A peace game is similar to a war game. The same, I suppose, only the rules are more encouraging of diplomacy.

Legislatures Passes Law to Examine Users' Online Presence.

A ring of three mass shootings occur in large cities, within hours of each other. The murderers are each young men, and detectives manage to unlock their computers and gain access to their social media pages. They keep a minimal presence on social media, and their browser histories are all cleaned up.

One of the computers has a folder called ~/.mozilla, and although Firefox is no longer installed, this folder includes the remnants of the users' actions while briefly using Firefox a few months before. The page log displays domain names for a number of forums, and the detectives quickly locate the murderers' social media handles as users on those forums.

A couple weeks of stake-out on the forums earns FBI agents enough permission to glimpse the discussions, leading up to the bloody hour. These three men had corresponded, and been encouraged by peers who preyed on loneliness and isolation, and promised glory and immortality; perhaps the same reason the forum discussions remained inside of semi-public reach.

The forum's users each notched up another rung in the FBI's alarm profiles, and the forum operators gained some new hidden admirers among international intelligence profilers.

The three nations that experienced the murders on this day reached a new echelon of diplomacy, and decided that response is no good in comparison to thorough preparation. Banking on the lessons learned in the aftermath of January 6, intelligence officers globally began complaining and affirming the record of how unprepared and blind they, ahead of threats to the public; how unequipped to disarm or lead the threat into submission.

These nations' legislatures, fearing rapid duplication of the pre-planned horrors, demanded a glimpse of the planning phases. Modernized nations pushed forth from "war on terror", into a phase for "disruption of terror". Of course; unless disrupted, horrors erupt.

The legislators, each of them conditioned by childhoods wherein buildings crumbled and train stations exploded, where cars barreled into crowds, and wherein select social media messaging could spur a protest into deadly riot, siezed their means and demanded thorough comprehension of the cyber-landscape; the federated enemy's real stronghold.

Browsers were a losing field, being so numerous and niche, and so the legislatures closed in on the internet service providers (ISP), whose close franchised relationships to one another and prior compliance to FCC and similar regulatory schemes seemed to display clearer inroads. New policies ensured that three months of each users' online sessions should be recorded for examination, that specific online actions could send users through additional channels for presumptive risk appraisal, and that - crucially for the bid to earn the sordid public's reluctant shrug, a user could quickly sample an immediate reading of their logged records.

Dialogue.

1. Which agencies are quick to abuse this new mechanism?
2. Describe properly gainful businesses that experience harm from the profiling.
3. Does this lead to additional policies such as "license to publish"?
4. Play through the ensuing discussions from the angle of "freedom of speech" / "ban hate speech".