7 ms·

New York to bar sex offenders on parole from playing Pokemon Go

58 points by jastr 10y ago

likeclockwork 10y ago
Wouldn't this require players to identify themselves to prove they aren't paroled sex offenders?
fl0wenol 10y ago
So if I buy (or farm) a lure module and place it on a Pokestop, this is the same thing as if I spray painted "Free Puppies" on the side of a panel van and drove it in front of a school? Because I think that's the bottom line from the DA's office.
dloose 10y ago
Wow, lucky them. What crime do I have to commit to be barred from _hearing about_ Pokemon Go?
- SerLava 10y ago
  Probably the same crime. You'll be barred from Internet use (and all shall rejoice).
  - dloose 10y ago
    Good effort, but I'm not sure your post makes sense. If I committed the same crime, wouldn't I get the same punishment? In this case, that's being banned from playing Pokemon Go, not from the Internet as a whole.
    - jMyles 10y ago
      (Stupidly, IMO), many sex offenders in NY are indeed completely banned from using the Internet.
jazzyk 10y ago
That will teach them :-)
jimmywanger 10y ago
You need to think about differing motivations. Right now politicians are thinking, "Hey there's this new thing that's popular. How do we cash in on that?" Pedophiles and child molesters are easy targets. In the sense that all you need to do is say those scary words and you get more votes. They're pandering to the population.
- Lawtonfogle 10y ago
  The thing that makes this sad, not funny, is the rate that children are still being sexualy abused today. Instead of doing things to actually help children they are busy passing completely pointless laws to make it look like they are doing something.
- Lawtonfogle 10y ago
  The thing that makes this sad, not funny, is the rate that children are still being sexualy abused today. Instead of doing things to actually help children they are busy passing completely pointless laws to make it look like they are doing something.
- tn13 10y ago
  Many of them are already banned from using smartphones or computers. It is really really sad. When we don't stand up for the legitimate rights of the people we despise eventually politicians are going to come for your and mine rights too. This sex offender registry appears more and more like "outcast" registry. The people who can be vilified or treated like shit without feeling of any guilt. It is mind-boggling what all sort of things can get you on that list. People getting drunk and peeing on a side walk, 17 year old having sex with 16 year old, person who had a family shoot while his grand kids played in the pool naked etc. etc. My worry is that as soon as the drug war ends, out politicians are going to up the ante on sex war.
- spacemanmatt 10y ago
  We already have loads of regulations on where people who have paid their debts to society can be. I think you're right about this. Straight-up pandering.
CPLX 10y ago
Every once and awhile you see something to remind you that this country was founded by puritans, not all that long ago.
- larsiusprime 10y ago
  And Quakers, and Cavaliers, and Borderers, and a bunch of other diverse groups that had little to nothing to do with the Puritans and their ideology. Not to mention all the groups that came before and after.
ars 10y ago
Notice the "on parole" part. I doubt it would pass legal must ordinarily, but for parole the state can ask for anything it wants. So this is pretty much pointless "let's look like we are doing something".
sotojuan 10y ago
Apparently many hospitals have also requested Pokestops in them to be removed, making the game unplayable for sick kids in their beds. https://redd.it/4vykt7 https://redd.it/4vykt7
- ars 10y ago
  Don't you anyway have to walk to play it? And walk rather long distances.
  - sotojuan 10y ago
    So if you are in the same place as a Pokestop you can drop an item called a "lure module" that attracts Pokemon to it for 30 mins—if you're a sick kid in a hospital with a lure in it, you get Pokemon to catch every few minutes. Better than nothing and there's some heartwarming stories about it.
  - cgriswald 10y ago
    Some sick children are better off if they're walking about during the day. Anecdotal, to be sure, but from what I've heard, Pokémon Go has been largely positive for sick children. Hospital administrations seem concerned with people effectively trespassing in non-public parts of hospitals.
- Thlom 10y ago
  In my home town people have put out lures on pokestops around the local hospital for the hospitalised kids.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  While I think sick kids should be allowed entertainment (I know how much it helped me, books, games, etc), the nature of Pokemon Go is sort of like bemoaning that a kid's wing doesn't have a basketball court either. Basically while I'm kidding I don't think it's a good thing to get their hopes up about playing when they're undergoing treatment. If it gets worked so they can, all the better (like a small outing for those able?), just kind of spit balling.
Smushman 10y ago
Could be hard to implement this, checking the density of offenders in the area. http://www.familywatchdog.us/showmap.asp http://www.familywatchdog.us/showmap.asp Search Criteria: New York, United States If I could link it directly I would. I am all for keeping kids safe; but this seems to have unintended knockoff effects, such as forcing children who want to play Pokemon Go to venture multiple blocks from their homes in order to play.
- choward 10y ago
  > Could be hard to implement this That hasn't stopped anyone from implementing laws before. These kinds of laws are favorites for those in power. Now they have another tool for keeping them in power. Someone challenges a politician and they get upset? That's okay, just spy on them more. You'll be sure to find some kind of law they are breaking.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    Just check out Florida, which basically has a city for convicted sex offenders, because it's the only place they can legally live. http://time.com/3705637/life-inside-a-community-of-sex-offenders/ http://time.com/3705637/life-inside-a-community-of-sex-offen... http://www.gq.com/story/sex-offender-community http://www.gq.com/story/sex-offender-community
__abc 10y ago
What? This has to be redundant as most existing laws prevent a convicted individual of being within certain distances of children, school zones, etc.
- jdavis703 10y ago
  Or from even being on the Internet. While I'm no rape apologist, even someone who committed a sex crime against an adult in this case would be banned. Sure punish people up to the max book provides. But once you've done your time, you should be able to reenter society (perhaps excluding the place(s) you committed your specific crimes).
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Someone on parole would be receiving a punishment less than the max the book provides. Managed release is a lot less problematic than lifetime registries.
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      I find the logic of this perspective difficult to understand. You've got a group of people, and an activity that you think it is potentially dangerous for these people to participate in. So you want to make sure they don't participate while you're supervising them, but that they're free to once you've stopped? If you're going to allow them to participate once they're off parole, there is no case for prohibiting it while they're on parole. If they're going to be a problem, it's better to catch them at it.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        That's a big part of what incarceration does, it removes freedom for a period of time. It's kind of a waste if that's all a society manages to accomplish with it, but there you go. I can sort of believe that someone who is required to maintain a steady job for 2 years is more likely to continue participating in society than someone who has just been released from an institution. I was also replying rather narrowly to the other post; parole is pretty clearly a lesser punishment than incarceration, not an addition to it like a registry. I wasn't endorsing this idea.
sitkack 10y ago
> The game may also pose special risks to children as it encourages players to explore
morgante 10y ago
> The game may also pose special risks to children as it encourages players to explore physical locations to win points. Oh the horror of children exploring the physical world. They're not safe unless kept inside!
- wonks 10y ago
  And we wonder why they keep gaining weight...
  - jdavis703 10y ago
    Not only that but getting sick from preventable diseases like diabetes. Of course it doesn't help that the media makes kidnappings (or even zika) seem way more dangerous than our obesity epidemic.
    - AWildDHHAppears 10y ago
      Careful!
- Someone1234 10y ago
  You joke, but parents that do let their kids walk down to the park[0] or play outside[1] get a social services investigation. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/free-range-family-again-in-spotlight-after-police-pick-up-kids-6-and-10/2015/04/13/30e2a2f4-e1f1-11e4-81ea-0649268f729e_story.html?tid=a_inl https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/free-range-family-again... [1] http://www.freerangekids.com/kids-play-in-backyard-while-mom-does-dishes-an-investigation-ensues/ http://www.freerangekids.com/kids-play-in-backyard-while-mom...
  - duaneb 10y ago
    Wow, even in the early 00's I walked to and from school myself. Summers were about exploration. I was just taught strong "stranger danger" skills because it was preferable to my playing video games. I guess the Nintendo lobby got to the CPS.
_asummers 10y ago
This is really dumb. The thing they should be trying to eliminate with this would be Pokestops at a sex offender's home, but that's on Niantic's end not the person on the list and requires an up to date registry. Additionally, though I have not looked at the demographics, I imagine a large part of this games base is users >18. The name 'lure' sounds like it could be scary to a politician that doesn't know how this game works yet is legislating it anyway, but in fact is not a random map placement, so I'm not even sure what this is accomplishing.
- krabpaaltje 10y ago
  In the end it might end up where sex offenders will need to move because there's a pokestop nearby.
mikeash 10y ago
I'm interested but not particularly surprised to see everyone here against this move. These people are out on parole. That means that they could be in prison instead, but the authorities have decided to be nice and let them out early under supervision. They can be sent back to prison for simple things like associating with the wrong people, or failing to tell the government about their movements. This restriction doesn't seem terribly useful to me, but nor does it seem particularly onerous.
- tn13 10y ago
  >These people are out on parole. That means that they could be in prison instead Will you be fine if people are allowed to beat up an inmate scheduled for death penalty ? How does it really matter if we break a few bones right before he is dead ? I think the logic is the whole "sex offender" registry is bullshit. Check what sort of things can get you on that list. So people on parole are not necessarily hardened horrible criminals we should despise. Even if they are bad people why should not be they allowed to play a game ? How on earth do we even enforce such restriction? Creating restrictions that can not be enforced reduces overall respect for law. Tomorrow the politician will say Itunes should not sell pop songs of teenage singers to such people are we supposed to comply ? I see this as sex war pretty much like drug war.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I don't see how beating up death row inmates is analogous. I don't support the death penalty at all, but even ignoring that I don't support physical violence against prisoners, no matter how guilty. I do, however, support punishing criminals. And since letting criminals out on parole is a nice thing we do for them, not a requirement, I think we should consider the fact that these people could easily still be in prison instead. If they hadn't been paroled then they wouldn't be able to play Pokemon Go either, and they'd have a bunch of other restrictions on their lives besides.
- morgante 10y ago
  I don't think it will have any impact either way. Any danger of sex offenders using Pokemon Go to lure children is vastly overstated, but I also agree that people out on parole can be subject to restrictions. It's mostly a waste of taxpayer time to be considering this. Most of the negativity is really about the attitude that Pokemon Go is somehow dangerous. I also find it a little troubling that Niantic is being compelled to review user data in a search for "criminals."
gre 10y ago
Clickhole just did a piece about Pokemon Go and sex offenders. http://www.clickhole.com/article/gaming-safety-ftw-pokemon-pokemon-go-will-now-scre-4691 http://www.clickhole.com/article/gaming-safety-ftw-pokemon-p...
Vonkastell 10y ago
Teach them to jailbreak/root their phone so they can spoof their GPS data and play without leaving home.
choward 10y ago
Let's say this law does get passed? How do sex offenders learn about it? When they get arrested?
- hehheh 10y ago
  This law is redundant, so they should already know about the restrictions.
sathackr 10y ago
Can we get a list of swimming pools and lakes and ensure there are no pokestops near them as well? I'm pretty sure far more children drown in bodies of water than are harmed by sex offenders on parole.
- Fjolsvith 10y ago
  There could be some truth to this. In 2003, the sexual recidivism rate for sex offenders was only 5.3% over the 3 years following their release.[1] [1] http://www.smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch5_recidivism.html http://www.smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch5_recidivism.html
Fjolsvith 10y ago
I read a lot of comments and think, knee-jerk reaction. Some comments I see seem to me to be born from ignorance. I really was torn whether I wanted to speak out regarding this topic, but I decided that maybe the good would outweigh the bad. I have been on federal probation and my experience with it is at that level and not with the state of New York. So, I can only give you my perspective and opinions regarding the topic. During my time on supervision, I was initially not allowed to have a smart phone, nor was I allowed to use the Internet. Over time, as I earned the trust of my PO, these things were allowed, however with the caveat that my use of them would be monitored with software running that logged everything. This was because my crime involved a "misuse" of the Internet. It also was because I had been locked away from the internet for over 8 years, and that my re-introduction to it needed to be gradual. The intention was for me to learn to manage myself for when I would not have someone telling me what I should and shouldn't do. I have been off probation for 2-1/2 years now. I just recently tried Pokemon Go, mainly because I was interested in the business advertising aspect of it, and didn't find it very engaging for me. I did learn about Ingress, though, and that game was like crack for me and I finally had to uninstall it. So, here's my take regarding the game and sex offenders: Sex offenders tend to not see things or think about things the way normal people do. They have a 'tilt' or a dis-conjunction to their thinking processes, that tend to make them susceptible to fantasy thinking. They see make-believe as reality, and that is partly why they think themselves into committing their crime(s). Pokemon Go (and Ingress) represent a form of make-believe that can allow a sex offender to disconnect from the importance that they have to be very careful once back in society. Running up to a location while staring at your phone can put a sex offender into a bad "relapse danger" situation, such as wandering into a group of children. While the offender may not have any intention of reoffending, it could be similar to a recovering coke addict walking into a party where there are lines cut up on the coffee table. For myself, I think that New York is wise to do this.
jimmywanger 10y ago
If you think about this from a rhetorical perspective, it's incredibly effective. My previous comment on this post remarked on the political motivations for this, I'm expounding a bit. Basically you're saying "Let's restrict rights for sex offender (an incredibly loose term but with huge emotional connotations" and no matter what your political opponent says, you can tar him with being "soft on sex offenders". If I were a politician, this would be a no-brainer masterstroke. I would do it in a minute to ensure my re-elections. I just find it incredibly sleazy.

58 points by jastr 10y ago

Wouldn't this require players to identify themselves to prove they aren't paroled sex offenders?

So if I buy (or farm) a lure module and place it on a Pokestop, this is the same thing as if I spray painted "Free Puppies" on the side of a panel van and drove it in front of a school? Because I think that's the bottom line from the DA's office.

dloose 10y ago

Wow, lucky them. What crime do I have to commit to be barred from _hearing about_ Pokemon Go?

SerLava 10y ago
Probably the same crime. You'll be barred from Internet use (and all shall rejoice).
- dloose 10y ago
  Good effort, but I'm not sure your post makes sense. If I committed the same crime, wouldn't I get the same punishment? In this case, that's being banned from playing Pokemon Go, not from the Internet as a whole.
  - jMyles 10y ago
    (Stupidly, IMO), many sex offenders in NY are indeed completely banned from using the Internet.

jazzyk 10y ago

That will teach them :-)

jimmywanger 10y ago

You need to think about differing motivations. Right now politicians are thinking, "Hey there's this new thing that's popular. How do we cash in on that?" Pedophiles and child molesters are easy targets. In the sense that all you need to do is say those scary words and you get more votes. They're pandering to the population.

Lawtonfogle 10y ago
The thing that makes this sad, not funny, is the rate that children are still being sexualy abused today. Instead of doing things to actually help children they are busy passing completely pointless laws to make it look like they are doing something.
Lawtonfogle 10y ago
The thing that makes this sad, not funny, is the rate that children are still being sexualy abused today. Instead of doing things to actually help children they are busy passing completely pointless laws to make it look like they are doing something.
tn13 10y ago
Many of them are already banned from using smartphones or computers. It is really really sad. When we don't stand up for the legitimate rights of the people we despise eventually politicians are going to come for your and mine rights too. This sex offender registry appears more and more like "outcast" registry. The people who can be vilified or treated like shit without feeling of any guilt. It is mind-boggling what all sort of things can get you on that list. People getting drunk and peeing on a side walk, 17 year old having sex with 16 year old, person who had a family shoot while his grand kids played in the pool naked etc. etc. My worry is that as soon as the drug war ends, out politicians are going to up the ante on sex war.
spacemanmatt 10y ago
We already have loads of regulations on where people who have paid their debts to society can be. I think you're right about this. Straight-up pandering.

CPLX 10y ago

Every once and awhile you see something to remind you that this country was founded by puritans, not all that long ago.

larsiusprime 10y ago
And Quakers, and Cavaliers, and Borderers, and a bunch of other diverse groups that had little to nothing to do with the Puritans and their ideology. Not to mention all the groups that came before and after.

ars 10y ago

Notice the "on parole" part. I doubt it would pass legal must ordinarily, but for parole the state can ask for anything it wants. So this is pretty much pointless "let's look like we are doing something".

sotojuan 10y ago

Apparently many hospitals have also requested Pokestops in them to be removed, making the game unplayable for sick kids in their beds. https://redd.it/4vykt7 https://redd.it/4vykt7

ars 10y ago
Don't you anyway have to walk to play it? And walk rather long distances.
- sotojuan 10y ago
  So if you are in the same place as a Pokestop you can drop an item called a "lure module" that attracts Pokemon to it for 30 mins—if you're a sick kid in a hospital with a lure in it, you get Pokemon to catch every few minutes. Better than nothing and there's some heartwarming stories about it.
- cgriswald 10y ago
  Some sick children are better off if they're walking about during the day. Anecdotal, to be sure, but from what I've heard, Pokémon Go has been largely positive for sick children. Hospital administrations seem concerned with people effectively trespassing in non-public parts of hospitals.
Thlom 10y ago
In my home town people have put out lures on pokestops around the local hospital for the hospitalised kids.
6stringmerc 10y ago
While I think sick kids should be allowed entertainment (I know how much it helped me, books, games, etc), the nature of Pokemon Go is sort of like bemoaning that a kid's wing doesn't have a basketball court either. Basically while I'm kidding I don't think it's a good thing to get their hopes up about playing when they're undergoing treatment. If it gets worked so they can, all the better (like a small outing for those able?), just kind of spit balling.

Smushman 10y ago

Could be hard to implement this, checking the density of offenders in the area. http://www.familywatchdog.us/showmap.asp http://www.familywatchdog.us/showmap.asp Search Criteria: New York, United States If I could link it directly I would. I am all for keeping kids safe; but this seems to have unintended knockoff effects, such as forcing children who want to play Pokemon Go to venture multiple blocks from their homes in order to play.

choward 10y ago
> Could be hard to implement this That hasn't stopped anyone from implementing laws before. These kinds of laws are favorites for those in power. Now they have another tool for keeping them in power. Someone challenges a politician and they get upset? That's okay, just spy on them more. You'll be sure to find some kind of law they are breaking.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  Just check out Florida, which basically has a city for convicted sex offenders, because it's the only place they can legally live. http://time.com/3705637/life-inside-a-community-of-sex-offenders/ http://time.com/3705637/life-inside-a-community-of-sex-offen... http://www.gq.com/story/sex-offender-community http://www.gq.com/story/sex-offender-community

__abc 10y ago

What? This has to be redundant as most existing laws prevent a convicted individual of being within certain distances of children, school zones, etc.

jdavis703 10y ago
Or from even being on the Internet. While I'm no rape apologist, even someone who committed a sex crime against an adult in this case would be banned. Sure punish people up to the max book provides. But once you've done your time, you should be able to reenter society (perhaps excluding the place(s) you committed your specific crimes).
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Someone on parole would be receiving a punishment less than the max the book provides. Managed release is a lot less problematic than lifetime registries.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    I find the logic of this perspective difficult to understand. You've got a group of people, and an activity that you think it is potentially dangerous for these people to participate in. So you want to make sure they don't participate while you're supervising them, but that they're free to once you've stopped? If you're going to allow them to participate once they're off parole, there is no case for prohibiting it while they're on parole. If they're going to be a problem, it's better to catch them at it.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      That's a big part of what incarceration does, it removes freedom for a period of time. It's kind of a waste if that's all a society manages to accomplish with it, but there you go. I can sort of believe that someone who is required to maintain a steady job for 2 years is more likely to continue participating in society than someone who has just been released from an institution. I was also replying rather narrowly to the other post; parole is pretty clearly a lesser punishment than incarceration, not an addition to it like a registry. I wasn't endorsing this idea.

sitkack 10y ago

> The game may also pose special risks to children as it encourages players to explore

morgante 10y ago

> The game may also pose special risks to children as it encourages players to explore physical locations to win points. Oh the horror of children exploring the physical world. They're not safe unless kept inside!

wonks 10y ago
And we wonder why they keep gaining weight...
- jdavis703 10y ago
  Not only that but getting sick from preventable diseases like diabetes. Of course it doesn't help that the media makes kidnappings (or even zika) seem way more dangerous than our obesity epidemic.
  - AWildDHHAppears 10y ago
    Careful!
Someone1234 10y ago
You joke, but parents that do let their kids walk down to the park[0] or play outside[1] get a social services investigation. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/free-range-family-again-in-spotlight-after-police-pick-up-kids-6-and-10/2015/04/13/30e2a2f4-e1f1-11e4-81ea-0649268f729e_story.html?tid=a_inl https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/free-range-family-again... [1] http://www.freerangekids.com/kids-play-in-backyard-while-mom-does-dishes-an-investigation-ensues/ http://www.freerangekids.com/kids-play-in-backyard-while-mom...
- duaneb 10y ago
  Wow, even in the early 00's I walked to and from school myself. Summers were about exploration. I was just taught strong "stranger danger" skills because it was preferable to my playing video games. I guess the Nintendo lobby got to the CPS.

_asummers 10y ago

This is really dumb. The thing they should be trying to eliminate with this would be Pokestops at a sex offender's home, but that's on Niantic's end not the person on the list and requires an up to date registry. Additionally, though I have not looked at the demographics, I imagine a large part of this games base is users >18. The name 'lure' sounds like it could be scary to a politician that doesn't know how this game works yet is legislating it anyway, but in fact is not a random map placement, so I'm not even sure what this is accomplishing.

krabpaaltje 10y ago
In the end it might end up where sex offenders will need to move because there's a pokestop nearby.

mikeash 10y ago

I'm interested but not particularly surprised to see everyone here against this move. These people are out on parole. That means that they could be in prison instead, but the authorities have decided to be nice and let them out early under supervision. They can be sent back to prison for simple things like associating with the wrong people, or failing to tell the government about their movements. This restriction doesn't seem terribly useful to me, but nor does it seem particularly onerous.

tn13 10y ago
>These people are out on parole. That means that they could be in prison instead Will you be fine if people are allowed to beat up an inmate scheduled for death penalty ? How does it really matter if we break a few bones right before he is dead ? I think the logic is the whole "sex offender" registry is bullshit. Check what sort of things can get you on that list. So people on parole are not necessarily hardened horrible criminals we should despise. Even if they are bad people why should not be they allowed to play a game ? How on earth do we even enforce such restriction? Creating restrictions that can not be enforced reduces overall respect for law. Tomorrow the politician will say Itunes should not sell pop songs of teenage singers to such people are we supposed to comply ? I see this as sex war pretty much like drug war.
- mikeash 10y ago
  I don't see how beating up death row inmates is analogous. I don't support the death penalty at all, but even ignoring that I don't support physical violence against prisoners, no matter how guilty. I do, however, support punishing criminals. And since letting criminals out on parole is a nice thing we do for them, not a requirement, I think we should consider the fact that these people could easily still be in prison instead. If they hadn't been paroled then they wouldn't be able to play Pokemon Go either, and they'd have a bunch of other restrictions on their lives besides.
morgante 10y ago
I don't think it will have any impact either way. Any danger of sex offenders using Pokemon Go to lure children is vastly overstated, but I also agree that people out on parole can be subject to restrictions. It's mostly a waste of taxpayer time to be considering this. Most of the negativity is really about the attitude that Pokemon Go is somehow dangerous. I also find it a little troubling that Niantic is being compelled to review user data in a search for "criminals."

gre 10y ago

Clickhole just did a piece about Pokemon Go and sex offenders. http://www.clickhole.com/article/gaming-safety-ftw-pokemon-pokemon-go-will-now-scre-4691 http://www.clickhole.com/article/gaming-safety-ftw-pokemon-p...

Vonkastell 10y ago

Teach them to jailbreak/root their phone so they can spoof their GPS data and play without leaving home.

choward 10y ago

Let's say this law does get passed? How do sex offenders learn about it? When they get arrested?

hehheh 10y ago
This law is redundant, so they should already know about the restrictions.

sathackr 10y ago

Can we get a list of swimming pools and lakes and ensure there are no pokestops near them as well? I'm pretty sure far more children drown in bodies of water than are harmed by sex offenders on parole.

Fjolsvith 10y ago
There could be some truth to this. In 2003, the sexual recidivism rate for sex offenders was only 5.3% over the 3 years following their release.[1] [1] http://www.smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch5_recidivism.html http://www.smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch5_recidivism.html

Fjolsvith 10y ago

I read a lot of comments and think, knee-jerk reaction. Some comments I see seem to me to be born from ignorance. I really was torn whether I wanted to speak out regarding this topic, but I decided that maybe the good would outweigh the bad. I have been on federal probation and my experience with it is at that level and not with the state of New York. So, I can only give you my perspective and opinions regarding the topic. During my time on supervision, I was initially not allowed to have a smart phone, nor was I allowed to use the Internet. Over time, as I earned the trust of my PO, these things were allowed, however with the caveat that my use of them would be monitored with software running that logged everything. This was because my crime involved a "misuse" of the Internet. It also was because I had been locked away from the internet for over 8 years, and that my re-introduction to it needed to be gradual. The intention was for me to learn to manage myself for when I would not have someone telling me what I should and shouldn't do. I have been off probation for 2-1/2 years now. I just recently tried Pokemon Go, mainly because I was interested in the business advertising aspect of it, and didn't find it very engaging for me. I did learn about Ingress, though, and that game was like crack for me and I finally had to uninstall it. So, here's my take regarding the game and sex offenders: Sex offenders tend to not see things or think about things the way normal people do. They have a 'tilt' or a dis-conjunction to their thinking processes, that tend to make them susceptible to fantasy thinking. They see make-believe as reality, and that is partly why they think themselves into committing their crime(s). Pokemon Go (and Ingress) represent a form of make-believe that can allow a sex offender to disconnect from the importance that they have to be very careful once back in society. Running up to a location while staring at your phone can put a sex offender into a bad "relapse danger" situation, such as wandering into a group of children. While the offender may not have any intention of reoffending, it could be similar to a recovering coke addict walking into a party where there are lines cut up on the coffee table. For myself, I think that New York is wise to do this.

jimmywanger 10y ago

If you think about this from a rhetorical perspective, it's incredibly effective. My previous comment on this post remarked on the political motivations for this, I'm expounding a bit. Basically you're saying "Let's restrict rights for sex offender (an incredibly loose term but with huge emotional connotations" and no matter what your political opponent says, you can tar him with being "soft on sex offenders". If I were a politician, this would be a no-brainer masterstroke. I would do it in a minute to ensure my re-elections. I just find it incredibly sleazy.