Slashdot Mirror


UK To Shut Down Social Networks?

Stoobalou writes "In a move worthy of China's communist regime, UK PM David Cameron wants to shut down social networks whenever civil unrest rears its head in Britain's towns and cities. Speaking in the House of Commons, Cameron said, 'Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were, organized via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill. So we are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry 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.'" So far I haven't heard anyone blame the Rock 'n Roll music, but if social networks aren't a good enough culprit, you could also try blaming video games.

26 of 403 comments (clear)

  1. China? by creat3d · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Worthy of China? Sure, but Egypt was the first time that came to mind while watching this disgraceful session live... that didn't work too well BTW.

    --
    Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
    1. Re:China? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Worthy of China? Sure, but Egypt was the first time that came to mind while watching this disgraceful session live... that didn't work too well BTW.

      What these so called "leaders" don't understand is the same social networks used to organize these actions are also being used by the public to warn each other about where these attacks are taking place, where to avoid and calling their friends & neighbors to arms to help them protect their families, homes and businesses.

    2. Re:China? by EasyTarget · · Score: 4, Insightful

      many others have said, there's a distinct difference between shutting down communication mediums to stop people fighting for freedom from an oppresive regime, and shutting down communcation mediums to stop people from organising looting and other self-serving crimes.

      That's what the Chinese say too.. and Mr Mubarak, the Bahrain medievalists etc.. they all say something just like that before trying to suppress riots caused by their states systemic failings.

      --
      "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
    3. Re:China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      What these so called "Slashdot commentators" don't understand is that he's talking about blocking individuals from social networks, not blocking the social networks themselves. But why let the facts get in the way of a good YRO bullshit rant?

    4. Re:China? by Tapewolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      What these so called "leaders" don't understand is the same social networks used to organize these actions are also being used by the public to warn each other about where these attacks are taking place, where to avoid and calling their friends & neighbors to arms to help them protect their families, homes and businesses.

      They do. I've been listening to the parlimentary debate (which has now shifted to the economy) and this fact has been pointed out several times - by MPs.

      From the debate, it sounds to me more like they want to somehow censor (or monitor?) its use for criminal activity, without preventing people from organising the clean-up operations or similar things. That's the impression I got, anyway.

    5. Re:China? by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think they do understand it, it's just that the summary has, as is routine on Slashdot, taken the worst possible misinterpretation of what was said.

      Reading the story about it on the BBC, and other comments surrounding it sounds like they're merely just considering what can be done about people who use such tools to organise trouble.

      It doesn't sound like they're looking at making much of a stretch from where we are now - where, police can arrest someone, release them on bail, and ban them from using a computer as part of their bail conditions. Realistically, knowing politicians, it'll just be something as impotent as introducing ASBOs that ban computer usage for a fixed period or something silly like that.

      Certainly I don't think it's clear that they're planning to just try blanket prevent access to sites like Facebook etc.

      Of course it's possible I'm wrong, time will tell I guess. But far more often than not when Slashdot has jumped to the extreme interpretation of something related to British politics it's not actually turned out that way in practice.

      Besides, that's one thing I really don't think they'd be able to get past their coalition partners, although I suppose they may not need to, it's the sort of thing Labour would probably back too I guess going on their past track record.

      The organised cleanups were far more prominently featured as a benefit of social networking, and involved far more law abiding citizens than there were rioters during this whole debacle so people aren't going to let that be lost on the politicians.

    6. Re:China? by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's ok, I'm waiting for the UN to draft a security council resolution that permits any and all means necessary to support the protesters and enforces a no fly zone on the UK.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:China? by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The main difference, of course, as that the UK PM is discussing the action before just plain doing it without informing the public.

      Yes, it's always so much better when the rapist let's you know he's going to rape you before he does it.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    8. Re:China? by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 3, Informative

      Asking shouldn't make it right either. I know I'm saying this through U.S.-colored glasses, but free speech is a fundamental human right and no one should ever be expected to give it up.

      More to the point, the problem here isn't social media, rather it is that the police feel its okay to shoot kids and the kids feel its okay to loot and riot. Both of which can occur just as well with or without social media.

    9. Re:China? by Dorkmaster+Flek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's even less feasible than shutting down the networks entirely. How will you figure out who is participating in the attacks and who is just reporting on them and trying to warn others? By hand, maybe, but you won't have the response time to deal with it. If you automate the process, you're going to silence people trying to report on what's happening or warn others. And of course, you'd still need the cooperation of Twitter or whatever social network you're talking about to make all this happen. This is a really stupid idea any way you slice it.

      --
      I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
    10. Re:China? by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes the USA colored glasses also shows that "protect me from terrorists" is far more important than the pesky freedom thing that we claim to hold in the highest regard.

      Every American that claims they love freedom bot does not loudly demand the PATRIOT act be repealed is a hypocrite.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:China? by Cimexus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactly right. Slashdot always does that: takes the worst possible misinterpretation of anything that a government, or anyone even vaguely related to government, says. Especially non-US governments. Even if it was an off hand comment, mere suggestion, or slip of the tongue from some random MP with negligible political influence, the Slashdot headline will read as if it is already an enacted, freedom-crushing law. Even if it's obvious to blind Freddy that it has no practical possibility of ever becoming reality.

      That is the case here: Cameron knows full well that you can't 'shut down' social networks (you block one site/protocol/etc, and another pops up to take it's place - it's like the pointless battle against torrent sites etc.) He's just trying to score some political brownie points with certain segments of the population.

      See also: compulsory Australian internet filter (which never existed, never had any hope of existing, and was never actually even introduced into Parliament as a Bill, let alone passed - but many on Slashdot who just read the headlines no doubt thought, and still think, that Australia has some kind of government-run filter). A couple of particularly vocal politicians were pushing it, but it could never have got through the Senate. In the end it became nothing more than a voluntary filter, blocking the tiniest handful of sites, and implemented by just two ISPs (who did so for their own commercial reasons, not due to a law).

    12. Re:China? by 1s44c · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More to the point, the problem here isn't social media, rather it is that the police feel its okay to shoot kids and the kids feel its okay to loot and riot. Both of which can occur just as well with or without social media.

      Youtube has done a lot of good by bringing police abuses in many countries to the public attention. Video shows exactly what happened with no room for bias. Freedom of social networks and media in general is something we should defend.

    13. Re:China? by digitig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know if it is the same in the UK but here it seems the PC media is doing their damnedest to cover up the fact it appears to be almost exclusively a black on white hate crime.

      Here in the UK it is almost exclusively not a black on white hate crime (although there are some minority elements of that, and there have been white supremacist groups trying to turn it into that in order to inflame things). In predominantly black areas it's predominantly black people rioting, in predominantly white areas it's predominantly white people rioting, in mixed areas it has been a mix. It's mainly a Lord of the Flies type kids-left-to-their-own-devices-go-feral type crime, with a lot of added "W00t! Free stuff! Shiny!"

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    14. Re:China? by redemtionboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Comparing raping to turning off social media temporarily for the good of society? Are the updates about your friend's cat that important to you?

      "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." There is no excuse to violating the right of freedom of speech and communication, no matter what the justification. If I can justify locking away people in internment camps for the good of society does that make it acceptable

  2. Argh by SpooForBrains · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As soon as people started muting shutting down Blackberry Messenger, I had a bad feeling that this bullshit would follow.

    The politicos don't understand the role that social media and internet communications play in people's lives. They wouldn't suggest shutting down the POTS network, or the postal service. Well, actually, that's giving them too much credit. They'd probably suggest exactly that.

    --
    "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
  3. that's not enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mr Cameron, the problem starts with the fact that those criminals can READ and WRITE. This is a risk we can no longer allow!
    Please, for the sake of our lives, CLOSE ALL SCHOOLS IMMEDIATELY before they can release EVEN MORE CRIMINALS upon us!

    1. Re:that's not enough! by jez9999 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Please, for the sake of our lives, CLOSE ALL SCHOOLS IMMEDIATELY before they can release EVEN MORE CRIMINALS upon us!

      Hey, give them time! They're trying. And to begin with, they're at least making it prohibitively expensive to go to university.

  4. Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    What on gods earth?

    I was watching the debate live, and the feel of the speech was really not like this at all. Throughout twitter and facebook were praised, especially things like the london clean up efforts organized through twitter. In fact it was somewhat reassuring to see that they sort of knew what they were talking about. The measures talked about were primarily disabling masts in rioting areas so that communications would be ceased, nowhere near 'banning' social networks. Honestly, the feel of the speech was aimed towards leveraging them for good. It was said that they would be talking to them directly to see if together they could tackle issues, such as images/videos glorifying the acts.

  5. hyperbole by spikenerd · · Score: 4, Insightful
    quote by Cameron:

    we are working... to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services

    Article title:

    Cameron threatens to shut down UK social networks

    1. Re:hyperbole by Spad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed, blocking known troublemakers from posting Twitter updates about their latest theft isn't exactly the civil rights disaster that TFA appears to be trying to paint.

  6. Article is wrong - here's what was really said by DJRikki · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-08/11/david-cameron-social-media "Prime Minister David Cameron has told parliament that he is investigating whether to stop people communicating via social networking sites ****if they are known to be planning criminal activity****."

  7. Ridiculous power grabs to what end?? by syousef · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What the fuck has happened to all the western governments and what do they think they'll be able to achieve with increasingly draconian police state style laws? It boggles the mind. What will the puppet masters do once they've finished stringing up the puppets. It's not as if they don't have all the power they need to do all sorts of nasty things as it is. Why do they keep pushing for more? It makes no sense. It'd be like Bill Gates with all his billions scheming to mug people on the way home from work to increase his wealth. Meanwhile they let the economy fail and public infrastructure, education and health crumble.Gated communities aren't much good to you if there's no one left to buy things from. Idiots.

    And the goddamn tech-bashing? What the fuck? On the one hand money frittered away on Internet services no one needs (see Australia for a prime example) and on the other lock down the net with fucked up filters that make it useless and stifle the very freedoms that have made it a success. What have these people been smoking?

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  8. Re:Worked well before... by frap · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Those situations have absolutely no baring on what happened here in the UK and you can't compare them. In those countries, they were actively uprising against a political struggle and the whole of the nation was behind the movement. In the case of the UK riots, it was essentially a load of complete reprobates wanting to cause as much trouble as possible and loot some free shit from houses and business. The feeling over here, on the whole, is one of utter disgust and I would imagine that most people in the UK would support any actions that could prevent the spread of violence if it can be justified. This might be a step too far, but as someone above me mentioned, it's only being discussed at the moment. Twitter was a complete nightmare throughout the ordeal, with fake and unsubstantiated reports being broadcast and getting people worked up for absolutely no reason.

  9. Inflammatory journalism again... by Aphrika · · Score: 3, Informative

    There was nothing in his speech about shutting down networks, merely targeting those inciting violence and disorder.

    In that respect, it's bringing social networking in line with other UK media which are also bound not to incite violence etc. It's certainly not a shutdown of a service in any way.

  10. Re:Networks interpret censorship as damage... by ISurfTooMuch · · Score: 3, Informative

    That is only true if you have a multitude of independently-controlled routes data can take to travel from one point to another with no one central point that can fail, either accidentally or deliberately. That was the original idea of how the Internet would be constructed, but it isn't how it works today, at least not on the consumer side. So, unless you have multiple connections not controlled by a single entity coming into your house (and a government counts as a controlling entity, so getting connections from multiple providers under its jurisdiction doesn't count), and, unless the site you want to visit is networked the same way, your statement means nothing.

    Actually, this old meme, IMHO, is dangerous. It implies that censorship can't happen, which is most certainly not true. This leads people to take threats of censorship less seriously because they mistakenly think that the censorship efforts will be futile, which is also not true. Sure, someone with enough knowledge and determination might get around it, but most folks won't. Ask the North Korean authorities about that. I'm sure they know that information still leaks in, but enough people are prevented from getting at it to make their censorship regime effective.