believe a social solution might be available.
i recognize that any security measure is an threat to my freedoms, and i bristle at them every time i am subjected to them. however, i can recognize the difference between a security measure that has a high likelihood of success and one that is simply a knee-jerk response designed to keep a politician in his job.
“Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.”
Author Unknown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: disenting opinion
I don't believe that any free society would need government monitoring to find those signs that should warrant further investigation though. I believe, that with a free society, the educated, free citizens of that society should want to police themselves, while letting the government stay the hell out of your business. There doesn't need to be an adult on the playground for every child, because when a free child sees something they know to be wrong, they are inclined to go tell an adult about it. Sure "snitches get stitches" and "nobody likes a tattle-tale", but if you are getting someone kicked off the playground, who do you need to worry about giving you stitches? If you are protecting the other innocents on the playground, who do you need to worry about not liking you?? A free society should be able to police themselves sufficiently, and should not need any government watching their every move.
(aside: especially a government that is as financially irresponsible as the United States has proven to be.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: disenting opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: disenting opinion
Neighbors watching neighbors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: disenting opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: disenting opinion
"free citizens of that society should want to police themselves" and "because when a free child sees something they know to be wrong, they are inclined to go tell an adult about it."
As for policing themselves, well. we have seem time and time again where this is a major failure. Even pointed out on on this site. All this concept leads to are more victims because of the inherent corruption of society itself. This can be exampled in the next part.
SOMEBODY knew this guy. Somebody knew how radical he is. These ideas didn't just pop in his head 10 minuets before he did it. His beliefs grew from the "opinions" of other radicals. He was communicating with others. Somebody read his manifesto before Monday. Did anyone "snitch"?
The police are there for a reason. Granted, they cant have a file on everyone AND THEY SHOULDN'T. They need as much, or MORE, oversight as anyone in a position of authority. But in a case such as this, I can see where they should be able to get warrants quickly in order to freeze their social network accounts (before people "unfreind" them) so that those "somebodies" can also be investigated (with warrants) as to their involvement or of the likelihood of them doing something similar. This is where commonsense is needed most
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: disenting opinion
Cases like this one should serve one good purpose if nothing else, and that is to remind the general public of their own responsibility to watch their own backs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: disenting opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: disenting opinion
There may or may not have been evidence of this preliminary attack outside of those in his inner circle. They should have reported him, but you're right, they wouldn't have if they shared the same feelings. In that case, before this attack, there was no evidence there would have been an attack. Once he 'goes postal' there's lots of evidence, and yes, there's reason to investigate those in his inner circle.
That should never mean that a government can use an act like this to suddenly investigate everyone just for the hope of preventing it. Only those who have shown reason to be investigated... I think there's a phrase for that in the U.S....something like 'Probably Cause' maybe...??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: disenting opinion
My position is that the evidence was probably out there. The manifesto or parts of it, his video, and his postings on radical sites. Instead of hiring people to monitor everyone, they should concentrate their efforts on the radicals and their sites. all radicals!! Thats what we need the Gov. to do, and thats what they should be doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: disenting opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: disenting opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: disenting opinion
I would question if greater surveillance would have identified anything though. It's early days yet, but we should have some lessons in time once an investigation is complete. However, the basic thing to take away from the 9/11 investigations wasn't that the signs weren't seen, it was that they weren't understood. The reports of a guy learning to fly but with no interest in landing weren't taken as serious as they should, because every terrorist attempt involving planes before 9/11 involved people wanting to land. The infamous "Osama determined" memo wasn't taken seriously because Al Qaida and Osama weren't on the top of watch lists, and so on.
I have no doubt that some signs in Norway weren't seen either due to negligence (ignored because he was white/Christian/Norwegian/no criminal record/whatever) or lack of understand of the implications of what was seen. Extra surveillance wouldn't fix this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: disenting opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: disenting opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: disenting opinion
Which was posted online less than an hour before he started his murder spree. No one could have seen it and identified there was a real problem here, and it wasn't posted under his own name but under an anglicised version of his own name and in English rather than Norwegian.
Would have to be some kind of superhero to spot it, read it, realise it was the product of someone actually killing style crazy rather than a garden run of the mill crazy. Figure out who he actually was, what country he was actually in and get on scene all in under an hour.
In his document he talked specifically about not coming onto the radar while you as a crazed lunatic plan your murder spree and deliberately going out of your way to not show any links to other crazies.
No amount of wiretapping etc would have helped here.
He had a farm so he had a good justifiable reason to buy lots of fertiliser, he had never committed a crime that anyone knew about so there were no flags to indicate he was going to be a problem. Thankfully people as crazy as him are rare despite appearances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: disenting opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: disenting opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: disenting opinion
> tendencies online before this happened.
> a 1500 page manifesto filled with hate
> and xenophobic rhetoric was one item.
No, he posted that manifesto the *day* of the attack. It was the last thing he did before striking. No amount of before-the-fact internet surveillance would have detected anything in his case.
Breivik actually went to extraordinary lengths to maintain his operational security and avoid popping up on any government watchlists or arousing suspicion.
For example, he saved up the equivalent of $360,000 over many years to finance his operation. Breivik's financial independence allowed him to work without the need to contact like-minded individuals for financing, or to engage in any activity that might have triggered suspicious financial activity indicators or warnings.
In order to purchase the chemicals and equipment he needed to make the explosives, he created two different professional-looking businesses to use as cover-- one for a mining company and the other a small farm operation, complete with web sites, business cards, and contacts with suppliers. He educated himself on farm practices and learned all the appropriate terminology in order to appear legitimate. Following media reports of the Oslo attacks, several agricultural supply companies notified authorities that he had purchased fertilizer and chemicals from them. They did not report him earlier because his orders fell within expected norms and he appeared to be operating a legitimate business.
He acquired all his non-suspicious equipment first and had it in place before attempting or even inquiring about the chemicals and weapons whose purchase is monitored by the government.
He kept all the equipment that might arouse suspicion far from his home. Using internet imagery, he identified a remote forested area three to four hours away from him residence where he hid things like the police uniform and insignia, body armour, etc. in a waterproof pelican case.
At every stage, he took great care to clean as much of his digital trail as he could, to include routinely purging and destroying hard drives.
As the date of his attack approached, his OPSEC grew more intensive. He planned his travel in a manner designed to limit contact with authorities, often taking routes that would add hours to his journey; he structured purchases and financial transactions in a manner designed to avoid tripping automated reporting requirements and paid cash whenever possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: disenting opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
What does it have to do with terrorism? The guy's goal was killing people, not scaring the society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Huh? Did you somehow miss the 1500 page manifesto he wrote, his ties to right-wing organisations and politically motivated targets?
How is that not terrorism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is absolutely no way he didn't understand the amount of fear his actions would cause. So, even if the killing was primary and the fear the secondary motive, he was still a terrorist.
That's my opinion of course, and it may change as more evidence comes to light. But, he's a terrorist in my view with the information available now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
killing people for political purposes is terrorism. to quote wikepedia:
Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).
anything more than a cursory glance at the news (even fox) would tell you that this guy had motives that were expressly political.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The motives were political, but it doesn't matter since he did not to create terror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds”
“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can”
"Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty”
"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams quotes (American patriot and Politician of the American Revolution. 1722-1803)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thomas Jefferson:
"I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers.
To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."
"The principle of spending money to be paid by future generations, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep, voting on what to eat for dinner; Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coming elsewhere too
It's very hard for anyone in power to respond to a horrific tragedy by doing nothing, but if the track record of post-terrorist-attack legislation is anything to go by, "nothing" would be a refreshing change.
Yes. I thought the speech by Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg linked from here a couple of days ago, responding to the tragedy, was incredibly brave, dignified and statesmanlike.
It basically said, despite this horrific violence, we're going to continue doing what we've been doing, only more so. Your actions won't provoke us to oppress our people. Your actions won't incite us to take action against any groups living within our borders. In fact, you've already lost.
"If one man can show so much hate, imagine how much love we all can show together."
Our answer is more democracy, more openness and more humanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coming elsewhere too
"Our answer is more democracy, more openness and more humanity."
Some of the most powerful rhetoric I have read since the founding fathers.
If the leaders of the nations surrounding Norway would only be as brave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frog in the Pot Syndrome
> bombing in Norway is that they are isolated
> instances. The shock and horror of the event
> tends to overwhelm the common sense of
> politicians, law enforcement and the press
> itself, leading to unfortunate efforts like
> these
Exactly. The city of Chicago has turned into a war zone, with many times the number of people killed this year by thugs than were killed in Oslo. But because it happens in increments of two to three a night instead of all at once, the shock and horror is greatly diminished, and you don't see the Mayor of Chicago demanding surveillance powers over the internet to stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taxes
> removed. There may be discussions about
> oversight issues or possible detrimental
> effects, but bad legislation tends to be
> permanent.
This is even more true of taxes. There's no such thing as a "temporary tax" and if you believe any politician who's trying to sell you on one, come see me next. I have some stuff to sell you, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response Time
The cause of this problem is the unwritten law of policing: "Always make sure that at the end of your shift you go home alive." The police never want to show up when there might be armed bad guys around. If they have a choice, they always wait until the bad guys have gone or run out of ammunition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]