Slashdot Mirror

perverted-justice.com has been taking down pedophiles online for years, and doing it legally.

That's certainly true. But this is really a different kind of thing. Perverted-justice is mostly (from their faq page) about keeping pedophiles out of areas of the internet that children frequent. When they do appear, they're taken down. Anonymous is trying, possibly futilely, to take down large organizations of pedophiles. I certainly laud perverted-justice, but I don't think it's directly comparable.

perverted-justice.com has been taking down pedophiles online for years, and doing it legally.

I think sometimes people can get off-the-mark when they talk in terms of comparing the dangers of the Internet with outside; it's not as thought the problem with one goes away by pointing out that the other is statistically more dangerous. Whatever the case, the Internet represents an additional danger that needs to be dealt with and we should be doing as much as possible to make both safer for children. It just happens to be that in many ways it is easier to do something about the Internet because there are means of control that don't exist out in the big, bad world.

The Internet can also facilitate predatory behaviour: the predator does not need to risk exposure in the outside world or even go to the trouble (at least initially) when it is much easier to sit behind the computer and use a chat program, networking site and webcam to indulge his predilections. This ease of access into the world of predatory behaviour and the perception of anonymity and privacy may even encourage those who would otherwise baulk at the thought of the risk of getting caught or having to go to the extra trouble of planning the abuse more carefully and actually having to physically go to another location to carry it out. Many on-line incidents probably never go reported as they would do if the equivalent were committed in the outside world. Parents may also assume their children are safe to leave unsupervised at home but would otherwise always ensure a responsible adult is with the child when they go out.

When we bring up statistics we need to be sure exactly what statistics we are using as types of abuse can differ along with the resulting effects; but they all can cause harm whether actual physical or emotional. For example, some statistics include only actual physical contact with the child, some include only physical harm caused and not emotional. Abuse on the Internet is more likely to be of the emotional/mental variety and sometimes lead to physical contact and abuse, sometimes not. The incidents exposed by such sting operations as http://www.perverted-justice.com/ and TV show "To Catch A Predator" on MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10912603/ bother me deeply. I feel strongly that some, if not all, of the people caught in these act felt somehow empowered and facilitated to do what they did as a result of having access to the Internet. It is possible that some may never have abused at all had the Internet not offered them the avenue to do so. In many cases they were hardcore, repeat abusers but in some cases they just seemed like guys who got carried away with an idea and the Internet presented to them and fuelled the opportunity to indulge in it. Maybe it would have happened anyway, maybe not, but social networking websites certainly provide them with the opportunity and the means to do it.

Sure, you might get them to register their ISP email address. I doubt very much though that offenders are going to register Hotmail, Gmail, Yahoo or any other free email services. And who is going to police the offenders? Who is going to check the IP numbers against all the free email services and a the list of sex offenders to make sure that they are not using a "secret" email address? Oh I know they will get PervertedJustice http://www.perverted-justice.com/ and Dateline http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032600/ to do it. Yeah, those two groups would be perfect. They can't even keep track of sex offenders in the real world.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/

I would say they are doing a mighty fine job. The alarming rate at which the underage profiles they get hit on with is certainly a statistic in themselves. Vigilante's are ones that work outside of the law and take it into their own hands. From the actions of PJ.com, there have been 52 convictions in a court of law, with Perverted-Justice.com assisting police and providing evidence of the crimes committed. Soliciting a child for sex, or one believed to be a child, is a federal offense. Many states also have their own statutes to cover this as well. Regardless if the person even physically attempts it, the act of solicitation is against the law, and it is wrong. Perverted-Justice.com has also supplied training to more than a handful of police agencies wishing to form their own anti-child predator units.

Did I mention also that with assistance of law enforcement, they have helped in the arrests of 108 predators since January alone? I think that is effective and that they are providing a good service. Any person who is anti-child predator would agree that putting predators behind bars is good, especially when PJ.com has a 100% conviction rate. That is right. There has not been even a single aqquital, even when defendants like Robert Andrews (formerly the President of the Greater Cincinnatti Criminal Defense Lawyer Association) had the best lawyers in their court, like Larry Flynt's personal counsel Sirkin. PJ.com has helped take down predators big and small, and the ball is still rolling.

The point is that in almost every conviction garnered against the predators that PJ.com has busted, the person had shown up to a predetermined place, with written or verbal declaration that their intention was to have sex, and many of them carried such lovely items like condoms, alcohol, lubricant, child porn, duct tape, rope, knives, and in one case; a gun. You cannot tell me that had a child actually been present that there would have not been a more serious crime beyond attempted molestation or rape. What is even more alarming is in the last 4 months, there have been 4 individuals that were arrested by police that had been picked up on the radar by PJ.com, and even after they were indicted and out on bail were found right back out in the chatrooms doing the same thing again. One man that was caught had just made a plea bargain for an unrelated child molestation charge just two days prior to being caught by PJ.com for the same damn thing. That, my friend, is beyond fucking scary. It makes me not want to have children at all.

Don't believe me? Have a read: http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article =13

Not trying to be a shill here, but just trying to spread some truth on the severity of the problem. For those that still don't believe it's true, please do the following: create a Yahoo chat profile that labels you as a 11-14 year old girl. Go into a regional chat room in the US and just sit there for 10 minutes. Don't say a word, just sit. When people message you, be sure to tell them your age right off the bat. You will be flabergasted at how many men will go straight into sexual grooming after having seen your age.

The statistic that 1 in 5 children have been solicted for sex online was from the NCMEC. I can not ascertain if they mean 1 in 5 children that have internet access, or if it's just 1 in 5 children period. Either way, millions of kids have internet access in the US alone. Even if it's 1 in 5 out of 1 million, that is still enough to warrant a huge public outcry and new focus on anti-predatory legislation.

I agree. However, MySpace cannot be used as evidence.

I have talked publicly about doing unususal things. My friends and I used to talk about the best way to dispose of a body while looking around the sporting goods section of Wally World. Does that mean a cop can begin an investigation?

What if he finds a body nearby that was disposed of in a creative manner with no other evidence? What would the trial be like? Just because they heard me talking about body disposal and they found a body, does that mean I'm guilty?

Here's another example: Lets say I'm unpopular in school. To boost my reputation, I decide to blog about how I burned down a house. I got most of the details from $local_news and just made the rest up.

Now, they always leave out details. Let'say I fill in $accelerant from last month's CSI. Just so happens that the real criminal got the idea from the same place.

They have your claim, they have you knowing an unpublished detail. Will I be convicted?

What if I have a pic of me testing a gravity bong with tobacco. Should my school (assuming I'm at least 18) be able to suspend me?

What about if I post a chat log of me talking about BSDM with a 14yo girl? Just because there is text containing the claim that she is 14 does not, in fact, mean that she is 14...or even a girl. Should that open the door for a child-sex investigation?

The internet is, in part, about the dissemination of fact. That was it's original intent; to share facts and information. However, the internet has become, in large part, a medium of entertainment.

Who is to say that my blog is not a work of fiction?

Do cops troll Hollywood movies looking for people discharging firearms within city limits?

Then why should they troll MySpace looking for, and opening investigations on, stuff that may or may not be true?

On a side note, I keep waiting for someone busted on Perverted Justice to claim that they had a reasonable expectation that the "girl" they were chatting with was, in fact, a guy. I mean, cmon! Does anyone really believe that 14yo supermodels are hanging out in Yahoo! incest and animal-sex chat rooms?

That's a curiously benign way of putting it.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/

bashing Wikipedia is the cool thing to do at the moment.

Yup, as this thread shows. But when you look at some of the kooks^Wpeople who are doing it, is makes you think...

The truth is, though, that any good idea that is successful is going to get bashed by the spiteful, the petty, the self-obsessed, and the paranoid. Wikipedia has to show that it's doing something positive about the vandalism/sabotage issue, but apart from that it would be better to just ignore the idiots.

Wikipedia's been under some pretty harsh pressure lately. Orlowski's articles in the Register have been referred to here already; when I replied to Orlowski he responded with an unrelated allegation that Wikipedia had become a haven for pædophiles.

Quite a lot of people evidently don't like Wikipedia; partly, of course, because its rapid growth is making waves and it promises to grow into an extremely influential (and consequently powerful) source of 'knowledge', but also, I suspect, because 'Jimbo' Wales simply gets up some people's noses.

Here is another article that was published today saying that Wikipedia is funded by pornography. Or how about this article saying that Wikipedia is run by pedophiles!

Online Encyclopedia is a Gathering for Internet Predators.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article =11

http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article =11

Check out this article at an anti-pedophile website. Makes for some interesting reading.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article =11

If I already use OS X, can konfabulator do anything for me? It seems like there should be some sort of universal language for crafting these widgets now that they are getting very popular.

Several prominent Slashdot users accused of being pedophiles by Perverted-Justice

Check out this article at an anti-pedophile website. Makes for some interesting reading.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article =11

Check out this article at an anti-pedophile website. Makes for some interesting reading.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article =11

Check out this article at an anti-pedophile website. Makes for some interesting reading.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article =11

wa55up (4:17:02 PM): are u a virgin
nickcater_ismahman (4:17:14 PM): yah
wa55up (4:17:46 PM): are u lookin to change that
nickcater_ismahman (4:18:02 PM): lol maybe

wa55up (4:17:02 PM): are u a virgin
nickcater_ismahman (4:17:14 PM): yah
wa55up (4:17:46 PM): are u lookin to change that
nickcater_ismahman (4:18:02 PM): lol maybe

I guess there are MANY more sickos out there than I thought. My point was that BEING in these rooms does not implicate someone. Shoot, the police and the people who run that web site are in those rooms, and presumably those are the GOOD guys, right? I can't believe a young girl would go in there! Those rooms are probably almost all men talking to each other!

But yes, sadly, there are some sick people out there.

The law just lets them go? Check out the convictions, my friend.

Even more important, what about IM logging programs like Parent Tools used to monitor children's conversations in chat rooms? Does the parent have to notify their children that they are being recorded?

And how about sites like Perverted Justice that post recorded IM conversations between two adults? I guess they should avoid child predators in Florida. Even if the police get involved, a judge would likely toss the case since the initial investigation was done illegally.

There really isn't anything to prevent them from using the logs in a similar fashion to the out of control cyber-vigilante web site Perverted Justice other than a privacy policy that seems to leave a lot of questions in my mind as to the security of the system.

According to their privacy policy:
"Access to your personal information other than your chat logs and buddy lists (which are protected according to Section 2.3) is limited to employees who reasonably require access to it in the course of doing their jobs, such as providing customer support to you. We require those employees to sign confidentiality agreements promising to safeguard your information."

There's been a few highly publicized cases of insiders stealing information. I've got to pass on IMSmarter.

What do people on Slashdot think of sites like Vigilante Justice? Are they really protecting kids, or just entrapping people? Or a bit of both?

I'm glad to see that the Feds are pursuing predators online by using methods that will stand up in court, rather than the questionable tactics used by the vigilantes of Perverted Justice

Very interesting website: http://perverted-justice.com

This site has a bunch of chat logs, with pedophiles they chated with online. I don't think both parties consented to this.

- Read headline, click on article
- Quickly scroll through article looking for pictures of this "babe"
- Found none, went to comments
- Found out she was four years old
- Forwarded michael's email address to perverted-justice.com

I really felt like this chick was *trying* to get some creep stalking/abducting her.

Maybe it was someone from perverted-justice.com.

It's interesting that this story should break at the same time that Wired News is running a story (or rather another story, they ran the first yesterday) about Perverted Justice an organisation that takes it upon itself to expose perverts hunting for children in chatrooms. The techniques and tactics of the two sets of vigilantes are completely different, but both are examples of what are in effect user regulation of the online environment.

Fortunately a lot of those perverts get caught

Check out these guys. Take a look at the follow up forum - they destroy these people... Distribute flyers on their block, call their homes, notify their employer... Hell, the last guy got a spot in the 6 o'clock news on his local news station!

Anyways, my point is that I think that with this law - vigilantes could do some damage.