Under growing pressure to do more to protect underage members, MySpace has agreed to give state authorities details about registered sex offenders known to have been users. The decision, announced Monday, resolves last week's standoff in which the News Corp.-owned site refused to turn over the data because law enforcement …
"scatological porn sites so shocking and vial they aren't fit for adult viewing let alone viewing by children"? First, it's spelled "vile." Second, do you really believe anything said by a consenting adult is unfit to be heard by another consenting adult because it is too shocking and vile? MySpace is an American site, and America has a little amendment about that.
How many paedophiles do you think are actually going to use their real names and addresses to log in if they plan on attempting to approach children? Ok, sure, some will be stupid enough to, but probably not most.
And what about those "registered sex offenders" who are not paedophiles, but who have, for instance, been convicted of indecent exposure for taking a leak in a public place after a few too many drinks?
And once again, it seems that because some *parents* are too lazy or ignorant to take sensible precautions to protect their children *everyone* must be treated as a suspected sexual predator.
PS to Dan Goodin:
"porn sites so shocking and vile they aren't fit for adult viewing let alone viewing by children."
Well, it's nice to know that *you* are out there standing up for the rights of adults to make up their own minds what is or isn't "fit" for them to view...
"Among other things, they have urged MySpace to raise the age requirement for members from 14 years old to 16 and to verify both the age and identify of its users."
Good idea, raise the age limit. Because it's so hard to lie about your age. Kids wouldn't even think of doing it.
Regarding verifying the identity of its users, if you find a way to actually verify the identity of a user (at the moment the user is logging on), I'm sure the financial industry would like to speak with you. Let me save you the time -- there is literally no way to verify that a user logging onto a web site is a specific individual. You can use passwords, tokens, two-way authentication, SiteKeys, fingerprints, iris scans, etc., and it still won't won't guarantee anyone's identity. Each of these methods is better than nothing, but there is never any guarantee. As some security researchers have mentioned in the past (on El Reg, though I sadly forget who authored the article), even in real life there's no way to guarantee someone's identity. The most you can guarantee is that the person you are verifying is the person who provided the supporting evidence in the first place. But that is a far cry from actually verifying someone's identity. If we could prove someone's identity, there would be no identity fraud/theft.
Why does this story not contain the word "witchhunt" ?
I am no fan of kiddie fiddlers but the direct combination of Rupert Murdoch and local US law enforcement in no way matches up wih the concepts of either "law" or "commonsense." Ruperts ethos is best described as "right-wing psycho" and the average US local cop is an ardent consumer of said Rupert "content" the net result cannot fail to be anything other than a Hitlerite wet dream.
Just ask Michael Diana, a Sarasota native (now living in New York) convicted of producing and distributing obscene material--which makes him a registered sex offender--for drawing a series of comics that were scathing critiques of the Catholic Church and its mishandling of sexually abusive priests. He was the first cartoonist ever convicted of a crime in the United States for the content of a cartoon. He's a registered sex offender; better not let him near MySpace! The subjects of the cartoons, the priests who actually abused and raped children, were never arrested or charged; they can use MySpace with impunity.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022