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!

Competition To Identify Sexual Predators In Chat Logs

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the I-see-what-you-wrote-there dept.

Communications 273

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers from the University of Lugano, Switzerland, and other universities from the U.S. and Europe organize a competition to automatically identify sexual predators in chat logs. The task is described as: 'The goal of this sub-task is to identify classes of authors, namely online predators. You will be given chat logs involving two (or more) people and have to determine who is the one trying to convince the other participants(s) to provide some sexual favor. You will also need to identify the particular conversation where the person exploits his bad behavior.' Their data set covers hundreds of chat logs with dozens of true positives (i.e., chats where one is trying to hit on another)."

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

what about (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563373)

all those false positives

Re:what about (2)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563515)

I think they could mine bash.org for a sampling to base their algorithm on. Unfortunately they'd have to wade through discussions of horse porn and tabletop role playing game issues before they could establish a firm model to follow...

Re:what about (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563961)

I think they could mine bash.org for a sampling to base their algorithm on. Unfortunately they'd have to wade through discussions of horse porn and tabletop role playing game issues before they could establish a firm model to follow...

That broke it, too... Back to the drawing board.

Re:what about (4, Funny)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39564029)

and tabletop role playing game issues

I put on my robe and wizard hat...

Re:what about (1)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#39564195)

ASL?

Re:what about (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39564283)

I'm looking for a wizard sleeve [urbandictionary.com]

Re:what about (1)

skids (119237) | more than 2 years ago | (#39564099)

Since they are presenting people with a training set of a mere "hundreds" of chats, they obviously are clueless half-asses, so that would put them at risk of a head explosion.

Re:what about (4, Funny)

Elbart (1233584) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563787)

You mean freedom positives!

Re:what about (5, Insightful)

suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) | more than 2 years ago | (#39564173)

Agreed, I'd feel a lot better if part of this competition was zero (not "acceptably low") false positives. Some backwards places in the world (yes, I am speaking specifically of America) being accused of sex crimes is a Bad Thing and will ruin your entire life, even if the accusation is baseless. It is not acceptable to create an algorithm that will ruin innocent people's lives with some probability, if used for its intended purpose.

Re:what about (1, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | more than 2 years ago | (#39564299)

Thanks to the incomprehensible network of laws, chances are the victims of a false positive are already guilty of something else, so they deserve it.

And I guess America deserves it for continuing to vote Republocrat.

Simple algorithm (4, Interesting)

srussia (884021) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563379)

A/S/L

Re:Simple algorithm (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563493)

Arithmetic shift left...?

Re:Simple algorithm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563591)

"what are you WEARING?"

Re:Simple algorithm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563639)

wat r u wearin?

Re:Simple algorithm (2)

Rasperin (1034758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563897)

Actually that's what I was thinking to, you could cheat the one who says they are 15 is the one who is the predator. (I'm being serious, at least in my generation (I'm in my mid 20's) of internet chatting, the kids were the ones claiming to be 18-25).

Ummm (4, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563387)

automatically identify sexual predators in chat logs

OK sounds good hate those guys

trying to convince the other partecipants(s) to provide some sexual favor

Whoa whoa who here, thats me and my wife not a bunch of predators.

Whoever would have guessed that the govt trying to get into my bedroom would mean they're scanning my chat logs.

I suppose Target store wants to monetize this too...

Re:Ummm (3, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563643)

Do try to differentiate between a computer science exercise and a government policy.

Re:Ummm (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563831)

Do try to differentiate between a computer science exercise and a government policy.

Do try to be a little less naive.

Just scroll down a few stories here on Slashdot and find a UK proposal to scan ALL internet communications in real time [slashdot.org] .

Re:Ummm (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563711)

Well, they say it's a sub-task. Many places allow anyone older than 13 (or rather, who say they're 13 due to COPPA) to sign up. Identifying who is trying to solicit sexual favors from self-identified minors - particularly by self-identified adults - and yes people are that stupid - doesn't sound that unreasonable. Of course if the kids lie and say they're 18+ instead that might be different...

Re:Ummm - NO! (3, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563953)

And of course, its always more palatable to couch surveillance projects in "Somebody Please think of the Children" language.

Re:Ummm - NO! (1)

Kittenman (971447) | more than 2 years ago | (#39564337)

And of course, its always more palatable to couch surveillance projects in "Somebody Please think of the Children" language.

Note - don't use "couch" in a chat log that's likely to be scanned. Prefix it with 'casting', for example...

False positives? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563393)

Not everyone who solicits sexual favors is a "predator". They seem to be making that leap.

Re:False positives? (5, Funny)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563489)

Not everyone who solicits sexual favors is a "predator". They seem to be making that leap.

Hell, some people seemingly solicit for sexual favors when they actually want nothing of the sort. Just the other day, two guys were shouting at each other, and unless this was some kind of passive-aggressive homoerotic fantasy being acted out, the one's invitation, "Suck my dick!" to the other was almost undoubtedly not solicited with any expectation or desire behind it...

Re:False positives? (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563681)

These are both things that make it an interesting problem to work on.

BTW, they call it a competition, but I can't see a prize...

no way this could be abused, no sir... (3, Funny)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563791)

they call it a competition, but I can't see a prize...

Obviously the prize is the ****EPIC**** ****LULZ!!!1!1**** to be had.

Re:False positives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563805)

Well, they'll need to develop a chatbot that acts like a normal person, and a chatbot that acts like a sexual predator, and then all three of the pieces of software could go through a rapid automated evolutionary development process.

Now, what do you do with the piece of software that acts like a predator, though? Put it in car alarms or something?

Re:False positives? (2)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563903)

Now, what do you do with the piece of software that acts like a predator, though? Put it in car alarms or something?

Hmm, if it was smart enough to be able to respond to conversations or situations around it I'd definitely want it on my phone: what better than your phone suddenly joining in a conversation you're having and making awkward sexual advances to you, or having your phone yell obscenities to all the pretties around you on the bus?! If it works as a pick-up method, well, good for you, and if it doesn't you can always just blame your phone!!

Re:False positives? (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563993)

Well, they'll need to develop a chatbot that acts like a normal person, and a chatbot that acts like a sexual predator, and then all three of the pieces of software could go through a rapid automated evolutionary development process.

Now, what do you do with the piece of software that acts like a predator, though? Put it in car alarms or something?

Clearly they will use THAT piece to model the Chris Hansen bot against. And we all know there isn't enough of *that guy* to go around...

Re:False positives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39564039)

I can't see a prize...

It's a free dinner with Chris Hansen. Just take a seat over there...

Re:False positives? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563899)

Not everyone who solicits sexual favors is a "predator". They seem to be making that leap.

Hell, some people seemingly solicit for sexual favors when they actually want nothing of the sort. Just the other day, two guys were shouting at each other, and unless this was some kind of passive-aggressive homoerotic fantasy being acted out, the one's invitation, "Suck my dick!" to the other was almost undoubtedly not solicited with any expectation or desire behind it...

Or "I'm looking for the tastiest spotted dick to eat" ?

Sample (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563411)

bloodninja: Baby, I been havin a tough night so treat me nice aight?

BritneySpears14: Aight.

bloodninja: Slip out of those pants baby, yeah.

BritneySpears14: I slip out of my pants, just for you, bloodninja.

bloodninja: Oh yeah, aight. Aight, I put on my robe and wizard hat.

BritneySpears14: Oh, I like to play dress up.

bloodninja: Me too baby.

BritneySpears14: I kiss you softly on your chest.

bloodninja: I cast Lvl. 3 Eroticism. You turn into a real beautiful woman.

BritneySpears14: Hey...

bloodninja: I meditate to regain my mana, before casting Lvl. 8 Cock of the Infinite.

BritneySpears14: Funny I still don't see it.

bloodninja: I spend my mana reserves to cast Mighty F*ck of the Beyondness.

BritneySpears14: You are the worst cyber partner ever. This is ridiculous.

bloodninja: Don't f*ck with me bitch, I'm the mightiest sorcerer of the lands.

bloodninja: I steal yo soul and cast Lightning Lvl. 1,000,000 Your body explodes into a fine bloody mist, because you are only a Lvl. 2 Druid.

BritneySpears14: Don't ever message me again you piece of ****.

bloodninja: Robots are trying to drill my brain but my lightning shield inflicts DOA attack, leaving the robots as flaming piles of metal.

bloodninja: King Arthur congratulates me for destroying Dr. Robotnik's evil army of Robot Socialist Republics. The cold war ends. Reagan steals my accomplishments and makes like it was cause of him.

bloodninja: You still there baby? I think it's getting hard now.

bloodninja: Baby?

-------------------

bloodninja: Ok baby, we got to hurry, I don't know how long I can keep it ready for you.

j_gurli3: thats ok. ok i'm a japanese schoolgirl, what r u.

bloodninja: A Rhinocerus. Well, hung like one, thats for sure.

j_gurli3: haha, ok lets go.

j_gurli3: i put my hand through ur hair, and kiss u on the neck.

bloodninja: I stomp the ground, and snort, to alert you that you are in my breeding territory.

j_gurli3: haha, ok, u know that turns me on.

j_gurli3: i start unbuttoning ur shirt.

bloodninja: Rhinoceruses don't wear shirts.

j_gurli3: No, ur not really a Rhinocerus silly, it's just part of the game.

bloodninja: Rhinoceruses don't play games. They f*cking charge your ass.

j_gurli3: stop, cmon be serious.

bloodninja: It doesn't get any more serious than a Rhinocerus about to charge your ass.

bloodninja: I stomp my feet, the dust stirs around my tough skinned feet.

j_gurli3: thats it.

bloodninja: Nostrils flaring, I lower my head. My horn, like some phallic symbol of my potent virility, is the last thing you see as skulls collide and mine remains the victor. You are now a bloody red ragdoll suspended in the air on my mighty horn.

bloodninja: Goddam am I hard now.

--------------

BritneySpears14: Ok, are you ready?

eminemBNJA: Aight, yeah I'm ready.

BritneySpears14: I like your music Em... Tee hee.

eminemBNJA: huh huh, yeah, I make it for the ladies.

BritneySpears14: Mmm, we like it a lot. Let me show you.

BritneySpears14: I take off your pants, slowly, and massage your muscular physique.

eminemBNJA: Oh I like that Baby. I put on my robe and wizard hat.

BritneySpears14: What the f*ck, I told you not to message me again.

eminemBNJA: Oh ****

BritneySpears14: I swear if you do it one more time I'm gonna report your ISP and say you were sending me kiddie porn you f*ck up.

eminemBNJA: Oh ****

eminemBNJA: damn I gotta write down your names or something

Re:Sample (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563555)

You beat me to it. Was going to post grep -i robe\ and\ wizard\ hat logs

Re:Sample (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563693)

How the hell is this down-modded?

Re:Sample (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563733)

I can't believe this got modded down. Seriously people? Just for that I'm going to post this:

<JonJonB> Ok
<JonJonB> I have found, definitive proof
<JonJonB> that J.K Rowling is a dirty DIRTY woman, making a fool of us all
<JonJonB> "Yes," Harry said, gripping his wang very tightly, and moving into the middle of the deserted classroom. He tried to keep his mind on flying, but something else kept intruding.... Any second now, he might hear his mother again... but he shouldn't think that, or he would hear her again, and he didn't want to... or did he?
<melusine > O_______O
<JonJonB> Something silver-white, something enormous, erupted from the end of his wang

Re:Sample (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563989)

Me: Hey beautiful
Her: Wow, thanks. That was unexpected
Me: I'm not saying it because it's nice, I'm saying it because it's true.
Her: My my, whats gotten into you? Youre in a really sweet mood rite now :)
Me: I realized It's time to talk to beautiful girls and chew bubble gum, and I'm all outta gum.
Her: You know I have a boyfriend right? Why are you saying this to me anyway?
Me: I've got balls of steel!
Her: lol you probably do cause he'd be pissed if he saw this.
Me: I'm an equal opportunity ass kicker!
Her: HAHA omg, you're so weird today. You tell me I'm beautiful and now you're acting all alpha.
Me: Balls of steel!
Her: Right right. Look, honestly I think you're kind of cute so if you're not doing anything right now, why don't you come over? Just don't tell anyone okay :)
Me: Hail to the king, baby
Her: lol, just get the hell over here
Me: Damn I'm good

Re:Sample (1)

howardd21 (1001567) | more than 2 years ago | (#39564005)

Other than a funny car radio reference, this was the funniest thing I have seen on Slashdot, how is this not +5 funny? I had mod points over the weekend, wish I still had a few.

Re:Sample (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39564365)

Lots of us aren't seeing it for the first time. Not that that usually stopes /. mods...

Obvious? (1)

datavirtue (1104259) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563413)

Is this even difficult? Someone please tear into these weirdos.

Re:Obvious? (2)

need4mospd (1146215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563719)

I put on my robe and wizard hat...

Re:Obvious? (5, Insightful)

thesandtiger (819476) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563927)

It isn't always obvious because efforts to get into someone's head aren't always obvious.

Some people will attempt to groom a chat participant - they will ask more or less innocuous questions, but occasionally throw in one that is just a shade less innocuous than the others. Over time they will push the limits, until eventually some of the most outrageous stuff seems like it's just par for the course from this person. They'll couch all of this in the guise of being a mentor or friend, will back off if their target gets a little iffy, but will try to reconcile and take another tack. When this method is used against a target from a vulnerable population (kids, for example) it's scary how effective it can be and how easily even people who are not in vulnerable groups get taken in (see: people who fall for scams).

Eventually predators will shift to a more active part once their target has been willing to talk openly about previously forbidden subjects, and they'll attempt to get a cam session, phonecall, pics, meetings, whatever. The target might agree to go on cam or to pics, and at that point the predator has them - "Hey, if you don't keep doing this I'll post those pics/videos everywhere" etc.

It's easy to recognize the obvious and unsubtle ones, but it's a lot harder to recognize (from a relatively small sample) the more crafty ones unless you're an outside observer. For example, if I were someone being groomed by a predator as I described, I might not balk at a question as to whether I had pubic hair since I'd already been conditioned to trust that person. But if I were an outside observer it would be obvious that is untoward - unfortunately for many people targeted by predators, no outside observer is there to kind of make them realize what's going on.

As a researcher who often works with young people who have been exploited or put at risk, I've been given chatlogs from predators like the ones I've described above and was just astonished at how things progressed. However, quite a few of the skeevy questions that were asked by predators were ALSO asked in completely innocuous relationships and in that context were not nearly as skeevy. Just flagging based on questions or terms isn't enough - it's a context that needs to be understood.

The goal, I imagine, in the case of this contest, would be to help automate the process of that "outside observer" to have the software check for suspicious behavior/history and throw a flag once it passes a certain threshold but BEFORE the target gets exploited, and possibly to minimize the number of false positives so that extensive resources aren't wasted on non-predatory relationships.

Ethical considerations aside, it's an interesting problem and could be applied to a number of areas where you're attempting to detect non-obvious manipulative behavior in any kind of multi-party interaction.

Re:Obvious? (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39564261)

To expand on this a bit.... in a less creepy way.... I remember being an awkward 20 something geek. Never learned how to really "get girls", more than a bit socially inept. so naturally I started reading up on flirting, and dating.... etc...

After a while I came to a conclusion.... the distance between being friendly and hitting on someone is very very short and often as much in the mind of the individual as anywhere. In fact, most of the things that one is told to do "look her in the eye", "pay attention to what she is saying", "make physical contact from time to time"..... its all standard stuff that many people do in the course of normal conversation.

Even beyond my own issues, I recently witnessed an amusing exchange between a couple of friends of mine who started to talk seperately. One of them took their conversations as potentially expressing intertest, the other was agast at the idea, and couldn't believe the first had thought that.

Is it sometimes or often obvious? Sure, more so in text? maybe. However, I am skeptical that such a system will ever really work, when people have a hard enough time making these calls with full information in person.

and which lines worked the best (1)

issicus (2031176) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563427)

she was hitting on me? damnit.

eHarmony or Bust (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563429)

...a competition to automatically identify sexual predators in chat logs.

They make Internet dating sound nasty.

Same solution as spam - statistical bayes filters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563437)

I'm guessing we'll find out this is almost identical to the spam problem. Use a statistical approach, probably bayes filtering. Start with your ham and your spam and voila.

"I like anime" (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563453)

*BONG* *KLAXON* *BONG*

Here come the FBI. Off to Guantanamo with you.

Re:"I like anime" (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563533)

For sure, any mention of "mudkipz" would be a red flag.

This is So Easy (2)

LionKimbro (200000) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563467)

detect_predator = (user_a.sex == "M" or user_b.sex == "M") and ((user_a.age=18) or (user_b.age>=18))

Boom! I win! Give me reward moneys.

Re:This is So Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563559)

That age logic doesn't even make sense.

Re:This is So Easy (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563561)

Where's the part where you determine the genders and ages of people from their chat logs?

Re:This is So Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563619)

That part is left as an exercise for the reader.

Re:This is So Easy (3, Insightful)

hjf (703092) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563715)

Facebook.

Re:This is So Easy (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563883)

It's in the (unmentioned) "???" step.

Re:This is So Easy (2)

walkerp1 (523460) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563635)

detect_predator = (user_a.sex == "M" or user_b.sex == "M") and ((user_a.age=18) or (user_b.age>=18))

Boom! I win! Give me reward moneys.

You have a bug in your user_a detection that allows 19+ males to slip through.

Re:This is So Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563801)

I think there are two bugs. You found one.

a: F40
b: M12

This would not flag as predator.

(though that might be intentional)

Re:This is So Easy (1)

walkerp1 (523460) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563909)

I think there are two bugs. You found one.

a: F40 b: M12

This would not flag as predator.

(though that might be intentional)

Heh, I don't think he qualifies as a predator, or at least not the kind we're trying to identify.

Re:This is So Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39564243)

Heh, I don't think he qualifies as a predator, or at least not the kind we're trying to identify.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Re:This is So Easy (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563785)

Wait, so sexual predators are people who go exclusively after 18-year-olds? No older, no younger?

Even if I assume that slashdot ate your '<' and you really meant "user_a.age<=18", that's still flawed in two ways: 1) 18 is legal (so '<=' was not the right operator to use), and, 2) in most states (and most countries outside the US), 17 is legal, and in several states (and several countries), 16 is legal. Also many sexual predators (possibly most) go after adults and/or don't really care about the age of their victim.

Re:This is So Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563809)

I'm a junior coach in basketball. Thanks for sending me to jail.

Also, thanks for flagging the conversation where I chat with my younger cousins whenever they have a problem with computers.

To get more serious, the problem is hard because there are some legitimate reasons for discussing where I pick up players if we're heading to away games and some of the girls live near the route I'm taking. Just arranging a meeting is not enough, it usually involves people not knowing each other well beforehand and making contact that has some sexual hints and the age being the key as well. Or at least that's the newspaper presented scenario, I think the most common one is where the predator is already known (relative, family friend) person taking advantage on the child or juvenile.

as AC, because I can't remember my password right now.

Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563485)

if chat.username == Julian Assange;
return(sexual predator);

I can program electronic voting machines too!

Eventually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563505)

Eventually, both the investigator and the investigatee will be investigators, and they will get caught up in whorls of self-righteousness and delusions of grandeur.

Too many idle hands and too much money waiting to be abused. Hooray!

Instead of replying to this silly article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563507)

I'd rather be going on long walks discussing different outlooks on life.

Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563511)

Go into chat room and say "I'm Chris Hansen" and see who leaves.

My work here is done.

Useful tool (2)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563549)

I think many of us here could find such an algorithm useful to detect when a female is hitting on us.

Re:Useful tool (5, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563625)

I already have one.

int hitting_on_me(female F)
{
      return 0;
}

Ta-da.

Re:Useful tool (2)

kingcool1432 (993113) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563629)

return false;

Re:Useful tool (2)

redfox2012 (1150371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563683)

Definition of USEFUL (Merriam-Webster) 1: capable of being put to use; especially : serviceable for an end or purpose

Dateline NBC (3, Insightful)

rwv (1636355) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563583)

What about an algorithm for detecting if one of the chatters is an adult who's posing as a 12-17 year-old for reasons of entrapment and TV ratings?

Re:Dateline NBC (4, Informative)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 2 years ago | (#39564131)

Your NAMBLA logic fails you once you understand what entrapment truly is. An adult sending sexually explicit text messages to a person posing to be a minor is not entrapment. An adult going over to what they think is a minor's residence with the intent of molesting the minor is not entrapment. It becomes entrapment if the fake minor steers the conversation to an inappropriate conversation.

A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.
In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:
- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

What could possibly go wrong? (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563589)

We MUST do this FOR THE CHILDREN. What could possibly go wrong?

But... (3, Insightful)

jtnix (173853) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563593)

What if I am just trying to get laid? Seriously, how does one determine from chat text whether a person is a 'sexual predator' vs. someone who is just looking for a casual hookup? Wouldn't the approach be similar if not identical? I smell a FAIL.

Of course, the results of this 'competition' will likely get support from conservative, big brother regimes as a way to ring up innocent and horny people - particularly targeting young men - online.

Gender based stereotyping, convictions and punishment coming soon to the interwebs and country you live in. That's just wonderful!

Re:But... (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563951)

What if I am just trying to get laid? Seriously, how does one determine from chat text whether a person is a 'sexual predator' vs. someone who is just looking for a casual hookup? Wouldn't the approach be similar if not identical? I smell a FAIL.

1) If you identify the object of the advances is a minor, that would make it a predator. (Possibly an unaware one, if he doesn't know the age of the object. - but either way the conversation needs to be stopped.)

2) If the object of the advances is rejecting the advances, again that would make a predator. Sure, she MIGHT be playing hard to get. But the one making the advances shouldn't assume that. And in any case a really good algorithm might be able to tell the difference between a flirtations "no", and a "FUCK OFF: NO!".

But do please try and differentiate between an interesting computer science problem, and an actual government putting such an algorithm into use.

Sexual predator? Bad behaviour? (3, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563595)

This looks like a not-too-well-prepared excercise as there is absolutely no definition of what they mean with "sexual predator," except that a sexual predator tries to gain some sort of a sexually-loaded response from the other side. The problem: what is considered a "sexually-loaded response," would e.g. a boyfriend asking his girlfriend for a bikini-picture qualify as a "predator" even though the act is perfectly common and acceptable, do they deem there is a possibility of a sexually-loaded conversation that still manages to say within the terms of "good behaviour" or are all sexually-loaded comments and conversations inherently "bad behaviour" etc. etc.

I have a feeling the whole point with this is to use the results for "protect the children" - politics in an effort to score brownie-points.

Politics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563845)

I have a feeling the whole point with this is to use the results for "protect the children" - politics in an effort to score brownie-points.

A similar but more interesting contest would be to detect people trying to get political favors ;-) Oh wait - if someone non-government is chatting with someone that is government, they are probably after something...

Does sound fairly easy (1)

FormOfActionBanana (966779) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563615)

Do pattern matching on what the other chat room members reply with, rather than the pick up line itself.

Contact the assholes sponsoring this crap... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563627)

So flirting makes someone a sexual predator now? They're just trying to develop moralistic spying and censorship technology.

The following are the people sponsoring this project:

general email: pan@webis.de
Patrick Juola: juola@mathcs.duq.edu
Shlomo Argamon: argamon@iit.edu
Efstathios Stamatatos: stamatatos@aegean.gr
Moshe Koppel: koppel@cs.biu.ac.il

Make sure you give them a piece of your mind...

Sexy Aliens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563649)

Just invite some sexy aliens and let the fighting begin...

How do they test if this works? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563651)

How will an impersonator be able to reliably mimic the real McCreep? The mindset is probably vastly different...

Competition to help sift all communications? (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563661)

While cloaked in "won't somebody please think of the children" language, it appears to me that this project is really all about developing technology to rapidly scan a mountain of text conversations to identify any instances of behavior for which you have a few documented prototypes.

Swap in political activist, opposition party, occupy movement, flash mob, or hackers, and the project doesn't seem so appealing. The goal sounds like they would like to find an engine to which you could feed in a few examples and have a few thousand computers watching all conversations on the net.

Why would Universities participate in that? Are these people that naive? Why not spend the money on education materials, or web sites explaining the sexual predators techniques so at risk populations can be smarter, rather than helping governments build Skynet?

Re:Competition to help sift all communications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563867)

Are these people that naive?

Its called getting research dollars. Publish or die is what they call it. Or in other words 'bring in money to our establishment or get fired'. They have convinced themselves they are doing a 'good thing' while helping the university AND (this is important) they get to keep their job and get a paper out of it (which may bring in more money)...

Re:Competition to help sift all communications? (1)

Loughla (2531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563949)

This was my exact first thought. We wrap so much up in the 'protect our children' blanket, that it should be obvious at this day and age that practically anything that claims to be for children's sake will be turned against us, quickly.

Here's the latest one I can think of. [govtrack.us]

Why are people still willing to fall for this?????

Re:Competition to help sift all communications? (1)

howardd21 (1001567) | more than 2 years ago | (#39564031)

Awesome point, thanks!

Re:Competition to help sift all communications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39564113)

Swap in political activist, opposition party, occupy movement, flash mob, or hackers, and the project doesn't seem so appealing. The goal sounds like they would like to find an engine to which you could feed in a few examples and have a few thousand computers watching all conversations on the net.

1) Create software the 'statistically identifies' pedos.
2) Swap in patterns for political activist, opposition party, occupy movement, flash mob, or hackers
3) Send in the SWAT team.

Got a problem with that? Sounds like we just identified another pedo with 95% confidence.

edit: captcha: malign
 

Beg to differ (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563667)

The competition should be about finding out who is NOT sexual predator.......

Re:Beg to differ (1)

blackfrancis75 (911664) | more than 2 years ago | (#39564051)

By virtue of being a binary classification algorithm, it is.

Sex is bad (3, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#39563729)

First, "being persistent" (common dating advice for men in earlier decades) became "stalking". Telling a woman she looked hot became "sexual harassment", even when the man had no power over the woman. Now, asking for sex makes you a "sexual predator". And if a woman agrees to sex, men have to worry that she may later claim she was raped.

The "sex is bad" side has won.

Re:Sex is bad (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563973)

There is a difference between being persistent and stalking a woman. If you don't know the difference you should probably not try to be persistent.

Choose who you flirt with wisely and you won't have most of these problems. In an office environment let her flirt first. Then flirt back, but don't escalate and always have an out. You should be doing that anyway since you don't want to be "too interested". When you compliment a woman remember she is more than just good looks. No one was ever sued for sexual harassment for complimenting a woman on a witty response or on a job well done. Save the sexual/physical compliments for your first date.

If you have consensual sex and she accuses you of rape, YOU picked a lousy woman. There were warning signs. You didn't pay attention to them. (She's a worthless slug of a human being, but how that information helps you after the fact is beyond me.) This happens because men are stupid and think "getting laid" should be a goal unto itself. Form a relationship with a woman first and this will never happen to you.

All these 'sex is bad' rules are really 'women feel uncomfortable' rules. The rules are stupid as hell. But as a man you shouldn't be doing things that creep women out anyway. If you do, you are doing something wrong - fix it!

Re:Sex is bad (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39564275)

Its ironic, because most nerds would be deemed creepy being sexually aggressive to a woman, because nerds ARE CREEPY. When I am sexually aggressive towards a woman, I get laid. A lot. Its all about the type of person behind the action. If you get laid regularly, then being suggestive doesn't come across weird. If you are a weirdo virgin, it comes across super weird. There is that thing that is missing much these days, called being a man. Most nerds never learned it, those that did grew up and really aren't "nerds" anymore. We are "smart" (as labelled by the ladies). Nerds obsess about sex. I obsess about my hobbies. Sex is something that is just a part of life. If you know how women work, its so fucking easy its hard NOT to get laid. Don't put the pussy on a pedestal! Women are just people. They fart, burp, can smell bad, be stupid, horny, etc. just like men. Idiot nerds do not get this and worship any female who looks upon them. In my world, my woman is lucky to be with ME.

Maybe its not nerds at all. Its probably just all "men" under 30, as they are all whiny little bitches with hairdos, fashion accessories and other feminine traits. Fucking pussy ass little fags.

Re:Sex is bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39564327)

If you have consensual sex and she accuses you of rape, YOU picked a lousy woman.

Nice "blame the victim", you hateful little shit.

Ethics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563851)

I for one welcome our algorithmic, inflexible overlords.

Are they f*cking kidding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563929)

"You will be given chat logs involving two (or more) people and have to determine who is the one trying to convince the other partecipants(s) to provide some sexual favor ."

That is called a date. And no, I'm not trying to be funny.

Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39563941)

Look for a poster claiming to be a 12-yo girl. All the responses are sexual predators.

Wait a second.... (3, Insightful)

BLKMGK (34057) | more than 2 years ago | (#39564063)

Since when is one person chatting with another and asking for "sexual favors" suddenly a sexual predator? If I'm hitting on a person and ask to see a naughty pic this is predatory behavior? If the person is of age and I'm of age WTF is the issue? If they asks me for a pic and I'm interested am I being preyed upon somehow? What if I welcome this, what's the issue? The assumptions here are tremendous IMO! Please tell me age plays SOME factor in all of this sheesh!

Privacy anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39564085)

Apart from false positives, does this not crowsource privacy invasion. And does this not censor online chat
in a way noone wants to? Predators are individuals, so it's more usefull to introduce a score of some kind
for whatever links to specific indiduals..

Next you'll have crowd sourcing surveillance cameras and everyone will be a snitch with many false positives which justify a huge police force and big prisons full of forced laberous (like in the US where you have to earn your keep as a prisoner),,

Bad visions of the future if we start being dishonest and callous..

Hello? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39564107)

Hitting on someone in a chat room makes you a sexual predator?

Give me a fucking break, it's a far cry from stalking when you can be ignored by typing /ignore.

More of the old war on pleasure, the granddaddy of all moralistic wars!

Re:Hello? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39564279)

Give me a fucking break

Ding, ding, ding. Predator alert.

They don't actually take it very seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39564277)

You can submit clear and extensive evidence to the FBI that someone is proning online with a known minor and planning to go to their country where it was legal for them to have sex for the purposes of having sex with them (with names and flight days already included) and nothing happens. It's "not enough evidence". This would get even less attention. *posts as AC to protect self*

Competition to identify Witches (1)

doston (2372830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39564315)

Any talk of black cats, brooms, our lord Satan, bedevilment, pagan rites of any kind (kabbalah witches like madonna) and *any* intellectual or legal chicanery are punishable by lowered employment prospects.

What's That Sound.... (4, Insightful)

lobiusmoop (305328) | more than 2 years ago | (#39564317)

It's Alan Turing spinning in his grave.

Well Well.... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 2 years ago | (#39564357)

If Yawning means you might be a terrorist...... Perhaps if your last name starts with an "A" you might be a sexual predictor.... just ask Assange...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?