UBE from Surrey Police
Don Aitken
"thousands" of schoolchildren with "advice about how to protect
themselves from a serial rapist". "The email is going to all secondary
schools and youth groups in Surrey and individually to young people,
who are asked to pass it on."
I presume that the combination of the official source and the classic
"please send this to everbody you know" bit means that this will be
all over the world within hours, and will still be circulating in ten
years time. How clueless can you get?
But the really intriguing question is, how did Surrey police get (or
how do they propose to get) the email addresses of "thousands" of
schoolchildren?
--
Don Aitken
nog
ait...@freeuk.com says...
> But the really intriguing question is, how did Surrey police get (or
> how do they propose to get) the email addresses of "thousands" of
> schoolchildren?
I read on the BBC News site that the email is being sent to contacts in
schools (presumably nominated teachers) with a request that it be passed
on to the kids.
Hopefully that will be done without a "pass it on" component to the
message.
--
Do the obvious to communicate directly
Rick Payne
Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> But the really intriguing question is, how did Surrey police get (or
> how do they propose to get) the email addresses of "thousands" of
> schoolchildren?
I doubt they have - however it seems that there is pressure on schools
to make sure that all their pupils have an e-mail address. The school my
kids are at have been instructing pupils how to sign up to hotmail to
get an e-mail address. This newly created e-mail address was then noted
by the teacher.
I've seen deleted them. My kids have perfectly functional e-mail
addresses - and without all the crap that gets spammed to hotmail
accounts.
Rick
The Flying Hamster
> In article <isqbquon53po7jmhh...@4ax.com>,
> Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>> But the really intriguing question is, how did Surrey police get (or
>> how do they propose to get) the email addresses of "thousands" of
>> schoolchildren?
Probably key addresses (schools etc etc) rather than direct to the
kids themselves.
> I doubt they have - however it seems that there is pressure on schools
> to make sure that all their pupils have an e-mail address. The
> school my
Certainly my eldest is getting an address but it looks like her school
is doing it properly and setting up things within their down domain
and with strict policies on use and abuse in place.
> kids are at have been instructing pupils how to sign up to hotmail to
> get an e-mail address. This newly created e-mail address was then noted
> by the teacher.
I catch them trying that with mine and they'll get their answer, I
don't consider getting minors to sign up with a service which leaks
personal information like a sieve and attracts spammers but the metric
buttload (which then leads to all sorts of issues with pron spam and
the like) to be reasonable behaviour.
> I've seen deleted them. My kids have perfectly functional e-mail
> addresses - and without all the crap that gets spammed to hotmail
> accounts.
Likewise, filtered and monitored email no spam gets through (despite
over 200 spams / day hitting my system)
Mark
--
The Flying Hamster <ham...@korenwolf.net> http://www.korenwolf.net/
"Unarmed...and extremely attractive." -- Dana Scully on Windows 95
Paul Booth
> I presume that the combination of the official source and the classic
> "please send this to everbody you know" bit means that this will be
> all over the world within hours, and will still be circulating in ten
> years time. How clueless can you get?
I don't see the problem, if it's relevant information that might stop
stupid kids doing stupid thin then if it's still circulating in ten
years time that's fine with me.
Can you explain where the problem lies?
> But the really intriguing question is, how did Surrey police get (or
> how do they propose to get) the email addresses of "thousands" of
> schoolchildren?
sch.uk addresses.
Paul.
Mark Goodge
typed:
>In uk.net Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>> I presume that the combination of the official source and the classic
>> "please send this to everbody you know" bit means that this will be
>> all over the world within hours, and will still be circulating in ten
>> years time. How clueless can you get?
>
>I don't see the problem, if it's relevant information that might stop
>stupid kids doing stupid thin then if it's still circulating in ten
>years time that's fine with me.
>
>Can you explain where the problem lies?
Because if it's still circulating in ten years time when it's no
longer relevant, it will be just plain scaremongering. And if you have
stuff circulating that's not relevant, it reduces the impact of stuff
that does matter - the "cry 'wolf'" problem.
Mark
--
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
"And so we're told this is the golden age"
Roland Perry
<pab...@grumpy.co.uk> writes
>I don't see the problem, if it's relevant information that might stop
>stupid kids doing stupid thin then if it's still circulating in ten
>years time that's fine with me.
It's Spam, and trying to work out a dividing line between Good Spam and
Bad Spam is a road to ruin.
Thanks for reminding me, btw, the "Send a postcard to Craig Shergold"
Spam is well enough known (to be a considerable inconvenience to all
concerned including The Royal Marsden Hospital - estimates vary between
30 and 100 Million cards) that it might just be a good example to use in
this case.
--
Roland Perry | tel: +44 20 7645 3505 | rol...@linx.org
Director of Public Policy | fax: +44 20 7645 3529 | http://www.linx.net
London Internet Exchange | mbl: +44 7909 68 0005 | /contact/roland
The Flying Hamster
> In message <3daadf22$0$19866$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk>, Paul Booth
><pab...@grumpy.co.uk> writes
>>I don't see the problem, if it's relevant information that might stop
>>stupid kids doing stupid thin then if it's still circulating in ten
>>years time that's fine with me.
>
> It's Spam, and trying to work out a dividing line between Good Spam and
> Bad Spam is a road to ruin.
Just to expand on that, spam is about consent not content. UBE is a
better description than UCE which implies that anti-bulk email / spam
activists are anti commerce. If it's bulk and unsolicited then it's
spam.
--
The Flying Hamster <ham...@korenwolf.net> http://www.korenwolf.net/
Actually, a woman is more like a beer. They smell good, the look good,
you'd step over youw own mother just to get one! But you can't stop at
one. You wanna drink another woman!
Alan Frame
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:58:15 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@linx.net> wrote:
> > In message <3daadf22$0$19866$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk>, Paul Booth
> ><pab...@grumpy.co.uk> writes
> >>I don't see the problem, if it's relevant information that might stop
> >>stupid kids doing stupid thin then if it's still circulating in ten
> >>years time that's fine with me.
> >
> > It's Spam, and trying to work out a dividing line between Good Spam and
> > Bad Spam is a road to ruin.
>
> Just to expand on that, spam is about consent not content.
Indeed, but *if* postmaster@*.sch.uk gives consent for
spamfortheg...@police.uk to send mail to *his* network, then
that's fine[0] by me.
rgds, Alan
[0] Well, 'fine' in the sense that I've got as much right to complain
about it as I have to complain about $BOSS sending all-staff
spam^Wmail...
--
99 Ducati 748BP, 95 Ducati 600SS, 81 Guzzi Monza, 74 MV Agusta 350
"Ride to Work, Work to Ride" SI# 7.067 DoD#1930 PGP Key 0xBDED56C5
Roland Perry
<alan....@acm.org> writes
>Indeed, but *if* postmaster@*.sch.uk gives consent for
>spamfortheg...@police.uk to send mail to *his* network, then
>that's fine[0] by me.
As long as it doesn't have the "Chain letter" element, and as long as
that postmaster has the permission of all the people [1] whose personal
data (their email addresses) he's opting-in in that way.
[1] If any of these people are kids under 15, it becomes quite difficult
to know whether they are qualified to give the permission, or whether
their parents should be asked instead.
ps. A lot fewer kids than most people think have specific .sch.uk
addresses, but the same principle applies to whatever domain their
school is using.
Andy Davidson
.regulation too.]
[Don Aitken wrote in uk.net]
> [...] "The email is going to all secondary
> schools and youth groups in Surrey and individually to young people,
> who are asked to pass it on."
[...]
> But the really intriguing question is, how did Surrey police get (or
> how do they propose to get) the email addresses of "thousands" of
> schoolchildren?
I don't see the problem with this *in principal*, but I do think it
requires more forethought than appears to have been demonstrated
thusfar.
I think it's a good idea for children to have sch.uk addresses. I also
think it's a good idea for local authority figures to be able to contact
each of them.
But with a little planning, this could be regulated very effectively --
a small distribution list of school-wide addresses, so that the
explosion of the list happens at per-site level is surely the best way
of handling writing to all students within a school ?
Each message could be authenticated by the computer organising the email
list explosion.
I think the alternative -- for local authorities to simply try to
maintain their own lists of students -- has the risk of falling into the
wrong hands, and falling out of date to the extent that it would become
quickly pointless.
--
Regards, Andy Davidson
Paul Booth
> It's Spam, and trying to work out a dividing line between Good Spam and
> Bad Spam is a road to ruin.
So unsolicited mail is spam, and spam is bad, black and white?
Ok, I see your point, but sometimes the dissipation of important and
revelant information is more important than issues of whether something
is unsolicited or not?
> Thanks for reminding me, btw, the "Send a postcard to Craig Shergold"
> Spam is well enough known (to be a considerable inconvenience to all
> concerned including The Royal Marsden Hospital - estimates vary between
> 30 and 100 Million cards) that it might just be a good example to use in
> this case.
I don't see how this has got anything to do with relevant information
coming from the correct authorities. And advice sent to kids regarding
safety doesn't become incorrect with age, merely incomplete. For
example, there wouldn't have been information sent 10 years ago about
being careful in Internet chatrooms, but the information that would have
been spread (don't talk to strangers, get in unknown cars, if in doubt
shout, etc. etc.) is no less relevant or correct today than it was then.
Paul.
Roland Perry
<pab...@grumpy.co.uk> writes
>> It's Spam, and trying to work out a dividing line between Good Spam and
>> Bad Spam is a road to ruin.
>
>So unsolicited mail is spam, and spam is bad, black and white?
There are many papers which try to make the distinction clear. The
simplest definition is: Unsolicited *and* bulk is spam. Spam is bad.
>> Thanks for reminding me, btw, the "Send a postcard to Craig Shergold"
>> Spam is well enough known (to be a considerable inconvenience to all
>> concerned including The Royal Marsden Hospital - estimates vary between
>> 30 and 100 Million cards) that it might just be a good example to use in
>> this case.
>
>I don't see how this has got anything to do with relevant information
>coming from the correct authorities.
They are Spam, and bad, but apart from that:
Because these messages get a life of their own. Even if they had a
disclaimer saying "Don't re-circulate this message after December 2003",
it would get lost and the message would be with us for ever.
> And advice sent to kids regarding
>safety doesn't become incorrect with age, merely incomplete.
Some would say that's just as bad. In any event, policy and politics do
change over time.
> For
>example, there wouldn't have been information sent 10 years ago about
>being careful in Internet chatrooms, but the information that would have
>been spread (don't talk to strangers, get in unknown cars, if in doubt
>shout, etc. etc.) is no less relevant or correct today than it was then.
Yes, but the way to get that message across isn't to use spam.
Chris Croughton
<pab...@grumpy.co.uk> wrote:
>In uk.net Roland Perry <rol...@linx.net> wrote:
>
>> It's Spam, and trying to work out a dividing line between Good Spam
>> and Bad Spam is a road to ruin.
>
>So unsolicited mail is spam, and spam is bad, black and white?
No, as usual black & white misses a lot in the middle. For instance,
I've had 3 unsolicited messages in the last few days from things I
posted on newsgroups, and I was glad of them. I also had several
messages which were bulk emailed just because my address is on
newsgroups, and they were unwanted (and all but one trapped by
SpamAssassin).
>Ok, I see your point, but sometimes the dissipation of important and
>revelant information is more important than issues of whether something
>is unsolicited or not?
If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck,
it's probably a cat. I'm not going to bother to take the time to work
out whether the spam really comes from the police or from someone
pretending they are 'authority', I'm going to junk it. When I was a
kid, I would probably have believed all of it, again without checking
the source (kids tend to be insufficiently paranoid). And if something
comes into a mailbox which /I/ haven't given out to anyone, I'm going to
be annoyed...
>I don't see how this has got anything to do with relevant information
>coming from the correct authorities.
How do they know it is from the "correct authorities"? It's a person
saying they're a cop, whoopee. There were a load of emails several
years ago, apparently from a police force, giving a load of FUD about
mobile phone scams (wich only worked with analogue phones, and then only
in a few countries). As pointed out elsewhere, a few of those and the
whole lot will get ignored -- after causing a load of people unnecessary
worry.
>And advice sent to kids regarding safety doesn't become incorrect with
>age, merely incomplete. For example, there wouldn't have been
>information sent 10 years ago about being careful in Internet
>chatrooms, but the information that would have been spread (don't talk
>to strangers, get in unknown cars, if in doubt shout, etc. etc.) is no
>less relevant or correct today than it was then.
And just as incorrect, the biggest danger is from people they already
know and trust (especially family, teachers, religious leaders and other
"trusted adults"). The RISK, as several reports have noticed, is that
in the heightened awareness children are being stifled and turned even
more to indoor sedentary pursuits because the parents are terrified to
let them out (and so are a lot of the children).
The problem is that the 'advice' is without context or feedback. If a
parent is advising a child about not talking to strangers, they can call
up scenarios and examples relevant to that child, and answer questions
and correct misunderstanding. If it's a bulk email, that level of
personalisation won't be there.
Chris C
Mike Bristow
Paul Booth <pab...@grumpy.co.uk> wrote:
> In uk.net Roland Perry <rol...@linx.net> wrote:
>
>> It's Spam, and trying to work out a dividing line between Good Spam and
>> Bad Spam is a road to ruin.
>
> So unsolicited mail is spam, and spam is bad, black and white?
>
> Ok, I see your point, but sometimes the dissipation of important and
> revelant information is more important than issues of whether something
> is unsolicited or not?
One of the first things I'd want to teach my kids (if I have any)
before I let them loose on the net would be:
just because something says it's from a trusted organization,
doesn't make it so. That email that claims to be from Bill
Gates? It probably isn't.
Therefore, sending email from 'Surrey Police Kidsafe Thingamy', and
having a bunch of teachers say 'Oh, yes, you can believe _that_
one. Honest. Just don't believe the _next_ email you get that
says it's from Surrey Police Kidsafe Thingamy, especially if it
says you should go to the McDonalds on the High St and meet with
PC Bigun' is a definate step backwards.
I want my (hypothetical) kids to not get spam. But that's not
likely in this universe, so I want my (hypothetical) kids to activly
distrust spam. Don't send information via UBE if you want my kids
to believe it.
--
You can't do maths without e
-- David Walters
John Bean
<mi...@urgle.com> wrote:
>I want my (hypothetical) kids to not get spam. But that's not
>likely in this universe, so I want my (hypothetical) kids to activly
>distrust spam. Don't send information via UBE if you want my kids
>to believe it.
A big me2. However, I'm pretty sure the motives are honest. Misguided,
but honest.
More education is required, but it is the originators that require the
most education, rather than the recipients.
Regards
John Bean [whose e-mail address is spam-free]
Roland Perry
<ne...@nospam.waterfoot.org> writes
>More education is required, but it is the originators that require the
>most education, rather than the recipients.
Agreed.
Clive D. W. Feather
<pab...@grumpy.co.uk> writes
>Ok, I see your point, but sometimes the dissipation of important and
>revelant information is more important than issues of whether something
>is unsolicited or not?
Of course it is. Just ask Robert E. McElwaine.
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 (NOTE CHANGE) | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address