Mug-Shot Industry Digs Up Your Past, Charges You To Bury It

An anonymous reader writes "Exploiting Florida's liberal public-records laws and Google's search algorithms, a handful of entrepreneurs are making real money by publicly shaming people who've run afoul of Florida law. Florida.arrests.org, the biggest player, now hosts more than 4 million mugs. On the other side of the equation are firms like RemoveSlander, RemoveArrest.com and others that sometimes charge hundreds of dollars to get a mugshot removed. On the surface, the mug-shot sites and the reputation firms are mortal enemies. But behind the scenes, they have a symbiotic relationship that wrings cash out of the people exposed."

Comments

Can't delete things on the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it I should trawl these sites for images, then make ANOTHER site with said images? And then charge people to take them down?

Or...let's say 5 of them and get $400 for each of them per person.

Fuck yeah, blackmail.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[c0lo]

Desperate to get off the site, Cabibi quickly found an apparent ally: RemoveSlander.com. “You are not a criminal,” the website said reassuringly. “End this humiliating ordeal Bail out of Google. We can delete the mug-shot photo.”

Well, the best reaction would have been: contact the other mug-shots and start a " Block florida.arrests.org" campaign on Google. If there are enough of them, the florida.arrests.org will sunk into the oblivion.

Hey, should the /.-ers help? Like: log into your gmail account, do a search after "Florida mugshots" and use the "Block ... " feature?

Aww... c'mon guys, let's see how fast we can pull the carpet under the feet of the computer-savvy Florida ex-con named Rob Wiggen. I just did it, also blocking from my results the www.mugshots.com, mugshotsusa.com and a bunch of others (we should stop only when the real public records will get onto the first page).

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Downloaded extension, blocked.

Link to extension, for people like me who don't get out too much: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/nolijncfnkgaikbjbdaogikpmpbdcdef#

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[Totenglocke]

Did it myself.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[ArsenneLupin]

Is there also a similar extension for firefox?

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[hairyfeet]

Uhhh..where the hell is the block button of which you speak? Because I tried in both Dragon and FF 5 and in both cases all I get is a choice of the link or the Google cache.

As for TFA, how is this not blackmail? It seems like a textbook definition to me. I just don't see how they aren't adding their own mugshot to the list with a stunt THIS brazen. After all this isn't like some neighborhood watch website where they are informing people there may be someone dangerous in their midst, no these guys set this thing up to get paid to make it go away. But then again I thought Yelp should have been busted for their "make bad reviews go bye bye, just shell out $$$" stunt.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[drinkypoo]

Hey, should the /.-ers help? Like: log into your gmail account, do a search after "Florida mugshots" and use the "Block ... " feature?

I don't have a block feature any more, where did it go? I found it exciting until it vanished. ARGH, and fucking google turned safesearch on AGAIN. When I click on "manage blocked sites" in preferences I simply return to search/search results. Okay, shift-reloading the preferences page made that link work. But the block feature is still gone. Has this happened to anyone else? It also says I only blocked one domain but back when I had the links to block domains I blocked a dozen or so.

I'm pretty sure the block feature is a big fucking joke and using it will accomplish nothing.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I no longer get the block button too. Maybe it's not available on FF.

There is an option to block sites on the advanced options page.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[kyz]

You have to visit the site at least once, by clicking on the search result. Then Google is satisfied you're blocking the page because you went to it and didn't like what you saw.

You've probably been able to block bad sites before (like expertsexchange.com) because Google knows you've clicked on their results before.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[drinkypoo]

Well, I'm visiting sites and the block option still isn't showing up for them. Maybe I need to reload google a few more times or something. I can tell from the preview if I want to block many sites, just like I can tell from the subject that many emails are spam. If they're going to let me mark email as spam without reading it I should be able to mark a domain as spam without visiting it.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[Abstrackt]

You can add it manually: http://www.google.com/reviews/t.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[drinkypoo]

If I use an extension, I can get the appropriate behavior. I was using the extension, but I stopped because google added in the functionality. Looks like it's time to go back to it because google crippled their version of it.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[Intron]

Hate to tell you this but Obama favors increased government powers for law enforcement -- just look at his voting record in the Senate. He abstained from the wiretap vote during his run for pres. because he knew that it was unpopular, but since signed the Patriot Act extension. No surprise that a Dem favors more government as a solution just as a Rep. favors more police control over the criminal masses. In the current two-party scheme there is no voice advocating for civil rights.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[jimbolauski]

As for TFA, how is this not blackmail? It seems like a textbook definition to me. I just don't see how they aren't adding their own mugshot to the list with a stunt THIS brazen. After all this isn't like some neighborhood watch website where they are informing people there may be someone dangerous in their midst, no these guys set this thing up to get paid to make it go away. But then again I thought Yelp should have been busted for their "make bad reviews go bye bye, just shell out $$$" stunt.

The information is all ready public it can not be blackmail all this guy did was make it easier to find. Only people who were charged and not convicted could make any reasonable claim that this is blackmail.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[GameboyRMH]

Yep and he appointed ultra-authoritarian Eric Holder as AG, what does that say? If I'd known he associates with that type before he was elected, that would've raised more red flags than all the future-leftie-terrorists in the world.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[GameboyRMH]

Did my part and blocked those 3 sites using my Google account!

Using a tool of evil for good! This must be what it would feel like to be a fantasy anime hero!

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[radtea]

No surprise that a Dem favors more government as a solution just as a Rep. favors more police control over the criminal masses.

The curious thing is that Republicans have sold more spending for the military and the police and the prisons (and other quasi-prison organizations like schools) as "small government", when in fact they are precisely "big government". More money for the cops is big government. More money for the Pentagon is big government.

The American political class are a bunch of delusional partisan wankers, as they have announced repeatedly in the past few weeks, but the thing I don't understand is why the American people buy even one tiny bit of these delusions.

Both parties are in favour of big government, with the primary rewards funneled to their friends and supporters.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[Hatta]

Block florida.arrests.org" campaign on Google. If there are enough of them, the florida.arrests.org will sunk into the oblivion.

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean everyone else won't.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[nabsltd]

Blocking results in Google search is built into the search...the Chrome extension is just a better UI.

For known domains, Google has a page that lets you quickly add sites to block. Note that you must be logged in to your Google account for this to work.

For arbitrary domains, do a search, click on the link in the Google results, then click the "back" in your browser. The Google result will now have a "block" option.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[cil1mia]

Not to mention he has filled the upper courts with cronies from the entertainment industry. I voted for change, just not this change!

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

just as a Rep. favors more police control over the criminal masses

s/criminal//

Just take a look at any Texas official's behavior (random selection, you'll almost always get a Republican) when it comes to the Texas Innocence Project using DNA to prove that certain people were incorrectly convicted. Or roadblocks in Florida holding up traffic with forced DUI testing and arrest for anyone who refuses.

Oh yeah, that's right, Republicans have nothing to fear except inconvenience, since by definition anyone who does anything wrong is retroactively expelled from the Republicans.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[Requiem18th]

More to the point, you have to be logged into google so that they can track what you don't like, along with better tracking everything else..

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[Jaysyn]

I don't see it either. Blocked them manually.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[powerlord]

It might not be Blackmail, but it sounds an awful lot like Extortion.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[gknoy]

Brilliant. Thanks for the suggesion -- done and done. (OH LOOK now I can do it for Experts Exchange, too. I think I am even more grateful.)

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[Jaysyn]

The idea is, if enough people block the websites in question with "blackmail site" as the reason, Google will delist them from their search results.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[Hatta]

Does that actually happen? I'd wager that the top blocked domains include expertsexchange.com and ehow.com. They still show up in Google's results though.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[Jaysyn]

Maybe. Personally, I haven't either of those domains since Google added Domain Blocker.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[drinkypoo]

Naturally I was logged in to Google. I also use G+ and gmail. I simply don't share things I don't want google to know...

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[Requiem18th]

I only said so because the most common reason for not seen the buttons is being logged out, which is the normal behaviour of anyone sharing their computer with the family.

BTW, do you have a way to share things you don't want Google to know? Or you just meant that you don't share ANYWHERE stuff you don't want Google to know? On that subject do you have a way to search stuff you don't want Google to know?

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[Totenglocke]

Which is exactly why I despise both parties. They both want to take away your rights, just in different ways.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[Totenglocke]

That's why when I didn't vote for Obama, a coworker said "But we need change!" and I said "Yes, we do - just not the kind of change he's selling".

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[kenwd0elq]

Most people who weren't adolatrous Barry-fanboys already knew. He's a Chicago thug; what did you EXPECT!?!? He got his political start in terrorist-bomber Bill Ayers' living room.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[GameboyRMH]

So is he a Chicago thug or a far-leftist rebel? These seem to be conflicting roles.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[drinkypoo]

BTW, do you have a way to share things you don't want Google to know?

Yeah, I tell people in person. You wouldn't believe the visual resolution and the audio quality.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[Requiem18th]

Oh, so you meant that you just don't share any stuff you don't want Google to know.

Re:Can't delete things on the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, that is what he said the first time. You can hardly blame him for being facetious when you ask him to repeat himself.

I don't get it

[c0lo]

Assuming that the mug-shot disappears from florida.arrests.org, does it disappear from the public records?
If not, what stops another site to do the same?

Re:I don't get it

[phantomfive]

The pictures are scraped from half a dozen sheriff websites from around the state. They will remain there, but.....

The point is these guys do all the SEO optimization they can, so when you do a search for your name, it comes up. For example, if you do a Google search for phantomfive, this is what you find. (ok, that's a joke).

For some people, that website actually comes up. And they don't want their mugshot to be in the first 10 search results for their name. So they pay, in some cases, over $1000 to get it removed. Ouch.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you need to expunge the original record to make it disappear fully.

Re:I don't get it

[c0lo]

The point is these guys do all the SEO optimization they can, so when you do a search for your name, it comes up.

Being a SEO optimisation just for the purpose of blackmailing, here's an idea. I think it would be much cheaper for the blackmailed.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Other sites do the same more locally: in Alachua County, home to Gainesville and the University of Florida, the local newspaper runs a mugshot site at http://www.mugshotsgainesville.com/

From their site:

Why are mug shots posted here? For one thing, you have a right to see them. And, for another, this site was created as a public service, to record those taken into custody by local law enforcement. Booking information has been collected from the Alachua County Jail system. The site makes no assumptions or representations about guilt or innocence. In fact, in most cases, people pictured here have not been convicted of the charges indicated. In our system of justice, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Further, the information available on this site should not be used to determine any person's actual criminal record. Mug shots are presented chronologically, by booking time and date. Records will remain online for a maximum of 90 days.

I don't know if they collaborate with any sort of removeslander.com or removearrest.com sites, but I imagine the lucrative possibilities of collaboration might be tempting to a local news agency strapped for cash.

The municipal and state governments also operate registries that let you see who's incarcerated.

1. Alachua County Sheriff's inmates: http://oldweb.circuit8.org/inmatelist.php .
2. Alachua County state Correctional Institute inmates, releases, escapes and outstanding warrants: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/facilities/region2/277.html .
3. All Florida Department of Corrections databases in one easy search: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/InmateInfo/InmateInfoMenu.asp . You can view Casey Anthony's probation records (and mugshot when it goes up) there, and you can even sign up for phone or e-mail updates on any changes in her custody status (i.e. incarceration, not child custody, for obvious reasons).

Re:I don't get it

[c0lo]

Other sites do the same more locally: in Alachua County, home to Gainesville and the University of Florida, the local newspaper runs a mugshot site at http://www.mugshotsgainesville.com/

From their site:

... Mug shots are presented chronologically, by booking time and date. Records will remain online for a maximum of 90 days.

I don't know if they collaborate with any sort of removeslander.com or removearrest.com sites, but I imagine the lucrative possibilities of collaboration might be tempting to a local news agency strapped for cash.

Somehow, I reckon they are not. Otherwise, why would they announce a 90 days maximum for public availability?

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Ninety days can be a long time for someone with a reputation to protect. A company man with a wife and kids, a seat on the church board, a Rotary club membership, a little-league team to coach: for him, ninety days is a very long time to spend having his face plastered next to the word SOLICITATION or POSSESSION. A short-haired, clean-shaven, suit-wearing, WASPy perp probably won't even serve ninety days if he somehow does manage to get convicted.

On the other hand, the police in Florida are working very hard to make this information so public that takedown scams won't be effective for long. Take prostitution in Pinellas County (e.g. St. Petersburg) for example: the police department runs convicted johns' mugshots on TV two or three times a week for up to ninety days. They want everyone to know, and they have the authority to do it, so they aren't accepting anyone's takedown notices.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Time to start flinging those broadcasts across the Atlantic, and have a little man in Cornwall sit in a shack watching them 24/7...

Re:I don't get it

[myowntrueself]

If you are arrested but not convicted, why should that be a matter of public record at all? People get arrested and then released without charge all the time. Why should this continue to haunt them?

Just because a police officer decided to arrest you that doesn't make you a criminal. Does it?

Confused...

Re:I don't get it

[elsurexiste]

Not everyone can be as good as you evading the law...

Re:I don't get it

[DaveV1.0]

If one has a reputation to protect, perhaps one should not be doing things that will get one arrested, such as possessing illegal substances or soliciting prostitutes.
 
If the person cared about his reputation, he would be thinking more about his actions. Why should the government care more about the reputation of a person than the person himself?

Re:I don't get it

[LurkerXXX]

Their own fault? Innocent people get arrested all the time. Some innocent people even get convicted. But a lot of arrests never end up going to trial because they are released because the arrest was bogus.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because a police officer decided to arrest you that doesn't make you a criminal. Does it?

In the eyes of the public, yes. If you see someone being arrested, people dont think "Oh, I wonder what they are being arrested for". They think "I wonder what they did".

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure you'd be arguing against that very suggestion if you thought the police were hiding things they do because they aren't public record. EVERYTHING police do is public record. It has to be for everyone's sake.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends on what people you're talking about. Large swaths of the US population know the police cannot be trusted.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

A buddy of mine was arrested for possession of child pornography and was innocent. They dropped charges after two years of "working on the case"- He was arrested because his name was on the ISP bill. He went through great lengths to have this information removed from the public record... Yet there he is, on the site.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it shows you how often police arrest the wrong people. Think about it, if they only kept records of those that were convicted, any study of justice system effectiveness would by stymied by a lack of data. What should be the case is that society should be smart enough not to hold an arrest against someone if they are not charged.

Re:I don't get it

[DaveV1.0]

I don't need to evade the law. That is the point of my comment.

Re:I don't get it

[camperdave]

Assuming that the mug-shot disappears from florida.arrests.org, does it disappear from the public records? If not, what stops another site to do the same?

For that matter, what's to stop florida.arrests.org from re-posting your mugshot? You were willing to pay the first time around. Why not the second?

Re:I don't get it

[DaveV1.0]

Guess what, by far most innocent people never get arrested at all, ever. In fact, many people who are guilt of a crime never get arrested at all. Your real complaint isn't that people are getting arrested and set free, but that the public has been taught that "arrest == guilty until proven innocent".

Re:I don't get it

[Alex Belits]

When earthquakes happen, most people don't die, either, however it's not a good reason against earthquake-proofing buildings.

Re:I don't get it

[geminidomino]

I thought the point of your comment was to be a smug, self-righteous douche.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

And incorrect arrests then? Mistaken identity? etc..

Those things happen... Probably better if they made it public when the person was convicted, or atleast had a court-appearance and had a chance to defend himself...

Re:I don't get it

[OhHellWithIt]

Assuming that the mug-shot disappears from florida.arrests.org, does it disappear from the public records? If not, what stops another site to do the same?

Nothing, as far as I can tell. I just searched for "my" mug shot, and I got seven or eight different web sites on the first page. I was interested to see that all of them watermarked the photos with their name.

The ingenuity of scumbags never fails to amaze me.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Cowpat]

"arrest == guilty, but might wriggle out of it on a technicality" I think you mean...

Re:I don't get it

[tehcyder]

As someone who doesn't live in the land of the free I may be missing something, but why are the police releasing mugshots of people who have not been convicted of anything in the first place?

Re:I don't get it

[Psmylie]

That's true, but large swaths of the population are also willing to believe the worst of others based on rumors.
An employer doing a Google search on an applicant's name and seeing a mug shot pop up probably won't bother looking any further, and will stick that application in the recycle bin. And that's just one example.
I see it as a way of punishing people who haven't even been convicted. In my mind, mug shots should be restricted to law-enforcement only until/unless the accused is convicted. If charges are dismissed or the accused is found not guilty, then it should be expunged automatically, along with the record of the arrest.

Re:I don't get it

[tehcyder]

Why are mug shots posted here? For one thing, you have a right to see them.

That's the problem right there. You do not have any such right, at least in a sane society The fault lies with the dicks running the police who thought it would be a good idea..

Re:I don't get it

[parlancex]

Yes it does, don't you know anything? Guilty until proven innocent, etc.

Re:I don't get it

[tehcyder]

No one should pay any attention to anything other than "Mr X was convicted of Y".

Re:I don't get it

[Psmylie]

Depends on the wording of the agreement, I think... If they say that they'll get it off of those sites permanently, then you may be able to get them for breech of contract (I'm not a lawyer, obviously).

Also, it makes financial sense to play it somewhat straight. If people's mugshots keep popping up, people will start to catch on that paying them does nothing but empty your bank account, and you'll STILL have that picture up there. That will get around, and they will lose "customers" (for lack of a better term... maybe I should say "victims").

Re:I don't get it

[Ultra64]

So you're a self-righteous douche and...

I have a mod stalker who is modding down my past comments and is too much of a cowardly pussy to admit it or face me.

...you are extremely paranoid.

Oh look, it's a Republican.

Re:I don't get it

[Danse]

Guess what, by far most innocent people never get arrested at all, ever. In fact, many people who are guilt of a crime never get arrested at all. Your real complaint isn't that people are getting arrested and set free, but that the public has been taught that "arrest == guilty until proven innocent".

Is that supposed to make someone feel better if they happen to be one of the unlucky ones?

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

My problem was never that innocent people sometimes get arrested. That is something that is going to happen and what trials are supposed to rectify. My problem is with morons who think someone wrongly being arrested is somehow their fault. . You are worse in the public in this case. Proven innocent isn't good enough. You think it's their fault for being wrongly arrested in the first case.

Re:I don't get it

[Danse]

If one has a reputation to protect, perhaps one should not be doing things that will get one arrested, such as possessing illegal substances or soliciting prostitutes. If the person cared about his reputation, he would be thinking more about his actions. Why should the government care more about the reputation of a person than the person himself?

People get arrested for things that aren't even illegal. How many recent stories have we seen about people being arrested for recording a video of a cop?

Re:I don't get it

[corbettw]

That's such a good idea, Google is now not responding to the search request in that other post. Yes, it appears that we've slashdotted Google. I think that says a lot about just how much the Slashdot crowd disagrees with this business model.

Re:I don't get it

[operagost]

So you arbitrarily assign a negative trait to a political party or position you despise...

...you are extremely paranoid.

Oh look, it's a Republican.

Oh look... it's a leftist.

Re:I don't get it

[Dog-Cow]

Even if a conviction is made, the mugshots should not be publicized. Incarceration in the US is about punishment. After the term has been served, there should be no further punishment.

Sex offender lists are an abomination and should be illegal. Once a prison term has been served, the public(ly available) record should be expunged.

Re:I don't get it

[bledri]

Because we are "tough on crime." Which is political speak for acting like a bully and calling it justice.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, if a sheriff doesn't have to make it public that they arrested someone and they just 'disappear' for a while, is that really better?

The problem is that people assume arrested == committed crime, which is the opposite of what this country was founded on.

Re:I don't get it

[Hatta]

Don't bother. Dave 1.0 is an absolutist authoritarian. As far as he's concerned, the state is infallible.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

When earthquakes happen, the solution isn't to blow up the planet to make sure it doesn't happen again. Similarly, when bogus arrests happen, the solution isn't to disband the federal government to stop them from doing anything, ever, which seems to be what the people who do the most complaining ultimately want.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are arrested but not convicted, why should that be a matter of public record at all? People get arrested and then released without charge all the time. Why should this continue to haunt them?

Just because a police officer decided to arrest you that doesn't make you a criminal. Does it?

Of course it doesn't make you a criminal. The question is what are you willing to pay to bury negative search results in connection with your name. The issue has nothing to do with truth.

What I'm waiting for is the LA sex offenders posting. It should be very Jerry Springer-ish with ex-husbands or ex-wives being shamed for soliciting for oral or anal sex from their spouse.

Re:I don't get it

[ArsenneLupin]

a Rotary club membership

Do you really think that those extortionate sites would dare to bother such hard core criminals? Just scan your Rotary membership card, and email it to the site admin, and your mugshot will be gone in no time!

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

It does. You shouldn't have been arrested in the first place. Arrest means you deserve to be shamed. *troll it in*

Ever seen a guy arrested for simply eluding the police? Why was he running to begin with? Did the officer have no charges against him and simply wanted to arrest him because he ran? Good questions, but the odds of you getting off completely free of all damages out of an arrest are 0 to divide by 0.

Unless you happen to be rich, and you call your amazing lawyer to rescue you like a law prince on a law horse.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

We needn't require the police to release comprehensive information on arrests. Name, when arrested, arresting officer(s), when released, and maybe some other limited info would be enough data to allow the public to keep a watchful eye on the police - certainly not mugshots just for arrest. Even for convicted felons, I'm not convinced there is a compelling justification for releasing mugshots.

- T

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

knowing the net doesn't forget, what i don't get is why people, convicted or not, are being published on pillory forever.

Re:I don't get it

[zzsmirkzz]

An employer doing a Google search on an applicant's name

As far as I'm concerned, this should be illegal. There are plenty of pieces of information that can be obtained via Google which are not supposed to be considered when evaluating an applicant due to equal opportunity laws. These, I believe, are illegal to put on an application or ask during an interview. So it should also be illegal to try and find that information out on your own.

After a job has been offered to the applicant, now this information can be obtained along with drug testing (I don't agree but it is the law, apparently) any necessary background checks. But these things shouldn't be allowed to be performed until after the job offer has been extended with these as conditions of acceptance.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as humans believe everything they hear, see, and read by default, unfortunately people will continue to believe in presumption of guilt. As usual, people are the problem.

Re:I don't get it

[IronChef]

A business method patent?

Re:I don't get it

[gknoy]

Most Americans (despite the alleged goals of our legal system) are more concerned with permanently branding someone as Something Bad (sex offender, convict, etc), so that we can then exclude them from doing anything which Normal Polite Society can do. You know, like have a job, pick their kids up at school, live within X meters of anyone under the age of Y, etc. VERY few people truly subscribe to a notion of forgiveness or rehabilitation, and instead are inclined to believe that it's safer to stay the hell away from anyone who showed poor judgement or behavior in the past, no matter how long ago that was or whether the legal system feels they're rehabilitated.

Re:I don't get it

[Have Brain Will Rent]

It's probably just a question of convenience for the searcher so getting it removed makes it a little harder to be found. IANAL but it seems to me that if there is *any* connection between the people putting up the pictures and the people charging money to get them taken down then there is a charge of blackmail to be made. No?

Re:I don't get it

[DaveV1.0]

No, being a smug, self-righteous douche is the point of all the "public information shouldn't be public" posts. And, of course, your flamebait post.

Re:I don't get it

[DaveV1.0]

Oh, no, that is not paranoia. I figure it will start up again real soon because at least one person has posted simply to insult me. If it is anything like last time, posts that are days or weeks old will start being modded down. The rest of your post is nothing but flamebait.

Re:I don't get it

[DaveV1.0]

If they had been arrested secretly, would anyone ever have known?

Re:I don't get it

[Idarubicin]

If you are arrested but not convicted, why should that be a matter of public record at all?

If police are allowed to make arrests without generating public records, that creates a whole set of different, generally more serious problems for a society.

Re:I don't get it

[Slashdot Parent]

Why are mug shots posted here? For one thing, you have a right to see them.

That's the problem right there. You do not have any such right, at least in a sane society The fault lies with the dicks running the police who thought it would be a good idea..

Sure beats the alternative. If I get taken into state custody, I want my friends and family to be able to find out when, where I am, why, what's going on, etc. I do not want to just magically disappear.

Would you want to live in a society where people just get "disappeared"?

Re:I don't get it

[Danse]

If they had been arrested secretly, would anyone ever have known?

Probably, since they made their stories public by going to the media. Why should they have a mug shot up on some public site just because the police screwed up?

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

People are stupid and presume guilt. Not to mention most are too stupid to realise that a guilty verdict doesn't mean a person committed the crime either. The system is stacked against the accused. Most people would plead guilty as not doing so is too expensive and the risk of the full set of charges could lead to life in prison for all intensive purposes for just about ANY arrest. Loitering, speeding, and similar charges included have insane 'up to' included so the second anyone is accused of anything more they end up with a life sentence even if most don't get that. They still face the risk of it.

Re:I don't get it

[DaveV1.0]

And, no one would have believed them if there were no records of the arrest.

Re:I don't get it

[Danse]

Them making their arrest public and the police doing it are two different things. It's entirely possible to corroborate someone's story without posting their mugshot on a public website. You're making it sound like there's no other alternative.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

What's Search Engine Optimisation Optimisation?

Re:I don't get it

[DaveV1.0]

And, you are making it sound like almost everyone who is arrested is innocent, which is false. Very few people who are arrested are innocent, and many of those who are not charged are actually guilty but the state decides not to prosecute, generally because the person was being criminally stupid, like lying about someone's whereabouts, instead of just criminal.

Re:I don't get it

[Danse]

And, you are making it sound like almost everyone who is arrested is innocent, which is false. Very few people who are arrested are innocent, and many of those who are not charged are actually guilty but the state decides not to prosecute, generally because the person was being criminally stupid, like lying about someone's whereabouts, instead of just criminal.

No, I'm making is sound like it actually matters when innocent people are arrested and that they should have some recourse to prevent that mistake from having (more of) a negative impact on their life. You seem to think it doesn't and they are just collateral damage. Also, please provide the statistics on which you're basing your claim that "very few people who are arrested are innocent". I can find very little information about how many arrests result in conviction, as this information seems to be closely held by police departments. I'd love to know where you're getting your info.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really see why the records have to be public. The aggregate data should be, and there should be a record kept which isn't public, but I don't see the benefit of John Smith knowing Joe Bloggs got arrested, but wasn't charged with anything.

YASEOTBE.

[MischaNix]

Yet another side effect of the bad economy.

Such is the price of public records...

[The Good Reverend]

I'm surprised this isn't more common. Arrest records are public in many states, and it takes just one enterprising person to expose all that information for the masses, and/or charge to get your data out of the system. Florida must make it easier to get mugshots than other places, though - typically police here in California only release those when there's a public issue of some sort.

For those interested, all sorts of information is public like this, but not always easy to get a hold of, depending on where you live. Such data includes mortgage records, liens, voter registration data, Social Security death records, civil and criminal case filings (and most other court-related information), some utility records, professional licenses, and other tidbits. It's good to know what's out there and who can easily access it - better than hiding and pretending it's not there, at least.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[rtb61]

Simplest way to put activity like this is to choke the flow by charging for access to each individual record. Millions of records suddenly costs tens of millions of dollars, making this kind of activity economically unattractive.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[Anonymous Coward]

Better still only show the mugshots of those who actually are convicted. Arrests are not convictions. Innocent until proven guilty.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[The Good Reverend]

While at the same time stiffing investigative journalism forever. Perhaps not with mugshots, but it's a slippery slope to eliminating FOIA and the related state open records acts.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[SecurityTheatre]

Most scandinavian countries have strict rules about privacy of individuals, although criminal records are freely searchable by those with a need to know. Really any need to know is fine, but if it is determined later that you lied, you are in big trouble.

Seems alright. "Applying for a job" is sufficient need to know. So is a press pass. You get access.

"Scraping 10 million records" is not. You get a fine and are liable in civil court for breach of privacy.

Seems very simple.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[rtfa-troll]

Privacy and freedom of information are two sides of the same coin. The idea is that the people need to be defended from oppressive states and that the people need to have power over oppressive states. State information should be freely available. People's information should only be available when it can be clearly proven that it is the states information.

What is wrong here is that the data of innocent people should be theirs to control. The state and the sites republishing should be 100% liable for any even potential reputation damage of leaking the data of such people.

The second thing which is wrong is the vindictiveness of US justice. There needs to be a clear period after which minor crimes are forgiven and there is no effective difference between that person and an innocent person. Unfortunately the US uses bad tools like plea bargains which mean it is impossible to differentiate the evil guilty who got away with a good deal from the people who thought they would be declared innocent and chose to fight.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[SecurityTheatre]

Hmmm..

What of this?

http://florida.arrests.org/Arrests/Daniel_Ulmaniec_5474799/?d=1

By the charges, I'd guess he broke a window and stole an xBox.

Pretty harsh to have the lifetime scarlet letter in the name of community data rights.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[Anonymous Coward]

"better than hiding and pretending it's not there, at least."

NO, it is not better. It's breach of privacy. People who do not have a need to know should not be able to access that type of information. The initial intent of making public records public was ok, but it is dangerous and a serious breach of privacy in today's world where just about any idiot can create online data bases like the one being discussed in this thread. People have a right to privacy and THAT should outweigh the public's interest in knowing any random person's tidbits. This system serves mostly only the needs of stalkers.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[rtb61]

Not really in this case, say five or ten dollars per complete record accessed with a token membership fee. Someone has to pay for the cost of keeping and distributing those records, why not make it those privacy invasive people who choose to download all of them.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[bjourne]

You are not entirely correct about the details. Getting the information is not illegal, but publishing it is. You may not publish a database online containing personally identifiable information. The mugshot database in the article would definitely classify and would carry a hefty fine. Still, there are ways to get around the law, for example there are multiple sites around here that let people see how much their neighbours earn because tax records are public. I don't think that the law is the problem and it is good that the information is public, but it's unfortunate that some people, like the authors of the website have no shame.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[Anonymous Coward]

criminal records are freely searchable by those with a need to know

That certainly isn't true for Denmark.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[darkmeridian]

The kid broke into a baseball field concession stand and stole a bunch of candy. Cops found a lot of candy and soda at their treehouse. Two other kids face felony charges for their role in stealing candy.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[DarwinSurvivor]

Isn't there some kind of law in Florida about releasing the arrest record of a minor? Or is it only the police that are bound by that (which they obviously did a TERRIBLE job of preventing).

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[DaveV1.0]

Arrest records are public records as well. Do you suggest limiting access to publicly available government records? Isn't that the exact opposite of all the hacks that are revealing government records that are so popular on slashdot?

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[SirGarlon]

Arrest records are public records as well.

Yes, but the point is they shouldn't be. Arrest is no indicator of guilt, just as lack of arrest is no indicator of innocence. Releasing the record of a wrongful arrest is character assassination and indeed could be a powerful weapon in the hands of a corrupt official. What I would suggest is that we lobby our state legislatures to keep arrest records sealed until an indictment (or guilty plea) is recorded. It's quite outrageous to see the presumption of innocence trampled in this way.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[DaveV1.0]

An arrest is a public event and having the arrest public allows for victims and witnesses, both for and against the suspect, to come forward, and, most importantly, prevents secret arrests and detentions. Which would you rather have, yourself or a friend arrested and their arrest public record, or you or a friend disappearing by being arrested and held for six months without charge?
 
It is not the fault of the government that people today automatically assume one is guilty if one is arrested. That is the fault of the entertainment industry and education system.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[LazyBoot]

Maybe that's why he said "most" and not "all"...

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[TheRaven64]

I disagree. It's important that the public are able to see who is being arrested, to keep the police accountable. If you can look at arrest records and conviction records, then you can see (for example), if the police are arresting a lot more people of a particular minority group than they are convicting. The problem is not releasing arrest records, it's the assumption that arrest equals guilt. The released arrest records should have to contain details of whether the person was convicted, and if they were not then stripping this information from the record and presenting it in a way that implies that the arrested person is a criminal should count as libel.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Gwinnett county Georgia.... here is what is public record....

Arrest records
http://www.gwinnettcountysheriff.com/asp/docket2week.asp

Property owners name/address and amount of property tax paid
http://gwinnetttaxcommissioner.manatron.com/Tabs/ViewPayYourTaxes.aspx

all law suits including looking up my divorce in 1994...
http://www.gwinnettcourts.com/#home/

It is all out there..

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[SirGarlon]

I disagree. It's important that the public are able to see who is being arrested, to keep the police accountable.

Mod parent up. This is an excellent point; my comment was not that well thought out.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[tehcyder]

Arrest records are public records as well. Do you suggest limiting access to publicly available government records?

But arrest records shouldn't be public records to start with. That's the whole problem.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[mr1911]

sudo mod him up. Well said.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[tehcyder]

I disagree. It's important that the public are able to see who is being arrested, to keep the police accountable.

Mod parent up. This is an excellent point; my comment was not that well thought out.

Bollocks, you do not need everyonein the world to know details of every arrest in order to keep the police accountable. You just need a proper complaints/police review system. They're the ones who should be officially monitoring police arrest statistics, not some drunken blogger who thinks he's being a citizen journalist by printing pictures of prostitutes.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[tehcyder]

While at the same time stiffing investigative journalism forever. Perhaps not with mugshots, but it's a slippery slope to eliminating FOIA and the related state open records acts.

I think that's called the slippery slope fallacy.

Preventing the immediate dissemination of arrest mugshots is not the first inevitable step towards 1984.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[tehcyder]

tax records are public

Why? Are medical records?

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[hedwards]

These are arrest records, the problem is that in the US a person's reputation is toast well before the trial begins. Good luck repairing your reputation if you're ever arrested for possession of child porn even if the evidence is complete bunk and you're acquitted you might never recover your good name as chances are the press will have spread it all over the country by the time the trial actually occurs.

Sometimes there does need to be some restrictions on the press because the press isn't always capable of behaving in an ethical fashion. There's information that the public definitely doesn't have a right to know and the media really doesn't respect those rights when it's inconvenient, whether or not the public has a genuine right to know.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[gfreeman]

Arrest records are public records as well. Do you suggest limiting access to publicly available government records?

But arrest records shouldn't be public records to start with. That's the whole problem.

I disagree. Make the arrest records public, and query every single one that did not make it to a criminal charge. That way it keeps the police in check.

Next we have to shout loudly at the media to differentiate between arrested and charged, and get the public to accept that there's a world of difference between the two.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[houghi]

What is wrong here is that the data of innocent people should be theirs to control

I would go further and say that the data of GUILTY people should also be theirs to control.

I understand that when you are doing time, you will loose some rights for the period that you are doing time. Putting things in public will enhance your punishment beyond that time and will make it harder for people to get their shit back together.

But then with private prisons, why would that be an issue?

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[houghi]

The police arrests more African Americans and more of them are convicted. These are known facts. The reasons behind it are interpreted different by different people and not a
There is no reason to have this data connected with their picture or even their name.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[Rich0]

Yup. Half the problem with recidivism is that ex-convicts have few legitimate careers available to them.

If you're a manager, and you have 50 resumes for one job opening, and 3 are from ex-cons, what is the chance that you'll even look at those resumes? Maybe if none of the other 47 are a fit, you might. However, in most economies there tend to be more qualified applicants than positions. For the person without a record that might getting rejected for 4 positions, but eventually luck will work out and an offer will come. For an ex-con, their experience will superficially look the same, but the offer will just never come.

Instead they end up being limited to very undesirable jobs, which tend to pay poorly. If the ex-con is very intelligent or determined, they may find that for them the risk/reward trade-off leads them to more lucrative, but illegal, opportunities.

My feeling is that if somebody can't safely be a part of society, then they shouldn't be a part of society. If they can be, then we're just shooting ourselves in the foot if we don't make that work out.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[gknoy]

If the arrest reccords are not public, how could John Q Concerned Citizen (JCC) determine whether the police were behaving in a corrupted manner? If certain minorities (gays, blacks, people who drive import cars) feel they're unfairly targeted and could be targeted as retaliation for complaining, they're not likely to make an official complaint. Similarly, all you can do is complain about bad arrests, what happens when some homeless guy with no family or friends is arrested under dodgy circumstances? There's no one to complain on his behalf.

I think it would be interesting to see some statistical information such as arrest-event density per square mile of the area, or population distributions -- that requires public info. I don't like the idea of seeing my name up there for prospective employers to find, but it seems like a reasonable price to pay. The down side is, is anyone actually USING that data to do any of that analysis of police behavior? That seems like something only a hobbyist or special interest group would find the time or money to do.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[rtfa-troll]

I would go further and say that the data of GUILTY people should also be theirs to control.

I was careful not to state that for a reason. There is a fundamental principle of justice that it should be not just done, but "seen to be done". In other words if your neighbours see you cheating for years and years, but then, finally someone reports you and you get done, they then see that their honesty in that time was not only valued by themselves. In the end; after time has been served; full rights and privacy should be restored. It may be that the only way we can do that will be by limiting access to the data about the guilty, but we should try find a way which doesn't disturb the "seen to be done" principle.

This is one of the things that the "hang them high" brigade don't seem to get. The most important thing in dissuading people is the chance they can be caught. If punishment is disproportional to crime then people become unwilling to report and so fewer people get caught. I would never report seeing a food theft in the USA because it would run an unethical risk of hitting a mother of a hungry child with a three strikes and your out conviction.

Re:Such is the price of public records...

[Have Brain Will Rent]

it is impossible to differentiate the evil guilty who got away with a good deal from the people who thought they would be declared innocent and chose to fight.

Don't forget the innocent people who take a plea bargain because they can't afford to put up a proper fight, or if they can afford it realize it is still a risk and decide they cannot afford the consequences of being found guilty compared to the less dire consequences of a plea bargain.

The Justice System at it's most Corporeal

[BenJCarter]

This stinks. I can't wait until the market for boilerplate makes these business models obsolete...

Re:The Justice System at it's most Corporeal

[c0lo]

This stinks. I can't wait until the market for boilerplate makes these business models obsolete...

Until then, here's an idea of how you can help.

Here's what's going to happen:

[kheldan]

They'll either get sued out of existence, someone will discover that what they're doing is illegal (or will be made illegal) and they'll be shut down, or someone will find them and beat the living shit out of them and/or burn them to the ground. One way or another, don't think they'll be around long.

Re:Here's what's going to happen:

[jhoegl]

I vote law suits, as their method is double punishment.

Re:Here's what's going to happen:

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, they can take innocent people who haven't committed a crime and don't even know their being photographed and put them up for shame on sites like peopleofwalmart.com. If they can do that, what would make this illegal ?

Re:Here's what's going to happen:

[Roachie]

Slander.

Re:Here's what's going to happen:

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. It's not really a smart move, to try to extort every criminal in the country. ^^
It needs just one murderer or rapist or bomb builder...

And to be honest, who here doesn't wish one of those upon them? ^^

Re:Here's what's going to happen:

[Anonymous Coward]

Under current laws, it's not going to happen. It's not illegal to disseminate information that's part of the public record. What are you going to sue for? Defamation of character? You did get arrested. Libel? Posting a mug shot that was taken by Law Enforcement is hardly slanderous, after all, you *DID* get arrested. Expecting one aspect of the justice system to essentially rule against another aspect is just the height of ignorance and optimism.

As far as beating the crap out of them? Oh yes, that's intelligent. We're going to go commit another crime that's likely to lead to getting arrested as a protest to the mug shot for being arrested being posted online. Dude may take a couple lumps, but unless they actually decide to kill him, chances are he'll make out like a bandit in the resulting civil suit, and the offender will be going away for a very long time. Seeing as how the guy has the mugshots, can't imagine it'll be too hard to identify his attacker.

Can't have it both ways folks, either information should be freely available to the public, or it shouldn't. If you have a problem with what this guy is doing, yet feel that the government is covering too many things up in the guise of 'national security', then you're being a hypocrite. I say congratulations to the guy for thinking up a way to make some bank on freely available information, it's a masterful marketing move.

Re:Here's what's going to happen:

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is double punishment, so are sex offender registries, which got around the ex post facto requirements of law by stating they were for "public information" purposes, and the free speech issues of the 1st amendment outweighs the due process rules in the 4th amendment.

Re:Here's what's going to happen:

[Anonymous Coward]

Slander.

It is not slander. Slander requires that the statement or implication be false. In this case, it is not false. If your mug shot is on there, you got arrested, and that's a matter of public record. It's a fact. Nor do any privacy law standards apply - Florida specifically has laws making arrests a matter of public record, if you get arrested, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy on the matter.

Re:Here's what's going to happen:

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a great idea... let's infuriate every criminal in a particular state. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Here's what's going to happen:

[Alex Belits]

It is slander (or, more precisely, libel) if the site implies that a person is being "shamed" for being arrested, and yet the person is innocent.

Re:Here's what's going to happen:

[tehcyder]

Can't have it both ways folks, either information should be freely available to the public, or it shouldn't.

Right, so there's nothing wrong with having your diary, medical records, bank and credit card statements, computer logs and recorded phone conversations freely available to everyone?

Re:Here's what's going to happen:

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Under current laws, it's not going to happen. It's not illegal to disseminate information that's part of the public record. What are you going to sue for? Defamation of character? You did get arrested. Libel? Posting a mug shot that was taken by Law Enforcement is hardly slanderous, after all, you *DID* get arrested. Expecting one aspect of the justice system to essentially rule against another aspect is just the height of ignorance and optimism.

This website is available in the UK. Sue in London. Problem solved. (But do it quick, before Parliament fixes the law.)

Re:Here's what's going to happen:

[kheldan]

The reason they can do something like the site you mention is because enough of the people whose pictures it features haven't seen them yet, got together as a group, and sued the site.

Re:Here's what's going to happen:

[kheldan]

I say congratulations to the guy for thinking up a way to make some bank on freely available information, it's a masterful marketing move.

Do you have to be such a blindingly obvious troll?

Let's see what someone like you has to say when you're one of the people affected by it. I can guarantee that you'll be singing a different song, then.

Re:Here's what's going to happen:

[kheldan]

You know, having had a few minutes to think about it, here's what's really wrong with what you're saying: You're posting as Anonymous Coward. Tell you what, asswipe: Post a photo of your driver's license, so all other Slashdotters who care to do so can dig up every little thing from your past and slather the internet with all of it, including their opinions concerning said past. Then I'll take anything you have to say seriously. What's that? No way, you say? That's what I thought.

Takedown notice?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if someone decides to send a lead takedown notice? I don't know if ex-cons are the best group of people to fuck with. I certainly would not want every criminal in Florida looking for my ass. Just in case you missed it, you should check out Howard Stern's old bits where he would read a crime headline and ask "Florida or Germany." That state is full of people who rape children, wear people's skin, and keep people in cages in their basement.

What if you put up the mug shot of some Russian mobster who got nabbed for a DUI in Miami when he is on vacation. Did you see the bath house scene in Eastern Promises?

interesting

[andolyne]

my favourite part is how they are intentionally trying to piss-off/harass criminals. sure not all of them will be for serious crimes and i assume just because you had a mug shot taken doesn't necessarily mean you were convicted... but still, there's gotta be some nut-jobs in that mix and i'm sure some of them know how to either:

1) hack stuff or
2) make bombs

wait is that a bomb joke? can i be arrested for saying that?

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, my charges were dropped but they're still on this page..

Re:interesting

[Zumbs]

my favourite part is how they are intentionally trying to piss-off/harass criminals

Not really: Hardened criminals are unlikely to care if there is a mug shot of them on some site. The people that are going to suffer for this are the people who:

• 1) Were not convicted of anything
• 2) Got on with their lives
• 3) Are trying to get on with their lives

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, why care if your mugshot is out there - if you got arrested but not convicted?

If someone asks "what's this all about" you simply tell the truth: "I was arrested but NOT convicted". Arrest can happen to anyone who is in the wrong place.

Earn extra money in your spare time

[rust627]

Earn extra money in your spare time

Blackmail your friends
and in this case, any one else you can.

Legal blackmail

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to type here to avoid filtration

Re:Legal blackmail

[TheRaven64]

I have to type here to avoid filtration

No, you have to type there to add something meaningful to the discussion. Apparently you missed that bit in the instructions.

Hmmm

[TRRosen]

Extortion as a business model. Go directly to jail do not pass go.

And yes boys and girls this is extortion and it is illegal.

Re:Hmmm

[MightyMartian]

They're just doing what the patent trolls do, and nobody has seen fit to put those vile bastards out of busines...

Hmmm... maybe that's the solution. Patent creating a database of images of convicted criminals and demanding cash to take the pictures off.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Extortion as a business model. Go directly to jail do not pass go.

And yes boys and girls this is extortion and it is illegal.

I think you need to go study what extortion actually means. The site owner is not actively threatening or demanding money from the people in the mug shots. Extortion requires intent, and that would be incredibly hard to prove, there is absolutely no proof of coercion. His story of trying to attract ad revenue is perfectly plausible. While he may be a dick for doing it, that's not illegal. The real bottom feeders are the ones who charge an exorbitant price to use the URL.

Re:Hmmm

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Maybe the Mafia will hunt them down for using their business model without permission. We can always hope. :)

Sign in stranger

[rust627]

Do you have a dark spot on your past
Leave it to my friend he'll fix it fast
Lefties got a scar from ear to ear
He will make your mugshots disappear

With thanks to Donald Fagen and Walter Becker (Steely Dan)

Oh, gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

This may be considered sort of dating service. I already hear them "... and then I found guy/gal of my life on florida.arrests.org, contacted him/her and we had our first date".

sounds like antivirus racket

[Anonymous Coward]

Say, that's a nice computer. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it.

God's just

[Anonymous Coward]

All you have to know is God's just.

Everybody dies. Many suffer long painful stays in hospitals. Christ did not die the worst death -- that's not why He's famous.

Re:God's just

[tehcyder]

All you have to know is God's just.

Everybody dies. Many suffer long painful stays in hospitals. Christ did not die the worst death -- that's not why He's famous.

I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

These companies are parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

However, unlike a tick or mosquito, in order for these scum to profit they need your cooperation.
In other words, they need you to actually give a shit that they can remove your photo. But if you do not
care about this, their business model collapses, which is exactly what should happen. Me, I have a felony
conviction and I don't care who knows about it. Ergo, I wouldn't give these companies a cent. But I might
mail them some used toilet paper, for free.

Re:These companies are parasites

[Alain Williams]

Me, I have a felony conviction and I don't care who knows about it.

In that case why are you posting A/C ?

Re:These companies are parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

"In that case why are you posting A/C ?"

Because I do not have a Slashdot user account.

Now, if you don't feel stupid, you need to revise your
self-assessment, old boy.

Sue them for Extorsion/blackmail

[Anonymous Coward]

ps: IANAL

CONVICTED?

[Anonymous Coward]

CONVICTED of a felony? Nooo nooo. Never CONVICTED. Ummm....who can I contact to take down a mug shot...of my friend. Yeah, I'm doing him a favor.

Breach of copyright?

[advocate_one]

These images may be a matter of public record, but isn't the tosser in breach of copyright by scraping them and putting them up on his website along with the other details? Is he just hotlinking? Who actually holds the copyright on those mugshots? Does he actually get them removed from the original Sheriff's website or does he just flag it in his database to not push it in google? So many questions not answered in the original article...

Re:Breach of copyright?

[The Good Reverend]

Typically "copyright" is non-government. Public records are public, and we have a right to see them because technically they belong to the people.

Re:Breach of copyright?

[F.Ultra]

That you have a right to see them does not necessary mean that this site has the right to show them.

Re:Breach of copyright?

[fstrong]

copyright vests in the author of a work. In this case the author would be the photographer. As the photograph was taken by a public employee in the course of his/her employment with the employer's equipment, this is likely a work for hire and owned by the employer(florida). As Florida is a government, the copyright becomes public domain. Thus no copyright can be enforced. iaalbny(I am a lawyer but not yours)

Re:Breach of copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

Federal law puts federal government publications into the public domain. Any other right to inspect any records is specifically defined by law. I'm not sure that any state puts their publications in the public domain. Records access is rarely completely open, usually is subject to copyright, and very often requires fees to access.

Historically record aggregation services (such as those used by private investigators and employers for background checks) have had fairly hefty costs associated, often charged per individual record.

Re:Breach of copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmms, interesting. You could argue he makes money of using a photo of you, so every time the site displays a photo of you, you should get some money. After all, your image is adding value to the site, and you have rights to your image, no?

Interesting spin. Armchair lawyering is fun -- as long as it's optional and not necessary :)

Bad economy? It's a problem of abundance.

[nido]

Yet another side effect of the bad economy.

Seeing as how 20% of the labor force has been replaced by machines, what are these people supposed to do to support themselves? They can't all be criminals...

This story is about a type of make-work employment too, it's just not funded by the government. It's not so different than organized crime, in that no true value is created for the economy by the actions of the parties involved.

If the government made money (instead of the banks), they could spend it into circulation to employ people who do valuable things. Community cleanup, public works, etc.

Jobs projects are totally different than make-work jobs. A job project is paying someone to do something that ought to be done, but which isn't profitable for the market to do itself. Make-work jobs put people to work doing pointless or harmful things: 1/2 digging ditches, 1/2 filling them in.

Laws criminalizing plants (Marijuana, coca leaf, etc) create make-work jobs in the prison industry, for example. Some of the other ones that come to mind are political sacred cows, so I won't mention them here.

The blog post I'm (slowly) working on links to some of John Harvey's blog posts. I found them last month, starting with Why You Should Learn to Love the Deficit: Federal Budget Fallacies:

... Nothing could be more foolish right now than policies that reduce government spending or increase taxes. We have nearly 14 million unemployed people in the United States, a number that undoubtedly underestimates the true magnitude of the problem since it ignores discouraged workers and the underemployed. Despite this, Messrs. Obama, Ryan, and Geithner tell us that we need to make sacrifices. Seriously? The American people already have, and what they are asking us to do will simply make it worse. ...

Capitalism.

[unity100]

Anything goes for profit.

Blackmail?

[fadir]

Is it just me or does that sound like classic blackmail? How can stuff like this be legal?

Re:Blackmail?

[DaveV1.0]

Oh, I am going to make your easily found, publicly available on the internet arrest publicly available on the internet and easy to find. Yep, sounds like blackmail to me. /sarcasm

Re:Blackmail?

[fadir]

It's one thing if my picture/address/whatever is available on the internet. It's a different thing if this information is taken and widely advertised on said internet without my consent or combined with demands that I have to pay money for the involved company not to do this.

Re:Blackmail?

[DaveV1.0]

When one is arrested, one's information is already available on the internet and your consent is not needed. It is public record. You are complaining that something that is public record, and thus publicly available information, is being advertised as being publicly available. Your consent is not needed for the distribution of publicly available information about you.

The first part of your second sentence seems to indicate you want to ban search engines as the gather information and widely advertise it.

Really, if you don't want the fact you were arrested to be public record, move to a country where arrests are not public record and people may just disappear in the night and be held for months or years without charge.

Oh, and do you complain about your name and phone number being in the phone book and an unlisted number costing money?

Re:Blackmail?

[fadir]

Well, I wouldn't be happy if anyone would take my telephone number, no matter if available publicly or not, and distribute it at will. The pure existence of public information doesn't really justify free re-usage in my opinion.

And I already live in a country that doesn't do stuff like this. I just couldn't believe that such a practice is indeed legal.

Re:Blackmail?

[tehcyder]

Really, if you don't want the fact you were arrested to be public record, move to a country where arrests are not public record and people may just disappear in the night and be held for months or years without charge.

Yes, here in the UK and indeed most of Europe, we have traded the freedom of laughing at people's drunk mugshots for the convenieince of being whisked away in the middle of the night.

Most days when you get to work, yet another colleague has mysteriously vanished, only for their tortured body to appear by the side of a railway line a few months later.

Re:Blackmail?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just you. "Blackmail" was the first word that came to my mind.

RemoveSlander is $700 now, not $400.

[flimflammer]

Hilarious. That site is dedicated solely to removing your mugshot from florida.arrest.org and the google search index, and all RemoveSlander does is pay the site $28 to remove both through an automated link. So the slander site brings in like $678 just to click a button. That's pretty good.

Re:RemoveSlander is $700 now, not $400.

[Anonymous Coward]

Something tells me that this isn't going to go so well when violent offenders get posted.

fuck this

[Anonymous Coward]

It's time for an open source, public opt-in DDoS system to fuck with scumbags like this.

Re:fuck this

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called Low Orbit Ion Cannon. Posting as Anonymous.

9b7205e90cfcf7a8a3ca103c2135db6d

America Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

8 Million mugshot images in Florida alone and these are available for just anyone to see? It makes me shudder to think what the numbers for the rest of the country must be like. Americans seem to think that they are "free" as long as hate speech and the second amendment remain protected. It seems that that's about all you have left. Americans seem to think that anyone who breaks *any* law (even by accident) deserves to be humiliated and marginalized from society for life. Why is this not even considered cruel and unusual punishment? I'm so glad I emigrated to Europe where there is still at least *some* semblance of freedom and respect for individuals' privacy and the cops aren't always out to "make an arrest" anyway they can. The sooner the US collapses the better off all Americans will be.

Aren't they making their own site less useful?

[91degrees]

I'm not going to rely on these sites for a background check. If someone's not on there it doesn't mean they didn't do anything. It just means they paid to have them removed.

So why pay to remove myself?

Re:Aren't they making their own site less useful?

[SecurityTheatre]

i don't imagine it's someone who is running a background check (like a prospective employer), but rather, the scores of customers who might be trying to look up your phone number, or the neighbor who wants to get to know you before he drops by for dinner, or a new girlfriend looking for your facebook...

Who knows... There is a danger in information being too pervasive.

Re:Aren't they making their own site less useful?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it means that not only are you (potentially) a criminal, you're a cheapskate as well.

Re:Aren't they making their own site less useful?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get it. You don't rely on this site to tell you if they're innocent. You use this site to determine if they were accused of something. They wouldn't be there if they weren't at least accused so if they do exist on the site, you know you should look into their history. That's the power of these sites.

Re:Aren't they making their own site less useful?

[radtea]

So why pay to remove myself?

Because people are stupid beyond belief. If they weren't this whole scam would be a non-starter. Anyone capable of thinking their way out of a paper bag knows that a mug shot on a site like this is completely meaningless, so only idiots are going to pay any attention to them. Someone that stupid will ALSO believe that the lack of a mug shot on a site like this means something, although I'm not sure what: it's really really hard to think like a stupid person.

On the good side, any employer who turns you down for having your picture up there is probably going to be pretty hideous to work for.

On the down side, really stupid people are so stupid they are only motivated by money and power, so guess who has most of the money and power in the world?

Re:Aren't they making their own site less useful?

[ErikZ]

On the good side, any employer who turns you down for having your picture up there is probably going to be pretty hideous to work for.

Yes. Welcome to "Your job". This is pretty normal.

Re:Aren't they making their own site less useful?

[Anonymous Coward]

you think the average HR flunkie will think that way?

Re:Aren't they making their own site less useful?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because they're in the business of PENIS. BIG PENIS.

Re:Aren't they making their own site less useful?

[91degrees]

I don't think the average HR flunky will bother in the first place. Unless it's part of the standard process, most admin people do things by he book.

More than mugshots...

[Anonymous Coward]

Clicking on the photos will also show what they were charged with. Click on the tagged section, choose hotties, and start looking at what some of the hotties got arrested for, it's mind boggling.

I have to admire the girls who have the audacity to smile for the mug shot like they're taking a class photo.

People with mug shots know people

[ultral0rd]

Have the owners of these websites realised that people with mugshot are generally not people you are wanting to screw over?

It's like a dating website for creeps

[Anonymous Coward]

Girls 18 to 22

Re:It's like a dating website for creeps

[Anonymous Coward]

Found her. I'm in love Sarah H

Re:It's like a dating website for creeps

[tehcyder]

Found her. I'm in love Sarah H

Well the Florida police have certainly made it easy enough to fucking find her.

state boundary

[tryptogryphic]

I am of the understanding that arrest record information within a state, is only to be made available to those within the state. Currently I'm in an entirely different country and I can view arrest information for individuals in the Florida area...isn't this illegal?

What channel?

[Apothem]

Now all they need is a TV show called 'Blackmail' and it will be complete.... I wonder if it will be on HBO or perhaps maybe it's own channel after they get a politician or two?

Intellectual Chaos

[Anonymous Coward]

Solzhenitsyn: This is certainly true. Man has set for himself the goal
of conquering the world but in the processes loses his soul. That which
is called humanism, but what would be more correctly called irreligious
anthropocentrism, cannot yield answers to the most essential questions
of our life. We have arrived at an intellectual chaos.

What's more

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the US has the highest incarceration rate in the entire world, naturally the vast majority of prisoners are non-violent and have committed no crime against any actual person, but merely a crime against the state (drugs and prostitution being the obvious examples). It is most certainly questionable whether these are actual "crimes" worthy of being locked in a cage, and whether these "crimes" deserve the same routine as crimes against actual human beings (theft, fraud, physical force).

And if by some miracle drug prohibition is abolished in the future, how will these victims be compensated? Their reputation is already tarnished for life, thanks to government. Even if they were awarded restitution (fat chance), the public records will remain public until the end of time.

It's really a primitive desire, to tar and feather those who dare to disobey the arbitrary and unjust laws of the state. It's nothing but a glorified witch hunt, where the "criminal" (the witch) is actually the victim, and the "savior" (government) is actually the criminal.

Hypocrisy in action

[DaveV1.0]

For years, I have seen repeated complaints about government records not being public enough. "Information wants to be free" and all that crap. Well, here are some public records that are very public and people are taking advantage of it and suddenly it is a bad thing. But, the only difference is that you, slashdotter, sympathize with the criminals. You can see yourself in the shoes of the criminals, so now you want a public record to be not so public. What you refuse to see is that if you want public records easily and publicly available over the internet, then you have to accept that there will be records available that might hurt people.

It is kind of like free speech. Free speech means everyone gets their say, not that only YOU and people who share you opinion get to say what you want and those that you don't agree with have to keep quiet. Public records are public. You don't get to choose which public records are available to the public.

I really can't believe I have actually seen complaints on slashdot about public records laws being too liberal and too "public". You need to choose, either you want records to be public or you don't want public records easily available.

Re:Hypocrisy in action

[biodata]

The problem seems to be that the police think it's OK to keep and publish your photo, and associate it with a particular crime, even when you are innocent. I don't see why it would be a good thing to put this kind of data in the public record.

Re:Hypocrisy in action

[JSBiff]

There are lots of types of records which *should* be public. But, I think most folks agree that not *everything* should be public. Health records shouldn't be public (or, in the case of government health insurance programs, like Medicare/Medicaid, records of doctors bills with detailed information about what types of tests, medicines, and procedures the doctor billed for, which would allow someone to more or less reconstruct a patient's health history), tax records (at least while the individual is still alive, since those records will usually have enough personal information to be used by would-be identity thieves), etc.

The citizenry must do business with the government, but they should be able to expect a certain level of privacy.

When it comes to something like arrest records, the problem becomes that the police can arrest someone on pretty much any grounds. That doesn't mean the person will be convicted, or has committed any actual crime.

The problem with making arrest records for those who have NOT been convicted, at least, a 'public record', is that it allows the police to punish people without a proper trial.

For anyone who was either convicted or plead guilty, then yes, I think those records should be public, because in that case it's documenting an actual conviction for a crime, but anyone who is not convicted should not have those records made public.

Re:Hypocrisy in action

[DaveV1.0]

Health records are not public.

Arrest records are public to, among other things, prevent secret arrests and detentions.

It is not the government's fault that people assume "arrest == guilty". That is the fault of the entertainment industry and education system.

Re:Hypocrisy in action

[DaveV1.0]

Go to any country where arrests are not necessarily public record and ask someone who has had a friend or loved one secretly arrested and detained. And, because arrests are public record, an outside party can look at the records and see that the [insert minority here] population, which is 10% of the whole population makes up 90% of the arrests. What does that sound like to you?

Re:Hypocrisy in action

[Anonymous Coward]

We are not one person, but a community of many, in case you've missed that.
It'd only be hypocrisy if it's the exact same individuals claiming these opposing viewpoints.

I'm not "slashdotter", I'm a slashdotter.

Please don't confuse my opinions with those of others, and please don't try to ascribe any opinions to me either.

Re:Hypocrisy in action

[bledri]

..., because arrests are public record, an outside party can look at the records and see that the [insert minority here] population, which is 10% of the whole population makes up 90% of the arrests. What does that sound like to you?

It sounds like America...

Re:Bad economy? It's a problem of abundance.

[MischaNix]

Essentially, yes. I meant only by my original post that at least one party in this make-work relationship has an obviously useful skill set that isn't employed for the most obvious reason. I was also trying to imply that this makes irrelevant any social issues involved because the issues would not present themselves in a stronger economy. In no way, though, was I implying that my understanding of macroeconomics is as flawed as that of those like the idiot who happens to represent my district in Congress, (sigh).

Indeed...

[denzacar]

Particularly since it is such an old idea.

We Are All Khaleed Said's Mugshot

[retroworks]

If we care enough about this, we should all follow the example of the Freedom March... everyone should join, and supply "I am Sparticus" mugshots. Providing false data creates inflation in the data security industry. You can do more damage to an economy with counterfeiting than you can by burning currency. My problem is, why do I care? If I accept that the people getting mugshots are drunk drivers etc., I am not motivated to "march" for them.

Not a good idea?

[Ultra64]

Pissing off a bunch of criminals probably isn't a good idea in the long run.

Sounds like legalised blackmail.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though this is florida, time to review the "right to inform" over "right to privacy" tradeoff, leftpondians? This is too much "smoke equals fire" and not enough room for people to better themselves. Unless you believe that once thought bad must necessarily equal always be bad. Redemption and redress from vindicative LE officers, anyone?

!Hypocrisy in action

[biodata]

I don't have a problem with anonymised arrest stats being part of the public record, I agree that this is necessary. Where I have a problem is publishing the name-photo-crime link. I believe in openness of pubic data where it relates to public money, public resources, and people who are public figures, and I also believe in data protection for the identities and what I consider the private data of 'private' individuals. I think that just because the state collects data, it does not necessarily own it. I think that private individuals own their own data. Normally, a photographer owns the copyright on the images they make, but if I choose to photograph the pages of a book, the data in the book do not belong to me and so I am not free to publish my photos. Similarly, where I go, what I do, whom I associate with, etc, are owned by me (as the author). Just because the state or a private organisation chooses to track, photograph, or otherwise record these things does not grant them ownership over these data, and unless I have committed a crime or otherwise surrendered my rights to my property (the data about me), then they have no business publishing it.

Not just in Florida

[wezelboy]

We have this in certain parts of Cali as well. I can't remember the site name, but I remember bumping into it one day.

Re:Not just in Florida

[tehcyder]

We have this in certain parts of Cali as well. I can't remember the site name, but I remember bumping into it one day.

Yeah, where "bumping into" means slavishly poring over until you find a hottie worth stalking"

Re:Not just in Florida

[wezelboy]

It was actually surprising how many hotties were on there.

Rob Wiggen = total sociopath

[GameboyRMH]

Check this out:

His year-old business has earned him enemies. Wiggen said he receives about 100 angry e-mails, and a few snail-mail letters, every day from people whose booking photos are displayed on his site. “Obviously, they’re really nasty,” he said of the messages. “I never thought I’d get this backlash from individuals. I just never imagined it.”

He's not an evil bastard, he has a mental disorder. Every time this guy's brain boots up, it throws "module empathy not found."

When a mentally ill person stabs a traffic cop because they thought he was the devil we put them in an institution, but when they think people have no feelings and use them as cattle or disposable cogs we can't give them our money fast enough.

Solution: CAPTCHA

[GameboyRMH]

The police sites that these mugshots come from should require a CAPTCHA when browsing begins and before accessing any individual record. Ideally, names on the list should be translated to images, not CAPTCHA-style, but the cost of OCR'ing the page will be high. Allow a search so that people can still find records easily - but require a CAPTCHA for that as well. Unless the CAPTCHA it's cracked, it will shut down these mugshot sites overnight. They could try implementing this interface only when a crawler is detected so that legitimate users won't be inconvenienced, but I suspect that would be easy to work around.

Do something now Florida cops!

You have to understand.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why people are actually leaving America A lot more than is admitted.to.
Rich just leave and with them your job and tax dollars we will never see.

Prices raised and everyone quit buying, the stock market falling because of it and everyone is surprised.

All these thing hit one thing your pocket book not only theirs.

America sleeping its way to a depression.

I am beginning to think we deserve it.

Hotties?

[gv250]

Okay, I get extortion angle. I get the freedom-of-information angle. I even get the protect-the-community angle. But why does the website have tags? Who really needs to sort the suspects by hotness? http://florida.arrests.org/tagged.php?flag=Hottie

my prediction

[nimbius]

is that Rob Wiggen continue this service for a very short while.
once you've destroyed someones relationship, their job, and their social life
by flagrantly parading their past transgressions, some very painful,
You have created someone who is determined with nothing more to lose.

you;ve also created someone who values your fingers toes and teeth far less than you.

It is your fault

[Dainsanefh]

You voters ask for FOIA laws. This is what you get.

A government that works under secrecy is usually for the best of the people.

An utopia is necessarily totalitarian.

America becomes a land of taking advantage of the poor and unlucky.

I'll fix their wagon

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not to over burdened with time and so, anyone feeling the desire to post more detailed info on them (they may have) names and such. I'll go have a talk with em. I haven't been on a decent vacation in a very long time.

it's the reaction, not the data

[Anonymous Coward]

The root problem here is the social stigma attached to arrest or other adverse action by the authorities. A reasonable person understands that arrest signifies nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Unfortunately people buy into the "no smoke without fire" theory misunderstanding that the fire side of the equation could be a disgruntled cop or a near-match to a search (see "Brazil"). In a civilized society all goverment-collected data (bar that under clearly defined privacy protection) is public and the people understand the significance of each item and its limitations - arrest is merely an initial attempt at discovery, conviction indicates nothing reliable without a review of the trial transcripts.

America... what happened?

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans, remember the first time someone told you that in this country, any kid could dream of becoming President someday?

It's become a country where any kid who's ever been young, stupid, and/or unlucky can't even dream of getting a decent job someday.

Everything you've ever done will be online, indexed, searchable at the touch of a few keys and a mouse click.

They range from da nang silk goods to rick owens k

[Anonymous Coward]

They range from da nang silk goods to rick owens knitwear
  I at ordinary times too ugg boots much anxious to creativity, when I need to pull together in the same things project, too DuoCi. Now, the task has been finished. Active chest planning is now a big part of the picture. Many project match, but they are meant to be together with wear. I found off the white silk asymmetric ZhongShanZhuang armani Neiman Marcus, I buy, sell in about three years ago, the dry cleaning and never to go through. Armani ZhongShanZhuang is suspended in a Gary graham black, silk, long, straight, sheath dress-never wear. The two projects, it is as if they see each other. Updated the look, style is at present, I have never through any project! I can't wait for a special occasion wear new clothes. The instinct of the shopping is a kind of habit, because I was a notorious speculators. Shopping rarely need or any other motives produced a good effect. So, in color, style and design all merge into a in my wardrobe created individual style. You know, probably as many creative shoppers type. I tend to buy now project is signature, classic, fashionable, I know I'll wear or need which day a!!!!! They range from da nang silk goods to rick owens knitwear. The price is usually all of the writedowns, because I don't believe in pay full price, unless, of course, the price is right! My whole small business is closed on the basis of the retail price, so, I have to go I talk about personal, too. I really believe that the only way less than the retail shops. Running a small Internet e-commerce sites, suitable for simple, comfortable work clothes. All day long to sit by the computer is comfortable, plain, cotton and night sweats ideal choice. So, when I go out, I would like to add that the style and accessories. Marni jewelry and love MaShi silk scarves to real high-grade of a common T-shirt or cotton dress. Shoes, a pair of simple, prada sandals, a pair of Kork easy to platform is my favorite shoes in anything. It is hard to believe that I am in love with, wear the 30 years Kork easy!!!!! Pull out together, make appearance fashion, is very easy, when there is a almost forgotten designer clothing, shoes and designer handbags wardrobe. Family shopping with a new meaning. I spend time matching jacket, pants, shoes and purses saved my time to prepare for my next date, meetings, a quality time shopping loading at home, goes in the coordination of theugg online project, I seldom wear away from daily is casual a more freedom to choose the style in the process of project mood. I no longer worry about what to wear on Monday night for dinner, or if/when he asked me, I'll wear! This is all in there,

So what's the URL?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Internet, what's the secret URL so people can get their mugshots removed for a $9.99 / $19.99 payment?