It looks like the U.S. military’s fears about Twitter being a tool for terrorists may not be so far off base. The Washington Post reports that the attackers who wreaked havoc in Mumbai last week used Blackberries, GPS navigators, CDs full of high-res satellite images, and “multiple cellphones with switchable SIM cards that would be hard to track” to carry out their siege. They also spoke to each other using satellite phones and kept tabs on their fellow terrorists by watching live TV reports in the hotel rooms they occupied.

The use of technology was so sophisticated and extensive that one security expert in New Delhi told the Post,

“The terrorists would not have been able to carry out these attacks had it not been for technology. They were not sailors, but they were able to use sophisticated GPS navigation tools and detailed maps to sail from Karachi [in Pakistan] to Mumbai.”

Meanwhile, civilians were making full use of available resources as well. Throughout the attack, the blogosphere, and particularly sites like Flickr and Twitter, was packed with extensive realtime coverage and updates from onlookers, residents, and potential victims trapped in hotels. And of course, afterwards, those affected were able to use the Web to share stories and vent emotions about what had happened.

But while civilians were able to put their communications devices to good use and reach each other, the Indian Security Forces were technologically outmatched. When an elite special forces unit arrived at the two hotels where hostages were located, it was unequipped with night-vision goggles or thermal-imaging capability, and the soldiers lacked even floor layouts of the hotel.

One question is whether Google may get some flack in the wake of this display of “terrorism in the digital age.” Officials in numerous countries (including ours) have expressed concern over the detail Google Earth images reveal about military sites. While the site is open to anyone in the world with an Internet connection, it can’t be denied that it presents a useful tool for those looking to plan an attack like this.

Related:
RB: Could Twitter Be a Tool for Terrorists?
RB: Caught in a National Disaster? Twitter May Save Your Life.
RB: Want to Send Your Representative a Message? Use Twitter!

The Army has always been clever at thinking up all the vast and strange ways our enemies might use to kill us (or vice versa). Now Wired writes that an intelligence report is circulating containing warnings that terrorists might plan an attack using that deadliest of all technological terrors: Twitter.

The 11-page paper in question [pdf] is not solely devoted to Twitter—in total, it includes the following topics:

Pro Terrorist Propaganda Mobile Interfaces
Mobile Phone GPS for Movements, Ops, Targeting, and Exploitation
The Mobile Phone as a Surveillance Tool
Voice Changers for Terrorist Phone Calls
A Red Teaming Perspective on the Potential Terrorist Use of Twitter

In assessing Twitter’s danger to the free world, the authors note that the micro-blogging site was used as a “countersurveillance” tool by activists at the Republican National Convention, who used it to Tweet the location of local police. (What they fail to mention is that said local police could have pretty easily monitored the Tweets in question and adjusted their plans accordingly). The paper then goes on to lay out three possible “Twitter Attack!” scenarios:

Scenario 1: Terrorist operative “A” uses Twitter with… a cell phone camera/video function to send back messages, and to receive messages, from the rest of his [group]… Other members of his [group] receive near real time updates (similar to the movement updates that were sent by activists at the RNC) on how, where, and the number of troops that are moving in order to conduct an ambush.

Scenario 2: Terrorist operative “A” has a mobile phone for Tweet messaging and for taking images. Operative “A” also has a separate mobile phone that is actually an explosive device and/or a suicide vest for remote detonation. Terrorist operative “B” has the detonator and a mobile to view “A’s” Tweets and images. This may allow “B” to select the precise moment of remote detonation based on near real time movement and imagery that is being sent by “A.”

Scenario 3: Cyber Terrorist operative “A” finds U.S. [soldier] Smith’s Twitter account. Operative “A” joins Smith’s Tweets and begins to elicit information from Smith. This information is then used for… identity theft, hacking, and/or physical [attacks]. This scenario… has already been discussed for other social networking sites, such as My Space [sic] and/or Face Book [also sic].

Granted, we’re no intelligence experts, but it seems to us that if government officials can map every jihadist Web page on the Internet, they can monitor a few suspicious looking Twitter feeds.

Related:

RB: Caught in a National Disaster? Twitter May Save Your Life.
RB: As Obama Makes History, the Internet Records It
RB: Want to Send Your Representative a Message? Use Twitter!

Like many, we were Twitter skeptics at first. “Who on earth would ever use this?” we thought a year or so ago, when the micro-blogging service was winding its way through the word-of-mouth (and -blog) channels.

But now, given the site’s major role in the presidential campaign, its history of freeing jailed Americans abroad, and even its ability to facilitate public safety during a national disaster, we’re convinced: Twitter is freakin’ brilliant, and may change the way we communicate on a global scale.

ABC News writer Ki Mae Heussner reports that New Orleans natives and other hardy souls who faced off with Gustav were Twittering up a, er, storm, sending messages about evacuations and shelters, letting friends and family members know their location, and reporting on storm conditions as they watched them.

The Red Cross also made good use of the service, sending Tweets about evacuation and available shelters to around 1,200 followers.

As we’ve discussed before, when it comes to mainstream media, Twitter can mean more instant, real-time reporting with less editorial (or personal) lean. But for everyone else, the beauty of it is simpler, and more useful: You can report on what you’re seeing right now to the entire Internet, and read others’ reports, all with just a cell phone. Picture what that could mean in a wide-scale national disaster, terrorist attack, emergency, etc. What happened during Gustav is just the proverbial iceberg tip. So call us Twitter converts—and for God’s sake, somebody get these guys some money.

The crowd was bursting at the seams in Invesco Field last night—MSM reports have put attendance anywhere from 75,000 to more than 84,000—but for those not packed into the confines of Mile High Stadium, Obama’s historic acceptance speech was alive and well on the Internet. The Democratic nominee’s address—made on the 45th anniversary of civil rights leader Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech—was streamed live on MSM sites, posted to YouTube with astonishing speed, and blogged at length. But one real winner for the night, in addition to the Democratic candidate, was Twitter.

The micro-blogging site, which has been gradually but surely infiltrating the political realm, had a huge night, with Wired’s Sarah Lai Stirland reporting that “[m]ore than 6,500 tweets poured through the service in just 20 minutes…most of them brief, two-line assessments of Obama’s performance.” While Obama may not have the most comfortable lead in the polls, he does lead the world’s most followed Twitterer list by a wide margin, with 67,969 followers, though he wasn’t the only Democrat to inspire tidal waves of Tweets—Bill Clinton’s speech the night before also drove viewers to their computers and cell phones.

Interestingly, even some media veterans appeared to be embracing (or at least warming to) the use of this new edit-free insta-blogging as a way to cover a major event—which is fortunate, since the brevity and availability of a service like Twitter means that reporters can provide succinct accounts of events in real time, before the pundits have a chance to ruminate, editorialize, and wind their way through the editorial channels. Unfortunately, David Brooks hasn’t gotten the memo yet.

It’s no secret that, when it comes to Internet savvy, the two presidential candidates are about as different as BASIC and LINUX. And nowhere does their Web contrast play out more than in their respective campaigning. The Economist reports that in June, Obama raised $52 million in total, $31 million of which came from donations of $200 or less that were mostly generated by his Web site. He also has 1.3 million Facebook supporters to McCain’s 200,000, and also keeps regularly updated profiles on MySpace, LinkedIn, and other social networks.

And then there’s video. While YouTube has been embraced by just about everyone as a great way to spread viral campaign messages, Obama has his own video team on the payroll. So far, the group has shot more than 2,000 hours of footage and uploaded around 1,110 videos on his YouTube channel–more than four times the content on McCain’s channel. And all that work has paid off: The Illinois Senator’s videos have been viewed 52 million times to McCain’s 9.5 million.

To top it all off, Obama has a Twitter account (just like the SEC!), and of course, there’s the text messaging. Earlier this month, the campaign sent out a widespread e-mail offering anyone the chance to sign up to receive the name of his chosen running mate via text. A few days later, Obama Mobile, a site allowing users to access Obama news and download videos on their cellphones, was born.

Whether all the mining of technology translates into votes remains to be seen—though, given that 40 percent of Americans get their campaign news from the Internet, investing in a significant online presence can’t be a bad thing. Likewise, we’ll also see how a relative dearth of technology use/knowledge fares for McCain—once he gets that whole “Google” thing figured out.

Twitter is quickly inserting itself into the political mainstream, helping to extract American travelers from sticky situations abroad and even giving members of Congress a way to connect with their constituents. Now, Footnoted blogger Michelle Leder has discovered that the Securities and Exchange Commission has its very own Twitter feed. Under the moniker SEC_Investor_Ed, the SEC has been posting updates since late July of this year.

As Leder notes, the SEC’s Tweets are basically a condensed selection of the (not really all that exciting) press releases available on the organization’s Web site, and it was started the day before the SEC voted unanimously to provide new guidelines for public companies’ Web pages. Still, someone must be interested: So far, 275 followers have subscribed to the feed.

Of course, how exactly elected officials plan to use/are using Twitter isn’t made clear—are Congressmen subscribing to voters’ feeds? Tweeting from their cell phones during committee meetings? But use of technology to increase government transparency has become a general theme in this election—though Culberson’s staunch support appears to carry the issue across party lines.

Others are worried about how these new media networks will affect all the old-school rules governing how members of Congress can interact with their constituents. Rumors spread last week that Twitter might be hit with regulations on Congressional use, and Internet advocacy groups are already taking up the cause. Though until Ralph Hall gets a Twitter account, we’re holding out on being impressed.

Image: Flickr/jeremiah_owyang