![]()
Original ArticleWe do not force ex-identity thieves or ex-hackers to post their personal information online, nor any other criminal, so why should we start with today's modern day scapegoat? If you do it for one group, then everybody, criminal or not, should be forced to not be anonymous online!
01/15/2013
A federal judge has blocked a California bill that would take away sex offenders’ ability to anonymously use email, social media, instant messaging and various other web sites and services. The bill, Proposition 35, was deemed by Judge Thelton Henderson, to be unconstitutional.
Here’s how the
State of California summarizes the bill in question:Increases prison sentences and fines for human trafficking convictions. Requires convicted human traffickers to register as sex offenders.
Requires registered sex offenders to disclose Internet activities and identities. Fiscal Impact: Costs of a few million dollars annually to state and local governments for addressing human trafficking offenses. Potential increased annual fine revenue of a similar amount, dedicated primarily for human trafficking victims.
In November, the bill passed with 81% of the vote. The bill, however, was temporarily
blocked as the ACLU (along with a couple of sex offenders) got involved and filed suit.
The ACLU
said of the bill, “Proposition 35 increases criminal penalties for sex offenses and imposes new restrictions on registered sex offenders. For example, the measure requires that registrants provide online screen names and information about their Internet service providers to law enforcement – even if their convictions are very old and have nothing to do with the Internet or children. This provision essentially eliminates the ability of registrants to engage in anonymous online speech and imposes a substantial burden whenever a registrant wants to use a new online platform to speech, infringing on registrants’ First Amendment right to free speech.”
Similarly, Judge Henderson, who blocked the bill on Friday, said (
as quoted by Wired): “The challenged provisions have some nexus with the government’s legitimate purpose of combating online sex offenses and human trafficking, but the government may not regulate expression in such a manner that a substantial portion of the burden on speech does not serve to advance its goals.”
Bloomberg
quotes Henderson as saying, “The court does not lightly take the step of enjoining a state statute, even on a preliminary basis. However, just as the court is mindful that a strong majority of California voters approved Proposition 35 and that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting individuals from online sex offenses and human trafficking, it is equally mindful that anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority, and that plaintiffs enjoy no lesser right to anonymous speech simply because they are unpopular.”
According to Wired, the next phase of the legal process could be a trial on the lawsuit’s merits. Bloomberg quotes a spokesman for California Attorney General
Kamala Harris, as saying, “Our office is reviewing the decision.”
Mike Masnick at TechDirt
writes of Proposition 35, “There are serious issues with the bill if you don’t know the details. First, many ‘sex offenders’ aren't what you might think of as ‘sex offenders’ — people who are arrested for things like urinating in public, or for consensual sex between minors. Beyond that, this particular bill went really, really far, requiring all such “offenders” to hand over all details of every online service they used — no matter what the purpose.”
Sex offenders’ online rights have always been a hot button issue, and have received a great deal of attention over the past year, particularly. Last year, we wrote about
a wave of challenges (especially from the ACLU) to state laws banning sex offenders’ use of social media.
One such law
was in Indiana, where a judge ruled that a state ban on convicted sex offenders accessing social media sites at all, is lawful. A similar case took place in Nebraska, where a law banning registered sex offenders from holding social media accounts was thrown out. In Louisiana, a sex offender Facebook ban was deemed “unconstitutionally overbroad.”
“Although the act is intended to promote the legitimate and compelling state interest of protecting minors from internet predators, the near total ban on internet access imposed by the act unreasonably restricts many ordinary activities that have become important to everyday life in today’s world,” the judge said of that case.
Still, one Louisiana lawmaker
passed a law requiring all registered sex offenders to list their status and crimes on any social network in which they participate.
Clearly this issue is seeing various state responses across the nation.© 2006-2013 |
Sex Offender Issues![]()
Following the SEC's payment of its first Whistleblower award in the amount of $50,000, the SEC reports that its Whistleblower Program generated a total of 3001 tips through fiscal year 2012. Read the report here: SEC Annual Report on the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program 2012.pdf. Big payouts and many more cases are expected. The SEC also reported that whistleblower tips identified over half of all fraud schemes uncovered in public companies, while outsiders, including the SEC, only identified about 5% of such schemes.
As preciously discussed on this blog, the SEC's Whistleblower Program provides regulatory authority for the SEC to pay 10-30% bounties to whistleblowers whose tips lead to a SEC enforcement action with cummulative penalties of over $1,000,000. Fines, disgorgement and interest paid all count toward the $1,000,000 threshold. The determination of the actual percentage and amount of the award is within the discretion of the SEC which is to consider the significance of the tip, the degree of assistance provided and the "programmatic interest " of the SEC in the particular action.
Skeptics continue to voice concerns that some employees will "blow the whistle" only to get the substantial reward rather than pursue internal company procedures to avoid or limit improper conduct. Despite these reasonable concerns, the SEC Whistleblower Program and similar measures are unquestionably the trend in compliance legislation and hold great public appeal. Companies subject to SEC jurisdiction should govern themselves accordingly.
The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide for periodic audits to ensure that covered entities and business associates are complying with the HIPAA privacy and security rules and the HITECH Act's breach notification standards. To implement this mandate, the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) piloted a program to conduct 115 audits of covered entities to assess privacy and security compliance. Audits conducted under OCR's pilot program began in November 2011 and ended in December 2012.
As part of the audit pilot program, OCR established an audit protocol that contains the requirements assessed during OCR's performance audits. The entire audit protocol is organized around modules, representing separate elements of privacy, security, and breach notification. (The protocol is available for public review at: 
If you have been drinking and you get drunk, you might think you are safe from being arrested by the police as long as you don't attempt to drive. Certainly, making the decision to not get behind the wheel of a vehicle and attempting to drive is a good one. However, you can be arrested for being drunk in public (DIP) or public intoxication (PI).
Certainly, charges for either are far less serious than a driving under the influence (DUI) charge and carry much less severe fines and penalties. They are, however, misdemeanors that will end up being part of your criminal record.
Under California Penal Code Section 647(f), you are drunk in public if your intoxication level is such that the police believe that you are a danger to yourself and others. It further states that it is illegal to be in any public place if your intoxication level interferes with, obstructs or prevents others from using the streets, sidewalks or other public ways.
A public place can be pretty much any place outside of a home, including restaurants, bars, malls, parks, buses, public streets and sidewalks. It can also be common areas in apartments or buildings, parking lots, driveways, the front yard and the porch, for example.
A public place can also be a place that is not visible to or frequented by the general public, such as movie theaters, private booths in adult bookstores, spas and massage parlors.
Private places would be inside homes, garages, motel or hotel rooms and the backyard of your house.
The statute is directed towards situations where you are out in public and inebriated to the extent that you are falling down, passed out, impeding traffic on sidewalks or being rowdy because of your intoxication.
If arrested and charged with drunk in public (DIP) or public intoxication (PI), you can face up to as much as six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000, in addition to summary probation. If you are convicted of a third DIP in twelve months, you can face a minimum of ninety days in jail.
Just as with any other DUI charge, the arrest really depends on the observations and opinions of the arresting officer, in addition to the blood or breath tests. These chemical tests are often flawed, inaccurate or improperly administered, however. The tests can be attacked during cross examination of the investigating officer as well as the arresting officer's recollection of the events surrounding the arrest.
A recent report by Newsweek's online platform, 
