Slashdot Mirror
MySpace Predator Caught By Code
An anonymous reader writes, "Wired News editor and former hacker Kevin Poulsen wrote a
1,000-line Perl script that checked MySpace for registered sex offenders. Sifting through the results, he manually confirmed over 700 offenders, including a serial child molester in New York actively trying to hook up with underage boys on the site, and who has now been arrested as a result. MySpace told Congress last June that it didn't have this capability." Wired News says they will publish Poulsen's code under an open-source license later this week.
It took 1,000 lines to do a string compare?
I know what he did was a good thing, but what if I wrote a script to go through MySpace looking for other "stuff?" Isn't this a breach of privacy and wouldn't this person or MySpace be vulnerable to lawsuits?
Thus spake the article:
No amount of rummaging through any database is going to detect someone who registers under a false name, so no MySpace will NEVER really have the ability to find all the sex offenders, unless they can somehow verify that people are who they say they are when they sign up. Though they do now have the ability to catch the really stupid ones it seems.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Given all the people with convictions that were checked, less than one in a thousand had a conviction since 2000 and were on MySpace. Of those couple of hundred, one seemed to be trying to prey on little girls. This seems to be pretty much of a non-problem.
On the other hand, if I had to worry about anybody, I'd worry about our senators. A way higher proportion of our elected elite prey on the young than we have caught doing so on MySpace. In case you hadn't been paying attention, here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley_scandal
We spend way too much time worrying about things that aren't much of a problem and way too little time worrying about the things that can really get us.
And then there is Jacob, one of the kids this 39 year old had "friended":
So Jacob's parents can't be bothered to, you know, go see wtf this kid is doing on MySpace? The earlier comment snippet makes it seem like the parents of this kid are totally off the hook here, but guess what? Wether your kid is hanging out at the local corner or someplace online, you really need to know where they are and what they are doing. And then there is the whole issue about not talking to stangers in the first place; apparently his parents have completely missed the boat in that area. Scary.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
MySpace needs to be whacked, hard. Harder.
The lazy, lying bastards should be shut down, made an example of. At the least, they're now liable because someone showed it could be done, and because they were too lazy to do it themselves, they now have a liability exposure for any child that was preyed upon through their web site.
Best regards.
Now why is that, exactly?
We know that child molestation has occurred for untold eons. Humans are therefore resilient, resistant to such things, for the sake of survival. And at the risk of getting flamed, I want to point out the evidence that most victims of such mistreatment do in fact go on to lead normal lives. Natural selection sternly requires it.
So. Why is child molestation such an obviously hideous evil?
Is it just because we in the West are presently obsessed with sex?
I swear I am not trolling. I myself am actually a victim, from age 8, but I seem to be fine (although my level of slashdotting may be a sign of a deep malfunction). Ever since I realized that I survived unscathed, I have been wondering for a long time why this subject gets an automatic "OMG teh molestation!!!11!" response, when it is actually such a commonplacde in human history.
It almost -- ALMOST -- smells like we are protesting too much.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Even so, robots.txt is not a privacy guarantee, it's only a friendly suggestion.
Ever since I realized that I survived unscathed, I have been wondering for a long time why this subject gets an automatic "OMG teh molestation!!!11!" response, when it is actually such a commonplacde in human history.
It is a fear response.
On the other hand, if there is a way to find out repeat sexual predators who are looking for new prey then shouldn't we use that method?
I'm going to make a general comment - I find MySpace unbearably creepy and exhibitionistic. I wonder if its purpose was to provide titillation and unhealthy fascination in young people because it appears to be doing an excellent job at that.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Also keep in mind, while I haven't read the testimony, "They don't have the ability" means the don't have the code written to perform those tests today, nothing more. Not "A million monkeys could never develop that code because its impossible, now, then, and in the future". And filtering for child molesters potentially puts them at risk, if they miss one the patents are almost certain to sue (you should have protected my kids! I shouldn't have to raise them and look after them...)
The only thing that worries me about this is 'authenticity'. What's to stop a vigilante group creating Myspace accounts in the names of registered sex offenders, and then reporting said accounts to the police? Sure, it's traceable with a bit of effort - but you just know that there'll be slips made, especially when you connect the words "sex offender", "children", "myspace", "police", and "media" in the same sentence.
Yes, children are resilient, but another instinct that is supposedly hardwired into us is protection of our offspring. This (perhaps more than the "I want government to raise our kids" thing) is a big factor in heightened reactions to crimes against children. Add in the more rational sympathy for living beings that can't protect themselves like adults can, and you can end up with people overreacting to, and often overestimating the frequency of, these crimes.
My personal feeling on this specific issue is that I don't think MySpace has any true responsibility to monitor this, any more than other social networking programs/websites (like the many IM programs). The only real recourse society has in this case (barring violation of MySpace's rights) would be to legislate them into things like requiring credit cards for access (thus supposedly proving adult status), boycotting the service or going "vigilante," rooting out the pedophiles Dateline style.
I agree to some extent, the parents should definitely be very heavily involved in any relationship a 12 year old boy has with a 40 year old man. Furthermore, for a 12 year old boy to develop a relationship with someone he met online is extremely risky.
Having said that, mentoring relationships can be extremely valuable. Some of my parent's friends, for example, have provided me with incredibly valuable guidance - not just direct advice but also as examples of how to live and solve life's problems.
Basically, I think younger people should seek out older people for guidance much more often than they do but, for younger children in particular, the parents do need to be heavily involved.
If some 12 year old boy contacted me on the internet, I would want to talk to his parents before I had any kind of interaction with him at all. On the other hand, if some 17 year old boy contacted me to discuss a scientific topic then I see nothing wrong with corresponding. If I did start to become friends with the 17 year old then I would want to get to know his parents but, although I would restrict my interaction to technical topics (no advice on relationships), I wouldn't rule out a casual friendship.
While your post as a whole was well written and insightful, the number of people who eat meat and feel absolutely no remorse argues against any general sympathy for living beings.
I once used an image from an offender website as a message board avatar.
Really, really scary looking guy, convicted of several counts of incest.
But, HE didn't have an account, his image was used without his knowledge or permission.
If a reporter sees a crime on the street and reports it, that's good citizenship. If a reporter goes crime-hunting to fabricate a story, that endangers every other reporter out there trying to act as an independent observer.
I hope that addresses your false dichotomy.
Kevin's release conditions aren't any different from any other felon. He's not on supervision, and doesn't have to report crimes he witnesses. As should be obvious from his prior reporting.
Hope this helps.
-- Adrian
I think you'll find that it's mostly the young people providing the "titillation and unhealthy fascination" to each other.
Setting aside issues of what is a "sex offender" vs what I think the public perception of one is, are all "sex offenders" not allowed to use MySpace?
This is a little like cross referencing a list of library card holders and comparing it to the list of "sex offenders" and waxing hysterical that there are "sex offenders" in the library. Do the same with Blockbuster cards, or the phone book. Geee gads, there are "sex offenders" in the city...
Yes, there are young people on MySpace, but not all MySpace users are young. Some people are well into their 30s and 40s and use it to connect with other 30 and 40 year olds.
The mere presence of "sex offenders" should not be cause for concern anymore then if they were in a library, Wal-Mart, mall, grocery store, etc. This is reinforced with the fact that many "sex offenders" really aren't-people who were 18 and their partner was 15, public urinators, that guy that grabbed that girl to yell at her for jaywalking or whatever, etc.
The single biggest problem, in my opinion, is that you can't be sure. Just because a person has registered with a certain name doesn't mean they are that ONE person. I've got the same name as a black minor league hockey player. But I'm not.
This is why it's not as simple as searching for string a in string b. You'll end up with half a million names, and not only do you have to monitor those half a million users to see what they're up to, you have to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Dougy is the infamous sex offender, and not an 11 year old trying to pick up 16 year olds.
It's been a long time.
Survival of the fittest sternly requires it?
Evolution is "death of the least fit", not "survival of the fittest". As long as a critter can eek out an existence, it doesn't have to be the very best. Some one can be completely fscked up, and yet still be fit enough to survive.
Evolution may prove lots of things, but it certainly doesn't prove that rape, child molestation, beatings, or racism are not bad things (by your logic, all of these things have been going on for a long long time, and yet we're all fine).
Thw sooner you go to jail for a crime you didn't commit the better off society will be. Unlikely, but perhaps then you will understand that the law should be upheld against the will of you and your ilk.
You do realize that "registered sex offender" could mean you mooned a couple of cops, right?
Which brings up a concern I've always had. Let me preface this by stating that I'm the father of 3 and if anyone had ever abused any of my kids they'd be lucky to make it to prison.
That said, though, doesn't it seem just a little unconstitutional to require only one class of criminal to be registered for life and tracked for life even after they have done their prison time? I know courts have upheld it, but it sounds like inconsistent application of the law.
Why aren't murderers required to register? I serial killer who never sexually assaults their victims could conceivably get out of jail and not have to register on any watch lists, but a dumb 17 year old boy having sex with an (underage) 16 year old girl can be arrested for rape and required to be a registered sex offender for life.
How exactly is that constitutional? The whole point of prison was paying your debt to society. If you do that and get out (not on parole, but complete the sentence), why should you have to continue to be punished for life?
This is like the discussion the other day around felons losing the right to vote even after they are out of prison.