Estimates Hearings are underway across the select committees, a time when government ministers and chief executives front up to be queried about pretty much anything.
For example, how the government is responding to the challenge presented by violent extremist online activities was under the microscope as representatives of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet appeared before the Governance and Administration committee this week.
Listen
Paul Ash, Special Representative on Cyber and Digital for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet speaks to the Governance and Administration Committee about progress on the Christchurch Call cyber crisis intervention project. Watching on is DPMC Chief Executive Tony Lynch. Photo: Phil Smith
Paul Ash is the Prime Minister's special representative on cyber and digital stuff, and co-ordinator of the Christchurch Call, which was a call to action to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online, following following terror attacks on mosques in Christchurch in 2019. Those who have committed to the initiative include 55 governments, 10 major major tech companies (with more reportedly coming on board soon) and dozens of participants from civil society working on the problem.
Ash was asked by the committee what progress has been made on the Christchurch Call, and what measurable outcomes could be identified.
“I guess the key things that have come out of that work to date have been a focus on crisis response and ensuring that as and when terrorist attacks happen that have a significant online dimension, collectively industry and governments working with civil society are able to respond more quickly, and to minimise the harm done directly to the individuals who are subject of the attack but more broadly by promulgation of that material,” Ash explained.
That’s seen industry develop a new set of crisis response protocols under the Call. One of them, industry-led, is called the Content Incident Protocol, which the Global Internet Forum for Counter-Terrorism manages.
Swift response
“When an incident happens - and perhaps the most recent example was the attack in Buffalo, New York, last month - the presenting company would flag that to the Global Internet Forum for Counter-Terrorism. It then works with companies through a range of online channels to manage incoming information about what’s being seen online and (tries to) manage that down.”
In the Buffalo case, online content was flagged in the minute before the attack started, Ash told the committee. There were two more flags immediately after the attack began. Then the content was taken down two minutes into the attack.
Ash was asked by Labour MP Duncan Webb whether this swift response was a direct result of the Christchurch Call initiative, to which he responded “absolutely”. So the Call has begun to make headway. But there’s still lots of work to be done.
“Because what we’re seeing is, as the major platforms are getting better at this, we’re seeing smaller or peripheral platforms on the edges of the internet used both as reservoirs for this content, to push it back on to the major platforms, or as we’ve seen, as places to stage a live-streamed attack - it’s getting cheaper and easier these days - and then look through adversarial behaviour to push it on to the mainstream platforms.
“So there is work to be done now on how to deal with that out-linking problem,” Ash said.
Labour Party Chief Whip Duncan Webb asking questions in Select Committee. Photo: Phil Smith
Thresholds
Webb noted Buffalo and other horrific extremist attacks that Ash had cited as examples, and asked him a question regarding thresholds for action being taken.
“Can you just talk about the work and thinking that’s going on around when you kind of hit the big red button and we get this very globalised response, and what’s going on in the other space?”
“The way that breaks down is generally legal thresholds, then company terms of service,” Ash responded.
“Most tech companies have a set of community standards or terms of service, and they have the right as companies to decide what sits on their website or not. Particularly if they’re US-based companies, the First Amendment rights apply as much to the company as they do to users. And that is generally the area where what is often called grey zone or harmful content is dealt with.”
The technical levers to deal with extremist content online rest largely with the tech companies themselves. Government’s role, Ash admitted, is restricted to mainly regulating and setting parameters for how society looks to best engage with the digital world. Civil society has an integral role to play in keeping both those sectors well-informed and honest in the process.