backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 44 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Sep 28 at 2:45 AM
Facebook subpoenaed over allegations of solicitation of minors on the Facebook site

Facebook, the popular social networking site for teens and college students, was subpoenaed by New York Attorney Andrew Cuomo on Monday. Facebook is the target of an investigation into allegations of solicitation of minors by sexual predators on the site.

This subpoena comes after Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced they were leading investigations into the site. Cuomo issued subpoenas to Facebook seeking complaints received by Facebook on solicitations of underage users and inappropriate content on the site.

USA Today quotes Cuomo as saying, “My office is concerned that Facebook's promise of a safe website is not consistent with its performance in policing its site and responding to complaints, Parents have a right to know what their children will encounter on a website that is aggressively marketed as safe."

Cuomo told USA Today that over the last month undercover agents posing as underage users were solicited by adult sexual predators and users were easily able access adult videos and images. Facebooks biggest rival, MySpace, had similar problems with sexual predators using the website to solicit minors. Cuomo says investigators contacted Facebook posing as parents of underage children, who were solicited by adults on the site.

The complaints were often ignored, but in a few instances Facebook did remove inappropriate content. This isn't the first time Facebook has faced legal troubles, Facebook was in court to defend itself against allegations that Facebook founders stole the idea for the site from a previous venture they were involved in.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
stupid
By mdogs444 on 9/26/2007 6:47:05 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe parents should get more involved in what their children are doing on the internet, instead of expecting everyone else to "babysit" their kids.

Instead of spending their time going after facebook, perhaps they should purchase a firewall program and spend their time blocking websites that they dont want their kids going on.




RE: stupid
By MADAOO7 on 9/26/2007 6:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
amen


RE: stupid
By SavagePotato on 9/26/2007 6:57:49 PM , Rating: 3
Firewall software blows.

Actually my DGL-4300 has web filtering controls built right into it. As do many routers. It's easy to use and effective.

Problem is the kids know more than they do so that kills the whole concept.


RE: stupid
By Adonlude on 9/26/2007 7:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Problem is the kids know more than they do so that kills the whole concept.


This is true for now with the pre-internet/computer generation parenting the internet/computer generations. I expect this to change though. When I have kids I doubt they will be to advanced for me seeing as I am from the internet generation,


RE: stupid
By TomZ on 9/26/2007 7:55:37 PM , Rating: 3
LOL, you're probably in for a surprise. You see, when you're younger than thirty, you don't seem to realize that as you get older your brain and body both slow down. And at the same time if you have kids, their brains are going like crazy. In addition, they are exposed to even more technology at a young age then their parents. So it's pretty easy to see why the parents get passed on by.

I know you don't believe me, but trust me, it happens.

My 4-year old son was quite proficient at searching for train pictures using google images, saving them, printing them, etc. It was easy for him. And him and his sister (now 5) can figure out how to work their computer games much faster than my wife and I - and I'm a total computer geek.


RE: stupid
By cochy on 9/27/2007 12:48:01 AM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry your brain has slowed down =)


RE: stupid
By theapparition on 9/27/2007 11:55:32 AM , Rating: 2
.......and that your a computer geek :P


RE: stupid
By TomZ on 9/27/2007 6:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
You guys are hilarious ... ha ha! :o)


RE: stupid
By Quiescent on 9/26/2007 6:59:08 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. Except I feel sorry for those who do not need protection because they are not ignorant enough to fall for any traps. I am glad my parents never did anything about whatever website I go to. But then again, it would be more like an invasion of my space since they never bought any computers I've built or owned.

The sad thing is that perhaps 95% of everyone my age or my age at the time I've known them really did need some protection by their parents because they didn't have much common sense and they didn't learn from other people's mistakes.

I really think that it would be costly, money wise, to patrol a site that millions of people are signed up to and check for this kind of stuff. What really needs to happen is that their parents need to talk to them about how much information they shouldn't give out. No sport team you are with. Nobody that isn't in your network. Restrict some from networks that are for the entire city they live in. No full last name. I put mine up as just the first letter of my last name. No address, no zip code. Nothing. Just the shear basics. Do not even tell your school's name. I could have sworn this was common sense to know these things to not talk about, but I guess not everybody knows.


RE: stupid
By mindless1 on 9/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: stupid
By mdogs444 on 9/26/2007 7:39:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe you should stop trying to blame parents for what a 3rd party is doing. Everyone else really would have to babysit, because a teen or college student's access to the internet is not limited only to the computer in mom & dad's living room, you can get online practically anywhere so unless you are suggesting the child be chained up in the basement, your idea about parental monitoring being enough is exactly how the problem occurs.


For one, no one is making anyone go on that website. It is a personal choice to subscribe to it. Secondly, a college student should not need babysitting at all - if they do, perhaps the parents didn't do their job somewhere along the lines. And I never said monitoring the internet at home was enough, its just a start.

quote:
As for blocking the internet, I imagine you are feeling it is ok for parents to censor but is it really any different than a whole country banning all it's citizens from certain 'sites, and further, it is really enough to just ban facebook as if kids looking for social interaction online wouldn't just find 'site after 'site to do so?


Im not referring to blocking the entire internet, but it is feasible to block certain websites that provide content that you do not feel is ok for your childrent to be using/viewing. Thats part of being a parent - deciding what is best for your child, and determining what they can and cannot do. Your "censoring all of the country" statement is ridiculous. The government is not responsibile for babysitting or raising your child. It is the parents right and duty to censor what they believe is or is not appropriate for their child. Thats basic parenting. Its refers to internet, television, books, magazines, etc - as well as many other things like activies, who your child hangs out with, etc. And you are right, just blocking facebook wouldnt be enough - but parenting is not about taking preventative measures today, and then turning your back for the remainder of time. It is a constant uphill battle.

quote:
Trying to simply shut out the world from your child will just encourage them to be more secretive.


I dont believe that monitoring your childs internet activity or extra curricular activities are shutting your child out from the world. There are times during their childhood when they need to be shut out and monitored from many things, and as they get older and wiser, they start to get more freedoms as the parents feel more comfortable with the childs ability to make the correct decisions. Im not an expert as to what all to block out, and when a certain amount is too much, so please dont take me the wrong way.

But monitoring your childs internet activity, especially with the amount of crazies out there, is a step in the right direction, and not a bad idea.


RE: stupid
By TomZ on 9/26/2007 7:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
As I said in another post, you are being very naive.

1. What parent is going to be able to monitor their teen son/daughter 100% of the time? None.

2. What teen is going to listen to their parent 100% of the time? None.

The level of parenting that you describe is impossible and unrealistic.

You say it is not the government's responsibility to babysit children, and I agree. But it absolutely is the government's responsibility to protect children from sexual predators. And that is what they are doing.

Why do you feel that Facebook somehow gets a free pass because of parental responsibility? If Facebook is doing something to facilitate crime, or not enough to try to prevent it, then it is very reasonable for AG's to look into it.

And on the other side of the coin, what possibly could come out of it that is negative? Unless you are a sexual predator that gets shut out of Facebook, it seems like all possible outcomes are positive ones.


RE: stupid
By mdogs444 on 9/26/2007 7:51:52 PM , Rating: 2
I am absolutely not defending facebook at all - please read my posts on another thread below.

I think they need better verification processes - for example needing a credit card to verify who you really are, and keep that on record. And if you do not have a credit card or are under 18, then need a parent or legal guardians consent to be on the site. The parents may not be able to monitor everything you are doing, but at least they will be aware that this is something you go on and can advise you about its dangers.

I also agree about the govt's responsibility to protect us, and that is what they are doing.

Im not saying every parent out there does a bad job, or that they can monitor 100% of the time. But lets face it, there are parents out there who are not responsible and do expect other people to be responsible for their kids. Lets also face the fact that alot of parents have the ability to do more, and dont.

Its a very hard and touchy subject, with no definitive answers, but im just voicing an opinion here. Im not saying anyone else is wrong, and there is no way to prove that im wrong or right.


RE: stupid
By TomZ on 9/26/2007 8:00:32 PM , Rating: 3
I agree, I would like to see a better age verification system in place, because nearly every site that has a system for that is really just the honor system. And obviously predators have no problem lying.

The issue seems to be that web sites don't want to put in "real" age verification systems because it will invariably reduce their traffic. So for them the calculus is to create the perception of security without actually inconveniencing users enough to discourage them from using the site. And that is shady, if you ask me. But all the sites do that.


RE: stupid
By bhieb on 9/26/2007 9:53:39 PM , Rating: 2
Wholly crap I agree 100% with Tom (must be getting late)! However...
quote:
But it absolutely is the government's responsibility to protect

WHAT not 24 hours ago you were arguing that the cops had no right arresting some chick with a (albeit a fairly poor) mock bomb at the airport. Make up your mind are they hear to protect us or not?

- by the way Just kidding no need to open that can again


RE: stupid
By TomZ on 9/26/2007 10:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
I never said the police didn't have a duty to find out what the situation was with her "bomb art." My criticism was their reaction after they found out they wrongly thought it was a bomb...they when into CYA mode.


RE: stupid
By IGoodwin on 9/26/2007 7:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
mdogs, your posts on other topics, specifically being in your twenties and the ability to aford designer jeans, leads me to believe that you don't actually have children, and, if you do they are not close to using the internet.

There is never a simple answer when it comes to children and good parents have to perform a fine juggling act with allowing a teen to grow into an adult by gradually reducing control, and the other extreem of instigating 'big brother' tactics to keep them from harm.

Children are very adept at finding limits and, as soon as you set one, they find the next one to challenge.

It will be interesting to see if your opinion changes when you do have teenagers. I have yet to get even close to finding the right answer to some problems; although, I used to think there were simplere answers.


RE: stupid
By mdogs444 on 9/26/2007 7:29:59 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, I am in my 20's (27), and do not have childrens. What i choose to purchse with my money, and how much money i make would have nothing to do with being a responsible parent and raising children - if i was a parent.

But on the flip side, I do have a younger sister, 3 goddaughers/nieces ranging in age from 3-11, and work for a non profit childrens hospital where protecting young children is one of our top priorities.

A child under the age of 18 is the responsibility of their parent(s), as well as the responsibility of the city schools during the day. When a child turns 18, they are liable for their own actions, but it is still the unconditional love that parents show which helps guide the young adult even further.

With that being said, it is up to the parent to raise the child and teach them the rights and wrongs of the world, and provide guidance into making the right decisions. I agree that you cannot turn the child into a hermit, and no one is saying that. No one says you have to block the entire internet from your children either. But filtering these types of websites is definately a step in the right direction until the parent fully believes the child knows what is right and wrong when posed with a certain circumstance.

There are numerous circumstances out there of child endangerment with the increasing amount of crazy people out there. But none the less, parents do need to step up and take responsibility for not only their actions, but the actions of their child. They are the leaders of the household, the providers and teachers, and the role models and inspirations of children.

I firmly believe that placing blame on a website for not protecting your child when you weren't looking is a definate cop out of responsibility.


RE: stupid
By TomZ on 9/26/2007 7:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
You're oversimplifying the situation and ignoring the realities. Please read my post below.