The article’s claim is simply nonsense. As I quoted, the article literally says “they can discover if their abuser is a repeat offender” but in-fact they can only discover if any anonymous accusations have been registered.
The article doesn't need to make the presumption of innocence - it's not a trial, it's showing how this is helpful to a victim of assault. There's no "two sides" argument here.
If you check out the the Project Callisto website they outline the protections there are for accused - namely that they can never be named to the lawyers who get involved by the project. That has to be done by the individuals making the accusation to the lawyers.
It is - as the article says - a way of letting the victims know they are not alone.
Nor does the article have any business making the presumption of guilt, but it does exactly that.
I am criticizing what the article actually does, not expecting it to do something more.
All it takes is a person registering a name then receiving notification that others have registered the same name, then conflating that with evidence of guilt in the same exact manner the articles does.
If the article didn’t set such a good example of how to ruin an innocent person’s life, I wouldn’t be concerned.
> If the article didn’t set such a good example of how to ruin an innocent person’s life
But it doesn't? The accused person is never named publicly - a lawyer is involved to help decide on next steps.
It seems you are concerned about fraudulent accusations. But this doesn't seem to do anything to make fraudulent accusations easier in any way because the public accusation is out-of-scope of what it does.
All it does is get a lawyer to contact them - which is something they could do already if they are making something up.