Accused Molester Hunted On Xbox Live

GamePolitics has the unfortunate task of reporting that an accused child molester evidently found his victim via Xbox Live. From the piece: "Watts made contact with the boy on Xbox Live in October or November. Their contacts ultimately included e-mails and pornographic videos sent by Watts. The boy eventually gave the suspect his contact information, leading to a meeting in a Santa Rosa park where the alleged molestation took place. After learning of the complaint, investigators searched Watts' home, seizing his Xbox and a laptop PC, along with a variety of cameras. Watts is currently free on bail."

Comments

At least...

[Pig Hogger]

Well, at least, it's not the fault of the Internet...

Jack Thompson

[Morinaga]

This is certainly a rallying cry for Mr. Thompson to crusade against digital photography and parks in Santa Rosa.

As I was telling my friend...

[oahazmatt]

...This is a very good example of why I find the Nintendo WFC to be very well designed in terms of child safety. There are no WFC chat programs (currently) available, and the only way to seek a friend through Mario Kart or Animal Crossing is to already have their ID# (and vice-versa). I specifically stated possible sexual predators seeking out children to my friend when he was complaining of the lack of free chat and messaging services.

But nor do I blame XBox live. Ultimately the fault and blame is on the assailant. I simply think Nintendo was wise to structure such a limited network, especially with games targeted at younger audiences.

Re:As I was telling my friend...

[Dark Paladin]

Actually, already been there.

And this is a discussion that I've had with my sister in law. The idea isn't to keep her from seeing anything. I know she hears worse at school. She can see things already, and the goal is twofold:

1. To explain what it is so she doesn't get wrong ideas. (For example, if she asks me about gay people getting married, it's not "OMG! THEY'RE GOING TO HELL!", nor is it "Oh, well, you'll find out later." It's a discussion about what it means, why they do it, why some people don't like it, ect.)

At a young age, it's my job as a father to make sure the information sources she runs into as a 6 year old are controlled, so that people don't go "Hey, little girl - getting naked with a 40 year old man is fun!" For now, she knows that strangers can be bad for her, as she grows up and becomes more discerning through meeting people she'll gain her own ability to gauge for herself. How will she know what's "good" and "bad" for her, then? Which leads us to #2.

2. Let her know what her father expects standards of behavior to be.

Right now, my daughter knows that outfits that show off her belly are not allowed, neither are spagetti strings, anything that shows her chest, or skirts that go too high. (And before some dumb ass pipes in, no, we're not talking victorian age clothing. We're talking about T-shirts and jeans and normal skirts, while keeping my daughter from looking like a kinderslut.) She knows that certain words are not to be used unless she wants to get in trouble, and that we don't call people (even her little brother) names. And the younger is learning the same lessons (though at 3, he's still too young for some things.)

My sister in law told me that my daughter, when she becomes a teenager, will probably change into clothes I won't find appropriate and swear and who knows what. I know. I expect it. But - she will know what I expect of her, and she will know that I know she knows.

So when she's a teenager, she probably won't go "Oh, that mean Daddy wouldn't let me play Mario Kart with that guy I met on the Internet with I was six." She probably won't care. But she will know the kinds of people that her father wanted her to associate with, and will know what his standards of her friends are (aka - do they do drugs, are they child molesters, etc). At that point, if she wants to be stupid, there's little I can do.

But she will know the difference. If she learns bad words at school or pictures, she knows these are things that her parents don't find "good". Later, when she can judge for herself, she can learn that subtle difference between "art" and "smut", and decide what she wants.

Hope that clears it up a bit. Because I don't need an invisibility cloak to know what happens at my daughter's school. I just need to let her know what's appropriate.

Nintendo

[FriedTurkey]

I think Nintendo has the right idea of not allowing open chat on the DS Wi-Fi. The worse someone can do is repeatitily slam thier kart into someone. I think chat is more annoying in a lot of games than helpful. BF2 has the canned voice chat thing down that voice isn't really needed. Counterstrike seems to have less annoying kids on it these days but for a while Counterstrike really sucked because of screamers. (Thank you X-box live). Even playinng PS2 Madden online can suck sometimes because I have to wait 30 seconds for some tool to accuse me of cheating? (No, I am not cheating, there are no cheats, you just suck.) I can see you need it on MMORPG but I don't play those. Get rid of all chat/voice in games and I won't miss it one bit.

o_O

[SmallFurryCreature]

I wouldn't have thought the x-box was the easiest way to pick up little kids. I doesn't have text chat after all and with voice communication it should be a lot harder to disguise youreselve. Bit hard to pretend your HotLisa16F when your voice only comes in over the subwoofer.

Then again this kid doesn't sound like he is a major loss to the gene pool. Meeting a total stranger in a park after exchanging porn. Oh yeah. That is something nobody has ever warned kids about.

I suppose I should feel sorry to sound nice but frankly I hate stupid people. Perhaps it is harder then when I was a kid but geez, has never ever had a talk with this kid before? Do not accept candy from strangers? Oh well, cue new laws designed to dumb down the world because of one pervert and a dumb kid.

Let me guess what the media would do...

[AzraelKans]

Let me take a wild guess: the media will make a huge unproportioned campaign about the lurking horrors of xbox live, warning that each kid playing is in danger of being a victim of some psycho completely disregarding the fact that a caught red handed child molester got a "get out of jail" card and is happily lurking around as we speak?

Who the fuck cares if it was on live or messenger or whatever? the guy walked!

Im seeing it right now Jack Thompson and "My husband cheated on me while being president" Clinton bragging about the danger of videogames, calling for banning of xbox live (maybe wifi nintendo) "due to the dangers within" completely missing the fact that our fucking law system is unable to keep a pedophile asshole in the place it belongs? heres a note conservatives: don't you think we could do more for "our children" if we could keep the people who actually commited the crime in jail? what about if he had used a phone? whats the solution then? ban phones?

Re:Let me guess what the media would do...

[Alsee]

Why does half the population have their IQ abruptly fall below their shoe size whenever children and sex appear in the same paragraph?

Lets say your next door neighbor is schizophrenic, and has two kids. Those kids happen to be Seriously Screwed Up.

Now lets run through two scenarios:
(A) One of the two kids accuses you of sexually abusing him.
(B) One of the two kids accuses you of mudering his bother, and that brother is missing.

Now for some reason you appear to lose all capability at rational thought and assume that you should be locked up in prison without trial in case (A). However I presume that you are an otherwise normal perfectly rational and intelligent educated person who knows full well that in case (B) you would be arrested and released on bail for the next months while the police further investigated and the District Attorney put together a case to take to court and a random and impartial jury would then evalute the evidence to see if you were Guilty Beyond A Reasonable Doubt before you were either imprisoned or found Not Guilty.

Just because someone is accused of child abuse does not mean they they actually did it. Just because your schizophrenic neighbor's kid accuses you of child abuse does not mean that you actually did it.

Here in America you are innocent until proven guilty and you get out on bail until we have an actual trial to figure out if you are guilty, or if maybe you were the victim. The victim of a fradulent/unsustantiated charge and prosecution.

Why do perfectly rational people who understand this in a case where a child has their heart sliced and diced suddenly turn into dysfunctional raving lunatics when the same child has their dinky diddled instead? Why do people start demanding longer and more severe prison sentences and all sorts of violations of the normal judical and penal process when someone some kid gets his dinky is diddled, rather than when the kid's heart is sliced and diced?

They are both certainly crimes, and they should both certainly be prosecuted and jailed. However one of those crimes is certainly more severe than the other. Having your heart sliced open and being murdered really is more severe than someone diddling your dinky.

And guess what? We already have laws against both of those things. Perfectly good laws against both of those things. However ever evry time there's a news story about a kid's dinky being diddled, there's always an inevitable outcry that Something Must Be Done. A constant outcry that the laws must be changed and always cranked up higher - even when that means turning the law upside down and leaving murder as the lesser offence.

And of course anyone who opposes such changes in the law - anyone who wants to keep the perfectly good law we already have - gets attacked and villified as defending pedophiles, or better yet attacked as being pedophiles. Yes, that's right, yesterdays' legislature who wrote today's existing laws were all pedophiles and they were all defending pedophiles. Every congress and every president from George Washington right up to George W. Bush were all pedophiles and none of them ever passed any apropriate law against it. It is just today that we suddenly noticed, and that tomorrow's legislature and tomorrow's president should be the first in history to actually oppose child abuse and be the first in history to actually pass reasonable laws in the area.

The big flavor of the day is the Sex Crimes Registry and tracking sex offenders. Well I want to know where the hell is the Murder Crimes Registry and tracking all of the murderers? Don't I have just as much right to know that there is a murderer living next door? Don't I get to protect myself and my children against murderers?

I once read an interesting quote:
"The definition of a stable society is when there's a school shooting and the laws don't change."

Unfurtuantly that author apparently failed to realize just how irrational and unstable people (and society) can actually be. Forget school shootings, the real quote needs to read:
"The definition of a stable society is when some kid gets in the news for having his dinky diddled and the laws don't change."

-

The omni-present question..

[billn]

Where were the parents at?

It's this simple:
Put your kids' computers and internet connected devices in a family room, not in bedrooms.
Apply some discipline and supervision with usage.

Like the television, the Xbox and the Internet in general are the new babysitters, and that's bad.

Not a big deal

[Henry V .009]

Sorry to burst your bubbles slashdotters, but there are few teenage homosexual boys that don't wind up having sex with 20-somethings at some point.

Re:Not a big deal

[ClioCJS]

Interracial marriage was illegal too. Law does not equal morality was his point, not that this was somehow legal.

Life is not 0s and 1s.

What about that teacher who 'raped' her student? Now he is 18 and married to her. Should she still be in jail after he is age 18, if, as an adult, he can retroactively say he was not victimized?

Not that I want to defend pedophiles. I actually work at an organization which catches them.