"He also said he was "reassured by the co-operation which we're receiving from Facebook" and said it was agreed a better system for policing websites was needed."
It seems like those two sentences are somewhat at odds. Surely this is a perfect example of the free market and private enterprise acting in such a way that a law isn't neccessary? The government says "We think you should remove these profiles." Facebook looks at them, agrees, and removes them. The problem, of course, occurs if Facebook don't agree.
In that case, though, why should they remove it? Facebook is not the governments property to make the rules for. It's not even the users. It's Facebook's. Jack Straw acknowledges that these websites are accessed using smuggled mobile phones. The problem here - if it is indeed a problem - isn't that we need a better way to "police" websites; That's just passing the buck. The problem is that Jack Straw can't stop prisoners smuggling in phones to access it. If he wants to stop them using Facebook, it's up to him - not Facebook - to stop them.
To suggest they need new laws about policing websites is like a farmer walking into a china shop shortly after one of his cows has smashed it to buggery and suggest to the shop owner that they need to make some crockery that can withstand being stood on by a bull. Most, though, would offer that you shouldn't let your bull in a china shop.
Lol. Nice comparison. I think the policing the internet is contradictory to the very nature of the internet in the first place. It seems that governments are as bad as music and film corporations at understanding the nature of the internet.
ReplyDelete