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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday August 2, 2011 @06:10PM from the you-give-and-they-take dept.

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."

37 of 245 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I don't get it by c0lo · 2011-08-02 18:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
1. Re:I don't get it by phantomfive · 2011-08-02 18:30 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
2. Re:I don't get it by c0lo · 2011-08-02 18:39 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
3. Re:I don't get it by c0lo · 2011-08-02 19:10 · Score: 2
  
  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?
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
4. Re:I don't get it by myowntrueself · 2011-08-02 22:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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...
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
5. Re:I don't get it by LurkerXXX · 2011-08-03 00:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
6. Re:I don't get it by Alex+Belits · 2011-08-03 01:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  When earthquakes happen, most people don't die, either, however it's not a good reason against earthquake-proofing buildings.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
7. Re:I don't get it by geminidomino · 2011-08-03 01:49 · Score: 2
  
  I thought the point of your comment was to be a smug, self-righteous douche.
8. Re:I don't get it by Psmylie · 2011-08-03 02:07 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  
  psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
9. Re:I don't get it by zzsmirkzz · 2011-08-03 04:59 · Score: 2
  
  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.
10. Re:I don't get it by gknoy · 2011-08-03 05:57 · Score: 2
  
  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.
11. Re:I don't get it by Idarubicin · 2011-08-03 07:56 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  ~Idarubicin
Such is the price of public records... by The+Good+Reverend · 2011-08-02 18:21 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:Such is the price of public records... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-02 19:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Better still only show the mugshots of those who actually are convicted. Arrests are not convictions. Innocent until proven guilty.
2. Re:Such is the price of public records... by The+Good+Reverend · 2011-08-02 19:27 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.
3. Re:Such is the price of public records... by SecurityTheatre · 2011-08-02 20:08 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
4. Re:Such is the price of public records... by rtfa-troll · 2011-08-02 20:09 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
5. Re:Such is the price of public records... by SecurityTheatre · 2011-08-02 20:10 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
6. Re:Such is the price of public records... by bjourne · 2011-08-02 21:21 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  Football Odds
7. Re:Such is the price of public records... by TheRaven64 · 2011-08-03 00:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
8. Re:Such is the price of public records... by tehcyder · 2011-08-03 02:26 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Here's what's going to happen: by kheldan · 2011-08-02 18:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
1. Re:Here's what's going to happen: by Alex+Belits · 2011-08-03 01:35 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
2. Re:Here's what's going to happen: by kheldan · 2011-08-03 05:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Re:Can't delete things on the internet by c0lo · 2011-08-02 18:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

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).

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
interesting by andolyne · 2011-08-02 18:33 · Score: 2

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?
1. Re:interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-02 18:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Seriously, my charges were dropped but they're still on this page..
2. Re:interesting by Zumbs · 2011-08-02 21:53 · Score: 3, Interesting
  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
  --
  The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
Re:Can't delete things on the internet by Totenglocke · 2011-08-02 19:01 · Score: 2

Did it myself.

--
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Breach of copyright? by advocate_one · 2011-08-02 19:06 · Score: 2

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...

--
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
1. Re:Breach of copyright? by The+Good+Reverend · 2011-08-02 19:34 · Score: 2
  
  Typically "copyright" is non-government. Public records are public, and we have a right to see them because technically they belong to the people.
Blackmail? by fadir · 2011-08-02 19:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

Is it just me or does that sound like classic blackmail? How can stuff like this be legal?
RemoveSlander is $700 now, not $400. by flimflammer · 2011-08-02 19:20 · Score: 3, Informative

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.
Aren't they making their own site less useful? by 91degrees · 2011-08-02 20:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:Can't delete things on the internet by drinkypoo · 2011-08-02 22:22 · Score: 2

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.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Can't delete things on the internet by nabsltd · 2011-08-03 03:42 · Score: 2

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.
It is your fault by Dainsanefh · 2011-08-03 04:19 · Score: 2

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.

--
Twitter: @dainsanefh