Liberal Democrats signal opposition to restrictions on social media networks

David Cameron said users of social media networks like Twitter could have their access to services blocked. Photo: Jonathan Hordle/Rex features

The Liberal Democrats to oppose David Cameron's proposals that people suspected of inciting violence during social unrest could be banned from social media network.

Tabled an amendment to the party's autumn Conference, that if voted through, would put pressure on the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, to withstand Cameron's plan.

Signs of increased tension between the coalition partners appeared acting police Metropolitan Commissioner Tim Godwin, told the Home Affairs Select Committee Tuesday that he had considered asking the authorities to turn off social media networks.

He said he had considered steps, because, although they were often a source of information that Web sites could also be misleading.

Details about Conference amendment came as Clegg tried to propose its own policy response to the unrest, with the different philosophies coalition parties begin to come into the foreground.

Tuesday morning, he announced a "riot payback" scheme to make the looters and arsonists are confronted with their victims, along with support to help EX-offenders to find jobs.

The scheme would mean looters performs community service in riot-hit neighborhoods.

They have to wear orange clothing to make them visible, and money is provided to enable the victims who want to do this is to confront the people who burned their homes or plundered their businesses last week.

The announcement put some of the policies, including checks on social media networks, the section object by Cameron in the wake of the riots.

Differences between the coalition partners surfaced over the weekend as senior Lib Dems urged to "kneejerk" reaction by politicians. The party's deputy leader, Simon Hughes, insisted long-term solutions lay in supporting communities by providing opportunities and redistributing wealth, not undermine assistance from the State.

In the past, Cameron has made positive and liberating effect social liberating media can be central to his vision of the "post-bureaucratic age".

Texts and BlackBerry Mobile Messenger was critical in planning the riots and, in last week's recall of Parliament, the Prime Minister said users of social media networks such as Twitter, Facebook and BlackBerry Messenger, could have their access to services blocked.

He said he had instructed the intelligence services and police to investigate whether it was "right and possible" to intercept them "to plot violence, disorder and crime".

On Monday welcomed the Chinese Government official news agency Xinhua, proposal, saying it marked an improvement from Cameron's comments in February.

He was then invited to Egypt and other North African Nations to allow freedom of expression after they attempted to restrict the use of social media.

Xinhua said: "for the benefit of the public, proper web monitoring is legitimate and necessary.

"We can ask why Western leaders, on the one hand, tend to indiscriminately accuse other Nations in the monitoring, but on the other, take for granted their steps to monitor and control internet".

Evan Harris, Vice-President of the Lib Dems ruling Federal Policy Committee, will propose an amendment at the party gathering.

By this spring conference was a vote on a Lib Dem amendment a u-turn on NHS policy as Clegg came under pressure in order to reflect the Lib Dem grassroots views.

The amendment, entitled "protection of the essential freedom of the Internet", calls for "additional guarantees for online freedom of expression be in place".

It reads: "oppose additional powers to the police or the Government to restrict access to the Internet or to social media or to order its suspension.

"[We must] makes it clear that the Government will not allow a two-tier internet, and will keep the principle of net neutrality, possibly through regulation."

The amendment is likely to get wide support. On Monday wrote backbencher Julian Huppert also against blocking any contemplation to close social network.

He said: "some people in this House and elsewhere has chosen to focus on the use of social media in these riots. And David Cameron has responded by announcing a revision designed to examine whether it would be right and possible to turn off social networks or services in the mobile phone during times of unrest.

"Even if we look at these riots in isolation – always a dangerous approach to policy formulation — the idea that we should prevent communication via these networks is obviously ridiculous.

"The brilliant response to the riots on Facebook, Twitter and the wider internet, embodied most clearly by site Riot Clean-Up, has arguably done more to bring communities together than anything else.

"There is little evidence to suggest this is a problem that needs to be tackled, and even the Government appears to give serious consideration to curb freedom of expression-message in a way that would make it much harder for the good things that have come from this unrest either to continue or to happen again.

"This authoritarian knee-jerkery is a reminder of the bad old days. Those who cherish freedom, of all parties and none, must now defend these important new forms of communication. "

View the original article here

Tech weekly per podcast: Google-Motorola, riots and social media,

Join Aleks Krotoski and Juliette Garside a zipped version of the Tech Weekly. This week, politics, social media: what role should the British Government has in regulating our access to services such as Facebook BlackBerry , Messenger and Twitter? Author Jeff Jarvis weighs debate and finds that there is currently a demonisation of technology.

Also, the Search giant Google has moved to mobile manufacturing business: blogger stasis Bielinis broke news of Monday's Motorola mobility deal – worth $ 12.5bn – back in June. We find out what is it for Google, and how mobile ecosystem will settle after that bombing.

The British Government has announced the next phase in the high-speed broadband plans – corporate BT partner has promised to bid on some of the £ 530 million in grants connected to out-of-reach rural communities for fast connection. We hear from Bill Murphy, MD for next generation access at BT about the details of its plans, and where it intends to invest.

Finally, what is in store for protracted gamesFifa brand? Keith Stuart speaks with Andrew Wilson, senior VP of worldwide development at EA Sports about its plans for cross-platform entertainment.

Don't forget to ...

• Comment below
• Mail tech@guardian.co.ukproducer
• Get our Twitter feed to program updates or follow our Twitter list
• Like our Facebook page
• See our photos on Flickr/post your tech pics

View the original article here

Social network monitoring: trust none | Dan Gillmor

A woman uses her BlackBerry at a shopping mall in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. In neighbouring Saudi Arabia, authorities blocked its instant messaging services. Photo: Reuters

Law enforcers in the UK and elsewhere come to life harsh realities: modern communication technologies provides activists all forms an easier way to organize and implement.

But even as Governments move to crack, as Jeff Jarvis notes, activists also teaches a lesson — not only those that we can support, such as the Egyptian revolutionaries, but also those whose actions leave us cold or angry, like many of the rioters and looters who have trashed so many parts of London and other British society over the last few days. In all cases they realized they did not begin to have confidence in technology companies, if they used communication tools.

Law enforcement dilemma was highlighted by the protesters BlackBerry use of mobile devices, which encrypts text communication. So the activists could organise on the fly with no apparent fear of being identified or have the decrypted in sufficient time for the police to reply to messages.

That led inevitably to calls, research in motion (RIM), maker of BlackBerry, to help police investigations, including the unmasking of users. What RIM has touted as a brilliant feature in his service, encryption capability was to be turned towards customers – like so many of the technologies, we routinely use can be turned against us by their operators.

RANDS motives in helping the police is understandable. It wants to be seen as a responsible corporate citizen, without a doubt; But even more likely, it fears the Government sanctions if it does not cooperate.

But this assistance will lead to a renewal of a long-lasting arms race. Protesters may not have realised that rand could (or would) decrypt their messages on its servers and extradite them to third parties. Some activists would react by seeking new and more secure ways to communicate.

And so will some companies when they better understand the wider implications. After all trust companies increasingly on mobile communication, so they should ask themselves if there is any reason to trust on the units and or the carriers move data around security.

The answer could be Yes; There is no technical reason why any particular conversation should not be secure. Some technologies, such as Skype, is said to be sure. Perhaps, but I have never fully trusted Skype, given his super-complex and proprietary system; and now that it is owned by Microsoft, I have confidence in the even smaller.

The safest method is security specialists call "Start-to-end encryption" – creating what amounts to a secure channel cannot be unscrambled in the middle of the network. When you interact with a bank, using its website, it assumes the competent security procedures, you use this method; in theory, nobody in the middle (for example, your internet service provider) see anything but gobbledygook when examining the data flowing through the networks.

This kind of thing is not widely implemented in simple text, email, social networks or most other digital communications. When you use the encrypted version of Facebook or Google + social-network, for example, is your data safe up to the point that when these companies ' servers; but they can save it and if ordered by a Government, supplying it.

The dangers of systems that enable "man in the Middle" monitoring attack, or is so obvious – among other things, they offer tantalising target really bad people-that we should see more widespread deployment of seriously secure communications. Individuals who have reason to fear government or criminal intruders will migrate to really ensure systems over time, if they aren't already there. It includes smart businesses, not just reviled protesters or criminal elements who are using technology to wrong. In the meantime, it is clear that no one can place absolute trust in those companies that currently provides the hardware and network.

The more we work to create truly secure communication, the more likely will be a reactionary responses that go beyond encouraging or forcing corporate cooperation with monitoring. In some places already, including the United Kingdom, the police require that people turn over personal encryption keys or go to jail, a scandalous violation of freedom of the invasive. At one point, can we expect the authorities will require restrictions on conversations they don't push to understand in real-time.

This is an old debate, in fact — one we trøde, settled in the United States in the 1990s when the Clinton Administration put forward a plan to require all cell phones include chips, which would make it possible for the Government to spy on all calls. Security experts then explained that the idea was both impractical and dangerous to actual security, and the plan was shelved.

It comes back in some form. World Governments are terrified of the idea of unbreakable communications. (Even visible them worry paranoid leaders; British Prime minister David Cameron's call for a ban on some types of discussions on social networks is a particularly ridiculous proposals.) Only two of them understand if I am right, it will soon be illegal to have a really private conversation unless you whispering in someone's ear in a language.

Never mind that it does not work, and that it will lead to less, not more, security for all. Is it you want to live in the world?

View the original article here

Tory MP Louise Mensch backs up social network Blackouts during riots

Tory MP Louise Mensch said, Rumors spread on the social-networks had wasted police time during the riots. Photograph: Rex Features

Louise Mensch, Conservative MP and one of Parliament's more active Twitter users have supported David Cameron's call for social networking services can be closed temporarily during civil disorder.

Mensch, MP for Corby and East Northamptonshire and a writer, used Twitter to call for a "short temporary closure" of Twitter and Facebook to stop the unfounded rumours spread, which she said had occurred in Northamptonshire last week during the riots, spread from London to several cities of England.

"Common Sense. If riot info and fears spread of Facebook and Twitter, extinguish them for an hour or two and then restore. The world will not implode, "she said.

On her Twitter feed, she added: " police Northamptonshire advise me that much of their time and resources were wasted answering false alarms due to soc media rumors. At the time, should tweeted people believe hard before you put the term ' rumors of ' in a Tweet. Nonsense rumors W'boro [Copenhagen] = 999 calls. "

"I don't have a problem with a short temporary closure of social media like a problem with a short road or rail closure does not have. If short, necessary and used only in emergencies, so what. We would all survive if Twitter will be closed by a short during major outbreaks of violence. "

Greater Manchester Police, however, supported the use of social networks, says they have allowed authorities to correct the rumors before the vessels.

Kevin Hoy, web manager at Greater Manchester Police, said Twitter allowed them to provide "direct insurance" and "dispel rumours … in a way that we never could have achieved in the past".

that Twitter had been "overwhelmingly positive" and "decisive" channel communications as violence spread throughout the region. It has invited its 95,000 twitter followers "name and shame" suspected rioters in CCTV images it has posted online.

Devon and Cornwall Police warned against a kneejerk reaction to claims, Facebook, Twitter and BlackBerry Messenger played a key role in organising disorder throughout the country.

A force spokesman said: "you have to deal with these things in proportion. To put someone's door in because of something they posted on Facebook is clearly not proportional, but talk to their parents and give them Advice is proportionate. It has the desired effect, and we stand by that. "

David Cameron said Thursday the intelligence services and police was explore whether it was "right and possible" to cut them "to plot violence, disorder and crime" on social networks. Home Secretary, Theresa may, is to hold talks with all major social networks about their responsibility in times of unrest.

All three social networks said they would welcome a meeting with may. Facebook said it had boosted its internal team to monitor potentially provocative messages and actively had removed several "credible threats of violence" from the site.

But there are questions about whether interrupt people is necessary, and whether it is technically possible.

Police throughout the country have arrested a number of people accused of organizing or encouraging violence on social networks.

Devon and Cornwall Police made their first arrest on Friday over comments posted by those who are suspected of fomenting violence on social networks. The force has given "words of advice" to eight people, all under 25, of messages posted online.

"If we know they encourage crime on the way, so that we know we can come across them on the media they use. I would suggest it works because either [inflammatory messages] have been taken or no disorder has come to them, "said the spokesman.

He said Facebook users had undertaken "show a sense of social responsibility" and report the inflammatory pages this week, resulting in them can be closed.

Current powers allow police to order cellphone companies to free up space on their networks, people try to call the emergency services. However, this is seen as a last resort.

O2 denied accusations that it turned off parts of its network in London during the unrest.

View the original article here

Social networks under fresh attack as tide cyber-sweeps us scepticism

An American student control on his smart phone. Critics of social networking to say, it has an insulating effect on users. Photograph: Najlah Feanny/Corbis

Way, as desperately people communicate online via Twitter, Facebook, and instant messaging can be seen as a form of modern folly, according to a leading American sociologist.

"A behaviour that has been typical can still express the problems, once caused us to see it as pathological," writes MIT professor Sherry Turkle in her new book, alone together, which leads an attack on the information age.

Turkles book, published in the UK next month, has caused a sensation in the Americas, which is usually more obsessed with the merits of social networking. She appeared in the last week on the Stephen Colbert late night Comedy Show, The Colbert Report. When Turkle said, she had been at funerals, where people controlled their iPhones, Colbert leave: "We all say goodbye in our own way."

Turkle's thesis is simple: technology threatens to dominate our lives and make us less human. Illusion to allow us to communicate better it actually isolate us from real human interactions in a cyber-reality is a bad imitation of the real world.

But Turkles book is far from the only work of its kind. An intellectual backlash in the United States calls for a rejection of some of the values and methods of modern communications. "This is a major setback. The various forms of communication, people are using has been something that frightens people, "said Professor William Kist, expert training in the Kent State University, Ohio.

The list of attacks on social media is long and come from all corners of the academic circles and popular culture. A recent bestseller in the United States, the legislative proposals, by Nicholas Carr, suggested that the use of the Internet changing the way we think, to make us less capable of digesting large and complex datasets information, such as books and magazine articles. The book was based on an essay, Carr wrote in the Atlantic magazine. It was very clear and was headlined: is Google making us stupid?

Another strand of thought in the field cyber-skepticism is found in the net of delusion, by Evgeny Morozov. He claims that social media has produced a generation of "slacktivists". It has made people lazy and enshrined the illusion, clicking a mouse is a form of activism equal to real world donations of time and money.

Other books include the Dumbest Generation by Emory University professor Mark Bauerlein – in which he claims "United States intellectual future looks dim" – and we have met the enemy by Daniel Akst, which describes problems with self-control in the modern world, where the proliferation of communication tools is a key component.

Downturn has crossed the Atlantic Ocean. In Cyburbia, published in the United Kingdom last year, James Harkin inquired of the modern technological world and found some dangerous possibilities. While Harkin was no clean cyber-skeptic, he was found many reasons to be concerned, as well as happy about the new technological era. Elsewhere, is the hit film social network was seen as a thinly disguised attack on the social media generation, suggests that Facebook was created by people who could fit into the real world.

Turkles book, however, has triggered the most debate so far. It is a cri de coeur to put BlackBerry down, ignores Facebook and Twitter disclaimer. "We have invented, inspiring and improving technologies, yet we have allowed them to reduce the US", she writes.

Colleague critics point to numerous episodes to back up their argument. Recently, focused media coverage of his death in Brighton by Simone back on a suicide note she had posted on Facebook, which was seen by many of her "friends" 1,048 on site. Yet no one reads help – instead of the traded insults with each other on her Facebook wall.

Turkles book has also hit home, because her earlier works, the other Self and life on the screen, seemed more open to technological world. "Alone together reads as if it were written by Turkles evil living twin," joked Kist.

But even setbacks now have a setback with many kreering in defence of social media. They point out that e-mail messages, Twitter and Facebook have led to more communication, no less — especially for people who may have trouble meeting in the real world because of the great distance or social difference.

Defenders say their is just another form of communication, as people may have difficulty in getting used to. "When you walk into a café, and all is silent on their laptops, I understand what she is saying about are not talking to each other," said Kist. "But it still communicates. I disagree with her. I can not see it as so black and white. "

Some experts believe that the debate is so sharp, because social networks is a new field that has yet to develop rules and etiquette, as everyone can respect and why events such as Simone Back death appears so shocking. "Let's face it, I see no signs of any link," said Kist. "But, perhaps, we need to involve a ' Netiquette ' to deal with the whole".

He also pointed out that the "real world", as many social media critics hark back to never actually existed. Before all raised on the bus or train with their heads buried in an iPad or a smart phone, traveled the normally only in silence. "We do not see people spontaneously talk to strangers. They just keep itself, "said Kist.

View the original article here