{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011942174732872407, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00251414204902577, 'mean_word_length': 5.717299578059071, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Intensifying State Surveillance of Electronic Communications: A Legal Solution in Addressing Extremism or Not?

Extremism appears to be on the increase. Electronic communication reaches countless people across borders, canvassing support for radical views and/or inciting hatred and/or violence. This legal discussion deals with many inter-related questions that are of global relevance as electronic communication permeates our lives. Should a government tighten surveillance of electronic communication to combat and/or detect extremism or does such information gathering practices violate the user's right to freedom of expression and privacy? Should government agencies carry out the surveillance or should the ISP as provider of access and/or hosting of information gather information on extremist communication? Will the aftermath of the 2013 Snowden revelations of unwarranted, general and bulk state surveillance result in governments being wary to tighten state surveillance powers or has the level of extremism reached such a degree that it warrants governments to focus on monitoring as a surveillance method counteracting radicalism that may endanger the safety and security of a country. Tension between human rights protection and government use of surveillance powers is unavoidable as some argue that security and safety factors are exaggerated to justify extension of state surveillance powers, however the evidence of extremism unfortunately speaks for itself. This discussion provides an overview of the approach to surveillance a government may apply to online extremism.