As I’ve said before, at one point my then employer Norman ASA came to the conclusion that political extremism and even terrorism was something they didn’t want to know about. As a result, we got a process detailed here:
http://www.junipersec.com/cyber.htm (the Norwegian problems tags, among others)
One argument that was used to me was “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”, another was that the real bad people on the web were those having websites with guns on them. In short. beheadings good, “landsskytterstevnet” bad. And evidently pursuant to this, one ignored a clear flag just days before 9.11 which we also raised, which is detailed here:
You will see that the recruitment of suiciders was in full swing just 5-6 days before 9.11.
Turned out to be an overriding concern to get the Jew-connections out of the company, though.
But. Since we did have focus on all the segments of the online extremist world, it is likely that being relegated to a position of having to do things about Norman assaults and trying to survive (which has eaten a bit into the constructive work) not only served to burnish Norman’s far left image, but also set the table for terror.
So, did Norman’s focus on crushing the work with monitoring the actual online extremist scene have the (unintended) consequence making it that much easier for Anders Behring Breivik? You be the judge.
Bad stuff all around. More light.