Omegle Can Be Sued for Matching Child With Sexual Predator, Says Court (theverge.com) 32
Chat service Omegle is on the hook for a lawsuit after its matching system paired an 11-year-old girl with a man who then sexually abused her. A district judge in Portland, Oregon, said the company's system wasn't protected by the legal shield that covers much user-generated content. From a report: The case isn't concluded, but it opens the door to more prosecutions based on how a platform designs its services. The legal complaint, filed late last year, alleges that Omegle's service was defective and falsely represented. It's a common strategy that's often failed in court before, including with Grindr in a harassment case, typically due to the legal protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This time, however, Judge Michael Mosman determined that the lawsuit targeted functions specifically designed by Omegle rather than speech by other users on the platform.
"Matching system" (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't Omegle just pair you with another anonymous stranger completely randomly? Calling it a "matching system" and using phrases like how it was "designed" is a bit of a stretch.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, technically a matching system that uses a random strategy is still a matching system. However, "proving" that a random match was designed to have a specific outcome is something that probably needs people with absolutely no clue about how physical reality works. A jury or a judge would be perfect for that. They will just see that a child was harmed and that "somebody has to pay" and given Omegle as a target they will take it. A few decades later, if Omegle gets that far, this may get eventually turned
Re: (Score:3)
I'd be amazed if it was truly random. The temptation to optimize it for engagement would be too much for any business to resist. I bet it looks at some metrics to make sure people get "good" matches at least once every M minutes, to keep them on the platform.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be amazed if it was truly random. The temptation to optimize it for engagement would be too much for any business to resist. I bet it looks at some metrics to make sure people get "good" matches at least once every M minutes, to keep them on the platform.
I guess we will find out.
Re:"Matching system" (Score:4, Insightful)
The goal is to compel "platforms" to "know their customers". You know, like you can't open a bank account without identification, but now the same for all the filthy internet stuff that you used to use anonymously. If you randomly match a sexual predator with a child, then "I didn't know one was a sexual predator and the other a child" is no excuse. You must know those things. Papers please. Posted "anonymously" from a mandatory Slashdot user account.
Clown world (Score:4, Funny)
What the fuck? Why are children even on Omegle?
BAACK IN MY DAY you'd have to have something physically wrong with your brain to share even your first name on the Internet, as an adult, to other people. You were nothing short of a psychopath if you called them up and talked to them. Now children share live video with strangers? How is that not a crime?
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck? Why are children even on Omegle?
Children are everywhere on the Internet these says, because too many parents do not give a fuck, do not have their children's trust or do not know how to explain these things to children and hence do not even try.
Re: (Score:1)
To be fair, my parents would have beat me silly if they caught me using "the internet" even if it wasn't while obviously in a pervy chat channel with adult strangers, but it's probably also relevant that it's illegal for companies to gather identifying information about children 13 and under, so it does kinda put this 11-year-old in a strange legal position, because how are they supposed to ostensibly prevent this without requiring a credit card and thereby eliminating all other minors too?
Don't get me wron
Re: (Score:2)
> Why are children even on Omegle?
Their parents are too busy posting on Facebook and Slashdot to notice.
Re: (Score:2)
BAACK IN MY DAY you'd have to have something physically wrong with your brain to share even your first name on the Internet,
Back in my day, everybody shared their name and phone number on the internet. It was in the .signature file that was appended to every USENET post.
Many of use even gave directions for random strangers to finger us. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Back in my day, people put their full real name on the internet all the time. It was just how things were done.
I've only been on the internet since I was 16-ish, because it was hard to get on the internet back then. The general public just couldn't.
Yes, I'm over 50 now.
chat roulette will to need add triple zero to pay (Score:2)
chat roulette will to need add triple zero to pay for this.
Hmm (Score:5, Informative)
By using Omegle, you accept the terms at the bottom. You must be 18+ or 13+ with parental permission.
So this is on the parents more than anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider that a signed the reads "You must be 21 years of age to buy alcohol here" wouldnt absolve the cashier or owner when they dont card the 12 year old buying a case of beer.
Re: Hmm (Score:2)
The sign is sufficient if there is no legal requirement for doing age verification, or if the legal risk is on the seller.
At the moment there is little to no legal requirement that the operator of an anonymous random connection service must do age verification.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not enough to just say that only adults can use your service, you have to enforce it too.
If you try to sell booze to an 11 year old the "they said they were 18" defence won't get you very far.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine the legal argument would be that the website operator knew, or should have known, that paedophiles and under-age children were using its platform.
It's also not clear if she pretended to be an adult or if she pretended to be a child of age 13+. If the latter, I expect they will question why an adult was matched to a child.
Won't someone think of the children (Score:3)
Are they going to attack the 'engagement' algorithms of Facebook, 4chan and other social-media services forcing misinformation onto people's eyeballs? If not, this is more "someone think of the children" posturing.
Not Omegle's fault.... (Score:2)
Re: Not Omegle's fault.... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Did the parents provide permission or was it just a check box and a wink wink? Not even as good as a grade school permission slip.
Legal system is broken / Snapchat precedent (Score:3)
I'm anti big tech, but at a certain point you DO have to take an ounce of personal responsibility and common sense.
Re: (Score:2)
You're anti big tech, using several products of big tech (computer, internet, electricity even) to post the comment that you're opposed to big tech...
Re: (Score:2)
It's not bullshit at all.
Society is releasing products to the general population and they need to be designed properly.
Even going back to the Snapchat speed example, I think there was merit to the case being heard. Some thought must be given to how a feature is to be used. For example, in Ontario, Canada we have a toll 407 highway. I use the app and it shows your speed. Guess what it does... it won't show you speeding. It caps it at like 100 (could be 95.. I forget) kph. If you're faster than that, it just