Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

MySpace, U.S. Address Sex Offenders Online

Posted by Zonk on Thu Dec 07, 2006 04:29 PM
from the slipperly-slope-here dept.
TitusC3v5 writes "According to BBC News, MySpace is attempting to block sex offenders by way a custom database that utilizes state sex offender registries. Sentinel Safe will let MySpace search US state and federal databases to seek out and delete MySpace profiles of registered sex offenders." From the article: "The company said the new service will be the first national database that brings together about 46 US state sex offender registers ... It will be available in the next 30 days. MySpace has not released information on its plans for tackling sex offenders using the service in other countries." This is on the heels of proposed legislation that would require sex offenders to keep their email on file. The addresses would presumably be used to restrict former criminals from accessing online community sites, but in an the era of easily obtainable email addresses it's hard to see how this would be effective.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • WTF? (Score:5, Funny)

    by zappepcs (820751) on Thursday December 07 2006, @04:32PM (#17152584) Journal
    Is this yet another case of clueless people trying to create rules for systems that they have no idea of how it functions?

    While the intent is good, I'm rather suspect of people who think this is full-proof, and look forward (mockingly) to the future when people think their kids are safe from predators because MySpace is tracking KNOWN sex offenders by their REGISTERED email addresses.

    Wow, why don't we just do this with terrorists? Then we'd know where they are and what they are doing all the time, just have to log onto the gov. website to find out....
    • I agree. The measures in place to stop terrorists travelling presume that they will travel with valid papers and real names. The end result being everyone else gets inconvenienced and it doesn't work on the people it's meant to hit. Just the same as with drm.

      This is for one reason only, to give them plausible deniability if someone gets attacked and initial contact is traced to their service.

      We have a problem in england at the moment of sex offenders who are being traced/monitored dissapearing from view bec
    • TFA:

      " Under the proposed legislation, any sex offender who submits a fraudulent email could face prison."

      Presumably not declaring email addresses is fraudulent too. So yeah, they can use an anonymous address, but they also risk getting busted doing so. Not fool proof, but also forces such people to demonstrate intent.

      Osama is already in the poo, flouting email address laws is unlikely to make his legal situation appreciably worse.

      Xix.

        • by fyngyrz (762201) * on Thursday December 07 2006, @07:18PM (#17155522) Homepage Journal

          For crying out loud... "sex offender" is not a synonym for "fucking children."

          It means everything from peeing on a bush outside to having consensual sex with a consenting partner of reasonable age who decided later to use it against you to having taken completely innocent photos of your own kid. And it does include people who prey on children, I'll grant you, but the point is the brush is now too broad because legislators are idiots; if they go with the email thing you'll have learned nothing useful except how to jitter and freak out about a bunch of people who are likely to be absolutely zero threat to you and any children, anywhere.

          Control your legislators, people. Come on. And think!

            • One of the worst things that has come out of the hysteria about 'child predators' is that people who chose not to fight a minor offense years ago suddenly find that the punishment has been 'enhanced' ex post facto. And the last time I checked, that was unconstitutional.

              First, let me say that I agree with your sentiment completely; however, the reasoning (sophist, in my view) put forward by the USSC was that "registration" isn't punishment, it is a "legitimate state function" where the state "has an int

    • This is in the same line of logic as the fake boarding passes.

      "We're going to make these rules and it will be illegal to break these rules. YOU will go to jail if you break these rules."

      It realy sounds like a bunch of children at the playground, the kind that makeup a particular game and create the rules as they go along. One kid figures out how to be 'King of the Hill' and the whiny kid cries because the smarter kids broke the rule.

      Yes, there are serious problems here but email tracking is not the way to
      • by aliendisaster (1001260) on Thursday December 07 2006, @04:44PM (#17152828)
        Actually, it may be a set in the wrong direction. After everyone realizes "Hey, they can just go get a free yahoo address and work around this system.", the idiots will try and force EVERYONE to register their email address and all companies that provide email address's will have to remove any address that is not associated with a real life person. This could be the beginning of the end of the anonymous internet and the beginning of a time in which if you have someone's email, you know their name, street address, date of birth, etc. This could be the beginning of a stalkers dream.
        • by joshetc (955226) on Thursday December 07 2006, @04:55PM (#17153038)
          Parent really deserves to be modded up for that insightful comment.

          Also, I'm not siding with the sex offenders but comon. Either they are guilty enough to still be in jail or they should be allowed to use internet communication websites freely. Maybe instead of banning sex offenders we should ban or force monitoring on minors that use those services. Some other kind of limitation would work the same too.

          If they served their time they should be free. If they should not be free there is a problem with sentencing of the criminals and not how websites are monitored.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Why? I think it just allows parents to feel complacent.

        The first and last line of defense is giving a crap about what your kid is doing online. Period. End. Of. Story. There is no magical fairy dust fix that is going to make that any less the case, so why bother?
  • by jmagar.com (67146) on Thursday December 07 2006, @04:34PM (#17152628) Homepage
    Kevin Poulsen [wired.com] broke this story wide open by developing the scripts and tools to parse the sex offender registry, and compare the MySpace members. He supplied his work to the cops and the rest is today's news.

    The finest Mashup I've seen to date. Worthy of some sort of prize... Is there a "Mashup Awards Banquet"?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      yup, that was the big one.

      The key things involved are that the sex ofenders (for reasons known only to them selfs) still register with their REAL info. Why? No clue!

      It will stop some offenders I hope, but I doubt it will do much.

      The biggest problem is that you just outright block them bassed on email then that enourages them to get an email and not register it.
      • The key things involved are that the sex offenders (for reasons known only to them selfs) still register with their REAL info. Why? No clue!

        If a sex offender is too controlled by his (or her) urges to the point where they have sex with children, rape someone, or otherwise sexually assault other people, they may not be thinking too clearly in the first place.

  • Also in the news... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by laughingcoyote (762272) <barghesthowl AT excite DOT com> on Thursday December 07 2006, @04:35PM (#17152652) Journal

    To promote easy identification of sex offenders, a new bill requires "registration of the logo and design of the hat worn by the offender." Mention was not made in the bill of what happens if the offender changes hats.

    Holy hell, how far can they take this false sense of security crap? If you want your kids to be safe, teach them what things to do are stupid, and how to recognize danger signals (online and offline). Then, you could, you know, always supervise them until you're reasonably sure that they've indeed gotten the point.

    Or we could try tracking people by their email address. I'm sure that'll work great. imasexoffender@example.com will never think of registering 15yroldmale@example.com too!

  • by Tackhead (54550) on Thursday December 07 2006, @04:38PM (#17152714)
    Politicians and pedophiles. Two groups of exploitive bastards who are at their most dangerous when they're thinking of the children.

  • Don't give your address and out to random people online, the same as you don't give it out to anyone whom you meet on the street. If you meet someone you met online in real life, don't do it alone or in an empty place. Basically, teach your kids to apply normal rules for real-world interactions to MySpace, and there won't be a huge problem. Blocking sex offenders really doesn't help, since it's the *unknown* sex offenders that you have to worry about, not the known ones - you can always check for the nam
  • Armbands (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Omnifarious (11933) * on Thursday December 07 2006, @04:39PM (#17152746) Homepage Journal

    I think we are in the process of creating a bunch of second class citizens with sex offender registration laws. People can become sex offenders for a wide variety of reasons, but everybody treats all sex offenders as if each and every single one were an evil predator lurking and waiting for even a glimmer of a chance to prey on a child.

    For people convicted of kidnapping children and coercing them into child porn, this might very well be reasonable. But for the 25 yr old convicted of statutory rape of the 17yr old, this is quite questionable. Or the father who molests his daughter (and has never touched another child), or any number of other situations that are significantly milder.

    Most people who have to register do not deserve to be treated the same as the worst of the class.

    I'm waiting for the laws that strip custody of children from registered sex offenders or prohibit them from participating in school events with their children, or any number of other laws passed by well-meaning people that create a large class (probably nearly a million people in the US) of people who are denied some fairly basic things for no particularly good reason.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      I always felt the "rape" part in "statutory rape" to be unbelievably mislabled. I think at the age of 16 someone knows if they want to fuck or not. They may not be responsible enough to handle what happens if they get pregnant, that much is true. However, in the words of Dave Chappelle, "16 is old enough to know if you want to be pissed on."
          • by nightfire-unique (253895) on Thursday December 07 2006, @08:50PM (#17156750)

            They're not having sex without our permission, they're raping each other.

            They're not a militia, they're terrorists.

            They're not a government, they're a regime.

            They're not citizens defending their homes, they're enemy combatants.

            It's not a sovereign nation, it's a rogue country.

            It's not a protest, it's a tax evasion.

            You're not a public urinator when drunk coming home from a bar, you're a sex offender.

            Drunk drivers, abortionists, and food companies are murderers.
            Cigarettes kill everyone.
            The plague could strike your family.
            Osama Bin Laden wants to kill you.
            Christianity is better than Islam.
            Criminals, birth control, and science are bad. Evolution is unholy.

            Drugs are bad, except caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, etc. But especially marijuana, stevia are bad.

            Ugh. Make it stop. :(

    • Or the father who molests his daughter (and has never touched another child), or any number of other situations that are significantly milder.
      I really hope that was a typo, or came out wrong, and you don't really feel like that is something "significantly minor".
      • I do think it's milder than someone kidnapping children and forcing them into child porn. I don't think it's minor.

      • I think the gp was referring to the fact that, statistically, most father daughter molestation scenarios are opportunist, meaning they usually involve multiple concomitants such as alcohol/drugs, divorce/unhappy relationships, etc. Opportunistic molesters are not true pedophiles in that they do not specifically target and prefer children.

        Of course, statistics don't mean a damn if you're the one getting fucked up the arse by the old man but there is a recognized difference in the field.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      In Arizona you can become a convicted sex offender by being cited for public nudity...So look out if you visit any of their Nude Beaches [slashdot.org], or you're going to find some unexpected stuff on your MySpace profile.
    • Or the father who molests his daughter (and has never touched another child)

      That's an astonishing abuse of trust on the part of the father. It's not milder at all, he's broken one of the basic rules of being a human being (or indeed a member of most animal species) - he's harmed one of his children.

      Parents are supposed to protect their kids, not molest them. I suspect that you're in a very small minority indeed in seeing that as being milder than molesting a stranger's kid.

      (I realise you're not condoning it
        • Nature has been around a hell of a lot longer than any of our laws. Should we be listening more to Nature? (Is there a biologist/doctor in the house who can shed some light on this?)

          I still think it should be illegal to pass a law against a group of people if they don't have the right to vote. Under-age drinking laws should be unconstitutional, because the people who are affected by them can't vote.

          Perhaps it should be illegal to sell booze to someone under 18 (or 21, whatever), but the idea that you

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      550,000 registered sex offenders in the U.S. -- given a population of 300M, that's roughly one in every 500 persons, or (excluding females, children, and elderly) somewhere around one out of every 100 young-adult and middle-aged males (the classes that mostly populate the category "sex offenders").

      So.. in numbers that are admittedly vague, but good enough for gov't work, one out of every 100 adult males is a registered sex offender. Doesn't that number seen a little high to you??

      Hmm... Given a similar illic
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      For all the people that are replying about the abuse of a family member, think of it this way:

      A guy breaks into your house, kills your wife, and is running away from the house when you chase him down and beat to death. You are convicted of murder. Someone else takes to sniping people in VA. If both were released, who is more likely to kill again, the person that only did it once in a specific situation, of the person that killed strangers multiple times?

      A father that molests his own children is not a t
    • by Captain Sarcastic (109765) * on Thursday December 07 2006, @05:48PM (#17154062)
      Where would our civilization be without second class citizens?

      How else would we have been able to make some of the steps forward in medicine, were it not for some of the work done on "disposable" people?

      How else would we have had such a burgeoning entertainment industry, had it not been for laws that deprived actors and actresses from burial in sacred ground?

      Who else can be used for a way to see how far a government can go before the first-class citizens decide that enough is enough?

      Of course, sometimes a government can overplay its hand. When people find out that convicted sex offenders are not allowed in public hurricane shelters, but have to report to the local jail (and give 24 hours advance notice, even!), there might be a feeling that things might have gone too far.

      But then again, when we're "thinking of the children," we don't have to do a whole lot more thinking, do we?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Some of the ways you can get labeled "sex offender," depending on state, have very little to do with those under the age of consent at all. Public indecency and prostitution are two of the ones that come to mind.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      People can become sex offenders for a wide variety of reasons

      This is very true. Some states you can get put on the SO registry for simply getting caught peeing in some bushes behind a bar after doing some drinking. That person clearly isn't a threat to anyone, and isn't likely to hurt anyone, but would be on the SO lists never-the-less. This usually causes them to be treated as outcasts and in some cases can be beaten by people who don't care about the details, just know they are a sex offender. Some o

      • Worse and far more damaging than someone who kidnaps children and forces them into child porn? I hope you're joking.

      • I think most people would agree that kidnapping children and forcing them into sexual acts is worse than the statutory rape I cited or even a father molesting his daughter.

        Sex offenders who violently take what they want by force might be worse than the kidnappers or not depending.

        The statutory rape case IMHO hinges entirely on the individuals involved. I can see that being abusive or just fine. I, in fact, know of a case just like that in which both parties are now adults and are doing very well in a co

      • You don't understand, the point is that these crimes are lumped in all as "sex offender" crimes when in reality the crime was hardly a crime at all (20yr old with a 17yr old) or such as a guy who only molests his daughters is somehow considered someone who needs to be branded for life as someone who is a danger to the neighborhood.

        When you consider that there are many much worse crimes that do not have registries, it seems a bit illogical to make an equalization to other crimes of conscious decision.

        This is
      • That's actually not true. The recidivism rate among sex offenders is very low compared to most crimes. And the likelihood could hardly be characterized as 'high' as I believe the rate is less than 1%.

        Now, among certain classes of sex offenders this isn't true. But initiatives like this very rarely make any distinction and treat all sex offenders as the worst kind.

      • That's an interesting point. But who do you think would more likely to be on MySpace trolling for young girls?

        I consider it milder mostly because it can sometimes be very hard to keep separate one kind of intimate relationship for another, especially if you were abused yourself as a child. I believe those cases are the ones most amenable to treatment. I also believe that the suicide rates among offenders in those kinds of cases are the highest. So, my definition of milder is mostly "least likely to act

  • by deleting or overtly damaging their accounts, you effectivly alert them to take more proactive actions in hiding their trails.

    Instead, this data should be used to covertly keep an eye on their account and account use, indeed, once these predators have been identified anyone contacted by them or looking at their page should get an alert with a warning about who that person is. Or simply make it ipossible for that account to contact or be contacted by children et al.

    A passive approach will keep more of the
  • by adavies42 (746183) on Thursday December 07 2006, @04:46PM (#17152886)
    If you believe it is appropriate for the government to permanently the restrict the activities of anyone, whatever they've done, merely out of concern for what they might do, you are part of the problem. Life is dangerous and it's not the government's job to protect you from it. Deal.
  • MysteryMan33: ASL?
    Wii:13,F,Fl
    MysteryMan33:You like big harddrives? Minz 120Gig.
    Wii:wow! thats big.
    MysteryMan33:Wanna see it?
    Wii:cool
    MysteryMan33:Wanna play with my Wiimote control?

    BrianWilliams:I'm Brian Williams and your on DATELINE. What were you planning to do with this young girl?

    MysteryMan33:I can't log on to MySpace anymore because I am on "the List".

  • Why stop there? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gillbates (106458) on Thursday December 07 2006, @04:59PM (#17153126) Homepage Journal

    Why not just link to the DHS terrorist [slashdot.org] database and prevent them from registering as well?

    And, while we're at it, why not extend this to anyone who has ever, in their entire life, done something wrong. Contact the school board! (Given the antagonistic nature toward students, I'm sure most school boards would be more than willing to provide a list of names of "troublemakers").

    The notion of a convict settling his debt to society with prison time is quickly becoming antiquated. How long before "Once a criminal, always a criminal" becomes the slogan of law enforcement? How long before forgiveness is a de facto criminal act?

    I understand the intentions are good. But people do change. And some "sex offenders" are little more than drunks who got convicted of public urination, or streaking, etc...

    And of course, *no one* would think of registering with a fake name. NEVER!

  • Umm, okay (Score:4, Insightful)

    by man_ls (248470) <jkoebel.gmail@com> on Thursday December 07 2006, @05:10PM (#17153378)
    I am not a sex offender, nor do I have inklings that would lead me to become one, but I also don't register my MySpace under my real name simply because I don't want people to be able to search for me.

    It's not going to do any good to prevent people from registering under alternate e-mail addresses and psuedonyms to get on the site.

    The libertarian in me also doesn't believe in sex-offender registries or blacklists such as this one -- the person most likely already went to prison and has a record that will follow them the rest of their life, why not give them a legitimate chance to actually be rehabilitated? Surely the stigmatization of being labeled and tracked the rest of their lives can't help them recover and not re-offend, after all. And if they do it again, well, lock them up for longer or forever.
  • Fake names? (Score:3, Funny)

    by hoggoth (414195) on Thursday December 07 2006, @06:55PM (#17155152) Journal
    When asked what MySpace would do if a sex offender simply signed up with a fake name, the MySpace spokesman paused, blinked a few times, and replied 'these go to eleven.'

  • This is a bit far (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Thursday December 07 2006, @07:17PM (#17155498) Homepage Journal
    If a sex offender ( or any other criminal for that matter ) has served his ( or her ) time, i dont see why he ( or she ) should be restricted from online activites. They already have to register with the state, they already are restricted in where they can go physically, and they have lost several of their rights ( like ever being president or working for the government ) so who cares if they cruse some lame 'community site' to kill off boredom?

    What ever happend to 'serving your time and paying your debt to society for your mistake'. When did that become a life long repayment?
    • Good question. Why don't we ask Borat?
    • Perhaps because these lists don't really differentiate between the two. For all we know all those really bad sex offenders could be in gaol and it's only the "18 year olds that have sex with their 17 year old girlfriends".

      None of that really matters to the linch mob though.
    • Why are these people even out of jail if they are still a threat to soceity?
      Because in our society, once people have served their time they are deemed to have paid for their crimes.
    • by Dipster (830908) on Thursday December 07 2006, @05:14PM (#17153440)
      What worries me is that every time you hear about a new "think-of-the-children" law, the language (at least in the media) always says "sex offender". Not child sex offender, not violent sex offender, just "sex offender".

      Would someone explain to me why a married couple having sex in a public place should be banned from living close to a school? Someone tell me why a person who repeatedly walks home drunk from a bar and stops to urinate in an alley shouldn't be allowed on MySpace. Why does the drunken frat kid who streaked across campus a few times deserve to be labeled a threat to society?

      There is a huge an ever-growing number of "offenses" that gets someone put on sex "offender" lists. The fact that they often get lumped together is pure bullshit.

    • I am not talking about 18 year olds that have sex with their 17 year old girlfriends, I am talking the 30 year olds having sex with 13 year olds, 40 year olds that rape 8 year olds, and so on.

      The main problem with the currently-fashionable "sex offender registries" is that they do not discriminate. As you have shown, we realize there is a continuum: 18 vs. 17 yro statutory cases are at one end, and serial pedophiles are on the other end. But laws like the one just passed here in California this November stamp them all with the big "Pervert" stamp.

      It is ridiculous to make a law saying that a 45 year old man, for instance, who was convicted more than two decades ago of having consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, cannot live within a half-mile of an elementary school. And if that man doesn't re-register EVERY YEAR within one week of his birthday, or within one week of a move, a WARRANT goes out for his arrest, and it's a FELONY!

      No, I'm not a 45 year old sex offender. I just think we need to be a bit more granular. If he's a serial pedophile, lock him in a treatment program. If he had the wrong kind of sex as a teenager 20 years ago, and has paid his restitution to society, let him go. And don't keep hassling him with punitive registries and requirements that weren't even laws when the crime was committed!

      • You joke somewhat but it is sad and true. We let the criminals that harm others back on the street but throw the guy with a dimebag in jail for 10 years.