When reading up on the latest ‘Evil, Evil NSA’ story, I came across a planned mechanism the NSA was/is going to use against terrorists: Expose their pornography viewing habits.
Specifically:
Looking at that, I immediately ask: Wouldn’t this be ineffective during the long term? If, for instance, you discredit Militant Leader Guy 1 and then his replacement MLG2, wouldn’t MLG3 use some other method to get his jollies that couldn’t be so easily traced (e.g. Tor)? Or, worse, couldn’t you end up with a radical who isn’t interested in sexing things and focuses all his efforts on jihadism?
(This, of course, ignores the tactic of saying his visits to smuttymcgee.com were planted by the evil US and/or Zionist forces.)
I doubt that it would accomplish anything at all. It’s a funny concept except that it has shades of government surveillance of domestic “radicals” in the Civil Rights movement.
I would hope the NSA would do something smart like give it through a contact to a news source instead of dropping leaflets that say “Your MLG is a porn hound. - Love, NSA”
Do you think this is because there is a cultural “Porn is OK” belief and the followers wouldn’t care or because the MLG types would explain it away in some fashion (such as my previously stated “consipiracy”)?
I should have thought that rather than using this to publicly discredit terrorists, the intention was to use it to blackmail them into spying on their own organization for the NSA. From what one hears, sexual blackmail is an age-old technique used for “turning” spies.
The second one, mostly. I also don’t think discrediting a few terrorist-type guys based on their porn habits is going to have an appreciable effect on terrorism worldwide.
I think that “well, if you remove guy #1 and guy #2, then guy #3 will step in and you will have accomplished nothing” is a pretty silly response. If you do something to cause Al Qaeda Boss Man to no longer be fit for his job (whether it’s publicly exposing his porn habit or blowing him up with a drone) there will eventually be a new Al Qaeda Boss Man. But that doesn’t mean you didn’t accomplish anything, because Al Qaeda had to spend some amount of time and energy deciding who the new Boss Man would be rather than plotting attacks on the US. And of course any sets of plans that the previous Boss Man was involved with are going to be put on hold/disrupted at least some. Any organization which is constantly undergoing leadership changes is going to be operating at less than peak efficiency.
Perhaps…but as I understand it, most of the terrorist organizations aren’t Top-Down hierarchies. Each “cell” that is affiliated with a terrorist organization works for themselves with minimal interference and oversight. And it’s not like the propaganda that’s churned out would cease just because they tossed their leader into a ditch.
Also, even if the cells decided that Al Qaeda was the pits, they could just affiliate with a different organization without much disruption.
Sure, but read the OP. (S)he seems to be saying that even if this technology was able to discredit militant leaders and cause them to be kicked out of their groups it wouldn’t really accomplish anything. I disagree with that.
As for whether it would be able to actually discredit militant leaders and cause them to be kicked out of their groups, I’m far from certain. In fact, my primary response would be that if we have sufficiently hacked some terrorist leader’s computer that we are able to tell when he’s surfing porn and what porn he’s surfing, we should in fact NOT get him discredited, because maybe the next guy will be much more careful about cyber-security. (Of course a careful militant leader could have a “work” laptop with all his operational plans on it, and a causal laptop hooked up to the internet for porn, and we’ve hacked the second, but not the first, or something.)
He says it would be ineffective long-term because eventually these guys would stop looking at internet porn (or traceable internet porn). It’s a reasonable point.
I don’t trust the NSA not to use the same tactics against people who aren’t terrorists. Their leader has already committed felonies to subvert the oversight that is supposed to exist over their organisation, and I don’t think they are above adding blackmail to their repertoire.
I suspect the point is a) blackmail and b) just to make the leadership look like hypocrites to outsiders and marginal members/possible members. Al-Queda is a pretty puritanical outfit, so if you’re a radical muslim with similar views who might be per-disposed to support the organization, the fact that the leaders you’d be risking your life for don’t walk the walk when it comes to sexual mores.
Similar to how a homophobe might be turned off the Catholic Church by revelations that many priests are sexually active gay men.
I doubt releasing the info leads to anyone actually getting sacked, simply because a) Al-Queda leadership would probably just view it as propaganda and b) sacking someone would be an admission the accusations are true.
So far they haven’t said anything about blackmailing these people - not that I like the idea of the NSA blackmailing people either. But no, I don’t think this would be very effective in turning off potential recruits. These are disaffected people who want to murder strangers, but porn is going to be a dealbreaker? The September 11th hijackers spent their last night in a strip club, didn’t they?
Porn’s been pretty well distigmitized in the West. Unless someone’s a religious leader particularly associated with rigid sexual morality, I don’t think it has a lot of blackmail value.
Especially since in order to blackmail someone, you need to plausibly be able to say you’ll release the information. If the NSA did so openly, they’d be admitting to doing something massively illegal just to mildly embarrass someone, if they did it annonymously, people would just assume its one of the thousands of scurrilous rumors that follow public figures around, and is unlikely to be true.
While I’m sure a few just want to murder people for kicks, there are plenty of professions where you kill people with much better risk/reward benefits then Al-Queda member. Al-Queda members generally want to murder because they believe strongly in the ideology of radical Islam, and that ideology heavily stresses sexual morality.
I don’t think its a stretch to think that people thus motivated would be less so if they knew their leadership didn’t practice what they preached. Obviously it’s not going to end Al-Queda or anything (there are still plenty of Catholics despite frequent reveleations that some priests fall far from the sexual morality they preach for others), but I think its a decent propaganda move.
A fact the authorities repeated frequently, presumably for basically the same reason. It turns the hijackers from romantic figures to hypocrites, hopefully turning off at least some potential recruits.
You’re talking about an ideology that is also fanatically sexist and empowers men at the expense of women. I’m pretty sure these people are able to excuse their own failings the same way the rest of us are.
They also found porn in Bin Laden’s hideout. Did Al Qaeda disband? It seems like only a very specific type of person is drawn to terrorism these days- I don’t think this is the lingo FBI profilers use, but they’re useless dickheads who fail at everything and then decide to blow something up in revenge. I don’t think revelations about porn use are going to keep those people away from terrorism, especially since things seem to be moving in a more loosely-organized, lone-wolf terrorism kind of direction.
But we’re not talking about excusing their own failings, we’re talking about excusing the failing of their leaders.
Strawmen are fun!
The few wannabe-bombers that have been caught in the US since 9/11 have fit that description, but I think its a mistake to think of them as “Al-Queda”. The large bulk of the organization is over-seas engaged in fighting various secular (well secular by their standards, anyways) gov’ts in the greater ME. By most reports they’re pretty effective at what they do, and the fighting they engage in is pretty dangerous.
I don’t think they are, by and large, washed up dickheads like the wannabes we’ve had in the States over the last decade. They’re at least semi-competent and motivated by an extreme religious ideology.
I understand that. I just still think it’s irrelevant.
But it’s true! Is there any evidence that any of this is having any effect on anybody? I think the national security apparatus would do better to focus on actual intelligence work - which it already has enough trouble doing, since it seems so easily distracted by things like random internet data mining and running sting operations on gullible idiots - than this, and again, that’s downplaying the fact that this has real shades of COINTELPRO.
