12 ms·

> 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

by 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?
        forensic 15y ago
        Bread and circuses didn't work for the Roman Empire either you know. Phones are not equivalent to: - medical care - education - housing - sufficient wealth to have children - healthy food - self-respect
- 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."

by zeteo 15y ago

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?
        forensic 15y ago
        Bread and circuses didn't work for the Roman Empire either you know. Phones are not equivalent to: - medical care - education - housing - sufficient wealth to have children - healthy food - self-respect
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."