E-mail addresses and other Internet identifiers.
Recently we have focused on Senate Bill 431 which requires registered sex offenders to provide their e-mail addresses and other Internet identifiers. Much has been said about this bill and everyone is, right now, in the process of submitting their concerns about this bill to Rep. Conyers.
It begs the question, why do that if the Final Guidelines already has such a requirement built in? There is one possible answer, Rep. Conyers who is likely one of two Reps. that has been very vocal on issues affecting RSOs, and since it is also likely he knew about the Final Guidelines coming out, that he is attempting to gather facts which he may use to effect changes in AWA and the Final Guidelines. At least I hope that is his goal.
For the moment, I just thought it a good idea to focus on what they guidelines say with respect to e-mail addresses and other Internet identifiers. Accordingly, quoting from the Final Guidelines page-37:
REMOTE COMMUNICATION ADDRESSESFor the moment I want to make one comment, notice what I highlighted, Congress apparently has a erroneous belief that all RSOs will do nothing on the Internet but commit crimes affecting children.
Public access to or disclosure of sex offenders’ remote communication routing addresses and their equivalent—such as e-mail addresses and telephone numbers—is discussed separately because the issue presents both risks and benefits and merits careful handling by jurisdictions.
On the one hand, appropriately designed forms of access to such information may further the public safety objectives of sex offender registration and notification. For example, the operators of Internet social networking services that serve children may validly wish to check whether the e-mail addresses of individuals on their user lists are those of registered sex offenders, so that they can prevent sex offenders from using their services as avenues for Internet luring of children for purposes of sexual abuse. Likewise, a parent may legitimately wish to check whether the e-mail address of an unknown individual who is communicating with his or her child over the Internet is that of a registered sex offender, for the same protective purpose.
On the other hand, some forms of public disclosure of this type of information—such as including sex offenders’ e-mail addresses as part of the information in their individual listings on the sex offender websites, which also include their names, locations, etc.—could raise serious concerns about unintended consequences and misuse. Posting of the information in this form could provide ready access by sex offenders to the e-mail addresses of other sex offenders, thereby facilitating networking among such offenders through the Internet for such purposes as: exchanging information about or providing access to child victims for purposes of sexual abuse; recruiting confederates and accomplices for the purpose of committing child sexual abuse or exploitation offenses or other sexually violent crimes; trafficking in child pornography; and sharing ideas and information about how to commit sexual crimes, avoid detection and apprehension for committing such crimes, or evade registration requirements.
The public safety benefits of public access in this context may be realized, and the risks and concerns addressed, by not including remote communication routing addresses or information that would enable sex offenders to contact each other on the individual public website postings of registrants, but including on the websites a function by which members of the public may enter, e.g., an e-mail address or phone number and receive an answer whether the specified address or number has been registered as that of a sex offender. In the case of a concerned parent as described above, for example, this could enable the parent to ascertain that the e-mail address of an individual attempting to communicate through the Internet with his or her child is the address of a sex offender, but without providing sex offenders access to listings showing the e-mail addresses of other persons who may share their dispositions to commit sexual crimes.
Jurisdictions are accordingly permitted and encouraged to provide public access to remote communication address information included in the sex offender registries, in the form described above, i.e., a function that allows checking whether specified addresses are included in the registries as the addresses of sex offenders. The registry management and website software that the Justice Department is developing pursuant to SORNA § 123 will include software for such a website function.
Their comment is filled with accusations of possible ways RSOs WILL ACT -in their belief- what is interesting here is, that they provide no evidence what so ever, that all RSOs act in that manner.
Funny, I guess an appropriate response might be, I guess all lawmakers are just as likely to use the Internet to contact minors in an inappropriate manner, if we remember Congressmen like Mark Foley and I am quite sure folks will help me remember others after reading this post.
Accordingly, I will return to this post to complete my analysis equating my S-431 comments to the requirements of the Final Guidelines, but folks will be surprised when they learn there is little difference in the problems behind the requirements for e-mail addresses and other Internet identifiers.
They both suffer the exact same inherent failures and fallacies which I will point out.
Ahh, one final point for today, why should Congress try to prevent RSOs from conversing on the Internet if it is for the purpose of Freedom of Speech and to discuss Political ramifications of laws such as AWA.
Is there really a problem, enough to deny them additional Constitutional rights, especially given they have no representation in Congress? Could there, one day, be a RSO party running for office?
Support would have to come from other RSOs, I think....
No comments:
Post a Comment