Slashdot Mirror


Should Congress Force Social Media To Investigate Foreign Propaganda Trolls? (politico.com)

"I fought foreign propaganda for the FBI," writes a former special agent from its Counterintelligence Division. Now an associate dean at Yale Law School, he's warning that "the tools we had won't work anymore." An anonymous reader quotes Politico: The bureau is now faced with huge private companies, like Facebook and Twitter, which are ostensibly neutral and have no professional or ethical obligation to vet the material they distribute. Further, foreign intelligence service propaganda agents are no longer human operatives on American soil -- they are invisible "trolls," often operating from a foreign country and behind social media accounts that make them impossible for the FBI to approach directly. Or, in the case of so-called bots -- software programs designed to simulate humans -- they might not even be people at all... [S]ocial media platforms can reach an almost limitless audience, often within days or hours, more or less for free: Russia's Facebook ads alone reached between 23 million and 70 million viewers.

Without any direct way to investigate and identify the source of the private accounts that generate this "fake news," there's literally nothing the FBI can do to stop a propaganda operation that can occur on such a massive scale... But Congress could pass legislation that requires social media companies to cooperate with counterintelligence in the same ways they do with law enforcement. For example, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act requires telecommunications companies to design their digital networks in such a way that would permit wiretaps for criminal cases. Similarly, requiring social media platforms to develop ways to vet and authenticate foreign users and proactively report potential bots to the FBI would enable the FBI to identify perception management operations as they are occurring. In addition to monitoring these specific FIS-based accounts, the FBI could publicly expose the source of particular accounts, ads or news...

"At this point, we have no choice: It's clear that our current counterintelligence strategy hasn't caught up to the age of asymmetrical information warfare," the former counterintelligence agent concludes. "Until it does, we'll be silently allowing our freedoms to be manipulated...."

5 of 266 comments (clear)

  1. Define foreign propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    We all know where this is headed, classifying what we don't like as trolls and foreign propaganda, even if it doesn't fit the definition. The former happens here all the time.

  2. Meaningless and would lead to... by Sqreater · · Score: 4, Informative

    ..filtering such content. That means the FBI would get to pass on whether your comments constituted propaganda or not. Just a larger Southern Poverty Law Center list of unacceptable words, comments, sites, and blogs. Since everything expands despite good intentions, this would become oppressive of free speech rapidly. The goal is laudable, the actual result would be China.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  3. How is this any worse than domestic propaganda? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I see fake news on TV all the time. The worst of the stories get retracted -- eventually. The worst fakers get fired or reassigned (Dan Rather, Brian Williams, etc.) But there is a steady stream of anonymously sourced stories, presented as "news", only to magically disappear when it becomes obvious that somebody made it up.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer....
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    https://www.washingtonpost.com...
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/06...
    http://elections.huffingtonpos...

  4. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You do know that freedom of speech isn't an American exclusive, right?

    Talk about uncultured and untraveled. Try getting out of your little bubble and live somewhere else once in your life.

  5. Re:No by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

    It seems to me the American constitution says things about "inalienable" rights.

    Nope. That is the Declaration of Independence, which carries no force of law.