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