Senate Intelligence Committee Forced To Drop 'Terrorist-Activity' Reporting Requirements For Social Media Platforms

from the play-nice-with-the-private-sector-or-the-NSA-has-to-work-for-free dept

Wed, Sep 23rd 2015 2:02pm — Tim Cushing

Less than three months after announcing it was considering turning major social media platforms into unpaid government informants, the Senate Intelligence Committee is dropping its proposed requirement that Facebook, Twitter, etc. report "terrorist activity" to designated agencies.

Well, "dropping" is the polite phrasing. It's actually been forced to give up this demand (by one of the more rational members of the SIC, Ron Wyden) to ensure it gets its intelligence funding bill passed. As Wyden points out, social media entities should be in the business of social media, not acting as under-equipped stand-ins for law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

“Going after terrorist recruitment and activity online is a serious mission that demands a serous response from our law enforcement and intelligence agencies,” Wyden said in a statement, adding that he will now allow a vote on the intelligence bill. “Social media companies aren't qualified to judge which posts amount to ‘terrorist activity,’ and they shouldn’t be forced against their will to create a Facebook Bureau of Investigations to police their users’ speech.”

The government is rightfully concerned about the use of social media by terrorist groups, but the solution isn't to deploy private companies as ad hoc intelligence operatives. A majority of major social platforms already police their networks for inappropriate content -- which includes obvious terrorist-related postings -- and report these to appropriate authorities. The half-assed directive proposed by Sen. Feinstein would have been, at best, redundant. It would have applied only to social media platforms that already policed their own networks for this content. It would not have forced new entrants into the market to comply with the reporting requirements.

Despite its apparent death, Senator Feinstein still believes the redundant/useless directive is still the right thing to do.

“Sen. Feinstein still believes it’s important to block terrorists’ use of social media to recruit and incite violence and will continue to work on achieving that goal,” Mentzer emphasized.

It should be noted that blocking is a far more severe action than removal and reporting. This wasn't how the proposal was pitched ("“a… low burden” to companies, who would have to report only activity that has been reported to them…). Feinstein's post-defeat statements have exposed her ultimate goal for this directive: an attack on free speech disguised as a minimal burden, and one that once again would displace civil liberties to make room for more (national) security.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: dianne feinstein, intelligence authorization, ron wyden, senate intelligence committee, social media, terrorist reporting

14 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

rw (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 2:04pm

Why is it that the more "national security" we get, the less secure I feel?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pixelpusher220 (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 2:06pm

who knew
“Social media companies aren't qualified to judge which posts amount to ‘terrorist activity"

Didn't realize the TSA was a Social Media Company...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 2:39pm

Re: who knew
Beat me to the sarcasm line. I'll do mine anyway:

I'm not sure the government is, either.

_____
(Contest? Top Ten Responses to the 'qualified' quote?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 2:48pm

Nuff Said
Feinstein Tyranny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 3:03pm

Re:
Because you are an undesireable in your governments eyes. Solely because you think for your self and doubt their word.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 3:37pm

Re:
Because the government's idea of "national security" involves them being able to see and hear everything you do, and being able to punish you for anything they deem suspicious. Which would be bad enough, but as they need to demonstrate that they're actually accomplishing something to keep their budget, they have a powerful incentive to be suspicious, and err on the side of "caution" when determining if something is a threat. Caution in the case being defined as the age old "assume it's a threat" definition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 4:09pm

Re: Nuff Said
You have to admire her consistency in being wrong on everything. Even a broken clock, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 7:09pm

Re:
Because it's not personal security, meant to make you safer, it's national security, meant to make the nation, specifically the government part, safer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 8:24pm

Re:
It is not supposed to make you safer from anything, it is supposed to make the government safe from you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 12:29am

Funny, even if there is clear evidence that someone is in love with the IS, posts regularly about them on their facebook page and he still gets a job as a soccer coach...
Europe, fuck yeah!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 4:15am

Re:
that theres some treasonous talk there son

2019 - The Treasonous Talk Act bill

Semi-joking aside, I know the feeling
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 4:21am

Re: Re: Nuff Said
Soooooo, in comparison to her fellow species, politicians, she's doing well?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 4:55am

Re: Re: Re: Nuff Said
She is always in the news working hard to prove she is the biggest idiot of the bunch.

Lets not forget, most of the time she speaks she advocates for a tyrannical state.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GEMont, 25 Sep 2015 @ 3:12am

Backing thinkward
I would think that terrorists using an open platform like Social Media for recruiting would totally delight the Spy Guys and their pet weasel... er... I meant Senator Weasel err...Feinstein of course.

After all, this would allow the CIAF BINSADOJ to simply pay a couple thousand college graduates, minimum wage, to sit in the 2305 basement internet scanning rooms of CIAF BINSADOJ HQ and read all the Twits and Tweets and then send all the "iffy" terrorist-like posts to the high-paid spooks on the 37 floors above.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why they want the terrorists to do their recruiting in secret.

Seems utterly counter productive.... unless of course they're not really trying to "catch" terrorists at all and are just trying to get them to stop recruiting folks from outside of the US military.

---
[ link to this | view in thread ]