Facebook: Home to Incest, Child Rape and a ton of other atrocities

We Are The Media
Continuing on with my rant on this site named Facebook which really should be renamed “Fakebook” because while they claim to have over a billion members, they include all the members who are dormant, have deactivated accounts, who are banned or are fake accounts. We have all seen names like Gokai Blue or some other similar fake name. Facebook states they are against gamer or other fake names and that every member is supposed to sign up with their REAL information. The question is do you feel safe enough to share your personal information on Facebook? If you said yes, I am here to wake you up and scare you enough to make you want to leave that site and remove any accounts which your children or other family members have.

As of September 2012, Facebook has over one billion active users:
Fake: 8.7%
May 2011 Consumer Reports survey:
There are 7.5 million children under 13 with accounts and 5 million under 10, violating the site’s terms of service.

Violating Terms of Service means nothing since they do not control those who sign up to the site who are there for sinister purposes. I have to ask why on earth any parent would even consider posting a profile for their child under age 13 and worse yet, under age 10. Obviously parents are not aware of what is lurking on Facebook. Maybe the information I am about to share will help you to remove your child’s account and maybe even your own.

I have been involved with a number of groups, pages and people who are all trying to change the way it is on Facebook or rather change it back to the way it USED to be on Facebook. Back when I got an account, the site was friendly and had a lot of great content. I felt safe visiting the site and my own grown children felt the same way. Things started to change over the last year very drastically in my opinion.

Facebook has a strict policy against convicted sexual offenders but they really have no way of enforcing it. Nothing is asked when you sign up asking you if you are a convicted sex offender and really who reads the Terms of Service? Not too many and in my opinion that is not the most important part for a convicted sex offender so it’s really no wonder that they skip over than and just keep recreating accounts. We all know that if you get kicked or banned from Facebook that it literally takes less than a minute to get right back on with a new account, even if you use the exact same name. The solution would be for Facebook to ban via IP or Internet Protocol which is your internet address similar to your home address and is unique to each person who has an internet account.

So what happened? Where did all the sex offenders come from? other sites. Sites like MySpace who kicked off a whopping 90000 sex offenders in the last two years. Guess where they went to? Facebook. Some law enforcement refer to Facebook as a “safe haven” for sex offenders.

John Cardillo, for instance, is a former New York City police officer and the CEO of Sentinel, a security technology firm based in Miami which helps MySpace, Bebo, MyYearbook, WePlay, and other social networks identify sex offenders. Mr. Cardillo even goes so far as to call Facebook a “safe haven” for sex offenders. Needless to say, Facebook is not a client, and MySpace is his biggest one. But he shared some data which is hard to overlook.

Sentinel’s technology is the foundation for Sentinel SAFE, the software MySpace uses to identify sex offenders on its site. Sentinel SAFE is a database of more than 700,000 registered sex offenders in the U.S., complete with names, photos, dates of birth, email and instant message addresses (when available), and more than a hundred other data points. Mr. Cardillo took the 90,000 sex offenders who were removed from MySpace and started looking for them on Facebook. He says:

“We found over 8,000 offenders on their site without much effort. My professional opinion is that the real number is 15 to 20 times that.”

Researching will show you images and names of sex offenders will lead to Facebook accounts. Images and names are gathered from the National Sex Offender registry. Scary right?

In a deal with 49 state attorneys general, in the USA, last May, Facebook agreed to identify and remove “profiles of all registered sex offenders.” This policy, presumably, covers all profiles on Facebook, regardless of who created them.

How much would it cost Facebook to license Mr. Cardillo’s Sentinel screening technology? Mr. Cardillo, and he said “fractions of a penny per user.” With 150 million users, he said that would come to under $1 million. Sounds like a worthy investment doesn’t it?

It could be a lot more cost effective for Facebook to develop its own software to check official state/province/country sex offender registries, which was something it has proposed doing in the past. Perhaps they have something they are working on. Judging from the matches that Mr. Cardillo found, Facebook’s sex offender detection system doesn’t appear to be working. Members of Facegbook are now standing up and taking notice of what is happening on the site and are making pages and groups directly targeting sex offenders pages. Several groups are already popping up on Facebook itself with names like Get Child Molestors Off Facebook, OpScarecrow, Oppedochat, Truckers Against Pedophiles and more. Many of these groups have thousands of members who all want to help target and remove any sex offenders from the site.

Of the 8,000 matches, Facebook spokesman Barry Schmidt responds:

“Obviously, we are going to investigate. We hope to define them and remove them as soon as possible.”

My opinion: Not soon enough. Quite literally there are thousands of pages created and ran by sex offenders on Facebook and no amount of reporting will remove them since their own moderators do not feel they are against their Community Standards.

He goes on to say:

“Facebook does not allow the same investigations by an outsider as by insiders. Saying there is a positive match of 8,000 sex offenders is difficult to for an outsider to do. You would need would need more than a name and a photo the size of your thumb. The correct way would be to characterize them as potential matches.”

So what he says is even though he knows they are not doing their job, they will not accept any outside information which was independently gathered. Doesn’t seem to care about the people they are harming on the site does he? Excuse excuses excuses…

Regarding Sentinal:

“For a company that has a mission to keep kids safe, we find it irresponsible that they wouldn’t share this with us. Or, if not with us, how about with law enforcement? This could have been an announcement that Sentinel and Facebook removed 8,000 potential sex offenders. We still don’t have the information on who they are. If you are willing to share that with us, we will investigate immediately.”

Okay so as long as they don’t see the convicted sex offenders or the pages they create, he is just fine with that and instead of blaming their own ability to moderate their site according to their Terms of Service and their Community Standards, they are content to just play a blame game while our children are being harmed. Nice guy. If Facebook wanted to police itself, it would but instead it just chooses to get pissy when someone else shows what is really going on, in this site.

Here is an official statement from Chris Kelly, Facebook’s chief privacy officer, which explains just how Facebook currently screens for sex offenders and works with Attorney Generals to remove them:

“Protecting our users, especially the many children who use our site has always been a top priority for Facebook. We have devoted significant resources to developing innovative and complex systems to proactively monitor the site and its users, including those not on a sex offender registry, for suspicious activity (such as contacting minors or users of predominantly one gender).

We also have established a large team of professional investigators to evaluate any reports of potential abuse, including those surfaced by our systems or from our users. We have been working proactively with states’ attorneys general to run their lists of registered sex offenders against our user base. Our team uses various internal tools to automatically find matches. Any potential matches are evaluated more fully by our internal team of investigation professionals.

If we find that someone on a sex offender registry is a likely match to a user on Facebook, we notify law enforcement and disable the account. In some cases, law enforcement has asked us to leave the accounts active so that they may investigate the user further.

We have worked proactively to establish a publicly available national database available to everyone of registered sex offenders that enables real-time checks and includes important unique information like email addresses and IM handles. The passage of the KIDS Act, a measure we actively supported, was a major step forward and we’ve already contacted the new administration to offer our help in designing the real-time access features that it supports.

We are glad to be able to report that the success of these techniques means that we have not yet had to handle a case of a registered sex offender meeting a minor through Facebook. We are working hard to make sure it never happens and we are investigating Sentinel’s claim.”

Well while the idea of having a registry readily available is nice but to claim they have not yet had to handle a case of a registered sex offender meeting a minor through Facebook is bogus. Google it and you will see how Facebook is playing a part in that. Wouldn’t it be easier to ban by IP than just keep having these sex offenders keep showing up over and over again? Granted there are other ways to get around that but a lot of people do not know about that. I do.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal about the 90,000 sex offenders MySpace found on its site, the following sentence was appended:

“Recent reports also indicate substantial numbers of convicted offenders with profiles on Facebook. Blumenthal said that his office is awaiting a response to his recent subpoena to Facebook.”

Now that sex offenders know how easy it is to get on the site, they are complaining about their own rights being infringed upon when not allowing them to sign up or deleting their accounts. Cases are now before the courts asking convicted sex offenders to be allowed to use not only Facebook but other social media sites. Are you still feeling safe?

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, challenging Indiana’s 2008 law, argues that it is unconstitutional to bar sex offenders who are no longer in prison or on probation from using basic online services.

“To broadly prohibit such a large group of persons from ever using these modern forms of communication is just something the First Amendment cannot tolerate,” said Ken Falk, legal director of Indiana’s ACLU chapter.

Okay and what about the rights of our children? Convicted sex offenders have more rights than our children? Social media sites are trolling grounds for these offenders and we all know it. Did anyone ask what about the rights of the children who these convicted sex offenders harmed? I am all for rights but come on now. If you commit a crime as atrocious as a sex offense then you should be punished and if that means no access to the net, then that is what should happen. If people think that once a sex offender gets out of jail that they are somehow magically cured, they are living in a fairy tale of some sort. Reality says that once a sex offender, always a sex offender. Allowing them access to a site like Facebook where they know there are children is the same as holding a bone out to a dog or a candy out to a child. Temptation.

Here is a for instance for you. Who do you think has more rights?

A man, who was convicted of child expoloitation and jailed for three years, cannot send questions to televised debates or comment on news stories on local websites because doing so requires a Facebook account, the ACLU contends. Neither can he communicate with his out-of-state family members using the social network or post his business profile on LinkedIn.

I’d have to say that he should not have the same rights and access as those who have not been convicted of a sexual offense.

The man is forbidden to supervise his teenage son’s Internet use or investigate questionable friend requests sent to his child, the ACLU claims.

Well since he might be one of those questionable friend requests to a young person of Facebook while he pretends to be their age. As for his son having access…his son? Really? A man who was convicted of child exploitation can have his child live with him? I have to shake my head at that one.

Prosecutors in this case argue that social networking sites aren’t the only forms of communication.

“The fact is that telephones still work. People including registered sex offenders may still congregate, discuss, debate and even demonstrate,” Indiana Deputy Attorney General David Arthur wrote in a brief.

Television and radio are still widespread and offer numerous call-in shows. Newspapers still accept letters to the editor, he added.

What is happening in the court system?

U.S. District Judge Brian Jackson found that the state of Lousiana’s prohibition was too broad and “unreasonably restricts many ordinary activities that have become important to everyday life.”

So there you have it people. Facebook is not a nice place to hang out unless you are a predator of some sort and then it’s all good. Seems that criminals and trolls have more rights then the rest of the users of this social media site. I’d like to leave you with some screencaps of actual pages on Facebook where they are asking to trade video’s and images of sex with children and families but I will not.

Thanks for your comment. Comments are personal opinions of the senders and in no way reflect the authors or administrators of this page.

%d bloggers like this: