Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King
Home / News & Blogs / Between the Lines

How Internet surveillance, IT sleuth work helped indict suspected terrorist Zazi

By | September 25, 2009, 5:39am PDT

Summary: The indictment of suspected terrorist Najibullah Zazi, charged with acquiring and preparing bombs similar to the ones deployed in the 2005 London subway attacks, rides on Zazi’s Internet surfing habits. Here’s a look at the key linchpins where IT crossed paths with detective work.

Source: CBS News video

The indictment of suspected terrorist Najibullah Zazi, who is charged with acquiring and preparing bombs similar to the ones deployed in the 2005 London subway attacks, rides substantially on Zazi’s Internet surfing habits.

Federal prosecutors say that Zazi was trained in Pakistan and shuttled between Queens, N.Y. and Denver in an attempt to prepare bombs. The Feds allege that Zazi was involved in an Al Qaeda conspiracy to attack the U.S.

As you read the indictment and order for permanent detention (also see FBI statement, CBS News) you can almost picture the various connected databases and monitoring techniques at work. Simply put, Internet surveillance and information technology sleuthing played a big role in the Zazi case. FBI agents arrested Zazi in Colorado.

Jeffrey Knox, an assistant U.S. attorney, tells the tale in the permanent detention document. Here’s a look at the key linchpins where IT crossed paths with detective work.

The Customs databases…

Zazi flew from Newark Liberty International Airport to Peshawar, Pakistan on Aug. 28, 2008.   Something triggered in a database, given that Zazi, 24, was going to Peshawar, known as a terrorism hotbed.

Pakistan email accounts…

Here’s where the surveillance kicked in. Knox notes in the order for detention:

Zazi is associated with three email accounts (”Email Account 1,” “Email Account 2″ and “Email Account 3″) that were active during his time in Pakistan. One of the accounts is directly subscribed to Zazi, and all three accounts contain slight variations of the same password. The government will establish at trial that these accounts were used in furtherance of Zazi’s efforts to manufacture explosive devices. Among other things, during a consent search of two of the three accounts, agents found jpeg images of nine pages of handwritten notes containing formulations and instructions regarding the manufacture and handling of different kinds of explosives. Based on email header information, these images had been emailed to Email Accounts 2 and 3 in early December 2008, while Zazi was in Pakistan. As discussed below, the same notes were transferred onto Zazi’s laptop computer in June 2009.

Customs databases again…

Zazi flew back to the U.S. via JFK International Airport in Queens on Jan. 15, 2009.

You are your Internet search history…

Knox continues:

A lawfully-authorized search of Zazi’s laptop computer reflects that Zazi transferred the bomb-making instruction notes onto his laptop and/or accessed the notes on his laptop in June and July 2009. The FBI’s search of the laptop also reflects that Zazi conducted several internet searches for hydrochloric acid during the summer of 2009, and “bookmarked” a site on two different browsers for “Lab Safety for Hydrochloric Acid.” Zazi also searched a beauty salon website for hydrocide and peroxide.

Turns out Zazi and cohorts went shopping at various beauty supply stores for these ingredients. The Feds say that Zazi rented an Aurora, Colo. hotel room on Sept. 6 and 7 and tried to put the ingredients together.

The cell phone tap…

According to the permanent detention request:

Also on September 6 and 7, Zazi attempted to communicate on multiple occasions with another individual - each communication more urgent in tone than the last - seeking to correct mixtures of ingredients to make explosives. Included in the communications were requests related to flour and ghee oil, which are two ingredients listed in the bomb-making instructions. Zazi repeatedly emphasized in the communications that he needed the answers right away.

Internet search history take 2…

Knox writes:

A lawfully-authorized search of Zazi’s laptop computer reflects that the next day, September 8, Zazi searched the internet for locations of a home improvement store within zip code 11354, the zip code for the Flushing neighborhood of Queens, New York. He then searched the home improvement store’s website for muriatic acid, which is a diluted version of hydrochloric acid and, as discussed, could constitute the third component of TATP, which is comprised of hydrogen peroxide, acetone and a strong acid like hydrochloric acid. Zazi viewed four different types of muriatic acid. He viewed one particular type - Klean Strip Green Safer Muriatic Acid - multiple times. This product claims to have lower fumes and is safer to handle than standard muriatic acid.

Too little too late: Ditching the hard drive…

According to cell phone taps, Zazi started to realize he was being tracked after renting a car to New York. Zazi purchased an airline ticket and returned to Denver on September 12. After laptop searches revealed scans of handwritten bomb making instructions, Zazi removed the hard drive. According to Knox:

After Zazi’s laptop was searched in New York, and after Zazi returned to Colorado with his laptop, agents executed a search warrant at his Aurora residence. Agents recovered the same laptop that had previously been searched and found that the hard drive had since been removed.

There are still gaps in the account and specifics about how the Feds followed Zazi’s Internet habits. But it’s safe to say that the case would be a lot harder to prove if it weren’t for Zazi’s search habits and digital fingerprints.


Watch CBS Videos Online

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Between the Lines”

Topics

Agent, Information Technology, Pakistan, Laptop Computer, Internet, E-mail, Notebooks, Online Communications, Hardware, Notebooks & Tablets, Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic.

Disclosure

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan has nothing to disclose. He doesn’t hold investments in the technology companies he covers.

Biography

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic. He was most recently Executive Editor of News and Blogs at ZDNet. Prior to that he was executive news editor at eWeek and news editor at Baseline. He also served as the East Coast news editor and finance editor at CNET News.com. Larry has covered the technology and financial services industry since 1995, publishing articles in WallStreetWeek.com, Inter@ctive Week, The New York Times, and Financial Planning magazine. He's a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism and the University of Delaware.

For daily updates, follow Larry on Twitter.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
Ask a Question Start a Discussion
60
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: How Internet surveillance, IT sleuth work helped indict suspected terrorist Zazi
makrekwe92-24353651768719183073778865341807 5th Nov
cihiss,good post!
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
Kinda eerie
bigsibling 25th Sep 2009
Makes me wonder if I should delete that "Socialism" picture of Obama as the Joker from my machine.
0 Votes
+ -
Kinda eerie
gertruded 25th Sep 2009
Yes. And change the hard drive.
0 Votes
+ -
Don't commit any crimes and you'll be fine. nt
T1Oracle 25th Sep 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
There are 2 Issues Here
davagain Updated - 25th Sep 2009
The first is whether such forensics have a
legitimate place in law enforcement and the
second is whether these methods can be misused.
I believe that the obvious answer for both is
yes. I am happy and relieved that this
apparent terrorist was investigated and caught.
I would not like to be similarly investigated
(though I'm not sure why anyone would
want to bother, I've got a pretty boring life).

Until someone shows me evidence of systematic
abuse, I say go for it. Continue to use
reasonable methods like this to keep us safe.
0 Votes
+ -
Also Conflicted
sboverie 25th Sep 2009
I agree with the sentiment that a potential bombing has been shut down. Prevention is good.

I do have problems with the government blasting out so much information about this case. It is too much of "the end justifies the means" kind of thinking. It is also too much of the "your tax dollars at work to protect you, trust us".

It does sound like there was a conspiracy to perform terrorist acts and it is good to stop this action before someone gets killed or injured. There are too many details that may prevent successful prosecution or a fair trial.

If you think back to the Atlanta bombing, a security guard found a bomb and was able to warn everyone so that the damage was limited. He ended up being cast as the perpetrator of the act by over zealous or lazy police work. He was found to be innocent of the bombing but that is not what a lot of people remember.

The police, detectives, FBI investigate; the prosecutors charge the crime; but only the courts can determine guilt. This crime is being tried in the court of public opinion and that is very dangerous. The details should not be released until after a court has found the defendant guilty.

The balance between civil rights and the safety of the public is difficult. But we should be careful in allowing civil rights to be trampled, because they may be the only thing to protect the innocent.
0 Votes
+ -
if he's cooking chemicals
bearlyworking 25th Sep 2009
if he's cooking chemicals he's not innocent. simple as that.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, but guilty of what?
zackers 28th Sep 2009
Cooking up explosives is a violation of law all by itself. But in the much larger terrorism case the government is trying to put together, it alone is not conclusive.

Most of the stuff Zazi did is not illegal. It's not illegal to fly to Peshawar, even if you happen to be a Muslim. It's not illegal to email yourself instructions on making a bomb. It's not illegal to shop for ingredients that can be bought off of store shelves. It's only when all these things are put together that you can make a terrorism case.

The case as presented so far is strong, but it's not nearly as strong or conclusive as what the government wanted before it was forced to detain Zazi.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree
T1Oracle 25th Sep 2009
Trial by media is not a fair trail. Some of this evidence needs to stay in the courts and off the cameras until there is a verdict.
0 Votes
+ -
There is systematic abuse
HollywoodDog 25th Sep 2009
If you ever became a pain to the government for
legitimate reasons (political activism, etc), all
kinds of embarrassing personal things about you
could start surfacing, and you would begin to
notice odd things; cars parked nearby, same dude
in the stores and restaurants near you. They
wouldn't have to actually act to let you know they
were unhappy. That's how they keep everyone in
line.
0 Votes
+ -
like they have enough personnel to follow activists
bearlyworking 25th Sep 2009
like they have enough personnel and interest in following political activists. yeah, right. LOL...
0 Votes
+ -
That's exactly who they do follow
HollywoodDog 25th Sep 2009
Look at Pakistan. Musharraf did not spend his
resources going after the real bad guys - he
used his secret police to harass moderate and
legitimate critics of his regime - the very
people who might actually replace him. All
governments have the same interests.

And this business about not having anything to
hide?

"Show me the man, and I will find the crime."
- Lavrentiy Beria
0 Votes
+ -
that's the whole point
bearlyworking 25th Sep 2009
That's the whole point of why it didn't matter that the Bush administration had some big brother listening taking place. If you don't have anything to hide, what are you worried about? So although I did not vote for Bush, I cross the isle and am conservative when it comes to believing in broad, open powers for intelligence to be able to listen in on whatever they want to listen in on.
0 Votes
+ -
HMMM
sboverie 25th Sep 2009
You trust the government with your privacy and think that just because you have nothing to hide that they won't harass you? Is it better to let 10 guilty men free rather than kill an innocent man or kill them all and let god sort them out? It all changes when you find that you are a target and how little it would take for any government to totally mess your life up.

The 1950's communist hunts and congressional hysteria that blacklisted people for no real crime should make you more cautious in trusting any government. All it takes is someone in power who doesn't like something that you take for granted.
0 Votes
+ -
actually it does matter
steeleblue_cactus 26th Sep 2009
I applaud the govt agents for their work. I
notice that in the statements they say
"lawfully-authorized search". I take this to
mean they had search warrants. I am all for
letting the govt "listen in", etc when they
have a valid search warrant. Our govt is based
upon a checks and balances approach. If a law
enforcement agency can provide to a court/judge
that they have probable cause to "listen in"
then ok. And we have the FISA court to provide
these checks and balances.

However, we cannot afford to give up our
freedoms in a fruitless chase to feel safe. We
are also a nation of laws and govt agents must
follow those laws or none of us will ever be
safe. Once we travel down that slippery slope
the terrorists have won. Only by living up to
the standards our nation was founded upon do we
survive.

I will not live in fear of the government.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: How Internet surveillance, IT sleuth work helped indict suspected terrorist Zazi
Capt_Sparky 25th Sep 2009
He'll have a whale of a time with the other terrorists in jail!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: How Internet surveillance, IT sleuth work helped indict suspected terrorist Zazi
ITOdeed 25th Sep 2009
Hmm... Wonder if Zazi will spend any time at the Hotel Cheney... He should, for giving the Feds excuses to track movements on the Internet.
0 Votes
+ -
Great thing he was caught
stefan.metzeler@... 25th Sep 2009
And exceptionally, I guess we can all hope that he'll be
put into a "normal" jail with the typical brutal
gangsters, who will enjoy beating this guy to a bloody
pulp.

He'll especially enjoy that he'll no longer be a "virgin"
after the first few days in jail.
0 Votes
+ -
A little old fashioned here
Bill4 25th Sep 2009
Like everyone, I want convicted criminals locked up and punished. Reform would great but it hardly ever seems to work out. Captured terrorist like this need to locked up and the key thrown away. What I am not comfortable with is the idea that prison should be a place of sexual abuse and physical torture.



0 Votes
+ -
Prison will always be torture.
T1Oracle 25th Sep 2009
Medical care, food, sanitation, living conditions, etc. none of that would be at a level that most of us would be ok dealing with. Prison is not supposed to be nice, although I agree that deliberately hurting and neglecting people would be taking it too far.
0 Votes
+ -
A decent catch
Dr_Zinj 25th Sep 2009
Downloading the instructions, or downloading the information on the chemicals and their preparations, or e-mailing them to himself isn't a crime. I did so in the process of researching the claims in the article.

Nor is it a crime to visit those particular countries.

And it's not a crime to purchase any of those materials.

It became a crime when he began to combine those materials in an attempt to construct explosives. We've chosen as a community and a society to prohibit the unregulated creation of explosives because it puts an undue risk of injury or death on members of the community. This nut case could have killed hundreds of people in that motel if the materials prematurely detonated. And that particular explosive is well-known for being unstable and unsafe.

And the purposes which he was going to use the explosives for are also a crime.

Was there justification for the increased surveillence?

Immigrant from Afghanistan. Score: 1. Total Threat Score: 1. No problem.

Muslim. No problem. Score: 1. Total Threat Score: 2. No problem.

Not an american citizen. Score: 1. Total Threat Score: 3. No problem.

Flies back to Peshawar, Pakistan; on the U.S. Dept of State Travel Warning List for terrorism. Score: 2. Total Threat Score: 5. Score reached flag level. Notify Department of Homeland Security to run world-wide internet search on this person for e-mail and blog postings containing words: "explosive", "revenge", "target", .

At least 3 hits on internet search, all e-mail. Score: 30 (10 per hit). Total Threat Score: 35. Second flag goes up. Possible terrorist threat. Open case file and initiate electronic surveillence of suspect.

I'm sure there's more to it than just this; but what it amounts to is intrusion of the government into our private affairs. In this case, probably publicly available information accumulated enough data to justify further intrusion into this guys life.

If we increased how much the government can intrude in our lives (i.e. spy on us), would our level of safety be any higher? Doubtful. Worse, it would make our lives much more difficult than they are now. They got this guy this time. Eventually, they will miss someone and an atrocity will happen. People will be injured and killed. We had 31,110 people killed in highway accidents in 2008. Frankly, until the annual death rate from domestic terrorist activities consistently reaches 10% of that level, we shouldn't devote any more resources, or allow any greater infringements on our right to privacy.
0 Votes
+ -
Fair exchange of privacy for safety
kellycarter 25th Sep 2009
I couldn't tell for certain whether you felt
the intrusion by the authorities were "about
right" or "too much." Personally, I think
they've got it "about right." I disagree with
your position that until we consistently lose
about 3,000 people a year to terrorism that we
should pretty much leave things "as is." That
would pretty much amount to one World Trade
Center attack per year (in terms of human
life), every year. I understand your point that
we lose lots of human life to causes less
dramatic than terrorism, but to use those
levels as benchmarks to find a "happy medium"
for terrorism-related deaths...well, I just
disagree strongly. For one, I think Americans
are almost obsessed with personal privacy.
Sure, privacy is important to everyone, but so
are the lives of my loved ones and fellow
citizens. I'm very happy to "sacrifice" some of
my "personal privacy" when it is useful to save
lives. In the US, we have a pretty good system-
-that needs to be protected with vigilance--
that gives the citizenry great power to take
back freedoms if the government goes too far.
At this point in history, let's let our systems
work to protect us without excessive paranoia.
0 Votes
+ -
not an issue of "personal privacy" to me
steeleblue_cactus 26th Sep 2009
While I agree that personal privacy is
important I am more concerned with how far the
government will go. I'm pretty sure that most
of those involved in these surveillance
operations have the best interests of the
country at heart but we cannot always count on
that. Read your history - Hitler did the same
thing when he took power. The possibility of
abuse will be very tempting to those in power.
I consider that to be the greater risk and
something we must also guard against.

Why would we be willing to become a repressive
society just because of some perceived threat?
If we go down that road then any terrorists
have no need to even attack us again - we will
have done more damage to ourselves than they
ever could.

It's a delicate set of situations to balance
but we must do it.
0 Votes
+ -
You made some good points, but your conclusion was, frankly, stupid
adornoe@... 25th Sep 2009
Frankly, until the annual death rate from domestic terrorist activities consistently reaches 10% of that level, we shouldn't devote any more resources, or allow any greater infringements on our right to privacy.

Some of your arguments were sound, but your conclusion above was, sadly, stupid.

It took just one massive attack to bring down the world trade center and part of the Pentagon and some airliners full of people. The total number of people killed was a bit less than 3000, and according to your estimation in your post, it's
not worthy of dedicating enough resources to the problem if the attacks don't amount to more than 10% of our annual highway death toll.

However, your ignorance fails to look at the big picture. Sure, we only suffered a "measly' number of "expendable" people. What the heck, 3000 people in one fell swoop is not much to worry your little head about.

However, how about the total damage (if you still think that those 3000 people were "expendable")

The total cost, besides the lives of the people, went into the many billions, including the cost of repairing the Pentagon and replacing the World Trade Center buildings (with whatever they're going to eventually place there).

The economy suffered for many months and it took more than a year before the economy started rebuilding and the people started feeling "safe" again. And, we ended up with more layers of government (Homeland Security) and more intrusive government, and more regulations to the airline industry and much more in other areas. I imagine that if one were to take into consideration the total cost of those "little" attacks of 9/11, that the total cost to the country and the world probably came into a trillion or more in damages.

Furthermore, though we only suffered a "measly" 3000 people killed, may thousands more more affected by the loss of those people who just happened to be "family members". And the cost to them will continue to be very high for the rest of their lives, even if the federal government paid them for their losses with "money" (most of those family members would still prefer to have their "dead" back and alive).

I could go on forever against your stupid and insensitive post, but I'll leave it at that for now. Perhaps later.

BTW, those intrusive government regulations which came into existence during the Bush years didn't happen just because Bush wanted them and wanted to spy on the people. I'm pretty sure that neither Bush nor anyone else in his administration had any thoughts at all about spying on the American people before 9/11 happened.

You are typical of many who after a little time passes, they forget how and why things happened.

Also, for me and most people in the U.S., unlike you, there should not be a magic number or a trigger before we counter or respond to terrorism. To me, just one American life taken by a terrorist, is trigger enough for the government to have to take action.

Hope I didn't spoil your day.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: How Internet surveillance, IT sleuth work helped indict suspected terrorist Zazi
tom@... 25th Sep 2009
I am at a loss as to why the details of how he was tracked and caught have been published, would this not tell other potential bombers what NOT to do on the internet?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: How Internet surveillance, IT sleuth work helped indict suspected terrorist Zazi
norm@... 25th Sep 2009
Posting this information will help future terrorists avoid detection. Fortunately, they are frequently dumb enough to make other mistakes!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: How Internet surveillance, IT sleuth work helped indict suspected terro
mondaka@... 25th Sep 2009
I really happy for this caught.
The point i want to realize how just a trip to pakistan
trigger an investigation or a something happen situation.

What if this guy decides go first to paris or better
never goes to pakistan?

I understand the hole picture about terrorist
investigations but obviously in this article there are
missing a lot of details.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: How Internet surveillance, IT sleuth work helped indict suspected terrorist Zazi
bearlyworking 25th Sep 2009
But if I were the FBI, I'd postal mail this story to every beauty and hardware and pool supply, etc, store in the Country. The low tech "call the tip line because someone is buying an unusual amount of chemicals" would seem to get the ball rolling on an investigation.
0 Votes
+ -
Not likely to work
Geedavey 25th Sep 2009
If you own a pool you will buy lots of these
supplies regularly. Unless you consider "a man
with a beard buying pool supplies" a red
flag...and that's profiling to an unacceptable
level.
0 Votes
+ -
What I learned
Geedavey 25th Sep 2009
Join an Amish church...it explains the beard.
Own a pool and an auto detailing shop...it explains the
chemicals.
Fly to somewhere ELSE in Pakistan and DRIVE to Peshawar.
Visit the library to do searches and don't actually take
out any books...make notes there.
Presto! One bombmaker, off the grid.
0 Votes
+ -
Re: What I've learned
nevthaman 25th Sep 2009
Ahhh, but we Amish don't drive. That would be a luxury. But our heathern Mennonite brethern own cell phones and some have vehicles.
None of us have access to the Internet and we generally leave you English alone.
LOL
0 Votes
+ -
RE: ...and how the nation so easly traded it rights for "secuity."
mario@... 25th Sep 2009
What is this man guilty of, the potential act of harming or killing someone? Is that a crime if there is no intent? If so what type of crime? Enough so to have him detained for a very long time without proof of guilt. Further it is acceptable to have the government watch over you to make sure you are not committing a potential crime? If driving kills people and bad drivers are more likely to potentially kill then should the government have the right to track all drivers just in case? If there is no intent or the desire to use something which can be used as a potential weapon against another , then we are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE or else we are all potentially guilty of something the government deems dangerous or harmful.

Once US citizens no longer have any real rights and can be detained for very long periods of time or indefinably for the potential act they are committing they will understand one of the reasons the funders of the nation created a Bill of Rights.

FOOLISH U.S. citizens, you are so easily gullible. Perhaps it isn?t your fault with such poor educational standards, no longer having access to independent journalistic created news content, instead the lives of ?reality TV? people to fill your thoughts coupled with the notion that someone should serve you instead of getting off your ass to it yourself, what can be expected? That?s it good consumerist cows take your Soma and sleep. Don?t be like Abib and have a conscious or you will half to be locked up with the other sheep cheering the authorities on. That is until the police comes to lock them up too.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: How Internet surveillance, IT sleuth work helped indict suspected terro
lazerousz Updated - 25th Sep 2009
I placed this in the wrong thread, it is meant as a response to the post from Mario above it.
----------------------------------------------

What crime did he commit you ask. Well, in a couple minute search I was unable to locate the actual law, but I know that the production of a substance classified as a High Explosive, which I can only assume was his intent. We would need more info to know what his instructions were for production of. And, it is illegal to produce a high explosive compound without proper licensing and, which it also appears he lacked. So, while your concerns about invasion of privacy and such have valid pieces, there is quite easily a crime here.
0 Votes
+ -
Probably they did not catch this guy via IT
HollywoodDog 25th Sep 2009
Probably between the CIA in Pakistan, extensive
network of informants in the Muslim community,
especially in Queens New York and a lot of other
things, they knew about this guy and his colleagues
and were well on to him already, and the IT stuff
followed later.

The reason they highlight it in their application for
permanent detention and don't mention the other stuff
is because the US government is fighting hard to
retain their warrantless domestic spying program,
their NSA hoovers at phone company buildings, and all
that stuff.

So the story, or rather the implication goes out
(witness ZDNets' blogs) that this guy was detected by
means of the very electronic surveillance that so many
privacy advocates are claiming should be sunsetted.

They caught this guy. They deserve huge credit and
praise for doing so. That the catch depended on
warrantless domestic spying and roving wiretaps and
Patriot act stuff; doubtful.
0 Votes
+ -
gee... I often wonder how they treat **peaceful demonstrators**
BlueBerry Pick'n 25th Sep 2009
& activists.

we *did* see how people were treated @ the '08 RNC. that
was disgraceful.

& we'll note that the AT&T charges never filed & that
Obama is toying with *reauthorizing* the Patriot Act.

I guess 'terrorist' is a term one can throw around pretty
lightly to ensure that surveillance can be approved for
almost anything that makes corporations happy & can
influence their 'bought & paid for' political hacks.
0 Votes
+ -
"we don't need RIGHTS, we need Protections!"
BlueBerry Pick'n Updated - 25th Sep 2009
wow.

Americans scare the hell out of me.

Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said, "Those who would give up
essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Americans: so xenophobic & paranoid & corrupt...

that they mistreat the World & their neighbours... then cry
that they should have to carry weaponry to protect
themselves...
then declare that they need government to undermine their
freedoms so they can feel protected...

then cry that they don't have any freedoms...

jesus, make up your freaking minds.

maybe if you behaved yourselves & treated the rest of the
World with RESPECT... you could heal the fissues & misery
so people wouldn't have *any capacity to be believed* when they
declare themselves able to argue that harming that they were only
protecting themselves from you??

You know, ethics, respect, education & good manners could do a LOT
to improve American culture.

Then you MIGHT not have to get all skeered that every
brown dude is out to "git ya".

Put down those guns & crack a book or something.
0 Votes
+ -
Foreigners should not teach us about liberty
Linux Geek 25th Sep 2009
Take your socialist views somewhere else.
If you think that any nation is equal to USA you have to take a history course.
You don't have half the liberties Americans enjoy jackass!
0 Votes
+ -
Guess what... I'm a brown dude and...
adornoe@... 25th Sep 2009

I say, take your preaching to us Americans and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

Was that disrespectful?

It was?

Then go and hide in the cave you came from and don't try your nonsense again.
0 Votes
+ -
can you SAY WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING??
BlueBerry Pick'n 25th Sep 2009
gee, that might be your first 'systematic abuse' clue.

the US has SIXTEEN 'intelligence agencies' & innumerable
'private contract relationships'

wow, are you telling me that CORPORATE & GOVERNMENT
ESPIONAGE DOESN"T OCCUR WITH BUSINESS
'INTELLIGENCE"?

clue in.
there is a REASON AT&T funded the DNC'08. gee, look
you're STILL BEING WIRETAPPED.

yeah... its the 'terrorism'... sure it is.
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
MSFTWorshipper Updated - 27th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
we should not apologize to anybody
Linux Geek Updated - 25th Sep 2009
Like Mitt Romney said, America should never apologize!
0 Votes
+ -
concious, actions and laws define a nation
mario@... 25th Sep 2009
The question is not one ?ism? vs. another or 'Us vs. Them' but rather, you have or have not. Either you have a piece of bread or you do not. Either you own the land or you do not. This is what it is all about and has always been about since the beginning of time due living in a closed system (only on planet earth); thus there has evolved the philosophy of limited resources by the British use to created and maintain their empire. This single philosophy has justified countless wars, exploitation and famine. It is even used today to wage war and take freedom though the phoney notion that oil is a limited recourse that by using oil we are doomed and is leading to ?climate change? regardless of the fact recourses are not finite and in fact renew themselves over time. The problem for the greedy is that some of these resources take a great deal of time to renew however once we begin to mine other planets and comets even this foundation of the philosophy will be removed.
Thus patricians, kings and queens hold their control over us though manipulation of the truth as mentioned above and thorough clever rouses such as the ?was on terror? or ?they? are coming to boom us or ?climate change.? People are trained or educated to be fearful of these things through broken families, media, Hollywood, and school and thus are content to trade their freedom for ?security?, are accepting of wars which kill others (1 million plus Iraqi, and countless Afghan, Palestinian civilian children, women, elderly and men), the taxes required to pay for the debt these wars create (keep in mind taxation is a form of bondage and slavery and one of the main reasons for those who sought ?American Independence? from Britton), laws that make these forms of slavery legal and rights of ?innocent UNTIL proven guilty? neutered.
This story is about how governed spying over you, watching over your every move is a good thing. See by violating your constitution or sense of what a society free from government tyranny is about they caught the guy who supposedly or not, may or not kill you. Don?t you feel better. Yes wanting to harm other is wrong and attempting to do so is wrong. That is for courts to prove and punish. What is key is how we determine innocent and guilt. It is what defines a nation. I wonder what those U.S. citizens who ?fought communism? must think. After all the bad old communist governments did that to their citizens not American governments to theirs. I guess that is why ?communism? had to ?fall.? That created linkage of communism and government spying had to be eliminated to remove that sociological barrier. If communist governments justified spying on their people as a means to protect them would this generation of Americans which agree with this communist approach look to their fathers as un-American for disagreeing?
0 Votes
+ -
Helping Terrorists 101
FiOS-Dave 25th Sep 2009
Unfortunately, stories like this are more harmful than helpful!
Do we really have to publish the ingredients he was searching for? Is this going to be a primer to help terrorists avoid detection?
I would be much happier to leave it at "The bastard is caught and our people are safe!"
0 Votes
+ -
Story doesn't help terrorists
HollywoodDog 25th Sep 2009
These terrorists didn't get a recipe from the internets and try to make
it. They traveled to Pakistan and were taught by the professionals.

What disturbs me the most, second only to the fact that there were
actual terrorists loose in the US, is that the government is pushing the
storyline that their random internet monitoring is what exposed this
plot. It didn't. That there are compliant "journalists" who should know
better that assist them in this enterprise is disturbing.

They don't need to vacuum up every email in the country to get the
emails of someone already under investigation for terrorism due to
the CIA, FBI and their network of informants.

Yet the government would have you believe that we have to surrender
our privacy - in the form of the NSA monitoring every web search,
email and phone call in the country - in order to catch three terrorists.

The government today is relatively benign. Think how these tools will
be used one day when we have a government with far less scruples.
0 Votes
+ -
Posted in wrong place... so content removed
adornoe@... Updated - 25th Sep 2009
content removed
0 Votes
+ -
RE: How Internet surveillance, IT sleuth work helped indict suspected terrorist Zazi
PeterPac 25th Sep 2009
As a owner of a computer forensic company doing consulting for many companies which mainly involves break ins or employee misuse or theft I find some of the facts within this article disturbing. For one myself or any of my employees would never divulge any information pertaining to the case until it was presented to prosecuting authorities thus preventing any contamination of collected evidence.

I clearly see this was not the case in this event. While, yes they most likely prevented any disaster from occurring but until a court of law determines with all the facts that the people are or were truly guilty it is basically hearsay. Even if all the evidence we collect points to a person actually committing the crime we do not have the authority to to state that the person or persons are guilty and neither Homeland Security or the FBI has this authority. A perfect example was the post about Atlanta Georgia which has damaged this persons life forever.

While in no way am I siding with the individuals involved in this case as myself being an American anyone planning a attack within the US should be punished with the highest sentence allowed but even the most hideous crime still deserves a trial. With all this media coverage and statements by federal authorities only gives future terrorists an avenue to avoid the mistakes under taken by the ones in this case. Why publish exactly how they came to find about this and allow any future terrorist to avoid detection? It is law enforcement's job to apprehend and investigate matters like this but should the media publish every detail to the extent that the evil doers correct the previous mistakes by reading about it or by hearing it on TV?
0 Votes
+ -
Agree with discretion in journalism
james_houston@... 25th Sep 2009
Definitely I agree with this response that
for reasons of justice & national security, I'd
be safer not knowing everything about terrorist
plotting & research. Espionage is fascinating when one watches movies, even morbidly so when
stories like this culminate in an arrest. Our need to know everything globally may satisfy our ravenous curiousity, and falsely assure us we have security in our counterintelligence.
Both parties pursue their enemies on their own turf, and the U.S is fighting a unified culture
that have experience in warfare & subversion for over 1,220 years, to our 220+ years.
0 Votes
+ -
It's not about the enemy's experience in warfare and subversion
adornoe@... 26th Sep 2009

If you want to give this type of enemy any credit, the only credit they deserve is in their relentless determination to pursue their evil goals.

When it comes to warfare, the only tools they have is their guerrilla tactics and their terrorism. They use those "weapons" to undermine or subvert a country or a people. When they can't win the hearts and minds of the people, they almost always resort to terrorism.

However, those tactics are known, and those tactics can be defeated, sometimes very easily. There are methods for counterinsurgency and for defeating terrorism. We are using those methods today, and those methods are many and varied, and one of those methods includes the use of the internet to track the enemy. If we give up the internet tracking, the enemy wins more battles and we stand a good chance of losing the war. We have the methods to defeat the enemy, and we are actually winning in the overall battle to keep us safe. The enemy wins when we become complacent. One of the reasons they've become more bold lately is because they believe that, with a change in administrations, the rules for pursuit have somehow become more relaxed and that we're not as determined as they are in the battlefront.
0 Votes
+ -
Peterpac, you're wrong - govt can assert guilt
HollywoodDog 27th Sep 2009
Although I applaud your instincts in wanting to withhold judgement
until a trial is conducted, one would think the owner of a "computer
forensic company" would know that prosecutors have every right to
allege the guilt of criminal suspects. I suppose you're not a lawyer, or
even minimally familiar with the law on this point.

The assertion was made to a judge in applying for detention without
bail, and the alternative to allowing that document to be public is the
trial being conducted in secret. Prosecutors can also speak to the
press about such things, within guidelines.

This represents progress. BushCo would have simply kidnapped all
these people and held them in military custody without trial.
0 Votes
+ -
What a load of BS!
adornoe@... 27th Sep 2009
This represents progress. BushCo would have simply kidnapped all
these people and held them in military custody without trial.

What the prosecutors and/or our security services (FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, etc) did in this case is no different from what they've done in the past. As soon as someone is arrested and charged, the prosecuting agencies almost always trot in front reporters to present "their case" against the perpetrators. Of course, they're not going to disclose all of the facts and conditions and methods involved in tracking and arresting the bad guys, but they know that the people have a right to know and they try to inform the public to a degree which "satisfies" a lot of the curiosity of most people. There is of course a lot of information held back for security reasons, and until the case is prosecuted. The prosecution does not want to damage their case by "prosecuting" in front of the cameras and before a trial.

However, the part that irks me the most about your post is that last paragraph which I quoted. It's pure garbage. How the heck does it represent any more progress than what was already going on during the Bush administration? Explain that. Or are you just making up nonsense just to give more credit to how things are done "now" with a new president? In fact, most of what transpired of the case of the terrorist in question occurred during the Bush years, and even now, most of the tactics and methods of investigation are still the same as when Bush was still there. What occurred this past week is a continuation of Bush policies all around. Basically, nothing has changed under Obama and no new methods, or ways of dealing with terrorists, have really changed. There may be a "new" perception that things have changed, but the reality is that, if things are eventually going to change, they had no consequences in the case in question. Perception does not necessarily match the facts in the real world.

And how ignorant are you? Bush would've just kidnapped those people and held them in military custody? You really can't be serious.

First off, the people involved are enemies of the country and are in a state of war with us. As such, they are not just common criminals. You and Obama and the whole democratic party would like to treat them as common criminals, but those people are far from the common criminal who would just be content with committing the "common crimes" which law enforcement encounters on a daily basis. What the terrorists have in mind is the destruction of the country, by any means possible. That is not a common crime.

If that kind of dangerous person is not a common criminal, and that person is in fact an enemy of the state who is at war with the U.S., then that kind of "criminal" doesn't belong in a regular prison or in the regular justice system. Moreover, that kind of "criminal" is more of a soldier at war with us. No soldier who is committed to our destruction belongs in a regular jail or prison. That kind of person is a "prisoner of war" and belongs in military prison. Furthermore, a prisoner of war normally stays in military custody until the "war" is over and that "soldier" can be repatriated. The war is not over, not yet. All that's needed is for Obama to unilaterally declare that we are no longer at war and we no longer have a cause to hold those "war prisoners'.

And, when any of those "prisoners" were found to not have been dangerous to begin with, they were released. The people being held right now are those that are deemed to be the most dangerous of the lot. Those people would go back to the battlefield and plan for more terrorism and our destruction if they were released. So, why do the stupid thing by releasing them before the "war" is over?

What Bush did with those "military prisoners" is no different from how that kind of prisoner has been treated in past wars. So, again, your statement above is total nonsense and garbage and, frankly, stupid.

If you wanted to make a partisan statement which made Obama look good and made Bush look bad, you did so without engaging your brain. Why not look at the case, and the world, from a realistic point of view? Why bring the partisan BS into the matter? Why not take the case at face value and wait for the results from the court case and from the prosecutors?

You cannot try a case with partisan politics. Why not go for the realities in the case instead of trying to paint it as something that is now, somehow, "magically" different just because there's a "new sheriff" in town?

0 Votes
+ -
Agree
sboverie 28th Sep 2009
I agree with you regarding too much publicity before a court of law has determined guilt. The legal system here is the presumption of innocence and the state must make the case for guilt. This gets subverted too easily by media and by government officials who are touting their good efforts for political gain.

What should be described is an alleged crime and conspiracy. The facts have to be proven in a court of law before the individuals can be called guilty.

It is good that your company has high standards of conduct and thanks for informing us.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: How Internet surveillance, IT sleuth work helped indict suspected terrorist Zazi
makrekwe92-24353651768719183073778865341807 5th Nov
cihiss,good post!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix