England Riots

[Sy_Accursed]

The CCTV convictions seem a little bit shady. Don't get me wrong, I think people that have committed the crimes should be punished, but the whole "caught on camera" thing seems a lot like those red light camera tickets in the U.S. Unless there is absolutely no doubt in identifying who committed the crime, they shouldn't be using them to convict people.

 

Thats what they are doing.

They review cctv to watch people commit the crime then track them through the cctv system to identify where they live and/or get a clear face shot.

Thus making it beyond reasonable doubt they committed the crime.

 

There's even a name and shame website up with face shots taken from cctv asking for the public to identify them.

 

Plus there's the very obvious identifying features namely they have loot stashed at their property, and facebook, twitter or bbm have records of them admitting to looting sometimes even with pictures.

[Furah]

The CCTV convictions seem a little bit shady. Don't get me wrong, I think people that have committed the crimes should be punished, but the whole "caught on camera" thing seems a lot like those red light camera tickets in the U.S. Unless there is absolutely no doubt in identifying who committed the crime, they shouldn't be using them to convict people.

They're commonly used in Aus too. They just mail of a letter to the owner of the vehicle. If someone else was driving it they're supposed to send in some letter and I guess the other person has to confirm. I guess as long as they can't prove it was you driving you can claim it was stolen or someone who had access to the keys used it and you refuse to pay unless it's proved it was you.

[Range_This11]

Yeah, it just seems too Orwellian for me to ever support that kind of stuff.

 

I don't know if this has been posted or not, but I got it from NPR:

 

The wave of violence that swept across cities in Britain over the past week has led to Prime Minister David Cameron saying that:

 

— Authorities may block instant messaging services "when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality."

 

— The police have been given the power to order protesters to remove facemasks "under any circumstances where there is reasonable suspicion that they are related to criminal activity."

 

(We're citing The Guardian, which has much more about what Cameron told Parliament today posted here.)

 

Journalism professor/blogger Jeff Jarvis doesn't like what he's hearing:

 

— "Censorship is no path to civility."

 

— "I hear an MP in essence asking for social media to be regulated. Danger, friends, danger."

 

— "So they're trying to ban anonymity in public."

 

But David Lammy, who represents London's Tottenham neighborhood (where the troubles began) in Parliament argues that BlackBerry's mobile messaging service in particular needs to be suspended because it has allowed "unsophisticated criminals" to outmaneuver police.

 

And police say they need the power to make protesters remove their masks in order to help identify those who turn violent.

 

In U.K.: Talk Of Banning Masks, Blocking Text Messages

 

Talk about an invasion of privacy.

[sees_all1]

Yeah, it just seems too Orwellian for me to ever support that kind of stuff.

 

I don't know if this has been posted or not, but I got it from NPR:

 

The wave of violence that swept across cities in Britain over the past week has led to Prime Minister David Cameron saying that:

 

Authorities may block instant messaging services "when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality."

 

The police have been given the power to order protesters to remove facemasks "under any circumstances where there is reasonable suspicion that they are related to criminal activity."

 

(We're citing The Guardian, which has much more about what Cameron told Parliament today posted here.)

 

Journalism professor/blogger Jeff Jarvis doesn't like what he's hearing:

 

"Censorship is no path to civility."

 

"I hear an MP in essence asking for social media to be regulated. Danger, friends, danger."

 

"So they're trying to ban anonymity in public."

 

But David Lammy, who represents London's Tottenham neighborhood (where the troubles began) in Parliament argues that BlackBerry's mobile messaging service in particular needs to be suspended because it has allowed "unsophisticated criminals" to outmaneuver police.

 

And police say they need the power to make protesters remove their masks in order to help identify those who turn violent.

 

In U.K.: Talk Of Banning Masks, Blocking Text Messages

 

Talk about an invasion of privacy.

At least they haven't declared Martial Law.

[Sy_Accursed]

The issue of using cctv being Orwellian is an issue about whether or not it should be there; not about using it to convict people as it is there.

We have cctv all over the place under the pretence of catching criminals, so its doing its job.

[H2PM]

[hide=As I said in the Today thread...][/hide]

 

 

I'm for this.

 

This is a great idea.

[magekillr]

Cute:

 

[uK Prime Minister David] Cameron made the announcement in his opening statement during a House of Commons debate Thursday.

 

"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," the prime minister said.

 

Cameron clarified that he would "review" potential bans to see whether such policies would be possible.

 

Anonymous Hackers Take Notice of UK Prime Minister David Cameron's Social Network Plans

 

Interesting quote, too:

 

It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.

 

Which relates back to what I said on the end of Page 6.

[Danqazmlp]

 

[uK Prime Minister David] Cameron made the announcement in his opening statement during a House of Commons debate Thursday.

 

"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," the prime minister said.

 

Cameron clarified that he would "review" potential bans to see whether such policies would be possible.

 

 

The as long as the underlined and bolded part was right I would have no problem with it happening.

[Sy_Accursed]

 

[uK Prime Minister David] Cameron made the announcement in his opening statement during a House of Commons debate Thursday.

 

"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," the prime minister said.

 

Cameron clarified that he would "review" potential bans to see whether such policies would be possible.

 

 

The as long as the underlined and bolded part was right I would have no problem with it happening.

 

Yeah I can see the logic in it too applied correctly.

Anyone clearly planning such activities gets locked out and reported to police.

[magekillr]

 

[uK Prime Minister David] Cameron made the announcement in his opening statement during a House of Commons debate Thursday.

 

"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," the prime minister said.

 

Cameron clarified that he would "review" potential bans to see whether such policies would be possible.

 

 

The as long as the underlined and bolded part was right I would have no problem with it happening.

 

So you support cutting off internet resources if people are plotting with them? How can you live in a free society with that kind of authoritarian power?

[obfuscator]

Yeah, I can't see that being effective anyway.

 

This is a classic case of forcing what worked pre-internet on the internet, which never works.

[Danqazmlp]

 

[uK Prime Minister David] Cameron made the announcement in his opening statement during a House of Commons debate Thursday.

 

"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," the prime minister said.

 

Cameron clarified that he would "review" potential bans to see whether such policies would be possible.

 

 

The as long as the underlined and bolded part was right I would have no problem with it happening.

 

So you support cutting off internet resources if people are plotting with them? How can you live in a free society with that kind of authoritarian power?

 

 

Yes, I would fully support it, if it could be done properly. I'm not saying it should be done as I know that it couldn't work, but in a perfect world I would fully support it. I live in a free society which gives me the option to support the police in arresting and stopping those who wish to do harm to others and their property.

[Cheat]

It's amazing the amount of idiots who appear across our social media and television screens when something like this occurs calling for totalitarian measures against those rioting. Admittedly the rioting is incredibly stupid and indeed many of those taking part in it appear to have few morals and little intelligence but some of the reactions to this behaviour shows as limited intelligence as the rioters are claimed to posses. For instance the woman interviewed by the BBC who described the rioters as ferrel rats who should be at home rather than out rioting. Or the many people I have added on facebook calling for mass hangings and posting status such as 'Real men fight in Afghanistan they don't riot we should send these scumbags to Afghanistan and see how they like it' a message which both debases the professionalism of the armed forces and also their purpose while coming across as highly ignorant at the same time. Also what a soldier does is hardly relevant to this situation. I would call these people as bad as the rioters but that would be to be as guilt of reductio ab absurdum as they are. In the end my conclusion of the events of the riots and those surrounding them is to reflect on the colossal stupidity of people and that just makes me sound like an arrogant tosser. It's amazing the individual you know may appear to be intelligent, rational and kind but confront them with a situation like this and expose them to the media and the masses soon turn into drooling idiots. If there are any Brits our there or perhaps you can find it on youtube look for Robin Ince's comedic rant on newspapers to sum up my general feelings about this.

[Surprise]

It's amazing the amount of idiots who appear across our social media and television screens when something like this occurs calling for totalitarian measures against those rioting. Admittedly the rioting is incredibly stupid and indeed many of those taking part in it appear to have few morals and little intelligence but some of the reactions to this behaviour shows as limited intelligence as the rioters are claimed to posses. For instance the woman interviewed by the BBC who described the rioters as ferrel rats who should be at home rather than out rioting. Or the many people I have added on facebook calling for mass hangings and posting status such as 'Real men fight in Afghanistan they don't riot we should send these scumbags to Afghanistan and see how they like it' a message which both debases the professionalism of the armed forces and also their purpose while coming across as highly ignorant at the same time. Also what a soldier does is hardly relevant to this situation. I would call these people as bad as the rioters but that would be to be as guilt of reductio ab absurdum as they are. In the end my conclusion of the events of the riots and those surrounding them is to reflect on the colossal stupidity of people and that just makes me sound like an arrogant tosser. It's amazing the individual you know may appear to be intelligent, rational and kind but confront them with a situation like this and expose them to the media and the masses soon turn into drooling idiots. If there are any Brits our there or perhaps you can find it on youtube look for Robin Ince's comedic rant on newspapers to sum up my general feelings about this.

 

Yes, it's right they should be out causing destruction.

 

You will always get facebook groups like that with anything of this sort.

 

Also, the enter button works wonders.

[magekillr]

As much as I criticize the United States for its faults -- and there are many -- the one thing that I value in this country more than any other is the First Amendment right to free speech; it's not something other countries with hate speech laws and apparent support for internet meddling seem to respect.

[Ginger_Warrior]

As much as I criticize the United States for its faults -- and there are many -- the one thing that I value in this country more than any other is the First Amendment right to free speech; it's not something other countries with hate speech laws and apparent support for internet meddling seem to respect.

And of citizens' rights to live in security without fear of a riot coming to burn their house down for no apparent reason other than the heck of it... surely you don't think an amendment to free speech that isn't even present in our constitution should supercede police attempts to stop criminality when it's clearly being organised through BBM?

 

Organising criminal activity is not tantamount to free speech.

[Cheat]

It's amazing the amount of idiots who appear across our social media and television screens when something like this occurs calling for totalitarian measures against those rioting. Admittedly the rioting is incredibly stupid and indeed many of those taking part in it appear to have few morals and little intelligence but some of the reactions to this behaviour shows as limited intelligence as the rioters are claimed to posses. For instance the woman interviewed by the BBC who described the rioters as ferrel rats who should be at home rather than out rioting. Or the many people I have added on facebook calling for mass hangings and posting status such as 'Real men fight in Afghanistan they don't riot we should send these scumbags to Afghanistan and see how they like it' a message which both debases the professionalism of the armed forces and also their purpose while coming across as highly ignorant at the same time. Also what a soldier does is hardly relevant to this situation. I would call these people as bad as the rioters but that would be to be as guilt of reductio ab absurdum as they are. In the end my conclusion of the events of the riots and those surrounding them is to reflect on the colossal stupidity of people and that just makes me sound like an arrogant tosser. It's amazing the individual you know may appear to be intelligent, rational and kind but confront them with a situation like this and expose them to the media and the masses soon turn into drooling idiots. If there are any Brits our there or perhaps you can find it on youtube look for Robin Ince's comedic rant on newspapers to sum up my general feelings about this.

 

Yes, it's right they should be out causing destruction.

 

You will always get facebook groups like that with anything of this sort.

 

 

 

 

Also, the enter button works wonders.

 

Yeh ok I should use paragraphs. It wasn't facebook groups more people I know on facebook like, you know, friends. As to the point about the woman I was more against the idea of calling them ferrel rats rather than them not being out rioting. Also the ridiculous and old fashioned idea that the kids should be staying at home and that in fact part of the problem is the deprevation in their own homes and communities. Also I think you should look into what reducto ab absurdum is because it is exactly what you are guilt of when taking my qoute like that.

[magekillr]

As much as I criticize the United States for its faults -- and there are many -- the one thing that I value in this country more than any other is the First Amendment right to free speech; it's not something other countries with hate speech laws and apparent support for internet meddling seem to respect.

And of citizens' rights to live in security without fear of a riot coming to burn their house down for no apparent reason other than the heck of it... surely you don't think an amendment to free speech that isn't even present in our constitution should supercede police attempts to stop criminality when it's clearly being organised through BBM?

 

Organising criminal activity is not tantamount to free speech.

 

Not when you shutdown others' means of communication, no. If you can find a way to target them without violating others' rights, then sure, you are free to do so. Of course, England doesn't have the right to free speech like America does, so this is mostly irrelevant, but it does strike me as very authoritarian that so many are supportive of shuttering others' rights in the name of security. Hate speech laws aren't the only product of that attitude, it seems.

 

Shutting down parts of the internet in order to get in the way of trouble makers is what authoritarian regimes like Egypt and Syria do, not free democracies.

[Sy_Accursed]

As much as I criticize the United States for its faults -- and there are many -- the one thing that I value in this country more than any other is the First Amendment right to free speech; it's not something other countries with hate speech laws and apparent support for internet meddling seem to respect.

And of citizens' rights to live in security without fear of a riot coming to burn their house down for no apparent reason other than the heck of it... surely you don't think an amendment to free speech that isn't even present in our constitution should supercede police attempts to stop criminality when it's clearly being organised through BBM?

 

Organising criminal activity is not tantamount to free speech.

 

Not when you shutdown others' means of communication, no. If you can find a way to target them without violating others' rights, then sure, you are free to do so. Of course, England doesn't have the right to free speech like America does, so this is mostly irrelevant, but it does strike me as very authoritarian that so many are supportive of shuttering others' rights in the name of security. Hate speech laws aren't the only product of that attitude, it seems.

 

Shutting down parts of the internet in order to get in the way of trouble makers is what authoritarian regimes like Egypt and Syria do, not free democracies.

 

They never said anything about a universal shut down.

They specifically said about blocking the accounts of specific users who were performing the planning or w/e else illegal.

[Ginger_Warrior]

The golden rule is that when your 'rights' as a criminal infringe on the rights of innocent civilians, the police have the right to prioritise the latter over the former. I really don't see the problem with that, and I don't see what makes free speech so special it deserves its own special clause. For a hypothetical example, a gang leader would not be allowed to communicate with members whilst in jail. Is that a denial of free speech? Yes. Is it in the public's interest? Absolutely.

 

Of course, this is all a red herring argument since it's very hard to stop people communicating through technology these days anyway. But if the police had reason to believe criminal activity was being organised through BBM, and failed to do anything about it, I'd be more annoyed about why my taxpayers' money is going to them to do literally nothing just so 'free speech' is preserved for people who couldn't give a damn about other people's rights.

[magekillr]

As much as I criticize the United States for its faults -- and there are many -- the one thing that I value in this country more than any other is the First Amendment right to free speech; it's not something other countries with hate speech laws and apparent support for internet meddling seem to respect.

And of citizens' rights to live in security without fear of a riot coming to burn their house down for no apparent reason other than the heck of it... surely you don't think an amendment to free speech that isn't even present in our constitution should supercede police attempts to stop criminality when it's clearly being organised through BBM?

 

Organising criminal activity is not tantamount to free speech.

 

Not when you shutdown others' means of communication, no. If you can find a way to target them without violating others' rights, then sure, you are free to do so. Of course, England doesn't have the right to free speech like America does, so this is mostly irrelevant, but it does strike me as very authoritarian that so many are supportive of shuttering others' rights in the name of security. Hate speech laws aren't the only product of that attitude, it seems.

 

Shutting down parts of the internet in order to get in the way of trouble makers is what authoritarian regimes like Egypt and Syria do, not free democracies.

 

They never said anything about a universal shut down.

They specifically said about blocking the accounts of specific users who were performing the planning or w/e else illegal.

 

But in order to put those measures in place, you would require stifling of free speech.

 

What David Cameron appears to be wanting is a police power to trawl through millions of messages – ideally in real time – to prevent possible criminal activity. I don't believe that any such power exists and nor would I want there to be one. Parliament would have to pass new legislation and I would certainly warn against that. That gets the balance wrong in terms of free speech and security.It would certainly put the UK in a difficult position in terms of talking to authoritarian regimes and trying to convince them not to turn off their networks."

 

This is pure ridiculousness. How often do riots occur to where this is such an impeding problem between giving up free speech rights permanently, and seeing a riot every 30 years (1981 Brixton).

 

Of course, this isn't my country, nor my culture, and everyone is free to support/dissent such laws as they please and it won't affect me. But I wouldn't like my government with that kind of power. It would be subject to far too much abuse. For example, The Patriot Act in America has rarely been used for terrorism, and a lot of it has been used to curb the drug trade -- clearly outside of its mandate, but because those powers were given, they're using them for other purposes (and there's no checks on that abuse).

[Range_This11]

The golden rule is that when your 'rights' as a criminal infringe on the rights of innocent civilians, the police have the right to prioritise the latter over the former. I really don't see the problem with that, and I don't see what makes free speech so special it deserves its own special clause. For a hypothetical example, a gang leader would not be allowed to communicate with members whilst in jail. Is that a denial of free speech? Yes. Is it in the public's interest? Absolutely.

Forgive me for cherry-picking this detail, but as a prisoner, you forgo most of your constitutional rights in prison because you are a convicted felon. The only one I can really think of that is still applicable would be the 5th (self-incrimination).

[Sy_Accursed]

How on earth do you remotely "stifle" free speech by having measures in place to shut down social network accounts of people performing/arranging criminal activities in order to hamper their progress?

 

It's no different to police powers to tap/block phonelines and intercept mail where criminal activity is taking place, you "free speech" is only affected if you are doing something criminal. Once you break the law you for go certain liberties in order for the law enforcement to capture and convict you.

No matter how much free speech you have this is a fact of life.

[Range_This11]

Yes, but in wiretapping/monitoring cases documented proof (police reports with strong evidence) is required before a request for a wiretap is even put before a judge. Then the judge has to decide whether or not there is a case to be made or if the evidence is enough to warrant a wiretap.

 

In this scenario, monitoring of BB and other social media completely bypasses those safeguards. The idea that "you shouldn't be worried if you aren't doing anything wrong" is complete and utter hogwash.

[Sy_Accursed]

Yes, but in wiretapping/monitoring cases documented proof (police reports with strong evidence) is required before a request for a wiretap is even put before a judge. Then the judge has to decide whether or not there is a case to be made or if the evidence is enough to warrant a wiretap.

 

In this scenario, monitoring of BB and other social media completely bypasses those safeguards. The idea that "you shouldn't be worried if you aren't doing anything wrong" is complete and utter hogwash.

 

Where this coming from?

 

I'll tell you where: Made up land.

All they have said is looking to put measures in place to block accounts where the account is being used for criminal purposes.

We have 0 details other than that and its just pessimistic "erosion of free speech" hog wash to suggest that we can categorically say it'll by pass any sort of safeguard or including unjustified monitoring.

Heck its not like ALLLLLL these things arent monitored already anyway by the parent companys