 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11604 Posts |
 Posted - 13 Aug 2011 : 12:42:21
|
The following is a direct google translation of an article by the DR (The Danish Public Broadcaster - Danish Radio)
The British Prime Minister David Cameron appeals to Facebook and Twitter to help stop messages from troublemakers.
Cameron censorship proposals hypocritical
12th August 2011
"Everybody from all over London. Let us gather in the city center and smash shops. **** the police".
Messages like these over social services received yesterday, got British Prime Minister David Cameron to suggest that the owners of Twitter, Facebook and Blackberry helps to stop the messages from people who try to influence others to make violent riots.
But the proposal is problematic in relation to freedom of expression, says a researcher from the Institute for Human Rights Rikke Frank Jørgensen, and points out the double standards in a proposal that they themselves have condemned in dictatorships.
On the other hand, when there will come a problem with the debate on the net, then you go to such drastic steps, even to close access to social services, says scientist Rikke Frank Jørgensen from the Institute to DR.
Surveillance Society
Rikke Frank Jørgensen is not surprised that it is in Britain, we see such a proposal.
In Britain we have a tradition of surveillance of public space, and Facebook and Twitter represent new public spaces, she says to DR.
Source: http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2011/08/12/162642.htm
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
toubab1020
12306 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2011 : 15:18:08
|
Momodou,you knew I was going to respond to this didn't you  ,we in UK have accepted that we are under surveillance of "Big Brother" for years ever since the street cameras came into being,most of us accept that as a symptom of the loutish behaviour of youths who are intent on having a good time after they have become drunk at drinking establishments and clubs that were given their head by Tony Blair and the social do gooding that became policy for the labour government,Pubs where regulated by the courts and had to be run properly,now they are under the control of local councils who are just after money, basically if you want a licence you have to just pay money ,any licence that is worthwhile now has extras ( just like budget airlines !) more money.
The time has now come to redress the balance of English society to take into account the MAJORITY of responsible people, and for politicians to reflect this, the time of give, give, to those who have had a bad upbringing, bad parenting, those who indulge in crime and anti social behaviour and get rewarded for it by having "experts" to try to help bad people solve their problems, holidays abroad to other cultures at taxpayers expense and other social experimenting has to end,the majority of good people have had their lives badly affected by those who enjoy being anti social. |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 13 Aug 2011 15:19:01 |
 |
|
|
snuggels
960 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2011 : 16:52:57
|
To true Toubab Like most people I dispair at the state of the country
Not a nice place to be now wrecked by the do gooders |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11604 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2011 : 19:45:02
|
How can I disagree with you, after all I live in Denmark and not the UK.
I am in for Surveillance cameras because they have prevented and help solve many crimes nowadays. |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12306 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2011 : 20:13:25
|
| Momodou,cameras assist in detecting wrongdoers but only AFTER the event has taken place,that's a lot of help to the victim,who may well be dead from loss of blood after an assault,politicians here really have to get a grip on things and stop all this help the criminal nonsense, a thief is a thief, a robber is a robber,enough is enough the MAJORITY has had enough in England,but I am afraid other countries are little better, Norway for instance,USA,Italy,not to mention those countries in the arab world who are suffering more than us,also not forgetting the African countries and diabolical things that are happening here all for the sake of stupid greedy politicians,who care about nothing except how much money they can get from anywhere.The Myans were right perhaps the world will end in 2012 !! |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11604 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2011 : 20:23:45
|
Back to the topic! How can it be understood that one condemns dictatorship when they block internet access and yet want to use same methods in this case. |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12306 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2011 : 12:17:49
|
| Good point,I suppose its about having personal control of everything for your own use as a dictator,and on the other hand having information that can be used by those who are intent on causing destruction and criminal acts by using new technology,which if closed down by the authorities in the interests of public saftey and preventing loss of life and injury can be justified and accepted by a "reasonable person", using that term as a yardstick for public perception. |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11604 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2011 : 13:22:34
|
http://www.catch21.co.uk/2011/08/social-media-ban-democracy-or-hypocrisy
FWD: Social media ban; democracy, or hypocrisy?
13th August, 2011 by Lara Cronshaw
London Riots - Trigger for new controls over social media ?
In lieu of the bitter chaos that spread across England this week, Parliaments emergency sitting, yesterday outlined a sharp turn-around in government thinking towards a number of social issues, including the forced removal of face masks, court sentencing powers and potential restrictions on the use of social networking media.
Earlier this year however, restrictions we may now see, were used in real-time, during the political uprising in Egypt that overthrew President Hosni Mubarak, "wiping the country off the digital map."
The view taken on these actions by the western world was clear and decisive, deemed undemocratic and an infringement on human rights, services were immediately launched to manoeuvre new ways of accessing the restricted networks, including Google's Speak to Tweet. 'United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, accused the Egyptian government of treading on the democratic principles of freedom of speech and freedom of association when it cut internet access ahead of planned protests.'
Thus the question then remains, why is there such disparity between the messages given by our own leader, Mr. Cameron, who previously condemned the actions of the Egyptian government, and yet has now revealed potential plans to introduce such curtailment tactics himself?
Cameron told Parliament the government is investigating whether it would indeed be "right and possible" to ban people from using social media? and when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them." Unsurprisingly, immediate criticism was voiced towards the announcement from civil libertarians, who compared it to attempts by authoritarian regimes to stifle dissent.'
It seems the West, and in this particular circumstance, Britain is guilty of parading double standards on where it morally and ethically stands, as well as on its own views on the definition of democracy. The differentiation in circumstance is clear, nonetheless the arguments for and against the ban are the same in essence; to take away a right through moderation or to allow the free flow of, "ill" information and incitement through lack of control? which is the lesser of two evils?
Realistically, to impose such limitations and to make judgments on what is deemed to be potential criminal incitement, would be incredibly difficult given the scope of abilities such devices have.
The bottom line on this is far from clear cut, "Citizens have the right to secure communications. Business, politics and free speech relies on security and privacy. David Cameron must be careful not to attack these fundamental needs because of concerns about the actions of a small minority." However, fundamentally if such restrictions could truly enable a safer society, must we not explore such potential; in doing so are we then bowing to the un-democratic tendencies we have ourselves have regularly condemned? |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12306 Posts |
Posted - 14 Aug 2011 : 13:47:35
|
Momodou, a balanced view by the author,in all things there has to be flexibility ,common sense,and balance,very difficult to achieve all summed up in the last paragraph:
"The bottom line on this is far from clear cut, "Citizens have the right to secure communications. Business, politics and free speech relies on security and privacy. David Cameron must be careful not to attack these fundamental needs because of concerns about the actions of a small minority." However, fundamentally if such restrictions could truly enable a safer society, must we not explore such potential; in doing so are we then bowing to the un-democratic tendencies we have ourselves have regularly condemned?"
The wellbeing and wishes of the Majority must override the wishes of the minority,as things are set up now we give this decision to those elected to form an administration by fair and open election by the people without inducements or fear to the electorate by those seeking power. |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 14 Aug 2011 13:48:58 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
