Widely reported today are David Cameron's comments to parliament on riots and social media:
Mr Speaker, everyone watching these horrific actions will be stuck by how they were organised via social media.(the bit in square brackets was in his press statement, but not read in the Commons)
Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill.
[And 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.
This particular line of reasoning was magnificently rebutted by Douglas Adams in 1999:
Newsreaders still feel it is worth a special and rather worrying mention if, for instance, a crime was planned by people 'over the Internet.' They don't bother to mention when criminals use the telephone or the M4, or discuss their dastardly plans 'over a cup of tea,' though each of these was new and controversial in their day.
I was encouraged recently when the UK Govt abandoned web blocking plans in the Digital Economy Act. Understanding that the internet is there for common carriage (a mere conduit, as the EU puts it) is important. Even on its own terms this threat makes little sense: if people are plotting riots on social media, that is surely exactly the evidence you need to convict them under the UK's statutory Conspiracy law. The telephone, the M4 and cups of tea are much harder to use as sources of evidence.
The Open Rights Group, has a typically measured and thoughtful response to this.
Cameron should be careful, or he'll look to posterity like William Cobbett ranting about the pernicious evils of tea.
Clearly the UK government needs to refocus its efforts and move fast to eradicate the perils of "a nice cup of tea with a mate". While they're at it, "a quiet pint down the local" should also be ruled illegal - just think of how many evil schemes have been dreamt up in such places.
ReplyDeleteA little late, I know, but only just saw this post after lengthy summer break. Everything has already been said about the UK government's predictable knee-jerk response to the riots (blame someone, anyone, so long as it's not us or anything we might have been responsible for over the past few decades, like education, social justice, building communities...).
ReplyDeleteSo, just two points to add:
a. I can appreciate anyone who also quotes a quote I often use in sessions when lecturing/presenting on new technology, namely:
"1) everything that’s already in the world when you’re born is just normal;
2) anything that gets invented between then and before you turn thirty is incredibly exciting and creative and with any luck you can make a career out of it;
3) anything that gets invented after you’re thirty is against the natural order of things and the beginning of the end of civilisation as we know it until it’s been around for about ten years when it gradually turns out to be alright really."
and
b. it would be interesting to know if Cameron had really thought through his plan to inhibit social media?
Presumably he would not also be limiting the use of social media by political parties for fundraising and reaching new supporters in other demographics?
Presumably he would not also be in favour of removing privacy controls on his own personal communications and those of his party?
Perhaps a sign that the internet and its digital descendants (social media, social networks, virtual worlds, email) have finally arrived will come when governments do not still see them as a threat...