After Endless Demonization Of Encryption, Police Find Paris Attackers Coordinated Via Unencrypted SMS

2 Likes

Who's actually surprised at this point that the idiot terrorists, that justify killing innocent people, aren't smart enough to enable encryption on their phone.

1 Like

Exactly.

Now, do think that it's necessary to build in exploitable backdoors when the NSA (and equivalent) can't even process the un-encrypted data they already have? If spying was even remotely effective this would have been caught with existing systems. This is a good wake up call that even with backdoors, there's no way to process it all, there's just too much data.

1 Like

Turkey had warned France about these attackers a year prior, and the French ignored their warnings (this says a lot about the inaction of the French intelligence agencies)

1 Like

yea. They warned them twice. The year prior, and again this year too (around June I think).

[citation needed]

2 Likes

Read the news digger lol.

If this was not so tragic, it would be hilarious. Also, with the description of ISIS by the OP with the help desk comment, am I the only one thinking of ISIS as a more comedic version of Hydra?

1 Like

Opening google and typing "Turkey warned France" is too difficult eh?

Souce 1 : http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/turkey-france-paris-attacker-151116162755424.html

Source 2 : http://mashable.com/2015/11/16/turkey-warned-france-paris-attacker/#EAjgJ__vImqU

My two cents: the government is pretty useless. There's a old quote and I forgot who said it: the only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy I'd their inefficientcy. Just shows how ridiculous the government is

Sounds to me like governments need to take these warnings from other countries more seriously.

Yes, people can't be bothered to do their own research. I could see if it's not on the first five pages of results, but seriously, there's no excuse for being too lazy to search for information that is presumably easily found.

Something also that should be brought is all the syria mess and washington post just posted that none of the suspects are syrian descent

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/15/world/europe/manhunt-for-paris-attackers.html?rref=collection/newseventcollection/attacks-in-paris&action=click&contentCollection=europe&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection

There was a story that said one of the attackers didn't have a sense of belonging. They saw him as Muslim in Belgium, even though he's from Belgium, and when he went to Morocco, they saw him as Belgian.

Perfect example of that.

US government didn't even realize that it had all the espionage it wanted to spy on venezuelan oil companies on their own fucking database, until someone did some accidental snooping in the agency.

Why would they waste a perfect scapegoat like this to ramp up measures to take more power?

That would just be stupid and a waste of a good tragedy.

Thank you for replying on behalf of the other person, CaptainChaos. There is no need for the personal jibe, however.

The wording here is pretty terrible. The implication seems to be France knew the whole time that this guy was planning to blow up a concert and did nothing. There was no 'warning' about this person. His name, and I assume some information about him, such as his entering Turkey in 2013 and, as aljazeera notes, how there is no record of him leaving Turkey(like terrorists are about to sign the guestbook, amirite?) were given to French intelligence unsolicited, along side the information that they had requested. France did not 'ignore warnings,' and to imply, and even go so far as to blatantly say this, is spin doctoring. That unsolicited information was not successfully followed up and acted upon is not tantamount to an 'ignored warning'.

@HK_47 Typically one brings their own sources to a discussion to back up their claims, especially aggressive or extraordinary ones. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth when people make claims, then get upset when people questioning the claims don't go out and prove the claim they are questioning themselves. Something about the burden of proof being on the claimant...

It was by no means intended to be personal, my apologies if you took it that way. I'll admit that it was a bit harsh though.

While I understand your point and always try to include sources for such claims myself, I can also understand that people sometimes aren't willing to do so or simply don't have the time.
It really isn't much work to type those 3 words into Google (or whichever search engine you prefer). It would only have required 3 keystrokes and a couple of mouseclicks more than the post I initially replied to. It would also have given much more sources, allowing you to pick the one you trust most.

There's arguments to be made for both sides.

'Strike me pink, and spare me days' You would last long in Central Qld digger lol.

This is exactly why Let Me Google That For You was made. Although, it has an air of condescension about it now. Not what the creators intended, but there you have it.