Islamic State Using Small Drones Routinely In Iraq For Scouting And Dropping Explosives

from the drone-swarms-coming-up-next dept

Here on Techdirt we like to remind people that drones are not just death-dealing machines in the sky, but can also be a force for good. However, like any other technology, drones can and are utilized by the worst as well as the best. Inevitably, that includes terrorist groups like Islamic State (ISIS), as an interesting article from the Los Angeles Times reveals:

In the seven months of the Iraqi government's drive to recapture Mosul from the jihadists, small drones have become a signature tactic of the [ISIS] group: Their appearance on the horizon, loaded with a camera, signals that punishing mortar barrages will soon be on the way. Others guide car bombs to their target, or drop small explosives miles behind the front line.

Most of these drones come from the Chinese company DJI, generally regarded as the leading drone manufacturer in terms of market share. Clearly, the routine use of its products by ISIS is not the best publicity in the world:

Reports that Islamic State had used DJI products pushed the company in February to create a geofence, a software restriction that creates a no-fly zone, over large swaths of Iraq and Syria, specifically over Mosul.

But there are problems with geofencing. First, there is the issue of when a demand to geofence certain regions is legitimate, since answering that question requires a political judgment about who is really in power. Secondly, it's not that hard to get around geofencing, either by using quick fixes, or simply swapping to other drones that run on open source code that allows geofencing to be turned off.

Given that geofencing may not work, countermeasures are generally necessary. Those include rather crude solutions like shooting drones out of the sky with firearms, to more sophisticated ones like the DroneGun, from the Australia-based DroneShield Ltd., a company that specializes in counter-drone technology:

[the DroneGun] jams the GPS signal and radio linkages between the drone and its operator. The device, which sends out a jamming cone over a mile in length, forces the drone to either land immediately or to return to its base so that it can be tracked.

DroneShield's CEO, Oleg Vornik, already has some thoughts on what terrorists will do next:

"we believe organizations like ISIS will begin deploying swarms of drones. If you saw the Super Bowl halftime, you would have seen dozens of drones with little lights on them moving in a choreographed fashion," Vornik said. "That technology can be used to load grenades onto a large number of drones."

In other words, as drones continue to develop new and potentially exciting capabilities, so terrorists will eagerly embrace them -- just like everyone else.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: drones, isis, off the shelf, surveillance

Ridiculous Lawsuit Looks To Hold Social Media Companies Responsible For The San Bernandino Shooting

from the blame-game,-but-with-civil-judgments! dept

This hasn't worked yet, but that's not going to keep anyone from giving it another try. Excolo Law, representing victims of the San Bernardino attacks (and others in similar lawsuits), is suing Twitter, Facebook, and Google for [sigh] "knowingly and recklessly" supporting terrorism.

The lawsuit, like others before it, claims the social media platforms aren't doing enough to prevent terrorists from using them for communication, not taking down reported posts fast enough, and otherwise making the world a more dangerous place simply by offering their services.

Section 230 is the bar litigants have to clear before holding social media platforms accountable for the actions of their users. This hasn't happened yet, despite the suits being lobbed in California federal courts where some dubious 230 decisions have been handed down.

But try they will. Repeatedly. The lawsuit claims that if these three internet giants hadn't existed, the "most feared terrorist group in the world" would not have experienced as much growth as it has. Maybe so, but if it wasn't these three companies, it would just be other communications platforms being dragged into court -- third parties several steps removed from the underlying tragedies.

The lawsuit goes so far as to allege the perpetrators wouldn't have carried out the San Bernardino shooting if Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube hadn't existed. From the lawsuit [PDF]:

Farook and Malik were radicalized by ISIS’ use of social media. This was the stated goal of ISIS. Farook and Mateen then carried out the deadly attack in San Bernardino…

But for ISIS’ postings using Defendants’ social media platforms, Farook and Malik would not have engaged in their attack on the Inland Regional Center.

OK, then.

There's not anything new is this filing, the third by Excolo. I assume the firm will keep recruiting litigants and filing doomed lawsuits until its gathered enough dismissals to reach a cost/benefit tipping point. As always, the incidents underlying the suits are undeniably tragic. But that doesn't make suing third parties for other people's posts and communications any more correct than it does when nothing more than someone's allegedly-damaged reputation is on the line.

Filed Under: intermediary liability, isis, san bernardino, section 230, social media, terrorism
Companies: facebook, google, twitter, youtube

Creative Commons Is Resurrecting Palmyra

from the saving-history dept

Creative Commons launched its 2017 Global Summit today with a rather moving surprise: a seven-foot-tall 3D printed replica of the Tetrapylon from Palmyra, Syria. For those who don't know the tragic situation, Palmyra is one of the most historic cities in the world — but it is being steadily destroyed by ISIS, robbing the world of countless irreplaceable artifacts and murdering those who have tried to protect them (the folks at Extra History have a pair of good summary videos discussing the history and the current situation in the city).

Among ISIS's human targets was Bassel Khartabil, who launched Syria's CC community several years ago and began a project to take 3D scans of the city, which CC has been gathering and releasing under a CC0 Public Domain license. He was captured and imprisoned, and for the past five years his whereabouts and status have been unknown. As the #FreeBassel campaign continues, Creative Commons is now working to bring his invaluable scans to life in the form of 3D-printed replicas, starting with today's unveiling of the Tetrapylon — which was destroyed in January along with part of a Roman theatre after ISIS captured the city for a second time.

This isn't the only such project — the Institute of Digital Archaeology and UNESCO unveiled a replica of part of the Temple of Bel in London last year — and these combined efforts are a critical bulwark between ISIS and its goal of eliminating this part of our shared cultural history. You can read more about CC's project — including status updates on the other artifacts, monuments and architecture that they are reproducing — on the #newpalmyra website (at the time of writing it still lists the Tetrapylon as "coming soon", though that will likely change shortly).

Much of this weekend's summit is likely to revolve around the ongoing tension between open culture and intellectual property regimes, but I can't think of a better way to kick things off than with something that even the staunchest copyright maximalist can surely agree with: that the treasures of this 2,000-year-old city belong to us all, their destruction is a travesty, and the ability to preserve them even in some small way is a triumph of technology and the cultural commons.

Filed Under: creative commons, culture, isis, open culture, palmyra, preserving history
Companies: creative commons

Yet Another Lawsuit Hopes A Court Will Hold Twitter Responsible For Terrorists' Actions

from the law-firms-basically-setting-up-franchises dept

So, this is how we're handling the War on Terror here on the homefront: lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit against social media platforms because terrorists also like to tweet and post stuff on Facebook.

The same law firm (New York's Berkman Law Office) that brought us last July's lawsuit against Facebook (because terrorist organization Hamas also uses Facebook) is now bringing one against Twitter because ISIS uses Twitter. (h/t Lawfare's Ben Wittes)

Behind the law firm are more families of victims of terrorist attacks -- this time those in Brussels and Paris. Once again, any criticism of this lawsuit (and others of its type) is not an attack on those who have lost loved ones to horrific acts of violence perpetrated by terrorist organizations.

The criticisms here are the same as they have been in any previous case: the lawsuits are useless and potentially dangerous. They attempt to hold social media platforms accountable for the actions of terrorists. At the heart of every sued company's defense is Section 230 of the CDA, which immunizes them against civil lawsuits predicated on the actions and words of the platform's users.

The lawsuits should be doomed to fail, but there's always a chance a judge will construe the plaintiffs' arguments in a way that either circumvents this built-in protection or, worse, issues a precedential ruling carving a hole in these protections.

The arguments here are identical to the other lawsuits: Twitter allegedly hasn't done enough to prevent terrorists from using its platform. Therefore, Twitter (somehow) provides material support to terrorists by not shutting down (one of) their means of communication (fast enough).

The filing [PDF] is long, containing a rather detailed history of the rise of the Islamic State, a full rundown of the attacks in Brussels and Paris, and numerous examples of social media posts by terrorists. It's rather light on legal arguments, but then it has to be, because the lawsuit works better when it tugs at the heartstrings, rather than addressing the legal issues head on.

The lawsuit even takes time to portray Twitter's shutdown of Dataminr's feed to US government surveillance agencies -- as well as its policy of notifying users of government/law enforcement demands for personal information -- as evidence of its negligence, if not outright support, of terrorist groups.

The problem with these lawsuits -- even without the Section 230 hurdle -- is that the only way for Twitter, Facebook, etc. to avoid being accused of "material support" for terrorism is to somehow predetermine what is or isn't terrorist-related before it's posted… or even before accounts are created. To do otherwise is to fail. Any content posted can immediately be reposted by supporters and detractors alike.

And that's another issue that isn't easily sorted out by platforms with hundreds of millions of users. Posts and tweets are just as often passed on by people who don't agree with content, but arguments made in these lawsuits expect social media platforms to determine what intent is… and take action almost immediately. Any post or account that stays "live" for too long becomes a liability, should courts find in favor of these plaintiffs. It's an impossible standard to meet.

These lawsuits ask courts to shoot the medium, rather than the messenger. They make about as much sense as suing cell phone manufacturers because they're not doing enough to prevent terrorists from buying their phones and using them to communicate.

Filed Under: cda 230, isis, liability, material support, section 230, social media, terrorism
Companies: twitter

Telegram Now Being Targeted By Politicians Because Terrorists (Also) Use It

from the ineffective-noise dept

Victims of terrorist attacks are busy suing Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube for supposedly providing material support for terrorism by not shutting down ISIS-related accounts fast enough. Twitter has gathered more negative attention than most, thanks to its inconsistent application of the "Twitter Rules." Not only has it fielded lots of complaints from so-called "alt-right" figureheads, but non alt-righter Senator John McCain tends to use the service as a national security punching bag during periodic bitchfests hearings on phone encryption.

End-to-end encryption is also the bane of several governments' existence, but even all this concern about unintercepted criminal communications has yet to tip the scale towards mandated backdoors. Instead, pressure is being applied in other ways. Twitter recently killed off a few hundred thousand terrorist-linked accounts, so those looking for a new terrorist support network d/b/a a social media service have begun sniping at secure messaging service Telegram.

Telegram has been the recipient of periodic signup surges, thanks to government action around the globe. WhatsApp, which recently added end-to-end encryption, has been routinely blocked by a handful of national governments, with Brazil denying access to its citizens most frequently. Every time WhatsApp is blocked, other encrypted messaging services see their user bases grow.

The same will happen with alternatives to Telegram, which is now being labeled as ISIS's favorite chat app. The recent addition of a desktop version means encrypted communications aren't limited to terrorists with cellphones. That's apparently problematic, at least according to a few US legislators.

Just three days before the assault on the Berlin Christmas market, senior members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee urged Durov to immediately take steps to block content from the Islamic State, warning that terrorists were using the platform not only to spread propaganda but also to coordinate actual attacks.

“No private company should allow its services to be used to promote terrorism and plan out attacks that spill innocent blood,” stated the letter, signed by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Tex.), the chairman of the panel’s subcommittee on terrorism and nonproliferation, and Rep. Brad Sherman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.

There's a big difference between "allow" and "encourage," but Rep. Ted Poe seems to think those terms are synonymous. Pavel Durov, the ousted founder of Russia's Facebook, VKontakte, is the person behind Telegram, which recently added end-to-end encryption. Durov pushed back against what he felt were unlawful demands for information by the Russian government while helming VKontakte. He fled the country and now lives in "self-imposed exile," stating that living in Russia is "incompatible" with running an internet-based communications platform.

So it's unsurprising his next project has focused on secure messaging with social media trappings. One of the few effective tools against government interference is "invisible" communications, which is why dissidents, journalists, and activists embrace encrypted communications platforms. (Politicians use it too, because they love obliterating FOIA-able paper trails.) Obviously, this also works out well for criminals and terrorists, who are no more fans of government interference than those with more altruistic aims.

The Washington Post article is largely based on a report by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which actively monitors Telegram for ISIS activity. MEMRI has observed a large number of terrorist communications on the platform and says terrorists are migrating there from Twitter in large numbers. This is to be expected considering recent efforts by Twitter to purge more of these accounts.

However, the report -- while pointing at the encryption and secret, invitation-only chat rooms provided by Telegram -- also highlights the fact (inadvertently, perhaps) that terrorists aren't nearly as security-focused as their new love for Telegram would suggest. Its post summarizing the report notes that terrorists are also using Tumblr blogs for communications and uploading content to the Internet Archive. (This might explain some of the NSLs the Internet Archive's been receiving...) So, terrorists haven't "gone dark," at least not completely, and there are still open communications that can be scooped up and other metadata generated during Telegram use that might be instructive.

Also, the Washington Post's coverage appears to buy into the silly moral panic here, using ridiculous terms like "military grade encryption," which proves that whoever wrote the article doesn't know what they're talking about.

The problem with holding Telegram up as a villain is that efforts to kill or throttle the service are also going to harm thousands or millions of innocent people who are trying to keep their own oppressive governments from intercepting their communications. As Durov himself pointed out last year, any communications system like his is going to be used by bad guys as well. That's just the nature of any communications platform.

It's unclear at this point if US legislators are actually going after Telegram. At this point, they can't do much more than sign letters and release statements of disapproval. Telegram isn't an American company. If the US government decides US-based companies aren't doing enough to fight terrorism, any pressure applied to those platforms that results in greater censorship or increased demands for user data will simply push users to services that haven't been tampered with yet. This generally means communications sought by law enforcement will now be even further out of reach, controlled by providers located outside US borders.

The same goes for terrorists and criminals. No one's going to sit around and wait to get swept up. Getting into a panic about an encrypted chat app does little more than advertise its effectiveness and send more users its way. And once it becomes a favorite target of governments, users will migrate to other platforms, starting the whole cycle over again.

Filed Under: communication, encryption, isis, moral panic, telegram
Companies: telegram

Families Of Orlando Shooting Victims Sue Twitter, Facebook, And Google For 'Supporting Terrorism'

from the worst-attempt-yet dept

Remember that time when Google, Twitter, and Facebook helped shoot up a nightclub in Orlando, Florida? Me neither. But attorney Keith Altman does. He's representing the families of three of the victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting in a lawsuit alleging [sigh] that these tech companies are somehow responsible for this act of terrorism.

The lawsuit, first reported by Fox News, was filed Monday in federal court in the eastern district of Michigan on behalf of the families of Tevin Crosby, Javier Jorge-Reyes and Juan Ramon Guerrero.

The lawsuit is the latest to target popular Internet services for making it too easy for the Islamic State to spread its message.

Like many similar lawsuits, this one is doomed to fail. First off, Section 230 immunizes these companies from being held responsible for third-party content. As this is certainly the first obstacle standing in the way of the suit's success, Altman has presented a very novel argument in hopes of avoiding it: ad placement is first party content, so immunity should be removed even when ads are attached to third-party content. From the filing [PDF]:

By specifically targeting advertisements based on viewers and content, Defendants are no longer simply passing through the content of third parties. Defendants are themselves creating content because Defendants exercise control over what advertisement to match with an ISIS posting. Furthermore, Defendants’ profits are enhanced by charging advertisers extra for targeting advertisements at viewers based upon knowledge of the viewer and the content being viewed.

[...]

Given that ad placement on videos requires Google’s specific approval of the video according to Google’s terms and conditions, any video which is associated with advertising has been approved by Google.

Because ads appear on the above video posted by ISIS, this means that Google specifically approved the video for monetization, Google earned revenue from each view of this video, and Google shared the revenue with ISIS. As a result, Google provides material support to ISIS.

That's the 230 dodge presented in this lawsuit. The same goes for Twitter and Facebook, which also place ads into users' streams -- although any sort of "attachment" is a matter of perception (directly proceeding/following "terrorist" third-party content, but not placed on the content). YouTube ads are pre-roll and are part of an automated process. The lawsuit claims ISIS is profiting from ad revenue, but that remains to be seen. Collecting ad revenue involves a verification process which actual terrorists may not be willing to participate in.

Going beyond this, the accusations are even more nebulous. The filing asserts that each of the named companies could "easily" do more to prevent use of their platforms by terrorists. To back up this assertion, the plaintiffs quote two tech experts (while portraying their thoughts as being representative of "most" experts) that say shutting down terrorist communications would be easy.

Most technology experts agree that Defendants could and should be doing more to stop ISIS from using its social network. “When Twitter says, ‘We can’t do this,’ I don’t believe that,” said Hany Farid, chairman of the computer science department at Dartmouth College. Mr. Farid, who co-developed a child pornography tracking system with Microsoft, says that the same technology could be applied to terror content, so long as companies were motivated to do so. “There’s no fundamental technology or engineering limitation,” he said. “This is a business or policy decision. Unless the companies have decided that they just can’t be bothered.”

According to Rita Katz, the director of SITE Intelligence Group, “Twitter is not doing enough. With the technology Twitter has, they can immediately stop these accounts, but they have done nothing to stop the dissemination and recruitment of lone wolf terrorists.”

Neither expert explains how speech can so easily be determined to be terrorism or how blanket filtering/account blocking wouldn't result in a sizable amount of collateral damage to innocent users. Mr. Farid, in particular, seems to believe sussing out terrorist-supporting speech should be as easy as flagging known child porn with distinct hashes. A tweet isn't a JPEG and speech can't be as easily determined to be harmful. It's easier said than done, but the argument here is the same as the FBI's argument in respect to "solving" the encryption "problem:" the smart people could figure this out. They're just not trying.

Altman's suggestion is even worse: just prevent Twitter accounts from being created that use any part of the handle of a previously-blocked account.

When an account is taken down by a Defendant, assuredly all such names are tracked by Defendants. It would be trivial to detect names that appear to have the same name root with a numerical suffix which is incremented. By limiting the ability to simply create a new account by incrementing a numerical suffix to one which has been deleted, this will disrupt the ability of individuals and organizations from using Defendants networks as an instrument for conducting terrorist operations.

It's all so easy when you're in the business of holding US-based tech companies responsible for acts of worldwide terrorism. First, this solves nothing. If the incremental option goes away, new accounts will be created with other names. Pretty soon, a great deal of innocuous handles will be auto-flagged by the system, preventing users from creating accounts with the handle they'd prefer -- including users who've never had anything to do with terrorism. Seriously a stupid idea, especially since the Twitter handle used in the example is "DriftOne" -- a completely innocuous handle the plaintiffs would like to see treated as inherently suspicious.

And thank your various gods this attorney isn't an elected official, law enforcement officer, or holding a supervisory role at an intelligence agency. Because this assertion would be less ridiculous and more frightening if delivered by any of the above:

Sending out large numbers of requests to connect with friends/followers from a newly created account is also suspicious activity. As shown in the “DriftOne” example above, it is clear that this individual must be keeping track of those previously connected. When an account is taken down and then re-established, the individual then uses an automated method to send out requests to all those members previously connected. Thus, accounts for ISIS and others can quickly reconstitute after being deleted. Such activity is suspicious on its face.

We've seen a lot of ridiculous lawsuits fired off in the wake of tragedies, but this one appears to be the worst one yet.

The lawsuit asks the court to sidestep Section 230 and order private companies to start restricting speech on their platforms. That's censorship and that's basically what the plaintiffs want -- along with fees, damages, etc. The lawsuit asks for an order finding that the named companies are violating the Anti-Terrorism Act and "grant other and further relief as justice requires."

The lawsuit's allegations are no more sound than the assertion of the Congressman quoted in support of the plaintiffs' extremely novel legal theories:

“Terrorists are using Twitter,” Rep. Poe added, and “[i]t seems like it’s a violation of the law.”

This basically sums up the lawsuit's allegations: this all "seems" wrong and the court needs to fix it. The shooting in Orlando was horrific and tragic. But this effort doesn't fix anything and asks for the government to step in and hold companies accountable for third-party postings under terrorism laws. Not only that, but it encourages the government to pressure these companies into proactive censorship based on little more than some half-baked assumptions about how the platforms work and what tech fixes they could conceivably apply with minimal collateral damage.

Filed Under: cda 230, isis, keith altman, material support for terrorism, omar mateen, orlando, pulse nightclub, section 230, terrorism, victims
Companies: facebook, google, twitter

Court (Again) Tosses Lawsuit Seeking To Hold Twitter Accountable For ISIS Terrorism

from the that's-not-how-causation-works,-never-mind-Section-230... dept

At the beginning of this year, Tamara Fields -- whose husband was killed by ISIS terrorists -- sued Twitter for "providing material support" to the terrorist group. The actions underlying Fields' lawsuit were undeniably horrific and tragic, but by no means provided any sort of legal basis for holding Twitter responsible for actions or speech undertaken by users of its service.

The lawsuit was dismissed in August, with the court pointing to Twitter's Section 230 immunity and the lawsuit's general lack of argumentative coherence. Perhaps recognizing that Section 230 (and common sense) would prevent Twitter from being held responsible for ISIS's terrorist activities, Fields chose to approach the lawsuit from some novel angles. At some points, Twitter "provided material support" by allowing ISIS members to obtain accounts. At other points, it was Twitter's inability to stop the spread of ISIS propaganda that was the issue.

The court invited Fields to file an amended complaint, hoping to obtain a coherent argument it could address with equal clarity. It didn't get it. The amended complaint may be a bit more structured, but the court has again dismissed the lawsuit [PDF] on Section 230 grounds while also addressing the deficiencies of other arguments raised by Fields. (h/t Eric Goldman)

Fields tries to drill down the "provision of accounts" theory: that the ability of ISIS terrorists to obtain accounts somehow amounts to "material support" -- or, in any case, should result in the removal of Twitter's Section 230 immunity. The court says this argument makes no sense and, in fact, invites the court to engage in restriction of First Amendment-protected activity.

Plaintiffs’ provision of accounts theory is slightly different, in that it is based on Twitter’s decisions about whether particular third parties may have Twitter accounts, as opposed to what particular third-party content may be posted. Plaintiffs urge that Twitter’s decision to provide ISIS with Twitter accounts is not barred by section 230(c)(1) because a “content-neutral decision about whether to provide someone with a tool is not publishing activity.”

The court disagrees. There's no way Twitter can act in a "content-neutral" manner and still deny accounts to ISIS members like the plaintiff believes it should. The only way to discover whether an account holder might be a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer is by examining the content they post.

Although plaintiffs assert that the decision to provide an account to or withhold an account from ISIS is “content-neutral,” they offer no explanation for why this is so and I do not see how this is the case. A policy that selectively prohibits ISIS members from opening accounts would necessarily be content based as Twitter could not possibly identify ISIS members without analyzing some speech, idea or content expressed by the would-be account holder: i.e. “I am associated with ISIS.” The decision to furnish accounts would be content-neutral if Twitter made no attempt to distinguish between users based on content – for example if they prohibited everyone from obtaining an account, or they prohibited every fifth person from obtaining an account. But plaintiffs do not assert that Twitter should shut down its entire site or impose an arbitrary, content-neutral policy. Instead, they ask Twitter to specifically prohibit ISIS members and affiliates from acquiring accounts – a policy that necessarily targets the content, ideas, and affiliations of particular account holders. There is nothing content-neutral about such a policy.

The plaintiff, despite amending her complaint, still takes a cake-and-eat-it-too approach when trying to twist ISIS terrorism into a Twitter-enabled activity. The court notes that the new complaint tries to push Twitter's provision of accounts to terrorists as the linchpin of her case, but still spends far more time complaining about Twitter's alleged moderation failures.

As discussed above, the decision to furnish an account, or prohibit a particular user from obtaining an account, is itself publishing activity. Further, while plaintiffs urge me to focus exclusively on those five short paragraphs, I cannot ignore that the majority of the SAC still focuses on ISIS’s objectionable use of Twitter and Twitter’s failure to prevent ISIS from using the site, not its failure to prevent ISIS from obtaining accounts. For example, plaintiffs spend almost nine pages, more than half of the complaint, explaining that “Twitter Knew That ISIS Was Using Its Social Network But Did Nothing”; “ISIS Used Twitter to Recruit New Members”; “ISIS Used Twitter to Fundraise”; and “ISIS Used Twitter To Spread Propaganda.” These sections are riddled with detailed descriptions of ISIS-related messages, images, and videos disseminated through Twitter and the harms allegedly caused by the dissemination of that content.

[...]

It is no surprise that plaintiffs have struggled to excise their content-based allegations; their claims are inherently tied up with ISIS’s objectionable use of Twitter, not its mere acquisition of accounts. Though plaintiffs allege that Twitter should not have provided accounts to ISIS, the unspoken end to that allegation is the rationale behind it: namely, that Twitter should not have provided accounts to ISIS because ISIS would and has used those accounts to post objectionable content.

Because of Fields' inability to raise one (possibly) Section 230-dodging argument (provision of accounts) without relying heavily on one that specifically invokes Twitter's immunity, the lawsuit is doomed to fail no matter how many times the complaint is rewritten or how many levels up it's appealed.

In short, the theory of liability alleged in the [complaint] is not that Twitter provides material support to ISIS by providing it with Twitter accounts, but that Twitter does so by allowing ISIS to use Twitter “to send its propaganda and messaging out to the world and to draw in people vulnerable to radicalization.” SAC ¶ 41. Plaintiffs do not dispute that this theory seeks to treat Twitter as a publisher and is barred by section 230(c)(1).

Furthermore, there is nothing at all connecting Twitter to the murders committed by terrorists.

Even under plaintiffs’ proposed “substantial factor” test, see Oppo. at 11, the allegations in the SAC do not support a plausible inference of proximate causation between Twitter’s provision of accounts to ISIS and the deaths of Fields and Creach. Plaintiffs allege no connection between the shooter, Abu Zaid, and Twitter. There are no facts indicating that Abu Zaid’s attack was in any way impacted, helped by, or the result of ISIS’s presence on the social network. Instead they insist they have adequately pleaded proximate causation because they have alleged “(1) that Twitter provided fungible material support to ISIS, and (2) that ISIS was responsible for the attack in which Lloyd Fields, Jr. and James Damon Creach were killed.” Id. at 13. Under such an expansive proximate cause theory, any plaintiff could hold Twitter liable for any ISIS-related injury without alleging any connection between a particular terrorist act and Twitter’s provision of accounts. And, since plaintiffs allege that Twitter has already provided ISIS with material support, Twitter’s liability would theoretically persist indefinitely and attach to any and all future ISIS attacks. Such a standard cannot be and is not the law.

No doubt this decision will be appealed but it's unlikely to find a court willing to cede as much ground on Section 230 as Fields would like it to, even with the series of bad Section 230-related decisions that have recently plagued the California court system.

Filed Under: isis, material support, material support for terrorism, section 230, tamara fields, terrorism
Companies: twitter

FBI's Comey: Actually, Chasing ISIS Off Twitter Makes It More Difficult For Us To Follow Them

from the things-to-think-about dept

Over and over again we keep hearing politicians and others going on and on about the need for social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google to kick ISIS users off their platforms. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have called for this. And some people at these companies are supportive of this idea. Twitter regularly feels compelled to talk about how many ISIS accounts it removes.

Yet, as we've pointed out each time it's done so, this seems backwards. We've noted that intelligence officials have claimed that they actually get really good intelligence from following these social media accounts. But generally those voices aren't heard as much. So it's actually great to see FBI Direct James Comey (someone we rarely agree with) come out and say it directly: kicking ISIS members off Twitter makes things more difficult for law enforcement.

"We are making good progress with the help of companies like Twitter at chasing the Islamic State" off the platform—the microblogging site has suspended hundreds of thousands of accounts promoting terrorism—but Comey said the challenge is that such efforts push some users "to a place where they’re less able to proselytize broadly but more able to communicate in a secure way. [We've] chased them to apps like Telegram.”

Now, of course, this all seems part of Comey's effort to then demonize encryption. But there is a larger point here: when terrorists are using social media and revealing useful info, why should we try to kick them off those platforms? Let them make mistakes.

I know that the big fear from some is that letting ISIS use Twitter means they can better "recruit" but almost every study on this notes that online recruitment isn't really that effective. Most recruitment happens from people who actually know people. And cutting ISIS people off from Twitter also kills off good opportunities for counterspeech, like the time that an ISIS leader called on Muslims to join ISIS, and a whole bunch of Muslims responded with mocking tweets instead: Yes, yes, I know that people saying stuff we disagree with online is very scary -- but silencing them has serious costs as well. So, yes, here's a rare instance where we agree with James Comey: pushing ISIS members off of Twitter is a bad idea. It harms the ability of law enforcement to follow them (and, gives Comey more opportunities to whine about encryption). Just keep them on Twitter and let law enforcement and the intelligence community follow them.

Filed Under: censorship, encryption, fbi, isis, james comey, law enforcement, social media, surveillance
Companies: twitter

Trump's 'Cyber' Policy Against ISIS Is... 'Hey Look At This New Poll!'

from the well,-that's-something dept

While Hillary Clinton's tech policy proposals seem to be the standard mix of empty promises and vague nothingness designed to not pin her down on anything really serious, Donald Trump's tech policy proposals have basically been incomprehensible nonsense.

Trump apparently feels that this kind of incomprehensible nonsense is working for him, so he doubled down this week. As first noted by CNN reporter Sopan Deb, Trump responded to a question from (Trump supporter) General Michael Flynn about ISIS and cybersecurity with a word salad of complete nonsense: If you can't read that here's the key part:

Michael Flynn: And to stay on ISIS a little bit because this is a really -- I think this is an important topic - it's one of the national security threats that our country faces today. You have described at times different components of a strategy. Military, cyber, financial and ideological. Can you just expand on those four a little bit?

Donald Trump: Well, that's it. And you know cyber is becoming so big today. It's becoming something that a number of years ago, short number of years ago, wasn't even a word. And now the cyber is so big. And you know you look at what they're doing with the Internet, how they're taking and recruiting people through the Internet. And part of it is the psychology because so many people think they're winning. Any you know, there's a whole big thing. Even today's psychology — where CNN came out with a big poll. Their big poll came out today that Trump is winning. It's good psychology, you know. It's good psychology. I know that for a fact because people they didn't call me yesterday, they're calling me today. So that's the way life works, right?

But I think we're doing very well and I really thank the state of Virginia, so many different places have been so incredible. So I thank you very much. But cyber has been very, very important and it's becoming more and more important as you look and a lot of it does have to do with ideology and psychology and lots of other things. You know, we're in a different world today than we were in 20 years ago, 30 years ago. And one of the biggest problems and one of the reasons that we have to knock them out is because the weaponry is so powerful today. You know, in the old days, you could've said, "Well look they have rifles.

We have rifles. We shoot and they have uniforms. We have uniforms." This is a whole different war. The weaponry is so powerful. And we have to beat them over there. We're allowing people to come over here. We're allowing, think of it. Your military people -- we're allowing people to come over here. And you know, I used to watch the migration, and I'd see people with cell phones, I said, "where did they get cell phones?" And some of those people had very horrible things on their cell phones including the ISIS flag. And you say, what are we doing? What are we doing? But we're allowing people to come here and we don't know. Do they turn on us? Are a small percentage of them bad? Because if a small percentage is bad, that's not acceptable. That's not acceptable. We can't take the risk. Just a small percentage can do such damage. So we can't take the risk. So, General, the bottom line is we have to get very tough and we have to get very smart or we're not gonna have much of a country left. I can tell you that right now.

So, uh, wait. What? Apparently Donald Trump's "cybersecurity" policy is "Hey, look at this poll that says I'm winning!" And also "How did ISIS get cell phones?" Meanwhile, the brave Philip Bump over at the Washington Post tried to fact check the only clear factual statement in that rambling mess: that the word "cyber" was just created a few years ago. Of course, that's not true (though I guess that depends on what you consider to be a "short number of years ago"), but I'd argue that the fact that "cyber" predates the birth of one Donald Trump, that the statement isn't all that accurate.

But, really, who gives a fuck concerning when Donald Trump thinks the word "cyber" was first coined? The real question should be on what's the actual policy here, because in those three paragraphs above there's nothing even remotely resembling a policy, or a coherent idea. Clinton's tech policy is a hot mess of emptiness, but at least there's a policy that people can look at and talk about. Trump, on the other hand doesn't even seem to recognize what cybersecurity means and what a policy would entail.

Oh, and as for the claims about how ISIS is "recruiting people through the internet" multiple studies on that have suggested that ISIS's internet recruitment strategy isn't all that effective -- that most recruiting is done through real world networks, rather than virtual ones. But you know which groups really are having success growing their online presence? White nationalists and neo Nazis, with many of them strongly supporting... Donald Trump.

“On Twitter, Isis' preferred social platform, American white nationalist movements have seen their followers grow by more than 600 per cent since 2012,” the study, authored by JM Berger, stated. “Today, they outperform Isis in nearly every social metric, from follower counts to tweets per day.”

[....]

Donald Trump is a prominent subject among white nationalists on Twitter. According to the study, white nationalist users are “heavily invested” in the Republican’s candidacy. Tweets mentioned Mr Trump more than other popular topics among the groups.

So, yeah. I wonder what Donald Trump's "cyber policy" to deal with those folks would be.

Filed Under: cybersecurity, donald trump, isis, national security, policy

UK Gov't Report: Facebook, Twitter, And Google Are Pretty Much Unrepentant Terrorist Supporters

from the a-raging-hate-on,-disguised-as-an-official-report dept

The internet is for porn terrorism.

That's according to a report by the UK's Home Ministry, which claims the medium is inseparable from the message, especially if it's a US tech company.

Facebook, Twitter and Google and are deliberately failing to stop terrorists from using their websites to promote terrorism because they believe it will "damage their brands", MPs have warned.

MPs warned that social media websites are becoming the "vehicle of choice" for spreading terrorist propaganda but websites are policing billions of accounts and messages with just a "few hundred" employees.

I'm pretty sure giving terrorists free rein is more "damaging" to "brands" than the current status quo. Sure, chasing terrorists off the internet is just another form of whack-a-mole, but it's not as though these companies aren't trying. Facebook's policing of content tends to lean towards overzealous. Twitter just removed over 200,000 terrorist-related accounts. And as for Google, it's busy bending over backward for everyone, from copyright holders to a few dozen misguided governments. But the internet -- including terrorists -- perceives censorship as damage and quickly routes around it.

The argument can be made (and it's a pretty good argument) that it might be more useful to have terrorists chatting on open platforms where they can easily be monitored, rather than pushing them towards "darker" communications methods. But it's tough to reason with lawmakers who find big corporations to be the easiest targets for their displeasure.

And, really, their complaints are nothing more than a cheap form of class warfare, one that tacitly asks millions of non-terrorist internet users to sympathize with a government seeking to gain more control over the platforms they use.

Keith Vaz, the chairman of the committee, said: "Huge corporations like Google, Facebook and Twitter, with their billion-dollar incomes, are consciously failing to tackle this threat and passing the buck by hiding behind their supranational legal status, despite knowing that their sites are being used by the instigators of terror."

That's what the MPs are really seeking: a way to carve off a slice of these billion-dollar incomes. Vaz fears the "Wild West" internet (one filled with Middle Eastern desperadoes, apparently…) because it's "ungoverned" and "unregulated." If both of those "problems" are fixed, he'll presumably be able to sleep better -- perhaps warmed by the flow of a new revenue stream or soothed by an expansion of his government's powers. Either way, these companies should have to shoulder the blame for terrorism's continued existence.

Some might make the argument that the government isn't doing enough to fight terrorism. After all, "billions" of dollars go towards this battle every year, and every year nothing appears to change.

The report points specifically to the supposedly "low" number of employees policing posted content.

"It is alarming that these companies have teams of only a few hundred employees to monitor networks of billions of accounts..."

Apparently, these billion-dollar companies are expected to move towards a 1:1 ratio of moderators to users. Vaz also claims these companies need to take a "no questions asked" attitude towards law enforcement demands to have content taken down. If so, perhaps the UK government should start hiring more law enforcement officers and move the needle more towards a 1:1 ratio of constables to internetizens… or at least a 1:1 ratio of constables to platform content moderators.

The report also points to various "failures" within the UK government, suggesting anti-terrorism laws just aren't quite strict enough. It notes that police have allowed alleged terrorists to leave the country while on bail because they haven't seized their passports. And an official from Scotland Yard asserts -- with wording that suggests the UK doesn't have quite enough restraints on speech yet -- that existing laws can't shut down the sort of thing the report complains that Google, Facebook, and Twitter aren't shutting down quickly enough: namely, posts by Anjem Choudary, a "hate preacher" who was convicted of supporting the Islamic State.

Richard Walton, the former head of Scotland Yard's counter terrorism command, today warns that existing British laws would not prevent preachers who followed Choudary's example and acting as "radicalisers".

Obviously, the answer is MORE LAWS. That should fix it. That and blaming tech companies for third-party content, something they already police about as well as they can, considering the number of users on their respective platforms. It's always handy to have a scapegoat to beat like the dead horse these arguments are, especially when the scapegoat can mixed-metaphorically be portrayed as fat cats electro-fiddling while social media burns.

Filed Under: free speech, internet, isis, keith vaz, moderation, open internet, platforms, terrorism, uk
Companies: facebook, google, twitter