As the civilized world mourns the victims of yet another terrorist attack, this time at a concert for teens in Manchester, it is impossible not to recognize the important role that the Internet has in recruiting, training, and organizing terrorists. The Internet is a powerful tool for the forces of good and economic prosperity and for the forces that seek to destroy civilization.
A sensible question is why civilized governments do not seek to deprive terrorists of unfettered access to the Internet. Salman Abedi, the man identified as the terrorist behind the Manchester bombing, was apparently one of more than 3,500 suspected terrorists operating in the United Kingdom. There is no indication that Abedi or any other suspected terrorist had been limited in access to the British Internet.
Sadly, here in America, limiting access to the Internet would be illegal under the euphemistic term “network neutrality,” the two-year-old experiment in federal regulation of the Internet. The concept inspires raw emotion. Hundreds of thousands of comments supporting network neutrality have been submitted to the Federal Communications Commission, including many suggested by comedian John Oliver. Network neutrality advocates have stalked the neighborhood and home of FCC chairman Ajit Pai.
To its supporters, network neutrality is a bulwark of civilization. But network neutrality is also a shield for terrorists who seek to destroy civilization. Here’s why.
Under network neutrality, broadband companies--such as AT&T, Charter, Comcast, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon—are prohibited from discriminating against any lawful websites or content. There is no clear distinction between lawful and unlawful websites and content. The net result is a broadband company could and likely would be sued for blocking websites housing information about recruitment and organization for ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Ku Klux Klan, or other terrorist groups. It is also illegal to block content that instructs viewers on how to manufacture explosives such as nail bombs.
Under network neutrality, a broadband company cannot slow web portals that routinely host terrorist content. It cannot favor websites that meet certain antiterrorist standards. It cannot deny service to likely terrorist organizations or to suspected terrorists such as Abedi or their families.
We need broadband companies on our side, but they are not necessarily eager allies in the war on terrorism. It is easier to offer service to all, and let someone else worry about how the Internet may be used. During the implementation of the Patriot Act more than 10 years ago, some companies were actively hostile to cooperating with the federal government, not because they loved terrorists but because they did not want to be sued for helping the federal government. The legal liability under network neutrality rules today is much more certain than it was 10 years.
The Internet can be employed to attack terrorists, but the results so far have been limited. The French government and other governments have the power to block web sites. Large content companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft--but not ISPs covered by network neutrality-- have agreed to block some forms terrorist images and websites. Results from both government and content companies have been limited.
A better approach would be to allow consumer preferences and competitive market forces for ISPs to fight against terrorism. In Israel, an ISP Internet Rimon provides filtering technology to block indecent images. A similar approach could be used in the United States to block terrorism. Different ISPs could compete on the basis of their degree of “anti-terrorist” efforts. Many individuals would be attracted to an anti-terrorist ISP. Some state and local governments might mandate purchase of such services by government institutions.
Anti-terrorist ISPs could block known terrorist material and information, coordinate with law enforcement officials to block or to limit access to known or suspected terrorists. Anti-terrorist ISPs could slow access to sites that host videos on techniques to make explosives. Under network neutrality, all of these steps are illegal. Anti-terrorist ISPs cannot exist with network neutrality.
While some major ISPs might not be interested in having an anti-terrorist campaign, all would likely be willing to resell their service to a third party with practically any marketing approach, including anti-terrorist. Allowing the market forces associated with law-abiding individuals to use the Internet to attack terrorists and their organizations would not entirely stop terrorism. But terrorism would become more costly and difficult to execute. And, for a change, terrorist organizations would be on the defense on the Internet rather than on the offense.
Some corporate executives claim universal agreement on network neutrality principles of no blocking, no slowing of traffic, and no paid prioritization of traffic. These executives are wrong. Network neutrality principles unwittingly shield terrorists. Just ask the families of victims of terrorist attacks in Manchester.
