How hard can it be to kick terrorists off the web? Tech bosses, US govt bods thrash it out Senior US government executives and Silicon Valley's tech captains are sitting down together in San Jose, California, on Friday to try and sort out a way to combat terrorism online. The meeting, will include Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, National Intelligence Director James Clapper and National …
The problem the intelligence community is stuck with is that it has lost the trust of the people it is supposed to serve. Neither Apple, Google nor anyone else can repair that trust for them, it's a job they have to do themselves. Frankly, I don't see how they can do that but a useful first step would be to stop all the bluster and admit it publicly. A few resignations would be the next step. Then someone with clean hands will have to do the hard work.
This post has been deleted by its author
1. The existence of blowback as a concept. If necessary read the 1960-es CIA operation manuals and white papers. Ditto for KGB the, FSB now.
2. That Bush (Senior) and RayGun are f*** idiots.
Prior to them CIA took into account blowback and long term effects in planning operations. This changed during Bush (S) and RayGun tenures with Afghanistan (Bush Junior was a mere continuation of that tradition). Operations against USSR were planned regardless of blowback on a multi-billion $ scale.
We are now paying for that. If we did not show the Saudis and Qatari just how successful psychotics proselytizing their ideology can be, they would have still used their petrodollars on buying Ferraris, expensive w***res and an occasional Boeing 747. Now they use it to fund Daesh according to the playbook CIA wrote for Afghanistan. The difference is that the target is no longer USSR. It is now USA and whole of Europe.
And so on.
"Admit what exactly?"
Exactly what I said: that they have lost the trust of the people.
The people who object to being spied on. The people who are the customers demanding end-to-end encryption of Apple etc's services. The people who are the demos in democracy. The people whose taxes pay their salaries. The people for whom they are supposed to work.
Clear enough?
Missed the edit window.
The security community also need to accept that there is no magic bullet to solve their encryption problems. Code for strong encryption has been generally available for a couple of decades. It's not going to become suddenly unavailable.
Mandating weak encryption or key escrow systems are not going to satisfy public needs. If such restriction on strong encryption were imposed on suppliers in their jurisdiction the public would simply turn to suppliers from outside. If such external software were made illegal then the general public would suffer but anyone wanting to use strong encryption for illegal purposes would not be affected. As I've written here previously, you do not dissuade people who are or are planning to break laws by furnishing them with more laws to break.
The security community has a real problem with widespread use of strong encryption. It's a problem entirely of their own making. They can't blame anyone else. And frankly I don't see what they can do about it now except live with it.
those who have a long a memory in the business as I have will remember this was already tried...and failed.....
back in the 90s strong encryption was classed as a 'munition' by the US and could not be exported.
So we had 2 versions of windows - one with 128 bit keys for good ol USA and one with 56-bit keys (international version) for the rest of the world.
So what did the rest of the world do:
a) bought all their software retail in New York as someone was passing through - hence we all got 'US' version regardless
b) anyone who needed real encryption bought it from Israel or Estonia - who were only too happy to supply proper software
eventually the thing was repealed after lobbying from US tech companies pointing out how much money they were losing.....
I think that's really what this meeting is about. The intelligence community is coming to the tech companies and saying sorry (not publicly, that would be too much) and asking for their help, "cos we can't fight terrorism without you."
At least, I hope that this is the beginning of the big realisation dawning. But the intelligence community is not (so far) making it easier on themselves...
Icon: well obviously
"The intelligence community is coming to the tech companies and saying sorry (not publicly, that would be too much) "
If you're right it's a good start but publicly is not too much, it's what's needed. However I don't see the tech companies being able to help the community out of their hole. If they were to try they'd simply find their customers turning against them and looking elsewhere for secure apps.
And yet, by doing that, they make themselves more vulnerable to enemy action by providing a ready-made, robust solution instead of a homebrew job which can be hit or miss. The one big bug-a-boo about freedom is that it can always be turned against you. Heck, according to the opening of Genesis, GOD learned that the hard way.
@Charles 9
"And yet, by doing that, they make themselves more vulnerable to enemy action by providing a ready-made, robust solution"
And yet at the same time, they make themselves less vulnerable to enemy action by keeping the enemy from studying their every action through weak encryption. Don't imagine for one moment that back doors won't get leaked.
I'd rather an enemy find it difficult to target me than find it difficult to get away after targetting me.
The enemy doesn't NEED backdoors, just a general idea. Unlike us, bound by Rules of Engagement, the enemy can attack indiscriminately. There's no such thing as neutrals to them: there's allies, enemies, and sympathizers, and the latter two are fair game. Thus civilians get targeted instead of, say, military installations.
There. Is. No. Robust. Solution.
There is only correct encryption, requiring a disproportionate amount of time* to decrypt without the key, and broken encryption. If it's broken, not only the ones who wanted it broken can decrypt it. Also, as mentioned already, anyone knowing what's up is going to stay clear of that robust solution, sticking with the correct solutions already available.
* getting encrypted messages deciphered before the terrorist actions they might describe are executed is kind of crucial in this respect, isn't it?
@Charles 9 in answer to ...Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
It is actually desperation .... when you have no other choice you will ask *anyone* for help.
This includes the people who have helped to stir up the problems in the first place.
Playing power games in other countries with little success has a downside.
The 'downside' is also not able to recognise national boundaries and is contaminating the lives and politics of other countries.
"As you sow so shall you reap", I think is the correct phrase.
But what downsides are there back home? Before you say "terrorism," note that some people hate you for your mere existence. I believe they call that, "Haters gonna hate."
As far as the home turf is concerned, doing nothing is not an option, and the people DEMAND a robust solution. Otherwise, they'll vote you out. So what's a country who demands they be doing something effective to do when there is NO such thing as something effective to do?
"So what's a country who demands they be doing something effective to do when there is NO such thing as something effective to do?"
For starters, the country (and here I mean "the government", which I think you meant) should: Be honest, take a firm stance of "Freedom requires some sacrifices, and we will not become the proxy actors for those who want to change the way we live", and have really big parades for the trivially small number of people killed by "terrorists". On top of that, act as if they don't want control over every single aspect of citizens' lives, and respect that different people may have different views about things.
It isn't as difficult as you think/
What you do is play a different game.
This game is called 'Security Theatre (Volume Two)' !!
You know that you cannot control the situation as the 'Box' has already been opened. (Pandora-wise.)
You make loud noises about the loss of control that has been forced upon you by naughty Global Organisations that are too focused on their profits.
You ask them to recant their belief in 'Privacy for all' and to give the keys to their kingdom to the Govt to allow, for the greater good, 'honest Joe/Joanna' at the GCHQ and/or NSA to see/hear/read/record all that you do to facilitate the capture of the 'Naughty Terrorists'.
(Please do not concern yourself with any 'facts' concerning whether it is reasonable or doable or even if it will achieve any meaningful objective. !!)
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear ..... yet!!
But just in case we will make 'Hiding' illegal anyway. !!
This of course gives the Govt of the day a nice diversion away from the real issues and a ready-made scapegoat to blame for the problems.
By time the diversion has been seen through and ignored, the 'fact' has been established that surveillance of the masses is a justified act for the greater good of all.
The rules of who is or isn't a threat (Real or Potential) are now open to be 'adjusted and corrected' as the political landscape evolves.
Today you are an upright citizen supporting your Govt (or at least not opposing it), tomorrow you are a statistic in a fight against the hidden 5th column in our midst (or so the rhetoric will say).
If you think this is not possible you are yet another person who ignores History and its tendency to repeat. (Usually because you did 'ignore History' and think that it could only happen in the past because people are not that 'stupid/gullible/manipulable' now.)
Meanwhile the 'Real Terrorists' continue as before but this time lost in the background noise of the 'Potential Terrorists' being dealt with according to the 'new & improved' laws of the land.
and of course its not helped by the fact that discussion is always exclusively about the right/privacy of US citizens......so the other 5.5Bn of us don't matter.
Now I know that is US politics - but how many phones are Apple/Samsung/Microsoft etc gonna sell if the rest of world thinks the US govt has a back door (even if it is 'only' used to spy on foreigners who don't vote in the US).
The intelligence community have been spoiled by the rapid expansion of insecure electronic communication. Either they get quantum computing running (where the assumption is that it take so much effort to break the encription that they can only focus in select targets. Or stop spending so much on bulk storage systems and hire more people willing to die for their country as spies.
You're probably closer to the truth than you think. The FBI director is a political appointment, not one based on this technical or legal expertise so he answers to political masters. He's still thinking of the previous 20-30 years of how information was culled. Much like the military always fights the "last war".
We've been through this here and I'm sure the experts have counseled the government execs on the tech aspects but it hasn't sunk in. They still must "do something" and whatever they do will be as ineffective as they are doing now (probably more ineffective) or expose everyone to the miscreants worse we are exposed now.
Our politicians (especially now that election silly season is underway) are prone to wanting to be seen doing something about terrorists, paedophiles, and whatever else they can use to get elected and stay elected.
All the politicians ever seem to think about are the children
In starting to seriously ask them to stop thinking about children and start thinking about doing their jobs instead.
I mean it's not as if politicians who think about children are generally the sort I'd want within a 10 mile radius of mine.
All the politicians ever seem to think about are the children
Of course they do. This is exactly why I do not let my children out of my sight anywhere near them.
I am happy to let my kids roam free with no supervision anywhere they like (and they do) when we are on holidays. Only condition is that they stick together and take a phone with them.
Near politicos? No way. They definitely think about the children. Waaaay too much in fact.
The debates over encryption are still confused over the difference between the physical and virtual world.
In the physical world you (dear commentard) and I both know that a burglar could get in to our home reasonably easily unless we protect it properly. Unfortunately our family members insist on windows and doors that only need a simple key that never changes to open. So we have to compromise and go easy on the bits of welded on angle iron, spiked pits and gun turrets. At least we don't have to worry about anyone, for absolutely anywhere in the world, turning up at the house.
In the virtual world anyone from a Jehovah's witness to the Chinese People's Army could appear at my front door at any time and they don't even bother to knock first before looking through the windows. A bunch of tossers from Eastern Europe, the US and Spain (according to GeoIP) are currently doing this right now at my place.
Fuck terrorism causing knee jerk drop the only protections we have: I want to see initiatives like enforcing IP addresses -> Country (not thought through completely) or advice on how to keep baddies out. I want to hear how my country's law enforcement have screwed up some baddies.
I do not want to feel like a hacker(cracker) for knowing how to use nmap and wireshark. I really want to see ubiquitous encryption: otherwise the entire world can hear me, not just people within earshot.
You, Sir, would make a perfect representative or congressman. You are just as clueless about how encryption and the internet works, as those demanding backdoors and the ban on terrorists.
In reality, everything you are demanding could only hurt the honest citizens, but would be completely ineffective against anybody with bad intentions, like the terrorists.
I'll admit to being pissed when I write the above but a large part of my job is "IT Security Consultant". I will not make a very good representative or congressman due to my RP accent, tinged with Somerset. I probably wouldn't make a very good American to be honest.
I have a very good idea how encryption and the internet works, thank you. Modesty precludes any willy waving at this point ...
My wife and I had a conversation on this issue years ago and decided that we were more worried about burning to death or dying of smoke inhallation in a fire than burglars, who are by and large not interested in doing lots of extra time for murdering householders. So, to get out of our house at night or any other time it is occupied you do not need a key.
That makes it easier for a burglar to enter, but not silently. I locked myself out a couple of years ago and couldn’t persuade a locksmith to visit at 5pm on a Tuesday. My garage was unlocked so I utilised a screwdriver, hammer and a card scraper and got myself back in. The need to do that again has been solved too. No ammount of careful pushing and wiggling worked, it took lots of noisy banging the hammer. A credit card was nowhere near strong enough. At night that is not possible unless the lock fails and our neighbours’ door (semi detached) is right net to ours and it can be hard to tell which door has been knocked.
So I reckon we are pretty safe. When the house is empty, a deadlock is engaged. I was lucky when I locked myself out that without keys I couldn’t engage the deadlock. A case of the wrong trousers.
One: First define "terrorism". Seriously. You can't. It's a catch-all word, designed to lump statistically meaningless events brought about by isolated politically & religiously intolerant xenophobic nutcases under one umbrella, thus making the "threat" seem real. Hint, .gov: I don't feel terrorized, despite all your efforts.
Two: "The Children" need proper parenting. The .gov needs to stay out of it.
Define terrorism? Simple. Blowing up innocent people by planting or carrying bombs on the ground is vile cowardly terrorism. Blowing up vastly greater numbers of innocent people by dropping bombs from the safety of a plane far above them, or from a video game console thousands of miles away, is heroic defence of freedom.
First define "terrorism". Seriously. You can't.
Of course you can.
It's an approach taken by a minority who cannot, through persuasion or direct force, achieve their aims. They therefore attempt to scare (terrorize) ordinary people so much that those people do what the minority wants, out of fear of the consequences.
There aren't enough people in organizations like ISIL to actually destroy, every restaurant in Paris, or to bankrupt every airline in the US, but attack enough restaurants or planes and people will stop using them, which achives the same end result. Banning encryption plays into their hands, since it limits people's freedom and makes them wary of their governments, which is the aim of groups like ISIL.
Equally, or course, there is no way in a free society to prevent all such acts, even the most extreme police state can't manage that, so the only defence against terrorism is courage. People have to realize that they are in reality very unlikely to be hurt by any terrorist attack, and have to carry on normal life as much as possible, just as we did in N.Ireland and other parts of the UK for 30-odd years.
Politicians, of course, will not accept this. They are supposed to be "in charge", and certainly want to be, so they have to be seen to be doing something. Since there is nothing practical they can do, they invent plausible stuff instead.
It's an approach taken by a minority who cannot, through persuasion or direct force, achieve their aims. They therefore attempt to scare (terrorize) ordinary people so much that those people do what the minority wants, out of fear of the consequences.
Where do you draw the line between "persuasion" and "terrorism"? Some examples:
- "If you don't stop burning so many fossil fuels, growing areas of the world will become uninhabitable and the resulting mass migrations of people will lead to World War Three"
- "If you don't drive on the correct side of the road, you will very likely suffer a head-on collision and die"
- "If you don't do what my holy book says you should, you will go to Hell"
- "If you don't buck up your ideas and work harder, I'll fire you"
One possible divider would be that terrorists don't just warn, they threaten - it's not just "these things will happen because of impersonal laws beyond our direct control", but "we will do these things to you". But even so, the last of these examples looks like terrorism.
Where would you draw the line?
Unusually, I agree absolutely with jake on this one, and partly for the reasons veti has outlined. For example, the actions of the police in the Jean Charles de Menezes case could easily be seen a terrorism, whilst the killing of Lee Rigby could easily be seen as not terrorism (just another couple of nutters killing someone for racist or other reasons). The term "terrorism" has no real meaning, and is used as a trigger word to get the public to do or agree to something that may not be in their interests. It is used to by-pass critical analysis of suggestions such as (on topic) "We need to have weak[ened] encryption". The risks from other, more common, forms of criminal activity are far higher, and far more likely to occur, from reducing encryption than any benefits with regard to terrorism.
It would be so good if we were governed by people who thought about more than their popularity ratings ...
"They are supposed to be "in charge" No, they aren't. They are supposed to serving their constituencies, the people who voted them into office, and those that unsuccessfully voted against them too.
"Since there is nothing practical they can do, they invent plausible stuff instead." If it has been invented (in this context), it isn't plausible. It sounds plausible, and may even make a weird kind of sense, but regardless of their intent, it isn't plausible.
I have serious concerns about the Security Services calls for the insertion of a "Back Door" into security software, so that they can gain access to messages between terrorists. Completely illogical, because it will be broken into, sooner or later. Besides, what terrorist is going to use security software that has a government back door?
So if they think they can identify terrorists can't they think of something more effective to do than blocking them from facebook and twitter?
If you were monitoring terrorist communications on the phone or social or any other media the last thing you would do it force disconnect them from that media so you could not monitor them any more.
They can't possibly be talking about kicking terrorists off the web, they are talking about kicking off large groups of people or areas or countries because they might include some terrorists.
Or more likely they are talking about pathetic gesturing, kicking off anyone who vaguely whiffs of being a terrorist but almost certainly isn't.
The ferals are showing their inane stupidity. The nature of the Internet and social media makes it very difficult to stop any frowned upon activity. RIAA/MPAA play wack-a-mole with torrent sites everyday and it still occurs For a largish terrorist group to stay online only takes a few very technically adept people to do, probably on the order of 3 to 5.
Assume for just his purposes, every bit of encryption were eliminated from the internet, only for authorized government agencies. Now what. I'd like to know exactly how the FBI, or other TLA, is going to identify communications between terrorists. How, be specific about the technology you'll be using, the actual costs of the hardware, and especially the operational costs of having enough agents to actually do something with your new found wealth of communications.
The restriction of encryption, for or against, is irrelevant. Even with 100% visibility into all the conversations nets the TLA's nothing as they wouldn't ever have enough resources to actually do something with the information glut. Case in point is that there encryption hasn't been used in any of the recent terrorist attacks. Purely SMS and unencrypted voice calls. 100% visibility. 0% detection.
Backdoors to encryption would (be a bad idea but) deal with ciphers.
To tackle codes, you need humint. Codes are harder to use, but that hasn't stopped clandestine orgs using them for hundreds of years. We used them to talk to the resistance in plain english radio in WW2 and we didn't give a shit that the Germans were listening, because unless they knew what "Joe is walking the dog" REALLY meant, hearing it did them no good.
Backdooring won't protect anyone, but will damage many.
The trouble with HumInt is that the enemy is getting wise to those tactics. If the only way into the inner circle is to publicly kill and enemy soldier (therefore branding you a traitor), then it's a one-way trip. "Blood in, blood out" is becoming increasingly common as PsychOps help to make sure that inner circle ops don't talk.
I don't get the obsession with getting to the inner circle. Turning a blind eye to potentially get at leaders just lets outer circle commit more crimes. If outer circle became a riskier place to be as immediate action was taken on identification, then surely eventually the inner circle would become isolated and have to commit their own crimes, thus moving them to the risky outer circle?
This post has been deleted by its author
Every time I hear our Governments talking about terrorism I can't help but think of the book within 1984 - The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism. The following is the Wikipedia summary of the relevant section.
"By harnessing the hysteria of war and demand for self-sacrifice, each of the nations declare war not on each other but on their own populace ... Permanent limited war also allows for the Party to divert attention away from domestic concerns and their failures."
Problem is I don't know what's worse; if this is really a government aim or if I trust our government so little in the first place that I believe it could be a government aim.
Eyewitness Cologne:
Germany Deploys 143 Officers To Stop Migrant Rape,
1,500 Officers To Stop Anti-Rape Protest
[caps from copy/paste of headline]
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/09/eyewitness-cologne-germany-deploys-143-officers-to-stop-migrant-rape-1500-officers-to-stop-anti-rape-protest/
>Problem is I don't know what's worse ... or if I trust our government so little in the first place...
The responsible government model - a functioning bureaucracy with civilian oversight - is based on the premise that government cannot be trusted. The people elect representatives to temper the self serving nature of the bureaucracy and its over entitled minions. In return said minions take out the trash and keep the trains running on time. Now, not only can the bureaucracy not be trusted (an expected outcome) but the civilian oversight is MIA.
The problem is that people came to trust government at all. Like corporations, governments are only as good as the chains of accountability, mistrust and cynicism they are bound in. For most of the Free West the chains look more like a salad than a cage.
"The problem is that people came to trust government at all."
And the problem behind the problem is that your average person isn't interested in anything as remote as that. They just want to see tomorrow, that's all. The simpler their lives can be, the better. It takes a certain amount of enlightenment to be able to question things around you; most don't have the intellect for that.
Furthermore, what happens when a crisis hits, like a war, and you NEED the government to rally and protect you from the enemy? World War II was a legit example. No single state could muster the forces necessary to defeat the combined Axis Powers, and since we were also deep in the Jim Crow era, there was also considerable friction between northern and southern states. Only the central government can override these frictions and unite the nation in war.
So IOW, you MUST trust the central government at some point, or there's no point in a government to begin with.
Agreed with your first post Charles but WW2 was simply a resource war much like our current ME misadventures. It has since been shrouded in all sorts of self righteous propaganda but if you look at any of our current wars you see the patterns repeat. One power goads the other with mercenaries and then claims the moral high ground when the goaded moves to protect its people. Churchill wanted war, a strong independent Germany posed a serious economic threat the the realm.
But assuming the war scenario, those called upon to do the dying need to have a voice. The self serving nature of the those in power needs to be tempered with public representation and a healthy does of cynicism. Colin Powell’s speech to the UN re: Saddam’s weapons of mass distraction, the *need* for a draft to support the war against Vietnam, the F35, etc. War is the most important reason not to trust government. However, if the will of the public voiced through its representatives is to throw themselves at machine gun fire then that is the will of the people and so shall it be. There is of course the issue of informed consent but then we hit the point you raised in your first post on this subject.
Your final sentence, the point of government. It is a convenient place to centralise services for the good of all. Those items where there is not enough access to resource in private hands to create a competitive free market - like water. Unfortunately it has departed from its role as an impartial service provider under civilian oversight and now seeks to favour selected groups using its own standards or morality and probity. Disaster ensues.
"Disaster ensues."
Then you're basically saying, "Damned if you do, damned if you don't". If it isn't the government screwing you, it's robber barons (think the GIlded Age). Somewhere along the line, SOMEONE will have the chutzpah AND the capability to usurp, one way or the other, and since this is basic human instinct when they see a zero-sum game (it's you or the other guy), we'll never see this go away.
Which may be why no "people-centric" government doesn't seem to last for too long in historical terms. Every one of them degenerates or collapses due to simple human nature.
"There are those who see 1984 as an operations manual and not a work of fiction."
There is of course the suggestion that as Orwell was a committed Socialist for most of his life, it was not a work of fiction at all on his part. Getting whacky ideas dressed up as fiction was what a number of the founding Fabians did. That way it is accepted as nothing to worry about by we the plebs until it is too late to worry about. Whether Orwell meant "1984" to encourage its adoption or as a warning? Sadly its too late to ask him.
ISIS/Daesh are just the latest attempt to create a bogey man to create mass control and censorship.
ISIS are a tiny military force of no significance and limited weaponry (The black in this map).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map
A lot of their propaganda doesn't appear to be from them. e.g. the Texas Plumbers truck pictures, when tracing the first source of that it was a Pro-Israel US campaign group known as "the long war journal"
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/14/us/terror-truck-lawsuit/index.html
"About a year later, the truck popped up in a tweet posted by Caleb Weiss, a contributor to the Long War Journal. It showed militants firing a heavy weapon from the bed of a truck with the Mark-1 company name on the front door."
Long War Journal is really "Public Media Inc" which is a pro-Israel lobby group. And if "the long war" catchphrase seems familiar, it's because its is the rebranding of "global war on terror":
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Long_War
"The Long War is the most recent Bush administration official rebranding of its perpetual Global War on Terror (pGWOT)"
It seems unlikely that a muslims groups official propaganda release channel is a US pro-Israel pro-Bush propaganda group... to say the least!
******
So they create this big scary enemy, so terrifying that if you watch their video you would instantly become a terrorist. And now they want to control what can be said on the Internet and watch everything.
But the videos likely don't come from ISIS, this is a common tactic for power grabs: Create a demon, save country from demon, turns out demon was same group as savior.
What makes you think they didn't come from ISIS. I mean, three men with material essential to any serious farmer commited quite a bit of mayhem 20 years ago, and technology means more and more power can be obtained by an individual over time. What's to say a lone wolf couldn't wreak national-scale mayhem today and we just don't want to admit it for the sake of our sanity?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
