Gary Andrews

Pesky things, terrorists. They have a habit of misappropriating everyday useful objects like cars, rucksacks and fertiliser for their own nefarious means and now, if a report from the US Army is to be believed, they’ve now added Twitter to that list.

The story, which circulated earlier in the week, brought a predictable amount of sarcasm from Twitter users (or at least the ones on my stream). It’s quite possible they use Twitter – and Facebook and MySpace and other social media communities.

But, especially with Twitter, even with locked updates, they’re hardly the most secure of sites to if you’re planning another 9/11. Given that marketing and PR professionals are pretty good at trawling these kind of sites for relevant users, you’d like to think it isn’t beyond the police force to do the same.

But what’s worrying isn’t necessarily the thought that Twitter could be used to blow us up (and I’m sure they’ve got plenty of other methods of communication that a microblogging service used by geeks, PRs and early adopters). No, it’s the fact that we’re seeing a lot more of these kind of stories just as the government is making ever more frequent noises about internet regulation.

Much of the coverage is fairly unquestioning – possibly because it ticks a couple of fashionable news angles, in fear and an emerging new fad. But a lot of it is built on pure speculation. Take these paragraphs from the BBC article [1]:

“A chapter on Potential for Terrorist Use of Twitter notes that first reports of the Los Angeles earthquake in July appeared on the service before established news outlets.“

And the relevance of this is?

“Terrorists could theoretically use Twitter social networking in the US as an operational tool.”

Indeed they could. Note use of word theoretically.

“Authorities in both the US and the UK are increasingly worried about the potential for terrorists to use the latest communication technologies including sites like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and gaming networks.”

And that neatly encapsulates what I’m on about.

There’s no doubt that there are some Very Bad People using the internet – people who it’s a good thing the authorities are monitoring. But – and at this stage it’s difficult to find a decent set of words without somebody going ‘paranoid much?’ – there’s an awful lot of rhetoric flying around about the need for regulation on the internet.

We’ve already had Culture Secretary Andy Burnham call for a debate on regulation, a similar call from Ofcom’s outgoing chief, and plans to tap into pretty much all of our data online.

Quite aside from the fact that trying to regulate the internet – and the noises are sufficiently vague enough to leave little clue as to what form this would take and how they’d go about it, although that’s never normally been a problem for politicians before – is nigh-on impossible, it’s also debatable how much of a public desire there is for it.

So, we’re seeing a set of arguments being deployed that politicians usually bring out in these kind of situations:

1. Terrorists could use it.

2. Won’t somebody think of the children.

And added to this is the slightly vague and new category:

3. People often say nasty things about other people online and we just don’t know who’s saying what.

There are valid point to be had one points one and two, but there’s nothing that our current laws can’t tackle providing the police are given adequate online resources and training.

With point two (ok, yes I know these are vague, somewhat facetious, and cover a multitude of sins), there’s also a discussion to be had about better educating children to be more aware about how they use personal details and conduct relationships online. But it’s debatable how much of a difference regulating, say, social networks would make.

Point three has been covered behind the link, although is largely drivel.

It wouldn’t be a urge surprise to see a trickle of stories highlighting statistics or reports that all back tighter regulation on the internet, and these will no doubt be supplemented by a couple of unfortunate real-life examples (which will make the news precisely because they’re so unusual, rather than be indicative of a larger concern) in order to build a case for greater internet regulation.

When that happens, expect the rest of us to take years to work out exactly what this means and what you’re likely to get prosecuted for or have shut down online (I imagine Devil’s Kitchen would be one of the first to go, given the high level of (funny) abuse directed at politicians.

Ok, perhaps there’s a level of paranoia on my part here, and I’m well aware that many of the arguments made here are somewhat vague and general, plus there’s probably a couple of straw men in the above words.

But this current government has time and again shown a complete willingness to try a regulate and monitor the public to within an inch of our lives while curtailing free speech and civil liberties. It’s not a massive surprise that they’ll move online (and don’t think the other lot will be any better).

Remember, this is a government that once declared that legislation against Brian Haw was like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but it was worth it because this was one rather large nut [2].

Granted, this government isn’t the US army, but the Twitter and terrorists story felt a lot like scaremongering except with tanks in the virtual world rather than outside Heathrow.

There is a serious, and rational, debate to be had about child protection and/or terrorism online, but simply saying Twitter could be used for terrorists is not it. And politicians tend, in recent years, to prefer to pass more regulation than bother to have a sensible and rational debate.

It’s not a great surprise when I say I’m a big fan of social media, and its potential to help advance communication and democracy and any number of other positive things on a worldwide scale.

Some of it isn’t mainstream, some of it’s confusing to people who don’t understand it, or have been on the receiving end of a flaming early on. But neither of those are reason enough to push restrictive legislation, in whatever form that may take and curtail freedom of speech, expression and sharing of ideas online.

One day, hopefully, we’ll get that debate offline. But in the meantime, expect plenty more dire warnings about child safety and terrorism online [3].

[1] Yes, I’m aware this is from Radio 1 Newsbeat. However, they’re usually pretty good at condensing issues and, because of their audience, often tend to be a bit more insightful than other outlets, partly as the story’s often broken down to its core issues.

[2] And whatever you think about Brian Haw, it’s difficult to deny he’s got a right to protest about whatever he likes in a free country.

[3] This really isn’t to play down both of these issues, but whatever’s decided shouldn’t come at the expense of treating every online user as a potential terrorist, child abuser and general ne’er to do well. Surprisingly enough, we don’t need governments to look after us on here – and given their general track record of keeping our data, you wouldn’t trust them ether. Given the option of being ruled by government or Google, I’d take Google every time.

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: Andy Burnham, internet regulation, online regulation, regulating social media, terrorists on Twitter, Twitter

An excellent post, and interesting discussion, over at David North’s Digital Rant on, in light of the Byron report and plenty of stories in the media, whether or not the government should regulate social networks, and if such regulation is even possible.

My own feeling is that any regulation probably wouldn’t work, because the web moves too fast, and probably wouldn’t solve long-standing problems or fears about the number of children using social network sites.

[Although you could also argue that as these kids have been using the internet all their lives, they're probably a hell of a lot more switched on and web-literate than most of us adults.]

If any social network wants to get a bit of good PR, they should develop/announce new privacy controls, get a bit of positive press, and chances are the media will move on elsewhere if they think the issue’s being sorted, and the government may well forget about it, and find something else equally evil to turn their sites upon.

Quite what privacy controls or codes or conduct or whatever else they could put it place is a moot point. In the comments, I suggested that a privacy tour that explains exactly how privacy settings work and how you can protect yourself and your personal details might be the best interim solution.

David also muses that firstly, parents should take more responsibility, and also that if social networks started from a point of locked down info, that might be another solution. Although he also concedes it would give a greater learning curve so could discourage new users.

One thing is clear: the fact that not even those who work with or around the sites on a regular basis can see an immediate solution means those who don’t (ie Gordon and other politicians) [1] shouldn’t rush in with ill-thought through and knee-jerk regulation and legislation.

I won’t hold my breath.

[1] Perhaps they should put the person who runs 10 Downing Street’s Twitter and Flickr feeds in charge of web strategy. At least it’s somebody who a) knows how to use a Web 2.0 service and b) Seems to understand how Web 2.0 works.

Breath still not being held. 

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: Bebo, children and social networks, Facebook, Flickr, internet regulation, online parental control, online privacy, social networking, Twitter

There’s a lot to like about Australia. John Howard wasn’t one of these things. Now it seems new Premier Kevin Rudd can also be struck off the list, as Australia joins China in becoming one of the few countries where the government broadly censors the internet.

The argument seems to fall back on that classic piece of hysteria: won’t somebody think of the children:

‘Senator Conroy says it will be mandatory for all internet service providers to provide clean feeds, or ISP filtering, to houses and schools that are free of pornography and inappropriate material.’

I’d like to know what consists of inappropriate material here. Techcrunch has a pretty good summary, which includes BitTorrent, online gambling, ‘R’ rated computer games, the vague area of hate speech, as well as criticism of government policy regarding Aboriginals. I’d also imagine particularly sweary sites like Devil’s Kitchen, for example, could fall foul. After all, we wouldn’t want the children to be exposed to bad language would we?

As the ‘crunch say:

“If there is one certainty in any country that implements broadscale censorship, once they start blocking content it doesn’t stop, and certainly every do-gooder group and special interest lobbyist will be wanting the Government to add to the list.”

In all honesty, there’s no need for the Government to get involved. There’s perfectly good software out there that can block sites, and if parents want better software, then there’s enough companies out there making these products to provide even stronger controls. Absolutely no need for government interference.

What’s also worrying is the opt-out nature of the service. As techcrunch points out, if you opt-out of the censorship, the government will undoubtedly ask questions as to why and start to take an interest. So that could lead to childless twentysomethings who’ve got no need for these controls, finding themselves snooped on by the state because they fancy doing a bit of gambling or BitTorrenting.

Conroy’s defence is as daft as anything I’ve heard in a long time.

“Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road,” he said. 

Right, so you’re happy, proud even, to follow the lead of a repressive illiberal regime? Nice one. What next? Rounding up dissidents?

“If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.” 

Christ. But this isn’t about child pornography, which in turn has close to fuck all to do with freedom of speech. You’re just using it as an excuse to slip in a host of other controls. And are you really so dumb that you can’t tell the difference between a kiddy-fiddler and a libertarian?

“He says the Government will work with the industry to ensure the filters do not affect the speed of the internet.

“There are people who are going to make all sorts of statements about the impact on the [internet] speed,” he said.

“The internet hasn’t ground to a halt in the UK, it hasn’t ground to a halt in Scandinavian countries and it’s not grinding the internet to a halt in Europe.”

And? What the hell does the speed of the internet in the UK, Sweden, or Belgium have to do with Australian censorship? What this clumsy sidestepping statement is probably dealing with is what Techcrunch raises concerns over:

‘There is also a potential cost involved to Australian Internet users. The previous Government regularly cited feedback from ISP’s stating that the cost of implementing a “clean feed” would be passed onto internet users, who already pay some of the highest internet access costs in the Western world for on average slow services.’ 

Wonderful. I have, in the past, entertained ideas of emigrating Down Under. I won’t bother now.

What worries me is firstly the number of people in the comments who think America could be heading the same way, and secondly that somebody from our wonderfully liberal government will think: “Hmm… so we’ve got ID cards coming through, what next? Ah, the Aussie internet initiative sounds like a good idea.”

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: Australia, censorship, China, internet regulation, really illiberal ideas