On Friday the FBI classified the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, as 鈥渁n act of terrorism鈥. Tashfeen Malik and her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, don鈥檛 seem to have been in direct contact with ISIS, but the extremist militant group 鈥渟upporters鈥 on Saturday.
Advertisement
鈥淎t this point we believe they were more self-radicalized and inspired by the group,鈥 one anonymous official . According to officials, Malik had made a bayat, or pledge of allegiance, to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a Facebook post.
On Sunday, during an on This Week, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said that the US government is 鈥済oing 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鈥檙e going to have to help us take down these announcements and these appeals.鈥
In the case of Malik鈥檚 post, it seems that鈥檚 exactly what happened. Malik posted her ISIS pledge on an account with a different name, and Facebook says it because it violated the site鈥檚 community standards by praising and promoting terrorism.
Officials that Malik posted her allegiance comment shortly before she and her husband initiated the attack on Inland Regional Center that killed 14 people. And FBI director James Comey said that the couple鈥檚 digital presence before the shootings was 鈥渘othing of such a significance鈥 that the FBI would have flagged them in advance.
Defining 鈥渢errorist鈥
Nevertheless, the situation with Malik is giving new life to the debate about whether social networks should be legally required to report suspicious posts or activity to law enforcement. A provision of the 2016 Intelligence Authorization Act approved by the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the beginning of July would have required tech companies to report 鈥渢errorist activity鈥 to law enforcement.
鈥淲hat they do now is simply terminate the account of the person who is plotting the attack,鈥 Richard Clarke, a former White House counterterrorism official and ABC News consultant, . 鈥淚t is very unlikely today that a social media company would turn around and call the police.鈥
But critics pointed out that the bill did not offer a definition of 鈥渢errorist activity鈥 to guide social networks. And the that Comey was actually only lukewarm about the bill. He called it an 鈥渋nteresting idea鈥 but added that tech companies are 鈥減retty good about telling us what they see鈥.
Indeed, Facebook has that it reserves the right to 鈥渞efer issues to law enforcement鈥. Furthermore, Monika Bickert, Facebook鈥檚 head of policy management, in a statement: 鈥淲e share the government鈥檚 goal of keeping terrorist content off our site. Our policies on this are crystal clear: we do not permit terrorist groups to use Facebook, and people are not allowed to promote or support these groups on Facebook.鈥
On July 28, Senator Ron Wyden because of the vague definition of terrorist activity in the social media provision. 鈥淚 haven鈥檛 yet heard any law enforcement or intelligence agencies suggest that this provision will actually help catch terrorists, and I take the concerns that have been raised about its breadth and vagueness seriously,鈥 Wyden said in a statement. 鈥淚nternet companies should not be subject to broad requirements to police the speech of their users.鈥
Electronic stewards
Furthermore, legally requiring that social networks do this can lead to censorship creep. Or as Emma Llans贸, who runs the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy & Technology, : 鈥淭urning all communications intermediaries, who are today鈥檚 stewards of our electronic papers and effects, into informants for the government flies in the face of Fourth Amendment protections.鈥
The debate over social networks and extremists is a bit like the ongoing discussion about giving law enforcement . During his Sunday evening address about terrorism, US president Barack Obama seemed to refer to encryption when he said: 鈥淚 will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice.鈥
As politicians and law enforcement scramble to secure us against terrorist attacks, there is a strong need to know what鈥檚 going on. But this must be balanced by an awareness of the fine line between information-gathering, surveillance and censorship.
In her interview with Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Clinton said: 鈥淚 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.鈥
If Clinton is uniquely positioned to see both sides of the debate, then she should know that compelling social networks to act as dragnets is not the solution, especially if they鈥檙e already willing to develop internal standards.
This article first appeared on
Lily Hay Newman is a Slate staff writer
Image credit: Facebook Reporting Guide
