Instead of Banning Firearms Why Don't We Restrict Internet Access?

[MT1]

The following is a lengthy read but it is an interesting perspective on the influence of the internet on "lone wolf" incidents. I am not advocating restriction of internet access but this is an example of a recurring theme. That theme is the direct correlation that has been drawn between active shooters and their internet use. Past cases have shown that shooters are heavily influenced by groups such as ISIS, hate groups, conspiracy theorists, etc... Is anything done about the influence of the internet by groups that want to advocate harm? No. Instead we try to limit access to weapons. After every mass shooting we see the cries for gun control but nothing else. If anyone wants to see what impact gun control has on mass killings I encourage them to Google word combos like "mass knife attacks". After reading a few of the stories about knife/hammer/cleaver attacks claimed the lives of 29-50 at a time maybe folks will understand that those intent on killing will find a way.

The Role of the Internet

The Internet features heavily in the influence on lone-actor terrorism. It is considered by some to be a driver of the threat, by others as an accelerator, and by some commentators as a surrogate community – a social environment in which lone actors feel they belong. A substantial body of the literature further concludes that given the prevalence of internet activity as a significant feature in lone-actor cases, it also offers a vehicle through which to detect them. Simon rather grandly concludes that we are seeing ‘waves of terrorism’ with lone-actor terrorism as the newest expression of the most recent wave –‘the technological wave’ in which the ‘Internet is
the [driving] energy.’

Although it has not yet been empirically proven, it appears that youth-dominated internetsites are increasingly becoming the favored medium through which terrorist and radical Islamist groups recruit new members and followers – a trend epitomized and accentuated by Daesh’s active online campaigns. The Internet is frequently described in the media as the main interface between terrorist groups and individuals vulnerable to radicalization. The volume of potential viewers and the ability to disseminate extremist material at an alarmingly fast rate makes the medium an extremely effective tool for ideological dissemination. This is of particular
significance in relation to lone actors, who may become radicalized through such material and interaction without establishing direct links to a specific group. ‘Terrorist groups have learned how to appeal to potential lone wolves, to attract and seduce them, to train and teach them and finally to launch them on their attacks – all by using online communication, from forums and chat rooms to Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.

The rapid rise of Daesh has dramatically underscored the potential impact of social media in this area. The use of Twitter and other social-media platforms by the group and its supporters has been highly effective in disseminating its message. Glynn Cosker, quoting a Joint Intelligence bulletin issued by the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), warns that ‘ISIS-inspired individuals may attempt to carry out lone wolf operations to kill police, government officials and “media figures”’. An NBC News report also cites a US official who claims that ‘Given [Daesh’s] skilled use of social media, these threats to inspire lone wolves produce a bit more urgency for intelligence and law enforcement officials’. Officers from the UK Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit have acknowledged that they are up against groups which are using the Internet to disseminate propaganda quickly and slickly. In 2013 the unit instigated the removal of more than 45,000 pieces of material. Last year the UN’s Counter- Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate warned that ‘the rapid pace of technological progress facilitated global communication, travel and access to information. This provided fertile ground for the recruitment of lone actors across vast distances and the dissemination of, and identification with, global causes. These factors also presented particular challenges for judicial authorities. Although the activity is often public, the international nature of the Internet makes it very difficult for agencies to identify, locate and pursue individual users. In relation to understanding the lone-actor phenomenon, it remains unclear the degree to which the Internet encourages violent action, or alternatively is used by actors to seek out justification for their actions. Some commentators have categorized the Internet as providing a surrogate community or ‘support structure’, while Gabriel Weimann goes further, considering this interaction sufficient to suggest that ‘lone wolves are not really alone’.

The Internet can also be seen as playing a more tangible or practical supportive role. Jason-Leigh Striegher concluded that it provides lone actors with ‘arms and targets’, while other authors have suggested this can be interpreted more broadly; the Danish Security and Intelligence Service has stated that the role is also ideological, while Canada’s Integrated Threat Assessment Centre (ITAC) considers it to provide ‘ideological motivation, encouragement, justification, target information, and instruction on techniques. And all in an anonymous environment.’ This more comprehensive interpretation is supported by Weimann’s specific study of online radicalization and lone actors. Some of the tactical support offered by the Internet is essentially of a copycat nature: the Internet facilitates communication and subsequent emulation. Spaaij highlights that David Copeland
(the far-right London bomber who, in 1999, left explosive devices in Brixton, Brick Lane and a pub in Soho) was inspired by Eric Rudolph’s lone-actor bombing at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games, while Bakker and de Graaf note that Breivik specifically transmitted his ideas online so others would see them. As Nesser states: ‘Terrorism research has solidly documented that terrorists tend to emulate each other’s operational methods. Globalisation and Internet-based mass media and social media rate and intensify such processes.’ The Internet also offers a means of training for potential lone actors. There are a multitude of instructional texts in circulation along with a growing number of videos, offering guidance on using weapons, mixing poisons or constructing explosive devices. Weimann highlights the use of chat rooms or forums as particularly effective sites for the dissemination of tactical advice. ‘Jihadist message boards and chat rooms have been known to have “experts” directly answer questions about how to mix poisons for chemical attacks, how to ambush soldiers, how to
carry out suicide attacks and how to hack into computer systems’. Weimann further suggests that the primary purpose for forums such as Qalah, Al-Shamikh, Majahden, and Al-Faloja, are seemingly to persuade prospective members to join groups or carry out attacks alone. However, not all authors agree regarding the success of the Internet as a training tool. Stratfor highlights the low quality of the tactical information that is transmitted online: ‘although radical web sites and online training magazines provide written instruction in surveillance, mastering the complex and subtle set of skills required to be a good surveillance operative takes a great
deal of training and practical experience.’ Michael Kenny explains this by separating the skills required into two distinct elements: first, ‘techne’ – abstract technical knowledge which instructions and manuals can provide; and second, ‘metis’ – intuitive, practical knowledge that they cannot. These conclusions are reflected in the research of Jytte Klausen et al that examined four case studies of extensive online jihadi networks with substantial links to the US.79 Their conclusion was that the greatest threat to domestic security remains from those who have undergone some form of physical training, whether with a terrorist group or through legitimate means such as military service. This skeptical analysis feeds into an issue that permeates the literature: the degree to which things can be completely ascribed to the Internet. The authors of the FOI’s report emphasis that ‘Internet-based recruitment to terrorists groups is ... likely to grow in significance, although recruitment to terror organizations are [sic] more often dependent also on offline networks.’ The implication is that the Internet is not the only explanation for radicalization, a point which Nesser backs using a historical view: ‘while there is evidence that many lone terrorists have radicalized online, explanations emphasizing the Internet and social changes do not account for historical patterns of single actor terrorism (such as the 19th century anarchists).’ The principal deficiency in this area of the literature is the absence of empirical evidence about how lone actors have used the Internet and, crucially, how this might differ from use by networked terrorists. Charlie Edwards and Luke Gribbon conducted some interesting work using the hard drives of individual convicted terrorists to understand the role of the Internet in radicalization, but their research did not focus on lone actors specifically. Nevertheless, the work showed that the link between online and offline activity was clearer than was often suggested. Many commentators have traditionally viewed online activity as an independent, driving factor in radicalization, requiring no offline counterpart. In fact, as the research showed, there was little evidence that radicalization took place in isolation in front of a computer screen; instead, it involved the interplay of the individual’s online activity with his activity offline. Given the anecdotal nature of the reporting and the focus on individual case studies, it is clear that this aspect of lone-actor terrorism is one that has not yet been effectively tackled, at least in an academic or public format.

[G19]

You may get what you ask for (although I know you were being facetious) ….

The Obama administration is already laying the groundwork for this with the FCC changes to Title II of the telecommunications act. They want to treat internet service providers as a regulated industry which will ultimately set them down the road to be able to federally regulate internet content.

[streaker69]

According to the feds, the internet is a right and it should be freely given to those that are disadvantaged.

I don't see them handing out guns to the disadvantaged, well, except the ones that went to Mexico.

[MT1]

You may get what you ask for (although I know you were being facetious) ….

The Obama administration is already laying the groundwork for this with the FCC changes to Title II of the telecommunications act. They want to treat internet service providers as a regulated industry which will ultimately set them down the road to be able to federally regulate internet content.

I'm not asking for it. Note the start of the 2nd sentence, "I am not advocating restriction of internet access".

The point I'm trying to make is no matter what the cause, the left will only blame guns.

[G19]

I'm not asking for it. Note the start of the 2nd sentence, "I am not advocating restriction of internet access".

I got you, that's why I said I know you are being facetious.

[90volts]

I got you, that's why I said I know you are being facetious.

fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs/Submit
adjective
treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.
synonyms: flippant, flip, glib, frivolous, tongue-in-cheek, ironic, sardonic, joking, jokey, jocular, playful, sportive, teasing, mischievous

[God's Country]

It's about damn time.

I sent this to Senator Toomey:


The founding fathers could never had anticipated the internet and the manner in which we now communicate. The first amendment was never intended to allow broad, unfettered speech across the continents in fractions of seconds. The weapon of words has become at least as dangerous to susceptible minds as that of the easily obtained machine guns with 100 round clips.

I fully support background checks on all individuals to see if they have ever been accused or convicted of thought crime or have mental issues before allowing access to strictly controlled and government approved free speech. No right is absolute, and I have the right to not be frightened by words or images.