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***
Sending out first thing tomorrow morning 161 letters against SB448 and 161 letters against SB54. Also contacted Senator Runner through email on her Senate site and will email Senator Hueso and the entire Senate Public Safety Committee. Each of you can go onto the Senate website and if you have the ability to email with a computer, you can get onto their page and send them an email opposing the bills. It is another way to be in contact with them on these issues. I have also made my phone calls to the committee.
Keep the letters, phone calls and emails going until the 14th.
TJ
While we are writing letters and making phone calls, let’s plan and gird ourselves for an even greater challenge, the next voter initiative against registrants. Don’t think it won’t happen. Although we may not defeat it, I would like to see a better no campaign than what went against 35.
True, godsends like Janice and CARSOL will be there to file for injunction release when the next draconian proposition passes, even if we do nothing. Yet, there are about 80,000 of us free enough to do something, even a little, and if a lot of people do a little, it could end up big.
I know it would be nice to think they are just going to let us be (I catch myself thinking that a lot), but as many people have mentioned here, they have enjoined us with in a struggle using war like tactics, and it challenges us to defend the lives we have earned by planning for the next assault.
So I have come across this…. what does this mean?
https://www.eff.org/document/order-staying-case-until-sept-15
(the EFF was the main plaintiff in the Prop 35 case, along with the ACLU NorCal and CA RSOL).
Just use the Tor web browser for everything. Your ISP will not be able to see or track the sites or email accounts you visit, and no one will be able to match you with any “internet identifier” at all. It prevents somebody watching your Internet connection from learning what sites you visit, and it prevents the sites you visit from learning your physical location. Go to http://www.torproject.org and download the Tor browser bundle – it’s free and easy – works just like internet explorer or Firefox. It works very well I’ve been using it for years.
Joe said “There is, however, no time requirement in which to get this in, and no vehicle by which to do it (on-line, mail, in person), other than providing this user name at the time of the annual appt….”
As far as the police getting your Internet Identifiers, it doesn’t matter much when they get them, since whenever they do they will be able to link all your comments back to you, regardless of the length of the name. And by the way, the more complicated and lengthy the identifier, the more work you would to do to make sure you are reporting it correctly. So I see no benefit in making long names. Also, to make names that others also use only means that you can be mistaken for making someone elses comments which you may get retaliated on because it’s thought you may have made it. No benefit to that . Prop 35’s time requirement was 24 hours. SB 448’s is 5 days. The mechanism mentioned is the US Mail.
My opinion is that registrants, of whom there is a 98+% non-reoffense rate, do not pose even close to the danger of hackers. Mark Zuckerberg hacked into Harvards system to steal photo’s of college women/girls to use them to objectify them in the precursor to FaceBook and thus , he should be banned from the internet for life. Chris Kelly and the Beacon program. Banned for life. Or at least should be required to report their Internet Identifiers. This makes more sense than requiring Internet Identifiers from registrants whose crimes may not have involved the internet.
Robin Banks said “using Tor (which is not illegal) – they can not see the sites you visit or the email accounts you use.”
I thought you have to report all e-mail accounts.
Joe said “There is, however, no time requirement in which to get this in, and no vehicle by which to do it (on-line, mail, in person), other than providing this user name at the time of the annual appt.”
I’m not sure how making long and complex internet identifiers will hurt anyone other than ourselves in setting us up for retribution for being difficult, then being responsible to make sure these lengthy and complex internet identifiers are reported correctly and if they are not , the potential is there to be arrested for failure to register. Prop 35 had a 24 hour time requirement and SB 448 has a 5 day time requirement, by mail. So you have 5 days on this one and 1 day on the last one, but in any case, the police would be getting the information within 1 day or 5 days to be able to link all your comments on news articles to you. Prop 35/SB 448 is aimed the most at political comments on news articles and political comments in general. When it comes to political comments, with SB 448, we will either silence our internet speech or we are sitting ducks for retribution for being politically active if this Chris Kelly scheme passes.
Their ‘further objectives’ remains un-Constitutionally the same……speech ..communication ..expression is chilled..is restraint …is a crime because you didn’t give them your communications id……………….whereas every other citizen would be protected from such an intrusion to their communication and writings .
Every person is protected from such takings ..4thAmendment…
Any restraint to the freedom of that person is guaranteed Due Process…
Should you want to exercise your Constitutional Rights ..speech..write..express
you are restricted restrained restraint from doing so because you must give communications speech id……
The proposal is in direct conflict with our Constitution and a blatant deliberate indifference to civil rights.
And of course, no place in the proposed law do I see anything that says my identifier has to be unique. I’m already began using a non-unique, Arabic language identifier 8)
Okay, mine, family & friends letters have been mailed!
Phone calls to Senators have been made!
One Senate staffer mentioned, “Yeah, we’ve been receiving a lot of calls about those two Bills.”
(I hope every one was in opposition!!!)
I was updating my vehicle info at reg today. They tried to send me out with no verification that I updated my info. That wasn’t happening I made them give me a copy of the updated info. Be careful guys and girls make sure you don’t let them not do their jobs. Also some of these registrents are so ignorant of what’s going on its pathetic I tried telling everyone in there about rsol and what’s going on and only one or two guys even got it. Bunch of idiots. I’m sure glad we have some smart people in here and Janice and all who are fighting this bs. Made my calls sent my letters and thank you everyone else who’s showed up stood up and spoke up.
Nationless said “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.”
Wrong, This is horrible.
When making political comments in the comments section on news articles, identifying the name used and the website completely links to the comments you made. There is no addition of having to provide content because the content is in the comments section of the news article available for the police and public to read. The chilling of political speech was mentioned numerous times by the 3 judge panel of the 9th circuit. If Kelly gets this SB 448 passed, he may try to use it as a success to then run for Atty General again. And right in SB 448, the Atty General can give the internet identifiers to anyone they wish who signs an oath whose conditions can be broken without consequence by anonymously releasing the list of registrants and their internet identifiers to a Chuck Rodrick type website. Kelly is a billionaire four times over who is trying to game the system until he destroys the civil rights of a protected class in California. Kelly and FaceBook breaking the law in violation of PC 290 says a lot about their ability to empathize, which says they have very little. A better case could be made for Kelly and Zuckerberg to have to provide their internet identifiers to police. Zuckerberg stole the pics of undergrads from Harvard University’s computer system and used them to publicly objectify these women for his FaceMash, precursor to FaceBook. Of course, this guy doesn’t care if registrants internet identifiers are disclosed to the public. He stole the pics of women and disclosed them to the public to objectify them as ‘hot’ or ‘not’. Kelly’s beacon program was disgraceful and he should have to turn his interent identifiers over to the police. The first one Kelly is giving the internet identifiers to ,if he becomes Atty Gen of California, or if he can influence the new Attorney General, is Mark Zuckerberg, formerly of FaceMash. Now, if we can stop FaceBook from banning registrants from their service in violation of the law, then these pack of weasels led by Chris Kelly wouldn’t be clamoring for the internet identifiers of law abiding citizens with an over 98% non-re-offense rate, where the only effect of such is to silence the speech of a protected class in California and have no effect on kidnapping, or sex assault/crimes. If you don’t care to stop political speech by registrants, then why do you need to know interent identifiers from news articles? If you don’t intend to investigate the content of e-mails, then why do you need to know the internet identifiers of e-mail accounts. We must not underestimate the abilities of Chris Kelly and FashMash’s former founder Mark Zuckerberg when it comes to being devious in the cyber realm by hacking, spying, being dishonest. The Winklevoss brothers thought they hired Zuckerberg to make a social network but Zuckerberg moonlighted on them to get the jump on them for his own social network. One devious and unscrupulous guy indeed. And now he has his own police force that can get the internet identifiers if they claim its part of some bogus investigation, if SB 448 passes.
Am I to assume that if this bill passes we will not only have to provide email names but also names such as my mike r that I use on this site. Is that correct if so then how would that work we would have to state mike r used on rsol or? There’s ambiguity in the law just like the ambiguity in reporting a vehicle regulary driving what do they consider regulary driving by? I went yesterday and registared my gfs car because i will be driving it periodically even though I would not consider that regulary.
Torified said “You’re already a sitting duck because you’ve been so worried about being a sitting duck and are afraid of retribution. That kind of thinking has made it easy to walk all over us.”
So if I just closed my eyes like you claim to have done then this SB 448 wouldn’t be happening?
“I haven’t been following this because I thought we didn’t need to be vigilant so much.”
“http://www.casre.org/prop-35/lawsuit/”
O no, not a Chris Kelly website to give us the answers. Torified, do you think banning Tor use for registrants could be next if Kelly gets this SB 448 into law?
Nationless said “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….”
What do you think about FaceBook not complying with California PC 290’s anti-discrimination section? Maybe they should comply at the very least and stop banning registrants in violation of PC 290. If FaceBook does not take California’s laws seriously, they should not have their own police force.
In the news Iran jails Washington Post journalist for his speech writings expression ……now, what is the difference between california and iran when it comes to speech writings and expression ..again..????????
from the Nebraska Federal lawsuit decision that found Internet identifiers requirements unconstitutional on October 17, 2012 note that the judge in his decision specifically noted the testimony from Prof. David Post FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
“Ten of the plaintiffs participating in this case testified at trial, as well as the
plaintiffs’ expert. Their testimony is summarized below.
1. Professor David Post
For the past 15 years, Professor David G. Post has taught at Temple
University’s law school, specializing in copyright, trademark, other intellectual
property law, and cyberlaw. (Tr. 66:19-67:4.) Prior to his position at Temple, Post
twice worked as a law clerk for now United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg; worked for more than six years at a large Washington, D.C., law firm in
intellectual property and “high-tech transactions” involving software developers and
systems integrators; and taught at Georgetown for three years. (Tr. 69:19-70:23.)
Post has published several law journal articles and a law school casebook concerning
the Internet and its legal ramifications. (Tr. 67:8-68:24.)
Post testified that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-322.05 and the statutory definitions for
“chat room,” “instant messaging,” and “social networking web site” in Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 29-4001.01 are ambiguous, and that these definitions either cover “almost
everything on the Net” or “might cover virtually nothing on the Internet,” depending
upon how the terms are interpreted. (Tr. 74:17-21.)
Specifically, Post testified that a “broad reading” of the definition of “chat
room” in section 29-4001.01 could include “ordinary telephone service,” cellular
telephone service, e-mail, and SMS text messages, as well as more conventional chat
rooms that fall “clearly within the bull’s-eye” of the statutory definition. (Tr.
12
84:7-85:25.) For example, “when I send you an e-mail—an ordinary electronic mail
with text and maybe a file attachment, I think as a perfectly reasonable reading of the
statute that we are now engaged in a chat room interaction because there’s server
space on the Internet that is designated for the instantaneous exchange of texts
amongst the two of us.” (Tr. 85:7-13.) Further, because Amazon.com, for example,
“has server space that is designated for the instantaneous exchange of text between
two or more computer users,” it would also qualify as a chat room under the statute.
(Tr. 86:8-17, 118:23-119:12.) Post acknowledged that a chat room allows “one-to-one
communication and one to many” amongst those who are “in the room.” (Tr. 112:21-
25 .)
Post also testified that the definition of “instant messaging” in Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 29-4001.01(10) could include only “old-fashioned telephone” service if the statutory
language “direct, dedicated, and private communication service” means “a line of a
physical piece of wire that is dedicated to our communication [which is] the way that
the telephone system actually works.” Alternatively, this language could include
“virtually all electronic communication” if interpreted to mean “communication[]
that’s not publicly accessible but is only accessible to the participants.” (Tr. 92:1-22.)
Post stated that instant messaging is “any system that allows one-to-one
communication via text,” which would include Google, Gmail, Hotmail, Facebook,
Yahoo Messenger, Wikipedia, and YouTube because these services allow the “virtual
instantaneous transfer of texts and computer file attachments.” (Tr. 93:16-94:17,
120:9-13.) Post thinks use of the word “direct” in the statutory definition of instant
messaging is confusing because “anything that’s traveling over the Internet . . . . gets
broken up into tiny pieces [and] . . . converge[s] virtually instantaneously on your
machine later.” (Tr. 123:4-25.) Post’s “guess is” that the Nebraska Legislature was
“trying to capture a sort of private one-to-one nature of conversation as opposed to
one to many or many to one.” (Tr. 124:19-25.)
Post testified that the definition of “social networking web site” in section 29-
4001.01(13) has a “threshold statutory ambiguity” caused by use of the term
13
“collection of web sites” because that phrase “could cover everything that is on the
World Wide Web because the World Wide Web is itself a collection of web sites.”
(Tr. 95:1-24.)
Even if you take that definition, read it a little more narrowly, you still
have things like Google.com. Google.com—you type in Google.com to
your browser and it comes up with a search page, the familiar page. That
page doesn’t have profile information on it. I can’t enter my profile on
that page but I can enter a . . . searchable profile on any number of pages
that are linked to the Google web page so I can go from the Google.com
page to Blogger, to Gmail, to YouTube . . . and in one click I’m at a site
where I can have a searchable profile that viewers can access. So . . .
even though [Google.com] does not have this functionality, is it part of
a collection of web sites that has this functionality, and I think the
answer is, yeah, it is because . . . I know that they’re in the same
collection of web sites. Blogger is owned by Google so I suppose that
makes it part of the same collection. It’s one link away from Google so
it’s part of a collection. . . . [T]he Google.com site encourages you to go
to Blogger, to go to YouTube. . . . [T]o me as a user . . . when I’m at the
Google.com page, . . . I’m in a collection of web sites that has this
functionality so the Google.com page is a social networking web site.
Even though it does not have this functionality, it’s part of the collection
that does.
(Tr. 96:8-97:9.)
Aside from the “collection of web sites” issue, Post stated that the
“functionality” described in this statute is the ability “to create a . . . searchable
profile. If I can create a searchable profile that others can comment on or
communicate with me, they can find my profile and send me a message of some
kind,” then it is a social networking web site within the meaning of section 29-
4001.01(13). (Tr. 95:13-17.) This definition would encompass “many commercial
sites that wouldn’t ordinarily think of themselves as social networking but they have
this functionality,” such as Amazon.com, L.L. Bean, Blogspot, and WordPress. (Tr.
14
97:16-99:8.) All of these sites have “a way for you to post your profile and talk to
other users.” (Tr. 98:22-23.)
Regarding the language in section 28-322.05(1) that prohibits sex offenders
from using a social networking web site, instant messaging, or chat room service “that
allows a person who is less than eighteen years of age to access or use” it, Post does
not know of “any instant messaging services that even purport to keep minors out.
Same for chat rooms.” (Tr. 77:19-23, 78:23-79:4.) Further, Post testified that anyone
of any age can “access” a site, if only to read the site’s terms and conditions. (Tr.
78:1-16.)
Post testified regarding the reporting requirement in section 29-4006(1)(s) of
“all blogs and Internet sites . . . to which the person has uploaded any content or
posted any messages or information.” Post testified that “cookies files” are being
invisibly uploaded to web sites people visit “hundreds of times . . . daily as you’re .
. . making your way around the Net.” These text files—which contain information
identifying when you last visited a web site and what you did there—“are being
deposited on [an Internet user’s] machine and then sent to the web sites from their
machine the next time they go visit and that could be considered the uploading of
content” within the meaning of the statute. (Tr. 108:20-109:24.)
In Post’s opinion, the combined effect of the statutes at issue (depending upon
how they are interpreted) could bar individuals from: (1) communicating via text
message since every commercially available text messaging system could plausibly
be classified as “instant messaging” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4001.01(10) and no
text messaging systems prohibit minors’ access; (2) communicating via cellular or
landline telephone with any third party; (3) reading any blogs or online newspapers
if those sites allow users to identify themselves and communicate with others via a
“comments” or “discussion” functionality; (4) joining any discussion groups, listservs,
or online communities; and (5) purchasing goods or services online from any site
15
allowing user “ratings” and comments. (Ex. 304, Expert Report of David G. Post at
pp. 18-19.)”
the end result was that the court found the requirement to give up Internet identifiers as unconstitutional. Part of the decision is below
3. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-322.05 and 29-4006(1)(k) and (s) (West, Operative
Jan. 1, 2010) are facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment and the
equivalent Nebraska constitutional provision.
4. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-322.05 (West, Operative Jan. 1, 2010) is facially
unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause and the equivalent Nebraska
constitutional provision.
5. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-4006(1)(k) and (s), 29-4006(2), and 28-322.05
(West, Operative Jan. 1, 2010) are facially unconstitutional under the Ex Post Facto
Clause of the United States Constitution and the equivalent Nebraska constitutional
provision regarding (a) offenders who had served their time and were no longer under
criminal justice supervision on January 1, 2010; and (b) offenders who had been
sentenced prior to January 1, 2010, but who remained under criminal justice supervision
on or after January 1, 2010.
6. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-4006(1)(k) and (s) and 29-4006(2) (West, Operative
Jan. 1, 2010) are unconstitutional as applied to all those Plaintiffs listed on Court’s
Exhibit 1 who are identified therein as “presently a Plaintiff” and who must register as
a sex offender under the Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§
29-4001 to 29-4014.
These are the plaintiffs (except Doe 24) 56 who counsel stipulated are required
to register under the Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act because of a conviction
for one or more of the offenses enumerated in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-322.05(1)(a)-(k) .
72
7. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-322.05 (West, Operative Jan. 1, 2010) is
unconstitutional as applied to Does 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 27, and 35.56
8. As indicated in my decision on the motions for summary judgment (Filing
354), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4006(2) (West, Operative Jan. 1, 2010) is unconstitutional
under the Fourth Amendment as to those plaintiffs who were previously convicted of
sex crimes, but who were not on probation, parole, or court-monitored supervision on
or after January 1, 2010. Doe 24’s as-applied challenge to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4006(2)
under the Fourth Amendment and the equivalent Nebraska constitutional provision is
not ripe and is therefore dismissed for lack of Article III jurisdiction.
Well rob maybe I wasn’t obligated to update my vehicle info idk so I would rather be safe then sorry you know. That’s what I mean about ambiguity in the law.
C said “Does anyone know someone that has had an FB account blocked for being an RSO? I’ve been on FB since about 2007 and have not had any issues. I also have an FB fan page for my business. No problems there, either.”
If you look at news articles from states other than California where Chris Kelly has inserted his cyber-fascism, where registrants are required to report internet identifiers, you will see that there is a FaceBook-to-prison pipeline. Not only do the registrants get their FB accounts shut down, but also go to prison for not reporting it. Look at all the news articles about cases where the registrant did not exhibit any immoral behavior but simply had a FaceBook account. The news media will always report on the rare occasion where the registrant did have immoral behavior. But there must not be that many of those occurrences, since the majority of stories where the registrant is arrested for failure to register for not reporting internet identifiers and then sentenced to jail time does not mention any immoral behavior.
Good luck everyone. If you’re making the trek to Sacramento to speak before the committee, thank you! I’m sure many of us wish we could be there with you. You’re all in my thoughts and prayers.
Good luck to Janice et al today! I hope this is D-Day (Defeat Day) for both SB448 and SB54. May all our letters, emails, faxes and phone calls have their intended impact!
At the hearing, Sen. Hueso said, “The opposition tends to exaggerate the effects of this (proposed) law.” Really??? Okay, then you, Senator Hueso, go to prison for three years for forgetting to include your Reddit identifier and then tell us it’s exaggeration!!
At the Hearing, Senator Mark Leno again noted the value of CASOMB and it’s important recommendations including a proposed tiered registry. SB448 had 3 “me too” supporters and 20+ “me too” in opposition to the Bill.
Sen. Hueso stated that he would amend SB448 to address the concerns of the Senators and the opposition and would narrow the Bill to pertain only to those whose crime involved use of the Internet. However, the Senators would not have a chance to reject it if they are dissatisfied with the amended Bill.
Does anyone know if they actually voted on SB448 yet?
Still waiting for a vote on 448 I didn’t see 54 on the agenda. Was it pulled or?
Nationless wrote “One big difference is that you will not go to jail for asking that.”
If the cyber-fascist Chris Kelly had his way, you would go to jail for asking that anonymously, not reporting your internet identifier to the police for that comment/question. In Iran, does anyone have to report internet identifiers to the police? Could Iranians be more enlightened than Chris Kelly on the principles of the US Constitution’s 1st Amendment?