Finding terrorists hiding on the web

Listening to Bulls & Bears on Fox this a.m., some of the discussion was regarding the US Congress wanting to pass a bill that would require social media companies to report terror related activity, identify potential terrorists and report them to the government.

Here's Wiki's definition of Encrypted:

In an encryption scheme, the intended communication information or message, referred to as plaintext, is encrypted using an encryption algorithm, generating ciphertext that can only be read if decrypted. For technical reasons, an encryption scheme usually uses a pseudo-random encryption key generated by an algorithm.

Definition of Algorithm:

A process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer.

How much time should private media employees devote to web "monitoring"? It's impractical that any private technical company monitor the web in this way. The messages are many times encrypted. How could anyone know the meaning of code words and metaphors much less encrypted messages?

There are infinite possibilities of encryptions, codes, and algorithms. Wasn't it part of the purpose of the mega data collection, to catch terrorists and keep us safe? Gary B. Smith made some good points. There are 500,000,000 tweets a day. FB users upload 153,000 photos PER SECOND.

The NSA has approximately 180,000 employees and a multitude of government agencies at their disposal and look what they've missed. It's been stated that Malik and Forook communicated for years about Jihad, so what's all this about the investigators looking for a hard drive in a lake? Don't they have all the info somewhere in their mega-data backups?

Why should it be a law and not voluntary? Why let the terrorists know there's a law which would direct them to find other avenues of communication, use the dark web etc? What is the liability to the private company? Would it be applicable to smaller internet service providers such as Ranchwireless or Wi-five which also give you your own email account? Is it even possible to monitor the volume of digital communication? Private online chats, phone calls, Skype etc., it doesn't seem possible, not for private companies to do, not for the NSA.

And what is a terrorist? There are 150 definitions in US law. What would the criteria be? We can't even shut down all the child pornography sites, much less pull an online sentence from a private chat or text regarding an attack, in code such as "Let's go", which was used in the Paris attacks. What's next, social media users required to report suspicious communiques they view or receive? Would a tweet that the burger you grilled for lunch was "the bomb" or emailing a Google search link for "Jihad in the US out of control" to a buddy or "terrorists plots in the US today" searched for your own research result in a visit from the men in black?

One thing the whole debacle of the NSA's mega data collection has proven to me, is how easy it is to avoid detection if one puts a small amount of effort into the task.

a reply to: StoutBroux

How could anyone know the meaning of code words and metaphors much less encrypted messages?

They look for repetitive patterns, text seemingly out of context strung together, specific phases can be used as key searches to bring out content hidden in plain sight.

I don't think thats what they mean though, real terrs don't use english speaking websites generally to put simple code in plain sight for NSA computers to spot. When the government says it wants people to tell on each other (see something, say something), what it really wants is people that speak out about unjust wars, police state, gun control, whatever. Any point of view considered by the government to be anti government is terrorism.

Its a divisive measure to help keep people bickering amongst themselves about who's right to ferret out those that support the constitution or the bill of rights.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Have you seen the list of "their" diffinitions of who might be a terrorist?
Just to give you the short version of this list:

You, me, and everyone who is reading this post.

It does seem as though they have adopted an us vs. them mentality and they are the only "us".

It's easy to hide on the web. I have used encryption methods transferred over Tor sites to conceal messages of a very illegal nature. I have never been caught. And I won't. This post proves nothing. What I mean is, it's very easy to get away with hiding internet communications.

We used one-time pads. You can't decrypt such a coded message unless you have the corresponding one-time pad. The Cuban agents who were caught in the US, and receiving messages from Cuba's Antencion radio number station, they were caught by the help of an inside informer. Otherwise, you cannot decrypt the messages.

Be very wary of any government who attempts to claim that they are going to push harder to prevent terrorists from using online communications. Sure, maybe they will catch some idiots who are not careful, but the real meat is contained in encrypted messages with one-time pads. No algorithm can decode them.

What they actually need to do is infiltrate. Become one of the people who sends/receives these encrypted messages. Obtain the necessary one-time pad. Even then, a lot of one-time pads are still on paper, which is even more secure.

If you are unfamiliar with what I am talking about, perhaps first look into number stations. Of course, with advent of technology, digital communications can be facilitated that are unable to be decoded without the requisite one-time pad. This is how arms dealers and traffickers and all that don't get caught. It's not just terrorists (directly).