A general investigation into "the use of *software* by terrorists and violent extremists" would arguably be much more interesting.

You may enjoy the literature on such North Korean products as SiliVaccine.

On Wednesday 11. September 2019 11.27.56 Carsten Agger wrote:

On 9/11/19 9:29 AM, Alexander Sander wrote:

...

Analysis: The use of open-source software by terrorists and violent extremists -

Yes, without having read the report, that's a very weird point to make. *All* software can obviously be used by anyone - including bad actors.

Indeed. People will use whatever technology they can get, regardless of whether it is Free Software or the hardware equivalent. I vaguely remember a case of North Korea using games console hardware for military purposes. Nobody made the case, implicitly or otherwise, for banning games consoles, although I believe that certain consoles were probably subject to various export controls at various times.

As available for every purpose as free software is, it's not - unfortunately, but let's not flatter ourselves too much - really *more* available or abundant than proprietary software.

Agreed.

A general investigation into "the use of *software* by terrorists and violent extremists" would arguably be much more interesting.

It might be interesting from the perspective of strategists and those wanting to understand the operation of such groups, but for many people I think the conclusions would be fairly unremarkable and confirm their intuition that bad actors use what they have, with limited interest in how things are used unless there are some bizarre applications of mundane things. I seem to remember a story about home-made "encryption" tools made using Excel that falls into such a category.

Of arguably broader societal interest is how the dominant "social media" platforms are used by bad actors. Naturally, there has been plenty of attention on this amongst the more responsible news organisations, but there are also plenty of apologists for these platforms who claim that the good done via these platforms outweighs the bad ("they connect people!"), that the bad things aren't really significant ("we can't be sure it had an effect!"), that indications of responsibility for bad things aren't clear ("lots of people are buying advertising!"), and so on.

Never mind that such platforms have been used to coordinate criminal acts (substitute "Facebook" for "open-source software" in the subject of this message for a suggested search phrase on this topic) and have even sought to profit from criminal and otherwise unethical activities by selling targeted advertising that would have landed traditional advertising brokers in court. It is one thing claiming that bad people *happen* to be using a platform, quite another to be selling services to those people or otherwise profiting from their activities.

This does intersect with Free Software, unfortunately, because such platforms make substantial use of Free Software despite themselves being proprietary entities with no scrutiny or control available to their users. The developers of the Free Software used by these platforms might not be able to sensibly restrict how their code is used - the dilemma as old as the Free Software movement itself - but they can refuse to be included in whatever coalition those platforms conjure up to defend their own selfish and harmful agendas.

And, as I have noted before, by upholding a broader spectrum of values with Free Software being just one component, we should not allow such proprietary platforms to drive and to define what we stand for (or should stand for) as Free Software developers. Even supposedly robust organisations have been compromised by feeding off the supposed popularity of these services ("like this article on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram!") and the institutions of society are compromised as a result.

We should not abandon the rest of society in following the same selfish path, where people focus only on how their own narrow special interest may benefit, ignoring the larger impact on everybody else. Only the foolish would boast about how criminals and terrorists use their software. But what does that make the people who would willingly cooperate with those who routinely facilitate such activities?

Paul