What Will Happen When Governments Disagree Over Who Is A Terrorist Organization... And Who Needs To Be Blocked Online?
from the a-big-mess dept
You may have heard the recent news that President Trump has decided to label the the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) a "foreign terrorist organization." The IRGC is Iran's powerful military/security/law enforcement apparatus -- that also owns a ton of businesses. As the White House itself admits, this is the first time a foreign government agency has been referred to as a foreign terrorist organization. This is big news in a huge variety of ways -- in large part because it could end up criminalizing lots of people and businesses who unwittingly do business with the IRGC including (checks notes) a firm called The Trump Organization.
But, leaving that aside, it raises some other issues as well. We've been talking about the impact of the terrible EU Terrorist Content Regulation that the EU Parliament will soon be voting on. But, as we've discussed in the past, there are lots of questions about who decides just what is "terrorist" content. Daphne Keller tweeted about the IRGC decision, wondering what happens when one country's laws demand the removal of content from another country's government and suggests (accurately) this is going to lead to a huge mess.
Has anyone written on what happens when powerful govts disagree about which groups platforms must block as “terrorist”?
Right now it’s easy: block ‘em all. But eventually there will be groups one govt cares about and thinks should *not* be blocked. Then things get interesting. https://t.co/sjISXxuKQg— Daphne Keller (@daphnehk) April 7, 2019
Of course, it also gets even more complex than that. On a recent On The Media episode, they discussed efforts by a few different websites to archive terrorist propaganda, both to learn about what's happening (in the form of open source intelligence), but also for the purpose of historical records. As the piece notes, many researchers and reporters find those archives to be incredibly valuable. And yet, they're dealing with issues of demands for the content to be taken down as "terrorist content."
This is not a new issue. For years, we've pointed out how demands to delete "terrorist content" online has regularly resulted in the silencing of human rights groups documenting war crimes.
Combine all of this together and we're creating a recipe for disaster. The EU is demanding that all "terrorist content" be deleted with one hour's notice. The US is designating government organizations as terrorist groups. And human rights groups trying to document war crimes are being kicked off the internet. None of this seems like a good way to actually fight terrorism. It really seems like a solution designed to pretend that terrorists can be swept under the rug, like if we don't know what they're doing out there, they'll just magically disappear.
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: donald trump, eu, foreign terrorist organization, iran, irgc, terrorism, terrorism designation, terrorist content, terrorist content regulation
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You say that as if it's a bad thing...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't disagree, just ignore
That's simple, the terrorists win. If we keep fighting over who is or who is not a terrorist as well as what to do about them the terrorists achieve their goals. We are fighting with ourselves. We are depriving ourselves of our rights. We are ignoring those things that make us free to do things that make us less free in the name of fighting terrorism. And, this is exactly what Osama bin Laden predicted.
No one. Let adults make decisions for themselves. Now that doesn't mean we don't need to be concerned about radicalizing people, we do. How we go about dealing with those people is the issue. What we need to do is figure out what it is about some post, or series of posts that causes people to be radicalized. Then boil those things down to addressable issues. Will we catch everyone? No. Do we need to catch everyone? No. If people become radicalized and go to help the radicals 'over there', it is simple again. Don't let them back in, or if there is a real need, let them in and prosecute them...that is if they have actually broken any laws here.
And before those inclined start screaming about domestic terrorism first look at the stats. How much actual domestic terrorism has there been? Not too much. If one looks at all the things that have been called terrorism, but actually weren't, there is even less. And second, tell the damned FBI to get off their collective tushes and rather than creating terrorist actions using marginalized people, go looking for actual threats. If they can't find any that means one of two things. They aren't looking hard enough, or in the right places, or there aren't any domestic threats. Then they could return some portion of their force back to the law enforcement regime they were enacted to pursue. If those who remain on the anti-terrorism task force continue to be effective, the domestic terrorism rate will remain static. If they become really effective, it might even go down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In one way shape form or other
All governments are Terrorist organizations against their Subjects
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You believe WMD in Iraq and link to 9/11, but THIS is too much?
To be clear, I don't support this bit of Israeli-caused escalation on Iran, EITHER, but for Masnick and you who believed those prior outright fables that were used to start invasion and war that resulted in murder of a million and displacement of more millions to balk at THIS is... ridiculous.
Speaking of designating as "terrrorists", though: when are you going to condemn Israel classifying half the population of Palestine as irredeemably insane sub-humans and penning them behind an apartheid wall, increasingly cutting off their communications and supplies? -- Besides the anti-free speech attempts here in US to stifle the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement to expose Israel's crimes? HMM?
You're highly selective on what concerns you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How it will work
Suppose there are five countries, A, B, C, D, and E; and five websites V, W, X, Y, and Z. Suppose A thinks V is terrorist, B thinks W is, C thinks X is, D thinks Y is, and E thinks Z is. Each country will ban its respective accused site, worldwide.
So the result will be all websites will be banned worldwide. No problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kill them all...
let God sort them out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Did/does he? Or are you projecting?
I don't know, maybe never since this is mainly a tech blog. It's irrelevant since his opinion is not relevant to what he mainly writes about.
You seem to not know how to use the search function. Here, let me help you:
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=bds
Considering he's already written about the unconstitutional attacks on the BDS movement and how bad they are, you're wrong. You should likely do some research before you make baseless accusations that are easily disproved by a ten second search on the site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Kill them all...
No thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Your boi Trump supports Israel, dumbass. Toe the fucking party line!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They wont disagree. The whole aim is to block as much ss possible from the Internet ss far as ordinary people are concerned, whilst leaving it unblocked to those same govts and a few of their depts. They aren't worried about us reading terrorist pages, they are worried about us reading about what they and their 'friends' are up to! Stopping certain sites is the cover up of what they are really blocking from us!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How it will work
Then there´s country T with access to all sites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: How it will work
How do you figure that will work, with the sites being taken down at the DNS level?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Don't disagree, just ignore
I am having trouble discerning whether Techdirt has changed or I have changed. It seems to me that the articles here used to be more coherent, and the comments were a mix of self-admitted crazies and the occasional insight. Now it reads like teenage fan fiction, with supposedly deep insights and observations that are as silly on their surface as they are stupid underneath. Either I am just becoming more critical (though not in any other area of my life) or the voice behind the Techdirt message is mentally devolving. Perhaps it’s a mental breakdown as the strain of understanding that Trump is not a criminal, but a lot of other people (like Chelsea) are either already in jail, facing criminal charges, or soon to be indicted as a criminal, is pushing the Techdirt writers over the edge of coherency. It’s amazing what a good AG can do for a country. Sort out the law and send people to jail that broke it, what a novel idea after two years of a farce. Chelsea’s already there, and she has a lot to say, right, Mike? You know her well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: How it will work
It uses the T DNS server. The sites were banned, not disconnected?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One mans Terrorist is another mans Campaign Rally
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So when does the United States get one?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Even if we don't like a person or a company we still need to look at the bigger picture, because if we just laugh at them getting their perceived just due we will soon choke on that laughter when someone in power uses the same mechanism to get at ordinary people who doesn't agree with them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Don't disagree, just ignore
So, instead of coming with constructive criticism you wave you arms in the air while proclaiming that TD and it's writers are bad but you also stoop to spouting nonsensical innuendos.
I think your post is a prime example of your own mental state.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The answer is easy
Back to the last century: The EU's endgame appears to be an internet purely as a commercial platform - a combination of cable TV and amazon.com. Possibly a propaganda channel for the EU commission, and maybe another one for the party with the most votes in the EU parliament. Cable TV can provide that.
With the new regionalised internet, any "Inappropriate" channels will be bullied and regulated away - country-by-country. Just look how Al Jazeera and RT are being shuttered by our governments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The answer is easy
I kind of liked Al Jazeera and RT - they were actually less political and more balanced than many US cable channels. Oh well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't disagree, just ignore
Well, you seem like you have a pretty firm opinion of your own, perhaps you could share it with us. Don’t you think the WHOLE story around Chelsea Manning looks scripted, phony, and an attempt to play into the whole “radical leftist”/LGBTQ movement? And then to be pardoned by Obama with such a (net) short stay in prison (if you factor in the sex change time)- I mean the whole thing looks orchestrated, doesn’t it? Like the radical government of Obama (Clapper Comey Et All) was behind the whole thing, and Chelsea was just a young unstable man in the grips of those with a vision about destroying America by revealing a certain set of secrets and not others. Doesn’t it look phony baloney to you? Just like Techdirt is phoney baloney? I mean, Mike and Chelsea shared a stage to celebrate their subversion of US interests, doesn’t that tell you something about both of them? Radical law breakers, one in jail, one on his way. What do you think? Is the whole Chelsea thing real, or scripted and contrived? Is Techdirt legitimate, or just another criminal operation about to be put in prison? I heard Mike was thinking of changing his name to MIchelle, did you hear that? How about you - do you plan on keeping your sex and protecting your country, or changing your sex and betraying your country, like Chelsea/Mike?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't disagree, just ignore
Rant, rant. Rant, rant, rant. Rant, rant. Rant, rant, rant. Rant, rant. Rant, rant, rant, rant, RANT. Rant!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't disagree, just ignore
Ok, well, yes, maybe you are right. I just thought the whole Chelsea/Assange/Mike connection was interesting, with two of them in jail and all. Maybe I was ranting. It’s kind of like a “current events” projects in high school, don’t you think? Associating the international news with people around you? I thought it was interesting, anyway, and sometimes I rant to pass the time. You got me, yes, rant rant rant. That’s it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't disagree, just ignore
It seems I was right about your mental state.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't disagree, just ignore
Ok, no opinion from you about whether Obama actually tried to destroy America with the help of Comey Clapper Manning Mike et all, but TELL ME THIS: Aren’t you glad you didn’t share a public stage with Chelsea Manning? OMG - a traitor in every nasty sense of the word. Glad that wasn’t you in MIke’s place, right? Who would be so crazy to risk prison and public shame that way? Not you, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't disagree, just ignore
Is this the "stable genius" speaking?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: a feature not a bug
"you say that as if it's a bad thing..."
^
yes, the undefined 'Terrorist' label and formal designation is an absolutely wonderful tool for the US Government (and others) to actively, violently attack or legally pursue anybody or any entity in the world.
It's a blank check to ignore any normal sense of law and legal due process.
You can start major wars on a whim.
Any US President now has plenary authority to designate anyone a Terrorist and execute them worldwide (drones are the preferred method).
Power, unrestricted by just law, is a really efficient way for governments to do whatever they wish to do.
It's a feature not a bug.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Huh. Who here knew that “supporting LGBT people” was a “radical” position to hold these days? Show of hands, please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I do think. You clearly don’t, but I do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
What does that comment have to do with Trump?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The answer is easy
I don't think the EU has an end game really... there are a few vested interests who obviously want total corporate domination of the Internet, and there are a number of EU representatives who want full and balanced representation of individuals' rights on the Internet -- privacy and defamation rights being near the top of the list.
What's happened here is that the corporate interests have given the social interests exactly what they're demanding and supported their demands... in areas where doing so will cement the positions of the established corporate players.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just passing through
Nothing will happen, as usual.
Everything is a scam. So called education, health care, student loans, a no nothing do nothing - except make everything worse - prez who is an insult to the human race and a dysfunctional congress interested in only in collecting pay and benefits while pretending to be effective by passing ineffective laws no one understands or cares about while many/most so called law enforcement types confiscates/steals from the public or execute a lot of innocents while running around like SS storm troopers kicking in doors, yardages Yama. Ignore agent provocateurs, payday loan scams, and all the rest.
Believe it or not, you can have a nice day anyway. Tune ‘em out. Be your own leader. We will a be moving own in due time.
It is all a dog and pony show calculated to divert awareness of what is really happening.
Turn off the tv, crooks, pretend leaders and let nature deal with them.
Use your time educating yourself and living a life of your choosing, without harm to others
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hmm. I'm not sure that the USA wants to set this particular precedent. What with the somewhat extensive history of terroristic activities supported or performed by the US intelligence agencies and the US military.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't disagree, just ignore
I wonder what you're like in real life? Print-wise gives the impression of a thoroughly nasty character that nobody would want to meet in a dark alley.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Terrorist usually refers to groups who commit terrorism or directly
support a terrorist organisation.
the iran milaritary does fit this description as far as i know .
North korean has special units that hack western countrys in order
to gather data and to commit fraud on crypto networks to earn money
for the government .
IF the us government is going to randomly government organisations
as a terrorist groups it will make it harder for western governments
to target real terrorists .
America is not at war with iran .
Many websites will have to block 1000,s of articles or posts, comments
since they might be seen as negative ,harmful or critical of certain
groups or countrys .
The open internet is fading away due to over broad laws like fosta ,
article 13 and the new uk law on bad content ,or harmful content.
Meanwhile every year theres mass shootings in america due to the fact that it seems as if anyone over 16 can buy rifles and automatic weapons .
Or many websites might choose to block eu or american users in order
to avoid legal action or having to build expensive filters that
may not even work.It seems the politicians who make laws do not know how the web works and do not care about free speech .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't disagree, just ignore
When you scream about the radical left trying to destroy the USA you should be aware that when you have moved that far to the right as you have, everyone not joining you there are suddenly leftists in your view. How does it feel to be a fanatic?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 3.4% of people agree with you
Hey hamilton did schuss get so upset about his loss that he’s thinking about a sex change?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Splinternet
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't disagree, just ignore
I feel the fanatics are easily spotted; They are usually the ones pointing fingers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't disagree, just ignore
Consider that statement in the light of almost every article here pointing a finger at somebody.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What was radical was insisting that children be allowed to choose their own toilet. What a stupid idea, I never met a parent that likes that idea. Children have enough to deal with without considering a sexual orientation, which they have no idea of the definition of. That’s why we call them children.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think all of the negative aspects of these new laws are specifically designed to do the precise damage to freedom that TechDirt lists as the negative consequences of their enactment.
The "notion", paraphrased below:
"Never attribute to malicious intent, that which can be explained by incompetence."
In my opinion. :)
...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
…fucking what
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
including (checks notes) a firm called The Trump Organization.
Yes, but it's still funny when the Orange Buffon steps on his tiny hands and pulls this shit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Don't disagree, just Troll
What has changed? As your brain has melted under the effort to ignore The Orange one's; Adultery, cheating, scamming, constant lying, backing of pedphiles, and pussy grabbing. But it's all Ok - because he hasn't been indicted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't disagree, just Troll
Yeah! Who does he think he is? Bill Clinton? Only Democrats get a pass for that behavior.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't disagree, just Troll
Yeah both sides are bad so vote republican amirite?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't disagree, just Troll
"Yeah! Who does he think he is? Bill Clinton? Only Democrats get a pass for that behavior."
Nope.
Classical whataboutism there. When Trump is being a prize-winning asshat the best you can come up with is that you willingly support an asshole because someone else supported another asshole first.
Here's a clue. When the republicans went after Clinton the defense was never "Look, tell me which president hasn't boned his interns, amirite?".
When a president is criticized and evidence can't be found and presented over actual malfeasance that's one thing.
When the president has been found an unambiguous immoral shitweasel and tries to excuse the behavior by pointing at someone else and hollering that they're bad too then that doesn't mean the shitweasel gets to be excused.
It means that ideally both him and the guy pointed to go down for the same crime or bad behavior.
Trump's defense over his less moral decisions haven't been "I didn't do it". Or even "I'm not a crook". It's been "Yeah, but look at what the other guys do!".
You truly don't see an issue with the fact that the moral compass of the republican supreme leader consistently points toward using the lowest scum he can locate for the proper height to set the ethical standards?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Hmm. I'm not sure that the USA wants to set this particular precedent."
Iran-Contras was an aberration, surely.
So was Abu Ghraib.
/s
The main issue is, I believe, that an increasing number of US presidents have started using the CIA as less of an intelligence agency and more of a PR company used to market and sell the current white house opinion.
From both sides of the aisle, mind. Democrats have been as guilty of forcing the CIA to produce doctored reports to present to congress as republicans have, I'm sure. But the most hamfisted and obvious attempt was probably under GWB.
It's extremely shortsighted behavior but this is par for the course when it's tacitly understood that whatever harm you cause will end up a benefit if the hit comes 4 years later.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Don't disagree, just ignore
What do you find incoherent about this story?
Are you claiming Barr is a good AG? If so, on what grounds? He's barely done anything yet. If not, who are you talking about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't disagree, just ignore
Compared to Trump's government, Obama's was Mother Theresa. And I didn't vote for Obama.
How?
How has Mike broken the law and how do you know he has been arrested and currently being sent to jail?
Yes. What makes you think otherwise?
How do you put a ephemeral entity, such as a blog, in prison? Yank the hard drives and throw them in a jail cell?
I heard you're insane.
I didn't realize all transgender people were traitors. Or that all traitors were transgender.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't disagree, just ignore
No shit? But guess who looks like a rabid nutjob foaming at the mouth while doing it.
Hint: He claimed Shiva Ayyadurai was going to win.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't disagree, just Troll
Douchebaggery passes are bi-partisan, David.
Democrats will give their guy a pass if he moves their agenda forward, and anyone victimised by their guy will be merrily flung beneath a passing bus.
Republicans will give their guy a pass if he moves their agenda forward, and anyone victimised by their guy will be merrily flung beneath a passing bus.
What goes around comes around. People who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, as we keep seeing over and over and over again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]