Shutting down Social Networks?

[tenni]

Britain is considering disrupting online social networking such as Blackberry Messenger and Twitter during civil unrest, Prime Minister David Cameron said on Thursday, a move widely condemned as repressive when used by other countries.

Egyptian authorities shut down mobile and Internet services in January during mass protests against then-President Hosni Mubarak, while China is quick to shut down online communication it sees as subversive.

Is there a difference between Britain considering shutting down social networks compared to Egypt or China? Should a democratic society shut down social networks under any circumstance?

[niftyshellshock]

Why? Because a few angry hoodlums decided to start burning shit?

I think it's overreacting.

[trentino]

I'd love to hear David Icke on this one.

[slipnslide]

Until social networks are deemed a right, they can do whatever they please.

[darkeyes]

Britain is considering disrupting online social networking such as Blackberry Messenger and Twitter during civil unrest, Prime Minister David Cameron said on Thursday, a move widely condemned as repressive when used by other countries.

Egyptian authorities shut down mobile and Internet services in January during mass protests against then-President Hosni Mubarak, while China is quick to shut down online communication it sees as subversive.

Is there a difference between Britain considering shutting down social networks compared to Egypt or China? Should a democratic society shut down social networks under any circumstance?

Nope.. not much that I can see... been expecting it..

[jamieknyc]

Until social networks are deemed a right, they can do whatever they please.

Not necessarily. It depends what the law allows.

[NotLostJustWandering]

No. It's part of the process of a society like Britain becoming a society like China. Lovers of freedom must stand vigilant against encroachments like this.

[swmnkdinthervr]

Sounds like another encroachment from big brother...


I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
James Madison

[jamieknyc]

Slow down, don't assume that they have the technical capability to do it.

[Pasadenacpl2]

They've done it in places far more remote and backwater. The technical capability is there.

Freedom of speech is the issue here, not the right to have social networking. Also, freedom of a business to run itself unfettered. That many of the social networking sites are based in the US makes that a stucky wicket as well.

I am unsurprised that a government that disarms its populace would contemplate such a move.

Pasa

[binjlooking]

May be necessary unfortunately to protect the public & property. Some of the damage looks like London during the Blitz. Summer Olympics there next year. Mob Rule must not be tolerated by civil society.

[bigbadmax]

Firstly, ALL Governments can already shut down mobile/cell networks at will.

Secondly there are 3 men worldwide who can be called on to turn off the www, one of which lives down the road from me.

Thirdly the u.s government can listen to ALL cell calls hence only certain types of handsets are sold/permitted to be used in the U.S.

The uk govt are already working with blackberry to find and punish the ringleaders.

[love1234]

These riots more than likely have been done by the evil elites to get these rules on the book as they know things are going to get real bad before they get better.

Just one more power and control rule on the books.

Here in the u.s they had the patriot act all ready written before the staged attacks.

[Long Duck Dong]

maybe we should disarm and disband the police, they are infringing on our rights of expression and riots and acts of random violence are forms of expression......

or

disabling a social network that is being used as a network for inciting criminal and illegal behievour..... with the purposes of stopping and containing riots that endanger lives and property...

we want to be safe on the streets and in our own homes, yet we fight any attempt to restrict and contain riots and rioters that are intent on criminal acts that endanger lives and property.....

sure, arming people would work.... but it only takes one person for another norway or columbine.... and then the argument comes back to who was responsible for those people having firearms and if arming people is the right answer, and who is to blame when it goes belly up........

its the same argument as drinking drivers.... nobody wants to ban drinking and driving as they view it as a right to have a few drinks and then drive, cos they are adults etc etc..... and god help anybody that wants to infringe on that right...... so we tolerant the same thing that costs people their lives, cos its our right and we want our rights.....

its a simple case of people want the world run their way, according to their ideals, but they want somebody else to take responsibility and the blame when it all goes belly up.....

mankind has still not learnt from history...... we can not change the world to suit us, without empowering others that have a different idea of what the world should be like.... and each time it has led to major issues, problems and conflict.....

[softfruit]

It's a good headline-grabbing soundbite for a hungry press, but given the left-right coalition, I don't think it'll come to pass.

The previous centre-right government were more inclined to actually throw money at making that sort of thing happen.

[Hephaestion]

I wonder if we could pool our resources and come up with a better solution that would hinder the behaviour of the highly mobile rioters whilst maintaining our freedoms.

Right now I'm stumped.

[slipnslide]

BART San Francisco cut cell services to avert protest (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/bart-san-francisco-cut-cell-services-to-avert-protest/2011/08/12/gIQAfLCgBJ_blog.html)

[Pasadenacpl2]

disabling a social network that is being used as a network for inciting criminal and illegal behievour..... with the purposes of stopping and containing riots that endanger lives and property...

I am not defending looters in England. They are significantly different in that in Egypt they were protesting and trying to overthrow the government as peacefully as possible. In England we have thugs who want a new TV. They ARE criminals, to be sure.

But, shutting down things like Facebook and the BART shutting down cell phone service to try to prevent protest, is the sure sign of a government who can't handle it's populace any other way than by infringing on it's free speech. And once that happens, you can be sure that there will be more infringements on more rights.

Pasa

[Long Duck Dong]

I am not defending looters in England. They are significantly different in that in Egypt they were protesting and trying to overthrow the government as peacefully as possible. In England we have thugs who want a new TV. They ARE criminals, to be sure.

But, shutting down things like Facebook and the BART shutting down cell phone service to try to prevent protest, is the sure sign of a government who can't handle it's populace any other way than by infringing on it's free speech. And once that happens, you can be sure that there will be more infringements on more rights.

Pasa

but what is the alternative.....

In NZ smacking is banned, corporal punishment is banned, most forms of discipline are regarded as child abuse including time out..... and the kids are told they can not legally be touched by the law until they are 16..... yet when the children play up the parents get blamed for not having control over their children.....

its the same thing... we tell the government how lil control they may have, and how their hands should be tied cos of our rights, then when it goes wrong, we expect the government to act to stop the issues......

when the government said that the police will be armed with tasers and frpnt line police will be armed, the greenies were very vocal about the dangers of arming the police.... yet 1 month earlier, when 3 cops were shot ( one was killed ) and a street was besieged by a gunman barricaded in a house, with a high powered rifle, there was not a greenie to be seen or heard....

we live in a society that is getting worse cos its * getting better *, we stand up for our rights... including social networks,... and our rights to use them.... so in a sense, our rights to freedom of expression, are actually aiding and abetting criminal activities as we are, in reality, fighting against any attempts to curtail criminal activities using social networks......cos its a invasion of our rights.....

do I like the idea of social networks being monitored and controlled, no.... but would I perfer that pedophilies drug dealers, rioters etc etc, have full and unrestricted usage of social networks.... NO....

we can not have it both ways.......

with the riots in the UK, shutting down social and cell networks may infringe on peoples rights..... but people have the right to feel safe in their own houses and have full, restricted access to legal and medical services.....
if the UK government acted and one person died cos of inability to contact a ambulance, the outcry over that would be louder than if 10 people died cos a ambulance could not get to them cos of rioters....

if net access and the ability to send messages is shut down, we immediately say its infringement of rights and expression.... but ignore the fact that shutting down the networks may save lives and property, and potentially stopping criminal behievour..
cos its about our rights to talk to people, and the fact it could result in 10's of millions of dollars in damages, possible loss of life etc, doesn't matter.......
until our insurance premiums go up, we have no work place to go to cos it got burnt down, our loved ones died...... then its the governments fault that it happened.....

we want it all our own way, but we want others to take the blame for the consequences of having our rights put before everything else.....

[darkeyes]

It's a good headline-grabbing soundbite for a hungry press, but given the left-esright coalition, I don't think it'll come to pass.

The previous centre-right government were more inclined to actually throw money at making that sort of thing happen.

This is the most sensible post so far.. it is unlikely to come to pass... it's a sound bite more than anything else.. governments can shut down the fone networks dead easy during civil disturbances. Do they? Not in the west.. its much too problematical for them, and gives them logistical difficulties they just dont want. There are inherent dangers to life and limb should they do it..this doesnt happen to be quite the same case with facebook, twitter and blackberry, but even then there are advantages to leaving them be for both the authorities and the public at large during civil disturbance. It's a civil liberty issue I dont think that the Tories are prepared seriously to face.. they have quite enough crap dumping on their heads now, much of it of their own making..

Shiny face Cameron talks tough, but he is proving an incredibly weak prime minister, the weakest in my lifetime.. more u turns and retreats than any of us have ever made in our lifetimes... he will back off from this too when the pressure is put on him and he turns to something else... the country senses his personal weakness and the government he leads.. it and Cameron himself are also proving incompetently so.. and when weakness is sensed by the pack you know what is gonna happen...

Big prob is of course, Milliband and Labour are no better.. Milliband hasn't a clue. They go along with Cameron on this bright idea cos they are still Blairite an shit scared of putting forward anything which might sniff of upsetting the media and the people who even after the NewsCorp hassle of late hang on to its every word. Milliband was elected as not being Blairite but he is showing himself up as exactly that and Labour is making no progress whatever in the breaking away from the Blair way.. ie Tory way of politics... he is as weak as the Shiny Face man, but what is worse, he not only is it, but looks it with floppy lips, a funny face and the oddest of walks. A man who carries himself like Uriah Heep with a smart suit and hair gel is never gonna win confidence. ''Red Ed'' Max called him in another thread.. and others do too.. he is about as red as a blank sheet of A4 and has about as many ideas....

So do I have confidence it wont happen? Yep.. government and opposition are just too useless and weak to do it... they are like a child with ADD... they cant concentrate on anything for moren 5 minutes.... what a fucking picture to paint...