What's all this about?
This may have been one of those cases where the judge (and possibly jury) we not as net savvy as we in the profession are, and the links we can draw may not have been taken into consideration.
Last edited by Dos_Box; 26th January 2010 at 11:28 AM.
What's all this about?
I should add though that the Sparklebox content really is first rate. My daughter often brings worksheets from school as homework. It's just a shame it's so tainted now.
What was it that media report said? Something about a risk that he could get "intimate" with teachers? If that's a route to kids in their classes, then someone really ought to have a word with the teachers: About good old confidentiality first, and the new-fangled e-safety stuff if they're too stupid to correlate the latter with what they do on the net.
If I were an RBC/whatever and thought that toolbar was a problem then all Conduit toolbars are a problem and the very first thing I'd be doing is explaining how I'd just blocked the ability of any of them to call home.Especially if I then tried to get people to download a toolbar that could (presumably) be later updated to harvest information
The salient point is that it is very suspicious that someone who has been committed for an offence should go into business with something closely related to the "temptation" that he had previously succumbed to. Would you be more suspicious of a recently-released drug dealer who got a job in a bookstore or a "head" shop?
There are a couple of risks associated with Sparklebox still as I *personally* see it.
1 - We have no idea who is really running the site.
2 - The lack of registration for Data Protection should worry people if this is to be seen as a legit company
3 - Kids bringing stuff home from school branded SparkleBox gives the message that the site is ok for parents to go on and have a look at stuff and possibly be in contact with the owners or others.
4 - Whilst there was no evidence that the site was not used to store or transmit material there is still a question over the position of a site with the facilities to upload pictures of students with no clear guidance about protecting pupils.
As for Condiut ... I would only used a toolbar from a trusted source and I now no longer trust the source.
Should the site be owned by someone else, or should the team running it (who I actually feel are a bit hard done to) be a bit more open about how things are being run then it will be worth looking at.
The materials can be accessed by mirrors so the advertising revenue does not have to be an issue ... but I would not share anything directly on the site in the meanwhile.
As I said to start with ... this is a personal opinion and we are still reviewing in Northants.
I am led to belive there were several full time employees who created the content, and 'went to ground' when Kinge was arrested once they found out about his activities. They are totally innocent BTW!
I agree 100% but this is where the law needs to tightened up. As it stands there's nothing in law to stop an offender of this nature to continue to deliver services to education and I think there should be. I do find it incredible that with all the MPs out there that none of them consider this a problem*Bit angry aout this actually. How the judge saw fit to allow him to retain ownership of a business primarily aimed at schools I don't know.
You're right also that although he's in prison he will continue to profit, however in light of the negative publicity this opens the doors for another company to provide the same/similar resources. It's only a matter of time before this happens as I don't think many LAs will tolerate their material used in classrooms.
I really do, especially for the people of tomorrow, but that's just me and why I am not an MP!You expect MPs to have morals?
Me too.. you've had one of those IE upgrade disasters or maybe just a CC3 system where RMMC stops working, haven't you?If it were up to me all toolbars would be banned from the school.
Or the other 100 zillion unblocked web-sites out there. Yes the use of this one is quite prevalent in schools and obviously of more immediate concern, but I strive for a world that's a bit more logically consistent: Will any of the "rules" rounded up for this one ever be applied to the rest, or will they just be reserved for sites people want rid of?We have no idea who is really running the site.
Eh? Why is that the responsibility, rather than a voluntary kindness, of any site where you can upload stuff? I think it's the teacher's employers jobs to warn them against doing that (plus take action if ignored, well assuming they can squeeze that in before the parents torch the school).there is still a question over the position of a site with the facilities to upload pictures of students with no clear guidance about protecting pupils.
Act in haste, repent at leisure. I think we've had enough rushed/open-ended-law for a while, and unless someone can put up a compelling argument explaining how this scenario puts kids at risk, I don't see the case for it. There's some serious ethical issues in play here and I don't think the answers are clear cut.As it stands there's nothing in law to stop an offender of this nature to continue to deliver services to education and I think there should be.
Did you catch the comment in the video about the Home Office not commenting? Could be wrong, but I guess that's about the ECHR challenge to a couple of folk (who want off) being kept on the sex offenders register. Perhaps we'd better see which way that goes before inventing more post-time-served conditions for people.
Last edited by PiqueABoo; 26th January 2010 at 05:49 PM.
Well it's quite simple really. With money generated by the website he's going abroad and pretending to have the best interest of children at heart, when in fact it's something I don't wish to put into words other than disgusting.unless someone can put up a compelling case explaining how this scenario puts kids at risk
To prove a point further why have LAs around the country added it to filter lists? It's all about risk assessment and although we're all pro IT here in children's interests, child safety will always be no.1.
Money can be generated in a zillion ways, so should we stop people like this ever earning any? A more satisfactory answer to this predicament was given by the police in the video.With money generated by the website
This is just the concerned truth AIUI not deliberate argument: What you said next in that sentence looks a teensy bit defamatory and you don't have any evidence for a defence.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)