Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
British Prime Minister Does a 180 on Internet Censorship
After several days of destructive riots throughout the UK, British Prime Minister David Cameron is practically tripping over himself in his eagerness to sacrifice liberty for security. In a speech before an emergency session of Parliament today, Cameron highlighted concern over rioters’ use of social media tools such as Facebook and Twitter:
...when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them. 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. I have also asked the police if they need any other new powers.
Exactly what kind of government censorship of social media Cameron has in mind is unclear, but he went on to urge Twitter, Facebook, and Blackberry to remove messages that might incite further unrest across the country. British Home Secretary Theresa May is reportedly meeting with all three companies to discuss their “responsibilities” in light of the UK riots. Twitter has steadfastly refused to bow to government pressure to shut down the rioters’ accounts or delete their Tweets, referring to a blog post written by Twitter co-founder Biz Stone and General Counsel Alex McGillivray earlier this year, near the start of the Arab Spring:
Some Tweets may facilitate positive change in a repressed country, some make us laugh, some make us think, some downright anger a vast majority of users. We don't always agree with the things people choose to tweet, but we keep the information flowing irrespective of any view we may have about the content.
It was a sentiment shared by Cameron as recently as this February, when he gave a speech in Kuwait in which he asserted that freedom of expression should be respected "in Tahrir Square as much as Trafalgar Square." The Prime Minister’s 180-degree shift on freedom of expression unfortunately places him one step closer to the growing, worldwide cohort of politicians and despots seeking solace in censorship.
EFF urges Facebook, Blackberry, and Twitter to fight for the rights of their users. In large part, this means refusing to censor speech, protecting users' data unless compelled to do so by law, and informing users if their data is sought by the government. But the companies' hands may be tied if Cameron takes advantage of hysteria over the riots to pass shortsighted legislation meant to protect Britons from the so-called “misuse” of social media.
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...
20 Comments so far
Show AllI suppose freedom of expression is for North Africans, Middle Easterners, Chinese, North Koreans, and Iranians only.
A most interesting dialectical inversion.
Now, now, Ms. Galperin. Cameron is a politician, so I imagine he did more of a 360 on the matter of internet censorship.
" When people are using social media for violence we need to stop them". Sounds like the quote from Spiro Agnew who was convicted of crimes: " What we need is law and order ". Yeah, as long as it is your law and your order! Yeah, as long as Cameron gets to define violence.
paul - i want to thank you for riding all night - as palin recently reminded us - to warn the british not to take our guns
good work - well done
there is a lot of talk going around the internet how the police have been told to stand down in britain and that young people have actually been paid to go out and riot
this is a classic control paradigm
its called hegelian dialectic
"To move the public from point A to point B, one need only find a spokesperson for a certain argument and position him as an authority. That person represents Goalpost One. Another spokesperson is positioned on the other side of the argument, to represent Goalpost Two.
Argument A and B can then be used to manipulate a given social discussion. If one wishes, for instance, to promote IDEA C, one merely needs to promote the arguments of Goalpost One (that tend to promote IDEA C) more effectively than the Arguments of Goalpost Two. This forces a slippage of Goalpost Two's position. Thus both Goalpost One and Goalpost Two advance downfield toward IDEA C. Eventually Goalpost Two occupies Goalpost One's original position. The "anti-C" argument now occupies the pro-C position. In this manner whole social conversations are shifted from, say, a debate over market freedom vs. socialism to a debate about the degree of socialism that is desirable.
The Hegelian dialectic is a powerful technique for influencing the conversations of cultures and nations, especially if one already controls (owns) much of the important media in which the arguments take place. One can then, as the monetary elite characteristically do, emphasize one argument at the expense of the other, effectively shifting the positions of Goalposts One and Two."
http://www.thedailybell.com/619/Hegelian-Dialectic.html
david icke calls it problem reaction and solution
the solution offered in england is the same as in america - reduce rights and freedom
its a simple enough scam to keep the frightened masses embraces their prisons
"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."
The tools for law enforcement are already there to accomplish this.All they have to do is obtain warrants with probable cause. Something that should be simple if they "know" they're communicating to plot violence and criminality. I left out disorder because really, when did disorder become criminal? Looks like this is just another attempt to legitimize the wholesale computerized reading of the public's mass communications.
"but he went on to urge Twitter, Facebook, and Blackberry to remove messages that might incite further unrest across the country."
This part if one were to take it to its logical conclusion would mean that real news of how the public is getting screwed over is no longer to be allowed. After all, that's what starts all this unrest in the first place.
What a surprise!
Pardon a run-on rhetorical question, but:
Who would expect that in an ostensibly free, democratic government, the nominally civilian authorities, military intelligence, state security apparatus, and police agencies would combine or, er, fuse to develop comprehensive, draconian, aggressive pre-emptive surveillance, detection, and "early intervention" procedures to extirpate radical Homeland social dissent and protest in the bud-- in fact, tightening the frigid electronic fist to uproot bottom-up opposition before the buds can even form?
Besides anyone who isn't fatally complacent or unreflective, and who's been paying the least bit of attention, I mean.
The U.K. is already the most survailed place on earth. What's next? Cellblocks?
The Philly local news has remained all a-twitter about last week's flash mob episode.
After the mayor and police chief announced plans for stricter curfews and police patrols, the news featured some neighborhood residents who complained that the increased "security" was concentrated on Center City.
They showcased a (white) bicyclist who alleges that he was suddenly set upon and assaulted by four (non-white) "teenagers" on July 31st, while he was peacefully bicycling along Kelly Drive, a meandering road along the Schuylkill River frequented by bikers, joggers, and picnickers.
His face is pretty badly bruised and banged up on one side, and I have no reason to disbelieve his account of this unprovoked assaut. I did notice that he was featured on more than one station and seemed to be the ad hoc victim of the week-- in fact, he's stated that he's "speaking out" because the city isn't doing enough about this plague of violence that is sure to hurt the city's reputation and tourist industry.
He expressed dissatisfaction at the authorities' focus on Center City too. He advocates installing a system of surveillance cameras along the drives and elsewhere. Sigh.
...when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them.
-------------
Didn't former PM Tony Blair use the internet to spread the lies enabling the unimaginable violence in Iraq?
Isn't Cameron, right now, doing the exact same thing with regards to Libya??
Somebody, PLEASE STOP this man!
"Didn't former PM Tony Blair use the internet to spread the lies enabling the unimaginable violence in Iraq?
Isn't Cameron, right now, doing the exact same thing with regards to Libya??"
True enough, but you are comparing apples to oranges. Blair's lies were good lies to help us get back our oil fields in Iraq from the Iraqi people. Cameron's lies were good lies to make Libya return the oil fields being developed by China to western corporations, not to mention the Libyan water aquifer Europe would like to control, or the Africom bases America wants to secure the Mediterranean as an American lake and the rest of Africa as new American plantations.
Regarding the riots, Cameron is talking about evil uses of technology that would oppose corporate gangsterism, not the west's good uses of technology that support freedom, democracy, and justice. There's a big difference.
Curious, isn't it, that the only event for which the British police and security forces managed to have no video footage whatsoever is their murder of Menezes!
The Brits were all enthused about Tweets and Facebook during the Arab Spring. It all depends on whose ox is being gored, I suppose.
exactly. One mans "Arab Spring" is another man's "Arab Immigrant"
Camaron is Syria= Syria is Camaron. When folks get "uppity" deny them the right to freedom of speech.
Thanks jpheran,
It just never stops, does it?