Risk Mitigation in Applying Government Terrorist Designation Lists

Understanding and Applying Government Terrorist Designation Lists

GIFCT works to ensure that tech companies are better equipped to counter terrorist and violent extremist exploitation while respecting fundamental and universal human rights. Here we discuss some of the Pros, Cons and Risk Mitigation strategies that tech companies might want to consider when referencing government terrorist designation lists. 

As shown in the definitional framework side of this site and outlined by a number of experts in the taxonomy report on Broadening the GIFCT Hash Sharing Database, there is not one agreed-upon definition of terrorism or violent extremism for private companies to lean into. Not only is there a spectrum of definitions but designations are also drawn from international laws, national government designation lists, and conceptual frameworks that include dynamic behavioral factors as is outlined in the GIFCT Year 3 Legal Frameworks Working Group’s animated explainer. Many companies defer to government designation lists to ensure compliance with legal obligations, while some larger companies have developed their own working definitions in order to assess groups and activities more proactively, based on behavioural signals online in combination with offline indicators, such as news about attacks on civilians.

When academics and practitioners review designation lists, concerns have been raised about potential Western biases in the lists that many tech companies rely on, as well as concerns about pressures from non-democratic countries to have tech platforms use lists that might not comply with broader human rights frameworks. There are cases where governments have added activist networks, journalists, opposition parties, and even tech companies to “terrorist” or “extremist” designation lists as a means to suppress or retaliate against government opposition. It is also the case that most government lists, post 9/11, tend to focus largely on Islamist extremist terrorism (despite some recent additions of groups related to white supremacy in the U.S., U.K., Australia, New Zealand and Canada). Some of our latest Legal Frameworks Working Group research provides more guidance for tech companies looking for a set of standard minimums, thresholds, or tests to establish whether content meets the standard of TVEC. 

The difficulties of navigating legal compliance in different parts of the world is further complicated for many tech companies when, even after identifying content from a terrorist group belonging to a country’s designation list, it is hard to identify the intent behind the content. It can be very difficult for tech platforms to unequivocally identify and label “members” or “activity” of a terrorist or violent extremist group unless there are very obvious profile or account indicators or self-declared membership by a user. A one-off post containing terrorist content could be shared by an activist raising awareness, an academic providing analysis, or news media discussing recent events. This GIFCT map is a useful tool in understanding emerging and current legislation, including proposals and technical papers, relating to the moderation of violent extremist and terrorist related content online, with a focus on the obligations placed on technology companies.

While this resource is not prescriptive, it does provide initial guidance and case studies related to government designation lists. Different tech companies will apply differing approaches to how they operationalize counterterrorism and counter-extremism efforts based on how their platforms work, their technical and human capacities, and platform-specific terms of service. However, we hope it is a utility to tech platforms and broader stakeholders in the counterterrorism and counter-extremism sector.

Benefits

Using national and/or international terrorist designation lists is often a tech companies first step to ensure legal compliance and safety due diligence in the counterterrorism field. There can be value in these lists, highlighted here through case studies and resources related to the application of lists.

Terror Designation Lists provide legal structures for criminal prosecution and provide legal reasoning for why a company might take action on content or activities from these groups and individuals:

As a terrorist group or individual is added onto a government designation list, they are immediately faced with the full legal consequences that are attached with such designations. This allows parties who use those lists as a reference point to criminally prosecute terrorist organizations and activity. This also allows tech companies to act on their Terms of Service if they prohibit terrorist activity on their platform(s).

Terrorist Designation Lists enable international bodies to hold governments to account:

In cases of abuse and/or (mis)use of designation lists, terrorist designation lists can serve as reference points for bodies such as the U.N. to hold governments accountable for their actions. This provides actors who plan on consulting particular lists with an added layer of protection.

Disadvantages

Terrorist designation lists can present some challenges for tech companies and other sectors that use government lists to structure their own policies and actions. Country designation lists are focussed on national context and threats, with large amounts of country and regional variation in how definitions of terrorism might be applied.

Terrorist Designation Lists used as (geo)political tools between countries in conflict:

Governments use the addition of particular groups as a tool to make a political statement in the international arena. As a result, designations can sometimes be seen as a performative act. This can be burdensome for actors who reference particular lists as it requires that they take on their own investigation of the larger political contexts within which particular additions are made.

Terror Designation Lists can be used to suppress human rights and political dissent:

There are cases where designation lists have been used as a tool to suppress companies, groups, and individuals that do not align with a government’s aims. Human rights organizations and the UN have noted concerns about the use of designation lists in the abuse of human rights. This can be challenging for  tech companies and wider stakeholders attempting to apply designation lists with global parity, as reference points for applying policies. Any stakeholder looking to use designation lists should closely review the history of a designation process, transparency around designation processes, and the overall human rights record.

Terrorist Designation Lists incorporate national biases:

In a post 9/11 international context, designation lists have a history of overly focusing on Islamist extremist terrorist groups and individuals. This is particularly challenging as it requires actors referencing the lists to invest in better understanding the larger threat landscape, particularly in light of  the recent rise in white supremacy and ethno-nationalist related violent extremism.

Terror Designation Lists are often unclear around designation and removal processes:

Many governments lack transparency around the criteria and processes involved in adding or removing groups onto terror designation lists. When that is the case, it can be challenging to understand the rationale behind certain designations.

Risk Mitigation Tactics

As the previous sections demonstrate, tech companies and other stakeholders referring to national and international designation lists should be cautious and have oversight in how they might apply a list to their policies and operations. By the same token, government designation lists are a necessary reference point, as well as a legal compliance element, that must be taken into account. While keeping the aforementioned pros and cons in mind, GIFCT presents a few tactics that can be employed as government designation lists are considered.

Prioritization of lists with transparent processes and methodologies:

Stakeholders should focus on designation lists that are supplemented with a clear outline of definitions for designation and processes outlining specific criteria that a group or organization must meet in order to be designated on the list. Additionally, the lists should clearly state enforcement mechanisms, and detail agencies and organizations responsible for prosecuting criminal and/or terrorist activity.

Cross reference/combine country lists alongside collaborative/multinational body lists:

Multinational bodies (such as the U.N.) produce lists that generally require an extensive process of multinational negotiations and agreement. This process usually comes with multiple layers of scrutiny, a focus on human rights, and the ability to be applicable over broader geographies. Actors should superpose multiple lists as a way to provide additional context that is sometimes excluded from singular national designation lists.

Center human rights as you approach the use of terror designation lists:

As previously noted, terror designation lists can be used as tools to silence dissenting voices, oppress the press, and block grassroots activism in many parts of the world. Actors should always center human rights in their use of designation lists by consulting the history of a country’s history of previous abuses.