Summary: <p>The attack on Pulse nightclub in Orlando has renewed calls for anti-terrorist action from politicians across the board. For presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, this has meant a revival of her call for a government/Silicon Valley alliance that would analyze social networks in order to thwart terrorist plots and impede potential radicalization.</p> <p>It's an attractive solution but one, as we've explored before, that is far more complicated than it might sound. This week we revisit two conversations we had last January, when <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/08/technology-executives-white-house-isis-terrorism-meeting-silicon-valley-facebook-apple-twitter-microsoft">a US government delegation met with Silicon Valley executives</a> to discuss just such an approach. <a href="https://www.fordham.edu/info/23379/karen_j_greenberg">Karen Greenberg</a>, director of the Center on National Security at Fordham University School of Law, talks about how a neutral-sounding algorithm for scanning radicalization raises numerous legal red flags. And terrorist behavior expert <a href="http://www.terroristbehavior.com/">John Horgan</a> explains how this approach fundamentally misunderstands how radicalization happens and why we must be careful distinguishing between those who consume extremist content and those who intend to act on it.</p>
