Bill in Congress - HR 1076

2-27-2009 National: UPDATE

Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth (SAFETY) Act of 2009

Sponsor: Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21]
Introduced 2/13/2009 HR 1076

SENATE VERSION:
Sponsor: Sen Cornyn, John [TX]
Introduced 2/13/2009 S 436 (This bill is the same as HR 1076)

The stated intent of the bills are: To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect youth from exploitation by adults using the Internet, and for other purposes.

The stated intent does not even come close to describing what this bill is about. First it relates to "child porn" and "money," in essence, if money is used -in commerce- (i.e., to pay for child porn, or access to child porn, or I have even seen cases where they said, if disks were purchased that meant -in commerce- was applicable which to me is stretching it WAY TOO FAR.) then this bill is applicable.

Next, who this is applicable to: "Whoever, being an Internet content hosting provider or email service provider, knowingly engages in any conduct the provider knows or has reason to believe facilitates access to, or the possession of, child pornography (as defined in section 2256) ... ." OK, I can see that being stretched to, but for now its OK.

UPDATE: Apparently there is debate as to who a ISP is, there are folks thinking the bill means those who provide a service to someone else. See MSBA Computer & Technology Law. ( Internet cafes, ISPs, hotels, universities, and employers would be required to keep logs of all data associated with IP addresses assigned individual users – from e-mail logins to search queries to visited Web sites.) However, even using that theory there still remains a problem, when folks use those portals they do not assign IP Addresses, such is assigned by the e-mail provider the user signs on to. There is no known mechanism today to allow for compliance under that theory.

Then, comes retaining records of user's activity: "(h) Retention of Certain Records and Information- A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service shall retain for a period of at least two years all records or other information pertaining to the identity of a user of a temporarily assigned network address the service assigns to that user.'"

Here is a major problem, example assume its AOL and they see someone sending a CP pic (their first notice of this guy doing something wrong), now, when does the 2-years start? The past 2-years or the next 2-years, this bill has holes. The only ISP response is to keep everyone's records for 2-years. That folks, puts ISPs in a position where they have to drive costs of their service UP UP UP.

Now, the sentence for violation: "... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both." That may sound OK, but remember the "for other purposes" well catch this amendment of other statutes:

Section 2251(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking `15 years nor more than 30 years' and inserting `20 years or for life'; and
(2) by striking `not less than 25 years nor more than 50 years,' and all that follows through `not less than 30 years nor more than life.' and inserting `life.'.

Section 2252(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking `5 years and not more than 20 years' and inserting `15 years or for life'; and
(B) by striking `not less than 15 years nor more than 40 years.' and inserting `not less than 30 years or for life.'; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking `or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both' and inserting `and imprisoned for not less than 3 years nor more than 20 years'; and
(B) by striking `10 years nor more than 20 years.' and inserting `20 years or for life.'.

Section 2252A(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking `5 years and not more than 20 years' and inserting `15 years or for life'; and
(B) by striking `not less than 15 years nor more than 40 years' and inserting `not less than 30 years or for life'; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking `or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both' and inserting `and imprisoned for not less than 3 years nor more than 20 years'; and
(B) by striking `10 years nor more than 20 years' and inserting `20 years or for life'.

No need to go any further, they have nothing to do with this bill's actual purpose, this is the way Congress amends other laws, and in these cases, MANDATORY SENTENCING and some for LIFE SENTENCES. This is a big NO NO NO, I do not support this method or mandatory sentencing in any way shape or form. It is not possible for Congress to anticipate future circumstances that needs to be left up to judges at the time.

Accordingly, I am OPPOSED to this bill. Folks should notify their people in Congress to stop this bill, and stop this "for other purposes" stuff, which is nothing but a crafty sneeky way to get something changed which has nothing to do with the bill at hand; and, it subverts the constitutional process for proper debate on amendments.

Thanks,
eAdvocate

Note: To see all bills concerning sex offenders or their familes currently in Congress simply click here. At the present time I do not review sex offender bills concerning Immigration or Appropriations, they get very involved and are time consuming.

Note: Full bill text WILL NOT be included in this blog because as time goes on bills are amended by Congressional Committees and also on the floor of either house, and it is too easy to confuse folks who may not realize that. Further, links to the bill in Congress will be provided so folks can always see the latest version of the bill.