This was in the news almost as soon as the riots started, with the media lapping it up as an opportunity to get some buzzwords in. I think they are also considering, or have already used, some mass phone record crawling.
The British government - either party - just doesn't seem to "get it" with respect to civil liberties. Poor logic comes up time and time again, the public don't really care much unless they read The Guardian. It makes me glad I left to a liberal cheese-eating European country ;)
At university a law student defended (regurgitated a professor's opinion) our lack of constitution by saying that all the important parts end up enshrined in law anyway and that the constitution's lack of flexibility causes problems as society/technology changes. I think there's more to it than that - the mindset that accompanies having a constitution (particularly in the general population). At least in the US encroachment tends to happen with extreme events and is duly challenged as unconstitutional.
afaik the contents of several days messages from the bbm was handed over to police to hunt for evidence.
"To look for evidence". This is frightening. Searching through something to look for incriminating evidence. It's the reverse of how the system is supposed to work.
The British government often comes up with poorly thought out policy ideas, but in fairness, these ideas rarely end up as actual laws - the obvious logic flaws are picked up on sooner or later. I suspect it's just a case that they needed give out some policy ideas to keep the journalists happy and this is the first thing they came up with.
Anyway, I can't see how removing access to social media would have had much influence on the riots - seems like SMS messages would be just as effective, for organising a riot. Social media just happens to be a cheaper option.
The idea that restricting the freedom of law-abiding people is an acceptable way to fight crime seems to be trending lately. I find this deeply disturbing. To quote Benjamin Franklin:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
If you want to make an effective argument, I'd suggest you find a new quote. I can't speak for everyone, but I swear that I see that quote invoked at least every other week, and usually incorrectly.
I personally haven't figured out how best to interpret the quote, but I believe there is a line somewhere, an understanding I have not reached... For example, would you argue that acquiescing to the ban on assault weapons falls under this quote? There are already a number of restrictions imposed on our Liberty- even on First Amendment rights- that most people seem to think entirely reasonable.
(Not expressing an opinion on the article, merely protesting what seems to be, though I can't put my finger on it, a constant misuse of Franklin's quote)
If legislation like this passed, I wonder how it would effect relations with the US and the US tech industry. Its all fine and good to try and subvert the Egyptian government during a revolution, but what happens if the tech companies try to subvert another first world country?
Ah, you noticed that too? I thought it was unusually clever: only if you attack civilians, we will bomb you; the civilians are rising up against you with tanks and guns; you fight back; we bomb you!
Media have tagged along as usual: massive glorification of the rebels without discussing many of the issues or history; implicit support as if treating events as a football match with the rebels being England.
I have yet to find any research that shows that censoring would have the desired effect, which to me shows how dangerous politicians can be. Proposing such extreme measures based on gut feelings rather than sound research could seriously blow up in their face.
How quirky that the British would consider even further erosion of what's left of civil liberties, but only allowed the police to use clubs and shields against looters. Being better armed than the mob one is seeking to contain would seem like a more focused way to deal with riots than by further marginalizing their citizens.
The British have had a problem with their teenagers for a very long time. I saw YouTube videos back in 2008 where a girl was like, "why do people cross to the other side of the street when they see young people? we don't all carry knives, we aren't ALL criminals. Why do they look at you like a criminal?" But the truth is, this problem hasn't really gone away.
And Britain taking a page from the egypt/libya/tunisia playbook of limiting social nets isn't gonna help matters.
It's too bad that at no point does it cross anyone's mind in the ruling class that there may be a reason for this unrest. It is the same in any regime, totalitarian or otherwise, that they have a mental block where it is inconceivable to them that anyone would have a legitimate reason to protest, that anyone would be disenfranchised enough to riot, that anyone would be disconnected from society to the point where they find it acceptable to loot. Just about every nation-state on Earth from Iran to Britain to the US is equal in this regard. Frankly I'm surprised this sort of thing doesn't happen more often, where 99.9% of humans have virtually no sovereignty at all.
Instead, all you get are law-and-order type responses. You can't have law or order when the law doesn't apply to everyone equally.
[+] [-] sambe|14 years ago|reply
The British government - either party - just doesn't seem to "get it" with respect to civil liberties. Poor logic comes up time and time again, the public don't really care much unless they read The Guardian. It makes me glad I left to a liberal cheese-eating European country ;)
At university a law student defended (regurgitated a professor's opinion) our lack of constitution by saying that all the important parts end up enshrined in law anyway and that the constitution's lack of flexibility causes problems as society/technology changes. I think there's more to it than that - the mindset that accompanies having a constitution (particularly in the general population). At least in the US encroachment tends to happen with extreme events and is duly challenged as unconstitutional.
[+] [-] nodata|14 years ago|reply
"To look for evidence". This is frightening. Searching through something to look for incriminating evidence. It's the reverse of how the system is supposed to work.
[+] [-] stoney|14 years ago|reply
Anyway, I can't see how removing access to social media would have had much influence on the riots - seems like SMS messages would be just as effective, for organising a riot. Social media just happens to be a cheaper option.
[+] [-] noonespecial|14 years ago|reply
It would be about as relevant.
[+] [-] shabble|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zak|14 years ago|reply
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
[+] [-] sliverstorm|14 years ago|reply
I personally haven't figured out how best to interpret the quote, but I believe there is a line somewhere, an understanding I have not reached... For example, would you argue that acquiescing to the ban on assault weapons falls under this quote? There are already a number of restrictions imposed on our Liberty- even on First Amendment rights- that most people seem to think entirely reasonable.
(Not expressing an opinion on the article, merely protesting what seems to be, though I can't put my finger on it, a constant misuse of Franklin's quote)
[+] [-] code177|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] highriseo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sambe|14 years ago|reply
Media have tagged along as usual: massive glorification of the rebels without discussing many of the issues or history; implicit support as if treating events as a football match with the rebels being England.
[+] [-] bluedanieru|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qF|14 years ago|reply
I have yet to find any research that shows that censoring would have the desired effect, which to me shows how dangerous politicians can be. Proposing such extreme measures based on gut feelings rather than sound research could seriously blow up in their face.
[+] [-] 4ensic|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EGreg|14 years ago|reply
And Britain taking a page from the egypt/libya/tunisia playbook of limiting social nets isn't gonna help matters.
[+] [-] bluedanieru|14 years ago|reply
Instead, all you get are law-and-order type responses. You can't have law or order when the law doesn't apply to everyone equally.