3-31-2009 Texas:
The Texas attorney general will appeal a recent decision by a federal judge calling for an "appropriate hearing" in the implementation of parole conditions for notorious child killer Raul Meza. The decision could lead to a spate of suits from other parolees.
Last week federal judge Lee Yeakel in Austin ordered a "hearing meeting the requirements of due process" for Meza who was released from prison on mandatory supervision seven years ago. Despite his release, he has remained effectively incarcerated ever since, because of stringent parole restrictions he had little chance to rebut, Yeakel ruled.
Meza, who admitted sexually assaulting his victim, but was not prosecuted for a sex crime, was nonetheless ordered by the Parole Board to comply with sex offender restrictions known as Condition X. Yeakel questioned the state's sincerity in its efforts to help Meza transition back into the free world. "Regardless of the state's protestations to the contrary, Meza has remained incarcerated since his mandatory supervision began in 2002," Yeakel wrote. "No reasonable observer may conclude otherwise."
Meza was sentenced to 30 years in prison for the 1982 murder of 9-year-old Kendra Page. The parole board had no choice but to release him under mandatory supervision in 2002, but ordered tight restrictions, such as that he be accompanied by an officer at all times outside the Travis County Correctional Complex; that he only spend 8 hours a week outside the Complex; and that he only visit a job program on certain days. Those restrictions prevented Meza from reintegrating into the community, the judge wrote.
The ruling is "a step in the right direction," said parole attorney Bill Habern who has handled several similar cases. "We previously did not know what due process applied in this state, or in this circuit, on these issues. Now we've had the due process defined by the court."
A spokesman for the attorney general's office declined comment except to say the office would appeal. ..News Source.. by Diane Jennings
March 31, 2009
TX- State to appeal judicial decison calling for more due process for child killer Raul Meza
NH- Judge recuses herself in Franklin sex offender case
3-31-2009 New Hampshire:
A hearing to determine whether or not a convicted sex offender can move into his companion's home on West Bow Street while his lawsuit against the city winds its way through the courts was postponed for eight days when the judge scheduled to hear it recused herself.
According to Mayor Kenneth Merrifield, who appeared in Merrimack County Superior Court for the 10 a.m. hearing, Judge Diane Nicolosi was scheduled to hear arguments about suspending a city ordinance so Frank Singleton III could live at 50 West Bow Street in Franklin while his case was being adjudicated, but took herself out of the case because of her friendship with Singleton's lawyer, Barb Keshen of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union.
Singleton, who was granted parole in January of 2008 after being convicted of two counts of failing to register as a sex offender, remains in the N.H. State Prison because Franklin City Code Ordinance 247 prohibits a registered sex offender from living within 2,500 feet of a school or other place where children congregate.
He is not only challenging the city's right to enact and enforce that ordinance, but he has also asked the court to declare the ordinance temporarily unconstitutional until the court makes its decision — a request the city is prepared to fight.
In paperwork filed with the court Monday, City Attorney Paul Fitzgerald argues that Singleton has not met the burden of proof required for the court to take the "extraordinary action" of temporarily suspending Franklin's ordinance because he is not prevented from living in Franklin — he is only prevented from living within the ordinance's 2,500-foot restriction.
"Franklin is a city with alternative, affordable rental housing opportunities," said Fitzgerald, who said Singleton's companion's research into where the two could legally live was faulty and is not compelling enough to allow for the suspension of Code 247.
"Singleton is free to amend his parole plan to propose housing in conformity with Code 247 and address the issue of unsupervised contact with minor females," Fitzgerald continued. "Alternate housing in Franklin is available, contact with minor females can be supervised, and if he satisfied the conditions of an approved parole plan, Singleton can be released from prison."
Arguments for the temporary suspension of Code 247 are scheduled for April 7 at 10 a.m. at Merrimack County Superior Court. ..News Source.. by GAIL OBER
OH- Evaluation of Sex Offender Center Released
3-31-2009 Ohio:
The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections released a report today on the controversial Pogue Center in Over-the-Rhine. The facility, operated by the Volunteers of America on McMicken Street, houses and treats sex offenders.
An executive review of the place was ordered after Anthony Kirkland was kicked out and later became a suspect in the murder of local teenager Esme Kenney.
The report says the center currently houses 82 offenders. The center is 94% compliant with state regulations. But it points out the Pogue Center has a huge problem with residents leaving without notifying staff and never returning. In fact, the DRC report says Pogue has an AWOL rate that is double of other halfway houses in Ohio. In the past year, the DRC says one-third of the offenders at the VOA were "terminated for being AWOL".
The report talks in length about Kirkland's stay at the Pogue Center. He was admitted on October 2, 2008 and put into the "New Life" program for sex offenders as well as drug and alcohol counseling. Kirkland apparently did not adjust well to the New Life program because he refused to admit he'd committed a crime. After an evaluation, which included a polygraph test, Kirkland was moved to the general corrections program on December 2, 2008.
After that, the report says Kirkland became increasingly agitated and was referred to treatment for bipolar disorder. He was put on medication which he stayed on for the duration of his residency. Kirkland was employed through a temp agency but staffers said his refusal to acknowledge his past crime meant he would likely be terminated from the program.
On February 27, Kirkland told staffers he was "jumped" by four other residents. As he was giving his statement to staffers, he reportedly punched another resident. Police were called but that resident refused to press charges against Kirkland. However, the staff decided to escort him from the premises, "due to the perceived threat he posed to the safety and security of the facility."
The center staff told the DRC they did not contact the Adult Parole Authority immediately because of an unwritten rule that the APA should not be called after-hours, on weekends or holidays. The DRC says that rule cannot be substantiated and that the rules regarding the contact of APA staff in the case of an eviction will need to be clarified.
The DRC also says the center is "not adequately completing aftercare plans with offenders" once they have completed their stay and are released into the general population. The state has appointed Deputy Director Linda Janes to oversee changes at the center and is asking for an update on progress no later than June 31st.
The Pogue center also came under fire after Marion "Timmy" Parker walked away from the facility in January. Police say Parker beat and strangled Shawn Davis of Covington a week later. He's also accused of killing a man in the Kenton County Detention Center on Sunday.
Several members of Cincinnati City Council have written Ohio's Governor, asking for the center to be closed. ..News Source.. by Local12.com
CT- Bill presented asking for the death penalty under certain conditions
3-31-2009 Connecticut:
State Republican Senator Dan Debicella sponsored this bill, proposing the death penalty for the rape of a child under 13, and which effectively overrules Kennedy v. Louisiana.
Presenting such a bill to the legislature does not mean that the state wants "Sex Offenders Killed" as is being claimed by another website.
Such a construction of a bill, merely presented, is a misconstruction of the intent of the state towards registered sex offenders and anyone arrested for such a crime.
This kind of claim does not help in fighting legislation affecting sex offenders. Further, if anything it shows some are not able to understand bills and reduces all advocates' credibility in the eyes of legislators.
eAdvocate
Cheating husband caught on Google Street View
3-31-2009 Global:
He didn't even say he was working late. No, no. He said he was away on business.
However, his wife, bathing in uncontrollable suspicion, decided to do the only thing she could. She dialed up the local detective agency. Yes, Google Street View.
In the story as related by the Sun newspaper, the unnamed woman seems to have had some sense of whom her errant husband might be squiring.
She Google-zoomed in on the woman's house and discovered that her husband's Range Rover proved that he was, indeed, roving.
Yes, its distinctive shape, and its even more distinctive fancy hubcaps, were parked exactly where they shouldn't be.
Divorce appears to be proceeding.
Britain has already been shaken to what remains of its foundations by Google Street View's unerring ability to discover people and things where an idealist might wish they weren't: from the vomiting man to the man walking out of a sex shop. Yes, not even the same man.
One can only hope for some form of reconciliation in the sad Google Street View divorce. At the very least, wouldn't it be nice if Google picked up the legal bills? Or if the company offered to pay for counseling? On the other hand, will the poor husband threaten to sue Google?
Unlike with marriage, the possibilities with Google Street View are endless. ..News Source.. by by Chris Matyszczyk
Study: Enforcement spurs rise in Web sex arrests
I am looking forward to reading this study to see how it conflicts with the recent DOJ Press Release.
UPDATE 3-31: Here is the new study, I will follow up with comments after I read it:
3-31-2009 National:
NEW YORK — More people have been arrested in recent years for sexually soliciting youths online, but the sharp increase comes from better enforcement, and the Internet remains a relatively safe social environment, researchers said in a new study.
In a report to be released Tuesday, the researchers saw a nearly fivefold jump in arrests for soliciting undercover investigators who posed as juveniles — to 3,100 in 2006, from 644 in 2000, the last time the study was conducted.
By contrast, arrests for solicitations of actual children increased 21 percent to about 615 in 2006, from an estimated 508 in 2000, during a period in which Internet usage also grew sharply.
The disparity indicates that the rise in arrests largely results from tighter enforcement rather than from an increase in the number of offenders, said David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center, which conducted the study. Otherwise, he said, the rate of growth for the two groups would be more similar.
Throughout the decade, the federal government helped fund Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces across the country, while some states have updated their laws to address online solicitations.
The large increase in arrests shows that such efforts are working, said John Palfrey, an Internet safety expert at Harvard University who was not involved in the study.
"The law enforcement community should take pride in the fact that they are doing some things right," said Palfrey, who recently headed a task force charged with assessing technologies for protecting children from unwanted contact online.
The New Hampshire center's data from 2000 have been widely cited in Internet safety circles, but they predate the popularity of social networks such as News Corp.'s MySpace. In providing the update, the researchers are hoping to assuage fears parents may have about their children spending time in such online hangouts.
Researchers did see solicitations shift from chat rooms, where children used to be propositioned most frequently, to online social networks, as young people spend more time there. But the researchers found no evidence that minors were being lured by predators based on the personal information they post. Rather, they said, youths often were actively seeking relationships with people they knew to be adults.
The researchers also say that the arrests of online predators in 2006 represent just 1 percent of all arrests for sex crimes against minors, which declined overall.
Both sets of arrest figures represent estimates from mail and telephone surveys with more than 2,500 law-enforcement agencies. The 2000 study was based on arrests from July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2001, while the 2006 data were for that calendar year.
A small number of individuals were arrested for both soliciting an undercover agent and a child; those cases were included only in the total for youths. ..News Source.. by AP Technology Writer
GA- Sex-registry suit can go on
3-31-2009 Georgia:
Judge allows class action: Ruling strikes down ban on church work by sex offenders.
A federal judge on Monday banned the state from enforcing a provision of Georgia’s tough sex-offender law that prohibits offenders from volunteering at churches.
Lawyers representing the plaintiffs presented evidence from ministers and others who work with sex offenders about the restorative powers of faith and volunteering in faith communities, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said.
“Allowing plaintiffs to continue to participate in their faith communities will further public safety by providing support, stability and a grounded sense of right and wrong,” Cooper wrote.
Separately, Cooper rejected attempts by the state to throw out the class-action lawsuit on grounds it is unmanageable and impractical.
Cooper allowed the suit filed on behalf of all 16,000 people on Georgia’s sex-offender registry to proceed on claims the law is too vague and broad.
Cooper also broke the suit down into various “subclasses” and allowed those claims to proceed. These subclasses include offenders seeking to overturn a provision banning them from living within 1,000 feet of designated school bus stops; offenders who want to volunteer or want to work at places of worship; and offenders who were convicted before the law’s passage on July 1, 2006, but are on the sex-offender registry.
Cooper declined to allow claims to be pursued further by subclasses of offenders who are renters or those who are elderly or disabled.
Georgia’s sex-offender law is one of the toughest in the nation. It prohibits most offenders from living or working within 1,000 feet of places children congregate, such as schools, parks, swimming pools and churches.
But the law has suffered a number of legal setbacks, including court rulings granting relief to offenders who own homes, who are homeless and who got mandatory life sentences for failing to register a second time.
Russ Willard, a spokesman for Attorney General Thurbert Baker, said the office was discussing the impact of Cooper’s injunction with its clients.
Gerry Weber, a lawyer with the Southern Center for Human Rights, which filed suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, applauded the ruling.
“Georgia’s sex-offender law has suffered more legal setbacks than any such law anywhere in the country,” he said.
“This order should send a clear message to the General Assembly that it’s time to fix this law,” Weber said.
The Senate recently approved legislation that seeks to change a number of provisions.
One would allow sex offenders to volunteer at places of worship, provided they are not with unsupervised minors.
But a House version of the bill does not include that provision. ..News Source.. by Bill Rankin, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
MA- Abuse: ‘Almost an epidemic’
3-31-2009 Massachusetts:
Economy likely tied to caregivers’ stress
As the economy worsens, straining some parents to the breaking point, child abuse in the Hub has soared, statistics show.
From Jan. 1 to March 1, the Suffolk District Attorney’s Office had 256 child abuse cases, more than double the 105 it handled during the same period in 2008.
“This is, if not unprecedented, then very rare. And there at least appears to be a correlation between the economic downturn and the sharp increase in the number of cases,” said Jake Wark, a spokesman for the office.
“The financial strain on a young family could very well raise the tension in a household,” he said.
The increase has been enough of a concern that the chief of the office’s child-protection unit and Dr. Alice Newton, the medical director of the Child Protection Program at Children’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, have conferred to see if there is anything they can do together to influence public policy and better protect children.
“It feels like there’s almost an epidemic going on,” Newton said Friday.
The perpetrators the two hospitals have seen so far this year include parents, grandparents and babysitters, Newton said. And the victims have included younger babies with more severe injuries, such as a 3-week-old with a broken arm and multiple rib fractures.
Newton cites another instance in which a father shook his baby, causing a serious brain injury.
In that case, both parents were educated, employed and had no known history of drug abuse or domestic violence, she said. But the father was at risk of losing his job and the family’s utilities were about to be shut off, she said.
“It just shows that no family is immune,” Newton said. “The increase in stressors is making more and more parents vulnerable.”
Since December, Norfolk District Attorney William R. Keating’s office has investigated eight such cases, nearly three times the number it typically sees in a year.
A surprising number also have confessed to the abuse - something chronically abusive parents typically do not do, Newton said.
In one case, a father who had lost his job admitted stepping on his infant, fracturing several of the child’s ribs.
“You have families where one or both parents are suddenly finding themselves unemployed. And if they’re not already unemployed, they’re worried about becoming unemployed,” said John Reid, director of Childhelp, a nonprofit whose 24-hour hotline (1-800-4-A-CHILD) has seen a 10 percent rise in calls nationally. “Instead of raising a hand to a child, parents need to reach out for help,” he said.
Frustrated?
•Never shake a baby! It can lead to serious brain injury, long-term disability or death.
•Put the baby down in a safe place and leave the room.
•Call the Parental Stress Line at 1-800- 632-8188 for support.
Source: The statewide Shaken Baby Prevention Coalition ..News Source.. by Marie Szaniszlo
Bill in Congress - HR 1750
3-31-2009 National:
`Tracking Registered And Convicted Known (TRACK) Sex Offenders Act'
Sponsor: Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6]
Introduced 3/26/2009 Bill HR 1750
The intent of the bill is: To provide for the use of information in the National Directory of New Hires in enforcing sex offender registration laws.
Here is the section in question:
SEC. 2. USE OF INFORMATION IN THE NATIONAL DIRECTORY OF NEW HIRES IN ENFORCING SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION LAWS.
Section 453(j) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 653(j)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(12) INFORMATION COMPARISONS AND DISCLOSURE TO ASSIST IN ENFORCING SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION LAWS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- If, for purposes of enforcing a Federal or State law requiring the registration of sex offenders, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) transmits to the Secretary the names and social security account numbers of individuals, the Secretary shall disclose to the FBI information on the individuals and their employers maintained in the National Directory of New Hires, subject to this paragraph, and the FBI is authorized to disclose this information to state or local law enforcement agencies for the same purposes.
`(B) CONDITION ON DISCLOSURE BY THE SECRETARY- The Secretary shall make a disclosure under subparagraph (A) only to the extent that the Secretary determines that the disclosure would not interfere with the effective operation of the program under this part.
`(C) USE AND DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS-
`(i) IN GENERAL- The FBI may not use or disclose information provided under this paragraph except for the purposes described in subparagraph (A).
`(ii) INFORMATION SECURITY- The FBI shall have in effect data security and control policies that the Secretary finds adequate to ensure the security of information obtained under this paragraph and to ensure that access to the information is restricted to authorized persons for purposes of authorized uses and disclosures.
`(iii) PENALTY FOR MISUSE OF INFORMATION- An officer or employee of the FBI who fails to comply with this subparagraph shall be subject to the sanctions under subsection (l)(2).
...........
In essence this is a cross-matching program between the National Sex Offender Registry and the Labor Department's files of "New Hires." That file is created by employers nationwide when someone is hired, all sorts of other things are created from this "new hire" file such as social security records of where a person worked and amounts paid in, etc. etc. etc. (Note: This type of cross-matching is also done for child support orders nationwide, and there may be other program as well.)
To begin discussion I must assume something, that, the names and social security numbers provided by the FBI WILL BE every single person in the National Sex Offender registry. I strongly doubt the FBI will rely on RSOs, who do report new jobs, to send only those persons to see if they are telling the truth.
Remember, it first says, "for purposes of enforcing a Federal or State law requiring the registration of sex offenders." Accordingly, their intent is to look for ANY RSOs who has gotten a new job since the last cross-match.
Now, the FBI will send the list of those folks WHO MATCH back to the states, and the states will then determine if ALL those RSOs have properly reported that they have a new job and within registration law's required time limits. Registration laws require reporting of employment information and such has time limits, so if the information does not match it will likely result in a failure to register criminal charge.
My concerns are twofold, first, that if the information does not cross-match TO THE LETTER, a FTR charge will result, and likely loss of that new job. Second, that when this happens it sets a bad taste in the mouth of employers and they are less likely to even consider the next RSO that applies for a job.
Where stable employment is concerned (a factor that is known to reduce recidivism) there needs to be some discretion built into the system for human errors on the part of the RSO or the State. I doubt there will be but that is something to push lawmakers for.
Federal Privacy laws:
552a. Records maintained on individuals
(b) Conditions of Disclosure.— No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be—
......
Now something major is missing, federal law mandates that a person be told how their information (here their name and SS#) will be used when they provide it to the State or Federal agency (there are exceptons but none fit here). I fail to see one word about notifying ALL RSOs that their information MAY BE used in this manner. I also see nothing notifying new hires either. So what we have here is a case of "Do as I say, not as I do" in other words the government can break the law, but RSOs may not make mistakes or they will go to prison for years.
I would OPPOSE this bill without the changes I suggested above. Contact lawmaker, with your views, by clicking on his/her name above, as well as your own folks in Congress.
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.
March 30, 2009
PA- Federal judge blocks charges in Pa. 'sexting' case
3-30-2009 Pennsylvania:
ALLENTOWN, Pa. (AP) — A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked a prosecutor from filing child pornography charges against three northeastern Pennsylvania teenagers who appeared in racy photos that turned up on classmates' cell phones.
U.S. District Judge James Munley ruled against Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick Jr., who has threatened to pursue felony charges against the girls unless they agree to participate in a five-week after-school program.
One picture showed two of the girls in their bras. The second photo showed another girl just out of the shower and topless, with a towel wrapped around her waist.
"We are grateful the judge recognized that prosecuting our clients for non-sexually explicit photographs raises serious constitutional questions," Witold Walczack, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, said in a statement.
"This country needs to have a discussion about whether prosecuting minors as child pornographers for merely being impulsive and naive is the appropriate way to address the serious consequences that can result" when teens send sexually suggestive photos of themselves and others to one another, he said.
Skumanick, who has said he can prosecute the teens as "accomplices" in the production of child pornography, said he would consider an appeal.
The ruling "sets a dangerous precedent by allowing people to commit crimes and then seek refuge from state arrest in the federal courts," he said.
The photos surfaced in October, when officials at Tunkhannock Area High School confiscated five cell phones and found that boys had been trading photos of scantily clad, semi-nude or nude teenage girls. The students with the cell phones ranged in age from 11 to 17.
Skumanick met with about 20 students and their parents last month and offered them a deal in which the youths wouldn't be prosecuted if they took a class on sexual harassment, sexual violence and gender roles. Seventeen of the students accepted the offer, but three balked and sued Skumanick last week.
The suit, filed by the ACLU, said the teens didn't consent to having the picture distributed and that the images are not pornographic. The ACLU said Skumanick's threat to prosecute is "retaliation" for the students' refusal to participate in the class.
Munley's decision to grant the teens a temporary restraining order prevents Skumanick from filing charges while the lawsuit proceeds.
The girls "make a reasonable argument that the images presented to the court do not appear to qualify in any way as depictions of prohibited sexual acts. Even if they were such depictions, the plaintiffs' argument that (they) were not involved in disseminating the images is also a reasonable one," Munley wrote.
Under Pennsylvania's child pornography law, it's a felony to possess or disseminate photos of a minor engaged in sexual activity, "lewd exhibition of the genitals" or nudity that is meant to titillate.
The judge said he "offers no final conclusion on the merits of plaintiffs' position" and scheduled a hearing on the case for June 2. ..News Source.. by MICHAEL RUBINKAM
CT- Legislation will toughen and expand reporting requirements of sex offenders
Adam Walsh Act & Connecticut: And so registration goes full circle, Connecticut & US Sup ct, from constitutional to unconstitutional. My prediction.
3-30-2009 Connecticut:
Changes to Sex Offender Registry Include More Frequent Reporting, New ID Requirements
Governor M. Jodi Rell today announced that her office has submitted testimony to the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee in support of her bill to improve Connecticut’s sex offender registry and to expand the reporting requirements of sex offenders, including the frequency of reporting and the types of information reported.
HB 6384, An Act Concerning the Registration of Sexual Offenders, which makes the state’s sex offender registry conform to the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection Act, provides greater public protection by making significant improvements to the sex offender registry and by placing the toughest notification requirement in the country on registered sex offenders entering the state. Out-of-state registrants would be required to provide prior written notice to Connecticut authorities 48 hours before entering the state.
“Public safety is the most important responsibility of government and we must be especially vigilant on behalf of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens,” Governor Rell said. “These changes will increase the frequency of reporting and expand the amount of information available on sex offenders to include their employers and information about vehicles that offenders drive.
“The more the public knows, the better protected they will be,” the Governor said. “With these changes, the information available about registered sex offenders in Connecticut will be comprehensive and the host of new reporting requirements we are imposing on them will help law enforcement officials keep close tabs on their activities.”
The bill also includes revisions to the registry that will make the sex offender registry a three-tiered, “offense-based” system with new requirements and additional information about offenders. The three tiers are based on the seriousness of the offense, with Tier 1 offenses requiring 15-year registration, Tier 2 offenses requiring 25-year registration and Tier 3 offenses requiring lifetime registration.
Under the restructured system, registrants will be required to report in person to law enforcement registry personnel between one and four times per year, depending on their tier designation. In addition, they face additional reporting requirements including the name and address of their employer, the license plate number and description of their vehicle, the name of their probation or parole officer and their telephone or cell phone numbers.
They will be required to have a Connecticut driver’s license or non-driver identification card. They will also have to provide copies of their birth certificate, travel and immigration documents and any professional licenses.
Under this bill, registration will also apply to individuals who had previously eluded registration as a result of a release into the community that predated statutory requirements. Such individuals that have been convicted or found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect of a sex offense and reenter the criminal justice system for any crime would be required to register.
The law expands the list of educational institutions that if registrants worked in or attended, such registrants must report to the registry. The expansion captures many of those locations where children are found outside of school.
..News Source.. by Governor Rell's Office
Is That "Sexting" Pic Illegal? A Scientific Test
A great post from Slashdot on sexting which everyone needs to read:
3-30-2009 National:
Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton writes "
Amid the latest 'sexting' controversy, here is a proposal for a scientifically objective method to determine whether a picture constitutes child pornography. This is a harder problem than it seems, but not for the reasons you'd think. And it raises questions about how the same scientific principles could be applied to other matters of law."
A county district attorney in Pennsylvania has threatened to file felony child pornography charges against three teenage girls for pictures that they took of themselves, even though the girls' lawyers say the pictures are clearly not sexually explicit and do not meet the legal definition of child porn. The American Civil Liberties Union has countered by asking a federal judge to block District Attorney George Skumanick from filing charges.
Skumanick won't show the pictures to anyone, including the girls' lawyers, but according to the reported descriptions, one picture shows two of the girls flashing the peace sign in their bras, and the other picture shows a girl wrapped in a towel with her breasts exposed after stepping out of the shower. Unless there's something very significant being deliberately left out of those descriptions, it sounds pretty obvious that the pictures do not meet the definition of child pornography, which requires sexual explicitness, not just nudity.
Skumanick may even sound like a buffoon for threatening to prosecute the girls over those pictures, but his overreaching is probably an example of the "context syndrome" that I referred to in writing about a Wikipedia article about a CD showing a naked underage girl on the cover. In that article, I wrote:
Suppose you read a news article about a man who was arrested for possession of child pornography, and you happened to see a sample of the images (never mind how) that he was arrested for. And suppose the Virgin Killer album cover photo had been mixed in with those images. Would it have jumped out at you as an obvious case of over-reaching by the police?
In other words, even an obviously legal photo might seem illegal when it's mixed in with a group of photos that constitute actual child porn. According to the AP, Skumanick's office first found the photos in question after confiscating students' cell phones and rounding up 20 students accused of making or distributing the images found on the phones. Some of those other photos were presumably racy enough to meet the definition of child pornography, and Skumanick probably just lumped in the bra and towel pictures into that category without thinking too much about it. Giving him credit, if someone had come to his office and shown him the picture of the towel girl by itself and asked him to prosecute the girl for creating child pornography, he might have said that it didn't meet the legal definition.
But the "context syndrome" only excuses the initial mistake, and only partly. By now, he's had time to think about those particular pictures, and he knows that non-sexually-explicit photos do not constitute child pornography, so what is he doing? He claims that the girls in their bras were posed "provocatively", but that's not the same as sexual explicitness, and he hasn't even made that claim about the towel picture, so unless there's some bombshell piece of information about the photos that he's still keeping secret (and why would he?), there's no excuse for him not to drop the threats of prosecution right away.
But could even the initial mistake have been avoided? I think it could have, if you designed a scientific procedure for deciding, objectively, whether an image meets the legal definition of "child pornography", by borrowing some of the principles used in police lineups.
Now, obviously one big difference between deciding if the right suspect has been identified in a lineup, and deciding whether an image constitutes child pornography, is that the question of a suspect's identity in a lineup is a question about objective reality, while the question of whether an image is "child pornography" is a matter of opinion and consensus about an imprecisely defined English phrase, so it may sound odd to try and find a "scientifically objective" answer. But by "objective", I mean that the procedure should eliminate the influence of factors that are not relevant to the legal definition of child pornography (for example, if asking someone to decide if they think a picture meets the definition, don't tell them whether the photo was found in a pedophile's basement or in a parent's photo album, because under the strict legal definition, that shouldn't matter). And by "scientific", I mean that the Yes/No answers returned by the procedure should be repeatable as far as possible, so that different defendants aren't being tried under wildly different standards, where Bob is convicted of possessing an innocuous photo while Alice is acquitted even though she possessed a racier one.
A naive solution, from a scientific point of view, would be to poll a random sample of lawyers or other professionals in a police go-to database, and ask them to evaluate whether the picture is child pornography, without any information about where the picture came from. These results would be objective (if the respondents didn't know the source of the picture), and would generally be repeatable, if the sample size is large enough. The problem with this method is that while all defendants would be held to the same standard, all citizens would not be. Suppose the lawyers in the go-to list start to decide, as many of them probably would, that anybody who is being prosecuted for possessing a picture of a topless underage girl is probably a pedophile creep anyway, and would start voting "child pornography" for all but the most obviously legal pictures. The prosecutor would realize this, and would know that they could threaten to ruin people's lives by charging them with possession of child pornography because of pictures found in their possession -- even while other members of society possessed similar pictures without ever being charged.
Here's where the analogy to a police lineup comes in. Police lineups are supposed to include "known innocent" candidates in order to test the credibility of the eyewitness; if the eyewitness selects a candidate who could not have possibly committed the crime (because, for example, they were in jail), then the police know the eyewitness is not reliable. (This was one guideline notoriously violated by District Attorney Mike Nifong in the Duke lacrosse team rape trial; he assembled a lineup consisting only of lacrosse team members from the party, so that whomever the eyewitness identified was guaranteed to fall under a cloud of suspicion.) In the same vein, the lawyers or other experts being consulted by the police could be shown a "lineup" of photos, consisting of several photos that were determined in advance to be legal (either because of a prior court ruling, or perhaps just because the D.A. had declined to prosecute the photos on previous occasions), along with the photo whose legality was in question. Ask the experts to pick which photo they think is closest to the definition of child pornography. Unless most of them pick the photo that's on trial, then that photo can't be said to be worse than any of the other photos that had already been deemed legal.
This is closer to a fair solution, but there's still a big loophole. When police assemble candidates for a lineup, they are supposed to pick candidates who match the general physical description given by the eyewitness. If the eyewitness said they were attacked by a redhead, the police can't fill out the lineup with one redheaded suspect that they want to railroad, and 10 blondes. Because attributes like "Caucasian" and "redhead" are pretty straightforward, if the rules for lineups are being enforced properly, the police don't have a lot of wiggle room to fill out the lineup with candidates who blatantly don't match the description. Unfortunately, it would be a lot easier to cheat when creating a "lineup" of photos to compare against a photo whose owner was on trial for possessing child pornography. If the photo at issue is probably legal but still provocative, then the police could fill out the rest of the lineup with completely non-sexual but perhaps eyebrow-raising photos, like a naked teenage girl watering some houseplants. Then when the police ask, "Which of these does not belong?", everybody would pick the provocative one, and the police would take that as "vindication".
The only way I can think of to guard against this, would be to let the defense counsel pick the other photos in the lineup, and then they could pick the most "provocative" ones that were still legal! For any photos that have been declared legal in the past, the defense ought to be able to argue that if an independent panel of experts doesn't think their client's pictures are any worse than those, then their client should not be prosecuted either. (If the defense lawyer decided their client was a child molester and wanted to throw them to the wolves, they could deliberately pick non-sexual photos for the lineup, so that their client's photo gets pegged as the odd one out -- but when the defense lawyer decides to railroad their own client, it's almost impossible for the system to guard against that anyway. Also, it's probably not a good idea to make this an option for child pornography defendants who decide to represent themselves, so that they can rifle through thousands of photographs of naked children, even legal ones, to find the pictures that they think are the "sexiest" to use for their defense.)
Perhaps someone can think of a better method that is still roughly scientific, in the sense of trying everyone according to the same standard and giving repeatable results. The irony is that despite the potential of child pornography charges to destroy a person's life, it is in possible in principle to try child pornography cases more objectively than almost any other type of crime, because you can separate out the alleged criminal act from everything else about the defendant, and let people examine the evidence of criminality in isolation. If someone shoots a person and claims it was self-defense, it's hard to imagine how you could distill out only the relevant facts of the case, and pass along just those facts to some third-party observer who then renders a judgment without knowing anything else. Half the courtroom battle is over what facts are "relevant" in the first place. But in the case of a child pornography charge, you can give the photo -- and no other information -- to an expert, and ask them to make a judgment.
I know, I know. The police and prosecutors are not actually doing to do this. But that in itself says something. Even if it's not possible to try most crimes in a truly objective fashion, why don't the courts and the police do this when it is possible? Many first-year psychology students that have an intuitive grasp of the principles of sound double-blind testing, could probably come up with a procedure better than the one I've described. When you've spent long enough thinking about how to design experiments objectively, you can't even hear about lawyers arguing over whether a photo constitutes child pornography, without the thought popping into your head: "Have a group of experts look at the photo and rate it, independently of each other. Compare the results to a 'control' result where the experts look at a photo that is not child pornography." And so on. Why don't those suggestions ever come from within the legal profession itself?
And on the flip side, what about using scientific methods to examine facts about the legal system? When considering that judges are tasked with evaluating parties' claims in an objective and fair manner, one could ask: Are they really being objective? What are different ways that we could test this? Perhaps by having two actors in different courtrooms on the same day, charged with exactly the same crime under the same circumstances, except one is black and the other is white, and repeat the experiment many times to see if they receive different average sentences. For a scientist, the idea is the most natural thing in the world. Forget the fact that the legal system doesn't do this -- why is virtually nobody in the legal profession even suggesting it?
Probably because most people who think in terms of objective experimental design are drawn towards the hard sciences, not toward law. That's probably a good thing; such people can likely do more good as physicists and research psychologists than they could as lawyers and policemen. But they can still speak out for the principles of science to be applied wherever possible, in any area where objectivity is important -- especially the law.
All true scientists at heart should keep telling the world that "science" is not just a label that encompasses nerd subjects like biology, physics, and chemistry, with other subjects like art and law being "outside the domain of science". While the statements made within the framework of those subjects are not scientific ("This painting is pretty", "The court finds the defendant not liable", etc.), science can make statements about the people in those professions and the patterns in the conclusions that they reach. If art experts are evaluating paintings differently depending on whether they think the paintings come from an art gallery or a 4-year-old's kitchen table, you could find that out through a scientific experiment. If judges are giving an easier time to lawyers than they are to parties who represent themselves, even when they make exactly identical arguments, you could test that hypothesis with an experiment, too. And scientific principles could be used to draw up procedures for trying cases more objectively, as in the procedure for deciding the legality of sexting photographs. We just need to get over the idea that "scientists" should limit themselves to the forensic CSI stuff and then stay away from the legal arena because that's a "separate domain". Science could tell us quite a lot about how fairly justice is dispensed in the courtroom, and sometimes even how to fix the problems.
NY- Councilman Eric Gioia: Keep sex offenders out of public housing
Lawmakers continually get this wrong, ALL sex offenders ARE NOT barred from public housing! see below:
3-30-2009 New York:
Councilman Eric Gioia is adamant about where New York's most dangerous pervs should not live - city housing projects.
But when asked to suggest neighborhoods where they might reside he couldn't come up with a single suggestion.
"I don't think government should be telling people where to live," Gioia offered.
For the third year in a row, Gioia (D-Queens) released a report Sunday detailing the number of registered sex offenders illegally living in public housing.
Federal law and New York City Housing Authority policy bars registered offenders from living in subsidized housing.
Typical of lawmakers, they just don't know what HUD law really says, it does not bar ALL sex offenders, ONLY certain ones. see Are ALL sex offenders prohibited from living in federally assisted housing?
This year the number jumped to 126 offenders, up 12% from last year. In 2006, Gioia found 200 registered offenders in public housing.
Forty-two of the city's 3,432 registered sex offenders live in projects in Brooklyn, according to the new report. There are 37 in Manhattan public housing, 36 are in the Bronx, eight are in Queens and three are in Staten Island.
"We are implicitly saying to the poorest among us, 'We're sorry, but we will warehouse the most violent predators in New York City next to you and we won't even tell about it,'" Gioia said.
A Housing Authority spokeswoman defended the agency's efforts.
"When NYCHA is notified by the NYPD that an individual is a registered sex offender who is living in public housing, tenancy proceedings are begun to remove them," spokeswoman Millie Molina said. ..News Source.. by Lore Croghan, DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Are we being mislead by DOJ Press Releases and State AG claims?
3-30-2009 National:
As promised and resulting from a readers comment about my post of a DOJ Press Release: RECOVERY ACT PROVIDES $50 MILLION FOR INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN GRANT PROGRAMS . The reader commented "Curious to know how many of the 5,000 were part of Internet sting operations?" Well, that got me thinking, so here goes:
The Department of Justice announced today that $50 million is available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) for Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) (State offices). What I don't know is, is that a one time grant or a grant covering 2 years, which will factor into my response.
Here is the portion of their statement which is in question:
"The ICAC program supports a national network of 59 coordinated task forces, representing more than 2,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies engaged in proactive investigations, forensic examinations, and criminal prosecutions. During the past two years, the ICAC task forces have successfully conducted more than 24,371 forensic examinations, identified nearly 1,439 children who were victims of some form of abuse or neglect, and arrested 5,450 individuals. Of the total arrests, 2,073 resulted in the defendant accepting a plea agreement."
My Analysis:
1) 24,371 forensic examinations were conducted. I doubt more than one was conducted for any one perpetrator. Given roughly 5,450 perpetrators were arrested, its unknown how many were convicted. For discussion sake lets assume all, that means that 77.7% of the forensic examinations yielded zippo nothing. Now, each forensic exam cost $2,051.00 and the amount of the 50 mil wasted is, drum roll, $38,850,000.00 but it provided jobs and saved children who were suffering, so is it really wasted?
2) There is no mention of whether any of those arrested were previously convicted sex offenders, parents or other caregivers. Am I confusing folks? Read on, it will be made clear. One would think the ICAC would love to tout "sex crime" if it were true, but nothing no mention of sex crimes.
3) 24,371 forensic exams nationally or 488 per state, and of each 488, there was no or insufficient evidence in 380 cases, or 108 cases with evidence existed.
For some time now each state Attorney General has been making news about the HIGH number of Internet crimes against children and how so many children are at risk from SEXUAL PREDATORS lurking on the Internet. I doubt folks have not read those news reports, no need to cite them.
The US Census bureau shows there are (roughly) 73,675,560 children under 18 in the US, roughly 1,473,511 per state. If every forensic exam was a case targeted towards a child, a real person, that means in every state (488 cases) 0.033% of a state's children were actually targeted. And, real evidence showed 108 cases yielded evidence or 0.00732% of a state's children were actually subjected to an improper act.
Now, because someone is going to jump on me for saying "an improper act" rather than a sex crime, read what ICAC says "... identified nearly 1,439 children who were victims of some form of abuse or neglect..." they would definitely say "sex crime if all were sex crimes, but they do not say that, they use "abuse or neglect." Abuse may be sex crimes but neglect has nothing to do with sex crimes.
OK folks, why is the ICAC handling neglect crimes against children? All I can figure is, someone reported to NCMEC (Cyber Tip Line) maybe a picture of a child being slapped, beaten, starved or something of that nature (which likely falls in the neglect area), rather than anything sexual. Then because it was initiated via the Internet ICAC had jurisdiction to begin an investigation.
Now that my eyes have been opened thanks to a reader, and reading the article much closer (even the title does not say sex crimes), we all now have a better idea of what ICAC handles and know non sex crimes are also covered. However, my suggestion would be to pass neglect cases on to CPS workers who are likely paid far less than ICAC personnel.
Finally, I am very thankful children were removed from circumstances that were detrimental to them, but I think the public needs to be better and properly informed.
From now on I will be more critical of State AGs when they claim they have joined forces with federal folks and the NCMEC touting "Stop Internet Sexual Predators," when there own evidence points to non sexual crimes taking place on the Internet. i.e. this Press Release. We must read them closer..
eAdvocate
PS: I'm sorry we couldn't answer my reader's question, but I think we found something better, for now.
NJ- Charges against Clifton girl spark debate about teens' lurid pictures
3-30-2009 New Jersey:
In Pennsylvania, authorities are threatening to prosecute three teenage girls after finding risque images of them on a cell phone.
In Indiana, a middle-school boy faces obscenity charges for transmitting naked photos of himself to female classmates.
And last week in Passaic County, authorities accused a 14-year-old Clifton girl of distributing child pornography, saying she posted nude portraits of herself on MySpace.
In a growing number of states, law enforcement agencies are cracking down on teens who use cell phones and social networking sites to share lurid photographs. Prosecutors say they are trying to stamp out a dangerous trend. But their use of stringent child-pornography and sex-offender laws has ignited a debate.
"Do we really want to tag this 14-year-old girl as a sex offender for the next 30 years?" asked Bill Albert, spokesman for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "Communities nationwide are scratching their heads about what role, if any, law enforcement should play in these cases."
A key hurdle for prosecutors is that technology has outpaced the legal system. Most states don't have laws specifically addressing teens who transmit explicit images, a practice sometimes referred to as "sexting."
The only New Jersey laws applicable to the Clifton case are those designed for sexual predators and child pornography traffickers, said Parry Aftab, executive director of the nonprofit group WiredSafety.org.
Authorities suspect the 14-year-old, arrested Tuesday, took and posted nearly 30 explicit images of herself for her boyfriend to see. If true, it makes for an unusual criminal case: The victim is also the perpetrator.
Nonetheless, the consequences could be serious. If convicted of distributing child pornography, the 14-year-old could be forced to register with the state as a sex offender under Megan's Law.
A chief assistant prosecutor for Passaic County declined to comment last week on specifics of the girl's case. Speaking generally, however, she said it is unlikely a minor with no criminal record would be forced to register as a sex offender.
Yet the mere prospect of invoking Megan's Law troubles some legal scholars and children's advocates. They say a statute for serial child molesters should not be used to punish an indiscreet teen who gets carried away with high-tech flirting.
Even Maureen Kanka, the mother of the girl after whom Megan's Law is named -- a 7-year-old raped and killed by a twice-convicted sex offender living nearby -- said the 14-year-old Clifton student should be undergoing counseling, not prosecution.
About 20 percent of teenagers say they have sent or posted nude or semi-nude pictures or videos of themselves, according to a survey released in December by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. Roughly a third of 20-somethings said the same, according to the study, which interviewed nearly 1,300 people.
FAR-REACHING CONSEQUENCES
The phenomenon is vexing to both parents and prosecutors.
Such images floating in cyberspace can sink the best of college or job applications. They can become painfully embarrassing. Teens can use them to harass one another. And they can attract predators, said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
Prosecutors in New Jersey and around the country have addressed the problem in different ways.
In September, school officials in Hillsborough alerted police after learning a high school girl had sent a nude picture of herself to a boy. The image was ultimately circulated to multiple students, some of them in middle school.
But the girl was never charged. Later, police officers visited local schools to talk to students about internet safety.
"They went over the criminal laws and penalties they can face by transmitting any pornography," Hillsborough Police Chief Paul Kaminsky said.
Bill Maer, a spokesman for the Passaic County Sheriff's Office, said authorities hope the community learns something from the Clifton incident.
"We hope it's a wake-up call to parents and students that they need to be very cognizant of what behavior and what activity is occurring on the computer," Maer said.
Authorities learned of the 14-year-old's pictures about a month ago. Officials at MySpace.com discovered the images and contacted the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Allen said. In turn, the center called the Passaic County Sheriff's Department.
The teen was charged with child pornography and distribution of child pornography, then released to her mother. The girl faces up to 17 years in jail.
David Wald, a spokesman for state Attorney General Anne Milgram, said prosecutors have been instructed to proceed cautiously.
"We have asked the Passaic County prosecutor to review this matter and consult with us before taking any further action," he said.
Paula Dow, the Essex County prosecutor, said prosecutors across the state plan to work with the state Attorney General's Office to determine how best to treat these cases. But authorities will not take the problem lightly, she said.
"There will be very serious consequences," said Dow, president of the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey.
Allen said that whenever appropriate, authorities should start by working with parents. But there are times, he said, when criminal charges are necessary.
Allen said the balance is delicate: If authorities clamp down too hard on teens who post naked photographs of themselves, they risk worsening already painful situations for the youngsters. But if they don't clamp down enough, the problem will persist.
"You need to respond to it seriously," Allen said, "but clearly you don't want to ruin a girl's life."
As authorities figure out how to wrap the legal system around sexting, parents need to talk to their children, said Albert, of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. Teens may think they are simply flirting. But they often have no comprehension of just how risky it is to send some bawdy homemade Valentine into the ether, he said.
"Once you press 'Send,' you really do lose control," Albert said. ..News Source.. by Jennifer Golson and Joe Ryan/The Star-Ledger
Panel advises depression screening for US teens
3-30-2009 National:
An influential government-appointed medical panel is urging doctors to routinely screen all American teens for depression — a bold step that acknowledges that nearly 2 million teens are affected by this debilitating condition.
Most are undiagnosed and untreated, said the panel, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which sets guidelines for doctors on a host of health issues.
The task force recommendations appear in April's issue of the journal Pediatrics. And they go farther than the American Academy of Pediatrics' own guidance for teen depression screening.
An estimated 6 percent of U.S. teenagers are clinically depressed. Evidence shows that detailed but simple questionnaires can accurately diagnose depression in primary-care settings such as a pediatrician's office.
The task force said that when followed by treatment, including psychotherapy, screening can help improve symptoms and help kids cope. Because depression can lead to persistent sadness, social isolation, school problems and even suicide, screening to treat it early is crucial, the panel said.
The task force is an independent panel of experts convened by the federal government to establish guidelines for treatment in primary-care. Its new guidance goes beyond the pediatrics academy, which advises pediatricians to ask teen patients questions about depression. Other doctor groups advise screening only high-risk youngsters.
Because depression is so common, "you will miss a lot if you only screen high-risk groups," said Dr. Ned Calonge, task force chairman and chief medical officer for Colorado's Department of Public Health and Environment.
The group recommends research-tested screening tests even for kids without symptoms. It cited two questionnaires that focus on depression tip-offs, such as mood, anxiety, appetite and substance abuse.
Calonge stressed that the panel does not want its advice to lead to drug treatment alone, particularly antidepressants that have been linked with increased risks for suicidal thoughts. Routine depression testing should only occur if psychotherapy is also readily available, the panel said. Calonge said screening once yearly likely would be enough.
The recommendations come at a pivotal time for treatment of depression and other mental health problems in children.
Recently passed federal mental health equity legislation mandates equal coverage for mental and physical ailments in insurance plans offering both. The law is expected to prompt many more adults and children to seek mental health care.
Yet at the same time psychiatrists specializing in treating children and teens are scarce. A separate report, also released Monday in the Pediatrics journal, says primary care doctors including pediatricians and family physicians will need to get more involved in mental health care.
That report is from the pediatrics academy and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. The groups say pediatricians should routinely consult with child psychiatrists, including working in the same office when possible. And it says insurers should compensate pediatricians for any mental health services they provide.
Dr. Alan Axelson, a Pittsburgh psychiatrist who co-authored the second report, praised the task force recommendations and said pediatricians can play a key role.
Because children's families often get to know their pediatricians, having those doctors offer mental health screening can help make it seem less stigmatizing, Axelson said.
Most pediatricians aren't trained to do psychotherapy, but they can prescribe depression medication and monitor patients they've referred to others for therapy, he said.
Dr. Ted Epperly, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said his group strongly supports both Pediatrics reports.
While primary care doctors have full plates just dealing with physical ailments, many recognize the importance of providing mental health services — and many already do, Epperly said.
It isn't always as time-consuming as it might seem; some screening questionnaires can be filled out by patients in the waiting room, Epperly said. Doctors can easily spot any red flags.
___
On the Net:
Preventive Services Task Force: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/USpstfix.htm
American Academy of Pediatrics: http://www.aap.org/
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: http://www.aacap.org/
..News Source.. by Lindsey Tanner, AP Medical Writer
Conficker WORM time bomb ticks, but don't expect boom
Note: If you have UPDATED your system and your virus definitions IN THE PAST WEEK -as you should anyway to protect your system and files- and you had NO TROUBLE doing that update then you are likely as fixed as possible with what is known about this worm today. Experts just do not know what it will do yet, and it is likely to occur on April 1 (Not as a joke this is a real threat). Do all UPDATES BEFORE 4-1 ... OH and don't do them 2 minutes before midnight, get them done today...
3-30-2009 Global:
There's been lots of hype about the fact that the latest variant of the Conficker worm is set to start communicating with other computers on the Internet on April 1--like an April Fool's Day time bomb with some mysterious payload.
But security researchers say the reality is probably going to be more like what happened when the clocks on the world's computers turned to January 1, 2000, after lots of dire predictions about the so-called millennium bug. That is, not much at all.
"It doesn't mean we're going to see some large cyber event on April 1," Dean Turner, director of the global intelligence network at Symantec Security Response, said on Wednesday.
It's likely that the people behind Conficker are interested in using the botnet, which is comprised of all the infected computers, to make money by distributing spam or other malware, experts speculate. To do so, they would need the computers and networks to stay in operation.
"Most of these criminals, even though they haven't done something with this botnet yet, are profit-driven," said Paul Ferguson, an advanced-threats researcher for Trend Micro. "They don't want to bring down the infrastructure. That would not allow them to continue carrying out their scams."
To help clear up some of the confusion about Conficker, here are answers to common questions people may have.
What is Conficker and how does it work?Conficker is a worm, also known as Kido or Downadup, that cropped up in November. It exploits a vulnerability in Windows that Microsoft patched in October.
Conficker.B, detected in February, added the ability to spread through network shares and via removable storage devices, like USB drives, through the AutoRun function in Windows.
Conficker.C, which surfaced earlier this month, shuts down security services, blocks computers from connecting to security Web sites, and downloads a Trojan. It also reaches out to other infected computers via peer-to-peer networking and includes a list of 50,000 different domains, of which 500 will be contacted by the infected computer on April 1 to receive updated copies or other malware or instructions. Previous Conficker variants were written to connect to 250 domains a day.
Among the domains targeted by Conficker was that of Southwest Airlines, which was expected to see an increase in traffic from the botnet on March 13. But a Southwest spokesman said the worm had had no impact on the site.
Where did Conficker come from?Some pieces of the Conficker code and methodologies it uses are similar to those used in previous botnet worms created by the underground operation known as the Russian Business Network and cohorts in the Ukraine, Ferguson said. But while there is speculation, researchers don't know for sure who is involved, he said.
"There is some evidence to indicate that this might at one point have been tied to distribution of misleading apps and rogue affiliate networks," said Symantec's Turner.
How is it different from other Internet worms?Conficker has grown increasingly sophisticated with each iteration, with features designed to increase its longevity, most likely in response to researchers' attempts to block it. After researchers began preregistering domains targeted in the code, the Conficker.C authors upped the ante by having the algorithm generate 50,000 possible domains, instead of just 250, throwing a big roadblock into efforts to counter the worm.
The creators also are using advanced encryption to obscure the instructions detailing which random 500 of the 50,000 domains will actually be contacted on April 1.
It appears the authors may also be intending to create domain collisions by targeting domains that are already in use by legitimate owners, Ferguson said.
"They're creating collateral damage, throwing a monkey wrench into our ability to counter them," he said. "What they're trying to do is make our lives miserable on any efforts to mitigate the threat."
Some of the tactics, including the domain randomization, inter-node communication, and use of strong encryption, are new, according to Ferguson.
"They are using tactics that are probably the most complex and sophisticated botnet tactics we've seen to date," he said. "This is very professionally architected design and development."
Added Turner: "This is the first widespread distribution of a worm since about 2004," when Sasser came out. That worm was believed to have infected as many as 500,000 computers.
What is being done to fight Conficker?Microsoft has partnered with all the major security companies and domain registrars and registries to form the Conficker Coalition Working Group.
The parties are collaborating on research, trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together and figure out who is behind the worm and how to stop it. They are using techniques like behavioral analysis of the code and reverse engineering, but researchers don't want to reveal too much information on their efforts. "We have made headway but I'm hesitant to talk about how far we've gotten," Turner said.
Researchers in the U.S. are preregistering domains that are targeted, but experts in Canada are going even further. The Canadian Internet Registration Authority is taking steps to block domains generated in Conficker code that fall in the .ca top-level domain from being used in the botnet, the nonprofit agency said. "If other domain registries were able to do the same thing it would go a long way toward helping mitigate some of the ability for the botnet to breathe," Ferguson said.
Conficker has proved to be such a nuisance that Microsoft has even offered a $250,000 reward for information leading to an arrest in the Conficker case.
What can I do?Computer users should apply the Microsoft patch and update their antivirus and other security software.
Windows users should also apply a Microsoft update for the AutoRun feature in Windows that was released in February. The patch allows people to selectively disable the Autorun functionality for drives on a system or network to provide more security, to ensure that it is truly disabled. In addition to putting USB drive users at risk of Conficker and other viruses, the Autorun functionality has been blamed for infections from digital photo frames and other storage types.
Panda also has released a free "vaccine" tool for blocking viruses that spread through USB drives.
Microsoft has a Conficker removal tool. More botnet information and removal resources are on the Shadowserver Web site. ..News Source.. by Elinor Mills of CNET.com
March 29, 2009
TX- Bill targeting online predators calls for Texas sex offenders to report e-mail addresses, numbers
Something new found in this soon to be introduced bill is, "... and to give social networking sites permission to boot them offline." Why do those sites NEED permission? Obviously there is a right involved, which the State is coercing RSO to give up. Well, as insane as this is I must remember, this is the state with the highest executions and where Bush came from.
3-29-2009 Texas:
AUSTIN – Registering as a sex offender has made it hard enough for Marc P. to have anything resembling a normal life.
The Dallas County man, who received deferred adjudication more than a decade ago for having sex with a 14-year-old when he was 18, has his address and photo on file for the world to see – not a selling point, he says, for potential employers, landlords or girlfriends.
Now, Texas lawmakers want Marc and other registered sex offenders to also report their e-mail addresses, cellphone numbers and online screen names to the state, and to give social networking sites permission to boot them offline. Unlike the information sex offenders currently must report, this data would not be available to the public.
Supporters say that will crack down on online predators and help local authorities keep track of registered sex offenders.
"The dangers children face online are very real," state Attorney General Greg Abbott said Thursday, appearing with U.S. Sen. John Cornyn and U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, to tout new efforts to crack down on online sexual predators. "These are common-sense changes to ensure our efforts keep up with the ever-changing technology these predators are using."
But opponents say the legislation would add another layer of data to a state sex offender database that already contains too many inaccuracies. And it would make it even harder for sex offenders who have served their time to participate in modern society. To Marc, now 33, it's simply a higher price than he should have to pay for a one-time mistake.
"What's next, a chip in my brain? A scarlet letter?" asked Marc, who lives with his parents, is attending junior college and feels such a strong stigma against sex offenders that he asked that his last name not be used. "Are they going to look me up on dating Web sites? Check out my Facebook page? Now I'm going to be punished for being computer literate."
Texas' current registry requires sex offenders to report their address, birth date, height, weight and race to local authorities, and to keep an up-to-date photo on file. This information is available to the public on searchable Web sites.
The proposed bill would make it a state jail felony not to also register e-mail addresses, cellphone numbers and other online identifiers, such as screen names and social networking monikers, with the state.
The data would be provided to social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook so they could pre-screen their customers and, if they choose, refuse service to sex offenders.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, and Rep. Aaron Peña, D-Edinburg, would also ban the highest-risk sex offenders on probation or parole from using the Internet to view pornography, which supporters say could be a gateway to committing sex crimes.
The bill is a response to growing concerns that sex offenders are using new technology to prey on children online – fears fueled by reality TV series like Dateline NBC's "To Catch a Predator." Abbott and Shapiro cited recent reports that there are 90,000 registered sex offenders with MySpace profiles.
"Our children, our grandchildren, they're all on the Internet," Shapiro said. "There's got to be a structure in place to prevent convicted sex offenders from being all over these sites."
State officials routinely site statistics that one in five children between 10 and 17 have received a sexual solicitation online, but a recent Harvard University study found that the overwhelming majority of these solicitations are from other teens or their peers – not adults.
Critics of the proposed expansion of the database also note that the registration system, which contains information on nearly 50,000 Texans, is already riddled with errors and omissions. A 2006 Dallas Morning News review of the registry found it was highly inaccurate: Roughly half of North Texas sex offenders could not be located, and one in six were living somewhere other than their registered addresses.
"We need to take a deliberate look at where the system is failing, as opposed to making all these little additions to it," said Annette Burrhus-Clay, executive director of the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault. "While it seems like a good idea on the surface, I'm not sure this brings us any closer to the safe communities we want to have."
If the goal is safe communities, human-rights advocates say, convicted sex offenders are far less likely to commit new crimes if they can successfully re-enter the community. Finding safe housing and a good job often requires Internet access, social networking sites and e-mail accounts – all things sex offenders may shy from if they're burdened with registration requirements.
"If we make it so that people just don't want to have online identifiers, it's going to make it even more difficult for them to conduct job searches, to respond to e-mail inquiries about housing," said Sarah Tofte, a researcher with Human Rights Watch. "It will make it next to impossible for them to try to establish some stability in their lives." ..News Source.. by EMILY RAMSHAW / The Dallas Morning News
WA- Dead inmate was testicular shock test subject
3-29-2009 Washington:
SPOKANE, Wash. -- A state prison inmate who died of unexplained causes participated in testicular shock experiments that led to a federal lawsuit.
Investigators are awaiting test results that could indicate why 63-year-old George D. Tate (tah-TAY') died. He was found unresponsive March 18 in his cell at the Airway Heights Corrections Center west of Spokane. Prison spokeswoman Risa Klemme says he is not believed to have committed suicide.
Tate spent much of his life in prison on sex charges, including first-degree rape in 1980.
The Spokesman-Review newspaper reports that he was among dozens of prisoners who agreed to be guinea pigs in testicular shock tests funded by the Atomic Energy Commission.
The tests were conducted from 1963 to 1970 to study the effect of radiation on male fertility. Tate was paid $15. ..News Source.. by Seattlepi.com
GA- Ga. considers changes to sex offender law
3-29-2009 Georgia:
ATLANTA -- Three years after adopting one of the nation's stiffest stances on sex offenders, Georgia lawmakers are rethinking some of the crackdown's toughest provisions.
After complaints from civil rights groups and round after round of costly court challenges, powerful Georgia lawmakers are looking to soften some of the very parts of the law that incited the greatest debate.
Changes to the 2006 law could allow some offenders to petition the legal system to get off the registry, allow others to volunteer at churches and clear the way for disabled and elderly offenders to be exempt of the strict residency requirements.
The revisions, which already have cleared the Senate, are aimed at addressing some of the most vocal critics who challenged the rules in court. They have won the support of sheriff's groups, defense attorneys and some of the sex offenders who so vocally criticized them.
"I think they start to create a rational law that can move in the direction of creating public safety," said Kelly Piercy, who was convicted of child pornography charges in 1999. "They are actually bringing this legislation back to its noble intent."
But the most stirring of changes still could face a backlash from the House lawmakers who supported the measure three years ago as a way to protect Georgia's children from the state's 16,000 sex offenders.
"I've said since the day we passed the bill that we knew that this was a pretty big change and there were some things we needed to revisit, but I'm not on board with all the changes," said House Majority Leader Jerry Keen, the law's sponsor.
He wouldn't elaborate on what parts of the proposal concerned him, but he did say he would fight any changes that could cripple the law.
"I'm for anything that makes it easier to administer the rules, but I'm not in favor of anything that could weaken the overall purpose of the law."
The law, which supporters say is among the nation's toughest, was passed in 2006 at the urging of Republican leaders who vowed it would prevent the state from becoming a "safe haven" for Georgia's sex offenders.
Shortly after it took effect, civil rights groups challenged a provision that banned offenders from living, working or loitering within 1,000 feet of just about anywhere children gather. They claimed it rendered vast areas of Georgia off-limits to offenders.
They also have targeted other portions of the law, with at least eight challenges that have been resolved or are pending in state and federal court.
State Sen. Seth Harp, R-Midland, said his proposal aims to address those concerns.
"I want it every bit as harsh on the dangerous predators, but I don't want it so broad as to treat some people who aren't sexual predators like they are," Harp said.
One change would allow "low risk offenders," such as those convicted of statutory rape, to petition the courts to get off the registry after completing their sentence. The law has been criticized by judges for treating the most egregious offenders, such as child molesters, the same as those convicted for having consensual sex with an underage partner.
It also would clear the way for most sex offenders to volunteer in churches. Sex offenders who are elderly and disabled could ask the courts to be released from the residency requirements under the proposal. Both those issues are at the center of federal lawsuits.
"While I'm not sympathetic to these people, on the other side I can see the problems of rolling people on their death beds out into the street," Harp said.
And it would allow the homeless to identify the place they sleep using a street address or other description after the Georgia Supreme Court ruled last year the law fails to tell homeless offenders how they can comply.
Another section would clarify parts of the measure that have put people convicted of kidnapping or falsely imprisoning a minor during other crimes on the sex offender registry. Instead, they would only be put on the registry if their crimes involved a sex offense.
A key portion also would address privacy advocates concerned about a requirement that sex offenders hand over their Internet passwords. Under the proposal, offenders would keep their passwords but still hand over their e-mail addresses and user names.
The proposal has earned the support of sheriff's groups, who say is crucial to help their deputies enforce the existing laws.
"By and large it addresses a lot of these pending cases and answers some of the concerns that were unanswered," said Terry Norris, executive vice president of the Georgia Sheriff's Association. "It's a great step forward."
Democrats couldn't help but remind GOP leaders they raised concerns about the legality of the law earlier. State Rep. Stephanie Stuckey Benfield, D-Decatur, said it was "unfortunate" that taxpayer dollars were spent to defend flawed law.
To Piercy, who was convicted of child pornography charges in 1999, the proposal would help blunt the law's unintended consequences.
"I don't argue with the intent of this legislation at all," said Piercy. "I want children and communities and families to be safe. What this bill does is begin to recognize what the true danger is and narrow the brush with which they paint sex offenders." ..News Source.. by GREG BLUESTEIN
