The UK Prime Minster (PM), David Cameron, has told the House of Commons (Parliament) this afternoon that he is working with the industry and security services in an effort to ascertain whether or not "it would be right" to prevent those involved in "plotting violence, disorder and criminality" (i.e. London rioters) from accessing social networking websites like Twitter and Facebook.

Never mind the fact that such blocks would be virtually unenforceable due to the ease of circumvention and could easily end up targetting the wrong users (i.e. the connection owner isn't always the one using the service, such as in families or a hotel etc.).


The statement comes mere days after the communications regulator, Ofcom UK, ruled that the use of internet filtering technology to block piracy websites "would not be effective" (here) due to the ease with which such methods could be circumvented and other problems.


Aside from the technical difficulty of imposing such requirements upon broadband ISPs, cost and context related issues can also play a part. The case of Paul Chambers is a useful example. Chambers, after being frustrated by the closure of Robin Hood Airport in South Yorkshire, last year jokingly said on Twitter: "Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week... otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!". He was later arrested and fined thousands of pounds.

Certainly Chambers shouldn't have said what he did but the vast majority could easily understand his reasoning and context, it's something we all might say.. in private. This also serves to illustrate precisely why it would be a bad idea to give anybody access to our private communications as the context isn't always apparent; especially where role play enters the realm of comedy.

UPDATE 12th August 2011

UK ISP Entanet has waded in to offer its own perspective on the Prime Minister's comments.