Recently Prime Minister Cameron said that he wants to give authority to the police to shut down access to all social media in an effort to keep violence from spreading during group crimes. Would you be willing to give up your social media outlets if it could potentially save people and businesses from becoming victims during riots?

So they're going to shut down all social media to prevent .000001% of users from forming mobs? For how long, a month, 3 months? Seems like way to broad of an authority to give any government.

Why not just follow along with the feeds, and prevent them.

 

Originally Posted by Moonlight Graham

So they're going to shut down all social media to prevent .000001% of users from forming mobs? For how long, a month, 3 months? Seems like way to broad of an authority to give any government.

Why not just follow along with the feeds, and prevent them.

Wouldnt they have to be friends with that same .000001% of the people on Facebook and Twitter to be able to figure out which people are engaging in violent acts?

Prime minister of what

Cause it worked in Egypt

It's an awful idea. So bad it is worth protesting and potentially rioting over if they take away your access to information.

 

Originally Posted by krispycream

Prime minister of what

America gonna America

 

Originally Posted by Pker4Dummies

Dont be naive, Wanta. You dont think they can get access to your newsfeed?

Of course, but they can tap your cell phone, hell they can follow you if you have your GPS turned on in your phone. I just think it would be alot easier to get info than from following some idiots FB news feed.

 

Originally Posted by krispycream

i refuse to have to google something that should already be provided. it's not common knowledge who prime minster whatever is, thus the OP should cite who he is.

these are part of the entitlement acts of internet forums.

...sigh. He is the Prime Minister of England, and yes I feel as though knowing who the Prime Minister of England is (or I guess should be) common knowledge. Needless to say I am eager to hear your thoughts on the topic...

 

Originally Posted by wantagolf

Of course, but they can tap your cell phone, hell they can follow you if you have your GPS turned on in your phone. I just think it would be alot easier to get info than from following some idiots FB news feed.

keywords, google alerts.. and it's legal, unlike phone taps, etc

So what is on FB/Twitter that is more valuable than other people's safety?

 

Originally Posted by Moonlight Graham

keywords, google alerts.. and it's legal, unlike phone taps, etc

Telephones
Main article: Lawful interception
The official and unofficial tapping of telephone lines is widespread. In the United States for instance, the Communications Assistance For Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) requires that all telephone and VoIP communications be available for real-time wiretapping by Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Two major telecommunications companies in the U.S. -- AT&T and Verizon—have contracts with the FBI, requiring them to keep their phone call records easily searchable and accessible for Federal agencies, in return for $1.8 million dollars per year. Between 2003 and 2005, the FBI sent out more than 140,000 "National Security Letters" ordering phone companies to hand over information about their customers' calling and Internet histories. About half of these letters requested information on U.S. citizens.
Human agents are not required to monitor most calls. Speech-to-text software creates machine-readable text from intercepted audio, which is then processed by automated call-analysis programs, such as those developed by agencies such as the Information Awareness Office, or companies such as Verint, and Narus, which search for certain words or phrases, to decide whether to dedicate a human agent to the call.

Law enforcement and intelligence services in the U.K. and the United States possess technology to remotely activate the microphones in cell phones, by accessing the phone's diagnostic/maintenance features, in order to listen to conversations that take place nearby the person who holds the phone.

Mobile phones are also commonly used to collect location data. The geographical location of a mobile phone (and thus the person carrying it) can be determined easily (whether it is being used or not), using a technique known multilateration to calculate the differences in time for a signal to travel from the cell phone to each of several cell towers near the owner of the phone. A controversy has emerged in the United States over the legality of such techniques, and particularly whether a court warrant is required. Records for one carrier alone (Sprint), showed that in a given year federal law enforcement agencies requested customer location data 8 million times.

People who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither, etc.

Well that's pretty scary, but not sure how you're applying to this situation, outside the fact i said they were illegal. Maybe it wasn't clear that i was implying to be done without a warrant. Though you have posted an article in an attempt to preempt my warrant argument. I still think monitoring the internet, which doesn't violate anyone civil rights, and is pretty easy to do nowadays, is greater than shutting down the internets or tapping people phones.

 

Originally Posted by TiltinShoes

Yeah, I mean. In theory this isn't the worst thought in the world, but the repercussions could be dire and severe. These liberties are more than words to take pride in. They are essentially built in protection.

Look at it this way. The right to congregate is power, and in turn a check. When given up, a check is removed. Once too many checks have been removed and the power along with them, you have essentially become nothing more than a cog in some machine, that may or may not be used maliciously and greedily. Human nature is to be corrupted by excess power (not everyone, but eventually some one). So now the wrong guy has control of the machine you are a cog in and errbody is fooked and the whole thing started with the sacrifice of checks to insure safety. Winston would be proud.

isn't that happening now?

Perhaps

A great Canadian philosopher once said "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

A less great American philosopher with a desperate craving for Johnny Cakes once said "I was here - it's a joke"