The Paris Attacks And The Encryption/Surveillance Bogeyman: The Story So Far
from the let's-review dept
Okay, let's review. On Friday, a horrific and tragic series of attacks took place in Paris. And then:- Surveillance state apologists blame Ed Snowden, insisting that he has "blood on his hands" because the terrorists must have learned how to avoid surveillance from his releases.
- Hysterical politicians blame encryption for the attacks, insisting that tech companies and basic math are clearly to blame.
- The Manhattan DA and others call for end-to-end encryption to be banned (while amusingly insisting they're not calling for a ban).
- Senator John McCain promises to outlaw end-to-end encryption despite the fact that there is still no actual evidence that encryption was the issue at all.
Of course, over the past few days, the following has happened:
- It turns out the attackers used unencrypted SMS to communicate. All the hand-wringing over encryption and "learning from Snowden" appears to have been exaggerated.
- There is no evidence that mass surveillance has ever stopped an attack which seems to raise some important questions about why it's such a focus.
- It turns out some of the attackers were already known to the intelligence community and law enforcement, and yet they failed to make use of existing powers and authorities to prevent the attacks.
- And, for good measure, there still remains little actual evidence that terrorists have changed anything in how they communicate post-Snowden. That last one is from a study from a year ago, but does seem relevant.
Yes, preventing terrorism is important. And it would be great if the intelligence community were actually able to do that. But it seems pretty clear that mass surveillance techniques aren't doing much to help at all, though it is diminishing the privacy of everyday citizens. Perhaps before rushing to expand the surveillance state and undermine the encryption that actually does keep us all safe, we should recognize reality, rather than the fantasy-land pronouncements of FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan and their friends.
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: encryption, going dark, intelligence community, paris attacks, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ah, this takes me back.
Yeah. It's clear that their agenda has absolutely nothing to do with whatever it is they're talking about. They just want to ensure money gets funneled to the 'appropriate' beneficiaries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah, this takes me back.
That goes for any politician, in any situation.
Get to keep your health care... just kidding?
Close Guantanamo.. or not!!
Immigration reform..... or mass influx of voters/terrorists?
Their all corrupt. The Republicans are known for tax breaks for the rich, and the Democrats are known for providing cheap immigrant labor for the rich. Both parties have Pro's for the rich, and both have Con's... but to say one side is better or worse than the other is just naive. They don't stay rich by being stupid, they hedge all bets equally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ah, this takes me back.
This has been the status quo for our federal government since I can remember.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ah, this takes me back.
it's not that difficult
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ah, this takes me back.
it's not that difficult
The internet disagrees with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah, this takes me back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ah, this takes me back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ah, this takes me back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's like the "thanks Obama!" meme. I stubbed my toe. Thanks Obama! Bad people do bad things somewhere in the world. Thanks Snowden! Someone shoots up a school Thanks gun control!
It's all just random bogey man association. I'm tempted to write a blame generator that matches up events with people/things to blame just to get all the bullshit claims out of the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the Big Brother effect
In both 1984 (the novel) and the real-life implementation in East Germany with the Stasi - the secret police were one of the biggest organizations in the country. And in both cases, there was still nefarious underground dealings going on for a long time.
The problem is, computers still can't competently monitor and track. So the manpower required to "follow" someone of interest simply exceeds what the typical intelligence group can do. If you do become a person of interest (usually after the fact) they can find out a lot about you; but finding the triggers beforehand is still close to impossible.
After all, automation is more likely to generate false positives, which means wasted manpower chasing them down. And, as the TSA has amply demonstrated, adding manpower does not mean you get competent, dedicated agents; which makes the result less than useless.
Then there's the issue of consolidating diverse data... but we knew that was a problem back in the late 60's with "The Anderson Tapes".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Humans are horrible, evil, emotional, wonderful, loving, slightly crazy beings... we've evolved physically and mentally, but emotionally we've changed very little. We may evolve in a few more thousand years, if we survive that long, into that loving, sharing, caring, hand holding society. But as long as their are finite resources, were going to lie, cheat, over-eat.. and knock each other flat!! Bet you never saw another animal.. act like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or, you could read the actual book it was based on. Hollywood's cartoon version was cute and easy to watch, but have you read the book? I've read lots more, far more entertaining, books in recent years than what Hollywood's producing lately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes there is. Sex. A female bear will not come into heat when they already have cubs. The males kill the cubs so the female will come into heat and he can have sex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do male bears understand that cubs supress heat in female bears, and in order to sex up the female bears, they kill the cubs? That would imply some kind of intelligence and long term memory in the mail bears and lack of memory in female bears. That is, the femail bears would have to not be able to remember that a male bear killed her cubs when sexin' time roles around.
I think, instead, that male bears who killed and ate cubs were (a) nourished by tender cub meat, and (b) able to survive long enough to inseminate the now-cubless female bears. After a while, the propensity to kill cubs spreads around the population. No intelligence or design needed, so let's not postulate intelligence or design, and let's not talk as if such exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
prevention vs prosecution
Do you think the giant cache of records the NSA has collected might be useful after the attack? As terrorist identities are learned, presumably the NSA is tracking down where these people traveled, who they spoke to, etc... Even though massive surveillance might be useless for prevention, it could be very valuable after-the-fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: prevention vs prosecution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: prevention vs prosecution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: prevention vs prosecution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
• Surveillance
• Immigration
• Refugees
• Snowden
• Religion
• Political Opponents
• Anyone who doesn't want war
• 'Pacifists'
etc...
Pick one or create your own bogeyman... instant profit awaits you and your cause!
100% Guaranteed To Make You Look Stronger And Reduce Dandruff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terrorism is not the problem.
Treating symptoms is not necessarily bad: it makes the patient feel better. But it should not be mistaken for a cure.
The problem in this case is that western governments have meddled in a situation that has historically been volatile -- and they've made it worse. Much worse.
And none of them will address this, because doing so would require admitting that their own responsibility.
Meanwhile, US politicians and demagogues are doing the terrorists' work for them by demonizing (variously) refugees, encryption, privacy, Muslims, the Constitution, Syrians, security, etc. They are thus pouring gasoline on a fire that's already raging.
I hate to write this, but I think things will get worse -- MUCH worse -- before they get any better. I desperately hope I'm wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Terrorism is not the problem.
I already accept that we're heading back into Dark Ages 2.0/dystopian future. With nitwits like these in control, could it be any different? They don't even appear to be trying. They're more fixated on growing their budget and keeping up appearances, not fixing what's broken.
I'm just glad I won't live to see it hit bottom. The rest of you have my sympathies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snowden didn't release anything. The Guardian, Washington Post, NY Times, Der Speigel, and the Intercept among others did the vetting and releasing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What a lot of people don't know is that Snowden secretly owns and runs all those. So he's getting rich off of selling America out while he's over there in Russia partying his ass off with Putin. But we'll get him someday, you just wait and see!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Based on what I've seen of their recent performance, it doesn't appear they can find their dick (or, you know) if you handed it to them. They're working from another playbook than we think they should be. "Results? What're those? Gimme more money!!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/dont-blame-edward-snowden-for-the-paris-attacks? intcid=mod-latest
worth a read, in my humble. the question mark in the link must be part of the linkin', abe. the article title has none.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Point 5
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In some of those cases, the people were well armed and already working on their next attack.
You guys go on and on here about "innocent until proven guilty", yet you mock police and law enforcement for not picking up potential terrorists before something happens. Remember, some of these guys (and girls) were born and raised in France, Belgium, and other EU countries. Do you wish to deny them their rights "because terrorism"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mocking the police happens largely because of the sheer scale of surveillance demanded. Yet, whether the police are actually better at picking up potential terrorists very much remains to be seen. Everyone knows you're a sucker for police apologetics, but in the real world, you generally don't get praised if you demand favors and perks to do something, and end up doing that something horribly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, they really should say that they need mass surveillance to keep survivors of a first attack safe from a second one, not to keep us safe in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The GOP Platform
"It's too soon to politicize this. This isn't the right time to have knee-jerk reactions. We should be praying for the victims and their families."
On terrorist attacks:
"The time to act is now. Snowden this, surveillance that, lock-down, yada yada, fear, loud noises, Patriot Act, tough talk."
...although, to be fair, plenty of dems are caught up in that second one. But the GOP cognitive dissonance is strong between the above two events.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
can you blame them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Basic
I don't think I'd call it basic, cryptography is fairly advanced math isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Basic
The gory details of how it's implemented can get pretty complex (this algorithm, then this algorithm on top of that, yada, yada), but I think I learned all I needed to know about prime numbers in about grade three. The concept works no matter how big the numbers are. Happily, we've got these computer thingamahooeys that make that bit easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Basic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their are ALREADY laws TODAY to deal with those that take life, its called CRIMINAL law, criminal law that is us much for bad folks as it is for bad governments, were you have to DEFINE why this person is criminal as the law is written, and give PROOF before sentence
Terrorism is the excuse to tyrn a fake representative government, into a dictatorship
Its sickening that they are most certainly gonna get away with it, to many deluded or just plain stupid people backing them
"Terrorists"/government two sides to the same damn coin, both think force and violence the answer, no way are you gonna get peace if its forced..........bloodthirsty scoundrels, freaking war mongerers, the empires are still here, and have even more practice manipulating the public
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How easily the veneer of civilization falls away.
"French Authorities Identify Body of Suspected Ringleader of Paris Attacks"
"Suspected Ringleader"
We don't need no stinking due process or proof no more.
And if it turns out somewhere down the road that the French learn that he was not the mastermind and did not even participate in the attacks.... meh!
----
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How easily the veneer of civilization falls away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How easily the veneer of civilization falls away.
And the takeaway is, "We got him. We killed the fscker! We're sooooo good!"
Well, except for all the innocent victim's bodies lying around that is. By the way, do you have any proof he was the ringleader, and was he on any of your watch lists, and how'd he manage to pull this off if so? Just curious.
"Give us more money and maybe one of these days we can stop it from happening in the first place." Wait a second. How much more's it going to cost, 'cause I think you're already getting a !#$load of money, and look what we get from it? When do we see actual results, instead of excuses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rememeber:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]