Slashdot Mirror
MySpace, U.S. Address Sex Offenders Online
TitusC3v5 writes "According to BBC News, MySpace is attempting to block sex offenders by way a custom database that utilizes state sex offender registries. Sentinel Safe will let MySpace search US state and federal databases to seek out and delete MySpace profiles of registered sex offenders." From the article: "The company said the new service will be the first national database that brings together about 46 US state sex offender registers ... It will be available in the next 30 days. MySpace has not released information on its plans for tackling sex offenders using the service in other countries." This is on the heels of proposed legislation that would require sex offenders to keep their email on file. The addresses would presumably be used to restrict former criminals from accessing online community sites, but in an the era of easily obtainable email addresses it's hard to see how this would be effective.
To promote easy identification of sex offenders, a new bill requires "registration of the logo and design of the hat worn by the offender." Mention was not made in the bill of what happens if the offender changes hats.
Holy hell, how far can they take this false sense of security crap? If you want your kids to be safe, teach them what things to do are stupid, and how to recognize danger signals (online and offline). Then, you could, you know, always supervise them until you're reasonably sure that they've indeed gotten the point.
Or we could try tracking people by their email address. I'm sure that'll work great. imasexoffender@example.com will never think of registering 15yroldmale@example.com too!
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
550,000 registered sex offenders in the U.S. -- given a population of 300M, that's roughly one in every 500 persons, or (excluding females, children, and elderly) somewhere around one out of every 100 young-adult and middle-aged males (the classes that mostly populate the category "sex offenders").
So.. in numbers that are admittedly vague, but good enough for gov't work, one out of every 100 adult males is a registered sex offender. Doesn't that number seen a little high to you??
Hmm... Given a similar illicit-activity rate, you only need 99 other such criminal classes to make EVERY adult male have to register as some sort of offender!!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
It isn't, if this is "sex offenders" and not "child abusers".
Laws are brought in "for the sake of the children", but cover a far wide variety of crimes, including even consensual and victimless crimes (and it's not just the US - see my sig for an example where soon looking at a picture will alone be a sex crime in the UK, even though the act itself was not a crime).
Nature has been around a hell of a lot longer than any of our laws. Should we be listening more to Nature? (Is there a biologist/doctor in the house who can shed some light on this?)
I still think it should be illegal to pass a law against a group of people if they don't have the right to vote. Under-age drinking laws should be unconstitutional, because the people who are affected by them can't vote.
Perhaps it should be illegal to sell booze to someone under 18 (or 21, whatever), but the idea that you can be charged with underage drinking is asinine. "You're too young to understand that you can/can't drink - so here's a ticket." Wtf? If someone is too young to make a decision, how is it THEIR fault?
I feel that many (most?) laws on the books today have little to do with protection, and more to do with enforcing social "mores." In this view it's easy to pass laws against teenagers, because they can't vote to oppose them!A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC