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.

Comments

WTF?

[zappepcs]

Is this yet another case of clueless people trying to create rules for systems that they have no idea of how it functions?

While the intent is good, I'm rather suspect of people who think this is full-proof, and look forward (mockingly) to the future when people think their kids are safe from predators because MySpace is tracking KNOWN sex offenders by their REGISTERED email addresses.

Wow, why don't we just do this with terrorists? Then we'd know where they are and what they are doing all the time, just have to log onto the gov. website to find out....

Re:WTF?

[Ucklak]

This is in the same line of logic as the fake boarding passes.

"We're going to make these rules and it will be illegal to break these rules. YOU will go to jail if you break these rules."

It realy sounds like a bunch of children at the playground, the kind that makeup a particular game and create the rules as they go along. One kid figures out how to be 'King of the Hill' and the whiny kid cries because the smarter kids broke the rule.

Yes, there are serious problems here but email tracking is not the way to do it.

Wired News Supplied the code

[jmagar.com]

Kevin Poulsen broke this story wide open by developing the scripts and tools to parse the sex offender registry, and compare the MySpace members. He supplied his work to the cops and the rest is today's news.

The finest Mashup I've seen to date. Worthy of some sort of prize... Is there a "Mashup Awards Banquet"?

Re:Wired News Supplied the code

[Thansal]

yup, that was the big one.

The key things involved are that the sex ofenders (for reasons known only to them selfs) still register with their REAL info. Why? No clue!

It will stop some offenders I hope, but I doubt it will do much.

The biggest problem is that you just outright block them bassed on email then that enourages them to get an email and not register it.

Re:Wired News Supplied the code

[cptgrudge]

The key things involved are that the sex offenders (for reasons known only to them selfs) still register with their REAL info. Why? No clue!

If a sex offender is too controlled by his (or her) urges to the point where they have sex with children, rape someone, or otherwise sexually assault other people, they may not be thinking too clearly in the first place.

Also in the news...

[laughingcoyote]

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!

Re:Also in the news...

[Brill]

I think they probably underestimate the public's ability to parent. and rightly so... US culture praises consumption and stupidity... =\

Politicians and pedophiles.

[Tackhead]

Politicians and pedophiles. Two groups of exploitive bastards who are at their most dangerous when they're thinking of the children.

Re:Politicians and pedophiles.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes they are even one and the same!

Re:Politicians and pedophiles.

[dubbreak]

Not talking about Mark Foley are we?

Re:Politicians and pedophiles.

[pafrusurewa]

I suggest you look up what "pedophile" means. Hint: it doesn't automatically translate to actions that are "exploitative."

Come on, don't just repeat what you hear on TV.

Re:Politicians and pedophiles.

[l0cust]

That, sir, has to be the funniest yet meaningful statement I have heard in a while. Thanks for the sig!

The solution is good advice...

[b0s0z0ku]

Don't give your address and out to random people online, the same as you don't give it out to anyone whom you meet on the street. If you meet someone you met online in real life, don't do it alone or in an empty place. Basically, teach your kids to apply normal rules for real-world interactions to MySpace, and there won't be a huge problem. Blocking sex offenders really doesn't help, since it's the *unknown* sex offenders that you have to worry about, not the known ones - you can always check for the names and address of known ones on the state registry sites before meeting someone IRL.

-b.

umm

[LadyNik0n]

Yeah.. I am gonna surf myspace with anything that would link me as a sex offender anywhere else..

Armbands

[Omnifarious]

I think we are in the process of creating a bunch of second class citizens with sex offender registration laws. People can become sex offenders for a wide variety of reasons, but everybody treats all sex offenders as if each and every single one were an evil predator lurking and waiting for even a glimmer of a chance to prey on a child.

For people convicted of kidnapping children and coercing them into child porn, this might very well be reasonable. But for the 25 yr old convicted of statutory rape of the 17yr old, this is quite questionable. Or the father who molests his daughter (and has never touched another child), or any number of other situations that are significantly milder.

Most people who have to register do not deserve to be treated the same as the worst of the class.

I'm waiting for the laws that strip custody of children from registered sex offenders or prohibit them from participating in school events with their children, or any number of other laws passed by well-meaning people that create a large class (probably nearly a million people in the US) of people who are denied some fairly basic things for no particularly good reason.

Re:Armbands

[Damastus the WizLiz]

While I agree that the registration ideas are getting out of hand, I dislike you refrence to a father molesting his daughter as being a milder case. That is I believe a far worse and more damaging situation.

Re:Armbands

[Pojut]

I always felt the "rape" part in "statutory rape" to be unbelievably mislabled. I think at the age of 16 someone knows if they want to fuck or not. They may not be responsible enough to handle what happens if they get pregnant, that much is true. However, in the words of Dave Chappelle, "16 is old enough to know if you want to be pissed on."

Re:Armbands

[SoCalChris]

Or the father who molests his daughter (and has never touched another child), or any number of other situations that are significantly milder.

I really hope that was a typo, or came out wrong, and you don't really feel like that is something "significantly minor".

Re:Armbands

[SatanicPuppy]

In Arizona you can become a convicted sex offender by being cited for public nudity...So look out if you visit any of their Nude Beaches, or you're going to find some unexpected stuff on your MySpace profile.

Re:Armbands

[Omnifarious]

I do think it's milder than someone kidnapping children and forcing them into child porn. I don't think it's minor.

Re:Armbands

[Tim C]

Or the father who molests his daughter (and has never touched another child)

That's an astonishing abuse of trust on the part of the father. It's not milder at all, he's broken one of the basic rules of being a human being (or indeed a member of most animal species) - he's harmed one of his children.

Parents are supposed to protect their kids, not molest them. I suspect that you're in a very small minority indeed in seeing that as being milder than molesting a stranger's kid.

(I realise you're not condoning it)

Re:Armbands

[Omnifarious]

Worse and far more damaging than someone who kidnaps children and forces them into child porn? I hope you're joking.

Re:Armbands

[symes]

It depends on your view of punishment - if it works as a deterrent then perhaps the stigma associated with sex crime is helping to keep crime numbers down. Frankly, imho, any form of sexual abuse, whether it is rape, paedophilia, flashing, whatever, involves a victim who should not have had to endure that crime. Although, on the whole, sex offenders' rates of recidivism is below other offenders there are hard core groups who are often organised and do systematically seek out victims. I can't see any good reason not to require these people to register their email addresses.

Re:Armbands

[Reziac]

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!!

Re:Armbands

[m15cr3ant]

It does not matter if it is considered mild or not. The fact is that it is still a sexual based crime. If you murder someone with a bat, or 100 people the same way or if intently run someone over with a car, either way you look at it you are still a murderer. What's the difference?

While some crimes are not punished equally, they are still crimes. In sex based attacks, if you have done it once then there is a high chance that you will do it again. In that case everyone should be warned of your actions. While I do agree that there shouldn't be a lapel pin or a hat you have to wear, there should be a way for the people you interact with to know about hence the registry.

Re:Armbands

[Omnifarious]

I think most people would agree that kidnapping children and forcing them into sexual acts is worse than the statutory rape I cited or even a father molesting his daughter.

Sex offenders who violently take what they want by force might be worse than the kidnappers or not depending.

The statutory rape case IMHO hinges entirely on the individuals involved. I can see that being abusive or just fine. I, in fact, know of a case just like that in which both parties are now adults and are doing very well in a committed relationship.

And a simple stark reading of the charges someone is guilty of isn't actually sufficient to make a judgment either. It's all about intent, coercion, abuse of power and other factors.

Re:Armbands

[Omnifarious]

I can't see any reason not to make people like that register either. And having them show up on MySpace is just fine by me. Personally, I really hope that someone was very careful about things when they released them from prison.

Re:Armbands

[Arcane_Rhino]

I think the gp was referring to the fact that, statistically, most father daughter molestation scenarios are opportunist, meaning they usually involve multiple concomitants such as alcohol/drugs, divorce/unhappy relationships, etc. Opportunistic molesters are not true pedophiles in that they do not specifically target and prefer children.

Of course, statistics don't mean a damn if you're the one getting fucked up the arse by the old man but there is a recognized difference in the field.

Re:Armbands

[Kiaser Wilhelm II]

You don't understand, the point is that these crimes are lumped in all as "sex offender" crimes when in reality the crime was hardly a crime at all (20yr old with a 17yr old) or such as a guy who only molests his daughters is somehow considered someone who needs to be branded for life as someone who is a danger to the neighborhood.

When you consider that there are many much worse crimes that do not have registries, it seems a bit illogical to make an equalization to other crimes of conscious decision.

This is pure hysteria.

Re:Armbands

[Omnifarious]

That's actually not true. The recidivism rate among sex offenders is very low compared to most crimes. And the likelihood could hardly be characterized as 'high' as I believe the rate is less than 1%.

Now, among certain classes of sex offenders this isn't true. But initiatives like this very rarely make any distinction and treat all sex offenders as the worst kind.

Re:Armbands

[AK Marc]

For all the people that are replying about the abuse of a family member, think of it this way:

A guy breaks into your house, kills your wife, and is running away from the house when you chase him down and beat to death. You are convicted of murder. Someone else takes to sniping people in VA. If both were released, who is more likely to kill again, the person that only did it once in a specific situation, of the person that killed strangers multiple times?

A father that molests his own children is not a threat to "society" in the same way a person that preys on strangers is. Independent of the damage to the child, the danger of another occurrance is significantly different, and so it should be reflected.

There are places where pissing in the alley is a sex offence. Any list that considers a weak bladder and poor judgement to be equal to kidnapping, raping and killing 20 random children does not seem to be extremely useful. There are people sitting on the list right now that had sex with someone when both were under-age (and it was legal), then one of them got older, and it became "rape." Perhaps if the list had a rating of 1-5 for severity and liklyhood of recividism, or separate the violent from non-violent offenders, or something like that it would become more relevant.

Re:Armbands

[Omnifarious]

That's an interesting point. But who do you think would more likely to be on MySpace trolling for young girls?

I consider it milder mostly because it can sometimes be very hard to keep separate one kind of intimate relationship for another, especially if you were abused yourself as a child. I believe those cases are the ones most amenable to treatment. I also believe that the suicide rates among offenders in those kinds of cases are the highest. So, my definition of milder is mostly "least likely to actually be a danger to anybody else".

Re:Armbands

[m15cr3ant]

Why not let the registry show their crimes? I think it would be a great idea, but the minute one person finds out about it, it will be a privacy issue and everyone will be up in arms about it. Which makes no sense because they are on a registry either way. I don't see why they don't get someone to lobby on their behalf to get the format of the registry changed. If it is that much of an issue then I am sure someone will do it for a buck.

A guy breaks into your house, kills your wife, and is running away from the house when you chase him down and beat to death. You are convicted of murder. Someone else takes to sniping people in VA. If both were released, who is more likely to kill again, the person that only did it once in a specific situation, of the person that killed strangers multiple times?

Like I posted before either way you are still a murderer. It does not matter the severity of the crime, just that the crime was committed.

Re:Armbands

[Anonymous Coward]

A friend of mine, when he was sixteen, was accused by his then-girlfriend of raping her. On the advice of his lawyer, though he was innocent, he pleaded guilty and got both a reduced sentance and the entire ordeal over with. In theory. A few months later she confessed to him that she accused him because she wanted attention, and now she wanted to get back together with him.

Ten years later or so, when the Registery of Sex Offenders here in Massachusetts was created, he was told that as a registered sex offender he had to register. Now, he can't leave the state without telling everyone and their brother, he's had several visits from the local police officers, and his name is readily available in his town as a Sex Offender.

But, thank heavens we're protected from dangerous predators like him.

Re:Armbands

[Anonymous Coward]

Recidivism is much much higher for those who molest/rape random strangers than those who victimize those who they know.

If you'd rather be warned about the molesting father, you're simply irrational, because he poses the lesser threat.

Re:Armbands

[Llywelyn]

Some of the ways you can get labeled "sex offender," depending on state, have very little to do with those under the age of consent at all. Public indecency and prostitution are two of the ones that come to mind.

Re:Armbands

[nightfire-unique]

If you're religious or raised with religious values, you might feel that sex is the worst thing that can happen to you. Believe it or not, there are people "out there" (and yes I've spoken to some) who actually would prefer their child die, over them having sex, because sex condemns them to hell, where dying does not.

I guess the idea here is that.. oh I dunno.

We are a strange species.. :)

Re:Armbands

[aaronl]

The point that you are missing is the assumption that because you are a "sex offender" you will prey upon and stalk children. Someone arrested and convicted of a "sex crime" for getting drunk and streaking across their college campus is treated equal to someone that has habitually raped 10 year old boys. That there is a registry for these acts, in and of itself, is a miscarriage of justice. If you are not safe to return to society, then why were you released?

Also, there is a good point to note that we do not have a registry of murderers, people who have repeatedly violently assaulted others, and many other things. Many, *many*, of these crimes carry higher repeat offense statistics, and these crimes are much worse than "sex crimes". Which is worse: being raped, or being dead?

The case of the man killing his wife's killer vs. a serial killer is likely one of manslaughter vs. second degree murder. They are both killing someone, but the situations are very different. The murder version of these "sex crime" lists would equate the two, since they both involved killing someone.

Additionally, consider that doing theft the "sex crime" way would mean calling the serial burglar, who has been convicted of hundreds of thousands in thefts, the same thing as the kid that stole a video game from the mall. If you're convicted of either, you go on the list, and are called a thief.

In all of these cases, it would now be *IMPOSSIBLE* to repay your debt to society and rejoin the world as a productive citizen. A drunken mistake when you were 17 can force you to poor living conditions and low pay work, or simply force you to become a criminal to have a decent life. BTW - refusing to inform your community that you are on one of these lists would be grounds for arrest, since *that* would be a crime. So trying to have a normal life after paying penance becomes illegal.

You might not have intended it that way, but you manner of thought simply causes intolerance and creates more criminals. You create a life of intolerance and unforgiveness. There is a reason why every major religion teaches forgiveness, and it's not because someone's god said so.

Re:Armbands

[Grendel.Gaidin]

If you murder someone with a bat, or 100 people the same way or if intently run someone over with a car, either way you look at it you are still a murderer. What's the difference? The difference would be your rights after serving your time. If you were convicted of vehicular man slughter you can still buy a car and drive. If you bash someone's head in with a baseball bat you can still purchase and own baseball bats, even if you robbed a bank you can still go and open a bank account. See a trend here? Sex based crimes are the only crimes that require extra punishment even after time served and even after probation. If convicted you have to register for life which, restricts communities and areas in which you can live, which I beleive kind of violates the inalianable rights granted to us. Admittedly the Declaration of independence isnt necesarily law but with these extra punishments tagged on your liberty is restricted and so would your pursuit of happines, if in that your happiness is to own this awesome house, but unfortunately there are too many schools in the area too close together, cant live there sorry. So there is a very distinct difference between violent crimes, white collar crimes, and sex crimes, when there should be none. After you servered your time have done your probation you are and should be free. Your crimes are a matter of public record but other than that you should be free to live your life as any citizen would, see because after service of your time thats what you are again a citizen. This isnt really true though.

Re:Armbands

[nightfire-unique]

I always felt the "rape" part in "statutory rape" to be unbelievably mislabled.

I think you may be a little naive. :)

There are MANY words that are chosen specifically to imply something that would not otherwise be obvious. The naming of the law was chosen to imply that it IS rape, because those who supported it at first were those who wished to control other peoples' lives. Preying on teenagers (who can't vote) is an easy way to do this...

How many people would support a crime called "unauthorized sex?"

Re:Armbands

[ruiner13]

People can become sex offenders for a wide variety of reasons

This is very true. Some states you can get put on the SO registry for simply getting caught peeing in some bushes behind a bar after doing some drinking. That person clearly isn't a threat to anyone, and isn't likely to hurt anyone, but would be on the SO lists never-the-less. This usually causes them to be treated as outcasts and in some cases can be beaten by people who don't care about the details, just know they are a sex offender. Some of these laws are getting way out of hand.

Re:Armbands

[Christopher_Edwardz]

I agree fully. I've long thought that having all "sex offenders" grouped into one big group is preposterous if we're going to pretend to be a just nation of laws.

Do you know that someone that exposes themselves in public is considered a sex offender? How about some guy standing in his house when a lady next door uses her video camera to video tape the poor bastard and turns it into police? He's now branded for life in every conceivable way possible in the same boat as Jeffrey Dahmer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer/

There need to be a number of classes of sex offender. Some 18 year old that gets caught by the 15 year old's parents should not be in the same boat as a serial rapist! The idea is absurd.

Additionally, I know everyone wants to "save the childrens!" by passing these laws.

However, it is my contention that they make offenders more likely to offend. Why?

Right now, a sex offender has absolutely zero hope of fitting into society. Every stay-at-home soccer-mom with nothing else to do looks at these registers. According to the one in the area I live in, 23(!!) sex offenders live within a 5 block radius.

A soccer-mom would fly right out of her Keds at reading that and being to gather the pitchfork and torch crowd.

Closer inspection, however, would glean that 1/2 of them are of the 18 and got caught with a pre-legal crowd. No forced intent, nothing unwilling nor, in fact, unnatural.

Another large portion are the post 18, got caught with a younger person crowd. (The "victims" in this case were 15+.) While unseemly, this is still, in general, not unnatural.

Another sizable portion are the indecent exposure crowd. They might or might not be sex offenders. They might be victims of nosiness. (Admittedly most of them do, in fact, have a problem with exposing themselves. Additionally (and sadly), none in my area appear to be attractive females.)

4 are the sexual assault crowd. These are a little worse, and might escalate or not depending on if this was alcohol induced and the age at the time of the assault.

A very small portion (2) have records for aggravated sexual assault and rape.

1 has a record for true child molestation.

So these people are known to me to be "evil children molesters!" I must go throw rocks at their houses, right? Right?

It is at least a guarantee that their neighbors would be informed, and probably everyone on the street, the local schools, and just about everywhere else the "vigilantes" decided was good for the community.

They won't be able to get a job, as every place in general pulls both your credit history (why??) and criminal background before hiring you. You can guess what will happen if "sex offender" pops up. That'd be no hire.

So we have an impulse-impaired, maladjusted, unemployable person that gets pestered (probably) by parole officers, police, and well meaning hordes of citizens on a regular basis. What do you think this person is going to be driven to? Revenge.

Why do you think so many sex offenders try to move without informing police? Not (usually) because they are trying to escape prosecution, but because they're trying to live their lives without being constantly hounded. Remember, few "sex offenders" are actually what the public considers pedophiles.

Solutions?

Re-define sex-offender in existing laws to remove the obviously bad inclusions.

If we are going to keep the same registration and tracking ideas in place after re-definition, then we should either keep them locked up and never EVER let them out, or execute them.

Since it does no good to keep them locked up and we have decided that they are incurable (hence the registry), and it is expensive, I vote for the latter choice of killing them, if we are going to continue with the registry idea, as in my mind this will create almost 100% recidivism.

However, I realize that as a society, the USA does not have the political or moral willpower to do so.

Re:Armbands

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an astonishing abuse of trust on the part of the father. It's not milder at all, he's broken one of the basic rules of being a human being (or indeed a member of most animal species) - he's harmed one of his children.

Well, I would certainly agree that evolution and societal progress have brought about many basic human instincts - one of which is that one shall not harm another, and one will protect his/her offspring.

However, (despite the legal verbiage) he may or may not have harmed one of his children. In the US, for sure many would consider it harmful. In other places in the world that are less religious, sex and love are not seen as inherently harmful. They CAN be (and if it was physically forced it would surely be), but stating unequivocably that all cases are harmful seems a little arrogant, don't you think?

Re:Armbands

[nightfire-unique]

I agree with everything you say, and would like to add:

Closer inspection, however, would glean that 1/2 of them are of the 18 and got caught with a pre-legal crowd. No forced intent, nothing unwilling nor, in fact, unnatural.

Another large portion are the post 18, got caught with a younger person crowd. (The "victims" in this case were 15+.) While unseemly, this is still, in general, not unnatural.

If we had all these quirky little hangups 1000 years ago, we wouldn't be here as a species to fret about it. ;)

Re:Armbands

[Qubit]

he's broken one of the basic rules...of being...a member of most animal species...he's harmed one of his children.

Human communities may have certain moral codes, but many animal species will kill their children or have sex with their children.

Mammals (rabbits, dogs (I believe), etc..) will sometimes kill the weakest of their litter and feed it to the rest of the litter if food is scarce.

Rabbits, fish, (and probably a lot of other animals) will all have sex with their children. Usually animals have sex when they reach an age of sexual maturity. But humans don't anymore...

Which brings us around to age-of-consent laws. The Age of Consent in most states is usually between 16-18, but almost all girls and most boys have entered puberty well before 16.

Nature tells us that we are "adults" several years before Federal/State law proclaims us as such. Nature tells our bodies to have sex, but the laws say we can't.

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?)

Re:Armbands

[mdozturk]

You sure you didn't just make up that 98% number?

Re:Armbands

[AK Marc]

Like I posted before either way you are still a murderer. It does not matter the severity of the crime, just that the crime was committed.

Then the list is unconstitutional. The list is not punishment. If the only reason the list exists is to punish people that committed a crime, then the courts have ruled it can't exist. Therefore, the people that want the list now claim that the list is for "protection." If that is the case, then you are wrong. The severity of the crime and likelyhood of redivism are directly related to the function of the list. So, by my read of the situation, either you are wrong, or the list is unconstitutional.

Re:Armbands

[NeutronCowboy]

Got that number from an NPR program once. However, a quick Google brings up vastly varying statistics of recidivism for paedophiles. Not sure if a more in-depth search will show me where NPR got the number from.

Re:Armbands

[nightfire-unique]

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!

Re:Armbands

[nightfire-unique]

Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness*!

* Void where prohibited.

Re:Armbands

[Omnifarious]

There are actually very distinct classifications of pedophiles, and those distinct classifications have wildly different recidivism rates. Most sex offender laws actually explicitly recognize this and have a classification scheme based on it. But stuff like this MySpace deal completely ignore that classification scheme and treat all sex offenders the same regardless.

From what I understand, molestation within the family rarely strays outside, and it's uncommon that the offender does it again after (s)he's been found out. AFAIK, the scenario you paint doesn't reflect reality.

This is AWEFULL, its going to make things worse

[visionsofmcskill]

by deleting or overtly damaging their accounts, you effectivly alert them to take more proactive actions in hiding their trails.

Instead, this data should be used to covertly keep an eye on their account and account use, indeed, once these predators have been identified anyone contacted by them or looking at their page should get an alert with a warning about who that person is. Or simply make it ipossible for that account to contact or be contacted by children et al.

A passive approach will keep more of the predators unaware that they have been compromised, which means better tracking and better protection of children in subtler ways.

If we outright remove their accounts, they will know theyve been found out, and they will compensate accordingly, making them that much harder to find.

Re:Better question is, why are sex offenders

[hsmith]

You joke somewhat but it is sad and true. We let the criminals that harm others back on the street but throw the guy with a dimebag in jail for 10 years.

Re:Of course it isn't perfect

[aliendisaster]

Actually, it may be a set in the wrong direction. After everyone realizes "Hey, they can just go get a free yahoo address and work around this system.", the idiots will try and force EVERYONE to register their email address and all companies that provide email address's will have to remove any address that is not associated with a real life person. This could be the beginning of the end of the anonymous internet and the beginning of a time in which if you have someone's email, you know their name, street address, date of birth, etc. This could be the beginning of a stalkers dream.

Re:Of course it isn't perfect

[SatanicPuppy]

Why? I think it just allows parents to feel complacent.

The first and last line of defense is giving a crap about what your kid is doing online. Period. End. Of. Story. There is no magical fairy dust fix that is going to make that any less the case, so why bother?

The Risk-Averse Life

[adavies42]

If you believe it is appropriate for the government to permanently the restrict the activities of anyone, whatever they've done, merely out of concern for what they might do, you are part of the problem. Life is dangerous and it's not the government's job to protect you from it. Deal.

Re:The Risk-Averse Life

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

That's very much a matter of opinion. It is the government's job to protect you from life's dangers (to a certain extent). The government enforces certain standards, including safety. They try to protect you from eating rotten food (at least from public venues), from harm from other people, from unsafe buildings/buildings/natural phenomena, etc. There will always be a balance between liberty and law, and it's no use over-simplifying the situation.

As for this particular situation, there is no doubt that this kind of legislation is absolutely useless. If it were effective (OK, that's a bit of a stretch), I'd be against it. I'm personally against the "don't forgive and certainly don't forget" attitude towards any crime, sex offences included.

Re:The Risk-Averse Life

[Phroggy]

Life is dangerous and it's not the government's job to protect you from it. I think what you meant to say was:

Life is dangerous and it shouldn't be the government's job to protect you from it.

Re:Better question is, why are sex offenders

[CFTM]

I'll take gross over-simplifications for $1000, Alex.

A/S/L?

[Paulitics]

MysteryMan33: ASL?
Wii:13,F,Fl
MysteryMan33:You like big harddrives? Minz 120Gig.
Wii:wow! thats big.
MysteryMan33:Wanna see it?
Wii:cool
MysteryMan33:Wanna play with my Wiimote control?

BrianWilliams:I'm Brian Williams and your on DATELINE. What were you planning to do with this young girl?

MysteryMan33:I can't log on to MySpace anymore because I am on "the List".

Re:Better question is, why are sex offenders

[brkello]

Good question. Why don't we ask Borat?

plausible deniability

[rucs_hack]

I agree. The measures in place to stop terrorists travelling presume that they will travel with valid papers and real names. The end result being everyone else gets inconvenienced and it doesn't work on the people it's meant to hit. Just the same as with drm.

This is for one reason only, to give them plausible deniability if someone gets attacked and initial contact is traced to their service.

We have a problem in england at the moment of sex offenders who are being traced/monitored dissapearing from view because they don't play nice. By problems I mean murders and assaults.

Re:Of course it isn't perfect

[joshetc]

Parent really deserves to be modded up for that insightful comment.

Also, I'm not siding with the sex offenders but comon. Either they are guilty enough to still be in jail or they should be allowed to use internet communication websites freely. Maybe instead of banning sex offenders we should ban or force monitoring on minors that use those services. Some other kind of limitation would work the same too.

If they served their time they should be free. If they should not be free there is a problem with sentencing of the criminals and not how websites are monitored.

Risk and consequence

[xixax]

TFA:

" Under the proposed legislation, any sex offender who submits a fraudulent email could face prison."

Presumably not declaring email addresses is fraudulent too. So yeah, they can use an anonymous address, but they also risk getting busted doing so. Not fool proof, but also forces such people to demonstrate intent.

Osama is already in the poo, flouting email address laws is unlikely to make his legal situation appreciably worse.

Xix.

Re:Risk and consequence

[RealSurreal]

Fucking children is illegal. These people have still done it. Having an email address they don't declare is going to be a walk in the park for them.

Re:Risk and consequence

[trianglman]

Unless the words are in the legislation, its not law. That line will prevent an offender from submitting a fake address, but says nothing about submitting all email addresses. And like the other poster said, they have already broken the law, and, if they are supplying false emails and then surfing myspace for tail, are planning on doing it again. Its just a lose/lose for the innocent.

Re:Risk and consequence

[fyngyrz]

For crying out loud... "sex offender" is not a synonym for "fucking children."

It means everything from peeing on a bush outside to having consensual sex with a consenting partner of reasonable age who decided later to use it against you to having taken completely innocent photos of your own kid. And it does include people who prey on children, I'll grant you, but the point is the brush is now too broad because legislators are idiots; if they go with the email thing you'll have learned nothing useful except how to jitter and freak out about a bunch of people who are likely to be absolutely zero threat to you and any children, anywhere.

Control your legislators, people. Come on. And think!

Re:Risk and consequence

[mutterc]

legislators are idiots

I love to blame the system, and in this case I think it's justified.

Suppose I was a legislator (ha!) and was unnaturally clueful. Angry parents of victims get together and demand Something Be Done to Protect The Children (and I don't blame them at all). Our fear-mongering society then spreads this outrage to paranoid parents and even ordinary or clueful parents. Therefore I have to look like I'm Doing Something, so I introduce a bill to "crack down on preverts".

Other legislators are pretty much required to vote for it. Can you imagine the attack ads next election: "My opponent voted against cracking down on child molestors. Why does he hate the children?"

The same sorts of effects applied to drunk driving over the last decade or two.

Why stop there?

[gillbates]

Why not just link to the DHS terrorist database and prevent them from registering as well?

And, while we're at it, why not extend this to anyone who has ever, in their entire life, done something wrong. Contact the school board! (Given the antagonistic nature toward students, I'm sure most school boards would be more than willing to provide a list of names of "troublemakers").

The notion of a convict settling his debt to society with prison time is quickly becoming antiquated. How long before "Once a criminal, always a criminal" becomes the slogan of law enforcement? How long before forgiveness is a de facto criminal act?

I understand the intentions are good. But people do change. And some "sex offenders" are little more than drunks who got convicted of public urination, or streaking, etc...

And of course, *no one* would think of registering with a fake name. NEVER!

Re:Why stop there?

[p43751]

"Why not just link to the DHS terrorist [slashdot.org] database and prevent them from registering as well?"

Yea, the world really need more sexually frustrated terrorists.

Re:Better question is, why are sex offenders

[Kiaser Wilhelm II]

It isn't a gross oversimplification. Look at some of the correctional statistics and the sentences meted out for various crimes.

Re:Yeah...

[Goaway]

No, because pedos are, on the whole, very stupid.

Education and parental involvement is the answer

[davidwr]

The best answer is to educate children and parents and give parents the technical tools to keep track of their kids' Internet use.

The Scary Internet Sex Predator may make good headlines, but it's not the biggest molestation danger to our teens. For preteens the danger of an actual kidnapping or meeting is very very small. Predators who send teens and children dirty pictures are easy enough to track down after-the-fact if parents are smart enough to call the police.

The biggest risk to children are parents, relatives, and family friends. The highest risk predators are probably horny male teenagers who don't realize it's a serious crime, and horny dads and uncles who haven't been caught yet and think they never will be. Most of those released from jail are at low risk of committing another sex crimes against children.

Everyone should teach their kids to tattle on anyone, including mom and dad, who pulls anything funny. If mom and dad try something, the kid should tell a teacher or neighbor. The adults will usually be able to tell if something like a hug was made with good intentions or bad. Even if they can't, the child needs to know it's okay to tell adults when a man or woman gives you a hug or kiss that makes you uncomfortable or who shows you naked pictures or who asks sexual questions.

Re:Better question is, why are sex offenders

[Frogbert]

Perhaps because these lists don't really differentiate between the two. For all we know all those really bad sex offenders could be in gaol and it's only the "18 year olds that have sex with their 17 year old girlfriends".

None of that really matters to the linch mob though.

Umm, okay

[man_ls]

I am not a sex offender, nor do I have inklings that would lead me to become one, but I also don't register my MySpace under my real name simply because I don't want people to be able to search for me.

It's not going to do any good to prevent people from registering under alternate e-mail addresses and psuedonyms to get on the site.

The libertarian in me also doesn't believe in sex-offender registries or blacklists such as this one -- the person most likely already went to prison and has a record that will follow them the rest of their life, why not give them a legitimate chance to actually be rehabilitated? Surely the stigmatization of being labeled and tracked the rest of their lives can't help them recover and not re-offend, after all. And if they do it again, well, lock them up for longer or forever.

Re:Better question is, why are sex offenders

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Why are these people even out of jail if they are still a threat to soceity?

Because in our society, once people have served their time they are deemed to have paid for their crimes.

Re:Better question is, why are sex offenders

[Dipster]

What worries me is that every time you hear about a new "think-of-the-children" law, the language (at least in the media) always says "sex offender". Not child sex offender, not violent sex offender, just "sex offender".

Would someone explain to me why a married couple having sex in a public place should be banned from living close to a school? Someone tell me why a person who repeatedly walks home drunk from a bar and stops to urinate in an alley shouldn't be allowed on MySpace. Why does the drunken frat kid who streaked across campus a few times deserve to be labeled a threat to society?

There is a huge an ever-growing number of "offenses" that gets someone put on sex "offender" lists. The fact that they often get lumped together is pure bullshit.

Re:Of course it isn't perfect

[jedidiah]

Not necessarily.

For example, the Texas registry is of limited usefulness because they don't tell you the exact nature of the crime. Thus you don't know if that guy down the street is a victim of genuine prudishness and sexual immaturity or if he's a genuine predator. I want to know about real threats, not a lot of noise.

The primary effect of this will be to harrass relatively minor offenders. People who want to be a genuine menace will likely find a way to game both the state databases and myspace or just plain lie/hide.

Re:Better question is, why are sex offenders

[mattOzan]

I am not talking about 18 year olds that have sex with their 17 year old girlfriends, I am talking the 30 year olds having sex with 13 year olds, 40 year olds that rape 8 year olds, and so on.

The main problem with the currently-fashionable "sex offender registries" is that they do not discriminate. As you have shown, we realize there is a continuum: 18 vs. 17 yro statutory cases are at one end, and serial pedophiles are on the other end. But laws like the one just passed here in California this November stamp them all with the big "Pervert" stamp.

It is ridiculous to make a law saying that a 45 year old man, for instance, who was convicted more than two decades ago of having consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, cannot live within a half-mile of an elementary school. And if that man doesn't re-register EVERY YEAR within one week of his birthday, or within one week of a move, a WARRANT goes out for his arrest, and it's a FELONY!

No, I'm not a 45 year old sex offender. I just think we need to be a bit more granular. If he's a serial pedophile, lock him in a treatment program. If he had the wrong kind of sex as a teenager 20 years ago, and has paid his restitution to society, let him go. And don't keep hassling him with punitive registries and requirements that weren't even laws when the crime was committed!

Re:Better question is, why are sex offenders

[AK Marc]

Violent criminals are being released early because there isn't enough space. There are thousands of people in prison for non-violent crimes (mostly drug-related). If the non-violent drug offenders weren't there, then the violent criminals wouldn't need to be released early.

Re:Better question is, why are sex offenders

[hsmith]

If you are not free to do as you please in society, you have still not served your time. Your rights should be fully restored upon leaving jail. If you aren't capable of having your rights fully restored, then you are a threat to society and should still be jailed.

Goes for all rights, voting, gun ownership, living near a school.

Re:Of course it isn't perfect

[trianglman]

yes, my email address is t.*@gmail.com

Whoa!

[Steppman2]

I hope they'll be doing this search manually, last thing we need is them deleting a bunch of profiles like Blizzard did to all those Linux users. Last thing we need is a bunch of emo kids cutting themselves because their MySpace profiles bit the dust.

Re:Of course it isn't perfect

[TubeSteak]

Either they are guilty enough to still be in jail or they should be allowed to use internet communication websites freely.

For some people, there is this thing called parole. It means they let you out of jail early, if they think you'll behave.

When you get out on parole, you're assigned to a parole officer whose job it is to check that you are following the terms of your release. You stop following the rules, you go back to jail.

If they served their time they should be free. If they should not be free there is a problem with sentencing of the criminals and not how websites are monitored.

Maybe the problem is with the government's treatment of sexual offenders upon their release. And since government policy on sexual matters usually reflects society's viewpoint, maybe the problem you're complaining about lies with the people around you.

It's the Not In My Back Yard syndrome. Who wants a former rapist living next door?

Re:Better question is, why are sex offenders

[Dhalka226]

Why are these people even out of jail if they are still a threat to soceity?

I don't have statistics handy, but I saw some expert on sex crimes on TV once who said that the rate of recidivism among sex offenders is actually not that high. Most of them are NOT a threat to society.

We've just decided to make sex offenders (particularly child sex offenders) the boogeymen of our generation. Nobody ever lost their seat in the government for being mean to sex offenders, after all.

Second-class citizens are useful.

[Captain Sarcastic]

Where would our civilization be without second class citizens?

How else would we have been able to make some of the steps forward in medicine, were it not for some of the work done on "disposable" people?

How else would we have had such a burgeoning entertainment industry, had it not been for laws that deprived actors and actresses from burial in sacred ground?

Who else can be used for a way to see how far a government can go before the first-class citizens decide that enough is enough?

Of course, sometimes a government can overplay its hand. When people find out that convicted sex offenders are not allowed in public hurricane shelters, but have to report to the local jail (and give 24 hours advance notice, even!), there might be a feeling that things might have gone too far.

But then again, when we're "thinking of the children," we don't have to do a whole lot more thinking, do we?

Re:Second-class citizens are useful.

[lawpoop]

" How else would we have had such a burgeoning entertainment industry, had it not been for laws that deprived actors and actresses from burial in sacred ground? "

Uh, what?

Are you saying we wouldn't have summer blockbuster movies and National Enquirer if people could wail and gnash their teeth at the tombs of ancient heroes, and listen to wandering minstrels recount tales of their strength and beauty in verse?

Re:Yeah...

[Goaway]

I was referring to the kind you encounter on the internet, not the kind that gets caught, but since the first comment only related to pedos who get caught, it doesn't really matter.

Not QUITE true

[davidwr]

This is mostly true if they were coerced into pleading guilty.

It's also true if they can't afford an appeal attorney.

If they are lucky, new evidence will show up later, someone else will fess up to the crime, or all the victims will recant.

Otherwise, you are right. However, that's true for just about any serious crime: once you've been convicted, the burden is very high to prove you were wrongly convicted.

Re:Not QUITE true

[russotto]

It's not just a matter of being coerced. Suppose that before Megan's law and all the rest, you committed some minor offense like public urination or "flashing" or whatever. You pled guilty, paid your fine, and were done with it. 10 years later the government passes a new law classifying that crime as a reportable sex offense, and now you're forced to register as a sex offender, denied by law and by practice a whole range of professions, kicked off Internet sites as the result of government action, etc. That's additional punishment following conviction, the very definition of an ex post facto law set out in one of the oldest precedents in the US judicial system. Yet the Supreme Court found this to acceptable.

(BTW, to the person who modded my original post "Troll" -- "Troll" doesn't mean "I disagree".)

Just remember...

[FredMenace]

Whatever we do to sex offenders today, we will likely one day do to EVERYONE (even you).

Oh, it will start with sex offenders, and arsonists, and meth dealers, then all felons, and eventually all other criminals. Maybe even people with too many traffic citations - wouldn't it be useful for your car to recognize the cars of bad drivers, and tell you to keep your distance? What about people that are known to go around neighborhoods knocking on doors and scamming seniors? Or holding up people at knifepoint for their purses and wallets? Shouldn't we know about them? And what about people who haven't committed a crime - YET: wouldn't it be useful to be able to catch them right away when they DO commit one? (And, presumably, being watched at all times serves as a great deterrent, right?) So, when it becomes cheap and easy enough (and we've crossed enough lines in the sand that it's the "logical next step"), EVERYONE will be required to have their chip implanted at birth and be tracked everywhere they go, fingerprint/retinal scanners will be required for all computer hardware capable of connecting to a network, and omniscient cameras feeding into AI computers will be watching your every move once you step out of your house (and maybe, eventually, inside your house too - after all, no privacy concerns, nobody is watching except the computer, right?).

After all, you don't have anything to hide, do you? And it would make your children SO MUCH SAFER!!!

Re:Better question is, why are sex offenders

[knightmad]

Well, its simple. Punishment should fit the crime because, if punishment for child abuse is the same for murder (life in jail), instead of simply a child abuser you are more likely to get a child abuser/witness killer. They would not risk to let the poor child to live to denounce him.

Re: Better question is, why are sex offenders

[gidds]

AIUI, a 'sex offence' may not even include anything sexual. I heard of a guy who, caught short after a night clubbing, and finding no public lavatories, ended up urinating in a doorway. The police got him, and because urinating necessarily involves exposing part of oneself, it got logged as a public indecency, and conviction then put him on the sex offenders' register.

So yes, you could be a virgin, never having even seen anyone else naked, and still be a registered sex offender.

Still, I'm sure the police know what they're doing...

Re:Of course it isn't perfect

[mdwh2]

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).

Fake names?

[hoggoth]

When asked what MySpace would do if a sex offender simply signed up with a fake name, the MySpace spokesman paused, blinked a few times, and replied 'these go to eleven.'

Re:Politicians and pedophiles. Myspace Stats

[arthurpaliden]

MySpace stats: Occupation tests=7689007, matches=131, percent=0.001703731053957943 Occupation tests=7689007, matches=1, percent=1.300558056456445E-5 Testing active records, 1 visit every 2 weeks, in 23 Million record sample.

Re: Myspace Stats formatted

[arthurpaliden]

Occupation

Politician tests=7689007, matches=131, percent=0.001703731053957943

Pediphile tests=7689007, matches=1, percent=1.300558056456445E-5

Testing active records, 1 visit every 2 weeks, in 23 Million record sample.

This is a bit far

[nurb432]

If a sex offender ( or any other criminal for that matter ) has served his ( or her ) time, i dont see why he ( or she ) should be restricted from online activites. They already have to register with the state, they already are restricted in where they can go physically, and they have lost several of their rights ( like ever being president or working for the government ) so who cares if they cruse some lame 'community site' to kill off boredom?

What ever happend to 'serving your time and paying your debt to society for your mistake'. When did that become a life long repayment?

Re:This is a bit far

[danpsmith]

What ever happend to 'serving your time and paying your debt to society for your mistake'. When did that become a life long repayment?

The government hasn't been able to properly reform criminals who go to jail and are released, and most of these criminals re-commit crimes when they emerge from prison. Instead of evaluating our methods of rehabilitation, we just assume that everyone who commits a crime will continue to do so and in effect make it more likely that this will be the case.

If you are an out of jail "sex offender" being tracked wherever you go, let's say you do still have some or any urge to commit other crimes: when you have no chance of ever getting a real job, your neighbors know you as an offender, you can't even register on certain websites and everyone in the neighborhood looks at you like a criminal, suddenly you are forever a criminal and committing another crime...well that's just following expectations.

If the government is having problems keeping criminals from re-committing crimes then perhaps the jailtime or the punishment isn't working and should be re-evaluated. However, they'd rather just push this lifelong criminal mantra, because it allows them a little lee-way to take away some rights.

Re:Of course it isn't perfect

[cshark]

Please don't take this the wrong way. I have no intention of standing up for sex offenders rights, but there's a huge problem with this idea. Imagine this. Your name happens to be Joe smith, you live in Washington. Further more you happen to live on the same street as three other Joe Smith's one of whom happens to be a sex offender. If the MySpace system is going to be effective, they would have to implement something that would find... and delete you. Otherwise, there's no point unless you prohibit registered rapos from using free e-mail addresses.

That I would like to see anyone try to enforce. The next step of course is an internet flag on the ISP side to allow sites to pick up and detect sex offenders. But then there's the issue of free proxies that would also need to be regulated to make sure that they don't get through. While we're at it, let's do the same thing with houses that have children in them, after all you have to think of the children. But hey, you know this kind of thing is useful in other areas. Imagine the statistical possibilities when you can flag and document every sociological element of society using the Internet in the coming age when everyone and everything is online. What if you wanted to document based on ethnic criteria. Wouldn't it be nice if you knew how many Jews and Muslims were visiting your Web Site? Absolutely, everyone knows how those Jews like to steal images and that Muslims love that Avril Leveign music. It's certainly possible. Why not just do already?

But I have to wonder something: If we exist in a judicial framework where a case against Target for violating the 508 can be found to have enough merit to be aloud to proceed, how much of a leap is it to say that MySpace could be sued for discriminating against sex offenders when they have made no effort to make sure that said offenders and have and can provide no proof that said offenders used the site for illicit purposes? Personally, I do not actually care... but there's more than one slippery slope here.

Just my 2c

Re:Of course it isn't perfect

[Tokerat]

If I am not a sex offender (which I am not), then I am not registering with any "central email database". If this requires me to stop using certain websites, then they can lose my business and the business of many others. What you may see if that happens is the slow collapse of modern internet commerce as we know it. And, if a sex offender gets caught using an email address they did not register, they'll go to jail. It won't even matter if they have commited any other crimes. They can now be jailed for attempted stalking, and in the case of sex offenders, I don't see how that can be a bad thing. Unless you are one of those people who got slapped with a sex offense rap for peeing outdoors behind a bar, or in the bushes; but how often does that really happen?

Re: Myspace Stats formatted

[Kadin2048]

So, what you're saying is that there's only one self-admitted "pediphile" on MySpace who also doesn't know how to spell?

Try searching "pedophile."

Re:Of course it isn't perfect

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Who wants a former rapist living next door?

I suppose that depends on how hot she is.

Statutory "rape" and music "theft"

[tepples]

How many people would support a crime called "unauthorized sex?"

Likewise, how many people would support a crime called "copyright infringement"? The record labels need to trump it up into "theft" to get anyone to react.

Re:Statutory "rape" and music "theft"

[nightfire-unique]

They're not having sex without our permission, they're raping each other.

They're not a militia, they're terrorists.

They're not a government, they're a regime.

They're not citizens defending their homes, they're enemy combatants.

It's not a sovereign nation, it's a rogue country.

It's not a protest, it's a tax evasion.

You're not a public urinator when drunk coming home from a bar, you're a sex offender.

Drunk drivers, abortionists, and food companies are murderers.
Cigarettes kill everyone.
The plague could strike your family.
Osama Bin Laden wants to kill you.
Christianity is better than Islam.
Criminals, birth control, and science are bad. Evolution is unholy.

Drugs are bad, except caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, etc. But especially marijuana, stevia are bad.

Ugh. Make it stop. :(

Re: Myspace Stats formatted (updated)

[arthurpaliden]

Occupation

Politician tests=7689007, matches=131, percent=0.001703731053957943

Pedophile tests=7689007, matches=26, percent=3.381450946786757E-4

Pediphile tests=7689007, matches=1, percent=1.300558056456445E-5

Testing active records, 1 visit every 2 weeks, in 23 Million record sample.

Missing the obvious...

[xjmrufinix]

The vast majority of sexual abuse is not perpetrated by strangers or registered sex offenders, but by trusted and familiar adults. The scary internet pedophile is a real phenomenon, but the scale on which he's imagined to exist is pure fantasy. Rape and sexual abuse are frighteningly prevalent, sure, it just isn't being done by any of the people we're so scared of. I was molested by a teacher with no criminal history. I personally know half a dozen woman who were raped by their partners. I've met lots of other male victims of sexual abuse and in every case it was friends/partners or family. I've never met any victims of the internet predators, except through the television...there is a disconnect between reality and media here, yet again.

Why do they bother doing this?

[Hoi Polloi]

Endless laws dictating where they can live, where they can work, where they go, and now what they do on the web. Why don't they just keep them in prison like they really want instead of playing legal charades?

Re:Why do they bother doing this?

[bi_boy]

With legal charades they don't have to pay for clothing, sheltering, or feeding them.

Don't forget the wiretapping!

[SeaFox]

After everyone realizes "Hey, they can just go get a free yahoo address and work around this system.", the idiots will try and force EVERYONE to register their email address and all companies that provide email address's will have to remove any address that is not associated with a real life person.

Don't forget those new warrantless wiretapping powers the executive branch had passed in Congress just before the elections. Who needs AT&T to snoop packets when you can just call Yahoo?

Also: Yeah right, like I'm going to trust a major media conglomerate to not do anything commercial with a list of everyone's valid email address.

Re:Of course it isn't perfect

[godglike]

What about actually treating the poor bastards for their malady and not just throwing them on the junk heap.

Oh wait, that might look like we thought of them as people...

Thank you.

[The Monster]

'Sex offender' is one of those anti-concepts like 'intellectual property' (see SCO) that groups together a lot of different things with one common thread. One of the worst things that has come out of the hysteria about 'child predators' is that people who chose not to fight a minor offense years ago suddenly find that the punishment has been 'enhanced' ex post facto. And the last time I checked, that was unconstitutional.

But if you say this, you're an apologist for JonBenet's killer, and probably a crypto-nazi as well.

Re:Thank you.

[fyngyrz]

One of the worst things that has come out of the hysteria about 'child predators' is that people who chose not to fight a minor offense years ago suddenly find that the punishment has been 'enhanced' ex post facto. And the last time I checked, that was unconstitutional.

First, let me say that I agree with your sentiment completely; however, the reasoning (sophist, in my view) put forward by the USSC was that "registration" isn't punishment, it is a "legitimate state function" where the state "has an interest", and therefore, not being punishment it is no problem to apply it to someone after sentencing.

The very idea that registration is "not punishment" strikes me as the very worst kind of operating under false colors. The consequences of registration itself are so far-reaching, so severe, and so unavoidable by the registrant that I am left drop-jawed by the "argument" that it isn't punishment. And that is without the later additions; the national registry, the limits on where and how registered people can live, the inclusion in credit reports and job evaluations, and now, apparently, their online activities. I find the entire thing to be amazing on the one hand, and terrifying on the other. For I take to heart that whole bit about "first they came for..."

Someone is wandering around slashdot with a signature that says something along the lines of "the root passwords to the constitution are terrorism and child pornography"; I think that goes right to the heart of the matter.

Another issue that is relevant is that this is not the only area in which the interpretation of the constitution is absurdly out of whack; it is almost the style of the USSC to interpret it in a wacky, "you must be out of your bloody mind" mode. The interstate commerce clause has also been subject to some amazingly circuitous (to be kind) reasoning in both its intent and application.

For the most part (with the notable exception of the 13th amendment's direct authorization of slavery) the constitution is an amazingly prescient and rock-solid foundation for a government. It is really too bad that it isn't used that way.

Re:Thank you.

[BoberFett]

Interstate commerce. *shudder*

How about these loose interpretations of the commerce clause. That was just the first few that turned up in a quick search:

• Federal investigators asserted jurisdiction over the arson of the Mt. Zion A.M.E. Church in South Carolina. Because the church received electrical power through a power grid, which is, in turn, attached to an interstate power grid, agents maintain that federal jurisdiction was triggered under the commerce clause.
• The Justice Department maintains that federal jurisdiction can be asserted over a Connecticut man who allegedly beat his wife and destroyed some of her personal possessions. Because violence against women affects job performance, which in turn affects the national economy, which in turn affects interstate commerce, federal jurisdiction was triggered under the commerce clause.
• The U.S. Attorney's Office in Sacramento asserted jurisdiction over a woman who was accused of hiring someone to burn her house down so that she could file a fraudulent insurance claim. Prosecutors maintained that because the woman's home received natural gas from a company that had received a portion of its gas from out-of-state sources, federal jurisdiction was triggered under the commerce clause.
• The Justice Department asserted jurisdiction over a parcel of private property near San Francisco because the occasional rainwater ponds on that property could serve as a potential habitat for migratory birds that fly across state lines. And since migratory birds are "important" articles of interstate and foreign commerce, federal jurisdiction was triggered under the commerce clause.
• The U.S. Attorney's Office in New York asserted jurisdiction over a man accused of plotting a murder over his beeper paging system. Although all of the relevant phone calls were sent from and received in New York, prosecutors maintain that because the beeper emitted signals interstate each time it was used, federal jurisdiction was triggered under the commerce clause.

Essentially, the US federal government has cart blanche to do as they please, constitutional limits be damned.

Re:Of course it isn't perfect

[hummassa]

Either they are guilty enough to still be in jail or they should be allowed to use internet communication websites freely.

For some people, there is this thing called parole. It means they let you out of jail early, if they think you'll behave.
 
When you get out on parole, you're assigned to a parole officer whose job it is to check that you are following the terms of your release. You stop following the rules, you go back to jail. But you should only be paroled if they think you'll behave. The problem, then, is that they are paroling anyone. :-)
Now, seriously, the US Justice System has the concept of "punishment for life" and every sex offender AFAIK gets listed for life. One offense and you're out of the "normal society".

If they served their time they should be free. If they should not be free there is a problem with sentencing of the criminals and not how websites are monitored.

Maybe the problem is with the government's treatment of sexual offenders upon their release. And since government policy on sexual matters usually reflects society's viewpoint, maybe the problem you're complaining about lies with the people around you.
 
It's the Not In My Back Yard syndrome. Who wants a former rapist living next door? Oh, yeah, women sex offenders are normally a sore to the eye. :-)

Re:Of course it isn't perfect

[SamSim]

we should ban or force monitoring on minors that use those services

Don't be ridiculous, man, where would we possibly find the funding or manpower? You'd need to employ an adult full-time to look after each individual child. Or even two adults.

Re:Of course it isn't perfect

[1iar_parad0x]

Maybe if parents monitored their kid's browsing habits, or parents prevented their kids from meeting strangers we wouldn't have such a huge problem.