UK To Shut Down Social Networks? 403
Stoobalou writes "In a move worthy of China's communist regime, UK PM David Cameron wants to shut down social networks whenever civil unrest rears its head in Britain's towns and cities. Speaking in the House of Commons, Cameron said, 'Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were, organized via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill. 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.'" So far I haven't heard anyone blame the Rock 'n Roll music, but if social networks aren't a good enough culprit, you could also try blaming video games.
Wait, what? (Score:4, Informative)
What on gods earth?
I was watching the debate live, and the feel of the speech was really not like this at all. Throughout twitter and facebook were praised, especially things like the london clean up efforts organized through twitter. In fact it was somewhat reassuring to see that they sort of knew what they were talking about. The measures talked about were primarily disabling masts in rioting areas so that communications would be ceased, nowhere near 'banning' social networks. Honestly, the feel of the speech was aimed towards leveraging them for good. It was said that they would be talking to them directly to see if together they could tackle issues, such as images/videos glorifying the acts.
Article is wrong - here's what was really said (Score:4, Informative)
Re:China? (Score:4, Informative)
What these so called "Slashdot commentators" don't understand is that he's talking about blocking individuals from social networks, not blocking the social networks themselves. But why let the facts get in the way of a good YRO bullshit rant?
Re:China? (Score:5, Informative)
What these so called "leaders" don't understand is the same social networks used to organize these actions are also being used by the public to warn each other about where these attacks are taking place, where to avoid and calling their friends & neighbors to arms to help them protect their families, homes and businesses.
They do. I've been listening to the parlimentary debate (which has now shifted to the economy) and this fact has been pointed out several times - by MPs.
From the debate, it sounds to me more like they want to somehow censor (or monitor?) its use for criminal activity, without preventing people from organising the clean-up operations or similar things. That's the impression I got, anyway.
Re:China? (Score:4, Informative)
Asking shouldn't make it right either. I know I'm saying this through U.S.-colored glasses, but free speech is a fundamental human right and no one should ever be expected to give it up.
More to the point, the problem here isn't social media, rather it is that the police feel its okay to shoot kids and the kids feel its okay to loot and riot. Both of which can occur just as well with or without social media.
Inflammatory journalism again... (Score:4, Informative)
In that respect, it's bringing social networking in line with other UK media which are also bound not to incite violence etc. It's certainly not a shutdown of a service in any way.
Re:Networks interpret censorship as damage... (Score:4, Informative)
That is only true if you have a multitude of independently-controlled routes data can take to travel from one point to another with no one central point that can fail, either accidentally or deliberately. That was the original idea of how the Internet would be constructed, but it isn't how it works today, at least not on the consumer side. So, unless you have multiple connections not controlled by a single entity coming into your house (and a government counts as a controlling entity, so getting connections from multiple providers under its jurisdiction doesn't count), and, unless the site you want to visit is networked the same way, your statement means nothing.
Actually, this old meme, IMHO, is dangerous. It implies that censorship can't happen, which is most certainly not true. This leads people to take threats of censorship less seriously because they mistakenly think that the censorship efforts will be futile, which is also not true. Sure, someone with enough knowledge and determination might get around it, but most folks won't. Ask the North Korean authorities about that. I'm sure they know that information still leaks in, but enough people are prevented from getting at it to make their censorship regime effective.