If your email’s down you’re not coming in
Apr 4th, 2008 by handolio
OK, let’s see if you can spot the flaw in this particular child-protection idea simply by reading the following standfirst:
Any inkling why that might not work?
Frankly, I find it astounding that anyone could even write that in 2008 without immediately thinking of how many email addresses they’ve been through in their lives (I’m on number 14, I think, and that’s only counting the different domains), and how easy each was to come by and get rid of.
It’s a BBC article, based on guidance released today by the Home Office task force on child protection on the internet. There’s no attempt to address the obvious weakness in the idea, and no other major sites seem to be running with it yet. I’m rather hoping that the detailed plans sound less naïve than this alone taken out of context.
UPDATE: It gets worse
OK, The Times (shock) has picked up on the story, and apparently also failed to ask the obvious question. The BBC has updated its story with the explanation that “offenders who use any e-mail address that has not been given to the police, face up to five years in prison”.
We’ve just had a quick “the Home Office can’t really have just said that, can they?” conversation and tracked down the government’s press release. Those of a web-literate disposition, look away now:
the email addresses of registered child sex offenders will be passed by police to social networking websites, enabling these websites to stop offenders using their sites
Maybe you expect it from the government, but does anybody else find it embarrassing for The Times that, as of midday, it was left to the people leaving comments to ask a question that should have seen the story bounced back to its writer?
At least the industry press hasn’t got its head up its arse. Tamsin M found this PC Pro story asking the obvious question.
