UK Propose Registering Screen Names with Police 282
Oxygen99 writes "In a series of kneejerk suggestions following this online rape plot, the UK Home Secretary, Dr John Reid has suggested that offenders on the Sex Offenders Register should register their online identities with the police. According to a home office spokesman this means that offenders, 'online identities would be treated in exactly the same way as their real name'. So, just how misguided is this and who's going to be the first to tell him?"
Hmm, ok. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be easier... (Score:1, Insightful)
Trusting... (Score:3, Insightful)
But it turns out that it only applies to people on the Sex Offenders Register, which isn't quite as bad. There's some precedent for "you break the law once, you sacrifice some of your rights".
So I no longer see it as such a terrible invasion of privacy. But it does seem about as unworkable as asking burglars, upon release from prison, to call the local police station with a time and address before attempting any further burglaries.
Re:good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't see anything wrong with it, then I think that your having kids was misguided....
Re:good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I supposed to check some registry somewhere before I pick my screen name, just in case some rapist has already used it somewhere else? How will the authorities know who they are monitoring?
A screen name simply can't be used for identification purposes of this sort -- it is nothing more than a self-chosen highly context sensitive nickname.
Please, explain to me how you would implement such a proposal.
Re:good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because you're assuming you're not ever going to be in that database or one like it.
Re:good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
"Yes, officer, my screen name is 'Optix.'"
*goes home*
www.yahoo.com
the 2 paths to signing new laws? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Terrorism
2. Sex Offenders
So that's it, huh? One is getting to be annoying, the other is 100% laughable. Call me closed-minded, but we're paying waaay too much attention to "sex offenders", especially when being considered a sex offender is so broad, taking a leak at 3am in public when drunk would get you on the list.
We need that V guy sooner than later.
Re:Wouldn't it be easier... (Score:5, Insightful)
To make sure sex offenders do not have computers, or access to computers?
Re:Trusting... (Score:1, Insightful)
Really? It sets a precedent though doesnt it? Thats how these things start. When you break the law, yep you should serve your punishment indeed, but remember that 'protecting the children' is one of the main tools that politicians use for ulterior purposes.
Want to read some more about reid? http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/intelwhispers/in
Fox guarding the hen-house come to mind?
Better than Megan's law (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problems to be concerned about are:
Re:good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, this plan boils down to, "Hey everybody on the internet, if you are a predator, please let us know before you rape our children, K?"
The whole suggestion depends on the voluntary self-identification of sex offenders, and if we could count on that, we wouldn't NEED any system at all. The only thing such a policy could possibly do is provide additionaly criminal penalties that can be tacked on once an offender is caught, which is ridiculous because the penalties for their actual crime should be enough to keep them locked up forever.
Re:John Reid = Plonker (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps it was an error on the reports part but when I heard about this on the radio this morning it was described thus:
"Sex offenders will register their screen names allowing Police to monitor their e-mail and any activity in chat rooms they may undertake on-line"
Obviously we all know that there is no connection whatsoever between peoples e-mail addresses and the names they use in chat rooms, indeed the name you use in one chat room maybe entirely different to the one you use in another chatroom and neither of these types of names need be connected at all to the name you use for instant messaging - etc.
It's interesting that the areas which experience the most political attention; schools, the NHS, the Police all think they would be a lot better off without the attention the government lavishes on them. Every government when elected is of the view that Education, Law Enforcement and Healthcare have been broken by the previous government and then proceed to not so much plan for the success of these organisations as to plan how make it look as though they are making big and important changes which will sort things out. All these organisations would benefit from being managed with a longer term viewpoint than the next election and should be managed independantly from the government.
The home office and John Reid at the moment are a complete joke, I wouldn't trust them to do anything effectively at this point.
Re:good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
See the problem yet?
And for usernames, how many times have you tried to sign up to a site to be met with: "Username 'm0le5ter69' already in use, please choose another"? So what chance is there of having a register with "their" username on it? Even if the paedophile plays along and reports every online account he sets up, they could well wind up with hundreds of usernames associated with each person. That's a lot of overhead when searching or cross-referencing and a lot of false positives when looking for those usernames on the net.
The only way this could work even in theory would be for there to be some kind of mandatory, permanent, unchangeable net-identity infrastructure which could be tagged to forum postings, e-mails and social networking sites. But there isn't. And if there were, how are you going to possibly enforce it and what makes you think that it's worth losing the anonymity of the net for something so infrequent and unlikely as a kid getting abducted?
And with all due respect to your children, I'm not (and I suspect everyone else isn't) giving up my cherished net anonymity on the merest off-chance that it might reduce the chance of a child being groomed for abuse on-line because their parents haven't done a good enough job of teaching them proper, safe online behaviour.
I don't think anyone's against the idea of making paedophiles easier to track or bar from sites frequented by minors, and everyone wants kids to be able to play safely. But if the only way to do it is to make every human being on the net trackable in the same way, you can fuck right off.
Not aimed at you personally, but in general:
Your "right" to leave your kids unsupervised and have nothing bad happen to them does not trump my right to privacy.
Or, more generally:
Don't infringe my rights because you can't be bothered to perform your duties.
End of argument.
Interesting. (Score:3, Insightful)
An interesting perspective on it. One would also imagine that the good press such a law would generate for the politician proposing it would also be a factor.
Re:John Reid = Plonker (Score:4, Insightful)
It's called the House of Lords [wikipedia.org]. When the House of Commons tries to do something especially daft, it's possible for the House of Lords to stop or delay them.
Re:Wouldn't it be easier... (Score:3, Insightful)
Might be, but unless the original crimes were perpetrated online, I don't think it's at all fair. Criminals they may be, and of a particularly nefarious sort, but they still have rights, and restricting those rights as a safety measure is reasonable, but should be applied in moderation
If this sounds like too much protection of a sex offender's rights, think banning a murderer from buying knives because they are a popular murder weapon. Computers today are WAY too much of a general-purpose tool to go banning people from using them without good reason.
Re:Hmm, ok. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is like making it illegal for convicted murderers to buy a knife - catch them doing it - receipts, CCTV, standard surveillance, and you can send them away without needing to prove they were going to try to stab someone.
(OK, OK, flawed analogy, but it serves its purpose).
Re:actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the punishment for their actual crime is not sufficient, why do we not just increase the punishment? Why create all sorts of imaginary pseudo-crimes to heap onto them? How is this justice?
Just like the no-fly list (Score:3, Insightful)
One day some perv will go missing from his parole program and you'll have police on your doorstep asking you to prove your identity because suddenly by virtue of this name registration there is reasonable doubt that you are who you claim to be.
Papers please!
It's Pathetic (Score:2, Insightful)
For the record, I would be happy to watch a torture of the people who attempted to plot the rape of those young girls, but I would be extremely angry if my friends who dowloaded illegal images were forced to register their internet IDs as if they were child molesters. They wanted a way to relieve their urges without harming children, but simply weren't sensible enough to consider the consequences. That makes them naive, but not evil.
Then you should consider people who have taken a piss at the side of the road. They could be on the sex offenders' register and they'd be forced to register their name on this "Internet registry". What are they going to do, take a piss in MySpace?
Anyone who is unable to see the difference between paedophilia, sex offenses and child molestation needs to buy a dictionary.
John Reid is trying to look stronger because he has been exposed as a weak, spineless politician.
Re:John Reid = Plonker (Score:5, Insightful)
Strengths of the current House of Lords IMO
1) Not elected, therefore voting for stupid laws that get favourable media coverage doesnt really happen. Also members are not especially concerned with (or vulnerable to) the public's reaction to their votes. A fantastic counterbalance to the house of commons.
2) Members of the House of Lords do not rely on their party to get elected. Therefore do not have to toe the party line. The party system inevitably prevents MPs representing their constituents interests, when they conflict with the party line.
3) The House of Lords is the closest the country has to independent oversight of the House of Commons.
4) As a result of 1+2, House of Lords is the only house that can be relied upon to vote with a conscience for what is right. E.G. House of Lords presented the strongest arguments against the Iraq War, which pretty much everyone in the country could see was a foolish errand bar Tony and his Cronies!
Weaknesses of the current House of Lords IMO
1) Hereditary peers - somewhat distasteful, and a likely inherent bias towards the Conservative party, though the more time goes on, the less likely this should be.
2) Not strongly answerable to the press/people (I consider this a strength)
The problem with making the House of Lords an elected house is that it will solve the "hereditary peers" problem, but remove every single strength of the house!! It will gut it, and subject all members of it to the Whips and party politics.
The problem with making the House of Lords an appointed house is that it will INEVITABLY be stuffed with with people sympathetic to the government at the time. If there was a 20 year run of one party in charge of the House of Commons, then we could imagine a massive swing in the population of the House of Lords to representatives of that party! The House of Lords will no longer be independent.
If/when they convert the House of Lords to elected/appointed this country will lose one of its greatest strengths (a somewhat apolitical overseeing body). Regardless of whether the House of Lords becomes elected, appointed or some combination of both, it will represent an unprecedented transfer of power towards the party system and unlikely as it may seem, AWAY from the people the party system is meant to represent.
If it is ok to have a constitutional monarchy, why should we not also have constitutional peers in the House of Lords?
how would that help? (Score:2, Insightful)
* rapeman69 is now known as iLikeBoys23
I'm sorry, but i don't see the point, maybe the British government should spend some time on IRC.
Re:good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
This oubviously came to police attention prior to the act. Could they not have simply then set a trap and caught them in the act (of course, before anyone actually got raped)? That would give them even more justifiable reason to lock them up for longer, less wriggle room for legal defense, and would result in a better overall benefit to society IMHO.
Re:good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
This is simple...you just haven't heard the new govt. sponsored part of all this yet.
First, you will have to register with the Govnernment, all of us, not just the convicted....this will make it easier to track all potential criminals too.
YOu will not be allowed to log onto an internet connected computer without this govt. issued/registered logon identity.
This way, you can't get away with anything...and a wonderful side benefit...ALL your interactions, transactions will be monitored, and safely stored in a govt. data repository. In case there is need for future you against you.
Heck, I'm sure with wonderful data mining....and even a little creative associations, we can safely predict not only your future predilection to sexual crimes, but, also to potential terrorist activities.
Of course...I'm being a little sarcastic here, but, not totally. This would be about the only way to track and enforce this...I just hope this method isn't seriously put forth by our leaders.
It seems pretty clear already they don't like the thought of anonymity online....even for the innocent citizen out there doing nothing wrong...