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?"

10 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?

  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. 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 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!!!!!
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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!
  8. 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.

  9. 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?