Discussion on:

MySpace Labels Innocent Woman as Sex Offender

There were some serious mistakes made in this case, but there are also some very good reasons to use technology similar to Sentinel's. I suspect that any business with daycare will soon be forced to investigate the use of this kind of software.

What are the implications for sex offenders at your place of employment? Do you see implementing such a system in the near future? What problems should we expect as these types of systems proliferate?

As various sex offender database matching entrepreneurs establish themselves, day care centers would attract business by advertising the use of the best of these. What is more likely to happen is that public hysteria will lead to universally mandatory implementation, done hastily according to assumptions of "best practice". Simultaneously, the mandatory use will alleviate these businesses of the free market pressures that should provide the incentives to consistently maintain such "best practice". Children will be badly served, because of their own parents' willingness to punish all, "just a little", in pursuit of the guilty. Their zeal for justice can be understood. Their ignorance and its results, however, are tediously monotonous.

READ every single word that's contained in the fpllowing links:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/68697/sex_offender_registry_and_sex_offender.html

The previous one may be somewhat long winded (10 pages) but it rings extremely TRUE!!!

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/registry.htm

From the above page you can go to this one:

http://www.nsopr.gov/

An excerpt from that page:

"Any person who uses information contained in or accessed through this Website to threaten, intimidate, or harass any individual, including registrants or family members, or who otherwise misuses this information, may be subject to criminal prosecution or civil liability under federal and/or state law."

I STRONGLY urge you to read that WHOLE page!!!

Recidivism:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism

With all due respect, Mr. Moon, I've noticed that several of your articles seem to be a sort of "intellectual trolling". They seem to be specifically designed to incite extremely "heated discussions". What type of "journalism" do you call this?

EDITED to correct a ptoy...tupl...TYPO

.

Just kiiding.

And, I'll have to take your word re. the quoted excerpt, as I was'nt able to get anthing to load beyond the home page, which was blank other than for the links at far left.

Sadly, many just don't give a rat's ass about whether their harrasment of another is legal or not; they're so convinced that they are right, and all who disagree are wrong, that they don't even see their actions as being harrasment, but simply someone else getting their "just rewards."

I think that gives you a clue as to my feelings about this particular administration.

As far as the link is concerned, I don't know why it works for me but not you. However, most of the states and even the FBI have that, or a similar warning, somewhere just before you get to the actual info on their site. You might try looking at the SOL (Sex Offender List) for your own state, or even another, to see if you need to tweak your puter to let it show that info.

>Sadly, many just don't give a rat's ass about whether their harrasment of another is legal or not; they're so convinced that they are right, and all who disagree are wrong, that they don't even see their actions as being harrasment, but simply someone else getting their "just rewards."

You are so correct. Not only do they not give a ratz azz, but a lot of them are so ignorant of the law they simply don't know. That's why I just had to do a quick search to find those few links and post them. There are MANY others like them out there. One only needs to look to find them.

http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=Sex+Offender+Hysteria&kgs=1&kls=0

EDUCATION and KNOWLEGE is the only way to protect YOURSELF, etc., et al from ANY threat whether real, over-blown or simply immagined!!!

We all need to recall that, "The only thing to fear is fear itself." It's all this fear/hysteria that's fanning the flames of this particular fire to the point that no one can see all the REST of the fires that need attending to, also.

EDITED because I HATE making TYPOS! grrr!!!!

I was referring to the fact that it's ironic that one should have to rely on a site bearing his name in order to find some truth!

"What will you do once a salesman convinces your administration that you should subscribe to a sex offender database?"

Why should we be so convinced? When did we become members of Law Enforcement? By what authority would we presume to have the right to engage in vigilantism?

Just what is it that you are espousing?

I am not certain that we should be convinced, but administration (management to those of you in corporate environments) seems to be able to be convinced of anything, which only gets worse when someone trots out the "it's for the children" argument.

I am also not certain that we should be members of law enforcement. It seems to me that if sex offenders are hanging out in places they should not, it is up to the police to deal with it.

Unfortunately, we will all soon be vigilantes once these software packages become ubiquitous. Again, unfortunately, I do not see this as an "if" issue, but one of "when."

I am espousing special care to be taken to make sure that we do not falsely accuse people, remove services from them, or deny them their rights when they are mistakenly identified as a sex offender. There should be a defined, clear mechanism for being removed from these lists once you can prove that you are not registered.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

In the United States, at least until Bush came into office, you are innocent until proven guilty. Basically, I think that if you are going to accuse someone of something, you had better be able to prove it. I think that if someone puts you on a list and can't prove it, then they should be held liable for their actions.

being in a criminal court on a criminal charges - what we're talking about here is social interactions on the Internet, not criminal activity - and people's irrational fears.

Mind you, I don't see why anyone should be banned from having a MySpace account. The technology exists for MySpace to attach a tag to an account and just have a filter not allowing various accounts to view those with certain tags. For example, the MySpace database can place a U18 tag on all the under 18 year old accounts, and a SO tag on the Sex Offender accounts and the filter doesn't allow any SO account to see a U18 and the reverse. If U18s are entering false ages, well what's to stop the offenders from entering false names and avoid the database.

Mind you, if you go about cutting the SOs off from society altogether, you only have yourselves to blame when they go out and offend in a worse way because they can't relate to or communicate with anyone due to being cut off and isolated.

edited for missing n't

What we are talking about here is criminal behavior, specifically, convicted sex offenders violating the conditions of their release and engaging in the prepatory stages of further offense. For these people, "social interaction on the internet" with minors is criminal activity.

You then characterize the fears of "people," presumably you meant "people who have not been convicted of sex offenses," as irrational. Since recidivism rates among sex offenders exceeds 85%, irrational is clearly not the appropriate word.

Furthermore, DE, you express a point of view that I find reprehensible: that children are not entitled to grow up in an environment free of violent predators and that we, supposedly responsible, adults have no moral obligation to try to provide our children with such an environment.

Finally, you set up a straw man argument ("cutting the SOs off from society altogether") in a pathetic attempt to blame our society for the future offenses of these convicted criminals. MySpace is not the only, nor even the primary means of having social relationships, so whatever fallacious conclusions you present in your last paragraph are completely unsupported.
The SO's ability, or lack, to "relate to or communicate with anyone" is most likely a problem of long standing and is most certainly NOT due to their being denied a MySpace account. If you actually have any concern SO's and their future offenses, I suggest you volunteer some time in a halfway house for SO's.

Regards,

we are NOT talking about people committing sexual offences, we are talking about pressure being placed on private businesses to not allow anyone who has been convicted of a sexual offence access to their business, and how the business is going about creating its own list of sexual offenders.

Also, there's no clear definition being stated on what type of sexual offender is listed. Child molesters, rapists, prostitutes, people who have sex with anyone under the legal age - all these have committed crimes of a sexual nature, yet do you need to fear them all. Is a prostitute going to go around raping your kids, doubtful - yet some states list them as sexual offenders. Some states the legal age for sex is 18 others 16, an 18 year old has sex with a 16 year old in another state while on holidays, where they come from it's legal - where they are it isn't - bingo another sexual offender. And one case I know of where two 14 year olds had sex against their parents wishes, both now have criminal records and are sexual offenders - I doubt they'll be going around raping people left right and centre.

yet all these people are being put into a database being created by a private company for a private company so the company can deny them access to their services which aren't sexually related. What's next, deny sexual offenders access to the Internet and the telephone system. And after them, lets pick on those convicted of burglary, after all they invaded our homes too.

You're correct in saying the Internet is not the only way to make contact today, but it's a commonly used way that's growing. Also, we've had several cases in the last few years of people hounding convicted sexual offenders after they finish their sentences - pasting their photos all over the town, picketting their houses, refusing them work in any field, and boycotting people who do offer them work. In such an environment what incentive is there for them not to commit more such crimes. Last year I saw a news interview with one fellow in the USA who'd been hounded like this, he said "Life was easier and nicer in prison than out in the public. With this sort of treatment, why should I try to change?"

If you declare someone as no longer a part of your community, you have no right to blame them for not obeying the community's laws.

There are much better ways of handling this than what is being done.

Don't let them out, better still kill them, save some tax dollars.

Under English Common Law, the presumption of innocence applies in all matters, not just criminal ones.

assumes noone innocent either, most don't assume guilt either but no innocents at all.

follow Common Law.

The Napoleonic Code, which is used by many who were once colonies of France and/or Spain, is Codified Law, which attempts to set forth all that is lawful; Common Law, under which former English colonies generally operate, set forth only that which is unlawful.

The difference is best observed by describing the former as "that which is not permitted is forbidden," & the latter as "that which is not forbidden is permitted."

about bodies of law or even countries of application - it simply stated one aspect as a universal truth when it isn't. Even in English common law, the concept of innocent until proven guilty is not universal within it, but it is applied to breaches against the common good such are as found in most modern criminal legislation.

Very little civil law assumes innocence, and there are many laws where the onus is on the individual to prove their innocence.

It's clearly not a universal application as implied in the post I responded to. Not even universal within the USA.

Very little civil law assumes innocence, and there are many laws where the onus is on the individual to prove their innocence.

It's clearly not a universal application as implied in the post I responded to. Not even universal within the USA.

That may be de facto truth, but in discussion of the laws themselves, we need not rush to strike every principle down to the level to which it is commonly compromised in practice. To do so only assists the erosion of liberty, which I perceive you would oppose, when put in those terms.

"Very little civil law assumes innocence, and there are many laws where the onus is on the individual to prove their innocence."

Within Common Law jurisdictions, can you provide examples of where the burden of proof lies with the accused in matters of Civil Law?

was speaking of the reality of the laws and legal situation, not an ideal principle. The laws, as they exist, only recognise 'Innocent until proven guilty' as a valid concept in a minority of laws - most of which relate to criminal laws.

Also, that principle has no bearing on the behaviours and actions of any fanatic or bigot (be it racial, religious, or territorial bigotry).

Anyway, Catholics believe in the Original Sin applying to everyone (despite what Jesus said) and thus no one is innocent of anything to them.

BTW - How did you get that extra level of response into the thread. My systems says my message you responded to is at maximum depth, but shows your response as one layer lower - neat trick, mate.

what's that, deepsand?

.

In reality, juries tend to go by more of a 50-50 rule.

.

(Just reading through the posts I missed)

Does that mean that the employer who doesn't hire a person who came back with a positive test isn't guilty of anything until it's proven.

And isn't it then disingenuous to require an employer to abide by these certain regulations, on the chance that he might do something wrong, but not require a sex offender to abide by certain regulations for the same reason?

1) What has this to do with Common Law, as opposed to Codified Law, either Criminal or Civil?

2) Where have I susgested the following of a double standard?

was what it has to do with.

Employers have to jump through all kinds of hoops because it is assumed they will screw the employee if they're not regulated, and that's OK. But a city regulating sex offenders because it is assumed that they will re-offend if not regulated is not OK.

Seems like a double standard to me.

In each case it is the more powerful entity being required to not abuse its power over those with a lesser power.

Was it not you who elsewhere said that the greatest restrictions should be placed on those with the greatest power?

not hiring a felon "abuse"

Was it not you who elsewhere said that the greatest restrictions should be placed on those with the greatest power?

Quite the opposite actually.

"Citizens should have the fewest restrictions, communities a few more, states a few more, and the fed the most. "

Citizens have the most power, and should have the fewest restrictions.

A business is an entity that has powers far exceeding those of the individual citizen.

You see it as "A BUSINESS" picking on someone. I see it as one man deciding whether or not to buy what another is selling.

"You see it as "A BUSINESS" picking on someone."

I said nothing of the kind. I merely observed the relative powers of business & the individual citizen.

"I see it as one man deciding whether or not to buy what another is selling. "

Fails to logically follow, as has nothing to do with the relative powers of the 2 parties.

the company wants, he has all the power.

In theory, perhaps; in reality, rarely, if ever.

And, how many employees ever meet tour stated criteria? Precious few.

I think that there are a number of threads caught up in this topic/case:

1) What is the responsibility of a company to respond to a perceived social issue. (This assumes there is no *legal* obligation to act/respond.)

2) What is the responsibility of a company to confirm information before acting on it.

3) What is the responsibility of a company to make amends after discovering that they have acted on *incorrect* information.

4) What are our personal rights when it comes to information about us.

----
In this case, it would seem that MySpace trusted a company to a degree that it should not have, and acted without malice (but with a stunning degree of social cluelessness) on the unverified data. To those who say "it's just mistaken identity, and all she lost was her MySpace page", I would suggest that they have not thought this through. I can easily imagine scenarios in which this woman was denied employment (or terminated from employment) based on this misidentification. Add to the list housing (SOs are generally restricted in where they can/cannot live), and in all probability insurance and credit ratings (SOs often cannot find employment at the level they were at prior to their conviction), and you can see how this woman's quality-of-life could have been (and may yet be) seriously impacted by the erroneous decision to flag her as a SO. MySpace's glib dismissal of the potential impact of their actions on her and their (reportedly) cavalier attitude towards the flaws in their system that this incident exposed makes them a highly unsympathetic actor.

To loop this back to the TR focus -- The lessons to be learned for IT and a company are that they need to be doubly cautious in the public identification of a social "problem", and not to trust a sole source for identification of the problem. It also needs to clearly log and document every step taken and why. Finally, there needs to be a "we got it wrong" plan that is more extensive than "ooops -- well, sorry".

1) What is the responsibility of a company to respond to a perceived social issue. (This assumes there is no *legal* obligation to act/respond.)

Their responsibility is to make money for their owners/stockholders. Some issues may be seen to be needed to be acted on for the image it displays to customers.

2) What is the responsibility of a company to confirm information before acting on it.

Reasonable care is required. Whether or not something is considered reasonable might at times have to be determined by a jury.

/i]3) What is the responsibility of a company to make amends after discovering that they have acted on *incorrect* information.

It depends on the nature of their "responsibility" and how it failed. Lacking malicious intent or gross negligence, amends should never exceed the damages caused. Additionally, the afflicted person has a responsibility to attempt to mitigate damages.

For example, a man applies to rent a house. The landlord runs a credit check, and doesn't like what he sees, and doesn't rent it to the man, but to the next applicant.

The man notices an error in the credit report, and gets it corrected.Is the landlord required to now kick out the new tenant and rent it to the first applicant? Is he responsible monetarily?

Change Landlord to employer and credit check to background check. Are the answers different?

4) What are our personal rights when it comes to information about us.

Certain information is public record. There is no recourse to disclosing this information.

Certain information is private. You can create contracts with those you share this private information with to restrict their sharing of this information with others. If they intentionally or through negligence break that contract, there can and should be consequences.


In this case, it would seem that MySpace trusted a company to a degree that it should not have,

What indication do you have that this company should not be trusted. That it made a mistake? Credit reporting agencies make MILLIONS of such mistakes every year, and I don't hear people saying that they should not be used.

Said care must be both reasonable and prudent.

Deepsand said it, Andy, but you went along with it. Shame on you both.

Vigilantism is the "suppression and punishment of crime by volunteer groups," Mirriam-Webster. Under US law, it is itself criminal conduct.

Paying attention to what goes on around you, intervening to stop criminal conduct and turning the perpetrators over to law enforcement authorities is approriate civic behavior and is, in fact, part of our duty as citizens of a representative democracy. We are legally empowered to use "necessary force" to prevent "loss of life or severe bodily harm" to ourselves or other people. We are morally obligated to do so. We are NOT empowered to break the law in doing so. That would include libelous or slanderous statements prior to conviction in a court of law.

Regards,

P.S.

And, even if we become legally so obligated, such would still be with moral foundation.

And, no, there is no nexus here with one's "duty as citizens of a representative democracy;" the form of government is irrelevant.

Deepsand said it, Andy, but you went along with it. Shame on you both.

Really, up yours! Look at the definition you cite, followed by what you espouse:

Vigilantism is the "suppression and punishment of crime by volunteer groups," Mirriam-Webster. Under US law, it is itself criminal conduct.

Paying attention to what goes on around you, intervening to stop criminal conduct and turning the perpetrators over to law enforcement authorities is ... a small step away from punishing them within the volunteer groups; the only difference is "turning the perpetrators over to law enforcement authorities". Now, consider that the topic of this thread is not perpetrators caught in any act, but suspects identified by a new, highly marketed, government-"encouraged" database system. All members should have some idea how likely it is that an IT tool in the hands of data entry zombies will be operated with 100% accuracy. Now, I ask you, where have the defendants' rights to innocence until proven guilty, to due process and to proof beyond a reasonable doubt just been flushed? Answer: down your laziest (L)users' indifference.

not denying people access to services because they once committed a crime and MAY again. Acting before the crime is Vigilantism. And this is about acting before the crime. Also it's a bloody useless act to, so the people register under other names - sheesh how you going to stop that.

nor interfering with people going about their business, in search of criminals. Database technology sounds great when described by salesmen. Ask users how accurate these things are, how much duplication exists in any large database, and how many errors. This will give you an estimate of how many innocent people's rights will be infringed -- not might be, will certainly be -- by such a system. There are upper bounds to the attainable accuracy of such a system, and those bounds are not good enough.

"A vigilante is someone who takes the enforcement of law or moral code into his or her own hands. The term is Spanish for "watchman", a private security agent. It was introduced into English from the southwestern United States, in the same way as folkloric terms like "desperados". The term is applied to citizens who "take the law into their own hands," when the actions of established authorities are insufficient. Vigilantism is generally denounced by official agencies, especially when it gives way to criminal behaviour on the part of the vigilante, even if such illegal actions save lives." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante

Acting before a crime is pro-active versus acting after a crime and being re-active. I do not agree with a lot of the reactive laws that are being made, as they often cover areas that are often ALREADY unlawful, and just need to be enforced. Likewise it seems that often times we are being TOO pro-active, and trying to regulate EVERYTHING.

I think that tracking (not necessarily baning) TRUE R.S.O.'s (not 14 yo's) on social networks, and keeping them from making contact with young users, is a good thing. But you had better be VERY sure that who ever you label a S.O. IS a S.O., not just have the same name, or similar D.O.B.

Several years ago a TV station in Texas ran a list of school teachers against the Texas R.S.O. list and found a name that matched. They ran the story, frightened the parents, the teacher was fired, publicly humiliated, the family was threatened, and six weeks later the teacher committed suicide. The entire time the teacher in question proclaimed their innocence. The week after the funeral, the real story came out. It was a mistake. The teacher only had the same name as a R.S.O., but the birthdate was nearly TWO DECADES off.

I understand what the station was trying to do, protect the kids, but in the process, they totally DISTROYED an innocent person and their family.

I want to protect kids from predators, but we as a sociaty must be sure that those we label as dangerious, really are.

n/t

I am also not certain that we should be members of law enforcement. It seems to me that if sex offenders are hanging out in places they should not, it is up to the police to deal with it.

the eyes and ears of law enforcement (how do they know where a fugitive is hiding unless someone tells them?). It is an obligation (in some jurisdictions a legal one) to report crimes in progress or known fugitives. That is not the same thing as vigilantism.

There should be a defined, clear mechanism for being removed from these lists once you can prove that you are not registered.

I fully agree. And penalties imposed on those who mistakenly report you as such.

Your post is unclear as to your position, but it does seem to say that we've an obligation to actively observe & report on the comings & goings of others.

But IF you happen to see something suspicious, you should report it.

If you're approaching the door to the bank and see a man inside pointing a gun at a teller, for example. Of you're driving home from work late and see a flashlight beam shining about the inside of a restaurant you know to be closed at that time of night...

When do you NOT see an obligation?