Visions of a Freeman - 29 of September of 2013
Academic Media and responsible Internet.
The beginning of a digital democracy.

Take a look at this:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/26/opinion/bergen-twitter-terrorism/index.html
Are mass murderers using Twitter as a tool?
By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst
September 27, 2013 -- Updated 2128 GMT (0528 HKT)

Editor's note: Peter Bergen is CNN's national security analyst, a director at the New America Foundation and the author of "Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for bin Laden -- From 9/11 to Abbottabad."

(CNN) -- It was the first major terrorist attack in history in which the group that mounted the operation used Twitter to announce to the world it was responsible.

The group then quickly tweeted what its rationale was for the attack and also gave operational details of the assault -- all in real time.

On Saturday a group of armed gunmen stormed the upscale Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya, shooting at shoppers and mall staff with automatic weapons, killing at least 61 civilians.

Several hours into the assault a Twitter account used by the Somali terrorist group Al-Shabaab tweeted: "The Mujahideen ('holy warriors') entered Westgate mall today at around noon and they are still inside the mall, fighting the Kenyan kuffar ('infidels') inside their own turf."

It was the first confirmation that the attack was the work of Al-Shabaab, and journalists around the world quickly reported this.

The terrorist group soon provided a tweeted explanation of its motives: "What Kenyans are witnessing at #Westgate is retributive justice for crimes committed by their military." The Kenyan army is part of a larger U.N.-sanctioned peacekeeping operation that has recently been fighting Al-Shabaab with much success, for instance, a year ago expelling the group from one of its last strongholds, the Somali port city of Kismayo.

As the attack on the Nairobi mall unfolded, Al-Shabaab tweeted, "Since our last contact, the Mujahideen inside the mall confirmed to @HSM_Press that they killed over 100 Kenyan kuffar." HSM_Press is the name that Al-Shabaab has used as its Twitter handle.

Crucially, Al-Shabaab then explained in a tweet that the mall attack was going to be a fight to the death in which there would be no negotiations for the lives of the hostages the gunmen had taken: "We'll not negotiate with the Kenyan govt as long as its forces are invading our country, so reap the bitter fruits of your harvest #Westgate." This key aspect of the assault on the mall was then reported around the globe.

A day into the Nairobi assault, Al-Shabaab tweeted that three Americans were involved in the attack. Since 2007 some 40 Americans have traveled to Somalia to fight with Al-Shabaab, including at least three who volunteered to become suicide bombers for the group, so this claim is not implausible and the FBI is looking into it.

Indeed, whoever was live tweeting the Nairobi attack for Al-Shabaab has a command of colloquial English with a sardonic edge that you might pick up somewhere such as London or Minneapolis.

During the massacre, for instance, Al-Shabaab tweeted, "Like it or loathe it! our mujahideen confirmed all executions were point blank range!" The group also wrote, "#Westgate: a 14-hour standoff relayed in 1400 rounds of bullets and 140 characters of vengeance and still ongoing. Good morning Kenya!"

At one point during the mall siege, responding to media speculation that British-born Samantha Lewthwaite -- whom Kenyan authorities suspect of being a financier of jihadist militants in Kenya -- was part of the operation, Al-Shabaab took to Twitter to deny that a woman had any role: "We have an adequate number of young men who are fully committed & we do not employ our sisters in such military operations #Westgate."

(On Thursday, Interpol issued a red notice -- an international wanted alert -- for Lewthwaite.)

According to an authoritative study of Al-Shabaab's use of social media by the London-based International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, the group has been active on Twitter since December 2011, sending out a steady stream of tweets to at one point more than 15,000 followers that has included a good number of journalists and terrorism analysts.

Al-Shabaab's Twitter account first used the handle @HSMPress, an acronym based on the group's full official name, Harakat Al-Shabaab Al Mujahideen (Movement of the Holy Warrior Youth).

Since then Al-Shabaab has used other Twitter accounts with some slight variations on the same name such as @HSMPRESS1, @HSM_PressOffice, @HSM_PROffice and the current @HSM_PR.

Al-Shabaab seems to change the name of its Twitter account as it gets taken down, likely because the account is in violation of Twitter's terms of service, which explicitly explains that users cannot "publish or post direct, specific threats of violence against others."

It's impossible to tell definitively if all the tweets on Al-Shabaab's purported accounts are really from the group, but the tone and content of the tweets have generally been consistent over the past two years, and information that the group has tweeted about the Nairobi mall attack, such as its responsibility for the assault and its unwillingness to negotiate for the release of hostages, has, unfortunately, proved to be accurate.

An analyst who has tracked Al-Shabaab's Twitter feed carefully is J.M. Berger, the author of a book about Americans fighting overseas for groups such Al-Shabaab titled "Jihad Joe." Berger has filed a number of reports with Twitter that Al-Shabaab is in violation of its terms of service.

Twitter doesn't comment on why it suspends a particular account -- a representative told CNN, "we don't comment on individual Twitter accounts, for security and privacy reasons" -- but clearly Al-Shabaab is egregiously violating those terms of service, and during the Nairobi attack the group had to use five different Twitter handles as its account kept getting taken down, presumably by Twitter employees.

Since Tuesday, Al-Shabaab has tweeted at its newest site and, as of this writing, it had more than 5,000 followers and had tweeted some 40 times.

Berger says that Al-Shabaab militants have also taken to Twitter in recent weeks during other smaller-scale operations: "They have also tweeted bombing attacks on Mogadishu and attempts to assassinate Somalia's president within the last several weeks."

On Wednesday Al-Shabaab posted via Twitter audio of a short speech by its leader Mukhtar Abu Zubayr, crowing over the attacks and congratulating the "holy warriors" who carried out the Nairobi operation. He gloated, "The attack has also glaringly illuminated the sheer vulnerability of the different sections of the Kenyan forces, be they police, intelligence or the military. ... It's a disaster for the Western politicians and their intelligence apparatuses who have miserably failed to save their own citizens. "

Abu Zubayar also goes by the name Ahmed Abdi Godane, and a U.S. official has told CNN the belief is he ordered the Nairobi operation. The fact that on Wednesday Al-Shabaab posted to Twitter a speech by Abu Zubayar taking ownership of the operation would seem to confirm that belief.

In 1974 terrorism analyst Brian Jenkins wrote an influential paper for Rand in which he made a key observation in the then-fledgling field of terrorism studies. "Terrorism is theater," Jenkins wrote, explaining that the real point of a terrorist attack is not the violence that is visited on its victims but the large number of people watching the event that serves to advertise the terrorists' cause.

A decade later British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher gave a speech in which she made a similar point, declaring that terrorists depend on "the oxygen of publicity."

Nothing had underlined this better than the Munich Olympics in 1972 during which 11 Israeli athletes were taken hostage by Palestinian terrorists. All the Israelis were killed either by the hostage takers or during the course of a botched rescue operation.

The hostage-taking was covered by TV networks from around the world who came to cover the games but ended up providing coverage of a terrorist event that unfolded before the first truly global audience for such an attack. More than any other single event, it brought the Palestinian cause to the world's attention.

On 9/11 untold hundreds of millions around the world watched the attacks as they happened in New York and near Washington on live television. Osama bin Laden himself listened to live coverage of the attacks on BBC Arabic radio in his hideout in Afghanistan.

The 9/11 attacks, which took place in the city that is many ways the capital of global media, thrust bin Laden and his terrorist group al Qaeda onto the world stage in a spectacular manner.

But in neither the Munich Olympics hostage-taking nor on 9/11 did the terrorists have actual control over the content of the coverage, which was instead determined by those media networks covering the event.

So what we saw unfold in the attack on the mall in Kenya is something quite new: a terrorist group shaping the media coverage of the event in real time through the medium of Twitter.

The next logical step will be for terrorists to cover their deadly operations using their own real-time live video feeds linked to sites such as Twitter, Facebook or YouTube.

If that happens, terrorist attacks will become a form of theater in which terrorists not only get to write the play but also act as the primary producers of the coverage of the event.

A dark glimpse of this brave new world could already be seen in Al-Shabaab's assault on the Nairobi mall.

Unfortunately, that may not be the end of Shabaab's terror attacks outside Somalia. On Thursday Shabaab posted the following chilling tweet: "The mesmeric performance by the #Westgate Warriors was undoubtedly gripping, but despair not folks, that was just the première of Act 1."

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.
Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

Looks like we have a problem with anonymous accounts, they are very dangerous for security purposes, not only for a country but for the world. As you can see the friends of Twitter... can be severely infected by very dangerous people that can later run away, since it is used anonymously.

Obviously Twitter is no good for security if it can be hijacked by anyone to plan and execute criminal activities without anyone taking the blame or being held responsible. This is a serious issue that puts the entire world security at risk.

That is why I want to write about linking every account in a new social media to a person. You see in Venezuela for example we have the telephone company CANTV, that company can make a social media a lot more secure than Twitter. The reason is because the person in Venezuela would have to go to a Cantv office, identify themselves, get their picture taken and maybe even fingerprints and only then they can receive their authenticated, secure account.

This is very good for security because the accounts of the Cantv social network are no longer anonymous, which makes it a lot harder to use by crime. If any criminal activity is done with an account then someone is responsible for that. This is specially important to protect children, in fact I do not think it is even possible to think about a social network that incorporates children without a non anonymous social network, it would be far to dangerous for them, well not only children, also young and attractive women would be put at great risk with an anonymous network.

Non anonymous networks with user responsibility are also great to stop cyber bullying, which can really save lives and also increase the happiness of young people since they feel more secure.

I already spoke about the need to have an internet social network that sends raw data, which can later be used by software made by students and industry to create a variety of software solutions that also generate jobs and help students learn how to program but apart from the fact that the new social network is bound to a person that has to be made responsible for his actions (which is a great protection for children) I want to write about how to pay for the new social network and how to start it.

It starts at the University, as a university social network, but the identification process is linked to the central databases of Cantv. This is the "Login phase" in which the main interaction with the central identification system is a security interaction. Later more services can be attached to that Login that are not directly linked to Cantv but to a security number which can be used by software to identify a person in online games for example. In this sense the person logs, with his software to Cantv server using the correct login - password combination and the software then asks Cantv what is the gaming code, for example. The software takes that code and uses it to identify the user in the databases of the game, which do not have to be in Cantv.

But the most important reason why we would need a non anonymous network is because it enables Digital Democracy where people can start voting for a wide range of choices, which can be anything from opinion polls to political votes.

The great part is that Cantv is also linked to a telephone number and to other telephone networks. So if an account is hacked it should be easy to establish using a telephone with the appropriate number. If a person gets his telephone stolen then that person can call Cantv and inform it. Cantv also has the distribution map of the IP addresses so it can offer secure IP grounding so that no one else can use any other IP location to hack into a person's account.

For example suppose a person is living in Maracay, Venezuela and is connected to the Mrcy004.Cantv.net server for his internet service. Then the account is bound to that person and also to that server in particular. Suppose the user is a child, it is a little girl that needs obvious protection. The parent decides to call Cantv or go to Cantv to lock the account to the server route. That means that no one can login into the account of that person with another different IP route, even if they have the appropriate login and password. This not only stops any hackers from login in, it also stops the little girl from getting herself in trouble using her account at another place other than her home, supervised by her parents and that is also great for her security. Later Cantv can make it's hardware trace a lot better the IP addresses with the location of people.

This is excellent because a criminal would think twice before trying to use such a service. He would say: "Hmm, if I screw up in this network someone's head is going to roll... I better use some other network to bully, harass & commit crimes".

This kind of system protects the person which now will have a wide range of new options like for example binding his account to a telephone number in which the account can only be used in a given Smartphone for example, I already spoke about IP binding to the house of the person but it can also be bound to the workplace only. It can be bound by server or by the telephone number. If it is by telephone number then there has to be a new machine in Cantv that simply compares the active IP to the telephone line it is using at the moment and returns a 1 if they match. Should not be too hard to create.

All this is excellent because you can have your login and password and even if you are hacked no one else will be able to access your account at any other place. This can also be a future protection for online bank accounts that reduce hacking of accounts.

The user can also have a log at Cantv that logs what was done with his account, what sites were logged with the account and at what time. This is great for supervising children and it is also great to determine if another person is hacking into the account. All this makes the system extremely secure as compared with a dangerous anonymous network such as Twitter.

But the most important feature is the democratic use of the platform, since you simply cannot have democracy over an anonymous system. Each vote has to be for one person and only that person. All this can set a new form of fast online democracy required for the future stability of governments in a transparent system.

Who pays for it?

Your account is your identity, you have the right to have it for free as long as you use it within a reasonable limit that is decided by the possibilities of paying for the services. For example it could be 100 free messages a day, or 1000 like twitter has now.

But some people want to send more messages, they want more services, they even want to send publicity. Those people pay more, of course. They pay more as they use the service beyond the free point. A limit of 100 messages surely would cause people to pay more. They pay but not a lot, only enough to cover the additional expenses that they cause to the server, it's best if the user is informed why they are being charged for more messages and how much the messages really cost to increase the trust that is needed for a system that is then used to vote and to make serious surveys.

Currently Twitter is in an illegal status when it comes to commercial activities since no one can compete with it since it is running on net loss. This is something that can be considered a monopolistic aggression to stop any other competitor and to make matters even worse all pictures in Twitter are their property, which means they can legally sell them invading privacy in a very brutal way and putting people at risk. For example they could make a soft porn compilation of photos from the female users... Law does not prohibit them from doing so.

With a sustainable system that pays for itself in a transparent way there cannot be any dubious, dark sales of user material so it is safer for everyone.

Another service that can be sold is the possibility to send private messages to another person that do not go public for everyone else to see, making it look more like a SMS text message telephone service or a little email. A user can have 100 of those for free and pay for additional plans under a transparent system so democracy is facilitated in society.

Digital Democracy.

With non anonymous social networks or login servers the society can truly begin to hear what the people are wanting. Which opens a new era of digital democracy. Online census for example can be always updated, people in need or homeless people get easily identified and helped. The system has a better idea of it's users and what they want.

It also calls for a more responsible use of the Internet. For example news about death or other inappropriate subjects for children cannot be seen under a child account or an account of an adult that does not want to see violent or pornographic content. People can vote on the type of content they want or they can vote to remove a content they do not like, giving way for a digital, democratic media.

My idea is that in the future this type of direct user interaction will create democratic media.

Democratic media is just like any other media but more ethical and it has a special section, unknown to current media which is the Democratic Space. In that space users can interact with the media to decide what content will be placed there or decide the rules. This is great for Academic Media. It does not have to be all the media, but a part of it.

A very good example for a Democratic Media.

The news is this:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/29/5-dead-in-fiery-crash-in-southern-california/?intcmp=trending
5 dead in fiery crash in Southern California
Published September 29, 2013FoxNews.com

BURBANK, CALIF. – Five young people were killed early Saturday morning after a car spun out and burst into flames in Burbank, Calif., trapping people inside, officials said.

Family members and friends identified the victims to MyFoxLA.com as Stephen Stoll, Sebastian Forero, Malak Hariri, Sugey Cuevas, and Sameer Navarez. Their exact ages were not given, but the family members told the station that all were teens who had recently graduated from area high schools. Burbank police said they were waiting for autopsy reports to confirm the victims' identities and to determine whether alcohol was a factor in the crash.

Lt. Larry Dietz of the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner-Coroner said an investigator was at the crash site. Dietz said the bodies were burned, and depending on how badly they were burned, fingerprints or dental records could be used to identify those killed.

Speed does appear to have been a factor. The car burst into flames after striking a guardrail near an I-5 off-ramp, a stretch of roadway where freeway speed limits are quickly reduced because of nearby homes and where accidents have happened in the past, according to authorities.

"She's a very smart girl, very good girl, very respectful girl. She never had problems at home with us," said Suhilah Hariri, a relative of victim Malak Hariri, who said she had raised the teen.

There was one survivor found about 50 yards from the burning Nissan when police arrived on the scene shortly after 4 a.m. The 18-year-old woman was taken to the Los Angeles County Medical Center, said Sergeant Darin Ryburn. She suffered a broken leg and appeared to be in serious condition, according to Fire Battalion Chief Ron Barone. A friend of the woman told MyFoxLA.com that she had also suffered a dislocated hip and would need rods put in her leg as a result of her injuries.

Paramedics reported smelling alcohol on the survivor's breath, said Barone. It's unclear how the woman got out of the vehicle while the others were trapped inside.

The vehicle was fully engulfed in flames when firefighters arrived.

"There was absolutely no possibility of any rescue whatsoever," Barone said.

The flames from the fire spread to nearby trees and brush and Barone says they were doused within moments of firefighters' arriving.

"It was pretty horrific," Ryburn said.

The colored letters mark a point where FoxNews wants to increase the pain of the user for maximum profit.

Just another sick example of a criminal media profiting from horrific deaths trying at the same time to enhance the pain of the user making the user more susceptible to manipulations and bigotry, which is the essence of a slavery media such as the unquestionable FoxNews Seol Media Tyranny.

We start with imaginary rule number 1.

Main rules.

A) Users will have a little button below the news where they can press if they see a news in inappropriate, giving a sub menu of options where one or many options can be selected.

In a different book of rules we set the relative rules:

A1) There will be an option in Rule 1 of Stable rules that says: Too violent.
A2) There will be an option in Rule 1 of Stable rules that says: Inappropriate for children.
A3) There will be an option in Rule 1 of Stable rules that says: Does not benefit me at all.
A4) There will be an option in Rule 1 of Stable rules that says: Criminal circus of the horrific.
A5) There will be an option in Rule 1 of Stable rules that says: Violates death circus prohibition main directive.

Main Rules again.

B) If a news gets a given number of votes to mark it inappropriate, the news is then subjected to a vote.

In a different book of rules we set the relative rules:

B1) The votes needed to remove a news will be 20% of all the active users in the last month.
B2) A rejected news will count as 1 negative point for the person responsible for the news.
B3) The question would be: Should news like this be published for everyone?
B4) The answers will be multiple choice, 1 or many: a) Yes. b) No. If it is no then the same submenu for point A will be displayed.

Main Rules again.

C) Once a news is voted inadequate by the vote of the users in the automated process it is send to the limit judge (Ethical Analysis division).

In a different book of rules we set the relative rules:

C1) Death Circus News are not allowed in an Academic Media.
C2) Death News can not be used for profit.
C3) Death News must be approved by police forces or Police Academy.
C4) In Death News there is no need to give sadistic details.
C5) Any negative news must have increased ethical observance.

Then the Ethical Analyst shows the infringements it found and sends it to the main Channeler of the news, which in normal media would be a more ethical version of an Editor.

The editor then chooses to remove the news.

The editor sees where things went wrong and proceeds to study the book of relative rules for publicising news, with the help of a democratic process to avoid such news in the future by filtering out in the pre-publishing phase and previous academic internal vote of a news, before it gets published to the general public.

As you can see there can only be one vote per person, that is why a non anonymous system is required.

Twitter is a very serious security risk to the world.

Not only does it not have a link to the responsibility of people that use it, but as you saw in the CNN news it is used by the most dangerous of criminals as a working tool.

A monopolistic unfair system that drowns it's competition, that is heavily spied upon by the United States Government which is illegal in any other country because it violates the International Law of Sovereignty that is also a great tool to plan and execute terrorist acts by anonymous people...

All this to show that a non anonymous, law abiding Democratic System is safer not only for a given country but for the world community. Twitter represents a great tool for anonymous terrorists world wide and that is a serious danger that has to be considered by serious law enforcement agencies. We cannot have anyone, anywhere, using Twitter anonymously to plan terror attacks, that is why I proposed the Democratic Data Individualist Social Network Model.

Besides in the one-per-person non anonymous system not only the youth is far safer but each user is one person. That avoids criminal schemes like the kind Facebook likes to do (can't prove it but it is extremely easy for them to do) which creates imaginary users that do not exist to sell more publicity or their users do it... That cannot be good not even for businesses since they are being basically ripped off out of their money. On the other hand if every user had only one account then the marketing value of the social network is not only greatly increased, it is also far more reliable, for publicity, for children supervision, for census and for Digital Democracy.

We all win with a RESPONSIBLE INTERNET.

Responsible Internet means that someone is responsible for what is done, as opposed to the Twitter model where anonymous access makes a great tool for extremely dangerous criminals, as kindly indicated by criminal and terrorist CNN.

What's up with CNN publishing this?:
 
A decade later British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher gave a speech in which she made a similar point, declaring that terrorists depend on "the oxygen of publicity."

And then this:
 
On Thursday Shabaab posted the following chilling tweet: "The mesmeric performance by the #Westgate Warriors was undoubtedly gripping, but despair not folks, that was just the première of Act 1."

...

Obviously something must be done to STOP anonymous terrorists from using anonymous accounts on irresponsible  Social Networks to terrorize and kill...

That is why we urgently need: Academic Media and Responsible Internet.

It's the best thing that can happen to all we the honest people that do not want to profit from Crime or Terrorism and want respect for Human Rights.

Back to index.