Website lets people anonymously warn others of STDs

[Pint0 Xtreme]

You've Got Mail, and ...

L.A. County website lets people anonymously tell sex partners they may be infected. Some cite health benefits, but others fear abuses.

By Rong-Gong Lin II and Daniel Costello, Times Staff Writers

In an age when many search for sex on the Internet, Los Angeles County health officials on Wednesday unveiled a controversial tool to fight the spread of HIV and other diseases: a website that helps send anonymous e-mail warning people that they might be infected.

Through the website, inSPOTLA.org, users can send a free, unsigned electronic postcard with a standard message or a personal note, thus avoiding an awkward conversation that many people would rather not have. The idea is to help people be more forthcoming with sexual partners so those at risk of sexually transmitted diseases get tested and practice safer sex.

The website, which anyone can use but is primarily aimed at people who seek casual sex online, is part of a broader national campaign. San Francisco launched a website in October 2004 that covered other infections, such as gonorrhea and chlamydia, which has generated about 20,000 e-mails. Only this month did it include HIV. Seattle, Philadelphia and Indiana are planning to launch inSPOT sites next year.

"It will help more people get tested early," said Dr. Jonathan Fielding, public health director for the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, which has invested more than $14,000 in the effort so far and plans to spend $8,000 annually on its operation. "We can get people into treatment and get them to modify their behavior."

But some say the e-cards are an insensitive way to inform people of unpleasant or even alarming news. "There's something about an anonymous e-mail that is a chicken way to do it," said Jeffrey Prang, a West Hollywood councilman.

Others worry that the online tool could be ripe for abuse by pranksters. The diagnoses of those who use the site do not have to be confirmed by health officials. However, Deb Levine, executive director of the nonprofit agency that created the sites in Los Angeles County and San Francisco, Internet Sexuality Information Services, said far less than 1% of e-mails have been reported as pranks.

Steve Gibson, director of a San Francisco-based gay men's health clinic, said the online notification has many benefits, especially for the partners of people who cannot bring themselves to break the news in person or by telephone.

Regardless of whether the partners choose to get tested, studies show that once people are aware that they are infected with HIV, they are likely to dramatically reduce their risky behavior, for example, by using condoms.

Gibson said, however, that the online notification is less than ideal and recommends that people do it face to face. If possible, he added, it's best to do it in the presence of a counselor.

"Many people are really upset and devastated to get this news," Gibson said.

The site, which went online in Los Angeles County on Wednesday, comes as AIDS-prevention efforts appear to have lost effectiveness, especially among gay and bisexual men.

Last month, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that the rate of new diagnoses among gay and bisexual men, stable for the last few years, rose 8% last year. A separate report issued by the agency this fall also showed a 29% rise in syphilis over the last four years among gay and bisexual men. In Los Angeles County, Fielding said, about a quarter of the 60,000 people living with HIV don't know they are infected.

The rising number of sexually transmitted disease infections has been linked, in part, to increasing use of the Internet in the pursuit of casual sex. At websites such as Manhunt.net and in the "casual encounters" section of Craigslist.org, a free listings site, users find dates by describing themselves and posting photos.

Jeff Klausner, STD director in San Francisco, estimated that more than half of the men who are diagnosed with any sexually transmitted disease do not inform their current partners; even fewer inform former partners. More than ever, "we realize that to help control the continued spread of STDS, we need to get to the partners too," he said.

The website inSPOTLA.org allows Internet users a comfortable and easy way to find and notify partners whose full names they may not know. Indeed, an e-mail address may be all the identifying information they have.

"We know the Internet has emerged as a highly efficient means to identify multiple … partners. Whenever that occurs, we know there is an enormous risk of sexually transmitted infections," said Dr. Peter Kerndt, who directs Los Angeles County's sexually transmitted disease program.

At the website — which is co-sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation — users can choose from six electronic postcards to send to their partners. In addition to notifying them of possible exposure to HIV, they can also send messages on chlamydia, syphilis, gonorrhea, crabs and scabies.

Some of the electronic postcards are provocative or light in tone, while others are more straightforward. One shows a man's muscled chest at a party and says, "It's not what you brought to the party, it's what you left with. I left with an STD. You might have, too."

A more sober missive says, in part, "Going through my address book and you're on the list," and another e-card simply begins with "There's something I need to tell you … "

The site offers an option to write a personalized message, and leaves it up to the sender whether he or she wants to be identified.

In West Hollywood, some applauded the new approach.

"Anything is better than silence," said Marc David Bronson, a 41-year-old department store manager who has had HIV since 1986 and is concerned about the rise in risky sex among gay men as fears about HIV decline.

Others said they wouldn't like getting such sensitive information in an e-mail.

"To send a card saying, 'Hi, I've been with you two months ago … ' " said Eyal Tal, a 32-year-old accountant from Los Angeles. "It sounds a little bit not fair."

There's also another problem that the site can't solve: People often have no identifying information.

"It's usually someone you met in a bar," Tal said. "You don't take their e-mail."

[Rogue 9]

Obvious problem: If it's anonymous, how the hell does the person you're telling know who you are?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Obvious problem: If it's anonymous, how the hell does the person you're telling know who you are?

I think that's the whole point of the website. If you don't want them to know who you are, you can tell them without revealing your identity. It's better than not letting them know.

[General Zod]

Obvious problem: If it's anonymous, how the hell does the person you're telling know who you are?

I think that's the whole point of the website. If you don't want them to know who you are, you can tell them without revealing your identity. It's better than not letting them know.

I'd say someone that needs an anonymous message service to tell their partner of all people they've got some type of infection has a few serious trust issues they need to work with.

[Rogue 9]

Obvious problem: If it's anonymous, how the hell does the person you're telling know who you are?

I think that's the whole point of the website. If you don't want them to know who you are, you can tell them without revealing your identity. It's better than not letting them know.

Okay, so then they know that someone, somewhere out there has STD X. They knew that already. And if we're talking about their partners who they already know, then it's not anonymous, is it?

[Exonerate]

Am I the only one who saw this and immediately thought people might use it as a prank?

[Rogue 9]

Am I the only one who saw this and immediately thought people might use it as a prank?

No.

[Plekhanov]

Obvious problem: If it's anonymous, how the hell does the person you're telling know who you are?

I think that's the whole point of the website. If you don't want them to know who you are, you can tell them without revealing your identity. It's better than not letting them know.

I'd say someone that needs an anonymous message service to tell their partner of all people they've got some type of infection has a few serious trust issues they need to work with.

Just a hunch but maybe this is meant to help people tell casual sexual partners they might have infected them, not people they’re in steady relationships with.

[weemadando]

I thought immediately of the huge problems that such an anonymous service could create through idiots using it for pranks.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I thought immediately of the huge problems that such an anonymous service could create through idiots using it for pranks.

Others worry that the online tool could be ripe for abuse by pranksters. The diagnoses of those who use the site do not have to be confirmed by health officials. However, Deb Levine, executive director of the nonprofit agency that created the sites in Los Angeles County and San Francisco, Internet Sexuality Information Services, said far less than 1% of e-mails have been reported as pranks.

[Gil Hamilton]

There is a serious problem with STDs that people are so afraid of what people will think about them if they found out, so when the Clinic asks you to make a list of partners and contact them about the problem to find out where the disease came from or where it went. That's a really scary and hard thing, which leads to the serious problem that people refuse to do it and people could be contracting them and spreading them without knowing they had them in the first place.

Hence the anonymous service. It at least tries to stem the tide of STD spreading by addressing a serious problem of reporting and documentation that people have.

[Justforfun000]

The whole concept is kind of stupid in the first place.

First of all, every single person who has sex should automatically assume the person they are about to have sex with MAY have an STD. They should ALSO assume that HIV is one of these possibilities and unless they are willing to take that risk and not "pretend" that it can't be because they aren't saying anything., they should alway use a condom when fucking.

I'm getting really tired of people wanting to abdicate personal responsibility by screwing around in whatever unsafe way the want and then crying "foul" when they get infected. You know what? Sometimes people might not even know. Even someone who always played safe could have had an encounter with someone who lets say noticed the condom broke after it they were done and they didn't say anything because they thought they were negative, but say they were wrong? Lets say the other person got it. Do you see how this could keep passing along the "blame train"? Even if it was just Gonorrhea, the same principle applies.

This is just one example, but I could think of several that could show how people can get caught up in assumptions and misunderstandings, and because we're talking about sex, the normal communication channels are already screwed a million ways from Sundays because many people don't do much "talking" when sex begins. It's a mood thing, and yakking is usually not part of the spell. sometimes everything leads up to the part where passion flares and even when you thought "it's not happening tonight", it starts happening.

The point here is that human beings are not generally the most diligent creatures in checking their health for STD'S all the time, and many of the more "benign" ones can be symptomless in people.

People should be getting tested on a regular basis for all the typical diseases if they are being sexually active. For their own sake they can then get treated.

This mentality of people being charged with passing on HIV and "not informing" others is a very dangerous precedent that is not applied to any other disease you can transmit. Why aren't people being sued for passing on the flu? It can be deadly. What about TB? Hep C?

It's this indirect association with sex being dirty that starts the witch hunt on these issues. Ultimately the big problem with these focuses is that it gives people the cop out that they can cry "victim" if they get something. Very very bad precedent.

So I really don't think this anonymous thing is truly sensible. It's like shooting a squirt gun at a house fire. It's step in the right direction, but that's about as much as can be said.

[Metatwaddle]

So I really don't think this anonymous thing is truly sensible. It's like shooting a squirt gun at a house fire. It's step in the right direction, but that's about as much as can be said.

If this thing keeps one person from contracting HIV, I'd say that's a benefit. And it's not as if this is coming from taxpayer money or anything - it's privately funded, and although it would be nice if they spent their $14K on combating AIDS a bit more efficiently, I think there's a lot to be said for a "step in the right direction," considering that they may be saving lives here.

[Justforfun000]

If this thing keeps one person from contracting HIV, I'd say that's a benefit.

How could it prevent? If they already EXPOSED themselves unsafely, than they have it or they don't. You KNOW if you've had risky sex or not. There shouldn't be a need to have anyone or anyTHING tell you the person "might have something that passed to you". You should already KNOW that if you're mature and well educated enough, and if you aren't you shouldn't be HAVING sex.

I understand the basic ideal behind the idea, but it really is not an efficient or practical method. People have to drill in their head to be their OWN watchdog.

[Pick]

If this thing keeps one person from contracting HIV, I'd say that's a benefit.

How could it prevent?

By them then choosing not to have sex with others who do not carry the disease, or warning others who may choose to not have intercourse with them as a result, I presume.

[General Zod]

If this thing keeps one person from contracting HIV, I'd say that's a benefit.

How could it prevent?

By them then choosing not to have sex with others who do not carry the disease, or warning others who may choose to not have intercourse with them as a result, I presume.

That only helps if the person in question actually visits the website, of course. If only a small fraction of sexually active adults even knows about it, then it's not that much of a benefit.

[Mrs Kendall]

I think it's just a cop out for people who are not responsible enough to actually TALK to the people who might be infected. It's just an easy way out and yes it might help a few people learn the truth but people need to be responsible and actually take the step to stop it if they care.

Oh and I'm with the poster who said you shouldn't be having sex in the first place if you don't know the person and what their health is like. People just need to be more responsible and stop having random sex.

[Solauren]

or at least wear condoms

[Gil Hamilton]

How could it prevent? If they already EXPOSED themselves unsafely, than they have it or they don't. You KNOW if you've had risky sex or not. There shouldn't be a need to have anyone or anyTHING tell you the person "might have something that passed to you". You should already KNOW that if you're mature and well educated enough, and if you aren't you shouldn't be HAVING sex.

I understand the basic ideal behind the idea, but it really is not an efficient or practical method. People have to drill in their head to be their OWN watchdog.

Most STDs don't turn your dick purple and you know you immediately have them. For instance, chlamydia has no symptoms or even does any damage to men, they are only carriers. The only way you find out you have it is by testing. HIV is doesn't show up immediately. This leads to the problem that people can spread it without knowing they had it in the first place.

People absolutely should have responsible sex. It is on them if they had risky behavior. However, you aren't seeing the problem they are trying to address. The problem is that people do occasionally have high risk sexual behavior and the point is to do damage control. See, when you come up positive for an STD, they ask you to compile a list of partners you've had since you were last confirmed negative. This is so you can contact them and tell them to get tested, to (A) continue the chain and warn as many people as possible, so they can come in to be tested and if necessary, treated to stem the tide of the disease and (B) identify who you may have gotten it from in the first place.

This, while you should do it, is a fairly humiliating process. There is a serious problem that people refuse to do this. Here is where their anonymous system comes in. Someone above called it the easy way out. It is, absolutely. People should do it themselves. However, the fact of the matter is that some people don't and thus it allows the disease to spread that much faster because some partner, who very likely might not know he or she has any medical condition, isn't getting tested or treated. If more people, even anonymously, warn others via this system and it helps control the spread of a disease, then why the hell are you bitching? Yes, people ideally should be more responsible, but it's good to have options in place if they aren't. Even if they don't have the balls to do it face-to-face, some method of warning others is a good thing.

[Justforfun000]

Most STDs don't turn your dick purple and you know you immediately have them. For instance, chlamydia has no symptoms or even does any damage to men, they are only carriers. The only way you find out you have it is by testing. HIV is doesn't show up immediately. This leads to the problem that people can spread it without knowing they had it in the first place.

This is EXACTLY my point and what I already said in regards to this. Everyone should be AUTOMATICALLY going in to get tested for a slew of the "common" disease every 4 to 6 months if you are having regular non-monogamous sex. If you are having unsafe sex on top of that, then obviously you should look for the big guns too. All of this is common sense and should be what people do as normal preventative and responsible action. This website implies that people "need to be told".

They should treat it like something that has to be discovered by themselves as a normal check up.

It's the mindset I'm arguing against here. The actual idea itself is not something I think is bad or wrong, it's just a needless distraction from pushing the much BETTER message to get tested regularly ALWAYS no matter who or how many you have been with, and no matter how good you feel.

However, you aren't seeing the problem they are trying to address. The problem is that people do occasionally have high risk sexual behavior and the point is to do damage control. See, when you come up positive for an STD, they ask you to compile a list of partners you've had since you were last confirmed negative. This is so you can contact them and tell them to get tested, to (A) continue the chain and warn as many people as possible, so they can come in to be tested and if necessary, treated to stem the tide of the disease and (B) identify who you may have gotten it from in the first place.

If people get the message that this is something you always do as your own basic checkup than this would be a completely irrelevant sidestep. Obviously the much better message is not being promoted well. Their money would be better sent setting up a website that sends generic messages to EVERYBODY reminding them that "If you have sex with other people, safely or not, you will always be at the risk of certain diseases. Go get tested and get treated every 4 to 6 months because you may not know."

However, the fact of the matter is that some people don't and thus it allows the disease to spread that much faster because some partner, who very likely might not know he or she has any medical condition, isn't getting tested or treated. If more people, even anonymously, warn others via this system and it helps control the spread of a disease, then why the hell are you bitching?

I guess what is bugging me about this is that it feels like this reinforces the idea that "People should be told that this particular person was a risk to them". Even the concept in itself suggests that they aren't automatically assumed to be aware that it's possible they could have contracted a disease. It helps perpetuate the "Victim" status of, "Oh my God. Someone GAVE this to me and I didn't know". Do you see what I mean?

Like I said, it's a step in the right direction in the ideal sense of what they are trying to accomplish, but a much better message could be promoted as superior.

I'm trying to think of an analogy to underscore my point so you'll understand me...

Ok, lets say you bought a female dog and you live in a small neighbourhood. You let your dog have it's general freedom, it is off the leash and has the run of the town. All of a sudden you get an anonymous note saying I'm sorry, but I saw my male dog mating with yours and it's possible she's going to have puppies.

What was wrong with this scenario? The same basic problem in comparison to the above.

The owner was letting his animal run around wild and not acting on the potential possibility of his animal becoming knocked up and did not have it brought to mind until someone told him what happened.

Want to bet the same type of thought ran through the owners mind as someone who would read they might have gotten a disease from someone? Victim status. FUCK, that male dog might have gotten my dog pregnant. It's all his fault.

No that's not fair or truly accurate, but when you are the one "told" something, it seems to be human nature to act as if "Well I didn't know this, so that makes me the victim since I'm the one being informed". It's another appeal to ignorance.

That may not be the perfect analogy, but I think I'm getting my general point across. It's a little subtle, but emotionally there is a character of reactions that is set up by this type of drama I just don't like. It's basically a tacit suggestion that it's understandable for this person to have an abdication of responsibility because they "may not know" they could have been infected. Do you understand?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Obvious problem: If it's anonymous, how the hell does the person you're telling know who you are?

I think that's the whole point of the website. If you don't want them to know who you are, you can tell them without revealing your identity. It's better than not letting them know.

Okay, so then they know that someone, somewhere out there has STD X. They knew that already. And if we're talking about their partners who they already know, then it's not anonymous, is it?

Many people have enough partners that someone could leave an anonymous message under a door, and they wouldn't know which partner had the STD.

[Illuminatus Primus]

If this thing keeps one person from contracting HIV, I'd say that's a benefit.

How could it prevent? If they already EXPOSED themselves unsafely, than they have it or they don't. You KNOW if you've had risky sex or not. There shouldn't be a need to have anyone or anyTHING tell you the person "might have something that passed to you". You should already KNOW that if you're mature and well educated enough, and if you aren't you shouldn't be HAVING sex.

I understand the basic ideal behind the idea, but it really is not an efficient or practical method. People have to drill in their head to be their OWN watchdog.

You're a fucking retard. I judiciously use condoms, but nothing can protect you perfectly, 100% of the time. If someone I sleep with later tells me they tested positive for something, well then I know I NEED TO GET TESTED BEFORE I SLEEP WITH ANYONE ELSE AND ALERT ANYONE I'VE SLEPT WITH SINCE THEN.

If the gist of your post is, well, no one should have slept with enough people where this would be helpful, well guess what? That's right-wing handwavium doesn't change the fact it always has happened and always will, so it can still be useful.

[Justforfun000]

You're a fucking retard. I judiciously use condoms, but nothing can protect you perfectly, 100% of the time. If someone I sleep with later tells me they tested positive for something, well then I know I NEED TO GET TESTED BEFORE I SLEEP WITH ANYONE ELSE AND ALERT ANYONE I'VE SLEPT WITH SINCE THEN.

So ignoring the rude insult I'll just get to the point!

So you are saying that until someone TELLS you that they tested positive you feel no responsibility for making sure you are disease free before you sleep with others? It's not your problem until someone ELSE confirms that you may be infected?

Look at your words and think about this for a second.......

"If someone I sleep with later tells me they tested positive for something.."

and

well then I know I NEED TO GET TESTED BEFORE I SLEEP WITH ANYONE ELSE AND ALERT ANYONE I'VE SLEPT WITH SINCE THEN.

Pay close attention to the italicized section that I highlighted for emphasis!

You're calling me a retard for suggesting that people should be more responsible for their behaviour and then give as supposed counter arguments two examples of exactly HOW my point is proven? lol.

There is no excuse or finger pointing here that will make an argument like that sound.

People have to be their OWN responsibility. That's the point of being an adult.

If the gist of your post is, well, no one should have slept with enough people where this would be helpful, well guess what? That's right-wing handwavium doesn't change the fact it always has happened and always will, so it can still be useful.

Where in Sam Hill did you get this fucked up idea of what you are apparently "interpreting" as to what I said?

I dont even understand where you are getting the similarity between the two concepts. I mean that seriously enough to tell you that I don't even have a rebuttal because I have no clue what the fuck you are saying. Maybe it's just me right now......long night....I'll try to figure later. NIght.

[avoidingthepo]

i agree with the damage control idea previously presented. if HIV is detected very quickly, there are drugs that will prevent its transformation to AIDS and can help you live and entirely normal life. and its not like you can only catch something from a dirty atlantic city hooker with a wig and dentures, plenty of normal-looking people out there can be infected.

inbox 1:
hey baby, last night was great, lets get together again!

reply:
this is an anonymous email from a former partner of yours. sorry, but ive got the clap

[Illuminatus Primus]

[snip]

Since you're obviously a knuckle-dragging, sloped-forehead retard, I will explain this to you into explicit detail. We'll use me as an example for rhetorical simplicity.

I participate in non-monogamous sex. I get tested every 4-6 months. Now, if someone LETS ME KNOW TODAY that they tested positive since I slept with them, I will STOP SLEEPING WITH ANYMORE PEOPLE and alert those I have slept with since, and instead of getting that regular test in a month, I'll get it next week.

If I wasn't told, I would've continued sleeping with more people, not have alerted my partners since the troubled one, and waited another month to get tested (yet I still would've been using condoms and following a policy of regular testing). By being informed, I potentially protect any partners I would've acquired in the meantime, and any partners my past partners since the infectee might have. Get it?

Its obvious from comparing the two scenarios that the one with alerting is safer.