Legal Internet Use by Terrorists

Introduction

One of the greatest features of the internet is that it is a powerful tool available to everyone. However, when such a tool falls into the wrong hands, there is little that regulators can do without threatening the very features of the internet that give it value. This short essay considers this inherent dilemma of choosing between a free and open internet and one that can be harnessed to further evil purposes.

I’m not talking about actual attacks via information networks (i.e. cyberterrorism), as such behavior is simply destructive regardless of who is doing it. Where the question really gets interesting is where regulation that would require some kind of discrimination—for instance, allowing online community organization efforts by the Obama campaign but not by Al Qaeda (see chart below). The ultimate question I seek to answer is whether or not peaceful and otherwise legal uses of the internet should be regulated based on the user’s purpose. I believe that unless there is violence or other extreme circumstances involved, it should remain as open and powerful a tool as possible.

Features of the Internet

The following list briefly considers (a) the internet’s value to both good and evil organizations and (b) what may be lost or significantly altered by counterterrorist regulation efforts.

1. Neutrality: There are much fewer discriminatory institutional and technological hurdles online than there are elsewhere. Size or stature does not matter—a personal blogger is as “online” as powerful corporate and government bodies.
2. Vast audiences: Once online, any website is available to all of the 1.5 billion people on the internet.
3. Financial and media capabilities: Such interactions are not limited to text or even hypertext—the internet offers a complete multimedia environment, as well as the ability to make online financial transactions.
4. Cheapness and anonymity: An online presence does not cost very much to create or maintain, and can be done by virtually anyone in an automated and anonymous manner.

Legal Uses of the Internet

Below is a breakdown of some of the legal uses of the internet that can be either devastating or beneficial depending on its user. For comparison, I discuss how terrorists use the internet to further their violent goals in largely the same manner that grassroots election campaigns further democratic principles during elections.

Discussion and Conclusion

Counterterrorism in many ways is simply a line-drawing exercise—i.e. what we are willing to sacrifice in order to preserve our safety. For instance, while we are not ready to ban air travel completely, we are willing to submit ourselves to restrictions on what we can carry onto a plane.

In a recent microcosm of the issue, Senator Joe Lieberman demanded that YouTube remove all videos from identified terrorist organizations. YouTube responded by only removing those that were violent enough to violate its own community standards while defending the organizations’ right to post legal nonviolent material as well as the total benefit to society from a diverse range of views.

I tend to agree with YouTube’s approach, and believe that content should only be regulated where there is violence, or the imminent threat of some kind of violence in relation to that content.

First, when it comes to criminal and terrorist activity, we should regulate the violence they may use to achieve their goals, rather than their beliefs alone. We do not fear people for what they believe or desire; we fear what they might do to us to achieve their goals.

Second, a line drawn too far would simply do more harm than good for national security. Regardless of intent, prohibiting even peaceful communications amounts to outright censorship, which would only strengthen the resolve and hatred of terrorists and their potential supporters. Also, the automated and decentralized nature of the internet would turn most efforts at regulation into a futile game of Whac-A-Mole, with new sites popping up every time another is quashed. Any gain in security achieved by such measures would likely be far outweighed by the sympathy and support terrorists would receive as a result of such censorship.

Finally, I believe the freedom and neutrality that the internet represents is something worth protecting. In many ways it is a technological embodiment of democratic and free-speech ideals, right now allowing me to publish my uncensored thoughts for the whole world to see, regardless of who I am and what I believe. Also, technologically, any filtering methods that successfully block all content from certain would have to be extremely invasive and likely overbroad (given the “Whac-A-Mole” problem stated above). And at the end of the day, the internet would be subject to the discretion of an unelected and largely unregulated body of decisionmakers.

National security is and should remain a top priority of our nation. However, any line drawn beyond violent content or imminent attack would not only be futile, but actually detrimental to both our security and the principles we’ve fought for since the inception of our country.

-- StevenHwang - 18 Nov 2008

Steven, I'm a bit confused by where you draw the line. You seem to be saying that violent footage should be taken down, but you're also arguing that filtering would be overbroad and subject to the abuse of an unregulated body. How do you reconcile these two statements? Even if you're only filtering for violent content, you still face the same general ills of filtration. Furthermore, how does a filter distinguish between CNN footage and an Al Qaeda beheading distributed for fear-mongering purposes? And in that case, should there necessarily be any filtration at all? Isn't that a fact for the world to see and scholars and politicians to cite?

Or maybe you want this line to only be applicable to content aggregators like YouTube? , but not the Internet at large? That would clear up the logical inconsistency in your statements, but I'm not sure that's a proper solution, either.

-- KateVershov - 05 Dec 2008

Your'e right, I don't think I was very clear on the line I drew.

I think the line should be drawn where the content actually causes or creates imminent physical violence (as opposed to simply depicting it). It would be very difficult to meet this standard--it would have to be something on the magnitude of outright instruction. For instance, if a terrorist organization were to post a call for its followers to riot at a particular time on a particular street or to assassinate a certain official, we should be able to take that down. I would take this even farther to say that even if the message were hidden--e.g. if the content was ostensibly innocuous, but the government had really good reason to believe it was some kind of "trigger" for a coordinated attack, we should also be able to take that down. On the other hand, if they say that America is bad or simply depict violent actions, I might dislike them, but I do not think that it should be taken down.

YouTube? 's own community standard is much stricter than mine, but I agree with their filtering based on CONTENT rather than by USER.

I'll clear this up in my rewrite. Thanks for the comment!

-- StevenHwang - 06 Dec 2008

Steven, have you considered the locality of the servers in your argument? If the content in question is located on a server outside of the United States, should they still be able to take it down (assuming arguendo that they could do so)? Should other nations have the right to do the same with content on US servers they feel incites violence against or by their citizens? What about differing views on what constitutes "imminence?" That is a concept that already leads to difficulties, both in our own criminal justice system's analysis of self-defense and in regards to the United Nations charter and lawful military action. See Bobbitt, Philip, Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First Century (New York: Alfed A. Knopf, 2008), Pg. 452.

-- JohnPowerHely - 09 Dec 2008

Steven, I hope you won't mind if I follow up on your response to Kate above. In your comment, you say that you would take down content that creates imminent physical violence. This made me think of Jyllands-Posten's cartoons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy), which sparked riots resulting in over 100 deaths. Would you take these down? Does the user/intent ever matter? What if similar cartoons were posted by a terrorist group in hopes of causing rioting?

-- DavidHambrick - 10 Dec 2008