10 ms·

In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

156 points by ojbyrne 15y ago

zeteo 15y ago
> when people are using social media for violence, we need to stop them. Is this the same Cameron who criticized Libya when they shut off the Internet against what, in their view, were violent protesters?
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  They seem like different issues. I don't think the Libyan protestors were looting, burning, attacking & robbing bystanders... In other words, in Libya they had protestors, in the UK they have rioters and mobs. I could have the wrong impression; I live in neither Libya nor the UK. There were also accusations that Libya shut off the internet to mask actions of their armed forces against the protestors. Once again, seems like a different beast.
  - doctoboggan 15y ago
    But the fear is that given that power, the government will be able to make subjective calls on situations they deem important enough to intervene. There is definitely a line between justified Libyan protests and the violent riots here, but where does that line fall? Do you trust the government to make that call today and (once it's law) forever into the future? It's a tough question, I know I don't know the answer.
    - sliverstorm 15y ago
      Fear indeed! I am quite surprised at the vehemence with which my speculation is being quashed.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
  - michaelchisari 15y ago
    in Libya they had protestors, in the UK they have rioters and mobs In Libya, they also had rioters and mobs, and in the UK, they also have protestors.
    - cybo 15y ago
      There is a distinction to be made here. Libya had a large proportion of protestors in comparison to rioters. More importantly, the motivation was solidly political. There was a clear goal and demand for greater freedom. In contrast, the UK rioters that spawned out of the initial protest was nothing more than an assortment of various criminal groups that used a political excuse to attack and rob ordinary citizens.
      - petercooper 15y ago
        I don't know why you're being voted down. I'm in the UK and you're right. If the rioting was being spun as being somehow politically motivated in non British media, that's wrong. There were no political goals here. People wanted new trainers and TVs and a fun night out getting chased by the cops.
        forensic 15y ago
        >People wanted new trainers and TVs That's a resource distribution issue intimately related to the economy. If that isn't politics, nothing is. Almost all riots are related to resource distribution issues, especially when an impoverished underclass engages in looting. Are you really claiming these riots aren't linked to the massive cuts to public services that happened during the last year?
        FireBeyond 15y ago
        The same impoverished underclass with access to Blackberry's and smartphones with data packages who can't afford to put new shoes on their feet? Are you really claiming this?
  - jsrampton 15y ago
    I think shutting down people and social media in places that are looting, stealing, and making the world a worse place... I agree with that. I disagree on taking down social media when it's an organized legal matter. It's hard to make the distinction and not allow the couple people that ruin it for everyone else.
    - lwhi 15y ago
      The problem is you need to monitor traffic to be able to find out what's being communicated - and someone has to decide what constitutes illegal communication; which is a grey area in itself. More often than not, any laws that are put into place involve the acquisition of new technology that can be appropriated by those in power to censor more forms of 'illegal' communication, further down the line. It's a slippery slope, potentially leading to a repression of the population and almost absolute state control.
- MrScruff 15y ago
  Not that I agree with Cameron, but here are some differences. - Protesting is legal in the UK and happens regularly without undue interference by the police. - The riots in the UK mainly consisted of crimes committed against citizens so they were clearly a policing issue. - They're not proposing shutting of the internet, just the principal vectors used to organise riots. - The rioters were not subject to a violent response by the authorities. It would have been straight forward to use rubber bullets against rioters but the police were not keen to escalate things.
  - lwhi 15y ago
    Use of rubber bullets was authorised after the police finally got their act together. I don't think it was a worthy desire to avoid escalation that prevented their use earlier on .. more lack of organisation. The main question is, how will our government discover whether a citizen is communicating about a forbidden subject? I suppose all communication will need to be explicitly monitored. This is another step closer towards distopia.
    - MrScruff 15y ago
      Use of rubber bullets was authorised after the police finally got their act together. I don't think it was a worthy desire to avoid escalation that prevented their use earlier on .. more lack of organisation. Do you have a source for that? Everything I've read suggested the police were only considering rubber bullets or water cannons as a last resort.
      - ollysb 15y ago
        From http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/aug/11/uk-riots-day-five-aftermath-live?INTCMP=SRCH http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/aug/11/uk-riots-day-f... ...Godwin and his team came very close to issuing the order for firearms teams to use plastic bullets. At that point the Met's officers were "stretched to an extent never seen before," deputy assistant commissioner Steven Kavanagh said. "We did absolutely consider it through the night," Kavanagh said. "But these were very fast moving mobile groups and by the time we got baton rounds there this groups would have moved away."
andylei 15y ago
i don't agree with Cameron, but CNN's headline is a bit sensationalist. > "to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality." he's not saying facebook and twitter should be banned, just that it should be monitored (and potentially block users). again, i disagree with Cameron, but its hardly the same as a ban on social media.
- mattdeboard 15y ago
  Monitoring is far worse than banning.
  - ig1 15y ago
    Twitter's a public medium, I don't really see how anyone could object to a government monitoring it, given any individual could do the same thing.
    - abstractbill 15y ago
      Twitter has both public and private messages. If anyone is taking about monitoring communications on it, I would assume they're talking about the private ones.
      - ig1 15y ago
        Why would you assume that ? - a large amount of the "incitement" that took place caused problems in a large part because it was public in a one-to-many form.
        mattdeboard 15y ago
        I'm sorry, did I miss the part where they said they would only monitor Twitter? Or am I remembering correctly where they used the broad, sweeping term "social networks", which would include Facebook, and I'm sure BBM chat. Do you live in a fantastical world where governments pass very strictly limited, narrowly defined laws that precisely target one specific problem? Because here on earth the rule is overbroad laws made by ignorant legislators.
pointyhat 15y ago
It won't make any difference. A lot of the rioters had PMRs as do the police. Even ground.
techiferous 15y ago
"Free speech is central to our democracy, but so is public safety and security," There is no other word for this than stupid. Free speech is not in opposition to security. You can have free speech and safety. Unless you're too stupid to figure out how.
dendory 15y ago
To us, Libya protesters are freedom fighters, to the Libian government they are criminals. No surprise that when the protests happen here, governments swap position right away.
- estel 15y ago
  This is a slightly tired and broadly awful analogy. The rioters this week haven't shared the same motivations, determination or moral conviction of "rebel" (but now recognised) Libyan Government. If I were Libyan, this comparison would be frankly insulting.
  - zeteo 15y ago
    >The rioters this week haven't shared the same determination Are you saying you'd have liked the rioters better if they didn't give up so "quickly"?
    - anigbrowl 15y ago
      Misquoting to make your point is antithetical to honest debate. Flagged.
      - zeteo 15y ago
        What's the misquote? The parent makes three points ("motivations, determination or moral conviction"), and the middle point is invalid.
        Radix 15y ago
        I agree with Anigbrowl. The middle point doesn't stand alone and was not meant to. You've gaken it out of contest which is disingenuous. Given your phrasing he claimed with motivation and moral conviction, determination to achieve their goal would have him liking the "rioters" more. Though rioters would doubtfully be the correct word in that case.
        15y ago
Vivtek 15y ago
Wow, and that worked so well in North Africa!
mrmaddog 15y ago
I am firmly against blocking any communication tool on the internet, though I am all for prosecuting those that incite violence and illegal activities should they be dumb enough to use a website that can be linked back to them.
rflrob 15y ago
This is completely ignoring the potentially positive effects of social media during the riots. @metpoliceuk was helpful in spreading news and tamping down false rumors.
- fexl 15y ago
  Or this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14475741 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14475741 (twitter tag #riotcleanup)
chailatte 15y ago
There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, think, and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillence coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well, certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.
- josephcooney 15y ago
  I love that movie. I've watched it every 5th of November for about the last 5 years.
  - dublinclontarf 15y ago
    It really was the best Harry Potter.
- kqr2 15y ago
  From V for Vendetta (2006) : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/quotes?qt=qt0450655 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/quotes?qt=qt0450655
Joakal 15y ago
It's sad how the British government is responding compared to Norway. Norway: First) Provides support to anyone who needs it. Problem) Mentally unstable bomber/shooter. Solution) We'll continue supporting. Security will get reviewed but not that necessary to implement new laws. Britain: First) Cut back support for bringing up people. Problem) Surprised people riot. Solution) Slam down authoritative fist. So far; 1) Increase police from 20,000 to 26,000. 2) Consider restricting internet further (This). They believe the cure is apparently better than the vaccine, better parenting and government assistance.
- jdminhbg 15y ago
  I don't think censoring social media is a good idea or even remotely helpful, but these comparisons are beyond ridiculous. The Norwegian attacks were carried out by one person who is already in custody. The British riots arise out of amorphous groups of thousands of individuals who are still at large. They're completely, utterly different.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - Joakal 15y ago
    It wasn't a comparison of problems, it was a comparison of solutions to serious problems. Nurturing vs authoritarian.
    - jdminhbg 15y ago
      Different serious problems require different serious solutions. The comparison to Norway isn't useful.
      - aik 15y ago
        I agree it's not a fair comparison, but I think it's an interesting thought experiment nonetheless. How do you think Norway would have reacted if a situation similar to the UK riots occurred in Norway? Implement more laws and add police, or look deeper to the root causes?
csomar 15y ago
If you have a good number of citizens that, when some instability happens, goes to the street and fire cars, houses and rub shops, you have a much more serious problem than 100million GBP in loses. During the Tunisian revolution, the police was ordered to leave a 1 million citizen city that I'm living in after a tough day where the ruling party locals where burnt. Although without any security (and before people gather and create groups for protection), the city was relatively stable. There was theft, but theft existed before that day. Also there wasn't that kind of violence in the thefts that happened. When I went to the center of the city the day after that, I saw no signs that a private property was abused.
- awakeasleep 15y ago
  I thought about this sort of thing. It almost seems like the underclasses in Britain are less civilized than the people of the countries that have had recent revolutions. However, I also believe that the riots in Tunisia weren't limited to lower class people, and maybe involving a larger section of society in them caused them to be more civilized.
  - csomar 15y ago
    Religion and culture has an important effect in the society. I'm not religious myself, but not a great percentage of people can get enough culture to think in a civilized way. Religion is great because the rules are enforced by the religion and thus the religious person himself and not the state or police.
  - ahi 15y ago
    British society, like American society, places consumerism above all else. Britain's "underclass" are reminded constantly that they must have consumer product A through Z to be happy and that they will never have them. The poor of Britain are far poorer when it comes to the things that matter in British culture than the poor of Tunisia on the scale of Tunisian culture. Just a thought.
  - cormullion 15y ago
    Everyone is starting to generalize wildly about 'Britain'. London + Birmingham is not the same as Britain. The problems of urban Britain are not the same as the problems of Britons outside the major cities. London has 13% of the population. As a member of the underclass in Britain, I resent being called uncivilized. Well, I would if I didn't have a sense of humour. Now, where's my nearest Apple store.
Silhouette 15y ago
I know half the Internet is going senationalist over this, but please go and actually watch the debate before the knee-jerking spoils this discussion as well. The tone of the debate was actually quite reasonable, and many MPs, including the PM, were vocal about the benefits of social media during this whole sorry affair. Sadly, a lot of people are reading things into it that weren't actually said and then turning them into senationalist headlines on sites like this where the liberal crowd upvote them without bothering to check any facts.
- _delirium 15y ago
  > liberal crowd I think when it comes to free-speech, as opposed to things like taxation or healthcare, there's not really a clear "liberal" contingent, just the amorphous civil-liberties contingent. Includes many libertarians, liberals, and anyone else who opposes the state exercising anything even remotely approaching censorship, in any circumstance, whether it's against "nazis" or "rioters" or "terrorists" or whomever else the emergency of the day is.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    Americans are somewhat unique among English speaking people for not distinguishing between liberalism and leftism. Once you make that distinction, the "amorphous civil-liberties contingent" is liberal by definition. The culture of internet outrage that involves upvoting these things to the roof does get in the way of understanding and addressing the issue in a reasonable fashion. I don't think it matters especially what specific worldview someone has when they're in that mindset.
- zmmmmm 15y ago
  > many MPs, including the PM, were vocal about the benefits of social media during this whole sorry affair I find this sort of thing almost more disturbing. It implies that whether we should allow totalitarian measures merely depends on a judgement of case by case merit - oh look, social media had a good side that balanced out the bad side, let's not ban it. This time. So what if the authorities decide one day there is no good side? Or just that they don't like the good side that might exist? This kind of statement sounds good but is actually an argument FOR censorship in disguise.
xedarius 15y ago
It's strange because this is not getting reported at all in the UK (and by the UK on mean on the BBC).
Naga 15y ago
ored
chevas 15y ago
Might as well ban telephones while they're at it. Call in telcom also to discuss their role in the recent riots.
linuxhansl 15y ago
Right that's the solution. When there's civil unrest, why try to fix the problem that caused it when you can just stop people from organizing the unrest?
dasil003 15y ago
The mere suggestion of this is proof of how impotent the government really is. How do they really think it would help? Shutting down this channel or that channel is meaningless in the age of easy communication. Unless they shut off the internet and cell phone networks entirely it will have little effect. Pathetic really.
scrrr 15y ago
Think about it. This makes sense. People who are in power of course are threatened by new, fast ways to share information just as much as established businesses are threatened by ecommerce-sites like Amazon. This threat is real and the danger is justified. Recent uprisings in Libya, Syria etc. put fear in the hearts of western politicians, too. Rightfully so. The world must and will change as a consequence. I think in more profound ways than we can predict yet. Of course they don't react rationally because they don't understand it. They also make the mistake that the voters actually would like a social media ban. Of course they don't.
GeneralMaximus 15y ago
No no no. You're doing it wrong. What you need to do is ban socket() on all computers everywhere. That's the only way to fix this problem.
jwr 15y ago
"free flow of information can sometimes be a problem" — I never thought I'd hear these words from a British PM.
- bradgessler 15y ago
  Yeah, wow, I'm dumbfounded. If the British government follows through with this, the rioters will actually have a new reason to riot: freedom of speech.
  - estel 15y ago
    I don't see how it's controversial to say that the "free flow of information can sometimes be a problem"? Obviously this freedom can cause problems for some at times; but this is a price we pay for a free and open society.
    - jwr 15y ago
      Taken out of context (as you did) it isn't controversial. But in the context of the article linked to it implies that it is a problem that the government needs to do something about by restricting the said free flow of information.
      - estel 15y ago
        I didn't take the quote out of context any more than you did in the grandparent! I definitely have a problem with the Government restricting the flow of that information; but that doesn't mean that the flow itself isn't problematic at times.
  - liedra 15y ago
    Not that I agree with the knee-jerk reaction put forward by Cameron, but actually, protesters will protest. There's a big difference between rioting and protesting, and it's important to make that clear.
    - 15y ago
Tichy 15y ago
I think it is really people that is the problem. People should be banned.
epaga 15y ago
Best comment I saw regarding this was on Twitter: "Urban rioting existed before SMS/social media. You know what didn't? Large-scale community cleanups, spontaneously organized within hours."
petercooper 15y ago
How did the riots spread to so many disparate areas? Copycat activity based on seeing riots occur on TV. So, sure, turn off Twitter and Facebook for a while, but be sure to turn off Sky News and BBC News at the same time, since that's where people are seeing the most sensational videos that encourage people to join in. Or.. perhaps just leave it as is, eh?
ck2 15y ago
Makes about as much sense as groping millions of passengers before they fly and take away their water bottles because a dozen people managed to take over a plane.
dkersten 15y ago
Because nobody ever rioted before facebook.
- rvschuilenburg 15y ago
  exactly. And after blocking it all down, the rioters will be all like "huh, what now? Oh well, we better not start a riot then".
dmor 15y ago
Maybe they should focus on enforcing the laws they have, not forming special committees to write more. I have to believe it is against the terms of service of all these apps to conspire to commit crimes or participate in criminal activity using Twitter, Facebook, BBM, etc. Would they propose shutting down telephones, text messaging, and all other forms of communication (snail mail, singing clown telegrams, monkey butlers) which have been used for good and evil since their existence?
- mojuba 15y ago
  Just yesterday some commentator on Sky said it's the television to blame in the first place, for spreading a message that looting gets away without punishment. Internet and mobile communication came into play only after that.
daveoh 15y ago
OK lets look at the facts here. Blackberry phones have become widely used by the urban poor because they are free on cheap tarrifs. BBM is essentially free text messaging and so also widely used by the urban poor. Its should come as no surprise that the riots were co-ordinated by BBM. Its just text messaging, quick and easy. I find it hard to believe that the rioters running round London was browsing facebook and twitter. The comparison should not be made with social networking sites (which the term social media is synonymous with), just because BBM uses the internet, rather the comparison should be made with text messaging. I like how the term 'social media' has been used here. What is social media? Anything that is used for communication? So are we talking about controlling text messaging, phone calls, email? Because to organise this amount of organised theft and vandalism these avenues of communication are more likely to be the methods of choice.
a3_nm 15y ago
If this could encourage people in Britain to use alternatives to Facebook and Twitter, then this could be a pretty good thing for the health of the social media ecosystem.
Havoc 15y ago
Good luck enforcing that.
alexholehouse 15y ago
I implore everyone commenting here to; a) Listen to the actual statement [1] (or even better debate) - DO NOT take what CNN, Metro or anyone other news outlet says for granted. Journalists want to sell newspapers/adspace, parliamentary debate is often not the most glamorous thing in the world, so there is a certain need to spice things up. Reporting can be factually accurate while remaining bias or even misleading. b) Do NOT draw unconditional comparison with incidents in Libya, Egypt or Norway. It's ignorant and more than anything belittles events in those countries. c) Understand that the reporting of these riots by the international community, or more importantly the profiling of those involved, has been unreasonably flattering. The absolute majority of people in the UK have no sympathy for these people. This is not a class, race or age issue. Clearly, I cannot speak for all British citizens, but the only people I've seen with anything complementary regarding those involved in the riots (and I say riots, which are separate from the initial protests, which are a whole other kettle of fish) are ill informed and closed minded. This is not an uprising of the social underclass - it's rioting by a tiny fraction of people who have been systematically failed by elements of multiple governments' social, economic and education polices, but that does in no way give them to right to behave as they have. Many thousands more are in the same situation and did not participate, but rather displayed horror at the events. This is not meant to be inflammatory - there are many problems which need to be addressed, both in terms of policy, as well as the more worrying collapse of morals and underlying social detritus which again is very much not a class, race or age factor. These riots are symptomatic of that. However, in no way did David Cameron (who is not my favourite person in the world) propose an all out social media ban, and I feel that by omitting the ("... for rioters") in this title is somewhat misleading. The government will discuss the situation with the companies at hand (initially RIM/Twitter and Facebook), and if a workable solution presents itself, this will be debated in parliament. David Cameron is not an expert on social media, but would you expect him to be? That is the reason for these meetings. That is how democracy works. This is not a knee-jerk and blanket reaction (as seen in Egypt/Libya) but one that will go through proper process. There is already an e-petition which has attracted enough supports to force governmental debate on the subject of removing benefits from rioters [2], a poorly thought out move in my opinion, but one that will nevertheless be debated by parliament. People are angry, and the government must respond to that without being too heavy handed. This is not straightforward, but equally a lack of review regarding social media's impact on the riots would be irresponsible. d) (And not really relevant here at all, but it's been winding me right up) BlackBerry is a brand of phone. RIM is the company that makes that phone. Officials cannot talk to "BlackBerry", they talk to RIM - it's like saying officials will talk to "BigMac". [1] - http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/pm-statement-on-disorder-in-england/ http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/pm-statement-on-disorder-in-... [2] http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/7337 http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/7337
ximeng 15y ago
See also MP Louise Mensch's twitter feed: https://twitter.com/#!/LouiseMensch/status/101754495700185088 https://twitter.com/#!/LouiseMensch/status/10175449570018508... "And really, stop w/ all the dramatics. Nobody is talking about "shutting down Twitter". It's about listening to police & a couple hours off." amongst other opinions.
msabalau 15y ago
One might have hoped that a leader in a democratic society would have thought carefully and fully before suggesting that a type of media be regulated or restricted. It is sad that Cameron instead chooses to indulge in irresponsible speculation about the value of such measures. Indeed, it would seem that the spread of the rioting and looting can most easily be explained by people watching television and seeing others get away with such crimes.
m0wfo 15y ago
What worries me as much as the double standard, i.e. scorning Iran, China etc for their crackdown social networking sites is that the conservatives have the unequivocal support of Labour on this issue. Not only is there no criticism coming from the political left in the UK, but their obsession with deploying intrusive computer systems during their previous period in office suggests a power like this would have been enacted far more quickly were they still in charge.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

156 points by ojbyrne 15y ago

zeteo 15y ago

> when people are using social media for violence, we need to stop them. Is this the same Cameron who criticized Libya when they shut off the Internet against what, in their view, were violent protesters?

sliverstorm 15y ago
They seem like different issues. I don't think the Libyan protestors were looting, burning, attacking & robbing bystanders... In other words, in Libya they had protestors, in the UK they have rioters and mobs. I could have the wrong impression; I live in neither Libya nor the UK. There were also accusations that Libya shut off the internet to mask actions of their armed forces against the protestors. Once again, seems like a different beast.
- doctoboggan 15y ago
  But the fear is that given that power, the government will be able to make subjective calls on situations they deem important enough to intervene. There is definitely a line between justified Libyan protests and the violent riots here, but where does that line fall? Do you trust the government to make that call today and (once it's law) forever into the future? It's a tough question, I know I don't know the answer.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    Fear indeed! I am quite surprised at the vehemence with which my speculation is being quashed.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
- michaelchisari 15y ago
  in Libya they had protestors, in the UK they have rioters and mobs In Libya, they also had rioters and mobs, and in the UK, they also have protestors.
  - cybo 15y ago
    There is a distinction to be made here. Libya had a large proportion of protestors in comparison to rioters. More importantly, the motivation was solidly political. There was a clear goal and demand for greater freedom. In contrast, the UK rioters that spawned out of the initial protest was nothing more than an assortment of various criminal groups that used a political excuse to attack and rob ordinary citizens.
    - petercooper 15y ago
      I don't know why you're being voted down. I'm in the UK and you're right. If the rioting was being spun as being somehow politically motivated in non British media, that's wrong. There were no political goals here. People wanted new trainers and TVs and a fun night out getting chased by the cops.
      - forensic 15y ago
        >People wanted new trainers and TVs That's a resource distribution issue intimately related to the economy. If that isn't politics, nothing is. Almost all riots are related to resource distribution issues, especially when an impoverished underclass engages in looting. Are you really claiming these riots aren't linked to the massive cuts to public services that happened during the last year?
        FireBeyond 15y ago
        The same impoverished underclass with access to Blackberry's and smartphones with data packages who can't afford to put new shoes on their feet? Are you really claiming this?
- jsrampton 15y ago
  I think shutting down people and social media in places that are looting, stealing, and making the world a worse place... I agree with that. I disagree on taking down social media when it's an organized legal matter. It's hard to make the distinction and not allow the couple people that ruin it for everyone else.
  - lwhi 15y ago
    The problem is you need to monitor traffic to be able to find out what's being communicated - and someone has to decide what constitutes illegal communication; which is a grey area in itself. More often than not, any laws that are put into place involve the acquisition of new technology that can be appropriated by those in power to censor more forms of 'illegal' communication, further down the line. It's a slippery slope, potentially leading to a repression of the population and almost absolute state control.
MrScruff 15y ago
Not that I agree with Cameron, but here are some differences. - Protesting is legal in the UK and happens regularly without undue interference by the police. - The riots in the UK mainly consisted of crimes committed against citizens so they were clearly a policing issue. - They're not proposing shutting of the internet, just the principal vectors used to organise riots. - The rioters were not subject to a violent response by the authorities. It would have been straight forward to use rubber bullets against rioters but the police were not keen to escalate things.
- lwhi 15y ago
  Use of rubber bullets was authorised after the police finally got their act together. I don't think it was a worthy desire to avoid escalation that prevented their use earlier on .. more lack of organisation. The main question is, how will our government discover whether a citizen is communicating about a forbidden subject? I suppose all communication will need to be explicitly monitored. This is another step closer towards distopia.
  - MrScruff 15y ago
    Use of rubber bullets was authorised after the police finally got their act together. I don't think it was a worthy desire to avoid escalation that prevented their use earlier on .. more lack of organisation. Do you have a source for that? Everything I've read suggested the police were only considering rubber bullets or water cannons as a last resort.
    - ollysb 15y ago
      From http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/aug/11/uk-riots-day-five-aftermath-live?INTCMP=SRCH http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/aug/11/uk-riots-day-f... ...Godwin and his team came very close to issuing the order for firearms teams to use plastic bullets. At that point the Met's officers were "stretched to an extent never seen before," deputy assistant commissioner Steven Kavanagh said. "We did absolutely consider it through the night," Kavanagh said. "But these were very fast moving mobile groups and by the time we got baton rounds there this groups would have moved away."

andylei 15y ago

i don't agree with Cameron, but CNN's headline is a bit sensationalist. > "to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality." he's not saying facebook and twitter should be banned, just that it should be monitored (and potentially block users). again, i disagree with Cameron, but its hardly the same as a ban on social media.

mattdeboard 15y ago
Monitoring is far worse than banning.
- ig1 15y ago
  Twitter's a public medium, I don't really see how anyone could object to a government monitoring it, given any individual could do the same thing.
  - abstractbill 15y ago
    Twitter has both public and private messages. If anyone is taking about monitoring communications on it, I would assume they're talking about the private ones.
    - ig1 15y ago
      Why would you assume that ? - a large amount of the "incitement" that took place caused problems in a large part because it was public in a one-to-many form.
      - mattdeboard 15y ago
        I'm sorry, did I miss the part where they said they would only monitor Twitter? Or am I remembering correctly where they used the broad, sweeping term "social networks", which would include Facebook, and I'm sure BBM chat. Do you live in a fantastical world where governments pass very strictly limited, narrowly defined laws that precisely target one specific problem? Because here on earth the rule is overbroad laws made by ignorant legislators.

pointyhat 15y ago

It won't make any difference. A lot of the rioters had PMRs as do the police. Even ground.

techiferous 15y ago

"Free speech is central to our democracy, but so is public safety and security," There is no other word for this than stupid. Free speech is not in opposition to security. You can have free speech and safety. Unless you're too stupid to figure out how.

dendory 15y ago

To us, Libya protesters are freedom fighters, to the Libian government they are criminals. No surprise that when the protests happen here, governments swap position right away.

estel 15y ago
This is a slightly tired and broadly awful analogy. The rioters this week haven't shared the same motivations, determination or moral conviction of "rebel" (but now recognised) Libyan Government. If I were Libyan, this comparison would be frankly insulting.
- zeteo 15y ago
  >The rioters this week haven't shared the same determination Are you saying you'd have liked the rioters better if they didn't give up so "quickly"?
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    Misquoting to make your point is antithetical to honest debate. Flagged.
    - zeteo 15y ago
      What's the misquote? The parent makes three points ("motivations, determination or moral conviction"), and the middle point is invalid.
      - Radix 15y ago
        I agree with Anigbrowl. The middle point doesn't stand alone and was not meant to. You've gaken it out of contest which is disingenuous. Given your phrasing he claimed with motivation and moral conviction, determination to achieve their goal would have him liking the "rioters" more. Though rioters would doubtfully be the correct word in that case.
      - 15y ago

Vivtek 15y ago

Wow, and that worked so well in North Africa!

mrmaddog 15y ago

I am firmly against blocking any communication tool on the internet, though I am all for prosecuting those that incite violence and illegal activities should they be dumb enough to use a website that can be linked back to them.

rflrob 15y ago

This is completely ignoring the potentially positive effects of social media during the riots. @metpoliceuk was helpful in spreading news and tamping down false rumors.

fexl 15y ago
Or this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14475741 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14475741 (twitter tag #riotcleanup)

chailatte 15y ago

There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, think, and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillence coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well, certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

josephcooney 15y ago
I love that movie. I've watched it every 5th of November for about the last 5 years.
- dublinclontarf 15y ago
  It really was the best Harry Potter.
kqr2 15y ago
From V for Vendetta (2006) : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/quotes?qt=qt0450655 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/quotes?qt=qt0450655

Joakal 15y ago

It's sad how the British government is responding compared to Norway. Norway: First) Provides support to anyone who needs it. Problem) Mentally unstable bomber/shooter. Solution) We'll continue supporting. Security will get reviewed but not that necessary to implement new laws. Britain: First) Cut back support for bringing up people. Problem) Surprised people riot. Solution) Slam down authoritative fist. So far; 1) Increase police from 20,000 to 26,000. 2) Consider restricting internet further (This). They believe the cure is apparently better than the vaccine, better parenting and government assistance.

jdminhbg 15y ago
I don't think censoring social media is a good idea or even remotely helpful, but these comparisons are beyond ridiculous. The Norwegian attacks were carried out by one person who is already in custody. The British riots arise out of amorphous groups of thousands of individuals who are still at large. They're completely, utterly different.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- Joakal 15y ago
  It wasn't a comparison of problems, it was a comparison of solutions to serious problems. Nurturing vs authoritarian.
  - jdminhbg 15y ago
    Different serious problems require different serious solutions. The comparison to Norway isn't useful.
    - aik 15y ago
      I agree it's not a fair comparison, but I think it's an interesting thought experiment nonetheless. How do you think Norway would have reacted if a situation similar to the UK riots occurred in Norway? Implement more laws and add police, or look deeper to the root causes?

csomar 15y ago

If you have a good number of citizens that, when some instability happens, goes to the street and fire cars, houses and rub shops, you have a much more serious problem than 100million GBP in loses. During the Tunisian revolution, the police was ordered to leave a 1 million citizen city that I'm living in after a tough day where the ruling party locals where burnt. Although without any security (and before people gather and create groups for protection), the city was relatively stable. There was theft, but theft existed before that day. Also there wasn't that kind of violence in the thefts that happened. When I went to the center of the city the day after that, I saw no signs that a private property was abused.

awakeasleep 15y ago
I thought about this sort of thing. It almost seems like the underclasses in Britain are less civilized than the people of the countries that have had recent revolutions. However, I also believe that the riots in Tunisia weren't limited to lower class people, and maybe involving a larger section of society in them caused them to be more civilized.
- csomar 15y ago
  Religion and culture has an important effect in the society. I'm not religious myself, but not a great percentage of people can get enough culture to think in a civilized way. Religion is great because the rules are enforced by the religion and thus the religious person himself and not the state or police.
- ahi 15y ago
  British society, like American society, places consumerism above all else. Britain's "underclass" are reminded constantly that they must have consumer product A through Z to be happy and that they will never have them. The poor of Britain are far poorer when it comes to the things that matter in British culture than the poor of Tunisia on the scale of Tunisian culture. Just a thought.
- cormullion 15y ago
  Everyone is starting to generalize wildly about 'Britain'. London + Birmingham is not the same as Britain. The problems of urban Britain are not the same as the problems of Britons outside the major cities. London has 13% of the population. As a member of the underclass in Britain, I resent being called uncivilized. Well, I would if I didn't have a sense of humour. Now, where's my nearest Apple store.

Silhouette 15y ago

I know half the Internet is going senationalist over this, but please go and actually watch the debate before the knee-jerking spoils this discussion as well. The tone of the debate was actually quite reasonable, and many MPs, including the PM, were vocal about the benefits of social media during this whole sorry affair. Sadly, a lot of people are reading things into it that weren't actually said and then turning them into senationalist headlines on sites like this where the liberal crowd upvote them without bothering to check any facts.

_delirium 15y ago
> liberal crowd I think when it comes to free-speech, as opposed to things like taxation or healthcare, there's not really a clear "liberal" contingent, just the amorphous civil-liberties contingent. Includes many libertarians, liberals, and anyone else who opposes the state exercising anything even remotely approaching censorship, in any circumstance, whether it's against "nazis" or "rioters" or "terrorists" or whomever else the emergency of the day is.
- philwelch 15y ago
  Americans are somewhat unique among English speaking people for not distinguishing between liberalism and leftism. Once you make that distinction, the "amorphous civil-liberties contingent" is liberal by definition. The culture of internet outrage that involves upvoting these things to the roof does get in the way of understanding and addressing the issue in a reasonable fashion. I don't think it matters especially what specific worldview someone has when they're in that mindset.
zmmmmm 15y ago
> many MPs, including the PM, were vocal about the benefits of social media during this whole sorry affair I find this sort of thing almost more disturbing. It implies that whether we should allow totalitarian measures merely depends on a judgement of case by case merit - oh look, social media had a good side that balanced out the bad side, let's not ban it. This time. So what if the authorities decide one day there is no good side? Or just that they don't like the good side that might exist? This kind of statement sounds good but is actually an argument FOR censorship in disguise.

xedarius 15y ago

It's strange because this is not getting reported at all in the UK (and by the UK on mean on the BBC).

Naga 15y ago

ored

chevas 15y ago

Might as well ban telephones while they're at it. Call in telcom also to discuss their role in the recent riots.

linuxhansl 15y ago

Right that's the solution. When there's civil unrest, why try to fix the problem that caused it when you can just stop people from organizing the unrest?

dasil003 15y ago

The mere suggestion of this is proof of how impotent the government really is. How do they really think it would help? Shutting down this channel or that channel is meaningless in the age of easy communication. Unless they shut off the internet and cell phone networks entirely it will have little effect. Pathetic really.

scrrr 15y ago

Think about it. This makes sense. People who are in power of course are threatened by new, fast ways to share information just as much as established businesses are threatened by ecommerce-sites like Amazon. This threat is real and the danger is justified. Recent uprisings in Libya, Syria etc. put fear in the hearts of western politicians, too. Rightfully so. The world must and will change as a consequence. I think in more profound ways than we can predict yet. Of course they don't react rationally because they don't understand it. They also make the mistake that the voters actually would like a social media ban. Of course they don't.

GeneralMaximus 15y ago

No no no. You're doing it wrong. What you need to do is ban socket() on all computers everywhere. That's the only way to fix this problem.

jwr 15y ago

"free flow of information can sometimes be a problem" — I never thought I'd hear these words from a British PM.

bradgessler 15y ago
Yeah, wow, I'm dumbfounded. If the British government follows through with this, the rioters will actually have a new reason to riot: freedom of speech.
- estel 15y ago
  I don't see how it's controversial to say that the "free flow of information can sometimes be a problem"? Obviously this freedom can cause problems for some at times; but this is a price we pay for a free and open society.
  - jwr 15y ago
    Taken out of context (as you did) it isn't controversial. But in the context of the article linked to it implies that it is a problem that the government needs to do something about by restricting the said free flow of information.
    - estel 15y ago
      I didn't take the quote out of context any more than you did in the grandparent! I definitely have a problem with the Government restricting the flow of that information; but that doesn't mean that the flow itself isn't problematic at times.
- liedra 15y ago
  Not that I agree with the knee-jerk reaction put forward by Cameron, but actually, protesters will protest. There's a big difference between rioting and protesting, and it's important to make that clear.
  - 15y ago

Tichy 15y ago

I think it is really people that is the problem. People should be banned.

epaga 15y ago

Best comment I saw regarding this was on Twitter: "Urban rioting existed before SMS/social media. You know what didn't? Large-scale community cleanups, spontaneously organized within hours."

petercooper 15y ago

How did the riots spread to so many disparate areas? Copycat activity based on seeing riots occur on TV. So, sure, turn off Twitter and Facebook for a while, but be sure to turn off Sky News and BBC News at the same time, since that's where people are seeing the most sensational videos that encourage people to join in. Or.. perhaps just leave it as is, eh?

ck2 15y ago

Makes about as much sense as groping millions of passengers before they fly and take away their water bottles because a dozen people managed to take over a plane.

dkersten 15y ago

Because nobody ever rioted before facebook.

rvschuilenburg 15y ago
exactly. And after blocking it all down, the rioters will be all like "huh, what now? Oh well, we better not start a riot then".

dmor 15y ago

Maybe they should focus on enforcing the laws they have, not forming special committees to write more. I have to believe it is against the terms of service of all these apps to conspire to commit crimes or participate in criminal activity using Twitter, Facebook, BBM, etc. Would they propose shutting down telephones, text messaging, and all other forms of communication (snail mail, singing clown telegrams, monkey butlers) which have been used for good and evil since their existence?

mojuba 15y ago
Just yesterday some commentator on Sky said it's the television to blame in the first place, for spreading a message that looting gets away without punishment. Internet and mobile communication came into play only after that.

daveoh 15y ago

OK lets look at the facts here. Blackberry phones have become widely used by the urban poor because they are free on cheap tarrifs. BBM is essentially free text messaging and so also widely used by the urban poor. Its should come as no surprise that the riots were co-ordinated by BBM. Its just text messaging, quick and easy. I find it hard to believe that the rioters running round London was browsing facebook and twitter. The comparison should not be made with social networking sites (which the term social media is synonymous with), just because BBM uses the internet, rather the comparison should be made with text messaging. I like how the term 'social media' has been used here. What is social media? Anything that is used for communication? So are we talking about controlling text messaging, phone calls, email? Because to organise this amount of organised theft and vandalism these avenues of communication are more likely to be the methods of choice.

a3_nm 15y ago

If this could encourage people in Britain to use alternatives to Facebook and Twitter, then this could be a pretty good thing for the health of the social media ecosystem.

Havoc 15y ago

Good luck enforcing that.

alexholehouse 15y ago

I implore everyone commenting here to; a) Listen to the actual statement [1] (or even better debate) - DO NOT take what CNN, Metro or anyone other news outlet says for granted. Journalists want to sell newspapers/adspace, parliamentary debate is often not the most glamorous thing in the world, so there is a certain need to spice things up. Reporting can be factually accurate while remaining bias or even misleading. b) Do NOT draw unconditional comparison with incidents in Libya, Egypt or Norway. It's ignorant and more than anything belittles events in those countries. c) Understand that the reporting of these riots by the international community, or more importantly the profiling of those involved, has been unreasonably flattering. The absolute majority of people in the UK have no sympathy for these people. This is not a class, race or age issue. Clearly, I cannot speak for all British citizens, but the only people I've seen with anything complementary regarding those involved in the riots (and I say riots, which are separate from the initial protests, which are a whole other kettle of fish) are ill informed and closed minded. This is not an uprising of the social underclass - it's rioting by a tiny fraction of people who have been systematically failed by elements of multiple governments' social, economic and education polices, but that does in no way give them to right to behave as they have. Many thousands more are in the same situation and did not participate, but rather displayed horror at the events. This is not meant to be inflammatory - there are many problems which need to be addressed, both in terms of policy, as well as the more worrying collapse of morals and underlying social detritus which again is very much not a class, race or age factor. These riots are symptomatic of that. However, in no way did David Cameron (who is not my favourite person in the world) propose an all out social media ban, and I feel that by omitting the ("... for rioters") in this title is somewhat misleading. The government will discuss the situation with the companies at hand (initially RIM/Twitter and Facebook), and if a workable solution presents itself, this will be debated in parliament. David Cameron is not an expert on social media, but would you expect him to be? That is the reason for these meetings. That is how democracy works. This is not a knee-jerk and blanket reaction (as seen in Egypt/Libya) but one that will go through proper process. There is already an e-petition which has attracted enough supports to force governmental debate on the subject of removing benefits from rioters [2], a poorly thought out move in my opinion, but one that will nevertheless be debated by parliament. People are angry, and the government must respond to that without being too heavy handed. This is not straightforward, but equally a lack of review regarding social media's impact on the riots would be irresponsible. d) (And not really relevant here at all, but it's been winding me right up) BlackBerry is a brand of phone. RIM is the company that makes that phone. Officials cannot talk to "BlackBerry", they talk to RIM - it's like saying officials will talk to "BigMac". [1] - http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/pm-statement-on-disorder-in-england/ http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/pm-statement-on-disorder-in-... [2] http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/7337 http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/7337

ximeng 15y ago

See also MP Louise Mensch's twitter feed: https://twitter.com/#!/LouiseMensch/status/101754495700185088 https://twitter.com/#!/LouiseMensch/status/10175449570018508... "And really, stop w/ all the dramatics. Nobody is talking about "shutting down Twitter". It's about listening to police & a couple hours off." amongst other opinions.

msabalau 15y ago

One might have hoped that a leader in a democratic society would have thought carefully and fully before suggesting that a type of media be regulated or restricted. It is sad that Cameron instead chooses to indulge in irresponsible speculation about the value of such measures. Indeed, it would seem that the spread of the rioting and looting can most easily be explained by people watching television and seeing others get away with such crimes.

m0wfo 15y ago

What worries me as much as the double standard, i.e. scorning Iran, China etc for their crackdown social networking sites is that the conservatives have the unequivocal support of Labour on this issue. Not only is there no criticism coming from the political left in the UK, but their obsession with deploying intrusive computer systems during their previous period in office suggests a power like this would have been enacted far more quickly were they still in charge.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]