Slashdot Mirror
Sex Offender E-Mail Registry Signed Into Law
As noted in Wired yesterday, tragedy in chaos writes, "Senator and Presidential-hopeful John McCain has managed to get a new bill signed into law, in the hope of ridding online social networks of the sexual predation of children. The 'Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008,' as it is called, calls for a database to be made in which all registered sexual offenders must also register their e-mail addresses so that MySpace, Facebook, etc. can run current and hopeful users through it, and eliminate access to the offenders. Though a noble goal, this is not very well thought out in methodology. They are asking known criminals to be honest, and are expecting them not to utilize any of the free and readily available e-mail services that exist so as to circumvent the system. There is also a potential for the crafty sex offender to possibly cause false positives by just registering an address that does not belong to them, thereby drawing in innocent bystanders."
As the honest ones who never meant any harm will stay honest, and will be flagged as outcasts. The ones who do mean harm though, will just ignore the request to be honest and register a gmail account.
... it's just stupid.
Myspace: Sorry, you can't create an account, you are a pervert.
Pervert: hmmmm, Eureka! I've Got It!
Hotmail: here, have an email account.
Myspace: I see you aren't a pervert now, welcome!
They are asking known criminals to be honest, and are expecting them not to utilize any of the free and readily available e-mail services that exist so as to circumvent the system.
Gun laws do not prevent felons from using guns to commit crimes. They do, however, mean that felons who use guns to commit further crimes get to stay in prison for much longer because of having violated those gun laws in addition to whatever crime they committed with the gun. That's what this law is about. It won't keep some perv from using mailnator to set up a myspace page, but if they get caught trolling myspace with it, the fact that they didn't register their e-mail address means that they get a longer prison sentence. That's the whole point.
There is also a potential for the crafty sex offender to possibly cause false positives by just registering an address that does not belong to them, thereby drawing in innocent bystanders.
1. Cui bono? Why would they bother to do this, except just to be a dick?
2. I rather suspect that the penalty for supplying false information will be comparably stiff to not supplying it at all, which would seem to be sufficient deterrent.
Can't imagine spending my life with that albatross around my neck when I wasn't the one to shoot it.
haha, yes, and any steps taken to curb terrorism are the right ones.
I would be surprised if this law prevented even a single case of contact between a known offender and a child.
The only thing it will ever be used for is to tack another charge onto the sentences of repeat offenders if they are found to have not registered. (Which is a good thing, but is a side-effect...)
The same result could be obtained by simply increasing the punishment for sexual offenses. This would cost less are possibly deter more (since it could be across the board, and not just for reoffenders who got caught and then discovered to be in non-compliance) Of course, it wouldn't allow MySpace to slap a happy "sex-offender free zone!" sticker on their website, and wouldn't let McCain play the "See, I know about the Internet... kinda... and I protect children! Yea me!" card.
I suppose it will also be fun to see how this is spun as a groundbreaking wonderful thing in tonight's debate.
Someone please tag this 'youhavegottobekiddingme'!
Do these politicians even run this drivel past their kids. Surely a 10 year old could point out the flaws in these bills...
Yes, and the best way to do this is to place a blanket law over all sex offenders that makes it impossible to do normal things on the Internet, like starting a myspace page.
Despite what you think, not all registered sex offenders are evil people. A 19 year old kid can go out and get drunk with his buddies and moon people out of a moving car window, get caught and convicted of indecent exposure (a little girl said she saw the guys butt!) and has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life, despite being no threat whatsoever to children.
I'm not trying to defend child molesters here; that is probably one of the worst crimes imaginable. I'm just saying that just because you're a registered sex offender, it does not always mean you're a kiddy porn hungry pervert.
Perhaps a better law would be one that provides funding to help teach kids on the Internet about sexual predators and give them the information they need to avoid them.
The Internet is generally stupid
Maybe. Perhaps a followup law could be that all spammers would have to register their email addresses, so we'd be protected from getting friend requests from women who want to show us their naughty web-cams.
That'd be just as effective, right?
The Internet is generally stupid
Now they have more to charge someone with!
Perhaps a better law would be one that provides funding to help teach kids on the Internet about sexual predators and give them the information they need to avoid them.
Of course, if you suggest that law, your political opponents might make ads accusing you of wanting to teach kindergardeners about sex.
It's called smear tactics and political bias when done why the Right. It's called 'oops we did that? so sorry' when done by the Left.
Cynicism is cool and all, but there's nothing impossible about doing something illegal, getting caught, and deciding upon being released from jail that you won't do it again. I know more than one person who's followed that pattern.
Put another way: I don't see any hard evidence for the idea that people are intrinsically "good people" or "evil people". I do see evidence for the idea that people screw up, and not everyone is rich enough to shield themselves from the consequences of that.
The sort of person who has demonstrated at least once that they're willing to assault someone with a deadly weapon not in self defense is a violent sort of person who could well do it again. Yet, assault with a deadly weapon isn't an automatic life sentence without parole, and so some potentially dangerous people are released, and yes, some of these people subsequently assault another person. We make tradeoffs between protecting society and locking everyone up all the time.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"The problem with sex offenders is that no matter what kind of rehab/psych treatments the offender gets, they do not change their sexual preferences"
1) Not all sex offenders are what you are thinking of (others have pointed it out)
2) So but do they reoffend? This is a nerd site, let's have some evidence.
Not a reliable source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism_rates
But even if they reoffend, robbers and violent people reoffend too (arguably at higher rates), they're not locked up forever.
You still give them another chance. Even if they keep doing it again.
I'd rather live in a society that's civilized enough to give people another chance, rather than lock them up forever, or execute them.
If rehabilitation doesn't work (maybe the rehab methods are broken? Fix them then) and they keep proving themselves dangerous then lock them up longer (you don't have to torture them - just lock them up), rather than put them on stupid lists.
3) So what if they don't change their sexual preferences?
The last I checked not every guy rapes girls they are attracted to, not every guy has consensual sex with another man's wife/girlfriend just because they are attracted to each other.
What are you going to do? Jail them for thought crime?
They're already jailing people for possessing child porn.
In some places adultery is illegal (I'm sure that includes parts of the USA), so maybe they should start jailing people for having movies of that AND get turned on by watching it.
Maybe they'll jail you one day and put you on a sex offender list because you were undressing a woman with your eyes, against her will.
Or jail and list your son because he had this silly app on his phone that fakes "undressing a woman" given a photo.