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.
Related
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.
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.
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.
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
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….
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.
“…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….
No senator voted no. Even 1/5 of the voters had sense to question Prop. 35.
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.
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’.
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?
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.
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.
“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?
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.)
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.
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!
Wow trying to quick pass this looks like a injunction might follow
It is Friday September 11, 2015.
Current Bill Status of SB 448 shows no scheduled hearing.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0401-0450/sb_448_bill_20150901_status.html
The Daily File of the Main Assembly does not list SB 448 on its agenda.
http://assembly.ca.gov/dailyfile
In addition the Assembly Public Safety Committee has no hearings scheduled for today.
http://apsf.assembly.ca.gov/hearings
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.
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.
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?
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. ???
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 martin.vindiola@asm.ca.gov
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.
Sincerely,
Email sent.
Not to late to oppose the bill! Email to Martin.vindiola@asm.CA.gov