Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Propose Registering Screen Names with Police

Posted by samzenpus on from the in-england-you-only-get-one-online-name dept.

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?"

21 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm, ok. by IflyRC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So who is going to be the first person to explain how free email web sites such as yahoo, hotmail, etc and new screen names can be gotten anonymously (for the most part) and can change daily, hourly or however fast you want to fill out the forms?

    1. Re:Hmm, ok. by wodon · · Score: 3, Informative

      So who is going to be the first person to explain how free email web sites such as yahoo, hotmail, etc and new screen names can be gotten anonymously (for the most part) and can change daily, hourly or however fast you want to fill out the forms? That is a good point, and the first thing I thought when I heard this on the radio this morning too.
      What it doesn't say is that they plan to make it compulsory for sex offenders to register any email addresses they use in the same way they must register street addresses and aliases. That way they can be charged with using a new email address even if they aren't caught doing sex offendery things.

      The idea is ok, just terribly thought through. how can they police it? Especially as at present they don't have the regular address and alias details for a large portion of the sex offenders register. How about they start by working out where they all live!

      I am all for protecting the public, but let's not go spending millions of public pounds because the Daily Mail has another hissy fit.

      --
      It's My Tea and I'll Drink it if I Want To!
    2. Re:Hmm, ok. by Sirch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What noone seems to have pointed out yet is that if they are caught breaking this proposed law by the police, they can be punished - without having to prove intent to molest etc.

      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).

      --
      We Build Beautiful Websites
  2. I wonder.. by works · · Score: 4, Funny

    What kind of spam you will get after registering.

  3. oh no no no by physicsboy500 · · Score: 5, Funny

    my name is M0lester... not MOlester

    --
    The original generic sig.
  4. Re:good idea by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Having kids, I don't think this is misguided... ... says Mister Anonymous Coward.

  5. John Reid = Plonker by SkunkPussy · · Score: 4, Informative

    John Reid is a bloody idiot, and he is subordinate to the tabloids. He pumps out hair-brained schemes like this, that are frankly embarassing.

    We need to find a way to stop politicians (and tabloids) interfering with this country, because in general the UK functions very well without their accursed meddling!

    --
    SURELY NOT!!!!!
    1. Re:John Reid = Plonker by Bogtha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We need to find a way to stop politicians [...] interfering with this country

      It's called the House of Lords. When the House of Commons tries to do something especially daft, it's possible for the House of Lords to stop or delay them.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    2. Re:John Reid = Plonker by SkunkPussy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And guess what...right now they're trying to make the House of Lords some combination of elected and appointed, which will be a massive constitutional disaster (see below)!!!

      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?

      --
      SURELY NOT!!!!!
  6. Re:good idea by Zenaku · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Then you haven't considered the practical questions of how it could be implemented. Screen names are self-chosen, and typically numerous. There is no universal respository of screen names that is shared by the whole of the internet. HappyMonkeyPooFace on slashdot may be a totally different person than HappyMonkeyPooFace on MySpace.

    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.

    --
    If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
  7. Re:actually... by nickname225 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I am an attorney and I work in the law enforcement area. The value of a law like this is not actually to track the offenders. It's real value is to use as an additional charge once a violator has been caught. It keep the real habitual offenders in jail longer and makes plea bargaining result in longer terms. I'm not saying it's a good plan - just that the fact that offenders won't register is not really a flaw in the plan.

  8. Re:actually... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    if it were feasible (which it isn't) this might be a good idea. Sure we should in general be free to do what we please online, but that freedom rests on an implied right to safety. "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"

    Rapists forfeit their online freedom Nope, under this proposal, everybody would forfeit their online freedom. The spectre of rapists is only dangled in front of the voting populace to conveniently switch off their brains. Fortunately, sometimes sanity prevails in the end.
  9. Re:good idea by PFI_Optix · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Agreed. It's not so much misguided as it is unenforceable. I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea to track convicted rapists online, but it's certainly futile without direct monitoring of their internet activity.

    "Yes, officer, my screen name is 'Optix.'"

    *goes home*

    www.yahoo.com

    Don't have a Yahoo! ID?

    Signing up is easy.
    --
    120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
  10. BAM ON THE GROUND NOW! by the_skywise · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh... sorry... we were looking for 1HotLuv99874... We didn't realize you were 1HotLuv9874. Our bad...

    Yeah.. uh... just contact city services to fix the door for you...

  11. Your post is nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think the House of Lords should be replaced by the editorial board of the Sun, and the House of Commons should be replaced by the editorial board of the Mirror.

  12. the 2 paths to signing new laws? by British · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So we(or ie they, the UK) are giving up liberty for either reasons of:

    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.

  13. Re:Wouldn't it be easier... by LoudMusic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be easier...

    To make sure sex offenders do not have computers, or access to computers? But even easier to just put them in jail together and then leave them there.
    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
  14. Better than Megan's law by iamacat · · Score: 4, Insightful
    After all, this would only get sex offenders lynched by neighbors in Second Life. This law will not stop anyone from registering a fake name. But if someone is found acting suspiciously online, and that someone turns out to be an anonymous sex offender, he can be prosecuted without having to prove every conversation that took place. Chances are, he was about to look for more victims, since he obviously no longer minds breaking the law.

    The real problems to be concerned about are:
    • People being branded as sex offenders too easily, say for mooning in a public place
    • This registration being extended to pot smokers, traffic violators and yes regular law abiding citizens
    • And most of all, the actual Megan law. If someone served their time, they should get a crack at being normal citizens with friends and no threat of violence.

  15. Re:good idea by Zenaku · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That still doesn't get you anything. Because HappyMonkeyPooFace on slashdot could have a hundred other logins on slashdot as well. Bottom line is that there is no one-to-one relationship between people and screen names. No matter how many screen names you register as belonging to John Q. Sexoffender, he can always get another one that isn't registered, and how are you gonna know?

    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.

    --
    If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
  16. Re:actually... by McGregorMortis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, we're talking about a law that, applied to ordinary citizens, would be considered unjust. And we even admit that it will have no value if applied only to sex-offenders. But that's okay, because it's really just a way to punish them, and they deserve to be punished more. Always more. They can never be punished enough. This is how we justify it?

    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?

  17. Re:good idea by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You miss part of the point of laws like this. This adds to the number of crimes they've committed when they're caught after the fact. So on a second conspiracy to rape, for example, they'll add all of the unregistered screen names to the list of crimes, to make sure they go away for that much longer. Fixed it for you. Don't get me wrong, I have very little doubt that these guys deserve to go away for a long time, but how do you know where to draw the line between real threats like this and a dystpoian thought-crime society, the likes of which are speculated about by Slashdot conspiracy theorists and authors like Orwell, Huxley and Bradbury?

    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.