David Cameron considers banning suspected rioters from social media

Source: Guardian UK

David Cameron has told parliament that in the wake of this week's riots the government is looking at banning people from using social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook if they are thought to be plotting criminal activity.

The prime minister said the government will review whether it is possible to stop suspected rioters spreading online messages, in his opening statement during a Commons debate on Thursday on the widespread civil disorder for which MPs were recalled from their summer recess.

Answering questions after his statement, the prime minister added that the home secretary, Theresa May, will hold meetings with Facebook, Twitter and Research In Motion within weeks to discuss their responsibilities in this area.

Cameron also said that broadcasters – including the BBC and Sky News – have a responsibility to hand over unused footage of the riots to police.



Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/11/david-cameron-rioters-social-media

and I wonder who will make that determination and under what circumstances?

Here we go- it seems they were taken aback by the timing, but I'm sure all of the police state mechanisms are ready at their word.

Everyone grab some popcorn- things are about to get "interesting"

:popcorn:

praised as so essential to the uprisings in the Middle East and Northern Africa.
One man's revolution is another man's rebellion.

back in 1946-47, the British called the Irgun Zwai Lum 'terrorists' for their proclivity for blowing up buildings in Palestine under the British-mandate. IIRC, Menachim Begin and Ariel Sharon were both members of the Irgun Zwai Lum.

for that matter, the Americans and their Saigon puppets routinely referred to the cadres of the National Liberation Front as 'terrorists' before 1965.

Its where it has been proven that use of social media was used to organise/further a crime that simple breaking and entering has become the offence of aggravated burglary. Difference between the two is a wrist slap as opposed to a maximum 10 year sentence.

Unused footage - no real need. The public have been handing over their mobile phone pictures to the police to help identify looters and arsonists. That was how the guy who fired Miss Selfridge in Manchester was caught so quickly.

More serious issues are afoot too. At least two councils, Salford and Greenwich , have threatened to evict any tenants found guilty of helping destroy their own council areas / communities.

As I am sure the difference between the two will not be taken into consideration.

Anything, no matter how peaceful or law abiding, is a threat to them.

probably both come under normal crowd control other than when there is malicious intent. By that I mean for example where a Muslim protest was likely to be disrupted by an English Defence League protest in close proximity.

Also perhaps with the behavior of some members of law enforcement on those occasions.

if they gain the ability to disrupt criminal communications they have also ability to disrupt communication between dissidents.

Arab spring was a heck of a demonstration of the power of mobile communication, and governments (both good and bad) took notice.

The development of rules around pulling the plug on mobile phone and WiFi service during civil emergencies in the US will be a test of democracy and open government.

And their main$tream media mogul$ follow through.

Proof at hand, the millions and millions of peaceful protesters against the launching of the war on Iraq.

Need more evidence?

I am not sure how it would be accomplished, or even if it is technically possible to ban individuals from these media, but I am sure it will be abused by law enforcement.
In the long run it will hamper any effort to organize for any reason.
We had hope that the internet would be an important tool in the struggle for social justice around the world. Maybe that is what scares them so and why they will go to any effort to prevent it.

Furthermore, those who are using these resources can certainly find ways to get their message out there, so it seems likely (to me) that Cameron (and others?) intend to suppress online dissent, or any dissemination of information about dissent.

Fascist

Gee, where have we run into this before? Worked out so well all those other times. :sarcasm:

More seriously, it's one thing to plot criminal activity. It's quite another for authorities to THINK someone is plotting criminal activity. Case in point, that Brazilian guy who was killed by authorities in London, mistakenly indentified as a terrorist - i.e., someone whom authorities THOUGHT was plotting criminal activity.

I'm sure that Facebook, Twitter & RIM will tell them to go piss up a rope.

There are more than enough laws & regulations in place at the moment
for the police to obtain whatever data they require so this is just a
quick blast of sound bites to calm down the numpties who are "demanding
action".

:eyes:

Then again, I don't know what I would do about that situation.

i use my facebook to plot crime all the time, i ask friends if i can come over, if they say yes it is implied that we will be smoking weed or hash together so i guess people like me would lose their facebook in the uk, the thing is i talk to uk nationals but we live in france so can the uk still ban us for organizing smoke sessions via instant messengers?

Don't forget this man is a direct descendent of George III!

:sarcasm:

which may have caused at most a million pounds damage. They're all yelling about stiffer penalties, really making these street criminals pay and pay with more draconian punishments. Where were these guys when the banksters made off with the loot amounting to hundreds of billions? Where's the outrage on that? Man, talk about a lack of proportion in the responses!

If one shares the wealth, then one gets away with it. After all the banksters are just stealing from the little people. And they pay well.

But if the little people, those who believe in a common good (as opposed to pay offs), then that ain't good for the old cash flow to switzerland...

that you discount so easily.

But, hey, since almost no TeeVee camera will ever be there to capture their death on tape, who should care about these forgotten dispo$ables...

The safety net is large...are you aware? Do you know about council housing and how people are supported from cradle to grave?

Do you know anything about the system there?

So it is OK to kill people who are defending their property? Three Muslim men were killed trying to stop violence...but I guess that is ok in your world.

FYI, nowhere.

And, yes, the criminals that got bailed out in the U.K. are ALSO responsible in part for more deaths in the U.S. by just being profiting ACCOMPLICES of the WORLDWIDE bankster SCAMS.

The country where their victims suffer from their complicity in these scams doesn't matter. I am glad their UK victims will do fine, although not better like they deserved to, but you must realize the fact that many of their victims were living overseas.

Also note the fact that I don't resort to falsely accusing you of being OK with them killing MORE people elsewhere, BTW.

I assume you do not condone their economic crimes. Mmmm?

So, I'm guessing they at least had a chance to make out a lot better than our unconditional surrender.

We'd rather give the rich our children's and grandchildren's futures without getting anything in return than hear someone cry "SocialimsA" Funny thing. They cry "Socialism" anyway.

originated, is speaking of cutting off access to social media selectively, on mere suspeiciaon. No arrest warrant, no charges, no trial, nada, zip, zilch, bubkes. (If social media, why not also a prinint press?)

If Americans were rioting in the street, would whatever is left of the Constitution also go down the tubes post haste?

And would that be perfectly acceptable to most Americans?

without using their real name

so how the hell would they enforce it?

And, you know, actually find out whether -- and when and where -- they might be plotting something?

...these politicians are idiots.

when you don't have that pesky bill of rights to get in the way?
This is one of the reasons we kicked the Brits out 235 years ago.

--MAB

...does anyone else think some of this sounds fairly fascist...?

I dunno, that's almost as bad as telling the news media not to interview any of them, so they can;t be made heroes.

ug, not awake enough yet to process fully, but it sounds like a bad idea...didn't they do that in IRAN, shut down the internet?

to plan a riot. How stupid do they think people are?

Internet Service Providers and Facebook cooperate with government.

I have been making such a case of Fascistbook all week...

:puke:

seems the direction this is going

Life imitates art "Minority Report" !!

It's based on my blog and my Facebook page
But Cameron tossed me out, so I have to be a paperback rioter,
Paperback rioter!

'89 (France). Gee, insurrection was impossible without Tweets, wasn't it?

Will this message fit?

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-08/11/david-cameron-social-media
When he was later challenged to increase the headcount of police on the streets, he replied that the focus should be on whether "to give the police the technology to trace people on Twitter or BBM or close it down" before talking about police resources.


"or close it down" That's a strong statement and quite the opposite of his stance on social media in regard to Egypt recently:


http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/social-media-and-facemasks-are-targets-after-british-riots/

During a speech in Kuwait in February, he described the central role of social media in rallying young people to overthrow autocratic regimes in Tunisia and Egypt.

It belongs to a new generation for whom technology — the Internet and social media — is a powerful tool in the hands of citizens, not a means of repression. It belongs to the people who’ve had enough of corruption, of having to make do with what they’re given, of having to settle for second best.

For decades, some have argued that stability required highly controlling regimes, and that reform and openness would put that stability at risk. So, the argument went, countries like Britain faced a choice between our interests and our values. And to be honest, we should acknowledge that sometimes we have made such calculations in the past. But I say that is a false choice.

Mr. Cameron added the freedom of speech and the Internet must be respected “in Tahrir Square as much as Trafalgar Square.”

The irony is delicious. The hypocrisy, sublime. I just love professional politicians, particularly when they're talking about "freedom" - best stand up comedy in the business. :spray: :rofl:

in the contrast of those statements and with his own actions and associations.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1710000#1710543
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1710000&mesg_id=1711615


:hi:

like his forebears in the 18th century, and more time solving the endemic poverty and unemployment in England's "ghettos."

This is just fluff--attacking "social media." Even if he gets away with it, it's neither going to stop anybody from using "social media" nor stop riots by hopeless youth, who, after all, are just imitating their 'betters'--who are looting on a scale that poor kids can only dream of.

Believe me, it ain't our countries that are bankrupt. It's our leaders' souls.

21st century = 100 years of stupid; with the sociopathic moron, G. W. Bush, blazing the trail.

nt

always ready with the PR spin, quick to cast the blame for failure on others and never a true word.

Touch him where you will and he rings false.

First his government announce that they are laying off 1 in 5 policemen including some of their most experienced law officers. Then he criticises the Metropolitan police for being insufficiently robust in tackling the riots when it was clear in the early stages they simply lacked the manpower to cope and could only suppress the riots by sucking in police reserves from elsewhere in the UK.

Siomilarly he attacks Arab dictators for suppressing freedom of speech and then threatens to shut down social media outlkets in the UK.

Even the Thatcher government of the 1980s acknowledged that the riots it faced needed more than just tough talk It at least recognised its law officers were necessary for its survival and made some token efforts to address some of the grievances that led to the 1981 riots. There is not even the glimmer of recognition from Cameron that his government might have some responsibility for the collapse of public order earlier this week in London.

Any way one thing the cops and the rioters have in common is that they both hate Camerons guts.

I think I agree with every single word in it.

:toast:

Their lips are moving.