Britain's response to last week's riots - a proposed clampdown on social networks and modern telecommunications - has 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?

Misguided response
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 Samsom 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.
 

(/hs/nc)