It was bound to happen sooner or later. Whenever a tragedy on the scale of the Paris attacks last week occurs, the finger pointing and blame placing usually follows along shortly after. In the wake of the tragedy investigating authorities have found evidence that the attackers used encrypted messaging channels to communicate, something the intelligence agencies are now claiming was part of the reason that they weren't stopped before carrying out their nefarious plot.
Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell said in an interview with CBS (via Ars) that commercial encryption standards were “difficult or nearly impossible for governments to break,” subtly suggesting that this was to blame for authorities not halting the attack.
Others however preferred to place the blame at the feet of individuals. Ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who fled to China and then Russia in 2013 during the exposing of NSA and GCHQ mass surveillance operations, was said by one former CIA director, James Woolsey, to be responsible for the attacks. He “has blood on his hands,” Woolsey said, suggesting that changes made in the wake of his revelations tipped off terrorists to surveillance tactics that allowed them to remain hidden.
Snowden continues to meet with press to discuss his concerns on mass surveillance and government oversight. Source: Fukos/Twitter
Others counter these claims however, pointing out that gathered metadata suggested an attack on France was possible, and that both U.S. and Turkish intelligence forces warned France about a potential attack more than two months prior.
It's also worth pointing out that encryption has been used by those linked with terrorist activity since the '90s, avoiding traditional communication channels and embedding messages in innocuous looking documents and videos to avoid detection. However it does seem likely that the growth in easily-accessible encryption software in the wake of government spying revaltions has made some aspects of secretive communication easier.
Despite this evidence however, it does seem likely that authorities in various nations will use the outcry of better protection in the wake of the Paris attacks to introduce tighter online legislation. The British government has hinted at bringing forward the Investigator Powers Bill and has pledged additional funding for intelligence services and a new cyber-task force to be created alongside GCHQ.
Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.
KitGuru Says: This feels a bit chicken and egg like. If governments hadn't been so secretive about spying on their citizens, encryption wouldn't be so easily accessible.
Ah right, of course, let’s blame the whistle blower for the fact that you are not capable of adequately doing your job. As always, governments and government officials don’t care about the truth, they care about covering their own ass and getting more power.
snowden’s an attention seeking ***hole who’s probably got a gun to his head 24/7 now, but he’s not the cause of the paris attack; that was a bunch of crazies with stupid ideas.
It was a False Flag operation perpetrated by the French Government with the help of CIA
That would not surprise me in the slightest given the mess of refugees and nobody wanting them, the fact the yanks excel at anything false and of course the news that the west were warned at least 24hrs before anything happened that there would be attacks in Paris.
The surveillance laws were never to target the average American receiving e-mails advertising: you can have “a wider, thicker johnson”. They were geared towards nefarious individuals like the terrorists of 9-11, these french terrorists, or denizens of society like child porn traders…
The attack is more of a proof that their surveillance schemes aren’t working.
Cameron will have a field day with this no doubt…
Why must they continue to try and blame encryption? Without it people wouldn’t be able to do what they consider ‘basic’ everyday tasks online. Banking being possibly the most used. No doubt if a pedophile ring is found soon they will also blame encryption on it taking so long? I love that last paragraph, all through the elections all we heard was how the country was in debt, how we had to make back money, how cuts had to be made to welfare, nhs and so on but yet funding is available for this? No doubt this will take millions to do and if Ian duncain twit has anything to do with it it won’t even work 🙂
Someone has to say it so I will and I’m not trying to be racist but it may come across that way. When countries are letting hundreds/thousands of refugees in / pass through sooner or later this kind of attack was due to happen. I’m not saying they should of stayed in a war torn country but their seems to be no kind of control whatsoever into people coming and going. Take Northern Ireland for example, why the hell would a refugee want to come here? Its freezing cold, windy, raining non stop lately. Bulgaria they ‘pass through’ and spend a few days literally passing through it to get to this part (UK). Without being one of these screaming ‘free money’ why is it a vast majority of ‘refugees’ want to come to the UK? Will we be attacked next if we let it happen more? Why don’t we stop that from happening now and figure out a way to CONTROL that situation. My heart goes out to everyone effected by not only the France tragedy, but any war torn country it really does, but to point fingers and blame ‘encryption’ is just ridiculous. What did all these agencies do years ago when they (alledgedly) had no issues with their ‘intelligence’? Why is it only lately encryption is such a big hassle? And I mean lately as in the last few years, no greater than 10. Yes its evolved but it was around 10 years ago to.
And who will decide just who these nasty individuals are? How will they decide Person A is no threat but person B is? Can’t possibly find that out without ‘spying’ in the first place
How would you do such an operation; which would ferreting out terrorists and other nefarious persons in society and meaning to do harm to the country? An operation that is absolutely necessary and mandated by Congress; when you know there aren’t enough people in the agency to read even a miniscule portion of the data or conversations going on between 315 million people; plus God knows how many foreign individuals?