New York Makes Playing Pokemon Go, Other Online Games A Sex Offender Parole Violation

from the grandstanding-is-an-art-form dept

While I don’t play Pokemon Go, I’ve still found the public hysteria surrounding the game to be endlessly entertaining. I’ve laughed as “get off my lawn” types bitch and moan simply because people are having harmless fun in ways they don’t understand. I’ve chuckled as Pokemon Go players forget that the rules of reality still apply while in augmented reality. And I’ve laughed at the absurd new lawsuits popping up to try and cash in on the phenomenon.

Continuing the trend of hysterical reactions to a relatively simple game, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo this week took the step of making online games a violation of parole for sex offenders. Not just Pokemon Go….all “similar games,” whatever that winds up meaning. In a prepared statement by the Governor, Cuomo insisted that Pokemon Go was a dangerous new avenue allowing sexual predators to prey on helpless tots:

“Protecting New York?s children is priority number one and, as technology evolves, we must ensure these advances don’t become new avenues for dangerous predators to prey on new victims,” Governor Cuomo said. “These actions will provide safeguards for the players of these augmented reality games and help take one more tool away from those seeking to do harm to our children.”

Cuomo also sent a letter to Pokemon Go creator Niantic (pdf) urging the company to help keep Pokemon Go out of the hands of sexual predators:

“The State has taken action to prohibit sex offenders from using this game, but we need your assistance to make certain that sex offenders will not continue to use Pok?mon GO by technologically barring their use. Working together, we can ensure that this danger today does not escalate into a tragedy tomorrow.”

So yeah, there’s obviously a number of huge problems with this. Sex offender registries are already seen as highly controversial and potentially ineffective. The majority of people on them aren’t the kind of scary “sexual predators” out to grab kids that the media and politicians like to suggest. In some cases they include people who were caught urinating in public or having consensual sex in semi-public areas. In other words, the vast majority of people on the list have zero interest or likelihood of using the game to go hunting for victims.

On top of that, banning the playing of all online games is a pretty major step in potentially ruining the lives of people trying to get back on track. Banning a specific subset of people from playing Pokemon Go alone would be incredibly difficult, but banning the playing of all online games in an age when even single player games often have an online component? It’s quite frankly impossible.

Meanwhile, such a ban would do nothing to stop a child molester from simply hanging out near obvious “pokestops” without ever having to fire up the game.

Cuomo’s reaction appears driven by a new report by New York State Senators Jeffrey D. Klein and Diane J. Savino. The report took a list of 100 registered sex offenders across New York City, and compared it to locations where Pokemon Go players gather to fight monsters or collect in-game items. They found 59 instances where a pok?stop or “gym” was within half a block of a sex offenders’ home. Granted this being the dense grid that is Manhattan, your chance of being near a sex offender’s residence at any given moment is already arguably very high.

In short we’re talking about potentially demolishing a life for playing games, using new rules that won’t be enforceable anyway. That’s before you even get to the potential constitutional questions about the freedom of assembly and due process. All so, let’s be honest, Cuomo and other politicians can piggyback on the Pokemon Go phenomenon in order to promote themselves as selfless defenders of tots and toddlers.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: niantic

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “New York Makes Playing Pokemon Go, Other Online Games A Sex Offender Parole Violation”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
33 Comments
OldMugwump (profile) says:

Re: predatory types using Pokemon Go to attract victims

How does banning the predators from playing the game help?

The players are the potential victims; not the offenders.

The predators can hang out and wait for victims whether they play the game or not.

If if that weren’t the case, how would this ban help? These people are felons – if the existing penalties are not enough to discourage them, how is adding a law against playing the game going to make any difference?

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re:

No. No. No. He could better deploy law enforcement patrols yes but blocking gaming almost entirely is just adding salt to the wound of people trying to rehabilitate. We already screw people for life when they ae convicted for something disregarding the fact that they will probably not do it again unless, of course, we close all the doors and opportunities like we already do.

So no, It is wrong. The sex offenders list is wrong. Law enforcement is full of bullshit nowadays, we don’t need more of it.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I’ve read stories about assaults & robberies…
Please provide links to stories about murder & rape cases.

Imagine if instead of defaulting to someone on the sex offender registry (which has been stuffed with people who have never harmed or tried to harm a child) that they added the ‘out of the way’ pokestops of routine patrol patterns. Or contacted Niantic and pointed out that specific pokestops are in dangerous areas, could they be moved to better locations?

This is grandstanding for the soundbite, to solve a problem that doesn’t seem to actually exist, so that people on a list (who many of us would never have agreed to put on that list) have their world crushed that much smaller.
Would citizens think this was such a grand idea if they knew they were paying to keep someone who peed in an alley in jail because of a game?
Would citizens think this was such a grand idea if they knew they were paying to keep someone who kissed their 1 yr younger girlfriend in jail because of a game?
Would citizens think this was such a grand idea if they knew they were paying to keep someone who mooned his buddies in jail because of a game?
Would citizens think this was such a grand idea if they knew they were paying to keep someone who decided to send a naked pic to a significant other who was 2 yrs older in jail because of a game?

Maybe instead of rushing through policies to grab soundbites, perhaps look at how broken they have made the registry. When an alley peeer gets the same rejection for a place to live or work that someone who actually raped a child… the list is broken.

trollificus (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Perfect. Great comment.

But all meaningless to a pandering scum politician like Cuomo. Not only is the list a tragic joke, but the ongoing expansion of “restricted activities” and locations (“not within 1,000 yards of school/candy store/daycare/cute puppy, etc”) for people on said flawed list calls into question the entire philosophy of incarceration-as-punishment.

We HAVE punishments in the books for these crimes. When the punishments have been meted out…the State’s done. They don’t get to add punishments, inconveniences or petty humiliations to the sentence.

If Cuomo really cared about da chirrens, he’d have these bad people castrated or murdered, or both. AND shunned! Honestly, it seems the patience The State has for the inconveniences presented it by laws and the justice system seems to be growing shorter and shorter. I won’t be surprised by the introduction of a “We Can Do Anything We Want Because Pedophiles and Terrorists Act”

(though I’m pretty sure anyone who points this out is automatically considered a pedophile apologist, amirite?)

Anonymous Coward says:

> new avenues for dangerous predators to prey on new victims, …

Now if only it were true that “only by playing Pokemon Go” would “children who play Pokemon Go” be “in danger”. After all, it’s not like predators would actually need to PLAY the game to be … whatever danger they are going to be.

Why not ban LOTTO as well? After all, LOTTO tickets are sold at corner stores, places where teens are known to hang out….

Joel says:

It's getting ridiculous

Firstly it is ridiculous to ban everyone on the list from playing any online game, because it’s unenforcable even with help of the publishers.

Secondly even if it was enforcable it’s not effective. Assuming the behaviours of the young players (i.e. wandering around at night in dangerous places without supervision) is abused by any predators, then how is banning them from playing any help. There are already websites that map out the gameworld so players can cheat and find better pokemon than the ones they encounter on foot. Those same maps list important points like pokecenters or arenas. That way a predator could gain the same information he got from playing even easier from using those websites. If he didn’t know about the website he could still simply observe where children amass and lay in wait at the same point at night. Zero effect from the ban.

And lastly we have to consider civil liberties. I know that standing up for people who have violated others rights is highly unpopular but it needs to be said. You can’t simply ban every behaviour that could in some way increase the risk to others, you have to weight the liberties of those who have previously offended too. If we didn’t do that then the logical conclusion would be to never let any offender out of prison again. Now granted you could argue that it’s a comparatively small limitation of the previous offenders rights and that it’s worth it. Of course it could only ever be worth it if it was effective (see second point above) and even then you’d have to take care to only limit the ban to the least restrictions necessary and to the group necessary to reach your goal, which neither of which this proposal does.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: It's getting ridiculous

explain to me what “And lastly we have to consider civil liberties.” those are?

People are asking for every possible regulation or law to solve every pesky and minor hangnail they are in convenience with.

Every time someone says “there ought to be a law” or “we need regulation” are really just saying, “I want less liberty for those guys cause it annoys me”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: It's getting ridiculous

Or perhaps instead it’s that sometimes government regulation is appropriate and sometimes it isn’t, and that which of these cases applies is a matter of differing reasons and opinion.

Wholesale anti-regulation bullshit is why Comcast gets to be Lord and Master of so many people’s internet connections.

Sometimes there really ought to be a law.

Joel says:

Re: Re: It's getting ridiculous

I guess there is no fancy name for this. Maybe it figures into pursuit of happiness. Basically the freedom to do anything that doesn’t restrict the rights of others. Whenever a law restricts people in their behaviour it needs to be for the protection of others. Maybe I’m not making myself very clear, I’m struggeling with finding the proper English terms here.

What I mean is that even people who have previously been punished for a crime are still afforded the right to participate in society like any other citizen after the punishment*. Sometimes they have that right restricted, say by not being allowed near schools, but then it’s weighed against the right to bodily integrity of the children and society considers that trade off worth it. Sometimes it goes so far to negate this right outright and people are kept behind bars even after their punishment has been served, when they pose too great of a danger to society.

So I’m not saying that right is not to be restricted, that would be ludicrous, even free speech etc have restrictions, but I insist that at least some thought needs to be given to how far you restrict rights for questionable gain. Even if the one to be restricted is on the sexual offenders list.

I.T. Guy says:

Political grandstanding at it’s “finest.”

“”The State has taken action to prohibit sex offenders from using this game, but we need your assistance to make certain that sex offenders will not continue to use Pokémon GO by technologically barring their use. Working together, we can ensure that this danger today does not escalate into a tragedy tomorrow.””

“The State has taken action to prohibit sex offenders from using this game”
Um no Como… you did no such thing. What you did do was make it a parole violation if caught, nothing to prohibit it’s use.

“but we need your assistance to make certain that sex offenders will not continue to use Pokémon GO by technologically barring their use.”
Ahhh… you want a magical golden unicorn that farts gold dust. Done and done. /s

“”Working together, we can ensure that this danger today does not escalate into a tragedy tomorrow.””
And by together I mean you… all you smart people MUST be able to find a way right? (See unicorns)

No wonder these morons think that you can have a golden key to encryption. What complete emotional bullshit. But hey… at least he is DOING SOMETHING right??? /s

Anonymous Coward says:

unicorns

“”Working together, we can ensure that this danger today does not escalate into a tragedy tomorrow.””
And by together I mean you… all you smart people MUST be able to find a way right? (See unicorns)

“We’re sorry, all unicorns are currently busy trying to assist the FBI with encryption/backdoor solutions.

Please call back later… thank you.”

John85851 (profile) says:

What about people on the murderer's registry?

Once again, why are we singling out sex offenders? Hear me out…

Suppose you murder a child, get arrested, and get sentenced to 30 years in jail. When you get out, you don’t have to go a on “murderer’s registry” and notify your neighbors about your past. Yet if you urinate in public and get caught, you could be put on the sex offender registry… even though didn’t harm anyone. And now you can’t play Pokemon Go because you had to pee and couldn’t find a bathroom? How is this considered fair?

Anon says:

Of course...

The fastest growing category of sex offender is teenager. This is because a case where the girlfriend is slightly below the age of consent is an easy one to prosecute – it boosts the DA’s numbers and assuages the girl’s parents. They problem is, for these offenders,doing what comes naturally puts them on a list that slightly older guys would avoid.

The list was intended for “dangerous” sex offenders – ones attracted to prepubescent children (and caught acting on it), violent rapists, and incurable exhibitionists (i.e. gratuitous repeat offenders). Unfortunately, there are not enough of these to make the DA’s look good, so it’s expanded to encompass everyone and everything, like the Patriot Act – “Did we say stop terrorists? We meant all suspected criminals who might in the future have something to do with these heinous acts…” Since when do 14-year-old girls sending nude selfies qualify as sex offenders, except in a world where DA’s want to boost their numbers or use it as a threat to make them accept a deal.

I put 100 sex offenders on the registry!” Never mind that 95 of them were 17-year-old boys; nobody looks into that. That boast will help the DA get elected.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...