ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


Public Safety Committee Approves Internet Identifier Bill (SB 448)

The Assembly Public Safety Committee today approved Senate Bill 448, which would require some registered citizens to reveal their internet identifiers to local law enforcement. Included within the bill are registered citizens convicted of possessing child pornography on January 1, 2017, or later.

The Committee passed the bill unanimously despite testimony in opposition to the bill from six representatives of California RSOL and the Public Defenders Association. The ACLU, which previously opposed the bill, stated during the hearing that they no longer opposed the bill, but did not give a reason for their changed position.
“Senate Bill 448 violates the First Amendment because it chills speech and is not narrowly tailored,” testified CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci.

Before voting in favor of the bill, Assemblyman Bill Quirk stated that “the courts will decide” whether SB 448 is constitutional. He praised the author of the bill for amendments to the bill including one that reduced the penalty for violations to a misdemeanor offense.

There are two legislative steps left before the bill is finally passed: consideration by the Assembly Appropriations Committee and the full Assembly. If the bill is passed by the Assembly, the Governor must sign it before it becomes law.


Assembly Committee to Consider Internet Identifier Bill (SB 448)

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 do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I see a lot of palacheks pages don’t work anymore I’m sure they’ll all fade away since he died must of been ten years ago or so. I hope we didn’t lose lake there even though he came from the other side I’m sure our group of people as a whole have the compassion and empathy for him and welcome him with open arms. we could sure use your help and expertise in our fight.

man what happened to everyone hope we didn’t turn people away with all that vitriol that was going on.

My Facebook account was just disabled. I am a registered citizen.

I went onto Facebook’s website to see their rules regarding privacy.

It clearly states that sex offenders cannot have a Facebook account.

I got off Parole in September of last year. I have had this account since then. I haven’t had any issues. Which leads me to wonder: Did someone report me?

I feel so violated. I really want to cry. Facebook is not my life but I did my time! I just want to live my life.

Please help. 🙁

I hate facebook, and would never support their discriminatory policy by using it. But if it means that much to you, just keep creating a new profile every time they disable you. Try not using your full name. Maybe use your dog’s name or whatever. Facebook’s B.S. is just a corporate policy, so as long as you are off paper and your jurisdiction doesn’t ban use of social media (which is of course-unconstitutional-but it still happens) doesn’t seem like much facebook can do other than keep disabling you. At least by creating profiles over and over it will help keep some fool employed and cost facebook some effort.

No registered citizen should ever use ANY real information on Facebook other than perhaps your first name. No happy birthday posts to your account ether. Also do not post any photos of yourself as Facebook is the leader in using facial recognition software. Make sure you do not post any location information and that all location information and GPS info is ALWAYS turned off for all web browsing. And yes, Facebook “may” shut you down if someone outs you. (But only if they find some proof to who you are). Also ask your friends not to “tag” you (adding your account name) in photos they post. Keep your friends list to a minimum, supportive friends and family only. I’ve had a Facebook account for years with no problem by following the above advise. Even if you are not a registered citizen, the above advise should still be followed if privacy is important to you.

I wonder if Packingham is decided favorably that it will force FB into a different legal category. Currently, they can deny service to any customer under their ToS. But if SCOTUS decides FB and other social media are de facto “press” and the like, they might not be able to ban certain segments of society from that “public square.” They’ll still be able to decline to publish certain content, just as a newspaper can, but preventing someone from what SCOTUS decides is free speech (listening/reading is part of free speech) in a public forum is another matter.


SB 448 (Internet Identifiers) is scheduled for August 1 in the CA Assembly.

“No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction”

So they say law enforcement will have no additional funding or costs in adding all this new information and constantly updating it every time we submit new internet accounts? How can that be? Makes me want to send them new account names every day. lol

Here’s the PopVox link since time is running out to send individual letters:

If you submit your opinion quickly (like now), they will get it delivered to your representative in Sacramento. All 7 comments submitted are opposing this bill. Phone calls and emails to your state representative will also greatly help. Out of state messages will likely be ignored and also can’t be submitted through PopVox.

So am I understanding this correctly? This only applies to people convicted on or after Jan 1, 2017?

I currently live in Texas, and I am considering moving to CA.

From what I can tell, the new law goes like this….

290.015 (4) A list of all Internet identifiers actually used by the person, as required by Section 290.024.

290.024. For purposes of this chapter:

(a) A person who is convicted of a felony on or after ***January 1, 2017, requiring registration pursuant to the Act, shall register his or her Internet identifiers if a court determines at the time of sentencing that any of the following apply:

(1) The person used the Internet to collect any private information to identify a the victim of the crime to further the commission of the crime.

(2) The person was convicted of a felony pursuant to subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 236.1 and used the Internet to traffic the victim of the crime.

(3) The person was convicted of a felony pursuant to Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 311) and used the Internet to prepare, publish, distribute, send, exchange, or download the obscene matter or matter depicting a minor engaging in sexual conduct, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 311.4.

(b) For purposes of this chapter:
(1) “Internet identifier” means any electronic mail address or user name used for instant messaging or social networking that is actually used for direct communication between users on the Internet in a manner that makes the communication not accessible to the general public. “Internet identifier” does not include Internet passwords, date of birth, social security number, or PIN number.

(2) “Private information” means any information that identifies or describes an individual, including, but not limited to, his or her name; electronic mail, chat, instant messenger, social networking, or similar name used for Internet communication; social security number; account numbers; passwords; personal identification numbers; physical description; physical location; home address; home telephone number; education; financial matters; medical or employment history; and statements made by, or attributed to, the individual.

link provided to find info:

Yes. This bill will only apply to those convicted on or after January 1, 2017.

Seems like the beginning of a slippery slope. Starts with only a few, then the legislature will vote to include more registrants under the umbrella. Sort of like 290 itself. In 1947, it only required registration for about nine crimes. Now, over 40 require registration.

Speaking of internet identifiers
“FU-290” or “Megan’s-Law-Sucks” should suffice

Thank you Janice for commenting

No one has commented on this bill since being signed by the Governor on September 28, 2016. Bill status says signed by governor. Is this law being challenged in court yet? Janice, do you see a way to challenge this and do you have any plans to challenge this? I thought this bill died?

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x