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.

Comments

China?

[creat3d]

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.

Re:China?

[WrongSizeGlass]

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.

Re:China?

[EasyTarget]

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.

Re:China?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:China?

[Tapewolf]

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.

Re:China?

[Xest]

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.

Re:China?

[Dunbal]

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.

Re:China?

[elrous0]

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.

Re:China?

[Dorkmaster Flek]

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.

Re:China?

[Cimexus]

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).

Re:China?

[1s44c]

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.

that's not enough!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

hyperbole

[spikenerd]

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

Article is wrong - here's what was really said

[DJRikki]

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****."