MA Attorney General Seeks Myspace Changes
kaufmanmoore writes "Massachusetts' Attorney General Tom Reilly is saying that Myspace is not doing enough to protect children from sexual predators and is calling for action. The biggest proposal is to change the minimum age from 14 to 18 with an age verification system, but also to respond to all reports of inappropriate content within 24 hours and significantly raise the number of staff who review images and content." From the article: "The arrest Tuesday of a 27-year-old man in Connecticut on charges of illegal sexual contact with a 13-year-old girl he met through MySpace underlines the risks of the fast-growing Internet site that boasts about 60 million members."
I have two teenage daughters. Both of them have MySpace accounts. Neither of them is meeting mysterious men online.
Those girls are my responsibility. I can't expect them to make sound judgements on their own. I also cannot expect the administrators of a site to take responsibility for others' actions. Here we have another case of putting the blame on the drug and not the user. Here's a tip for you parents that think a government agency should step in:
MySpace is a harmless thing when exposed to smart people. It's the uneducated, unmonitored, and neglected that seem to be the victims. I know everything my girls do on MySpace, and they know it. You should know where your kids are going, and where they're at whether it's a physical location, or a cyber location. I'm not going to have freedoms sacrificed because a select few haven't a clue what their children are up to.
It's easy to blame MySpace because it's hard to raise a child.
My ZooLoo
The biggest proposal is to change the minimum age from 14 to 18 with an age verification system,
Oooh, that's scary. I bet kids will have a really hard moral dilemma lying to the "are you under 18? [YES] [NO]" page.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
It's much easier to legislate, rather than tell parents there not doing their job right.
Quite sad if you think about it.
....anyone but parents being the responsible party. I'm not saying that they have total control over their kid's actions, but legislation like this implies that "some kids are just beyond good upbringing and good parenting". You see this garbage in schools all the time, and it's sickening.
PARENTS - Other people are not responsible for your children. That's why they're your children. Spend time teaching them -why- this sort of thing is bad. If you don't trust them, limit their internet usage. Keep tabs on where they are and what they're doing. IF you don't like the commitment and responsiblity that comes along with it, don't have children.
the state of Mass et. al. could do THEIR job and catch these pervs instead of off-loading the responsibility onto a company who's area of expertise is not law enforcement.
When we start expecting private citizens/companies to be our law enforcement (e.g.RIAA,etc.) is when things tend to get COMPLETELY OUT OF HAND!
$7.95/mo, 200 GB disk, 2TBxfer, MySQL, PHP, RoR.
So, if everyone is 'officially' 18 on MySpace, sexual predators will just have a claim against accusations of pedophilia when girls lie about their age to get an account. "I didn't know she was underaged! Her profile says 18!"
Great idea, guys.
Seriously what is so good about myspace? When did it become so popular... What does it offer over Livejournal?
Also does anyone see a problem with "whatever the kids like" being an automatic scapegoat for pollies looking for a bit of attention.
I suppose it isn't all bad, it might replace the "video games are evvilllll" argument. Like when video games replaced d&d, or when d&d replaced rock music or when rock music replaced jazz music...
A local cop in Middletown, CT posed as a 17 year old. He just struck up a conversation with one girl. He then ask to be her "friend" (a MySpace term to be added to a buddy list). After the first addition, he just kept sending emails to the initial contact's friends asking to be put on their buddy list. The cop also pointed out that there was enough information on the web sites to actually find these girls. When they finally met him, they were shocked to find out that he was this pounchy thirty something.
Anyway, a lot of it is social engineering. Once you get into a circle, you're have access to a ton of stuff. It also happens to adults. ONe of the best ways to start a con game is to go to church! A con artist will get involved with the minister or someone else at the church and then others think that this guys is "alright". The con artist just starts reeling'em in! No tech required!
BTW: I saw this on TV and I don't remeber the show.
"The arrest Tuesday of a 27-year-old man in Connecticut on charges of illegal sexual contact with a 13-year-old girl he met through MySpace underlines the risks of the fast-growing Internet site... "
Well it also underlines that the police, FBI and MySpace admins are doing their jobs and keeping their eyes on the ball. This kind of predation is a risk in any kind of communal space, online or not. The answer is to be careful, and let your friends know where you're going & who you talk to.
The answer is NOT to outlaw communal spaces, or ban younger people. The idea that under 18s should be banned from public parks would immediately be seen for the stupid overprotective reactionism that it is. But because this is about "the internet"... ooh, scary! Suddenly no amount of legislation is enough.
Even better: teach them not to leave personally identifying information lying around in public view. That's a lot better than trying to play catch-up and block each new social site in turn.
Oh, and it's "you're set," not "your set."
I had a geocities webpage when I was 12 and I was never gang raped by strangers. What exactly has changed in the last nine years?
This post is redundant, because even though I haven't read the discussion thread I'm sure over 50% say this as well. Raise your own f*cking kids, and don't blame others because you were too lazy to get off the couch and see what they were up to. It still really shocks me that in order to drive a car, I need the government to give me a slip of paper, an insurance company to give me another one, and both of these have to be renewed on a regular basis, but I"m completely unrestricted in my ability to screw and make children. Poorly raised children are a far bigger danger to society than an unlicensed, drunk, speed freak driving down the expressway.
change the minimum age from 14 to 18 with an age verification system
Tom, wouldn't it be easier just to put them out of business?
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
They'll wait till they're in college, if they make it that far, and use Facebook.
:(
What I find funny about these stories and the obligatory "parents need to not suck!" argument is that it assumes that all parents have the same technical ability that we do. Or even the same language ability that we do. Or the TIME that we do. This seems to be the mother of all projections, as far as this site goes- "I could do it this way, it should be done this way, therefore EVERYONE should be fine doing it this way, and if they don't, it's their fault."
Lots of parents work two jobs. Lots of parents don't understand computers. Lots of parents simply don't know enough about their teenager's life to check for some things (to those that do, or think your parents did, I'm sorry. You're lying. Everyone keeps things from everyone else, regardless of their relationship).
And even so, how is this a raising thing? Kids are having sex, and parents can't stop them from that. How does it make any difference when it's some guy they met at school, planning over AIM and some guy on myspace who happens to be a sexual predator? Again, you don't know everything your child is up to (nor should you), and you never will.
Even putting that aside, these arguments are ridiculous. We have a problem of kids being subjected to predators on a website. The state has a duty (not even just a right, a duty) to ensure that if there are unacceptable risks, safeguards are put in place to assure that we've done all we reasonably can to protect the children. This is bad how? Because it'll curb kids' ability to use a website to share things? While I think the child's ability to express himself online is important, I think making our best effort to ensure that kid isn't going to be assaulted by a predator is pretty darn important too.
The "parent more" argument is a useful tool for people with agendas, but it has no logical stopping point. Why should the state have battery laws? Shouldn't parents teach their kids how to avoid fights? How about laws against gang activity? Shouldn't parents tell their kids to avoid gangs and vandalism? By this logic, simply "raising" your kid would solve the problem, but obviously it doesn't.
Why, couldn't find any terrorists using MySpace?
Quite seriously. If you can't take care of your kids, then you're unfit as a parent and CPS should step it. Case closed. It is NOT the responsibility of the country to raise anyone's children, except those children that don't have parents! It is not the governments responsibility to keep them out of trouble.
It is YOURS, if you're a parent! Not mine. Not the country's. YOURS.
Then again, why do I bother to ramble? It's just the usual excuse to cut into civil liberties with a petty excuse that nobody dares to stand up against.
Ok. I do. To hell with children. I want freedom!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Some of these comments are utterly sickening. I'm a 16 year old, I have a myspace acount (this is sounding like a confession). I'm a good, smart, responsible person, my parent's havent disiplined or watched over me since I was 9, and they have no reason to. My dad smokes pot from time to time, my mum will have a couple of glasses of wine on the weekend, and as neither of them are hypocrytes, they have both stated that if I ever wanted to experiment with that sort of thing, I'd have the right to.
Me, being, you know, a real live actual person, came to the conclusion that drugs and achohol were exepensive and would not contribute to my like, I'm pretty much straight edge.
I have my own computer with my own password which none of my family members are allowed to touch. I've met up with people from various forums and myspace in real life, not being an idiot, I've always met at public places like tube stations, haven't been raped yet.
Parents, your teenage girls are people who can make choices, and if left to their own devices with the knowledge that you trust them, they will make the right choices. Also, keeping your children from contact with the other sex, even if this contact was asablished online, is seriously fucked up. What the hell can be more natural than exploring sexuality when you're biologicaly ready and too young to be settling down in long term relationships?
I fucking worry for the state of this generation.
It says that rights which are not listed do not cease to be rights; it does not say that everything that is not listed is a right.
And who are you to say what is and is not a right or freedom? What makes you able to say that "foo" is not a right, but something like "breathing" is? I don't see breathing listed anywhere in the constitution, should we be worried about the government outlawing breathing? They could plug us all in to blood filters/oxygenators, and sew our lungs shut. Wonder what it'd do for the lung cancer rates.
There are better arguments here. For instance, the State government can take precedence via the 10th Amendment (as in this case), assuming it's constitution/laws permit it to do so, but in general, I shall retain my right to remain annoyed.
I mean, this is one busy man! He seems to have decided all of this at the same time that he's jockeying for Governer of the state!
Would anyone have seen this coming? Wow....
Jerk.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
it doesnt NEED to do a mother fucking thing. its a voluntary services that parents allow their children to use.
:)
myspace should randomly put huge/loud pornographic images on the pages of anyone who "says" they're above the age of 21/18 just so when parents come by they might actually take alert to what their children are actually doing.
if they're lying about their age... fuck em. they're beating the system and are probably enjoying it... and maybe a little too much.
if the parents have a problem with it... fuck em. they're the parents. they should be the decision makers. not myspace and not the motherfucking government.
if you have a problem with my opinion and live in the US - fuck you and fuck movies (heh, unnecessary dane cook reference) . if you dont believe i have the right to say this get the fuck out of my country.
if you dont live in my country - hahaha.. you can jib at me and say "at least bush isnt my president"... then i can chuckle and say.. damn. you got me..
What I find so amusing about all this is that all myspace essentially is is a web host. They grant you rights to a sub-domain, x #'s of pictures, a blog, and a beefed up guestbook (comments). So i suppose now we have to censure every Web Host to save our children. Shit, I suppose that means no more slashdot...becuase God knows we all have /. profiles...and any creep could send us a message and rape us!!!!!
*sighs*
I mean for the love of Ghu, does everyone working in United States politics have Mental Dysponexia? Everything in the news these days in about the '3\/1|_ Internet Pedofiles' does nothing else go in in this country? Are there no other big issues?
This type of thing is little more than a distraction, a ruse to make people willingly abandon their rights one by one in order to fight a menace that doesn't even exist. Not to say that there aren't people meeting each other through myspace and things happen--but certainly there aren't enough people out there using myspace and internet chat rooms to seek out children to justify this kind of response. I believe in psychology they call this 'denial' and 'avoidance' so what exactly is it we so desperately wish to deny or ignore?
We're trying to ignore that the problem isn't some stranger over the internet--it's Daddy!
The numbers are clear: well over 50% of child abusecases are are ones where the perpetrator was a parent and of the percentage remaining, overwhelmingly the perpetrator was a person in authority or well known to the child and the family. This isn't about strangers over the internet, its about pretending that everything is alright at home--well its not!
Where is this MAA (..a little inside humor there..Heh..) on the incest exemption laws is what I want to know! Why is it that legally a man who rapes his daughter can have state financed retrieval services, get less time in prison if caught, #### he can even get conjugal visits with the child if his wife is made the guardian...and yet if a guy and a girl meet online and eventually start a relationship and all that entails the law punishes him ten times the degree that it does Daddy? Oh wait, I forgot--Pay No Attention To Daddy! Silly me! I know, let's all forget about Daddy and watch Dateline pick up another group of gullible idiots! That'll take our mind off things!
--I*Love*Green*Olives (sitting in a golf car with OJ looking for the 'real' killers...)
PS: I type this using the wrong account name the first time! :blushes: But it was really me both times!
There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls. --George Carlin