Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Businesses The Internet

Tracking the Terrorists Online 135

Posted by kdawson 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 ..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tracking the Terrorists Online More

Tracking the Terrorists Online

Comments Filter:
  • " they are virtually unknown..."

    Exactly as it should be.

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

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

    • Re:Quote: "Beyond that, though ..." (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Darkness404 ( 1287218 ) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @06:09PM (#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)

        by MrNaz ( 730548 )

        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)

      by Dan541 ( 1032000 )

      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.
  • If these people are able to track down terrorists, should they feel obligated to share their techniques with the government, and try to unite their resources to track and apprehend the terrorists, faster and sooner?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pxlmusic ( 1147117 )
      or maybe they're allowed to do what the government cannot?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Darkness404 ( 1287218 )
        ...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.
  • These organizations have not contributed to the prevention of single terrorist act and exist mainly to monitor people on an arbitrary basis. Who pays for this crap?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mi ( 197448 )

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

      Care to substantiate this (rather bombastic) claim?

    • You do with your tax payer dollars.

    • 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...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Prune ( 557140 )
        Thank you! Moderators, please mod the idiotic grandparent down!

      • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Well, I am not reading Slashdot anymore. Fascists took the thing over and are threatening to choke people and make them die a thousand deaths. Slashdot was the last democratic forum/site on the Internet, now it is dead, ruled by some Psychotic Bush followers.
        Probably Slashdot is also "cooperating" and giving our information to the NSA so they can send us to be tortured in Guantanamo, all for the glory of the pathetic and failed American "democracy"...

        And the funny thing: the captcha is CENSORS, because Slas

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Anik315 ( 585913 )

        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

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mi ( 197448 )

          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...

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by sycodon ( 149926 )

          "there was no evidence that said individuals were actually going to carry out an attack other than the fact that they said"

          So if someone told you they were going to shoot your sorry ass, would you not believe them until they started shooting at you?

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

        by toby ( 759 ) * on Saturday August 30, 2008 @07:22PM (#24814221) Homepage Journal
        May you choke on your beloved waterboarding, spying, illegally kidnapping, profiteering, lying administration.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mi ( 197448 )

          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

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

            by janrinok ( 846318 ) on Sunday August 31, 2008 @02:51AM (#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:2)

              by mi ( 197448 )

              And that is the problem. If you now believe that, as a nation, it is entirely normal to torture people

              It is not "normal". But waterboarding (a procedure, that leaves no long-lasting damage to the body) a few people is permissible — and always has been throughout history. The only real moral argument against it, is that you may be applying it to the wrong (innocent) guy — the same sole argument against death penalty, BTW.

              That's not the case with Bush's administration — not even the harshe

              • The only real moral argument against it, is that you may be applying it to the wrong (innocent) guy

                The assumption of innocence is one of the foundations of due process.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by mi ( 197448 )

                  The assumption of innocence is one of the foundations of due process.

                  Only in formally convicting the accused. In extracting intelligence information out of them, you go with the probabilities and their weights (see Mathematical Expectation [wikipedia.org]). One one hand is the waterboarding's unpleasantries (u) with the probability of 1.0, and on the other — certain number of lives (N) with a probability of P.

                  If the unpleasantry of losing each life is U, you've got the simple formula for when to order waterboarding

                  • Only in formally convicting the accused. In extracting intelligence information out of them

                    Stop. Right. Here.

                    Another foundation of due process is that before applying punishment, someone needs to be convicted.

                    And yes, torture is punishment, as in "inflicting a penalty on, causing pain for some offense".

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by janrinok ( 846318 )

                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

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by mi ( 197448 )

                  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 are confusing two groups of people:

                  1. Those captured in Afghanistan.
                  2. Those, who were waterboarded on Bush administration's orders.

                  Even if there are people belonging to both of the groups, neither of the groups is even a complete subset of the other — Khaled Mohammed [wikipedia.org], a "victim" of waterboarding, for example, was captured in Pakistan.

                  None of the people in

                  • KSB travelled to Pakistan from Afghanistan in an attempt to evade capture. Fortunately, his security in Pakistan was not as good as it had been in Afghanistan.

                    Torture of various kinds has been used against those who have been captured in the War on Terror. Waterboarding is only one example. The use of torture, rendition, illegal detention is being used because the USA hasn't got a case that will stand up in court. It matters not whether the individual was detained in Pakistan, Afghanistan or the USA. I

              • Hundreds of lives now vs. the hypothetical hundreds torture victims in the future? The answer is very simple...

                Yeah, and the answer isn't what you think it is.

                There has never been a case where waterboarding resulted in saving lives that were in immediate danger. The whole "ticking time bomb" scenario has never happened and is extremely unlikely to ever happen. Furthermore, even if it did happen the whole "oh you have to verify the words of enthusiastic collaborators too" excuse doesn't apply because if there is a ticking time bomb there is no way to verify until too late.

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by baerm ( 163918 )
                <i>It is not "normal". But waterboarding (a procedure, that leaves no long-lasting damage to the body) a few people is permissible &#226;&#8364;" and always has been throughout history</i>

                You must have heard this since it's been mentioned all over the place, but if you mean "always has been" to include the Germans and Japanese to which we (the U.S.) applied the death penalty after World War II for practicing this kind of torture, then we are in full agreement. We should take the people

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Prune ( 557140 )
            Regarding your signature: "Russia" should be in accusative declension, thus "Russiam". Ceterum censeo Russiam esse delendam.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by ddoz ( 1329149 )

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

            We both know waterboarding isn't the only torture [youtube.com]method going on in these prisons.

            Spying on it's citizens, taking prisoners, and lying to start wars is what the Bush administration has been doing

            There, fixed that for you.

            Once you have any evidence of this administration's "taking bribes or favors" in the above-described manner, be sure to send that evidence to Senator Reed, Congresswoman Pelosi, and other leading opposition figures

            A bit difficult, seeing as how they've been shredding(or as they call it, 'losing') all of it the past 8 years. That you come off as completely apathetic and an apologist for this bullshit is downright disturbing.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by sycodon ( 149926 )

          That's right. Slashdot has been taken over by the fascists right. How else could such a third grade rant be modded insightful?

          • I assure you that Slashdot still remains a stronghold of leftist liberals.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by sycodon ( 149926 )

              I see it's up to 5 now. What crap.

              It is insightful in one sense. It gives us great insight to the moderators.

              • I don't see what's wrong with the GP post, but I think it's amusing that as soon as something that doesn't conform to Slashdot's usual leftist liberal dogma gets modded up, it's suddenly evidence of the "fascist right" taking over the site (which is firmly controlled by leftist liberals).

      • 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.

        Isn't the language in this article revealing?

        They're talking about PROGRANDA STATEMENTS put out by terrorist groups - which are useless UNLESS they are PUBLICLY disseminated. These guys just read the newspaper. Something MILLIONS of other people do, except those other people are A) BROWN B) MUSLIM C) NOT ZIONIST ENOUGH.

        This is just emblematic of the attitude that "it doesn't count", "hasn't been discovered", until a white man has done it, like Christopher Columbus 'discovered' America for the White Man (a

  • Problems... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darkness404 ( 1287218 ) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @05:58PM (#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".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by wigle ( 676212 )
      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)

        by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 )

        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

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

          I don't think so at all. The founding fathers engaged in prolonged efforts at fixing the issues within the law by petitions etc. The Declaration of Independence was also a significant difference.

          If they had started killing English civilians on English soil in surprise attacks in an undeclared war, hiding their identities, then yes. They published their own names, gave an account of their grievances and their attempts at conciliation (having "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" which the current

      • no, no, (Score:2)

        by toby ( 759 ) *

        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?

    • You're an economic terrorist because you're running a P2P app! The gov't funds MediaSentry.

      • 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.

        • It's called jumping to conclusions!

          1) gov't would pay for information about terrorists
          2) p2p users are terrorists
          3) mediasentry tracks down p2p users

          therefore, the gov't pays mediasentry for information about p2p users.

          Oh, yeah:

          4) Profit!

          Can't be more obvious than that! :-)

          • 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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DeadDecoy ( 877617 )
      And if we harass and torture people, that seems to count as prevention nowadays, thus "justifying" our actions.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by maxume ( 22995 )

        Take no responsibility for actions you have no recourse to prevent. If the average American is responsible for any criminal actions of the United States government, so then is the average citizen of the world.

    • Arrest him! Now!

  • Experts? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @06:02PM (#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?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Prune ( 557140 )
      Know of any others that can do significantly better?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 )

        Know of any others that can do significantly better?

        Sometimes the smart choice is to do nothing at all.
        Cue apoplexy.

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

      No, that would be the security-theater experts.

  • They've been terrorizing my Internet experience for months now.

  • Is it true that sometimes there is Too Much Information?

    First and foremost, is how can these gentlemen do what they do and be legal? are they law enforcement agents?

    Shouldn't they be "unknown"? I mean, if they are to be known, doesn't it make them targets? and/or their jobs that much harder?

    Still, I have to admit, I envy them, I wish I could do such a job :)

  • Obviously, all you need to do to track terrorists on the web is to datamine their Wikipedia pages.

  • I found em! (Score:1, Troll)

    by toby ( 759 ) *

    Right here! [whitehouse.gov]

  • The real comms are steg layered on photo hosts (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    These guys are just getting the amateurs as they play spy games. But a dollar is a dollar if someone wants to pay you.

  • 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?

  • according to dictionary.com:

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

    So... in the world today that leaves us with Al Qaeda and the United States of America.

    So having two people found two companies to do this seems pretty logical.

    Is there a real story here or were you just trying to fill up some white space.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Wildclaw ( 15718 )

      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.

  • ...cannot be disclosed." But the names, photographs and ages of their founders can! Great work, Spiegel Online!

  • Of that I know
    The government actually
    Really told me so
    But there are some others
    Who say the rumors are true
    I may have blown up
    A Lego or two
    So now I can't fly
    On your fancy jet liners
    I just have to walk
    To the greasy spoon diners
    And wait for that Greyhound
    To South Carolina.

  • I went to the www.intelcenter.com [intelcenter.com] and found that you can buy dvd's like Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) Videos Vol. 1 DVD: Our Blessed Jihad in Yunan and al-Qaeda Videos Vol. 135 DVD: Holocaust of the Americans in the Land of Khorasan, The Islamic Emirate: Shelling of the Crusaders' and Apostates' Base in Paktika for the low low price of $40.

    Whether they provide a real service to govt agencies or not, I find peddling terrorist propaganda under the guise of tracking terrorists online as a service to be quit
  • Find the webmasters and kill them and you'll remove a lot of AQ's ability to recruit, organize, and direct.
  • "online" investigators and trackers - the most any of them ever do is type the name of their target into myspace or facebook.

    News reporters typically talk about computer technology like it's some sort of mystifying science that makes all things scary come to life and chase your children.
  • The US goverment defines terrorism as "a group who has the goal to inculcate fear in to a group or groups of people". How do you deal with these people: 1)Hunt them. 2)Find them. 3)KILL THEM. 4)repeat... Have we all forgotten the actions taken agianst innocent men woman and children? 9/11? World tradecenters in 93? Oklahoma City? TWA in 1985? Archillo Lauuro??? The war agianst America,by terrorists, was started in 1983 in Beruit. The US goverment just refused to allow us to fight back. We got a remin

  • Hey guys, moveon.org has their own web site; this is /.

    Then again...

    B.

    -- Knocking over more protesters with watercannons by 9 a.m. than most people do all day. --

  • Give Them an Official Title (Score:3, Funny)

    by tom's a-cold ( 253195 ) on Sunday August 31, 2008 @03:43PM (#24822011) Homepage
    Say, Witchfinder Pursuivant.
  • Imho there's no terrorists online. They are out there off-line.It's very convenient to sit before a computer doing nothing though, I understand.
  • The Government should plant gps tracking devices [rmtracking.com] on the vehicles of suspected terrorists. This could lead them to the guys running the show.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close