Emerging Tech and Terrorism: Adoption Patterns and Implications

Haugstvedt (2023) identified 18 different militant actors across the world that have been connected to more than five drone enabled attacks between 2013 and 2023. There are signs that the tactic has been adopted by actors within the US as well. In February 2022, FBI Director Christopher Wray reported to the US Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that at the time, the FBI was investigating “several instances within the US of attempts to weaponize drones with homemade IEDs. That is the future that is here now.”

Key to our discussion here, however, is that not all violent non-state actors are simply adopters of technology. Some are pioneers and those first to market are afforded a non-trivial advantage to achieve their malign ends. As such, let us also consider the subset of terrorists operating as genuine innovators.

Terrorists as Pioneers of Innovation:  A Less Frequent but Potentially Devastating Perspective
Louis Beam was a Grand Dragon in the Texas chapter of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). He was an innovative pioneer in several ways, including the development of a leaderless resistance approach to violent extremism, which limited the government’s ability to infiltrate an organization or movement. Most central here, Beam pioneered use of computer bulletin board systems (BBS) for sharing white supremacist content. Dubbed the Aryan Nations Liberty Net in 1984, his was one of the first mechanisms to distribute propaganda in a relatively secure and anonymous environment. Indeed, Hoffman and Ware note that the new network was “truly revolutionary and arguably marked the beginning of terrorist exploitation of digital communication for radicalization, recruitment, fundraising, the exchange of best practices and the planning and execution of operations.” 

Beam was a genuine acolyte in believing in the powerful role that technology had to play in sharing extremist content. He traveled the country with his Commodore 64, serving as salesman for this new method of communication, claiming that anyone was able to log on and be connected using only a phone line and modem. He faced significant skepticism and resistance within his own white supremist peers yet fought through that resistance in ways analogous to other innovators in more benevolent spaces.

His impact was non-trivial. Timothy McVeigh, architect of the deadliest DVE attack in the US on the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, owned two Commodore 64s and was captivated by the internet in his youth. To provide context for how unique these individuals were, in 1984, less than 10% of Americans owned a computer. Beam and his followers were decidedly not late adopters.

Implications for the Counterterrorism (CT) Workforce
At NCITE we seek to both understand the problem set as well as inform and educate the CT workforce about potential solutions for combatting emerging threats. The above discussion on technology adoption brings to fore three key recommendations:

1. CT professionals must be aware, and open to, the technology pioneers in terrorism in addition to those lagging on the innovation adoption curve.
Whilst many terrorist groups are mid-to-late adopters of emerging technology, this is not a universal trend. To singularly characterize terrorists as such would create a non-trivial and potentially dangerous blind spot in emerging technology and malign application.
2. An awareness of emerging technology is critical for the CT workforce.
Emerging technology has historically been, and will continue to be, a key component of the terrorist toolkit. CT professionals must not narrowly focus on technology that is designed for malign purposes, as the adoption of benign tech can be developed for malign purposes (e.g., 3D printed firearms).
3. CT professionals should leverage knowledge within centers such as CREST and NCITE as a force multiplier to their core mission.
Afforded the ability to think downrange, academic centers can play a pivotal role in supporting the mission set of CT professionals.

Red More
Cronin, A. K.(2019). Power to the people: How open technological innovation is arming tomorrow’s terrorists. Oxford University Press.

Elson, J., Doctor, A., & Hunter, S. T.(2022). The metaverse offers a future full of potential – for terrorists and extremists. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/the-metaverse-offers-a-future-full-of-potent…

Grispos, G., & Doctor, A. C.(2022). Rise of precision agriculture exposes food system to new threats. Phys. org.

Haugstvedt, H. (2023). A Flying Reign of Terror? The Who, Where, When, What, and How of Non-state Actors and Armed Drones. Journal of Human Security, 19(1), 1-7.

Hoffman, B., & Ware, J. (2024). God, guns, and sedition: Far-right terrorism in America. Columbia University Press.

Hunter, S. T., & Elson, J. (2023, Mar). Terrorists will use artificial intelligence, too. Real Clear Defense. https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2023/03/06/terrorists_will_use…

Rogers Everett, M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York, 12, 576.

Rogers, E. M., Singhal, A., & Quinlan, M. M.(2014). Diffusion of innovations. In An integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 432-448). Routledge.

Samuel T. Hunter is a professor of organizational psychology at the University of Nebraska, Omaha (UNO) and head of strategic operations at National Counterterrorism Innovation, Technology, and Education (NCITE). Austin C. Doctor is a political scientist at the University of Nebraska Omaha (UNO) and lead of counterterrorism research initiatives at NCITE. Katherine L. Parsons is a research specialist at NCITE. This article is published courtesy of the Center for Research and Evidence on Security Threats(CREST).