Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Tracking the Terrorists Online

Posted by kdawson on Sat Aug 30, 2008 04:36 PM
from the lurking-with-intent dept.
Anti-Globalism points out a story at the German magazine Spiegel profiling two small US companies that monitor terrorist networks online — IntelCenter and SITE Intelgroup. "[Founders of the two companies] Venzke and Devon are two of the most prominent 'terror trackers' worldwide. In the United States, and increasingly in other countries, the term refers to a community of people who spend their days analyzing traces that al-Qaida and affiliated organizations leave behind, especially on the Internet. The two Americans are essentially digital trackers in the age of globalized terrorism. IntelCenter and SITE Intelgroup are the companies that Venzke and Devon, respectively, have founded. They enjoy a strong reputation within the relatively small community of terrorism experts. Beyond that, though, they are virtually unknown ..."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Problems... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Saturday August 30 2008, @04:58PM (#24813663)
    The problem is, what counts as a terrorist? Sure, we all think it means the people who put anthrax in the mail, blow up buildings and plant bombs. But it seems that lately (as in after 9/11) we count anything that doesn't agree with current US politics as terrorist. Not to mention on how we limit our constitutional rights to go after these "terrorists".
    • Anyone acts strongly against the interests of [insert country's name here] is usually called a 'terrorist'. It's a relational thing. Terrorists for Americans might be called a 'militia' in Iran, or vice-versa.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        I'm as sure as I can be that our founding fathers would be 'terrorists' to the british, some 200+ yrs ago.

        it IS highly relative. sometimes a revolution IS needed. and yes, it might require some non-polite actions to shake things up.

        what if our current government is in NEED of a re-boot (so to speak)? isn't it our duty to keep the gov on the up-and-up? the gov is mostly broken now and if there was ever a need for a rebirth, its now.

        problem is, anyone who, with good intentions, wants to bring about change

      • Not against the interests of a "country" (which makes no sense); against the interests of the incumbent ruler or their backers! That might be as simple as financial interest, as we have seen time and time again.

        The definition already includes activists, dissenters, academics, and so on.

        In the end, the birth of an aggressive totalitarian state is, more than any other factor could possibly match, against the interests of America and its citizens. Fix that, will ya?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      And if we harass and torture people, that seems to count as prevention nowadays, thus "justifying" our actions.
    • Arrest him! Now!

      • The gov't funds MediaSentry.

        Citation needed.

        Sure, I think that the *AA is evil, and MediaSentry is bad, but unless you show me how the government funds it, I won't believe you. Sure, the government has managed to screw up enough things to keep our economy lagging behind for the next 70 years with the DMCA and such, but I can't find any information of MediaSentry being funded by the US government. The Chinese government though on the other hand did use MediaSentry.

          • Honestly, I can't tell if you're ripping off the government, people who hate the government, the RIAA, people who hate the RIAA, conspiracy theorists, or all five.

  • Experts? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperBanana (662181) on Saturday August 30 2008, @05:02PM (#24813703)

    They enjoy a strong reputation within the relatively small community of terrorism experts

    Would those be the experts that have many failures, few successes, and been largely reactionary?

  • If the "terrorists" such sneaky internet geniuses, wouldn't they have their own fake honey pots set up to alert them when someone starts getting too diligent in their research?

  • Find the webmasters and kill them and you'll remove a lot of AQ's ability to recruit, organize, and direct.
  • by tom's a-cold (253195) on Sunday August 31 2008, @02:43PM (#24822011) Homepage
    Say, Witchfinder Pursuivant.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      or maybe they're allowed to do what the government cannot?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        ...And what can the government not do to track down "terrorists"? They use the word terrorist and congress will pay them millions of dollars to do track down these "terrorists", they don't need to get warrants, they can tap phones, etc. The government can and has shredded the constitution and burned it to ashes. There is no limited government when they say the word terrorist.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 30 2008, @04:56PM (#24813639)

      I know what you mean. Especially when the real terrorists are those in the government.

      • by v1 (525388) on Saturday August 30 2008, @05:02PM (#24813701) Homepage Journal

        seeing as how the most popular method of government control has always been to make the people afraid of something so they'll do whatever you want them to, I'd say calling the government the terrorists is extremely insightful. They're the ones inciting and magnifying the terror.

        That being said, there'd be a lot less terror if we could take back control of the government. Now if only the sheep would realize this...

        • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Saturday August 30 2008, @05:18PM (#24813823)
          What we really need is a congress, court system and president that follows the constitution. You know, it wouldn't really matter if they were right wing or left wing so long as they followed it, but it seems that the right wing is always pushing for warrantless arrests for "terrorists" and the left wing is always pushing for the abolishment of the second and parts of the first amendment. And we all know that at this time no third party candidate stands a chance.
        • election time! (Score:3, Insightful)

          make the people afraid of something so they'll do whatever you want them to,

        • "... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering

      • I take great offense to that.

        Everyone knows that the real terrorists are, in fact, insurance salespeople.

      • You bet (Score:5, Informative)

        by toby (759) * on Saturday August 30 2008, @06:16PM (#24814181) Homepage Journal
        This is how you terrorise innocent people. [salon.com] (Today in Minneapolis, not in some remote police state that you can ignore.)
        • That piece is written with a very strong bias, and I was very disturbed over it until I read other news sources. According to other sources, the police did indeed have a warrant and they confiscated items such as "PVC pipe, chicken wire and duct tape. The RNC Welcoming Committee wanted to lock themselves together in human barricades called ''sleeping dragons.'' Also included in the raids were knives, flammable liquids, five-gallon buckets of urine, homemade caltrops (which are devices used to puncture bus t

        • here. [cryptome.org]

          Reading this account it seems that a house was surrounded by heavily armed police, and a resident handcuffed, before a warrant was obtained or shown.

          The other accounts describe excessive intimidation.

          This kind of thing makes me very glad I don't live in your "free" society.

      • I know what you mean. Especially when the real terrorists are those in the government.

        Yes, because doing things like blowing yourself in a crowded market place full of civilians is not terrorism at all. It's freedom fighting.

      • Oh what, because you think they terrorise people for political gain? The real terrorist were the people hijacking the planes in 9/11. They were the ones who shocked and frightened the nation in the first place. The government, while benefiting politically from this, was also responding to the fear already out there in the public. They would be lousy politicians and lousy leaders if they didn't do something about that fear.

        Without knowing exactly what went on inside the heads of the politicians, all I can sa

    • Don't worry, when the name looses its appeal, they will make up a new [Devil|Witch|Jew|Nazi|Jap|Commie]. Gotta' have some way to strike up fear and justify war.

    • Your a terrorist, you post as AC.

      What are you hiding from?

    • These organizations have not contributed to the prevention of single terrorist act

      Care to substantiate this (rather bombastic) claim?

    • These organizations have not contributed to the prevention of single terrorist act and exist mainly to monitor people on an arbitrary basis.

      Uh-oh. Here is more... Not only is your "insightful" remark unsubstantiated (you failed to prove it), it is also wrong (I 'm proving it wrong). From the article (I highlighted the most important parts for you):

      Katz almost single-handedly uncovered a number of funding sources of Islamists. Katz, a Jew born in Iraq who speaks Arabic, infiltrated Islamist organizations disguised as a Muslim woman -- and wearing recording equipment. She passed her findings on to the authorities. There were court cases, and some organizations were banned. And SITE has certainly been successful. There is a reason Katz has a letter of appreciation from FBI Director Robert S. Muller III hanging on the wall in her office. The company's work has also led to arrests abroad, including those of would-be suicide bombers who had left farewell letters in chat rooms that SITE managed to penetrate.

      Who pays for this crap?

      From the article, again:

      Almost every statement by Osama bin Laden published on the Internet, to name only one example, is first made public by SITE and IntelCenter. They find the statements in the confusion of Web sites associated with al-Qaida, and within seconds they have sent the first screen shots to their subscribers. It takes the companies only minutes to summarize bin Laden's speeches and within hours, they will have provided full translations, analysis included. A US magazine was one of their first subscribers. Government agencies in Switzerland and the families of Sept. 11 victims soon followed. SITE was in business. Today this former non-profit organization has been turned into a business enterprise.

      Read the article for more... Why wouldn't you? May you die a thousand death by choking on your anti-Bush bile...

      • Thank you! Moderators, please mod the idiotic grandparent down!
      • I concede that here was one claim in that entire article about the prevention an actual terrorist attack. However, there was no evidence that said individuals were actually going to carry out an attack other than the fact that they said something in an online chat room. Everyting else was mostly involved posing as a terrorist onine and seeing if they could someone to say something stupid.

        As for the other stuff about summarizing Osama Bin Laden's speeches, that's neat but it's not something any Arabic spe

        • However, there was no evidence that said individuals were actually going to carry out an attack other than the fact that they said something in an online chat room.

          Actually, that's plenty... Getting a hint like that is likely to allow prevention of an attack and even of catching the terrorist.

          Why would you pay for that?

          Although you may discount their government customers as directed by the evil Bushitler, the non-governmental agencies, like magazines, clearly, pay them on their own free will...

      • memo to pro-Bush (Score:5, Insightful)

        by toby (759) * on Saturday August 30 2008, @06:22PM (#24814221) Homepage Journal
        May you choke on your beloved waterboarding, spying, illegally kidnapping, profiteering, lying administration.
        • May you choke on your beloved waterboarding, spying, illegally kidnapping, profiteering, lying administration.

          I don't love the waterboarding, but I don't think, it is a big deal. Spying, taking prisoners, and occasionally even lying is what all administrations do... Profiteering? What profiteering? According to the definition [wikipedia.org]:

          Political figures taking bribes and favors from corporations involved with war production have been called war profiteers. Abraham Lincoln's first Secretary of War, Simon Cameron, was

          • by janrinok (846318) on Sunday August 31 2008, @01:51AM (#24816859)

            I don't love the waterboarding, but I don't think, it is a big deal.

            And that is the problem. If you now believe that, as a nation, it is entirely normal to torture people, then you you are no longer the nation that you once were, no longer the nation that you think you are, and you are no longer the nation that will be respected elsewhere. Of course, if that is not 'a big deal' then your argument is lost.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                not even the harshest of their critics doubts the guilt of the "victims"

                I strongly disagree - that might be your view but it is by no means universal. However, being captured in Afghanistan is not, of itself, a crime. You might be correct in what you allege someone is guilty of but, if you are so sure, why not give those individuals their day in court? I believe it is because, without torture, you haven't got a case that would pass legal scrutiny anywhere in the world. And even with torture you haven't got a case but at least you can claim you have information. If you are s

          • Regarding your signature: "Russia" should be in accusative declension, thus "Russiam". Ceterum censeo Russiam esse delendam.
    • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Saturday August 30 2008, @05:09PM (#24813767)

      Can you say "pandemonium and vigilantism"? Sure. I knew you could.

      Can you say sued for libel and slander? The government can do practically the same thing by having its secret list and stopping 6 year olds from getting on a plane because they have the same name of an alleged "terrorist".

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Can you say sued for libel and slander?

        Can you say "protected by government that fabricates need a for security and claims it is more important than the long term health of a free society"?

      • Libel and slander suits can be bypassed because truth is an absolute defense. But one can publish truthful things that still constitute "false positives" for terrorist activity, according to some "profile". So it is not reasonable to rely on libel and slander laws to protect against this kind of atrocity.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Imagine a large, popular website that listed people who did some little thing that might fit a "terrorist profile".

      By some peoples arguments, I MUST be a Terrorist.

      • Precisely my point. There are bound to be lots of "false positives", as there always are whenever someone tries to "profile" people.

        And that is just not acceptable.
    • Agreed, I wish everyone would stop supporting them.

      I don't give a crap about 9/11 but the United States still won't come out from cowering under the table. Victory to the terrorists!

    • 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

      Of course the best terrorists are smart enough to do any violence or threatening themselves, and instead just use the fear created by other terrorists to get their agenda implemented.

      The "best" part in using that strategy is that you won't even get recognized as a terrorist by the majority, but instead as a patriot.