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.
Related
Assembly Committee to Consider Internet Identifier Bill (SB 448)
http://www.kdrv.com/news/California_Seeks_Fix_on_Sex-Offender_Reporting_Requirement.html
http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/California-seeks-fix-on-sex-offender-reporting-8315739.php
Public safety committee….what a joke. I wonder what lobbyists helped craft this bill. Who came up with the idea in the first place and what evidence they used to justify the need for such a ridiculous piece of legislation.
It was difficult yesterday to appear and testify at this committee hearing. One reason is that the discussion and vote on SB 448 was preceded by a “media show” that included testimony from attorney Gloria Allred and four Bill Cosby rape victims on another bill. Another reason is that Assemblyman Bill Quirk, who previously was a voice of reason, spoke strongly in favor of SB 448 and even praised its author. Finally, the committee chairman rudely cut off our third speaker, a board member, who would have spoken in opposition to the bill although he allowed others in support of this and other bills to testify for long periods of time.
Best wishes California! I know exactly how this feels. You spend tons of time, money, and resources in fighting this law – only to have them make minimal changes and then try, try again. Utah did this exact thing. All it does is add unneeded expense, but with their vast resources they can afford to never leave this issue alone.
Well, this isn’t great news for those with possessing child porn convictions. If I was a betting man, it appears to me that the Safety Comittee could be setting themselves up to submit and pass a tiered system that so many other states already have. Stay tuned.
Ok,,,Does this Internet Identifier flash in big red letters every time we comment on a site or are they posted for public ? If Not,, I am not worried…NOW I do want to Know what they consider an Identifier and How they plan to enforce that because there’s Just WAY TOOOO MANY Holes in that theory it’s just a Money Grab Bill no Teeth I can tell You IF a Person Has a Mind to Be Stealth,, THEY CAN..This is all Feel good BS because when They Do Catch a person circumventing their lil BS Law it will be Wayyy Tooo Late to stop them.,,,Just Sayin’,, AGAIN WE ARE THE TEST GROUP FOR HOW FAR CAN THEY GO TAKING BEFORE YOU REALIZE IT’S GONE!,,,Just Like Hitler… I’m Tellin’ yah!
Im confused here..
” 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.”
In what is an overall disappointment this passed there is some grey lining specifically with how this law was passed. It was specific to a certain crime and is not retroactive. We have come to expect retroactivity and a broad brush with these never ending laws.
Hopefully, this is the new PSC standards and will reflect future laws as we know they will keep coming.
and so it begins again these laws are going to keep coming in a never ending stream and the committee members and the ACLU are caving in to the whims of lobbyists and other members of the committee. sad sad,SAD day
does this mean”Assemblyman Bill Quirk stated that “the courts will decide”
Bill Quirk is “passing the buck” to the court?
Where were YOU yesterday, fellow RCs????
Only TWO of us RCs showed up in Sacramento out of 135,000!!!!
Janice and a few other non-RCs generously took the time and money to fight with and for us.
But where were YOU?
I am especially shocked that those of you whose conviction involved the internet couldn’t be bothered to come! You may soon and forever have to tell law enforcement about all your emails and logons and other internet identifiers!
Both of us RCs took off time from work and spent our own limited funds for gas to fight for the rest of you.
Why didn’t YOU??
I’m sure that your reasons are important to you. But those of you who didn’t bother to write and call because you didn’t think this bill would affect you, consider this: it could be AMENDED TO over time to include more and more of us, until YOU are shocked, surprised, and dismayed.
There are no guarantees that we will win every time, but when RCs show up along with Janice’s team, the legislators remember that, so they are more willing to weaken a bill or even cancel it. We have seen this happen!
Maybe you are afraid to stand in line with us when the committee asks us to each say our name and city. Do you think that taking 5 seconds to say your name and city is scarier than having yet another law monitors you more and makes your lives a living hell?
If 135,000 of my fellow RCs make excuses for never coming with us to Sacramento, and if many of us don’t bother to write or make calls because a particular bill doesn’t seem to affect us directly, then maybe we have no right to sit at home and crank out complaining, legalistic-sounding “They can’t do that!” comments on this website.
Because they DID “do that!”. And they will continue to “do that!”
A SPECIAL NOTE to all you incest offenders: unless you like the idea of appearing on Megan’s website along with the rest of us, you should be writing letters, making calls, and planning to come with us next week to fight AB 2569. If you don’t do these things, then what right do you have to cry and complain about it when it passes?
So, will you be angered by this comment, or will it wake you up and cause you to decide to take action?
The choice is yours.
I will keep fighting for my sake and for yours.
yes just like every other legislative bodies pass laws that are popular just to gain votes and allies no matter how idiotic the law is and pass the buck to the court’s for years or decades of litigation and enforcing these laws until they are settled by SCOTUS just like I had to suffer their unconstitutional residency restrictions for 3 years while on parole.
more rights to be taken away from some one , but just watch it will have a trickle down to everyone ,and we are to trust the courts ? THE frigin courts??
As usual, Janice put up a good fight and we owe her an overwhelming amount of gratitude.
These types bills are so useless and don’t even make sense. I suppose law enforcement are going to send out emails to rcs telling them we’re watching you. If the emailed get’s returned undelivered then what? They’re going to be knocking on your door?
Roger needs to get his head out of the sand and come back to reality……… All that money and time he spent going to stand there for five seconds only to be ignored was really a waste of resources in my opinion….I mean kudos for anything and everything anyone tries for our cause but don’t be delusional and think your little protest or five seconds of fame at the podium is going to have any effect….. Just because we have a different view on how we should support our cause sure as he… doesn’t mean we don’t have a right to complain even though just complaining is a waste of time also……….I really hate that when someone doesn’t act in a way that anther sees fit that they bash them for not doing what they think is important for our cause……..In my opinion that money, time and effort spent could have been put to better uses….. I mean Janice just shows how ineffective this strategy is in her statement on here…
Finally, the committee chairman rudely cut off our third speaker, a board member, who would have spoken in opposition to the bill although he allowed others in support of this and other bills to testify for long periods of time.
If they wont even listen to a member of a professional organization what makes you think they are going to listen to us or care what we think or how many of us show up ………..You know how much they care???/ ZERO thats how much………
I mean THANK YOU ALL for showing up and ESPECIALLY THANK YOU JANICE and whoever else showed to support us but I am just being real here……….
What a LAME law, I do have a 311.xx BUT it was 2011/2012… EVEN if it WERE retro-active, I wouldnt provide a SINGLE identifier… because Once off parole/probation noo one has any right to enter your house and see if you “might be” on the internet.
Then again im reminded of a little program back in 2007 that would visit sites randomly every few seconds (this was to get paid to surf)… so it would be funny to set up a program on a PC to surf sights every few seconds (or every second) and print those URLS and give registration about a 4 FOOT THICK PILE OF URL’s ! that would be funny shit 🙂 or better yet DELIVER a COUPLE OF CASES or printed URL’s to the registration office ! and Iv just 10% of RC’s did this… law prolly would go away ! Anyone wanna start donating CASES of paper and toner and a printer ? ahahha
Two other thoughts would also be :Invasion of Privacy and also a Illegal Search !
…
just something to think about !
with the following facts why isn’t there a dui registry that is retroactively applied and calls for multiple forms of montering and restrcts,regulate,and or outright ban individuals from owning or operating a vehicle and lifetime restrictions placed on their driver’s license if not a complete lifetime revocation of their license. this would actually save thousands upon thousands of children and adults from being maimed or outright killed in horrific auto accidents. its already been determined a drivers license is a privilege and not a right so if there is even the remote chance that the state has a rational basis for such laws which there actually is an overwhelming body of evidence that there is a need for this law then the law would withstand judicial scrutiny .
REPEAT DWI OFFENDERS IN THE UNITED STATES
In 1992, more people were arrested in the U.S. for driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while intoxicated (DWI) than any other reported criminal offense. Over 1.6 million drivers were arrested for DUI or DWI compared to 1.5 million people arrested for larceny or theft and 1.1 million people for drug abuse violations. There is public concern that many of these drivers arrested each year for DWI are repeat offenders. There is also convincing evidence that repeat offenders as a group are high risk problem drinker drivers.
This Traffic Tech discusses the extent of the repeat DWI offender problem in various states and some sanctions being used to reduce DWI recidivism. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requested available information from all the states in order to define the extent of the repeat offender problem. Twelve states provided data. The results shown in Table 1 indicate that about one third of all drivers arrested or convicted of DWI each year are repeat DWI offenders. This proportion ranges from 21% of drivers convicted of DWI in Iowa in 1992 to 47% in New Mexico in 1990. The median is around 31% – 32% of arrests and/or convictions. One study in California showed that for every driver convicted of DUI in 1980, a full 44% were convicted again of DUI within 10 years.
Drivers with prior DWI convictions are also overrepresented in fatal crashes and have a greater relative risk of fatal crash involvement. One study showed that about 3 percent of all licensed drivers had a prior arrest for DWI within the past three years, yet 12 percent of intoxicated drivers involved in fatal crashes had at least one prior DWI conviction in the past three years. That same study showed that intoxicated drivers with prior DWI convictions had 4.1 times the risk of being in a fatal crash as intoxicated drivers without prior DWIs. Another study showed that fatal crash risk increases with the number of prior DWI arrests.
About a third of all drivers arrested for DWI are repeat offenders according to the data reported here, and 1 out of 8 intoxicated drivers in fatal crashes have had a prior DWI conviction within the past three years. While this indicates they are a significant problem, repeat offenders do not constitute the majority of the DWI problem in the U.S. Prevention of DWI in the first place and dealing effectively with first time DWI offenders is a rational approach to the problem. State laws, enforcement, and public information and education have recently been effective in reducing impaired driving and alcohol-related crash deaths.
However, evidence from the states indicates that many persons who are arrested and convicted of DWI continue to drink and drive. A number of states and local communities have initiated programs and sanctions to deal with repeat offenders, including:
■ incarceration
■ special DWI facilities
■ house arrest with electronic monitoring
■ victim restitution
■ community service
■ ignition interlock on the vehicle
■ increased fines and insurance rates
■ public condemnation
■ license plate tagging
■ vehicle impoundment or confiscation
Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of these specific sanctions.
Given that the likelihood of arrest for DWI varies from 1 in 200 instances in some communities to 1 in 2,000 in others, it is important to prevent impaired driving in the first place. State legislation, such as administrative license revocation and lower blood alcohol limits for adults and youth, and increased enforcement in the form of sobriety checkpoints, have contributed to the recent reduction in drinking and driving. Greater public awareness of the problem and reductions in per capita alcohol consumption have also probably played a role.
Each year, however, 1 percent of all licensed drivers are arrested for DWI, more people than for any other crime. States must show drivers that DWI is a serious offense with correspondingly serious consequences in terms of sanctions and treatment. Mandatory alcohol problem assessment and assignment of appropriate treatment, in addition to sanctions, is a reasonable approach with help from the public health community. Certain vehicle actions applied to repeat offenders may also be appropriate. The fact that this information was readily available in only a few states underscores the importance of developing systems to track DWI offenders (e.g., systems that link criminal justice and driver records).
I am surprised the ACLU suddenly reversed opposition. But then again the ACLU has never been very friendly to registered citizens. Having the ACLU back opposition to the more broad identifier bill seemed like a step forward. Just speculation: Maybe the ACLU actually believed SB 448 as narrowly tailored. Regardless, the real concern should be in the slippery slope of passing the internet identifier bill. The requirement starts for a few hundred registrants and like what 290 has become, it will spread to more and more people. So yes, it is a shame the ACLU — with all its clout — does not seem concerned with the potential of what this bill may evolve to become. At minimum, I hope the ACLU will help fight if/when SB 448 gets to court. Also, I happen to think SB 448 as equally threatening to civil liberties as International Megan’s Law and presence/residency restrictions. Will the police and Department of Justice use its new, corrupt powers to chill messages on websites such as this?
this is exactly what I’m saying. I believe that this is another form of the equal protection clause in that the argument can be made dui drivers impact on their victims is equally as devastating as the impact from a sex offense and the laws are much more stringent and severe for sex offenders than they are for a class of offenders with the same or even more horrendous and heinous outcomes than sex offenders and their reoffense rates are the highest for any other type of offens and ten fold or more higher than sex offender recidivism rates. my argument is that we as a class are being treated differently and are being subjected to much harsher penalties and regulations than a class of offenders that have the same magnitude or worse impact on public safety including children and adults from all walks of life.
In Nevada when we go in for our Price Club renewal, they ask for an email address and a screen name. They only ask for one, so when they get mine, it’s the ones I never use. They get to read my Spam.
Not really sure if it is law here, or if they just figure if we will just hand over the info., they will take it.
Personally, I’ve gotten to the point, where I don’t really care if they want to watch me. Tech geeks say they can turn on my camera and not turn on the camera light on my laptop. So if the wife and I want to get close to each other and the lid is up on the laptop, some pervert cop may get a show… you would think that if the camera light is off, you’re in private. Are you?
If a hacker can do it, you can bet law enforcement can do it too!
Here in Nevada, if you decide to visit a casino, you are on camera from the time you park your car until you leave. I think they let you use the restroom in private, but I’m not sure?
GPS is on, on the smart-phone all of the time. So if they want to find me they can most likely get that info if they want it.
Society has allowed all of this lack of privacy to happen over the past several years.
Not a sole is doing anything about it? Other than the meta-data collection folly.
I mean there is a f-ing camera on every intersection in the city it seams.
Privacy is just a thing of the past. And nobody…I mean nobody seems to care anymore.
It’s “Big Brother” just taking care of you. Right!
Frank
Well, let’s be real. I really doubt anyone can do a thing with this info. The probability of someone sitting down and working day and night to bust the number of people online is slim to none. Otherwise, the only way they will bust you is if you let them onto your computer. Then, who is to say other people live at your house and have access to it. The real problem is your civil rights. If they can get away with this now, what will they try and pass next year! This is why it must be stopped. I can possibly understand this as a requirement if your on parole or probation, but that’s it
I think we have to look at this as a victory. If nobody would have shown up, stood up this law would have passed years ago and we’d all be giving our internet info. We have to learn to give a little to get. I think that is the point of the ACLU and Quirk for passing this.
you guys are idiots these aren’t just my ideas and opinions or strategies a lot of my post come from massive research and compilation of data and facts that other professional rso organizations have put together. the reason I post them is give individuals including janice and her team valuable hard data that they may not of had the time or resources to gather themselves. Also to try and get some positive criticism on this motion or support in compiling as much needed data from rso community on this site.i have also had success in the courts and at fighting the most powerful machine in this country CDCR. I myself without the help of an attorney while in prison managed to get one of my charges reduced thru the habeas corpus process in court and also fought cdc in the apeals process for my halftime credits and received my paperwork back from the warden on Christmas eve no less stating that I won my appeal and with my new release date which was almost two years off of my original release date. this was all despite every single person cellmate or other inmates and guards telling me I’m wasting my time and I’ll never win anything against the government.I’m not bragging I’m telling you this because it just proves that I’m just not the embicile ykou claimor think i am..telling you facts something that some of you don’t want to see. so your negative input has zero effect on me. and i commend any and all efforts towards our cause and it makes me mad when you guys say someone doesn’t have a right to complain if they are not doing exactly what you think we should do to further our cause. as for disagreeing with Janice’s slow and steady tactics doesn’t mean I do not and have not supported her efforts or appreciate all that she has accomplished that has benefited me and every other rso in this state. I have a right to disagree and to voice my opinion its called positive criticism and believe it or not collaborating and brainstorming different ideas is how people can bring about serious change. what im saying is just because you’ve attended a couple of hearings or meetings don’t give you the right to criticize others that don’t do exactly what you think is the best action to take.
this is the I did my price club , and have not been in the best of moods of late , but I do want to thank everyone that has been part of this fight to freedom ,and I am sorry that I could not be there to stand up with everyone , but you understand I really don’t have the money to trip like that,i would love to meet many of the people I see on here everyday , because I care about all of you , we are in this together , who knows someday we may have some kind of get together , all the same thanks for all of you