MySpace Gets False Positive In Sex Offender Search 345
gbulmash writes "In its eagerness to clear sex offenders off its site and publish their identities, MySpace identified an innocent woman as a sex offender. She shares a name and birth month with a sex offender who lives in a neighboring state and that was apparently enough to get MySpace to wrongly brand her and completely ignore her protests."
IANAL (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be nice to be able to read the article : )
As someone said in another post, myspace is SOOO 2004 so the whole thing is, if not boring, inane.
The Question is... (Score:4, Interesting)
MySpace is not a public monopoly who is required to serve everybody equally in return for that monopoly status. Some people think that a Driver's License is their Constitutional right. It isn't. And while it hurts MySpace to deny users when they want to control this entire space themselves, how much federal law can apply to a private venture trying to make a profit? At what point are you pwned by said federal government?
It's all irrelevant... (Score:3, Interesting)
Regardless, if a boogie man wants to sign up for myspace and go about doing some e-Stalking, this exercise in "security" theater won't stop them. I suspect myspace even probably knows this and is just going through the measures to shut the states AG's up.
Re:Can we quit with the whole sex offender thing n (Score:3, Interesting)
Murder a few people, go to jail, come out, you're fine. You've done your time.
Why are sex offenses so much worse than murder? What about assault? Why is it just sex that's so horrifying?
Re:It's a good thing, then... (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact is, they did a very lousy job of cross referencing their sex offender DB and got a bad match. The fact is that a real search would actually result in a true positive.
NOW, what this does demonstrate is the lack of effort being put forth by MySpace in their "efforts" to identify sex offenders. This false positive really demonstrates that they are not doing a lot to really validate their lists. Along with the point of the GGP post where they state it is a simple matter for a registered sex offender to use false information on their MySpace registration.
RonB
Re:It's a good thing, then... (Score:3, Interesting)
All MySpace has to work is the information that the government releases for known sexoffenders, which is usually name, dob, sometimes height/weight and hair and eye color and sometimes current addresses. Does slashdot go through all its useres and call use up or physically ID us to make sure we aren't sex offenders? Nope. Why should MySpace? Both groups seem to have a large portion of kids posting to them.
Re:It's a good thing, then... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Sex Offender" can really mean many things. Of course, rapists and child molesters come to mind. However, I have a friend who was in his early 20s, met a girl who claimed she was 18, had her stay with him a few nights, and the next thing he knew the police came knocking at his door.... she was 16, and a friend of hers told her parents where she was.
Eventually they pleaded the case down and he did not end up having to register as a sex offender, but it was clearly possible. I need to check, but I have heard that public exposure can lead to a sex crime conviction... shit... who doesn't know someone who got drunk some night and took a piss in a park or alley way at 3 am? Does a person really deserve to be on a sex offender list for taking a piss against natures original urinal?
I mean there are some truly heinous sex crimes, and some really scary people. However, theres also some really pretty innocuous stuff too. I am not sure I can support lumping them all together.
Re:It's a good thing, then... (Score:3, Interesting)
Google acts impartially, not claiming to be censoring or classifying sex offender information. As such, they bear no responsibility for that content. The responsibility belongs to the people writing and publishing it.
I bash Fox news and news corp at every opportunity because they deserve it. They went to court and argued that they have no responsibility to not intentionally lie to viewers, which is true, but it also makes them deserving of that fact being pointed out every time they claim to be news or for every situation where the question of whether or not they should be trusted is raised. Most people are not aware that Fox does not publish news, but simply whatever they want people to think (propaganda). Any enterprise they run is deserving of intense scrutiny.
Aside from that, however, I was just pointing out their unethical behavior in this instance, as documented by the article. If they act unethically, why should any of us trust them or invest our time in their enterprise instead of elsewhere?
Re:Can we quit with the whole sex offender thing n (Score:5, Interesting)
However, this leads to a catch-22 for those people who are accused, but are innocent. I know of one case (boarder of a mother of a friend), a middle-aged woman, who absolutely insists she is innocent and attributes her troubles to a very nasty ex-husband in a divorce case. She refused treatment on the basis that she was innocent, so not only did she refuse treatment, she showed no remorse. This double whammy shoved her into Level Three, where she not only has to register, but her mug shot is on the county web site for all to see.
Now, I have no idea whether she is "really" innocent. MOST ALL criminals are innocent if you ask them about it. But let's say she WAS innocent. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. It's like Kafka's "The Trial."
Re:It's a good thing, then... (Score:5, Interesting)
I work at a prison. It's really showed me how pointless prison is, and how punishments for a lot of things are just too harsh. Capital crimes might get you 20 years, but having an ounce of weed could get you 15. It's completely out of whack.
But the sex offenders "list" goes way beyond serving your sentence. It's like a damned scarlet letter. And let's be realistic: not even a sex offender thinks they'll be caught, so what is some list going to stop someone that intends to re-offend?
What do these lists do besides further punish people that served their sentences in full?
There's got to be a better way.. I say put bracelets on their ankles for 10 years, if you're that worried about it. At least it's not a big sign over your head.
Re:It's a good thing, then... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, it depends on exactly what Myspace tells the person when they delete their profile. If Myspace states that they are removing their account because they are a sex offender, then the person might be able to sue for Libel.
There was a case one time where someone was fired because their employer thought that they were guilty of stealing. So, anyway, when they went to interview for other jobs, they were asked why they left the previous company. They said it was because they were accused of stealing. Then, they went back and sued their former employer. They won, despite the fact that their employer never directly told other people. The court felt that they should not have to lie to the people they interview with.
So, let's say that you were some kind of marketing company with a myspace profile that had 10 million friends on it. Now say that Myspace comes along and deletes your profile, and they say that they did it because you were a sex offender. If your 10 million friends ask you why Myspace deltes your profile, and you tell them, then I would think you would have a (perhaps weak) case against them based on the similarity to the above situation.
Re:Can we quit with the whole sex offender thing n (Score:3, Interesting)
I googled "sex offender registry inclusion requirements site:.gov" and found and example pretty quickly -- the below is from the State of Michigan's FAQ on sex offender registries.
(from http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1589_187So it would seem that if you're caught "indecently exposed" while, say, doing a striptease at a party, and it happens more than once -- you're a sex offender. If you're "indecently exposed" three times, regardless of context -- you're a sex offender.
Also, if you get a Disorderly Person conviction three times -- yep, you're a sex offender.
Re-goddamn-diculous.
Re:It's a good thing, then... (Score:1, Interesting)
Perhaps you should take a look at this.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/hot-topics/112514/fat
pedophiles are sick individuals, however from this article it appears you could do the adult verification check for an adult site and your name and credit card details would be stored in the same db as pedophiles wanting access to child porn sites.
It would seem that some people have been falsely accused and had their lives ruined, if not ended, operation ore has resulted in at least 36 suicides in the UK alone. Being accused of being a pedophile falsely has to rank as one of the worst things that could happen to someone, that stigma sticks even if the accusations are found to be baseless.
Insufficient evidence to gain a conviction doesn't necessarily mean everyone believes your innocent.
People get googled by prospective employers all the time and its on record now that woman was kicked from my space as a suspected pedophile, How many will pass her over now just in case, playing it safe if there are 99 or 9 other equally qualified candidates as an employer why risk it.
Going to Post anonymously because i don't want to be seen as having any sympathy with pedophiles. Sorry I am not going to get dragged into this witch hunt.
Issues (Score:3, Interesting)
Q: Should sex offenders continue to be punished after they have served there sentences?
A: Probably not. It doesn't help them adjust to society and may cause more harm than good. If they are dangerous, then just keep them in jail. Companies should not encourage bad behavior.
Q: Can Web site owners accurately determine who is a sex offender?
A: If the sex offender gave accurate information when signing up, then probably most of the time. Otherwise these private policing policies are just marketing hype.
Q: Aren't Sex offenders too dangerous to be taken lightly?
A: It's all about FUD and marketing. There is no one standard definition of sex offender, and laws differ within states and countries. The peeing-in-the-park sex offender is but one example. I'm sure there are people who would like Bill Clinton labeled as a sex offender.
Q: Can't private sites do what they want?
A: Pretty much. I (and other's here) are just pointing out how stupid these large companies can be. It's another example of (apparently) uneducated business people and politicians taking a rather complicated social issue and offering simple-minded solutions.
Q: So what can be done?
A: Stay smart and keep educated, and pass this knowledge onto your children. If you can't rely on yourself, then don't expect easy solutions from other people.