On May 16, 12:24 am, Robbie wrote:
> 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
I can do, but will I? ;)
WM |