Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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!
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.
Seriously, my charges were dropped but they're still on this page..
Better still only show the mugshots of those who actually are convicted. Arrests are not convictions. Innocent until proven guilty.
Is it just me or does that sound like classic blackmail? How can stuff like this be legal?
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.
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.
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();
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.
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?
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:
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
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