11/13 Paris Terror Attacks

At least 18 are dead after a series of explosions and shootings. There have been at least 4 separate, but coordinated incidents.

CNN live stream:
http://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn

CNN also just announced that there are also 60 hostages being held in a theater.

Update: More than 128 dead. We got a new rating. Basically, everything went fucky.
 
Last edited:
place a friendly puppet to control and develop those shitholes,enforce western style education and wait.
You know, that hasn't worked so well before.

I'm going to take Tunisia as an example here, it might seem off-topic but I swear it's actually very relevant, so please bear with me.

Tunisia- where 98% of the population is Sunni Muslim- started implementing Western-style education in the late nineteenth century, before the French protectorate was even created, after breaking away from Ottoman influence. Seventy-five years of French rule solidified that.

When the country became independent, the people that came to power- Bourguiba and his entourage- were Westernised intellectuals that had studied in French universities.
Bourguiba believed that education was very important and he implemented a relatively successful educational system that was by and large based on the French model. He even went so far as dismantling the old Islamic university of Tunis in favour of Western-style institutions. Everyone was taught French alongside Arabic. Even now, a good two-thirds of the population speaks French fluently, universities and academic publications are bilingual etc.
The population has a high literacy rate, and lots of young people have university degrees.

The goverment controlled mosques and what was said in them. There weren't radical Islamists until the 80s-and unlike in neighbouring Algeria, Tunisian Islamists did not resort to armed violence, but rather consistently sought to participate in regular elections and political life.
The religious practice is by and large relatively tolerant- Tunisia's no liberal heaven, that's for sure, but it is a far cry from Saudi Arabia or even Syria or Egypt.

As for foreign policy Bourguiba and his successor Ben Ali were dictators, but they were very friendly with Western powers. Bourguiba was maybe the most US-friendly Arab leader. Ben Ali closely collaborated with French presidents.
Even now, after the revolution, the people in place are well-disposed toward the West. The current president has the same backgound as Bourguiba.

So in short, that seems fairly similar to what @AN/ALR-56 described.

And yet, not only is Tunisia facing the emergence of radical Islam and religious terrorism on its own soil, but it has also become one of the main sources of recruitment for Daesh.
The number of Tunisians joining Daesh is staggering for such a small country, especially one that had virtually no history of Islamic terrorism before the 2000s.

The problem has been speculated to be partly economic in nature- youth unemployment is very high and most jihadis come from the poorest parts of the country- but that's hardly a satisfying explanation.
So Tunisian society is left asking itself questions that aren't so different from the one France or the UK face at the moment.

European countries are wondering "What did we, as a society, do wrong with the children/grandchildren of immigrants, that they reject our values and become terrorists?"
Tunisia is asking itself "What did we, as a society, do wrong tat some of or children/grandchildren reject our values and become terrorists?"


TL;DR: Instilling Western values isn't a miracle remedy, even when governments do that on their own accord.
Trying to force them onto other countries via puppet governments seems an even worse solution. No one likes armed missionaries.
 
Last edited:
Looks like another terrorist remains at large:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e5cc...lance-video-shows-team-3-attackers-paris-cafe

Two Air France planes are being evacuated on the tarmac. One in Salt Lake City. And well well, one at my city's airport!

dfghg.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Needless to say, there's not a scintilla of evidence that wrecking our nation's corporate security--basically giving up all our intellectual property to China and whoever cracks whatever shitty key escrow system they push--would have even done a damn thing to stop these terrorists who have mostly used very old fashioned, conventional methods to communicate.
 
I remember hearing about a form of encryption that just uses a chosen string of numbers to generate an encryption algorithm for the files. I don't remember the specifics, but I think it was called public encryption because of it's being a fairly open form of encryption in that it isn't owned by any entity and had no software with a backdoor or such. I think bitcoin uses it for it's wallets, but I don't know much about that.

I seem to remember someone saying that the only real way to get past that encryption other than knowing the passcode would be brute forcing the code, which becomes drastically harder for every character added to the code. I think after twenty characters you're well into the thousands of year to brute for with tools available to any normal hacker, so a 100 character code would likely be enough to stop even a hypothetical quantum-supercomputer some claim the NSA has.*

This is all of course moot because like An0nimous said, they could just use old fashioned couriers to carry the messages. And that's what we know they like to use for just this reason.

*Source for the time to brute force a password is from the Kaspersky password strength checker and it's analogies of the time it takes to brute force a given password. Inaccuracies on my part may be present since I'm working with what I remember off hand because I don't feel like looking stuff up right now.
 
I remember hearing about a form of encryption that just uses a chosen string of numbers to generate an encryption algorithm for the files. I don't remember the specifics, but I think it was called public encryption because of it's being a fairly open form of encryption in that it isn't owned by any entity and had no software with a backdoor or such. I think bitcoin uses it for it's wallets, but I don't know much about that.

This is public-key encryption, in which the publicly shared key is used to send messages, which can then only be decrypted with the private key. The private key can also be used to "sign" messages to ensure they are from the owner(s) of that key. Most commonly used cryptography for communications, like PGP, is of this sort.

The use of such cryptography is almost certainly constitutionally protected and, even if not, those who would use it to break the law don't give a shit, and many of those who use it for lawful purposes now would say fuck it and use it unlawfully if it were outlawed.
 
Regulating encryption is really hard, constitutionally, in the US because of the first amendment.

Like, because of the first amendment, "ideas" are generally protected speech. So if you publicize some code that implements a specific mode of encryption, the government might have an easier time of censoring it. But if you merely describe the process for that same encryption, it's really, really hard to censor it.

The best case for the state to censor these crazy secrets is US v Progressive. (I'm not a lawyer, I just thought nuclear secrets would be the easiest analogy to encryption technology. I might've fucked that up though. If someone disagrees, please let me know.)

Because knowledge is so loose, descriptions of algorithms can always sneak into a country. Fighting that is embarrassing. Like communist countries fighting pop music.
 
The best case for the state to censor these crazy secrets is US v Progressive. (I'm not a lawyer, I just thought nuclear secrets would be the easiest analogy to encryption technology. I might've fucked that up though. If someone disagrees, please let me know.)

That's not really a binding precedent, as it ended up nowhere near an appeals court. In fact, the government ended up dropping its case and the material was published. The Pentagon Papers case (New York Times v. United States) is actually precedent, and rejected a prior restraint on the publication of then-classified materials.

Now, it's different if you are someone who actually has a legal obligation to preserve such secrets, or have obtained them unlawfully. Then, there are words like espionage or even treason for it. In general, though, the mere fact that material is classified doesn't make it unlawful to publish.

Computer code is somewhat different, in that while distributing and discussing such code might be legal, actually doing things with it might not be.

This has precious little to do with Paris, so I'll drop it or, if for some reason we want a thread on this, maybe start it or revive an old one.
 
Regulating encryption is really hard, constitutionally, in the US because of the first amendment.

Like, because of the first amendment, "ideas" are generally protected speech. So if you publicize some code that implements a specific mode of encryption, the government might have an easier time of censoring it. But if you merely describe the process for that same encryption, it's really, really hard to censor it.

The best case for the state to censor these crazy secrets is US v Progressive. (I'm not a lawyer, I just thought nuclear secrets would be the easiest analogy to encryption technology. I might've fucked that up though. If someone disagrees, please let me know.)

Because knowledge is so loose, descriptions of algorithms can always sneak into a country. Fighting that is embarrassing. Like communist countries fighting pop music.
Yeah, but Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes.... Granted, that was 15 years ago, but the law tends to trail behind technology issues.
 
Yeah, but 2400: The Hacker Quarterly was successfully sued just for linking to a site that had instructions on how to circumvent copyright protection on DVDs. Granted this was before the EFF and other groups started getting active, but the law tends to trail behind technology issues.
That's because IP laws are miles ahead of the government in terms of what it can censor. You'd have an easier life being Edward Snowden and leaking government secrets than trying to be the poor cunts who run the Pirate Bay.
 
I actually knew one of the victims which is super surreal, we were never really close but I had respect for her because she was super driven and honest about shit you needed to hear. We were on the same cross country team and everything and to see her name and then make the connection was like...wow

They even had a giant memorial to her with candles and flowers at the University we both went to.
 
I actually knew one of the victims which is super surreal, we were never really close but I had respect for her because she was super driven and honest about shit you needed to hear. We were on the same cross country team and everything and to see her name and then make the connection was like...wow

They even had a giant memorial to her with candles and flowers at the University we both went to.
I just checked to see if the Parisian I know was still alive too. Fortunately, she's safe and sound.

Our hearts and prayers are with you, mano.
 
Back