New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s proposal purports to take sexual violence seriously, but it aggressively ignores reality in favor of lazy solutions. Full Opinion Piece
By Guy Hamilton-Smith, ACSOL Board Member
Monthly Meetings: Feb 8 – Los Angeles, Mar 7 – Berkeley details
Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)
I can see this playing out like this… it goes into affect by NY politicians, then it will take someone with a lot of money and time on their hands to reverse.
According to Cuomo he wants to get “platforms purged of offenders”. What will it take to make him understand that those on the registry should be the “least” of his worries. The ones on those platforms “offending” are probably not registrants at all.
Just a useless feel good law! Does that fool know you can make millions of accounts on all different social media sites. Only way to stop people is to have the social media sites ID peoples driver licenses. But that would take a long time to do. And a lot of people would say no.
Government regulation, at this time, isn’t the real issue.
Terms of service that deny access to what has become the de facto public square ARE.
While in most locales, there is NO explicit law or regulation prohibiting registrant access to the platform, lack of regulation that prohibits these private terms of service allows us to be banned with no recourse.
It’s as if the local shopping center or other generally publicly accessible gathering place were allowed to universally and actively take steps ban us.
Bruce F.
Are you suggesting opting for MORE law and regulation will deter the big data brokers?
If the platform TOS enters ” a badge of imfamy” clause upon all felon users into their pages would that improve conditions? IMO a favor was done by the TOS ban. FB was fined 5B for privacy violations that no banned registrant suffered.
The salient issue here is the means by which registrants are barred via court recognised gov fault. That which is precisely why email addresses & associated metadata are collected via registration forms. The operational effect of the regime’s underlying intent being a foundation for affirmative restraint , tailored or not. Unfettered use of the database!
Tim,
In my county/city, in California so far as I’m aware, email addresses and associated metadata are NOT in fact collected.
The registration regulation here explicitly bans discriminatory treatment in housing, jobs and some other areas… I don’t have the laundry list at hand and frankly I’m a wee touch tired of recounting it to prove the list exists.
Conflating social media bans via TOS with the privacy violations is a far from useful thing, vastly muddies the issue and is not generally helpful. Expanding that list to prohibit exclusion and other discriminatory treatment (your “badge of infamy”) IS a useful and helpful thing to the majority.
Yes, it’s what I tend to think of as “urban conflict”… One door at a time and it’s a pain.