The Senate Public Safety Committee will hear Senate Bill 448 (SB 448) on July 14. The bill, if passed, would require all registered citizens to disclose their “internet identifiers” to law enforcement within five working days.
“The bill’s requirement would violate the 1st Amendment rights of registered citizens,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci, “because the identify of registered citizens would be revealed every time they expressed their opinions on websites such as that operated by CA RSOL.”
The author of the bill is Senator Hueso, a Democrat, who represents southern San Diego County, including National City.
“The apparent purpose of this bill is to overturn court decisions that stopped enforcement of requirements within Proposition 35 that registered citizens disclose their internet identifiers,” stated Bellucci. “California RSOL is a plaintiff in that case.”
ACLU, which filed the lawsuit challenging Proposition 35, also opposes SB 448 is expected to testify at the hearing on July 14. The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. in Room 3191 of the State Capitol.
“It is time for registered citizens and those who support them to send letters to members of the Senate Public Safety requesting that they oppose SB 448,” stated CA RSOL vice president Chance Oberstein.
Below please find a sample letter to send to the members of the Public Safety Committee. Feel free to edit as you see fit.
————————
*** Senator Loni Hancock, Chair – or – Member Senate Public Safety Committee***
Senate Public Safety Committee
State Capitol Building, Room ***
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Chairman Hancock – or – Senator ***:
I am writing in strong opposition to Senate Bill (SB) 448 which is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Public Safety Committee on July 14. The bill, if passed, would require more than 100,000 residents of California to disclose their internet identifiers to law enforcement within five working days.
Requiring an individual to reveal his or her internet identifier is a violation of that individual’s constitutional right of free speech. Specifically, it is a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which protects a person’s right to exercise free of speech “anonymously.”
The U.S. Supreme Court recently determined:
“Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation – and their ideas from suppression – at the hand of an intolerant society.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 34 (1995)
If SB 448 becomes law, the anonymity of registered citizens, who are unpopular individuals in today’s intolerant society, will be suppressed. They will be unable to express their opinions on topics such as SB 448 due to fear of retaliation.
The right of anonymous speech is of great importance in the context of internet sites. The U.S. Supreme Court has strongly implied and lower appellate courts have affirmatively ruled, that when accessed from one’s home the internet constitutes a “public forum” for purposes of the First Amendment. Doe v. Harris, 772 F.3d 563, 574 (9th Cir. 2014), quoting Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997).
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. For the reasons stated above, we request that you and all members of the Senate Public Safety Committee vote “no” on SB 448.
Sincerely,
*** your name here***
I think it was Nevada where the 10th circuit just upheld the law. In Virginia you have 30 minutes to report ID’s. Our ACLU won’t take any challenges for rso’s.
Probozo is to sneak in search and seizure of communications info…..putting this man-made group class to double jeopardy ……..the speech restraint is the same..its still speech restraint ::::for you able speak…for you able to speak you will give the government your communications info…..why didn’t the probozo name it joseph stalin law….???????????……..Keep on Rockin In a Free World…..!!!
Janice, if sb 448 passes on the 14th, does it still have to pass before the senate? and if the senate passes it then it becomes law?
I was convicted in a state that requires this and they require registration even though I live in CA. So essentially I have to register twice a year in two different states. Waste of taxpayer money. This law will probably pass. After it passes there are things we can do to make the law very costly to the state. Simply obey the law. It is immensely time consuming to manage the internet identifier law. Offenders are not prohibited from having email addresses or signing up for social media sites(those off supervision) and you can have 20,000 email addresses. You can create and delete email addresses as often as you like. You can make the text of your email address extremely offensive, all you MUST do is report to the state what they require.
The effects have I had being subjected to this type of law since 2008 are minimal. Since many social media sites have in their T&Cs that former Americans now known as sex offenders are not allowed to join, there are only a few that allow us. You should not be joining Facebook or Tagged anyway because it is against their terms. My state wrote the law that the list would only be released to qualified networks, those who allow minors to join.
A year after implementation the Governor had a public announcement and had the CEO of Classmates at his side, saying how the state has provided Classmates with the list so Classmates could remove offenders. I lost my account. But he messed up, Classmates only allows 18+ to join. I wrote a long letter of objection and threatened a lawsuit. Naturally I never heard back, but my account was restored and the page with the press conference was gone.
That state does not publish the list of internet identifiers and it has to be requested by a social media network, something anyone can claim, even a former American known as a sex offender can create and claim social media status and get the list of people. So the state charges to prevent abuse. I created an email address that I never ever used and waited to see if there would be spam or hate mail, since 2008, nothing.
However if the state plans to sell or release the list to sites like Facebook or any other social media website, you should plan on your email addresses going public. Eventually someone will just publish it and we will have people faking our email address and sending criminal content, and people will be sending us tons of illegal material.
The key is to constantly create and delete email addresses to stay ahead of the non-law enforcement people who get the lists. If the list stays with law enforcement only, then we will see minimal effects beyond the loss of privacy and inability to have an anonymous opinion. but let’s face it, we are no longer truly Americans, and we need to stop expecting to be treated like Americans. Those people you see on the streets? They are NOT your friends, they are NOT your countrymen. They are the enemy.
Nationless you are so correct. This is quickly becoming an actual war against us. The public shaming, info requirements, civil commitment policy or indefinitely imprisoned, residency and presence restrictions, this is a retake of the civil rights wars of the past. History repeating itself. 800000 plus and growing hope it doesn’t take coming to arms to stop this nightmare.
We are treated worse then terrorists. I really don’t see how were going to stop this since the courts who are suppose to keep this kind of action against our rights in check are in on the traitor acts. We have a gov. Create these laws and then another gov that upholds the laws what a nightmare sittuation.
Nationless, FaceBook needs to be sued to stop breaking California Law. They are breaking Caifornia law by violating PC 290. They are the unamericans , not registrants. Their violation of PC 290 is disgusting and they should be stripped of their police force. That same police force they quietly applied for and shown on the media as a one man operation is the same police force that will collect all the registrant internet identifiers and hand them over to their corporate parent, FaceBook, if SB 448 becomes law. When it gets leaked to public, there wouldn’t be a trail leading back to Facebook if they anonymously post the information pubicly and then end up on a Chuck Rodrick like website. Also, in SB 448, there is a clause that lets a future Atty Gen, like say, oh, Chris Kelly, release the information to anyone in the public, even people convicted of violent vigilante crimes agaist SO’s, so long as they sign some meaningless oath that they will not divulge the information. But there is no repurcussion for them if they do, since they could divulge it anonymously to some Chuck Rodrick like site. Kelly wants registrants to not be able to exercise their 1st Amendment rights, and Kelly also is insidious to attack the SO reform movement by trying to gut its ability to function politically through free speech and anonymous internet political speech. The majority of registrants will stop commenting altogether if this passes. Kelly apparently doesn’t want registrants to dispute the comments of people like the Valigator, whom she has made her target. And its obvious the Valigator would love to be able to look up who is commenting against her hate, look up their address and then do what she does. Kelly is a hateful man.
But even with the thinly veiled Kelly-Hueso-Talgiani attempt to make it appear as if the general public will not get the internet identifier information in SB 448, which they really will if this passes, which is , of course, Kelly’s immediate goal, the act of having to report all internet communications to police is well enough to chill registrants political speech. SB 448 is so blatant about being about attacking registrants free speech, that it’s even required of registrants to report their comments which appear at the end of news article in their commenting sections.
Nationless said “it, we are no longer truly Americans, and we need to stop expecting to be treated like Americans.”
We should stop expecting to be treated like Americans? If comments like this are the only ones I would feel comfortable making once I have to report all comments to the police, I am just going to stop commenting altogether, which is what will happen if SB 448 passes.
Round 1 of phone calls today on both bills 448 and 54. Also 5 sets of letters going in the mail today in opposition to both bills.
I don’t quite understand the details. Are we to report all public comments? Or just some public comments? Do we have to give them our private email correspondence? What about private conversations with friends and relatives on something like Skype or the others? Why should we have to report a private conversation? Would this not violate the other persons rights as well?
I say get the injunction and fight this thing however you can. With me it will be donations to the Fund here.
td777 said “Unfortunately, it has not expanded to include registered citizens. Facebook does not violate any current laws in refusing to service us any more than they did in their early days when they refused service to anyone not a Harvard student.”
FaceBook moved their headquarters to California, where PC 290 is the law.
From PC 290 ” (2) Except as authorized under paragraph (1) or any other
provision of law, use of any information that is disclosed pursuant
to this section for purposes relating to any of the following is
prohibited:
(A) Health insurance.
(B) Insurance.
(C) Loans.
(D) Credit.
(E) Employment.
(F) Education, scholarships, or fellowships.
(G) Housing or accommodations.
(H) Benefits, privileges, or services provided by any business…”
Thank you for Janice and all the fellows efforts to fight and protect the registrants rights. I have searched online and summarized the contact phone # and its district cities of the members of The Senate Public Safety Committee Members. I hope it will makes it easier for who likes to make phone calls to the Senate to express your opinion.
1.Senator Loni Hancock (Chair) –Tel: (510) 286-1333
Senate District 9
SENATE DISTRTICT 09 (2011)
SD 9 is based on an almost perfect nesting of AD 15 and AD 18 and unites cities in Contra Costa and Alameda counties along the 880 corridor, a major urban thoroughfare for commuter traffic and for commercial freight through the Port of Oakland and Oakland International Airport. Anchor communities include Richmond, Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro. By nesting, this district reunites Oakland, connects regional park interests, and respects the Bay Bridge boundary and that of the East Bay Hills.
– – See more at: http://sd09.senate.ca.gov/district#sthash.D8PnmaqS.dpuf
–
2.
Senator Joel Anderson (Vice Chair)- Tel: 916.651.4038
– –District-Cities of El Cajon, San Marcos, etc
–
3.Senator Steven M. Glazer- Tel: (916) 651-4007
SENATE DISTRICT 07
– contains the majority of Contra Costa County, including the Highway 4 and I-680 corridors. This district blend allows for the reunification of communities along the Highway 4 corridor and joins them with the “LaMorinda” (Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda), San Ramon Valley, and Tri-Valley communities. The northern portion of the district joins many delta communities, while the central and southern portions link key Alameda & Contra Costa suburban communities with job centers. This district includes many regional parks and wilderness areas, and respects the natural geography of the East Bay Hills boundary.
–
–
4.Senator Mark Leno- Tel: (916) 651-4011
– – San Francisco area (Zip code 94102 etc)
–
5.Senator Carol Liu- Tel: (916) 651-4025
– Senate District 25
– “SD 25 nests AD 41 and AD 43 and connects the Los Angeles County foothills from Sunland-Tujunga in the City of Los Angeles on the west to the City of Upland in San Bernardino County on the east. The district also includes most of the Angeles National Forest. The Foothill Freeway (I-210) connects these cities for commerce and entertainment. It includes the whole cities and communities of Sunland-Tujunga, Glendale, Pasadena, Altadena, Atwater Village, La Cañada-Flintridge, La Crescenta, Montrose, South Pasadena, San Marino, Sierra Madre, Monrovia, Duarte, Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Claremont, San Antonio Heights, and Upland plus most of Burbank.
–
6.Senator Bill Monning- Tel: (916) 651-4017
– SENATE DISTRICT 17
– SD 17 is based on nesting AD 29 and AD 35 and contains Santa Cruz and San Luis Obispo Counties in their entirety, as well as portions of Monterey and Santa Clara Counties. The cities include Santa Cruz, Watsonville, Gilroy, San Luis Obispo, Morgan Hill, Seaside, Paso Robles, Atascadero, Monterey, and several more smaller cities. – See more at: http://sd17.senate.ca.gov/district#sthash.cMa2JaCM.dpuf
–
7.Senator Jeff Stone- Tel: 916.651.4028
– Senate district 28-
– “The district, which is entirely in Riverside County, stretches from the vineyards of the Temecula Valley to the Colorado River and includes the cities of Blythe, Canyon Lake, Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, Lake Elsinore, La Quinta, Murrieta, Temecula, Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, and Wildomar.”
Furthermore ….freedom of speech becomes criminal…..you communicated without giving communist-like Gestapo-like…..forced to give up communication info…subject to jail/prison………….legislature are we clear…?….ARE WE CLEAR………speech becomes criminal as you didn’t give up your privacy communication info ……The Constitution demands the presentation of a valid search warrant…….this proposal is the same thatches was un-Constitutional …..forcing people against their will to waive their fundamental Rights under threat of arrest jail /prison.
We are only alive on this planet for a limited time. All the time taken to contemplate all this punishment, and the added chores and mental effort to make sure we are following along. Then, this. Unless you have so much free time to generate reports and don’t mind being treated like a dog on a treadmill, keep records, prepare for an audit, spend time thinking it through, this is sadistic.
It’s nice to think you’ll be bringing down the system by reporting so many identifiers that the computers will just pop. Computer memory is cheap. Where Kelly is able to inject his nazism, attempts to ruin Chris Kelly’s vision of a cyber-nazi draconian mindfuck system more likely will result in you being targetted by law enforcement. Not them just shaking their heads and saying to themselves that collecting internet identifiers is not working because registrants are reporting too many of them. This almost sounds like a bad pitch from some Chris Kelly company to step in and solve the problem through writing some code to cyber-streamline the process.
Nationless said “I have not felt any adverse effects except being deleted from a few social networks, which turned out to be a blessing.”
But then contradicts him/herself by saying “I do however feel myself limiting my own speech significantly.”
“But then I think Americans in general have reigned in their speech in the past few years. Facebook has nearly obliterated the blog world and few people are willing to risk their quasi-offensive jokes or opinions going viral and having their home vandalized.”
Americans have not reigned in their speech if we look at the hateful vigilante-minded comments on news article websites aimed at registrants by mostly those who remain anonymous themselves. On the contrary, FaceBook encourages this type of vigilante commenting by banning registrants from their network, and from making comments on other websites that require FaceBook membership to comment, that likely would not agree with the ‘kill em, castrate em, one bullet, problem solved’ crowd.
I agree it may be a blessing to not be on time-wasting social media sites, yet the decision to not participate should be left to the individual. FaceBook is ready to cyber-exterminate registrants. And then move the vigilantism into the “real world”. They already have their police force ready with the power to do it. They just need those damn registrants to be required to self-report their internet identifiers already!
I just read the II law as amended. This is not that bad really. I did not see any addition of having to provide content. They even permit us to not be forced to provide II that is used solely for commercial purposes.
I see several planes of fight here. First, the fight Janice and her team is taking to prevent a vote in the Committee. We have someone willing to carry our torch, whatever her motivation, it is our responsibility to help her.
If that fails, and I think as amended, this law will pass, we need to help each other make sure we comply.
I keep a spreadsheet, so complying with the CA law will be easy, I will just print and mail. I suggest everyone start creating a spreadsheet now. I would suggest deleting all accounts that you can on social media fluff sites. I kept LinkedIn and Ello.
While they permit you to withhold certain II, I suggest you report all of them, this is a law that is best to over-comply, just in case you later decide to use your banking email to send an email to a family member. Keep a print copy and keep at least one copy saved offsite on a domain with hosting from an internet provider. You can get this fairly cheap from GoDaddy or similar. Google drive will work as well, until Google decides to delete all FASO accounts.
If you can afford it, send each update certified, signature required. I do that for my annual update, but I stopped doing it for the add/modify updates.
Good luck and try to get it stopped while at the same time you get ready to comply. The last thing we need is a headline “4000 Sex Offenders Arrested for Refusing to provide Internet Identifiers”
Over comply….
I made my calls, today, in opposing SB54 and SB448. I’ve sent a letter to Sharon Runner’s Sacarmento office letting her of my opposition to SB54. Here is her address and phone number, if interested: Senator Sharon Runner, State Capitol, Room 4090 Sacramento, CA 95814, Phone: 916.651.4021.
Let’s see how fast they can type, or if the database they use, can handle Internet Identifiers that contain Arabic or other non Roman characters, LOL.
Question: What about the Registered Citizens who were able to keep their families together… What about all their smart devices ? Will they have to be registered too ? NewMexicoRSOL did something ingenious a few years ago in the House Committee Chambers during the Bill public comments:
They asked some of the RSOL members to give some photographs of actual children of Registrants ! They enlarged the photos and put them on sticks. Imagine the sight: When it came turn to speak, a dozen people put up the photos as the RSOL speaker referenced to them as THESE CHILDREN would be affected too !
It happened before I was here, but I hear it was powerful. I think they were careful to only use them only at that moment, before any press cameras could do anything. Just a thought, but the issue of many family computers…
All I see here and most of what I see here on other subjects is a bunch of talk that is not really enlightening. Every time I come here to check things out, my stress level rockets like 200%. Here I am enjoying my life with my family and friends and BAM a slap in the face to read the stuff here.
For a pro site this place doesn’t have much positive outlook. A real downer.
Chris Kelly calling himself a Chief Privacy Officer would be like Hitler calling himself Chief Humanitarian Officer.
The children in the photos gave their permission. They were very angry teenagers not afraid to do this, fed up with the “collateral consequences”.
Before FaceBook existed and its Chief Privacy Officer ( calling Chris Kelly a Chief Privacy Officer is akin to calling Hitler a Chief Humanitarian Officer ) Chris Kelly got on the scene, who would have ever thought anyone would be contemplating requirement to notify the police of all internet communications. Also, FaceBook really needs to be sued to stop breaking the law by denying registrants access in their criminal Terms and Conditions.
Nationless said “the police stations when the other perverts are there for their annuals? Power in numbers and getting a business card with this website address into the…”
Calling registrants perverts makes me think your posts are a joke. Anyways, if SB 448 becomes law, this website will become a virtual ghost town.
I will point out, aside from SB 448 chilling freedom of speech, SB 448 will also chill one’s ability to adequately search employment opportunities online. Six months ago I was looking for work and everywhere I went in personally directed me to their online application. Nobody wants to do face-to-face interviews anymore. They require you to apply online, where they can “screen” applicants based on experience and a generalized “fit” into work-related culture. If, for instance, I were to fill-out six online applications in any given day, there’s the potentiality that I must create and establish a particular online identifier based on the company’s application profile. In theory, then, based on SB 448, I would have to register those six online identifiers to law enforcement within five business days. Imagine if I were to fill-out six online applications a day for a full week. This would mean I would need to register 42 unique online identifiers back-to-back-to-back, etc. Probably wouldn’t hurt to argue the merits of how SB 448 will exhaust already precious law enforcement resources. I don’t think the officers in charge of 290 registration want to see my face again and again and again — and that feeling — is very much mutual. Ridiculous.