News about the Paris massacres continues to develop. Many outlets point to ISIS online video threats of similar attacks in Washington and elsewhere (but such threats, as disturbing and interesting as they may be, amount to chatter as opposed to actionable intelligence). Western leaders, US President Obama notably among them, point to a lack of specificity in the intelligence collected prior to the attacks. But those thought responsible for the murders were apparently for some time under scrutiny by European law enforcement authorities.
ISIS reacts with scorn to the Anonymous declaration of "total war," calling Anonymous "idiots." But the Caliphate does take the hacktivist collective seriously enough to offer advice on cyber security to its jihadist adherents. (ISIS is also, according to NBC News, operating a "Jihadist Help Desk," with advice on recruitment, messaging, etc.)
How the attackers organized themselves remains a matter of dispute. Early reports out of Belgium via the British press that the conspirators used PlayStation4 for their command-and-control appear discredited, and based on remarks offered by a Belgian official some days before the attack. Old assertions that the terrorists favor messaging app Telegram resurface, but today it's no longer clear how much they depended on any encrypted service.
Such uncertainty has not turned either side of the encryption debate from their familiar tropes, which show marked but unsurprising similarity to disputes over gun control: see-what-happens vs. crypto-doesn't-kill-people-do.
Governments work toward more intelligence sharing. So do enterprises, with increased attention and more funding for start-ups like TruSTAR.