Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Social Networks Your Rights Online

Chatroulette To Log IP Addresses, Take Screenshots 194

littlekorea writes "Chatroulette, the strangely addictive online game in which users are connected via webcam and microphone to random strangers at the click of a button, has had enough of users exposing themselves to the unsuspecting public, among other disgraces. The founder of Chatroulette has announced the company has hired developers to collect IP addresses and take screenshots of those users breaking the rules."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chatroulette To Log IP Addresses, Take Screenshots

Comments Filter:
  • Chatroulette, the strangely addictive online game ...

    So you're strangely addicted to staring at male genetalia [slashdot.org]? I think we all just learned a little something about littlekorea.

    That is by far the most positive review of that web site I have ever encountered. Personally I've used the service precisely once. Discovering what happened during that usage is left as an exercise to the reader.

    The founder of Chatroulette has announced the company has hired developers to collect IP addresses and take screenshots of those users breaking the rules.

    And then what? Actually it sounds like they have already done this:

    "We've captured and saved thousands of IP addresses of alleged offenders, along with logs and screenshots which prove wrong behaviour.

    "We are initiating a conversation with enforcement agencies and we are willing to provide all the information we have."

    Are they going to press charges? Do you think that site created by a lone developer has the legal resources to do that against that many offenders? Do you really think any law enforcement agency has the resources to investigate thousands of complaints with little more than a screenshot of someone's junk and their IP address? It's the internet. Your effort is futile. What ever happened to the recognition software? Has that already fallen through? Too many false positives? Light problems?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 27, 2010 @09:53AM (#33044044)

    Do you really think any law enforcement agency has the resources to investigate thousands of complaints with little more than a screenshot of someone's junk and their IP address?

    Maybe if the IP address resolved to Whitehouse.gov. Don't you miss Bill Clinton?

    Number of my countrymen to be killed or wounded while Clinton nailed a fat secretary: 0. Number of my countrymen to be killed or wounded from the two wars started and unfinished during Bush's administration: 5,589 [washingtonpost.com] and rising.

    And which one did we try to impeach? Yeah, I kinda do miss Clinton.

  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Tuesday July 27, 2010 @09:58AM (#33044130)
    Maybe if there were a lot *less* guys flashing their dicks, there would be a lot *more* women on the service.
  • by clone53421 ( 1310749 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2010 @10:00AM (#33044160) Journal

    No, unless it is. For instance, if you’re displaying yourself to a child... and you’d probably have to be doing so knowingly, or at least without having taken any basic sort of steps to ensure that the person you’re talking to is over 18 (if they claim to be, that’s probably good enough unless it’s pretty obvious that they aren’t).

  • by ZeroExistenZ ( 721849 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2010 @10:00AM (#33044162)

    So you're strangely addicted to staring at male genetalia

    No, it's serendipity, not knowing what (experience) you'll get next, it might be something way out of your frame of reference, which gives a sense of something possibly entirely new by the click of a button.

    While for others it's a way to express themselves creatively, experiment and test the boundaries in a social setting without negative consequences.

    You were quasi annonymous, you could reinvent yourself over while knowing your chatpartner wont see or meet you again if you don't want to, while testing how to entertain, shock or interact with people.

    It's just normal that such a platform brings out also sexual fantasies and desires in people, but there's a whole lot more to such a platform imho.

    fe. see the piano dude [youtube.com], as there are many more of these type of people.

  • by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2010 @10:00AM (#33044176) Homepage
    Wow, the law of unintended consequences sure bit them hard? I mean, who would have guessed that combining anonymity with video cameras resulted in distasteful or illegal images? You would have had to be Al Gore to see that one coming. No ordinary person would have predicted this outcome.
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2010 @10:05AM (#33044242)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Re:pr0n (Score:4, Insightful)

    by clone53421 ( 1310749 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2010 @10:06AM (#33044268) Journal

    As long as they send it straight to the feds they’re just gathering evidence.

  • by clone53421 ( 1310749 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2010 @10:12AM (#33044350) Journal

    What did Chatroulette think was going to happen when they thought diving into the realms of social networking and adding the element of live video feed of everyone who is on there to anyone wanting to look? It's, of course, easier for an exposer or behaviorally creepy basement dweller to crawl out of their cave online than it is in public.

    Throw in the whole concept of being anonymous and you have a service that is inevitably doomed for exactly what they’ve become.

    ...but enough of the social network rant. I'm glad to see Chatroulette policing up their mess and trying to enforce some sort of civil 'net etiquette

    Utterly futile. As DNS-and-BIND sarcastically pointed out, internet anonymity combined with video cameras is a recipe for ... this. Chatroulette is not simply flawed; it is fatally flawed. It cannot be anything but what it is.

    The only way that they could even attempt to stop the crapflood is by having a large moderator group issuing IP and cookie bans immediately to offensive users... and that would be largely ineffective because most of those users probably know how to delete their cookies and reset their IP address or use a proxy while surfing.

  • by Vectormatic ( 1759674 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2010 @10:17AM (#33044426)

    after about a few days of chat-roulette, any person checking it out on the internet would have reasonably expected to see some wang, so by that logic it is now legal to show your wedding-tacle on chat-roulette

  • by Sethumme ( 1313479 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2010 @10:28AM (#33044654)
    Intent to commit an act that is criminalized (whether you recognize that it is or not makes no difference) can be prosecuted if actual steps were taken to complete that act.
    Completing an act that is strictly outlawed by statute is a crime regardless of the intent. The risk is wholly upon the actor if they get too close to the line.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 27, 2010 @10:38AM (#33044786)

    his do nothing stance

    Three words: "Wagging the dog". His stance was forced on him by Republicans who claimed he was trying to drive bad news about him out of the press every time he tried to do something about the Taliban. It IS his fault that he didn't stand up to those craven losers who put their political power plays above American security interests.

  • by cosm ( 1072588 ) <thecosm3NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday July 27, 2010 @10:46AM (#33044882)

    but someone is going to throw the privacy flag up on this one. Let's be real here: it's a bird's eye view directly into A LOT of homes.

    Are you kidding me? Its a bird's eye view into your home if and only if you do not control the happenings in your home. It is not Chat-roulettes responsibility to nanny everybody so that somebody doesn't see the wrong thing and become psychologically damaged. I am not condoning that, I am just saying place responsibility where it belongs. If you go to chat roulette and see some guy doing the naked-dance, well, congratulations, welcome to the internet. If your kids get on your computer and see some guys junk, does that make that guy a sex offender? Or are you responsibility for not securing your computer from accessing 'illicit' sites in the first place, and properly administering your network.

    The internet provides access to the vast majority of mankind's output, be it good, bad, illegal, disturbing, morally reprehensible, strange, intelligent, pointless, or just plain sexual. It is everything. It is information. Content. Everything. It is our modern day 'tree-of-knowledge', exposing you to the good and bad in the world. Some folks can't handle the power of the tree, and decide to monitor, filter, and penalize anything of questionable content.

    So the folks out there who want the guy flopping his junk around sued for [insert frivo suit here], nobody is forcing you to sit down on your computer, browse to chatroulette, and click that damn next button. People who trade personal responsibility for bitching and moaning will have, well, will slowly deteriorate many of the sweet things we enjoy today, all to be traded in for a nanny-net.

  • CP (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lehk228 ( 705449 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2010 @10:49AM (#33044918) Journal
    so they are going to start by collecting what is technically child pornography and do what with it?
  • ... until someone in a country where that doesn't matter launches an identical service and the game starts all over again.
  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2010 @11:22AM (#33045496)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by bickerdyke ( 670000 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2010 @12:47PM (#33046984)

    I foolish I was to have thought otherwise.

  • by GreatBunzinni ( 642500 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2010 @12:49PM (#33047010)

    I'm not an american nor I ever set foot on US soil but from where I'm standing, a treacherous attack on a docked frigate doesn't negate the legacy of a president which not only managed to get the country's accounting in order but also generated a surplus in the state's budget. Speaking from a country which contracted massive dept and which has to live with a deficit that comes close to 10%, I have to say that a presidency like that sounds pretty good in my book.

This file will self-destruct in five minutes.

Working...