Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Who's Yer Mommy?
Parent your own damn kids -- don't expect an Internet site to do it for you. Parents are suing MySpace after their kids were sexually abused by predators they met through the site, writes Jessica Mintz of AP:

The law firms, Barry & Loewy LLP of Austin, Texas, and Arnold & Itkin LLP of Houston, said families from New York, Texas, Pennsylvania and South Carolina filed separate suits Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging negligence, recklessness, fraud and negligent misrepresentation by the companies.

"In our view, MySpace waited entirely too long to attempt to institute meaningful security measures that effectively increase the safety of their underage users," said Jason A. Itkin, an Arnold & Itkin lawyer.

More like MySpace is perfect for poaching by aggressive lawyers making excuses for their parents who didn't monitor their children's Internet usage properly.

"Hopefully these lawsuits can spur MySpace into action and prevent this from happening to another child somewhere," he said.

Oh, please. I'm sure that's his only interest. More from Jessica's story:

Critics including parents, school officials and police have been increasingly warning of online predators at sites like MySpace, where youth-oriented visitors are encouraged to expand their circles of friends using free messaging tools and personal profile pages.

MySpace has responded with added educational efforts and partnerships with law enforcement. The company has also placed restrictions on how adults may contact younger users on MySpace, while developing technologies such as one announced Wednesday to let parents see some aspects of their child's online profile, including the stated age. That tool is expected this summer.

"MySpace serves as an industry leader on Internet safety and we take proactive measures to protect our members," Hemanshu Nigam, MySpace's chief security officer, said in a statement. "We provide users with a range of tools to enable a safer online experience."

But he said Internet safety is a shared responsibility, requiring users to "apply common sense offline safety lessons in their online experiences and engage in open family dialogue."

The lawyers who filed the latest lawsuits said the plaintiffs include a 15-year-old girl from Texas who was lured to a meeting, drugged and assaulted in 2006 by an adult MySpace user, who is currently serving a 10-year sentence in Texas after pleading guilty to sexual assault.

Suing an Internet site because something bad happened due to something posted on it is a bit like suing the maker of your television because you had a heart attack when "24" got a little scary. (I just left the room when they were torturing Jack during the debut episode, and Gregg just sat there laughing at me in the kitchen asking when it was safe to come back to the television.)

As in another case, the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) said that it's essential that Internet sites be protected from such suits (ie, take your legal redress in criminal court, don't try to cash in against the sites just because you think you can):

"The Internet allows people all over the world to share information and diverse opinions. Without Section 230, no one would risk creating a website where others express ideas," said EFF Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. "This doesn't mean that people like Hollis can't pursue defamation cases. They can. But they should sue the person who made the statement in the first place, not the person who created the forum where it was made."

Posted by aalkon at January 19, 2007 11:46 AM

Comments

Maybe those parents should sue God for creating pedophiles.

Posted by: Dave at January 19, 2007 6:22 AM

Here's a joke from "The Doctor", with William Hurt:

What the difference between a Manta Ray and a Lawyer?

One's a scum-sucking bottom dweller and the other is a fish.

Posted by: Dave at January 19, 2007 6:25 AM

OMG, I thought I was the only one who hid when TV/movies got scary!

Posted by: MissPinkKate at January 19, 2007 7:37 AM

There are so many ways parents can deal with their kids' internet safety. Sure there are passwords, filters, time-locks, and so forth, but I can't help but wonder, though, how many parents are as computer-savvy as their offspring. Staying abreast of technological changes, knowing where your kid is going online, and teaching/enforcing internet safety isn't being nosy or restricting the kid's rights. It's part and parcel of keeping your kid safe and being a parent.

The lawsuit against MySpace is like suing an automobile manufacturer because your kid came in past curfew because he was out cruising with some friends.

Posted by: Karen at January 19, 2007 8:08 AM

Isn't there case law on this? I vaguely remember from my Media Law class in college a Supreme Court case which ruled that the phone company couldn't be sued for anything that was said over the phone. The telephone was ruled to be a means of conveyance only, and the telco could never be held responsible for content. I realize that the phone is not the Internet, but shouldn't this precedent apply here? It'd be nice if it did; put all these silly lawsuits to rest in one swell foop.

Posted by: Gary S. at January 19, 2007 8:46 AM

There are so many ways parents can deal with their kids' internet safety. Sure there are passwords, filters, time-locks, and so forth, but I can't help but wonder, though, how many parents are as computer-savvy as their offspring. Staying abreast of technological changes, knowing where your kid is going online, and teaching/enforcing internet safety isn't being nosy or restricting the kid's rights. It's part and parcel of keeping your kid safe and being a parent.

The lawsuit against MySpace is like suing an automobile manufacturer because your kid came in past curfew because he was out cruising with some friends.

Posted by: Karen at January 19, 2007 8:53 AM

Gary, one worry is that once parents start getting streaming Disney product for their kids through the internet (as opposed to old-time cable and satellite), they'll expect there to be a prudish watchdog for the newer technology.

We should teto get people so see that the internet is not for children.

Posted by: Crid at January 19, 2007 9:13 AM

We should get people to etc

Posted by: Crid at January 19, 2007 9:27 AM

The usual hysteria. The vast majority of kids who use MySpace will become more computer/internet savvy thanks to the experience, and will make a diverse circle of new friends. I wish it had been around when I was growing up isolated in Podunksville. The vast majority of kids who are sexually preyed upon will continue to receive said treatment from family members and immediate acquaintances. Move along, everyone.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at January 19, 2007 9:43 AM

What PJ said... Exactly.

Also re: 24, what's up with that? What does it say about TV viewers that they want to watch pretend torture happening to pretend people on new plasma screens? You don't have to be sheepish or prudish or religious to think that's fucked up.

Posted by: Crid at January 19, 2007 10:19 AM

"(I just left the room when they were torturing Jack during the debut episode, and Gregg just sat there laughing at me in the kitchen asking when it was safe to come back to the television.)"

Answer: Late May.

Posted by: Jim Treacher at January 19, 2007 10:51 AM

Crid -

Guilty as charged. I don't know if its Keifer's modern-day Captain America act, the horribly stilted catch-up dialogue, the visceral charge of graphic torture, or just gambling on which supporting cast members get the Star Trek Red Shirt treatment, but you can count me among the 24 faithul.

You gotta love a fantasy where all the higher-ups are witless clods, and only the first-responders really know what's up. Oh yeah, and every civil servant in sight is incredibly attractive.

Query: What would 24 be like if filmed 20 years ago, before cel phones?

Posted by: snakeman99 at January 19, 2007 11:05 AM

No earth tones, bad percussion synthesis, Phillip Michael Thomas, that's what.

Posted by: Crid at January 19, 2007 11:06 AM

Actually, it wouldn't last past Hour 3. No one would believe the possibility of a terrorist threat within our own borders. Even Hans Gruber turned out to be a plain old thief. James Bond was already disarming the Russians, so 1985-era Bauer would have precious little to do.

Posted by: snakeman99 at January 19, 2007 11:11 AM

Gates was DCI in '91; maybe Kiefer will be SecDef in '22.

Posted by: Crid at January 19, 2007 11:28 AM

I take exception to the language in that article. The 15-year-old wasn't "lured" into meeting someone over the Internet. She went to a hell of a lot of trouble to get herself assaulted. SHE met this creep, SHE agreed to go meet him, and yet somehow, it's MySpace's fault? Looks like her parents left out the whole "how not to be a completely gullible moron" part of her upbringing.
MySpace creeps me out (and at 22, I seem have already aged out of it), so I don't have a profile. If the Internet causes such a problem protecting the pweshus kiddies, how about just not having it in your house? Or actually monitoring its use and your kid's behavior? Oh wait...that's actual effort, and you didn't think you'd have to expend any when you had kids.

Posted by: amh18057 at January 19, 2007 1:08 PM

"If the Internet causes such a problem protecting the pweshus kiddies, how about just not having it in your house? Or actually monitoring its use and your kid's behavior? Oh wait...that's actual effort, and you didn't think you'd have to expend any when you had kids."

How lovely to be 22 and to have such - how shall I say - unripe! opinions on subjects like bringing up your own kiddies!

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at January 19, 2007 1:37 PM

Aw c'mon, Jody, we're trying to keep this thing useful. I don't want the most powerful communications revolution of the last fifty years turned into something as shitty as television just because people with kids think it would be convenient. This is Mother Earth, not Planet Childhood.

Keep those brats out of the whorehouse... We're DRINKING in here.

Posted by: Crid at January 19, 2007 1:50 PM

My favorite is when Jack says to Chloe, "Upload the DOD (Dept. of Defense) satellite to my PDA," and she does,, and it's there...instantly. Let's just say synching my PDA to my Mac when it's attached by a cable six inches away can be a little more trying.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 19, 2007 2:24 PM

I have a house full of kids, and I don't let them on the internet.

I know what I do here. I don't want them doing that.

Occasionally the 14 yr. old sneaks on. When I check the history, I've got another set of porn sites to visit.

My kids will learn things the right way: at the Mosque, from the Imman. Next week he is going to explain what a rim job is.

Posted by: doombuggy at January 19, 2007 3:46 PM

I don't think it's really possible to keep teenagers off the internet completely; if you control it at your own home, they still can find access in a friend's home, or even using wifi at the local coffee shop. I suspect that this is one of those technological changes that is creating social change, sort of like the automobile did seventy years ago. Instead of movies about the danger to our youth created by road houses (I think that means a roadside cafe-bar), we will be seeing more and more tv shows about internet pederasts. There is a deeper issue that isn't talked about all that much publicly, namely the question of how tight the leash should be kept on teenagers. The current popular wisdom seems to involve parents keeping extremely tight control over their kids, but this is (in my view) an unlikely and even unwise attempt to infantilize them. I think that we owe kids a duty to tell them the truth about things (opiates and tobacco are addictive, marijuana doesn't seem to be), but allow them to make adult decisions as soon as they can. This may seem a bit harsh, but I would suggest that experience shows that they do this anyway, whether we like it or not. In other words, parenting your kids may reach only as far as helping them develop normal views and drives, and telling them the truth about the consequences of their actions.

Posted by: Bob G at January 19, 2007 4:25 PM

My favorite is when Jack says to Chloe, "Upload the DOD (Dept. of Defense) satellite to my PDA," and she does,, and it's there...instantly.

Heh, no kidding! This is the same world where it takes 30 minutes for an e-mail with a .pdf attachment to get to the guy down the hall.

Posted by: deja pseu at January 19, 2007 4:33 PM

"My own kiddies?" Nope, don't have 'em, and won't ever. (Feel free to say I'll change my mind. I really couldn't give a shit.) I did, however, have a wonderful set of dedicated parents, including a full-time SAHM up until I was in high school. She found the material on TV objectionable, so you know what? We didn't have one. I still don't have one, and have no interest in getting one. You actually can survive without a surfeit of technology.
I'm not going to apologize for thinking these kids are stupid little gits. Exercise some common sense. Flitting off to meet every stranger you friend on MySpace is stupid, and it's even more stupid for the parents to somehow think MySpace is at fault. Exactly how many layers of protection are we supposed to provide here for people who seem determined to do themselves harm anyway? And "oh, they'll just use it anyway" isn't an excuse for being to lazy or neglectful to parent your children.

Posted by: amh18057 at January 19, 2007 6:22 PM

"And "oh, they'll just use it anyway" isn't an excuse for being to lazy or neglectful to parent your children."

You seem extraordinarily judgmental for your age.

I don't see how you can construe any of Bob G's comments (above) as a charter for either laziness or neglect.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at January 19, 2007 7:49 PM

I'm sincerly curious. Well, authentically curious, anyway... I'm sincerly trying to pick a fight... It's the weekend.

But what does it mean to be "judgmental"? What are the clues that someone's too judgmental, whether young or old? Are there illustrative examples of judgmental-dom in popular culture that you'd care to cite? Is judgmentalhood a circuitous thing, where you have to be carefully not to spot it too quickly or you'll get some onya and it won't wash off?

http://tinyurl.com/omysr

Because if it's like that, I propose that we not worry about it anymore.

Posted by: Crid at January 19, 2007 8:12 PM

Bob's right though, except some people do get addicted to weed.

Posted by: Crid at January 19, 2007 8:13 PM

Look just because people like to use some internet sites for fun doesn't mean anything. I use Myspace for FRIENDS so I don't DISCONNECT FROM THE WORLD and be one of those lonley ppl without any lives or friends to talk to like you so you made this freakin site!. If you want to use the internet you can, hell you ppl are using it right now! You need to talk about the stuff that matters and not some of the way people do things. Run your own damn life not try and make the world exacly like you cause you fuckin suck monkeys!

Posted by: None of your Damn Buisness at January 19, 2007 9:09 PM

Maybe the owners of Myspace should file lawsuits against the parents of these kids on the grounds of stupidity...And defamation.

It's almost as bad as the parents that drop their kids off at the mall for hours and then sue the mall when their kid gets raped/shot/etc as if mall management was responsible.

You can't legislate common sense. Allowing your 15-yr old to meet every 20-something she meets on myspace is just plain stupid and poor parenting.

Give me a break.


Posted by: Chris Dingman at January 19, 2007 9:15 PM

Bottom line, just a bunch of parents not taking responsibility for inadequate or bad parenting and oh by the way lets cash in while we're at it. There have been 15 year olds making wrong choices since I was 15 (30+ years ago). There will always be a certain segment of youth that knows more than any adult can tell them. It's unfortunate that some suffer rape and other worse consequences, but when a teenager adopts that attitude it's often impossible to dissuade them.

Posted by: Rob at January 19, 2007 9:16 PM

Suing MySpace for not taking the responsibility of children's welfare is akin to the woman who sued McDonald's because their coffee was hot and she was an idiot that got burned when it spilled. DUH!!! This is a website that provided a place for kids to have an open forum in which to talk to each other re school, parents, and life. When there were chat rooms used by kids there were also pedophiles haunting the sites and these sites weren't sued for not watching who was using the sites. There really isn't a full proof way to monitor who is too old or too young to use these sites. Anyone can lie about their age and some adults know how to talk like kids and there are plenty of kids who sound more mature than they are. The real culprits are the parents and the reason they're suing MySpace is because they are really feeling guilty for not taking enough responsibility for their children's habits. In addition, some parents don't spend enough time with their kids or pay enough attention to their kids. As long as the kids aren't causing problems then everything is fine. This is the age where parents need to let kids know that they can and will get in their face if necessary. And they're from the 'Not Me' generation. Hope this isn't too long. Thanks for your blog.

Posted by: Diana at January 19, 2007 9:19 PM

I have a daughter (now she is 23) and I watched her like a hawk and I was the mean mom that made sure I knew her friends and knew were she was at all times. I was involved in all of her school activities and called her teachers to find out what she did at school. We were in church every time the doors were open. You name it -- I did it. Guess what - she got involved in sex, drugs and rock and roll. She has had two children with two different men and never married. I quit my career to spend more time to be closer to her and moved her to a small town. Nothing worked. Some kids will do what they will do. My daughter believes I do not love her and if there had been my space.com when she were young - she would have probably been meeting anyone who told her she was pretty and they loved her. There are deeper issues than my space. IN MY OPINION The kid who goes looking for love "out there" may have lonliness or self esteem issues which could in part be blamed on the parents; however, how stupid to blame a website for it. I've been single for 16 years and if I were to look for love on the net (which I believe is stupid), and were unable to find someone to marry me, does that give me the right to sue - NOT! I love this forum. I wish I had one. Perhaps I could unload my frustrations for similar issues and lower my blood pressure.

Posted by: mdk at January 19, 2007 9:37 PM

Suing because your kid is a young, impressionable moron that you didn't restrict their internet access is beyond ridiculous. When I was underage, I used to go to Bolt.com and, what a shock!, for every honest kid i met, there was a pervert asking me what kind of panties I wore- I'd report them to the site (and cuss them out) but you'd be amazed how many girls responded to the question! Fact is, if you don't give your kids the common sense to know not to talk to strangers (even in the shiny computerverse) or give personal info, or, worse, go meet people they don't know without even telling anybody!, then you fucked up as a parent. you may not have meant to, you can reeducate your kid, but how pitiful to sue the website- I agree with Amy, govern your child, why the hell didn't you know they were talking to strangers and why are you pointing blame after the fact?

I talk to my little cuzns online and I govern their myspace sites- I see who their friends are, who they're talking to, what kinds of pictures they put up- I've busted them quite a few times and they know it- "Don't put it online if Julie's gonna get you smacked for it later!"- Hell, they're the ones who put my myspace up for me because I didn't understand how to make it all colorful!

But no matter how technologically savvy your kids may be, they're still KIDS which means you have the right to look up their shit and know who they're talking to and where they're going until they move the hell out.

Posted by: Julie at January 19, 2007 9:40 PM

What's the difference between myspace and the playground? If my kid gets assaulted at the playground do I sue the city for not protecting him?

Posted by: Shannon at January 19, 2007 9:42 PM

Ok about this whole myspace things is becomong way over rated by now with this crap Way before myspace there was other sites like xanga live journal and many more blogger. They are attacking myspace just because it became popular. wasn't there a saying called Don't talk to strangers. And Specially on the enternet?? I just cannot believe the crap I hear on the news the radio and everything. Yes there are preditors out there and for parents that have children that has gotten caught up with meeting people through myspace and it being a preditor sad but you so could have prevented it. By simply noticing your child and be more open with them. if you do not interact with your childs life you will more than likely be on the outside of your childs life. Because you are too busy paying attention to your world. if you know people are out there that can be of harm to someone well just be aware and inform your children. and LISTEN to what you children have to say. Because they know what is going on in everyday life that is consider hip even though you don't.

Posted by: Pestamistic at January 19, 2007 10:13 PM

I live in the Houston area and this has been all over the news here. Just sounds to me like a bunch of people saw a chance to make some money. Of course, it could be that they were just crappy parents who never taught there children that they shouldnt speak to strangers...even online.

Posted by: MM at January 19, 2007 10:26 PM

Thank you that some one is stepping up to MY SPACE and has the nerve to take them on. I have a niece that uses the site to go to raves back east and buy ecstasty and is frequently solicited for sex--she is 16 and flunking out of school. Does the school or her mother deny her access to this site? No. So far, the only time she has been "off line" has been her 2nd time in rehab--the past two weeks--and she is not yet 17.

I did contact the local police department and the NJ computer crimes unit. Nothing. She had a photo posted with a gun to her head (fake) but, still, inappropriate. Nothing was done until I contacted Myspace. She had talked about drug use, narcotic use, the use of cherries?, posted dead dogs and seeminglinly "live" eye removals, and these are not removed or screened unless I complain. Her mother works and is "tired." Maybe that is why her daughter is rehab for the 2d time before the age of 17. I am very sad and have been alienated as the "mean old aunt."

Who cares.

Posted by: Miss Claire at January 20, 2007 12:16 AM

The Internet is now a community, like it or not; a virtual environment that is similar to the community you allow your child to interact with everyday, from the mall to the streets to the online community. As such, bad things will happen there, and it is the responsibility of the parent to either teach those dangers or suffer the consequences. I don't EXPECT my child to know going to the public bathroom at the movie theater with a stranger is OK; I teach them that. I don't EXPECT a bus not to hit my child when he/she walks in the street without looking, I teach them that. And I most certainly don't EXPECT any person in any of those environments to do that job for me. If my children are NOT responsible enough to handle that, they don't do any of those things alone, PERIOD.

Posted by: Chris at January 20, 2007 12:31 AM

If the Internet causes such a problem protecting the pweshus kiddies, how about just not having it in your house? Or actually monitoring its use and your kid's behavior? Oh wait...that's actual effort, and you didn't think you'd have to expend any when you had kids."
amh18057

How lovely to be 22 and to have such - how shall I say - unripe! opinions on subjects like bringing up your own kiddies!
Jody Tresidder


Wel jody since you're so much older and wiser, what pray tell is a better suggestion than monitering your child's behavior as they are growing up?

seems to me watching what your kids do is a pretty obvious sugestion - but since you sem to think thats a dumb idea give us a better one

Posted by: lujlp at January 20, 2007 1:51 AM

My problem, lujp - though this is aimed mainly at amhl8057 - is 22-year-olds who sound like fundie republicans.

Look, Amy's blog is the right place to drop in for bracingly unsentimental comments about kids. But a 22-year-old who comes from a privileged background (amh mentioned two very supportive parents, including a SAHM) where TV was banned outright yet who judges other parents as neglectful or lazy and their kids as stupid for falling foul of internet crap just disturbs me as much as any virginity booster who sees fit to lecture teenage mums.

Our youngest son - a bright, forceful, exasperating, semi-adult, sometimes childish, wonderful (of course) 16-year-old - has been monitored to distraction over his internet use - which is currently out of control. (Space dictates you'll just have to trust me when I say we've tried all sorts of approaches).

Bob's comments chimed with me - and may even have taught me something about changing tack (again) and concentrating on trying to get through to him the consequences of his continued excessive use.

I don't agree for a moment with letting lawyers loose on the MySpace problem. But, as Bob says, there are many responsible parents who feel somewhat at sea with the pace of change - no matter how savvy they are themselves.

(And when we read comments like the one from mdk - we feel a chill of recognition/dread premonition - not a desire to reach for words like "stupid" or "lazy").

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at January 20, 2007 7:23 AM

> a privileged background (amh mentioned
> two very supportive parents,

It's a twisted time in human history when "two supportive parents" is regarded as privilege. Reread mdk's comment... The first two thirds, we're asking "Where's Dad?", then we're told: Absent since the seventh birthday. I think society has bungled the most fundamental element in the formation of human character. And I feel bad about that...

But it doesn't mean the world should be childproofed. The internet is not just bookish raw data, it's window into the blackest imagination. It's seedy and it's commercial. (40% porn or whatever.) There's all kind of truth on it for people who have the sense to deal. They shouldn't lose the tool because children get hurt with it. We don't let children drive cars, either

Posted by: Crid at January 20, 2007 9:56 AM

Crid,
I thought "privileged" a kinder word than "normal/ideal/satisfactory" in the light of mdk's comment.

Also, amh appeared to recognize super personal circumstances - without obviously philosophically benefitting from them.

"Childproof the world"? No way, Josephine.
The bugger with a teenager's internet fascination gone awry is that parents are forced to rely on "no" again - just when they thought they were entering the "yes" years.

Gah - expressing myself horribly today.
Feel like a prim cow glaring at folks enjoying themselves in the snug (to pick up an earlier ref of yours...).

Dying to see Amy on youtube - actually stayed up for it last night, but the 16-year-old despot was already watching "Gangs of New York" on Bravo - by previous agreement as a negotiated reward. Curses!

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at January 20, 2007 10:28 AM

Didn't censor my kids' internet access; did warn them about giving away personal data, and point out that just as they lied about themselves, so did everyone else. As far as I could tell they spent most of their time chatting to their school friends, and had no interest in porn. (I occasionally looked at their browser histories to see. Parents do that.)


My daughter did strike up a friendship with a young man in South Carolina, and arranged to visit him. My attitude is not "how can I stop this" but "how can I enable it?" After a little bit of checking up via the internet, which was ultimately inconclusive (I even phoned the local Sheriff but they wouldn't do anything unless a crime had been committed), I decided I would have to meet this young man and his family at home for at least a few hours. So I came too, then took off for a week's camping in the Appalachians, leaving my daughter as a house guest. She had a wonderful time and now has a good friend on the other side of the world. I had a fine time too, with a car, a tent and a credit card.


Sorry I've rambled a bit: was someone saying they had a problem with the internet?

Posted by: Norman at January 21, 2007 4:28 AM

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the internet. In the real world, there as many possible dangers as there are benefits. Same with the internet. It only reflects the world/people that made it...good and bad. The MySpace thing isn't anything new. There have been predators lurking in AOL chatrooms for a long time before MySpace. The question for parents is, when your kid gets old enough to be exposed to the real world, is your reaction to guide them and help them, or put them in a closet and never let them see the light of day? When you over-manage a kids life by being overly strict (or aggressively blocking or eliminating their internet useage), there's always the possibility that they'll way over-compensate when they get older, and not only try everything you've tried to stop them from doing, but do it in spades (and not have the know-how to deal with the consequences either). I call it "Catholic School-Girl Syndrome"...because I saw it happen to those (and preacher's daughters) more regularly than to anyone. Denial of reality doesn't prepare anyone to deal with it. Guiding a child through reality, letting them know what's out there, trying to give them the knowledge to deal with it all intelligently might work a bit better.

Posted by: Jamie at January 22, 2007 8:15 AM

My favorite is when Jack says to Chloe, "Upload the DOD (Dept. of Defense) satellite to my PDA," and she does,, and it's there...instantly.

Even better, imho, the cell phone Jack found in the car he stole just happened to have similar capabilities - he punches in latitude and longitude, and instantly gets a location, down to an exact address!

But at my house, our favorite "24" anomoly is that no matter where Jack needs to go, no matter what time of day, the travel time is only 10-20 minutes - which is nothing less than sci-fi time travel, given the state of Los Angeles traffic and the vast distances often involved.

Posted by: Melissa at January 22, 2007 8:00 PM

We noticed that one, too (about the GPS phone). The travel time...good point. I don't care. It's my favorite live-action cartoon ever.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 22, 2007 9:17 PM

Leave a comment