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.
Related
Internet Identifier Bill to be Heard on July 14 (with active discussion)
Hearing Video [July 14, Senate Public Safety Committee, First Agenda Item]
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. The VPN provider then relays your connection to the end sites you want to visit. This has a number of beneficial effects:
1. Your ISP (and by extension, the government) has no way of tracking which web sites you visit, barring a subpoena of the VPN providers records – and it’s likely that a) the VPN provider is outside their jurisdiction and b) doesn’t keep records anyway. The only connection that your ISP and anybody else monitoring your internet link can see is the one between you and the VPN provider. All other connections are obscured.
2. Web sites you visit have no way of tracking your IP address or figuring out who you are unless you explicitly tell them. All your connections appear to come from the VPN provider and cannot be traced back to you, thus making you completely anonymous. This is how VPNs bypass geo-blocking – they make your IP address appear to be one in the authorised country. It also prevents tracking on other internet services like BitTorrent: if you download something from BitTorrent while connected to a VPN, there’s no easy way that the download can be traced back to you.
3. Your data cannot be intercepted and read locally. This is an important one that people often forget. The data link (“tunnel”) between you and the VPN provider is encrypted, so nobody can intercept and read your data en-route. That doesn’t just defeat most government spying: it’s critically important if you use public WiFi hotspots.
Setting up a VPN is easier than ever. There are a host of VPN providers operating around the world: Tor, Hide My Ass, and ExpressVPN are among dozens – hundreds – of VPN services operating worldwide. Most charge between US$5 and US$10 per month, and may or may not have data volume restrictions.
Nearly all of those providers supply an app you can install and run on a PC that connects you to their VPN. Many also provide mobile apps so you can extend that security to your iOS and Android phone as well (yep, mobiles need VPN security too). More sophisticated users can potentially set up their routers to push all data on a home network through the VPN, though that is a more technical task.
GET EDUCATED ON THIS BECAUSE IT IS COMING – THIS IS WAR PEOPLE
Just some encouragement: goggle “9th circuit considers constitutionality of ban on Internet anonymity”, papers please.org, 9/10/13. The identity project. Quotes within that: Judge Jay Bybee, Judge Mary Schroeder, and ACLU’s Michael Rischer.
I m not sure if this was posted but here is another one.
http://californiaagainstslavery.org/sb448pressconference/
“FACT” information here
http://californiaagainstslavery.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SB-448-Fact-Sheet-Final.pdf
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.
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 camera’ on you. Your comments content is visible.
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?