Social media firms failed to report terror
Former counter-terrorism chief says the tech giants never alerted his officers to suspicious information
Social media firms failed to alert police to any suspicious terrorist activity on their platforms for four years, Sir Mark Rowley, the UK’S former head of counter-terrorism has said. Sir Mark said their failure to pass on information had been “wholly irresponsible”.
SOCIAL media firms failed to alert police to any suspicious terrorist activity on their platforms for four years, the UK’S former head of counter-terrorism reveals today, as he demands they face financial penalties.
Sir Mark Rowley, who headed Britain’s anti-terror police until earlier this year, said their failure to pass on information had been “wholly irresponsible” and put lives at risk.
Sir Mark oversaw police investigations into all recent major terror attacks, including the Manchester Arena bombing that claimed 22 lives, the Westminster Bridge attack in which Pc Keith Palmer was stabbed to death by terrorist Khalid Masood, and the London Bridge attack in which eight people died.
Writing for The Daily Telegraph today, Sir Mark says: “In nearly four years leading police counter-terrorism efforts, I saw zero proactive reports of suspicious behaviour to us by any of these companies. This is irresponsible.
“When a social media firm finds someone sharing the most gruesome terrorism material or bomb-making instructions and then cancels their account, they do not tell the police.
“This makes the work of police and MI5 more difficult and endangers the public’s safety.”
Sir Mark said his time coincided with the rise of Isil which, unlike alqaeda or the IRA, operated as an “open-source terror organisation” – which he referred to as a “cult” – that radicalised supporters through propaganda on the internet, including via social media.
He said the tech and social media companies had been “too late and too slow” in responding to this new threat, which was why he believed it would take a combination of “regulation and financial sanctions, as well as persuasion, to put the public interest at the centre of these companies’ policies”.
He claimed they had failed to act previously because of their “brutal commercial focus aimed at cashing in on our attention”.
Sir Mark cited as an example their use of monetising algorithms that drove social media users to the most “extreme” material rather than the most truthful or accurate.
He said: “Experimenting on Google, I was shocked to find the top result in a search for ‘UK Muslim spokesman’ was the Wikipedia entry of the convicted extremist Anjem Choudary.”
Sir Mark said the firms were now working hard to remove inappropriate content but only after a public outcry and loss of advertising revenues.
Yet they were still refusing many police requests to take down material, partly because they worked in line with the more permissive US freedom of speech laws.
These companies should no longer be allowed to claim no responsibility for their content, he said.
“We need to look seriously at regulation that holds companies to UK standards for content, requires suspicious activity reporting and perhaps enables an ethical code of practice for algorithms.”
Sir Mark’s comments put further pressure on social media firms following last week’s report by the intelligence and security committee of MPS which called on businesses to pull adverts from tech firms that failed to remove terror or extremist material.
The Government is considering new laws to crack down on online harms from extremism to child abuse. A White Paper is expected next year.
It is time to challenge the social media and tech companies over their role in fuelling extremism. What I saw in the past decade as a police officer wrestling with issues such as paedophilia, organised crime and gang crime, and latterly running the national police counter terrorism network from New Scotland Yard, was of increasing concern. These firms curate information for our digestion, and do it with a brutal commercial focus aimed at cashing in on our attention. It will take regulation, financial sanctions and persuasion to put the public interest at the centre of their policies.
Today’s terrorism threat is wholly different from the early days of al-qaeda or the IRA. Those were secret networks of terror cells operating as invisibly as they could. Isil, however, is an open-source terror organisation which radicalises through propaganda spread on platforms such as social media. In 2014, I was the first to describe it as a “cult”. There have been many cases where vulnerable people have been drawn towards terror by violent online material wrapped in a warped theological cover. And we mustn’t forget that Right-wing terror groups and their extremist apologists are also using these tactics.
I identify three failures by tech companies, who have spent years trying to argue they had no responsibility for content and have begun, too late and too slowly, to confront these issues.
First, the failure to remove inappropriate content. The public outcry and a loss of advertising revenues has now led to these firms working hard to remove material. But there are still challenges, and there are many police requests to remove content which they don’t comply with. One issue is that these companies generally work to US freedom of speech laws, which have a more permissive interpretation of what is reasonable than UK law.
Second, in nearly four years leading police counter terrorism efforts, I saw zero proactive reports of suspicious behaviour to us by any of these companies. This is irresponsible. When a social media firm finds someone sharing the most gruesome terrorism material or bomb-making instructions and then cancels their account, they do not tell the police. This makes the work of police and MI5 more difficult and endangers the public’s safety.
Third, the algorithms that drive online searches are not transparent. I have heard experts describing how the algorithms are designed to monetise our attention and thus drive us to the most extreme material, not the most accurate. Experimenting on Google, I was shocked to find the top result in a search for “UK Muslim spokesman” was the Wikipedia entry of the convicted extremist Anjem Choudary. This problem has been recognised for some time, but the tech companies’ response to it has been inadequate.
What is to be done? Early in my career, banks were resisting their duty to tackle money laundering. Their arguments were spookily similar to those of the internet companies today. We move money around the world and cannot be expected to know what is dirty, they told us. A combination of persuasion and regulation (with sanctions and fines), matched by a culture change in banks, means that they now work commendably hard to support the police. They try to identify suspicious activity and report it.
Unfortunately, the tech sector is immature on such issues. Persuasion has made progress and these firms are increasingly helpful, but the change is not rapid enough, as the report by Parliament’s Intelligence and Security committee last week illustrates. We need to look at regulation that holds companies to UK standards for content, requires suspicious activity reporting, and perhaps enables an ethical code of practice for algorithms. The chancellor’s plan to consider a special tax for these companies could be used as leverage to get them to take action against vile extremist material.
Of course, the most determined terrorists will not be affected by such moves, but their ability to draw the vulnerable, angry and confused towards acts of terror will be greatly curtailed if the main supply lines of propaganda are disrupted.
Sir Mark Rowley is a fellow at RUSI, and a former Metropolitan Police assistant commissioner and UK lead for counter terrorism policing