My (Private) Space
In what can only be called a semi-valiant effort to try and clean up the internet, MySpace and about 45 states' attorneys came to an agreement to help fight pedophiles online. Specifically, on the ever controversial MySpace. It seemed almost de rigueur that when a student and teacher liaison came to light, his or her MySpace page would be found with all kinds of pictures that would tantalize all the media. It was a pretty lawless area of the world where, in relative secrecy, underage kids would put up webpages and people would visit them. They'd put up songs, lyrics, images and what have you to express individuality. Most of the time, this was just people connecting online and everything is above board. However, there are those times when the less savory elements find these pages and start harassing the kids. Harassing means everything from annoying people to soliciting for sex in some of the ugliest ways possible. That's both the sex being unsavory and the methods of solicitation being unsavory. So, law enforcement and MySpace got together, hammered out some kind of deal that would let MySpace avoid charges of knowingly set up an easy way to prey on minors and still does something to slow down sexual predators. This leads, inevitably, to the question of privacy versus protection.
Well, the trick is they haven't given out a lot of details about exactly how the new system will work. Right now, so far all they've release is 16 and 17 year olds, that is people who put their as 16 or 17, will have their privacy settings set to private, which means people can't see the specific details of the person. A "high school" section would be set up for users in high school, which would probably be sparsely programmed and possibly unpopular with high school students. It would also let parents submit pages with their kids e-mail addresses, so no one else can fake the address, fake being a kid then try to meet other "kids" for sex. And there are some non-described programs to keep a better track of underage users and better response to incidents reported to the company. Granted, this won't stop the real hardcore predators, but it will stop the stupid ones, which is better than nothing. It will make it harder, or at least less easy, for predators to use one of the largest online gatherings of children. Of course, what is newsworthy is the company cooperating this much with the various states' attorneys' offices.
After all, it's not always in the best interests of the little guy when "big business" (after all, MySpace is owned by News Corporation [aka Fox]) gets in bed with the law. In this case though, there is a great argument to be made there is a real greater good to be considered. While, yes, that's the great argument that gets all terrible laws passed, this isn't a law. This is MySpace saying "Hey, we'll clean up our act and prove we're not criminally negligent co-conspirators to a lot of statutory rapes and child molestations". This is MySpace going to these lawmen (and lawwomen) to, effectively, ask advice about how they should clean up their act to be a real safe place for kids to be online. They make money being safer, but odds are this would not have happened when they were still small, or smaller. Small business tends not to think in this large of a picture, or that far depth perception. Nor do they have the muscle to deal with as many states' attorneys' as they just did under NewsCorp. Small business doesn't buy in bulk, that's why Wal-Mart keeps kicking their non-collective asses.
Online predation has been in focus a lot recently, most specifically about the girl who killed herself in connection to MySpace, and most specifically, being targeted by a neighbor and his mother until she got so desperate and felt nowhere else to go that she killed herself. And then the prosecutor couldn't bring charges because there was no crime in harassing someone until they killed themselves. Yeah, there's no crime in harassing the ever loving shit out of someone until they do something drastic to themselves. There's no law forbidding someone from maligning another online so badly they feel the need to go into hiding that would make the federal marshals proud. There's no law from a person constantly interfering with that person's online business until said person feels the need to never touch a computer connected to a phone line again.
None of that is illegal (so would making that right through force really be illegal vigilantism, I wonder?) But what this deal does is help law enforcement and private companies keep kids safer online (note, not safe, just safer). While online harassment of adults is bad, kids do need more protection than adults, especially online. Will this mean kids gets less rights online than adults? Well, yeah, it's just like the rest of reality that way. Will people bitch because they remember when they were kids and they were just fine? Yeah, but they can suck it the fuck up. All too often people forget things online fall under the same laws as the rest of reality. Society functions because we have laws, they're not always fair, but they can always be tweaked, fixed and argued until they are. There are some who are argue for no laws and government, but to a person they always seem to be the ones with the least to lose. There is the assumption that if one can get away with it, it must be alright. Right now, nothing is being enforced real well and it's the Wild West.
And it almost makes me long for the days of the fucking Pinkertons.
So it is written, so do I see it.
PS Since it's wikipedia, I have no idea what the article will say in five minutes, but suffice it to say in the Old West when there was little real law, there was a large private firm of private detectives, spies and enforcers called Pinkerton National Detective Agency, mostly called Pinkertons. They provided personal security, as well breaking up strikes, extorting less powerful people at the behest of the powerful and generally acting as something between vigilantes and law enforcement. They were bad and big enough a couple of states banned them.
Well, the trick is they haven't given out a lot of details about exactly how the new system will work. Right now, so far all they've release is 16 and 17 year olds, that is people who put their as 16 or 17, will have their privacy settings set to private, which means people can't see the specific details of the person. A "high school" section would be set up for users in high school, which would probably be sparsely programmed and possibly unpopular with high school students. It would also let parents submit pages with their kids e-mail addresses, so no one else can fake the address, fake being a kid then try to meet other "kids" for sex. And there are some non-described programs to keep a better track of underage users and better response to incidents reported to the company. Granted, this won't stop the real hardcore predators, but it will stop the stupid ones, which is better than nothing. It will make it harder, or at least less easy, for predators to use one of the largest online gatherings of children. Of course, what is newsworthy is the company cooperating this much with the various states' attorneys' offices.
After all, it's not always in the best interests of the little guy when "big business" (after all, MySpace is owned by News Corporation [aka Fox]) gets in bed with the law. In this case though, there is a great argument to be made there is a real greater good to be considered. While, yes, that's the great argument that gets all terrible laws passed, this isn't a law. This is MySpace saying "Hey, we'll clean up our act and prove we're not criminally negligent co-conspirators to a lot of statutory rapes and child molestations". This is MySpace going to these lawmen (and lawwomen) to, effectively, ask advice about how they should clean up their act to be a real safe place for kids to be online. They make money being safer, but odds are this would not have happened when they were still small, or smaller. Small business tends not to think in this large of a picture, or that far depth perception. Nor do they have the muscle to deal with as many states' attorneys' as they just did under NewsCorp. Small business doesn't buy in bulk, that's why Wal-Mart keeps kicking their non-collective asses.
Online predation has been in focus a lot recently, most specifically about the girl who killed herself in connection to MySpace, and most specifically, being targeted by a neighbor and his mother until she got so desperate and felt nowhere else to go that she killed herself. And then the prosecutor couldn't bring charges because there was no crime in harassing someone until they killed themselves. Yeah, there's no crime in harassing the ever loving shit out of someone until they do something drastic to themselves. There's no law forbidding someone from maligning another online so badly they feel the need to go into hiding that would make the federal marshals proud. There's no law from a person constantly interfering with that person's online business until said person feels the need to never touch a computer connected to a phone line again.
None of that is illegal (so would making that right through force really be illegal vigilantism, I wonder?) But what this deal does is help law enforcement and private companies keep kids safer online (note, not safe, just safer). While online harassment of adults is bad, kids do need more protection than adults, especially online. Will this mean kids gets less rights online than adults? Well, yeah, it's just like the rest of reality that way. Will people bitch because they remember when they were kids and they were just fine? Yeah, but they can suck it the fuck up. All too often people forget things online fall under the same laws as the rest of reality. Society functions because we have laws, they're not always fair, but they can always be tweaked, fixed and argued until they are. There are some who are argue for no laws and government, but to a person they always seem to be the ones with the least to lose. There is the assumption that if one can get away with it, it must be alright. Right now, nothing is being enforced real well and it's the Wild West.
And it almost makes me long for the days of the fucking Pinkertons.
So it is written, so do I see it.
PS Since it's wikipedia, I have no idea what the article will say in five minutes, but suffice it to say in the Old West when there was little real law, there was a large private firm of private detectives, spies and enforcers called Pinkerton National Detective Agency, mostly called Pinkertons. They provided personal security, as well breaking up strikes, extorting less powerful people at the behest of the powerful and generally acting as something between vigilantes and law enforcement. They were bad and big enough a couple of states banned them.