Reply
Mon 12 May, 2003 05:00 am
Hopkinton girl believed to have run away to Italy By Associated Press, 5/11/2003 23:29
HOPKINTON, Mass. (AP) A 15-year-old girl is believed to have run away to Italy with a 21-year-old man she met on the Internet.
Hopkinton police said 15-year-old Heather Cole-Mullen was last seen by her parents Saturday morning at an MBTA commuter rail station, as she was on her way to orchestra practice.
But Hopkinton Police Detective Pat O'Brien said the girl and 21-year-old Marshal Lentini of Norfolk, Va., apparently flew from Boston to New York, and then to Rome.
Hopkinton police say they are working with Interpol, Italian authorities and the FBI.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
| Advertise | Contact us | Privacy policy |
Chat rooms are merely one possible way for people to meet. Not all chat rooms have moderators/hosts, and among those that do it's very often just an automated program checking for dirty language. This being a case of negligent parents seems much more plausible to me.
In what way were they negligent?
How does a chat room sponsor verify the age of participants?
You must be at least 18 years old to legally contract with a credit card company to pay for access to the internet. That is the only verification available to internet service providers.
It seems to me that the person who paid for the internet access is the one who was negligent for allowing an underage person to use their access without close supervision. The internet is not what some parents want it to be. It is not a cheap form of child care nor does it absolve all parental responsibilities.
OH, they could totally sue in America. Stop it already down there, it's getting into bizarro world territory. Sueing has become an excuse to not be responsible for your own stupidity. How's this for an idea: Get off your ass and DO something about your kids, give them guidelines, some rules even, monitor them, and then maybe they wouldn't be running off to Italy in the first place, or on the other side, don't over-schedule and over-monitor them to the point of total hatred for you. It's a tough call, but that's what being a parent is about.
True, you cannot moniter your kids 24/7, (well, you can, but I don't think that is the solution), but most parents should have some sensitivity to when something creepy is going on with their kids...should the parents be sued? Who knows...probably not, unless negligence and/or abuse can be proven. Should the chat room be sued? Definitely NOT, that is just idiocy.
I chatted for 3 plus years, 1997 - 2000. I can tell you for a fact that the vast majority of chat rooms have nearly zero supervision. Most of the time, the "supervision" consists of assuring that members aren't flamed. But as for checking ages, etc., not only is it not practical, it's impossible.
There's no magical set of key strokes which confirms someone's age or anything else about themselves (marital status, etc). Many people (gasp!) lie. Many people present photos of themselves that are (gasp!) very old, but they claim the photo is recent; or they (gasp!) present photos of better-looking people and claim that the photo is really of them; or (gasp!) photos of people of another gender and claim it's them; or they (gasp!) claim to be single when they aren't; or (gasp!) they lie about their ages, either to appear young and appealing or to appear mature and of age, etc. etc. etc.
This is all a part of the worldwide game that is chatting.
A few other pieces of info:
(1) You don't need a chat room to be able to chat. Through MIRC, AIM or ICQ (and probably through other programs, but I know of these 3 for sure), you can set up a private chat. This is one on one, and in fact you can set up several of these at a time (not you and 5 people, but rather you and person #1, then another is you and person #2, etc. plus they might also be involved in private chats with other people, all while chatting with you).
(2) AOL (they own AIM) doesn't know what's being said on any of the AIM chats unless the chats involve AOL staffers. This assures your privacy, but at the same time it acts to absolve AOL of responsibility for what's said and done in a chat. Going after AOL is a lovely idea, litigation-wise, but you won't get far unless you can prove that an AOL staffer was somehow involved in the chat. Same thing with any of the other services.
(3) MIRC has nearly no structure and is not a company like AOL or ICQ is. Even if you could prove involvement by someone with some "authority" in MIRC, e. g. a chat room "op", that would mean squat. There is no real "company" to sue in MIRC, and if you went after the "op", you'd have to prove the following:
(a) that the "op" is a person, and not a "bot" (set of software commands). This is harder than you might think, as "ops" can sometimes use commands to "speak" through "bots" (I've done this).
(b) that the "op" has assets of any sort. Most "ops" are teenagers with no real assets of their own. Those who have assets would have no insurance coverage for any chat rooms acts, errors or omissions. This sort of stuff isn't covered by Homeowners' insurance.
(c) that the "op" has anything to do with what happened. If the participants are on the chat room but also in a private discussion, there's no way to blame the "op" for what's going on, as most of the chatting in a chatroom goes on behind the scenes. There is also such a thing as "whispering" (this sometimes goes by other names, but it's a private word with another person in the chatroom without having to go into private chat. The "op" has no way of viewing or controlling these).
See what I mean?
Yeppers, NH. Whether it is right or not is a more potent question.
Wouldn't it be nice if the defendants of ridiculous lawsuits could countersue the idiots who file these suits for wasting their time?
We could call it the "Stupid Suit".
Like the guy who sued MacDonalds and some other fast food companies because he got fat!
Stupid Lawsuits
Heeven wrote:Wouldn't it be nice if the defendants of ridiculous lawsuits could countersue the idiots who file these suits for wasting their time?
We could call it the "Stupid Suit".
Like the guy who sued MacDonalds and some other fast food companies because he got fat!
Stupid Lawsuits
They can and they do. That's how some lawyers earn their big bucks.
As a woman who was not that long ago a 15 year old girl, 15 year old girls are old enough to make decisions for themselves. They are also old enough that their parents shouldn't have to monitor their internet usage like they're 5. Not that these people don't have their heads up their asses, but I really could understand them not seeing huge red flags if their daughter is otherwise a good kid and kept her interest in this guy to herself.
Her parents should give her a smack in the head and take away all her toys - computer, cell phone, house phone, tv, dvd player, and lock her in her room until she shows some responsible behavior and ask themselves what they are doing wrong that their daughter is too stupid to realize that this was a bad idea. But they won't. They'll blame the chat room and the net and the ISP........
Maybe if they did sue, the judge could sentence them all to the aforementioned punishment.
And the 21 year old should be locked away for a while and registered as a sex offender for trying to prey on juveniles. He should also be repeatedly kicked in the groin.
Another delightful Monday morning here in drizzly grey Boston.
I doubt she kept her interest in this guy to herself. In the article it states they know the guy's age, first and last name and what city and state he's from. I'm sure the internet provider provided the details to the authorities, but in order to do so, someone had to have prior knowledge of the guy's screen name.
If the parents weren't already aware of this guy, how was it so quickly determined (less then 24 hours) that she ran away with the guy and not lost or kidnapped on her way to her orchestra practice?
If the parents weren't already aware of this guy, how did they get his screen name information?
How did the parents/authorities determine which internet provider and screen name to target?
Sounds to me like the parents were well aware of the guy and it is a case of dis-engaged parents not chat room negligence.
I agree that you can't monitor your kids 24/7. However you CAN talk to them. You CAN peek over their shoulder. You CAN ask them questions about who their friends are, why they like their friends Ect.. THAT is called parenting. And anyone too timid to do that, shouldn't have a child. It takes strength and the willingness to do what ever you HAVE to do to keep your child safe, and responsible.
It takes a strong responsible parent to create a Strong responsible adult from a child. They learn by example. What you do or say, is so incredibly important. If you blow the child off or ignore them.. they will do the same to you. And when the chips are down. That is Exactly what you don't want!
Here in the park were I live. We have 2 four year old boys, that ride around on bikes with no supervision. None. They are out side before their parents get up in the morning until dark. I have never seen thoes boys go in for lunch, only for dinner. I have ran out into traffic 3 times to yank them from their bikes to keep them from getting hit by a car. One is rude mouthed and loves to call the other kids names. The other doesn't speak english. The mothers just blow the kids off, "Oh, he'll be fine". I would love to see how fine he is when they get hit by a car!
New Haven wrote:Heeven wrote:Wouldn't it be nice if the defendants of ridiculous lawsuits could countersue the idiots who file these suits for wasting their time?
We could call it the "Stupid Suit".
Like the guy who sued MacDonalds and some other fast food companies because he got fat!
Stupid Lawsuits
They can and they do. That's how some lawyers earn their big bucks.
First off, NH, we all know what we wrote
Secondly, I have to agree with you, not only do some lawyers make big bucks on frivolous lawsuits, a lot of them do. Thankfully, that McDonald's suit was tossed right out of court. It is a travesty that it ever got to court in the first place. And what Gen said....
What I meant was ... that the defendants, e.g. MacDonalds, could countersue the fat-guy for wasting their time, making them hire lawyers, etc., spend time working on their case, and so on and so forth, and get his future wages garnished so that they get some money off him to pay off their legal and ancilliary costs related to this frivolous lawsuit.
This would make future lawyers look at a case carefully before advising their stupid clients that it's dumb and they would be open to a "Stupid Suit"!
Heeven, they actually can do that, nothing is stopping them except for it being a colossal waste of their time and resources. A lawyer's letter costs way less, and generally intimidates people enough to keep their gobs shut, or, if the stakes are high enough, a few bucks tossed their way to stay out of court generally works.
A great example of the extremely stupid lawsuit from the
site recommended byHeeven. It seems to me being the best example of "legal terrorism" against businesses and private creators:
Quote:Can You Copyright a Toilet Flush?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought I had heard it all. Or I guess it's what I DIDN'T hear. Some news from the British music industry may have some copyright lawyers wringing their hands and cackling with glee.
Apparently, silence can be copyrighted.
I'll bet you're gaping, open-mouthed in stunned silence, as you read this. Yes, silence can be copyrighted. And by gaping silently at these words, you're violating that copyright right now.
Okay, that last part isn't true. But creating a silent track on your own CD can actually land you in some legal hot water, as Mike Batt, former member of the UK band The Wombles, is finding out. He's facing a potential lawsuit for copying silence from avant-garde composer John Cage ("avant-garde,"from the French meaning "No one cares except a bunch of black turtle-neck-wearing-ramble-on-about-existentialism coffee house barflies.")
According to the London Independent (official motto: "You're Not the Boss of Me!"), Batt received a letter from the Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society, the British organization charged with collecting royalties for composers and publishers.
The MCPS sent him a standard license form for his Postmodern composition, "A One Minute Silence," because he listed Cage as a composer, and supposedly demanded royalty payments for his own 60 seconds of non-sound.
"Postmodern" is German for "avant-garde."
The MCPS claims Batt used a quotation from Cage's piece "4 minutes, 33 seconds," a composition composed entirely of four minutes and 33 seconds of dead silence. Cage, being the clever avant-garde artist, named the piece to match it's length. It should have been titled "Truly Pointless and Stupid" so it could have matched the concept instead.
But Batt says this isn't true. "My silence is original silence," he told the Independent, "not a quotation from his silence." And as he said in a National Public Radio interview this week, the composition is also original, ". . . because it's digital."
Oh well, if it's digital, then what's all the fuss?
The problem started when Batt gave credit to "Batt/Cage" on the composition (he said he did it "for a laugh"). But according to Andante Magazine, Gene Caprioglio, a representative of Cage's American publisher, says that Batt listed Cage on the credits for "obvious reasons. . . to evoke Cage's provocative 1952 composition."
Provocative? What's so provocative about four minutes and 33 seconds of dead silence? The song would be provocative if it were a cover version of "Inna Gadda Davida" played on a xylophone made of herring tins, but just because it's as silent as a church on Monday morning doesn't make it provocative. It makes it BORING!
But Caprioglio was steadfast. "If Mr. Batt wants to produce a minute of silence under his own name, we would obviously have no right to the royalties."
Cage, obviously having some sort of genius' foresight that his "masterpiece" would possibly be copied by musical ne'er-do-wells, left strict instructions that allowed "4:33" to actually be any length. However, there was no word as to whether the title of the song would change as well, to say, "2:18," "17:00," or "Dear Lord, Will This Thing Never End?!"
Cage's publishers, in an allegedly greedy attempt to get the thousands of pennies earned from Batt's composition, are arguing that Batt actually copied "4:33," but since his song was 3:33 shorter, he only copied part of it.
"As my mother said when I told her, 'which part of the silence are they claiming you nicked?'" Batt told the Independent.
What about those little 4 second gaps between songs on CDs? Who owns the copyrights to those? Does Cage, since he wrote the original recorded silence? But would Batt have a shot at them, since he was the first one to record silence digitally, and CDs are a digital medium? And since they're only 12% as long as Cage's original "masterpiece," will the royalties be prorated?
One could conceivably argue that silence existed long before there was life on this planet, and therefore silence is actually public domain, just like "Happy Birthday."
But that's not all. This silence controversy came just a few months after Jamie Kellner, chairman and CEO of Turner Network, said that when we don't watch TV commercials, we're committing theft.
There's that open-mouthed gape again. Let me explain.
In an April 29 interview in Cable World, Kellner railed against TiVo, fast forward buttons on VCR remotes, and flipping through the stations for three minutes. If you use any of these devices or tricks to avoid television commercials, he says, you're committing theft.
"Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. . . (a)nytime you skip a commercial or watch the button, you're actually stealing the programming," Kellner told interviewer Stacy Kramer, without explaining what he meant by "watch the button."
"What if you have to go the bathroom or get up to get a Coke?" Kramer asked.
Kellner responded: "I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom."
Gee, thanks Jamie. I'm glad you have "a certain amount of tolerance" for me not peeing on my couch as I watch your network.
And since when do I have a contractual obligation with the network? If I'm contractually obligated to watch commercials, aren't they contractually obligated not to broadcast a load of crap? (Please make your own jokes about network programming and bathroom breaks.)
I'd be interested in watching the commercials if they weren't the only things worse than the actual shows. I mean, who wants to watch Steve Urkel on old "Family Matters" reruns, or every single Atlanta Braves game? And don't give me that nonsense about everyone having different tastes, and trying to meet the programming tastes of different viewers.
Why is it that you can't meet my programming tastes, but I have to sit through "Can you hear me now? Good!" The whole thing is enough to make me go Elvis Presley on my TV and shoot it. But I'm sure Kellner will have some reason why I can't, like it violates his Constitutional rights to make me watch commercials for feminine freshness products.
But this gives me an idea for a song I call "3:57." I'll do an extended coverremix of Mike Batt's "A One Minute Silence" interspersed with the "Can You Hear Me Now?" phrase every nine seconds. I'll call it "Avant-Garde People Are Morons For Buying This CD."
Actually, the suit and resulting negative publicity for the menu content has caused many of the fast food places to include more healthy alternatives on their menus.
The suit may have been lost but the changes would not have happened without the adverse publicity derived from it. In fact, the latest TV ad for McDonalds shows a mom saying no to her kids asking every few miles to go to McDonalds until she sees a billboard showing the new salads they now serve.
Unfortunately, in the case of chatrooms on the internet, with current technology there really is no other remedy other then putting responsibility at the end user's domain unless we want the Rumsfields of the world to install spy cameras everywhere.
That's ironic, because I met some 15, er, I mean 18 year old chick on a chat room from Italy who's flying here to marry me.
What? I like pasta.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace