User:George Swan/sandbox/Chatter (signals intelligence): Difference between revisions
imported>Hayford Peirce m (Chatter (signals intelligence) moved to User:George Swan/sandbox/Chatter (signals intelligence): Editor's recommendation to move article from mainspace to userspace) |
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "United States" to "United States") |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
'''Chatter''' is a term attributed to [[United States]] officials, by journalists, who explained that by monitoring the '''volume''' of the electronic communication, to or from suspected terrorists they can determine whether there is cause for alarm. They refer to the electronic communication as chatter.<ref name=Cnn20021010> | '''Chatter''' is a term attributed to [[United States of America|United States]] officials, by journalists, who explained that by monitoring the '''volume''' of the electronic communication, to or from suspected terrorists they can determine whether there is cause for alarm. They refer to the electronic communication as chatter.<ref name=Cnn20021010> | ||
{{cite news | {{cite news | ||
| url=http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/10/terror.roundup/ | | url=http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/10/terror.roundup/ | ||
Revision as of 14:32, 2 February 2023
This is a draft in User space, not yet ready to go to Citizendium's main space, and not meant to be cited. The {{subpages}} template is designed to be used within article clusters and their related pages.
It will not function on User pages.
Chatter is a term attributed to United States officials, by journalists, who explained that by monitoring the volume of the electronic communication, to or from suspected terrorists they can determine whether there is cause for alarm. They refer to the electronic communication as chatter.[1]
The term is not in common use among signals intelligence specialists, although the discipline of traffic analysis does consider changes in volume, senders, and known destinations.
Again according to journalists, even if they don't think they understand the real meaning of what suspected terrorists are saying to one another, they regard an increase in the number of the messages as a significant cause for alarm. Paradoxically, they also regard a decrease in the number of messages as a cause for alarm.[2]
References
- ↑ Plots, evidence and chatter put U.S. on alert, CNN, 10 October 2002. Retrieved on 2007-11-21.
- ↑ Slowdown in 'chatter' worries officials: Drop in intercepted communication also noticed before 9/11, CNN, 6 August 2004. Retrieved on 2007-11-21.