Conservative want higher sentences for failure to decrypt ch ild pornography

[Roland Perry]

In message 
<AFB26DF151B3D511BB2B009027C2C7A90BBB74@controller1.ukerna.ac.uk>, 
Andrew Cormack <A.Cormack@ukerna.ac.uk> writes
>> Most GPS receivers have mapping and tracking built in, so it would be
>> much easier to have it either remember when the offender went outside
>> their territory (for inspection later), or even sound a local alarm.
>>
>> All of this is going to be somewhat bulky and eat batteries!
>>
>My little Garmin eats a pair of finest AA cells every 8 hours: slightly
>longer in "battery save" mode though the position fixes seem to be less
>reliable then. But adding a transmitter to call home would presumably bump
>that up quite a bit. Anyone remember the old joke about the wrist computer
>with the suitcase battery ???

By some kind of synchronicity the following story was published today:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/27214.html

"Parents in the UK will soon be able to track the whereabouts of their 
children using a GPS device that can be partly disguised as a badge."

I'm puzzled that people think this kind of system is undetectable, or 
that the kind of activity that features in most recent child abduction 
cases includes any element at all of the victim being held near to where 
they were snatched from, or in all but Sarah Payne their disappearance 
being noticed for some considerable time. And assuming that "chipping" 
someone is only effective at extremely short range, how does that help 
other than perhaps identifying the body?
-- 
Roland Perry