The recent riots in the UK have had a devastating impact on the country. The riots resulted in extensive damage to property and the deaths of five people – the impact of which will be felt in those affected communities for many years to come.

A great deal of debate has already taken place about what can and should be done to prevent a reoccurrence of these events.  MP for Tottenham, David Lammy, called for a ban on Blackberry messenger (BBM) during the riots as it is alleged to have played a key role in helping rioters co-ordinate themselves and evade the police.  BBM reported that it did not suspend its services during the riots, but it did indicate that it was working co-operatively with the Metropolitan police.

This collaboration between the BBM and the police has proved contentious because BBM is a closed system that users perceive as being private.  Research in Motion (RIM) who operate BBM’s service were hacked by a group called team Poison who disagreed with their collaborating with the police.

In his address to Parliament, the UK’s Prime Minister David Cameron stated “we are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality”. 

The issue has also been discussed at some length by Conservative MP Louise Mensch, who asserts that the government is seriously considering such a ban.  The suggestion is that all social media services should be blocked during a time of civil unrest, albeit for a very brief period.

It seems that the UK is not alone in experiencing civil disruption that is co-ordinated by the use of social media.  In Philadelphia, riots are similarly organised by groups of youngsters using social networking and are creating a huge headache for the authorities.

So should we agree to a temporary ban on the use of social media during times of civil unrest?

It is certainly true that had BBM services become unavailable during the UK’s recent riots, it would have stopped it being used to co-ordinate violence.   But it was not the only form of social networking used during the riots. Other social media were used to spread rumours and mis-information which spread fear and undoubtedly increased the chaos in the streets.

Undoubtedly, social media is taking the blame for the irresponsible actions of its users.  Many argue that social media is neutral as it is simply a medium through which messages are sent.  In that respect it is the same as blaming the telephone system for abusive calls, or the postal system for the perpetuation of hate mail.

The key point is that, If a method of communication is ceased, another will be used.  If BBM were to be ‘turned off’ traffic would flow to alternative closed messaging systems, such as What’s App, or Skype.  Both of those are US based, and would not be subject to English law or the demands of our Government.   That would mean that a social media ban could only be implemented by installing a national firewall that all UK Internet Service Providers are mandated to use.  The ‘Great firewalls’ used by China and certain regimes in the Middle East to protect themselves against civil unrest. The question is, do we wish to implement the same security measures as these countries? Controlling social media in this way goes against net neutrality. The proposals are not dissimilar to the recent US idea of a ‘kill switch for the Internet‘

As stated earlier, law enforcement can freely monitor and use information obtained from open social networks to locate and prosecute those engaged in illegal activities. For example, the case of Joanne Frial, a juror who was found to be communicating with a defendant in a drugs trial and Paul Chambers, who tweeted that he’d planted a bomb at an airport, and was prosecuted for his actions.  We have also seen some of the looters from the riots caught this way.

BBM itself is a ‘closed’ network, but as a telecommunications service it is subject to the same regulations that govern all communications in the UK.  This means that the home secretary can apply for a licence to intercept messages.  This can be done in very quickly, so it’s likely that BBM did provide critical evidence to the police and authorities throughout the riots.

We have also seen that social media can be used for good as campaigns such as #riotcleanup [http://www.riotcleanup.co.uk/] and do something nice for ashraf [http://somethingniceforashraf.tumblr.com/].  Both were responses to the riots which helped communities come together in the aftermath.  During the riots themselves social media are invaluable in allowing people to contact loved ones to check they are safe or indeed to warn of danger in their vicinity.

So in summary, whilst BBM played a role in the riots, it would seem banning social media is not the answer. The Authorities already have significant power to monitor social media and the evidence obtained can assist them in achieving a co-ordinated response. Removing access, even temporarily, will force opponents to seek channels which are more difficult to monitor, or not subject to regulation, and as such will force them underground.  The role that social media can play in supplying evidence, and bringing the guilty to justice, far outweighs any temporary advantage to switching off a social media channel of choice.