How to (or how not to) limit Daesh’s use of the internet?
Terrorist groups use the internet mainly for propaganda purposes, to garner support, and to recruit new members. The internet has greatly lowered the barriers to such communication, making it much easier to get your message out there than it was say, two decades ago. Anybody who doesn’t understand the nature of modern communication runs the risk not only of missing out on what’s really happening, but also making mistakes when trying to counter the activities of the terrorists.
Put simply, the social networks cannot be laid siege to, nor can their use by certain groups be controlled, even when they endanger society. This approach has been tried several times and proved not to work. The internet is not the wider world, and cannot be placed under a state of emergency; trying to do so is a waste of time: there are always other ways for radical groups to communicate with their followers.
Daesh, or as it likes to call itself, the Islamic State, works on several levels. To raise its profile and spread its message the group uses the most prominent media: Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and other sites. Many of these are working with the authorities to remove content relating to terrorist activities or inciting hatred and violence, not just because they violate its service terms, but to avoid any accusation that they are in any way working with Daesh.
This is no easy task: content removed can quickly be uploaded again from a multitude of centrally managed accounts, either to avoid detection, or for astroturfing — giving the impression of widespread online support. This is a battle that begins with dialectics: Daesh calls itself the Islamic State when it isn’t a state or Islamic (it’s simply the most Medieval branch: primitive, barbarous, and uncivilized of Islam), is simply an attempt to appropriate certain terms using a strategy that has certainly proved effective.
At the same time, Daesh uses the internet for communication purposes: apps such as WhatsApp, Telegram, and many others different levels of security: even PlayStation 4 forums have allegedly been used. In turn, these services have tried to identify and isolate suspicious accounts, despite the difficulties. But preventing its members from using the net to communicate is impossible. There are too many channels, too many options, and so many other services to make this technically inviable. Then there is the use of the deep web, which is even harder to control. At the same time, it should be remembered that these people will improvise, even using something as open as text messaging, if this improve operational capacity in a given situation.
It is absurd to blame the tools supposedly used by the terrorists, or to heap responsibility on people like Edward Snowden. These services have existed for many years and are at anybody’s disposal. Similarly, giving the police back doors into our communication through encryption weakening will not only undermine our own security, while Daesh simply finds other means to communicate. Privacy and security are fundamental rights that can only be overturned through the judicial process, and has been shown, this doesn’t necessarily help.
This is an organization with clear objectives, with web resources that even include 24-hour help desks. Efforts to identify senior figures, trace their activities, or close accounts needs to be carried out with diligence; at the same time, it is possible to simply put these people under surveillance or even create accounts along honeypot lines, as has been done with other criminal activities. People suspected of terrorist activities need to be monitored, but simply spying on everybody produces little benefit, while at the same time erodes our democratic freedoms.
And then there is the question of Anonymous, which has decided to declare and online war against Daesh. In my opinion, this is actually more important than media coverage would suggest. Anonymous’ members are not simply a bunch of script kiddies or aficionados: these are people who possess high skill levels, are highly motivated, and have the decentralized infrastructure and coordination required to make an impact on the organization. Anonymous has carried out a number of attacks that have hit different organizations hard.
Anonymous’ declaration of war against Daesh is good news: guerrilla warfare can be highly effective against such organizations. At the same time, Anonymous’ can sometimes get things wrong and create problems for the authorities: but the end result, from my perspective, is that it’s much better to have them on board than having them as enemies.
The whole question of dealing with Daesh’s online activities is a complex one: there are limits as to what can be done, and we must be careful. At the same time, it is important to make sure these people cannot act with impunity. But ignoring the rules that govern a democracy to justify widespread surveillance in the name of combating terrorism is also unacceptable.
(En español, aquí)
