The Danger of Social Media is also its Strength

In the wake of last week’s riots across the UK, David Cameron announced on Thursday that the government would look into banning people from using social media “when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality”. I think this is a ridiculous, ignorant and impossible position to uphold.

What can already by done?

Social media services are provided by private companies, and by signing up to those services you agree to abide by their rules. You do not have the right to freedom of speech on their services. It is very often the case that “private” messages are rarely private – there is money to be made in mining your data and handing it over to advertisers. This kind of policy exists so that administrators can remove hate speech and graphic content.

Looking at the terms of use of Facebook, Twitter and RIM, it is pretty clear that all three services have clauses allowing them to hand information over to the authorities. Facebook asserts:

“We may disclose information pursuant to subpoenas, court orders, or other requests if we have a good faith that the response is required by law.”

Twitter similarly states that:

“We also reserve the right to access, read, preserve and disclose any information as we reasonably believe is necessary to:

(i) Satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request

(v) protect the rights, property or safety of Twitter, its users and the public”

Finally, RIM

“Reserves the right to review materials posted to or sent through a Communication Service and to remove any materials in its sole discretion.”

Furthermore,

“You hereby authorize RIM to co-operate with (i) law enforcement authorities in the investigation of suspected criminal violation”.

All of these services will aid law enforcement authorities with their enquiries – which is in their commercial interests as by doing so they will be seen as responsible organisations who do not want to promote criminal activity.

But, David Cameron was not just talking about having these companies hand over information; he was talking about going further and banning people from these sites altogether. So, let’s take a look at whether this could actually be implemented.

The Implementation

As this was just a general speech, not a lot of details were discussed on how such a policy would be implemented. There are a lot of questions to be answered; these are a few of the big ones that come to my mind:

• Will banning be a proactive or a reactive task?
  • If done proactively – how is this reconciled with the presumption of innocence?
• Will this be a blanket internet ban, or a ban on specific sites?
  • If a blanket ban is in place – how can you guarantee that person cannot access the Internet from another machine?
  • If a social media ban is in place:
    • What is the definition of a social media service?
    • Who will keep track of what social media services exist?
    • How often will this be updated?
  • Who will enforce this ban?
• When will users be allowed back on the Internet/services?
• What is the process of appeals?

This is quite a difficult area to be wrangling policy in, as actually enforcing such a ban would incur a massive and ongoing cost to the state, would require the full co-operation of all parties involved, and verges on the impossible. BBM, for example, is encrypted. To actively police this network would require the ability to decrypt a message and identify the origin, in addition to catching the criminal with enough other evidence to prosecute.

Chris Morris’ excellent film Four Lions shows the main characters communicating through a web service called “Puffin Party”. The reason I bring this to your attention is to state that not all social network activity is carried out via the larger services. Once you start heading into the obscure, you suddenly find yourself dealing with hundreds, if not thousands of places in which communications could be taking place. When Twitter and Facebook were blocked in the Middle East uprisings earlier this year, people turned to dating sites to communicate. People even get around the so-called ‘Great Firewall of China’. These systems are never perfect.

Neutral

During the riots there were various rumours going around on Twitter that riots had started in several cities when they hadn’t. Some police forces were very visual on Twitter to dispel these rumours. There is a risk in such a fast-moving story that these rumours might gain some traction and people would take to the streets, but this is not an exclusive feature of social networks. It is good ol’ scapegoating to say that social media was the cause of the riots. Sure, it might have been one of or the major means by which the message spread, but we must also consider the flipside.

Users of social media regularly use the service to do good – by linking to charities, or important stories, or in context of this article, organise a community cleanup operation (see the #riotcleanup hashtag feed). Tom Watson MP was correct in calling this technology “neutral” as the technology does not encourage this kind of behaviour. Social media is unique in that is has the ability to spread information on a scale never seen before – that is one the whole a good thing that we should not want restricted because of some bad apples.

To me, it seems as if this part of David Cameron’s speech is nothing more than populism, with the intention of gaining small-term favour from the public, and ensuring they remain in control of the media cycle by looking ‘tough’. There is clearly a fine line between the need for the Police to be able to effectively police our society, and acting in an oppressive manner. Whilst this does mean that the Police will have to adapt to new technology, we should always be wary of how much power we hand over. In times of crisis – keep a watchful eye on the government, and think critically about what they want to introduce into law.

Scum

This week, I blogged about how we don’t really know what caused these riots. Is it a response to austerity, unemployment, phone hacking or the stock market crashes? I think now is the time to start asking questions. Why did these riots happen? Why now? Why in this particular manner? If we start to open our eyes and minds to these questions, we stand a chance of improving our society.

Based on the bile spewing forth from certain sections of the Internet, it seems as if this is not happening. Rather, I’ve seen people calling for the user of rubber and real bullets, water cannon, the army, and for more out-there punishments including removing benefits. The Government are warming to these ideas too, with David Cameron expressing that rubber bullets and water cannon may be used, and that they would ignore “phoney calls about human rights.” I despair at how rapidly we call for an escalated violent response from the State in order to quell violence.

Some think that wanting to understand the causes of the violence means you condone the violence, that you are an apologist, or a sympathiser. These are mutually-exclusive states. Of course any sensible person doesn’t condone the violence, and one expresses extreme concern for the people who have been affected directly by the riots, whose houses and businesses have been burnt to the ground. Since the police have been deployed in larger numbers, there have been more arrests and less violence – something which will improve in the coming days. We have a rule of law, and I am a firm believer that those responsible for their own actions should be brought to justice.

I cannot see the logic in calling the rioters scum. It serves no purpose other than demonising, dehumanising and forcing these people further underground. Behind these calls lie ignorant assumptions, such that the rioters are all benefit claimants – something totally unsubstantiated. In my mind, by referring to people as “scum” you are essentially condemning these people, taking their actions out of their own hands and placing them on their ‘class’, if you can call it that.

Put this all together, and you get the potential for a government to enforce further crackdowns on civil liberties, backed by ‘popular opinion’. We can’t let that happen. Whilst the past few nights have been terrifying for all of us, we must remain focused on building a better society for all of us – not just the few. One step towards that is to stop calling these people scum, holding them to account, and ensuring this never happens again.

London’s Burning–Don’t Let Our Rights Burn With It

London seems to be a pretty dangerous place as of late, as I’m sure you’ve heard. It seems rather difficult to identify why people are rioting and looting – even more so for me because I’m out the country with limited internet access. The media are yet again whipped up into a frenzy, all ready with explanations that miraculously fit their ideological narratives.

I don’t think it is as simple as that.

The protests started in Tottenham over the mysterious death of Mark Duggan. That may have been the spark that kicked things off, but I don’t think it is possible to say this public disorder happened because of this reason, and this reason alone. We just don’t know. Whilst we might try and understand these events in a sentence, or a soundbite – what we have is a mix of mob behaviour, anger, opportunism and confusion; mixed together with a media frenzy, competing rationalisations and an overwhelming sense of information overload. With all of that going around - how can me make full sense of what is going on?

The Prime Minister is chairing COBRA tomorrow. Some on Twitter seem adamant the army will have to intervene in the situation. This may be due to the glamorising of the violence by the media, genuine concern, or a lust for dramatic events. Context is difficult to ascertain in 140 characters. Whatever happens, I hope that we remain aware that there is a disparity between rioting and legitimate, legal, protesting. Any sweeping crackdowns must try and remember that, and not restrict further our ability to hold our lawmakers to account. But this - what is happening right now - is not the way to do it. Stay safe.

Death Penalty

Guido Fawkes is using the government’s new, fantastically broken e-petitions site, and their pledge to consider for debate the most popular petitions, to try and re-introduce the death penalty.

I’m sure he doesn’t think this will actually go anywhere, because it won’t. What this will do is help distract from the Tories messing up in almost every single aspect of government, and from the phone hacking scandal. This seems to me like a couple of idiots stealing the limelight during the Silly Season, rather than a “real” issue.

When discussing the death penalty, one of the major points you frequently hear is that “the murderer took away the victim’s human rights!”. You also hear “It will act as a deterrent!”. The problem with both of these arguments is that when you take a good step back from the situation, these arguments aren’t aren’t the most important ones.

The death penalty is wrong, because our judicial system is not perfect. Neither is our politics, and neither is our media (who are frequently found guilty of contempt of court over their demonising of suspects). To be able to condemn somebody to death, with 100% confidence that they were the guilty party, is moronic and impossible. To have such complete confidence that all those cogs are in perfect working order is just plain silly when you think about it. Any crack in this theoretical perfection leaves room for an irreversible false conviction – it has happened before.

Looking at recent events, we know there is a problem with corruption in the police. The phone hacking scandal revealed News International regularly paid the police for information – and both the Met Police Assistant Commissioner and Police Commissioner have resigned. A police officer during the UK Uncut Fortnum and Mason protest tricked the occupiers into leaving and heading into a planned arrest. Since then, 109 of the 145 cases have been dropped. We know about police spies and what they get up to, and then there is also the well-known case of the police killing an innocent man, and using the media to spin the event in their favour.

Whilst I accept that the police are necessary for the protection of the public, you cannot deny that they are not perfect – not by a long shot. Until then, claims about whether the death penalty will work are irrelevant in all but hypothetical terms; and hopefully it will forever stay that way. We are not savages.

Superin-joke-tion

After a Twitter account revealed the (potential) details of a superinjunction, an injunction with the added clause against revealing any details, with a footballer and a Big Brother contestant a frenzy has erupted that I think is dangerous.

Twitter went crazy with people tweeting about the names of the parties involved, and eventually the press joined in as soon as their lawyers thought they could get away with it.

These injunctions exist as a way of enforcing the right to privacy under the Human Rights Act. The concept of the ‘superinjunction’ itself is being made a scapegoat here, with the media salivating at the lucrative details waiting to be published. The issue I take is that is that newspapers are a business – they exist first and foremost for profit. They know what sells, and what sells en masse. Daily Mail hysteria, tits in the Sun – these are what get the punters in. Where a famous person is sticking his dick is of paramount importance – to them.

I feel as if the public has been used. By repeating the details of the injunction, could there be a case for the injunction to come down, as it is potentially not enforceable anymore? MPs looking for political gain by abusing parliamentary privilege to embrace this name-and-shame creates a frenzy, and brings further into question the validity of such an injunction existing in our legal frameworks.

At a time when the News International phone hacking scandal is once again picking up steam, as even more allegations against corruption are being raised, questioning just what interests the media serves (itself) and what the standard of ethics they possess (very poor); there is now the perfect distraction, as Alastair Campbell pointed out.

Superinjunctions have been previously used in the past, notably by Trafigura to cover up environmental abuses. These laws are designed to protect the vulnerable from real danger – not for the rich and powerful to maintain a public image. By breaking the law and revealing the details of these injunctions, I fear we are playing right into their hands by bringing down the tone of the debate. This can’t end well.