In a speech today in New York, CIA Director John Brennan warned that social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook are “greatly amplifying” the dangers of terrorism.
Brennan complained social media allows the groups to recruit online, and allows sympathizers to learn how to carry out attacks without ever having to leave their homes.
Brennan went on to warn that the rise of the Internet had allowed terrorism to became much more decentralized, and that much harder for the US government to get a handle on.
The CIA chief’s comments reflect similar complaints from other nations about the rise of the Internet, notably Turkey, where officials have complained Twitter is a bigger threat to their continued rule than car bombings.
Absent from Brennan’s comments were any proposed course of action, though the understood implication is that US intelligence agencies will continue to demand unfettered surveillance powers over the Internet, irrespective of privacy concerns.
If what he means by 'terrorism' is that popular non-rigorous label intended to evoke a particular knee jerk (that category of awful that a gov't is to accuse others of, and not to be accused of), then he appears to be admitting that internet surveillance is worthless against it. So what rationale is left for it? What was it's purpose to begin with?
If what he really meant was more general, like the forms of dissent that gov'ts don't like and would like deterred, criminalized, stigmatized…then he could be telling you that gov't trolls are worthless…
Either way, if he wants more of the same 'solution' to either rather than to roll them back he's really talking about sucking your wallet dry. And I'd be skeptical of a 'next' solution this might signal that he's selling. Better: if you see it, leak it.
Okay, fine- the bright lad who wants to learn how to carry out 'terrorist attacks' does the obvious- he joins the military (preferably the Army or Marines) and goes into the Infantry to learn how to fight. Hey it's only a couple of years, and pretty easy if he goes through the Reserves. Along the way he never, ever uses the internet to look up anything military-related, or terrorism-related. When he gets out, whatever he didn't learn in uniform (and there's a lot to learn, and it's all for the asking) he can stay off of the internet and go where wild-eyed revolutionaries have for centuries: the local library. He doesn't even have to check the books out, just read and make whatever photocopies he needs. No internet needed. For all that cool looking gear, there's always the local army surplus store, or any sporting goods store. Need a rifle? There's a pawn shop right around the corner. Need bomb-making materials? There's always a Wal-Mart nearby, and Home Depot is packed with stuff to use. And pay cash for everything. When he's ready to go, he's clean as far as leaving an cyber footprint.
The point is, it's not the internet making 'terrorists' hard to manage- what's hard to manage is removing the reasons they have for doing what they do. If you stop doing "A" to them or their people or their cause (assuming an effort is made to reconcile things), they won't have a reason- or any support- for doing "B" right back in your face. All this 'internet is making it easy to learn how to be a terrorist' talk is nonsense. The information has been out there for decades, and it's not that difficult to figure out.
But if the real reason for their consternation against the "internet" is to increase the pressure to legislate themselves control of the internet then what they are doing makes sense. To those who say the citizenry will never stand for US control I say look at how you have been manipulated into accepting what they now do to you when you decide you want to fly somewhere. Those people who so willingly said that "if it makes everyone safer then it is OK with me" will be first in line to stigmatize those who refuse to consent with the "non-terrorist" flock of sheep. It will again be blathered that it "us against them" and if you don't like it you must be one of them.
The commercial airline business and the infrastructure supporting it are tax-subsidized MIC boondoggles anyway that, along with interstate highways, need to be disestablished. (We don't have a right to fly on an Airbus from New York to Miami anymore than we have a right to drive at 60 miles per hour on I-80 from Iowa to California.)
But if I may be obvious (again), why don't we get rid of all the terrorists at the IRS, DEA, FBI, ATF, USDA, CIA, and FCC before we worry about all the other acronyms over there?
Pretty much the fallback position of the sheep: "Why shouldn't the government do <insert nefarious act>? If you haven't done anything wrong, what are you afraid of?" The problem is what's not 'wrong' today may very well be 'wrong' tomorrow, and you may not know it's 'wrong' until it's too late.
Ah, carrying on a Great American Tradition…21st Century Style http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experience/educat…