THANK YOU NHS!
You are here
Public–Private Collaboration to Counter the Use of the Internet for Terrorist Purposes: What Can be Learnt from Efforts on Terrorist Financing?Florence Keen
Other Publications, 7 February 2019
Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies, The Global Research Network on Terrorism and Technology, AML/CTF, Tackling Extremism, Information, Technology, Terrorism
- Lawmakers developing a regulatory regime for communication service providers (CSPs) should engage with their counterparts involved in the response to terrorist financing to understand potential unintended consequences of this regime, including counterproductive incentives, risk displacement and other factors identified in this paper.
- Regulations should be developed with input from the CSP sector, to avoid counterproductive measures such as over-reporting, a tick-box approach to compliance, and discrimination against smaller entities that may have fewer resources to commit to regulatory compliance.
- As a complement to regulations, policymakers and CSPs should identify all areas in which public–private collaboration could strengthen the response to the terrorist use of online communication services (including but not limited to the removal of terrorist content).
- The various areas for collaboration should be articulated in a comprehensive strategy clarifying their role relative to overarching counterterrorism objectives and distinguishing between different threat actors.
- When developing and implementing collaborative models (including existing partnerships), public and private partners should consider the following factors: (1) legal and practical gateways for sharing information; (2) flexible membership; (3) transparency and accountability; (4) voluntary nature; (5) clear relationship with regulatory framework.
- Information sharing should initially focus on the sharing of common and emerging trends, best practices and redacted case studies, as opposed to sharing operational information. This will allow members from multiple jurisdictions to participate while ensuring that legal barriers to information sharing are not breached.
Florence Keen is a Research Analyst at RUSI’s Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies.
The author would like to thank all participants who shared their invaluable insights into the topic both in interviews and during the cross-sectoral workshop. She would also like to thank her former RUSI colleague Olivier Kraft, who was instrumental in delivering this project.
The views expressed in this publication are those of the author, and do not reflect the views of RUSI or any other institution.
TERMS & CONDITIONSThis document has been prepared by RUSI for informational purposes only (the “Permitted Purpose”). Whilst all reasonable care has been taken by RUSI to ensure the accuracy of material in this report (the “Information”), it has been obtained from open sources and RUSI makes no representations or warranties of any kind with respect to the Information.
You should not use, reproduce or rely on the Information for any purpose other than the Permitted Purpose. Any reliance you place on the Information is strictly at your own risk. If you intend to use the Information for any other purpose (including, without limitation, to commence legal proceedings, take steps or decline to take steps or otherwise deal with any named person or entity), you must first undertake and rely on your own independent research to verify the Information.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, RUSI shall not be liable for any loss or damage of any nature whether foreseeable or unforeseeable (including, without limitation, in defamation) arising from or in connection with the reproduction, reliance on or use of any of the Information by you or any third party. References to RUSI include its directors and employees.