Paris Terrorists Used Burner Phones, Not Encryption, To Evade Detection (arstechnica.com) 161
An anonymous reader writes from an article on Ars Technica: New details of the Paris attacks carried out last November reveal that it was the consistent use of prepaid burner phones, not encryption, that helped keep the terrorists off the radar of the intelligence services. As an article in The New York Times reports: "the three teams in Paris were comparatively disciplined. They used only new phones that they would then discard, including several activated minutes before the attacks, or phones seized from their victims." The article goes on to give more details of how some phones were used only very briefly in the hours leading up to the attacks. "Everywhere they went, the attackers left behind their throwaway phones, including in Bobigny, at a villa rented in the name of Ibrahim Abdeslam. When the brigade charged with sweeping the location arrived, it found two unused cellphones still inside their boxes." At another location used by one of the terrorists, the police found dozens of unused burner phones "still in their wrappers." As The New York Times says, one of the most striking aspects of the phones is that not a single e-mail or online chat message from the attackers was found on them. But rather than trying to avoid discovery by using encryption -- which would in itself have drawn attention to their accounts -- they seem to have stopped using the internet as a communication channel altogether, and turned to standard cellular network calls on burner phones.
shocker! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Minimal verbal notes on single use phones goes right to the heart of intelligence (note that word) agencies to begin using covert agents/spies.
These agencies need to 'get smart.' Unfortunately, these agencies have tended to put their trust in electronic surveillance, as politicians put all sorts of restrictions on the use of spies. Politicians don't like "paying spies" and "dirty work" being done by spies, including "sabotage" and "silencing" targets.
Re: shocker! (Score:1)
Frankly, neither should we, the people, be comfortable with the idea of people running around and dealing out their own lynch justice in secret and outside the control of the public judicial system. It may be the only way to deal with some powerful people, but only as a last resort.
Re:shocker! (Score:4, Insightful)
At BEST they are playing whack a mole with spies.
Spies do NOTHING to address the underlying causes that make choosing to follow terrorist leaders to ones own death looks reasonable. That is the real problem. Have you ever even taken 2 seconds to imagine yourself growing up under the threat of our bombs? Have you ever pondered what its like to live under the boot of a dictator who was installed and supported by foriegn governments, like ours? Have you ever thought about the generations of bad will we purchased with actions like using and protecting men like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ? Or Overthrowing democratically elected presidents in favor of a King (what do you think Sha means)?
There are a lot of points of view in this world from which terrorism looks like a not that insane option, especially if someone promises to pay your family. That isn't their fault; a lot of that is our own fault.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm shocked, shocked I say!
why be shocked. An old Bourne Supremacy movie showed David slipping a "burn" phone to a newspaper reporter. He and the reporter communicated "off the network"
Throw-away (limited use prepaid) phones are hard to track.
Re: (Score:2)
Well you are actually right. Terrorists want exposure. And the internet has greatly helped them. But that does not mean you have to use the internet in the preparations.
Apart from that, encryption used by terrorists would probably be dead simple, such as calling a bomb "the mailman", so they can say "The mailman has arrived".
So Let Up On Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect it would be millions of dollars for every real terrorist we stop.
Indeed. Same as for drug lords and such. Is it worth it? Depends on the terrorist leader.
That being said, for the burner phones - it seems to me that extra monitoring on newly activated phones might be the solution.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Solution ?, hardly.
How many millions of cellphone get carried into a country by tourists, how many new cellphones are registered each day ?
Then they will simply encrypt their messages , how do you know which photo, which txt, which call from which number is related to which action ?
ANYTHING governments do will be ineffective in stopping people determined to commit any sort of crime you name.
The governments are lying to you to make you feel secure. So long as they "look" like they are doing something, no mat
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly people in the US tend to picture the terrorists as being ignorant savages
Really? I think most view them as intelligent and resourceful savages.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly people in the US tend to picture the terrorists as being ignorant savages
Really? I think most view them as intelligent and resourceful savages.
This. Even immediately after 9-11 we acknowledged it as a "sophisticated" attack that took years in the planning, dry runs, etc..
Many of the lower level terrorists in the ground forces (like in Syria) might be simpletons, but we know they (ISIS, AQ) have seriously knowledgeable businessmen and scientists working for them too. That, combined with their unifying ideology and disciplined organization, is what makes modern terrorists so dangerous.
Re: (Score:3)
And some of them are cowards, discarding their explosive belt, rather than using it...
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly though, how much of a rocket scientist do you need to be use to a burner phone?
Anybody over the age of 13 who has watched any amount of TV knows you can walk into a store, buy a no-contract phone and a SIM, and register it with very little effort. Likely without any real ID or credit cards.
As I understand it, in Europe and elsewhere it's common to travel, buy a cheap local SIM, a
Re:So Let Up On Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
They are ignorant savages. They're just not consistently ignorant about everything.
An important thing to remember about your adversaries. They may be simplistic philosophically, but that doesn't prevent them from knowing how to use basic operational security measures using technology which has been designed to be easy to use and portable. Especially when trained and veteran terrorists are making terrorism guides available on a plethora of sites created specifically for the purpose of making effective terrorists out of civilians for one big attack.
Terrorist attacks are hard to stop before they go off, particularly if you don't know who might actually execute one. So a first-time terrorist has a huge advantage if they have kept a relatively low profile. Even a person who is known to be radicalized by locals isn't going to come to the attention of a law enforcement agency unless the locals blow them in. And since most "locals" don't want to get involved, or may even be close to the terrorists or their families, they may be very disinclined, hoping that their friend or relative "would never do such a thing."
Re: (Score:2)
Especially when trained and veteran terrorists are making terrorism guides available on a plethora of sites created specifically for the purpose of making effective terrorists out of civilians for one big attack.
Who'd want to take advice from a veteran suicide bomber?
Re:So Let Up On Apple (Score:5, Informative)
They are ignorant savages.
Yeah they're actually often not at all ignorant :
http://www.economist.com/node/... [economist.com]
http://www.slate.com/articles/... [slate.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if they have a Ph.D in physics, they're ignorant. You cannot argue that someone who fails to understand the value of life, both of others and their own, is not grossly ignorant.
If they execute these sorts of action and are not ignorant, then they are insane, and I have seen little evidence of their actual insanity. Ignorance is the only thing that remains. There is no action or cause that justifies random attacks on innocent civilians, especially if the cause they supposedly espouse is the e
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if they have a Ph.D in physics, they're ignorant. You cannot argue that someone who fails to understand the value of life, both of others and their own, is not grossly ignorant.
If they execute these sorts of action and are not ignorant, then they are insane, and I have seen little evidence of their actual insanity. Ignorance is the only thing that remains. There is no action or cause that justifies random attacks on innocent civilians, especially if the cause they supposedly espouse is the ending of attacks on their own innocent compatriots.
I think you are misusing the word ignorance. They may have a different opinion of the value of life than you do but this does not mean that they are ignorant of the value of life - on the contrary they are trying to hurt us by taking our lives from us which indicates that they are quite aware of the value of life.
My understanding is that those targeting civilians consider that these civilians have voted for the people in power making decisions. Although we may disagree with them, it cannot be said that th
Re:So Let Up On Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
If only it were that cheap.
It costs millions, not to *kill* each of the ISIS soldiers, but simply to confront them at all.
Do the math: about 20,000 ISIS. And the US military complex, which is already getting about $1T from the taxpayers every year (when you add all defense-related costs), was asked to attack them. They explained that for one thousand billion dollars per year, all they can do is sit at home, eat, and train. No fighting is affordable.
The additional bill for attacking ISIS is about $100B per year. For 20,000 men. That's $5M per ISIS member attacked for one year. With luck, a good many of them will be killed but probably barely 10% of them, and having spent $50M each to kill a few thousand...at least 2000 young boys will turn 17 or 18 and sign up with them during the year, leaving you in about the same strategic position.
Probably ISIS can be beaten - they are so little and weak and have so many enemies in the area besides the West. But that's why nothing ever got better in Afghanistan - it cost $100B a year to kill a few thousand Taliban who were easily replaced.
Re: (Score:1)
The additional bill for attacking ISIS is about $100B per year
What dollar figure are you attaching to the dead American soldiers? To the soldiers with limbs blown off? To the soldiers with PTSD who come home and start beating their children?
The "bill" is dead boys and girls from all across America... Killed trying to defeat an enemy who, in the end, represents a very small threat to the USA.
That price is a lot more than $100B.
Re: (Score:1)
The additional bill for attacking ISIS is about $100B per year
What dollar figure are you attaching to the dead American soldiers? To the soldiers with limbs blown off? To the soldiers with PTSD who come home and start beating their children? The "bill" is dead boys and girls from all across America... Killed trying to defeat an enemy who, in the end, represents a very small threat to the USA. That price is a lot more than $100B.
That's a different question. Answered in the form of increased drone strikes so we don't "waste" soldiers lives. Not that it matters as we canit win this war with either a land based invasion ( We will NEVER be in there long enough to make the native government stable ) or with the drone strikes ( Like those are going to win the hearts and mind's of the people. ). The fact is, and always has been, that soldiers get a shit deal when they sign up with the Army. They know more than anyone that they figh
Re: (Score:3)
So the rule is that if the singular ends in a voiced consonant, the plural has an apostrophe?
I never knew that.
Re: (Score:2)
What dollar figure are you attaching to the dead American soldiers? To the soldiers with limbs blown off? To the soldiers with PTSD who come home and start beating their children?
$182.3 Billion for 2017 [va.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are two important factors when assessing the threat of any entity: Capability and Intent.
ISIS has the intent to end us, but not the capability. That would require a huge army, or WMDs, or a persistent threat, such as repeated successful attacks on critical infrastructure or government facilities. Killing a few civilians is, in relative terms, an annoyance. It's extremely harmful to the immediate family and friends of the victims, and somewhat harmful to society through empathy and fear, but not at
Re: (Score:2)
If only it were that cheap.
It costs millions, not to *kill* each of the ISIS soldiers, but simply to confront them at all.
Do the math: about 20,000 ISIS. And the US military complex, which is already getting about $1T from the taxpayers every year (when you add all defense-related costs), was asked to attack them. They explained that for one thousand billion dollars per year, all they can do is sit at home, eat, and train. No fighting is affordable.
The additional bill for attacking ISIS is about $100B per year. For 20,000 men. That's $5M per ISIS member attacked for one year. With luck, a good many of them will be killed but probably barely 10% of them, and having spent $50M each to kill a few thousand...at least 2000 young boys will turn 17 or 18 and sign up with them during the year, leaving you in about the same strategic position.
Probably ISIS can be beaten - they are so little and weak and have so many enemies in the area besides the West. But that's why nothing ever got better in Afghanistan - it cost $100B a year to kill a few thousand Taliban who were easily replaced.
The cost to the taxpayer will be there whether or not there is Daesh to fight as this is just the US military baseline and most of that is spread around the world, not engaged in the middle east. The additional cost to actually fight the war there is relatively negligible.
The actual cost that the west isn't willing to pay is the political cost of the casualties involved in sending soldiers in to actually end the war - imagining for a moment that our leadership actually had a viable endgame in mind, which t
Prison is full of dumb criminals (Score:3)
There is a common saying amongst law enforcement, to the effect that prisons are full of dumb criminals, the cops are chasing the mediocre ones and the smart ones a never even get suspected, let alone caught.
Re: (Score:3)
But if we don't spy on everyone 24/7/365 (Score:5, Interesting)
But if we don't accept airport scanning which doesn't detect 98 percent of usable devices, and 24/7 information on every citizen which provides zero usable intel on anyone with a World War I level of training in spycraft, how can we all Live In Fear?
Do you want to let the terrorists win?
The terrorists want us to Live In Fear!
So we must all Live In Fear to protect ourselves with useless actions that are not helpful in any way!
Re:But if we don't spy on everyone 24/7/365 (Score:5, Insightful)
It is hard for the government, who everyone likes to turn to for solutions, to admit that the best solution is to mostly do nothing at all, aside from some common sense actions. It doesn't get people elected. It doesn't get big budget approved.
Ultimately, terrorists are hard to nab, especially radicalized first timers. To actually have a decent success rate requires expenditure or mobilization that costs a significant amount of money.
The government is best when it can dissuade attacks by threatening force or other sanctions. Unfortunately, these people don't care if they die, so it is hard to see what sort of sanction you could come up with, short of executing their families or something else they care about. Even then, these people are so messed up that they would think they are earning martyrdom for their families by getting them killed in such a way.
Of course, that said, the nice thing is that there aren't really that many suicidal bombers out there. They are a force to be reckoned with, but most humans, even radicals, are not *that* radical.
You know how to stop terrorism? Stop talking about it. Terrorist acts won't be stopped, but they will be rendered considerably less effective. Terrorism is useful because it causes fear and overreaction. That overreaction can radicalize people and wear down resistance to their aims. By themselves, the terrorists have killed a few thousand people and blown up a few buildings. That's peanuts in a country of 300 million people, so the only way they become powerful is when the media becomes their force multiplier.
There are thousands of people who die every day in the United States to gun violence due to gang killing, some of that is collateral damage where innocents get killed, so it isn't just "thugs".
We don't walk around really thinking about that too much, and consequently most of us don't live in fear of it unless we live up close to it. And why is that? Because it gets ignored in the media. We fear a once in every so-often elementary school shooting more than we fear something that happens multiple times every day, by organized criminal figures with teams of professional or semi-professional killers on their staff.
The catch is this... terrorists will kill people, but if you keep your measured responses targeted at the most effective programs that are aiming at things like education, outreach, and probably a few targeted teams of intelligence types, you decrease the odds of a terrorism death considerably, and without the rights violations. But it does require us to admit that *we cannot stop terrorists from killing some of us*, but also to understand that your risk of death is higher from just getting in a car to drive to work. You're just as likely to be accidentally killed by an gang war as collateral damage.
Re:But if we don't spy on everyone 24/7/365 (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not the money, it's where you spend it.
Humint works. Most tech is easily defeated. Interrogation using friendly police methods works. Most stuff you see on TV or in movies doesn't work.
But you're right about the not talking about it part. Their objective is to instill Fear in the population. The problem is that the politicians want to manipulate the media to make it appear they're doing something, even if most of what they're doing is just helping create more Fear.
You're at more risk from a teen driving a car, or second hand cigarette smoke.
Technology only works in other places and only when limited to the useful methods. The key vectors are known, and yet we do absolutely nothing about them.
Re: (Score:2)
You're at more risk from a teen driving a car, or second hand cigarette smoke.
Or even furniture. [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'll find most people aren't as scared of terrorism as you seem to assume they are. That says more about your fears than about those you wish you describe...
Re: (Score:2)
Humint works.
Not against "lone wolf" attacks. But there's no SIGINT there either. Basically if I decide tomorrow to by myself blow up/shoot/knife a bunch of people, there's really not fuckall that can be done about it. The best protection against terrorism is to a) not get terrified, and b) make sure people have opportunities to live a meaningful life. You're a lot less likely to blow yourself up if you've got a wife and kids. [citation needed]
But I agree with the rest of your point. We're much more likely to die of the
Re: (Score:2)
You talk as if terrorists were some kind of fixed number, like that some tiny fraction of the population will mentally snap and kill someone. That if we just don't draw attention to it, it won't really be much of an issue. And if they were so mostly lurking in the corners, extremists sharing their views with other extremists or lone wolves with twisted perceptions of reality I might be inclined to agree. But they've long since stepped out of the shadows, raised their flags and ceased vast areas with fucking
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The point of terrorism is to use fear to politically coerce a group of people. It's not just "fear", but specific fear guided to achieve a particular end.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not overly concerned about that. That is the sort of threat that our armed forces are actually good at dealing with. If they want to create a country, they have to set up logistics and stability. Those can be smashed and denied to them.
Yes, they have made inroads in a turbulent area where there is a weak government on one side and a civil war on the other. We can actually help Iraq and others sort that out with normal military assistance.
Of course, I am not suggesting that an ISIS regime is easy fo
Re: (Score:3)
It is hard for the government
Don't be an apologist. Terrorism is the best thing to happen to any government. It has allowed governments throughout the world to perform an unprecedented power grab from the people, and the people go along with it.
Even when not grabbing power you can simply do a quick distraction when the political situation requires it. A minister was caught embezzling money? "Oh look over there we just arrested someone of suspected terrorism because terrorism is evil and we're here for your protection!" 4 weeks later wh
Re: (Score:1)
Re:But if we don't spy on everyone 24/7/365 (Score:4, Insightful)
The 24/7 spying is not about terrorists, it is all about tracking peaceful political activists, those people who do actively effect political change. Also all potential politicians, union leaders, government officials, anyone who could be potentially extorted at a latter date to empower the espionage/military industrial complex. As for the terrorist seeming to be so smart and effectively neutralising the investigative techniques that are being kept secret from the majority, ever consider that they were being too smart, smarter than in fact they should, smarter than they would be without professional assistance and this professional assistance working with the full knowledge of the investigative techniques being applied. The global espionage/military industrial complex worth trillions desperately needs enemies to fight and we know full well they have been purposefully creating them for decades and this corrupt activity is escalating.
Doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, just illegalize divorce, illegalize sex without marriage and enlarge the State to spy on everyone full time in case someone has sex without being married to who ever they're having sex with. Of course we'll have to get rid of encryption as you might be using it to get laid.
Pretty quick marriage will come back to life and people will stay married no matter how much suffering it entails.
Needle in a haystack (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Needle? What needle? Ol' Rumpelstiltskin will spin all this stuff into gold!
Re: (Score:2)
DUH! (Score:4, Informative)
Honestly the leaders of the world are drooling fucking morons.
we are all lucky that terrorists and thieves are as stupid as our leaders and police are. WE have the FBI wasting resources to get Apple to decrypt a phone with NOTHING ON IT for data THEY ALREADY HAVE. No wonder anyone with any brain cells does not trust police in any way. They are utterly incompetent.
Re: (Score:2)
In related news, the DOJ admitted they already have access to the data in the phone, which means the FBI finally requested it through official channels as they should have done months ago.
Re: (Score:3)
WE have the FBI wasting resources to get Apple to decrypt a phone with NOTHING ON IT for data THEY ALREADY HAVE.
No, we have the FBI (hopefully) wasting resources to get Apple compelled to provide a phone-decryption service, which will then be used as a matter of course while investigating everything under the sun, to include jaywalking and barbering without a license. It isn't about this phone, it's about everyone else's.
Re:DUH! (Score:4, Insightful)
They've never been interested in the what's on the phone because they know nothing is there. Many of the people involved in the investigation have admitted as such. This case was entirely about precedent and remains so. If the FBI can cement a court victory in this case requiring a private company to build something for the FBI then the FBI can request that of any company or person under threat of imprisonment for contempt of court (you can't appeal contempt of court). A win would grant them basically a gold plated weapon to request anything they want in a criminal case. They could compel any company to develop devices or software to let them do things they couldn't normally do.
And this is a perfect test case for the FBI, they've got a known terrorist here, a phone he didn't own and a bunch of dead civilians. They likely couldn't find a more sympathetic case and they know it, that's why they are using it to try to get the golden bullet. The FBI win's and anyone could be pressed into service of the FBI developing things for their use in investigations of any kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Then that means we have even less reasons to trust any police because at their core they are WORSE than criminals.
Thanks, now I need a drink.
Told you so. (Score:2)
microdots and film coiled in walking canes (Score:2)
danger man — a precursor to james bond —used all sorts of clever not-digital methods of subterfuge — which were decidedly 'low tech'. John Drake does not employ cutting edge gadgets, relying instead on his wits. The most 'advanced' device used, is a closed circuit television and a tape recorder. Messages are passed in matchboxes and folded newspapers with photographic microdots. He would use the spy's own bugs against him by feeding it false information — check out Danger Man in acti
WE MUST BAN TEH PREPAID PHONES! (Score:5, Funny)
ZOMG, can you imagine the threat? Why, I just returned from the UK, and when I landed there was a vending machine just FULL of SIM cards. I got a phone number and full service without ANY question, and I don't even have any of the terrorist training. I was just, able to buy something normal without ANY background check or inquiry into my plans. When I came back to the US, I saw another machine offering similar things. This is the way the world ends, not with world war 3, but with anonymous, prepaid cell phone service.
Re: (Score:2)
Too much effort, just ban terrorism instead.
Australia versus NZ - major regulatory difference (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In Australia, burner phones are illegal. You can't even buy a prepaid SIM card without producing and linking it to a government-issued ID. But in New Zealand, you can buy as many burner phones as you want - they're next to the chocolate bars in the supermarket check-outs and cost as little as $10. This makes the
Australian rules ridiculous given that actual terrorists and criminals could just visit NZ and post the burners back over to Australia, and use them in roaming mode.
Is travel between NZ and Australia easy if one doesn't want to pass border control?
Re: (Score:2)
I had to produce my passport in Malaysia.
I got lots of uniques in Ingress though.
And here it is, I was right.. but it won't matter (Score:1)
Because reasons..
The terrorists didn't use encryption, but this won't stop the people who want access to everything you do in your life from saying encryption will put us all at risk.
This is just like the idiotic crap about us invading Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist, when the real reason was that Iraq refused to bow to the central banking governance that devalued it's oil because the US banks wanted it that way. (Documented fact!)
It is time for the American people to stop buying int
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sssh, don't tell everyone or they'll invent a new technology to bypass your great plan: talking in person.
Re:New rule (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
that won't work and france knows it, they just want your data regardless. ordinary french citizens might still buy their phones and services in france and willingly cough-up their info, but you really think terrorists and crooks will? open borders and free travel in europe along with cooperative cellular networks across much of the continent means that the phone and prepaid sim you use in france need not be purchased in france.
Re:New rule (Score:5, Informative)
The French do try. If you want a pay-as-you-go phone card (Mobicarte), you have to go to the shop and bring your passport or other ID card. They photocopy it, and bind your SIM card to that phone's IMEI.
Of course, you can just go abroad to the UK, go into any airport duty free and buy a pack of SIM cards there with roaming and data services enabled. Some hotels even sell them in vending machines. You used to get laptop PCMCIA cards for laptops that would let you surf the internet using a regular SIM card. These have been replaced with 3G/4G/5G network USB sticks or smartphones.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: New rule (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You now need to show government issued id
How fast does that data make it into the law enforcement system? Because if they all purchase cards hours before an attack and a flag doesn't pop up at that time, it's too late. Remember; these people are planning on blowing themselves up.
We may need a criminal background check done before authorizing a phone/SIM card sale.
Re:New rule (Score:4, Insightful)
Off the radar (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Is that you, Donald? *waves*
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that, and this surprises me also, of the over 1.5 million refugees who have entered Europe since the crisis began, not one single threat or attack has been attributed to them. Every single member of these terrorist cells were born and bred in the very same country they committed the attacks. They didn't sneak in under the guise of refuge, they didn't lay hidden for years before pouncing their attack, they were citizens by birth and lived in these countries their entire lives.
And my fear is that when they do start taking measures, it will mostly be along the lines of more repression, surveillance and reduction of freedoms of ordinary citizens. Ineffective window-dressing that for some reason ticks their boxes.
You can't have it both wa
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to bet. It's a matter of record that many of the terrorists are from the second-generation of their families to live in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, what we need is more Stasi, there is just not enough Stasi in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:New rule (Score:5, Insightful)
Too easy to work around. What we need is properly staffed security services. Enough workforce that the investigations can be efficient without throwing due process down the drain. You can't do that with mass surveillance. Almost all attackers in France had been on the radar of French services at some point. They went off the radar because they were considered less threatening, and France didn't have enough people to keep an eye on them while other individuals seemed more dangerous at the time.
What we 'need' to do is to wrap up the war in the middle east and build an infrastructure that gives the kids growing up there some hope for a future that compares favorably to blowing one's self up.
And as far as more security...there's plenty of security already in the airports in Europe - including Brussels - and it didn't do jack to stop the attack today.
We need a long term plan not just "more security forces" that aren't effective against people willing to blow themselves up to make a point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We may need a criminal background check done before authorizing a phone/SIM card sale.
Which would not be effective against terrorists and their supporters who haven't shown up on the radar yet, nor would it help when stolen phones are involved.
Re: (Score:2)
There, there Mr Baldwin. Please just turn off your phone and prepare for takeoff.
Re: (Score:1)
Lol, you can buy passports for 20 euro
Like that's going to stop anyone
Re:New rule (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
AS if you cant bribe a clerk to sell you 4 phones for 1500euro.
You make it sound like the police are the ones that sell the phones and cards.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, on;y the bribes become more expensive.
Re:New rule (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's basically the rule that France (and various neighbouring countries) put into place since the attacks.
When you say "since the attacks" you mean "since the Bombay terrorist attack in 2008".
Well no kidding (Score:2)
What, you didn't notice every drug dealer in the developed world uses these things?
Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about, but if the last guy I saw buy a burner phone was up to something non-shady I'll eat my hat.
Re: (Score:1)
Watch Drugs Inc, you'll see that is the only thing drug dealers use. They all use burner phones, some keeping them for a week, some up to a few months, but all use burner phones and not once has the word encryption ever been used on the show. Successful drug dealers do not do social media, period. They use the most successful marketing of all time to get their product out, word of mouth. They use burner phones to evade eavesdropping. Oh wait there may have been one episode about someone using the "dark
Re: (Score:2)
I've ordered stuff on the Dark Nets and almost all dealers force you to use PGP.
Re: (Score:1)
Already standard procedure in many European countries. No, what we need now is full recordings of all calls, voice recognition and automatic transcripts. Same voice appears to be using more than two phones? Arrest immediately.
Re: New rule (Score:2, Insightful)
Ten bucks says the NSA is wayyyyy ahead of you.
Re: (Score:3)
NSA is way ahead of you here, Sparky. See this article [arstechnica.com] for details - note the article is 3 years old as of this posting...
Re: (Score:2)
Already standard procedure in many European countries. No, what we need now is full recordings of all calls, voice recognition and automatic transcripts. Same voice appears to be using more than two phones? Arrest immediately.
I like this idea because everyone who works for a call center will be arrested. No more phone calls at dinner time!
Re: (Score:2)
They do this in Australia. People buy phones and sims on the net to get around it. Except criminals who use fake id or get someone else to buy for them
You can buy phones and sims, but you have to provide some ID to register the sim, such as driver's license details. Of course for professional criminals who seem to have little trouble importing large quantities of drugs and weapons, this is not much of a hurdle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a set of radios that are spread-spectrum and operate in an ISM band. These aren't available in France though (the band in question is used for something else there) which . . . I'm not sure if that would improve or damage opsec.
Re:What the fuck is a burner phone? (Score:4, Insightful)
...or a phone whose battery gets so hot it starts a fire?
Just in case you're not being facetious, a "burner phone" is a phone that you might only use once or a few times before switching to another one. The idea is that by the time the good guys figure out the number you're using and get a warrant to listen to those calls, you've already switched to a different phone and they have to start the whole process all over again.
Re: (Score:1)
...or a phone whose battery gets so hot it starts a fire?
Wait, didn't that happen to iPhones at some point? Mmmmh, Apple is definitely up to something... /facetious
Re: (Score:1)
And the 'solution' to the burner phone problem is for us all to buy expensive Apple phones. Or other brands, as long as they're expensive and we have to sign a mandatory contract for some significant term of time,
I use a month-at-a-time phone from Virgin Mobile just because I don't like the commitment. I've had the same number on it for years now. But if I try to do things like use it to 'validate' my Battle.net account, they refuse, because it's not 'under contract.' I haven't tried using it to 'secure
Re: (Score:2)
I'm buying them for my employees...
...of your bomb factory. ..in Yemen... ;)