Thousands of convicted sex offenders in the state of New York have been banned from online gaming networks run by Microsoft, Sony, Apple, and other companies. The purging of 3,580 accounts from Xbox Live and similar platforms was announced Thursday as the culmination of the New York Attorney General's "Operation: Game Over" initiative.
Convicted sex offenders in New York already have to register their email addresses, screen names, and other online identifiers they use with the state by law, the Attorney General's office stated, so it was a relatively simple matter to pass that information along to the participating companies to start purging those individuals from their networks.
SantaRPG better stay out of the Empire State.
--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.png Ok everyone this is Bartz so just remember.
This is kind of stupid. If you were banning people who were convicted child rapists or something of the sort... it would make sense. But lumping all sex offenders together is ridiculous.
The statement also cited a Pew Research Center study that found that 27 percent of kids in the U.S. aged 12 to 17 "play games online with people they don't know."
shocking.
maybe parents should just teach their kids not to invite strangers over or give out personal information.
I liked this comment, which essentially points out that this isn't really going to prevent much of anything...
" It is notable that the only case mentioned in the Attorney General's press release is that of "Richard Kretovic, a 19-year-old man from Monroe County, [who] pled guilty to sexual abuse charges after meeting a 12-year-old boy on the popular online video game system Xbox LIVE." Mr. Kretovic was not a registered sex offender at the time of his crime, and this announced action would not have prevented his crime. Apparently, the Attorney General's office is unable to point to any incident in New York State where a registered sex offender victimized someone using a gaming network, or they would have mentioned it. I make it a point to stay on top of such things, and I have never heard of any such case.
The primary risk is not from offenders we know about but those we don't know about. In New York State, 95% of those arrested for sex crimes have no prior convictions for sex crimes and thus are not listed on any registry. Training workshops were held across New York State last week that were attended by hundreds of law enforcement officers, corrections officers, etc. Research presented there indicates that New York's sex offender management policies have not made our communities safer.
“Operation: Game Over” is made possible by New York's eSTOP law which requires registered sex offenders to report their e-mail addresses and other Internet identifiers. They are then excluded from Facebook and other networks. Of course, this also prevents them from posting the true facts about registered sex offenders and "Operation: Game Over" because many news and media outlets require Facebook accounts in order to post comments.
Who is playing the real games here?"
--
There is no shame in not knowing; the shame lies in not finding out
I think some of you are forgetting that this is also a preventative measure. Kind of a "think twice before committing that crime, you might lose your XBOX" thing.
If they really wanted to be tough on crime, they should have this as a punishment for ANY crime.
-- oh yeah. i am a dog. i smoke cigarettes and vote democratic because i am classy - the dog http://i.imgur.com/x4Tma.jpg
I think some of you are forgetting that this is also a preventative measure. Kind of a "think twice before committing that crime, you might lose your XBOX" thing.
well I did plan on molesting a 15 year old boy tomorrow but if they're gonna take away my xbox, man forget it!
From: Ashethan | #020 The only problem I see here is that they need to more clearly define what a sex offender is. Or have different levels of sex offenders.
Like a Class 1 Sex Offender could be someone who committed public lewdness. They shouldn't be banned.
and then you'd have all the way up to like... Class 5 - Convicted Pedophile/Child Molester. Who'd be banned.
They do have 3 levels... this law just ignores them and lumps all offenders together.
This is a pretty dumb idea, but given the actions of the State of New York, the mayor's office, and the NYPD over the last year, it fits right in.
"well I did plan on molesting a 15 year old boy tomorrow but if they're gonna take away my xbox, man forget it!" what if this boy was cosplaying as sakura
-- ICON: the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops
From: OmarsComin | #021 well I did plan on molesting a 15 year old boy tomorrow but if they're gonna take away my xbox, man forget it!
That's hyperbole and you know it. The idea is still valid, even if it's on a subconscious level. If someone is predisposed to sexual violence, having that extra fear or consequence can make a difference.
-- oh yeah. i am a dog. i smoke cigarettes and vote democratic because i am classy - the dog http://i.imgur.com/x4Tma.jpg
That's hyperbole and you know it. The idea is still valid, even if it's on a subconscious level. If someone is predisposed to sexual violence, having that extra fear or consequence can make a difference.
Guiga, really now. That's like saying we should throw a $200 fine on top of murder convictions because it might make just enough difference to deter someone. Even these dumb lawmakers had a better reason than that.
--
"God Hand is the ultimate expression of the joy of humanity, specifically the punching part of the joy of humanity."-Shigeru Miyamoto
This obviously isn't supposed to deter people from committing sex offenses. It's a "someone think of the children!" thing where parents don't want their kids to be able to talk to a sex offender on the Xbox.
honestly I'd rather this be handled exactly like aol chat rooms were. then I can go "a/s/l I'm 15/f/cali" and then pretend to be the police after half an hour of xbl messages
From: GuessMyUserName | #028 how about this: if someone commits murder, we take away their televisions
From: paperwarior | #027 That's like saying we should throw a $200 fine on top of murder convictions because it might make just enough difference to deter someone.
Okay, I'll admit I don't know much about law and justice, but why don't things like this already happen? I can understand it not being an effective deterrent, but that can't be the only strike against it.
Sorry if I'm some sort of absolute idiot and the answer is staring me right in the face, but everyone is treating this as common knowledge and I'm not getting it.
-- oh yeah. i am a dog. i smoke cigarettes and vote democratic because i am classy - the dog http://i.imgur.com/x4Tma.jpg