Does Anonymity In Virtual Worlds Breed Terrorism? 295
An Anonymous Coward writes "The Washington Post has an article about the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity's take on the numerous virtual worlds (e.g. Second Life) that have cropped up in recent years. IARPA's thesis is that because the Government can't currently monitor all the communication and interaction, terrorists will plot and scheme in such environments."
no more than anonymity in the real world... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:no more than anonymity in the real world... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:no more than anonymity in the real world... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you're being sarcastic. It's not like government bodies to ever admit mistakes. Unless it's mistakes of their predecessors, of course.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In fact less (Score:5, Insightful)
Virtual worlds come about last in the list of options. If you were a terrorist and you wanted to communicates would you:
- Talk in a virtual world, where you could be monitored if suspected
- Talk in the real world in some random location
- Use a off prepaid mobiles, brought for cash
- Use heavily encrypted emails, where they would know who you were talking too but not what you said
- Post stenographic encrypted images on Flicr (images which hold a hidden coded message, not visible to normal users), where they could not tell what you said or who you sait it to. Possibility of finding out people who regularly checked images, though if it was good porn....
- Get a spam company to send a message to millions of people with stenographic encrypted messages or pre-arranged phrases. (other terrorists don't need to regualrly check images)
I am sure that most of you can think up some more "better than second life" means of covert communication.Re:In fact less (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, many stenographers tend to encrypt messages. Fortunately with the advent of email they're not quite as prominent in business circles.
I presume you really meant "steganographic".
Ah, yes I do!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In fact less (Score:4, Funny)
Should be easy to find (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just speak in a foreign language (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
File Sharing! No, really. They could put a stenographic message in a torrent of Beowulf and post it on TPB.
Wait, while we're at it, I think that ripping music CDs to mp3 files promotes terrorism too, oh, and skipping the commercials with my DVR. Skipping commercials REALLY promotes terrorism.
They must really think we're stupid.
Sure ... (Score:2)
What breeds terrorism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets see...
Turning a country into a war zone;
Turning whole populations into refugees;
Military occupations with checkpoints, no knock searches, arbitrary detentions, torture, etc.;
Desperation;
Hopelessness; and
Training religious fanatics in terrorist techniques, arming them, and funding them, until they defeat your enemy for you and then abandoning them.
Yep all of those things are really good at breeding terrorism, but I don't see anonymity in virtual worlds anywhere on the list. Nope. Sorry.
Monitor this! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Monitor this! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Monitor this! (Score:5, Funny)
How could you know that? Unless...
I FOUND ONE! Call DHS!
Re:Monitor this! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it needs a big stamp labeled [Government Out Of Control]
The "problem" is not that people can have unmonitored discussions in virtual worlds, the "problem" is unmonitored discussions. You know, like you might want to have in your living room with your sister's new husband, Khalid Al Automatic Terrorist Suspect. Or your friend, Sir Knight of the Holy Order of Pot Smokers. Or your wife, She who Blew You When You Were Underage. There is literally no difference between the idea that "they" have to monitor discussions in one place, as compared to "they" need to monitor discussions in another. The idea they are actually pushing is that unmonitored discussions are a threat. The issue at hand is specifically, do "they" need to monitor discussions at all, and the answer, both legally and in the sense of rational degrees of privacy, is a resounding no.
I refer you to the 4th amendment of the constitution:
Some would say that there is no right to privacy in the constitution, but I say there it is, staring you in the face, as the underlying presumption that created the first phrase in the fourth amendment. Just ask, why would people have this right? It all descends from privacy, that social boundary that we all know better than to cross.
That bit about "papers" is the key; at the time, "papers" were what was used to communicate long distance, and there they are, right in the boilerplate that LIMITS the federal government's rights by trumping with the people's rights. This idea was rationally extended in the right to privacy for your mail, and again, in right to privacy with regard to telecommunications and cell calls and so forth. The idea that these people are pushing that packets are not the same as an envelope carrying your remarks in the degree of privacy deserved, and the reason for that privacy, is simply ridiculous.
If you put up with this, mark my words, you'll be asked to put up with monitoring gear in your home before too much longer.
Re: (Score:2)
{and I quote, paraphrased} If you put up with this, mark my words, you'll be asked to put up with monitoring gear in your head , to track your every thought, before too much longer.
And before you all start laughing, let me just say they would if they could.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If someone is communicating through a public system like second life, which has servers in a central location, you can get a court order and monitor those servers without the suspect having any idea it's happening.
In real life, you need to physically plant bugging devices, which carries significant risks, not only of the devices being found but also of you're operatives being caught planting them. It's also considerably more expensiv
Re:Monitor this! (Score:5, Insightful)
Some would say that there is no right to privacy in the constitution, but I say there it is, staring you in the face, as the underlying presumption that created the first phrase in the fourth amendment.
It doesn't need to be in the Constitution. It is a basic right. The Constitution was written on the principle that it does not grant rights. It prevents the government from taking away rights you *already possess*. It is abundantly clear, both from the text itself and the discussions that led to it, that the Constitution enumerates a subset of our rights. The fact that it is not mentioned in the Constitution does not mean you don't have it -- quite the opposite. If it isn't mentioned, that means the government has no right to touch it.
But then, no one actually reads it any more.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
The problems are that:
The big, gaping hole in the amendment is the incl
Re:Monitor this! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The so-called communist regimes have fallen. Not that we're having it any better now, but still... changes happen.
The question is, when will Americans decide to change something... and in their own country, for a change.
The more I observe the world, the more I loathe democracy.
It may work nicely on a local level, but when you get any higher than that, too many layers of abstraction shield the officials from their voters. And so the parties turn into clans, clans into dynasties — the main thing agai
Slightly off topic but can't resist the joke (Score:2)
Why do Bulgarian policemen go around in threes? One who can read, one who can write, and one to keep a watch on the dangerous intellectuals.
Actually, that's probably bang on topic in terms of what it gives away about police attitudes. One British police chief constable was recently said to have expressed concerns about reducing the checks on police stop and search powers because he knew that there were police in his force who would abuse them.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do traffic cops always go in pairs?
One to read the numbers, one to read the letters.
Obviously, dangerous intellectuals would never join the police in the first place :P
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would not only allow us to monitor terrorism, but also paedophiles, domestic violence, and virtually every crime.
After all, if you are not a terrorist (or paedophile) you have nothing to hide! Somebody think of the children!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except for government buildings and police stations of course...
Re: (Score:2)
Terror Gnomes (Score:5, Funny)
whats wrong (Score:5, Funny)
"trust us, the panopticon will keep you safe" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"trust us, the panopticon will keep you safe" (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually I think it's the reverse. Overreaching surveillance and torture tells me that the US intelligence agencies are way behind in their capabilities and skills, so they have to fall back on cruder methods. Some might say incompetent, but that tends to be taken as perjorative. I'm thinking more "developmentally disabled," because they may simply not be capable of researching good intelligence anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
they dress up like bears (Score:5, Funny)
If by "terrorists", you mean "furries" and "furry sympathizers", then I would have to agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're serious about targeting terrorists, why not declare a War on Beards [thesleaze.co.uk]?
So, basically... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Most certainly not. But we will limit it to whatever our businesses need and cut down, outlaw or simply disable the rest.
WTF (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Then yea, this article pisses me off too
No (Score:3, Funny)
Of Course It Does... (Score:3, Insightful)
Be A Patriot! Don't Read!
In anything that is new... (Score:2)
Q and A (Score:5, Insightful)
Will terrorists will plot and scheme where the government cannot monitor them?
Yes, of course!
Will it help to let the government monitor everywhere?
Maybe a bit, if it is possible. But it would mean that we destroy the kind of society we are trying to defend against the terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot monitor everything every time. Ask any parent who isn't in the delusion that they know everything about their kids. Or, easier, think back to your youth. Did your parents know everything about you all the time? And, hell, did they try?
Somebody's getting paid for writing this crap @WP (Score:2, Interesting)
Bye! Gotta get to work.
we should be afraid of anynymous (Score:4, Funny)
Think of it, Memes filling every newspaper, kittehs running wild in the streets, and lets not even go into the bucket..
Being a Government breeds Terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)
So YES, any place that people gather, or communicate one on one, one on many or many on many will be a place where potential plans for evil deeds are carried out. The Pentagon is one such place for those with organized power centers while other places, real or virtual are places where those kinds of communications can occur.
Those in power are those that kill. They are often the ones that also need to be stopped along with the - so called - terrorists that they fight. They both carry out evil deeds including killing.
Huh? (Score:2)
Thank-you.
-FL
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's simple primitive brain response to being killed
I think the only response of a brain to being killed is "dying," don't you think?
all humans still have that primitive brain, it's known as our lizard brain. It's responsible for the fight, flight or freeze response.
This has nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism requires planning, patience, and execution. A reptile can accomplish none of these things. "Getting pissed off" is something universal to most animals. But terrorism is a uniquely human
Re:Being a Government breeds Terrorism (Score:4, Interesting)
Terror is the war of the weak.
It's just that simple. It's amazing how people can cry for capital punishment with the argument "What if it was your child that was murdered?" and not understand the mindset of a terrorist, who is basically in the same camp.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The facts are complex, yes. Not all people retaliate. Some time quite some time. Yes, ideologies such as intense religious fervor and extreme dogmas do come into play as well.
However, when a major Government directly supports repressive governments, for many decades, across a region of the planet how can you expect to have no retaliation from those within that region? That's what I wonder. At least be honest about this aspect of it.
It's hard looking in the m
and why would... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever heard of IRC? Email? Smoke signals?
Just chatting in virtual worlds is too time consuming if you want to convey information quickly and easily. I should know, I work in them.
Re: (Score:2)
Letters, telephone, talking, etc, etc.
I'm pretty sure that most MMOs record conversation (Score:2)
Most likely, true trained terrorists (not some guys wanting to stick a stink bomb in a high school lunchroo
Let 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
Farce on Terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
What is happening in America is not terrorism. It bears none of the characteristic traits. It is something else. Terrorism is probably something that will emerge in America in the next few years as/if the government becomes more suppressive. People seeking their liberty back will unite and work together to return liberty to USA. The current legislation being put in place is a strategy to counter the ability of people to unite and rise up against a government.
If I was American or British right now, I would be very concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, we already know about terrorism. We'll let you know if we notice anything new.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is, the only terrorism you know was from the IRA, which is what I was describing. This new thing, labelled as terrorism is not. It is something else. As a British citizen you may remember that the IRA had clear objectives.
T
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
10,500 people in 7 years is NOTHING. More people have died from heart attacks in that time. More people have died from car crashes in that time. Want to declare a war on those ?
As for not caring if they kill me, no, I wouldn't. I would rather be killed at the hands of a terrorist tomorrow than live in a world where we sacrifice our freedoms to keep us 'sa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it interesting the way you can pull numbers out of your ass. 10,500 people? Oh wait, are you including troops and contractors who invaded foreign countries without a formal declaration of war (against the Rules of War) and who persist on foreign soil in a de facto state of war, without any clear goals for withdrawal (against t
Are you serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They can't monitor me and my co-conspirators (Score:3, Funny)
Because they don't know I'm a terrorist.
Oh, Sh**t! What's that red dot?
It's a plot! (Score:4, Funny)
Even sysadmins can't get away with that. The best we can do is sit around all day playing slashdot and get paid for it.
Right. (Score:2)
That's fine with me as long as ... (Score:2)
Terrorists never plan anything at home... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the terrorists are really that incompetant, we don't need to stop them, because they're just going to mess their own plan up anyway.
So two possibilities remain:
1. This is a blatant move towards a police state, leaving people too afraid to speak their mind (ala China).
2. There's legitimate reason to fear a massive uprising of "terrorism" from AMERICANS themselves. This sort of thing doesn't just happen in a vacuum. If this is expected, it begs the question, what are those pushing this bill planning to do that's so horrible Americans would revolt in large numbers? This is not a fear of legitimate governments that AREN'T looking to do something horrible.
Someone might speculate that perhaps they aren't worried about ordinary citizens or terrorists, but that perhaps there's another secret group we don't know about (or the extent of) seeking to infiltrate the government. Darn those commies trying to sneak back in! If there was such a group, and they were well coordinated enough to make such an attempt, don't you think they'ed have their own encrypted communications, and possibly face to face IRL meetings that left no record?
One way or another, this doesn't pass the smell test.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Fewer legal protections for MMO players (Score:4, Interesting)
And because they can't read my thoughts... (Score:2)
??? If they knew me, they would say "not bloody likely"... but of course they do not know me so... their suspicion is somehow justified???
These government assholes are the ones we should be worried about, not the frigging people in Everquest!
But when they can ... (Score:2)
Back in the day... (Score:2)
The point here is that none of this paranoia is especially
Because of the convenient AC option (Score:2, Funny)
The entire story is an "IF X then Y might" (Score:2)
IF virtual worlds become important (they are not yet) then they MIGHT become a breeding ground for terrorism. Second life is mentioned, which is a "popular" and often discussed virtual world.
I say "popular" because while a great number of people have downloaded, and far more have heard of it, the actual number of active "players" is rather low.
As you get older, you start to see more and more that everything old is new again. I seem to remember similar story about BBS systems. Remember when everyone had to
Funny hypothesis... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You americans make me laugh [youtube.com]. Yeah, the government has everything under control. Keep believing it, after all it's only another lie.
IARPA Missed The Point (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it is repression and colonialism in real world that breeds terrorism.
False positives (Score:3, Funny)
The number of false positives is going to be astronomical. A bunch of terrorists planning a attack is going to sound very much like a bunch of spotty teens planing to raid the Dungeon of Crushing Inevitability.
Any uncontrolled medium "breeds terrorists"... (Score:3, Insightful)
Privacy != terrorism (Score:3, Interesting)
Are they seriously trying to imply that we won't be safe unless the government can monitor all communication, all the time? I.e. that any kind of privacy breeds terrorism?
They already do (Score:3, Funny)
We call them griefers .
I guess the only answer is a Police State... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, wait... I said "think". Slip of the tongue! I may need more reeducation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Expect that to be severly curtailed real soon, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Or governments reacting differently to you depending on whether you voted for them or against them in the last election?
That happened in Canada not that long ago, although the elect
Re:Virtual Security (Score:4, Insightful)
Anonymity breeds terrorism. end of sentence.
s/anonymity/desperation and you have a valid argument. Anonymity is completely counter to all the goals of terrorism. You cannot effect political change, if you do not reveal yourself or your motivations. Anonymous terrorism is just plain old murder. Doing it in secret defeats the purpose.
It helps to be anonymous when you are in the planning stages, but it is pointless to remain anonymous after the fact.
Re:GOP should make US citizens carry lightning rod (Score:3, Insightful)
Carrying a lightning rod around will actually increase your chances of being struck.
Just so you know. I mean, I wouldn't want to see somebody get hurt.
What made so many Americans such cowards?
It has been a slow, degenerative process. The causes will probably all be obvious in the end, but that will be too late.
Terrorising RL's bussiness model (Score:2)
Re:What breeds terrorism? (Score:4, Informative)