Still Alive
Long time, no update.
Don't knock it: it's not been sufficiently interesting to write home about.
Well, until the last month or so, during which time I have:
Been to Tunisia (which isn't very warm in March, despite being on a different continent!)
Spent four days on a product training course, where I managed to point that every single feature (under the right circumstances) was inadequate, and probably insecure. To which the answer was "You can disable it, and we can write a custom fix for you". Hmm, no :(
Went to Eastercon, which rocked :) And has, coincidentally left me feeling much better than I have done for months, if not years. Kind of hope that lasts, but dreading the inexorable crash.
That all finished a week ago, and I'm now back in work, as usual. And not quite wanting to kill people here. Yet.
Anyway, that wasn't what woke me up, to post (although it helped :)
The Child Exploitation and Online Protection (Ceop) centre wants such a "panic" button link on every page of Facebook.
"Child Exploitation centre (Oh, and Online Protection)"? Daft name for an organisation, isn't it? I'd have hoped that somebody would have thought about the ambiguity in their name before getting to the point where they're capable of exhibiting this much pressure. Ah well, too late now.
So. CEOP want a button that reports directly to CEOP. Why CEOP? I don't recognise CEOP as a well known name (otherwise I'd be sniggering about the name far more often). Aren't there better known organisations who could do equally well as a clearing house for communications? the NSPCC spring to mind, as, for example, they have television ads, and publicise their phone lines. CEOP's approach means that if the child is "panicked" by an online contact they report to CEOP, but if they're panicked in person, they probably report to somebody else (possibly a trusted adult, who then doesn't report it CEOP either). Splintering your communication channels is foolish. I'm wondering if this push is more to promote CEOP than it is to get anything useful done.
So. They want a panic button on Facebook. Why Facebook? Ok, it's the "biggest" social networking site, but why not MySpace, LiveJournal or that random forum I (hypothetically) set up just last week? This isn't something that affects just one website: as the CEOP website says, "Our approach is truly holistic, our style is totally inclusive and our appeal is to everyone out there to work with us in making every child matter," and they're part of the "Virtual Global Taskforce". Spot the all inclusive nature of their remit? It would be far, far simpler to get this "panic button" provided as a bookmark in every browser. Thus, Facebook doesn't have to change the site, doesn't have to work out which agency to report to, and it makes the button available for any source of panic, not just the sites which are under public scrutiny today.
Further than that: I'm fairly convinced that my analysis is correct, although it may very well be incomplete. Yet nobody else (particularly, Facebook) seems to be commenting on this. Actually, I can understand it from CEOP's point-of-view: they're picking on one target at a time, and self-promoting. And Facebook, presumably, can't risk shirking responsibility, simply because they can't face the bad PR that would arise. But you'd think some independant by-stander would be able to point it out. Is nobody paying attention? Or are they all just a bit dense? Or is it just me?
ETA: I've just heard an update on the radio: Facebook are not adding a panic button, but are, allegedly, going for a major overhaul of their security. The relevant point though is that there's going to be a 24 hour police hotline. Sounds like a correct solution to me (so I can now go back under my rock). Odd that it should be announced so soon after the previous item though. You'd have thought somebody working on the CEOP story would have been aware of the possibility of the other option coming together...
ETA 2: The Register (and the comments) agree with me about this being problematic. Including citation of a case on MSN, where the victim (as allusive and venta suggest) simply ignored the button.
Don't knock it: it's not been sufficiently interesting to write home about.
Well, until the last month or so, during which time I have:
Been to Tunisia (which isn't very warm in March, despite being on a different continent!)
Spent four days on a product training course, where I managed to point that every single feature (under the right circumstances) was inadequate, and probably insecure. To which the answer was "You can disable it, and we can write a custom fix for you". Hmm, no :(
Went to Eastercon, which rocked :) And has, coincidentally left me feeling much better than I have done for months, if not years. Kind of hope that lasts, but dreading the inexorable crash.
That all finished a week ago, and I'm now back in work, as usual. And not quite wanting to kill people here. Yet.
Anyway, that wasn't what woke me up, to post (although it helped :)
The Child Exploitation and Online Protection (Ceop) centre wants such a "panic" button link on every page of Facebook.
"Child Exploitation centre (Oh, and Online Protection)"? Daft name for an organisation, isn't it? I'd have hoped that somebody would have thought about the ambiguity in their name before getting to the point where they're capable of exhibiting this much pressure. Ah well, too late now.
So. CEOP want a button that reports directly to CEOP. Why CEOP? I don't recognise CEOP as a well known name (otherwise I'd be sniggering about the name far more often). Aren't there better known organisations who could do equally well as a clearing house for communications? the NSPCC spring to mind, as, for example, they have television ads, and publicise their phone lines. CEOP's approach means that if the child is "panicked" by an online contact they report to CEOP, but if they're panicked in person, they probably report to somebody else (possibly a trusted adult, who then doesn't report it CEOP either). Splintering your communication channels is foolish. I'm wondering if this push is more to promote CEOP than it is to get anything useful done.
So. They want a panic button on Facebook. Why Facebook? Ok, it's the "biggest" social networking site, but why not MySpace, LiveJournal or that random forum I (hypothetically) set up just last week? This isn't something that affects just one website: as the CEOP website says, "Our approach is truly holistic, our style is totally inclusive and our appeal is to everyone out there to work with us in making every child matter," and they're part of the "Virtual Global Taskforce". Spot the all inclusive nature of their remit? It would be far, far simpler to get this "panic button" provided as a bookmark in every browser. Thus, Facebook doesn't have to change the site, doesn't have to work out which agency to report to, and it makes the button available for any source of panic, not just the sites which are under public scrutiny today.
Further than that: I'm fairly convinced that my analysis is correct, although it may very well be incomplete. Yet nobody else (particularly, Facebook) seems to be commenting on this. Actually, I can understand it from CEOP's point-of-view: they're picking on one target at a time, and self-promoting. And Facebook, presumably, can't risk shirking responsibility, simply because they can't face the bad PR that would arise. But you'd think some independant by-stander would be able to point it out. Is nobody paying attention? Or are they all just a bit dense? Or is it just me?
ETA: I've just heard an update on the radio: Facebook are not adding a panic button, but are, allegedly, going for a major overhaul of their security. The relevant point though is that there's going to be a 24 hour police hotline. Sounds like a correct solution to me (so I can now go back under my rock). Odd that it should be announced so soon after the previous item though. You'd have thought somebody working on the CEOP story would have been aware of the possibility of the other option coming together...
ETA 2: The Register (and the comments) agree with me about this being problematic. Including citation of a case on MSN, where the victim (as allusive and venta suggest) simply ignored the button.