David Cameron considers banning suspected rioters from social media

David Cameron considers banning suspected rioters from social media

www.guardian.co.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.

(visit the link for the full news article)


~edit~

Hampshire police on Wednesday arrested three people on suspicion of using Twitter and BlackBerry Messenger to incite violent disorder in Southampton. Those arrests are thought to be the first directly linked to the use of the popular BlackBerry instant messaging service. A number of arrests have been made of people suspected of inciting violence on Facebook.

People are being arrested on suspicion as well... What happened to proving people guilty first?

Now in lieu of the civil unrest in London, these people are guilty until proven innocent?
Either this will cause the people to lash out more or it will be taken as a blatant loss of freedom!

As the article continues, the government stated it will discuss the issue with the companies in question to see what their responsibilities are, they will also be demanding unused footage from the media.

Don't get me wrong here, I DO NOT condone senseless violence, but this government is attempting to withdraw freedoms based on SUPICION alone!

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

In other words a restraining order or ASBO applied against them from using a computer.

reply to post by Invariance

People are being arrested on suspicion as well... What happened to proving people guilty first?

People are found guilty in court, they are arrested on suspicion. It was ever thus.

reply to post by JennaDarling


It looks more like they'll be talking to Facebook, Twitter, etc.. about suspending accounts from what I read in the article.

UK, Middle East Uprisings Show Need for Uniform Response from Telecommunications Companies

For Immediate Release: August 10, 2011

Human Rights First is a nonpartisan, 501(c)(3), international human rights organization based in New York and Washington D.C.
We do not favor or oppose any candidate for public office.

www.humanrightsfirst.org/2011/08/10/uk-middle-east-uprisings-show-need-for-uniform-response-from-telecommunications-companies/

Washington, DC – As riots rage on in the United Kingdom, law enforcement authorities are seeking to identify rioters through access to encrypted text messages sent over blackberry handsets. Some who follow telecommunications developments have drawn parallels between the use of instant messaging and social media in the United Kingdom and the use of these technologies during the Middle East uprisings that took place in countries such as Egypt. Human Rights First today noted differences between the two situations.

“When threatened with nonviolent resistance, the Mubarak regime didn’t hesitate to invoke its significant control over the internet and telecommunications sector to shut down service, to surveil every aspect of users’ online life, and to limit public access to old media and market entry by new media. Egypt’s laws give the ruling authorities near total control over the sector,” said Human Rights First’s Meg Roggensack. “British authorities and telecommunications companies like Research in Motion should have protocols in place and should work through a legal process before personal user data is released during an investigation into acts of criminality.”

According to Human Rights First, how governments exercise their authority and how companies respond will influence the freedom of expression and privacy rights of users everywhere.

Communications companies face situations like these every day, in jurisdictions with and without robust legal process, and they should commit to three steps to help ensure that their decision making helps to protect and advance the freedom of expression and privacy rights of users, including:

* Understand the laws governing data privacy and freedom of speech, including hate speech, in the jurisdictions where the company operates.
* Have clear policies in place to identify the circumstances in which the company will disclose user information or place restrictions on free speech. These guidelines should include the requirement of a legal process and a commitment to interpret government demands and jurisdiction in ways that minimize their impact on users’ freedom of expression and privacy.
* Inform users of the circumstances in which their data will be turned over to third parties or their communications will be censored.

In addition, companies facing these situations could reassure users about their commitment to privacy by joining the Global Network Initiative, a multi-stakeholder initiative to help private sector actors protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of users in the face of government demands.

reply to post by Mike_A


I don't believe that makes it ok to withdraw a person's social networking ability based on suspicion though...

I believe that most of the time, you are guilty until proven innocent any way. I'd like to know what constitutes as 'suspicion'. You wonder what more liberties they want to take away? i.e. the right to protest?

Originally posted by Invariance
reply to post by JennaDarling

 

It looks more like they'll be talking to Facebook, Twitter, etc.. about suspending accounts from what I read in the article.

And they make a new one, big deal.

The only way to stop them is to use a court order locally to prevent them and if they braek the court order then it is a different ball game.

reply to post by jjjtir


Thanks for the article. It looks like a tricky tightrope walk, but if they don't know who's guilty, the courts will have to take extreme caution or we will see things really get out of hand I think.

reply to post by Invariance


You asked what happened to being found guilty before being arrested, I’m just pointing out that guilt has never been determined on arrest but at the court stage.

With regard to banning people from using certain social media, we have no idea even whether such powers will be given let alone how they would be implemented. The article is based on the back and forth of parliamentary questions which are not often all that accurate in their language.

As Jenna said, it sounds like an ASBO which would suggest that any application to ban someone from using social media would require the authorisation of a magistrate.

Here’s a link on ASBOs including the criteria that must be met before one is issued.

en.wikipedia.org...

It sounds like a daft idea, like the one about making all those scum homeless and taking their benefit payments away.

Knee jerk reactions with no forward thinking, creating more criminal behaviour. Typical government for you.

How are they going to stop someone going into an internet cafe and creating a false account?

They should ALL be given Community Service for a few years. That will give them work experience and help them connect with the communities to truly understand how their own selfishness, greed and lack of regard for others affected others.

The semi-collapse of society for 4 days has empowered Cameron. The media gave us enough shocking footage to be damning the under classes right now. More class divide, more power for authority. People will be lapping it all up.


The whole thing could very well be a social experiment, designed to restore faith in authority either through admiration or fear. A way of showing 'look what MIGHT happen if we cut police.

Originally posted by mr-lizard
The semi-collapse of society for 4 days has empowered Cameron. The media gave us enough shocking footage to be damning the under classes right now. More class divide, more power for authority. People will be lapping it all up.


The whole thing could very well be a social experiment, designed to restore faith in authority either through admiration or fear. A way of showing 'look what MIGHT happen if we cut police.

The media was paying rioters for pictures too.

This is farcical ,honestly ,how can they enforce this.

How can you stop them from making a new account.

How can you stop them using phones or laptops ,it's just ridiculous.

The Government is blaming everyone and anyone except themselves for the riots ....The blame game.

Edit:
If there was sufficient numbers of police on the first night instead of a poultry 3000 ,this could of been nipped in the bud on the first night ,it was bad management ,and the buck stops with the prime minster ,who was to busy drinking cocktails.

reply to post by Mike_A



According to the article I posted,

Cameron urged Twitter and Facebook to remove messages, images and videos that could incite more unrest across the country. "All of them should think about their responsibility and about taking down those images," he said. "There was an awful lot of hoaxes and false trails made on Twitter and BlackBerry Messenger and the rest of it. We need a major piece of work to make sure that the police have all the technological capabilities they need to hunt down and beat the criminals."

I wonder if this is some kind of knee-jerk reaction or if they can actually sift out the red-herrings. The whole concept hinky to me, really... They're afraid of people using social media, video, images and messages to incite more unrest? WHERE do you draw the line between freedom of speech and inciting unrest? If people are at their boiling point, I think a whole media blackout could be imposed and there would still be more violence.

That's the point.. where is freedom of speech no longer a freedom in a state of emergency like this?

Originally posted by TheMaverick
.

The Government is blaming everyone and anyone except themselves for the riots ....The blame game.

To be fair, the only people who are to blame for all that carnage are those who rioted and looted.

There's plenty of things I hate about our government yet it doesn't give me the right to trash my neighbours home/shop or car.

reply to post by JonoEnglish


Don't get me wrong ,I'm not condoning those thieving riot rats ,what when on cross the line ,but this could and should of been over on the first night ,it was poor policing that had a domino effect.

And slow reactions from the government.

reply to post by Invariance


It has always been illegal to incite violence and unrest, Cameron is only pointing out that there are now new ways of doing it that we need to understand.

Rioting is a parenting and social problem, not a technical problem.