Slashdot Mirror
MySpace Not Guilty in Child Assault Case
An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post reports that a Texas judge dismissed a $30 million case against MySpace for their role in a child assault case. 19-year old Peter Solis lied about his age on MySpace to gain the confidence of a 13-year old girl. The judge ruled, 'To impose a duty under these circumstances for MySpace to confirm or determine the age of each applicant, with liability resulting from negligence in performing or not performing duty, would of course stop MySpace's business in its tracks and close this avenue of communication.'" What do you think? Good call?
Yep.
Good for MySpace, I'm just surprised he didn't get the death penalty!
...is to point and laugh. "No payday for you."
So, now that we have seen "common sense" used in a court case, can we use this as precedent for all future rulings?
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
"Peter Solis lied about his age on MySpace to gain the confidence the confidence of a 13-year old girl."
My Greatest Heist - Muisc partly inspired by the unbeatable Qwantz
What do you think? Good call?
Is the phone company responsible for verifying the age of people talking so a 19 year old can't lie to a 13 year old and then commit a crime? How about newspaper personal ads, are the newspaper's responsible? What ISPs who provide e-mail accounts? You know those companies that create voice boxes for people with throat cancer? Are they responsible for verifying the age of the person using them so they cannot be misused for this same purpose?
Blaming the medium or the tools is just plain stupid. This was, of course, a correct decision
Instead of taking the blame for not taking care of their child, they chose to have a judge tell them what everyone else had been saying, "It's your f&*$ing fault!"
It's really amazing what's passed off as someone else's fault when the blame should have been placed on the people passing it. Congrats to the judge for making a great call and boohiss to the parents for trying to close down our beloved myspace...
home of over a million unread emo thoughts.
The original generic sig.
This is like suing blockbuster because my membership card says "Gulliver" (which isn't my name - but they didn't check!), and somebody were to accept my (written in ink) blockbuster card as some form of ID. Say the bank were to loan a hundered thousand dollars to "Gulliver McMadeUpName", and then sue Blockbuster when I defaulted.
This was a ridiculous and frivolous suit. MySpace has no obligation to verify the truth of any information any random person posts. They aren't bondsmen.
The ramifications if this were taken seriously would be huge. Every web forum, including slashdot, would have to perform thorough background checks with 3 forms of government ID, before accepting members.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
the world must be coming to an end, not only are the police reunited and touring, there's a judge with some common sense and he's presiding in texas of all places. now if this would only catch on more
It's a good call.
It's the parent's responsibility to keep an eye on their kid, including their internet activity (even if that is inconvenient or time-consuming for the parent).
Suing Myspace is like suing the phone company - they're only the medium, ma'am.
-Styopa
I don't see how it's a company's job to keep people from lying on the internet. If it was, AOL's chat rooms would be in a lot of trouble...
It's a shame this view isn't more prevalent, however.
I am an Army of 1 in 10
http://www.armyof1in10.net/
http://unsilence.com/
Although the judge's conclusion was correct, the reasoning he applied was flawed: it's not that MySpace shouldn't be liable because its business model depends on it, it's that MySpace shouldn't be liable because it's the parents' responsibility to care for their kids, and MySpace isn't anybody's parent.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
This ruling, hopefully, will stop all of those propositions the government keep trying to make to ensure that everyone will somehow be responsible for ensuring that children don't get onto their site.
This seems to finally accept that it's just not possible to correctly validate the information that everyone gives you online.
For the same reason they won't be able to identify when people claim to be younger, they won't be able to stop kids from saying they're old enough to be there.
Depending on the level of court making this decision (and wether or not this establishes precedent) this might make it more difficult to sa, for example, that porn vendors are responsible for confirming that all applicants aren't kids or registered sex offenders. It's simply not possible to do it.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I mean, not being perfect (or representing yourself as being so) at detecting the deceit of a lying user does not mean you have a "role in the assault" on a child. This should have been tossed out before it wasted as much court time as it did. Shame about the situation, but the girl's parents are entirely to blame, here. Don't know about your 13 year old daughter's social life and face-time meetings with strangers? Easier to sue, obviously.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
My faith in the justice system has been restored!
It shall fall again to the standard low expectations at the beep.
beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep...
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
I really want to know more about the psychology of this and how it comes about. I mean... who wants to be with a 13 yo anyway? Though, 19 meh... I have known 19 year olds who have dated 13 year olds, its usually a case of an overly marture 13 year old and an immature 19 year old. Hell, one of my best friends today was 19 and dated my sister when she was 14 and going on 15.
:)
I can attest that at 19, he wasn't quite at her level then. At 28, he still isn't now, but thats another story
But I digress... and far. This is an issue of assault more than age. Who cares how old he was? What he did was wrong at any age where the person can tell right from wrong. I really don't see how age verification will help. 13 year olds arn't that hard to talk into doing things that their authority figures don't approve of, hell he might have had an easier time with his real age... 13 year olds think 19 year olds are cool and mature.
The reason I say I want to know more about it, was I saw those dateline shows where they caught and outed a bunch of guys who did this stuff and interviewed them. It was sobering. Sobering that it was happening, and sobering to see these guys interviewd.
They seemed.... mostly normal. The only thing really different about them seemed to be that they seemed rather socially undeveloped. I really got the feeling they were going after young easily influenced girls because, they seemed to lack the social skills to get a girl their own age. As a slashdot geek, I am pretty familiar with some of the behavious.
I guess what bugs me, is I saw myself at different points in my life in their stories and thought, that with a slightly different values, and influences in my life, could I have been one of these guys showing up at a 13 year olds house with a six pack of cheap malt beverages?
While its easy to deamonize people who try to do, or do bad things, and we have to deal with this from a criminal justice standpoint when it happens. However, shouldn't we be looking at our society and how we can help to not create people who are in the situation where a 13 year old starts to look like a viable option?
It seems to me like these guys needed something. It wasn't a 13 year old girl they really needed, but it wasn't anything that time in jail was going to fix either. Most of them had even seen the show in the past, so the threat of incarceration certainly wasn't stopping them.
I think it behooves us to understand these issues at a deeper level, and try to solve them from their source rather than their symptoms.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
The judge correctly ruled that MySpace is protected by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It seems there are some (or at least one) in the judicial system who understand the law. This is refreshing news.
See for a few more details.
Myspace is not liable for this any more than the phone company is liable for the prank and threatening phone calls. I don't know about the rest of the /. community, but I am dead tired of the continuous attempts to impose liability on the carrier for the content. This goes to the very core of undermining the openness and freedom of the internet, as a neutral medium for communication and sharing of information. Verdict for the plaintiff would have been a horrible precedent.
That the name of the site in question is MySpace, not MyParents, or MyGaurdian! I mean, it's called MySpace for a reason and that reason is to let you know how dangerous it is. Duh. When I go to Space I understand that dangerous stuff happens and it is not the responsibility of space to protect me. It isn't the job of the junk flying around in space to watch out for me. I have to protect myself. It's obvious isn't it?
My humor is probably your flamebait
This is a sick thing that happened and I think the guy should be jailed for life or worse but, what were the parents doing?!? I have to teenagers and while I won't delude myself in thinking I know everything that goes on in their lives, I have a fair idea about most of it (I hope).
I am in my son's WOW guild so I know them, I play Halo on occasion (it sucks getting my ass kicked so much) with him and his other friends. They are welcome in my house as long as they follow the rules.
I know my daughter likes manga, anime, country music, who her friends are, know their names and individual interests etc. etc.etc. Quality time is total b#$$s%^&, you have to spend time with them and know what is going on in their lives.
Wonder if her parents ever looked at her MySpace to see what she thinks, likes or is worried about...
MySpace it not at fault here, something is/was going on in that girl's life that put her in a position to want to go off and meet someone without telling her parents or at least without escort. The ball was not in MySpace's court.
I'm glad a judge had common sense on MySpace's behalf. People want to shift blame to the medium used for the meeting, not the people in the real world who are at fault. The only people to blame in this case are the parents and the guy who committed the crime. It was the parent's job to know what their child was doing and to prevent her from meeting people like this. The world is full of bad people, but it's the parent's jobs to protect their children. Of course, this in no way removes responsibility for the crime from the guy. All I'm saying is that HE is responsible for committing the crime and the parents are responsible for not preventing their child from falling victim to him.
Actually, the guy didn't lie about his age - the *GIRL* did. She was 13, but claimed on MySpace - and presumably, in person - that she was 18. Kinda puts his actions in a different light, doesn't it?
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
Other news sites mention that the 19 year old male lied saying that he was a senior in high school (probably saying he was 18). However, the girl lied too saying that she was 18 when she was really only 13. I really doubt that the guy still thought she was 18 by the time he met up with her. He's a total creep, but who dropped the ball on the girl's side of this. They met up in the parking lot of a park. Real, safe public-meeting spot. Why didn't the girls parents teach her about strangers on the internet? And if so, are today's teenagers really that gullible?
It should be noted that MySpace doesn't let you register unless you at least say that you are 14 or older. But really if every website with comunications features had to verify the ages of all users (with credit checks, drivers licenses, social security numbers, what?) then very few modern style websites would be permitted to operate.
The judge ruled, 'To impose a duty under these circumstances for MySpace to confirm or determine the age of each applicant, with liability resulting from negligence in performing or not performing duty, would of course stop MySpace's business in its tracks and close this avenue of communication.'"
So you're telling me that you had a chance to finally get rid of the atrocity that is MySpace and you DIDN'T???
Hmm, MySpace's business model would collapse if we rule against them. Therefore, it must be OK.
Right decision, wrong reason.
-Dave
Again, what were the parents doing at said time? I bet tehy weren'y observing the behavior, or better yet, appaerntly not very good role models in the first place. Its not Myspace that is the problem!!!
I know we all, on the face, think this suit was ludicrous..
But, the Boy Scouts have been sued for allowing pedophiles as leaders, with no background checks, and the Church has come under a lot of fire for that.
Of course, both those (real world) organizations put these people in direct contact with children, whereas myspace is just a place for emos to "publish" their shitty poetry.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
It's odd to say it, but I don't think this ruling is "right". Particularly not the precedent that it sets. The judge expressed concern for MySpace's business future and for the other users of the service. Seriously, this is not "common sense", this is "big business rules".
I *do* think that the outcome is correct - but the wrong reasons were given. The correct reason would have been more directly related to the notion of personal responsibility. Not this "MySpace can't be responsible, because, oh gosh, they'd lose money if they were" crap.
Common sense my arse. The outcome matches common sense, but not the rationale. I just hope it's not used as a precedent.
There isnt any difference???? Exactly how do you pick a phone and call 13 year old girls if you dont have their number already?
IANAL, so, what IS the difference between aquitting MySpace versus just dismissing the case here? Does dismissal mean that there STILL isn't any legal precedence made regarding claims that service provider XYZ made possible victim UVW to get TRS'd in the IJK?
More Twoson than Cupertino
http://www.stickerhavoc.com/cgi-bin/stickerhavoc.c gi/1887021606/stickerhavoc/2152852
:-(
(no affiliation with the above do I have -- it was just near the top in my google search)
I wanted to find the animated GIF, but... effort
P-plate adventurer
That makes me so sad for all the little emo boys and girls. I think I'll go cry and maybe, you know, cut myself a little.
then who should?
Wow, duping has moved up to the level of doing it within a single article. Impressive.
Communication sites like myspace (though not myspace in particular) are too important to the human race to damage over the abuse of one person. People are abused day in, day out, around the world. Closing or damaging myspace's ability to permit free communications will not solve this issue.
We must move forward as a species - not backwards. Our future lies in free exchange of ideas and communications, and anything that works contrary to this should be opposed.
We're a planet of billions. Keep things in perspective.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Okay, Myspace is a business, which operates under different rules than a non-business entity, largely because of what the assumption are. If I walk into a store front, either corporately owned or not, there is an expectation of safety, non-discrimination, etc., and other things that govern businesses open to the public. If I walk into a private club (whether it is a tree house or a rented building), there is less of an expectation that they are operating like a business would. Negligence and contributory issues depend on reasonable actions.
It is REASONABLE for me to assume that Wal-Mart's bathrooms are reasonably clean, and if they aren't and that causes problems, they are arguably negligent. It is NOT reasonable for me to knock on your door, ask to use the bathroom, and assume that your bathroom is up to health code.
It's not a matter of "they'd lose money," it's a matter of, is it reasonable to assume that they do, and if not, is it reasonable for them to do so?
It is reasonable to expect an open-to-the-public business to properly illuminate their building for safety reasons. It isn't reasonable to expect every citizen to always have sufficient lighting (bulb/fixture burns out, etc.). It is reasonable to expect a bank for verify identity, it isn't reasonable to expect a small website to do so. If I am running an adult book store or liquor store, it is reasonable to expect me to ID possible children at the door, it isn't reasonable for a corner book store to be expected to do so.
Myspace.com's business depends upon users being able to easily create accounts anonymously, therefore it isn't reasonable to expect them to verify identity, because it would compromise their business. If they needed to verify accounts for OTHER reasons, so it wouldn't be a burden upon their business, then it WOULD be reasonable to verify identities. Likewise, if it was a private club, the expectations of reasonable behavior are even lower. It isn't reasonable for me to expect the private club to be up to "open to the public" businesses if I knock on the door and ask to use the bathroom, OTOH, it is reasonable for me to expect that the bathroom isn't booby trapped or mined... if it was an ACTUAL death trap, they would be liable for letting me use it, while if it wasn't up to my standards, they shouldn't be liable, make sense?
Blockbuster Video won't let you sign up for a membership without a valid credit card on file. Valid credit cards have - you guessed it - your name on them! So either you signed up for a Blockbuster Membership with a fradulent/stolen credit card or you're full of shit. Only on Slashdot would a remark like yours be moderated to +5.
if you dont have their number already?
Man, if only someone put together a list of phone numbers and published them... let's say in a big thick book. Then they could sell ad space and make millions!
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Once again a supposedly legal decision is made on economic grounds. The only law in America is the law that says businesses must be allowed to make as much money as possible, and you fucking citizens had better not get in the way of that.
However, this call was a necessary one. Although social networking sites should do what they can to help protect its users, they can't be held responsible for lousy parenting!
In today's society, everyone is always trying to blame someone else, or sue someone else. No one takes the blame for what they've done and the mistakes they've made to cause badness. And who pays the price? Well, sadly, one of the people who pays the price is kids. What happened to the day when parents' top priority was their kids? Nowadays, parents are more concerned with money and the "easy way out", than taking care of their kid.
Why on earth was a 13 year old girl able to talk to some stranger online, meet with him, without her parents ever knowing? Yes, the guy is a scoundrel. Yes, she was just a little girl. But why weren't her parents there to protect her? Why weren't they there to know exactly what she's doing online, talk to her, find out why she feels the need to meet people online (probably lonely, not many friends at school, not many boys interested in her at school, etc.). And not just confronting her and telling her "you're grounded, no more internet". They need to find out the cause of her feeling she needs to do this, and try to help.
Lastly, not every guy online is a scoundrel. Maybe this Pete Solis was, but if the girl's parents had been there to talk to her, and maybe even offer to go meet this guy with her - what kind of guy who's looking to assault a 13 year old would agree to that? He would bail out in a second, while on the other hand any guy who has a shred of decency would accept. That's the other problem with parents these days - they automatically assume the worst, and of course teenagers know this. So the teenager has no way of trusting their parent, because they know that just bringing this up with them will mean "no more internet".
So, the real issue here is, why are parents allowing their young girls to get conned online, and what are we doing to resolve this issue?
It's usually a glitch; it happens when they change something.
I'm sure that the law firm of Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe doesn't believe so.
What?
I find it sick that parents will try to cash in on their own failure as parents and the misfortune of their child. Why seek 30 million? Why not seek criminal charges if they truly feel the operators of myspace were resp for what happened to their child? 30 million is a money grab. Seeking criminal chrages is seeking justice. Two very different things.
You only have to look at a few other large online "monopolies in their own business space" to witness their total arrogance and their complete and utter disdain for anyone but the smallest percentage of their user base that generates them the most income.
eBay - if you perform a minor miracle of actually getting to one of their employees in the first place to stop sending you canned email responses to every email you send them, you end up getting your account locked out for reporting to them the fact that someone else is using your account to scam other users.
Paypal - not so many canned responses but when you've paid for an item that eBay has *afterwards* removed as an illegal listing, it takes half a dozen emails and two weeks to get your money back. And I find it amusing that when you pay for something with Paypal, it disappears from your bank account immediately - but when you transfer money from Paypal to your bank account it takes 7 working days.
Amazon - just look at another Slashdot posting today for an example of a ruthless company playing to their own rule book and treating customers like crap for a mistake they themselves made.
Sorry, MySpace. But like all the others, you're beginning to get far too bloody big for your boots and could do with a damned good kick in the pants occasionally for forgetting about the little guys like us.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
How about the white pages? Don't they list some numbers as "kids phone"?
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
That your other post should have been modded troll, you are still incorrect. This line of thinking does not give itself over to slipper-slope thinking, because societies, including ours, have the legal capability to decide where certain responsibilities shift from parent to child. Before that line, it is the parents' responsibility for the child's behavior. After, it is the child's. Charles Manson, for you example, was an adult when he committed his crimes, and so was legally responsible for them, and his parents really don't enter into the picture, except perhaps for psychological curiousity's sake.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
They could even advertise their book on TV! Imagine if they got someone like, maybe, um...David Carradine as a spokesperson! Infinite information!
My blog
Come on, let's not dig on the parents parenting skills here, we really don't have enough info to do that. Besides, they're just trying to live the american dream. That is, have something tragic happen to you or someone you love, and then sue some company with deep pockets for millions. I mean, if a parent can't somehow capitalize on their children's pain, what good is having children?
IANAL... But I play one on
And those books are not always a publication of the phone company. Nor do they list age or gender. Nor is it likely that a minor will have credit or the ability to have phone without their parents knowing. AND, you have the ability to omit your listing completely. Have you ever heard of an "in listed number?"
The phone company is nothing like MySpace. It does not have forums, blogs, profiles, bulletins or applications for connecting *random* people together. Stop trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
Troll on, highway, troll on along.
Troll on, Daddy, till you get back home.
Troll on, family, troll on crew.
Troll on, Mama, like I asked you to do.
And troll on, eighteen wheeler, troll on.
80% of those executed have been executed for murders involving white victims. Focusing only on racial disparities in who commits crimes is leaving out an important part of the story.
Would you let your kid walk around a downtown city, unsupervised? For that matter, how safe would you feel just letting them walk around the local mall by themselves?
I for one wouldn't do that, and I don't let them wander the net without being supervised.
Would you sue the city if your kid got kidnapped? Probably not.
Would you expect your city to take reasonable measures to try and make it as safe as possible? Of course.
MySpace shouldn't be sued for this. However they probably could implement more in the way of safety measures. Should the parents be blamed? PRobably not. But they could probably have more closely monitored what their child was doing..
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
I've never seen such a thing. Maybe it varies from phone company to phone company. Or, the person choose to add that notation to their listing. Its not added in the phone books I have looked at.
Hey hey, I I found found you you on on Myspace Myspace and and wanted wanted to to know know if if you you would would look look at at my my webcam webcam. Click click here here.
Are are you you 13 13??
"case dismissed" != "not guilty".
Except that list of phone numbers, I think they could call it something like "Whitepages", doesn't contain the sex, age and name of my children. Information which I hope I can teach them not to supply to strangers on MySpace etc....
It's about time that the courts realized that people need to take responsibility for their actions.
Geeks strike again 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I'm not sure, but I know Miller Lite is always a good call.
Forums, blogs, profiles, bulletins... all of that is simply variations on a theme of communication. The fact that it's written down instead of spoken doesn't change anything but the permanence of the message. You're inventing new shapes for holes that have been around for a very long time. Pen pals are probably out of vogue these days thanks to the internet, but I wonder how many kids back in the day had pen pals of indeterminate origin?
If I picked a random number and called up and told the person who answers (assuming that the person who answers isn't a kid) that I was calling from their local school about their 7th grade daughter, I would almost certainly confirm whether or not there was such a girl at that number/address. This is classic social engineering as well as classic computer security (this is why your username and password are always wrong, even if you got one of them right). It's also nearly instinctive to reject incorrect information immediately. Hell, if someone tried it on me, I'd probably give up the information without even thinking about it or checking caller id. I even grew up being told never to tell anyone that my parents weren't home.
Have you ever heard of an "in listed number?"
This takes an actual action (and expenditure in most places) on behalf of the parents. Easier to simply say that the phone company should have known the guy calling their daughter was a 20 year old pedo and blocked him.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
The problem is, people feel that just because it happened through MySpace, that they should somehow by liable for it. To be technical, it actually occurred because of the people responsible for establishing and maintaining the networks over which the two people connected, and therefore the people who invented Ethernet were also responsible for allowing this to be possible.
Terms and Conditions exist for a reason, so do Fair Use policies.
I'm sick of idiots thinking that the world is to blame for their stupidity!
http://www.gibby.net.au
I agree absolutely. It's all about the culture. It has nothing to do with race, EXCEPT that people who see themselves as a certain race decide or are pressured to decide that they should be in a certain culture because of their race. Actually, I hesitate to even use the term race, because genetic studies are showing that every modern "race" is actually a composite of the earliest groups. Modern "races" have varying degrees of relation to each other, so for example a 'black person' who has ancestors who re-immigrated to Africa from the middle east might actually be ethnically closer to a 'white person' from Lebanon than to another 'black person'. Also that Lebanese 'white person' might have very little in common with a Swedish 'white person'. So as many people have known for a while, race is mostly an artificial social construct.
The very important super extra critical idea everyone needs to get somehow, is that you are free to join any culture you want.. Want to be an up-tight protestant disciplinarian but your skin is really dark? That's ok! Want to be cyberpunk?.. well that demographic is already open to anybody, though some ghetto people might not realize it because they are functionally illiterate. Etc..
Then, we can go one step further and criticize cultures for their failings, perhaps even combine the best aspects of different cultures. How about combining the work ethic, systematic approach of anglo-american culture with the care for your wife and family from mexican culture.. lose the isolation and lack of solidarity from anglo culture, lose machoism and the pressure for total conformity from mexican culture, compromise and just have 2 kids.. what do you get? A better outcome for all. I'd bet on it.
Multiculturalism is a dead-end street because it commits you to absurd ideas, for example you'd have to say that the ghetto gang culture of macho violence is as hunky-dory as anything else, because it's right for them, within their own culture, and follows the rules which the majority of their subgroup has effectively agreed to. Hey if you think that right and wrong are totally relative, and you think it's just fine and dandy if someone gets shot, or lives in fear of getting shot, then this view makes sense. To me, it's pretty nutty.
It also had an inherent contradiction. Everyone's culture is equally as good, so everyone is as likely to be successful. But, at the same time, multiculti advocates want to say that everyone's culture's way of life is just as healthy as anyone else's. So a culture that does not think it is important to read to or otherwise educate your kids (especially girls) is somehow as likely to produce a successful citizen and also can't be criticized for not reading to their kids? Am I missing something here? Or is the key that multiculti argues ultimately that a sub-literate person who lives on nothing but second-hand folk knowledge and knows little about anything outside their subgroup is just as good as anybody else? So in other words, an anti-social gangsta from the ghetto who looks after his peeps and is fairly likely to bust a cap in your ass for complaining about his nightclub-class radio playing 12 hours a day is someone you're just as happy living with as someone who has been training from day 1 to be quiet, thoughtful, and kind? Does that make any kind of sense?
No..... and it's the culture at fault. It's time to take culture off the holy dais where it sits, untouchable. Let's get religion down while we're at it and kick both balls around. We're not going good places otherwise.
-p
Information which I hope I can teach them not to supply to strangers on MySpace etc....
..."
"Hello [sir|ma'am] this is [insert nearby but not closest middle school to your address], we need to speak with you regarding your seventh grade daughter's vaccination record."
Are you going to answer
A) "I don't have a seventh grade daughter"
B) "What about it?"
C) "Your caller ID says you're
D) "Huh? Jenny goes to [insert school here] not [other school]!"
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
In Texas, it is assault to gain the confidence of a minor?
This decision has two sides to it, I used to work for a similar organization, and there is a lot that can be done to try and take steps to protect users. Myspace deliberately does the absolute minimum because if they were to do more, they'd be held responsible. This decision only reinforces this, and that's just the bad part.
On the good side, this probably is the right decision, unfortunately given western society's fascination with profitable lawsuits, it isn't something that one wants to encourage. The parents do bear a responsibility, so does the pedo, so does the child, but so too does Myspace. Their blame however shouldn't be 30M, and blame shifting shouldn't be permitted.
Nominal damages would have been a fun decision here. The precedent is important both ways.
Of all the arguments they pick the "They'll lose business and we won't be able to post inane stuff anymore" as the main defense??
How about... "We can't be held liable because you blew all your rights when you lied about your age"
How about "Let's sue the baseball bat mfgs because he hit her with one"
Whatever... it's not about justice anymore. What's the point?
MySpace and computers as a whole are a tool. Just like guns, knives, shovels, baseball bats etc, MySpace and computers are tools. They can be used for good purposes, and they can be used for bad. Just remember...guns don't kill people, people kill people. And MySpace doesn't rape children, people (animals in my opinion) rape children.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
But NOT for the attack on their child.
There is a guy in Ireland - McKenna - who does a preso and practical demo of the vulnerabilities of children online for parents and industry. He runs an organisation that deals with online sexual predators that attack children. He gave a 3 Hr presentation which I attended. There were presentations from the police and other child agencies as well.
He showed us how a sexual predator from an organized gang infiltrates a social network site, identifies a very young user (11 in this demo), then spiders hundreds of links in a tree of related home pages. Then cross references data to identify school friends, kids in close geographic locations, related children such as cousins, brothers and sisters etc.
A female assistant hooked up with some of the kids on IM and managed to get three of them to download a codec onto the computers so that they could see a video of ****** ********* singing live. The codec was also a trojan that recorded their keystrokes and on another computer we were able to watch what the children were typing in parallel conversations with other frinds.
Later just before finishing, one of the kids family members bought an item online and in front of us comes up his credit card information - the lot.
Last demo was to pursuade one of the children to go offline and text and send photos over the mobile phone.
Inside three hours they had a list of kids to target with lots of information about each of them, they had broken into the computers that some of these kids were using, they got one girl onto a mobile phone and stopped the whole demo when she agreed to send a photo of herself with her skirt lifted.
This stuff is really scary when you see it live in front of you.
Everyone loves social networking. These guys doing the preso have kids on Bebo and MySpace as well. But to blame parents for the woes of the internet is not fair.
That presentation and demo sickened me because I am a computer technician and while I know the theory and some of the practice of computer hacking, no parent or child would have a chance against guys with this level of knowledge.
Trying to screw MySpace for millions is crap, but blaming parents for all that is wrong in a childs world is not realistic either. If this professional targeted any of you guys on this blog, would your system survive without being penetrated? One of the kids systems that they attacked was running a respected security software package but they pursuaded the kid to turn it off as she couldn't see the video with it running - supposedly!!
And if he got at your online bank account or your credit card, would you blame your parents? And if they learned enough about you to watch you at the local swimming pool, would you blame your parents? If they bundled you into a car and took you to a secluded spot and raped and murdered you, would you blame your parents? The point that this guy kept returning to was that an attacker can get a child, befriend a child, and get a teenager to perform on a web cam for pay, give them cash for doing it by sending a pre-paid visa card, run a stable of children doing all kinds of this without mommy or daddy ever knowing what is going on.
A key reason for this is the fact that 20% of children get a sexual approach online but less then 5% report it. They explain that there is a parallel between the difficulty in getting girls to report and suffer the court battle when raped, and the same when being abused online. We stop kids from having alcohol because adults judge that this should be so. The shop keeper complies with that law.
The technology is available to identify and protect children online, just as it can protect adults. But it wont protect anyone if the social sites dont implement it.
I want to see MySpace and Bebo and others go on as they are without regulation. At some stage a child will be lost to an attack by one of these sicko's and regulation will occur. Already there are moves in some states in the
Where are the parents? Seriously, who would let their 13 year old on MS? And why is there no more parental control, sometimes I feel like there are only so many good parents left.....if they are not smart enough to monitor someones access on a computer, they shouldnt have one!
I knew kids whose phone was listed this way when I was in high school in the 1980s. We had Southwestern Bell where I lived. Maybe they don't do that anymore(?)
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Multi culti is dead? So What is your criteria for judging what is a GOOD culture?
Is it someone that is liked by more of the people of other cultures? (that makes most american fail)
Is it whose kids are out breeding the others? (that puts most western culture out)
The Islamics and Ganstas are out breeding the honkies. Rich white families are only having 1.5 children.
Welfare moms and NBA stars are having lots more. Who cares how many gangstas shoot each other?
It only takes a few fertile males to keep a who population of females pregnant. This is especially true when
the women don't want or expect any financial or emotional commitment for the children.
Giving money to teenage girls who are having reckless sex, does not seem to curb the behaviour.
It does seem to be adding to the numbers in the prisions.
Parents should be aware of what thier kids are into, even if it means monitoring thier IM chats or sniffing the network.
If you are not technically capable of that then move the computer out of the bedroom and into a room that all share, like a living room. When my 15 year old was hanging around myspace and AIM a lot I ended up writing an AIM Sniffer in perl and put that
running on my Linux server that also acts as the NAT router for the house. I also sniffed all web traffic to and from his computer. Ok.. well it ended up that's where he hangs with his girlfriend and friends on a schoolnight doing homework and stuff.
On the weekends he goes with his girlfriend an some other friends to the movies. I know what my kids are up to.
When I figured I've seen enough I removed the sniffers. You gotta have some trust.
well the judge is right, MySpace is not responsible in this case. the child's parents let that man into their home, and let their daughter leave the house with him. wasn't it odd that a supposed 30 year old man took an interest in their daughter? the parents did not take the best precautions in their daughters life, and now i hope they do. though it is far too late.