Give social networks fake details, advises Whitehall web security official

I've found this growing debate quite interesting, and it seems to fit with many conspiracies of a coming internet style ID and the wider political debate of more regulation vs less regulation..

A senior government official has sparked anger by advising internet users to give fake details to websites to protect their security.
read more at: www.bbc.co.uk...

While one retort at this suggestion was

Ms Goodman, shadow culture minister, told BBC News: "This is the kind of behaviour that, in the end, promotes crime.

Should we be using fake details to protect ourselves on all but our most trusted websites? or should we be using some form of internet ID?

Does protecting our own Identity from criminal activity directed against us really mean we are also promoting crime? or is this yet more spin to put more controls on the internet?

Quote from link:
Mr Smith's comments were backed by Lord Erroll, chairman of the Digital Policy Alliance, a not-for-profit policy studies group which claims to speak for industry and charities, who was chairing the panel. He said he had always given his date of birth as "1 April 1900".

It seems many people are falling to either side of this line.. the debate is growing..

I guess we could also ask why a Government official is suggesting people break website T&Cs and in turn perhaps breaking our own Computer Misuse Act...

Other Articles on this incident.
www.independent.co.uk...
www.dailymail.co.uk...

and something from Sophos
nakedsecurity.sophos.com...

People who give their real details to companies on the internet are asking for it when said company gets hacked, or sells email addresses, or otherwise shares your details.

And I certainly don't see the need for any third party organisation knowing any more about me than my interaction with their website. They don't need my mobile number, address, real name, or anything. It's marketing for them, plain and simple. You are the product.

A pox on them.. lol..

Originally posted by winofiend
People who give their real details to companies on the internet are asking for it when said company gets hacked, or sells email addresses, or otherwise shares your details.

And I certainly don't see the need for any third party organisation knowing any more about me than my interaction with their website. They don't need my mobile number, address, real name, or anything. It's marketing for them, plain and simple. You are the product.

A pox on them.. lol..

Thanks for the smile I think a lot of people feel the same way, preferring to protect themselves than rely on some politically driven policy for that protection..

The thing is , if you have a Facebook account, you are already giviving away a lot of information and giving fake details kind f goes against the point. I try to keep my profile private, but if someone really wanted tnnow my details I'm sure it wouldn't be hard.

The only other social media I use apart from ats is twitter. Again I have provided enough info on both for anyone to track me down if they really wanted to.

I try not to worry too much about these things. I don't lik the idea f an Internet ID, seems kind of unnessasary with the info people have already willingly given away. I guess the biggest fear is identity theft. I read today one of the most commonly used passwords is "password".

What a mix up, from the BBC source linked above:

Andy Smith, an internet security chief at the Cabinet Office, said people should only give accurate details to trusted sites such as government ones.

He said names and addresses posted on social networking sites "can be used against you" by criminals.

His advice was described by Labour MP Helen Goodman as "totally outrageous".

I would agree with agent Mr. Smith because we know that criminals have made use of such information and can reasonably presume they continue to do so. I have a hard time understanding how Helen Goodman sees such personal security measures 'totally outrageous'. Though the part that reads 'people should only give accurate details to trusted sites such as government ones.' did bring up a little vomit.

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.

Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

I would be more far suspicious of the agenda motivating anyone who sweepingly demands the right to know who said what, when and where and at all times, Mrs Goodman, than anyone who has the (apparent) temerity to merely suggest a little caution.

reply to post by JAK


Excellent points I lean towards being cautious, but not overly so, and that is what I teach my kids, and I do teach them caution towards those that see answers in being overly nosey.

What I find deeply interesting in this mess is that on the one hand it is suggested that we do not use correct information on social networks but ensure we use the correct details for Government sites, yet in separate news a Facebook ID will enable users to log into Government websites, all as part of the Identity Assurance (IDA) programme (more like an internet ID to me)

I have to admit that I do not know what to make of it all..

reply to post by JAK


Why would you find a comment from a leftie so suprising, her party when in power for 4000+ days created a new law for every single one of them. They are part of the problem and not part of the solution

Originally posted by JAK
I have a hard time understanding how Helen Goodman sees such personal security measures 'totally outrageous'.

To understand that all you need to know is that she is a politician. Plain and simple. Politicians have psychopathic personalities, they have an underlying need to control people, hence why they go into the job in the first place. It is not 'to make a difference', as some would claim. Politicians aim to control the thoughts of the public, to manipulate and deceive the public.

Some people find the above difficult to swallow though, they see politicians as therr to protect the publics interests.