Not really accurate, it was quoted from an article detailling what the Police would need (according to them) not what the government is planning to do.
President Obama will also “urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice” in the US. Presumably that means things like Tor and encryption.
Haven’t all the recent ISIS events used Facebook to disseminate information?
Speaking of that, it’s interesting that one of the San Bernardino shooters pledged allegiance to ISIS on Facebook, and yet was not on a watchlist.
Makes you wonder who the NSA/CIA/[insert three-letter acronym] is really after.
She made the post under a fake name, and posted only shortly before carrying out the attack. There may have been other technological means by which she could reasonably be expected to have been caught beforehand, but given the information currently available it doesn’t seem that Facebook fits that bill.
Edit: Here’s a source for all of that: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-bernardino-shooting-tashfeen-malik-allegiance-isis/
Put everyone on a watchlist: people complain.
Don’t put everyone on a watchlist: people complain.
Do you really want politicians demanding to know why this post wasn’t flagged and what’s going to be done to make sure all future posts do get flagged?
It may not be accurate to characterize this as an “ISIS event.” The shooters were acting on their own in support of ISIS, and not at the behest of ISIS operatives (this is all based on currently known information. It may turn out that they were directly ordered by ISIS operatives to carry out the attack, but that doesn’t currently appear to be the case). ISIS has adopted the tactic of encouraging individuals not directly affiliated with them to carry out these sorts of attacks, but the attacks are not the work of ISIS directly.
I do still think ISIS is culpable for the attacks, and that it is quite clear the attackers were supporters of ISIS acting based on the general encouragement and directions of ISIS' philosophy, but I also think it’s important to make clear that these individuals were indirectly radicalized people acting on their own, not members of the organization acting based on orders.
This is all semantics, I think. One could rightfully argue that in a decentralized terrorist organization, someone who materially supports ISIS, or acts on its behalf, is effectively ISIS.
One could argue that, but not very usefully, I don’t think. In that case, “ISIS” doesn’t really mean much, just a fancier collective name for “Islamist terrorism”, in which case, why not just say that and not use the term “ISIS” at all? It’s more useful to me to distinguish between “Islamist terrorism” as a general phenomenon, and the specific organization in Syria/Iraq which controls territory, has a funding mechanism, has commanders, communication networks, etc. It’s relevant whether an action is carried out by them or merely some random person claiming to sympathize with them, because that impacts what responses would be effective.