10-15-2008 National:
It appears that some citizens have uploaded videos of various political messages made by John McCain's campaign for presidency to the popular YouTube site.
Following that there have been complaints (likely from news organizations) that those videos violate DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) law, and as a result, YouTube has removed those videos or shortened them to 10 seconds or so. (YouTube Responds to McCain Campaign's Letter)
Computerworld has detailed those actions in its article "Update: McCain protests YouTube's removal of his campaign videos."
In a letter to YouTube John McCain's counsel cites specific court cases and laws to support his contention that YouTube has acted improperly in removing those videos. i.e., EVIDENCE supporting his position.
I find it ironic that John McCain wants to rely on EVIDENCE when evidence is exactly what he ignored or refused to review, when he and others in Congress, passed S-431 "Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008" or the "KIDS Act of 2008."
The evidence which Congress ignored was that, Congress refused to look at WHO was committing Internet Sex Crimes, former offenders or new offenders?
If Congress wanted to prevent those crimes then its legislation should target those who are committing such acts, in this case it is NEW OFFENDERS not former offenders. i.e., MySpace removed 36,000 accounts of former offenders and turned them over to state attorneys general offices which could not find any that had committed crimes against minors while on MySpace.
While it is true that some of the 36,000 were on parole or probation and were not supposed to be accessing the Internet, but those were parole violations as none of them had committed a crime against a minor while on MySpace.
Instead, Congress, through name calling and misconstruction of the evidence, BROADLY claimed "sex offenders" -without defining same- were committing such offenses. The use of the term "sex offenders" without defining same permitted Congress to bring under the umbrella "former sex offenders."
No state, and I repeat, no state uses the "Broad" form of "sex offender" when enacting their sex offense criminal laws. Every state codifies their sex offense laws by defining the different types of sex offenses that are committed, hence, recognizing the differences in sex offenders.
If states used the Broad" form of "sex offender" they would only need one statute, one that says, you committed a sex offense and the punishment is xx, there would not be any further breakdown of sex offenses.
Accordingly, McCain's S-431 uses the "Broad form Sex Offenders" so that EVIDENCE will not be reviewed, but now the shoe is on the other foot, McCain is being denied something, and he wants EVIDENCE reviewed.
McCain claims he has a right to have the general public hear his political messages, and I agree he has that right, but so does every single American Citizen.
Former sex offenders, as American Citizens, have the right to have their political messages heard. They have the right to assert those messages and many did exactly that when they had MySpace accounts, they also do the same on other social networking sites and elsewhere on the Internet.
However, the message told to Congress during S-431 discussions was, that former sex offenders were soliciting minors on the Internet, far too many Congressmen made such claims, and they did such by refusing to review the EVIDENCE. The evidence used before Congress was evidence resulting from persons committing NEW Internet sex offenses, not former sex offenders.
Unfortunately Congress is not accountable to anyone for the EVIDENCE they use to support legislation they enact, nor do they need any EVIDENCE to enact legislation ( heresay, myths, sound bites and misconstructions abound), but in this writer's opinion they should be.
So, we come down to whether John McCain's EVIDENCE should be used to support his claims?
I am sure any RSOs or their family members have a position on that issue, and if they see any of John McCain's political videos on YouTube that violate the DMCA, I am sure they will take the appropriate action with YouTube.
In closing we should all remember the title of John McCain's S-431 "Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008," I wonder what the real intent is, is it really Keeping the Internet free of RSOs no matter what the words are within the law? More on that in an upcoming commentary on S-431.
eAdvocate
PS: A new commentary on S-431 and what transpired within Congress is coming.
October 15, 2008
Does John McCain's S431 Also Violate Political Messages of Citizens ?
Child predators apparently don’t use Gmail
10-15-2008 National:
A few years ago, a piece of popular legislation made its way past Illinois lawmakers (including Barack Obama, who voted in favor of it, as well as teacher unions, public health officials, etc.) offering comprehensive education to school children that, among other things, would have taught them to identify and avoid online predators. Online safety education is long overdue; when we’re providing fire safety, DARE, and “stay away from strangers” talks, it only makes sense to teach kids to be thoughtful about what they do and who they encounter online. Virginia has already instituted such a curriculum and I’m hopeful we’ll see a lot more of this as kids increasingly spend their time in online communities and immersive worlds (more on that in my next post).
That being said, I have to point out that President Bush signed a seriously stupid piece of legislation into law today. While most regular readers know that I fall somewhere in a weird continuum between tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing liberal and laissez-faire Libertarian, I also tend to avoid too much in the way of politics on this blog. It generally isn’t the place and tends to irritate the occasional social conservative who happens to wander into education. However, this little law certainly affects kids, what they do online, and how we as educators can help keep them safe.
It also happens to have been written by John McCain who, by his own admission, is not exactly the world’s most computer savvy fella. The law, called the “Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008″
shall require that each sex offender provide to the sex offender registry those Internet identifiers the sex offender uses or will use of any type that the Attorney General determines to be appropriate under that Act.
Oh. OK. The whole law can be downloaded here, by the way. The long and the short of it, though, is that sex offenders are supposed to report their email addresses. Then, places like MySpace can check a list of emails when they let people sign up instead of developing new detection tools and employing moderators and schools don’t need to teach kids to be safe online since the government is protecting them so well. It’s probably worth noting (my last political note of the night) that McCain railed against the Illinois legislation noted above, calling it “‘comprehensive sex education’ for kindergarten students”.
Of course, I guess no one expected the sex offenders to simply create a different anonymous email account from the one they report to the registry. Because, after all, it’s pretty hard to get a Gmail account. Ah, for the good ol’ days when you needed an invitation, right?
As Wired puts it,
In other words, to McCain, teaching children to avoid predators is as bad as teaching sexually active teenagers about contraception. But setting up an e-mail database that relies on pedophiles being honest and respectful of the law — well, we can all live with that.
I think I’ll still be keeping a close eye on my kids’ online habits and I won’t be striking Internet safety from our tech curriculum anytime soon. ..Source.. by Christopher Dawson is the technology director for the Athol-Royalston School District in northern Massachusetts. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.
New Web Law May Be 'Worthless,' Watchdog Warns
10-15-2008 National:
Legislation signed by President Bush on Monday that requires sex offenders to provide Internet identifiers to state sex offender registries and tasks the Justice Department with creating a system that lets social networking sites compare their users' identifiers with those provided to a national sex offender registry may not achieve its intended aim of protecting children, according one high-tech policy expert who tracked the bill. That official, Center for Democracy and Technology general counsel John Morris, said Tuesday that the statute may prove "almost entirely worthless" and warned that it may also carry with it serious unintended consequences.
The bill was introduced in January 2007 by Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and John McCain, R-Ariz., now the GOP presidential nominee, and a companion measure was sponsored in the House by Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D. Pomeroy revised and reintroduced his bill after hearing concerns from CDT and other groups, but that version of the bill did not win Senate approval. Instead, the Senate version won out and minor modifications were made to alleviate critics' biggest fears, Morris said, acknowledging that "we have fewer concerns than we once did." Pomeroy's retooled measure would have let probation officers who supervise sex offenders install software on offenders' computers to monitor their Web whereabouts and target supervision to those who actually pose threats to kids.
Nevertheless, Morris believes the new law will not be effective because sex offenders who want to subvert or circumvent their conditions of probation, release or supervision -- which already typically stipulate that they cannot interact with minors -- will forge ahead regardless of the registry requirement. "If they're already intending to violate provisions that apply to them, why wouldn’t they also register a real e-mail and then go create another account," he said in an interview. "It is so trivial to create a new identifier, create a new e-mail address, or social network page. Anyone who is going to pose a risk to minors that this system trying to screen against can easily circumvent it."
CDT is also concerned that the congressionally approved definition of a social networking service is too broad and could "sweep in a great percentage" of blogs, discussion groups and other Internet offerings, he said. Before passing the final version, lawmakers refined the language to exempt many e-commerce sites like Amazon.com that could have unintentionally been covered in previous iterations of the bill by adding a provision that states voluntary compliance would apply to Web sites that whose primary purpose is to facilitate online social interactions.
Furthermore, Morris is worried that even though compliance is voluntary, the long-term impact of the federal government defining social networking could be daunting. "Congress or state legislators might take this new definition from the federal code and try to use it for some regulatory requirement," he warned. "We're increasingly seeing government officials at both the federal and state level pressuring private companies to do things 'voluntarily.'"
Meanwhile, popular social networking site Facebook hailed the legislation's passage and Bush's signing of the measure. The company's privacy chief Chris Kelly said in a blog post that the law "takes an important step in dramatically reducing the opportunities to harm children online." Facebook has long barred registered sex offenders from the service and currently works with individual states' attorneys general to check users against state-registered sex offender lists, he said. But those lists "lack the essential e-mail and IM data" and the process is less efficient and effective than anyone, especially concerned parents, would like, Kelly added.
In response to CDT's concerns, a Facebook spokesman said penalties in the law are severe, as they should be, and the company hopes the statute will be a deterrent. "We’re going to work with law enforcement to identify and prosecute those who aren’t deterred," he said. Facebook plans to add the forthcoming DOJ registry to its existing safeguards and will use the database "as vigorously and comprehensively as we can," Kelly said. Specifically, the site will check new users at sign-up and review existing users as regularly as the technology allows. "Anyone on the list will be prevented from joining Facebook. Anyone already on Facebook who is added to the list will have his or her account disabled forever. End of story," Kelly said.
..Source.. by Congress Daily
October 14, 2008
MySpace can now expel sex offenders
As usual the media gets it wrong, there is nothing in the bill signed by Pres. Bush to permit any website to expel or prohibit any RSO from accessing such websites. In fact, the bill specifically says that is not the intent of the bill. However, with that said and the language of the bill proves same, Sen. Schumer and Sen. McCain have both admitted in the media, the Intent of the bill is to keep RSOs off such sites. It appears the Senators have bamboozled Congress. i.e., their words and their legislation show two different intents. Hopefully the courts will recognize same when a case is brought to their intention. Further, MySpace type accounts are not designated JUST for CHILDREN they are websites that have millions of adults on them who are not RSOs, and non RSOs are the ones that have solicited children. It is interesting to note that the Senators seem to be placing most RSOs in a false light before the public without any evidence of wrongdoing excepting their personal perceptions. The U.S. Supreme court had the following to say:"I join the Court’s opinion and agree with the observation that today’s holding does not foreclose a claim that Connecticut’s dissemination of registry information is actionable on a substantive due process principle. To the extent that libel might be at least a component of such a claim, our reference to Connecticut’s disclaimer, ante, at 3, would not stand in the way of a substantive due process plaintiff. I write separately only to note that a substantive due process claim may not be the only one still open to a test by those in the respondents’ situation." Justices Souter and Ginsburg in CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al., PETITIONERS v. JOHN DOE
10-14-2008 National:
WASHINGTON - Social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook can now trace and expel potential sexual predators under new law requiring sex offenders to submit all identifying Internet information along with home addresses.
Under the law, signed yesterday by President George W. Bush, registered sex offenders must submit all e-mail addresses, instant messenger names or other online identifiers for inclusion in the National Sex Offender Registry.
The U.S. attorney general will make that information available on a database where approved Web sites can cross-check their users' information and weed out any potential predators, said New York Sen. Charles Schumer, who introduced the original bill.
Under the law, sex offenders not providing all Internet information face the same penalty as those who fail to register their home address - up to 10 years in prison.
"Millions of teenagers log on to Web sites like MySpace and they, and their parents, shouldn't have to worry about running in to these predators online," Schumer said. "Sex offenders have no business joining social networking communities - especially those with teenage users - and our legislation will help keep them out."
Many child advocacy groups and other social networking sites, including the American Family Association, MySpace and Facebook have also endorsed the legislation.
"We at Facebook are very pleased that Congress has acted to enhance sex offender reporting requirements and give us access to data that will supplement our robust safety systems," said Chris Kelly, chief privacy officer at Facebook. ..News Source.. by JULIANN VACHON
October 13, 2008
Statement by White House Press Secretary Dana Perino
10-13-2008 National:
On Monday, October 13, 2008, the President signed the following bills into law:
S. 431, the "Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008" or the "KIDS Act of 2008," which requires: sex offenders to provide Internet identifiers, including e-mail addresses, to State sex offender registries; and tasks the Justice Department to establish and maintain a system that allows social networking websites to compare Internet identifiers of its users with those provided to the National Sex Offender Registry;
S. 1738, the "PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008," which requires the Department of Justice to create and implement a National Strategy for Child Exploitation, Prevention, and Interdiction; statutorily establishes the existing Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program; and makes other amendments to Federal child pornography laws.
S. 3296, which extends through December 29, 2013, the authority of the United States Supreme Court Police to protect court officials off the Supreme Court grounds;
S. 3325, the "Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO IP) Act of 2008," which amends civil and criminal intellectual property laws; establishes the position of an Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator appointed by the President in the Executive Office of the President; and authorizes Justice Department grants to assist in addressing intellectual property theft and infringement crimes;
S. 3477, the "Presidential Historical Records Preservation Act of 2008," which establishes a grant program for the preservation of, and public access to, historical records of former Presidents whose archives are not maintained in Federal archival depositories; and contains various other authorities related to the National Archives and Records Administration;
S. 3536, the "Air Carriage of International Mail Act," which allows the United States Postal Service to negotiate terms for international air mail transportation contracts directly with airlines;
S. 3569, the "Judicial Administration and Technical Amendments Act of 2008," which makes miscellaneous changes to the administration and operation of Federal courts;
S. 3598, the "Drug Trafficking Vessel Interdiction Act of 2008," which prohibits the operation of submersible and semi-submersible vessels which are not registered with any nation;
S. 3605, the "Criminal History Background Checks Pilot Extension Act of 2008," which extends through January 30, 2010, a pilot program for certain volunteer organizations that serve children to have fingerprint checks on applicants for positions as volunteers or employees processed through the Fingerprint Identification System of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
H.R. 1532, the "Comprehensive Tuberculosis Elimination Act of 2008," which makes changes to Department of Health and Human Services grant programs and activities related to the prevention, elimination, and control of tuberculosis;
H.R. 5350, which authorizes the Department of Commerce to: sell or exchange a property in the City of Norfolk, Virginia; and enter into a land lease with Mobile County, Alabama;
H.R. 5618, the "National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2008," which authorizes appropriations for the Commerce Department's National Sea Grant College Program for FYs 2009-2014; and makes miscellaneous amendments to statutory provisions related to the National Sea Grant College Program;
H.R. 6199, which designates a facility of the United States Postal Service as the Kenneth Peter Zebrowski Post Office Building;
H.R. 6229, which designates a facility of the United States Postal Service as the Mayor William "Bill" Sandberg Post Office Building;
H.R. 6338, which designates a facility of the United States Postal Service as the Amy SPC Daniel Agami Post Office Building;
H.R. 6849, which permits producers to aggregate base acres and reconstitute farms to avoid the current prohibition on receiving various farm payments when the sum of the base acres of a farm is 10 acres or less;
H.R. 6874, which designates a facility of the United States Postal Service as the Lance Corporal Eric Paul Valdepeñas Post Office Building. ..Source.. by White House Press Secretary
October 1, 2008
DC- Congress passes Schumer and McCain's S-431 Amended bill, obviously a political campaign move.
10-1-2008 Washington DC:
Congress, again in the dead of the night and without notifying the public, has passed Sen. Schumer and McCain's S-431 `Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008' or the `KIDS Act of 2008', it has two titles obviously for political purposes.
It appears that Rep. Conyers was behind getting it through the House and he did get it amended to include some VERY STRICT PRIVACY provisions on the information submitted by the registrants.
Registrant Internet information is to be in a SECURED data base, but will be available to APPROVED Social Networking websites. Such sites must keep the information secured and are not allowed to make anything public. However, with that said, there are no penalties for a social networking website if they violate the privacy requirements, excepting MAYBE losing their ability to access the SECURED data base, but that is just a logical guess since it is not written into the bill.
Additionally, the definition of "social networking website" is now, any website that permits "social interaction" which appears to be anything on the Internet. This definition is clearly overbroad.
While this bill does not say to social networking websites, remove any accounts of registrants, that is the most logical result as was proven when MySpace removed accounts of all known sex offenders last year.
The total purpose of this bill is to stem the political discussions which registrants and their families have on the Internet, necessary because they no longer have any political representation in Congress. This bill is passed under the pretext of "saving a child from Internet predators" as lawmakers call everyone who is registered in a state or federal registry.
There is no doubt in this writer's mind that this bill violates, to the nth degree, US Supreme court case permitting anonymous free speech, first amendment rights of every US citizen.
Finally, as to registrants, forcing them to provide Internet ID's of any kind (information which is only in their personal effects within their homes) is a violation of the 4th Amendment, again, in this writer's opinion.
More to follow...
eAdvocate
July 13, 2008
John McCain goes online (What???)
Earlier stories here and here and his e-mail bill, plain unbelievable!
7-13-2008 Nationally:
John McCain, who admitted in January that he is a computer “illiterate,” now says he is “learning to get online myself.”
McCain revealed that his favorite websites include The Drudge Report, Politico.com and Real Clear Politics.
But he still doesn’t use e-mail.
President Bush was an avid e-mailer before he took office, but he stopped for privacy reasons.
McCain’s revelation that he is a computer newbie — and still struggles with the Web — puts him out of step with most Americans and contrasts dramatically with Barack Obama, who was photographed last week with BlackBerry in hand.
In an interview in January with Politico and Yahoo News, McCain punted on whether he prefers a Mac or a PC.
“Neither,” he replied. “I am an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance that I can get.”
But as he tried to show he is “with it” heading into a general election showdown with the hip and youthful Obama, McCain now says he’s trying to learn.
In an interview with Adam Nagourney and Michael Cooper of The New York Times, McCain discussed his tech education:
Q: What websites if any do you look at regularly?
Mr. McCain: Brooke [Buchanan, his traveling press secretary] and Mark [Salter, his top adviser] show me Drudge, obviously; everybody watches, for better or for worse, Drudge. Sometimes I look at Politico. Sometimes RealPolitics, sometimes.
(Mrs. McCain and Buchanan both interject [regarding his daughter]: “Meghan’s blog!”)
Mr. McCain: Excuse me, Meghan’s blog (Daughter). And we also look at the blogs from Michael and from you that may not be in the newspaper, that are just part of your blog.
Q: But do you go on line for yourself?
Mr. McCain: They go on for me. I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don’t expect to be a great communicator, I don’t expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need — including going to my daughter’s blog first, before anything else.
Q: Do you use a Blackberry or e-mail?
Mr. McCain: No.
Mark Salter: He uses a BlackBerry, just ours.
Mr. McCain: I use the Blackberry, but I don’t e-mail, I’ve never felt the particular need to e-mail. I read e-mails all the time, but the communications that I have with my friends and staff are oral and done with my cell phone. I have the luxury of being in contact with them literally all the time. We now have a phone on the plane that is usable on the plane, so I just never really felt a need to do it. But I do — could I just say, really — I understand the impact of blogs on American politics today and political campaigns. I understand that. And I understand that something appears on one blog, can ricochet all around and get into the evening news, the front page of The New York Times. So, I do pay attention to the blogs. And I am not in any way unappreciative of the impact that they have on entire campaigns and world opinion.
Q: You read newspapers, then.
Mr. McCain: I read them most all every day.
Q: You and Obama are both newspaper and book readers. Do you read them in the old paper version or do you read them online?
Mr. McCain: I love to read them in the print form, and the reason why I do is because so much, the prominence of the story matters. If I read a story and say, Oh my God, did you see this? But it’s back on A26, it doesn’t have the impact of what are still — even though it’s declining — what are still, what are hundreds of millions of American picking up an looking at today. And that’s why I really think that reading it is, it helps me more than, now, because I don’t read all the newspapers — I don’t see, for example, the L.A. Times every day, or the San Francisco Chronicle, or the Arizona Republic when I’m away. So we go then, of course, online, and look at them.’
..News Source.. by MIKE ALLEN
June 30, 2008
How to submit your concerns about S-431's e-mail and other Internet Ids bill.
6-30-2008
Regarding the FAST TRACKING of Sen. McCain and Sen. Schumer’s S-431 “The Kid’s Act of 2008” which generally wants ALL registered sex offenders, nationwide, to submit their e-mail addresses and all other Internet identifiers.
It took me longer to put together everything folks need to know than I expected, but here it is now. S-431 was amended by the Senate, passed and sent to the House where it was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The first problem we encountered is, they have five subcommittees and we are not absolutely positive which one will handle it, see below “Contacting Committee Members” to see how we resolved that issue.
The Senate Amended S-431, which you can access on Thomas (See “Bill Information” below), was amended and now includes provisions addressing Adam Walsh Child Pornography laws, which is going to make it harder than ever to get it killed completely, so it is now CRITICAL for folks to respond so that changes in the portion of the bill addressing RSOs e-mail addresses can be made.
CRITICAL meaning IMPORTANT, so RSOs get every family member you can to also respond, get your friends, get your loved ones and if I have missed anyone else, get them too. There are major problems with this bill that will affect all 600,000 plus RSOs and their families too.
TIMELINE: Congress is on July 4th break right now, so that gives us a small window to get concerns FAXED in to them. Yes, I said FAX, below you will find a way to FAX using your computer for FREE. While I have not been able to test this system, due to its limitations on where FAXES can be sent, but Congress is one area that is available for FREE. If this works it will be a boon to RSOs and their families to have their voices heard on any new bill presented in Congress.
Now, S-431 is in Committee and that committee is scheduled to return on July 7, 2008. When they get in they will empty their FAX machines, get any e-mails from the House Committee e-mail system, and e-mails sent to Committee members and I guess assimilate all that and decide whether the bill is to be voted OUT OF COMMITTEE and go to the House floor, or killed, or again amended in committee before going to the House floor.
This is why it is CRITICAL to get your concerns in ASAP, I know it’s a holiday, but these changes are for a lifetime of registration, and for some that is the rest of their lives. Everyone MUST GET INVOLVED.
CONCERNS: Please remember, committee members are ASKING for input, and only they can make changes to the bill as it stands. So, whatever you write please make it such a logical convincing argument that they are going to want to make changes: LOGICAL CONVINCING and CONCISE, key words. It is their ball game, talk to them they way they like to be talked to. OK, so I don’t like to praise politicians, you’ve read my commentaries, BUT, I will do it if it will help ALL RSOs and their families, that’s my advocacy. Follow suit and together we may effect changes. Do nothing, well, read the amended bill text, that’s what will happen, guaranteed.
What are my concerns, you ask? I focused on five major topics, which if they get changed will kill a ton of minor issues. You are welcomed to read mine, eAdvocate’s reasons why S-431 should not become law as written, but they may not be ones that you would chose which is fine, write about what concerns you or your family: LOGICAL CONVINCING and CONCISE, key words.
I think that about covers it, but if I’ve missed something just send me a e-mail.
eAdvocate
===================================
===================================
BILL INFORMATION:
S.431 Title: A bill to require convicted sex offenders to register online identifiers, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (introduced 1/30/2007) Cosponsors (20)
Latest Major Action: 5/21/2008 Held at the desk.
Senate Reports: 110-332 -------All Bill Information ------- Text of S-431 Legislation
CONTACTING COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
NOTE: Remember, you can always use the House Judiciary e-mail system , if you do you MUST put in the first line of the "e-mail body" S-431 Concerns for Rep. Conyers or Rep. Scott. Without that it may not get to them in time to be considered.
If you don't do the above then follow this: Who should you contact? Given we are not ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE which subcommittee will handle S-431, here are our thoughts: All subcommittees are shown below in the order of MOST LIKELY to handle S-431. Two Members (Rep. John Conyers and Rep. Robert C. Scott) sit on all committees, and both are most favorable to our advocacy. One helped us last year to present issues to the Internet Sex Crimes hearing held in Congress.
Accordingly, first FAX your concerns to them, their FAX numbers are shown. If for whatever reason you cannot FAX them, then there are links to their House websites, as well as all other committee member websites. Most of them have ways to e-mail them, but some require you be their constituent (you won't be able to e-mail them unless you are their constituent).
However, every member -on their House website- has phone numbers (FAX and Land Lines) where they can be contacted, you can call them and ask how to submit your concerns about S-431 for their consideration, -OR- use the FREE INTERNET FAX SERVICE.
NOTE: If you use the internet FAX Service, in the body of their formatted screen, you MUST FIRST put S-431 Concerns for Rep. Conyers or Rep.Scott, FOLLOWED by your Name, Full Address, Phone Number and e-mail address. Following that type your concerns before sending the Internet FAX. The service will confirm -to your e-mail address- that the FAX has been sent.
Congress has never been generous with ways to contact them, they are still in the DARK AGES resorting to SNAIL MAIL and FAXES in a technology age where e-mails and instant messages are common place. I guess thats why they get away with passing laws under suspension of the rules saying, "there is no public controversy," which is how the Adam Walsh Act was passed.
Good Luck. eAdvocate
House Judiciary SubCommittees:
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security:
Robert C. Scott, Virginia (FAX: 202-225-8354 OFF: 202-225-8351)
Maxine Waters, California
Bill Delahunt, Massachusetts
Jerrold Nadler, New York
Hank Johnson, Georgia
Anthony D. Weiner, New York
Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas
Artur Davis, Alabama
Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin[1]
Randy Forbes, Virginia
Louie Gohmert, Texas
Jim Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin
Howard Coble, North Carolina
Steve Chabot, Ohio
Dan Lungren, California
Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property:
Howard L. Berman, California
John Conyers, Michigan (FAX: 202-225-7680 OFF: 202-225-5126)
Rick Boucher, Virginia
Robert Wexler, Florida
Mel Watt, North Carolina
Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas
Steve Cohen, Tennessee
Hank Johnson, Georgia
Brad Sherman, California
Anthony D. Weiner, New York
Adam B. Schiff, California
Howard Coble, North Carolina
Tom Feeney, Florida
Jim Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin
Elton Gallegly, California
Bob Goodlatte, Virginia
Steve Chabot, Ohio
Chris Cannon, Utah
Darrell Issa, California
Mike Pence, Indiana
The Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties:
Jerrold Nadler, New York
Artur Davis, Alabama
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida
Keith Ellison, Minnesota
John Conyers, Michigan
Robert C. Scott, Virginia
Mel Watt, North Carolina
Steve Cohen, Tennessee
Trent Franks, Arizona
Mike Pence, Indiana
Darrell Issa, California
Jim Jordan, Ohio
Other House Subcommittees Which We Do Not Think Will Be Involved:
Commercial and Administrative Law:
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law:
FYI: A Complete Phone List for Everyone in Congress (including committees)
Reasons why S-431 should not become law as written.
6-30-2008
S-431 is in the House Judiciary committee and it is being fast tracked for unknown reasons. One likely guess is, that John McCain needs votes to win the upcoming election, and sex offender legislation is one sure way to get votes.
Whatever the reasons are for fast tracking it is important, in this writer's opinion, that folks know why I believe this piece of legislation is bad and should never become law. The unfortunate fact, which advocates need to know is, remember the "and for other purposes" we always see in proposed legislation, well, tacked on to the end of this bill, BY THE SENATE, are changes to the Adam Walsh Act pertaining to child pornography. The obvious intent of including that, yes to change AWA, but also, to assure that no lawmaker will vote against this bill.
With that said, what follows are my reasons why this bill should never become law, and my best hopes are that changes are made to eliminate or reform what I have noted below.
Note: Anyone who wishes to use any portion or all of what I believe below is permitted to do so without my consent, assuming that person's beliefs are the same as mine they do so at their own risk signing their name to it. These beliefs are subject to change -at any time- as I learn more on these topics. Hopefully folks, Congress will see how wrong this bill is.
I include my earlier reviews of this bill as well:
Part-1 .... Part-2 .... Part-3 .... Part-4 .... Part-5
eAdvocate
BILL INFORMATION:
S.431 Title: A bill to require convicted sex offenders to register online identifiers, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (introduced 1/30/2007) Cosponsors (20)
Latest Major Action: 5/21/2008 Held at the desk.
Senate Reports: 110-332 -------All Bill Information ------- Text of S-431 Legislation
=========================================================
Reasons why S-431 should not become law, or, should be amended again:
=========================================================
1) All RSOs are being erroneously accused of being Internet sexual predators:
Congress, recognizing a problem of minors being preyed on, generally while on social networking sites and other Internet sites, jumps to the conclusion that, registered sex offenders (RSO)are the ones who are preying on minors. Congress has failed to review those cases where minors were preyed on using the Internet, if they had, they would have found out that, RSOs ARE NOT the cause of the problem. In essence, Congress is erroneously accusing ALL RSOs of being Internet Predators. See Senate Report 110-332 “Background and Purpose of the Kids Act of 2008”
Also, recently, 29 state attorneys general banned together to have MySpace remove some 36,000 registered sex offenders who had MySpace accounts from the MySpace social networking site. Upon review of those 36,000 RSO accounts and their activities while on MySpace it was found that, only ONE had contacted a minor and he was arrested for that. It was also learned that, some RSOs who were on parole or probation and had Internet restrictions, did have MySpace accounts. But, it was never reported whether those cases had set up those accounts before conviction or after conviction. In either case those are technical violations and not new crimes as none of them were proven to have even tried to contact any minors on MySpace.
Senate Report 110-332 cites statistics from studies performed by David Finklehor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, in support of the need for S-431. But, David Finklehor has come out saying those stats are effectively being misapplied. See "KIDS Act: How Far is The Law's Online Reach?” where Sen. Schumer’s comments are being refuted by David Finklehor, saying
“said characterizations such as Senator Schumer's are "based on anxieties and not on a careful analysis of the nature of the problem or the way in which kids get harmed." Preventing convicted sex offenders from joining social networks through something like the KIDS Act might do some good but won't solve the problem. The notion that the main problem is social networking sites is "overdrawn." Finklehor wants Congress to treat this as a Public Health problem, “Instead of passing laws like the KIDS Act, Finklehor wants lawmakers to treat online and offline child molestation as a public health issue to be dealt with scientifically.”
Clearly Congress is targeting the wrong cause of the problem.
2) The 4th Amendment is violated by forcing RSOs to provide information which is inside their homes, their e-mail addresses etc., without a warrant or probable cause:
S-431 requires RSOs, under the threat of further prison and another felony conviction, to give the government something which is found ONLY in their homes which are protected by the 4th Amendment. The 4th amendment requires the government to get a warrant showing probable cause that a crime is being, or has been, committed before allowing government access to a person's home. The federal court in Indiana just declared an Indiana law, effective 7-1-2008, which wanted to do computer searches at any time even after a sentence was completed, unconstitutional. The reasoning was, the home is protected by the 4th amendment. Doe, Morris –v- Prosecutor, Marion County, Indiana (Case: 1:08-cv-0436-DFH-TAB)
While it is true that the court noted “Plaintiff’s do not challenge the requirements to report e-mail addresses, user names and the like” (p-5), the actual court analysis (pp-38-49) clearly showed that the 4th amendment prohibits the government from requiring things in the home without a warrant. E-mail addresses etc. are part of the computer which is found only inside the home. A few quotes from that decision:
"The Supreme Court has never substituted a balancing test for the warrant and probable cause requirements where the primary justification for the policy was to make it easier to detect criminal activity. See Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 79-86 (2001); Edmond, 531 U.S. at 41-42; T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 351 (Blackmun, J., concurring). The Fourth Amendment explicitly protects the “rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” from unreasonable searches and seizures. ... But when the government’s chief purpose in dispensing with constitutional protections is simply to make it easier to detect and punish crime, even serious crime, the Fourth Amendment forecloses such efforts." (p-45).The home, beginning at its front door, is sacrosanct, the government is not permitted access to anything inside which is where the e-mail addresses etc. are.
"The heart of defendants’ special needs argument here is that sex crimes are “a serious threat in this Nation,” see Connecticut Department of Public Safety, 538 U.S. at 4 (approving sex offender registry against due process challenge), and thus warrant this unprecedented action. The court agrees with the premise but must disagree with the conclusion. As heinous as sex and violent crimes are, many other crimes are also threats to our Nation. The social contract reflected in our Constitution imposes limits on law enforcement to protect liberty and privacy. Americans invest a significant portion of public resources to promote social peace and safety. But our founders drew a clear line, based on observed and experienced abuses, on the government’s ability to invade fundamentally personal areas. To enter the homes of or to search the personal effects, papers, and bodies of persons in the general population, public officials must have cause to believe that they will find evidence of a crime. It is almost always possible to characterize the Fourth Amendment as an inconvenience to law enforcement officials as they carry out their vital duties. That inconvenience, however, is one of the fundamental protections that separates the United States of America from totalitarian regimes. The right to feel safe and secure in one’s own home, person, and belongings is central to our way of life.9" (pp-49-50).
3) RSOs simply cannot comply with many portions of the law as written because the law fails to consider how the Internet works, and its failure to recognize the mechanics of the Internet will cause RSOs to be punished for violating the law when they cannot change how the Internet operates:
S-413 is a bill which is written without expert advise, and is written on the premise “I think this is how the Internet works,” a sounds-good bill. However, as written and if enacted, it would prohibit RSOs from ever establishing a future e-mail address or other Internet identifier, and would send them to jail if they did establish a new one.
Sec 2 requires registration of on-line identifiers, and states: “…`(4) Any electronic mail address or other designation the sex offender uses or will use for self-identification or routing in Internet communication or posting.'.”
First, it is impossible for RSOs to know the future, or what might be available when and if they were to setup a e-mail address or other Internet identifier. The way the Internet works is, when someone wants to setup a NEW e-mail address they choose some set of characters, then that set of characters is checked to see if it is available, if not, then they must chose something else. Until they find an available e-mail address they cannot know what it is, and once setting it up they have used it. Hence, the moment they try to register it as a NEW e-mail address, they will have violated the registry law which requires registration of such address BEFORE using it.
Immediately they are punished according to S-431 as written.
3) S-431 Definitions (Sec. 4 and 5) are vague, overbroad, and ambiguous designed to ensnare any reasonable man, especially if they have any prior sex offense whether or not related to the Internet:
First, “routing in Internet communication or posting” is a phrase, used multiple times, which no one can understand it has no known definition. Accordingly it is vague and ambiguous.
Earlier I mention the use of “will use” which is designed to ensnare RSOs, sort of an entrapment, convicting them for failure to follow a law, which itself fails to recognize the reality of the mechanics of the Internet.
“Social Networking Website” definition is overbroad, in that, it could mean virtually anything on the Internet such as blogs when many folks use to express first amendment rights and freedom of expression. Further it could mean sites such as news, periodicals and so forth, there is no logical reason to even deny RSOs access to such sites by suggesting to those sites to exclude RSOs which is the inherent intent of this bill.
Sec. 5 is most interesting, its title says one thing, but its detail is overbroad, saying
“`(c) Misrepresentation of Age- Whoever knowingly misrepresents his or her age
using the Internet or any other facility or means of interstate or foreign
commerce or the mail, with the intent to further or facilitate a violation of this section, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not more than 20 years. A sentence imposed under this subsection shall be in addition and consecutive to any sentence imposed for the offense the age misrepresentation was intended to further or facilitate.'.”
The way that section is written, it pertains to everyone in the world, to ensnare ANYONE who doesn’t provide a correct age –in any context whatsoever-, is guilty of a crime punishable by 20 years in prison. Titles are not used to construe the detail of laws as written, accordingly this is OVERBROAD.
Note: As written above, this would apply to juveniles and especialy those young girls who lie about their age and result in young adults ending up in prison and then on the registry, possibly for life.
Above is the reality of the law as written, however, that is not what the Senate Report 110-332 (Purpose) states, the intent of this section is:
“Furthermore, the KIDS Act will make it a crime for any person 18 years or older to knowingly misrepresent his or her age with the intent to use the Internet to engage in, or facilitate, criminal sexual conduct involving a minor four years younger than the person so engaged.”
The wording of the bill differs from the stated intent.
4) The actual intent of S-431 is masked behind the claimed intent, “to keep sexual predators off social networks.”
First, S-431 equates “Unknown Internet Sexual Predators” with “Known Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs)” as though they were one in the same. Using that equation the intent of S-431 becomes a perversion. The implied intent then is, to keep RSOs off social networking websites.
Then by using an overbroad definition of –social networking website- the implied intent broadens even further, so far that it is impossible for any reasonable man to tell what type of site or service RSOs are permitted to use or access. The effect is, that RSOs are virtually denied access to thousands of sites on the Internet, and in fact, since S-431 also speaks to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) even they are likely to deny RSOs access to the Internet in its entirety.
This bill is crafted to circumvent and mask the real intent. One only needs to read the Senate Report 110-332 (Purpose), in part, “Senators Schumer and McCain introduced the Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators (KIDS) Act, S. 431, to fill a gap left by earlier sex offender registration laws and to curtail the anonymity that sexual predators currently enjoy while using Internet sites frequented by children. The KIDS Act will require a convicted sex offender to register, in addition to the information required by the AWA, his or her e-mail addresses, instant message addresses, or other similar Internet identifiers with the National Sex Offender Registry.”
Notice the crafty use of “Sexual Predators” and “Convicted Sex Offenders RSOs,” morphing RSOs into sexual predators under the intent of the bill “Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators.” This is devious and since it has been proven that RSOs are not causing the problem, the bill is only for show and to impose further restrictions on RSO.
The second part of the intent is also found in the Senate Report 110-332 (Purpose), where it states “The Department of Justice is empowered to make this information available to social networking sites, chat rooms or other qualified websites. Qualifying sites may--but are not required to--screen their users against the convicted sex offenders included in the registry.”
There is no reason for websites to screen their users for those found in the data base, except to exclude them from access to that website. Suggestive and crafty words. Without telling the website what to do. The reader can come to no other conclusion based on all the suggestions no matter how crafty they are, the website is to exclude these persons (RSOs).
Conclusion:
This bill will have a chilling effect on the "Political and Free Speech Rights" guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Contrary to what lawmakers believe there are thousand of former offenders, of all types of crimes, that use the Internet properly and well within the laws. This bill effectively divides former offenders into two groups, sex offenders and all others, and only sex offenders will be erroneously denied according to this bill. That folks is a equal protection under the laws question.
eAdvocate
June 28, 2008
Interacting with Thomas the Congressional website
This is to announce that we have developed a way to directly interact between our blog and the Congressional Thomas website. The following is the format we will use, however, there may or may not be a Senate/House Report until such is created by the Senate or House.
Instead of us copying info into our blog you will be able to directly interact with Thomas through the following links. The "All Bill Information" link really provides a ton of information excepting the actual bill text. Click on the "Text of S-431 Legislation" to read the bill details. Sometimes you will see multiple copies, the last one is always the most recent with amendments.
I think this will assit all of us in having up to date interactive information. Try this out.
eAdvocate
S.431 Title: A bill to require convicted sex offenders to register online identifiers, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (introduced 1/30/2007) Cosponsors (20)
Latest Major Action: 5/21/2008 Held at the desk.
Senate Reports: 110-332 -------All Bill Information ------- Text of S-431 Legislation
June 27, 2008
McCain, Technically Challenged or Stuck in History?
Thanks to a reader who provided us with the link to this video. Folks, you have to see this and then wonder, how John McCain can author a bill S-431 on various features of the Internet (e-mail, IDs, Chat Rooms, etc.):
Poll: Should McCain Learn to Use a Computer?
This comes at a perfect time, wish I knew of it earlier when I e-mailed you folks. Now, CLICK on the link below and take the poll, when I just checked it it was 90% said he should know about computers. I guess there is more truth in my analysis of his bill S-431 than I realized.
6-27-2008 National:
During the 2008 presidential race, John McCain's online team has often used web video to get the candidate's major campaign themes out onto the internet.
But an offhand verbal riposte by one of the members of that team has turned into a viral video that's providing just the kind of attention they don't want. It's reviving the idea that the Republican presidential candidate is clueless when it comes to technology.
Speaking at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York Monday, McCain deputy e-campaign director Mark Soohoo responded to a comment about McCain's self-professed computer illiteracy by saying that McCain is "aware of the internet."
The comment, caught on video and uploaded to the web on Tuesday by Micah Sifry, one of the two organizers of the conference, quickly made the rounds on the web and on Twitter.
It eventually provided fodder for one of CNN's regular off-beat stories done by its national correspondent Jeanne Moos, who took to the streets to conduct an unscientific survey of what Americans both young and old thought of McCain's computer illiteracy.
Everyone but one person interviewed agreed that McCain should know how to use a computer.
One woman exclaimed: "Oh, that's absolutely ridiculous."
Even Hu Jintao, China's president, surfs the web.
To be fair, what this online branding obscures is the fact that McCain is probably more familiar with, and better versed than most of the roster of the 2008 presidential candidates on the nuances of telecommunications and internet policy because of his work as a longtime member and former chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation -- work for which he has received frequent praise from consumer advocacy groups and think tanks.
So with all this in mind, take our poll.
Explain your vote in the comments section. ..From Wired News.. by Sarah Lai Stirland
McCain's e-mail registry bill is going to be FAST TRACKED
6-27-2008 National:
It is projected that McCain's S-431 is going to be FAST TRACKED and folks need to get comments in just as fast.
Later today I will have more on this topic and what folks need to do. We need to get EVERYONE involved, RSOs, their mothers, fathers, grandma and grandpa, aunts and uncles, and anyone else you can think of.
Here are the links to my earlier comments on this nasty disaster bill: Part-1 Part-2 Part-3 Part-4 Part-5
eAdvocate
June 2, 2008
The Folly of S-431 `The KIDS Act of 2008' Part 5
6-2-2008 National:Inactive & Dormant
In this Part-5 of "The folly of S-431 'The Kids Act of 2008'" we will explore the world of "inactive" and/or "dormant" e-mail addresses.
There comes a time in the life of a e-mail address that the owner no longer uses that e-mail address but the company that issued it, say Yahoo, Google etc., still has it on file.
At some point the e-mail address is considered "inactive" or "dormant," by the company that issued it, that time period varies with different services, usually somewhere around 1 year, and the e-mail address is closed without notice to the person who created the e-mail address.
The service then makes that e-mail address available to whoever comes along and chose that combination of characters, so they can then setup the e-mail address as their own.
Historical proof:
Angling for new users, Yahoo has decided to let people begin signing up for addresses that have been inactive for years. The offer is designed to lure Web surfers who may have been previously interested in signing up for a free Yahoo e-mail account only to learn one of their preferred handles had already been claimed.
"Some of these addresses could be very juicy and might attract a lot of interest," said David Ferris, an e-mail analyst in San Francisco.
Yahoo says "tens of millions" of dormant e-mail addresses will be made available again. ...... ("Yahoo Bolsters E-Mail Service," 6-15-2004, Wired News)
OK, back to S-431, lets apply the logic (or lack of logic) of S-431 to this scenario, a RSO (we will call him John) sets up a e-mail address (John23@yahoo.com) and complies with his state law and registers it as his own.
Then for whatever reason he doesn't use it for the next year, and Yahoo declares it as "inactive" and closes it, removes John's name as owner of John23@Yahoo.com, and makes it available to the first person that comes along (lets call him Peter) and wants to setup a e-mail address using the EXACT set of characters, John23@Yahoo.com, and Yahoo then records that Peter is the owner of John23@Yahoo.com.
Here we can choose a few scenarios, but lets say that Peter is a bad guy but has never been convicted of any crime. Peter then starts sending questionable e-mails to some youngster and the parent sees them.
Now, according to S-431 there will be a national data base for parents to search to see if whoever their child is conversing with is a registered sex offender.
In our example assume the parent finds a match in the RSO data base and calls the police, who will be arrested? John, not Peter, because a year ago John registered that e-mail address.
John has no idea what's going on, and worse yet, how does he prove he did nothing? True, if the police traced the sending offending e-mail IP address (contained in every e-mail sent) before arresting someone they would know it wasn't Johns but belonged to Peter. However, we all know they will arrest first and sort things out later, and later may be at trial.
All because S-431 lacks any reasonable logic or basis for being a law. The folly of S-431 has now infiltrated all Internet criminal investigations, and possibly even the actual criminal justice system.
Is that so remote that it is not likely to happen at all?
OK, where in S-431 is there any system of verifying e-mail addresses as belonging to the registered sex offender, there is no system. However, assume that one is instituted, so, when JOHN (our example RSO) goes in to register he is asked if there are any changes in his information, and answers, NO.
Remember, if the Internet service declared his e-mail address (John23@Yahoo.com) as inactive or dormant, and removed it, they do not notify John. Is John guilty of failure to properly register or worse purgery? No, but how much you want to bet if they found that situation John would be arrested until all their got sorted out. All because S-431 lacks any reasonable logic or knowledge of how the Internet works.
Lawmakers, for the sake of getting votes, are dabbling in an area they do not belong without expert advice. True that is atypical of lawmakers where sex offenders are concerned. They are experimenting with the lives of human beings and destroying many of them in the process, not to mention clogging courts with frivolous court actions.
In Iowa, virtually the entire criminal justice system is telling lawmakers their residency laws are no good and not working, and lawmakers are turning a deaf ear to the call because, to address THEIR ERROR would make it look like they are being soft on sex offenders and they would commit political suicide.
Lawmakers do not act truthfully when it comes to sex offenders and laws governing them. Courts must start the ball rolling and MASS DECLARE these laws as STUPID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL because as a maturing society we do not experiment with human lives.
Hopefully, in Georgia, where those lawmakers on their residency law, with a DO OVER like a child who didn't get what they wanted, will get knocked down in court again.
S-431 is not a bill that should ever become law. States that have enacted similar laws need to be declared unconstitutional for all the reasons I have shown from Part-1 through this Part-5.
Lawmakers should not be permitted to encroach so deeply into lives of RSOs without being accountable for their actions when RSOs and their families are harmed by these laws.
eAdvocate
PS: I am going to skip the world of Chat Room IDs because those would make what is above look infantile. One thought, Chat Room Ids are temporary in nature and by coincidence could be duplicated in thousands of other chat rooms at the same time. A wasted discussion. Yes, given the temporary nature of Chat Room IDs, do service providers even save them FOREVER given LifeTime registration required under the Adam Walsh Act?
PPS: Lets suppose, and I'm not suggesting RSOs do this, but suppose every RSO sets up one, two or more e-mail addresses yearly, and lets them go inactive or dormant, and only uses ONE of them. S-431, and all other laws like it, CHECKMATE!
May 27, 2008
The Folly of S-431 `The KIDS Act of 2008' Part 4
5-27-2008 National:The Constitutional Rights!
Holiday is over and time to get back to business.
In Part-1 we talked about how it is impossible for RSOs to comply with the Kid's act as written. In Part-2 I revealed how, verbally, both Sponsors of the bill say the intent is to have RSOs expelled from Internet sites, but that is not how the bill is written. The likely reason is to gather public support under a pretext. Part-3 shows that, Dr. Finkelhor, highly recognized in the child abuse field also disagrees with S-431, saying it will not solve the problem and it fails to analyze the nature of the problem or the way in which kids get harmed.
The bill, as a resolution to the problem, is useless, but it does put further restrictions on RSOs and with further restrictions, creates more ways to prosecute them for doing nothing but exercising their constitutional rights.
Yes, RSOs have a constitutional right of freedom of speech and the right to assemble, using the Internet, for political discussions as to their rights. Oh yes, thats not what the politicians are saying RSOs are doing on the Internet, but has ONE politician shown any proof of their false claims? Not one, not a single one.
Remember what Dr. Finkelhor said, in essence, S-431 "doesn't analyze the nature of the problem -OR- the way in which kids get harmed." The nature of the problem is, who is attacking kids on the Internet, its not RSOs but it is new offenders. Lawmakers refuse to analyze how the crimes are occurring, if they did they would know RSOs are not the cause of the problem. So, S-431 will not solve the problem, it deals with the wrong group of people who are causing the problem.
The Key Constitutional Right: The 4th Amendment-
The most important place to any person is their home, and everything in it as well, the home is sacrosanct, it cannot be invaded by anyone lest they get charged with a crime, or, if the state wants to go into someone's home, they need a warrant and must show probable cause that the person committed some crime:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 4th Amendment
The constitution recognizes, through the 4th amendment, that ones home is sacrosanct, it cannot be violated by the police (the government). The door prevents them from entering, unless the occupant waives that right and gives them permission to enter. There are exceptions such as, if the police hear someone being harmed inside, or they can see drugs through the window, or if there is some other emergency -a fire-, etc., only then can they enter without a warrant.
The 4th clearly says it protects everything INSIDE the home, where is the RSO's computer, right INSIDE the home; its protected by the 4th amendment. Everything about the computer is inside the home, and as long as there is not some proof of a criminal act involving the computer, the police cannot get to it without a warrant.
Where is the e-mail address, it is in the computer, and protected by the 4th amendment just like all of a person's papers and other effects clearly mentioned in the 4th. So, until the door is opened, the police or the state or government is stopped.
Just last week was a wonderful case in the Michigan court of appeals (cited for explanation not authority) and although it speaks to a drug case, the essence of the case says, the door stops the police, they cannot enter. Now, while the justices did permit the police to use a drug sniffing dog at the offender's door, the justices said, they could not enter but allowed the "SNIFF" of the dog, which smelled drugs on the doorstep, to be probable cause for a warrant. Yes, they still needed a warrant to enter, to search for drugs.
So, the essence of S-431, DEMANDS from the RSO something which is in his home, and if s/he doesn't give it willingly, they will be prosecuted for violating the registry law. Can the government force a person to waive his constitutional rights under the threat of imprisonment? Simply, NO! S-431, like many of the recent state laws which are forcing RSOs across the country, to give up something in their home, their e-mail addresses.
Why the government wants the e-mail address does not matter, even whether that is a logical reason doesn't matter, the threshold issue is, whether they violate the 4th amend. Remember, none of these RSOs have committed any crime using their computer from INSIDE their home, that would be a different matter. The home is sacrosanct!
Next, is how the state forces the RSO to provide the e-mail address. If they ask the RSO to submit a list of e-mail addresses on paper and the state creates its data base, that is one way. However, if the state forces the RSO to provide the e-mail address FROM his/her home computer, that is a search of the computer.
Referring back to Part-1 of this discussion I mentioned that lawmakers do not know how the Internet operates and have not geared their laws to reality of how the Internet operates. Likewise is forcing the RSO to provide their e-mail address from his/her home computer.
As soon as the RSO signs on wherever the state says to register the e-mail address, the state computers automatically gathers information from within the RSO's computer, that is a search, and the name of the Internet Service Provider as well. All without a warrant, and all in violation of the sanctity of the home, and the 4th amendment.
Lawmakers are gearing laws to circumvent and violate RSO rights!
In addition, what if the RSO is using a computer belonging to someone else, for instance, his/her parents if living at home, or spouse, or a friends computer, etc. there are many ways that could be cited which show rights of others are also violated.
Until RSOs speak up, and they can interpose, assert, constitutional rights to stop the government from violating those rights, the government will violate their rights because lawmakers simply do not care!
I strongly urge all RSOs and their families to seek legal counsel to stop this wholsale destruction of constitutional rights.
eAdvocate
May 23, 2008
The Folly of S-431 `The KIDS Act of 2008': Part 3
5-23-2008 National:
Experts disagree with S-431, but no one is listening!
KIDS Act: How Far is The Law's Online Reach?
The KIDS Act
This month, a bill goes before the House of Representative's Judiciary Committee that would require Short and all other convicted sex offenders to register any e-mail address, instant message address, or similar Internet identifier the sex offender used or will use to communicate over the Internet with the National Sex Offender Registry.
The bill is called the Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2007 or KIDS Act. Congressmen Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio), Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) and Senators Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the KIDS Act in January.
"Millions of teenagers log on to Web sites like MySpace and they, and their parents, shouldn't have to worry about running into these predators online," Senator Schumer said in a joint statement to announce the bill.
"We know that many predators are using the Internet to find victims. This legislation will take a big step toward keeping sexual predators out of the online neighborhoods our kids frequent, Schumer said at the time.
Social networks MySpace and Facebook support the act and say they would use it to block convicted sex offenders from using their sites.
But some, including academics and child-safety advocates, take issue with Schumer's claims, saying they misrepresent the issue. This group won't go so far as to say they are against the KIDS Act, but they do argue it doesn't solve any real problems.
Overlooking a problem?
David Finklehor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, said characterizations such as Senator Schumer's are "based on anxieties and not on a careful analysis of the nature of the problem or the way in which kids get harmed."
Preventing convicted sex offenders from joining social networks through something like the KIDS Act might do some good but won't solve the problem. The notion that the main problem is social networking sites is "overdrawn."
"Our research suggests that kids who interact on those sites are not at any higher risk," Finklehor told InternetNews.com. "If kids are taking risks -- suggesting they're interested in sex, talking with people they don't know about sexual topics -- they can run into danger. But only in the same way that they could going to parties."
According to Finklehor's research, only 7 percent of arrests for statutory rape in 2000 were Internet-related. He says that most of those cases are what he calls "criminal seductions," where most of the victims are teenagers seduced by adults who did not try to conceal the fact that they were adults.
Only 5 percent of offenders concealed the fact they were adults from their victims. Eighty percent of the offenders were "quite" explicit about their sexual intentions, and, in half the cases, victims are described as being in love with the offender or feeling a close friendship.
"There's some sense that if you can zone [sex offenders] out of people's neighborhoods and social interaction spaces, somehow kids will be safe. That's a natural, crude, popular analysis. But it doesn't respond to what we know about the nature of child molestation."
Instead of passing laws like the KIDS Act, Finklehor wants lawmakers to treat online and offline child molestation as a public health issue to be dealt with scientifically.
He also wants the government to focus more on prevention education aimed at teenagers to persuade them to avoid engaging in relationships with adults online.
Next page: Political posturing?
Political posturing?
Others go to the core of the KIDS Act, claiming the mistake is in requiring convicted sex offenders to register their e-mail addresses.
One such advocate is the Reverend C. David Hess, the New York State Representative of SOhopeful International, an organization that "is working with families, citizens and professionals to change the way legislation mandates the registration, tracking and community notification of non-violent, low-risk sex offenders."
Hess's main point is that most sex offenders are capable of changing their ways, but that laws like the KIDS Act prevent it from happening.
He cites a study from the State of New York Department of Correctional Services, which set sex offender recidivism at 2.1 percent. A 1994 U.S. Department of Justice study puts the number at 3.5 percent.
By way of comparison, the New York study reports that, of those who committed robbery and were released from prison between 1985 and 2001, 6.5 percent returned to prison for another robbery.
Hess said the reason sex offender recidivism is so low is the crimes are caused by a disease, which he argues can be cured in a stable environment. But he said the KIDS Act and other such laws rob sex offenders of such an environment.
"Corrections experts will say that the most important thing to prevent recidivism is stable employment, home, family and social support," Hess told InternetNews.com. "These laws are destructive to all of those things. Therefore, rather than making communities safer, they put people more at risk."
The KIDS Act "isn't serious legislation or a serious attempt to address a real problem," he continued. "It's all political posturing."
Certainly, politicians on all levels pay attention to the issue. After her June appointment, New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram's first order of business was to serve the Fox Interactive Media (FIM) company a subpoena for information on any accounts held by sex offenders.
She followed with another subpoena in July. Milgram's attentions stem from a mid-May letter signed by attorneys general from Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania asking for similar information.
A long list of states, including Kentucky, Virginia and Florida, have already signed bills similar to the KIDS Act into law.
An unfair net?
Michael Iacopino, co-chairman of the sex offender task force at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, is concerned that the KIDS Act too broadly lumps a diverse range of sex offenders into one category. He noted that some states consider public urination and streaking indecent exposure and are deemed a sexual offense.
He also argued that there should be a distinction between an 18-year-old who commits statuary rape with an underage boyfriend or girlfriend and child molesters.
"These bills paint everybody with the same brush and don't recognize that there's a large difference when it comes to people who have been convicted of sex crimes," Iacopino said.
He also echoed Hess's take on sex-offender recidivism. He said laws like the KIDS Act distract the public from actually solving the problem.
"Sex offenders as a group are one of the most treatable convicts in the country," Iacopino said.
"The way to deal with them is through treatment, not through mandatory sentences and exposing them to ridicule in society, making them live in leper colonies, and putting them away for more time after they've done their time. Those ideas come from a need to get elected than any real intelligent consideration of these offenses."
But there's a reason politicians are able to tap the public's fear. If there's an issue that's easy to get behind, it's one that would make the lives of the Paul Shorts out there less comfortable. Few get worked up in their defense.
But difficult as it might seem to protect the rights of men like Paul Short, who in the chat excerpted from above openly admitted he was "looking for a younger girl to train to be a slave," Iacopino, Hess and others are still convinced it's the right thing to do for the public good.
Still others, such as Finklehor, are less concerned with sex offenders and more interested in promoting science and education as a means to prevent child molestation.
But all those who either don't believe the KIDS Act solves problems or go further to actively fight it, share Iacopino's view in one regard.
"The problem is that most of this sex-offender legislation is based on the 'get tough' model instead of the 'get smart' model." ..more.. by National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL)
