IP: BBC on low-tech terrorism -- very interesting sources & leads herein

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1555000/1555981.stm
>
> >         Friday, 21 September, 2001, 11:31 GMT 12:31 UK
> > Tackling terror with technology
> >
> > More technology may not have stopped the attacks
> >
> > By BBC News Online technology correspondent Mark Ward
> >
> > Experts are warning of the risk of relying on technology to help spot 
> > terrorists before they attack.
> >
> > Everyone is outraged by the terrorist attacks, but that's no reason to 
> > suddenly abrogate our rights
> > Deborah Pierce, EFF
> > They say that the low tech methods used by those behind last weeks 
> > attacks on New York and Washington show it was basic failures in 
> > intelligence work rather than too little technology that gave the the 
> > hijackers their opportunity.
> >
> > Civil liberty groups add that intelligence agencies already have more 
> > than enough freedom to intercept communications and acquire records of 
> > electronic communications, and caution against handing over yet more 
> > powers to allay short-term fears.
> >
> > Imposing restrictions on technologies that can be used to secure messages 
> > will do little to combat terrorism, they say, but could seriously erode 
> > personal privacy.
> >
> > Hidden messages
> >
> > The FBI has revealed few details of how last week's attacks were 
> > co-ordinated.
> >
> > But, even so, it is clear that far from being a sophisticated operation 
> > using false identities, elaborate cover stories, uncrackable encryption 
> > and the highest of technology, the hijack assault was an extremely low 
> > tech mission.
> >
> > The hijackers used their own names, public web terminals, frequent flier 
> > identifiers, and unencrypted e-mail messages to keep in touch.
> >
> >
> > Conversations can be hidden in a crowd
> >
> > "We are all focusing on this as a very hi-tech war, whereas the 
> > terrorists are using very low-tech means," said Brian Gladman, former 
> > technical director at Nato, and now an advisor to the net thinktank the 
> > Foundation for Information Policy Research (Fipr).
> >
> > There were good reasons for keeping communications so simple, he said: 
> > "There's so little encryption going across the net that any that is used 
> > stands out like a sore thumb."
> >
> > Reports suggest that the sophisticated technologies available to 
> > intelligence agencies mean that those planning attacks tend to favour 
> > low-key methods that are far harder to pick out and track. Many groups 
> > use messages passed by trusted messengers and word of mouth rather than 
> > electronic networks.
> >
> > To avoid raising the suspicions of intelligence agencies, the groups are 
> > thought to fix the meaning of seemingly innocuous messages long before 
> > attacks take place. A message such as "See you in New York on the 11th" 
> > sounds innocent and its significance would only become apparent after the 
> > event.
<snip>



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/