Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chatroulette To Log IP Addresses, Take Screenshots

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the price-of-fame dept.

Privacy 194

littlekorea writes "Chatroulette, the strangely addictive online game in which users are connected via webcam and microphone to random strangers at the click of a button, has had enough of users exposing themselves to the unsuspecting public, among other disgraces. The founder of Chatroulette has announced the company has hired developers to collect IP addresses and take screenshots of those users breaking the rules."

cancel ×

194 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And Then What Will You Do With It? (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#33043914)

Chatroulette, the strangely addictive online game ...

So you're strangely addicted to staring at male genetalia [slashdot.org] ? I think we all just learned a little something about littlekorea.

That is by far the most positive review of that web site I have ever encountered. Personally I've used the service precisely once. Discovering what happened during that usage is left as an exercise to the reader.

The founder of Chatroulette has announced the company has hired developers to collect IP addresses and take screenshots of those users breaking the rules.

And then what? Actually it sounds like they have already done this:

"We've captured and saved thousands of IP addresses of alleged offenders, along with logs and screenshots which prove wrong behaviour.

"We are initiating a conversation with enforcement agencies and we are willing to provide all the information we have."

Are they going to press charges? Do you think that site created by a lone developer has the legal resources to do that against that many offenders? Do you really think any law enforcement agency has the resources to investigate thousands of complaints with little more than a screenshot of someone's junk and their IP address? It's the internet. Your effort is futile. What ever happened to the recognition software? Has that already fallen through? Too many false positives? Light problems?

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#33043968)

Do you really think any law enforcement agency has the resources to investigate thousands of complaints with little more than a screenshot of someone's junk and their IP address?

Maybe if the IP address resolved to Whitehouse.gov. Don't you miss Bill Clinton?

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33044044)

Do you really think any law enforcement agency has the resources to investigate thousands of complaints with little more than a screenshot of someone's junk and their IP address?

Maybe if the IP address resolved to Whitehouse.gov. Don't you miss Bill Clinton?

Number of my countrymen to be killed or wounded while Clinton nailed a fat secretary: 0. Number of my countrymen to be killed or wounded from the two wars started and unfinished during Bush's administration: 5,589 [washingtonpost.com] and rising.

And which one did we try to impeach? Yeah, I kinda do miss Clinton.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (4, Funny)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044218)

That just doesn't say a whole lot about Bill's stamina.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33045012)

god if i had mod points, you'd be getting a +1 funny right now

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (4, Informative)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044224)

Number of my countrymen to be killed or wounded while Clinton nailed a fat secretary: 0

While not nearly approaching Bush's exploits, we had many military actions during the Clinton years.
Somalia/Bosnia/Kosovo/Afghanistan/Sudan/Desert Fox in Iraq. And it was far more than '0' killed/wounded.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (0, Troll)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044362)

Not only that but I give Clinton some credit for the 9/11 attacks as well with his do nothing stance on the first WTC bombings and the attack on the USS Cole. Lets just say that lately we have had some real fucking bad presidents in the US. Or you could pretend that one side has done good and the other is evil.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33044786)

his do nothing stance

Three words: "Wagging the dog". His stance was forced on him by Republicans who claimed he was trying to drive bad news about him out of the press every time he tried to do something about the Taliban. It IS his fault that he didn't stand up to those craven losers who put their political power plays above American security interests.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (-1, Flamebait)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044928)

Of course you are correct. The president can not be expected to ever stand up and do what is right. He must always bow to opinion polls and get re-elected because that is what we send a president to do.

Or. You can count your anonymous self as one of those democrat fanboys and STFU.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33045800)

So...

1) You tell me EXACTLY what George W. Bush did in response to the USS Cole which occurred (October 2000) at the tail-end of Clinton's term. The final report fingering the perpetrators was released in JANUARY 2001

2) "Do-nothing stance with regards to the 1993 WTC incident?" I would be happy to take:
[a] Captured those responsible
[b] kept foreign terrorism out for the remainder of term

3) Google this phrase: "...FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings"

[But don't worry, you're an apologist so you don't have to think just hear what you want to hear.]

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044608)

Number of my countrymen to be killed or wounded while Clinton nailed a fat secretary: 0
 
That means you're not from Kosovo.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#33045162)

or Oklahoma... or Waco, TX... or Ruby Ridge, ID...or that little Commie kid's closet in Florida.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (1)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 4 years ago | (#33045680)

I'm sure all of the family and friends of the 19 men killed and 84 wounded in Mogadishu [wikipedia.org] appreciate you telling them that now we don't even consider them our countrymen in addition to withdrawing and sweeping them under the rug after their mission failed.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33045940)

Number of my countrymen to be killed or wounded while Clinton nailed a fat secretary: 0. Number of my countrymen to be killed or wounded from the two wars started and unfinished during Bush's administration: 5,589 [washingtonpost.com] and rising.

Don't forget the Afghani and Iraqi civilians that were killed, either. For Iraq, Iraq Body Count [iraqbodycount.org] currently gives a figure of around 100,000, and that's only those that are directly attributable.

There's the Lancet studies [wikipedia.org] , too, which estimated the number of civilians killed in Iraq as a result of the invasion as ~650,000 in 2006 already. Extrapolate from there, and I'd bet it's more than a million now.

And that's just Iraq: we haven't said a single word about Afghanistan yet.

All this only serves to further strengthen your point, of course, but I felt it was important to point it out. ~5000 American soldiers having died is bad, yes. Millions of foreign civilians having died is even worse.

That's the kind of president we had for 8 years.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#33046140)

And which one did we try to impeach?

They actually impeached Clinton, there was no try.

I -tried- to impeach Bush, but no one took me seriously. Maybe if I hadn't been drunk...

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (1)

pushf popf (741049) | more than 4 years ago | (#33046148)

Number of my countrymen to be killed or wounded while Clinton nailed a fat secretary: 0. Number of my countrymen to be killed or wounded from the two wars started and unfinished during Bush's administration: 5,589 and rising. And which one did we try to impeach? Yeah, I kinda do miss Clinton.

No shit.

In any case, I think one of the perks of being president is that you should be able have all the girls you want, legally. And for some reason, I don't think there would be a shortage of volunteers willing to do the president.

A happy president is a president who isn't wandering around the world waving his dick at foreign leaders.

In any case, the penalty for attacking the US should be death. Not widespread war; just kill the specific assholes who attacked us. The idea of invading an entire country and expecting a good outcome is both ludicrous and outdated. We need more "ninja assassin" types and much better intelligence. Not more guns and bigger bombs

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044040)

Is it even illegal to expose yourself to a stranger over the internet? It might be a violation of the AUP/ToS, but that doesn't necessarily make it illegal. It's hard to prove theft of services when you aren't charging a fee and you don't have to apply even a digital signature to gain access to the site. IIRC all you really have to do is verify an email address. Unless you're displaying yourself to a child (even unknowingly is probably enough to get you in trouble) it seems likely to go nowhere.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (2, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044160)

No, unless it is. For instance, if you’re displaying yourself to a child... and you’d probably have to be doing so knowingly, or at least without having taken any basic sort of steps to ensure that the person you’re talking to is over 18 (if they claim to be, that’s probably good enough unless it’s pretty obvious that they aren’t).

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044332)

"But she said she was 18" isn't a valid defense.

Unintentional violation of the law is still violation.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33044420)

And yet "But she said she was 17" is a valid crime, if the said she is actually a middle aged FBI agent. How does that work then?

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (2, Insightful)

Sethumme (1313479) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044654)

Intent to commit an act that is criminalized (whether you recognize that it is or not makes no difference) can be prosecuted if actual steps were taken to complete that act.
Completing an act that is strictly outlawed by statute is a crime regardless of the intent. The risk is wholly upon the actor if they get too close to the line.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (4, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044520)

That’s not necessarily true. It can be a valid defense, depending on the laws in your state. For instance...

MO Revised Statutes, section 566.020 [mo.gov] :

Mistake as to incapacity or age--consent not a defense, when.

566.020. 1. Whenever in this chapter the criminality of conduct depends upon a victim's being incapacitated, no crime is committed if the actor reasonably believed that the victim was not incapacitated and reasonably believed that the victim consented to the act. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of belief as to capacity and consent.

2. Whenever in this chapter the criminality of conduct depends upon a child being thirteen years of age or younger, it is no defense that the defendant believed the child to be older.

3. Whenever in this chapter the criminality of conduct depends upon a child being under seventeen years of age, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant reasonably believed that the child was seventeen years of age or older.

4. Consent is not an affirmative defense to any offense under chapter 566 if the alleged victim is less than twelve years of age.

In short, if the person was under the age of thirteen / twelve (depending on the particular law being violated), you have no defense of “I thought he/she was old enough” (yeah... right). However, if the criminality of the act hinges on believing the person to be 17 (the age of consent is 17), and you reasonably believed that they were 17 and consented to the act, that is a valid defense against criminal charges.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 4 years ago | (#33046136)

In short, if the person was under the age of thirteen / twelve (depending on the particular law being violated), you have no defense of "I thought he/she was old enough" (yeah... right).

Unless you're in Ireland, where this is actually a defense as criminal law assumes criminal intent. But it only works if you're a nice young man, not a dirty old codger, as confirmed by the Irish supreme court. I'm not making this up; google the "Mr. A Case".

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (1)

duguk (589689) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044534)

"But she said she was 18" isn't a valid defense.

Unintentional violation of the law is still violation.

You want Chatroulette users to ask to see a Passport or Drivers Licence first?

I can see massive privacy violations and identity theft with that...

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (1)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044662)

It seems the point you may be missing is, chatroulette doesn't want to be in that business in the first place; hence TFA.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#33045850)

Thankfully, that is impossible for participants of chat roulette to do, the only thing anyone displays anything to is their computer, via webcam.

Last I checked there was no law that you could not display yourself to a webcam, or even post it online.

It's not your responsibility to prevent children from reaching your website or chat roulette's website, that's their parents' responsibility..

I've yet to hear of anyone being sued for failing to prevent underage access to their porn site.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (2, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044354)

In the UK we have a law called "Indecent Exposure", under which you can be prosecuted if you expose yourself to someone who had a reasonable expectation that you wouldn't (so it excludes your sexual partners, someone who walks in on you peeing, stripper nights etc) - why does the inclusion of the term "over the internet" change matters with regard to this law?

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (2, Insightful)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044426)

after about a few days of chat-roulette, any person checking it out on the internet would have reasonably expected to see some wang, so by that logic it is now legal to show your wedding-tacle on chat-roulette

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (2, Funny)

hldn (1085833) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044936)

the internet is for porn.

expect to see penises around every corner.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (1, Funny)

RMS Eats Toejam (1693864) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044118)

I think we all just learned a little something about littlekorea.

Chatroulette might have a lot of penises, but you're the biggest dick around these parts.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (4, Insightful)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044162)

So you're strangely addicted to staring at male genetalia

No, it's serendipity, not knowing what (experience) you'll get next, it might be something way out of your frame of reference, which gives a sense of something possibly entirely new by the click of a button.

While for others it's a way to express themselves creatively, experiment and test the boundaries in a social setting without negative consequences.

You were quasi annonymous, you could reinvent yourself over while knowing your chatpartner wont see or meet you again if you don't want to, while testing how to entertain, shock or interact with people.

It's just normal that such a platform brings out also sexual fantasies and desires in people, but there's a whole lot more to such a platform imho.

fe. see the piano dude [youtube.com] , as there are many more of these type of people.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (4, Funny)

gazbo (517111) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044180)

Personally I've used the service precisely once. Discovering what happened during that usage is left as an exercise to the reader.

You told a 13 year old girl to show boobs?

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33044544)

Personally I've used the service precisely once. Discovering what happened during that usage is left as an exercise to the reader.

You told a 13 year old girl to show boobs?

Interesting?! What is up with the moderation these days?

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (1)

aradnik (1831756) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044674)

and she didn't?

seriously though, one site less doesn't solve much. it's a matter of a fucked up society and education system... (though a simple radio button asking for the chatters age might avoid some of the unpleasant meetings... in an ideal world)

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33044874)

"and she didn't?"

More like couldn't. You know, because 13 year olds don't really have boobs... get it? No? I'll just go hang myself in the closet now...

"seriously though, one site less doesn't solve much. it's a matter of a fucked up society and education system... (though a simple radio button asking for the chatters age might avoid some of the unpleasant meetings... in an ideal world)"

Yeah, because nobody under 18 would ever click the button that says "yes, I'm over 18." That would be lying, and kids are all totally honest about everything.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (1)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 4 years ago | (#33045738)

Must never seem US 13 year olds. My niece was considering breast reduction surgery at the ripe old age of 14. Finally got it when she was 20. They grow up quick now a days.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 4 years ago | (#33045040)

she couldn't.....

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#33045456)

Of course, because there is no medical condition [wikipedia.org] that might make that possible. (durrr)

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044356)

Are they going to press charges? Do you think that *if that site handed over everything to the media companies, the RIAA has the legal resources to do that* against that many offenders with little more than a screenshot of someone's junk and their IP address?

Fixed that for you.

Gives new meaning to "this dick is a pirate".

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044442)

I can already picture the naked penis police lineup to match the penis pictures to the correct IPs. Wait a minute, ChatRoulette does that already!!!

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (2, Funny)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044484)

What ever happened to the recognition software? Has that already fallen through? Too many false positives? Light problems?

Junk recognition software?

"...just because the pictures aren't of your faces doesn't mean we can't identify you. At this very moment those pictures are on their way to Washington where the FBI has experts in this type of identification. If you turn yourselves in now, you may escape a Federal charge. "

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33044904)

Dude, did you just quote Grease on /.?

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (1)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | more than 4 years ago | (#33045010)

Just as I lose points for quoting it, you lose points for admitting you recognize it.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (1)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044572)

"Are they going to press charges? Do you think that site created by a lone developer has the legal resources to do that against that many offenders?"

Based on their quotes about willingness to share information with "enforcement agencies", it rather sounds like they believe the offenders are violating criminal law and hoping the state will prosecute accordingly. If that's so, they don't really need legal resources. That would be more a question if they wanted to pursue civil litigation (such as claiming damages in the context of a ToS violation), but it doesn't sound like they want to do that (probably because they lack the legal resources).

I don't know what criminal laws they suspect are being violated, and I don't know if they're right.

But the point is, the concept of "pressing charges" as seen in TV and movies is bunk. You as an individual can pursue civil litigation, but the decision of whether to pursue criminal prosecution belongs to the authorities. You can tip them off, ask them to investigate, give them what information you have; and then they decide what to do, at the taxpayer's expense.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (2, Funny)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044842)

So instead of a steady live stream of male genitalia pix they will be compiling an archive of genitalia pix?

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044916)

The founder of Chatroulette has announced the company has hired developers to collect IP addresses and take screenshots of those users breaking the rules.

And then what?

Then apparently they'll have no users. Would be simpler to just pull the plug, I think.

Re:And Then What Will You Do With It? (2, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#33045496)

Not to mention it is only gonna take just one of those "offenders" to be but a single day under 18 and they are collecting CP! You know, just when you think you've reached the bottom of the barrel when it comes to stupidity, someone comes along and shows you that if you just lift up the barrel you can dig even deeper! Dumb dumb dumb.

Too many dudes... (1, Offtopic)

AmazinglySmooth (1668735) | more than 4 years ago | (#33043962)

There are just too many dudes even if they have clothes on, so I stopped "playing".

Re:Too many dudes... (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044130)

Maybe if there were a lot *less* guys flashing their dicks, there would be a lot *more* women on the service.

Re:Too many dudes... (4, Interesting)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 4 years ago | (#33045124)

shouldn't there simply be some kind of dickroulette for people who want to show/see them?

Come on.... there's EVERYTHING on the internet!

Proof: http://xkcd.com/305/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Too many dudes... (3, Informative)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#33045482)

Go look up manroullette. It does exist.

Re:Too many dudes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33045622)

They actually have that already. it's called www.chatroulette.com

pr0n (5, Interesting)

Speare (84249) | more than 4 years ago | (#33043992)

So they're trying to rid the problem of flashers on Chatroulette, by capturing images? What happens when the flasher is a minor? Or even hint that some flashers are minors? Boom, easy way to get rid of Chatroulette.

Re:pr0n (2, Funny)

Reilaos (1544173) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044062)

Worse yet, a screenshot of one of those child-flashers winds up used in one of those "grow your penis 4 inches in a week" ads.

Re:pr0n (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044238)

Well, now we all know what sites YOU've been frequenting lately.

Re:pr0n (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33045954)

Any page with AdSense?

Re:pr0n (3, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044268)

As long as they send it straight to the feds they’re just gathering evidence.

Re:pr0n (0, Redundant)

aradnik (1831756) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044548)

is that what you call it these days?

yeah right... (1)

aradnik (1831756) | more than 4 years ago | (#33043998)

sounds kinda odd for a site like that to do this, are they trying to scare people away? sounds like a lie to quite down complaints to me...

Re:yeah right... (0)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044092)

sounds kinda odd for a site like that to do this, are they trying to scare people away?

      They're probably trying to stay out of jail. Everyone knows that Chatroulette's "anonymity" is exploited to convince young girls to reveal their breasts, among other things.

Re:yeah right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33044192)

sounds kinda odd for a site like that to do this, are they trying to scare people away?

      They're probably trying to stay out of jail. Everyone knows that Chatroulette's "anonymity" is exploited to convince young girls to reveal their breasts, among other things.

So they'll just go back to stickam, which hasn't gotten shut down even though they've been allowing the same thing for years. Their moderation garbage is a joke.

I misread part of the summary ... (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044068)

as ''at the dick of a button'' -- which seems more in keeping with the story anyway!

9 proxies (4, Funny)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044110)

I went through them. Good luck.

Re:9 proxies (1)

aradnik (1831756) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044500)

but did you remove that id tag from your shirt yet? ...

Re:9 proxies (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#33045004)

but did you remove that id tag from your shirt yet? ...

No but he added 8 more...

Re:9 proxies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33045320)

because streaming realtime video through 9 proxies works oh so well. And yes, I get the reference, it just doesn't make any sense.

master-bait and switch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33044120)

Well this is a pretty stupid idea. Whats going to happen when they haul away billy's dad for whipping out his dick on cam, the whole while it was 13 year old billy.

If they do end up going after these people they are going to open themselves up for slander lawsuits, which might not be a bad thing considering how out of touch the creater of the site is.

Re:master-bait and switch (2, Funny)

iamnobody2 (859379) | more than 4 years ago | (#33045674)

i thought the creator of this site was Mr Wong from Wong Burger, and it seemed like he knew what he was doing. It does take a lot of dicks to make a dickship.

Yeah, great idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33044136)

A little tip if you are naming a website or service, DON'T PUT ROULETTE IN THE NAME IF IT HAS RULES.

Hypocrite.

Re:Yeah, great idea (2, Funny)

duguk (589689) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044606)

Don't put roulette in the name if it has rules.

Seriously? I've got some people to inform then...

BRB - Gone to Las Vegas...

Idiot.

The internet has RULES? (1, Funny)

whoda (569082) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044164)

How come nobody told me this 15 years ago.

Re:The internet has RULES? (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044558)

Of course the internet has rules [encycloped...matica.com] !. At least one of them is rather famous too.

parent link contains NSFW banner ads (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044652)

Oops, forgot to mention NSFW banner ads.

Unintended consequences (5, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044176)

Wow, the law of unintended consequences sure bit them hard? I mean, who would have guessed that combining anonymity with video cameras resulted in distasteful or illegal images? You would have had to be Al Gore to see that one coming. No ordinary person would have predicted this outcome.

Re:Unintended consequences (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044522)

who would have guessed that combining anonymity with video cameras resulted in distasteful or illegal images? You would have had to be Al Gore to see that one coming. No ordinary person would have predicted this outcome.

Yeah, who could have seen that one comming

ahem... http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2005/20050314h.jpg [penny-arcade.com]

Re:Unintended consequences (1)

InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044684)

And all this time I thought the point of Chatroulette was to dick around...

Re:Unintended consequences (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044884)

They should have just named it ChatRussianRoulette, since that's what you're playing each time you connect.

Flawed business model = creepy users (4, Insightful)

adosch (1397357) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044242)

What did Chatroulette think was going to happen when they thought diving into the realms of social networking and adding the element of live video feed of everyone who is on there to anyone wanting to look? It's, of course, easier for an exposer or behaviorally creepy basement dweller to crawl out of their cave online than it is in public.

...but enough of the social network rant. I'm glad to see Chatroulette policing up their mess and trying to enforce some sort of civil 'net etiquette, but someone is going to throw the privacy flag up on this one. Let's be real here: it's a bird's eye view directly into A LOT of homes. Regardless of the intention to track IP addresses and gather screenshots, I can easily seeing this getting abused if it isn't controlled or greed doesn't rear it's ugly head into this.

Re:Flawed business model = creepy users (2, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044350)

What did Chatroulette think was going to happen when they thought diving into the realms of social networking and adding the element of live video feed of everyone who is on there to anyone wanting to look? It's, of course, easier for an exposer or behaviorally creepy basement dweller to crawl out of their cave online than it is in public.

Throw in the whole concept of being anonymous and you have a service that is inevitably doomed for exactly what they’ve become.

...but enough of the social network rant. I'm glad to see Chatroulette policing up their mess and trying to enforce some sort of civil 'net etiquette

Utterly futile. As DNS-and-BIND sarcastically pointed out, internet anonymity combined with video cameras is a recipe for ... this. Chatroulette is not simply flawed; it is fatally flawed. It cannot be anything but what it is.

The only way that they could even attempt to stop the crapflood is by having a large moderator group issuing IP and cookie bans immediately to offensive users... and that would be largely ineffective because most of those users probably know how to delete their cookies and reset their IP address or use a proxy while surfing.

Re:Flawed business model = creepy users (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 4 years ago | (#33045218)

Utterly futile. As DNS-and-BIND sarcastically pointed out, internet anonymity combined with video cameras is a recipe for ... this. Chatroulette is not simply flawed; it is fatally flawed. It cannot be anything but what it is.

Yes. And it's so obvious, that I wouldn't even dare call it a 'flaw'. It is SO obvious, that it might be the whole point of starting something like chatroulette.

Re:Flawed business model = creepy users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33044858)

wait till they annouce google has bought chatroulette. google knows what my house looks like,what i search and that appendix operation scar i had when i was 12

Re:Flawed business model = creepy users (2, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044882)

but someone is going to throw the privacy flag up on this one. Let's be real here: it's a bird's eye view directly into A LOT of homes.

Are you kidding me? Its a bird's eye view into your home if and only if you do not control the happenings in your home. It is not Chat-roulettes responsibility to nanny everybody so that somebody doesn't see the wrong thing and become psychologically damaged. I am not condoning that, I am just saying place responsibility where it belongs. If you go to chat roulette and see some guy doing the naked-dance, well, congratulations, welcome to the internet. If your kids get on your computer and see some guys junk, does that make that guy a sex offender? Or are you responsibility for not securing your computer from accessing 'illicit' sites in the first place, and properly administering your network.

The internet provides access to the vast majority of mankind's output, be it good, bad, illegal, disturbing, morally reprehensible, strange, intelligent, pointless, or just plain sexual. It is everything. It is information. Content. Everything. It is our modern day 'tree-of-knowledge', exposing you to the good and bad in the world. Some folks can't handle the power of the tree, and decide to monitor, filter, and penalize anything of questionable content.

So the folks out there who want the guy flopping his junk around sued for [insert frivo suit here], nobody is forcing you to sit down on your computer, browse to chatroulette, and click that damn next button. People who trade personal responsibility for bitching and moaning will have, well, will slowly deteriorate many of the sweet things we enjoy today, all to be traded in for a nanny-net.

Good snapshot (1)

RenHoek (101570) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044450)

So they'll have snapshots of Kirk Johnson (aka Goatse.cx guy [knowyourmeme.com] ) showing his wares to the world? I mean why would I dangle my own privates on Chatroulette when Manycam [manycam.com] makes it so easy to put much more interesting vista's [encycloped...matica.com] on the screen?

Do they still enforce their bans with easily deleted flash cookies?

You dun goofed (1)

MikeyO (99577) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044466)

Because they backtraced it. And they called the cyber police.

Cease to exist (1)

SuperStretchy (1018064) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044482)

Now I know that chatroulette is already irrelevant, but doesn't this nix 99% of its userbase?

Uh oh (1)

Wh15per (1526101) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044546)

.. in othernews, the Tor network has seen a five fold increase in bandwidth traffic...

Re:Uh oh (1)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#33046128)

You plan to rely on Tor to access a service that wants to know your IP address?

I guess maybe I'm not familiar enough with Tor, but why wouldn't chatroulette just refuse traffic from the Tor exit nodes?

Just rename it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33044562)

to GloryHoleRoulette and then you're good to go.

Seems like a business plan to me (1)

Exitar (809068) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044696)

Take screenshots & IP of people jerking on a cam, then blackmail them.

CP (2, Insightful)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 4 years ago | (#33044918)

so they are going to start by collecting what is technically child pornography and do what with it?

UN laws? (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#33045006)

We've started collecting information, such as IP addresses, logs and screen captures of offenders who actually break US/UN laws

Really? The UN wishes that it had jurisdiction over individual behavior but that doesn't make it true.

Re:UN laws? (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 4 years ago | (#33045200)

UN Laws as far as I can tell seem to only apply to countries, unless you are a pirate (Real, not copyright violator) or a war criminal?

Re:UN laws? (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33046084)

Which is your disquiet? The UN can pass 'laws', can it not? Are you chafing at chatroulette's willful compliance, or what? I'm not seeing the panty-wrinkling here.

Chatroulette (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#33045042)

A good idea crippled by human failings. Too bad. I have a hard time believing that the founders didn't think that it would serve as a platform for ugly old men to masturbate to each other though.

Now it's just a matter of time ... (2, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#33045182)

... until someone in a country where that doesn't matter launches an identical service and the game starts all over again.

Did they actually spy on couples? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33045494)

How did they grab the ip-adresses and the screenshots? Have they been spying on all the users all this time, and taken screenshots of all the nastiest stuff? I mean, isn't that illegal in itself, or did they warn people that their session would be recorded and watched? For how long did they keep the screenshots of CP, before announcing that they would go to the authorities?

I think i'll install cameras in our public restrooms to ensure no unlawful conduct or masturbation takes place, and if it does, I'll record it (and maybe go to the authorities at a later time).

well... (1)

thelonious (233200) | more than 4 years ago | (#33045514)

There goes my Friday nights.

Can someone explain the psychological... (1)

pongo000 (97357) | more than 4 years ago | (#33046092)

...underpinnings that would drive a male to show his genitalia? Seriously...WTF is going through these people's minds? Do they think they're funny? Are they true predators? Are they incredibly proud of their package? I'm just trying to understand here...

chatroulette espionage (5, Interesting)

magro (1674958) | more than 4 years ago | (#33046156)

You might not be aware of this but any user can collect IP addresses and record ENTIRE video footage from random chatroulette users. I explained how in my blog http://fernandomagro.com/security/chatroulette-espionage/ [fernandomagro.com] . Anyway the concept is really simple because an attacker can open an even number of connections to chatroulette (2,4,6,etc) and then redirect the streams to each other. Say, I open connection1 and connection2 then I capture stream from connection2 and dump it as my primary webcam to connection1 and I capture connection1 and dump it as my secondary webcam to connection2. Only a tiny bit of linux hacking is needed.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>