This is not a technology problem.

It's not primarily a technology problem, but I think there are technological solutions which will help mitigate the harm to innocents.

(There's also a whole suite of technology problems here solved via JDAMs and Hellfires, which seem to be actively being pursued.)

The primary cause of these incidents seems to be radicalization of segments of society with 'nothing to lose'. The societal problems involved in the creation of such segments and what can be done about them is a large and complex issue in which some technology will for sure be useful but which is first and foremost a people problem. The seeds for these issues were sown many years ago (and in quite a few cases with those JDAMs and Hellfires which now magically are suddenly part of the solution) and will take decades to repair in a way that these incidents will no longer happen. France is (like several other EU countries) shaping up to become a laboratory about how, if and when these problems are going to be solved. I see no major role for technology here, not in mitigating the harm to innocents and not in the eventual solution. In fact, technology - by virtue of eliminating a large number of blue collar jobs, which gave people something to be proud of and something to lose - is also part of the problem.

Technology is a strong force multiplier for whatever potential "solutions" are, whether a person believes them to be increased surveillance, more open political processes, more cultural mingling etc.

Simply discounting the power of technology is short-sighted.

Applying a screwdriver to a nail is the wrong tool for the problem, even tough that tool has excellent properties in many other contexts. Technology is not some kind of magic wand that you can point at every problem and make it smaller or disappear, in fact, for some problems technology is so wrong that it makes the problems worse rather than better. I'm not sold on technology having a positive role to play here but I'm open to specific suggestions (just like Ryan originally asked for) and if there are any that might work I will definitely support those, in spite of my skepticism about such solutions in general in the current context based on what technology has been able to achieve on this front to date.

Some of it is attributable to people with nothing to lose; however a good many have lots to lose, personally as well as socially at large. It's more about ideology than actually personal grievances.

From what I've read on the subject the key unifying element seems to be that those who do these deeds want to 'matter' somehow, even if that can only be in a negative way. How that ties into psychology I have no idea but if you have something to lose that balance shifts measurably, but even then there are still people that can be successfully radicalized. It's a tough problem, that's for sure.

Here is a decent listen. http://www.npr.org/2013/10/25/195238189/how-does-an-islamist...

An ex-recruiter who spent years in an Egyptian prison became disillusioned with the ideology.

This is HN. The homeless guy who hasn't eaten in 3 days doesn't need a sandwich, he needs a startup to help disrupt.

The tech useful for preventing these situations is exactly the kind that's frowned upon in civil liberties circles.

Tech that enables education, work training, and cultural assimilation for disenfranchised minority youths is frowned upon in civil liberties circles?

You demonstrate the colonialist mindset that doesn't understand other cultures seek other ideals than your own. Were the 9/11 hijackers "disenfranchised minority youths"?

Doesn't France have social systems to enable the first 2, and the 3rd is up to the person.

These people aren't victims. They made a choice.

So why didn't the NSA report this suspicious activity to the French authorities?

Who said they haven't and who said such acts weren't foiled by intelligence agencies before?

Well if they have reported it, why did it still happen? You are asking me to prove that the NSA hasn't foiled any attacks instead of asking the agency conducting mass surveillance to provide evidence? Just to give you an idea most terrorist attacks on US soil, foiled or not, have been directed by the FBI. Source is The Intercept.

Tech useful for surviving it might be more our thing, though...

There's also a comparatively low-tech piece of engineering we law abiding Europeans don't have access to that may help individual citizens in cases like these.

surveillance is not a solution to the problem it merely suppresses it.

Treating symptoms is never as useful as treating the underlying cause.

We're lacking the tools to deal with this problem. All we can do is try and contain it.

The containment is driving the feedback loop thereby keeping us from improving the situation. We need to take a leap of faith in order to break it.

Like others have said the damage this is causing is mostly mental. The number of random (I mean that as in could happen to anyone not downplaying the significance of human life) deaths caused by terrorism is not so large.

However this does not mean we should tolerate people who refuse to play by the rules of society because of their personal beliefs (whatever they may be). Any countermeasures must be above board and transparently fair.

There are initiatives like location-aware alerts on your smartphone, dedicated channels for emergency broadcasts...

Reminds me of this thing they have in Amsterdam: http://www.iamexpat.nl/read-and-discuss/expat-page/news/neth...

You could find ways to automatically find and disable Twitter accounts used by terrorists, such as this effort: https://twitter.com/ctrlsec

Unfortunately tech has made it easier for terrorism to recruit more terrorists, spread hateful messages and send secure encrypted messages across the world to plan attacks like this.

I am so saddened by this situation with a powerful IS which wants to remove our freedom and change the world into an extreme muslim one.

We must remember not to spread hate towards all the peaceful muslims.

Growing pains, people were angry before tech. Now that the world is connected we have to deal with these problems.

One thing is for sure, marginalizing and discriminating even more is not a solution.

Twitter could destroy any accounts that belong to or sympathise with organisations like ISIS. Why do they allow those cretins to have a voice?

Presumably because it's easier to track the contacts made between these sorts of organizations and those who sympathize with them.

This is exactly the kind of reaction that makes terrorists attacks dangerous to society.

Obviously ISIS is past the point of laissez-faire tolerance but that isn't the point, ideological censorship should always be a last resort.

Silencing enemy propaganda and recruiting is a bit different than silencing an opposing entity.

I think we should all be asking ourselves this question.

Breed.

Destabilizing countries with mass murder turns citizens into terrorist sympathizers.

I think terrorism is a far greater contributor to destabilizing countries than anti-terrorism attacks.

Syria? Iraq? Are you the Platonic cave dweller?