Economist Claims Terrorists in Second Life

The Economist published an article online today on the "Internet Jihad" and the arrest of “Irhabi007.” Halfway through the article comes this nugget: "Inevitably, experts say, jihadists have also started to create “residents” in the virtual world of Second Life." It's not clear who the experts are or what research they're relying on, but we asked Steve Davis, the CEO of SecurePlay who writes at Playnoevil.com, what he thought about the likelihood of terrorist involvement in Second Life. "There are plenty of interesting things to talk about for cyberterrorism," he said, "but not virtual worlds and terrorism. It’s like talking about Myspace and terrorism. ‘Look, everyone in the world is friends with Osama Bin Laden.’"

Davis, who has been involved with security for over 20 years since he got his start at the NSA, doesn't see any real benefit for terrorists in Second Life except, potentially, for propaganda.

But even then, "one wonders how the Lindens would respond to someone exercising their 'free speech' rights in advocating Jihad in Second Life. it certainly would get a lot of press. I would expect at least one major political dirty trick in Second Life before the end of this presidential election. Think about it, combining a Second Life Denial of Service attack with some propaganda."

The Economist article focuses on the many new, secretive methods that the Internet affords terrorists to communicate, a function Davis doesn't see as plausible in Second Life.

"If I was going to be a terrorist in Second Life," Davis said, "I’d just cause a Denial of Service in Second Life with a repetitive 'Bush Sucks' or something. The usual thing they suffer. I sure wouldn’t use it communicate. [...] These guys rely on the anonymity of the Internet. As such, they focus on basic services (communication, indoctrination, information sharing), not fancy stuff like 3D environments."

There are real risks involved with virtual worlds and terrorism, though, but none of them involve being a resident.

"The bigger concerns are in the area of crime and money laundering," Davis said. "Since it is pretty easy to steal online game accounts and sell them for money or gold farm, you are creating a pretty large underground economy. [...] It was interesting to read recently that a WOW account could be worth more than a credit card number - that has serious implications. Since virtual world thefts aren't of items of "real" value, law enforcement is not interested - therefore, no risk, easy jurisdiction hopping, easy money laundering, and an easy way to stay "underground".

Joey Seiler
www.VirtualWorldsNews.com
joey (at) showinitiative.com
(512) 535-8650
skype: joey.seiler.vwnews

Comments

[Roderick Jones]

It is entirely plausible that a variety of extremists will be attracted to Virtual Worlds and not just Second Life. All of the benefits of virtual worlds, which make them compelling environments -- the educational possibilities, connection of talent from around the world and testing of products or systems -- can of course be adapted for negative ends. Much of this was envisaged by Edward Castronova in his sythetic worlds book so the idea is not new. So I think it is misleading to suggest that virtual worlds will only be used for propoganda purposes - they have much more sophisticated uses than that. A more interesting question is not if virtual worlds are being adapted for use by terrorists but what could be done to prevent it - if anything.

What is disappointing from the Economist is that they do not cite their sources or evidence regarding this important point. Hopefully they will correct this mistake.

[csven]

I say the education side of Second Life is what would be most appealing. The one character in the Economist article wanting instructions on how to build a car bomb could get instructions on a Notecard, a streaming video that multiple people could watch and ask questions about, an in-world demo, and some virtual hands-on training. And the chances of being discovered would be slim to none, I'd guess.

[Joey]

This is a good example of what NOT to report. It's idiotic.

Stupid hand-wringing "what if" scenarios designed purely to create a market for "security specialists" just can't be taken seriously. Everything useful on the planet "could be" used by terrorists. PENCILS "could be" used by terrorists.

Honestly, what the hell is wrong with you people?

[csven]

I wouldn't call it "idiotic"; nor would I say that The Economist reported it "purely to create a market for 'security specialists', Caleb/Joey/whoever. I think it was just poor journalism and that they should have provided some context and explanation for what makes a virtual world *potentially* more useful than a PENCIL.

Personally, I find recent government reports and warnings to be far more indicative of "stupid hand-wringing" than a one-liner in an article with plenty of other, more interesting bits. But that's just me.

[Onder Skall]

Hey just FYI, I'm not Joey... not sure what's going on there. Trying to get to the bottom of it now.

No comment on this discussion either way.

[Onder Skall]

Yep, it was a friend of mine. Goof. Gotta remember in the future to lock my computer when I get up to take a breather.