Rioting leads to Cameron call for social media clampdown

[Mule]

Role of Facebook, Twitter and BlackBerrys in UK violence to be examined by home secretary Theresa May

Facebook has responded to David Cameron's calls for a clampdown on social networking sites by saying it has already actively removed several "credible threats of violence" related to the riots across England.

The prime minister told parliament on Thursday that Facebook, Twitter and Research in Motion (Rim), the maker of BlackBerry devices, should take more responsibility for content posted on their networks, warning the government would look to ban people from major social networks if they were suspected of inciting violence online.

The home secretary, Theresa May, is to hold meetings with the three companies within weeks.

The police have promised to track down those suspected of inciting the violence on Twitter, but much of the planning for the disturbances took place in the relatively private world of the BlackBerry Messenger service.

A Facebook spokeswoman said: "We look forward to meeting with the home secretary to explain the measures we have been taking to ensure that Facebook is a safe and positive platform for people in the UK at this challenging time.

"In recent days, we have ensured any credible threats of violence are removed from Facebook and we have been pleased to see the very positive uses millions of people have been making of our service to let friends and family know they are safe and to strengthen their communities."

Mike Conradi, partner and telecoms specialist at the London law firm DLA Piper, said that emergency measures to stop rioters communicating on social media sites would require legislation and threaten free speech.

Conradi said: "What David Cameron appears to be wanting is a police power to trawl through millions of messages – ideally in real time – to prevent possible criminal activity. I don't believe that any such power exists and nor would I want there to be one. Parliament would have to pass new legislation and I would certainly warn against that. That gets the balance wrong in terms of free speech and security.It would certainly put the UK in a difficult position in terms of talking to authoritarian regimes and trying to convince them not to turn off their networks."

Current powers allow Rim and others to identify people who may be worth further investigation and potential prosecution without looking at the contents of their messages.

Cameron's move to curb social media was backed by the opposition. Ivan Lewis, the shadow culture secretary, said: "Free speech is central to our democracy but so is public safety and security. We support the government's decision to undertake a review of whether measures are necessary to prevent the abuse of social media by those who organise and participate in criminal activities."
The only organisation which regularly removes illegal content from websites within hours of its discovery is the Internet Watch Foundation, which combats images of child abuse. Funded by internet service providers, mobile operators and other web businesses, it has no legal powers. Any co-operation is voluntary.

It uses "notice and take down procedures", which have been widely adopted in the US and Europe to protect internet publishers from being held liable for hosting illegally copied material. Most websites, if contacted with a complaint about their content, take down the material.

Efforts to control messaging during riots are likely to focus on social media rather than mobile phone companies, because there is no simple procedure for police to cut off individual phones at short notice.

Vodafone Group communications director Matt Peacock said: "It is not possible to cut off access to an individual subscriber if the police don't even know who that person is, as would seem highly likely in the middle of a riot with hundreds of masked youths running around the streets.

"In any case, the police must follow a legal process in order to require operators to disclose individual subscriber information. It's an important process, designed to protect customers' privacy, and it's proven and robust. However, it isn't designed to operate in the context of this kind of fast-moving and highly volatile civil disorder."

Powers do exist in the UK and most other countries to order the shut down of entire networks or individual base stations, blocking all traffic in a particular area. These are seen as a last resort.

Vodafone and other carriers were widely criticised for shutting their Egyptian networks during anti-government demonstrations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/au...edia-clampdown

[Zippeyrude]

i followed #londonriots from day 1, nobody incited rioting

the politicians havent got a clue and just want to blame anyome apart from themselves

[Mario87]

....warning the government would look to ban people from major social networks if they were suspected of inciting violence online.

haha! Good luck with that! It's not hard for someone to create a new fake account in minutes and start posting more stuff again. Even if the IP gets blocked they can go through a proxy or use a different device. Banning people from social networking sites is impossible! As is real time policing of them.

Just like when the goverment wanted ISP's to monitor every packet of data going through their networks incase it was a song being downloaded illegally. Realistically, not going to happen, especially if the data is encrypted. Another politician who thinks if they click their fingers it will magically happen without thinking about HOW such a ban could realistically be implemented.

Also, threatening the nations freedom of speech will bring human rights into this, and they would not let peoples freedom of speech be removed. Don't get me wrong, I am not condoning the riots in any way shape or form, but the measures they are trying to use to stop people are rediculous IMO and I won't ever actually come into play. Either due to technological restrictions or the Europian Court of Human Rights not allowing it.

[super mike]

Also, threatening the nations freedom of speech will bring human rights into this, and they would not let peoples freedom of speech be removed.

Unfortunately we don't have freedom of speech like the US, we never have.

However, if the social media is hosted out of the UK does any one know what the implications of that are? Would everyone swiftlt relocate to a US or similarly hosted site with no ramifications?

[Mario87]

Surely it would be a breach of your human rights which would bring the Europian Courts into this if they tried to do such a thing though?

Realistically, it's not going to happen. At worst the companies would be forced to move to foreign servers like you said. Then what are they going to do? They can't ban the internet now can they?!

[DJ OD]

They might as well ban communication on the whole then.

Stupid idea.

If they don't use one, they will use another. There are hundreds of ways to organise such things, even that odd shaped thing called a telephone...


DJ OD

[Over Carl]

I wouldn't have known to go to southall if it wasn't for twitter.

As DJ OD said, phones are the biggest change to this sort of thing - I've commented on previous threads that before the days of mobiles, people used to have honorable one on one fights. Mobiles changed things so people just gather numbers instead, and it is the mobile phone that allowed people to use bbm/twitter/facebook/etc to co-ordinate things whilst people were out on the streets.

Lets ban all mobile communication devices then if we really want to sort this problem out.

[B.I.G.]

They should increase phone tariffs to the point where the underclass and in fact fuck it the lower class as well can no longer afford them.Only the rich really need mobile phones anyway for business and stuff.

[showbiz-legend]

I dont think mobiles or social networks are to blame really.I agree it makes organising things quicker but it went off in the early 80's and they didnt have all this stuff then. IMO the powers that be just want something to pin the blame on so the public will have something to point the finger at and feel a bit better. Its always gone on in some shape or form. Years ago it was the mods and rockers causing mayhem and all they had were ducks arses and ropey looking scooters.

[BertRoot]

They should increase phone tariffs to the point where the underclass and in fact fuck it the lower class as well can no longer afford them.Only the rich really need mobile phones anyway for business and stuff.

What the fuck? Are you serious? That is one of the most ludicrous statements I have ever read.

[B.I.G.]

What the fuck? Are you serious?

No.

[Zippeyrude]

No.

made me chuckle

[4me2]

What the fuck? Are you serious? That is one of the most ludicrous statements I have ever read.

That could of come from Cameron himself.