Google Ideas Boss's Really Bad Idea: Kick ISIS Off The Open Web

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Over the last few weeks, there's been increasing focus on what "else" Silicon Valley can do in the fight against ISIS. Backdooring encryption is a dumb idea that won't work and will make everyone less safe. So, a second idea keeps getting floated: what if we just stopped letting ISIS use the internet. Hell, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump supported the idea recently. And then you have some wacky law professors suggesting the same thing.

For the most part, cooler heads in the tech industry have pointed out that (1) this is impossible and (2) any attempt to do so would be counterproductive in just encouraging more activity and (3) it would actually undermine intelligence gathering, as public posts to social media are a key source of useful intelligence these days.

But, now, at least one prominent person within the tech industry has jumped on board: the somewhat controversial head of Google Ideas, Jared Cohen, who used to work for the State Department and now runs Google Ideas (which, for whatever it's worth, isn't "Google"). Cohen gave a talk in the UK in which he argued that ISIS was too good at propaganda on the internet, so the answer is to wipe them off the open internet and leave them shuffling around the dark web instead.

Jared Cohen, the director of Google Ideas, believes that to "recapture digital territory" from the terror cell, its members must fear being caught when they post messages promoting the organisation's cause in public.

"Terrorist groups like Isis, they operate in the dark web whether we want them to or not," Cohen said at a talk on Waging a Digital Counterinsurgency, at Chatham House. "What is new is that they're operating without being pushed back in the same internet we all enjoyed. So success looks like Isis being contained to the dark web".

This is, as noted above, both silly and wrong. First of all, it's impossible. It's a ridiculous task that will waste a ton of time, won't accomplish anything really useful, and will likely result in too many false positives, including (most likely) those who are monitoring and combating ISIS. Second, as mentioned, it will actually do a tremendous amount to limit the intelligence community's ability to monitor and track ISIS. It's funny that on the one hand we have officials demanding an end to encrypted communications, fearing "going dark," while many of those same individuals then turn around and talk about taking ISIS off the public internet, where they reveal a ton of useful information about their activities. Third, it raises serious questions about how committed companies like Google really are to the open internet. Yes, Cohen is director of "Google Ideas" which is separate from Google itself, but basically all of the press coverage about this says that Google is saying people should be kicked off the open web. That's messaging that will come back to haunt Google as it pushes for the open web in other contexts. Cohen has just opened up Google to a major attack on key points it's pushing for everywhere else.

On top of that, Cohen seems to think that losing their Twitter accounts will be seen as some kind of punishment:

To do this Cohen said that Isis members openly promoting their cause online must fear retribution and being caught for their actions. Their social media accounts must be removed as fast as they are produced to prevent people making contact with Isis recruiters on the open web.

But that appears to be somewhat ignorant of how things are currently working. Many of their social media accounts are being removed rapidly and to ISIS supporters it becomes a badge of honor, as they quickly open a new account. It's not retribution, it becomes validation.

It's too bad that Cohen would suggest such a short-sighted concept when there's so much evidence these days of how completely counterproductive it would be. This isn't the kind of creative or new thinking that was promised from Google Ideas, it's traditional silly Washington DC thinking, without any recognition of the reality of the technology world. If this is a concept from Google Ideas, let's just say it's a really, really bad idea. Maybe Google needs a department of better ideas.

Update: And I missed the biggest laugh of all. I hadn't even realized that the supposed "mission" of Google Ideas is: "Google Ideas builds products to support free expression and access to information for people who need it most." Hard to see how blocking people from using the internet fits within that purview.

Filed Under: free speech, google ideas, isis, jared cohen, open web, social media
Companies: google, google ideas

Woman Files Ridiculous Lawsuit Against Twitter For 'Providing Material Support' To ISIS

from the not-how-it-works dept

Over the past year or so, there has been some people questioning if merely tweeting could be considered "material support for terrorism." Taking things to another level altogether, Tamara Fields, whose husband (a government contractor for DynCorp International) was tragically killed in an ISIS strike late last year, has now sued Twitter for providing "material support" for ISIS.

Let's be clear on a few things: I can't even imagine the horrors of having your loved ones killed that way. It is horrible and tragic, and the pain must be unfathomable to those who have not gone through it. But, at the same time, that's not Twitter's fault no matter how you look at it. The full lawsuit, filed in California by lawyers who should know better, makes a number of ridiculous assertions, including the idea that the rise of ISIS would have never happened without Twitter.

Without Twitter, the explosive growth of ISIS over the last few years into the mostfeared terrorist group in the world would not have been possible. According to the Brookings Institution, ISIS “has exploited social media, most notoriously Twitter, to send its propaganda and messaging out to the world and to draw in people vulnerable to radicalization.” Using Twitter, “ISIS has been able to exert an outsized impact on how the world perceives it, by disseminating images of graphic violence (including the beheading of Western journalists and aid workers) . . . while using social media to attract new recruits and inspire lone actor attacks.” According to FBI Director James Comey, ISIS has perfected its use of Twitter to inspire small-scale individual attacks, “to crowdsource terrorism” and “to sell murder.”

Is ISIS fairly adept at using Twitter? Sure. Does that mean that it wouldn't have become the group it's become today? That's ridiculous. The rest of the complaint takes a number of statements, concerning Twitter's support for free speech rights totally out of context, including repeatedly relying on quotes from individuals who haven't worked for Twitter in years. It also quotes people whining that Twitter should do more as evidence that the company has a legal obligation to do more.

The lawsuit is going nowhere. First of all, considering that it's a civil lawsuit, Twitter is totally and completely protected by Section 230 of the CDA that says the company is not liable for how people use the platform. That's enough to end the case right there. The case will almost certainly be tossed pretty quickly based on 230. Even if that wasn't the case, the claims in the lawsuit that Twitter does basically nothing to stop terrorists are laughably untrue. In fact, ISIS has been issuing death threats against the company and its execs because they've been removing accounts.

On top of that, many have actually been complaining that Twitter goes too far in these efforts. Hell, just a couple weeks ago, the company accidentally shut down the account of a guy people mistakenly thought was ISIS's leader, despite actually being a strong supporter of democracy and freedom, who just happened to have the same last name.

Too many people seem to think that there's some magic wand that Twitter can wave that'll make ISIS "disappear" from the service. It doesn't work that way. The law certainly doesn't require that. And while Twitter does proactively look to take down accounts that are advocating for terrorism, that doesn't mean it's even possible, or reasonable, that it can find every one. Targeting Twitter for a lawsuit just smacks of a Steve Dallas lawsuit, where upset people sue a large company barely involved in things, because that's where the money is.

Finally, over and over again, intelligence officials keep claiming that the fact that ISIS folks are tweeting and Facebooking is actually one of the best ways to keep track of what they're doing and saying. Shutting them down may seem appealing, but actually could decrease the ability to track them and their activities.

Either way, this lawsuit is dead on arrival. It will get tossed out thanks to Section 230. The lawyers who filed it should have known better. Yes, the situation is tragic and horrible and unfortunate. But it's not Twitter's fault -- and suing the company over it just looks ridiculous.

Filed Under: carl fields, cda, cda 230, free speech, isis, lloyd fields, material support, section 230, tamara fields, terrorism
Companies: dyncorp, twitter

President Obama's State Of The Union: Praises Open Internet... Complains About Terrorists Using Open Internet

from the and-so-it-goes dept

As you probably heard, President Obama gave his final State of the Union Address a little while ago, and it was likely pretty much what you expected. A lot of vague pronouncements and not a whole ton of substance. I was surprised that the TPP got very little mention at all (it was basically mentioned in passing), but found it especially odd that the internet was mentioned just twice — and in ways that seemed to contradict each other. First, the President gave a brief mention of how his administration has "protected the open internet":

We’ve protected an open internet, and taken bold new steps to get more students and low-income Americans online. We’ve launched next-generation manufacturing hubs, and online tools that give an entrepreneur everything he or she needs to start a business in a single day.

The second mention comes a few paragraphs down, when he suddenly whines about terrorists using that very same open internet:

Priority number one is protecting the American people and going after terrorist networks. Both al Qaeda and now ISIL pose a direct threat to our people, because in today’s world, even a handful of terrorists who place no value on human life, including their own, can do a lot of damage. They use the Internet to poison the minds of individuals inside our country; they undermine our allies.

Both points have an element of truth in them, but the whole thing seems pretty silly. If you have an open internet, then part of the point is that anyone can use it — even people you don't like. Fighting ISIS and other terrorists is certainly important, but even mentioning the fact that they use the internet is silly. Some of them drive cars too. It's not really all that relevant.

Beyond that, there really wasn't much related to stuff that we're interested in around here. It talks about bringing back our innovative spirit (did it really go away?), but (unlike in past States of the Union) chooses not to mention patent reform (even though the President's suggested reforms haven't gone anywhere).

It's silly to expect too much from the State of the Union Address, which gets a lot more buzz than it's worth, but as a first pass, the idea that the two mentions of the internet contradict each other more or less summed up one of the big problems with the way this administration has treated the internet. It tends to talk out of both sides of its mouth on these issues, and never really take a stand. There truly are a number of really great people working in the White House on tech policy, looking to maintain a free and open internet, but there are plenty of others who are trying to undermine it, and to give in to FUD about the "dangers" of an open internet. It's a bit disappointing that the President never really came out with a strong leadership position on this and made it clear that we're not going to undermine a free and open internet out of fear -- but instead continues to give lip service to the free and open internet, while hinting at a willingness to toss it out the window.

Filed Under: free speech, internet, isis, open internet, president obama, state of the union, terrorism

The White House Asks Silicon Valley What To Do To 'Disrupt' ISIS

from the not-that-kind-of-disruption... dept

As you may have heard, on Friday, a group of top White House officials, including Homeland Security director Jeh Johnson, FBI Director James Comey and NSA boss Admiral Michael Rogers, all came out to Silicon Valley to meet with tech execs to talk about how to "disrupt" groups like ISIS. On the tech side, a bunch of top execs came, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, Dropbox CEO Drew Houston and CloudFlare CEO Matthew Prince. The White House released a basic agenda publicly, though there was also apparently a more thorough briefing document that ran about 7 pages.

U.S. Government Meeting with Technology Executives on Counterterrorism

I. Introductions

II. Setting the stage

a. Purpose of Meeting

b. Unclassified background on terrorist use of technology, including encryption

III. Core Discussion Areas

a. How can we make it harder for terrorists to leveraging the internet to recruit, radicalize, and mobilize followers to violence?

b. How can we help others to create, publish, and amplify alternative content that would undercut ISIL?

c. In what ways can we use technology to help disrupt paths to radicalization to violence, identify recruitment patterns, and provide metrics to help measure our efforts to counter radicalization to violence?

d. How can we make it harder for terrorists to use the internet to mobilize, facilitate, and operationalize attacks, and make it easier for law enforcement and the intelligence community to identify terrorist operatives and prevent attacks?

IV. Questions or other issues raised by Technology Companies

V. Next Steps

You will, of course, note the bit on encryption. According to some of the reports, while the meeting was really supposed to be more about anything but encryption (i.e. about figuring out ways to "counter" ISIS's supposed social media success, which likely has been overblown anyway), Comey said that he would only participate if encryption was on the agenda.

The Intercept got its hands on the more detailed briefing and revealed the part about encryption:

In addition to using technology to recruit and radicalize, terrorists are using technology to mobilize supporters to attack and to plan, move money for, coordinate, and execute attacks. The roles played by terrorist leaders and attack plotters in this activity vary, ranging from providing general direction to small groups to undertake attacks of their own design wherever they are located to offering repeated and specific guidance on how to execute attacks. To avoid law enforcement and the intelligence community detecting their activities, terrorists are using encrypted forms of communications at various stages of attack plotting and execution. We expect terrorists will continue to use technology to mobilize, facilitate, and operationalize attacks, including using encrypted communications where law enforcement cannot obtain the content of the communication even with court authorization. We would be happy to provide classified briefings in which we could share additional information.

Key Questions: We are interested in exploring all options with you for how to deal with the growing threat of terrorists and other malicious actors using technology, including encrypted technology, to threaten our national security and public safety. We understand that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to address this problem and that each of you has very different products and services that work in different ways. Are there high-level principles we could agree on for working through these problems together? And are there technologies that could make it harder for terrorists to use the internet to mobilize, facilitate, and operationalize? Or easier for us to find them when they do? What are the potential downsides or unintended consequences we should be aware of when considering these kinds of technology-based approaches to counter terrorism?

==

A number of organizations in the government, as well as some in private industry and academia, have researched techniques to detect and measure radicalization. Some have suggested that a measurement of level of radicalization could provide insights to measure levels of radicalization to violence. While it is unclear whether radicalization is measureable or could be measured, such a measurement would be extremely useful to help shape and target counter-messaging and efforts focused on countering violent extremism. This type of approach requires consideration of First Amendment protections and privacy and civil liberties concerns, additional front-end research on specific drivers of radicalization and themes among violent extremist populations, careful design of intervention tools, dedicated technical expertise, and the ability to iteratively improve the tools based on experience in deploying them. Industry certainly has a lot of expertise in measuring resonance in order to see how effective and broad a messaging campaign reaches an audience. A partnership to determine if resonance can be measured for both ISIL and counter-ISIL content in order to guide and improve and more effectively counter the ISIL narrative could be beneficial.

==

The United States recognizes the need to empower credible non-governmental voices that would speak out against ISIL and terrorism more broadly both overseas and at home. However, there is a shortage of compelling credible alternative content; and this content is often not as effectively produced or distributed as pro-ISIL content and lacks the sensational quality that can capture the media’s attention. Content creation is made difficult by ISIL’s brutal rule and near total control of communications infrastructure in its territory in Iraq and Syria, which can make it dangerous for citizens to speak out or provide video or images. Further, many of the leading and credible voices that might counter ISIL lack the content-generation and social media prowess that would be required to counter ISIL online. There is also a need for more credible positive messaging and content that provides alternatives to young people concerned about many of the grievances ISIL highlights.

In parallel with ongoing U.S. Government efforts, we invite the private sector to consider ways to increase the availability alternative content. Beyond the tech sector, we have heard from other private sector actors, including advertising executives, who are interested in helping develop and amplify compelling counter-ISIL content; and we hope there are opportunities to bring together the best in tech, media, and marketing to work with credible non-government voices to address this shared challenge.

For what it's worth, it appears (thankfully) that the majority of the meeting did not focus on the issue of encryption and (somewhat importantly) it was made clear to government officials that they're doing a hell of a lot more harm than good in continuing to suggest that undermining encryption is a reasonable approach. Tim Cook apparently said that the government needs to come out publicly in favor of strong encryption, rather than its silly statements that suggest a desire to undermine it.

The real crux of the meeting, though, was looking at if there was "some other thing" that the tech industry could do to help in the fight against terrorism. This actually seems like a perfectly reasonable question to ask. But there are still reasonable concerns. First, pretty much all of these companies already have terms of service that forbid their use in the furtherance of criminal or terrorist activities. Second, they tend to already work with the government when such activity is discovered on the service. Third, in many cases, letting terrorist organizations use these platforms freely is one of the most effective ways to enable intelligence officials to find out what they're doing.

If you look at the agenda above, it really feels as if the meeting was built on the wrong premise. It's basically all about how do we stop bad people from using technology effectively. But that's a fool's errand, because technology doesn't distinguish between good people and bad people.

Technology, for the most part, is about helping people do things better and more efficiently, not about stopping people from doing things. It's too bad there wasn't a focus on using today's technology tools to enable more people to help out in the fight against terrorism and extremism. Instead, much of the focus is on "how do we make it harder for someone to do [x]."

From the reports that came out, the discussion was pretty high level, with ideas like "could Facebook adjust its algorithm that spots potentially suicidal users to also detect potentially radicalized members." Having such discussions is fine, in theory. In fact, if anything, the oddest thing about this little "summit" is that it demonstrates just how wide the gulf has become between Silicon Valley and DC. In the past, discussions like this weren't so crazy -- and didn't need press coverage.

But here's the thing: the intelligence community totally poisoned the well here with its actions over the past decade and a half. For the past few months DC folks have been whining about how Silicon Valley is seeing this as an "us v. them" situation, but that's only true because the NSA blew everything up, hacking into systems, lying to the public, abusing the secretive powers of National Security Letters, the FISA Court and Executive Order 12333. The government treated Silicon Valley as an adversary, and is now whining that Silicon Valley doesn't want to help.

I'm quite certain that everyone in the room wants to do what they can to "stop ISIS" ("disrupt" is totally the wrong word here). And it would be great if there were ways to actually do that. But it can't involve the usual way that the intelligence and law enforcement communities have focused on in the past decade and a half: violating privacy, exploiting systems and generally treating the public's rights as collateral damage. And it can't involve stomping on freedom of expression.

It's fine if the two sides want to talk and see if they can come up with something useful, but as long as DC keeps thinking of Silicon Valley as creating "magic pixie dust" instead of innovation, it's not going to be that useful.

Filed Under: admiral mike rogers, encryption, going dark, isis, james comey, jeh johnson, tim cook, white house
Companies: apple, cloudflare, dropbox, facebook, linkedin

FBI Closes Out 2015 With Another Questionable Terrorism Bust

from the 2016-Goal:-Stay-the-Course dept

The FBI has managed to get one more terrorist bust on the books for FYE 2015.

Emanuel L. Lutchman, 25, was arrested and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a designated foreign terrorist organization. The charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

According to the complaint, Lutchman had big, violent plans for New Year's Eve.

LUTCHMAN discussed with CS-2 [FBI informant] doing assassinations and using a pressure cooker bomb. LUTCHMAN said that he wanted to execute the plan so they could be "in and out," noting that they should make it "quiet and simple" so they can go about doing what they need to do to make hijra [leave the US and travel to Syria]. He also said that, after the operation, "they're going to be hunting for us," meaning that law enforcement authorities would be seeking to capture them. CS-2 asked LUTCHMAN if they would use a knife in the event they could not use a pressure cooker bomb or firearm(s).

While Lutchman may have had big plans, he really didn't seem to have any of the necessary ingredients. He had occasional contact with a self-professed ISIL member overseas, but 99% of his planning was done with the assistance of three FBI informants. While he did profess a desire to perform an act of terrorism, nearly everything he needed to carry this out was going to need to be obtained from someone else.

LUTCHMAN stated that they would use knives during the attack, noting that he knew someone with a machete and that his wife has a dagger.

And:

LUTCHMAN stated that they would need to wear masks during the operation so they would not get caught by law enforcement authorities, noting that he had a "brother" who would sell the masks for $5.

Do you really need a "connect" for ski masks? I mean, maybe in Arizona. But upstate New York?

Both of these "sources" failed to produce the needed items, so Lutchman and an FBI informant headed to the nation's largest terrorist outfitter, Walmart. Even with the retail giant's famous low prices, Lutchman still needed seed money for his foray into terrorism. Fortunately, the FBI was there to help.

In the evening on or about December 29, 2015, LUTCHMAN met with CS-2 During the meeting, LUTCHMAN and CS-2 went to a Walmart store on Hudson Avenue in Rochester, New York, to purchase supplies for the operation. While there, they purchased 2 black ski masks, zip-ties, 2 knives, a machete, duct tape, ammonia and latex gloves. Due to the fact that LUTCHMAN did not have any funds with him at the store, CS-2 paid approximately $40 for these items.

Had it been left to Lutchman to carry out this attack, he may have been able to come up with a knife or two. The $5 ski masks apparently would have been out of his price range.

To be sure, Lutchman did make plenty of disturbing statements to the FBI informants, as well as to the overseas provocateur. He may truly have desired to commit an act of violence. But it does seem apparent he was pretty much incapable of moving forward with his plans on his own. Maybe he was just looking for a few people who would listen to him rant and never call him on his bullshit -- a position filled by competently by the three FBI informants.

The fact that he couldn't even come up with the $40 needed to fund a two-man knife attack makes the charge of "material support" somewhat laughable. Perhaps that's why the complaint makes it clear the "material support" being "provided" by Lutchman was very specific -- and, presumably, of limited use.

Attempt to provide material support and resources, namely, himself as personnel and services, to a designated foreign terrorist organization…

"Himself" being the only thing anyone could count on Lutchman being in possession of when the time came to carry out the attack.

Then there's Lutchman's rap sheet:

EMANUEL L. LUTCHMAN is a 25~year old United States citizen, who currently resides in Rochester, New York. He is a self~professed Muslim convert with a criminal history dating back to approximately 2006 (which includes a New York state conviction for Robbery 2 from 2006, for which he served approximately 5 years in prison), as well as previous state Mental Hygiene arrests.

The mental hygiene arrests suggest Lutchman could be a dangerous person -- not because of his allegiance to ISIL -- but in general. Mental hygiene arrests occur when a person is considered to be a danger to themselves or others. He may have been a threat, thanks to his mental issues, but a terrorist? Certainly, the mental instability could have made Lutchman much more susceptible to outside suggestions that he commit violence, but his arrest record suggests Lutchman didn't have the mental (and, apparently, financial) capacity to provide much "support" for the Islamic State's violent aims.

It may be safer now that Lutchman is off the streets, but this arrest doesn't really gain us any ground in the War on Terrorism. A majority of the FBI's busts have been just as dubious, suggesting the agency values quantity over quality when it comes to arresting suspected terrorists.

Filed Under: emanuel lutchman, fbi, isis, material support, material support for terrorism, own plot

Law Professor: ISIS Is, Like, Totally Scary, So Let's Do Away With The First Amendment

from the and-probably-the-4th dept

Law professor Eric Posner is no fan of the First Amendment. Never has been. Back in 2012, he argued that Americans basically need to get over the First Amendment because free speech upsets people. Earlier this year, he argued for restricting the speech of college students because students are children who don't deserve free speech. A few months ago, he also argued that the US should adopt a "right to be forgotten," because sometimes it's better to make speech disappear entirely.

So it comes as little surprise that he's now arguing that we should just dump the First Amendment, because ISIS is, like, super scary, yo.

It has become increasingly clear that terrorist groups such as ISIS can extend their reach to American territory via the Internet. Using their own websites, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other platforms, they lure young men and women to their mission—without having to risk the capture of foreign agents on U.S. soil. The Americans ensnared in ISIS’s net in turn radicalize others, send money to ISIS, and even carry out attacks.

Never before in our history have enemies outside the United States been able to propagate genuinely dangerous ideas on American territory in such an effective way—and by this I mean ideas that lead directly to terrorist attacks that kill people. The novelty of this threat calls for new thinking about limits on freedom of speech.

Posner's proposal? Make it a crime to even visit a website that supports ISIS or to make any vaguely pro-ISIS statement:

But there is something we can do to protect people like Amin from being infected by the ISIS virus by propagandists, many of whom are anonymous and most of whom live in foreign countries. Consider a law that makes it a crime to access websites that glorify, express support for, or provide encouragement for ISIS or support recruitment by ISIS; to distribute links to those websites or videos, images, or text taken from those websites; or to encourage people to access such websites by supplying them with links or instructions. Such a law would be directed at people like Amin: naïve people, rather than sophisticated terrorists, who are initially driven by curiosity to research ISIS on the Web.

He admits that this might interfere with actual research about ISIS, but says there can be an exemption for those with a "legitimate interest" which he defines as credentialed members of the press or those with academic associations. Of course, he then notes that, obviously, such law would violate the First Amendment. But, no problem, he says, let's just dump that... noting that prior to the 1960s, we never really took that whole First Amendment thing all that seriously anyway, and then cites a bunch of horrifically awful examples from history of the US not respecting free expression -- basically using some of the most embarrassing examples of our past to argue that we should go back to that sort of barbaric view of the world:

However, these rules go back only to the 1960s. Before then, in the United States, people could be punished for engaging in dangerous speech. The U.S. government prosecuted Nazi sympathizers during World War II, draft protesters during World War I, and Southern sympathizers in the Union during the Civil War. It’s common sense that when a country is embroiled in a war, it should counter propaganda that could populate a third column with recruits. The pattern in American history—and, in the other democracies as well, even today—is that during times of national emergency, certain limits on speech will be tolerated.

We do not currently face a national emergency comparable to a world war, but anti-propaganda laws may nonetheless be warranted because of the unique challenge posed by ISIS’s sophisticated exploitation of modern technology.

There are, of course, all sorts of problems with his argument -- not that I think he shouldn't be allowed to say it and reveal to the world his own issues. First off, it presumes, without any real evidence, that ISIS propaganda is actually effective. Multiple studies have shown this is simply not true. Nearly all recruitment into ISIS happens within established social circles, where people already know each other -- not because of ISIS tweeting out beheading videos.

Second, it's become something of a cliche to use the argument "that's exactly what ISIS/terrorists want..." but it really does seem to fit here. Scaring the living daylights out of "public intellectuals" so that they compromise the very principles on which their society is built on, seems like the pretty clear goal of terrorism. So, step on up, Eric Posner, you're posting pro-ISIS propaganda now. Under your own proposed law, you may have just committed a crime.

Third, it way overestimates the "threat" of ISIS. I am not saying that ISIS is not a legitimate threat to cause some damage, but of all the threats we've faced over the years, this is the one that we suddenly dump the First Amendment over? Really? Especially when there's no real evidence that its propaganda is effective at much beyond scaring the pants off of pretend intellectuals?

Fourth, are we really so weak minded and weak willed that people can't look at ISIS propaganda and realize "holy crap, those people are crazy" -- and that such information needs to be blocked? We've spent decades highlighting how attempts to suppress and block speech tend to do the opposite. It makes those whose expressions are blocked more resolved to speak out and also makes them feel more powerful, believing they've somehow "scared" those they're speaking against.

Fifth, why shouldn't we see what they say and then respond to it and highlight why it's barbaric and wrong? Or, at the very least, to have a better understanding of who we're dealing with. Trying to hide and stifle their speech doesn't do much in terms of better understanding the enemy.

Frankly, this really seems like Posner just looking for yet another excuse to wipe away the First Amendment. And we won't even get into the fact that he's no fan of the 4th Amendment either...

Filed Under: eric posner, first amendment, free speech, isis, propaganda

The Two Leading Presidential Candidates -- Clinton And Trump -- Are Both Mocking Free Speech On The Internet

from the this-seems-like-a-problem dept

Yesterday, we wrote about Hillary Clinton's absolutely terrible plan for undermining both encryption and free speech on the internet as a way to "deal" with ISIS. I left out the worst quote of all that she stated in the process, mockingly:

"You’re going to hear all of the usual complaints, you know, freedom of speech, et cetera..."

Free speech et cetera? That's handwaving it away. You can see the whole clip here, of the leading Democratic Presidential candidate who will almost certainly win the nomination: Her full statement:

You’re going to hear all of the usual complaints, you know, freedom of speech, et cetera. But if we truly are in a war against terrorism and we are truly looking for ways to shut off their funding, shut off the flow of foreign fighters, then we’ve got to shut off their means of communicating. It’s more complicated with some of what they do on encrypted apps, and I’m well aware of that, and that requires even more thinking about how to do it.

Shut off their means of communicating? These tools are tools that everyone uses -- and, in fact, which Hillary Clinton herself did a tremendous amount of (good) work helping to spread around the globe as Secretary of State. And now she's trying to cut it all off?

And over on the other side of things, the leading Republican candidate, Donald Trump, basically said the exact same thing on Monday, just in a more Trump fashion.

We're losing a lot of people because of the internet. We have to do something. We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them, maybe in certain areas, closing that internet up in some ways. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people. We have a lot foolish people.

You can see that one here:

#DonaldTrump advocates closing up the Internet 2 stop the process of thought/free speech. So Communist China-like. pic.twitter.com/hRab3xpVcK

— NotBuffytheVMPslayer (@NotBUFFY_VS) December 8, 2015

Think about this for a second. You have the two leading Presidential candidates -- one from each party -- each advocating that we shut down entire parts of the internet and censor speech, because bad people can use the internet just like good people. And both of them flat out say that, sure, some people will complain about free speech, but they both dismiss such complaints mockingly with nothing more than a suggestion that you can't take anyone who cries "free speech" seriously.

I usually laugh off people who get deeply scared about one person or another winning the Presidency, as they usually overestimate how much power the President really has. But, either I'm suddenly turning into an old cranky guy, or we're facing one hell of a scary Presidential election next year where the major candidates are not just bad, but downright scary. It's become pretty cliche to argue "that's what the terrorists want" in response to various kneejerk reactions by politicians, but really, does anyone not think that certain people are getting a kick out of US politicians shoving each other aside to belittle one of the most cherished rights that is a key principle of our country -- the First Amendment -- at the first opportunity?

Filed Under: donald trump, first amendment, free speech, hillary clinton, internet, isis, wtf

Hillary Clinton Doubles Down Her Attack On Silicon Valley: Wants A 'Solution' For Encryption & Clampdown On Free Speech

from the that-seems-pretty-dumb dept

A few weeks ago, we pointed out that Hillary Clinton had, unfortunately, joined in with other clueless politicians to call for "Silicon Valley" to "develop solutions" to the "concerns of law enforcement and counterterrorism professionals" on "encryption." Anyone who's followed the "debate" over encryption over the past year knows that asking Silicon Valley to "develop solutions" is James Comey's codewords for "create a backdoor for encryption" -- no matter how many times experts in encryption have explained to him that such a solution makes everyone less safe. After we and a few others wrote about Clinton's unfortunate and dangerous decision to throw her lot in with those who wish to backdoor encryption, one of her main tech advisers, Alec Ross, went a little ballistic, insisting she did not say what she clearly did say.

And, this weekend Clinton apparently decided to double down and then go even further -- even before President Obama suggested that he'd also support undermining encryption. First, on ABC's This Week, she repeated the argument that we just need "the best minds" to "come together" and "deal" with this issue.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about Apple? No more encryption?

CLINTON: This is something I've said for a long time, George. I have to believe that the best minds in the private sector, in the public sector could come together to help us deal with this evolving threat. And you know, I know what the argument is from our friends in the industry. I respect that. Nobody wants to be feeling like their privacy is invaded.

But I also know what the argument is on the other side from law enforcement and security professionals. So, please, let's get together and try to figure out the best way forward.

But, again, that's like asking "the best minds" to come up with bullets that only kill bad people. Or books that only nice people are allowed to read. You're asking for an impossibility, and in doing so, you're making everyone less safe by undermining encryption -- which is the key to realistic computer security.

Even worse, when Clinton claims that she knows "what the argument is from our friends in the industry" she gets their argument wrong. It's not just about invading privacy. It's about the fact that she's asking for the impossible. It's not just about protecting the privacy of people from intruding government. It's about not weakening overall systems that will allow those with bad intent to do lots of damage. It's a ridiculous statement and Clinton appears to be getting just as bad technology advice as basically every other presidential candidate.

And, that wasn't her only ridiculous anti-tech statement on the weekend. She also said that Facebook, YouTube and Twitter should censor bad content online to somehow stop ISIS.

STEPHANOPOULOS: If you were in the Oval Office tonight, would you be announcing a new strategy?

CLINTON: Well, I think what -- that's what we'll hear from the president, an intensification of the existing strategy and I think there's some additional steps we have to take.

If you look at the story about this woman and maybe the man, too, who got radicalized, self-radicalized, we're going to need help from Facebook and from YouTube and from Twitter. They cannot permit the recruitment and the actual direction of attacks or the celebration of violence by this sophisticated Internet user.

They're going to have to help us take down these announcements and these appeals they get up.

I know that this view is one that many people agree with, but it's equally dangerous. First, it assumes that ISIS propaganda is apparently so powerful that no counter speech could possibly work against it, and thus it must be censored. But that's ridiculous on multiple levels. It overvalues the speech of ISIS and its supporters and the impact that it has (most studies have shown radicalization happens because of people individuals know in real life, not randos on the internet).

Really, though, exactly how are Facebook and Twitter and YouTube supposed to do this? How are they supposed to review every bit of content that everyone creates, and determine which bits are "good" and allowed and which are "bad" and not allowed? Clinton is asking for a fairy tale -- a world where (1) it's obvious what's good content and what's not and (2) one in which every bit of speech and communication is monitored and scored on such a non-existent scale. Both of these things are impossible. I don't know about you, but I prefer political candidates who focus on the possible, rather than fairy tales (I recognize this leaves me with basically almost no politicians to support, but occupational hazard, I guess...).

In a separate speech, given at the Brookings Institution, Clinton took this idea even further, calling on Silicon Valley to "disrupt ISIS," which is such a painful abuse of the term "disrupt" as to again raise questions about who is advising her on tech policy issues:

“We need to put the great disrupters at work at disrupting ISIS."

Disruption in the tech world is about making things cheaper and better, and reinventing markets. It's not about magically stopping bad people from using technology. This is still fairy tale thinking.

But, more importantly, it encourages (or potentially threatens to mandate) that these content and communications platforms have to start proactively monitoring all speech online, and determining, on the fly, what speech is "good" and which speech is "bad." That's dangerous and will undoubtedly lead to much greater censorship -- including content that actually is useful in highlighting atrocities and dangerous activities online. We've seen this before. After US politicians pressured YouTube into removing "terrorist" videos, it resulted in videos being deleted from a Syrian watchdog group that was documenting atrocities.

Besides, these two separate issues seem totally contradictory. On the one hand, Clinton and other anti-encryption folks whine about not being able to see what terrorists are saying "because encryption." But then, at the same time, they're saying that when those same people talk about things publicly online -- in a way that's trackable -- we should shut them down.

It's almost like they have no strategy at all... except to try to throw the blame on technology companies.

Filed Under: disruption, encryption, free speech, going dark, hillary clinton, isis, james comey
Companies: facebook, google, twitter, youtube