Previous social media interference
- CISA’s predecessor, the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) also participated in switchboarding.
- Argued in Missouri v. Biden that “CISA’s role in forwarding reporting received from election officials … to social media platforms”
DHS’s workaround
- “planning for a CIS-CISA misinformation reporting portal had hit a roadblock”
- DHS creates the EIP since “DHS cannot openly endorse the portal”
During the 2020 election
- In practice, CSIA is not taking a non-judgmental stance
- In September of 2020, added “DHS affirms that it neither has nor seeks the ability to remove what information is made available on social media platforms”
- Although DHS might not take legal action against the company, FBI or other law enforcement could, if not correctly handled
- In October, narrowed down to “CISA affirms that it neither has nor seeks the ability to remove or edit what information is made available on social media platforms. CISA makes no recommendations about how the information it is sharing should be handled or used by social media companies.”
- Much scarier being a social media exec and sitting with the FBI as opposed to the CISA
“you can’t have a casual chat with an FBI agent when you’re an executive at a company. It’s not safe. You end up with a $3,000-an-hour row of people sitting next to you.”
Previously at Facebook, the policy was that no executive could talk to the FBI without the attorneys
Yes. And I think all executives of all public companies understand that there’s lots of parts of the government that can punish you for activity that you thought was appropriate.