backtop


Print 48 comment(s) - last by Dreifort.. on Feb 6 at 2:19 PM

MySpace and Facebook have been forced to clean house

MySpace has banned 90,000 sexual predators from its social networking web site, and has turned the names over to two different attorneys general offices, company officials recently announced.

The total number of 90,000 is twice as many as MySpace officials believed it had removed in 2008, with North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal leading the charge.

"Almost 100,000 convicted sex offenders mixing with children on MySpace -- shown by our subpoena -- is absolutely appalling and totally unacceptable," Blumenthal said in a statement issued to the press.  "For every one of them, there may be hundreds of others using false names and ages."

MySpace competitor Facebook, which is the No. 1 social networking web site in the world, have a combined 280 million users -- and the U.S. government wants both sites to do a better job of protecting children and teenagers from sexual predators.

Last year, both companies agreed to work with lawmakers to create security standards to help protect young people from online predators, after parents and politicians said the sites weren't doing enough.

"We've been working productively with Attorney General Blumenthal's office for more than three years on these issues," Facebook chief privacy officer Chris Kelly said in a published statement.  "They recently let us know that they are planning to send an updated subpoena."

Now that MySpace is done kicking 90,000 sexual predators off the internet, Facebook is expected to announce how many people it has removed sometime in the near future.

After the KIDS Act of 2007 was signed into law in 2008, all registered sex offenders must now submit real e-mail and instant messaging account information to the national sex offender registry.  This is done so sites such as MySpace and Facebook are able to better track sexual offenders.

It's unknown how many registered sex offenders use social networking web sites with false identities, so this ultimately is just the tip of the iceberg.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By tastyratz on 2/4/2009 8:19:32 AM , Rating: 5
Here's the thing though,
There are people who commit heinous crimes against society. When they aren't sexual in nature they do their time and pay for their mistakes. People who commit any kind of crime are going to be more prime candidates to commit the same crime again. Why is it only sexually based crimes are the ones that essentially come with life on parole?

When people hear sex offenders they think someone who went hog wild (in a literal sense) on a school bus.

There are people who roam the streets after killing someone in cold blood, and there are people who got drunk and grabbed some girls ass at a frat party... Yet person 2 essentially has their life ruined because they registered as a sex offender.

I am in support of segregation as well as removing certain liberties for people who deserve it, but until the system is tiered I don't think its fair to just lump everyone together.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By mdogs444 on 2/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By omnicronx on 2/4/2009 8:38:22 AM , Rating: 2
I also think he is missing the point here.. Its unfortunate, but social networking sites like myspace have become a breeding ground for sexual predators. If former murderers started using myspace to stalk their prey, then you would be seeing them banned too.. Its not like there is a double standard here.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By tastyratz on 2/4/2009 9:02:01 AM , Rating: 5
No,
Social networking sites are just the latest medium. Before they were here sexual predators had to do it the "old fashioned way" by going to bars and concerts to meet people.
Children are easily manipulated and approached digitally but this isn't only about people with a history of child based offenses.

For adults its even safer because it allows you to almost screen out people before you even get involved.

I am not disagreeeing that we should have certain degrees of protection from certain individuals - I simply demand a greater granularity from the legal system for fairness to all.


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By Dreifort on 2/6/2009 2:19:37 PM , Rating: 2
If anyone doesn't know this, the trend for "filtering" MySpace users was only enacted once Fox Corp purchased MySpace.

One of the new ownerships first acts was to filter and ban hate groups. The first group closed/cancled was a pro-gay group (damn it!, used that stupid word again...here comes the hate crime police). They were promoting anti-gay hate speech, so the group account was closed. A lawsuit followed shortly afterward.

And yes, the crackdown on inappropriate material is across the board, not limited to certain groups or individuals.

http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_251.html


RE: Hm, not to fond of this...
By tastyratz on 2/4/2009 8:48:53 AM , Rating: 4
On that same plane why stop there? Why not give every crime the death penalty or life in prison?
Why not ban murderers from myspace in case they go there to kill again? What about theives in case they want to find someone with something to steal? drunk and disorderlies? perjurers? Where is the line drawn?

People deserve justice - and I am probably thinking on a similar level to you when I say an "eye for an eye" system is closer to justice than what we have now... but every crime is unique and should be treated as such. When you start infringing on the civil liberties of others in such a broad manner it's not likely to stop there. Without any form of restrictions and discrimination these kinds of things can be playing with fire for EVERYONE'S liberties.
These are not punishments deemed by a jury of someones peers, they are government restrictions. Call me Orwellian if you will but I take a cautious side first.


By psychobriggsy on 2/4/2009 10:00:26 AM , Rating: 5
Apparently sex offenders have the lowest rates of recidivism compared to other crimes.

Basically, the people that do get tagged for life, are those most likely to never commit the same offence again. The thief and the drunk driver are far more likely to recommit yet they aren't on a register.

The real problem is that people are tagged as sex offenders for taking a whizz in public and getting caught, or for having sex with their 1 year younger girlfriend when they're 17, and so on.

When the labelling is abused so much the really dangerous people remaining are just 1 in 100,000, not 1 in 10,000, and thus far harder to keep tags on.


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki