backtop


Print 100 comment(s) - last by BruceLeet.. on Apr 9 at 1:56 AM


Police are turning to Myspace and Facebook to catch kids in criminal acts.  (Source: Fox Searchlight Pictures)
Criminals are increasingly taking their disputes and activities online, leaving a brazen trail of evidence in many cases

Criminals are increasingly using Facebook and MySpace to carry out disputes, commit crimes, and brag of their criminal endeavors.  Police are discovering that many young criminals are woefully unaware that the comments or material they post online might come back to haunt them.

Against student objections, officers on college campuses are increasingly patrolling Facebook and MySpace seeking out clues.  Describes Officer Freddie Rappina, who is based at Robinson Secondary School in Fairfax County, "I can't tell you how many fights we've been able to prevent [using social networks]."

As an officer at the second largest school in Virginia, Officer Rappina keeps tabs on trouble within the student body of 4,000 kids via his computer.  He describes, "Let's say two kids are having a spat online.  I can take them in here and talk to them."

He's also been able to track down runaways using information that the students send their friends on Facebook.

The irony of the success he has experienced is that he enjoys no special privileges on Facebook or MySpace, just like other cops.  Barring an active investigation, cops can't view private information on social networks -- they only can see details that people make public.  However, the default settings of social networks expose a wealth of information, which most young users fail to conceal.  Facebook leaves information like photos and discussions open to many internet users, while MySpace’s default settings expose your information to anyone with an internet connection.

The trend of online scouting started with employers and college admissions counselors who began to turn to Facebook, MySpace, and blog sites to scout potential employees or future students. Catching on to this tool, police officers are catching young criminals in confessions of using  drugs, underage sex, and fights.  Loudoun County Sheriff Stephen O. Simpson states, "It's crazy, the things they put on there.  They seem to think they're invisible."

Some, however, take issue with proactive online patrolling by police.  Sarah Steinberg, 18, a senior at Robinson Secondary, explains, "I think it's an invasion of the student's privacy.  It's outside of school, and I just don't think it should be part of the school's job to do that."

Her mother, Judy Ottosen, agrees, stating, "I believe it's a parent's job."

However, police disagree, noting it’s often necessary to pick up the slack for failed parenting.  States Officer Joe Lowery, who is based at James Hubert Blake High School in Silver Spring, "Three or four years ago, 20 percent of kids (had Facebook/MySpace profiles).  Now if you ask, they almost all raise their hand.  You get some kids who are gang-involved.  A lot of these kids put it right on their Facebook or their MySpace. And you go to their site and they've got their colors up, they've got their pledges on there, sometimes they're even holding weapons. It can be very disturbing."

Last year, Lowery solved the armed robbery of two Blake students, by matching the description provided by students to images of a suspect on their MySpace pages.  Fairfax County Police similarly were able to nab seven Chantilly area teenagers allegedly trying to recruit Franklin Middle School students to a gang by looking at the students MySpace profiles.

Some kids, however, are supporting the online police patrols.  LeighAnne Baxter, 17, a senior at Robinson, adds, "I think that we all know that [they] can look at our Facebooks, and they do.  If you do put up incriminating pictures, you have to be prepared for the consequences."



Comments     Threshold


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

heh
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/6/2009 12:37:26 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Her mother, Judy Ottosen, agrees, stating, "I believe it's a parent's job."

However, police disagree, noting it’s often necessary to pick up the slack for failed parenting.


It does seem that parents are taking more of a backseat approach to parenting these days. They all want to be their kids' "friend" instead of being a parent.




RE: heh
By Mojo the Monkey on 4/6/2009 12:42:04 PM , Rating: 5
I will only be friends with my kid after he waxes my car.


RE: heh
By FITCamaro on 4/6/2009 12:44:30 PM , Rating: 5
My parents were my friend after I moved out.


RE: heh
By dare2savefreedom on 4/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: heh
By FITCamaro on 4/6/2009 2:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
Haha. Luckily that idiot has mostly disappeared.


RE: heh
By FITCamaro on 4/6/2009 2:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
Why did people rate him down?


RE: heh
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/6/2009 2:49:35 PM , Rating: 5
Ditto. I was accepted on my parents level once I moved out and got my own place. Until then, it was their house, their rules, don't like it, there's the door.


RE: heh
By Ytsejamer1 on 4/6/2009 3:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yup...same here. That's the way it should be.


RE: heh
By rdeegvainl on 4/6/2009 5:40:08 PM , Rating: 5
I tried the door option once.... didn't work out so well


RE: heh
By HaB1971 on 4/6/2009 6:03:44 PM , Rating: 4
I tried Door# 3 and there was a speed boat behind it... I wanted the car though...


RE: heh
By slayerized on 4/6/2009 2:47:52 PM , Rating: 5
Miyagi says "Wax on... wax off. Wax on... wax off"


RE: heh
By FITCamaro on 4/6/2009 12:45:16 PM , Rating: 3
It's because they want to be the "cool" parent.

If parent's did their job as they were supposed to, we wouldn't be in this mess we're in.


RE: heh
By CSMR on 4/6/2009 1:17:40 PM , Rating: 5
But most influence comes from school/TV/friends. Plus it's not a matter for individual blame: traditions of family have been eroded severely. A well-informed and well-intentioned individual may be a good parent but on a large scale it's societies that make good or bad parents.
Politicians say they care about families but when it comes to making decisions they always act on the basis of individual rights and not strengthening families.


RE: heh
By michael2k on 4/6/2009 2:13:25 PM , Rating: 5
As a parent I respectfully disagree.

Most influence comes from parents, even if said influence is disaffection or distance.

If a parent allows a school/TV/friends to supersede their influence, so be it, but that isn't the default, it's a choice.


RE: heh
By inighthawki on 4/6/2009 3:30:17 PM , Rating: 4
I agree, school and friends etc do have a large impact, but it is up to the parent to teach their kids the right things.


RE: heh
By Proxes on 4/6/2009 3:55:59 PM , Rating: 3
Indeed it is. And it's the other bad parenting of the kids influencing your kid that's making the biggest effect.


RE: heh
By teldar on 4/6/2009 4:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
Dammit, you're all allowing a shucking of personal responsibilty.

It's always someone else's fault.
Didn't you know that.

What makes you think kids should learn life-long values in the first few years at home before they go out into the world of school and work?

Take some pride in your apathy and ignorance. Let it be someone else's fault


RE: heh
By Proxes on 4/6/2009 4:37:20 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't placing blame on others for my lack of parenting skills. What I meant was that the biggest influence outside of the child's own parents is his/her friends.

The other day I had a funny conversation with my mom, I'm 36. Long story short, she made a comment about all my bad personality traits were her fault. I told her they were. Good or bad she was the biggest influence on me growing up.

Ever notice as you get older you start to remind yourself of your parents. No matter how much you try not to be like them in a way you always do.


RE: heh
By ThePooBurner on 4/7/2009 3:49:13 PM , Rating: 2
More more i get to know my dad the more i get to know myself and vise versa. But this is true dating back to when i was 2. I seem to be a clone of my dad in terms of personality. We draw the same conclusions on things before we talk to each other about them. Attitudes towards things match with things either he or i never dealt with prior and later found out the other had previous experience and did the exact same thing. It's been quite startling of late since we have been talking a lot more about life and stuff recently.


RE: heh
By michael2k on 4/6/2009 4:38:36 PM , Rating: 3
Some kids go to day care at the age of 3 months.

In any case, if it's anyone's fault, it's yours!


RE: heh
By Yojimbo on 4/6/2009 11:02:14 PM , Rating: 2
Try telling that to immigrant parents who attempt to raise their kids with their values. Influence comes from parents as long as that influence is well in line with the society around the kids. It wouldn't have to be that way, but it's our society's laws and values which makes it so.


RE: heh
By michael2k on 4/7/2009 12:47:01 PM , Rating: 2
My parents were immigrant parents from Hong Kong and Thailand, respectively, and they raised me with their values.

I never said it was easy, I just said that the parents still have a large influence, especially before the kid learns English!


RE: heh
By dever on 4/6/2009 2:15:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they always act on the basis of individual rights
If only politicians acted on the basis of individual rights. The only individual that ANYONE acts on behalf of, is themselves.

This is the way it always has been, and the way it always will be... everyone acts in their own self-interest. Our job is to encourage systems that work best given this fact. To date, the least-bad system has been the one's who give individuals the most freedom apart from infringing on another's freedom.

Systems (in this case, semi-private school police) that pro-actively monitor subject behavior are built upon the mistaken premise of one individual being inherently superior/inferior to another.

quote:
However, police disagree, noting it’s often necessary to pick up the slack for failed parenting.
This quote was genuinely disturbing. It's bad enough that politicians stump on the idea of government as daddy, but have police that actually believe they should do our parenting for us is a scary thing.

Again, these are semi-private school police from what the article states, so the implications are not as dire... and the students may have agreed to this sort of monitoring when signing up for the school.


RE: heh
By FITCamaro on 4/6/2009 2:34:17 PM , Rating: 1
Individual rights can strengthen families. One of those rights the ability to raise your kid however you want.

One problem is the severe attack on religion in this country (except Islam). I'm not religious but in my mind if in a public school a teacher wants to have a cross or a picture of Jesus on their desk, or wear a cross around their neck, they should be allowed to. But instead activist groups attack these people as if they're pushing their religion on kids.

I'm sorry but is it so terrible for a kid to say a prayer? Or at the least take a moment of silence as some schools tried? I've been to services for religions I don't belong to (which is them all now) and while I might have felt a little uncomfortable at some of them, I didn't leave either. I mean kids don't even say the Pledge of Allegiance anymore because it has the word "God" in it. This idea that people/their kids have the right to never feel uncomfortable needs to stop. If you don't agree/follow something going on in a general assembly, just sit there with your mouth shut till its over or leave.

Basically raising a generation of kids who are taught to have no allegiance to their nation. Only to ask for handouts. Was listening to a radio show online and a 16 year old girl called in and said how her history teacher told the class that her(the female teacher) idea to fix the economy was to find out who all the people with over $100 million were. Then to take it all away from them and spread it around to the rest of the country. THIS IS WHAT IS BEING TAUGHT IN OUR SCHOOLS?!?!?! I'd have been pissed if my kid was in that class and I'd have worked to get that teacher fired.


RE: heh
By Mojo the Monkey on 4/6/2009 5:01:16 PM , Rating: 1
have her fired, eh? sounds to me like she was just spouting off a political view, not "teaching" indoctrination into the "no-$100M party".

If you're talking about individual rights, have you forgotten about the first amendment? regardless of the preposterous nature of her claim, you cant have it both ways.


RE: heh
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2009 5:28:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
have her fired, eh? sounds to me like she was just spouting off a political view, not "teaching" indoctrination into the "no-$100M party".


She's in a position of authority and respect over impressionable young children. With all due respect, anything you "spout off" is going to be taken as teaching to the students.

Not to mention, every minute she's teaching is paid for by us, the local taxpayers. So, to be blunt, we're not paying teachers to "spout off" their bullcrap liberal views on things. We're paying for education, NOT indoctrination.


RE: heh
By davemang on 4/6/2009 5:34:12 PM , Rating: 2
You should probably avoid public schools then...


RE: heh
By rdeegvainl on 4/6/2009 5:43:47 PM , Rating: 3
private schools aren't any better


RE: heh
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2009 5:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You should probably avoid public schools then...


Why ? I don't have children, but a HUGE part of my taxes go to public schools. So I guess you could say, by force, I have a vested interest in it.


RE: heh
By Mojo the Monkey on 4/6/2009 5:35:41 PM , Rating: 2
I dont know about you, but I don't remember being that age and taking everything that my teachers said, especially about political views, as gospel. Calling her comment "indoctrination" is a bit of puffery on your part. People are people and she made a comment. Big deal.

I hate defending this moron teacher, but the bottom line is that firing her for opening her idiot mouth creates an unduly oppressive environment... for ANY workplace. Its not like she made racist or discriminatory remarks.

I remember having rigorous debate with teachers who espoused views that I didn't agree with, as young as 4th grade. Give the high school kids a little more credit. Its foolhardy overprotective parents like you who waste school funding making them defend lawsuits and complaint proceedings over small issues that would have just vanished as quickly as they came.


RE: heh
By aj28 on 4/6/2009 6:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
Impressionable is relative to the kid. Teach your kid right, and they'll believe you over your teacher, or at the very least believe themselves and formulate their own ideas. By the time a kid reaches age 16, they ought to have a political opinion. If not, in my mind, they don't care about their country, making it likely that they don't much care about anything outside their bubble.

Note, however: Most kids these days do have a political opinion at this age. Most kids at this age are actually quite smart and independent, when they use their heads. Kids old enough to be in government class (generally 11th/12th year), should not be considered "impressionable" as if they were much younger. If nothing else, the aforementioned scenario ought to be showing them that the world is full of mixed opinions, most of them wrong, and that their own opinions are often lumped in with that group. It's a valuable lesson to learn, so you don't get all wrapped up in your own ideas, unwilling to accept others, like most of the world today.


RE: heh
By bodar on 4/6/2009 5:08:24 PM , Rating: 2
Wait, did I read this right? Are you saying that attacking religion is a major problem, but Islam is fair game?


RE: heh
By davemang on 4/6/2009 5:32:49 PM , Rating: 3
I think hes saying that Islam is the only religion NOT being attacked in this country.

Example:

A local public school building an addition specifically for Muslim students to pray in during the day, but christian students aren't allowed to form a group before school and pray on school grounds.


RE: heh
By JonB on 4/6/2009 6:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
Reference???? This sounds like urban legend to me.


RE: heh
By aj28 on 4/6/2009 6:27:59 PM , Rating: 1
Going to call BS on that one. The only thing people are fighting against is giving prayer time after, say, morning announcements, and making its purpose quite blatant. Nobody is stopping them from doing it on their own time, so long as it is a legitimate group of students using the school's space legitimately...


RE: heh
By ggordonliddy on 4/6/2009 8:23:56 PM , Rating: 2
Here's just one example of a Christian club being banned from using school grounds before/after classes:

http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/decisions/08-laure...

"The nature of the Good News Club is worship-based, which is disallowed not only by the school’s policy that prevents use of facilities for “religious purposes” like prayer, but also by the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state."


RE: heh
By LibertyFace on 4/7/2009 1:54:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Politicians say they care about families but when it comes to making decisions they always act on the basis of individual rights and not strengthening families.


Good point. I know several single mothers. It's like the government comes up to them and say "sure, you can qualify for food stamps, monthly allowances, and all these benefits, as long as you don't have a man in the house"


RE: heh
By UNHchabo on 4/6/2009 1:28:39 PM , Rating: 2
This is why I was such a fan of "The War at Home". It's two parents who weren't trying to be their kids' friends, and I think those two characters are GREAT parents. They screw up, but they have their kids' best interests at heart.


RE: heh
By FITCamaro on 4/6/2009 4:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
Titus rocked.


RE: heh
By UNHchabo on 4/6/2009 7:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
Christopher Titus had his own show, "Titus".

"The War at Home" starred Michael Rapaport.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460692/

If you knew that, and you were just saying that you also liked the show "Titus", then that wasn't clear in your post.


RE: heh
By BruceLeet on 4/6/2009 5:23:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If parent's did their job as they were supposed to, we wouldn't be in this mess we're in.


What mess, how do other peoples parenting possibly effect your life?

Honestly, I think you just like to pass judgment on other people because its happened to you your whole life.


RE: heh
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: heh
By Suntan on 4/6/2009 7:39:39 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Every generation is less moral, ethical, intelligent and responsible than the previous one.


Truly. I wish we could go back to the old'n days when people were moral and virtuous... ..and sights like Negros hanging from tree branchs, or a white women being burned at the stake because someone decided to claim she was a witch, were common.

Yes, it just keeps going down hill each generation.

-Suntan


RE: heh
By Jalek on 4/6/2009 9:28:18 PM , Rating: 2
It usually works in cycles. Many families alternate, where one parent's permissive or passive, their children will decide that wasn't good and will do the opposite. Their children then decide it's better to be their friend, etc.

Unfortunately, this generation's a mishmash of three. The baby boomers continued having kids near 60, and they refuse to leave positions of authority. These are the same people I recall as a kid seeing "new theories" on proper parenting every week, just like their open marriage theories, looking out for number one, despising the WWI/WWII generations, and a whole lot of the self-righteous ideals; you once heard "there ought to be a law" frequently, but now it's protest and cause trouble until there's a law if you think there should be. The hell with freedom.

I was a "latchkey kid" watching after-school specials and learned most of what I knew from outside the family. From an adult perspective now, thank God for that. My parents still have no clue how to manage their own lives, nevermind when they had kids to deal with.


RE: heh
By BruceLeet on 4/9/2009 1:56:35 AM , Rating: 2
We can't be getting 'less intelligent'.

I think you mean to say people are alot less religious, which is a good thing! Congratulate it.

In the next hundred years people will totally forget religion. And that is good.


RE: heh
By FITCamaro on 4/6/2009 12:45:16 PM , Rating: 1
It's because they want to be the "cool" parent.

If parent's did their job as they were supposed to, we wouldn't be in this mess we're in.


RE: heh
By fatedtodie on 4/6/2009 2:28:38 PM , Rating: 3
So if you type the same thing twice that makes your position stronger right?


RE: heh
By BillyAZ1983 on 4/6/2009 2:49:52 PM , Rating: 4
Double Post sounds like his issue.

Your issue seems to be that you Jump To Conclussions mat is defective.


RE: heh
By MozeeToby on 4/6/2009 1:39:57 PM , Rating: 5
I'm going to have to disagree, but only partially. Good parenting boils down to one thing and one thing only: Respect. Some kids are more than capable of respecting a 'cool' parent. Some kids aren't.

Many more kids are incapable of having genuine respect for anything other than what they fear. If the only thing your kid respects is punishment, then you had sure as hell better be ready to dish it out when the time is right.

The point is that there is no magic bullet for parenting, different kids have different needs and different parents have different skills. If you can get your kid to respect you while still trusting you and liking your company, all the power to you.


RE: heh
By michael2k on 4/6/2009 2:05:52 PM , Rating: 2
You can be both, a friend and a parent. It might not be possible, in some situations, be both at once, but it's certainly possible to be a friend when they need a friend and a parent when they need a parent.


RE: heh
By callmeroy on 4/6/2009 2:56:48 PM , Rating: 3
I couldn't agree more. Simple example of the decline of parenting:

Average Kid 20 years ago does something wrong and you confront them saying you'll speak with their parents -- the kid is scared and apologizes profusely.

Average Kid today does something wrong and you confront them saying you'll speak with their parents --- they laugh in your face and dare you....you confront the parent and the parent gets offended that you dare waste their time with such non-sense.

You know how folks say "oh yeah blame the parent"....I think you can 'drill down' even further than the parent --- it goes like this...

Bad kid --> from bad parent --> bad parent --> from bad relationship with no real meaning, committment, respect or value to them.

In short --- trash in trash out, if you treat your spouse/gf/bf like garbage or you were raised mis-treated or in a "garbage" environment for a house hold --- you'll do the same with your own kids.

Its a cycle that started from one generation of crappy parents and miserable people that is past on to other generations and advanced down the line due to laziness and poor values.


RE: heh
By walk2k on 4/6/2009 5:13:45 PM , Rating: 5
Ok 2 things

#1 who gives a crap what some high school student says. Kids don't know diddly about jack. I mean when you have kids posting pics of them with guns,etc on the internet it pretty much proves that.

#2 actually it's both parents and school security/campus cops job to keep students safe.

If they are clean cut kids in a middle class area with good parents that's one thing. But these guys have to deal with school in inner cities who are involved in gangs/etc and often times their parents are absent or just completely useless, crack addicts etc.. It's their job to keep the schools safe, free of gangs and guns and such, so if this allows them to do their job better, more power to them.


RE: heh
By fic2 on 4/6/2009 5:57:44 PM , Rating: 2
I have a friend with a 3 year old son. His favorite movies are Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. She sees nothing wrong with letting a 3 yo watch an R rated movie. We all think that she is setting her son up to be one of the most f*cked up people there are.


RE: heh
By Aloonatic on 4/7/2009 6:39:50 AM , Rating: 2
Or maybe he'll be the greatest criminal mastermind or crime fighter the world has ever seen? :D

He'll probably just be scared of clowns and bats like a lot of people though and other than that, pretty average.


Morons.
By Motoman on 4/6/2009 2:10:45 PM , Rating: 4
People who think even for a second that anything they post on MySpace is "private" are every bit as stupid as the luddites in England who chased the Google car off of their public streets.

There is no possible way, in any universe, to claim any privacy to things you post on a public website - in exactly the same way you can't claim any breach of your privacy by someone taking a picture of your house from a public street.

It is there for all to see, period. Whether you walk by on foot or surf by with a browser.

If you're so caught up with yourself that you honestly think the world + dog needs to know about every *%#@ing thing you do, then when you post your BS on MySpace you need to understand that the world + dog is going to know about every $#@^ing thing you do.

At the very least use the private sections of MySpace/whatever...not that I would count on them being secured. But at least that way you're only imposing your narcissism on a select group of people.




RE: Morons.
By FITCamaro on 4/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: Morons.
By Motoman on 4/6/2009 3:05:40 PM , Rating: 3
I disagree. Public is public. As long as nobody sets foot on your private property, they can do anything they want (granted that it's legal...and taking photos in public of anything is legal).

You want no one to take pictures of your house? Fine. Build a fence. Regulations say you can't build a fence to hide your house? Sounds like the regulations where you live are at odds with your personal desires...so either move or work to change the regs.

But there's no way you can start trying to define what is and isn't an "acceptable" public photograph. Oh, I slipped and fell down and this guy took an upskirt photo of me...make it illegal. Oh, I was young and foolish on the streets of NYC and was running around legally topless with my bewbs in the breeze, and this guy took photos...now I am embarrased by those photos, so make them illegal. Oh, I'm rich and famous and someone took a photo of me wearing Adidas shoes instead of Nikes, and they're my sponsor so we can't have that, so make those illegal. Holy crap did I have a bad hair day in that photo - make it illegal.

No way. Public is public and that is final. If you want to pretend you're a hermit then go live in a cave and be a hermit.


RE: Morons.
By Motoman on 4/6/2009 3:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
And sorry, should have pointed out that I know you're not saying to make it illegal, but that you want Google to take it down voluntarily. Naturally Google can grant or deny such requests, I was going a step further because I just see this going there...

...and if I was Google I'd just nicely decline to remove any legally-taken photos. Of course, I'd also nicely decline to help China oppress it's people, but maybe that's just me...


RE: Morons.
By omnicronx on 4/6/2009 5:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
When talking about pictures of your property, in the US google by law has to take down or blur out these images, this is not merely a request that they can deny.


RE: Morons.
By Motoman on 4/6/2009 5:39:43 PM , Rating: 2
...have a link for that? The closest I find (on the Google) is references to some proposed law changes, but nothing that appears to be in effect right now.


RE: Morons.
By Suntan on 4/6/2009 3:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...and taking photos in public of anything is legal).


That is not a true statement. A person does not have cart blanche to takes photos of “anything” and do whatever they want with them just because they are standing on public ground.

-Suntan


RE: Morons.
By Motoman on 4/6/2009 3:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yes they do...up to and including taking photos of "secret" military bases like Area 51 from the surrounding hills. Just so long as you stay on the surrounding hills, and don't go into the "we'll shoot you" area that is patrolled by MPs.

Absolutely anything that happens in public is, in a painfully obvious manner, public. And anyone categorically has a right to have taken a picture of anything that happens (or just simply exists in, or can be seen from) in public.


RE: Morons.
By Motoman on 4/6/2009 3:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
...basically, the rule of thumb is that if a casual observer who happens to be in that public area can bear witness to something, it's fair game. Hence, upskirt photos of unsuspecting women all over the internet, and paparazzi photos of celebrities on vacation, etc.

What you don't get to do is to go to a non-public (i.e. private) area to view (or photograph) anything. I'm not clear on something like you climbing a nearby tree (on public land) to take a photo of a house behind a fence...my guess is that it's probably legal, whereas walking up to someone's window and peering in is not - at that point you're on their private land anyway.

If you have a large picture window in your house, and walk past it buck-naked, you have no recourse against people on the sidewalk who happened to see you naked and maybe snap a photo or two. On the other hand, they do have recourse against you for public indecency...since you were publicly visible being indecent. Unless you're a really hot chick, in which no one is likely to complain...


RE: Morons.
By Suntan on 4/6/2009 4:30:20 PM , Rating: 1
No, it isn't.

First, it is illegal in most every place to take a picture of a minor with the express intention of using the picture for self-gratification. Even a picture of a child swinging on a swing set in the park. May not sound relevant here, but you are the one trying to be pithy and state that you can use pictures taken in public any way you want.

Second, you can not use a picture of a person, even in public, for business purposes without a signed model release from said person. You can take the picture, and you can even use it for editorial purposes without a release, but try taking a picture of Kevin Garnett (even out in public) and putting it on the side of your Gatorade bottle without his approval and see how long it takes for you to get sued (and you will lose in court because the law is pretty clear that you need a singed model release to use the picture that way.) A little more in line with the topic than the pedophilia example above I’ll admit.

Lastly, you can not take a picture of a notable building or structure and use it for business purposes without a signed property release from the property owner. This is more of a grey area than a model release, but it follows the same logic. If a person owned a unique or recognizable house that you took a picture of (even from public property) and you started using that picture for business purposes, the owner could sue you and most likely you would lose. This is pretty much what Google is doing, using pictures of buildings without property releases for business use (content on their website that drives viewership to their ads.) I’m personally not against it, I could care less, but it is a legal area that they are stepping on.

In any case, I reiterate that you are wrong if you think you can take a picture in public and have the right to do whatever you want with it.

-Suntan


RE: Morons.
By Motoman on 4/6/2009 4:38:25 PM , Rating: 2
You're drawing this off course...of course you can't put a picture of a celebrity you took in public on your product, because it implies an endorsement.

You can take a picture of a celebrity you took in public and post it on your website, publish it in your magazine, whatever, to the point of "look, I saw KG over at the beach."

I'm not even going to comment on your pedophilia thing - you're recklessly trying to derail this thread.

There's nothing wrong with someone going to some place and taking a picture of some thing (or some person) that is there and making it available for others to see...particularly, but not exclusively, in the sense of saying "look, this thing and/or person is here." That applies to you, the private citizen, as well as to organziations (like the Girl Scouts), as well as companies like Google.


RE: Morons.
By Suntan on 4/6/2009 4:55:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You can take a picture of a celebrity you took in public and post it on your website, publish it in your magazine, whatever, to the point of "look, I saw KG over at the beach."


What you are describing here is editorial usage. It is covered by the First Amendment. However, that is not what I am talking about (and it is not what Google is doing.)

quote:
you're recklessly trying to derail this thread.


You’re the one making broadly sweeping statements that people can do whatever… blah, blah, blah …as long as they are on public land. It’s not true and I have corrected you. You just can’t admit you’re wrong. If you don’t want to be proven wrong, stop making broad statements and then endlessly arguing for them.

quote:
There's nothing wrong with someone going to some place and taking a picture of some thing (or some person) that is there and making it available for others to see...particularly, but not exclusively, in the sense of saying "look, this thing and/or person is here." That applies to you, the private citizen, as well as to organziations (like the Girl Scouts), as well as companies like Google.


Once again, you are wrong. You can not take photos that fall under the purview of model and property release and use them for business purposes without getting signed approval from the rights holder (either the person or the property owner.) In my opinion, Google is using the content that it has acquired for business purposes and not for editorial. As such its usage would fall under the purview of those laws.

-Suntan


RE: Morons.
By Motoman on 4/6/2009 5:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Once again, you are wrong. You can not take photos that fall under the purview of model and property release and use them for business purposes without getting signed approval from the rights holder (either the person or the property owner.) In my opinion, Google is using the content that it has acquired for business purposes and not for editorial. As such its usage would fall under the purview of those laws.


Riddle me this, then: how is it possible, then, that it is legal for paparazzi to snap photos of celebrities in public and then sell them to newspapers for profit, without their consent?


RE: Morons.
By Motoman on 4/6/2009 5:35:49 PM , Rating: 2
...just to head you off, no, there isn't any "editorial" value in a photo of Brittany's vagina. Those paparazzi are taking upskirt photos of celebs and selling them to porno sites and making lots of money off the wankers of the world. Literally. And it hasn't got the slightest thing to do with "editorial license." It has to do with vagina. And the fact that the photo was taken in public and therefore the celeb can't do anything about it, despite the fact that the salicious photo is being sold by the photographer for a profit.


RE: Morons.
By Motoman on 4/6/2009 4:40:52 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, I never said anything about "use it for anything you want" - I was explicitly talking about the act of taking the photo in the first place - clearly once taken, there are legal and illegal things you can try to do with it.


RE: Morons.
By Suntan on 4/6/2009 5:01:09 PM , Rating: 2
You said:

quote:
Public is public. As long as nobody sets foot on your private property, they can do anything they want


Now you are “conveniently” saying:

quote:
I never said anything about "use it for anything you want" - I was explicitly talking about the act of taking the photo in the first place - clearly once taken, there are legal and illegal things you can try to do with it.


Next time, get your story straight from the beginning. You'll have to do less backpedaling afterwards.

-Suntan


RE: Morons.
By Motoman on 4/6/2009 5:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
Oh please, feel free to twist the obvious intention of any written word to fit your agenda.

There was in no way, shape, or form, any intent on my part to insinuate that you could (for example) take a picture of a celebrity and use it to imply an endorsement of your product. I have no doubt that you are aware of that, and are just being pissy for the sake of being pissy, so just stop.

There is no need for me to backpeddle from anything, and therefore I am not - if you want to twist the intention of everything that I write, that is firstly your own personal problem, and secondly not an activity that I am going to bother engaging you about again.


RE: Morons.
By Suntan on 4/6/2009 7:53:37 PM , Rating: 2
Whatever you say dude. Your words are right there. You claimed that a person can "do whatever they want" as long as they are on public property. Really isn't anything to twist when you make it so blatantly easy to disprove.

quote:
There is no need for me to backpeddle from anything, and therefore I am not


Flat out denying it won't make it any different. You claimed one thing, now you are changing your tune because you can't backup your original statement... aka backpedaling.

quote:
not an activity that I am going to bother engaging you about again.


I'd actually be mildly impressed if you could manage to *not* try and get the last word in. However, I doubt you will hold to your word.

-Suntan


RE: Morons.
By omnicronx on 4/6/2009 5:01:15 PM , Rating: 1
Its not private but Police should not be able to take your school information to search for it online, that is a breach of privacy, and I am amazed nobody has brought this up before.

Not saying they did not deserve to get caught, but the example in the article in which students were identified via their pictures myspace page, I really wonder, how did they get the names of these kids to search in the first place? If the victim knew who they were, there would have been no need to search myspace in the first place. Anyone lawyer with half a brain would have got these kids off this charge.


RE: Morons.
By Motoman on 4/6/2009 5:42:44 PM , Rating: 2
...I don't see any indication that they are sourcing any information from school records...

...nor do they need to. I would reckon you can search on MySpace/whatever to find people without having to have a list of their names & SSNs to start with...


RE: Morons.
By Motoman on 4/6/2009 5:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
...pushed the button too soon...

quote:
Last year, Lowery solved the armed robbery of two Blake students, by matching the description provided by students to images of a suspect on their MySpace pages. Fairfax County Police similarly were able to nab seven Chantilly area teenagers allegedly trying to recruit Franklin Middle School students to a gang by looking at the students MySpace profiles.


They were apparently just matching decsriptions to the photos the perps had posted. That seems to me to be a perfectly sensible thing to do - if a kid came to the police and said "Bobby Brown punched me!" and then described him as a balding, 60-year old white guy...well, a quick peek at MySpace would point out that, you know, this doesn't actually seem to be the person you're describing, so we're not going to be bothering him right now...


RE: Morons.
By omnicronx on 4/6/2009 6:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
They obviously had a search criteria, probably by searching the names of every kid from that school. It is not like they searched all pictures on myspace and magically found a needle in a haystack. Either way, where did they get the names, as it is the only way they could have identified them on myspace. If the school gave them a list of names, that is and invasion of privacy.


RE: Morons.
By Motoman on 4/6/2009 7:10:50 PM , Rating: 3
Well, first of all, granted that it's a public school, I'm not sure that is an invasion of privacy...

...also, and I'm not a user of MySpace or anything else, so I don't know, but I would guess you can probably search for people by various search terms other than name? Say, city and state, age group? Like, look up all the 13-17 year olds in Charlotte, NC? That would pretty much get you the list of kids in high school without needing to get a list of the kids from the high schools.


RE: Morons.
By omnicronx on 4/8/2009 3:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
Of course it is an invasion of privacy, public or private school, nobody has the right to collect the names of all students.

Essentially you are saying anyone can go walk into the school office and get this information (your claim is that this information is of public domain), and that is just not the case.


RE: Morons.
By callmeroy on 4/7/2009 8:44:34 AM , Rating: 2
It depends where you live I guess, here you do have right to reclaim pictures of your private property to deny them to be used for commercial use --- what google is doing is using those images for commercial use.

For example if you own a carpentry business and you are making a brochure -- you take a picture of my condo to use on that brochure....I absolutely can legally deny you the right to use that picture of my house (or ask for compensation for it).

Maybe that's not the case in England, but it is where I am at least.


Common Sense is dead...
By hohowan on 4/6/2009 12:56:03 PM , Rating: 5
Look, if you are stupid enough to post
your petty stuff/criminal stuff online,
and then you are shocked that law enforcement
suddenly busts you for said behavior, then
you fully deserve all that is due to you moron.




RE: Common Sense is dead...
By fatedtodie on 4/6/2009 1:08:48 PM , Rating: 2
Your added pauses (by breaking up the lines with advancing to the next line) make your comment look like William Shatner's dialogs.

The [Enter] key is NOT your friend. Put a comma, or whatever, just don't press enter every 6th or 7th word.


RE: Common Sense is dead...
By UNHchabo on 4/6/2009 1:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
On the other hand, how many posts have you seen on DT and other forums where the poster rambles on for pages and NEVER uses the enter key?

Personally, I'd rather see line breaks every five words than for them not to exist.


RE: Common Sense is dead...
By PhoenixKnight on 4/6/2009 1:46:33 PM , Rating: 2
It would have been okay if the OP's post was at least haiku-compliant.


RE: Common Sense is dead...
By walk2k on 4/6/2009 5:18:02 PM , Rating: 5
dumb kids post crime pics
police see pics and bust them
dumb kids learn lesson


morons
By comradeiggy on 4/6/2009 12:51:42 PM , Rating: 3
Kids are stupid. I am one of them, and I know just how stupid they can be. Almost every day during spring break I would get on facebook and see people I know on the beach with funnels, beer bongs, etc., and then pictures of them at parties with a bottle of Captain Morgans. If you don't want the cops to see your shit, set your profile to private. The girl who says it's an invasion of privacy is an idiot. How can you have an expectation of privacy when you are just letting your dirty laundry out there for everyone to see.




RE: morons
By fatedtodie on 4/6/2009 2:30:26 PM , Rating: 3
Replace "Kids are stupid" with "People are stupid" and you are closer to correct.


RE: morons
By peldor on 4/6/2009 2:36:55 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't even matter if you are setting your profile to to private if you have dozens or hundreds (or even thousands) of "Friends" online.

I'd be willing to bet there aren't more than 3 degrees of Facebook separation in the most high schools these days.


So which is it?
By Suntan on 4/6/2009 1:14:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"I think it's an invasion of the student's privacy. It's outside of school, and I just don't think it should be part of the school's job to do that."


So which is it? Is this a cop doing the searching or a member of the school's faculty? Last time I checked, a cop’s jurisdiction reached beyond the school grounds, even if stupid kids think school is the only place where they can get in trouble.

quote:
Her mother, Judy Ottosen, agrees, stating, "I believe it's a parent's job."


I can understand kids being stupid, but honestly, the mom that says she is against this should be beat about the head a bit.

-Suntan




RE: So which is it?
By michael2k on 4/6/2009 2:17:44 PM , Rating: 2
The mother is right, it is the parent's job.
The cop is right, because a lot of parents aren't picking up the slack.

It boils down to; if the kid screws up and the cop catches her, the parent has her back. If the parent screws up and the cop catches the kid, well, then the cop has her back, right?


RE: So which is it?
By Suntan on 4/6/2009 3:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The mother is right, it is the parent's job.


If the child is caught doing illegal things, the parent is till in picture, but it is now officially the cop’s job.

-Suntan


So Blame Your Parents?
By mindless1 on 4/6/2009 7:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
So many on this topic write about personal responsibility, THEN jump to conclusions about it being the parent's fault which is the opposite, all the while assuming negative things judgementally.

It sure seems like many of you are trying to place blame elsewhere for your personal unhappiness. Change your game, find something that makes you happy instead of complaining about others and arguing.




RE: So Blame Your Parents?
By callmeroy on 4/7/2009 8:50:13 AM , Rating: 2
[quote]So many on this topic write about personal responsibility, THEN jump to conclusions about it being the parent's fault which is the opposite, all the while assuming negative things judgementally .

It sure seems like many of you are trying to place blame elsewhere for your personal unhappiness. Change your game, find something that makes you happy instead of complaining about others and arguing .[/quote]

So let me get this straight here.....you start off by saying everyone is assuming things and then making negative judgments on those things.....then in your very next paragraph you um.....are assuming things and judging folks on them?

um...well....ok then....:)


RE: So Blame Your Parents?
By mindless1 on 4/8/2009 1:53:46 AM , Rating: 2
Others were making generalizations about "people" while I had the benefit of reading real posts on the topic... bit of a difference don't you think?

Yes I am assuming that when people complain and criticize stereotypes that they are trying to blame other people for being unhappy. Surely you agree happy people don't delve into such thoughts without being prompted to?


It makes sense...
By EricMartello on 4/6/2009 1:18:31 PM , Rating: 3
America is full of stupid people so the fact that many kids are just as dumb isn't very surprising. If you take the time to post your life's personal details on a website by your own free will, it's hardly an "invasion of privacy" if someone sees what you posted. I wonder how many people take the time to run a few Google searches on themselves or their online IDs...I bet they would be surprised how much a search for something like xX_AzNRaCrD00d0285_Xx turns up, especially if they use the same alias on multiple websites.




RE: It makes sense...
By oxymojoe on 4/6/2009 1:33:21 PM , Rating: 2
I agree and would imagine anything that is in the public domain is fair game. Even if you had a myspace account set to private that shouldn't protect you from getting busted showing pictures of yourself in front of a pot farm etc.

As science and technology advance, so does the law enforcement community and their policy/procedures to apprehend criminals.

If you get caught violating, that's your fault...not the cops.


Invasion of Privacy
By flipmode on 4/6/2009 3:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think it's an invasion of the student's privacy.


If you want to keep your shit private, then don't post it on the phucking World Wide Web you dumb arse biznitch.




....
By Hoeser on 4/6/2009 3:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
You smell somethin', Rabbit?




"I can take them in here"??
By ggordonliddy on 4/6/2009 7:39:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As an officer at the second largest school in Virginia, Officer Rappina keeps tabs on trouble within the student body of 4,000 kids via his computer. He describes, "Let's say two kids are having a spat online. I can take them in here and talk to them."


Huh? Take them in where?




Speeding
By bobobeastie on 4/7/2009 2:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
Speeding and...?




Stupid girl is stupid.
By ThePooBurner on 4/7/2009 4:52:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sarah Steinberg, 18, a senior at Robinson Secondary, explains, "I think it's an invasion of the student's privacy. It's outside of school, and I just don't think it should be part of the school's job to do that."

So i take it, according to this oh so bright young lady, we shouldn't be allowed to look in the phonebook to find phone numbers either. Or in the newspaper for job information. Public space is PUBLIC. To invade privacy it would require looking and digging into things that were private. If they don't hide it/leave it public then it's fair game for anyone. Why should "Joe Plumber" be fine in looking up public photos on myspace to get off on, but someone who is looking to prevent/solve crimes looking at those same photos is suddenly doing something bad?

Nonsensical teenagers: Please grow a brain. Girl's mom is likewise stupid. I agree that parents should be responsible, as she asserted, however i agree with the cop that they are picking up for parents that aren't doing their jobs.




"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki