Combating terror on Facebook and Twitter

Arutz Sheva ^ | 6/21/2016 | Shai Landesman

[Lera]

MK accuses social media giants of tolerating incitement; former Mossad official: Social media the most important sphere for fighting terror.

Former senior Mossad operative Uzi Shaya spoke today (Tuesday) at a conference entitled "Towards A New Law of War", held in Jerusalem by "Shurat Hadin", a human rights organization dedicated to taking legal action against terrorist groups and those who fund them, which is currently representing 20,000 Israelis in a lawsuit against none other than Facebook.

"One of the most significant theatres of terrorism today is incitement in social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and others. The biggest problem is that Facebook and Twitter have no incentive to combat this disturbing phenomenon even though they have the technological capability to do so," Shaya said.

Shaya, who was at the forefront of the Bank of China affair, said at the conference that the social media companies' behavior is reminiscent of the way banks used to allow terror groups to run accounts in their establishments with impunity.

"The media companies say they're not responsible for the content of the webpages and other such excuses. This reminds me of the banks' response when we first asked them to stop transferring funds to terrorist groups", he recounted.

Shaya noted that in the aftermath of the Paris attacks last November, 125,000 Twitter accounts associated with ISIS were deleted. "I presume this is an intentional coincidence. *snip*

The former Mossad agent wondered, "If Hamas would try to open a bank account, no one would let them. If a Hamas member tried to get a visa to fly to the US or another country, he would be denied. But they can get a Twitter account. Why?"

[Lera]

The Israelis need to start jamming the fakestinians cell phone service and internet because they are using the internet and social media to wage their jihad .

[LostPassword]

Best to let them communicate on open sites.

In the 90’s, Christmas Island had a data center that allowed pretty much anything to be hosted on it. Our government claimed that child porn, money laundering, and other crimes were being committed on it and given the costs that was likely. But .cx allowed encryption we couldn’t break and refused any request for access (search warrant, etc). They made money by being an expensive and data SAFE haven. Many countries - led by the US - shut that down with political pressure. So the customers started using data centers all over the world. We still couldn’t decrypt traffic if we found it but we also now didn’t know where to look.

The smart move would have been to continue to monitor traffic. AT&T gave (probably sold) the US access to the underseas traffic - international waters, and mostly routed through other countries so few legal issues and before TOR and VPNs not common/easy so not difficult to monitor. We couldn’t decrypt the traffic but we could tell WHO (by IP) was communicating with a .cx service. IF IP x.y.x in New York is getting image-sized data at 3AM there’s a good chance it’s child port. If IP a.b.c in Mexico is doing banking-sized requests there’s a good chance it’s money laundering. The data center costs were very high so there’s a very good chance anyone using it was doing something they wanted to keep from governments. The traffic was a good way to start a case (i.e. pay attention to the guy in the apartment with IP x.y.z especially if the guy with IP m.n.o used the same .cx service and was arrested for child port). But we just couldn’t allow a safe data haven to exist anywhere in the world.