UK Prime Minister David Cameron has insisted that government “doesn’t own the internet, run the internet or shape the internet”, despite having said that he was considering shutting down social media during the London riots. Cameron said in a speech to the London Conference on Cyberspace (LCC) today that the task of the …
They looked whether it was suitable after the riots to shut down social networks, they concluded it wasn't and now they're reiterating that.
Swap the word "suitable" for "technically possible", "moral" or "likely to incite outrage in their constituency" and the sentence becomes even more accurate.
"Cameron will say whatever gets him the most votes at the time"
I'm not actually sure what your point is. Cameron is a politician. He's hardly going to say things he thinks will lose him votes is he?
"...allowing freedom online."
These government officials keep contradicting themselves, either in their words or in their actions.
Tighter security does not have to be implemented in a way that results in less freedom. Rights are not privledges, they are RIGHTS, and not subject to the wishes of government officials.
Obstructing those rights is not only a
Bad, bad omens.
“These are attacks on our national interest. They are unacceptable. And we will respond to them as robustly as we do any other national security threat,”
The last one who spoke thus got run out of town, bombed by a plane, hit by a drone, pulled out of a sewer pipe, raped with a knife, shot, laughed at by Hillary, called Hitler by the UN moondude, then exposed in a freezer as a tourist attraction.
I'm glad we're not descending into hyperbole
Go and have a cup of coffee - if you're honestly trying to compare Cameron and Gaddafi then you are just being silly. I doubt The News Quiz would last long if Cameron were much like Gaddafi :-)
Flip flopping politician? Surely not...
Ah yes, love net freedom. Today I believe Hague was giving a stern lecture to China and Russia telling them not to be so censorious. Cos we in Britain love our net freedom.
Except for child pron, instead of going after the perpetrators, could you just surreptitiously filter it please and pretend the problem doesn't exist? Oh, and break point-to-point connections for legitimate content that happens to share a server. No need to go through the police or any judicial process, we'll just pass the details to a charity to decide.
Oh, and while you're at it, anything that's written down that could offend.
Oh, and since you've got that technology in place, you may as well block access to a file sharing site that doesn't host anything, but tells you where you can get it.
One last favour, if you could let us know the possibility of shutting down social networks - but be prepared for us to drop it like a hot potato if it turns out to be a) impossible or b) massively unpopular. Ta very muchly.
Love our government. They really know what's best for us. AC, just while I still can.
hurrah for flip-flopping!
"be prepared for us to drop it like a hot potato if it turns out to be a) impossible or b) massively unpopular"
Isn't it a good thing that the government will abandon ideas that are either impossible or unpopular? I've never understood the hatred people have for a politician that changes their mind. Every other person in the country is allowed to change their minds on something ("Oh, I didn't realise that. Fair enough.") without being derided as "flip flopping". Are you really suggesting that the above quote should read:
"and we're not going to drop it even if it is a) impossible or b) massively unpopular"
What would you be saying if they did say that? "a) Government is clueless" b) "Government ignores public wishes".
re: Hurrah for flip-flopping
"Isn't it a good thing that the government will abandon ideas that are either impossible or unpopular?"
You missed the point that only the last one has been abandoned. And no, we shouldn't be *pleased* that they reject impossible ideas, not unless we're willing to set the bar incredibly low. They don't get the choice to reject impossible actions, it just happens.
As for unpopular (or amoral), is it so wrong for us to expect our representatives in parliament to understand our needs and wants without having to wait for a massive backlash?
I don't think it's the fact that they change their mind when faced with evidence that gets peoples back up as such, it's more the way they promise in the first place without checking then ones they've realised it's impossible they act as though they always knew that. If they did come out and say "sorry, I was wrong and those that I promised it to are idiots" I for one would have more respect for them.
You should see what they've been doing to me
If you want to see how America violates a person's internet rights, civil rights, and ever other kind of rights, read this...
You need to read it from the beginning for it to make sense.
Why do I get the feeling that this post is going to be taken down?
You don't like the idea of censorship:
"...look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites..."
except when you do?
And while you're in a censoring mood, perhaps you could censor our personal information from the hands of your corporate chums?
"These are attacks on our national interest", isn't strictly true. If it was the entire nation's interest there would be nobody going against such interest. It goes against the interest of those with a vested interest in the interest, or something...