Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[t'Sade]

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71948-0.html?tw=wn_index_1

Okay, this is an interesting little topic. A guy wrote a program that scraped text from MySpace and looked for registered sex offenders. They are planning on releasing the source code for it later, so anyone can do their own scanning. This bothers me in a couple ways. The first is that it will let anyone do it, even in the article, he mentioned there were a tons of false positives. You know that the people who use it may not be as diligent as him at comparing photos, addresses, and the like. The second is that if you tell people how you are tracking them down, then they'll get smarter. I mean, some will actually realize what is happening and actually adjust it so they don't show up on the records, but people will keep using the program to make sure their MySpace is clean.

I disagree that parents can't be trusted. I think parents should be encouraged to help their children avoid these things. Society as a whole is great, but I'm really not fond of Big Brother when it comes to this. MySpace could be proactive about it, but if they turn around and say "we are scanning for child predators" and the first multiple offender does something, they get sued. Plus, it doesn't catch the first time offenders who lure someone away.

The problem is education, I think. Teaching children not to meet people online, or to realize that people are honestly not who they claim they are online. Having someone automatically scan the database just gives a false sense of security, or making it public sets it up so people might be encouraged to have their own little vendettas, going on as little "evidence" as a program says they are a sex offender.

Plus, not everyone knows the different levels of "sex offender" out there. As I mentioned before, in at least one state, you can be registered as a sex offender without evidence! Or you might be just a parent who happens to be an offender who wants to keep track of their children? Or, you could be a bastard who should have their innards removed because you want to rape someone. You don't know and a simple profile or account on a system will never tell you the truth.

I think it is easier to teach children the do's and don't and maybe get society to teach them just as well as the parent. We now how to handle a lot of credit card issues, we don't let them out of our sight. We teach our children not to answer the door when they are home alone, not to take candy from strangers. Why can't we teach them not to meet people they meet online, except in situations they control?

I don't meet people online. Okay, I have, but I just don't like risking it. Why? I got hurt in the past when my online life interacted with my physical life. So, I just say keep them separate. Separation of personal and Internet. I think that is a good approach. Yeah, I roleplay with people, I do lots of nasty things, but I have no interest in doing them in real life. I might be rather plain and simple in my life, but even as a teen, I didn't want to meet people I encountered online. And the ones I did, well, I was lucky.

On the other hand, people do make friends in person that they were online. It is possible to have a good relationship with someone and it can turn into something more serious. So, what do you do? You be wary and set it up in safe places. For teens, having parents involved isn't that bad, but there is so much conflict going on that it isn't always possible. So, teach them how to do it. Going with friends, honoring their opinions, meeting in public open places. Not going for just sex (always a good one). There are ways of helping a child learn to avoid making the same mistakes, but there will always be a point where they are going to do something stupid. All we can do is hope that they don't get too hurt when it happens.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/teen-questioned-over-bush-threats-on/20061014060009990001

Just another article dealing with MySpace and looking for people. In this case, it was just a bunch of agents yelling at a girl because she was frustrated. I really hope she does encourage people ot pull out of Iraq, we do not belong there.

[t'Sade]

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/05/26/myspace-falsely-labeled-a-woman-as-sex-offender/

A case where the automated scanning of MySpace incorrectly identified a woman as a sexual predator. One of the interesting bits is as part of the removal process, they report her information to state governments as a found predator. So, how do you handle false reporting of predators? Obviously, her initial attempts haven't worked and she felt that she needed to go to the press to prove that she wasn't a predator.

[KK]

This is both sad and worrying.

I don't think it is ANY private company's business to check ANY database for ANY kind of offenders.

Of course, it is their right (and depending how you interpret the law even their duty) to check content and remove inappropriate content, like pedophile pictures etc. Naturally they are allowed to control what's on their hard-drives and is publicly accessible for violation of the service contracts.

But cross-referencing names to figure out if someone is a sex offender (or any other kind of offender) is not their business. It seems they are putting themselves in the roles of both state attorney and judge. And apparently they don't apply the idea of innocent until proven guilty.

[t'Sade]

We basically vilified the sex offender so much, I don't think there is a concept of innocent until proven guilty. Like the article I posted where you can ask a judge to enroll someone in the sex offender list, even if they aren't found guilty, because of the idea "no smoke without fire". There no innoence about that.

I was talking to a teacher friend recently who mentioned that one of his coworkers was put on leave because a girl he failed claimed he touched her inappropriately. No matter what happens, and how can he prove he didn't over her claim he did, it will show up on his employment record and hang over his head. My friend talked about how he almost had to quit because he refused to have a classroom where no other teacher would be close, just in case someone claimed they did that.

[KK]

Yes, this is very worrying. It's our warped perception and it's actually making the world more DANGEROUS for children.

I have hear a couple of stories from police officers with a similar tone:

Children were accidently being separated from their parents or just got lost in malls or other public places, but noone was going to help the crying children. When someone eventually called the police, the officers were asking bystanders why noone helped the children and the typical response beyond not wanting to be involved was something like "not wanting to be seen close to the child because other people might find it suspicious".

Essentially, we've already created a "witchhunt aura". If people do something, anything, and they feel they are a suspect, even if they have the best intentions. They start to think that noone will belive they have good intention and therefore choose not to do anything.

The consequence, obviously, is that the children don't get help (unless someone calls the police) or, perhaps, if noone helps, it increases the chances the wrong people eventually approach them. So the heightened (read: warped) perception is in fact counterproductive.

[t'Sade]

I've seen that here in the States also. Children screaming, but I thought it was the original apathy that most bystanders have when you see something going on. But, I could also see it as "don't want to be seen as a pervert" or worse.