
What Mugshots Mean For Public Data - ctoth
http://www.hilarymason.com/blog/what-mugshots-mean-for-public-data/
======
tptacek
Here's another way to look at it: it's not that there are additional "states"
(public, nonpublic) that data can be in, but that their are newly relevant
forms of metadata in play. Two of them:

* The _surrounding context_ in which public data is presented (sort of the flip side, the "responsibility" side, of the coin whose other side is "collection copyright").

* The _promotion_ of the data; for instance, the extent to which data is packaged to have higher rank on search engines (or, for that matter, its availability on search engines at all).

So it's not that mugshots aren't public data, so much as that there is public
data that (a) shouldn't be packaged for search engines (Redditors, with their
"no doxxing" policy, should have no trouble understanding this) and (b)
shouldn't be packaged in ways that create bogus implications.

Mugshot sites do both.

~~~
davemel37
just to add to this... The persons name is mentioned 11 times in the source
code,in the URL, in the title, in an H1, in an alt image tag, and many other
instances... I see no reason why all of those instances are justified by
public interests.

------
omonra
I actually do not understand why mugshots should be public in the first place.

We already have a way to check someone's criminal record - why the need for
public access to a record of someone being _arrested_ \- even though no
charges might have been filed?

~~~
Anechoic
I think having that information public _in the moment_ is valuable in that it
alerts a community to a possible danger and allows for the community to verify
the indignity of the arrestee (for example if the arrested person is using an
assumed identity or shares the same name as someone who has not been charged
with a crime).

Now whether that data should be public for all time (especially for those who
were not charged with a crime or found non guilty) is a different story.

~~~
moron4hire
A little slowness is not a bad thing from time to time. Until a person is
proven guilty of a crime in a court of law, I don't think any details should
be made public. Rumor has a way of destroying people, even when the rumor is
false.

------
downandout
From the post: " _The debate around fixing this problem has focused on whether
the data should be removed from the public entirely_ "

I think this entirely misses the point. The point is that we should enforce,
and to the extent needed, enhance, our blackmail and extortion laws to deal
with these morally repugnant businesses. Under no circumstances should either
the mugshot sites or a site like RipoffReport.com be able to solicit thousands
of dollars under the threat that they will continue to disparage and embarrass
their victims unless they pay. Google should not be helping these sites either
- at least in the case of RipoffReport.com they are actually helping them
carry out an extortion scheme against millions of people. Both the sites
themselves and any site that helps them achieve their evil goals must be
punished.

~~~
ghshephard
While I agree with you in theory (I think these sites are disgusting) - their
legal argument is that what they are doing isn't extortion, because it's not a
case of "Pay us money or we publish" \- because everything they have on their
site _has already been published and is public information_

I think the best approach is shutting down the avenues of payment, so that we
can eliminate any way for people to benefit from this behavior.

~~~
downandout
There is a very fine line between saying "I will publish if you don't pay" and
"I will keep it online unless you pay". It's pretty clear that this doesn't
violate the federal extortion statute, but these cases have not been tested
against laws in all 50 states. I'd say the odds are pretty good that there is
at least one state extortion statute written broadly enough to cover this type
of behavior. All it takes is 1 prosecution in 1 state where there are victims
to start taking big bites out of these sites.

------
Anechoic
The comments in that article link to another interesting perspective from a
developer who built a mugshot gallary for the Tampa Bay Times:
[http://source.mozillaopennews.org/en-US/learning/public-
info...](http://source.mozillaopennews.org/en-US/learning/public-info-doesnt-
always-want-be-free/)

------
mistermcgruff
This is why I'm so glad my first name is Reebok. Used to be weird and
embarrassing but after a few DUIs I love that my mugshots are on page 3.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I am envisioning parents explaining to their kids that they were named "Free
Viagra" in order to protect them from Google.

~~~
Amadou
On the other hand, there is something to be said for picking first names for
your children from the list of 10 most common first names associated with your
last name. "Free Viagra" is weird, but "Roberto Garcia" is (literally) super-
normal.

------
rch
Even if this is a policy failure that could be addressed in the future, isn't
it also a self-regulation failure on the part of the search engines? Results
like this could be pruned out under the same reasoning that punishes sites
that hock sketchy pharmaceuticals. To illustrate, if I search for the trade
name for a drug (just tried a few), the first-page results are pretty good. If
I add 'Mexico' to that search, well, then I get what I get. It could be the
same for 'mugshot'.

------
Houshalter
IMHO the problem isn't this information being public or even easily
accessible. It's that people judge others based on this stuff which shouldn't
be terribly relevant in most situations (anyone can get arrested, and even
actual criminals are not always bad people. Especially if it's something minor
or happened long ago.)

The people hosting this information to tarnish people's reputations in order
to get them to pay are assholes. But the fact that your reputation can so
easily be tarnished and that it matters so much is the root of the problem.

I mean if you _really did_ believe the information was relevant and helped
people make better decisions about others, you would want it to be public and
easily accessible, right?

------
DanielBMarkham
I was buying gas a month ago at a local grocery, when I saw this magazine put
out by some small publisher.

It's basically a catalog of mugshots of local people and what crimes they were
charged with. The cashier told me people love that stuff.

I'm not sure what words of wisdom I have to offer about the intersection of
technology and this behavior, but I can assure you that widespread publishing
of mugshots is not new.

------
shalmanese
The problem faced by this proposal is exactly what has so vexed content
providers around DRM. Trying to add restrictions around technology that are
not intrinsic to the grain of that technology turns out to be a hugely thorny
problem.

~~~
seiji
What about a Don't-Globally-Index-This-Image EXIF tag?

------
gxespino
And how do we feel about sites like yelp?

------
DerpDerpDerp
Fun fact: I can get a record of your address and how you voted in every
election you've been registered to vote for, in many states.

Funner fact: One of my friends used this to look up your address from your
Facebook profile to see how far the bars you were talking about being at were
from your home.

~~~
natrius
Which states provide data on _how_ someone voted? Whether you voted in an
election is normally provided, which provides party affiliation data for
primary voters, but I'm not aware of any state that has done away with the
private ballot.

