There is an old truism - we can not stop progress. The truism has been used to justify investments in technologies that could potentially not only harm people but wipe out the entire planet. While we cannot stop the progress, we still should think carefully about the consequences of the technologies that we invent. Particularly because since September 11, 2001, we are all wondering when will the next terrorist attack occur.
Today we learned of yet another plot. This time, the target was the JFK international airport in New York. Luckily this attack was prevented and three out of the four terrorists are already in custody. But during the report, CNN revealed a curious fact - terrorists have used Google Earth to get access to aerial views of airport facilities. Obviously it would be ridiculous to argue that tools like Google Earth should not be built because terrorists might use them. Yet, after hearing this on CNN one cannot help but wonder: what other seemingly innocent software technologies are we building that can be used to harm us?
Perhaps the next few images and paragraphs will be even more shocking than the fact that terrorists use Google Earth. Firstly, when you go to the Google Earth web site, here is the picture that explains what this tool is good for:
You do not need to be an FBI agent to figure out what gave the terrorists the idea to use this tool, right? And just to be absolutely sure, when you install the tool, the default address that it suggests you visit is: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue - the White House! Note also the cursor in the form of cross-hair, below:
To be fair, the animation is very cool. I flew from the White House back to my house and the rendering is quite stunning. But at the same time I could not help but remember when recently a sales person, who was trying to sell me solar energy equipment, used Google Earth to locate my house. That was not a comfortable feeling. There is something about Google Earth that makes us very defenseless. Perhaps it is just our perception and whoever would want to get the map would get it anyway, but nevertheless it is not a comfortable feeling watching a cross-hair zoom into the White House or my house.
Networks are incredibly powerful things. Long before the rise of social networks, scientists used the mathematics of networks to study many natural and man-made dynamics, including terrorists. It is no secret that modern day terrorist organizations form intricate networks. Unlike a lot of other networks, these are very sparse, with isolated cells working without direct supervision of terrorist leaders. What is remarkable about these and other networks is the structure, because by understanding the structure and the way that it evolves, it is possible to infer a lot about a network.
So let's look at the rising social networks. Certainly they are harmless, right? Well, things are not so clear cut. Just like we are using LinkedIn to establish business connections, terrorists might use it to figure out who is connected to whom. When you search for a person, LinkedIn tells you how you are connected to them. What can be exploited is the fact that if you are just one degree away from someone, you know who they know. This information can be used to reconstruct a subset of the network. Granted this is not easy to do, but it is possible.
The recent explosion in photosharing and image search engines allows us to look up peoples pictures. While this has been an uplifting phenomenon, there is again a room for misuse. We can only hope that secret CIA agents and their kids have not uploaded too much on Flickr (kids are the hard ones to control!).
The problem is that photos contain an enormous amount of information. Obviously, they reveal what we look like, but they also often show our friends and family. Remember that the first season of 24 was all about Jack Bauer trying to save his family. Unfortunately even the almighty Jack had only partial success back then.
Clearly the technologies that we are developing can be used in a bad way by the "evil doers". But this is really nothing new, and as we said in the beginning of this post - technological progress is unstoppable. So why do we need to think about these things? Simply because it is always better to pause and think about the implications, than blindly rush through things. Just because something is cool does not mean that it is not dangerous. And beyond cool, we can be just a bit more careful. Does Google Earth need to have the White House address by default? Probably not. And it is not even that cool anyway.
Obviously this is a debatable topic, so please jump in with your comments on what web technologies you think are dangerous and how we should be thinking about information and terrorism as we are developing them.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Technology and Terrorism: Are we being too naive?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2234
The R/WW Weekly Wrapup is sponsored by: Here is a summary of the week's Web Tech action on Read/WriteWeb. Note that you can subscribe to the weekly wrapups, either via the special RSS feed or by email: Subscribe to the... Read More
The R/WW Weekly Wrapup is sponsored by: Here is a summary of the week's Web Tech action on Read/WriteWeb. Note that you can subscribe to the weekly wrapups, either via the special RSS feed or by email: Subscribe to the... Read More
The R/WW Weekly Wrapup is sponsored by: Here is a summary of the week's Web Tech action on Read/WriteWeb. Note that you can subscribe to the weekly wrapups, either via the special RSS feed or by email: Subscribe to the... Read More
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
You may want to get yourself a copy of John Robb's recently published "Brave New War" - and read his blog "Global Guerillas". The points you make are valid, but "superempowerment" - Robb's term - works both ways. Or rather, it works every which way. There's no reason why any given group of terrorists are more superempowered than your local FBI office, or even the neighborhood watch. But it does require some adjustment to our thinking.
Posted by: Mark Pesce | June 2, 2007 11:18 PM
Posted by: Berkay | June 3, 2007 12:37 AMYou write "Obviously it would be ridiculous to argue that tools like Google Earth should not be built because terrorists might use them."
Then you have a subtitle "Google Earth - cool or dangerous?" right after.
So what are you saying exactly? This looks like a sensationalist post where you can't even bring yourself to back up your argument. What are you objecting the default address? Surely you are not saying that the terrorist chose the White House because it is the default address in Google Earth.
You are essentially associating Google Earth with terrorism without even bothering to make a case. Feeding the social paranoia this way is not responsible behavior.
Suggesting that Google Earth may be dangerous is no more meaningful than saying engines are dangerous because terrorists drove to the location.
We should forbid the use of cell phones !!!
They were the main tool used in the Madrid bombs.
As you say, technology can be used for good and bad. This is ridiculous.
And if we want to forbid things, we better start with Guantanamo, let's close it down, THAT is a shame.
Posted by: hombrelobo | June 3, 2007 1:25 AMMaybe if the default home page of Firefox was Aljazeera.com they'd blow themselves up?!
Posted by: Imran... | June 3, 2007 2:22 AMThis is more of a problem with the people than the technology. We have an array of technology that can be used to destroy lives, 2 items which prominently come to mind are guns and nuclear weapons.
The assumption underlying guns is that the people carrying them will use them responsibly, and that all sides carry such a gun so as to strike a mutually-defensive balance. This was an argument proposed in the case of the VA shootings, that if everyone in the school had carried guns, then the attacker would have been stopped sooner.
In the case of Nuclear weapons, the defensive balance and destructive potential ironically make them an effective tool of peace, as the cold war demonstrates.
The main threat seen from the new information-based technology is that it can be used to produce the Orwellian-State, an issue raised by warrant-less NSA wiretappings.
Striking a balance is going to be the difficulty here.
Posted by: Paul Jensen | June 3, 2007 3:42 AMBruce Schneier is really good on this kind of thing.
In particular I recommend a recent blog post:
Tactics, Targets, and Objectives
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/05/tactics_targets.html
On the "plot" to which you refer. I don't think a few men talking smack about objectives which they clearly could not have achieved represent a threat.
That bust was the government acting like they're on top of the situation by rounding up bs artists and wannabes.
Google Earth and similar projects are much bigger threats to privacy than to security.
Posted by: Clyde Smith | June 3, 2007 5:30 AMthe most important thing to remember in any discussion regarding terrorism is that the majority of major terrorist events are state-sponsored incidents. another way of saying it is that events like 9/11 are an inside job (exhibit A, exhibit B, exhibit C....tons of stuff on the web about this, which is the real exciting thing about how technology can SAVE people from terrorism. )
as such it is oversized government that is the biggest threat to technology -- both because of their own immorality that inevitably results from a concentration of power, and from foolish prohibition/subsidization (rather than simply letting the fair market play out).
Posted by: kid mercury | June 3, 2007 5:36 AMWhat should we do then to tighten up security measures?
Posted by: Yam | June 3, 2007 6:31 AMI suggest we learn from the former communist countries -- no photographies in and near airports, railway stations, TV & radio stations, government buildings, seaports, rivers, immigration checkpoints, etc. etc. No signs on the buildings and doors to tell you what they are. Every file. every document sealed as restricted. Great.
Google Earth is a powerful tool. For once, I saw its potential to be misused. I don't need to be a techie to understand what it can and can't do. When it was launched, there were apprehensions already. And yes, when I downloaded it, I saw the prestigious address. Scary.
The latest in maps wherein they included streets is getting exciting. On one hand, dangerous. Can you imagine a close up of where you live? Who knows what's next? Your house number? Perhaps it's already done. The floor map of your house? A possibility.
It's both cool and dangerous I must say. Cool for those who love progress and where technology is heading. It makes life easier. One can search for local restaurants, offices, etc. easily. However, this can be tweaked by warped minded people and use it to harm others.
Technology is marching on. It's advancement, unstoppable. It's how we use technology that makes it good or bad.
Posted by: ipanema | June 3, 2007 7:39 AMBy degrees, we all undoubtedly share acquaintances, friends and colleagues in common and value the contacts that the Internet can bring.
Mine is one of the largest networks in the UK and Europe and I would greatly value sharing it with you.
I use LinkedIn and XING! to manage and find contacts.
XING! http://www.xing.com/go/invite/3394124.ef2492
And LinkedIn ...... Join me here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnevans
(address: li@locris.com )
You may also wish to connected on Soflow :
http://soflow.com/contacts/12543a1111606b1
I have a particular desire to build a strong network in support of my professional and humanitarian activities at http://www.mineseeker.com and the Sole of Africa
http://www.thesoleofafrica.org/declaration.php?r=952
Cheers John
john.evans@locris.com
Posted by: John L. Evans | June 3, 2007 8:41 AM------o0o------
John L. Evans FIMIS FCMI FIMC MBCS CITP MID CIPS
LOCRIS, Warwick, England
Mike @1 makes a good point. As transparency increases, it exposes terrorists as much -- or more -- as it empowers them.
Posted by: Frank | June 3, 2007 11:17 AMThis article is sensationalist fear mongering at its worst. Cursor looks like cross-hair? OMG! Everybody panic! We're all gonna die now!
You damaged your credibility and it will cost you more than the momentary spike in page clicks.
Posted by: readerwriter | June 3, 2007 11:29 AMThis does feel weak. It started out well with what is a serious and interesting topic. The cross-hairs brings in a little light relief after which I was expecting the post to get back on topic. Just didn't happen.
"We can only hope that secret CIA agents and their kids have not uploaded too much on Flickr" - Why? If they're secret then they would want to blend in. If everyone else is uploading photos it would be suspicious not to do so.
"Does Google Earth need to have the White House address by default? Probably not." - Agreed. Though I fail to see how it would make the slightest bit of difference. Terrorists may be misguided but they're not brain dead. I suspect they can work out how to change the address they're looking at.
Posted by: Jonathan Street | June 3, 2007 11:53 AMfear mongering? open google earth and read. if you can't see it, post it here. if the terrorist happened to blow up JFK, now, isn't that fear?
a post never damages anyone's credibility unless proven otherwise. the terrorist used it. isn't that evidence enough?
Posted by: open minded | June 3, 2007 12:00 PMJFK Airport.
Posted by: open minded | June 3, 2007 12:05 PMTerrorists may be misguided but they're not brain dead.
Agreed.
They're so clever that they know there's an easy tool to use.
Posted by: open minded | June 3, 2007 12:08 PMopen minded, my point was that no threat existed but that the countermeasures suggested served no purpose.
"a post never damages anyone's credibility unless proven otherwise. the terrorist used it. isn't that evidence enough?"
Again, although I don't want to speak for readerwriter, I don't think (s)he is saying that no threat exists but that the coverage of it in this way has no value on a blog filled with valuable posts. It is that which can damage credibility.
Posted by: Jonathan Street | June 3, 2007 12:22 PMThis was, frankly, a poorly researched article about the Internet and Terrorism. It's an important topic, and there are a lot of good resources out there that address it. Too bad this post isn't one of them. In the past, I've found ReadWriteWeb to be an interesting blog. I hope this doesn't mark the beginning of a downward spiral in the quality of their content.
For readers who are actually interested in how data fusion is being used by both the military and law enforcement, feel free to visit my blog, or the ones I link to, at www.intelfusion.net.
Posted by: Jeffrey Carr | June 3, 2007 12:48 PMHi all,
Thanks for all your comments on this post.
As I said, people's opinions very greatly on this topic and it is controversial.However, this post is not sensationalism. We are an analysis blog and always do more than just report news.
The basic point about Google Earth was that there are elements and things that are part of the application that some people (me including) may perceive as provoking.
Alex
Posted by: Alex Iskold | June 3, 2007 12:50 PMthe coverage of it in this way has no value on a blog filled with valuable posts. It is that which can damage credibility.
how does one cover news like terrorism i wonder. this is not the usual stuff we read here. see what the author is trying to bring out...it's still technology - its use and misuse. i dont see it damaging credibility to discuss relevant things. we're talking about people, the country's safety and the role of technology. that's how i see it.
Posted by: open minded | June 3, 2007 12:54 PM@ Jeffrey Carr: I'm interested in reading what might be a very well researched article on Internet and Terrorism. But I got this:
This website is temporarily unavailable, please try again later.
Posted by: open minded | June 3, 2007 1:09 PMAlex:
While I'm disappointed in your post, I don't consider it sensationalist. I just think that you could have put more effort into researching the pros and cons of your topic, rather than treating it so superficially.
Open Minded:
I can't explain that message, since it seems to be working fine: http://www.intelfusion.net
Posted by: Jeffrey Carr | June 3, 2007 1:40 PMJeff,
Can you please explain what deeper post would cover? Perhaps we can do a follow up post.
Alex
Posted by: Alex Iskold | June 3, 2007 1:58 PMJeffrey Carr: Thank you for that link. It worked.
Posted by: open mind | June 3, 2007 2:35 PMHow about pointing a finger at blogs that educate terrorists on how to use technology for evil doing?
Posted by: Idiot finder | June 3, 2007 2:35 PM"readerwriter" said:
"This article is sensationalist fear mongering at its worst. Cursor looks like cross-hair? OMG! Everybody panic! We're all gonna die now!
You damaged your credibility and it will cost you more than the momentary spike in page clicks."
--> RM replies: I found this comment to be very offensive, particularly since we at r/ww go out of our way to post original articles - not the regurgitated PR crap like other blogs I could mention. If anything is guaranteed to get page views in todays blog world, it's to copy-and-paste press releases and emails from PR people and fill your blog with 20 such posts a day. R/WW has never stooped to that, even though we'd get a ton of page views if we did! So don't come on here and make an anon comment about us being "sensationalistic".
And if you really want to see a blog that has gotten a spike in page views for nothing, check out the blog that stole r/ww's content this weekend and then got on the digg frontpage with it!!!
Posted by: Richard MacManus | June 3, 2007 2:38 PMWell, for starters, I'd suggest researching how terrorists are using the Internet to further their aims. Google Maps play a relatively minor part. After all, it's not like it's real-time satellite imagery. Some of the mapping images are years-old.
On the other hand, there are over 5,000 Jihadist websites, so terrorists today are absolutely utilizing the Internet and various web-based technologies. Recognizing this, the USAF is making cyberspace a new warfighting domain. The other Armed Forces are expected to follow.
All of this makes for a rich and fascinating field to explore in a blog. Good luck with it.
Posted by: Jeffrey | June 3, 2007 2:40 PMThanks for the pointers Jeffrey, we will follow up with more research.
Alex
Posted by: Alex Iskold | June 3, 2007 3:35 PMIf Google Earth is so evil, isn't it ironic that there's a US Government funded project that does basically the same thing, NASA Whirlwind (http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov)?
Granted the government probably has more control over that, but doesn't excuse the fact that the majority of the world is available there.
Posted by: Sam | June 3, 2007 10:20 PMThis time, the target was the JFK international airport in New York, Next time White House, and next time Pentagon, and next time this and next time that...blah blah blah...
They can feed you with shit and you eat it with pleasure!
Posted by: Jamal | June 4, 2007 2:32 AMHey Alex - this is a well-written article - thought provoking and interesting!
Sorry that you have to put up with the negative comments. I guess their mommas never taught them the "if all you have is negative, don't say anything" rule.
I can't even hang out on Digg anymore because everyone there is so negative.
Keep writting good stuff like this, and maybe the negative folks will go away. You will certainly attract more normal folks like me!
Posted by: Mikey | June 4, 2007 6:40 AMPlease, please, please can we stop using Jack Bauer as our basis for a model of reality. It's a TV show!
Posted by: Matt | June 4, 2007 8:17 AMAlmost every new invention by mankind is used for good and evil purposes. Internet and web technologies are no exception.
The more you innovate the more there is a chance that there are people to exploit your technologies for evil things. Terrorism is one of many evil things.
The main concern is the SNS website which will reveal almost all of your data to anyone who is registered on the network.
Do we have any solution to stop web to be used by evil doers? I don't think we can find a direct solution except banning IPs,emails, websites and etc.... but thats not sufficient... so, we need to live with this reality that web is being exploited and will be exploited for evil things...
Posted by: Chandra | June 4, 2007 11:40 PMAll modern web services can used by bad people. Everything in your drugstore too...
Posted by: Travor | June 5, 2007 3:14 AMI find it interesting that google is single out with this type of thing when terraserver has been around for longer, as well as multiple other sites, yahoo isnt' mentioned yet they provide high detail satellite imagery, usgs itself is the creator and supplier of many many of the arial/satellite images used by these private sector companies.. yet its google alone that is taking a beating. There are even stand alone applications that can be purchased (and that have been around longer than google maps and google earth) that dont' require an internet connection.
American witch hunts are amazing. If this type of thing is going to be targetted, it would be nice if it was an accross the board attempt at a fix rather than taking down a token giant and ignoring all the others.
America is still the best place to live.. partly because people are free to be this.. stupid? Biased?
Amazing.
Posted by: Mike | June 11, 2007 7:46 AM