At the time I seem to recall them being sure that they'd generally avoided electronic communication in favour of face to face meetings. Particularly galling as IIRC they were know the security services.

Ultimately, if a group of people intend to do harm and have any common sense they will avoid communication methods that are suspect which makes a mockery of various governments insistence that they need to be able to monitor everyone all the time because terrorism. It's lazy, invasive and only really harms law abiding citizens on the off chance that someone with fell intent slips up.

I think there's a complacency ( and maybe racism) that the terrorists are less technologically able, and the west could always outsmart them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They are clearly technologically able, and savvy enough to realise that there are times when you don’t use anything like that. There is wisdom in knowing when not to use a thing, even if that thing is a great facilitator.

I think the assumption has long been that tech means you won't have to physically track these people, hence the continual 'known to the security services' reports after atrocities. They need informers or plants to start with, combined with physical taps after. It's still working over here for the most part, and how many of our native jihadis have we tried to recruit but utterly failed, pushing them further in but then ignoring them?!