No Evidence That Terrorists Are Using Bitcoin
February 23, 2016
If you were concerned virtual currencies like Bitcoin are making things easier for Islamic State (aka IS, ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh), you can rest easy, at least for now. The International Business Times reports, “Isis: Bitcoin Not Used by Daesh.” That is the conclusion reached by a Europol investigation performed after last November’s attacks in Paris. Though some had suggested the terrorists were being funded with cyber money, investigators found no evidence of it.
On the other hand, the organization’s communication networks are thriving online through the Dark Web and a variety of apps. Writer Alistair Charlton tells us:
Better known by European law enforcement is how terrorists like IS use social media to communicate. The report says: “The internet and social media are used for communication and the acquisition of goods (weapons, fake IDs) and services, made relatively safe for terrorists with the availability of secure and inherently encrypted appliances, such as WhatsApp, Skype and Viber. In Facebook, VKA and Twitter they join closed and hidden groups that can be accessed by invitation only, and use coded language.”
se of Tor, the anonymising browser used to access the dark web where sites are hidden from search engines like Google, is also acknowledged by Europol. “The use of encryption and anonymising tools prevent conventional observation by security authorities. There is evidence of a level of technical knowledge available to religiously inspired terrorist groups, allowing them to make their use of the internet and social media invisible to intelligence and law enforcement agencies.”
Of course, like any valuable technology, anonymizing apps can be used for weal or woe; they benefit marginalized peoples trying to make their voices heard as much as they do terrorists. Besides, there is no going back to a disconnected world now. My question is whether terrorists have taken the suggestion, and are now working on a Bitcoin initiative. I suppose we will see, eventually.
Cynthia Murrell, February 23, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Study Determines Sad News for People Who Look on Facebook “Likes” as Friendship
February 23, 2016
The article on Independent titled Facebook Friends Are Almost entirely Fake, Study Finds illuminates the cold, cold world of Facebook. According to the study, out of the hundreds of “friends” accumulated on Facebook, typically only about four are true blue buds. Most of them are not interested in your life or sympathetic to your problems. 2% are actively trying to stab you in the back. I may have made up the last figure, but you get the picture. The article tells us,
“The average person studied had around 150 Facebook friends. But only about 14 of them would express sympathy in the event of anything going wrong. The average person said that only about 27 per cent of their Facebook friends were genuine. Those numbers are mostly similar to how friendships work in real life, the research said. But the huge number of supposed friends on a friend list means that people can be tricked into thinking that they might have more close friends.”
This is particularly bad news considering how Facebook has opened the gates to all populations meaning that most people have family members on the site in addition to friends. Aunt Mary may have knit you a sweater for Christmas, but she really isn’t interested in your status update about running into your ex and his new girlfriend. If this article teaches us anything, it’s that you should look offline for your real relationships.
Chelsea Kerwin, February 23, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Facebook Faces French Frippery
February 12, 2016
Facebook and its privacy and information policies are under scrutiny in France. Unlike the US and other countries, French regulators can be a frisky bunch. I recall an incident involving a certain Russian who operated in an interesting manner. If recollection serves, the French authorities kept pecking and pecking and finally chewed the feet off the alleged wrong doer. Persistence and institutional coordination are different in the land of more than 200 types of cheese.
“French Data Privacy Regulator Cracks down on Facebook” reports that the social media outfit has 90 days to “stop tracking non users’ Web activity without their consent.”
This begs the question, “Then what?”
Two things. France will cheerlead for actions against Facebook from its EC colleagues.
Plus the French bureaucracy, the outfit which “invented red tape,” will swing into action. This is often not a good thing. I recall a French born French citizen who had to display her great grandfather’s medal of honor to clear up a citizenship inquiry. The nifty part of this anecdote is that a letter from the president of France to her grandfather was not enough. The picture verified that the grandfather and the French president were shaking hands at the award ceremony. That’s bureaucratic attentiveness in action.
Facebook faces French friskiness in the institutional playground. At least, lunches are usually pretty good. That’s a benefit for the legal eagles who will flock to answer the “then what?” question.
Stephen E Arnold, February 12, 2016
Its Official: Facebook and the Dark Web
February 5, 2016
A piece from Nextgov suggests just how ubiquitous the Dark Web could become. Published as Facebook is giving users a new way to access it on the ‘Dark Web’, this article tells us “a sizeable community” of its users are also Dark Web users; Facebook has not released exact figures. Why are people using the Dark Web for everyday internet browsing purposes? The article states:
“Facebook’s Tor site is one way for people to access their accounts when the regular Facebook site is blocked by governments—such as when Bangladesh cut off access to Facebook, its Messenger and Whatsapp chat platforms, and messaging app Viber for about three weeks in November 2015. As the ban took effect, the overall number of Tor users in Bangladesh spiked by about 10 times, to more than 20,000 a day. When the ban was lifted, the number dropped back to its previous level.”
Public perception of the darknet is changing. If there was any metric to lend credibility to the Dark Web being increasingly used for mainstream purposes, it is Facebook adding a .onion address. Individual’s desire for security, uninterrupted and expansive internet access will only contribute to the Dark Web’s user base. While the Silk Road-type element is sure to remain as well, it will be interesting to see how things evolve.
Megan Feil, February 5, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Google Wants ISIS to Stay Off the Regular Web
January 29, 2016
Propaganda from the Islamic State (Isis) exists not only in the Dark Web, but is also infiltrating the familiar internet. A Wired article discusses the best case scenario to stop such information from spreading in their article Google: ISIS must be ‘contained to the Dark Web’. Google describes ISIS only existing in the Dark Web as success. This information helps explain why,
“As Isis has become more prominent in Syria and Iraq, social media, alongside traditional offline methods, have have been used to spread the group’s messages and recruit members. In 2014 analysis of the group’s online activity showed that they routinely hijack hashtags, use bots, and post gruesome videos to Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. The UK’s internet counter terrorism unit claims to remove 1,000 illegal pieces of terrorism related content from the internet each week — it says that roughly 800 of these are to do with Syria and Iraq. The group claims in the 12 months before June 2012 that 39,000 internet takedowns were completed.”
The director of Google Ideas is quoted as describing ISIS’ tactics ranging from communication to spamming to typical email scams; he explains they are not “tech-savy.” Unfortunately, tech chops is not a requirement for effective marketing, so the question still remains whether containing this group and their messages to the Dark Web is possible — and whether that means success with growing numbers of people using the Dark Web.
Megan Feil, January 29, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Critics Blast Zuckerbergs Free Internet
January 26, 2016
Mark Zuckerberg is giving the subcontinent India access to free Internet. In some eyes Zuckerberg is being generous, but his critics are saying he’s doing it to gain control of a 1.2 billion untapped market. The New York Post shares Zuckerberg’s magnanimous act in “Mark Zuckerberg Defends His Free Internet Bid In India.”
Zuckerberg’s free Internet in India is dubbed “Free Basics” and it offers full access to Facebook and other affiliated sites, while blocking access to Google, Twitter, and other rivals. Free Basics’s partner Indian telecom partner Reliance Communication was forced to temporarily shut down service.
Critics are angry with Zuckerberg, claiming he is violating net neutrality and it comes as a slap in the face after he defended it within the United States. Free Basics could potentially ruin Internet competition in India and gain an iron grasp on a developing market. An even more intriguing piece to the story is that Free Basics was formerly named Internet.org, but Zuckerberg was forced to change it so new Internet users would not think that Facebook and related Web sites were all that existed.
“The local tech entrepreneur warned that ‘the incentive to invest in better, faster and cheaper access to the entire Internet will be replaced with one of providing better, faster and cheaper access to [Facebook’s] websites and apps’…In his Monday op-ed piece, Zuckerberg at times sounded exasperated as he insisted that the limited access provided by Free Basics was better than no access at all.”
Free Basics has already been deployed in thirty-five countries and provides free Internet for fifteen million people.
What’s the problem with wanting one’s way like blocking our competitors’ services? Absolutely nothing, if you rule the world. If not, there may be push back. I learned this in kindergarten. Zuckerberg can expect lots of push back.
Whitney Grace, January 26, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Social Media Search: Will Informed People Respond?
January 19, 2016
I recall asking for directions recently. There were three young people standing outside a bookstore. I wanted to know where the closest ice cream shop was. The three looked at me, smiled, looked at one another, smiled, and one of them said: “No clue.”
I like the idea of asking a group of people for information, but the experiences I have suggest that one has to be careful. Ask a tough question and no one may know the answer. Ask a question in an unfamiliar way such as “shop” instead of Dairy Queen, and the group may not have the faintest idea what one is talking about.
These thoughts influenced my reading of “Social Media: The Next Best Search Engine.” The title seemed to suggest that I could rely on my old school tricks but I would be silly not to use Facebook and Twitter to get information. That’s okay, but I don’t use Facebook, and the Twitter tweet thing seems to be down.
Bummer.
The write up reports:
Many consumers skip right over Google or Yahoo when conducting a search, and instead type it into social media networks.
The approach may work for peak TV and Miley Cyrus news, but I find analysis of social media intercept data more helpful for some of my queries.
Here’s the trick, according to the article:
To make sure you are responding to this growing trend, be present on social media on the channels that best make sense for your company. …The best way to optimize your posts is through hashtags and the content itself. For Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and Instagram, be sure to include relevant hashtags in your posts so that users can find your posts. For sites such as LinkedIn and Yelp which don’t utilize hashtags, make sure that you fill out your profiles as completely as possible.
Okay, indexing and details.
Search? I don’t think I will change my methods.
Stephen E Arnold, January 19, 2016
What Makes You Ill? Social Media? Nope
January 14, 2016
I read “Loneliness, Social Networks, and Health: A Cross-Sectional Study in Three Countries.” The study reveals that people who are unhappy also get sick.
Lots of effort went into this statement:
In all three countries, loneliness was the variable most strongly correlated with health after controlling for depression, age, and other covariates. Loneliness contributed more strongly to health than any component of the social network.
My hunch is that those who are believers in social media will be able to link Snapchat snaps and Reddit posts with feeling good and being healthy.
I have a different view of social media and its possible benefits: Social media posts are outstanding sources of data for those who want to predict where a Google Map thinks you will go. Other groups like social media data as well; for example, bad actors.
My thought is that heavy users of social media may find themselves making new friends. For example, when you get out of your autonomous vehicle and know no one, you can ask, “Yo, dude, where am I?” Then say, “Let’s be friends.” This is a great ice breaker in Woodlawn, for instance.
Another function is that your college roomie now supporting certain groups of interest may open some new “friendship doors.” For example, if an investigative group exploring relationships with certain tools, you will spend quite a bit of time with your new friends.
Social media, therefore, addresses loneliness. That leads to a healthier life. Obvious, no?
Stephen E Arnold, January 14, 2016
Magnetic Forensics Partners with In-Q-Tel to Battle Rising Cyber Crimes
January 6, 2016
The article on GCN titled In-Q-Tel Invests in Digital Forensics Firm discusses the recent addition of Magnetic Forensics to the In-Q-Tel investment portfolio. Digital forensics software is making large strides to improve the safety and security of data in a time when hackers seem unstoppable, and this is the area Magnetic Forensics’ applies expertise and innovation. In-Q-Tel is a technology investment firm that supports and coordinates with the CIA and Intelligence Community. The article explains,
Magnetic Forensics’ flagship product, Internet Evidence Finder, recovers unstructured data — such as social media, chat messages and e-mail from computers, smartphones and tablets — and structures the data for analysis and collaboration. It has been used by 2,700 public safety organizations in 92 counties to investigate cases related to cybercrime, terrorism, child exploitation and insider threats.
Given the almost daily reminders of the vulnerability of our data, investment in this sort of software is timely. Magnetic Forensics’ CEO Adam Belsher explained that IEF works by opening the pipeline of investigator workflow, organizing backlogs, and urgently absorbing the facts of the case to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand. Additionally, the partnership will enhance In-Q-Tel’s existing product line while allowing for the creation of new resources for cyber security.
Chelsea Kerwin, January 6, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Scientific Research Has Turned into a Safe Space
December 31, 2015
The Internet is a cold, cruel place, especially if you hang out in the comments section on YouTube, eBay forums, social media, and 4chan. If you practice restraint and limit your social media circles to trusted individuals, you can surf the Internet without encountering trolls and haters. Some people do not practice common sense, so they encounter many hateful situations on the Internet and as a result they demand “safe spaces.” Safe spaces are where people do not encounter anything negative.
Safe spaces are stupid. Period. What is disappointing is that the “safe space” and “only positive things” has made its way into the scientific community according to Nature in the article, “‘Novel, Amazing, Innovative’: Positive Words On The Rise In Science Papers.”
The University Medical Center in the Netherlands studied the use of positive and negative words in the titles of scientific papers and abstracts from 1974-2014 published on the medical database PubMed. The researchers discovered that positive words in titles grew from 2% in 1974 to 17.5% in 2014. Negative word usage increased from 1.3% to 2.4%, while neutral words did not see any change. The trend only applies to research papers, as the same test was run using published books and it showed little change.
“The most obvious interpretation of the results is that they reflect an increase in hype and exaggeration, rather than a real improvement in the incidence or quality of discoveries… The findings “fit our own observations that in order to get published, you need to emphasize what is special and unique about your study,” he says. Researchers may be tempted to make their findings stand out from thousands of others — a tendency that might also explain the more modest rise in usage of negative words.”
While there is some doubt associated with the findings, because it was only applied to PubMed. The original research team thinks that it points to much larger problem, because not all research can be “innovative” or “novel.” The positive word over usage is polluting the social, psychological, and biomedical sciences.
Under the table, this really points to how scientists and researchers are fighting for tenure. What would this mean for search engine optimization if all searches and descriptions had to have a smile? Will they even invent a safe space filter?
Whitney Grace, December 31, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
