David Cameron considers banning suspected rioters from social media

reply to post by JennaDarling


But the policing of rioting is partly a technical problem.

Someone pointed out last night, on Newsnight I think, that in the 80’s only the police had the means to instantly communicate and organise themselves. Now that any group can do that the police need to understand how they do it if they are going to counter it in cases such as this.

Prevention is better but that doesn’t always work.

reply to post by Mike_A


There are all kinds of methods of communication from the internet to cellphones and even 2 way radios. The heart of the matter herein lies: IF your social networking and blackberry accounts were at risk because you were suspected of a crime, how accountable is the authority when you're proven innocent? How many cases of false arrest have been won?

Call it what you will and paint it in whatever light makes you feel best... the FACT remains that when things get out of hand, people (innocent or guilty) lose their freedoms! (Martial law comes to mind here)

reply to post by Invariance


Being a United Statesian, I have no idea how the corporate law system works in the UK, but I don't think talking/posting messages/spreading ideas is a sufficient reason to arrest anyone. Especially when it comes to using websites/cell phones, anyone can spoof an IP address or phone number easily. I understand why they're rioting, but they're going about it all wrong.

reply to post by PatriotAct


If they are under suspicion of trying to organise or incite others to cause violence then they can be arrested. As has happened to two individuals from Scotland. Who went on Facebook encouraging others, to riot in Glasgow and Dundee. One of the these individuals Facebook account was set to private.

So yes they can under the law, arrest you and keep you in remand if you are under an suspicion of inciting or encouraging others to riot or even be violent.

reply to post by Invariance


Martial law is jumping the gun more than a little don’t you think?

IF your social networking and blackberry accounts were at risk because you were suspected of a crime, how accountable is the authority when you're proven innocent?

As accountable as they are in any other case I’d imagine.

Couldn’t this whole line of reasoning be applied to any legal power? You can argue against the power to arrest because when things get out of hand people (innocent or guilty) lose their freedoms.

I don’t see what the problem is with this so long as it has the necessary safeguards are put in place to ensure it is not abused.

Remember the whole furore when it was claimed that it would be illegal to film police? We had the same people on here shouting “martial law!” and “New World Order!” Yet we’ve had no end of amateur footage of the police since then.

So far we don’t really know anything other than Theresa May will have discussions with various social media groups in the next few weeks.

reply to post by Invariance

How many undercover police thugs were involved or even provoked these riots so they could implement new draconian laws.

I even raised this point when riots were first starting.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I highly doubt this can be implemented.
There are ways around blocking software/firewalls.
While it may sound good as an idea,most youngsters are tech savvy enough to get around such bans I think.

My answer?
6-12 months forced community work 8am till 6pm 6days a week.
For EVERY rioter found guilty.

Any offence during of after the 6 months-you get another 6 months-for each offence.

Apart from all the riot damage to repair-we need our bloody potholes filled-thats plenty of work for the reprobates IMO.
Start the chain gangs!

Originally posted by TheMaverick
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.

Why should it have been over on the first night ?

The riots in Northern Ireland earlier this summer spread from city to city over several days, the riots in various English inner-cities in the 1980s usually lasted for days on end, the riots in France - largely caused by people from a similar socio-economic background as these recent riots - lasted for three weeks.

It's unusual for widespread civil unrest - even localised - to be quelled on the same night it started.

The simple fact of the matter is that the police are always hopelessly outnumbered and ''playing catch-up'' in the early days of rioting when large groups of rioters mobilise.

reply to post by Invariance


I told my friend to watch out for this on the first day of the riots. there is to much freedom of speech on social networking for the govts likeing imo.

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

edit on 11-8-2011 by Invariance because: added another quote and note

I know this has been covered already in the thread, but the above statement is so off, I can't help but raise it again.

OP, can you explain what you meant by this? Where do you live that one must be proven guilty before he or she is arrested. I've never heard of such a thing, and it would seem to me a very peculiar concept. Not sure how that would even work.

Here in the US, and I'm imagining in many other countries around the world, one is arrested on suspicion, and then that suspicion is put to the test in a court of law.

It's been this way for centuries and more.

Quoting from the OP source here:

A move to disconnect potential rioters would mark a huge shift in Britain's internet policy, with free speech advocates likely to accuse the government of ushering in a new wave of online censorship. ...
Jim Killock, the executive director of online advocacy organisation Open Rights Group, said Cameron risked attacking the "fundamental" right of free speech.

"Events like the recent riots are frequently used to attack civil liberties. Policing should be targeted at actual offenders, with the proper protection of the courts," Killock added. ...

"Citizens also have the right to secure communications. Business, politics and free speech relies on security and privacy. David Cameron must be careful not to attack these fundamental needs because of concerns about the actions of a small minority."

[It is a good article if you read it all]

A agree with the privacy advocate. Target the GUILTY and stuff the excuses for violating privacy and basic human rights like freedom of speech here! Making social media sites take down pictures and comments people have taken of the riots doesn't make sense. How can you assume people will cause further damage because they see a photo or read a comment?

DO NOT forget the bigger picture here. This whole concept is like walking a tight rope. If they're not very, very careful, they'll have bigger problems to deal with over this!

This is outrageous. Sounds like more people need to be taking to the streets, and that they need to focus a bit more on certain targets.