EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Rise Up or Die
- Rallying Cry: Citizens Worldwide to Unite in 'March Against Monsanto'
- A 'Nonviolent Army of Love' Rises in North Carolina to Face Down Rightwing's Assault on Progress
- The Latest Lie: IRS Targeted Conservatives
- Genetically Modified Democracy: Monsanto and Congress Move to Stomp on Your Rights
Popular content
Today's Top News
Rioters' Use of Social Media Throws Telecoms Firms Into Spotlight
Policymakers are being forced to rethink the extent to which authorities could interfere with communication networks
After the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and this summer's looting in England, there is no longer any doubt about the speed with which large crowds can be mobilized on to the streets. As flash-mobbing morphs into flash-robbing, the attention of British authorities is turning to the mobile phones and social media that empower everything from benign groups dancing in railway stations to the vandalism of entire high streets.
During the riots, two London MPs called for a BlackBerry Messenger curfew, proposing a 6pm to 6am shutdown of the service being used by gangs to organize looting. It was not implemented but in the aftermath, a review of police powers, including those to intervene in mobile communications, was announced. Theresa May is to meet Twitter, Facebook and BlackBerry maker Research in Motion (Rim) to discuss tighter controls, and the prime minister has warned: "When people are using social media for violence, we need to stop them."
Companies and politicians are being forced to rethink the extent to which governments or the police should be able interfere with communication networks. This year has seen at least two heavy-handed interventions. The Egyptian government ordered the closure of Vodafone's network, and those of other operators, during the Tahrir square uprising. Vodafone remained down for 24 hours, and when service resumed the company was strong-armed into sending out pro-government text messages urging demonstrators to stay at home.
In the week of the England riots, the operator of San Francisco's subway pulled the plug on its own mobile network for three hours, even preventing passengers from making emergency calls. In an echo of the killing that sparked the Tottenham riots, the San Francisco shutdown was designed to prevent a demonstration over the fatal shooting of an unarmed man by a transport policeman. Last year, Vodafone's partner company in Bahrain complied with restrictions forcing sim card users to register their personal details. More than 400,000 of those who did not were cut off.
While new companies such as Twitter are beginning to work out where they stand on such issues, the mobile phone networks are used to operating under heavy regulation and have well established systems for co-operating with police. O2, for example, has a high-security police liaison team in Slough which employs 30 staff who are constantly in touch with police over anything from missing persons to murders.
"Switching off any network element or any device should be a last resort," says Mike Short, European technology vice-president for Telefónica, which runs the O2 network. O2's view, and that of its fellow carriers, can be summed up by its advertising slogan: "We're better connected."
There is only one reported case of a UK network being closed by police. During the 7/7 London suicide bombings, O2 phone masts in a 1km square area around Aldgate tube station were disconnected for a number of hours.
Police have an emergency power to order masts to be put out of action known as MTPAS – Mobile Telecommunication Privileged Access Scheme. The move has to be approved by Gold Command, by the officers in highest authority during a major incident, and is designed to restrict all but emergency service phones with registered sim cards from making calls. But a shutdown can have dangerous knock-on effects. Short says that phones within the Aldgate zone automatically sought a signal from live masts outside it, overloading them and causing a network failure that rippled out "like a whirlpool".
On the day, other networks were simply overloaded as Londoners sought reassurance and information. Vodafone alone experienced a 250% increase in call volumes. MTPAS was introduced so emergency services could still contact each other during outages but could in theory be used to stop troublemakers organizing.
"I would be extremely slow to suggest that networks or applications allow communications to be shut down because you create as many problems as you solve," says Neil Brown, telecoms partner at law firm Eversheds. "You need to control the users rather than the whole network, because the whole network can work for the good."
LikeAs with many Londoners, during the riots Brown spent a number of hours on the phone to his son, who lives in Barking, calming him as hooded youths paraded in the street below.
Police have already told MPs that they contemplated seeking authority to close down Twitter and other services, but that monitoring communications on these channels allowed them to identify the next targets and send officers to protect the Olympic site, Westfield shopping center and Oxford Street.
More refined network closures are possible. At least two UK operators, including O2, have the ability to prevent just data communication – use of the internet from a phone. This allows voice calls and text messaging from within the zone, but shut down cannot always be done mast by mast.
Each internet gateway serves thousands of masts. Shutting one or two gateways could black out an area as big as south London. If police wanted to block mobile internet across an entire city center, the outage would most likely affect neighboring cities too.
Intriguingly, Short says it would be possible for his network to bar just BlackBerry phones. But this could not be done in a targeted way: mast by mast or even city by city. The exclusion would have to be across a major part of the country. Mobile operators can, under warrant, provide useful information to track down offenders after an event. Anyone requesting information must be accredited, and requests are logged, monitored and reported annually in a general, statistical way by the chief surveillance commissioner, currently the former judge Sir Christopher Rose.
While they do not have the technology to reveal the content of calls or texts, network operators can track web pages visited, geographical movements at particular times, find the registered user's name and address, and the call log. Networks only have the resources to track a small number of phones geographically in real time, so that this kind of evidence is usually retrospective and cannot prevent a riot. It was, however, used to solve the Soham murders case and is helping in looter prosecutions.
Perhaps the most interesting real-time information is on mass movement patterns. Networks have installed systems to detect crowds, in order to manage capacity. Phones signal where they are every 15 minutes, which means the gathering of a big crowd, or its direction and speed, can be rapidly pinpointed.
O2 is talking to the police about using this technology, known as cell congestion monitoring, during the Olympics. Police could be mobilized quickly to prevent crushes or stampedes.
"We don't want to be big brother about this," says Short. "The service is primarily for our customers, if we can help the police under law that is also fine but we don't want to change our systems just for a few incidents, however great they are."
He says the industry would welcome guidance in the next Communications Act, for which a green paper is expected by Christmas. In the UK as in most other nations, the government has the right to pull the plug if it sees fit, but mobile phone operators are coming under pressure to promote best practice.
Access, which lobbies for communication freedom, suggests a set of principles that would include only closing networks as a last resort for short periods, ensuring all phones can call emergency services during a shutdown, and refusing to act as a spokesperson for a regime.
The group's director Brett Solomon warns: "These channels of communication have been highly useful to British citizens in organizing clean-ups and getting information about the safety of their families and friends."
And as he points out, any draconian new measures in the UK would undermine the fight for open communication that western democracies championed during the upheavals in the Middle East.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


34 Comments so far
Show AllIs there a network that can't or won't be shut down?
Unfortunately, no. Some computer network genius could probably contrive one, but the spooks at CIA central would most like catch on before it could be put to effective use. The writers, artists, and communicators just have to keep openly making the case and as economic and environmental conditions deterorate, the populace will have the chance to catch on. If they don't . . .
For some reason, I think that most smart people are good people who would not join an evil organization like the CIA
For some reason I think that most smart people are like most people: morally indifferent, and happy enough to be led around by evil organizations like the CIA as long as it doesn't get in the way of their fulfillment of routine pleasures.
A very large majority of those morally indifferent, smart people you speak of have never experienced adversity (other than not getting their way, or being grounded), or government controls. Most probably know very little of history either. When they find themselves actually experiencing having their freedoms taken from them, they may start to wake up.
If they're smart, they are liberals and would they realize that evil organizations like the CIA get in the way of routine pleasures.
"One can't say that all conservatives are stupid people, but one can say that all stupid people are conservatives"
John Stewart Mill
'"One can't say that all conservatives are stupid people, but one can say that all stupid people are conservatives" '
Didn't check the quote, but shouldn't it be the other way around? "One can't say all stupid people are conservatives, but one can say all conservatives are stupid people."
The correct quote:
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."
That later got paraphrased: "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
This is one reason for bad schools.
It is a huge mistake to think that all smart people are liberal or progressive. The people who have run the planet into the ground are all really smart and really conservative. And really evil.
Many thanks for the detailed clarification, and I do agree with your last statement.
Any idiot can run the planet into the ground. Only smart people can save it.
Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.
John Stuart Mill http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_stuart_mill.html And they are proud of it
That they are. Thanks for the link.
Not meaning to contradict Mill but that quote plays with the definition of conservatism. Most stupid people are selfish no doubt, but I am old enough to remember when conservative politics was a whole lot more rational, saner even.
Today's so-called conservatives are better classified as NEO-conservative because they so little resemble the real conservatives of yesteryear.
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
John Kenneth Galbraith
Sorry I wish what you said was correct but it just isn't, the NSA for example employs more mathematicians than the whole U.S. University system. Intelligence in matters like computer networking and common human decency and ethics alas have little correlation. Our only hope is they will keep the net up for economic purposes and to use tools like TOR to route around government censorship:
https://www.torproject.org/
"Intelligence in matters like computer networking and common human decency and ethics alas have little correlation. "
Wouldn't intelligent people see the connection?
Not necessarily you are confusion ethics with intelligence, some people intelligent in things like computer coding are utterly amoral or even deeply immoral sociopaths. If you had said wouldn't a decent person see the connection I would say yes, ethics and human decency are more important than raw intelligence, which is a tough epiphany for me as a geek wannabe. :)
No. Almost ALL of our electronic communication is centralized, meaning a third-party is paid to maintain the routing service.
Point-to-point communication without a third-party intermediary is the most secure form of e-communication. Alas, we have not had good success in finding a technology that does not require either line-of-sight or a lot of power. We have no choice but to select one of these two boundary conditions....... Unless we think outside the box like Nikola Tesla. Such thinking is discouraged because no-one gets rich off the idea.
Arguably the best form of communication is to whisper directly into another person's ear in an environment with high ambient white noise (like a bar or nightclub). Unfortunately, this is slow and tedious on city-wide scales. Sigh.
Wig wag is line sight communication. Indians had smoke signals. I think they were using those in London.
It was at the Battle of Seattle, WTO protest, where activists first used cell phones effectively to counter police action, which motivated the "need" for the draconian laws emplaced after 9/11. Subsequent advances in tech have led to policestate countermeasures--I think we can now see that almost every nation qualifies as a Police State inline with NWO Neoliberalism. The Oligarchy's need to retain power will always trump anything advancing democracy, open societies and Civilized behavior.
It's not the same, but we are living in Orwell's 1984.
Right to assembly, right to speech, right to petition (aka protest)
There's a reason it's the FIRST amendment. There's a reason they are all lumped together. It's also the reason the fascists are dismantling it now.
A system that could not be block but would have near infinitely redundant rerouting possibilities was the raison 'd etre of the internet. It started out as ARAPANET, which was designed to make possible the communication between elements of the U.S. military in the event of nuclear war.
***
These attempts to limit the use of modern communication between ordinary citizens who want to organize shows that the corporate oligarchy is determined to eliminate free speech unless they see profit in it.
Almost ALL of our electronic communication is centralized, meaning a third-party is paid to maintain the routing service.
Point-to-point communication without a third-party intermediary is the most secure form of e-communication. Alas, we have not had good success in finding a technology that does not require either line-of-sight or a lot of power. We have no choice but to select one of these two boundary conditions....... Unless we think outside the box like Nikola Tesla. Such thinking is discouraged because no-one gets rich off the idea.
Onion routing like TOR can get around this to some extent, though of course the spooks can retaliate with a man in the middle attack. It's a cat and mouse game.
These technologies such as cellular phones, text messaging, email, and twitter are direct threats to entrenched power. As long as people are using them for everyday benign uses which are no threat to power then they are fine with us having use of them. As soon as they are used to challenge power, whether peacefully or not, then these technologies become a threat to them and it should be no surprise governments seek to control their use. Our founding fathers, much like modern terrorist cells, met in homes in the middle of the night to plan against the British. Today we use the internet and cellphones which by their very nature are not private and untraceable. We've traded anonymity for convenience and now we're surprised at this?
It is only a matter of (a short) time before technology allows complete control over individual functions in individual phones. The challenge is to prevent laws allowing such authoritarian control.
Twitter, Facebook are not the only organizations that communicate with cell towers. What does the FBI, CIA, police etc use? Snail mail?
They have their own separate encrypted networks and even equivalents of social networking sites like Wikis.
I am not all that knowledgeable in various types of communication...... but, one thing I want to get to prepare for what I feel will eventually come....even if not all that soon, is Ham Radio...... go ahead and laugh, but I don't think this can be messed with, am I right? For now of course, our more modern types of communication should be protected..... keep the filthy hands of authority and corporate power off. But the fail safe, even though maybe not as convenient.... might be to have a Ham radio on hand.... just sayin'
"Ham Radio" can be jammed very easily and anything broadcast can be intercepted.
...or worse, spied upon. As someone noted earlier, the best form of communication when combating the entrenched tyranny is face to face.
Ham radio with encrypted packet communication is worth a shot but keep in mind almost any encryption is likely crackable by the NSA. :(
I was stuck in Moscow in July 2001 when traveling as part of a martial arts team. This so happened to be one month prior to the coup.
In order to call out of the country to reach families in USA to reassure that team members were safe, the only phone available was one at a specific location that was centrally monitored and controlled and we were limited on time used and when we could use it, and the connection was horrible. Of course money exchanged hands to improve our situation.
This experience had me appreciating the freedom and services we had in the USA, but now I feel this is an illusion. Ours is a deceptive system of freedoms. As in other times and other places, if you get out of line, with deeds or thoughts, you are toast.