SHPOs are usually written in a way that makes a positive requirement sound like a negative. So it might say something like, they are not allowed to own a smartphone, unless they notify police of the details, within 3 days of acquiring one. Although I think the rules were changed earlier this year, to permit positive actions to be included in SHPO anyway. That was what the govt wanted to do.

As for usernames, the safest thing is to just use your own name as your username, then there is nothing new to notify.

This article caught my eye and figured I would share it for discussion

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime/paedophile-pensioner-from-gosport-thanks-judge-for-sparing-him-jail-after-hes-caught-red-handed-by-police-3878675

Did he actually breach his order for failing to notify devices if his order did not in fact tell him to do so? As most of us know, a SHPO can not contain anything which is to be considered a positive action as the purpose of the order is to apply restrictions only. Doing so is an abuse of the SHPO and conflicts with the notification requirements. The article states he claimed "he did not need to" makes me assume there was no such wording on his SHPO which told him to notify of new devices.

Moving on to the use of SnapChat and TikTok, if memory serves, SC requires a username to login which you can later update your nickname? if you are using your own name then how is this considered a breach? Of course if he was indeed using his own name and for legitimate usage contacting friends and family.
TikTok requires an email address to login which the same applies to SC, you change your nickname?
This court considers a "username" a form of alias which I find completely false. Granted, he was sentenced for what I assume were contact offenses so I would expect some sort of restriction on social media but if these were not present. Did he actually breach his order?

I just find it amazing how the courts who draft the orders always seem to forget the Smith Court of Appeal exists and no defense (I am assuming he had none) will quote the Smith ruling. There is such a disconnect between technology and the courts that leave many with further convictions all because those in authority do not understand the ways of the modern world.