Google Cracks Down On Mugshot Blackmail Sites

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Cracks Down On Mugshot Blackmail Sites

Posted by timothy on Sunday October 6, 2013 @08:18AM from the it'll-cost-ya dept.

Google is apparently displeased with sites designed to extract money from arrestees in exchange for removing their mugshot pictures online, and is tweaking its algorithms to at least reduce their revenue stream. From the article at The New York Times: "It was only a matter of time before the Internet started to monetize humiliation. ... The sites are perfectly legal, and they get financial oxygen the same way as other online businesses — through credit card companies and PayPal. Some states, though, are looking for ways to curb them. The governor of Oregon signed a bill this summer that gives such sites 30 days to take down the image, free of charge, of anyone who can prove that he or she was exonerated or whose record has been expunged. Georgia passed a similar law in May. Utah prohibits county sheriffs from giving out booking photographs to a site that will charge to delete them. ... But as legislators draft laws, they are finding plenty of resistance, much of it from journalists who assert that public records should be just that: public."

51 of 251 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The solution is simple. by __aaltlg1547 · 2013-10-06 08:21 · Score: 5, Informative

The simple solution is to press extortion charges against websites that offer to take down pictures of the subjects for money.
1. Re:The solution is simple. by asmkm22 · 2013-10-06 08:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm pretty sure the pictures are considered public domain, in the same way that certain other legal information is. That's assuming that the person really was convicted of the crime and the picture was officially released or otherwise searchable through traditional means.
  Otherwise, we'd have constant reports of celebrities filling lawsuits every time one of their mugshots is posted.
2. Re:The solution is simple. by OverlordQ · 2013-10-06 08:41 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  > the simple solution is not to be a bad person.
  They're putting up *ALL* booking photos. Even those who are innocent. Your solution would work if nobody was ever wrongly arrested.
  
  --
  Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
3. Re:The solution is simple. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 08:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's obviously public domain, but by when require a ransom to take it down, it becomes extortion.
4. Re:The solution is simple. by Seumas · 2013-10-06 09:10 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It doesn't work.
  Google should ALSO be pulling the plug on that "rip off report" site that let's anyone leave negative comments of any kind about anyone under any circumstances (including name, phone number, domains, address, etc) and never *ever* removes it . . . but will work with the person being attacked . . . if they pay for the "business/corporate relation services".
  I banned a user from my website almost a decade ago for defrauding other users, using false information for their account, and sending death threats to other users (and myself) and shortly after, that person posted some pretty awful stuff on the site which I have no way to ever remove, unless I want to submit to the extortion of the guy behind that site. Google includes their results right at the top of most people's results (though I believe Yahoo! has since dinged the domain for SEO spamming).
  It's no different than these mugshots, except that at least with mugshots, you have been arrested. With these "reputation" and "consumer protection" sites that are actual extortionists (especially this one), you don't have to have been arrested. Or even have done business with the person making the attack. Or even *have* a business (I don't and didn't). You can literally just take anyone you're pissed off at and sale vile things about them on the site, include personal information and contact information and so on, and it'll be up there until the end of time, marring any searches for them in the future.
5. Re:The solution is simple. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 09:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I applaud Google for this move but the solution is for LEO not to release pictures or other personally identifiable information about people who have not been convicted in the first place because doing so can ruin an innocent person's life and innocent people get charged with crimes all the time. On a related note, when Strauss-Kahn got the "perp walk" treatment, many in France were shocked because the practice is banned there to protect the innocent,
6. Re:The solution is simple. by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2013-10-06 09:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It isn't simple at all, my dear ass, because as other comments have pointed out these pictures are taken for *anyone* that gets booked... whether or not you even committed a crime.
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
7. Re:The solution is simple. by angel'o'sphere · 2013-10-06 09:19 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  In other countries such pictures get not published. They are property of the government (hence copyrighted) and according to privacy laws and laws about your personal right to have control over the fotos taken from you, publishinig them is a copyright infringement, a infringement on privacy and demanding money to remove them from "the internet" is blackmailing and fraud.
  If some one would do that with my mugshot in my country he had bad luck. Surprising that in gods own country people obviously have no rights at all and need a new law every year to combat such exploits.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
8. Re:The solution is simple. by __aaltlg1547 · 2013-10-06 09:22 · Score: 2
  
  That does not make it OK to use the pictures for extortion.
9. Re:The solution is simple. by _Sharp'r_ · 2013-10-06 09:25 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Public records are publicly available and government photos are "not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work."..
  That said, it should be slander to post the records with the implication they mean someone is guilty of something. Posting the final disposition of charges, or something along those lines would be sufficient to defend against that.
  
  --
  The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
10. Re:The solution is simple. by Austrian+Anarchy · 2013-10-06 09:32 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I applaud Google for this move but the solution is for LEO not to release pictures or other personally identifiable information about people who have not been convicted in the first place because doing so can ruin an innocent person's life and innocent people get charged with crimes all the time. On a related note, when Strauss-Kahn got the "perp walk" treatment, many in France were shocked because the practice is banned there to protect the innocent,
  This indeed is the correct solution. If governments were not tossing these pictures about willy-nilly, these sites would not have any content of anybody who was later found not guilty. The sources are frequently sheriff's department websites that amount to a big giant campaign sight at taxpayer expense saying "Hey! Look how many people we are arresting for YOU!"
  
  It is pretty haphazard too. I have been trying to get an FBI wanted poster from 1972, of a guy who was caught and confessed (for real) in 1986, but they keep saying it cannot be released because it is of a "living person." I ended up getting the 1982 version from a collector's site anyway.
  
  --
  Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
11. Re:The solution is simple. by kermidge · 2013-10-06 09:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't think you know how things work.
  Even for the simple exercise of free speech and assembly, the order of the day is increasingly "catch and release", often without so much as a ticket for most yet all are routinely fingerprinted and photographed. This was not uncommon all the way back to anti-war protests in the '70s and it's only gotten worse.
  Will you seriously contend that exercising basic rights [once-upon-a-time] protected by the constitution makes one a bad person?
  Mayhap you presume that anyone arrested is automatically guilty of something and deserving of conviction? Is someone convicted under what is later shown to be bad law also a bad person?
  Well, then, carry on, Citizen, the State needs more like you.
12. Re:The solution is simple. by MisterSquid · 2013-10-06 10:41 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  In the US since the late 1980's, getting arrested for any (and no) reason has become a huge socioeconomic problem as many employers, including low-tier employers, run background checks on prospective employees that flag subjects in the Federal NCIC database which records all arrests regardless of conviction, acquittal, guilt, or innocence.
  As a result, many people (but especially black males and LNWI's, or Low Net Worth Individuals) are relegated to a lifetime of poor employment prospects, unable to land jobs even as burger-flippers. This is true even if these arrestees are innocent!
  Dale Carson, a criminal defense attorney with experience as a police officer and an FBI agent, has written a book called "Arrest-Proof Yourself" which basically makes the argument that individuals should do anything they can (within the law) to avoid arrest for the simple fact that in the United States being arrested will bring incalculable financial harm to people who find themselves arrested for any reason.
  The book is enlightening and can be profitably be read by almost everyone, even if one's risk of arrest is low.
  
  --
  blog
13. Re:The solution is simple. by interval1066 · 2013-10-06 10:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This is a real problem. In an age where you can destroy a completely innocent life with a few mouseclicks I'm really surprised there's not been more of an outcry. Its trivial to destroy some one's credit and make them look like they're felons... and complete hell to correct these things.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
14. Re:The solution is simple. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 11:00 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  That applies only to the Federal government. State, county and municipal governments, who generate the vast majority of mugshots are free to set whatever copyright policies they wish.
15. Re:The solution is simple. by nbauman · 2013-10-06 12:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Good, somebody read the exceptions.
  There are also privacy rights, which go beyond the copyright.
  http://www.loc.gov/homepage/legal.html#privacy_publicity
  Since these web sites are trying to make money, there may also be publicity rights, which are subject to even greater restrictions.
16. Re:The solution is simple. by nbauman · 2013-10-06 12:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yes, it is simple. Don't do illegal stuff.
  And don't be black.
17. Re:The solution is simple. by interval1066 · 2013-10-06 12:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That post was moderated "troll", seriously? And I thought /. was populated with atleast a few thinkers... I defy anyone to make me see the light and explain how that was a troll?
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
18. Re:The solution is simple. by mrclisdue · 2013-10-06 12:19 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  How can we do that if you don't give us the name?
  Simple, just google "sexual predator", and she's the one beside him.
  cheers,
19. Re:The solution is simple. by Penguinisto · 2013-10-06 15:01 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  ...what sibling said.
  If you were arrested at some point in the past and your face/mugshot winds up at the site, with a full (as possible) record of what happened to you? It's simply the truth. Now the ideal says that you paid your dues, did your time, etc. On the other hand, reality says you're not going to be able to bury such information anymore.
  In spite of all that, I'm perfectly okay with such sites on these conditions:
  1) a sunset period occurs where faces/records get automatically deleted after a period of years (5, 7, 10, whatever - maybe set one period for misdemeanors, a second for felonies, a lifetime for convictions involving pedophilia or death, etc).
  2) a clear listing of what happened after the arrest must accompany the picture (dismissal, not guilty, fine, conviction, plea bargain, whatever). Some of these sites only list what the arrest was for.
  IMHO? If I were ever arrested, and if it were my image on such sites? Fuck it - it would cost too much to chase down every two-bit operator with a web host and a bit of Perl scraping-script (seriously, there's like dozens of such sites out there. The reason why I know all this? I'll explain at the end...) Besides, it's not like a background check would miss such a thing in the first place unless the record was well and truly expunged.
  (So, how do I know these things? I happened to find an ex-boss of mine on it after a friend of mine heard a rumor, and discovered the dude is currently in prison for doing things to his daughter that were way the hell wrong. Took four different sites before I found enough of the story to discover what happened. Pity - he seemed a really cool guy, and technically he's sharp as hell.)
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
20. Re:The solution is simple. by Darinbob · 2013-10-06 15:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Or hispanic.
  Or middle eastern.
  Or look like you're poor.
21. Re:The solution is simple. by MBGMorden · 2013-10-06 15:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You still missed the point.
  An arrest doesn't mean you're guilty. It doesn't mean you even had anything to do with what happened.
  You go out in an Old Navy T-shirt and jeans one day and someone wearing the same clothes snatches an old lady's purse. You could very well get arrested because you match the description. Even if you prove that you're innocent of everything but similar fashion choices as a criminal, you still have an arrest record (no conviction, but an arrest). A lot of places will discriminate on that arrest record - even when found innocent. That is not fair, and is by no means an accurate way to gauge the trustworthiness of potential employees.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
22. Re:The solution is simple. by Solandri · 2013-10-06 15:54 · Score: 2
  
  If some one would do that with my mugshot in my country he had bad luck. Surprising that in gods own country people obviously have no rights at all and need a new law every year to combat such exploits.
  In the U.S., the people have a right to know who's broken the law or been accused of breaking the law. See, way back before the U.S. was a country, the government running the show had this nasty habit of secretly detaining people indefinitely without charges. So I think I'll side with the U.S. on this one. Yeah it sucks that your arrest photos are public, but it's the lesser of two evils.
23. Re:The solution is simple. by Kalriath · 2013-10-06 16:04 · Score: 2
  
  Hang on, so even if found not guilty you're OK with the sites posting up details and slandering individuals? Sounds like you're advocating "guilty until proven innocent - and guilty even then". Boy, do the federal prosecutors have a job waiting for you!
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
24. Re:The solution is simple. by CodeBuster · 2013-10-06 16:52 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Even if you prove that you're innocent of everything but similar fashion choices as a criminal, you still have an arrest record
  Precisely. That is why Dale Carson suggests in the book that you don't dress in clothing that is commonly worn by criminals or at least the street walking kind. A suit and tie combined with neat personal grooming, clean haircut and respectful attitude is best and will buy you much leeway with most police officers, but at the very least avoid sports jerseys and baggy pants and be polite. The better that you look and act like an honest upstanding citizen the less likely the police are to stop or arrest you. If you drive a car, make sure that it's clean and well maintained. The basic premise here is to be the person that you want to be seen as, not the person that the police like to arrest. You might call that profiling and it is, but that's reality. These things are doubly true for young blacks and hispanics who are more likely to be stopped by police than a WASP, all other things being equal.
25. Re:The solution is simple. by CodeBuster · 2013-10-06 17:00 · Score: 2
  
  So what's your advice for those who are arrested despite not committing a crime?
  Most job applications only ask if you've been convicted of a crime. You can honestly answer no and simply not mention the arrests. If it comes up, don't deny it but explain the circumstances as best you can in a positive way. If those asking believe that it was something that could have happened to anyone, they're less likely to hold it against you. In short, be polite and truthful but don't simply volunteer this information to everyone you meet. There's a better than average chance that it simply won't come up, especially if it happened 10 or more years ago.
26. Re:The solution is simple. by mi · 2013-10-06 17:27 · Score: 2
  
  That said, it should be slander to post the records with the implication they mean someone is guilty of something.
  To a lot of people (employers among them), having been arrested is the same (or, at best, almost the same) as having been convicted. To me, an immigrant, this was a rather unexpected (in addition to unpleasant) revelation...
  Thus, even if there is an explicit statement under your picture, that you were only arrested and spent a mere 45 minutes in jail, while the bond-officer was roused to take the $40 fee for your release — and never convicted at the end — you may still prefer to get your mug removed from such a site.
  But, indeed, public records should be just that — public. If FBI can see, who was ever arrested, ordinary citizens should be able to as well... Maybe, as these sites proliferate wider and deeper, Americans finally learn the difference between being accused and convicted and it stops being a big deal...
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
27. Re:The solution is simple. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 18:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Makes perfect sense. A lot of the neofascists we've gotten have been from formerly or currently repressive ex-soviet states. What you and your countrymen do not realize is that:
  1. The fact that college liberals are a little confused does not mean that there is not a case to be made for creeping fascism in this country
  2. Someone having had their formative years in a soviet republic HAS NO FUCKING IDEA what they are talking about when it comes to politics
  Seriously, A fmr. soviet citizen effectively claiming to be all-knowing about repressive governments as you are doing is like a jew claiming monopoly on suffering. You run from one repressive regime to a free(er) country and then proceed to do your level best to turn this country into the opposite of what you experienced, not realizing that both extremes are equally bad.
  Dismissing current problems of corporatism and fascism-lite with a cute anecdote about McCarthy shows exactly how little you've been paying attention.
28. Re:The solution is simple. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 19:46 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Uhm, no?
  ~five years ago I was arrested by US customs and handed over to the FBI when arriving in the USA (on my own ship). Accused of smuggling drugs and being part of a criminal organisation. As the charges were bullocks I was eventually freed and actually apologised to ("wrong ship, we acted on an anonymous informer" etc etc etc... turns out this happens to sailors a LOT when entering the US..). My photo can still be found on those websites though and as the business I'm in is based on trust (I'm a consultant doing IT network safety for big companies / governments) I loose work on this. Basically I'm being punished even though I did not nothing wrong.
29. Re:The solution is simple. by oobayly · 2013-10-06 19:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The best solution is suck it up and bite the bullet, when enough people get busted and the questionable behaviour gets exposed as being the norm people become less embarrassed by. For the lying hypocritical jackass political types, who try to make our lives a misery expose the more and more and more.
  What about the people who were arrested as they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and subsequently released without charge. Why should their photos be up there, and why should they be expected to pay to have them removed.
  The Dutch have the right idea - you're not allowed to publish a person's name or likeness (photo, artist's rendition) unless they have been convicted. It has occasionally resulted in the amusing situation of CCTV stills being published with a box over the eyes, but it certainly stops people's lives being fucked up by the media who will plaster faces on the front page, and then ignore it when they are never charged.
30. Re:The solution is simple. by oobayly · 2013-10-06 19:51 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Wait, I have to pay my dues for being arrested? I thought I have to pay my dues if I'm convicted.
31. Re:The solution is simple. by goose-incarnated · 2013-10-06 22:01 · Score: 2
  
  My gut reaction is that I would like it to be a crime, but it may be difficult to establish in law.
  Not difficult at all - threatening to do something completely legal unless someone pays you is still blackmail!.
  
  --
  I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
32. Re:The solution is simple. by bmuenzer · 2013-10-07 00:29 · Score: 2
  
  In Germany you can be punished with up to one year in prison for publishing a mugshot: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/kunsturhg/BJNR000070907.html http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/201a.html
33. Re:The solution is simple. by gnasher719 · 2013-10-07 01:14 · Score: 2
  
  They're putting up *ALL* booking photos. Even those who are innocent. Your solution would work if nobody was ever wrongly arrested.
  I remember there were sites in the USA putting up pictures and addresses of doctors performing abortions. _Probably_ not so that people would send them flowers for doing a good job. When there was some public outrage about it, a Dutch website published all the info in the name of free speech. However, they also added info about many anti-abortionists. Without telling who was who, so that the risk of receiving a letter bomb would be fairly shared.
34. Re:The solution is simple. by gnasher719 · 2013-10-07 01:18 · Score: 2
  
  An arrest doesn't mean you're guilty. It doesn't mean you even had anything to do with what happened.
  A while ago there were photos published of a woman arrested for a robbery in a store, identified by the store detectives, and almost convicted - side by side with a photo of the woman who actually did the robbery. I wouldn't have been able to keep them apart. She was totally innocent and lucky to not be convicted.
35. Re:The solution is simple. by Slashdot+Parent · 2013-10-07 01:30 · Score: 2
  
  Most employers are going to conduct a criminal background check, and the data will come from the courthouses themselves, not Google.
  
  --
  They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
36. Re:The solution is simple. by interval1066 · 2013-10-07 04:09 · Score: 2
  
  Most employers are going to conduct a criminal background check, and the data will come from the courthouses themselves, not Google.
  Ultimately, employers are people, not machines. One of my friends was recently told by a prospect that they weren't interested, despite a pretty stellar career. One thing that's been happening in his life is a an ex gf has for the past 3 years been conducting an on-line smear campaign against him. He suspects this is why he didn't get the job. I'd post links but that only increases his google hit score to those sites, so, just take my word for it. Where was your courthouse god in that case?
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
37. Re:The solution is simple. by Slashdot+Parent · 2013-10-07 04:38 · Score: 2
  
  Obviously I can't read the mind of the hiring manager who passed on your friend, but hiring decisions can seem arbitrary at times. Maybe some other candidate was a better fit for the team or had previously tackled the exact same situation that the team was currently facing. There are any number of legitimate reasons that an otherwise "stellar" candidate might get passed on.
  For the sake of discussion however, let's assume that the employer passed on your friend based on the online bile spewed by a mentally unhinged ex. Would you want to work for someone who makes hiring decisions based on previous work experience or one that makes those decisions based on unverifiable online rumors that come from obviously biased sources? If the decisions was made for the reasons that you claim, your friend dodged a bullet.
  
  --
  They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
38. Re:The solution is simple. by Hatta · 2013-10-07 05:08 · Score: 2
  
  The solution is to ban discrimination based on prior arrests. Make the accused, but unconvicted a protected class. And then enforce that protected class status. Run stings against employers, landlords, credit agencies, etc. (as we should be doing for other protected classes...).
  We can stop this behavior without criminalizing free speech, or damaging government transparency. All it takes is for the people to decide they want a country that treats people fairly, and to enforce laws in a way that treats people fairly. But no, we'd rather have a justice system that persecutes sluts and brown people than one that treats people fairly.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Not legal by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-10-06 08:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's the American obsession with mugshots. Again, something the rest of the world will never understand. Here in .cz, you'd be probably thrown into jail for spreading such photos in the first place.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
The solution is simple by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 08:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

Stop automatically thinking people are criminals because they were arrested. Wake up and realize that you are living in a police state where anyone can be arrested at any time because a cop wanted to. A friend of mine was pulled over for running a stop sign and the cop asked to search his car. Of course he said "no" so the cop arrested him and took him to jail for running the stop sign, which allowed him to search the car "incident to arrest." This crap happens all the time in Texas.
Common names have their own pitfalls by tepples · 2013-10-06 08:56 · Score: 4, Informative

Someone (like a prospective employer) searching your name on Google will not know if a mugshot photo is you or just someone with the same common name.
On the other hand, having the same as a criminal can still confuse human resources departments who assume that the person whose name is on the application is the same person whose mugshot is on the site, provided the skin color matches. It's happened with the no-fly list, and it's happened with a 4-year-old rapist.
3rd party solution by ThreeGigs · 2013-10-06 09:02 · Score: 2

Contract with 3rd party photographers to take the pictures, with a suitable license agreement (perpetual use by police/courts/etc.). Let the photographer sue for unlicensed commercial use by other sites.
The problem will be solved rather quickly.
Re:Not legal by radarskiy · 2013-10-06 09:06 · Score: 3, Funny

If we Americans stopped being pretentious assholes, maybe foreigners would stop being obsessed with us.
Ya, but... by fahrbot-bot · 2013-10-06 09:08 · Score: 5, Funny

... if they ban mugshots, then only criminals will have them. :-)

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:USA by Seumas · 2013-10-06 09:18 · Score: 2

Not only are there websites in the US, but we have actual print publications (some put together by the websites) in the US that are available at news stands and contain nothing but recent mugshots. It's pretty hideous. It's one thing to have someone's mugshot on television or in a paper, because it is relevant urgent news, but it's another to have every person who has ever for any reason been arrested, such as for being at a rowdy party with a bunch of people and then being released later, after you'd been processed and found not to be part of the rowdy group. Or have been a case of mistaken identity (like a couple decades ago, when my uncle was arrested because he looked exactly like a major counterfeiter in the region that they'd been looking for). Or even people who are guilty and maybe even convicted of small crimes. Just because it is a public record isn't justification in and of itself that it should be plastered all over.
I feel kind of gross whenever I see some site (hell, even popular major news sites like CBS affiliates or FOX websites and so on) that does a "look at these ridiculous mugshots!" or "look at how ugly the people in these mugshots are!" link-bait galleries. It's just fucking disgusting and feels wrong, even if the only benefit is clicks/views. I have never understood how we are "okay" with this.
Re:Not legal by real+gumby · 2013-10-06 09:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's the American obsession with mugshots. Again, something the rest of the world will never understand. Here in .cz, you'd be probably thrown into jail for spreading such photos in the first place.
Actually, it's an important civil rights issue. Arrests are public as a way of preventing secret arrests, which were used in pre-revolutionary time and, sadly continue in many places. Its origins lie in the sixth sixth amendment to the United States' constitution, which tries to guarantee a swift and public trial as a check on the police, the public prosecutors and the judicial system.
Sure, it's not perfect. The system can and is being abused by jerks (but then again there are jerks in every country). The "perp walks" that cops do are also an exploitative use of a tool designed to rein them in. And I suspect the prohibition on secret arrests has been violated from time to time :-(. Not to mention a arrest is something most people would not like spread around (I wouldn't!).
But don't condemn the obsession with public mugshots without understanding their purpose.
Re:Not legal by Lumpy · 2013-10-06 09:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not when the police does it. It's 100% legal when performed by your local, state, or federal law enforcement.
You are confusing laws for you compared to what they have to abide by.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Not legal by Hentes · 2013-10-06 10:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think the conflict isn't as much about public arrests but about a clash between free speech and privacy rights. In America, you can take a photo of someone and distribute it without their consent. This is limited in many other places. There's still footage of arrests, but the faces have to be blurred out on TV.
Re:Not legal by houghi · 2013-10-06 10:48 · Score: 2

Arrests are public as a way of preventing secret arrests
So there are no secret arrests?
I do understand the purpose and it isn't working. The disadvantages outweigh the advantages by a serious margin.
In the rest of the world where people are innocent until proven guilty, they are also have some privacy. This because privacy should be a right, not a privilege.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
My autistic sister has her mugshot online by MillionthMonkey · 2013-10-06 12:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

The cop she lived next to didn't know she was autistic, and when someone kicked his screen door he assumed it must be her and had her booked on assault and vandalism charges. A judge ruled within hours to let her go and expunge her record, but those sites have her photo all over the place.