ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Jan 16 Recording Uplaoded Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings

ACSOLAction ItemsCalifornia

Senate Passes Internet Identifier Bill (SB 448)

By a vote of 39 to 0, the Senate passed internet identifier bill SB 448 on September 2. The bill is now eligible for consideration by the Assembly.

“We must continue to assert pressure upon the Assembly to stop this bill,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci. “This bill has been rushed through the legislative process and needs more careful consideration.”

The legislature is scheduled to end its deliberations for the calendar year on September 11. In order for SB 448 to be passed by the Assembly, the bill would require either consideration by both the Public Safety and Appropriations Committees or a Rules Committee decision that such consideration is not necessary and a positive vote on the Assembly floor.

“California RSOL has voiced its opposition to this bill to the Assembly leadership,” stated Bellucci. “Additional voices must be heard in order to stop the legislature from making a major mistake.”

The internet identifier bill is the result of a “gut and amend” process that stripped the contents of an unrelated bill.

The bill was first heard by the Senate Public Safety Committee on July 14 where the Committee approved the bill with only a promise by the author to amend it. The bill was amended slightly, however, there are reports that committee members are displeased with the amendments. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the bill on August 27.


Posts about SB 448

Join the discussion

  1. j

    The use of the internet to facilitate a crime is one thing entirely and is simply missed by the inclusion instant messaging etc. where there is no sophistication, just the use of the cell phone much as a typical telephone or fax.

    Since certain phones services use VOIP, this could be construed as using the internet in the commission of a crime versus a plain telephone that uses an older wired technology. When it comes to splitting hairs down to this level, and especially in consideration of the lifelong damage this will do to youthful offenders and their families, the bill needs more scrutiny and challenge of the “narrowly tailored” parameters. Reality is clearly stretched to beyond belief, but apparently not so for the “informed” people we trust to maintain constitutional integrity – something that has been shamelessly absent for decades if not longer.

  2. anon

    Can we PLEASE get some clarification from JANICE or other actual ATTORNEY when it comes to whether using a cell phone actual triggers this requirement? Specifically using the phone to text or call. Yes, we’ve know that phone companies use VOIP but there is way too much speculation being thrown around here that’s being treated like cold facts.

    • инженер

      Using a (regular or) cell phone for voice, TTY, FAX, SMS or MMS; does not invoke “the spirit” of SB-448. How the carrier routes your information is beyond your control. Furthermore, it is a point-to-point communication. SB-448 is targeted towards multipoint (Internet broadcast) communication situations.

      Notice that I used the term “the spirit.” MMS messages use data. If a DA really wanted to, they could use their prosecutorial discretion to invoke SB-448 in cases involving MMS (picture) messages.

    • Joe

      I think this guy’s case should give pause…. by far the most serious crime (a felony) he was convicted of (Luring of a Minor to commit Sexual Assault (a misdemeanor)) I am thinking was a function of him using something like Facebook to communicate with the Freshman Girl beforehand, like (young) people do. Otherwise he would not have to register for the misdemeanors of the actual event (being less than 4 years older). THAT is how crazy this has gotten.

      Sure sounds like, had he used the regular phone or slipped her a note in Study Hall he would not be in his predicament.

      • j

        This is exactly how low the legislators have stooped to grandfather in less nefarious communications simply because they implicitly use infrastructure in ways that was not criminally sophisticated or more devious than other communications using ‘less’ technology such as a hypothetical hand written note.

        They are over emphasizing sophistication when none or little exists for the most part with these lesser technologies and with essentially children who are being forced to pay many times over for their crime.

  3. Matt

    Not a single vote against it. This will have to result in a lawsuit and a high court decision. No elected official, regardless of his or her “displeasure on the amendments” will ever do the right thing. This has to be a constitutional argument in the high court.

    • j

      No one wants to be the one that poisons the political fountain of youth with the constitutionally healing waters of truth!

      Such would be considered blasphemy in a day and age where political survival trumps human rights… a very sad time for Lady Liberty, Justice and what this country was actually founded upon.

  4. curiouser

    A couple of thoughts. First off, this isn’t law yet. It needs to make its way through two committees and a governor’s signature. After that, it will be slapped with a lawsuit by the ACLU, with an injunction. That’s when the people who actually give a damn about the Constitution will decide what stays and what goes.

    As I’m sure we’ve all noticed, this bill, and a great many like it, make no sense and have loopholes the size of the Lincoln Tunnel. Why? Because the legislator who has authored it has no real concern about the legality of it, nor if it even makes sense. The key component here is getting his or her name on a piece of legislation that will make them popular with the voters.

    It’s funny. I used to think that the politicos must truly hate all of us in the registrant community. Now I’ve come to see it in a whole new light. They really couldn’t care, one way or another about us. We exist merely to give them a purpose. We are a stepping stone to their political acceptance. We are tools to them – meat for the beast.

    There are a few good hearted souls in this arena. Leno and Hancock have shown an understanding of what’s right and wrong. I was sorry to see they voted in favor of 448 at the Senate hearing. And Tom Ammiano showed some decency by authoring a tiered registry bill. But the fact is, folks we are on our own. When these things get proposed, we need to make noise. We are so very fortunate to have such dedicated advocates in the California RSOL to stand up for our rights each and every time some wingnut decides its time to make their reputation by stomping on our backs.

    This bill is destined to go before some robes. There is too much money (Mr. Kelly, I presume?) slipped into the pockets of the legislators to expect it to be stopped short of the Governor’s desk.

    In the end, when this madness has been dismantled after being crushed under its own weight, history will look back at this time as the Persecution of The Registered Citizens.

    Either that, or we’ll all be reading about it while incarcerated on our own off-shore detention island :-p

    Peace to all

    • Eric

      Exactly right. Changing the political calculus is the only way. We need to be organized single issue voters and donors. Organization, solidarity and smart activism are required.

    • j

      I think it is important to stay on the money trail. When big money and big hate combine in such a cold and cadaverous soul as Kelly’s, one can’t help but wonder exactly how “interested” his minions are in the truth and ever more so in what money can buy.

      There has to be outrage in the camp when the truth continues to fly in the face of their lies, exaggerations and hyperbole. However relief comes as the monetary possibilities of pay to play loom ever so largely, they have given themselves renewed hope, in spite of the thoroughly horrific miscarriage of justice that it is. Shame on these people for allowing frenzy at all levels to frame this ever questionable legislation.

    • MarkW-SF

      In this specific case (and in a growing number of instances despite comments to the contrary), I do not see Hancock or Leno as any kind of ally. Hancock and Leno led the approval by the Senate Public Safety committee to approve this bill — not based in reality whatsoever of the facts and statistics, with a wink and a nod toward an author acting on pure political profit. Hancock and Leno and others approved a bill without any final language — and a “promise” from Hueso to include CASOMB recommendations of a tiered registry. Watch the video of the late night appearance by Hueso before the Senate PS committee. Hancock and Leno pay lip service to civil and constitutional rights, and nibble just a tad around the edges for them. But when it comes to standing up and leading, they cower in the corners, and take the political profit themselves. Point blank, they give lip service to a tiered registry for CA, one of four remaining states to be absent one, and won’t carry or find/support proxy sponsor for a tiered registy. What kind of ally is that? Private assurances to 290 reformers (including families) and some weak nuanced words from their on-high committee dais mean nothing. Hancock and Leno sold out 290 reform with a wink and a nod, and have political cover on all flanks by how they manipulated this.

      • Timmr

        I agree, but what the committee said is the committee’s word and after voting on it, their decision. By Hueso failing to heed that word in good faith, he snubbed the committee and went against its word and denied the public comment on the amendments that were supposed to be considered. This was all done obviously to save a questionable provision of a very popular bill, but that provision had questionable value to the rest of the CASE act.
        We, the citizens wrote and spoke out against the internet identifier provision. The supporters on the other side were mainly law enforcement. Maybe it is because they needed the law enforcement support to get re-elected, that their yes hands raised like they had puppeteer’s strings attached to them. Who knows? What difference does it make now? What they did was unethical, possibly illegal and it supported a law that is unconstitutional. If that is how they continue to act, they will fail.
        Will they get away with it? Well, they can look back at the history of these types of laws and are able to smile in confidence. But they have only seen the glimmer of the full possible power of CARSOL or other defenders of the Constitution, and you know, their reactionary unanimous vote reveals their growing fear and weakness.

  5. Joe

    Not having paid much attention in Civics Class back in the day I must confess I continue to be disappointed in the process.

    Never mind that the Public Safety (Safety!) Committee passed this bill with a blank check regarding the content. That there is less than 24 or 36 hours notice for the constituent to get involved.

    But now, I ask, what is the good of the bi-cameral legislature if some committee is allowed to override the whole process?

    As I have pointed out before, the last day to pass this, any bill is September 11. However, there are no Committee meetings in the Assembly between Sept 1 and 11.

    Thinking that a bill like this must pass the required Committees in either House one learns that “a Rules Committee decision that such consideration is not necessary”. Seriously??? What is the point?

    Very disappointed here…. this process is nothing short of a Banana Republic. The kind the US likes to drop bombs on to improve them….

  6. anonymously

    Chris Kelly still hasn’t given the numbers of what percentage of sex crimes on the internet are committed by rso’s. I guess he will release the numbers on that when he also puts anything his side says in writing pertaining to the amendments to SB 448. This should not be passing through commmittees when Kelly does not have the numbers of rso internet sex crimes as a percentage of total sex crimes to present. Then, Kelly does not want to exempt juveniles from this cyber-nazi sadism. That kind of shows Kelly has no care for rehabilitatable children. Other than all their money, Kelly and his FaceBook cyber-bullying partner who hacked Harvards computer system, stole the pics of the women/girls who attended Harvard, used those pics for FaceMash, a cyber-bullying ‘hot or not’ type site, should not be taken seriously when it comes to anything, and especially their cyber-nazi scheme to take away the the civil rights of Americans. At a time when California needs to reduce their prison population ( I doubt Kelly agrees this needs to happen ), California does not need a Facebook-to-prison pipeline for registrants who made a clerical error and did not send in all their internet identifiers correctly for their entire lives. Registrant reoffense is now known to be under 1%. SB 448 is not an emergency. It is not needed at all.

    • j

      Was Kelly ever charged for this alleged crime of cyber bullying ? If not, he should be.

      The victims ought to pursue their case and at the very least, he has the deep pockets to settle civilly. Speaking of which, it would be appropriate for him to fund anti cyber bullying, which actually includes many of the privatized aspects of mgans flaw…

  7. Joe

    “…there are reports that committee members are displeased with the amendments.”

    Just imagine how displeased they will be when this gets held up in a messy court case AND it comes to light that they signed a blank check….

  8. Timmr

    No senator voted no. Even 1/5 of the voters had sense to question Prop. 35.

  9. Timmr

    Not one thought Registrants’ lives matter.
    We are to them,
    political capital only, not
    human beings.
    When I see one of their names
    on a ballot,
    I’ll be sure to vote for the other guy.

    • Margaret Moon

      Chris Kelly’s billions speak loudly. Louder than facts, truth, and constitutionality.

  10. anonymously

    Zuckerberg was not charged for the hacking and cyber-bullying. I would imagine the statute of limitations have already expired on this. But since Kelly and Zuck like to make such a big deal about the past crimes of others on the internet, maybe Zuck could do what has been mentioned Cosby should do, which is donate 100 million dollars to a fund set up for possible compensation of the victims of said crimes, the now women who attended Harvard with Mark Zuckerberg and had their pics hacked and used to belittle, bully, and objectify them. Kelly was not involved in this to my knowledge. But Kelly’s role in the Beacon scandal where FaceBook broke many laws and eroded privacy of user data is something that hurts Kelly’s credibility on matters of privacy and makes him somewhat of a buffoon for calling himself a ‘Chief Privacy Officer’.

  11. RS

    I’m confused. How can they pass this? The courts already said it was a violation of our first amendment rights when they tried this with prop 35. So what was the point of the court ruling?

    • Janice Bellucci

      To RS and others – The court has issued a preliminary injunction in the Prop. 35 case and has stated that the injunction will be made permanent unless a new state law is passed by late September. If there is no new state law, the case will likely be over and no one will have to disclose internet identifiers because it is doubtful that the U.S. Supreme Court will want to review it.

  12. NotLikingCalifornia

    I’m sorry I’m not very smart. Can someone explain what the bill means. If you used internet for crime then you have to tell police your internet info? Sorry confused.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      No, it is if you are registered, you must give all those Internet identifier, regardless of any connection of your offense to the Internet.

  13. anonymously

    To my knowledge, the only amendment made to SB 448 is the one that says that if the internet was essential to the crime, registrant must self-report all internet identifiers to law enforcement. Hueso’s word that he will amend should not be trusted. Hueso has shown a pattern of lying. Hueso as San Diego councilmember made Taxi drivers independent contractors, which in a conflict of interest helped his brother who owned a taxi company. Next, Hueso funelled 25k to his brothers campaign from his own campaign. Then, the wrong way DUI where Hueso at first denied drinking at all. Then, after Tequila was found in his car, he later admitted he drank 3 glasses of wine.

  14. MarkW-SF

    “The bill was first heard by the Senate Public Safety Committee on July 14 where the Committee approved the bill with only a promise by the author to amend it. The bill was amended slightly, however, there are reports that committee members are displeased with the amendments.”

    Senate vote: 39-0.

    Guess Hancock and Leno were and are happy enough to go along with the full mob on this. Displeased, maybe, sure, got it, Senators.

    Thanks for approving in Senate Public Safety committee without final language on the bill, to get the whole thing rolling, Senators.

    Kelly now helping you and your friends, too?

    • j

      It’s an election year coming up. Everyone has to be on point to make sure they or someone they know gets elected, no matter what the body count on clearly unconstitutional legislation. The fear of being labeled “Soft on Crime” gives them the willies they just can’t seem to shake – party politics as usual with families and children of registrants fair game for even those you thought gave a damn…

  15. Eric Knight

    The bill is currently being held at the desk after its reception from the house. It still has to go through committee before being put on the floor to vote. All must be done by Friday close of session.

    Currently, no committee has received or scheduled to vote on this. They will probably authorize fasttrack to prevent citizen input through committee. Cross your fingers that this bill doesn’t move fast enough.

    (Or, not. Then we can see this hit the judiciary one more time. But I prefer it stopped in the Assembly.)

  16. RS

    Thanks for the reply Janice but I’m still confused. So the courts say it’s a violation of our first amendment rights but if the state passes a law then it no longer violates our rights? So what is the point of the Bill of Rights if any state can pass a law that removes these rights? One would think, I know this is a stretch for our politicians, that before a law is passed it should be proven that it is not a violation of our constitutional rights. If Joe politician, no offense to anyone named Joe, wants his law passed he should have to do his homework.

    • Paul

      RS: the courts offered some guidance on how the bill MIGHT pass constitutional muster. That’s not to say that it will pass muster. But they offered 3 points that, if corrected, might allow it to be constitutional.

    • David

      RS, I agree with you. I’m really sick of elected officials who take this “throw-it-against-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks” approach to creating new laws. They are lazy and unscrupulous, pandering only for votes, and then leaving the real and costly and time-consuming work of determining Constitutionality to the Courts.

    • Kevin

      I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again…the legislature can pass ANY law they want regardless of whether it’s constitutional or not. Their job is to create laws…period! Once the governor (executive branch) signs the law it becomes enforceable…that’s his job…to enforce the laws. When the law gets before a judge, and only then, will it ever be determined to be unconstitutional. That’s the way our government is set up.

      The legislature can pass verbatim the exact same internet identifier bill that they had passed previously. The governor can sign it into law if he wants to. It’s all completely legal. It would have to be challenged in court again for it to be nullified a second time. This process can go on and on for eternity.

      The only way to stop this is for the public to be made aware how much financial resources are going into these unconstitutional laws and that these laws will not accomplish the goals they’re designed to accomplish. A bunch of angry registrants aren’t going to change anyone’s mind. But, if you can get the general population on your side you can accomplish anything.

  17. Janice Bellucci

    Senate Bill 448 is scheduled to be heard by the Public Safety Committee in the Assembly on Friday, September 11. It is important that we all make calls to that committee starting at 8:30 a.m. and continue doing so until the bill is heard. The phone number is 916-319-3744. Please call early and often!

    • John

      I just called. They are not accepting positions vocally. Email and state your position citing the reasons IN YOUR OWN WORDS so it doesn’t look like one person sending the same email over and over.

      1. Violates the First Amendment.
      2. Too broad.
      3. Rushed with not enough time to give it careful consideration.
      4. No safeguards for the data collected.

  18. me

    Wow trying to quick pass this looks like a injunction might follow

  19. Guest

    It is Friday September 11, 2015.

    Current Bill Status of SB 448 shows no scheduled hearing.

    The Daily File of the Main Assembly does not list SB 448 on its agenda.

    In addition the Assembly Public Safety Committee has no hearings scheduled for today.

    If this bill is being truly being considered somehow somewhere by someone today this must be a grave violation of notification / transparency requirements (Brown Act?) and a massive infringement on my right to be involved in the process.

    • Guest

      Correction / Update.

      On the same CA Legislature web site the status of SB 448 now says

      09/10/15 Art. IV. Sec. 8(b) of the Constitution dispensed with.
      09/10/15 Joint Rule 61(a) suspended.
      09/10/15 Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

      which is decidedly different from the Search Result from the Bill Search on the Legislature home page

      Art. IV. Sec. 8(b) of the Constitution:

      The Legislature may make no law except by statute and may
      enact no statute except by bill. No bill may be passed unless it is
      read by title on 3 days in each house except that the house may
      dispense with this requirement by rollcall vote entered in the
      journal, two thirds of the membership concurring. No bill may be
      passed until the bill with amendments has been printed and
      distributed to the members. No bill may be passed unless, by rollcall
      vote entered in the journal, a majority of the membership of each
      house concurs.

      They can simply decide to eliminate the legislative process, as long as two thirds of them agree to it? Come again?!?!?

    • Timmr

      From what I have read the Brown Act requires 72 hours posting of agenda items before a meeting, although I have read that the legislature has suspended some requirements of the Brown Act due to budgetary problems. Could this be true?

  20. JohnDoeUtah

    I hope you all are successful today. But, the passing of this bill is imminent. The establishment hates the fact you beat them at their own game through the courts. So, they are doing everything they can to get what they want in the end. It is better for them to take these rights from those who used the internet to facilitate their crimes, than go home broke.

    I will congratulate that you all have been able to limit this to only those sexual offenders who used the internet to facilitate their crime. Not all Courts care about the over breadth argument, Utah and the Tenth Circuit did not.

  21. Paul

    The bill isn’t on any committee schedule, nor is it on the daily schedule. How can they get away with this? This MUST be a violation of the Brown Act? How would anyone know to call and provide their input on this?

  22. Timmr

    Just called this morning and the staff member said they were not taking phone calls for this bill, and he gave me an email address instead to register my comments. ???

  23. brunello

    I just called and was told to send an email. The clerk of the Assembly Public Safety Committee told me they could only accept email, and he promised to enter my email into the file for the Committee. The email address is

    And if anyone wants a guide for their own email message here is my text.

    Dear Martin,

    Thank you for offering to place this last-minute email communication into the Public Safety
    Committee’s file for consideration today.

    I object both to the bill as written and to the manner in which it is being rushed into
    consideration with only a few hours time for the public to be notified and to provide
    input. This smells of legislative hocus-pocus and undermines public confidence in
    the legislative process.

    As to the bill, I find it overbroad in who it affects. More importantly, It places a considerable
    burden on the free speech of these people and there has been no proper cost/benefit
    analysis of the purported safety it brings to the public. To wit, has there been a credible
    estimate of the number of young people who will be spared some form of assault by
    this legislation? I can’t imagine there has been time for this. Moreover, has there been
    any accounting of the number of people who will be tossed into prison for failing to
    promptly inform the state that they have added or deleted an internet identifier,
    especially for some entirely proper use, such as an on-line subscription to the L.A.
    Times or the Sacramento Bee? What is the cost to the state of the extra accounting
    activity? What is the cost of the extra load on the penal system?

    In sum, I find this bill to badly, hastily and shoddily conceived and if its basic idea is to be
    turned into law it needs to go through a lot more crafting so it can conform to the
    California and US Constitutions and provides measurable safety to the public at a
    minimal cost to civil liberties.


    • brunello

      Durned! In my haste to put together an email to these guys I admit I didn’t read the bill and now I see that my claim that this would affect even on-line subscriptions to a newspaper is not true. If anyone copies this message that part should be stricken. Also, I’m not sure of the sanctions imposed – prison, really?

  24. NPS

    Email sent.

  25. RJ Ventura County

    Not to late to oppose the bill! Email to

  26. Eric Knight

    Looks like they are rushing this through. They suspended Joint Rule 61 and dispensed with Article 4 Section 8(b), which means passage will be imminent. Not a good sign.

    Fire up the court challenges. I’ll pitch the tent for you at the clerk’s office.

Leave a Reply

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.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *