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

DOJ Rushed To Link Orlando Shooter To ISIS, Now Plans To Redact What He Said During 911 Call For... Reasons

from the huh? dept

The FBI/DOJ had no problem rushing out claims last week that Omar Mateen, the guy who killed 49 people in a rampage at a club in Orlando last weekend, had "pledged allegiance" to ISIS. James Comey delivered remarks that said as much last Monday:

It is also not entirely clear at this point just what terrorist group he aspired to support; although, he made clear his affinity, at the time of the attack, for ISIL, and generally, leading up to the attack, for radical Islamist groups. He made 911 calls from the club, during the attack, at about 2:30 in the morning, Sunday morning. There were three different calls. He called and he hung up. He called again and spoke briefly with the dispatcher, and then he hung up, and then the dispatcher called him back again and they spoke briefly. There were three total calls.

During the calls he said he was doing this for the leader of ISIL, who he named and pledged loyalty to, but he also appeared to claim solidarity with the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing, and solidarity with a Florida man who died as a suicide bomber in Syria for al Nusra Front, a group in conflict with Islamic State. The bombers at the Boston Marathon and the suicide bomber from Florida were not inspired by ISIL, which adds a little bit to the confusion about his motives.

By now, it's pretty clear that the link to terrorism is basically non-existent, and that he fits the profile of a "typical mass shooter" rather than someone doing this for ISIS or any other terrorist reasons. As Marcy Wheeler points out, this also may explain why even though the FBI had checked out Mateen twice, including using the FBI's infamous "confidential informants" who often push people to join them in made up terrorist plots, they decided he wasn't a threat. It appears that Mateen didn't give any indication that he was really into aligning himself with ISIS or any other terrorist group, and Wheeler wonders if the FBI cared that he might do other damage, since they're so focused just on terrorism these days.

Instead, it appears, the FBI assessed Mateen for one and only one thing: whether his bogus claims of ties to terrorist organizations were real. There have been a slew of articles, such as this one or this one, wondering why the FBI didn’t “identify” Mateen as a “real” terrorist in its two investigations of him. But it appears the FBI was assessing only whether he was likely to commit violence because of–and with the support of–an Islamic terrorist group. It appears they weren’t assessing whether he was, like the overwhelming majority of men who commit mass shootings in this country, really screwed up, expressing it in violent ways, and seeking attention with such actions.

It is true that Islamic extremists want to attack this country. It is also true that far, far more Americans die when men carry out mass killings because they’re fucked up and begging for attention. If you’re Muslim, the easiest way to get attention right now is to say that word, “ISIS,” because it’s a guarantee law enforcement and politicians will give that killing more due then they might give the next disturbed mass shooter.

Of course, now that the DOJ seems to be realizing that this wasn't based on any connection to middle east groups, it seems to want to bury the issue. Attorney General Loretta Lynch has declared that when the transcript of Mateen's 911 calls are released, they're going to redact his claims to be doing it for ISIS for [reasons].

LORETTA LYNCH:

Yes, I’ll be going to Orlando on Tuesday to continue my briefings in the case. Actually though what we are announcing tomorrow is that the F.B.I. is releasing a partial transcript of the killer’s calls with law enforcement from inside the club. These are the calls with the Orlando P.D. negotiating team who were trying to ascertain who he was, where he was, and why he was doing this, all the while the rescue operations were continuing. That’ll be coming out tomorrow and I’ll be headed to Orlando on Tuesday.

CHUCK TODD:

Including the hostage negotiation part of this?

LORETTA LYNCH:

Yes. It will be primarily a partial transcript of his calls with the hostage negotiators.

CHUCK TODD:

You say partial. What’s being left out?

LORETTA LYNCH:

Well, what we’re not going to do is further proclaim this individual’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups and further his propaganda.

CHUCK TODD:

So we’re not going to hear him talk about those things?

LORETTA LYNCH:

We will hear him talk about some of those things, but we’re not going to hear him make his ascertains of allegiance and that. This will not be audio. This will be a printed transcript. But it will begin to capture the back and forth between him and the negotiators. We’re trying to get as much information about this investigation out as possible. As you know, because the killer is dead, we have a bit more leeway there. And so we will be producing that information tomorrow.

Marcy Wheeler again points out how absolutely ridiculous this is, including the idea that releasing such statements would "re-victimize" people. That makes absolutely no sense:

If releasing these claims of affiliation would “revictimize” the victims, then releasing them in the first place served to victimize them. So the much better approach would be the release the full transcripts and admit the Department fucked up, both in its assessment of a potential mass killer, and in rushing to blame ISIS in the first place. Not to mention that this will just feed conspiracy theories.

If DOJ fucked up — and the claim this could revictimize people is tacit admission it seriously fucked up — then admit that and make it right. Pay the political consequences of admitting that our obsessive focus on terrorism has distracted us from the more general, and therefore more lethal, problem with mass killings. Don’t try to pretend there’s a good reason for suppressing the very same claims you made a big deal of a week ago.

If DOJ now believes the claims served to do nothing more than give Mateen’s rampage more attention — and it was a key part of generating that attention — then it needs to come clean.

And, of course, as everyone knows, redacting such information is only calling more attention to it, and almost certainly feeding into the typical plot lines of conspiracy theorists. Why not just release the full transcripts (as required under Florida's public records laws) and with it a full explanation for why the claims of being associated with various groups (many of which are in conflict with each other) make no sense. That is, why not try to calm down the kneejerk reaction the DOJ set off in the first place?

Filed Under: doj, fbi, isis, omar mateen, redactions, streisand effect

House Intel Boss, Rep. Devin Nunes, Lying To Congress About Attempt To Stop Encryption Backdoors

from the liar-liar dept

There are some in Congress who apparently have no problem deceiving both their colleagues and the American public in the pursuit of making Americans less safe and putting our country, economy and infrastructure at risk. This time, it's House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Devin Nunes, along with Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, who chairs the NSA subcommittee. They've been sending around a letter that blatantly misrepresents a proposal designed to better protect Americans' privacy and security.

For the past two years, around this time, we've talked about the importance of an attempt by Reps. Thomas Massie and Zoe Lofgren to prevent two different kinds of "backdoor" surveillance -- the use of backdoor searches to the NSA's 702 collection and (perhaps more importantly) attempts to backdoor encryption. The Massie/Lofgren amendment has been overwhelmingly supported in the House the past couple of years, but the Senate (with help from surveillance state supporters in the House) keeps conspiring to strip it out of the final agreement.

The Massie/Lofgren amendment is back again this year, and it's pretty straightforward. First, it defunds gov't employees from doing "backdoor" searches (i.e., searching through massive databases of material on Americans that was collected "incidentally" but still kept anyway):

... none of the funds made available by this Act may be used by an officer or employee of the United States to query a collection of foreign intelligence information acquired under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1881a) using a United States person identifier.

But, more importantly, it blocks any funding for attempts to force anyone to backdoor encryption:

none of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the National Security Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency to mandate or request that a person (as defined in section 101(m) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(m))) alter its product or service to permit the electronic surveillance (as defined in section 101(f) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1801(f))) of any user of such product or service for such agencies.

While that's a bit of a word jumble, in short, it says that the NSA and CIA cannot force companies to backdoor encryption to enable government surveillance. This point is especially important this year, following on the DOJ/FBI's flubbed attempt to force Apple to decrypt some iPhones earlier this year, combined with the dangerous Burr/Feinstein anti-encryption bill (thankfully dead for now), to offer Congress a clear attempt to say that it will not accept attempts to backdoor encryption.

In the past, those in Congress against this amendment have tried to stop it by totally misrepresenting what the amendment covers, and that appears to be the strategy of Nunes and Westmoreland this time around.

In the letter being sent around to other Representatives, they lay on a thick layer of misleading to downright false FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) -- and of course, they exploit the tragedy in Orlando to further their misleading claims.

The national security threats to the United States and its allies are greater today than at any point since 9/11. To keep Americans safe, our Intelligence Community needs to fully employ every tool available to it. We cannot be lulled into a false sense of security. As recent events in Orlando have made tragically clear, terrorists will continue to attack the U.S. homeland.

That seems like a somewhat misleading and self-serving description of what happened in Orlando. While there's still a variety of reports, it's clear that the shooter was an American, born in America, and it doesn't appear he had any connection whatsoever to overseas terrorist organizations. In short: this doesn't look like an issue that the intelligence community would have been able to figure anything out about. The shooter was already known to the FBI, who investigated him and found nothing. And then it appears that he did the shooting on his own, meaning there is little "communication" that the intel community would have needed to track. But even if there was, nothing in this amendment would stop law enforcement or the intelligence community from getting access to such information. Nothing.

But Nunes and Westmoreland are just warming up. It's the next part that is really extremely misleading.

Despite the threats that face us, Congressman Massie and Congresswoman Lofgren's amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 5293) would end the use of a vital tool for identifying and disrupting terrorist plots at home and abroad. If this amendment were enacted, the Intelligence Community would not be able to look through information lawfully collected under FISA Section 702 to see if Omar Siddiqui Mateen, the Orlando nightclub attacker, was in contact with any terrorist groups outside the United Statets.

This is just blatantly false. It's true that outlawing backdoor searches would mean that law enforcement and intelligence wouldn't be able to do backdoor searches on Mateen's communications, but this falsely implies that's the only way in which Mateen's communications could be checked. That's just wrong. Law enforcement still can (and I'm sure already has) get access to Mateen's call records and lots of other communications information through a variety of third parties (and I'm sure would have no trouble getting warrants issued if necessary). Law enforcement and the intelligence community could still get a warrant to search through the information that has been collected. They just need to get a warrant -- which should be pretty damn easy. So there's nothing stopping law enforcement from figuring out if Mateen was in contact with people overseas. The bill just means that the intelligence community can't just go randomly sniffing through the massive database they've already collected of "incidental" information from other searches.

This is no way to legislate. To blatantly mislead their Congressional colleagues in order to protect programs that harm Americans' privacy and security is a pretty cowardly approach to handling these issues. It's fine to debate the relative merits (or lack of merits) of the Section 702 program or other surveillance techniques, but flat out lying to colleagues to block an amendment that they've overwhelmingly supported for the past two years just seems... dishonest and sleazy.

Filed Under: amendment, appropriations, backdoor searches, backdoors, devin nunes, encryption, house intelligence committee, lynn westmoreland, omar mateen, section 702, surveillance, thomas massie, zoe lofgren