The logic is that active, dedicated terrorist groups already know: "They literally get a drone strike for having called a known terrorist or for going to a wedding other terrorists with cell phones go to."
The reasoning that knowing this information you would be very careful about what you communicate over the internet is very sound to me. To convince me that this reasoning is incorrect would require an abundance of data to the contrary.
I think terrorists make mistakes (or take risks), and I'm not convinced that we catch all of those either.
Was the US being irrational with nuking of japan?
The claim directly conflicts with the supporting anecdote.
And here it has led you astray. Terrorist organisations have propaganda mouthpieces, and use social media like any other. One of my previous jobs involved building network analysis tools to identify and locate terrorists combing through their Twitter feeds.
For some, you could easily identify the point in their lives when they were radicalized, and trace connections to others who were also, and identify the people they had in common.
Inductive reasoning opens room for questions, not answers, because it does not account for unknown information.
Thank you so much for saying this.
Actual terrorists were found because of using cell phones or internet.
Yeah. The truth is that groups like ISIS use Telegram pretty heavily. Same with some of the Persian threat actor groups, Hezbollah, others.
The logic goes like this: It would be utterly stupid for terrorist groups to rely on digital communications simply because of how well locked down the various government agencies have made it. We assume that they are not utterly stupid.
I don't think it's a crazy statement or needing further justification. I doubt terrorist groups are that sophisticated but I would assume they have plugged the simplest holes.
"Terrorists don't use digital communications[0]
[0] Example of a terrorist identified and killed via surveillance of their digital communications"
What the above is talking about well known, even privacy-aware people tend to not use digital communication that much, no facebook, or other social media, no smartphones. In the post-Snowden era, I am not sure why somebody thinks otherwise.
3 letter agencies have the means, the reason, the legitimacy, and the resources to penetrate every type of telecommunication, the worst-case just trojan the entire GSM infrastructure if necessary. The USA conducted thousands of drone strikes. What do you think drives locating the target?
Yes. In fact I don't know of a single terrorist who doesn't use digital communication of some kind.
I'm slightly confused because you seem to be justifying your belief that no terrorists use digital communication on the back of examples of terrorists identified and killed via surveillance of their digital communication use
Shit like this is said all the time on HN with absolutely nothing to substantiate it.