Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
> On May 15, 2:42 pm, Cynic wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 May 2008 23:36:36 GMT, Periander <4rubb...@britwar.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.faceparty.com/missing_account.aspx
>>>> Surely - this can't be legal?
>>> They make at least one factual claim which is simply wrong I suspect that
>>> they have misintrpreted something. However, it's their site they can do
>>> what they want with it. Live with it ...
>> They state that it is illegal to allow anyone over 30 onto a social
>> networking site unless the site carries out a CRB check. I am unaware
>> of *any* law that has an age demarcation of 30, and certainly there is
>> no law that compells a website to carry out CRB checks on its members.
>>
>> They also state that it is a criminal offence to give a false age on
>> the Internet. There is no such law - falsely representing yourself as
>> a child could be used as indicative evidence should a person do other
>> things that could be construed as "grooming", but is not in itself a
>> crime.
>>
>> It is pretty obvious that the site have concocted a string of lies and
>> is using child-safety as an excuse for actions it has carried out for
>> completely different reasons.
>>
>> Faceparty have done some other pretty unethical things in the recent
>> past. I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole (even if I were under
>> 30).
>>
>> --
>> Cynic
>
> No, there is *something* behind it ... the HS's announcement about
> the forthcoming Instrument on emails and 'RSO's.
>
> FP have jumped the gun (perhaps for other reasons, too).
>
> WM
could you stop using abbreviations all the time. HS, RSO and FP?
Sometimes I have to guess what it is you are trying to say.
--
Robbie |