Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Communications Crime Encryption The Media

NYT Quietly Pulls Article Blaming Encryption In Paris Attacks 259

HughPickens.com writes: Inside Sources reports that the NY Times has quietly pulled a story from its website alleging the attackers used encrypted technology. The original piece, which has since been removed, can be found on the Internet Archive. It stated, "The attackers are believed to have communicated using encryption technology, according to European officials who had been briefed on the investigation but were not authorized to speak publicly. It was not clear whether the encryption was part of widely used communications tools, like WhatsApp, which the authorities have a hard time monitoring, or something more elaborate. Intelligence officials have been pressing for more leeway to counter the growing use of encryption."

A link to the NY Times article now redirects readers to a separate, general article on the attacks, which does not contain the word "encrypt." The Times later posted a second article citing an anonymous "European counterterrorism official" who was quoted saying authorities' "working assumption is that these guys were very security aware," but clarified officials "offered no evidence."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NYT Quietly Pulls Article Blaming Encryption In Paris Attacks

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @09:41AM (#50947497)

    This is like watching a Hollywood spy movie where they're astounded at how the elite criminals are using Unix!

    It's an open question to me whether it's the media that is dumb, the alleged government spokespeople, or somebody is just faking it to bullshit the generally dumb public who doesn't know any better.

    Here's a hint how to defeat these terrorists. Go about your daily life as if nothing happened, and don't let the government do anything different.

    Then they'll lose and you won't lose either.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Flavianoep ( 1404029 )

      This is like watching a Hollywood spy movie where they're astounded at how the elite criminals are using Unix!

      Like... MacOS?

      • by postbigbang ( 761081 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @09:55AM (#50947643)

        Perhaps it was more like this:

        Ostensibly erudite reporter was given inside information with the carefully planted bugaboo word: encryption, so as to allow the information provider to cast a negative shadow upon encryption, so as to favor the arguments of those tireless government officials that are seeking to permit governmental backdoors into encryption methods.

        Or, perhaps more likely, the erudite reporter merely salted their story for street creds.

        In either case, it was seemingly rapidly corrected.

        • by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @11:29AM (#50948547)

          Or, perhaps more likely, the erudite reporter merely salted their story for street creds.

          The reporter should have hashed it after salting.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Jeremi ( 14640 )

          How about this, instead:

          Reporter interviewed some investigators who mentioned that the terrorists had been using encryption, and published the story including that fact. The investigators then realized that the terrorists associates might later read the article and realize that their encryption methods might now be compromised and abandon them -- so the investigators asked the newspaper to bury the article, in the hopes that the terrorists would continue using their (perhaps now compromised) encryption met

          • by mi ( 197448 )

            so the investigators asked the newspaper to bury the article

            And now those investigators are calling Slashdot editors with the same request? I doubt, they haven't heard of Streisand Effect...

        • It wasn't corrected. A correction involves printing a retraction saying "WE FUCKED UP LOL".
          This is being swept under the rug as if it never happened.

          I watched a bit of the news after the attacks (because the few shows I do watch were preempted by it).
          Every single channel kept parroting the same FUD about encryption and PlayStations.

          It's CLEARLY a government-planted narrative.

          • It has all the earmarks of a plant, but no one has come forward to say why the retraction was done, so far as I know. Seems suspicious.

    • by kilfarsnar ( 561956 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @10:16AM (#50947839)

      It's an open question to me whether it's the media that is dumb, the alleged government spokespeople, or somebody is just faking it to bullshit the generally dumb public who doesn't know any better.

      I'm going with option C. The authorities want to be able to see what we're doing. Encryption interferes with that. Linking encryption with terrorism in the public mind might change public sentiment when it comes to the question of back doors. The public is largely unsophisticated in this area and the government and media like that just fine.

      • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @11:00AM (#50948265) Homepage Journal

        I'm going with option C. The authorities want to be able to see what we're doing. Encryption interferes with that. Linking encryption with terrorism in the public mind might change public sentiment when it comes to the question of back doors. The public is largely unsophisticated in this area and the government and media like that just fine.

        If they can also somehow tie the terrorist encryption to child pr0n, then they will have the crowd behind them to ban common citizen encryption without backdoors.

        This of the children!!

        Think of the terrorists!!

        I think the two of those are likely to be the keys to the Constitution, at least in the US>

    • by Rob MacDonald ( 3394145 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @11:00AM (#50948271)
      I personally read these articles to find the name of the apps they say are "hard to monitor" and make sure I in no way ever use them. Think about this long and hard. Why would they tell "them" exactly what apps to use because they can't monitor them? They wouldn't. But.... they sure as hell would like to direct as many people as possible to use the apps that have easy access to, namely any app that appears by name in any of these articles. Hell, they even tried to blame snowden.
      • Well in reality it's not news that Daesh uses telegram and has setup telegram channels. Even Greenwald at The Intercept has discovered as much and Anonymous did say they infiltrated some of their Telegram channels so hardly news.
    • by SecurityGuy ( 217807 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @11:14AM (#50948413)

      NPR had a great piece on this yesterday where they openly stated that if strong encryption was backdoored, some kid would just write an app in his basement implementing strong encryption without a backdoor. The algorithms are public, and honestly not that complicated. The iPhone encryption that has everyone in such a lather is a Federal standard, after all.

      Some of the media gets it.

      • It's a pity NPR has such a negative rep in my neck of the woods. If people would only listen to it, they would hear that it's clearly about as balanced as reporting can get. They frequently lob softballs at Republicans for fear of being accused of being on a witch hunt. I don't know why they bother; the average redneck can't tell the difference between Pacifica Radio and All Things Considered anyway.
    • by mi ( 197448 )

      Go about your daily life as if nothing happened, and don't let the government do anything different.

      Then how will the next concert be different from the one last Friday?

      Something must be done. It just mustn't diminish the freedoms (including privacy), which the Western World has grown used to...

    • by TheCarp ( 96830 )

      Thing is....its not even new.

      I first became aware of encryption back when it was still being pointed out that ITAR regulations are stupid when the encryption they block from export already exists, and some of it was even patented, outside the US. There were, quite literally, two versions of the same library based on whether you were in the US or outside the US....same routines, same capabilities.

      And this was the mid 1990. How ridiculous is it to be threatening people with prison time for "exporting" somethi

  • do your fucking job. spying on suspects

    not hoovering everything from everyone and thinking a search query will give you magic intelligence. intelligence work is *work*

    the encryption is not important. your gumshoe work is. get out of your fucking cubicle you lardass and find these dirtbags

    and if you can't do that maybe your useless security theatre job should be axed

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They are doing their job, spying on suspects. The problem is that you, me and everyone else ARE the suspects. We have been judged guilty as a society without any trial or due process. The government breaks the law, yet treats law-abiding citizens like criminals.

      The only solution is to dissolve these letter-agencies that answer to nobody and bear responsibility for none of their atrocities. Abolish the CIA, NSA, their traitorous Canadian counterparts in CSIS. They are out-moded agencies, a throwback to Cold

      • You are partly, but only partly right. The reason that you, me and everyone else are suspects is b'cos of political correctness. The compulsion to see Muslims as innocent, despite all the evidence to the contrary since 9/11. It started w/ the TSA in airports post 9/11, when they avoided profiling Muslims and scanned little girls and grandmothers, as opposed to Muslim men and women. The emboldening of Jihadi groups like CAIR just kept making things worse, so that every investigation's first priority was

      • by Jawnn ( 445279 )

        The problem is that you, me and everyone else ARE the suspects. We have been judged guilty as a society without any trial or due process. The government breaks the law, yet treats law-abiding citizens like criminals.

        And we let them...
        Yep. Game over. The terrorists have won.

    • by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @09:57AM (#50947651)

      do your fucking job. spying on suspects

      not hoovering everything from everyone

      Your mistake is not understanding that to "national security personnel" EVERYONE is a suspect.

      The question is not whether you've done something wrong, but exactly what you've done wrong, and whether they want to prosecute you for it, far as they're concerned....

      • by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @10:00AM (#50947673)

        Preview is your friend. As is being able to spell "blockquote" reliably....

        do your fucking job. spying on suspects

        not hoovering everything from everyone

        Your mistake is not understanding that to "national security personnel" EVERYONE is a suspect.

        The question is not whether you've done something wrong, but exactly what you've done wrong, and whether they want to prosecute you for it, far as they're concerned....

    • by Zocalo ( 252965 )
      Meh, they can't even keep their own house in order and prevent all these employees disclosing confidential information to the media - which, as they keep reminding us, was treason of the highest order when Snowden did it. Given that level of sheer incompetence, what hope have they got of actually tracking down any external suspects? Or could it be that it's all bullcrap and the press are just blindly swallowing the agenda pushing propaganda being peddled by people that have been fully briefed on what to s
    • do your fucking job. spying on suspects

      So ... where were you 2 days ago? Anywhere near Paris by any chance? How can I tell you're telling the truth? Maybe it's time you open up to us a little since your refusal of our probings make you a suspect.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Have some newspeople actually stopped to think whether their sensationalist article had the potential to cause great harm to their own society?

    Is it snowing in hell?

  • The most shocking thing to me is that our (the US) security agencies seemed to be completely unaware that anything was being planned. No reports of chatter. No outwardly visible concern. Even the President was briefed that ISIS was "contained" and "under control," and he reported as much on national television days before the attack.

    This begs the question of where our intelligence agencies are focusing their efforts. Are they really scouring the world for terrorist activity, or are they too busy spying on their own citizens?

    We live in dark and scary times when my government knows everyone I call or email, and when, and records all of that communication, but they can't catch wind of a major terrorist attack in its planning stages.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Intelligence briefings to Congress say ISIS is not contained and getting stronger. This is from D. Feinstein, head of the security group in the Senate. The head of the FBI also told Congress that it is impossible to vet the Syrian refugees coming to the US.

      Obama came out and gave a speech filled with lies, according to his people and other members of the DNC. They know things are going on, Obama just doesn't want to recognize that there is a problem because he would then have to deal with it.

      • Do you really believe that preventing legitimate Syrian refugees from entering the U.S. will prevent a single existing terrorist from an organization like ISIS from entering the U.S.? Even if no Syrian citizens are permitted to enter the U.S., terrorist organizations will pick another route to enter the U.S. Fake passports are not that difficult to come by. Hell, the Syrian passport found near the body of one of the Paris suicide bombers was a fake [wsj.com]. Serbian police arrested a man Saturday with the same pass
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The most shocking thing to me is that our (the US) security agencies seemed to be completely unaware that anything was being planned. No reports of chatter. No outwardly visible concern. Even the President was briefed that ISIS was "contained" and "under control," and he reported as much on national television days before the attack.

      ....

      And you believe Obama because????

      You don't know what Obama was briefed. He's been openly trying to downplay ISIS for several years - because their existence imperils his "be nice to everyone and everyone will be nice to you" approach to international relations in a way that would make Neville "Peace for our time" Chamberlain proud.

      • by kilfarsnar ( 561956 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @10:28AM (#50947951)

        You don't know what Obama was briefed. He's been openly trying to downplay ISIS for several years - because their existence imperils his "be nice to everyone and everyone will be nice to you" approach to international relations in a way that would make Neville "Peace for our time" Chamberlain proud.

        That image too is for public consumption. American foreign policy has nothing to do with "be nice to everyone and everyone will be nice to you".

    • Oh the terror. I read france was prepared that very day for just such an attack. Too much similarity with 911 for me.
    • by misexistentialist ( 1537887 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @10:12AM (#50947809)
      Brennan also said the United States had strategic warning about the terrorist attack in Paris, but did not provide details, other than to say it was not a surprise. [foreignpolicy.com]
      The same subordinate status that makes it OK for the ruling class to violate citizens' privacy means it's not a big deal if they are blown up. Sheep are herded, sheep are slaughtered.
      • "Brennan also said the United States had âoestrategic warningâ about the terrorist attack in Paris, but did not provide details, other than to say it was âoenot a surprise.â He said he believed the attack was planned over âoeseveral months.â

        If they really had a precise they would have reported in the news article or to the relevant french department. That they use the unqualified keyword "strategic warning" is more like "somebody mentioned they wanted to attack

    • by creimer ( 824291 )

      Even the President was briefed that ISIS was "contained" and "under control" in Iraq and Syria, and he reported as much on national television days before the attack.

      FTFY - If you're going to quote the president, quote the whole thing. Too many people run off at the mouth with half a quote that lacks any context. While ISIS is "contained" and "under control" in Iraq and Syria, it doesn't prevent the offshoot terrorists from launching attacks in non-combat zones far removed from the main battlefield.

      • If they're offshoots, then they aren't contained. That's like saying that a bunch of kudzu is contained because only the offshoots have taken over the next yard.
        • by creimer ( 824291 )
          This is asymmetric warfare. The main body of ISIS is in Iraq and Syria. Kill off the main body, the offshoots will die off.
    • by flacco ( 324089 )

      > The most shocking thing to me is that our (the US) security agencies seemed to be completely unaware that anything was being planned.

      Why does this shock you? Do you expect security agencies to be aware of every single time a handful of nut-jobs decide to shoot up a public place?

      • The TLAs always toot their horns about how effective their surveillance programs have been at stopping many attacks just like these. So yes, I expect results, since these programs are so "effective." Otherwise what the fuck are we paying their salaries for? We knew Osama was coming for us at least a decade before it happened. The conservatives blocked slick willie's attempts to hunt him down in 1998. Then we had knowledge that an attack was about to be carried out 2 months before it happened. Then the attac
    • by swb ( 14022 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @11:39AM (#50948623)

      How is this shocking?

      The team leader gets his general, not specific, verbal instructions from some guy in a tent in the middle of some desert wasteland. He goes back to Europe and recuits a half dozen guys.

      They all manage to plan it secretly, don't tell anybody, and nobody gets busted doing something stupid, like getting pulled over with AK-47s and Semtex in the back seat.

      How the fuck do you stop that with electronic surveillance?

      The only thing that would seem to even put a dent in that kind of operation is going full-on totalitarianism, ie, sending in the jackboots to every house with "Mohammed" on the nameplate and turning the place upside down, hemming them into their own neighborhoods and not letting them out without checkpoints and searches.

      I think everyone sees the drawbacks to such an approach. Even the people who manage to pull it off halfway decent STILL have problems and have all the other problems that go alone with such a system. The Israelis aren't 100% effective, even the goddamn Chinese can't seem to squeeze the Uighurs tight enough to shut that problem down and their playbook has rules like "if anyone objects, shoot them in the head and ship everyone they know to a gulag".

      About the only country that makes it work is North Korea, and that just might be because we don't know what doesn't work there.

    • by Jeremi ( 14640 )

      This begs the question of where our intelligence agencies are focusing their efforts.

      I'd imagine that US security agencies are concentrating their efforts on... the US.

    • Are they really scouring the world for terrorist activity, or are they too busy spying on their own citizens?

      From Fox:
      "Three of the seven Islamist suicide bombers have already been identified as French citizens, as was at least one of seven other people arrested in neighboring Belgium in connection to the deadly attacks."

      So four of fourteen were, in your words, their own citizens. I can pretty much guarantee that the intelligence agencies don't really care that much about the nationality of who they spy on; they spy on everyone to try and get intelligence. But, of course, you would like them just to spy only on th

    • Well these terrorists don't initially seem like the run of the mill, the I'm surprised they haven't choked on their own tongues stupid, terrorists. It seems the simplest way to not get caught before hand is simply to shut your fucking pie hole about your plans. When you do have to discuss your plans don't do them in public view but instead over secure channels, with only those who need to know the plan and not Hadji the clerk at the local halal market.
  • Of Course (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The terrorists already assume you can read their emails and listen to their telephone calls and act accordingly. Calling for the government to easily be able to read the common man's emails and listen to their phone calls isn't going to help against terrorists one bit. All it's going to do is to help the government keep the populace in line which is more important to them than the terrorists.

    They put out that it's encryption that allowed the attacks because it absolves them and their policies of any acco

    • I agree that it would be naive to think that trained operational terror cells do not use a variety of techniques to hide from intelligence services. Technically it would be an unwinnable war to defeat encryption so the noise about it is largely ill informed political hubris.

      Mass surveillance of un-encrypted communications and web browsing can detect people who have an interest in Daesh. It will certainly catch a lot of teenagers and put them on watch lists, which is probably the actual intention of mass sur

  • In other news... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @10:00AM (#50947675)

    "The attackers are believed to have transported themselves and their weapons using modern automobile technology, including (but not exclusively) internal combustion engines, air-pressurized tires and asphalted roads. They may even have used advanced public transportation technologies".

    Speechless.

    Are our so-called leaders *that fucking incompetent*?

  • Eh. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @10:01AM (#50947681) Journal
    This sort of 'reporting' is a farce, of which they really ought to be ashamed. Aside from the dubious wisdom of parroting 'unnamed intelligence sources who definitely wouldn't have any reason to be spinning the media after a dramatic and gruesome attack on their watch'; there's a pretty aching gap in even basic critical thinking if you treat 'the working assumption is that the guys were pretty security aware' as some sort of insight.

    FFS, any pot dealer who has stayed out of prison for a couple of years would count as 'pretty security aware' in the vacuous "well, we didn't realize that they were up to something until they had already executed it" sense of the term. Of course some degree of care was used in orchestrating a coordinated attack involving a number of people, some of who had had run-ins with the law before. Why would you expect otherwise?

    Plus, historical examples suggest that terrorists aren't complete morons about security: Al Qaeda and the Taliban both had a healthy distrust of cellphones, even before we learned what 'dirtboxing' was; and the guys who pulled the Mumbai attacks in 2008 used Blackberries specifically because BBM is way more resistant than SMS. I realize that somebody had a burning need to fill column inches; but what pitiful dreck.
    • The media is being used to scare the public, and encourage even more erosion of privacy because, you know, the bad guys will get us...
      "Security Aware" is being treated in the media as something bad, something people shouldn't aspire to.
      This concerted effort after the Paris attacks isn't someone filling column inches, it is yet another example of those with the editorial influence to pressure the First World to completely give up any shred of privacy or freedom.
  • Here it comes (Score:5, Informative)

    by JoeyRox ( 2711699 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @10:02AM (#50947703)
    Paris Attacks Renew Call for Access to Encrypted Messages

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... [bloomberg.com]
  • by Sir_Eptishous ( 873977 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @10:05AM (#50947745) Homepage
    NPR interviewed some numbskull NY police person yesterday who used the Paris attacks as an attack vector against encryption.
    How many times can someone say "Going Dark"?
  • by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @10:06AM (#50947755)

    And the NYT has a new and extensive story that absolutely "mentions" crypto [nytimes.com].

    We don't need "backdoors". What we need is a clear acknowledgment that what increasingly exists essentially amounts to a virtual fortress impenetrable by the legal mechanisms of free society, that many of those systems are developed and employed by US companies, and that US adversaries use those systems against the US and our allies, and for a discussion to start from that point.

    The US has a clear and compelling interest in strong encryption, and especially in protecting US encryption systems used by our government, our citizens, and people around the world from defeat. But the assumption that the only alternatives are either universal strong encryption, or wholesale and deliberate weakening of encryption systems and/or "backdoors", is a false dichotomy.

  • by Dega704 ( 1454673 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @10:08AM (#50947771)
    I would imagine more than a few officials went running for their "Edward Snowden has blood on his hands" fanfiction with their tongues cartoonishly flapping out the sides of their mouths the second news of the attack broke.
    • I would imagine more than a few officials went running for their "Edward Snowden has blood on his hands" fanfiction with their tongues cartoonishly flapping out the sides of their mouths the second news of the attack broke.

      James Clapper did this morning on NBC, that's for sure.

  • by GuB-42 ( 2483988 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @10:11AM (#50947797)

    Nowadays encryption becoming the norm. Most sites use https when dealing with private data, and if you are looking for something more secure, there are plenty of easily accessible end-to-end encryption tools. It's pissing off government agencies BTW.
    There are people who use strong encryption for their cat pictures. For terrorist to communicate without encryption is almost like wanting to be discovered and should be seen as very suspect.
    Also "encrypted technology" is so wide that it is like saying that they used "vehicle technology" for movement. Watching a DVD is using encryption technology, even though it is just a totally broken DRM.

  • high-tech (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @10:12AM (#50947801) Homepage Journal

    the Paris attackers had used some kind of encrypted communication

    Which requires the incredibly rare high-tech skill of installing a readily available app on your smartphone.

    • by Luthair ( 847766 )
      Even simply connecting to the cellular network you use encryption from the phone to the tower.
      • by Tom ( 822 )

        Which authorities can and routinely do tap. That's obviously not the kind of encryption they are referring to.

  • Did I miss something here or are we trying to protect people from an idea that they might "misunderstand"? If we're going to ban the word encryption from discussions about security, then we're no better than those monsters in our paranoid dreams.

  • by coolmoose25 ( 1057210 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @10:25AM (#50947917)
    I've been watching the media coverage (and listening - NPR) on this whole encryption mudslinging by law enforcement. The media is eating it up, and while they are careful to say that the jury is out on whether or not the terrorists in Paris used encrypted communications, they are quick to say that law enforcement and intelligence agencies had no inkling that this attack was on the horizon. I will leave aside the notion that Occum's Razor can be used to evaluate the two scenarios - one where the agencies and law enforcement were simply incompetent and are now blaming this evil encryption for being caught flatfooted, vs. their premise that the terrorists MUST be using encryption now...

    What is lost on all of them (agencies, law enforcement) is THAT THEY DID THIS TO THEMSELVES either way. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been "hoovering up" all available communications data and metadata. They demanded and got kangaroo courts (FISA - I'm looking at you) where secret search warrants are being executed. There is no regulation by the citizenry, only by government "you can trust us" types who don't understand that when the stories about this stuff break, consumers begin to demand secure communications. Every time the government executed these warrants on the communications and computer industries, they gave them both an incentive to ditch the whole cooperation thing, and finally those companies started encrypting things in a way that they did not have the ability to "listen in" because lets face it, that is a pain in the neck and takes them away from their core mission.

    Now they are crying about encryption, without understanding that the ship already sailed... And they are the ones that kicked it out of the harbor.
  • Complain to the media directly. Ask them why they won't hold intelligence services responsible for a lack of human intelligence.

  • The attackers may have been friends who met at Weight Watchers. Holy shit, ban Weight Watchers!
    hmm no proof of that OR of the attackers using encryption.

  • by honestmonkey ( 819408 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @10:58AM (#50948249) Journal
    "Hey there, we're all going to meet up in London in two weeks. Be sure to bring a sweater because it'll be cold. We're stopping at Bill's place first, then going out to eat. Maybe we'll catch a concert. How's that sound?"

    Come to Paris in three days. Bring AK-47 and ammo. Akmed will provide suicide vests to attack the restaurants and concert hall. Allah Akbar!

    Seriously, nobody with a brain is going to use actual encryption, that's a red flag. They'll come up with a code first, something that sounds normal. I can just see the CIA now: "Oh no, these two people say they're going to the movies! Code Red! Code Red!"
  • Clearly there's an assumption in the community that if they hadn't been using encryption, the intelligence community would have known about the attacks. Would they have known if none of the communication had ever taken place on the internet or cellular networks? It sounds like some of the attackers were actually related, so they could have just as easily discussed their plans over coffee. It's not even all that hard to meet up in person, possibly leaving the cell phone at home or handing it off to someone t
  • by yayoubetcha ( 893774 ) on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @11:14AM (#50948411)

    If you open the back doors to standard encryption services, it will not stop terrorists from secure communications. There are endless numbers of ways to encrypt messages and send them via the Internet.

    Having access to encryption backdoors is not about terrorists, it is about busting normal domestic crimes where "average" people use off-the-shelf apps to send "secure" messages.

  • It's a blame game (Score:4, Interesting)

    by C3ntaur ( 642283 ) <centaur@netmagic ... et minus painter> on Tuesday November 17, 2015 @11:20AM (#50948473) Journal
    This article https://theintercept.com/2015/11/15/exploiting-emotions-about-paris-to-blame-snowden-distract-from-actual-culprits-who-empowered-isis/ [theintercept.com] is a pretty good discussion of what's in play. Kudos to the NYT for pulling the article. Shame they published it in the first place.
    • Kudos to the NYT for pulling the article. Shame they published it in the first place.

      You got it half-right. They deserve no "kudos" for hiding a mistake. Once upon a time, this was supposed to be "the newspaper of record", now they regularly let the text of stories morph for inscrutable reasons, without so much as a "Correction" notice appended to it.

  • The new war on Encryption. Watch it live!

  • Soooo no one has mentioned the repeal of the Smith Mundt Act in 2013 as a reason this story was floated out there then quickly gone away when the masses called FUD on it???? Hey, but I'm sure it's just "bad reporting" or "inept people in charge", which seems to happen A LOT. And no way could the whole "PS4" story be native advertising floated across thousands of media outlets. I mean, someone would really relish that kind of PR if a story could be tossed to the ethos and media outlets snag it like a piece o
  • I live in the NYC area, listening to news radio stations out of NYC, so this got equal airplay to the unattributed "security agency" quotes about "going dark". There was also a lot of official amazement at the degree of coordination and planning involved. Somehow it doesn't seem any more complicated than a bunch of friends getting together for a movie, even before the existence of cellphones - certainly not as complex as many flash-mob events. "The attacks were totally synchronized!" - like, ever hear of

But it does move! -- Galileo Galilei

Working...