Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EFF Sues to Block New Internet Sex-Offender Law

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the no-more-lists dept.

Government 305

Bobfrankly1 writes "The EFF sued to block portions of the approved Prop 35 today. Prop 35 requires sex offenders (including indecent exposure and non-internet offenses) to provide all of their online aliases to law enforcement. This would include e-mail addresses, screen and user names, and other identifiers used on the internet. The heart of the matter as the EFF sees it, would be not only the chilling effect it would have on free speech, but also the propensity of these kind of laws to be applied to other (non-sex offending) people as well."

cancel ×

305 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yeah right... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41914613)

Like they could ever enforce this...

---
Sent from a registered sex offender

Re:Yeah right... (2)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about 2 years ago | (#41914845)

I have to agree with this... It is like asking someone to remember their passphrase or where they stored the hidden safe.
Oops forgot.
The problem with a lot of these laws is that they overestimate the infallibility of the mind to remember things it doesn't want to remember, and makes harsh punishments for people who are so handicapped or actually don't have the information in the first place.
Those that are actually hiding something will cough up something plausible and get away scott free.

Re:Yeah right... (4, Informative)

Lord Byron II (671689) | about 2 years ago | (#41914957)

It has about the same odds as getting the /. editor to include the state for which this law actually applies in the summary. (It's California in this case.)

Re:Yeah right... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915405)

Hey c'mon, there's about 3290 propositions passed globally every year, and only 10 of those aren't from California. Is it really necessary to still preface these things?

Re:Yeah right... (5, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | about 2 years ago | (#41915113)

Well, it's one of those things that they can pile on if they're busting someone with a charge that won't stick.

-jcr

Re:Yeah right... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915335)

Every charge sticks unless you can afford to go to trial. Unless you've been wronged by the police before it's pretty hard to have a grip on just how fucked the system is.

Nowadays they can arrest you, make up some false charges... then your in the system and you have to defend yourself with whatever limited resources you have. It's total bullshit and they don't have to ever deal with it again unless you go to trial. Which most people can't and will not. Plea bargains look pretty tasty when your life is in unknown hands and your only form of communication is a telephone that is very restricted.

This will fail.... (-1, Troll)

Dan541 (1032000) | about 2 years ago | (#41915299)

Because sexual predators are such considerate, honest people; right?

#fail

Re:This will fail.... (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about 2 years ago | (#41915481)

your grouping victims of a biased outdated legal system in with predators.

#fail

Here is a good PSA on sex offenders

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17u01_sWjRE

as long as sex crimes involve victimless crimes, then there will be injustice.

Hrm (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41914629)

This law seems open to abuse. What rate limiting system does it use? I use a ton of different nicks in my line of work and I tend to change them multiple times per day.

Re:Hrm (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41914911)

Ah, so you are the shill that keeps creating new accounts here?

Re:Hrm (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915021)

This law seems open to abuse. What rate limiting system does it use? I use a ton of different nicks in my line of work and I tend to change them multiple times per day.

And then one can get onto the sex offender list by either pissing in public place or by having sex with 17y11month29day-old girl.

It's not just child molesters that get ensnared.
Sex offender laws do need to be revised.

Re:Hrm (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41915199)

I thought one could avoid a statutory rape conviction by marrying before sex, and one could avoid a public urination conviction by claiming that draining oneself was "necessary as an emergency measure".

Re:Hrm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915163)

WoW Gold Farmer?

the ironic part is... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41914633)

4chan (pedo central) doesn't use usernames, accounts or aliases so they wouldn't be required to report it!

Re:the ironic part is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915195)

True. And what's in a username anyhow? A username is only unique to a site, not to the internet. My fear is some "sex offender" uses an alias I use (not AC obviously). This just opens up innocent people to harassment because they happened to choose "Bobfrankly1" for their Slashdot account and dailyWTF forum account, but "bobfrankly1" on Dig is a pedo. People go googling "Bobfrankly1" and come across various posts on completely unrelated sites.

I've tried tracking people down using handles/usernames before, and I've found it's damn difficult. There are a lot of people on the internet and usernames get reused. Maybe they should have to post MAC addresses for all their devices. At least that has the potential to be unique.

Re:the ironic part is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915499)

I used to change my mac address each time I logged onto a network. It wasn't on purpose, WPA supplicant used to be hard to get working.

Californian Here (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41914643)

And this is why I voted no.

Re:Californian Here (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41914841)

Same deal with the human trafficking sex offender registry.

You're trying to tell me a human trafficker who gets caught and was involved in sex offenses can't be tried for that seperately?

Seriously I'll accept a sex offender registry for persons who prey on children (I will put the cap at 16, although if we were being honest about this, 13 is the better standard for paedophilia. And if you look at the historic reason for raising the age of consent from 13 to 18 (ignoring the original AoC) you'd note that it was TO STOP 'UNDERAGE' PROSTITUTION, not for any actual sensible reason regarding a persons age of maturity or sexual development.) But honestly, applying it indefinitely to 'streakers' 'teenagers sexting their likewise underage partners' and 'public urinators' makes me embarassed to be an american.

If we can't try people based on the specific and necessary laws, then why don't be just repeal all laws and go back to 'at the judge's discretion'? I mean given the plethora of modern laws and the almost impossibility of not breaking one of them (nevermind in the case of sex offenses many people breaking ones that used to at most get you a night in jail or a few weeks community service: see fooling around in a park, car, your gf or bf's house, etc.) Hell, even just taking a picture of your kids running around in the buff (and how many of us didn't toss our diapers aside and streak naked across the house when guests were over? Y'know the sort of pictures your family take so they can embarass you when you bring your significant other over to meet the fams.)

The number of travesties being committed by our 'elected' officials on a daily basis makes me wonder what the point of elected officials even is anymore. At the current level of insanity nearly any form of government would not be any worse from a legal standpoint. And when looking at miscarriages of justice, we're right in the middle of the pack with dictators, monarchs, and oligarchies.

Any system can be corrupt or just given time and the right set of officials. But the problem with democracies (and republics!) is that it can take a much longer time to effect a shift, and perhaps even longer to find out if that shift is real or imagined.

Re:Californian Here (3, Insightful)

flimflammer (956759) | about 2 years ago | (#41914879)

I was so annoyed by that proposition when I read it on the ballot. It was two totally separate issues that should have been separate. I am all for increased punishments for those caught dealing with human trafficking but I'm not about to agree to the part at the end about sex offenders needing to explain their whole internet life. We take enough of their rights away as it is and not all of them are even guilty of a serious crime.

Re:Californian Here (5, Insightful)

Fastolfe (1470) | about 2 years ago | (#41915457)

I am all for increased punishments for those caught dealing with human trafficking

Out of curiosity, why? Do you have some reason to believe the existing punishments are too lax? Were the changes enacted by the legislature recently insufficient?

I'm usually deeply disgusted by every CA proposition that seeks to increase punishments for some group, using an appeal to emotion to justify it. Are the existing punishments really not enough? Why hasn't the legislature done anything about it? Is this actually a rational approach to solve a real problem, or is it just a political move that's expected to be a slam dunk, because hey, who wants to come out in favor of sex traffickers?

I get the value of referenda and sometimes I'm proud that it works to accomplish something that the legislature can't or won't, but the tyranny of the majority is a very real threat, as is constitutional amendment via popularity contest, and sometimes I wonder if it shouldn't be harder for people to get their pet issues on the ballot like this.

Re:Californian Here (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41914913)

Because you are Californian or because EFF is against it? You seem to have forgot your reasoning somewhere.

Sorry.. can't agree. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41914645)

Convicted sex offenders and potentially dangerous criminals should have absolutely no rights to privacy. I don't care what the EFF says, and I sure as hell don't care about destroying the lives of a few depraved and/or dangerous/psychotic people.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (5, Insightful)

olsmeister (1488789) | about 2 years ago | (#41914673)

I think such an attitude makes you depraved, and possibly dangerous/psychotic.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (1)

pewterbot9 (1559933) | about 2 years ago | (#41914767)

PWND!

First they came... (5, Funny)

NFN_NLN (633283) | about 2 years ago | (#41914855)

        First they came for the pedos,
        and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a pedo.

        Then they came for the socialists,
        and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

        Then they came for the trade unionists,
        and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

        Then they came for the guys into fisting and DP sites,
        and I was like... "at least it was fun while it lasted".

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (5, Insightful)

Carnildo (712617) | about 2 years ago | (#41914699)

In my state, "sex offenders" include people who have urinated in public, people who forgot to close the bathroom shades before getting out of the shower, and a great many teenagers who couldn't keep it in their pants. Are these the "depraved and psychotic people" whose lives you wish to destroy?

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41914741)

Never underestimate the willingness of unthinking cowards to try to take away the rights of others, especially if the believe it will never affect them.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41914759)

Correct. Sex offenders.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (-1, Flamebait)

westlake (615356) | about 2 years ago | (#41915119)

In my state, "sex offenders" include people who have urinated in public, people who forgot to close the bathroom shades before getting out of the shower, and a great many teenagers who couldn't keep it in their pants. Are these the "depraved and psychotic people" whose lives you wish to destroy?

I've heard this argument presented many times here before,

But it never stands up when I look at the registries in my home state and county,

Search Public Registry of Sex Offenders [ny.gov]

Level 1 offenders and offenders whose risk hasn't been assessed are excluded here. What you will find here are rap sheets. Convictions. The age and sex of the victims. The M,O,, such as the use of a weapon. The victims can be very young. Two years. Five years.

The geek clings to his fantasies of the sex offender. Paging through these registries breaks the spell.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915141)

Level 1 offenders ... are excluded here.... Paging through these registries breaks the spell

Looks like the spell still has you.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (4, Insightful)

rtb61 (674572) | about 2 years ago | (#41915239)

If they can not be trusted than keep them in prison, end of story. None of this bullshit about trying to turn the whole country into a prison. It'll be one crime after another, for the non-rich, until traffic offenders end up being monitored. If the crime warrants life time monitoring then keep them in prison for a lifetime where they belong.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915359)

You're a dumbfuck.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915341)

No, no it really doesn't. Many states, mine included don't display level one offenders.

Do you know how the level system works? Let me explain it to you.

Level 1: Usually (but not always) completed treatment successfully, as well as passing multiple polygraphs and plethysmograph exams.
Level 2: Moderate risk for re-offense.
Level 3: High risk for re-offense.

Some states even use civil commitment, and can hold an offender for an indefinite amount of time prior to release, well beyond what would be considered time severed.

As I'm writing this a thought just occurred to me. Prop 35 is a measure of civil commitment without actually doing so. Hmmm...

In any event, your notions of geeks clinging to fantasies of sex offenders are, frankly, repulsive. The recidivism rate among sex offenders is also nearly 1/4 of the standard recidivism rate of the criminal population as a whole.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (1)

drkim (1559875) | about 2 years ago | (#41915155)

In my state, "sex offenders" include people who have urinated in public, people who forgot to close the bathroom shades before getting out of the shower, and a great many teenagers who couldn't keep it in their pants. Are these the "depraved and psychotic people" whose lives you wish to destroy?

What state are you in?

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41914735)

Be sure to never ever take a piss outside or you too could be one of those depraved psychotics also known as "sex offenders"!

One night my friend took a leak behind a convenience store when they wouldn't let him use the bathroom and got zapped with indecent exposure, now he's a sex offender for life. Good thing he doesn't live in California or he'd really be screwed.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915293)

"your friend" got off lightly. I don't think "your friend" is a sex offender, but face it, if you pissed all over my property, I'd probably fill you full of rock salt. - Why didn't you take your sorry drunk ass home and piss on your fathers doorway? He'd probably beat the hell out of you. Except you probably don't have a father, or a home. Go piss on Obama's lawn. He loves fuckers like you.
This is AMERICA.
We left Europe when those scumbags decided their streets could serve as their sewage system.
New rules in America, you need birth certificates, need to nearly speak English, and most importantly:
No shitting where you live.
We understand some of our northern neighbors actually shit inside their houses, but they have this stuff called plumbing so we give them a pass.
You sound like one of those Shitte muslims that shit in their hand and throw it at the TV cameras. Monkeys do that too. Which is why we keep them locked up in cages.

So Haseem down at the 7-11 wouldn't let you use his bathroom huh? You must really be something to behold.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (5, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41914739)

Unconvicted people are potentially dangerous criminals and should have absolutely no rights to privacy. I don't care what the Constitution says, someone who peed in an alley once where nobody could see should have their lives destroyed. There could have been a school fieldtrip to that alley at 2 a.m. on a Saturday night and have accidentally seen a penis.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915227)

There could have been a school fieldtrip to that alley at 2 a.m. on a Saturday night and have accidentally seen a penis.

Nah, it's probably too small to notice anyway.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (4, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#41915385)

Victim (testifying in court): "Yes, your honor. I saw it. It was like a penis, only smaller."

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | about 2 years ago | (#41915389)

There could have been a school fieldtrip to that alley at 2 a.m. on a Saturday night and have accidentally seen a penis.

And WILL SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

We can't have Young Boys Seeing Penises!

You have NO IDEA what that will lead to.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (5, Funny)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41915463)

I'm a parent of a young boy. I put a giant dog neck cone on him so he can't see his own penis. He's much better adjusted, though we had to take him out of school since he got the crap kicked out of him every day for being a freak. that and he kept peeing on the floor because he couldn't aim in the toilet.

And WILL SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

But the court order said I'm not supposed to think of the children any more.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41914753)

Who defines potential? Personally, I find you potentially dangerous, and definatly psychotic.

Also, to what end do we allow Prop35? Many states not only don't distinguisy between juvinile and adult sex offenders, but also require longer then juvinile life (21st birthday in most states) registration requirements.

And if this passes, who's to say that in the near future, you will loose all anonymity for simply dis-agreeing with the powers that be.

No. This can not be allowed to happen.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (1)

pewterbot9 (1559933) | about 2 years ago | (#41914813)

Anonymous Coward posted: "you will loose all anonymity for simply dis-agreeing with the powers that be." Precisely. I anticipate the day when my credit card will be rejected, because the PTB didn't like something I posted on the Internet the night before. But I have hope. Thanks to intelligent and thoughtful folks like yourself.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (2)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 2 years ago | (#41914771)

"Convicted sex offender" is a very broad term that describes anyone who has been convicted of doing anything that might be construed as a sexual offense, even if the actual victim not only didn't complain, but was a willing participant.

What we really want to do is ensure that serial rapists cannot use the internet as their predatory jungle, and for this type of person I entirely agree with you. But I'd hate to ruin the life of some poor 20yo who fell in love with his sisters friend who happened to be 17, but whose parents decided to have him arrested.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (4, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#41915557)

What we really want to do is ensure that serial rapists cannot use the internet as their predatory jungle

Why are serial rapists running free to begin with?

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (5, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | about 2 years ago | (#41914781)

People caught peeing in a bush are treated the same as child molesters under this law. It also includes people that in any way benefit from solicited sex, including the family of people willingly involved in the sex trade.

Violent offenders are already incarcerated, and those that have been released from prison after serving their time are still pretty closely monitored. This proposition sought to make a crime "more illegal" in order to increase the government's authority. The weasel-wording of the bill's description ("increase penalties for sex trafficking") allowed that to get through with an overwhelming majority; suffice to say, I'm not impressed.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915223)

...offenders are already incarcerated, and those that have been released from prison after serving their time are still pretty closely monitored

In my opinion, once a person has served their sentence, their criminal record should be sealed and not available to anyone, unless the person commits another criminal act, throughout their parole period, and after the successful completion of the period of parole the record should be expunged after 2 years. The whole criminal justice system seems intent upon punishing people for eternity; rather the focus should be rehabilitation and re-integration into society. If a convict is likely to re-offend maybe the person should never have been released from prison. From the moment of release from prison only the police should have access to the person's record but no background check for employment should reveal the existence of the record for all but a select few jobs (financial services, working with the vulnerable, position of trust which includes public office holders). Otherwise, society might as well tattoo a red 'C' on the forehead of the convicted. If a person commits another criminal act during their two-year probation period, they are not eligible for release from prison after the second conviction.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915543)

And what if that second criminal act was stealing a bit of food to survive? As you point out a marked criminal will find it very difficult to exist in the normal world. Two and Three strikes laws need to be removed, to allow individual cases to be judged on their merits and only the most depraved locked away forever.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (5, Informative)

devleopard (317515) | about 2 years ago | (#41914811)

I would encourage you to view one of the many sites out there that let you search public registries of sex offenders. (for example, http://familywatchdog.us/ [familywatchdog.us] For fun, enter your address. You'll find:

1) the number of sex offenders isn't a "few" (if you live in a metro area, there will be dozens in a 2 mile radius)
2) if you view each one's offense, you'll find most (75%+) had "victims" 14 years old +. Some of those might have been "rapes", but were probably hooking up with someone they should have known better, but it was as consensual as any liaison (ignoring fact that a minor can't consent, but survey any high school and see how chaste your average teen is)

Such sex offender laws apply to all of these (plus those who get caught urinating in public, having a romp with their spouse in public, etc); not a "few depraved and/or dangerous/psychotic people". But "think of the children!" How about a single DWI resulting in a lifetime ban on owning a motor vehicle, or a single drug conviction resulting in a lifetime 9pm curfew?

If someone is truly so sick and perverted that they need a lifetime of monitoring, then give them an adequate prison sentence.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (4, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#41915211)

but survey any high school and see how chaste your average teen is

That strikes me as a good way to get invited to test out this new internet offender law...

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915301)

How about a single DWI resulting in a lifetime ban on owning a motor vehicle, or a single drug conviction resulting in a lifetime 9pm curfew?

I would approve that! These people are much more dangerous than the public urinators and drunk ass-grabbers the GP wants to keeps taps on.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915407)

And familywatchdog doesn't list all offenders, either.

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915421)

I propose: Set up mirrors of these sites. Then keep adding lots of random people. Eventually people will realize such sites are not a good idea after all...

Re:Sorry.. can't agree. (-1, Troll)

DavidClarkeHR (2769805) | about 2 years ago | (#41915595)

2) if you view each one's offense, you'll find most (75%+) had "victims" 14 years old +. Some of those might have been "rapes", but were probably hooking up with someone they should have known better, but it was as consensual as any liaison (ignoring fact that a minor can't consent, but survey any high school and see how chaste your average teen is)

Laws are arbitrary standards relating to specific acts. When someone knowingly violates that standard - whether by a little or by a lot - they've broken the law. I might (might) be tempted to agree with you if you were arguing for a diminished sentence, or a finer gradation in sentencing.

It is a terrible idea to disregard the idea (or usefulness) of a sex offender registry simply because there are some type-1 "errors". And really - everyone convicted under the same law should be treated within the parameters of that law.

First submission to law enforcement: (4, Funny)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | about 2 years ago | (#41914661)

Username: Anonymous Coward

Re:First submission to law enforcement: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915061)

You liar!

Re:First submission to law enforcement: (1)

nzac (1822298) | about 2 years ago | (#41915189)

This raises the issue of people with usernames in common.
There will be people who (accidentally or intentionally) share a usernames with those reported by sex offenders who will now be monitored.
It would be trivial and impossible to prove it was intentional to get a name on that list so at least in the short term someone can be treated as a sex offender.

Irony (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41914695)

Fucken mental health doctors sterilized me and made me impotent and I don't masturbate or look at porn due to God. Dad is a pedophile. I suffer constant interriogation by the psyops.

Don't worry mother fuckers God see this all, so I know you're fucken screwed. As you judge you will be judged, mother fuckers.

God says...
army preference Professorship Living hereunto field once_upon_a_time
thoroughly hinder wedlock Their savoured ninety Confessions
ETEXTS*Ver XII despite trademark forsaketh encumbered
mean bustle compassionate necessaries countryman illusion
openest I_just_might 10 foretold Virgin I_see_nothing
overflowed Milan If Nicaragua doubted upborne ordering
quicker

EFF has it right. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41914727)

Nowadays a lot of people are classified as sex offenders that shouldn't be, like teenagers that send each other naughty pictures, or somebody that texts a lewd message to the wrong recipient. These people barely meet the definition, yet are branded for life.

If the sex offender status could be assigned with accuracy, I think this proposition would be okay. But it isn't, so the proposition means people are going to get hurt who shouldn't have even been declared as sex offenders in the first place. The proposition compounds the challenges these people face.

And I agree with the EFF that it's a dangerous trend to set. If you want to take away the anonymity of some pervert, do it for a real criminal who posts a credible threat to the community. Many people with the sex offender status don't fit that definition at all.

Re:EFF has it right. (4, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 2 years ago | (#41914843)

Also, seems like something they could use to trump up charges on people they didn't like. Oh, you didn't tell us about that account you created on www.example.com for that one comment you posted 2 years ago. So many sites require you to create accounts for even basic things like posting comments that most people probably couldn't be reasonably expected to remember every fake alias they've ever created.

Re:EFF has it right. (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | about 2 years ago | (#41915259)

most people probably couldn't be reasonably expected to remember every fake alias they've ever created.

So don't, use bugmenot [bugmenot.com] instead.

Re:EFF has it right. (4, Interesting)

corychristison (951993) | about 2 years ago | (#41914859)

A childhood friend of my wife with mental disabilities (I don't know exactly what it was, I'm going off memory from what my wife told me a few years ago) who cant distinguish right from wrong, exposed himself to girls in his group home when he was a teenager is a registered sex offender.

This is a person who was virtually forced out of his home by his parents because they didn't want to deal with his illness anymore, and stuffed into a group home when he was prepubescent... a few years later mix in hormones, possibly interfering medications and a brain that doesn't quite process things right and all of a sudden he's a registered sex offender. He now can't be within a certain distance from schools and has to walk on eggshells while dealing with a mental disorder.

The whole sex offender system is useless without proper investigation or classification.

No, the EFF is wrong. (-1, Troll)

DavidClarkeHR (2769805) | about 2 years ago | (#41915619)

The whole sex offender system is useless without proper investigation or classification.

No, the sex offender system is a history of past actions. Regardless of cause, some actions are designated with a no-tolerance, no-exception policy. While you wouldn't want to wrongly group all offenders in the same category (just like not all manslaughter is murder), the end result is sufficiently detestable that reasons become less important than cause.

In this case, those actions were deemed adequately offensive to become public record, regardless of reasons. The proper time for investigation is at sentencing, not the time of reform.

Re:EFF has it right. (2)

dbet (1607261) | about 2 years ago | (#41914943)

Nowadays a lot of people are classified as sex offenders that shouldn't be

Yes, ALL OF THEM.

Re:EFF has it right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915417)

Right, it's called population control. Make people afraid of shagging people they are attracted to when they're at their horniest.. In all reality age doesn't matter. Read Laura Ingall Wilders story. Porking a newborn infant is pretty fucked up, don't do that please...

Re:EFF has it right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915519)

This is the kind of dark age shit that comes up any time you legislate based on religious morality. It's time to do away with the sex taboo so we can move ahead.

ACLU press release (5, Informative)

kd6ttl (1016559) | about 2 years ago | (#41914731)

https://www.aclunc.org/cases/active_cases/doe_v._harris.shtml [aclunc.org]

It's really not a good law - it won't accomplish its goal and it has lots of bad possible side effects.

Re:ACLU press release (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41914777)

I read the whole thing and saw past the scare mongering "OMG stop the exploitation!" hook of the proposition, and saw all the ugly side effects, and voted no.

The sad thing is, it passed by a bigger margin than a proposition whose sole argument against and rebuttal to the argument for was "we are no longer asking for a NO vote".

Re:ACLU press release (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | about 2 years ago | (#41915367)

The sad thing is, it passed by a bigger margin than a proposition whose sole argument against and rebuttal to the argument for was "we are no longer asking for a NO vote".

Yet one more piece of evidence that the California electorate, by and large, is both ignorant and stupid. Clearly those who voted "Yes" didn't even bother to read the summary of the proposition in the election guide, never mind the full text of the proposition (PDF) [ca.gov] or Section 236.1 of the California Penal Code [onecle.com] to determine whether or not the proposed amendments are even necessary. This really is classic California: people too lazy, ignorant and stupid to be bothered with attending to their duties as citizens. Meanwhile, they whine for more entitlements, complain that companies are "cheating" them and blame everyone but themselves for their own situations. It's depressing, but not surprising.

Re:ACLU press release (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915101)

"..it won't accomplish its goal and it has lots of possible bad side effects."

Which is why it will likely pass. People should really wake up to the fact that we don't need legislation for everything. It is much harder to get a bad law repealed in whole, than to get it changed so it's effective.

Also, queue the " I did not speak out fr sex offenders cause I wasn't one...". This is the foot in the door. DUI and drug offenders would be next. Why? Cause why not.

Brilliant law... (1)

Zakabog (603757) | about 2 years ago | (#41914827)

The law also states that the sex offenders must pinky promise not to make any new usernames or online aliases, or else!

This is a ridiculous law that can never be fully enforced and won't work the way people think it will. What the hell are they even trying to accomplish with it?

Re:Brilliant law... (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 2 years ago | (#41914953)

That's one issue that can't be enforced.

OTOH what is stopping a sex offender from going to Facebook and registering myself as, say, Samzenpus? And then registering Samzenpus as one of their current and active aliases? Now that's going to be fun. Suddenly everyone on the Internet is a registered sex offender. Though that may also be the best way to render such a law completely ineffective.

3 Strikes (4, Insightful)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41914877)

What is needed is a 3 Strikes law, where-after attempting to pass three insane draconian laws, such fiends are registered as civil-offenders and no longer permitted within 100' of a computer device. They should also be required for 10 years to kneel on all fours immediately (while humming the National Anthem) whenever a weary pedestrian needs a place to sit. Their only other option would be joining the French Foreign Legion, which of course would be the default option.

The real problem (3)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 years ago | (#41914947)

The real problem here isn't the increased loss of freedom for sex offenders. I personally could give a shit less about them. The real problem is the ever increasing creep of the term "Sex offender" Lets be clear, when you say "Sex offender" Most reasonable people would think that meant someone that had had some kind of sexual contact with a CHILD (not a teenager) or had committed actual physical rape. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people labeled as sex offenders by the courts these days are people that got busted when they were 19 for having a 16yr old girl/boyfriend... or were even the same age as their teenage partner but texted pictures of her boobs to their friends. Should they be punished for this stuff? Yes... labeled a sex offender for the rest of their lives? Fuck no. "statutory rape" is not fucking rape. Stop treating it like it is. It degrades the term "RAPE" and trivializes the true victims of this horrible crime. Should some 25yr old looser that nails a 16yr old at a party go to jail for it? YES... but rape? come on. There's plenty of grey area here, and I'm sure we could argue about a lot of it. But there's plenty that's not in a grey area, and destroying someones life over a stupid mistake they made when they were barely out of highschool is detrimental to everyone involved. Including the victim.

Re:The real problem (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915505)

Most reasonable people would think that meant someone that had had some kind of sexual contact with a CHILD (not a teenager)

Sorry, but an individual under 18 is a CHILD. There's a lot of discussion about this on slashdot - most of the people here knowing next to nothing about child abuse and sex offense. I can tell you as a victim of same that there really doesn't need to be any room for discussion on the merit of child vs. teenager. There is no merit.

Fuck the bullshit. Keep your dick in your pants for christ's sake. Is that so hard? I'm further fed up that the sole argument in these cases is texting/sexting photos and such. Knock it the fuck off. Keep your tits/dick/pussy put the fuck away. Is this really asking too much of society?

Re:The real problem (5, Insightful)

Stormwatch (703920) | about 2 years ago | (#41915623)

Sorry, but an individual under 18 is a CHILD.

Stopped reading right there. If you think so, you are completely out of touch with reality.

Doomed to fail (1)

Snotnose (212196) | about 2 years ago | (#41915015)

Off the top of my head I've got 15-20 accounts (2 brokerages, bank, slashdot, fark, ars, metacritic, couple junk emails, etc etc etc). If, god forbid, I get labeled as a SO then they want *all* those logins? Makes a person mighty easy to track if you wanna, I dunno, drain some accounts here and there.

I'm snotnose in about 2/3 of those accounts. Where I'm not it's because snotnose was already taken. Hate to have a S.O. using snotnose on some site paint me with an awfully ugly brush. Oh, different accounts you say? You really think the kind of dumass that worries about this kind of thing will bother verifying the entire domain, as opposed to just remembering 'snotnose'.?

does that include male victims (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915035)

I was sexually abused by a teenage girl (about 14+ turning 15, 16 is the age of consent in Queensland, Australia)

she accused me of rape, the government covered it up because I was under the care of the government at the time,

it still sort of hangs over me,
I was 11 at the time.

but... human sex trafficking... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915055)

They called the measure "stiffer penalties for human sex traffickers", and not much was explained about the details. I voted against it, not because I don't think sex trafficking is terrible, but because it wasn't clear who would be under the definition or why the current penalties weren't sufficient. Of course I knew it would pass, because "sex trafficker" sounds so terrible. Turns out my suspicions were well founded. plus it said it would cost a "few million dollars" to implement, at a time our state is going through a terrible financial crisis and was facing gutting the education budget.

don't talk to me (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915063)

talk to God about your own sexuality. You're probably homos.

God says...
the first year, without blemish, for a burnt offering; 9:4 Also a
bullock and a ram for peace offerings, to sacrifice before the LORD;
and a meat offering mingled with oil: for to day the LORD will appear
unto you.

9:5 And they brought that which Moses commanded before the tabernacle
of the congregation: and all the congregation drew near and stood
before the LORD.

9:6 And Moses said, This is the thing which the LORD commanded that ye
should do: and the glory of the LORD shall appear unto you.

9:7 And Moses said unto Aaron, Go unto the altar, and offer thy sin
offering, and thy burnt offering, and make an atonement for thyself,
and for the people: and offer the offering of the people, and make an
atonement for them; as the LORD commanded.

9:8 Aaron therefore went unto the altar, and slew the calf of the sin
offering, which was for himself.

What about those that play MMO's? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915069)

Do they have to notify them of all their character aliases?

Re:What about those that play MMO's? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915231)

Yes, and all your trip codes for 4chan/etc.

Problem is with sex offense laws, not registry (1)

michaelmalak (91262) | about 2 years ago | (#41915153)

As a social conservative who appreciates the damage done by sex offenses and as a pragmatist who recognizes the liklihood of recidivism, I find the concept of sex offender registries appealing. The problem is that sex offense laws have been turned on their head. The Judaic Law (I am Catholic) tolerated teen fornication provided the couple got married afterward, yet in the U.S. an 18-year-old having sex with a 16-year-old is considered rape. On the opposite end of the criminalization spectrum, adultery -- the topic of two of the ten commandments -- has been completely decriminalized in most states!

Yes, a barrier to a universal registry is the pluarlism of sex ethics in the U.S. (obviously I myself am in a minority), so perhaps a solution is to require registries to include searchable/keyed details, so that consumers of registry information can make their own judgment.

Re:Problem is with sex offense laws, not registry (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41915255)

- the topic of two of the ten commandments -- has been completely decriminalized in most states!

Good. If the sole reason for a law existing is religion, it should be decriminalised.

Would you like to travel back in time 550 years when Queens were beheaded for accusations of adultery?
Why not go back to the times of the Roman Empire, when a husband was allowed to murder his wife if she cheated on him.

Re:Problem is with sex offense laws, not registry (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | about 2 years ago | (#41915435)

- the topic of two of the ten commandments -- has been completely decriminalized in most states!

Good. If the sole reason for a law existing is religion, it should be decriminalised. Would you like to travel back in time 550 years when Queens were beheaded for accusations of adultery? Why not go back to the times of the Roman Empire, when a husband was allowed to murder his wife if she cheated on him.

And you completely forgot the (Christian Biblical? Muslim? I can't remember) Official Divorce proceedings where a husband tells his wife "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you" and that's it.

Re:Problem is with sex offense laws, not registry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915497)

Why not go back to the times of the Roman Empire, when a husband was allowed to murder his wife if she cheated on him.

Because I don't have a time machine.

Re:Problem is with sex offense laws, not registry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915615)

"Good. If the sole reason for a law existing is religion, it should be decriminalised."

Point is, all this false morality regarding sex is based in religion, it is just so entrenched most people (even the supposed liberals) don't realize where it came from.

Re:Problem is with sex offense laws, not registry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915605)

As a social conservative who appreciates the damage done by sex offenses and as a pragmatist who recognizes the liklihood of recidivism, I find the concept of sex offender registries appealing. The problem is that sex offense laws have been turned on their head. The Judaic Law (I am Catholic) tolerated teen fornication provided the couple got married afterward, yet in the U.S. an 18-year-old having sex with a 16-year-old is considered rape.

Not really. It depends on the state. Some draw a line at 18, others at 20, even 24 for Florida.

Getting Married? Just a dumb solution anyway.

On the opposite end of the criminalization spectrum, adultery -- the topic of two of the ten commandments -- has been completely decriminalized in most states!

Not all? Well, that's an injustice there. Your individual sexual relationship with another person? You are welcome to set whatever limits you want on that. I draw the line at having the courts treat it as a criminal matter. I'm just BARELY tolerant over financial enforcement.

Yes, a barrier to a universal registry is the pluarlism of sex ethics in the U.S. (obviously I myself am in a minority), so perhaps a solution is to require registries to include searchable/keyed details, so that consumers of registry information can make their own judgment.

That won't help one bit. It's already true from what I know anyway.

That's a big list (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41915221)

There is over 100,000 registered sex offenders in California. Thats about 0.3%. That's higher than the entire USA, which is about 0.2%. 1 in 400 Americans are registered sex offenders.

rule 34 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41915263)

prop 35 fails to account for rule 34

This is fals issue (-1, Troll)

hessian (467078) | about 2 years ago | (#41915315)

Our society places pedophiles in a special category because they compulsively attempt to lure children to them for purposes of illicit intergenerational sex.

It's not unreasonable for us to limit their access, or create more laws that they can be found in violation of.

After all, "the people" start screaming bloody murder when it turns out that the pedophile who killed 14-year-old honor student Jane lived just down the street, and there were warning signs, and yet the police could do nothing!

Instead of pretending that their rights are somehow linked to our own, let's accept that every society has an ultimate taboo and for us it's the child-rapists. The EFF is wasting their time fighting this symbolic non-issue while real issues pass on the breeze.

Re:This is fals issue (4, Insightful)

Fastolfe (1470) | about 2 years ago | (#41915521)

It's not unreasonable for us to limit their access

Are you somehow of the belief that the only group harmed by these reporting requirements are "intergenerational" child rapists?

Do you think that someone that's on this registry that decides to seduce or rape a child is going to register the account they plan to use for that purpose with the police?

or create more laws that they can be found in violation of

Will we ever reach a point where we have enough laws or enough punishment for this class of criminal? If, every year, we enacted new, harsher punishments, and new laws that we can find these individuals in violation of, would we ever hit a point where you might decide it's time to stop? That's really the larger problem with propositions like this: who can come out against it without sounding like you're pro-child rape? Sometimes I hate how easy it is for people to get propositions on the California ballot.

Re:This is fals issue (5, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#41915585)

Our society places pedophiles in a special category because they compulsively attempt to lure children to them for purposes of illicit intergenerational sex.

Not all pedophiles are child molesters. I'm not even sure if the majority of them are.

It's not unreasonable for us to limit their access

I think it is to people who actually care about freedom of speech.

Instead of pretending that their rights are somehow linked to our own, let's accept that every society has an ultimate taboo and for us it's the child-rapists.

I don't want to accept what I believe is illogical nonsense.

Here's how to crash their database... (3, Interesting)

J'raxis (248192) | about 2 years ago | (#41915363)

...or at least create an unmanageable amount of work for the data-entry bureaucrats: Create a "catch-all" email address, i.e., [anything]@example.com goes to you. This is trivial to do with Postfix. Then make up a list of thousands---or millions---of email addresses @example.com and submit that to them. Making the list is of course trivial with a simple Perl script. Also ensure there are a few specific addresses at the example.com domain that go to someone else, such that the bureaucrats can't simply add "[anything]@example.com" to the registry. (If they do do that, they'd be adding the email address of an innocent third party, which could result in another interesting lawsuit all by itself.)

If any RSOs in California are interested in doing this, contact me (jraxis -@- jraxis.com). I'll set you up a catch-all at one of my domains and generate you a list of a few million random addresses at that domain.

Predictable in every respect (1)

macraig (621737) | about 2 years ago | (#41915477)

It wasn't hard to predict that idiot voters would approve this proposition and that it would then promptly be challenged in court as unconstitutional. I told a friend just that days ago, and look what happened. The same idiots believed the "arguments against" lies about Prop 33 and voted against that one, too. I really hoped that one would pass, as I've been stung by the perverse loyalty restriction in old Prop 103 twice now when I switched insurers.

uh oh, lol (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#41915533)

If it were me, they'd have a freaking book! Our list of logins and passwords at work as size 12 Arial and 2 full pages and I recall thinking that I have about 8x that many, lol. Oh, and all mine are much, much, much stupider. I'm | bøøp r nøsè in one game and yes, that's how I spelled it, lol.

Re:uh oh, lol (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#41915539)

for the record, it's "ur" but it didn't drive the modified u (sign for micro aka backwards u)

Clearly illegal (2)

yurivict (2232802) | about 2 years ago | (#41915545)

Read decision "Columbia Insurance Company v. Seescandy.com, et al." (1999) of the US District Court in the Northern District of California: "People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other so long as those acts are not in violation of the law." http://legal.web.aol.com/aol/aolpol/seescandy.html [aol.com] It can't be presumed that they are going to break the law just because they are using the fictitious name and have some criminal history.

Another day, another terrifying proposal (1)

epp_b (944299) | about 2 years ago | (#41915547)

It seems like we hear or read about a law proposal with incredulous consequences nearly everyday.

The incredible lack of forethought and even rudimentary logic is beyond my comprehension.

Do they even think about the problem beyond pandering to a misguided vocal minority? Do they even think about the innocent people it will catch in its wake? Do they even think AT ALL??

Maybe I'm just naive to think that they actually care about anyone outside of their rich cronies club.

The threat of "real names" policies (2)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | about 2 years ago | (#41915555)

In the last few years, some major social media service providers have been pushing for "real names" policies. Most notably, Google has been doing this. This has been a big controversy with Google+. Google's plan with Google+ was to use it as the basis for an identity authentication system. Part of the privacy threat I see with Prop 35 is that social media services will use it as an excuse to enforce "real names" policies, claiming that it's just too difficult to check whether a pseudonym is a new alias for a registered sex offender, so no one should be allowed to use pseudonyms. That would be a significant blow to free speech on the Internet.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?