Facebook, Twitter and Research In Motion have said they welcome their forthcoming meeting with the government, which has said it wants to know whether social media can be shut down when riots strike.
Facebook, Twitter and Research In Motion have said they are willing to talk to the government about the use of social media during the riots in London and the UK that started on Saturday. Photo credit: Nicobobinus/Flickr
Prime minister David Cameron said on Thursday that the London riots had been "organised via social media", adding that the government was "working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality".
"When people are using social media for violence, we need to stop them," Cameron said.
RIM, Facebook and Twitter are to meet home secretary Theresa May next week to discuss the issue. In a statement on Thursday, RIM — whose encrypted BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) service was allegedly used to organise looting — said it welcomed the "opportunity for consultation".
"RIM continues to comply with both UK privacy laws as well as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa), which are of course the same laws that apply to other technology and telecommunications companies in the UK," the company said.
Facebook said it looked forward to meeting with May "to explain the measures we have been taking to ensure that Facebook is a safe and positive platform for people in the UK at this challenging time".
"In recent days we have ensured any credible threats of violence are removed from Facebook and we have been pleased to see the very positive uses millions of people have been making of our service to let friends and family know they are safe and to strengthen their communities," the market-leading social networking firm said.
According to a report in the Financial Times, Twitter said it was "happy to talk" to the home secretary.
Cameron's idea of blocking access to social networks in times of unrest is too risky, according to Open Rights Group executive director Jim Killock.
– Jim Killock, Open Rights Group
Innocent people should not be punished for the actions of others.
"We do not believe this should be given any serious consideration," Killock wrote in reference to the idea of a blanket service suspension. "Clearly, a service will be used by people for legitimate activities, some of which will in fact be to mitigate or deal with the problem encountered. In any case, innocent people should not be punished for the actions of others."
Even if a specific user were to be blocked from social networks, Killock argued, the police should not be able to arrange such suspensions privately with the social-networking firms. Such powers "represent the worst type of so-called 'self-regulation' and could quickly lead to abuses", Killock said, adding that the courts should be involved in any suspension decision.
Killock also noted that "new measures to remove web freedoms of any sort will quickly be seized upon by oppressive governments to justify their own actions".
"The UK should not be using the same methods as governments in China, Bahrain or Saudi Arabia," he added.
Get the latest technology news and analysis, blogs and reviews delivered directly to your inbox with ZDNet UK's newsletters.
Talkback
London riots are really painful. the people who are involved in these activities should be punished by English Government.
I hate violence. We like the technology when it is used against evil governments. Could it be that the UK government is the oppressor? They better take a close look at leveling-out their class society. Maybe they should think about eliminating the whole idea of royalty. I wouldn't want to live under that.
This post has been removed by a moderator.
This post has been removed by a moderator.
This post has been removed by a moderator.
This post has been removed by a moderator.
This post has been removed by a moderator.
Interesting attitude that Cameron et.al. are adopting, that social media should be shut down during riots. Is that not what the dictatorships of the world try to do? Ah but it's different here in'it?
So if i speak to a number of people to organise a bit of violence, the correct reaction is to ban the power of speach?
Governments everywhere (of whatever type) like quick fixes.
Much easier to take away rights / liberties, than to actually attempt to extend laws, customs, and practices to include new media types, after all.
But it is not terribly hard to do if one tries.
After all, if a keep a private diary, describing fantasies of rioting and other deviant behaviour, the only time it becomes (tangentially) relevant, is if it is produced as evidence of my intention and state of mind after my arrest for related actions.
If, on the other hand, i take that same diary and show it to people, then (depending on the exact content) i may be commiting a variety of offenses - some of which might differ depending on whether i showed it to a female minor, a large audience at one time, or people within certain other groups.
Co-operation post-facto with governments is a duty that media companies assume as part of their agreement to operate within a jurisdiction.
A certain amount of co-operation prior to events is a grey area - many news companies voluntarily agree to limit their coverage of some events for a limited period to avoid speading panic, for instance.
And companies should *always* have the right to limit the types of traffic people use over their media, or who their customers are.
What is never acceptable, is allowing other parties to dictate this to them, outside the general legal framework.
The rightness or wrongness of that framework is another discussion completely.
This post has been removed by a moderator.
If you take away the ability to communicate then there is a possibility of gangs spending more time together in large groups so that they can stay in touch by shouting.