David Cameron also said the government would look at limiting access to such services during any future disorder.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14657456
Slightly different, we get to go to the polls every 4/5 years and boot them out....the countries with constantly restricted internet access usually dont have this luxury.
do I know how they did it..?
they hotlinked everything to STW and bored the revolutionaries away from their screens..?
It is rank hypocrisy isn't it?
One minute they are praising "social media" for its part in the Arab Spring uprisings and condemning dictators for trying to shut it down.
Then the next minute it's all terribly dangerous and needs to be controlled and shut down. But hey it's okay - we're the Good Guys and we're doing it for Good Reasons.
Typical two-faced political bollox.
Slightly different, we get to go to the polls every 4/5 years and boot them out....the countries with constantly restricted internet access usually dont have this luxury.
True, but next time there's a protest about tuition fees/fox hunting/public service cuts, all they'd have to do is declare it a riot and criminalise everyone who was supourting it, or planning to attend it on facebook/twitter/etc.
We've all seen howpowerfull twitter et al can be, Jane Moir (sp?) on her anti gay article, Mathew Parris and James Martins anti cycling articles all got a huge backlash as a result of the internet. So next time Cam & Co say somethign unpopular, should they just be able to shut the country up?
Not to mention that Twitter/Facebook etc are often a power for good in these situations. People can use them to [u]avoid[/u] the riots. Police can monitor them to gain information.
Slightly different, we get to go to the polls every 4/5 years and boot them out....the countries with constantly restricted internet access usually dont have this luxury.
But we already have large chunks of the media that has been proved to be in bed with the politicians and authorities, social media and the internet has been a powerful tool in getting the truth out and forcing the traditional media to confront stories they try to ignore.
Which means we don't get to make an educated choice at elections with a full set of facts.
There's a massive difference between the marches against public spending cuts, countryside alliance marches and the tuition fees protests etc and what happened recently....i dont remember the protesters from these (generally peaceful) marches taking to the streets for days, assaulting passers by, and looting their local high street....maybe i missed something?
Only a government wanting to commit political suicide would declare the tens of thousands attending a march against spending cuts as 'criminals' and then declare the incident a 'riot'....they'd be out on their ear at the next election....i know most of them in Westminster act like pricks but give them some credit!
Massive over reaction (again) to anything the nasty Tories do eh?
Didn't they just tell the people to stop googling and everyone obeyed? Isn't that how China works??
Its not just about the tories, its about "the government" taking powers to supposedly deal with a real threat and using them for far far more. labour did it with anti terrorism legislation.
ooh - the media picked up on the fact that Facebook/Twitter were being used. We must react by saying something totally overblown and spineless while continuing to ignore any of the actual root causes, because they're a little bit complex for us to be honest.
In other news - people make use of modern communication tools to communicate with each other. ffs!
San Fransisco Underground independently decided to unplug all mobile phone repeaters on their property a week or two back to thwart a planned protest followign the death of someone.
Not the police, not the government - a company - deciding who is allowed access to what communication even if the comms is via a third party organisation.
scarey.
There's a massive difference between the marches against public spending cuts, countryside alliance marches and the tuition fees protests etc and what happened recently...
Agreed but those riots had **** all to do with "social media" - they are just looking for a convenient scapegoat to point at because the real truth, that large portions of the population are pissed off, ghettoised, disenfranchised and not particularly law abiding is far harder to deal with.
Then vote them out!
The single wisest thing i ever heard from a political commentator was an American chap saying that whichever party is in power should be voted out at the next election.
His reasoning was that parties spend their first term trying to win a second term and not actually doing much at all....then once in for a second term they become complacent....and never get round to actually doing the bidding of the electorate.
By giving them the constant fear of being voted out he reasoned that they would actually make use of the 5 years they had and the electorate would see some positive changes as it would drive home the message that politicians are public servants and should do what the electorate wants not what they themselves think is best.
Unfortunately in this country we foolishly elect a party and then cant get rid of them for the next 18 years or 11 years....is it any wonder they feel smug and powerful and then shit all over the electorate?
Then vote them out!
And do you really think the next government would say:
"We're going to quash that law and allow twitter to be used during riots"?
Once such emotive legislation is passed it is hard to undo.
Rioters are using Twitter. Let's ban Twitter.
Oh. Rioters are using Blackberry Messenger. Let's ban Blackberry Messenger.
Now they're texting each other. Quick, shut down the phone network.
They're leaving notes on the walls! Anyone caught selling chalk, permanent markers or spray paint is going to prison for two years as an example to others.
What, the problem's getting worse, you say? I don't understand it, we've done everything we can to stop them.
This is one of those "thin end of the wedge" moments.
It doesn't sound so bad, we can see the reasoning and maybe even the logic in it etc... but if they do this what's next?
One small step followed by another small step is the road to loss of freedom of speech and that ultimately and over time can lead to rebellion.
That's how the Arab stuff started - loss of freedom of speech, bit by bit, then years of oppression followed by secretive brutalisation until the only thing left was revolution. Risking your life is not so hard to imagine if you've got nothing to live for.
Nobody even voted them in - how the hell are we going to vote them out!
Oh please...
I consider myself reasonably "left of centre" and even I think all the hot air over this proposal is a bit much. The authorities want the right to close down Blackberry messenger or similar services where they are being used to cordinate Public disorder and looting, not peaceful protests. Its pretty context specific.
I believe they already have the right to close down sections of the mobile network under cergain circumstances which would have a similar effect on "organised rioting".
The major difference is context.
Very few of our parties actually garner the popular vote that would make sense to most of us....the electoral system is crap.
The last stats i saw had the population split about 50/50 for Labour/Conservative....with the smaller parties making up such a small number as to be almost non existent.
I believe one of the main parties had a majority recently despite winning less total votes than the opposition.
Like i said, vote them out, its voter apathy and people doggedly sticking to their beliefs (or usually who their parents voted for) that allows Westminster as a whole to get away with half the stuff they do.
Cookeaa, thankyou....voice of reason at last....start panicking folks if an election gets suspended not if bloody Twitter is suspended for a while due to rioting for christs sake.
The authorities want the right to close down Blackberry messenger or similar services
Actually several leading coppers have already said they'd be against such powers.
This is really about the government desperately trying to look like it is doing something about the riots.
I believe they already have the right to close down sections of the mobile network under cergain circumstances
Fine, so they could have used that power - why would they need more legislation?
So that they are seen to be doing something....the scourge of modern politics.
This is really about the government desperately trying to look like it is doing something about the riots.
I agree totally with that point; this is "Looking Tough" politically motivated proposed legislation, I doubt it will go anywhere and it's once it's served it's purpose (making Dave look proactive).
But it's [u]intent[/u] is not to curtail public freedoms like the OP and others seems to be suggesting. That's not to say it couldn't be abused for such purposes, but then there are a lot of powers which we allow various government agencies/Authorities and trust them not to abuse.
There is of course the arguement though that the right to close down specific communication services (which were recently used to covertly organise Criminal behavior) is "better" than closing down whole sections of the phone network which would prevent legitimate communications such as 999 calls, in that respect suitably structured legislation could have some merit.
The fact is I think a few Guardian readers are seeing a 1984 Style conspiracy, where what we actually have is simply a bunch of rather befuddled middle aged Tories desparately trying to look in control...
we allow various government agencies/Authorities and trust them not to abuse.
What's this "we" business.
Well it wasn't just me...
My guess is that this is just a bit of political posturing to make it look like the government is strong and decisive.
Once it's been milked for all the publicity, advisors will look into how to implement it, then 30 seconds later realise how impossibly stupid it would be to attempt to do so, and quietly kick it into the long-grass. Either that or create some pointless commission to avoid losing face.
There is of course the arguement though that the right to close down specific communication services (which were recently used to covertly organise Criminal behavior) is "better"
True, but by focussing their efforts only on specific services they won't really achieve anything. The joy of smartphones is readily installable apps - so there are dozens of different messaging services that the "bad guys" could switch to if they were so inclined.
"They're shutting down Twitter - let's switch to Messenger - oh they got that, let's move to WhatsApp, Skype, Google+, Palringo, TeamSpeak, ....
Your the only one making the statement.
All of these uprisings are instigated by the west manipulating the media, then up pops Hague again to say we'll do everything we can to help the people, he just neglects to mention the plans to steal all their oil.
even shutting down all mobile comms is becoming more difficult as so many routers in homes/businesses provide BT Openzone type connectivity via wi-fi.
MSP? Who's doing the What now?
Hence it's rather impractical as legislation, the intent though is not particularly sinister, like I said I think you're seeing a conspiracy where there is none, simply an inept Government...
I was reading this article the other day:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14572578
And this quote struck me:
"Soon the Nazis were in control. When the new regime used the Reichstag fire in February 1933 as an excuse to suspend civil liberties, Litten was among the first to be rounded up."
Only a government wanting to commit political suicide would declare the tens of thousands attending a march against spending cuts as 'criminals' and then declare the incident a 'riot'....they'd be out on their ear at the next election....i know most of them in Westminster act like pricks but give them some credit!
As someone said, 000's of people got stoped under anti terror legislation, from kids to photographers simply because it meant the police could stop&search people without the additional paperwork/faff of having to give a reason for doing so.
All of these uprisings are instigated by the west manipulating the media, then up pops Hague again to say we'll do everything we can to help the people, he just neglects to mention the plans to steal all their oil.
How did "the west" manipulate the state-owned state-run media in these dictatorships exactly?
And won't they notice when "the west" steals all their oil? I mean "the west" would need a pretty baggy jacket to pinch several billion gallons of crude oil without someone noticing.
no just a compliant leadership..And it's hardly like no one notices, pretty common knowledge tbf.I mean "the west" would need a pretty baggy jacket to pinch several billion gallons of crude oil without someone noticing
And won't they notice when "the west" steals all their oil? I mean "the west" would need a pretty baggy jacket to pinch several billion gallons of crude oil without someone noticing.
The deals can be done that favour the country that has the resources, such as happens in Brazil, or in favour of the oil companies as in Nigeria.
no just a compliant leadership.
Ah so not actually "stealing" at all then? More taking with express permission in exchange for money?
i know most of them in Westminster act like pricks but give them some credit!
We're talking about the same Westminster that voted for an illegal war in Iraq that's killed 100,000 people, right?
Do you remember the Dangerous Dogs Act? It's a legendarily badly-written piece of legislation that was cobbled together in the middle of a moral panic. It took years to make it half-workable. If that was just dealing with bloody dogs, how much more risky is it to bugger about with freedom of communication?
Some good discussion on todays Guardian about this. For those of you on Twitter, follow @dcctayside who leads on this issue for the police and is in today's meeting with the Home Secretary.
"Cameron’s suggestion to block social networking websites smashes basic concepts of freedom of speech in the West, which always takes the moral high ground in criticizing the reluctant development of Internet freedom in developing countries.....open discussion of containment of the Internet in Britain has given rise to a new opportunity for the whole world. Media in the US and Britain used to criticize developing countries for curbing freedom of speech. Britain’s new attitude will help appease the quarrels between East and West over the future management of the Internet.
As for China, advocates of an unlimited development of the Internet should think twice about their original ideas.
..all governments will have no other choice but to close down these websites and arrest those agitators.
-- [url= http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/670718/Riots-lead-to-rethink-of-Internet-freedom.aspx ]"Riots lead to rethink of Internet freedom", Global Times (Chinese state-backed news)[/url]
You know you are heading down the wrong path when the Chinese government approve of your policy towards civil liberty and freedom of speech!
How can we criticise them for censorship and locking up people for thought crimes if we do exactly the same thing?
I take it you were not aware that "they" already have the power to turn off the mobile phone network, and the landline network, and that every BT line in the country has a priority level, meaning they can turn phones off over a whole area at the flick of a switch/press of a button?
I suppose we should all be afraid, and put our tin foil hats on... I men, they've been able to do this for fifty years, but yes, what if they decided to do it tomorrow 🙄
what if they decided to do it tomorrow
people would have to talk 😯 I mean face to face 😉
I mean it's just, like, really [b]amazing[/b] that the Jarrow Marches ever happened, you know.
How can we criticise them for censorship and locking up people for thought crimes if we do exactly the same thing?
Welcome to the hypocrisy that is western morality
True, but next time there's a protest about tuition fees/fox hunting/public service cuts, all they'd have to do is declare it a riot and criminalise everyone who was supourting it, or planning to attend it on facebook/twitter/etc
Riot has a specific definition, it involves violence. If you are on a peaceful protest then you'll be left alone, if you're causing violent disorder you deserve to be shut down quickly. We have methods of getting people out of power at reasonable intervals, there's no need for civil disorder.
We have methods of getting people out of power at reasonable intervals, there's no need for civil disorder.
But we are only aware of the actions of those with power through the media. And if the traditional media are on message and other forms of media and discussion can be closed down due to "inciting public disorder" then it has massive potential as a power to be abused.
Not neccesarily depends on how the leadership is able to stay in place and a whole host of other complex situations. But yes there are ****s in these countries also... imo the world isn't really about nation states, it's all about how the rich fleece the poor, that happens in many guises.Ah so not actually "stealing" at all then? More taking with express permission in exchange for money?
coffeekingRiot has a specific definition, it involves violence. If you are on a peaceful protest then you'll be left alone,
Really. 🙄
1) I have never heard that there is a definition of riot in UK law nowadays. What is it?
2) peaceful protests are not left alone Plenty of examples.
Really TJ?
Public order act, 1986 paragraph 1
1. Riot.(1)Where 12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot.
(2)It is immaterial whether or not the 12 or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously.
(3)The common purpose may be inferred from conduct.
(4)No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.
(5)Riot may be committed in private as well as in public places.
(6)A person guilty of riot is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or a fine or both.
Looks sort of like a definition to me 🙄
On this point, bit of an understatement really. When talking Iraq you really need to figure in the first gulf war and the blockade(which is an act of war btw) of it afterwards until what we class as gulf war 2. you can multiply that number by quite a factor.illegal war in Iraq that's killed 100,000 people?
Really.1) I have never heard that there is a definition of riot in UK law nowadays. What is it?
2) peaceful protests are not left alone Plenty of examples.
1) You really need to search the laws for 30 seconds, as above thanks ZE.
2) Rarely, it's normally due to some complete moron kicking off that things get nasty - much like football hooliganism, most are normal people (barely, they like football but that's another argument) but there's always a minority who want to kick off. I've been there, seen it.
Coffeeking - Football hooliganism is a really good example
I don't recall seeing the lefties kicking up a fuss over the "brutal and repressive" treatment of innocent football fans, because of the behaviour of a violent minority.
Kettling, stop and search, mass detention, restrictive escorts from the train to the ground and back again, heavy handed policing, preventative arrests, FIT teams - been going on for years with barely a whimper...
Truth is, the majority of British people are too brainwashed, apathetic and in debt to be in a position to actively oppose the actions of the government anyway. Zulu-11 personifies such a sate of slavish adherence to a pattern of thought that has been carefully engendered in the populace for decades...
If you are on a peaceful protest then you'll be left alone, if you're causing violent disorder you deserve to be shut down quickly. We have methods of getting people out of power at reasonable intervals, there's no need for civil disorder.
Agreed, but.........
On the fringe of every protest there's always an anti-capitalist, anarchist, trouble maker or yob out to smash windows. This power would give them the excuse/ability to shut down any social media reporting of events as soon as the first idiot shouts at a policeman or a troublemaker smashed up the MacDonalds windows.
Good link to that Chinese article GrahamS, theres a similar one I read from Iran about sending human rights inspectors into the UK as well!
We have methods of getting people out of power at reasonable intervals, there's no need for civil disorder.
what exactly are these methods pray tell...?
a state of slavish adherence to a pattern of thought that has been carefully engendered in the populace for decades..
Truth is, the majority of British people are too brainwashed, apathetic and in debt to be in a position to actively oppose the actions of the government anyway. Zulu-11 personifies such a sate of slavish adherence to a pattern of thought that has been carefully engendered in the populace for decades...
Really Fred... in that case can you explain how I've successfully protested against government policy and law, have [i]actively[/i] worked to undermine that law through breaching the spirit of the law (but not the letter) by continuing fox and hare hunting with hounds despite the ban?
Let alone my consistent unlawful (note, unlawful, not illegal, different things) trespass on footpaths with a bicycle, and my work to upgrade some of those routes through legal means and direct campaigning.
which [i]really[/i] undermines your claim that I've slavishly adhered, or been unable to to actively oppose the actions of the government! Only thing is, that unlike your leftie mates I've been able to do so without breaking the law, and without damaging other peoples property
😆
(Skins up Cannabis joint. Lights up. Inhales deeply...)
Ooh, you little anarchist you, Zulu...
Only thing is, that unlike your leftie mates I've been able to do so without breaking the law, and without damaging other peoples property
There you go again with your pathetic ignorant assumptions, Labby. Can't produce a decent argument, so resort to mud-slinging once again.
Some of my best mates vote Tory, btw...
X
I don't recall seeing the lefties kicking up a fuss over the "brutal and repressive" treatment of innocent football fans
Whether or not you recall it, it happened. Charter 88, Liberty and Natl Council for Civil Liberties were all over it right from when things were ramped up after the CJA. Ditto leftie media like the New Statesman: http://www.urban75.org/football/cja_ns.html
Your assertion illustrates a perfect example of the process though: 1) demonise a group of people that don't attract much sympathy 2) bring in new powers to "deal with them" 3) wait a couple of years and start using those powers against others.
Seems they've given up trying on this:
The climbdown was backed by Nick Clegg, the deputy Prime Minister, who ministers were not going to support “a Chinese or Iran-style black-out of social media”.
Don't confuse political protest with rioting.
don't confuse rioting with looting..
Don't confuse looting with Luton.
Looting is fun.
Elfinsafety - Member
Don't confuse looting with Luton.Looting is fun.
Here's someone enjoying your "fun"
[img] 
[/img]
Seems they've given up trying on this
I suspect what this means is the political point has been made and also, quite likely, they have struck a deal with the various social media companies that they won't block them, on the proviso that they provide suitable GCHQ access.
(pass the tinfoil)
Here's someone enjoying your "fun"
Oh sorry, did I forget to put a smiley in? 🙄
And I wasn't in any way condoning the looting, but based on the images we've seen, I'd say the vast majority of those doing the damage seemed to be having fun. Just an observation, not a judgement.
Have you ever bin to a Harvester before?
[img] 
[/img]
Zulu-Eleven - Member
I take it you were not aware that "they" already have the power to turn off the mobile phone network, and the landline network, and that every BT line in the country has a priority level, meaning they can turn phones off over a whole area at the flick of a switch/press of a button?
Phone boxes are priority 1 😉