After Endless Demonization Of Encryption, Police Find Paris Attackers Coordinated Via Unencrypted SM
37 replies, posted
[QUOTE]In the wake of the tragic events in Paris last week encryption has continued to be a [URL="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151115/23360632822/as-predicted-encryption-haters-are-already-blaming-snowden-paris-attacks.shtml"]useful bogeyman[/URL] for those with a voracious appetite for surveillance expansion. Like clockwork, numerous reports were quickly circulated suggesting that the terrorists used incredibly sophisticated encryption techniques, despite [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/world/europe/encrypted-messaging-apps-face-new-scrutiny-over-possible-role-in-paris-attacks.html"]no evidence by investigators that this was the case[/URL]. These reports varied in the amount of hallucination involved, the New York Times even [URL="http://www.insidesources.com/new-york-times-article-blaming-encryption-paris-attacks/"]having to pull one such report offline[/URL]. Other claims the attackers had used encrypted Playstation 4 communications also [URL="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-the-baseless-terrorists-communicating-over-playstation-4-rumor-got-started"]wound up being bunk[/URL].
Yet pushed by their sources in the government, the media quickly became a sound wall of noise suggesting that encryption was [URL="http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-terror-attacks/are-isis-geeks-using-phone-apps-encryption-spread-terror-n464131"]hampering the government's ability to stop these kinds of attacks[/URL]. NBC was particularly breathless this week over the idea that ISIS was now running a [URL="http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-terror-attacks/isis-has-help-desk-terrorists-staffed-around-clock-n464391"]24 hour help desk [/URL]aimed at helping its less technically proficient members understand encryption (even cults help each other use technology, who knew?). All of the reports had one central, underlying drum beat implication: Edward Snowden and encryption have made us less safe, and if you disagree the blood is on your hands.
Yet amazingly enough, as actual investigative details emerge, it appears that most of the communications between the attackers was [URL="https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/signs-point-to-unencrypted-communications-between-terror-suspects/"]conducted via unencrypted vanilla SMS[/URL].[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151118/08474732854/after-endless-demonization-encryption-police-find-paris-attackers-coordinated-via-unencrypted-sms.shtml[/url]
Insert expensive shoes into politician and lobbyist mouths.
Hopefully this won't cause more anti-encryption movements from politicians.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;49142359]Hopefully this won't cause more anti-encryption movements from politicians.[/QUOTE]
The point is that despite them using unencrypted communication methods they failed to prevent the attack anyhow. Meaning that even if they had all the unencrypted data available to them they couldn't necessarily stop attacks with it. It's a blow to anti-encryption arguments.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49142390]The point is that despite them using unencrypted communication methods they failed to prevent the attack anyhow. Meaning that even if they had all the unencrypted data available to them they couldn't necessarily stop attacks with it. It's a blow to anti-encryption arguments.[/QUOTE]Though it can be twisted in support of increased monitoring NSA style
hiding right under the nose, eh.
One dumbass jihadist with a history of dumbassery gets caught using unencrypted SMS, and people talk like that discounts the warnings of the entire multinational intelligence community that encryption represents a problem for surveillance.
Oh, and I like how the article leaves out that the only unencrypted communication that's been released is the one commencing the attack. You know, the point where it wouldn't matter if anyone intercepted the message, because they've already started shooting. They're just making the assumption that no encryption was used [i]anywhere else in the planning[/i], because it's conducive to the clickbaity headline they want to run.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49142471]One dumbass jihadist with a history of dumbassery gets caught using unencrypted SMS, and people talk like that discounts the warnings of the entire multinational intelligence community that encryption represents a problem for surveillance.
Oh, and I like how the article leaves out that the only unencrypted communication that's been released is the one commencing the attack. You know, the point where it wouldn't matter if anyone intercepted the message, because they've already started shooting. They're just making the assumption that no encryption was used [i]anywhere else in the planning[/i], because it's conducive to the clickbaity headline they want to run.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but I don't want people breaking into my private messages in the name of security, especially when the net benefit is only [i]possibly[/i] preventing a number of deaths that is frankly a rounding error.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49142471]One dumbass jihadist with a history of dumbassery gets caught using unencrypted SMS, and people talk like that discounts the warnings of the entire multinational intelligence community that encryption represents a problem for surveillance.
Oh, and I like how the article leaves out that the only unencrypted communication that's been released is the one commencing the attack. You know, the point where it wouldn't matter if anyone intercepted the message, because they've already started shooting. They're just making the assumption that no encryption was used [i]anywhere else in the planning[/i], because it's conducive to the clickbaity headline they want to run.[/QUOTE]
Having mandatory backdoors and intentional security compromises represents a huge problem for banking, secure browsing and keeping sensitive stuff private. Until the government can prove otherwise the changes they are suggesting are putting us in more danger than they are saving us from.
Law makers suddenly want encryption laws, IS attacks france with encrypted coordination, and now we have a reason to get these laws passed.
Just a little convenient...
Since I love spreading propaganda... the [B]US [/B][URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7GAbVhjTSw"]is[/URL] [B]ISIS[/B]. But no one wants to talk about that.
Mandatory backdoors are stupid. Terrorists would just switch to something that has no backdoors. This is a game of cat and mouse that cannot be won.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49142471]One dumbass jihadist with a history of dumbassery gets caught using unencrypted SMS, and people talk like that discounts the warnings of the entire multinational intelligence community that encryption represents a problem for surveillance.
Oh, and I like how the article leaves out that the only unencrypted communication that's been released is the one commencing the attack. You know, the point where it wouldn't matter if anyone intercepted the message, because they've already started shooting. They're just making the assumption that no encryption was used [i]anywhere else in the planning[/i], because it's conducive to the clickbaity headline they want to run.[/QUOTE]
Here's the thing though, just because you decrypt their messages technologically doesn't mean you can understand or decipher their meaning if they use code or do their preparation in person.
Not to mention that there's just too much data to sift in real time.
Now, here's the other thing, enforcing anti-encryption means opening up giant security flaws into everything that complies meaning a LOT more user information/database leaks and personal information would be compromised en-masse. It's the government going "Oh hey, we know you want to have salted hashed passwords in encrypted databases and stuff but we also want you to have a 'special' key that lets us access everything easily too. What stops hackers from exploiting that functionality? Time to figure out how?
I could understand if they want to mandate that all communication sent via mobile data/phone be accessible for them because that has a kind of reasonable scope of application and doesn't inherently put users quite as much risk, but it's still really sketchy.
It's a really big can of technical worms that people who don't understand these systems are asking to open.
[quote] the idea that ISIS was now running a 24 hour help desk aimed at helping its less technically proficient members understand encryption[/quote]
When a terrorist organization has a 24 hour help desk for helping people become more secure...
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49142534]Yeah, but I don't want people breaking into my private messages in the name of security, especially when the net benefit is only [i]possibly[/i] preventing a number of deaths that is frankly a rounding error.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49142566]Having mandatory backdoors and intentional security compromises represents a huge problem for banking, secure browsing and keeping sensitive stuff private. Until the government can prove otherwise the changes they are suggesting are putting us in more danger than they are saving us from.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49142599]It's a really big can of technical worms that people who don't understand these systems are asking to open.[/QUOTE]
I did not say a [i]single thing[/i] about banning encryption like some lawmakers want.
Whether or not any backdoor to encryption is justified is completely beside the fact that by taking one unencrypted message and using it to say the Paris attackers didn't use encryption, this article is doing the same assumptive behavior they're accusing other news groups of doing, or the fact that one example of unencrypted communication doesn't prove that fears over terrorists using encryption are totally unfounded.
This is Infowars-tier journalism here. Wait for the facts. We've had enough knee-jerk reactions already.
[QUOTE=old_hag12;49142588]Law makers suddenly want encryption laws, IS attacks france with encrypted coordination, and now we have a reason to get these laws passed.
Just a little convenient...
Since I love spreading propaganda... the [B]US [/B][URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7GAbVhjTSw"]is[/URL] [B]ISIS[/B]. But no one wants to talk about that.[/QUOTE]
this is the most tinfoil hat post i've ever seen on facepunch ngl
[QUOTE=old_hag12;49142588]Law makers suddenly want encryption laws, IS attacks france with encrypted coordination, and now we have a reason to get these laws passed.
Just a little convenient...
Since I love spreading propaganda... the [B]US [/B][URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7GAbVhjTSw"]is[/URL] [B]ISIS[/B]. But no one wants to talk about that.[/QUOTE]
I think you misread the title, it says they coordinated via [B]Un[/B]encrypted SMS.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49142647]I did not say a [i]single thing[/i] about banning encryption like some lawmakers want.
Whether or not any backdoor to encryption is justified is completely beside the fact that by taking one unencrypted message and using it to say the Paris attackers didn't use encryption, this article is doing the same assumptive behavior they're accusing other news groups of doing, or the fact that one example of unencrypted communication doesn't prove that fears over terrorists using encryption are totally unfounded.
This is Infowars-tier journalism here. Wait for the facts. We've had enough knee-jerk reactions already.[/QUOTE]
Sorry musta jumped to the wrong conclusion. Didn't intend to put words in your mouth.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49142647]I did not say a [i]single thing[/i] about banning encryption like some lawmakers want.
Whether or not any backdoor to encryption is justified is completely beside the fact that by taking one unencrypted message and using it to say the Paris attackers didn't use encryption, this article is doing the same assumptive behavior they're accusing other news groups of doing, or the fact that one example of unencrypted communication doesn't prove that fears over terrorists using encryption are totally unfounded.
This is Infowars-tier journalism here. Wait for the facts. We've had enough knee-jerk reactions already.[/QUOTE]
I don't see who's claiming terrorists are not using encryption. Only that having a way to get around encryption wouldn't stop all attacks. And that perhaps the need for anti-encryption surveillance is exaggerated.
[QUOTE=Techno-Man;49142694]I think you misread the title, it says they coordinated via [B]Un[/B]encrypted SMS.[/QUOTE]
the article says they recovered an entire cellphone so its not like there was any amount of strenuous work involved that needed any type of sophisticated technologies
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49142725]the article says they recovered an entire cellphone so its not like there was any amount of strenuous work involved that needed any type of sophisticated technologies[/QUOTE]
that's exactly what he's saying
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49142632]When a terrorist organization has a 24 hour help desk for helping people become more secure...[/QUOTE]
Wait so why isn't the NSA just focusing here instead of demanding to listen to everything in the world, the intelligence agencies already have too much stuff to adequately process and communicate to each other, having more access is stupid when it compromises our own security and makes them even more bloated and ineffective
[editline]18th November 2015[/editline]
So I imagine since these guys were underneath some European mass metadata program they should have been caught before all this happened
[QUOTE=da space core;49142591]Mandatory backdoors are stupid. Terrorists would just switch to something that has no backdoors. This is a game of cat and mouse that cannot be won.[/QUOTE]
Even if it doesn't exist, it wouldn't be that difficult for them to create their own.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49142471]One dumbass jihadist with a history of dumbassery gets caught using unencrypted SMS, and people talk like that discounts the warnings of the entire multinational intelligence community that encryption represents a problem for surveillance.
Oh, and I like how the article leaves out that the only unencrypted communication that's been released is the one commencing the attack. You know, the point where it wouldn't matter if anyone intercepted the message, because they've already started shooting. They're just making the assumption that no encryption was used [i]anywhere else in the planning[/i], because it's conducive to the clickbaity headline they want to run.[/QUOTE]
People with opinions as dangerous as your own are the reason why I encrypt everything I feasibly can.
Everyone else, be sure to install [URL="https://whispersystems.org/"]Signal[/URL] on any device you own and use any built in storage encryption you have. Drink your Ovaltine.
They the terrorists don't care because they were planning on dying anyways. What would be the point of encrypting
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;49143106]Even if it doesn't exist, it wouldn't be that difficult for them to create their own.[/QUOTE]
I don't exactly see how they'd backdoor open source software like GnuPG without anyone noticing, closed source software sure but then anyone with a brain knows not to trust closed source encryption software.
[QUOTE=1/4 Life;49143122]People with opinions as dangerous as your own are the reason why I encrypt everything I feasibly can.
Everyone else, be sure to install [URL="https://whispersystems.org/"]Signal[/URL] on any device you own and use any built in storage encryption you have. Drink your Ovaltine.[/QUOTE]
Man, I'm sure you have so many important things to encrypt like the nuclear launch codes or something.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49143265]Man, I'm sure you have so many important things to encrypt like the nuclear launch codes or something.[/QUOTE]
Just my pictures and conversations.
Is that not enough? People with your opinions are also why I encrypt everything I can.
Why me? You think I care about your porn stash?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49143393]Why me? You think I care about your porn stash?[/QUOTE]
I think I care about my family photos and conversations among myself and literally anyone else, and I think that line of thought is dangerous, especially when you're willing to make it about a 'porn stash' and de-legitimize the need for privacy. That way of thinking endangers anyone who needs to do things privately online; banking or otherwise.
[QUOTE=1/4 Life;49143348]Just my pictures and conversations.
Is that not enough? People like you are also why I encrypt everything I can.[/QUOTE]
"People like you" Like what? People who make sarcastic quips about your [I]maybe[/I] over-concern about if you think the government cares about the every day persons texts?
Lemme tell you a story real quick: I almost went full-paranoia a few months ago because of the freakout I saw about the LastPass buyout. I almost canceled my LastPass sub, installed KeePass, debated ordering a YubiKey Neo for my phone, running a VPN, getting an ecrypted email address, etc., deleting my Google accounts, the whole nine yards. I got really concerned about this shit. You know why I didn't? Because I realized [B]nobody cares.[/B] Nobody cares about what I am doing on the internet. No one cares about my text messages about meeting with my friends on Wednesdays, no one gives a shit about my budget backups I keep on Dropbox, no cares about my daily Woot.Shirt emails I keep. Why? Because I'm not doing anything wrong in the first place. Trust me, I get really nervous sometimes thinking about this stuff late at night but I do "everyday person" thinks to keep myself as private as I like to be, like actually using the privacy settings on websites to keep other random people from seeing things I don't want them to. I use a password manager that keeps my passwords random, long, and not easy to figure out unless the company itself is shit with it's password security. I use HTTPS on every website I can. I don't need to encrypt everything to keep it all safe, just backed up on a drive I know I can reach whenever I need it unless my house burns down.
Giving people shit for not [B][U][I]encrypting everything hiding everything[/I][/U][/B] is stupid and unfeasible for the average person because it's actually a pain in the ass.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.