This is not a matter of privacy rights anymore when the jihadis attempted mass murder. These messages are evidence in a criminal investigation, and represent a larger national security issue. The idea that there would be any pushback against the FBI for trying to get these messages is breathtaking.
“109 Encrypted Messages Sent by Jihadi Before Failed Texas Terrorist Attack Unreadable, Says FBI,” by Merrill Hope, Breitbart, December 11, 2015:
FBI investigators are still unable to read 109 encrypted messages sent by one of the two men who opened fire outside the Muhammad Art Exhibit in Garland, Texas, that took place in May.
Elton Simpson exchanged these messages with an overseas terrorist before the attack, according to FBI Director James Comey, who released this information to Congress members in the aftermath of the San Bernardino terrorist shootings.
“In May, when two terrorists attempted to kill a lot of people in Garland, Texas, and were stopped by the action of great local law enforcement again, that morning, before one of those terrorists left to try and commit mass murder, he exchanged 109 messages with an overseas terrorist,” said Comey, adding: “We have no idea what he said because those messages were encrypted.”
Breitbart Texas was on scene at the Curtis Culwell Center when Simpson and roommate Nadir Soofi drove up and began shooting with assault rifles at the event organized by Pamela Geller.
I was co-organizer of the event.
A guard killed both suspects and only one officer sustained a minor gunshot in the leg during the incident. Later, British-born ISIS recruiter and hacker Junaid Hussain, was linked to the gunman. The Islamic State took credit for the failed attack. The FBI was aware of Simpson for nearly a decade but did not closely follow his violent, pro-jihad tweets because “there were so many like him;’ the FBI also indicated they were overwhelmed, Breitbart News reported.
On Wednesday, Comey said those messages were not reviewed by the FBI because “they were exchanged on devices equipped with encryption software of a kind that the FBI director and other law enforcement leaders have been arguing should not be available,” according to the Dallas Morning News.
The terrorists exchanged those encrypted messages over the “dark web,” a major roadblock for the FBI in tracking down terrorists KXAS 5 (NBC) reported. Recently, Dallas FBI Special Agent in Charge Tom Class called the dark web a place where technology and U.S. privacy laws limit what agents can do. Islamic State terrorists recruit youth over the dark web. Class named the dark web as the most “significant threat” to the U.S. and our national security, noting it is the nation’s top priority.
However, to decipher the encrypted messages, the FBI needs more cooperation from technology companies and new laws to provide more tools to access those communications, according to the Dallas NBC affiliate news. Weeks ago, Class noted the need to find a balance between protecting privacy rights and protecting the safety of citizens.
Comey cited the Garland attack messages as proof the issue must be fixed so that terrorists, spies, and other criminals can no longer evade detection. He wants more help from technology companies to help decrypt these kinds of messages in instances where the government has a warrant, KXAS 5 also reported, although Comey declined to say what role, if any, encrypted communications played in the San Bernardino attack….

Beagle says
The FBI was aware of Simpson for nearly a decade but did not closely follow his violent, pro-jihad tweets because “there were so many like him;’
— —
In a sane world, another planet perhaps, that would be sufficient reason to seriously curtail _or end_ Islamic immigration.
It is remarkable that admission has not become central to the national debate. Thanks again, mainstream media, for nothing.
Shane says
I have to congratulate Trump for bringing up the idea of stopping Muslim immigration into the USA, though he did it in a bungling manner. I have heard a few Republicans and conservatives say on TV that we should cut back on Muslim immigration, especially from countries where jihad is popular. The only way that Western Civilization can survive is to end all Muslim immigration and deport Muslims troublemakers.
Oliver says
I am a Republican, and support Trump-and ending Muslim immigration.
two ponits–one, Schmuck, I mean Chuck Schumer (D-NY) some time back also said that Muslim immigartion should be put on hold ( this was when it was revealed that the ” refugees” could nto be properly vetteed). if I remember correctly, he was blasted for that, being against the Iran excuse for a treaty and saying Obama care is a disaster. Seems a Dem. cannot criticize athe shitty, I mena great one.
two- i saw-did nto read- that some Pakistani, living in the Us is upset and angry at Trump’s remarks about Muslims/ terrorists, etc., and his fellow Pakisstanis are also. Without reading, I would suggest- they leave.
? says
So passeth our “rights” to privacy…
John C. Barile says
You person, papers, and effects are still secure–sans encryption–subject to a lawful warrant.
John C. Barile says
“Your . . . “, that is.
gravenimage says
?, I am a fervent defender of the rights to privacy and of freedom of speech.
But I do believe that there are a handful of times when an individual gives up those rights–and I would argue that attempting to mass-murder an auditorium full of innocent people in the name of an enemy creed is one of those times.
a software programmer says
Hello,
I think this FBI proposal of “cooperation from technology companies” is futile. Strong Encryption algorithms are public domain. There are many college text books explaining the theory and practice of encryption. Any programmer in the world can implement encryption software very easily using already available software libraries.
Bad guys all over the world, terrorist and enemy governments, don’t depend on encryption technology provided by Apple or Google. They can build their own software and certainly they will to make sure there are no back doors.
Don McKellar says
Perhaps the Dark Web is what Donald Trump was talking about when he made his clumsily worded statements about the internet a little while ago?
Theodoric says
Robert Spencer doesn’t seem to understand. The problem is not that there’s “pushback against the FBI for trying to get these messages” – the problem is that they were strongly encrypted. If they can’t recover the encryption keys that were used, which is evidently the case, then enormous computing resources would be required to decode them. It’s like asking NASA to fly you to the moon – or maybe Jupiter. That’s why Comey wants to make the encryption software unavailable. No chance of that..
eduardo odraude says
Theodoric, that’s what I thought, at first. But if you read the whole article, you will see that Spencer is correct. This is not just about encryption. It is also about privacy laws.
Theodoric says
Yes, the article is misleading in many places. It’s not “privacy laws” that make the “dark web” dark – it’s encryption. The encryption can be so strong that technology companies can’t “help” without applying unavailably large computing resources.
eduardo odraude says
Okay.
Topposter says
I think what the FBI is getting at, and what the privacy pushback is about, is for the technology companies to make a backdoor key available to police with which they could decrypt all messages.
More Ham Ed says
An encryption “back door” is what the FBI etc. are pushing for. For those who entertain the idea of warrant-ready encryption, or encryption weak-enough for the NSA, etc. ask yourselves do you trust HILLARY “lock-up-videographers” Clinton with such access? You’re next if you disagree with the powers-that-be. Sort of analogous to “who gets to decide what free speech is and isn’t”.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/no-matter-what-fbi-says-compromising-encryption-technical-issue
Frank says
You can break RSA encryption using a Quantum Computer. There are a few being used in science now. The NSA has one I’m sure, ore will soon.
Paladin says
The Internet hacker collective known as Anonymous should be enlisted to fight in this space. They declared war on ISIS after Paris. Maybe they could cease with all the romantic Guy Fawkes/revolt against the state BS and actually put their skillsets to use. But being Leftists, we’ll see how far that goes. My guess is not much.
Ian H says
Very strong encryption algorithms are not hard to write and the basic principles are understood by a large number of people. That means there really is no way to really ban strong encryption – f you tried people would just write their own programs to do it.
Some people have strong opinions that the government banning the private ownership of guns is a bad idea. Many people have equally strong opinions that the government banning private speech and monitoring all our communications is a bad idea.
The response to this problem should not require us to live in a police state.
eduardo odraude says
When there is another attack larger than 9/11, the overwhelming majority are likely to clamor for a truly radical increase in surveillance. Policy experts should be thinking now about whether there is any way to combine freedom and pluralism with the massive and total surveillance that will be demanded when there is an attack surpassing 9/11.
Custos Custodum says
Sorry to disagree with Mr. Spencer and Ms. Geller who knowingly brave serious risks to their lives in the interest of keeping America and the West reasonably free.
Releasing the few remaining restraints on all-encompassing government surveillance will NOT protect Mr. Spencer, Ms. Geller or any other person from terrorist attacks. The article itself makes clear that actual prior knowledge of the suspects identity and background and ongoing surveillance did not result in the prevention of their attempted murders after traveling half-way across the U.S.
Instead, unfettered surveillance will be used to further crush what little resistance there is to the prevailing “Islamophobia” and “Racism” narrative as a fig leaf for an unprecedented rush into a totalitarian society controlled by a tiny elite on the North Korean model.
Free societies will only stay free by keeping government OUT of private lives. The FBI is cynically angling for EVEN BROADER powers of warrantless surveillance and privacy intrusion.
We ALREADY have a situation where the FBI and other agencies are seriously compromised by ENABLERS of Islamic supremacism and Leftist totalitarianism. It is in support of these aims that even broader snooping powers are sought. Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure were instituted for a very good reason.
Angemon says
Or so they say.
Custos Custodum says
The Garland gunmen are – fortunately – dead.
A basic principle of electronic surveillance is that “traffic analysis” based on the identity of the parties, the pattern of communications, various “meta data” etc. is often much more revealing than the content of the messages. The fact, e.g. that Alger Hiss maintained secret communications with the Soviet Union is more important than what was said. An EFF write-up illustrates this by reference to more contemporary, real-life situations.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-metadata-matters
In ANY crime committed by multiple individuals there will have been COUNTLESS communications – oral discussions, handwritten notes and plans, etc. – that can never be captured in law enforcement investigations after the crime has been committed. Here, it seems the perpetrators were in touch with other individuals. Quite possibly, the interlocutors inspired, aided and abetted the attempted murders.
Knowing the identity of these perpetrators would NOT HELP HELPS KEEP ANYBODY SAFE. As Mr. Spencer has documented over the years, there is an almost limitless supply of Islamic supremacist organizations, instigators and secret supporters of jihad terrorists. The interlocutors of the Garland assassins will long since have moved to a safe jurisdiction (if they were in the U.S. to begin with).
What is really happening is that the FBI for its own purposes wants to acquire the kind of limitless surveillance powers over all “civilians” in the U.S. that the NSA already has and uses, supposedly limited to high-level, hush-hush “national security” purposes.
Islamic terrorist organizations have access to some very tech-savvy individuals. If the FBI and other law enforcement institutions were to acquire the kind of surveillance powers they so crave, terrorists would simply switch to safer methods and devices for their communications.
Enhanced warrantless “surveillance” powers for the FBI will NOT make a noticeable difference to anti-terrorism law enforcement. Enforcement efforts against Muslim terrorism since at least 1993 (Twin Towers Bombing) have been hampered principally by a lack of political will. The has been little desire to use existing tools and carry out existing laws against terrorists whose broader campaign is backed by a torrent of Saudi and Qatari cash (and more recently, kick-backs from unfrozen Iranian funds).
While law enforcement drowns in a quagmire of irrelevant tittle-tattle, terrorists will act with freedom and impunity. Meanwhile, Jill and Joe Sixpack will be driven from their jobs and ostracized in their community based on unpopular (and perhaps misconstrued or intentionally misrepresented) private statements.
Loosing the FBI, DEA etc. on our private communications will on balance NOT SAVE A SINGLE LIFE, and will most likely have the perverse effect of facilitating the organized terrorism and organized crime.
billybob says
I came here to debuse Spencer of the notion that “The idea that there would be any pushback against the FBI for trying to get these messages is breathtaking”, but I couldn’t have said it even half as articulately and eloquently as you. The FBI could just as well have been lamenting the fact that there are not mandatory microphones installed in ever room of every house so they could have picked up the conspiratorial whispers of the jihad plotters. At least they have the meta data of those 109 encrypted messages and they should be grateful for that.
I would advise the FBI that they can find 109 more messages that will help them understand the motive of the attackers if they only look here: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
Here they will find a list of 109 verses in the Quran that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. It is not encrypted, but rather is in plain text for everyone to see.
I would further suggest that if the FBI could understand the motives behind these attacks they might actually be better able to stop them. If they really want to understand what they are up against, I would suggest the FBI hire Spencer to give seminars to their field agents. That would be far more useful that trying to undermine encryption that is so needed to fight repressive governments, especially including Islamic governments.
Myxlplik says
Didn’t Donald Trump recently state that he’d like to get help from Tech companies to shut this aspect of the net down?
Don’t remember his exact verbiage.
gravenimage says
Garland jihadi sent 109 encrypted messages that FBI can’t read
………………………..
Gee–what about the idea that Elton Simpson (I wonder what his Muslim name is?) was just an ordinary Muslim suddenly angered by idea of a Draw Muhammed art show?
Instead, it rather seems he was heavily involved in Jihad well before this–and was clearly quite sophisticated about it if the *FBI* is not able to easily break his encryptions.
Matthieu Baudin says
“…The terrorists exchanged those encrypted messages over the “dark web,” a major roadblock for the FBI in tracking down terrorists KXAS 5 (NBC) reported. Recently, Dallas FBI Special Agent in Charge Tom Class called the dark web a place where technology and U.S. privacy laws limit what agents can do. Islamic State terrorists recruit youth over the dark web. Class named the dark web as the most “significant threat” to the U.S. and our national security, noting it is the nation’s top priority…”
It is the duty of your military intelligence outfits to be in constantly at work in this field. Terrorist conspiracies are a core national security issue and it’s baffling to think of the FBI going it alone in the field of encryption and being regularly hemmed in by privacy restrictions.
Westman says
“However, to decipher the encrypted messages, the FBI needs more cooperation from technology companies and new laws to provide more tools to access those communications.”
Well, here is the real problem – the citizens are not asked to be an active part any deeper than “See Something, Say Something (SSSS)”.
The NSA has the world’s largest array of super-computers in the world, with a limited number of programmers, attempting to break coded messages. A more powerful method would be the world’s largest group of citizen programmers working on breaking the code with less-able computers.
The solution lies in the conceptual solution to the problem, not the speed of computation. Speed decreases the time to solution or failure of the given trial but does nothing to increase the number of unique or innovative approaches to solving the problem.
In this modern “data-glut-yet-anonymous” age, whether dealing with physical or intellectually-based aggression against our free society, it requires an Army of people working together to maintain our freedom. Simply having limited agencies of government doing all the work is destined for failure against a non-state, distributed, holistic aggressor.
In essence, as an analogy, we are conducting a war in a limited number of localities while the enemy is distributed everywhere. It must be fought everywhere.
Until the government gets serious about enlisting all the able citizens, it’s abilities to stop terrorism will be limited.
Zimriel says
Someday counterjihadists are going to want access to encrypted communications. They are going to want this access to use for themselves – not to read what jihadists are writing.
If the FBI wants to read encrypted communications, they should get the encryption key out of the person to whom they have served a legal warrant.
Custos Custodum says
Someday counterjihadists are going to want access to encrypted communications. They are going to want this access to use for themselves – not to read what jihadists are writing.
Sadly, the day is TODAY. This is especially true of many loyal law enforcement officers who still try to communicate with each other and who may have occasion “leak” to American citizens pertinent about the existential threat to our republic.
It is these “illicit” communications that the Narrative Nabobs desperately want to seize, the better to exercise total control.
Custos Custodum says
CORRECTED (with apologies)
Someday counterjihadists are going to want access to encrypted communications. They are going to want this access to use for themselves – not to read what jihadists are writing.
Sadly, the day is TODAY. This is especially true of many loyal law enforcement officers and others who still try to communicate outside “official channels” to fight back mortal dangers to the country and the (residually) Western World.
Equally, government officials, contractors, law enforcement officers and many others may have have occasion to “leak” to American citizens information and documents pertinent to the existential threat to our republic.
It is these “illicit” communications that the Narrative Nabobs desperately want to seize, the better to exercise total control.
Arthur says
Unfortunately, the FBI no longer receives training from Robert Spencer. Otherwise they would have a few more passwords to try:
“Muhammed1”
“AllahAkbar”
“Aisha9”
“Jihad123”
“Houris4Simpson”
“72Virgins”
etc.
Looking at the photo of the culprit, I suspect maybe the password was just “password”.
Custos Custodum says
” Nothing in his life
Became him like the leaving it. He died
As one that had been studied in his death
To throw away the dearest thing he owed
As ’twere a careless trifle.”
Oliver says
With this (mis) administration and horrendously almost as bad Congress-i think that there is little chance that anything will be done–UNTIL- one or more of thsoe killed are memebrs of Congress, or their immediate families; or similair “untouchables’. then –MAYBE- we wwill see some true action.