ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021


Senate Committee Passes SB 448 after Author Promises to Amend

The Senate Public Safety Committee passed Senate Bill 448 in a vote of 7 to 0 after the bill’s author, Senator Ben Hueso (Democrat, San Diego), promised to amend it. According to Committee Chair Loni Hancock, the amendments are to include a narrowing of those to whom the bill would apply and a tiering so that the scope of the bill would be limited to high risk offenders.

“The Senate Public Safety Committee acted recklessly in approving a bill based upon mere promises,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “The author of the bill failed to provide the Committee with written amendments and now has a blank check.”

The next step for the bill is consideration by the Senate Appropriations Committee which is not scheduled to meet until after the legislature’s summer recess which ends August 17.

“California RSOL will make every effort to confer with the bill’s author to ensure that both amendments are included in the bill before it is considered by the full Senate,” stated Bellucci. “It is our position that the bill should only be applied to those convicted of sex trafficking and not to every one convicted of a sex offense involving the internet.”

During the hearing, ACLU attorney Michael Risher testified that ACLU would legally challenge SB 448 if the final bill is too broad. ACLU successfully challenged Proposition 35 after its passage in November 2013. One small part of that proposition required all registered citizens to disclose all internet identifiers to law enforcement within 24 hours.

The total number of people who spoke in opposition to SB 448 during the hearing was 22 which included representatives from the ACLU, California RSOL, California Public Defenders Association, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None of Us. The total number of people who spoke in favor of the bill was 7 and included the Sacramento County District Attorney.


Internet Identifier Bill to be Heard on July 14 (with active discussion)

Hearing Video  [July 14, Senate Public Safety Committee, First Agenda Item]

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

DON’T MAKE IT EASY FOR THE ENEMY If you’re like most people, you probably know VPNs as the services that let you spoof your internet address to foil geoblocking. And they are pretty good at that: they let you watch the US versions of Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu or the UK’s BBC iPlayer in spite of those companies not really wanting you to. But they have a very important security function as well. Several, in fact. With a VPN, the only site you make a connection to is the VPN provider, and that connection is protected by heavy encryption.… Read more »

I know little of this, I admit, but I had heard that the government can require that a back door to a company’s software be in place so the government can crack into the encryption and get your personal information. True? I am also surprised you are so optimistic about anything, let alone controlling your presence on the Internet. You are often saying we are doomed and get real. How can they have let such a simple way to keep your privacy go uncorrected? Get real? I wouldn’t rely on it, but like I said, I’m not knowledgeable about this.

I am simply saying that we need to have options in our corner. Sure, they can ask for all the info they like but short of taking away ALL internet access why make it easy for them to SPY ON YOU?

Get to know what you can do and do it. Do it now because the writing is not already on the wall BUT signed on the paper!

Best of luck and remember to never surrender! Lee

Just some encouragement: goggle “9th circuit considers constitutionality of ban on Internet anonymity”, papers, 9/10/13. The identity project. Quotes within that: Judge Jay Bybee, Judge Mary Schroeder, and ACLU’s Michael Rischer.

So… I don’t get it. It’s been a week, far past the two day time frame quoted. Was the bill amended as promised? If so, what were the edits? Are they building a tiering system? If not, have we any legal recourse against the committee or senator?

I predict that if this is made into law, and RCs are forced to supply law enforcement with every email address or social media profile they control, police departments across the state are going to be working overtime on their entrapment schemes – sending racy emails or messages and trying to get them to take the bait.

Of course that PLUS not to mention that you will have to give your internet identifiers (usernames for you laymen) and also your ISP (internet service provider) which is a unique number that identifies your internet connection. Now say that some username is identified coming from your ISP…will that be enough for a search warrant to be issued and your computer seized…you bet it will. Do not think that you will will have any freedom outside of your home any longer. Just in the in real world we will be tracked all of the time and in real time in… Read more »

The truth of the matter is they (law enforcement) will selectively apply the law to incarcerate at will any and all sex offenders that have any missed social media information not provided. It’s a tool of tyranny to create a type of fear based pressure to push the RC (Registered Citizen) into hiding thereby stilling their voice as a result. These are the type of measures all Americans should be screaming against but if it’s applied against a RC that is somehow okay!

Tired Of hiding said “you will will have any freedom outside of your home any longer. Just in the in real world we will be tracked all of the time and in real time in the virtual world as well!” Good point, but this is far more ominous. In the real world, there is GPS for those on parole. After parole, GPS ends. In this cyber-nazi Chris Kelly’s vision, the virtual GPS never ends. But it’s even more ominous than that. By demanding internet identifiers for registrants comments in news articles comments sections, its like having a virtual ‘GPS with… Read more »

So this law would only apply to those who use the internet or smartphones?

Seems that if we do not want to comply with this law, the solution is rather simple. Do not use the internet or a smartphone.

Probably not feasible for younger people who never lived without internet and phone.

Definitely not feasible for those who earn their living online.

I would think the police will concentrate heavily on those who decide to not comply by going offline.

This just feels like it will be very costly to enforce.

no Miranda, just people who’s crimes were internet related. he has to re amend it to specify, that people whose crimes were internet related, it will apply to.

From CASOMB website:

“Currently, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) supervises about 10,000 of those 88,000 sex offenders, of which about 3,200 have been designated as High Risk Sex Offenders”

As I said above there is a LEGAL process one must go through to be designated “high risk” . I am not an expert in law, but since there is a process that all of us have been through, legally how can Hueso write up a bill and all of a sudden designate us high risk without due process? Double jeopardy? Ex post facto?

Because lawmakers can write and pass any laws they want to. The public is their boss and as long as the public is unaware of the expense of lawsuits and legal battles they will support these lawmakers in their efforts to “protect” the public. Furthermore, ANY law that is passed is constitutional until it is determined to be otherwise. There are no repercussions for passing a law that is later determined to be unconstitutional.

Except for the expense it will later cost the taxpayers when the AG has to utilize public funds to defend those abominable laws at the appellate or state supreme court level. But that isn’t the concern of the politico who wrote the thing, the senate or house that passed it, the governor who signed it…or even more ironic, the 70 percent of the public that voted the unconstitutional mess into law in the first place.

At least Kamala Harris had the good sense not to waste TOO much money on fighting Prop. 35 further after it was ruled unconstitutional.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x