British Government Looking To Ban "Suspected" Rioters From Facebook And Twitter

[The Wooster]

British Government Looking To Ban "Suspected" Rioters From Facebook And Twitter

British Prime Minister David Cameron wants to prevent suspected rioters from using social networking sites to organize criminal activity.

In his opening statement to Parliament, Cameron questioned the role of social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook in the spate of recent riots that have spread throughout England.

"Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organised via social media," said Cameron. "Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill." He then added, "Police were facing a new circumstance where rioters were using the BlackBerry Messenger service, a closed network, to organise riots. We've got to examine that and work out how to get ahead of them."

"And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them," he said. "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."

Cameron also vowed to do "whatever it takes" to restore order, a statement that, in this context, has free speech advocates worried. Jim Killock, executive director the Open Rights Group [http://www.openrightsgroup.org/], an online free-speech advocacy group, believes that censoring "suspected" rioters without the input the court system could be construed as an attack on free speech. "How do people 'know' when someone is planning to riot?" he said. "Who makes that judgment? The only realistic answer is the courts must judge. If court procedures are not used, then we will quickly see abuses by private companies and police."

He then added, "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."

The police have made numerous arrests based on evidence gathered from Facebook, where various criminal masterminds have taken to posting pictures of themselves with items stolen during the riots.

Home secretary Theresa May will be holding meetings with execs from Facebook and Twitter in the coming weeks. In the meantime, Cameron has urged Facebook and Twitter to remove messages, images and videos that could incite unrest. "All of them should think about their responsibility," he said. He also suggested that media outlets should give any unused footage of the riots to the police to help in making arrests.

Source: The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/11/david-cameron-rioters-social-media]

Permalink

 

[gabe12301]

how about they ban them from the rest of the world.preferably with metal bars. They have no excuse to go around taking thousands of dollars worth of stuff just because they were unhappy with their lives or whatever.

 

[manythings]

How long before someone makes "Not for crime"-book?

 

[Falseprophet]

When the Iranian, Egyptian, Libyan, Tunisian, Syrian, etc. governments tried to shut these things down in the face of riots and protests, it was an attack against freedom, democracy and human rights. When the UK government does it, it's "to restore order."

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

-C.S. Lewis

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

When the Iranian, Egyptian, Libyan, Tunisian, Syrian, etc. governments tried to shut these things down in the face of riots and protests, it was an attack against freedom, democracy and human rights. When the UK government does it, it's "to restore order."

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

-C.S. Lewis

These are not victims. They are animals. People who looted, assaulted people, tore down lives and in cases, killed. They do not fight for politics. They fight for a new TV. These scum dont deserve any healthcare ever again. Taking away their facebooks is NOT tyranny. Its only the filthy rats that have their facebook taken. People get to keep theirs.

"And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them," he said. "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."

Um, no. It's not. That is NOT okay.

Giving the Government power over communication is too much.

These people dont really have rights in my view. They are depraved animals and should be treated as such. They dont have the right to remove it from law abiding citizens. But your average jail inmate does not have facebook... this is the same thing isnt it? Taking it away from criminals? They do that anyway when they are sent to jail. This is no new power.

EDIT: Whoops misread. Wow no court intervention? Thats not cool. Known fellons deserve this. Not just "suspects". Thats a bit out of order.

Well he said when they "know". Lets say someone with a criminal record tells his friend with a criminal record "Imma go brutally rape and kill some hookers, at "date,time" wanna come along? Being a knife". Then this should be instigated. I think if its certain they are then yes. Take all their rights.

 

[Epona]

So, worldwide dissent has spread to western nations, we're (the US) is next. This is what happens when governments run amok. People wait for their chance to revolt and revolt is used broadly. The government won't win this time I fear.

 

[Xannieros]

How about you monitor suspected "criminals" and then arrest them if guilty. Just a thought.

 

[Jonci]

One of the reasons some of the people are rioting is because they think it's the only way they'll get the government to listen. So the response is keep them from talking?

 

[BgRdMchne]

Taking half-measures and squashing everyone's, not just the criminals, rights will not stop a riot. There are only two options: 1. Quash it; or 2. try to contain it and wait it out. Nothing else will work.

You would think that the crown would have learned from what happened in Egypt.

 

[Sparrow]

"And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them," he said. "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."

Um, no. It's not. That is NOT okay.

Giving the Government power over communication is too much.

When the Iranian, Egyptian, Libyan, Tunisian, Syrian, etc. governments tried to shut these things down in the face of riots and protests, it was an attack against freedom, democracy and human rights. When the UK government does it, it's "to restore order."

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

-C.S. Lewis

Sheesh, this stuff makes my blood boil. It's not like the UK government is hatching some plot to steal the riches of its people, they just want to stop some gobshit little kids from using Facebook. Talk about making mountains out of molehills.

On the other hand, surely it would be far easier for the UK government to track the people using the sites opposed to banning them from them? They'll only find another way to do it, so why not let them do it in a way that they can track and counter-act their movements?

 

[Jodah]

If it is only temporary and used to restore order ONLY I can almost support it. That gets into the whole martial law territory which is, occasionally, necessary.

 

[TWEWER]

We should also cut out their voice boxes so they can't talk to other criminals.

 

[ultimateownage]

Why hello there, V.

 

[ultimateownage]

By the way, he also said "Clearly we need more police on the streets" less than a day before he defended his police cuts. The guy's a fucking idiot. He's like a child who wants to have his cake and eat it too.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

Didn't the UN recently rule that internet accesses is a human right?

Wouldn't that effectivly nullify this whole thing?

 

[Simalacrum]

Seriously, no. No no no.

They intend to do this to suspected rioters? Whatever happened to Innocent until proven Guilty? Thats a basic thing under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!

 

[Manic 101]

One of the reasons some of the people are rioting is because they think it's the only way they'll get the government to listen. So the response is keep them from talking?

We should also cut out their voice boxes so they can't talk to other criminals.

Why hello there, V.

Do any of you know what these riot's are like? There is no greater political point to these riot's, just rampant looting, vandalism and even some murder. For the lulz. And somehow it's oppressive to take the privilege of social networking from suspects? Courts have had to work around the clock and have even had to take on volunteers just to get through known cases. This is not oppression. This is controlling the type of individuals who would start nationwide riots to get a slightly newer laptop.

They have no excuse to go around taking thousands of [pounds] worth of stuff just because they were unhappy with their lives or whatever.

EDIT:

Didn't the UN recently rule that internet accesses is a human right?

Wouldn't that effectivly nullify this whole thing?

Seriously, no. No no no.

They intend to do this to suspected rioters? Whatever happened to Innocent until proven Guilty? Thats a basic thing under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!

See my prior statement about social networking being a privilege. Again, do you understand what these riots have been like? Even if people were just part of the crowd, you deserve to be temporarily banned from talking to your friends online for just standing by as this was happening.

Disclaimer: I mean no disrespect to any other forum-goers, but I live near where these riots have been taking place. So I guess you can deduce how I feel about people treating measures like these as unethical.

 

[ultimateownage]

snip

Yeah, I know exactly how bad it is. What they're saying is that people who have already comitted a crime should have rights for stuff like this removed. The only thing Twitter was used for was to easily catch idiots showing off loot and to help organise the cleanup afterwards. Banning them from Twitter does fuck all except annoy people. Not to mention 'social media' is a pretty vague term.
This and letting the police remove anything covering someone's face do very little to help, unlike something such as not cutting the police budget.