After the latest terrorist attacks in Great Britain, Prime Minister Theresa May said: “We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it (terrorism) needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the internet, and the big companies… provide.”
Tech companies reject tighter control
Technology companies and experts in digital have replied that tighter regulation of the internet will not solve the problem of extremism. There has been pressure for companies to disrupt the communications of extremist nodes, but that has not stopped them for long.
“What we’ve seen in social media networks (is that) they kind of re-establish themselves relatively quickly or they migrate to a different app,” says Stephanie Carvin, assistant professor of international affairs at Carleton University. “If they feel they are under pressure under one, they are opportunistic, they will simply use another.”
ListenWeakening encryption a non-starter
May has also pushed tech companies to allow intelligence agencies to access encrypted communications. But the companies have so far refused.
“The issue is that when you weaken encryption to fight terrorism, you’re also weakening it for everyday people who depend on it in order to do their banking, for governments to actually talk to each other,” says Carvin.
And she adds: “Legislatively, you actually wonder what we could do more that doesn’t really start to cut in to the civil liberties bone. And that’s something I do worry about.”
From hundreds to tens of thousands of extremists
Carvin notes that in 1998 when Al Qaeda started bombing embassies it had about 400 individuals and today there are tens of thousands of extremist operatives. “Partially the reason for that is that social media has helped take this message global and I think that’s really important,” she says adding that social media probably also facilitated planning for those travelling to conflict zones. “I don’t think we can really downplay its importance in contemporary terrorism at this moment.”
‘More resources on the ground?’
That said, Carvin does not believe that the answer to fighting terrorism is necessarily more legislative tools or more law. “It might very well be more resources on the ground…Should we be funding more programs…to create mass surveillance or censorship, or should we be funding community policing on the ground?
“I have to believe that terrorism is something that occurs in real life. We should be putting real life resources in place as well…putting the emphasis on doing more of what we know works which is building trust in communities.”
For reasons beyond our control, and for an undetermined period of time, our comment section is now closed. However, our social networks remain open to your contributions.