Slashdot Mirror
AOL Monitor Accused of Luring 15-Year-Old for Sex
Amy's Robot writes "According to the AP, an Internet chat room monitor hired by AOL to keep children safe from sexual predators seduced a California girl online and was about to meet her for sex when he was found out by a co-worker, a lawsuit charges. The incident happened 2 years ago, but has become public this week because the lawsuit was just filed by the girl, now 19. She accuses AOL of failing to supervise the employee and of falsely advertising that its online service was safe for children. Who's watching the watchers?"
This might not be the only case, we might see a lot of me-toos lawsuits soon.
And to watch the watchers, the outcome may have already suggested a solution - some sort of peer reviews, his co-worker did find out his activity right?
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
It started when she was 15, they were going to meet when she turned 17, that was 2 years ago, now she's 19. So that clears that up.
Original poster: A/S/L?
Reminder: Apple owns 1/255th of the internet.
In other news, people who arrive at the stark realization that they're going to be losers on welfare and in debt for the rest of their lives are suing corporations with deep pockets instead of getting real jobs.
I guess that means they need to move to AI bot monitors instead of those silly humans? I mean, if they can make bots in UT2004 that are that good....
Yet another case of the parents not watching what their children are doing. But, if this means AOL gets hammered in the courts, I suppose I'm for it, as a loyal slashdotter.......... All jokes aside, parents should be supervising thier children's wherabouts and doings, rather than the big brotherish leanings that this implies should be implemented--it is evident that not even the watchers can be trusted. Who do you trust with your children, yourself or some stranger that is hired by AOL or other isp for close to min wage to watch for this shit?
AOL monitor. Seriously, don't they do background checks for this type of job. I understand not doing them for most jobs, but this type of job, you would think it would be par for the course. But I guess if he doesn't have a record and she was only 17 at the time and if he was like 21-24 its not that bad (illegal, but not like he was 45). But what is really sad is that she is the one sueing. She made the decision to meet someone from a chat room and now is sueing because she was allowed to meet the guy. Sounds like sueing for dollars more than anything. Isn't America great...
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
She was fifteen, she'd had the talk about the birds and the bees. I find it hard to believe that people are seduced into sex, and this was only considered seducing after he had been talking to her for two years. Most teenagers don't know eachother for two days and they get it on like jack rabbits. If anything I applaud his patience.
The alleged affair lasted until her 17th birthday, at which time a co-worked became suspicious.
She is filing now when she is 19, for her own reasons, obviously.
user@host$ diff
What's the age of consent in California? In Pennsylvania, if they had sex after she turned 16, they'd be in the clear, if I understand my age of consent laws correctly (85% sure).
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Who's watching the watchers?
Sounds like they are watching each other.
Thats why MSN Chat is no longer available.
A shame that a few bad apples have spoiled it for the rest of us. MSN Chat was a great way to meet everyday people instead of the geeky IRC chat.
According to the story, they met online when she was 15, and he was in his early 20s. Two years later, when she was 17, they arranged to meet for sex. As far as I know, the age of consent is 16, meaning that a 17 year old can legally agree to have sex with an older person. I don't see how the monitor committed a crime, unless he propositioned her before she turned 16, and that might be difficult to prove in court.
As for AOL being liable, that's a stretch too. They probably disclaim all liability in their terms of use, and unless she can prove some fraud or negligence on the part of the employee, I don't see how they can be held liable.
This whole story smacks of a frivolous lawsuit by somebody who just realised that she might be able to embarass a big company into settling rather than face publicity.
more about me
OMFG what a cockblock that was.
Should you really be talking up a Microsoft app/service and putting down IRC *on Slashdot*? :)
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
Why is there no "Didn't read the article" moderation option? It seems like it would be so useful in many circumstances.
http://notanumber.net/
Bahahaha, yeah, kids will stop having sex and stop getting pregnant if you make it illegal. Good one! I haven't a laugh like that in awhile.
Urban Detail
Qui Custodes Custodiat? is probably better translated as "who guards the guardians" than "who watches the watchers"?
I was thinking more along the lines of "Who cleans the janitors?"
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
kids will stop having sex and stop getting pregnant if you make it illegal
I didn't have sex until I was 18 because it was Illegal in my state...
*sobs*
Ok, OK! It's really because I was a loser in high school and couldn't get laid if my life depended on it...
There's no place like
If the 12 year old's parents don't have a the insight to tell their sex-crazed 12 year-old that protection should be used, then they can deal with an extra addition to their family. Of course, they then will get their 12 year old to file with the IRS, get an Earned-Income-Credit form (remember, the 12 year old makes no income to support her child, regardless of dependant claims by her folks), and bilk around $2500 per kid they pop out. The law should state that unless the minor is legally emancipated from the parents, the parents should take legal custody of any child produced by said minor until either a) said minor files for legal emancipation or b) said minor becomes a legal adult. Of course, clauses will be added for special cases.
"And yes, it's very easy for a 12 year old to become pregnate and even come full term to give birth."
Of course it is, and the question becomes if evolution has made 12 yearolds sexual beings at the age of 12, why is the age of concent 18?
Perhaps instead of rallying against nature people should accept the obvisous: children are sexual beings and to deny reality leads to sexually repressed future adults, or current adults being jailed among other problems.
Let me get this straight:
She meets this guy online.
She chats with the guy online.
She gives the guy her phone number.
She talks to the guy on the phone.
They have increasingly explicit conversations.
She claims emotional distress.
Distress from what exactly? Her escapades with this dufus, or the fact that her parents divorced and she has trouble making friends (as stated in the article)?
I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that a girl age 15 - 17 doesn't know what she's doing -- especially when she is old enough to drive and obviously smart enough to sue a company like AOL 2 years later.
And where are the parents in all this? Didn't they teach their kid responsibility and give her the power to say "no?" Why was it even possible for this girl to virtually hang out and chat with this guy for two years and plan a get-together without them being involved or in the know? Did they themselves coerce her into suing AOL?
This doesn't add up.
AOL's parent controls are not a substitute for proper parenting.
...age of consent in every country and state
http://www.ageofconsent.com/
Pardon my bluntness, but, WHERE ARE THE FSCKING PARENTS?
Frankly, I would love to see the day where a parent who sues ANYONE because some stranger a thousand miles away they've never met fails to protect their child from [WHATEVER] finds their butt drawn up on charges of child endangerment. It's YOUR FSCKING KID. YOU protect it, damn it!
Yeah, but it's such bullshit. If a 17 year-old girl consents to having sex after having known someone since she was 15 then that's her own decision and can't in all honesty be considered illegal (assuming, of course, that the age of consent has now been passed).
If it is, then where do you want to draw the line? If a guy first has contact with a girl when she's 15 then she consents to having sex with him when she's 19 does that then still count as wrong? How about if she consents to having sex when she's 21? 30? 40? Are you just going to pick an arbitrary number?
The girl was below the age of consent at 15. If the guy had asked her to have sex with him then then that would have been wrong. But for a 17 year-old to agree to do something of her own free will - when the law recognises that she's free to do it - and then raise a hue and cry about it is plainly ridiculous.
If I were a judge and this came to my court I'd ask the girl one simple question: "when he first asked you to have sex with him or made any sexual overtures towards you, how old were you and did he know your true age at that time?". If the girl said she was past the age of consent (especially if she was a year or more past it) then I'd throw her case out in a heartbeat.
Girls meet older guys all the time. When they first meet is irrelevant. It's when they get down to business that matters. And, in this case, that didn't even happen, did it?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Wow, it's been a long time since a joke made me want to stab my eyes out. Thanks!
This is a case of AOL failing to provide an advertised service.
"America Online spokesman Nicholas Graham said the company fired the monitor and contacted authorities after learning of the situation in April 2003. The man, who was 23 when he met the girl online, has not been charged with a crime."
This is not a criminal case, it's a lawsuit.
"This is my custard, are you the janitor?"
(failed Latin)
It isn't really that easy, you can't watch your children 24/7, especially not if you want them to have some integrity of their own, which is reasonable at 15-17 years age.
One way for the parents to act would be only allowing the children to access only "safe" sites wouldn't it? Like that AOL service claimed to be. It'slike if a parent bought a game for children and it contained harsh violence and strong sex references. Would that be the parents fault?
It seems the Slashdot crowd is very fast on judging parents, but have you really thought this through? Maybe you should try to imagine how it would be to have a child n your own? Would you be that perfect parent that you expect everyone else to be?
"You've Got Jail!"
;-)
sorry yall... I couldn't resist
Libertas in infinitum
They were preparing to meet on the girl's 17th birthday when one of the monitor's co-workers became suspicious and prevented the encounter.
Read: "a male coworker, pissed off that he wasn't getting any 17-year-old action (or any at all, probably; he DOES work for AOL), decided to ruin things for everyone on the theory that 'if I'm not having sex, he doesn't get to have it either'".
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Oh well, the first time I was in Amsterdam, I came across a group of middle-aged russian tourists. They were walking through the red light district with their guide, clearly fascinated yet trying to look offended. Then one lady said to another (in russian) "Where we live, there is no sex!".
In the article it says " They Agreed to meet." If it was her that suggested they meet, this lawsuit will go nowhere. If he suggested it, there might be trouble for AOL. It will be interesting to see how they try to prove this, if there isn't an original e-mail lying around in someone's inbox. Welcome to he said, she said, the legal version
-Khyras
See, aiming a gun that-a-way and shooting is the easy part. Technically you could even get a monkey to kill people, or just release a bunch of rabid pitbulls and hope they gore someone.
/. You don't get to be fashionable and popular in college by being the guy/gal who actually learns stuff. You get to be fashionable and popular by fitting in with the rebel-without-a-clue gang. You get to be _really_ popular if you up the ante: whatever idiocy someone else did, by jove, show everyone that you can do it twice as idiotic.
The thing, however, is about responsibility and making the right judgment call.
E.g., when you stand guard for _hours_ with an assault rifle and live ammo, you're trusted to be responsible enough to _not_ start shooting at cars on the nearby highway because you're bored. E.g., when you're taught how to lob a grenade, and yes at some point you'll get to use live ones, you're trusted to be responsible enough to not lob it at your platoon mates or shove it down your own pants. Etc.
But you know why that works, while college is an exercise in proving you're more stupid than the others? Consequences.
Sorry, 18-19 year olds are _not_ brain-dead. They _are_ perfectly capable of cause-effect judgment.
However, like all humans at all ages, they choose the course of action that offers the best (short time) effect.
In the army you _know_ that you'll be up shit creek without a paddle if you do something stupid.
In college it's exactly the other way around: the way to gain prestige and peer recognition is to do all those sorts of stupid things. Think of it as the RL equivalent of karma whoring on
So it's not that you're more stupid at 19 than you are at 29. In both cases you just pick the course of action that promises the most rewards, and the least perceived short-term risks. It's just that at 19 and in college the whole rewards and negative consequences scale is turned on its head. So the perfectly logical course of action to take in that situation, seems bloody stupid when viewed from another context.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
AOL Monitor Accused of Luring 15-Year-Old for Sex
The incident happened 2 years ago
but has become public this week because the lawsuit was just filed by the girl, now 19
It isn't the seduction, or that it was an AOL monitor that did it. Nope, the biggest story is how she could go from 15 years old to 19 years old in only two years.
Spooky.
Now I need to figure out what she's doing, and do the exact opposite.
http://xkcd.com/386/