5 ms·
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
by 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 agoMonitoring is far worse than banning.
- ig1 15y agoTwitter'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 agoTwitter 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 agoWhy 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 agoI'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.
- ig1 15y agoNo, but the OP specifically mentioned twitter. More generally I think we should wait until the government comes out with a formal proposal rather than getting all hung up on a soundbite.
- njharman 15y ago> I don't really see how anyone could object to a government monitoring it Because of small thing called 4th amendment which in part reads "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" While a USA constitutional amendment is based in British law. And in case you question; yes, I consider my electronic communications/records to be "papers, and effects". And if you question the wisdom of that particular right, I don't have time to explain, reference history for the supporting evidence.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- lukejduncan 15y agoIt's no different than requiring licenses for printing presses. It's not that printing presses are being banned, just unpopular speech...
- Natsu 15y agoI don't believe that they can "stop people communicating via these websites" in any sensible manner. They could use other websites, phones, or in-person meetings, not to mention countless other alternatives. The headline may be a bit off, but the suggestion is still absurd. This is just a politician trying to be seen "Doing Something" when he has no real solutions to offer. Embarrassing, really.