US bill requiring carriers to report 'terror' criticized

A coalition including civil liberties and human rights activists urged US lawmakers Tuesday to reject a bill that would require Internet companies to report signs of "terrorist activity" on their networks.

More than 30 organizations endorsed an open letter urging the Senate to reject the measure included in an intelligence authorization act which cleared a committee and had been on track for Senate passage without debate.

"Turning Internet companies into informants for the government flies in the face of individuals' fundamental right to privacy," said Emma Llanso, at the Center for Democracy & Technology, one of the groups leading the opposition.

"People who know their online service providers are required to turn over a broad category of communications and 'activity' to the government will face a serious chilling effect on their willingness to access information and speak their minds online."

The groups said the Senate was set to consider passage by unanimous consent, or without debate, before Senator Ron Wyden objected, temporarily blocking the bill.

They noted that the reporting provision was added during closed proceedings of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and would require social media platforms, telecom providers, cloud services and websites to provide authorities with their users' personal information and communications content if terrorist activity was suspected.

"Unfortunately, this provision would create strong incentives for providers to overreport on the activity and communications of their users in order to avoid violating the law," the letter said.

"This provision risks bringing wholly innocent people under the scrutiny of the US government in a procedure that includes no limits on the use of the reported information and no safeguards against abuse."

Signatories of the letter include the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, Consumer Federation of America and the Software & Information Industry Association.

Wyden, in blocking the bill, said it had "a flawed provision that would require companies like Twitter and Facebook to make judgments about when users' speech constitutes 'terrorist activity.'"

Markham Erickson of the law firm Steptoe and Johnson said in a blog post that the provision could "serve as a global template for other countries to impose reporting requirements for activities those jurisdictions deem unlawful."

Explore further

Senator objects to anti-terrorism rules for online sites

© 2015 AFP

Citation: US bill requiring carriers to report 'terror' criticized (2015, August 4) retrieved 21 August 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 04, 2015
People who know their online service providers are required to turn over a broad category of communications and 'activity' to the government will face a serious chilling effect on their willingness to access information and speak their minds online.


You have nothing to fear if you aren't planning a crime.

In this modern age of terrorists both foreign and domestic, we need both Big Brother and Big Sister if we are to prevail and maintain a peaceful, thriving civilization.

Patrick Henry was wrong, people.

Your civil liberties mean nothing if some Muslim or a white supremacist, or the Unabomber 2.0 can just kill you relatively effortlessly with a bomb or a hand gun.

Your civil liberties mean nothing when you are lying in a coffin because some Joker wannabe runs into a theatre and shoots the place up, or some Tsarnaevs bomb your favorite sporting event.

Life without liberty would suck, but liberty without life is totally useless.

Aug 04, 2015
@ Returnering-Skippy.

You know the doctors up in Mandeville could be able to use the interweb to check on you too don't you? The last couple of times they got reports on you about how your mental conditions didn't turn out so good for you.

Aug 04, 2015
I wouldn't know. I've never been to Mandeville.

Aug 04, 2015
Returners - you ignore the fact that politicians may decide to punish their political enemies for opposing them. You've not committed a crime, but that won't stop many politicians from deciding to send in the government to deal with you, as history has shown.

Note that speech, or sending communications over the internet, isn't terrorist activity that harms people. Using guns, bombs, and other weapons against people or their property would be a necessary prerequisite to determining if someone is engaging in terrorism (as it might just be theft, harassment, revenge or some other illegal activity). I'll add, there isn't a single example of government stopping a terrorist act thanks to their ability to see all our communications.

The way these laws might be written could very well make law enforcement officials who discuss via email how terrorists might engage in terrorism, guilty of terrorist communications.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more