 |
| (Photo: ANP) |
Britain's
response to last week's riots - a proposed clampdown on social networks and
modern telecommunications - caused widespread anger. It sets a bad example for
countries like China, say civil rights activists. But was it an attack on
democracy, a desperate measure by an embattled politician, or a reasonable
response?
When
British Prime Minister David Cameron addressed parliament in the wake of last
week's riots, he blamed Facebook, Twitter and RIM (the maker of Blackberry) for
the content posted on their networks. He said people would be banned from
social networks if suspected of inciting violence. His call for a temporary
communications shutdown was unheard of in the West.
Rethinking
democracy
China's
state-controlled press was thrilled, calling it a “bold measure” and warning
the developing world against “blind worship of Western democracy”. The call on Chinese “advocates of an
unlimited development of the internet” to “think twice” was especially
striking.
Surely,
China’s approval was not what Cameron was hoping for. Clamping down on social
networks? The very tools that helped the Egyptian masses bring down Mubarak?
Was this what he wanted to achieve?
Wrong
measures
Criticism
of Cameron's proposal was sharp here in the Netherlands, the first country to
enshrine consumers' right to internet access in law. “First of all, shutting
down communication networks doesn't stop social unrest,” argues Ot van Daalen,
internet rights activist at Bits of Freedom.
He points
to the 1992 race riots in Los Angeles which erupted after police were acquitted
of brutality for the beating of black man Rodney King - an incident captured on
video by a passerby. Internet and social media did not exist at the time.
And in
Egypt, he says, the uprising continued after the internet was cut off.
According to Mr Van Daalen, the authorities should use measures that don't
affect law-abiding citizens and leave privacy and freedom of communication
intact. A good example?
"Monitoring
tweets or court-ordered tapping of internet traffic by suspected criminals. But
not cutting off entire networks."
Ignorance
Dutch
Labour Party politician Diederik Samson disagreed with the activists. In
defiance of his own party's policy, he posted a widely-read tweet supporting
local shutdowns of Ping, Blackberry's free messaging service, during public
disturbances. Internet is grown up now, he argued, so it's time for a realistic
discussion on public order and safety.
Calls like
these raise the eyebrows of security experts. Not because they overstep civil
rights, but because they reveal an ignorance of technology. Blackberry
Messenger, supposedly the rioters' favourite way to send encrypted messages, is
in fact easy to scan, says security researcher Ross Anderson of Cambridge
University in the UK. In other words, there's no need to shut it down.
“If you've
got a normal Blackberry that you bought in a shop and you use it to send
messages to others in furtherance of a crime, the police can get all the
traffic.”
Irrelevant
measures
So why do
Mr Cameron and Mr Samsom blame the messenger? In Mr Anderson's view,
“politicians everywhere feel the need to be seen to be doing something,” even
if those initiatives are “impractical and irrelevant, and the following day
they're forgotten”.
He compares
the British Prime Minister's approach to France's new three-strikes law, which
allows the authorities to ban people from the internet for repeated illegal
file-sharing. It's part of a growing disregard for judicial rights in Western
Europe, Mr Anderson says:
“Several
countries in Western Europe have a disgraceful record. France with its
three-strikes law, and Denmark with its proposals for really vigorous
censorship of the internet, are on the side of China in this. And Britain is
showing signs of joining the French, the Danes, the Chinese and the Iranians.”
Censorship
According
to Mr Anderson, the United States stands out as a defender of the
constitutional right to freedom of expression. However his comparison between
European measures and the policies of China is firmly rejected by Courtney Radsch at Freedom House, a pro-democracy watchdog in Washington, D.C.:
“In the UK
they're discussing whether they have the right to shut down specific social
media. But they're discussing it in a democratic context where people can
express their opinions about whether the government has the authority to do
that. That's where there's a fundamental difference with a country like China,
Burma or Cuba where there are broad restrictions on freedom of expression and
information technology.”
Ms Radsch
points out that what’s being discussed in the UK are targeted, temporary
measures to address an imminent threat of violence. And that, she says, is a
far cry from what happened in Egypt during the Tahir Square uprising, when the
nation's entire communications network was shut down.
No comments:
Post a Comment