WHEN the riots in London broke out recently, some of you might have been stuck on social network sites to find out what was happening, rather than being glued to the television, waiting for updates.

It’s not surprising, since Twitter has become the “social network du jour” for breaking news in the past few years.

But this time, however, there was more to social media than meets the eye.

While Twitter-aficionados hailed the spike in the social network’s traffic in Britain, and celebrated its role in mobilising massive groups of Twitterers to the ground to help restore the city via the @riotcleanup account, the London riots “belonged” to BlackBerry.

Various reports in the British and international media have already acknowledged the smartphone’s role, or at least its BlackBerry Messaging system (BBM), in mobilising and directing rioters and looters.

Such was its impact that Research In Motion (RIM), the makers of BlackBerry, even sent a tweet out which read: “We feel for those impacted by the riots in London. We have engaged with the authorities to assist in any way we can.”

Neighbors and volunteers help clean up the area of Clapham in the aftermath left by riots in London
That particular tweet caused a storm on the digital-sphere, suggesting that BBM messages aren’t as private as some people might have thought. Some of you might recall attempts by Saudi Arabia and Indonesia to ban the smartphone due to the difficulty in controlling the content that circulates via the BlackBerry servers and system.

Which begs the question – just how much should social networks (or creators of technologies) cooperate with “authorities” and how private is private, when it comes to the data we share and store on our various networks and devices?

These questions followed suggestions by British Prime Minister David Cameron on the possibility of imposing restrictions on certain individuals from plotting crimes.

“So, 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,” Cameron said in a statement to parliament.

Following that statement, British Home Secretary Theresa May is planning meetings with Facebook, Twitter and RIM to discuss these companies’ role to help prevent similar incidents, according to news reports.

Naturally, free speech activists are up in arms about this possibility. Many of them, including media industry stalwarts and academicians such as Dan Gilmor and Jeff Jarvis have spoken out against the implementation of such rules.

Essentially, these sorts of rules will be no different than those in some Middle Eastern countries, and others including China, North Korea and Myanmar – in the eyes of many, not great company when it comes to issues of expression and speech.

Only time will tell what the outcome of those meetings will be, but this wouldn’t be the first time technology companies are working together with the authorities. In some cases, service providers too are involved.

The clearest cases are that of dealing with illegal downloads and pornography. Even in Malaysia, certain websites that engage in these activities are blocked by Internet Service Providers.

More recently, in an effort to disrupt a protest attempt mobile telecommunications services were shut down in four train stations in San Francisco, California. Telcos have claimed that they weren’t involved in the shut down, which could mean that the transit company could be responsible.

Meanwhile, the Cleveland City Council has already passed a bill which makes the use of social media to organise violent and disorderly flashmobs illegal. In New York, the police department is reported to have started a new unit specially to monitor social media.

In California, Facebook is already working with the prison authorities to remove profiles of inmates.

In the case of the New York Police Department and similar instances, the way to stay out of trouble is to: 1. Not get involved in any trouble at all, or 2. Be really careful about what you post online.

As for the control of social media, people against such actions should speak out about it and make sure they are heard. After all, besides infringement of rights and the freedom of expression and speech, such control too goes against the grain and nature of the Internet.

Ironically, one of the best platforms people are finding to make their voices heard these days is social media.

The authorities, and those in power, would be wise to listen out to these voices and engage with the people, instead of opting for control. After all, there are still a lot of good that come from social media (and future technologies) that they can use to serve the people better.