- 13 Aug 11, 20:02#269963
Yeah, but that's my point, I don't see how that is a big issue or talking point.
The only infringement is on those who have infringed upon the rights of those of us who have done nothing wrong, i.e. loss of privileges for criminals, which I am all for.
The Government are not looking at banning everyone. The only time this would happen was if the riots were to flare up again, much like what would happen in a wartime situation, which is what these riots effectively were. This has been done in China and has apparently been very successful in quashing riots before they start by all accounts.
The only ones who will have a permanent ban are those which have broken the law.
As always, if you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide then the proposal will be nothing more than a short lived slight annoyance, but let’s face it in the grand scheme of life not being able to use social networking sites for a day or 2 is not going to cause anyone any harm whatsoever.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with what the Government is proposing if you are innocent.[/quote]
I was referring to what you said, about a total shut down.
I don't see how you can call the riots effectuation a wartime situation, the army weren't on the streets, the police said they didn't feel the need for plastic bullets and water cannons.
The question of who would decide who gets blocked or not is an interesting one, again open to abuse.
The government aren't proposing anything, he said they were looking into it. I doubt it's technically feasible.
The government shouldn't have anyright to interfere with what law abiding citizens do, it depends on your perspective of liberty I guess, something your entitled to naturally, or something that is granted to you by the state.
Think I'll laugh at the focus in Britain though, its all cos of the evil twitter and facebook that apparently is the root of everything nowadays, and lets sort it out by focusing on people on benefits as that's the root of all evil.
These were the mediums used to spread the word of riots and encourage others to travel to riotsa and even start new ones. It is only sensible to strip the rioters of their privlege of using these media.
Well yes, but its not the fault of twitter and facebook, its really the wrong focus. It seems strange to me, that people are focusing on that, I don't see it being that significant or interesting. Just a "sign of the times", people seem keen to keep talking about the effect of social media.
No one is saying it is the fault of the social networking sites. These are being abused by those who want to spread their hate and instigate more riots. It is a fact that social media makes it a hell of a lot easier but these are merely tools which have been abused.
Yeah, but that's my point, I don't see how that is a big issue or talking point.
The 2nd paragraph of the BBC report you quoted says that they are looking at cutting off those who are plotting violence. Quite easily done through IP addresses and no need to worry about e-mail addresses. The idea is for it to be a deterent and that's all it will ever be. A solution will never be found as those who want to create trouble will always find a way to spread their message.
However, having a total shut down in times of trouble, similar to what would happen in a wartime situation, is the only way to stop these people from reaching out to others (ignoring their personnal friends who would be a phone call away).
Cellphone companies and social networking sites can quote the Data Protection Act though I am not sure if it is a case of force majeure in times of trouble so the Data Protection Act goes out the window.
To be honest, as far as I am concerned the instigators of the violence have waived their right to have their civil liberties respected. What about the civil liberties and the human rights of those whose businesses have been wrecked or have been attacked for no reason at all or are now homeless because someone burnt down their building?
Well yeah, saying a total shut down will stop the bad guys communicating via the medium that was shut down, is true. But then you equivalently say, locking everyone in a padded cell would stop us killing each other. Less extreme, its like banning all knives or dog ownership. It's a complete infringement on people's lives, government has no say in banning everyone from using private websites that do not inherently cause harm to others.
The only infringement is on those who have infringed upon the rights of those of us who have done nothing wrong, i.e. loss of privileges for criminals, which I am all for.
The Government are not looking at banning everyone. The only time this would happen was if the riots were to flare up again, much like what would happen in a wartime situation, which is what these riots effectively were. This has been done in China and has apparently been very successful in quashing riots before they start by all accounts.
The only ones who will have a permanent ban are those which have broken the law.
As always, if you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide then the proposal will be nothing more than a short lived slight annoyance, but let’s face it in the grand scheme of life not being able to use social networking sites for a day or 2 is not going to cause anyone any harm whatsoever.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with what the Government is proposing if you are innocent.[/quote]
I was referring to what you said, about a total shut down.
I don't see how you can call the riots effectuation a wartime situation, the army weren't on the streets, the police said they didn't feel the need for plastic bullets and water cannons.
The question of who would decide who gets blocked or not is an interesting one, again open to abuse.
The government aren't proposing anything, he said they were looking into it. I doubt it's technically feasible.
The government shouldn't have anyright to interfere with what law abiding citizens do, it depends on your perspective of liberty I guess, something your entitled to naturally, or something that is granted to you by the state.
