This week's documents will focus on EU counterterrorism strategy as well as delve deeper into two of the more common ideologies that drive radicalized violence.
Chime in with your thoughts on each new document throughout the week.
This week's documents will focus on EU counterterrorism strategy as well as delve deeper into two of the more common ideologies that drive radicalized violence.
Chime in with your thoughts on each new document throughout the week.
The concept that stood out to me the most was the use of new technologies and how they can contribute to the protection of public spaces if they are used in a well-defined, targeted and proportionate manner. Facial recognition software is a fast growing tool used to identify terrorists/ suspicious items in public spaces using AI softwares and reference databases of known terrorists.
China could take a particular note to the "well-defined, targeted, and proportionate manner" section of this concept. China has long used facial recognition software on its citizens, often with a massively broad scope. China has no public definition of what a terrorist is, and it can be assumed the CCP's private definition is not one used by the international community. China also does not use its facial recognition software in a targeted manner, yet there are no public documents outlining their use of the software so there is no way to know for sure. Chinese citizens have been detained or imprisoned for very simple things like government dissention, such as the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. The PRC also uses this tactic across its entire territory, falling short of the proportionate aspect of the EU INTCEN. The 1.5 million detainees in Xinjiang are most assuredly not all radical extremists. China has, and will continue to, receive international criticism for its AI and facial recognition programs until the CCP creates a clear, well-defined, and precise program for its facial recognition software.
The facial identification section of the document, page 4, stood out to me above the rest. I imagine that there will be some serious opposition to the use of technology such as facial recognition in the E.U. In the U.S. this is an idea that would certainly elicit some rather extreme responses if it were proposed to the public, and many of the questions would carry over to this situation in Europe, I imagine. "Who sees us?" "Whose hands does the information pass through?" "How will privacy be protected?" "Do you have the right?" In China, for example, facial recognition software has been in use for some time, particularly as part of enforcing China's social credit system - a form of blacklist dedicated to surveying and tracking the "social credit" (read: social desirability) of individuals and businesses. Certainly, the ought to be some public scrutiny as to how technology of such a nature will be applied and used, whether it be in Europe, North America, etc.
I read an article a week ago that dealt with the use of AI at borders, and your response reminds me of this. People had ethics concerns when it came to using AI at borders because people were afraid that they could be programmed to discriminate against certain groups. The AI also read both facial expressions and body language of the people at the borders to decide whether or not they should be allowed in the country. If the answer was inconclusive they would be sent to an actual officer to be further interviewed. China's facial software is used in a way that is detrimental to their society. It is used to suppress their people. There is a way that facial recognition could be used to help society.
You took the words out of my mouth...and I may I have the link to that article you reference? It would further solidify my views against AI, that it is not only unethical but also too incompetent for the task.
I am excited to be reading documents from the EU to see how they differ from the USA. It is very interesting to me seeing how the United States did not mention human rights very much in the piece that we read last week. This EU article mentions the fundamental rights of individuals multiple times within the first ten pages. I feel as though the EU tends to focus on human rights more than the United States does simply because they are more left leaning than we are. The ECtHR is constantly reviewing cases about human rights and making sure no one has their rights infringed upon. The very first sentences state that they want to protect "Democracy, rule of law, respect for fundamental rights in particular the right to privacy, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and the respect for diversity are the foundation of our Union." This is a good start to an article such as this because there are many instances when certain human rights are put second to stopping terrorists, or terrorism is used as an excuse to bypass laws. The European Union does a good job of making sure their citizens rights always come first.
I agree that the US counter-terrorism document we read last week failed to adequately apply human rights to the strategy, but I also feel this will significantly change with the Biden Administration. As we discussed, last week's document was intentionally political and there are visible signs of a shifting US stance on human rights. Biden's first call with Chinese President, Xi Jinping, highlighted the CCP's human rights abuses as a primary concern for US policy towards China. But I still agree, the US historically has not been as persistent in pursuing advancements in human rights as Europe. Hopefully Biden can usher in a new era of advancing human rights on behalf of the United States.
I love that you mentioned the human rights aspect to the EU document. I think it is very important to protect the rights of people when trying to combat a major problem like terrorism. Like you said, I think human rights are sometimes overlooked in order to achieve other goals.
Two parts caught my attention: regulation of terrorist content online and foreign terrorist fighters. Online radicalization is a global concern. I thought the proposal for a new Digital Services Act and requiring companies to be more responsive in preventing the dissemination of terrorist content on their platforms was very interesting. This debate over the responsibility of "big tech" has come to the forefront again with the recent January 6 storming of the Capitol.
There has also been a significant number of Russian foreign fighters in the Middle East region, especially in Syria. The mention was brief but I am curious to know what the EU will propose to address the foreign fighter problem. It is a very complex issue and will need coordination.
I like that you also took notice to regulating extremist content online. The big social media platforms in the US (Twitter, facebook, etc.) have for some time regulated foreign extremist groups ability to recruit on their platforms, but there is still much debate about domestic extremism. The first amendment does not give every citizen the ability to say whatever they wish; "fighting words" that construct a clear and present danger/ imminent lawless action are still prohibited under the SC ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). It will be interesting to see the debate unfold on whether extreme social media speech could present the criteria for fighting words.
I agree that it is important to focus on Digital Service. Especially in today's society, where this pandemic is keeping us all inside, it is important to stop the spread of extremism online. Terrorist content online is something that cannot be allowed. It is the duty of the EU to prevent this kind of false information and brainwashing to take place in their countries.
@Eric Bruckenstein
That statement is well and good, but the question that needs to be asked is: "to what degree are we willing to restrict civil liberties (such as the right to free speech) in order to ensure that 'brainwashing into terrorism' isn't taking place?" I'm sure that a great many citizens of the EU member states would find your last sentence a bit worrisome.
I was intrigued by the strategy's mention of the need for collaboration among cities, the Radicalization Awareness Network, and the "EU Cities Against Radicalization."
When looking at broad strategy documents such as this one, it is easy to forget that though federal and supranational governments may compose top-down guidelines and solutions to dealing with problems, much of the work that is done to improve a community is done through bottom-up initiatives.
I appreciate that the EU sees the need to make sure young people feel included and socially healthy. Social isolation and a longing for fraternity are among the chief factors that lead to radicalization. The importance of giving young people opportunities and a sense of belonging in their communities cannot be overstated.
I also like how the Commission acknowledges that this social isolation can be real or perceived, highlighting just how important the day-to-day experiences of all members of a community are.
The section of the document that most stood out to me was page four, speaking about facial recognition technology. The idea of using facial recognition technology to prevent anti-state action is not a new one, with China having used it for years as a part of their "social credit" system; I'm sure that attempts to implement it in Europe would be met with stiff resistance out of fear that it would be used in the same way by faceless bureaucrats.
The thing that caught my eye the most is countering extremist ideologies online. Using social media outlets is a big part of the terrorist organizations' agenda. The reason for this is that their ideology reaches more people and therefore the chances of radicalisation increases. By regulating online content, it decreases their ability to reach people that are at risk of radicalization. Also, the facial recognition technology seems interesting, and it makes me wonder how effective it can be.
Counterterrorism Agenda of the EU: Part I Questions that stood out to me:
- What is the difference between risk assessment and threat assessment in the Anticipate phase?
- According to footnote 11, does "legal framework sets out performance standards for detection equipment. This framework only applies to aviation security and not, for example, for detection equipment used to protect other public spaces" mean that aviation detection ensures best quality? Usually the private sector is more innovative though, so if it's not the best quality, then expanding measures beyond the aviation sector to other detection technologies would probably mean that they just provide a more coordinated and comprehensive minimum limit these technologies would have to meet.
- In terms of drone regulation needing to register with the government, my question would be if visitors to the EU would also need to do so if they bring their drones with them?
- On the section regarding prisons and the need for risk assessment and rehabilitation of inmates does bear to mind whether there would be similar ghost skins (not necessarily white supremacists) in the EU for law enforcement to look out for. After all, the FBI had to find ways to preclude them from entering law enforcement.
I also thought it was interesting that with each new technology that comes out, we normally think of what other uses they can have spillover effects with various adaptations, but that also means security experts, policymakers, and law enforcement would have to think of these applications ahead of the curve before anyone else (lest terrorists uses them for nefarious purposes).
I also am convinced that Europe continues to follow a more humane-approach towards keeping the comforts of its citizens in mind, specifically with balance of privacy, prisoner rehabilitation and reintegration, and respect towards not degrading human rights here, along with expanding hate speech to EU-level crimes. However, I am curious on how that initiative on page 7 would fare in some troubled states like Hungary and Poland (especially when they are known for being the worst EU states in treatment towards sexuality and women's rights with abortion).
East Asia connections:
Like the EU in prioritizing cybersecurity (and pretty much every document we've had so far), South Korea and the US have been strengthening it and intelligence as well. This is based off of Saunders' "The Rebalance to Asia: U.S.-China Relations and Regional Security" paper published in 2013.
The EU wants to upgrade its Artificial Intelligence systems: According to Joseph Nye's paper in 2020, China had also been developing their Artificial Intelligence capability too. Coupling that with China's Golden Shield Project that had been first initiated in late 1990s with successfully completed phases since then for an all-encompassing surveillance network that combined several population databases together and street cameras, perhaps China has already pulled ahead of the EU in terms of "terrorism prevention" (which for China is really just an excuse for dispelling dissent before they can really arise in collective action organizing). This is based on "To Repress or to Co-opt? Authoritarian Control in the Age of Digital Surveillance" paper by Xu Xu in 2020. RED-Alert had reminded me of China's monitoring system.
Wanting to create reliable counter-measure technologies against malicious drones had also reminded me of China trying to create more anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) technologies against the US military in the South China Sea (Nye's paper in 2020).
"Adoption by the European Parliament and the Council is therefore a matter of urgency" to ensure swift removal of content also makes me think China would not necessarily have this problem due to the unitary top-down nature of the policymaking. This further reinforces my belief that China may be ahead of the curve in terms of regulation for any bad actors, especially when their internal security budget outweighs their military one.
The EU call for transparency for international partners probably would not matter so much with China in a geographical proximity sense, but either way China has already deliberately obscured its counterterrorism practices in the Xinjiang region by not letting tourists see authentic Uyghur neighborhoods (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ3fG-tnzCk).
"Promoting inclusion and providing opportunities for young people at risk through education" has a sort of deleterious take with China and its "re-education camps".
Having the EU collaborate with civil society including faith groups also reminded me of how China regulates mosques and only approves state-sanctioned ones (source: that YouTube link).
With this document of the European Union on counterterrorism made me wonder if South American or Latin American countries had a union. In fact, they do! It’s called the Union of South American Nations. I was researching to see if the UNASUR had a counterterrorism agenda. I couldn’t find it however “Unasur has become the preferred scenario for political dialogue and consensus in South America. In the process of strengthening the bilateral relations of Colombia with the region, the strategy to increase the nation’s proactive participation in this forum has fostered the creation of a new way in which our country relates to the others”.
I feel like most continents come together to work on issues that affect all of them. It is very important to work on diplomacy and to work together with surrounding nations to promote peace. Especially now when tensions are rising around the world, I find it extremely important for nations to work together to protect their citizens.
@Jasmine McGee It is true that UNASUR was inspired by the European Union. However, while the former is mostly an intergovernmental organization, the latter is largely what political scientists call a supranational entity. The EU has evolved into more than a simple collection of European governments agreeing to work together and has very rich become its own animal. EU member countries almost have more in common with states within the US than they do countries in, say, the UN.
Also, it appears that as of 2019, most members of UNASUR have withdrawn, making it a largely defunct organization.
https://unasur.einnews.com/article/482334279?lcf=enheiqHGuCmHLztKOJysog%3D%3D
It would be interesting to see how an EU-style market would do in SA. This sounds like a great tool to combat terrorism and its financing networks in the region, but since most members have withdrawn it is largely obsolete. Could South America create a better-functioning institution, or are there too many political barriers creating too many costs for membership?
I enjoyed how on page 20, the document touches on encrypted information. I feel like this is a very important part in securing our rights to privacy and data protection. It can also be used in a negative way. Many terrorist groups are able to message each other information that can be detrimental to many civilians through encrypted messaging. This causes an interesting dilemma. The European Union needs to respect the rights of its citizens while also stopping and intercepting potentially harmful messages from being sent. The encryption is obviously put in place for privacy reasons, so unencrypting them would be a violation of privacy rights. The EU is looking for a lawful way to counter terrorism plans that are sent using encryption. I think that this is an especially interesting topic that will require some serious thought. Many people look at major human rights atrocities and tend to overlook the smaller issues like privacy. It is important to protect every human's inalienable rights, no matter how small. People encrypt information because they don't want it to be easily accessible. Is it okay for the government to intercept messages they think could be harmful? I feel like this could very quickly lead to an abuse of power by government officials.
I really appreciate that you brought up the individual right to privacy regarding encrypted messages. My family in China would only communicate through WhatsApp (before the encryption was leaked) because they did not want the PRC invading their privacy. China can take monitoring peoples messages/ social media posts online a bit far. This is especially true in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and Tibet; any message not favorable to the CCP can be flagged as a national security/ terrorist threat. They do not have individual rights to privacy for this reason, so anything you say can be monitored and/or censored. I think Chinese culture and society would greatly benefit from an individual right to privacy.
While I could not find anything to relate to my specialty, I took a particular notice to the document's suggestion to combat the financing networks that provide terrorist organizations resources to carry out attacks. I think the Financial Intelligence Units (FIU) would be vital to stemming terrorist attacks globally. If they can't fund the operation, then terrorist attacks would surely become more and more rare. Cross-border access to suspicious bank accounts could also help the FIU's combat foreign terrorist financing. As Eric mentioned above, I believe an individual right to privacy should always be on policymakers minds. It is very easy to go down the wrong path in the name of combating extremism/ terrorism.
I agree that if there were a way to economically cripple the terrorist organizations, it would greatly decrease the amount of attacks that we see. It would also cause the ones that do happen to be on a much smaller scale. I think one of the largest issues that we see today is state sponsored terrorism. The fact that there are nations that are paying both terrorists and their families makes it impossible to ever fully stop the funding of these groups. It is sad to see that there are nations that support the harming of innocent people due to their beliefs. I believe that on top of having FIUs countries should also take a much harder stance on nations that believe they can sponsor terrorism, I cannot imagine the threat disappearing without taking this step.
We've been talking about big comprehensive ways to combat terrorism and discourage radicalization, such as regulating social media, changing the culture of prisons, and making young people feel included in society.
All that is important, but smaller and more utilitarian actions are often just as important, and I noticed some of these in today's reading.
In the section titled "Denying terrorists the means to attack," the document mentions the intent to adopt a system for exchange of information under the Firearms Directive, which would stop persons who have been denied firearm authorization in one member state from acquiring a similar permit in another. The section also includes plans for stemming the traffic of illegal firearms and restricting access to materials that could be used for explosives or biological weapons.
Large-scale societal reforms are crucial for counterterrorism in the long-run, but restricting the opportunity-giving tools of violence is an effective tactic in the short term.
In your third body, I wonder how cultural views will impact the exchange of information. For democratic, collectivist societies, I think that there will be more eagerness to share this information with other states. For individualistic societies, I don't think there will be an equal amount of data shared with other societies to combat terrorism.
As I read your and others responses, I appreciate that we are all able to expound upon how these rules could combat the proliferation of terrorism, but I cannot help but see suggestions such as the Firearms Directive as easily politically-weaponized and capable of doing far more social harm than good.
Facial recognition will be the next thing when it comes to catching criminals and being able to develop such technologies that can understand how someone ages is around the corner. We call this DEFENSE INNOVAITON. Using facial recognition here in the US would be valuable, as seen with the FBI, they simply post pictures up and hope for the public to do some of the work. Whereas, if you could cut out the people and rely a little more on technology to do the work, it would be a win for the FBI. Nevertheless, I saw encrypted data through companies which is also a smart idea. I would like to talk about the history of terrorism though the EU to better understand why such rules were implemented. The IRA has always set up bombings in Ireland and has been pushed back to Northern Ireland over the years, however there is always a threat of an insurgent putting a bomb in a garbage can or underneath a car to create havoc. Border security was heightened at the time of the Paris Bombing. The document highlights how "It is estimated that 50 000 persons have travelled to Syria and Iraq to join jihadist groups, including 5 000 individuals from the EU, of which around one third are still located in the area." which shows the importance of having AI to help police officers detecting if someone is wanted or a terrorist in facial recognition. The prevention and mitigation techniques are like our procedures in the United States as well from what I have read. Religion was also discussed and how people may be targeted more often; as seen with the Christchurch, New Zealand attack, so some policies were made to protect those in places of worship as seen on page 12 “foster cooperation between the different faith communities and the relevant national authorities as they exchange experiences. As from 2021, the Commission aims to support projects that enhance the physical protection of places of worship in close coordination with Member States”. This leads us to how terrorists attack people through means of firearms, where the EU laid out a plan to “the Commission will adopt an implementing regulation under the Firearms Directive, establishing a system for exchange of information amongst Member States on refusals to grant authorizations for acquiring a firearm” which means if denied in one state that individual will be denied in other participating states. Next on the list are bombs, I mentioned bombs above, but bombs are a generic term with a broad audience. There are several types of bombs used and the restriction of allowing people to obtain specific chemicals would be implemented. The four types of bombs are “chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear” which can wreak havoc in small locations. I think this document did a fine job in reviewing past events in history to make well decisive defense plans for possible future events.
I touched on this yesterday, but the phenomenon of foreign fighters is a major problem, especially in Syria. When foreign fighters return to their home country, it is very difficult to identify them or planned attack, because they can more easily blend into domestic society. I agree with you that AI facial recognition will be a major development, and it could help prevent domestic attacks by returned foreign fighters.
I thought it was very interesting that the EU Counter-Terrorism agenda included the need for international cooperation with those outside the EU across all four pillars (point 5). The EU is already a large group of countries, yet this acknowledges that all of their combined power still wouldn't be enough to stop terrorism. The document highlighted the Southern Neighborhood (Northern Africa) and the Western Balkans which are in close proximity. However, it also mentioned the Horn of Africa, the Sahel region, and parts of Asia all of which are not neighboring the EU. This shows that the threat of terror is a truly global problem and must have a global solution. One country affects others, no matter how far away.
@Amanda Knox I agree about terrorism being a global problem and requiring a global solution. This relates to a previous article about good pathways to combatting terrorism and one of the pathways requiring some sort of global consensus on how to treat terrorists and those suspected of terrorism. The tricky thing about a global solution, I believe, would be a country’s individual history, public opinion/attitudes toward terrorism that would figure into how they deal with terrorism. For instance, a country who has seldom had threats of terrorism may respond differently or feel differently than a country who has had a countless number of terrorist attacks? For example, ‘Italian Exceptionalism’ has drawn increased attention in terms of terrorism due to its relatively low number of terrorist threats. Italy has taken proactive action in preventing threats but some are thinking Italy may be one of the next targets in Europe. Here’s an article about it: https://globalriskinsights.com/2021/01/jihadist-terrorism-italy-the-next-target/
I agree with you Amanda. I think it is important to benefit from the international partners' information on certain people hoping to prevent an attack.
That has been a common theme throughout all of our documents, Amanda! Good catch!
In this selection of the document, I did not really see a direct connection to my specialty, but it was still a highly interesting read. I expected further restrictions on firearms rights and the intent to work closely with Interpol, but found myself intrigued by the concept of the Financial Intelligence Units, which I believe are a great idea that could be applied on an even broader scale in order to stem terrorism by cutting off its finances. Imagine if ISIS has been unable to profit from the sale of oil in the mid-2010s? They would not be/have been nearly as much of a threat.
Pages 10-24 left me with questions today.
1.) Information Technology is a field that currently lacks diversity. There have been cases where facial recognition, AI, and other tech tools have shown a bias to people with darker skin tones. How does the technology created to combat terrorism remove this bias?
2.) How will these policies directed towards third countries impact travel and immigration?
3.) Will the development of IT improve the infrastructure of important cities combatting terrorism?
4.) Will these policies impact domestic terrorists as well?
While I understand the importance of increased surveillance in counterterrorism, I'm seeing a pattern of privacy concerns. The article notes that EU citizens will have safeguards to ensure privacy, but what about non-citizens/migrants? I like how this article section is similar to the US strategy on counterterrorism. Their views on re-integration for extremists are insightful, as both the US and the EU are now wanting to create effective reintegration programs.
With Latin American immigration, facial recognition could potentially be used to mitigate the migrant crisis. With individuals disappearing along migrant routes, this technology would reveal when/where they were last seen.
@Brea Purdie You’ve raised some good questions. As I alluded to in my post, privacy concerns are definitely going to be one of the trickiest parts of monitoring online activity in terms of terrorism. I also think question 3 is interesting. Since another big topic the article touched on was security and critical infrastructure in important cities combatting terrorism. I think it would be interesting and useful to see the connection between IT improvements and critical infrastructure in important cities.
You made some good points. I agree with you on the privacy aspect and I think some people might be against it. Also, I really love your first question and it is a true issue and definitely have not thought about that.
I had never considered the idea of something akin to a Financial Intelligence Unit before, and I'm curious to see how administrative power over such a body would be dispersed. I think investigators having access to bank accounts at different levels would be useful for ensuring accountability from organizations, but may cause problems at the civilian level down the line. Again, I'm not too familiar with the attitude towards such ideas in Europe, but I can't imagine the access these FIUs may push for being overtly well received.
In part ll of the EU’s Counterterrorism Agenda, while it looks like the EU is taking good steps towards counterterrorism, two particular points stood out to me.
1. The Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP)- on page 19 of the document, it discusses the financial aspects of terrorist organizations and investigations into terrorist financing. It noted that the TFTP has “already generated significant intelligence that has helped investigate and detect terrorist plots and trace those behind them.” At the base of terrorism, financing is probably one of the single most important ways to prevent terrorist organizations from carrying out attacks. If their financing is cut off and made very difficult to get, then things like recruiting, resources needed to carry out attacks, etc. will be nearly impossible to do.
2. Equally important- Digital Services Act (pg. 10), and Evidence Digital Exchange System (eEDES). Any sort of digital monitoring in terms of currency/exchange, social media, and encrypted information are only going to grow in importance as more of our daily lives, work, currency, etc. moves more and more to digital platforms. For terrorist groups, the internet and social media is going to be a big tool to help these groups spread their messages and make it easier to recruit members. If digital services were more closely monitored in terms of this kind of activity, I think it would be very useful. However, I think it would get tricky while monitoring certain messages/ideologies/etc. that would be flagged or classified as potential terrorist activity, not to mention privacy rights. This doesn’t make combating terrorism any easier but if executed right, I think it could be very effective in shrinking the size of terrorist threats (cutting off financing and halting the means to spread info and recruit members).
On page 12, I was surprised to see the number of foreign fighters that traveled to Syria and Iraq to join terrorists. I wonder whether the EU's efforts to detect possible terrorists at the borders is going to work? In my mind, terrorists are smart and would do all they can to cover their real intentions and blend in. In addition, I like how the EU mentioned the protection of places of worship because I believe they are most at risk of being attacked since terrorists target others that do not follow the same religion.
Information exchange I believe is the best way to combat terrorism. The global analyzing of information about a suspected terrorist is beneficial. However, this raises the question of privacy? Is it just going to be for certain personnel or everyone?
This is a very good point Nadeen. Information exchange is valuable in combatting counterterrorism for all parties involved. However, I wonder if the EU will branch out of the region and do Information exchanges with at-risk countries, or whether it will stick with Western nations.
I was glad to see that the EU is taking cooperation with Southern Mediterranean states seriously. As @Nadeen Ghazy noted, information sharing agreements are key to combating terrorism and organized crime. And as the document notes, instability in any of these countries has the potential to directly impact European security.
I wish the document had gone slightly more in-depth about counter-terrorism partnerships in the Sahel. The instability in the Sahel is of prime concern for Europe, as it can fuel crime and terrorism in other nearby countries and could lead to a variety of issues for Europeans. I would be interested in what countries in the region were of particular concern for Europe, or if there were many in the area that the EU was pursuing partnerships with.