Forum Moderators: open
A 14-year-old Travis County girl who said she was sexually assaulted by a Buda man she met on MySpace.com sued the popular social networking site Monday for $30 million, claiming that it fails to protect minors from adult sexual predators......Attorneys general from five states, including Texas, have asked MySpace.com to provide more security, the lawsuit said. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott sent a letter to the MySpace.com chief executive officer May 22, asking him to require users to verify their age and identity with a credit card or verified e-mail account...
...Lauren Gelman, associate director of the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, said she does not think MySpace is legally responsible for what happens away from its site.
Damn! Watch this one. May have huge implications for user generated content sites.
[edited by: engine at 4:32 pm (utc) on June 20, 2006]
[edit reason] Added quote to link [/edit]
Thanks for trying but you were wrong. Maybe I was pointing out that being labeled a "sex offender" does not mean that they molested their neighbors 4-5 yo girl or boy. Ask someone what do they think when they hear that term.
I will even go as far as saying that most of us ( and 100% of hikers) have already done something, that if caught, could have landed us on the list in at least one of the 50 states.
If you re-read your post 109, you will see that you gave the impression that you go by labels, and I am trying to point out that they are misleading. Jane meets John when he is 17 and she is 16. The minute he turns 18, does he deserve to be labeled a sex offender for having sex with a 17-yo "minor"? The state law in state X says so, but it "fair" or right?
If he was 15 or 14, and caught whle having sex with a 14-15 yo girl, would you still want to know if moved in the same neighborhood as your 14-yo daughter? Why?
The fact that other laws are bogus doesn't change the fact that this guy is a sex offender. There are reasons the term exists, there are reasons you can see where they live, and this is one of those reasons.
[news.bbc.co.uk...]
.... He is 19 and enticed a 14-year old into skipping school and having sex with him.
Exactly! And yet who do the parents and the girl blame? Myspace... and why? They have millions or at least are perceived to have based on what they are asking.
He is a bad guy and she got tricked.... where does Myspace neglegence come into play in this scenario? It could have been MSN or some IM chat, it could have been hot or not, it could have been hotmail profiles that enabled first contact...
Worse though... is it could have been my site that has an Xbox forum, or site that that has an forum about *blah* that led to an indroduction between this guy and girl. What would you do if this lawsuit landed on your lap?
Like Myspace or not we as publishers and website maintaniers should be screaming at the defense of Myspace becuase this type of frivoulous lawsuit could affect all of us.
You want a civil court to decide what you can and can't do with your websites?
You want them to require you do jump through this hoop or that hoop just so that parents can feel safe, when really none of this is going to make anyone safer, just some lawyers richer.
Think about what supporting this lawsuit would mean to your website. This website even.
Do you think that it is reasonable to ask parents to quiz their kids about absolutely everything they have done while out of the house?
I absolutely think that it's reasonable to quiz your children about absolutely everything they while in or out of my house. I was raised that way, and my wife and I are raising our children that way.
Anyone who doesn't constantly quiz their children and know EVERYTHING they can possibly know about every waking (and sleeping) moment of their childrens' lives is failing as a parent. Children are not mature enough to always make good decisions, but we as parents don't show them our love and share our wisdom and experience by constantly being all over them to make sure they do the right thing when they can, we get consequences like frivolous lawsuits against third-parties that can't (and shouldn't be responsible for) protecting our children.
Take a look at nature to support my argument - Do you see any animals in the world relying on other animals or humans to protect their young? Only the weakest, most flawed animals on the planet (Homo Sapiens) engage in this kind of self-destructive activity.
Like Myspace or not we as publishers and website maintaniers should be screaming at the defense of Myspace becuase this type of frivoulous lawsuit could affect all of us.
Stupid, stupid girl
Speaking from personal experience, I became a myspace member to help keep an eye on my girlfriend's 15-y.o. daughter. The things these young girls do and say on that site makes my toes curl! I have a hard time casting the plaintiff in the mold of an innocent waif who was preyed upon by somebody she rebuffed every step of the way. That makes a huge ethical difference in my opinion- not in justifying rape, but in assigning remote blame which carries a price tag.
The overt sexuality of minors today is beyond the scope of the discussion here, but it is a huge problem in American society now. Suing Myspace will do nothing to solve the problem, but hacking at the branches of evil keeps lawyers in riches, whereas hacking at the roots does not. Granted, raising teenagers is a challenge, but rewarding such a colossal failure by shifting wealth from Myspace to this parent is not in any way ethical or right either.
-Automan
I hope you are joking when you say it is a simple thing.... How you know the age of the visitor to your site? How you know who is giving permission? How you validate the permission slip? How you know who can give permission to who? How you know who requires permission
How do you know the age of someone who is trying to buy a beer? That's right you ask them for proof and if they don't supply proof they don't get the beer. Do you honestly think the Internet is any different or some sort of special case?
How do you know the age of someone who is trying to buy a beer? That's right you ask them for proof and if they don't supply proof they don't get the beer.
Hmmm, you've never had a fake ID?
No, I haven't, but I've seen plenty who did. It's a big market.
Suing Myspace will do nothing to solve the problem, but hacking at the branches of evil keeps lawyers in riches, whereas hacking at the roots does not. Granted, raising teenagers is a challenge, but rewarding such a colossal failure by shifting wealth from Myspace to this parent is not in any way ethical or right either.
Well stated. Bravo!
How do you know the age of someone who is trying to buy a beer? That's right you ask them for proof and if they don't supply proof they don't get the beer. Do you honestly think the Internet is any different or some sort of special case?
Yes the Internet is massivaly different are you kidding me?
You can ask someone for proof when they are standing in front of you in the physical world! You can exam the picture and it's overall qualtity to asess fakes and you can look at the person presenting it to you to determine if the picture is in fact the person presenting the ID.
Not the same for a website hit. If I come to your website and give you id how do you know that it is me in the ID? How over the internet can you PROVE who you are? Do you have an implementation in mind or are you that ignorant that you think that asking for id like in a bar is the solution? How could you vaildate the id?
They have tried methods of doing this and all have failed, and for one reason, it isn't possible or practical..... This is the reason experts and teachers and parents and police are saying the same thing. BE CAREFUL ON THE INTERNET IT CANNOT BE AND IS NOT REGULATED.
I would love to hear how you think a website can ask for someones ID that will PROVE they are a legal age before letting them on? Please enlighten me.
[edited by: Demaestro at 9:59 pm (utc) on June 22, 2006]
Please enlighten me.
A few pages back...
Thumbprints and retina scans. ;)
How do you know the age of someone who is trying to buy a beer? That's right you ask them for proof and if they don't supply proof they don't get the beer. Do you honestly think the Internet is any different or some sort of special case?
Since you are buying beer in person it is easy to physically verify if a drivers license is legitimate. How do you verify age on an internet transaction? A copy of a drivers license or birth certificate can be edited in seconds by anyone with a graphics program. What else is there in the absence of physical contact?
I am working on a website for a client who wants to do an exclusive website dating service. We have dicussed the issue of verifying that people are not lying. I would love to hear how we can verify an age.
"Canada plans to raise age of consent to 16 (from 14)"
"But the proposal, first outlined in April, will also allow youngsters to have consensual sex with people up to five years older or younger, even if that means one partner is aged 14 or 15.
"Our goal in this legislation is not to criminalize teenage youth who may be involved in sexual activity with their peers," Toews told reporters in Ottawa. "It is to make the law more effective in protecting vulnerable young people from adult sexual predators."
[news.yahoo.com...]
It is NOT myspace fault. Of course, it is not. There's no perfect analogy, but like someone else said, what if they met in the starbucks or in the mall, would they suit them for failing protecting minors on the place?
Whether it is parents or not responsability, or how stupid (or stul) was this girl, we are webmasters here and I think the main discussion should be arround the repercutions on this action on community sites.
I shudder when I first read the thread. I can't imagine the issues it will arise for many of us if this case goes further.
BTW, I read like the first twenty comments on the news site, nobody blames myspace like some people did there.
Those who believe in a strict and controlled parenting structure will always find liberal parenting to be second-rate and point to the downsides of not controlling and disciplining children sufficiently. Others who have a liberal parenting style have deep-rooted ideas about personal freedom of and respect for their children which make conservative parenting concepts seem unreasonable or unworkable.
Parenting is undoubtedly a great responsibility which starts on the day the child is born and although the workload may diminish over time, the responsibility never ends. It is precisely because it is a great responsibility and a burden not easily bourne that we reasonably expect all those who can help protect the child to do so. Children are the responsibility of society as a whole because without them there will be no society in the future.
It is reasonable to expect that our child will not be admitted to see vastly unsuitable films, to be served strong alcohol at a young age or to play truant from school. We expect this from the cinema staff, the bar staff and the school staff. It is precisely because of this expectation that more liberal forms of parenting are even worthy of consideration.
In many situations a body can be considered in loco parentis, and to varying extent. Whilst it may be pushing the boundary, it could be convincingly argued that Myspace is acting, to some extent, in loco parentis if it facilitates introduction and communication between younger persons. Whether or not Myspace is acting in such a capacity is immaterial; every person and body has a duty of care for younger persons as a fundamental part of society and social contract. If, in the eyes of the court, Myspace has not taken all reasonable action to protect the younger users of its website then it is entirely reasonable that they should face some form of penalty as a discouragement from future negligent activity. If this should be in the form of compensation or a fine bears no relevance to the effectiveness of the action.
Which of the following are reasonable actions?
1. A bar owner does not check the age of customers because it may drive some away and make it difficult for those who have just reached the legal age due to being frequently asked.
2. A public swimming pool permits children but does not provide any lifeguard as it might cost them too much.
3. The council does not provide a pedestrian crossing outside a school gate as it may disrupt traffic on the busy road.
4. A pet owner walks a dangerous dog without a lead to give the dog freedom.
5. A businessman walks around a rough inner-city district with an expensive suit and flash laptop on display.
Perhaps in consideration of the above a consensus might be attainable which addresses the key question, undoubtedly:
Is the fact that it may be expensive or could drive away customers a reasonable reason to cut back on safety?
I state that this is the key question because there are measures which Myspace could have taken but have not. The reasons suggested in this thread have been the cost implication and the fact they could reduce the number of visitors.
Measures which would be effective could include:
- Telephoning new applicants and speaking with an adult (as a child the local shop phoned my parents before allowing me to purchase matches, despite the fact that the call costs would have easily exceeded their profit from the matches)
- Verifying through use of a credit card (not unreasonable and a process used by many other major online players)
- Only permitting the use of paid email addresses (I believe this is in place on Webmasterworld as well as being preferred by ebay)
- Requiring applications to be seconded or witnessed by a repectable witness with personal knowledge of the applicant (teacher, magistrate, clergyman, lawyer - as used in numerous application processes worldwide)
- etc., etc., etc.
Measures which would be effective could include:
- Telephoning new applicants and speaking with an adult (as a child the local shop phoned my parents before allowing me to purchase matches, despite the fact that the call costs would have easily exceeded their profit from the matches)
Ok lets say my 14 year old signed up and I personally talked with someone to approve my daughers use of myspace. This is only a solution to insure that I allow my 14 year old to be there. It doesn't give my daughter any protection from a 27 year old saying he is 14. If a preditor signs himself up as a kid, he is going to then act as the parent. No protection for my kid.
Verifying through use of a credit card (not unreasonable and a process used by many other major online players)
Again how does that protect my daughter from someone saying they are a kid?
- Only permitting the use of paid email addresses (I believe this is in place on Webmasterworld as well as being preferred by ebay)
This would work, only because it would elimate 99% of the kids. Remember the purpose/accusation of the lawsuit was not listed as keep kids out, only to keep them safe.
- Requiring applications to be seconded or witnessed by a repectable witness with personal knowledge of the applicant (teacher, magistrate, clergyman, lawyer - as used in numerous application processes worldwide)
So it seems the only answer is to not allow kids to use the service, period. I may not be a fan of myspace but the vast majority of kids are not harassed and use this as a extension of their community in a safe and responsible way.
A sexual preditor is not made because they use myspace. Someone who wants to have sex with a kid will find a way. Eliminating kids use of myspace is not going to cure the sickness. I really wish that giving these parents 30 million dollars and making myspace eliminate children from their members would really stop children predation, but it won't.
Remember the purpose/accusation of the lawsuit was not listed as keep kids out, only to keep them safe.
Verification of age and identity could also trigger numerous additional checks, such as blocking messages from those more than a few years older than themselves who are not directly linked to their profile, triggering alerts for manual review when messages sent meet certain criteria (e.g. include 'meet', 'secret', etc.), allowing parents to have full access to a minor's account (including private messaging functions), requiring a parental password to approve new friends on Myspace, etc., etc...
triggering alerts for manual review when messages sent meet certain criteria (e.g. include 'meet', 'secret', etc.)
Good luck! Kids these days have their own vocabulary just for this particular reason. So us grown-ups don't know what the heck they are talking about. ;)
Verification of age and identity could also trigger numerous additional checks
Again it is not a matter of expense, but ability. No one in this community has given a foolproof way to stop someone from lying over the internet. So what is the solution. No children on the internet at all until they are 18? Will that stop child preditors? There were children raped long before the internet. The internet is not the cause of these rapes.
Will that stop child preditors? There were children raped long before the internet. The internet is not the cause of these rapes.
Nobody pretends such measures will stop all child rape but it is part of our duty to ensure protection for children when we can. In my opinion, the same is true for Myspace. If there is something they reasonably could have done to stop this from happening then they should have done it. The question, as ever, is where the line of what constitutes a reasonable measure is drawn.
I can go to a bar with someone below the drinking age, but the bar will not serve them nor permit them to be given alchol I have purchased. Being part of Myspace as a child does not mean that all the facilities of Myspace must be made available.
Perhaps one of the simplest solutions would be to disable all forms of private contact via Myspace for those under the age of 16, forcing potential rapists to make their approaches in full public view.
Returning to websoccermom's point, there was piracy of films and music before the internet, but the internet has facilitated an explosion of activity. The internet did not cause people to want pirated media but it did make it easier. Perhaps the same applies in this situation.
If there is something they reasonably could have done to stop this from happening then they should have done it.
How do you monitor 150-200 thousand new subscribers daily?
If there is something they reasonably could have done to stop this from happening then they should have done it. The question, as ever, is where the line of what constitutes a reasonable measure is drawn.
So what is the mysterious IT that they should have done? If either party does not lie and follows the proper posted procedure.
I just checked my daughters profile and I am unable to reach her unless she lets me in. Her profile states:
This profile is set to private. This user must add you as a friend to see his/her profile.
If I click the email icon nothing happens. She did not lie in her profile and it seems there are precautions in place. If she choose to lie all bets are off.
So yet again, how do you make someone not lie or the very least verify their true age? For peronal and business reason I would like to know the answer to this one.
Children are the responsibility of society as a whole because without them there will be no society in the future.
That implies that each individual is responsible for the future of society, and that's simply not true. I am only responsible for my own future, and for not forcefully interferring in others' futures. I, nor anyone else, has any such legal duty to the future of society.
It is reasonable to expect that our child will not be admitted to see vastly unsuitable films, to be served strong alcohol at a young age or to play truant from school.
These analogies have been used previously in this thread, and they're not accurate. For instance, in the case of a bar serving alcohol to a minor, the bar is not simply a third-party medium where two other people are illegally exchanging alcohol; the bar itself is serving alcohol to a minor. MySpace did not rape the girl, it was simply the medium used for communication between her and the person who did, similar to the way a telephone would be. A more correct analogy would be suing the phone provider for not putting safeguards in place since they likely had phone conversations. That's a very accurate analogy that's already been made.
every person and body has a duty of care for younger persons as a fundamental part of society and social contract.
That may be your moral perspective, and you can practice your morals by doing your best to make sure that younger people are protected. But it's certainly not, nor should it be, law.
Which of the following are reasonable actions?2. A public swimming pool permits children but does not provide any lifeguard as it might cost them too much.
(I skipped #1 because, as mentioned above, it's not a valid analogy).
Perfectly reasonable. It would also be reasonable for me as a parent to exercise my right to not let my children swim in such a place, or make sure that if I did that I was present and monitoring them at all times, acting as their lifeguard. Such a policy would either close the pool due to lack of visitors (hence funds), or cause parents to stick around and watch their kids.
3. The council does not provide a pedestrian crossing outside a school gate as it may disrupt traffic on the busy road.
I can't argue this point directly; I don't think government should be involved in education at all, but that's a different conversation altogether. In the case of a private school, I as the parent (read "customer") would choose the school I felt was best for my kid, which would include things like safety (i.e. if the school provided a crosswalk). Just like in the free market, better schools would last and the ones lacking would fail and go away.
4. A pet owner walks a dangerous dog without a lead to give the dog freedom.
How does this even apply? Dogs aren't people and don't have the same rights of freedom that people do.
5. A businessman walks around a rough inner-city district with an expensive suit and flash laptop on display.
Bad idea for the businessman. But if he gets mugged, do you go after the person who mugged him, or sue the inner-city district for providing such a medium without putting precautions in place?
Is the fact that it may be expensive or could drive away customers a reasonable reason to cut back on safety?
Absolutely! And in response, it's reasonable for customers to choose an alternative service that they feel will protect them better. But this again isn't a proper analogy. MySpace members aren't customers; the advertisers on MySpace are customers. MySpace is providing a free (I've never used it, but I assume they don't charge members, right?) service. If any of their members don't like the service or feel unsafe, I'm sure they can cancel and demand their money back.
Measures which would be effective could include:
Others have thoroughly put the effectiveness of these measures to rest, so I won't do it again.
Is it responsible for Myspace to provide an unsafe service because they are unable to provide a safe one?
Perhaps not, but you're implying that their service is unsafe. I haven't looked up the statistics, but I have a gut feeling that a higher percentage of people are harmed by operating a motor vehicle than they are on MySpace. If that's the case, does it mean that the various departments of transportation around the world are providing an unsafe service and should therefore cease?
If there is something they reasonably could have done to stop this from happening then they should have done it.
Perhaps, but it's unlikely they could have stopped it anymore than the phone carriers providing the service that these youngsters used to talk to each other, the manufacturer of the cars (or other method of transportation) they used to meet, or the owner of the location where they met. The question asked so many times in this thread, but never answered, is why MySpace and not the others that supposedly facilitated this? Very simply, people cannot be held responsible for what other people do, because you can't control other people.
Perhaps the various "facilitors" could have put in precautions that might have had a sliver of a chance of preventing this, but it's unlikely it would be anything other than a CYA and not actually prevent harm, since such a method does not yet exist, to the children (which is what everyone is really concerned about, right?).
While the girl made a stupid mistake, and we have no idea whether or not this was caused by bad parenting, the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the preditor. In fact, MySpace should sue him for using their service for illegal purposes.
But the good news is that she's not dead, and if she has half a brain, will have learned something that will serve her well for the rest of her life. If, on the other hand, her parents are somehow successful in this lawsuit, she'll grow up believing that she made no mistake at all, will likely be raped again or have something else bad happen to her.. but what does she care? She'll have so much money that she can have all the designer purses and shoes she wants.
Do you have an implementation in mind or are you that ignorant that you think that asking for id like in a bar is the solution?
Demaestro I am not ignorant but your post most certainly is and there is no need to be abusive. I don't run a chat room so I don't need a solution.
Vincevincevince what a wonderfully reasoned and lucid post (msg 134). Pity some of the other "experts" who are contributing could not do so as clearly as you. Do you have a chat room ;)
Is the fact that it may be expensive or could drive away customers a reasonable reason to cut back on safety?
Absolutely not and that is the point that I was trying to make.
They have tried methods of doing this and all have failed, and for one reason, it isn't possible or practical..... This is the reason experts and teachers and parents and police are saying the same thing. BE CAREFUL ON THE INTERNET IT CANNOT BE AND IS NOT REGULATED.
Well that makes it OK then?
I am not so sure about your "CANNOT" by the way. There is already some regulation in place and as people continue to push the limits of the law then it will be even more regulated. This is all about accountability. Most of the problems on the Internet today are caused by furtive, anonymous people who do not have to be accountable. This will eventually change because it has to but that's a different topic.
Ok lets say my 14 year old signed up and I personally talked with someone to approve my daughers use of myspace. This is only a solution to insure that I allow my 14 year old to be there.
Many people in this thread are advocating parental responsibilty so this would be an excellent start. If something went wrong perhaps then you could start to think about blaming the parents.
So what is the mysterious IT that they should have done? If either party does not lie and follows the proper posted procedure.
You are missing the point. As VVV said it is not a matter of what can or cannot be done. If there is an element of risk that cannot be removed then the service should not be permitted. Just like the bar that persistently serves minors they should lose their license.
There is a dangerous assumption running through some of the messages in this thread and that is that if something cannot be done for technical reasons on the Internet then that is OK. It most certainly is not OK. With respect to the law and protection of minors, the Internet should be forced to comply like the rest of us.
99% of chat lines are there for one reason and one reason only and that is profit. They are not created by adults to provide a useful service to kids. They are created to generate profit (that's why Rupert Murdoch paid $580M for Myspace). They are not essential to the progress of society (and there are other more sociable things that kids could be doing you know).
One thing that is obvious in this thread is that people are defending Myspace and against this lawsuit because of the implications to their own operations. There is much hand wringing and cries of, " What will I do if they lose this action". Well I don't run any sites that cause me this problem but if I did I would not put the safety of kids behind my own personal gain. Let your legal people decide. Hopefully they will arrive at the correct decision.
In conclusion I must confess that I don't know much about chat lines and online meeting places but the overall impression I get of them is "sleazy" and not the places I would like my kids to frequent, but then it takes all types.
Personally I don't care if Myspace lives or dies although Rupert Murdoch definitely cares. If it lives he can afford to make sure that it's safe, not as safe as possible WRT the Internet, just safe!
That implies that each individual is responsible for the future of society, and that's simply not true. I am only responsible for my own future, and for not forcefully interferring in others' futures. I, nor anyone else, has any such legal duty to the future of society.
Moral duty?
Moral duty?
For me personally, absolutely! I will do whatever I can to help others when I see them in danger. I'm the good samaritan that spreads myself too thin before realizing I'm not paying attention to my own needs :-).
However those are my morals, and perhaps yours as well; but no individual or government should thrust their morals upon others through the use of force.
However those are my morals, and perhaps yours as well; but no individual or government should thrust their morals upon others through the use of force.
Force?
I agree with you that the parenting starts at bith and never stops, and also agree about your comments on liberal vs less liberal parenting.
Where I disagree is in your exemples and 'solutions'
Measures which would be effective could include:
- Telephoning new applicants and speaking with an adult (as a child the local shop phoned my parents before allowing me to purchase matches, despite the fact that the call costs would have easily exceeded their profit from the matches)
- Verifying through use of a credit card (not unreasonable and a process used by many other major online players)
- Only permitting the use of paid email addresses (I believe this is in place on Webmasterworld as well as being preferred by ebay)
- Requiring applications to be seconded or witnessed by a repectable witness with personal knowledge of the applicant (teacher, magistrate, clergyman, lawyer - as used in numerous application processes worldwide)
as to:
Is the fact that it may be expensive or could drive away customers a reasonable reason to cut back on safety?I state that this is the key question because there are measures which Myspace could have taken but have not. The reasons suggested in this thread have been the cost implication and the fact they could reduce the number of visitors.
I would only refer to pageoneresult messages and #52 [webmasterworld.com].
If a kid has a fake id card to buy alcohol - is the store owner who sold it to him liable of selling alcohol to an underage kid?
If a kid has a fake id card to buy alcohol - is the store owner who sold it to him liable of selling alcohol to an underage kid?
Yes and... no. Nothing is black and white.
Kid is at fault for having fake ID and doing something he shouldn't be doing. Shop is at fault for not telling the difference from a fake ID and the real thing.
