Free flow of information under threat

While law enforcement agencies across the globe are battling to come to  grips with the new realities and challenges posed by the explosion in the role of the  social media in social upheaval, governments are falling back on their default reaction of banning and control, as clearly illustrated in the House of Commons by British prime minister David Cameron last week.

In an article last week Wednesday for openDemodcracy Professor Paul Rogers of the department of peace studies at Bradford University wrote: “In recent years the Metropolitan Police in London have become adept at managing large focused demonstrations, by employing tactics such as kettling (the enclosure of protesters in confined spaces, often for many hours) to maintain control. Such applications of force are, however, unsuited to handling small mobile groups of young people who have seen how kettling works and know how to avoid the traps.

“What is most disturbing to the authorities, and especially to a government dominated by the Conservative Party, has been the palpable sense that they have lost control. This alone explains their utter determination to erect and maintain a dominant narrative that places criminality at the heart of events. This will be powerfully reinforced in the coming days, whether the unrest develops further or ebbs away.”

Thursday, returning from his holiday break abroad Mr Cameron, addressing a special session of parliament about the riots in English cities said: “Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organised via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill.

“And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them. So we are working with the police. the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”

He also promised that the police would be asked “if they need any other new powers”. The police were facing a new circumstance where rioters were using the BlackBerry Messenger service, a closed network, to organise riots, he said. “We’ve got to examine that and work out how to get ahead of the riotters.”

Apart from the fact that governments might be robbing themselves of a source of valuable intelligence on the movements, climate and possible planned actions among its communities, attempts to control the social media could easily become just another basis of discontent.

Even before Mr. Cameron’s address to parliament a hacker group, calling itself Team Poison, attacked BlackBerry’s website after the company said it would assist police investigating the riots in ngland. The BBC reported that Team Poison defaced the official BalckBerry blog, posting a message that threatened the company with retaliation if it handed user data to the authorities.

Jim Killock, the executive director of online advocacy organisation Open Rights Group, said in reaction to Mr Cameron’s address that he risked attacking the "fundamental" right of free speech.

"Events like the recent riots are frequently used to attack civil liberties. Policing should be targeted at actual offenders, with the proper protection of the courts," Killock added.

"How do people ‘know' when someone is planning to riot? Who makes that judgment? The only realistic answer is the courts must judge. If court procedures are not used, then we will quickly see abuses by private companies and police. Companies like RIM (the manufacturer of BlackBerry) must insist on court processes.

"Citizens also 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."

In his article Professor Rogers warned that a discourse only concentrating on the criminal actions like flash looting that follow in the wake of riots “leaves out entirely the motivation of the initial protestors and the environment from which many of them (and indeed the flash-looters) have emerged. It also omits a much broader global context of protest, which in 2011 alone includes the violent protests in Athens in opposition to the government’s austerity programme, and the sustained and largely non-violent protests in Madrid and other Spanish cities.

“Many of those involved belong to a generation of 16-30-year-olds who are experiencing or facing unemployment, and life-prospects that are far more limited than their elders. Their frustrations are further exacerbated by real anger at the ostentatious wealth of elites, especially bankers.”