Not that I agree with Cameron, but here are some differences.
- Protesting is legal in the UK and happens regularly without undue interference by the police.
- The riots in the UK mainly consisted of crimes committed against citizens so they were clearly a policing issue.
- They're not proposing shutting of the internet, just the principal vectors used to organise riots.
- The rioters were not subject to a violent response by the authorities. It would have been straight forward to use rubber bullets against rioters but the police were not keen to escalate things.
Use of rubber bullets was authorised after the police finally got their act together. I don't think it was a worthy desire to avoid escalation that prevented their use earlier on .. more lack of organisation.
The main question is, how will our government discover whether a citizen is communicating about a forbidden subject? I suppose all communication will need to be explicitly monitored. This is another step closer towards distopia.
Somebody on bbc question hour was suggesting that police inaction was on purpose.They wanted this to escalate and use this violence as an excuse to make draconian laws.Cameron's action actually agrees with the prediction.
I do not want to believe in conspiracy theories but seriously does it take 3 days to decide using baton round/rubber bullets.
I totally agree with you but instead of giving Police better tools they want to monitor social media which is just absurd and can be used against their political enemies which does suggest malice.
I fail to understand how social media monitoring will prevent riots next time if Police chooses to be an spectator.
Use of rubber bullets was authorised after the police finally got their act together. I don't think it was a worthy desire to avoid escalation that prevented their use earlier on .. more lack of organisation.
Do you have a source for that? Everything I've read suggested the police were only considering rubber bullets or water cannons as a last resort.
...Godwin and his team came very close to issuing the order for firearms teams to use plastic bullets.
At that point the Met's officers were "stretched to an extent never seen before," deputy assistant commissioner Steven Kavanagh said. "We did absolutely consider it through the night," Kavanagh said. "But these were very fast moving mobile groups and by the time we got baton rounds there this groups would have moved away."
That's a difference of degree, and not even that relevant. Either you have freedom of speech, or you don't.
Let's take your arguments and rephrase them as coming from Libya (or any "less democratic" country):
- Protesting is legal in XXX and happens regularly. You only have to get a permit to insure the safety of the people involved (same as in UK, I'd guess)
- The protesters are clearly destroying public and private property. There have been multiple instances of protesters attacking public buildings, and a (very well filmed) instance of protesters attacking innocent bystanders.
- Of course the internet will not be completely shut down. Only specific vectors, as needed. The police will decide what they are and how many to shut down
- The police only protects public property, and will always use violence as a last resort, and only as a response to violence - and we have clearly documented cases of violence from protesters.
So what's the difference? When it comes to laws meant to limit the power of the government, you can't count on the government applying them "in spirit" or reporting things truthfully and completely. It kindof defeats the purpose, doesn't it? If the people currently in charge would be trustworthy, you wouldn't really need any such laws...
They seem like different issues. I don't think the Libyan protestors were looting, burning, attacking & robbing bystanders... In other words, in Libya they had protestors, in the UK they have rioters and mobs. I could have the wrong impression; I live in neither Libya nor the UK.
There were also accusations that Libya shut off the internet to mask actions of their armed forces against the protestors. Once again, seems like a different beast.
But the fear is that given that power, the government will be able to make subjective calls on situations they deem important enough to intervene. There is definitely a line between justified Libyan protests and the violent riots here, but where does that line fall? Do you trust the government to make that call today and (once it's law) forever into the future?
It's a tough question, I know I don't know the answer.
There is a distinction to be made here. Libya had a large proportion of protestors in comparison to rioters. More importantly, the motivation was solidly political. There was a clear goal and demand for greater freedom.
In contrast, the UK rioters that spawned out of the initial protest was nothing more than an assortment of various criminal groups that used a political excuse to attack and rob ordinary citizens.
I don't know why you're being voted down. I'm in the UK and you're right. If the rioting was being spun as being somehow politically motivated in non British media, that's wrong. There were no political goals here. People wanted new trainers and TVs and a fun night out getting chased by the cops.
That's a resource distribution issue intimately related to the economy. If that isn't politics, nothing is. Almost all riots are related to resource distribution issues, especially when an impoverished underclass engages in looting.
Are you really claiming these riots aren't linked to the massive cuts to public services that happened during the last year?
My favorite new politically correct euphemism for the motivation for theft.
Are you really claiming these riots aren't linked to the massive cuts to public services that happened during the last year?
No. But it seems like a leap of reasoning. Was Anders Brevik's rampage "linked" to an influx of immigrants into Norway? Again, a bit of a leap. In both cases I'd be more inclined to believe that the people involved lack sufficient mental health.
But sure, perhaps the daughters of millionaires, school staff, graphic designers, Olympic ambassadors, and law students who have faced the courts already are suffering at the hands of cuts. That's for the sociologists and rehabilitation officers to figure out in the months to come.
A lack of mental health is exacerbated by the cuts to social services.
If mental health services were provided to the lower classes AT ALL we would not have these issues.
As it is the majority of the underclass suffers from multiple mental disorders and they cannot get treatment. Mental health treatment is very expensive and is not covered by the government.
"Mental health treatment is very expensive and is not covered by the government."
For people suffering from actual mental health problems I don't see why they can't get treatment from the NHS like everyone else - ability to pay not being a factor.
However, if by "mental health" you mean the feeling that people "deserve" new trainers/DVD player/etc. without doing anything to earn them I don't see why that is anything to do with the government.
Mental health provision on the NHS is shockingly poor. Unless you end up hospitalised (which you really don't want to be), your choice is either pills or a six-month wait for six one-hour sessions of CBT. Community mental health services are massively underfunded and are struggling to keep up with even their highest-priority users - sufferers of schizophrenia and bipolar whose conditions could easily become fatal if mismanaged.
On the last paragraph, it isn't that people may feel they deserve certain things, but that they are willing to grossly violate the law and society's standards in order to fulfill them.
Public health care. Free state education (which is generally of a good standard, but a waste if you are not self-motivated). Council-provided housing, though supply is short due to failing to replenish the housing stock since right to buy in the 80s. A fairly comprehensive benefit system which scales with number of children. Healthy food is cheaper than junk.
The last one (self-respect) is mostly what determines whether you decide to take advantage of all the UK welfare state offers. Poor money management and general ignorance are the main reasons for the poor having big TV's, satellite service and gadgets, yet failing to pay their bills and their friends. Or getting into crippling credit card debt.
So really if you want to be accurate, its the rich doing their best to keep the poor stupid so they may keep the stupid poor. Sure, there are some really dumb things with welfare in e.g. the hoops you jump through to receive jobseekers allowance but its not as if the opportunities aren't there...
Edit: I see you were talking about mental medical care, which again is provisioned under the NHS. I personally know of NHS services in East London for this, some of which started due to this initiative: http://www.iapt.nhs.uk/ All free. That doesn't dispel stigmas attached to it, or course, but that's irrelevant to your assertion that such services don't exist.
Those are pretty common refrains. Honestly it means nothing to me that rioters may have said them.
Especially considering as a rioter the police are the guys who want to stop you from rioting & looting, when you want to continue with the rioting & looting.
No. The asian shops were targetted, just like in the LA riots. These are hardly rich, but the shopkeepers represented "model" citizens and what the ideal migrant looks like. The looters represent the reverse.
What do you mean 'no'? The reasons for a bunch of ignorant kids looting doesn't have to reflect their actions. If they could realise who they're hurting they wouldn't be ignorant kids now, would they?
I believe the police will have to do some soul searching here too.
In particular, the killing of the Jean Charles Menezes, and the way some members of the police force managed to get off scot free with the death of Ian Tomlinson means that the "me first" culture must stop with the police force as well.
There are rotten eggs in all sections of the society, and the arrest of people with stable jobs amongst the rioters proves this.
Of course this doesn't justify the rioting and looting which we have seen in London. Most of which smacks of opportunistic hooliganism.
However, I subscribe to the tenet that good example must come from the top, and it is this type of good example that has been found wanting leading up to the riots.
I think shutting down people and social media in places that are looting, stealing, and making the world a worse place... I agree with that. I disagree on taking down social media when it's an organized legal matter. It's hard to make the distinction and not allow the couple people that ruin it for everyone else.
The problem is you need to monitor traffic to be able to find out what's being communicated - and someone has to decide what constitutes illegal communication; which is a grey area in itself.
More often than not, any laws that are put into place involve the acquisition of new technology that can be appropriated by those in power to censor more forms of 'illegal' communication, further down the line.
It's a slippery slope, potentially leading to a repression of the population and almost absolute state control.
It's sad how the British government is responding compared to Norway.
Norway: First) Provides support to anyone who needs it. Problem) Mentally unstable bomber/shooter. Solution) We'll continue supporting. Security will get reviewed but not that necessary to implement new laws.
Britain: First) Cut back support for bringing up people. Problem) Surprised people riot. Solution) Slam down authoritative fist. So far; 1) Increase police from 20,000 to 26,000. 2) Consider restricting internet further (This). They believe the cure is apparently better than the vaccine, better parenting and government assistance.
I don't think censoring social media is a good idea or even remotely helpful, but these comparisons are beyond ridiculous. The Norwegian attacks were carried out by one person who is already in custody. The British riots arise out of amorphous groups of thousands of individuals who are still at large. They're completely, utterly different.
I agree it's not a fair comparison, but I think it's an interesting thought experiment nonetheless. How do you think Norway would have reacted if a situation similar to the UK riots occurred in Norway? Implement more laws and add police, or look deeper to the root causes?
It really isn't an interesting exercise. It's comparing one bombing by one person to thousands of acts of vandalism and theft by thousands of people.
It's fairly self evident that "looking deeper into the root causes" is not going to prevent rioters from destroying private property in the next 24 hours.
Sorry let me clarify -- again I'm not focusing on the comparison of the two acts. What I consider interesting is to ponder how another country (Norway in this case) would handle a situation that arises in another country. Naturally there are many variables to consider, however in general it allows me to look at the situation from a different perspective, or through a different lens. I find that to be a valuable exercise and one I feel isn't exercised often enough.
Does this make more sense?
In addition, clearly "looking deeper" won't resolve anything on its own as I feel you are suggesting -- what counts rather are the actions that could result from gaining better understanding through the act of looking deeper.
How is it at all interesting if it isn't a fair comparison? What you are suggesting isn't what you are defending here: you're suggesting that we compare two entirely different scenarios and then defending it by saying it is worth doing an entirely different thought experiment.
(For the record, I'm appalled that anyone would consider anything that could remotely be called "web censorship" as a response, I just don't think you're making any sense here).
Sorry let me clarify. What I consider interesting is to ponder how another country (Norway in this case) would handle a situation that arises in another country. Naturally there are many variables to consider, however in general it allows me to look at the situation from a different perspective, or through a different lens. I find that to be a valuable exercise and one I feel isn't exercised often enough.
Does this make more sense? Again I don't agree with the comparison of the two acts.
You're comparing very different situations: in Norway, once the killer was arrested the risk of further damage was low. In the UK, there might be further riots.
If you are dealing with a crisis, I think you should do things more or less in this order, and I don't think we'll be ready to start on #4 for another day or two in the UK:
1) Don't make it any worse.
2) Prevent further damage from happening.
3) Clean up the existing damage.
4) Investigate ways to prevent a repeat occurrence, and implement if a good solution is found.
After the incident, Norwegian media has highlighted that the charged terrorist debated on web forums, including those where other participants expressed similar sentiments. Police has encouraged people to report cases of extreme language online.
Once "criminals" have a bright future and a job, they probably won't be criminals any more. I think that's a good thing for everyone involved.
I say "criminals" not to imply that what these people do isn't criminal (it is), but because dividing the world into criminals and good law abiding citizens is a false dichotomy. Normal people sometimes do criminal things and criminals sometimes to things that are good.
Additionally, by applying only the label "criminal" to certain people, you're ignoring that these are human beings with lives and dreams and ideas and problems and families, who have reasons for the things they do. They may be good reasons, they might not be, but to disregard them altogether is a mistake.
At the same time, you're implying that crime is a problem that either cannot be solved or can be solved by jailtime and harsh sentencing. Neither of these implications are true.
I never said that criminals should be offered a bright future and a job.
Your reply sidesteps my question.
You talk about a crappy underclass, thugs and criminal gangs: Why is there a crappy underclass? Why are there thugs and criminal gangs? Why is there a group of people that thinks it's okay to loot? What is the reason that this group exists, what is the _underlying_cause_ for this?
I think your description of them says a lot about your arguments nature.
I mean of course the parent are to blame, but since they too belong to what you describe as underclass they simply do not have the mental surplus.
If you have kids you will know how hard it can be to control their whereabouts.
And as far as I can se, no one is claiming it's an excuse. It's an explanation. You can then as you do choose to disregard it or you could perhaps try and look at the root cause and accept that social status and income do have an effect.
There were also some examples of good parenting - one chap handed himself in to police because his mother recognised him on television and forced him to give himself up.
If you have a good number of citizens that, when some instability happens, goes to the street and fire cars, houses and rub shops, you have a much more serious problem than 100million GBP in loses.
During the Tunisian revolution, the police was ordered to leave a 1 million citizen city that I'm living in after a tough day where the ruling party locals where burnt. Although without any security (and before people gather and create groups for protection), the city was relatively stable.
There was theft, but theft existed before that day. Also there wasn't that kind of violence in the thefts that happened. When I went to the center of the city the day after that, I saw no signs that a private property was abused.
I thought about this sort of thing. It almost seems like the underclasses in Britain are less civilized than the people of the countries that have had recent revolutions.
However, I also believe that the riots in Tunisia weren't limited to lower class people, and maybe involving a larger section of society in them caused them to be more civilized.
British society, like American society, places consumerism above all else. Britain's "underclass" are reminded constantly that they must have consumer product A through Z to be happy and that they will never have them. The poor of Britain are far poorer when it comes to the things that matter in British culture than the poor of Tunisia on the scale of Tunisian culture. Just a thought.
Everyone is starting to generalize wildly about 'Britain'. London + Birmingham is not the same as Britain. The problems of urban Britain are not the same as the problems of Britons outside the major cities. London has 13% of the population. As a member of the underclass in Britain, I resent being called uncivilized. Well, I would if I didn't have a sense of humour.
Religion and culture has an important effect in the society. I'm not religious myself, but not a great percentage of people can get enough culture to think in a civilized way. Religion is great because the rules are enforced by the religion and thus the religious person himself and not the state or police.
I know half the Internet is going senationalist over this, but please go and actually watch the debate before the knee-jerking spoils this discussion as well.
The tone of the debate was actually quite reasonable, and many MPs, including the PM, were vocal about the benefits of social media during this whole sorry affair.
Sadly, a lot of people are reading things into it that weren't actually said and then turning them into senationalist headlines on sites like this where the liberal crowd upvote them without bothering to check any facts.
I think when it comes to free-speech, as opposed to things like taxation or healthcare, there's not really a clear "liberal" contingent, just the amorphous civil-liberties contingent. Includes many libertarians, liberals, and anyone else who opposes the state exercising anything even remotely approaching censorship, in any circumstance, whether it's against "nazis" or "rioters" or "terrorists" or whomever else the emergency of the day is.
Americans are somewhat unique among English speaking people for not distinguishing between liberalism and leftism. Once you make that distinction, the "amorphous civil-liberties contingent" is liberal by definition.
The culture of internet outrage that involves upvoting these things to the roof does get in the way of understanding and addressing the issue in a reasonable fashion. I don't think it matters especially what specific worldview someone has when they're in that mindset.
> many MPs, including the PM, were vocal about the benefits of social media during this whole sorry affair
I find this sort of thing almost more disturbing. It implies that whether we should allow totalitarian measures merely depends on a judgement of case by case merit - oh look, social media had a good side that balanced out the bad side, let's not ban it. This time. So what if the authorities decide one day there is no good side? Or just that they don't like the good side that might exist?
This kind of statement sounds good but is actually an argument FOR censorship in disguise.
> It implies that whether we should allow totalitarian measures merely depends on a judgement of case by case merit
To some extent, all effective government is necessarily conducted based on case by case merit. Even what we think of as fundamental human rights can never truly be sacrosanct, for the simple reason that sometimes they conflict. One obvious recurring example in recent years has been the tension between security (right to life etc.) and secrecy (right to private life).
Should we protect some values more than others? Sure. Should some principles be considered too important for the administration of the day to legislate them away without going to the people explicitly first? Absolutely. Can you ever codify that in a reasonable way without allowing some degree of case-by-case judgement? I doubt it.
> So what if the authorities decide one day there is no good side?
Then you move onto the next of the four boxes of liberty. If lots of people agree with you, then one way or another, either the authorities will back down or they will be removed from power.
The more I think about these issues, the more I conclude that the law can only ever be an instrument of a civil society. If you reach the point where one significant group is not behaving in a civilised fashion and the rest cannot persuade them to do so through reason, then ultimately it rarely matters what the law says until that disagreement has been settled by force. On a small scale, that is called policing. On a large scale, it is called civil war.
If you accept that premise, then it only ever makes sense to balance the law favourably for the civil case, on the presumption that the legal system is operated in the interests of justice. If it is not in a few isolated cases, you treat the deviants as criminals themselves and you provide an appeals mechanism for those who have been treated unfairly. If it is not on a larger scale, then the law doesn't really matter anyway, because your only recourse is to bring down the system and build a new one. You can do that by voting out the government, through civil disobedience that puts unbearable pressure on the system, or on a more fundamental level as we've seen in several former dictatorships over the past year.
Not that I agree with the knee-jerk reaction put forward by Cameron, but actually, protesters will protest. There's a big difference between rioting and protesting, and it's important to make that clear.
By horse-charging and kettling peaceful protestors, the UK police have been doing their best to blur the distinction, trying to meet every protest as if it were a riot, and perhaps turn it into one.
That's a sweeping generalisation. I participated in the big march against cuts and the police were very respectful and only moved to contain those who were participating in violent behaviour (trashing shops, etc.). The vast majority of protesters were peaceful, treated well, and not kettled or horse-charged - a direct response to the previous condemnation of those sorts of tactics used against the students in the previous marches.
I know what they are, but I don't think that any such thing justifies the sweeping generalisation the previous commenter made. The police have been employing a range of tactics, and some have worked better (in terms of public opinion too) than others. Kettling, as far as I have seen since the public outcry over its use in the student situation, has not been used against peaceful protesters since.
Taken out of context (as you did) it isn't controversial.
But in the context of the article linked to it implies that it is a problem that the government needs to do something about by restricting the said free flow of information.
I didn't take the quote out of context any more than you did in the grandparent!
I definitely have a problem with the Government restricting the flow of that information; but that doesn't mean that the flow itself isn't problematic at times.
This is a slightly tired and broadly awful analogy. The rioters this week haven't shared the same motivations, determination or moral conviction of "rebel" (but now recognised) Libyan Government. If I were Libyan, this comparison would be frankly insulting.
Good points all around, but any government that wants to maintain it's rule will portray freedom fighters as unruly rioters. Sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren't, but giving the government the ability to restrict communication if it says they are is a dangerous precedent.
How do you know this? I sure hope you aren't unquestioningly swallowing what the state run media tells you.
Have you talked to any rioters? Have you entered their homes and seen how they lived? Maybe if you got to know them you would think up some reasons why they would be angry and feel like burning and robbing.
Maybe those reasons would be something like recent austerity measures further condemning them and their children to a life of abject poverty in one of the richest places in the world.
Maybe those reasons would be lack of access to decent education, medicine, mental health services.
A democracy that is widely seen as unrepresentative and broken where social mobility has been declining for 40 years.
How about an utter lack of job prospects while a consumer culture bombards them with media that tells them they are worthless for being trapped in a cycle of poverty.
At a certain point your underclass realizes that their only hope of ever getting nice shoes (and by extension, respect from society) is by taking those shoes.
Cmon London, you are smarter than this. Are you TRYING to bring back Marxism? Or does the English upper class not fear the guillotine?
I agree with Anigbrowl. The middle point doesn't stand alone and was not meant to. You've gaken it out of contest which is disingenuous. Given your phrasing he claimed with motivation and moral conviction, determination to achieve their goal would have him liking the "rioters" more. Though rioters would doubtfully be the correct word in that case.
The correct way to write the quote would have been ">The rioters this week haven't shared the same [...] determination", where the [...] shows you're editing: by implication you're not doing so misleadingly, but the reader gets the chance to check whether they agree.
The problem with your post as you wrote it is that you appeared to be making the claim that the word "same" immediately preceded the word "determination" in the source you were quoting. Which isn't true. This matters not because the difference is important in this case (we all agree it's not), but because people think poorly of you and your arguments when you make false assertions through carelessness (they think you might do it again and it might matter next time).
"Free speech is central to our democracy, but so is public safety and security,"
There is no other word for this than stupid. Free speech is not in opposition to security. You can have free speech and safety. Unless you're too stupid to figure out how.
I am firmly against blocking any communication tool on the internet, though I am all for prosecuting those that incite violence and illegal activities should they be dumb enough to use a website that can be linked back to them.
People who are in power of course are threatened by new, fast ways to share information just as much as established businesses are threatened by ecommerce-sites like Amazon. This threat is real and the danger is justified.
Recent uprisings in Libya, Syria etc. put fear in the hearts of western politicians, too. Rightfully so. The world must and will change as a consequence. I think in more profound ways than we can predict yet.
Of course they don't react rationally because they don't understand it. They also make the mistake that the voters actually would like a social media ban. Of course they don't.
Maybe they should focus on enforcing the laws they have, not forming special committees to write more. I have to believe it is against the terms of service of all these apps to conspire to commit crimes or participate in criminal activity using Twitter, Facebook, BBM, etc. Would they propose shutting down telephones, text messaging, and all other forms of communication (snail mail, singing clown telegrams, monkey butlers) which have been used for good and evil since their existence?
Just yesterday some commentator on Sky said it's the television to blame in the first place, for spreading a message that looting gets away without punishment. Internet and mobile communication came into play only after that.
i don't agree with Cameron, but CNN's headline is a bit sensationalist.
> "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."
he's not saying facebook and twitter should be banned, just that it should be monitored (and potentially block users). again, i disagree with Cameron, but its hardly the same as a ban on social media.
Twitter has both public and private messages. If anyone is taking about monitoring communications on it, I would assume they're talking about the private ones.
Why would you assume that ? - a large amount of the "incitement" that took place caused problems in a large part because it was public in a one-to-many form.
I'm sorry, did I miss the part where they said they would only monitor Twitter? Or am I remembering correctly where they used the broad, sweeping term "social networks", which would include Facebook, and I'm sure BBM chat.
Do you live in a fantastical world where governments pass very strictly limited, narrowly defined laws that precisely target one specific problem? Because here on earth the rule is overbroad laws made by ignorant legislators.
> I don't really see how anyone could object to a government monitoring it
Because of small thing called 4th amendment which in part reads "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
While a USA constitutional amendment is based in British law. And in case you question; yes, I consider my electronic communications/records to be "papers, and effects". And if you question the wisdom of that particular right, I don't have time to explain, reference history for the supporting evidence.
I don't believe that they can "stop people communicating via these websites" in any sensible manner. They could use other websites, phones, or in-person meetings, not to mention countless other alternatives. The headline may be a bit off, but the suggestion is still absurd.
This is just a politician trying to be seen "Doing Something" when he has no real solutions to offer. Embarrassing, really.
Best comment I saw regarding this was on Twitter: "Urban rioting existed before SMS/social media. You know what didn't? Large-scale community cleanups, spontaneously organized within hours."
How did the riots spread to so many disparate areas? Copycat activity based on seeing riots occur on TV. So, sure, turn off Twitter and Facebook for a while, but be sure to turn off Sky News and BBC News at the same time, since that's where people are seeing the most sensational videos that encourage people to join in. Or.. perhaps just leave it as is, eh?
Makes about as much sense as groping millions of passengers before they fly and take away their water bottles because a dozen people managed to take over a plane.
This is completely ignoring the potentially positive effects of social media during the riots. @metpoliceuk was helpful in spreading news and tamping down false rumors.
"And really, stop w/ all the dramatics. Nobody is talking about "shutting down Twitter". It's about listening to police & a couple hours off." amongst other opinions.
OK lets look at the facts here. Blackberry phones have become widely used by the urban poor because they are free on cheap tarrifs. BBM is essentially free text messaging and so also widely used by the urban poor. Its should come as no surprise that the riots were co-ordinated by BBM. Its just text messaging, quick and easy. I find it hard to believe that the rioters running round London was browsing facebook and twitter.
The comparison should not be made with social networking sites (which the term social media is synonymous with), just because BBM uses the internet, rather the comparison should be made with text messaging. I like how the term 'social media' has been used here. What is social media? Anything that is used for communication? So are we talking about controlling text messaging, phone calls, email? Because to organise this amount of organised theft and vandalism these avenues of communication are more likely to be the methods of choice.
One might have hoped that a leader in a democratic society would have thought carefully and fully before suggesting that a type of media be regulated or restricted. It is sad that Cameron instead chooses to indulge in irresponsible speculation about the value of such measures.
Indeed, it would seem that the spread of the rioting and looting can most easily be explained by people watching television and seeing others get away with such crimes.
The mere suggestion of this is proof of how impotent the government really is. How do they really think it would help? Shutting down this channel or that channel is meaningless in the age of easy communication. Unless they shut off the internet and cell phone networks entirely it will have little effect. Pathetic really.
If this could encourage people in Britain to use alternatives to Facebook and Twitter, then this could be a pretty good thing for the health of the social media ecosystem.
a) Listen to the actual statement [1] (or even better debate) - DO NOT take what CNN, Metro or anyone other news outlet says for granted. Journalists want to sell newspapers/adspace, parliamentary debate is often not the most glamorous thing in the world, so there is a certain need to spice things up. Reporting can be factually accurate while remaining bias or even misleading.
b) Do NOT draw unconditional comparison with incidents in Libya, Egypt or Norway. It's ignorant and more than anything belittles events in those countries.
c) Understand that the reporting of these riots by the international community, or more importantly the profiling of those involved, has been unreasonably flattering. The absolute majority of people in the UK have no sympathy for these people. This is not a class, race or age issue. Clearly, I cannot speak for all British citizens, but the only people I've seen with anything complementary regarding those involved in the riots (and I say riots, which are separate from the initial protests, which are a whole other kettle of fish) are ill informed and closed minded. This is not an uprising of the social underclass - it's rioting by a tiny fraction of people who have been systematically failed by elements of multiple governments' social, economic and education polices, but that does in no way give them to right to behave as they have. Many thousands more are in the same situation and did not participate, but rather displayed horror at the events.
This is not meant to be inflammatory - there are many problems which need to be addressed, both in terms of policy, as well as the more worrying collapse of morals and underlying social detritus which again is very much not a class, race or age factor. These riots are symptomatic of that.
However, in no way did David Cameron (who is not my favourite person in the world) propose an all out social media ban, and I feel that by omitting the ("... for rioters") in this title is somewhat misleading. The government will discuss the situation with the companies at hand (initially RIM/Twitter and Facebook), and if a workable solution presents itself, this will be debated in parliament. David Cameron is not an expert on social media, but would you expect him to be? That is the reason for these meetings. That is how democracy works.
This is not a knee-jerk and blanket reaction (as seen in Egypt/Libya) but one that will go through proper process. There is already an e-petition which has attracted enough supports to force governmental debate on the subject of removing benefits from rioters [2], a poorly thought out move in my opinion, but one that will nevertheless be debated by parliament. People are angry, and the government must respond to that without being too heavy handed. This is not straightforward, but equally a lack of review regarding social media's impact on the riots would be irresponsible.
d) (And not really relevant here at all, but it's been winding me right up) BlackBerry is a brand of phone. RIM is the company that makes that phone. Officials cannot talk to "BlackBerry", they talk to RIM - it's like saying officials will talk to "BigMac".
There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, think, and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillence coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well, certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.
What worries me as much as the double standard, i.e. scorning Iran, China etc for their crackdown social networking sites is that the conservatives have the unequivocal support of Labour on this issue.
Not only is there no criticism coming from the political left in the UK, but their obsession with deploying intrusive computer systems during their previous period in office suggests a power like this would have been enacted far more quickly were they still in charge.
Is this the same Cameron who criticized Libya when they shut off the Internet against what, in their view, were violent protesters?