OTM#1- The Many Faucets of Radicalization

This week’s On the Media brought some light to a constant national concern- terrorism. What is our government doing to help fight terrorism, especially online? Recently, government officials traveled to Silicon Valley, the home of tech companies such as Apple and Facebook, to begin the making of an algorithm to detect signs of radicalization similar to a person’s credit score.

Georgia State Professor John Horgan, who studies terrorist behavior, is skeptical about the success of this algorithm.

“Radicalization is such a complex process… if there is one conclusion that has emerged from about 40 years of research is a story of diversity. We have a lot of different people becoming involved in terrorism in lots of different kinds of ways.”

I agree with Horgan and the fact that radicalism is hard to reduce and define in order to be properly measured and detected especially on the internet (it’s not small to say the least). What I think is radical will be different than your definition. What is appropriate behavior to me might be offensive to you. Even Karen Greenberg of Fordham University School of Law said in the segment “Detecting Terrorism Online Raises Legal Questions” that there is a wide range of legal opinion on what can be deemed as terrorism. I think the legal system will have a variety of interpretations of probable cause for criminal activity and in dictating the distribution of warrants.

I appreciate national security and tech companies taking action to protect our nation and making us feel safe as possible. In my mind, I’m paranoid and I always think that terrorists are always one step ahead. Maybe I give terrorists the benefit of the doubt but, when they find out we have an algorithm, they’ll stop searching online or take more caution in order to beat the system. Then what is privacy anymore? Everyone is under a microscope. We’ve probably already giving up this right to the government and I don’t mind as I’m sure many of us in the class probably think its minor price to pay, but I can see push back from others.

Also Horgan said, “Tracking people who have an interest in exploring radical sentiment but that will in no reliable way allowed you predict who is likely to become involved in terrorism. There is nothing wrong with being radical. There is nothing wrong with holding radical views and in some cases expressing radical views.” Many people have radical views, but don’t have any interest in being involved in terrorism. How do you differentiate who is a supporter and who is active? In his research, Horgan stated that some ISIS support begins and ends online with no intentions of actually engaging in terrorist activity. Would we be distracted and waste our time finding just supporters rather than the real active members? Safety first indeed.

I see pros and cons. With this algorithm, it’s a step in the right direction for our safety and hopefully a victory for America on our soil. I think it will detect a few and save grief for many communities. As far as major radical or terrorist personnel, I think its going to be tough to narrow down and detect.