Slashdot Mirror
Sex Offenders to Register Emails in Virginia
Isaac Bowman writes "The Washington Post is reporting that Virgina has a proposed law that would require sex offenders to register their email and IM screen names in an attempt to monitor and control their presence on social networking sites like MySpace."
"...as good a place as any to start", she said.
because registering a new email address and IM account is so hard. Better still, get an .i2p email address.
'cause, like, that'd work.
...their gmail account and icq uin with the state, and then use their yahoo email and yahoo messenger for "other" things?
There is such a large difficulty in getting new email addresses, nobody could concieve of a situation where not all would be registered! All this does is create yet another charge to lay on someone you want to imprison. The problem with this is that if they are grooming children/formenting terrah on yr kids/whatever, you already have appropriate charges. If they are not, it isn't an issue.
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
...more than half the slashdot-population can find themself in the name "Virgina" (even when it's mentioned twice in the post), but I sincerely request the editors lay down their powdery-pipes and at least provide the decency to call the region "Virginia".
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
please fix the spelling. its 'Virginia'...
i must be horny because i keep reading Vagina.
In Capitalism West sex offenders must register emails. In Soviet Union use of email registers you!
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Apart from the obvious "This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard" knee-jerk reaction, my second thought is, "why don't they just outlaw these people from using the sites to begin with?" It's hard to imagine a legitimate need for a sex offender to have access to a site filled with nubile flesh. Registering people's IM screennames seems ludicrous.
Our lawmakers are idiots.
Either the sex offender has served his time, or he hasn't. If you're worried about their recidivism rate, UP THE TIME SPENT OUT OF SOCIETY, DO NOT SEND THEM BACK OUT THERE IF WE'RE SO SURE THEY'RE JUST GOING TO REPEAT OFFEND.
Seems simple, so why do these guys make it so complex?
Even if there were a way to ensure that all sex offender's screen names were recorded, this would only apply to people on the sex offenders' register, and doesn't account for the numbers of people allowed access to these sites who haven't been, and possibly won't be, caught.
This sounds like some grand standing of a politician passing useless law to "protect kids". Anyone with a passing knowledge of the internet knows this is useless.
Not only anyone can get any screen name and email address anyway they want it. Next thing you know, people will be setting up the "virtual neighborhood" off shore.
This is one of those feel good law with some truthiness in mix!
The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity....Calvin
It's Virgiña and it is the result of a Spanglish takeover at the Slashdot headquarters. Same pronunciation but with a little more spice!
...of places where politicians have no clue about computing.
officials would turn them over to MySpace. The company, using new software, would then block anyone using that e-mail address from entering the site ...
They mean new software like:
if (user == sex-offender)
then (drop)
else (proceed)
Won't they just, er, get another account? It's like CAN-SPAM deja vu. Must be election time.
Ugh, it has to be mentioned I suppose.......they do still have rights. And I suppose some of them really do get reformed in prison. I'm not saying they should get rights of privacy (or at the risk of flamebait, the right to life after the undoubtful conviction), but in America, I suppose they deserve some?
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
My understanding is that sex offenders on social networking sites isn't a big issue compared to sex offenses that never involved the Internet in the first place.
How is a sex offender defined? I'm thinking there could be a whole range of sex offenses, from minor infractions to major ones.
If anything, if someone commits a major sex offense, then the judge in his or her right mind should consider removing Internet privledges. Wouldn't that stop the potential of the sex offender luring any more persons?
How blue eyes and blond hair do these people have, comeon like a sexoffender wouldnt register a new email if he/she felt like harrazing someone? .. Serious, these law people just dont have a clue no how the net works, I bet they pat eachothers backs and sais: -Now we have there aliases, now we know who they are online.
To that I have online one thing to say: -Yeah Right!
I mean, if they didn't register, they could just go on any website and start posting comments and nobody would know who they are!
The nerve of some of these people!
What is to stop email harvesters from grabbing emails of these people and spamming them with promises of kiddie porn? The last thing we want is to tempt people who are trying to get back on the right track.
It seems this law isn't wasn't thought completely through or their really that dumb. I'm sure it's to make people feel more safe, and that's why it will go on the books. But anyone with half a brain knows that this easily circumvated by even the not-so-tech-savvie user. They should just not be permitted to have a computer, or if they need one for a job or use one for a job, not permitted to user internet. If the need to send out an e-mail from work the law should say that the employer should flag the e-mail for that person and make sure it's appropiate. Before you go on the privacy kick...corporate e-mail is corporate company.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
What were they thinking?! Didn't they see what the superhuman registration act did to the Fantastic Four?
*sigh* This will all end in tears...
As a reminder, there are plenty of jurisdictions in which urinating in a back alley when no public toilet is available constitutes a "sex offense", and sufficies to have one placed on "sex offender" lists.
Furthermore, making out in a car in a quasi-public place can likewise be considered a "sex offense", if I'm not mistaken, though in practice, the cops tend to crack down only on gay couples doing this. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Sex offenders just ain't what they used to be.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
There will always be sex offenders and of course they will be attracted to the social networking sites infested with pictures of kids and anonymity. How they could crack down on crimes committed would be to educate kids better about how to use these sites safely and what to look out for. We are in the internet age... parents should be en graining net safety to their kids rite alongside lessons like riding a helmet or looking both ways before you cross. Granted that most parents don't know how to be safe themselves, maybe it should be up to the schools to teach this by hiring professionals.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
> The Washington Post is reporting that Virgina has a proposed law
No, it doesn't say that at all. RTFA editors. It clearly says Virginia.
I can't work out if both the submittor and the editors are blind, or if that's supposed to be some extremely non-funny joke. How can you make the same typo twice? I guess I've missed something.
Assigning someone an e-mail address at birth might be too complicated since there are so many domains. Perhaps assign newborns a number in which they have to use to register e-mail addresses. But to make sure they don't forget their number, tattoo it to their body. We live in a digital age, and no one likes entering numbers, so make it into a barcode so you can just scan yourself. Now, to make sure no one removed their barcode, put it on their forehead.
So are we all sex offenders now?
sex_offender937123@hotmail.com
Rats would be more funny if they could fart.
This is basically as I've said elsewhere...
I'm not a sex offender and don't want to support those in particular, but juridically, I think these questions still need to be asked:
- Why only sex offenders? Are other criminals not as dangerous? Do these not use e-mail?
- What happened to jail penalties clearing them of their crime after it's over? Or do I misunderstand part of their intent?
- How is this legislation going to be enforced? Will a sex offender willing to abuse kids be willing to register the mail address used for this?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Why don't we just implant chips into sex offenders brains and shock them every time they have a dirty thought. As long as we're taking away privacy away from sex offenders, why don't we require EVERYONE to register all their screen names and e-mail addresses. My list would be a MILE long. Then they can have an excuse to tap everyones phone line and read everyones e-mails. OH WAIT THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT. Lets just give what the politicians want; More control. Personally I don't care what sex offenders do on the internet. It's a bit difficult to rape someone without actually meeting them. If you are worried that sex offenders are going to stalk little kids they see on myspace just stick GPS devices on all sex offenders. Cops will be on the offender as soon as he/she leaves the house. It amazes me that the american public allows the laws regarding the "internets" be made by people who don't even have a basic understanding of how it works or what it is capable of.
People get reformed in prison? Really? Wow, that's news!
And, you mean... Sex Offenders get reformed in prison?!!? Man, what a scoop!
Here is a newsflash for you: sex offender do not reform in prison. They may get beaten up and raped by bigger inmates (who hate sex offender), they may even end up as the byatch of another prisoner, but they don't reform. The relapse rate for incarcerated sex offenders, pedophiles -- especially pedophiles -- and assorted creeps is way up there.
IMHO, the only way to "reform" sex offenders and pedophile is through special programs, and not through prison. YMMV.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
...cannot protect your children because they're too far away from them plus I think you don't want an agent in your home watching what your kids do. Protecting children is parents' responsability. they should teach them properly so the chances of getting offended or getting into unadequate web sites will be drastically reduced. No cop and no lawyer can make the parent's job.
First of all, there will be two kinds of former criminals: Those that really try to reintegrate into society and those that don't give a rat's ass and work harder to avoid getting caught.
The latter will simply register some waste-spam addy, get a new freemail addy and go hunting again.
The former will register their mail addresses. Now, let me predict the next step. The next step would be to make those mail addresses public so "you can see if your kids are mailing to a bad man", maybe including a tool for the really dumb parents who can't figure even that out.
First of all, those registered addresses will drown in spam, because a legit mail address is gold for a spammer. Second, they will drown in hate mail from overzealous self appointed protectors of innocence and other bullcrap. I bet my rear that there will, no week after that list goes public, be a mailing list, so you can reach all of them at once. The net effect of this is either that they get a new mail address they can use (and don't register it), or they turn towards a "society hates me so I hate it too, to hell with it!" stance.
In either case, all you get is that those people go further underground and get more careful, and are thus harder to track and catch.
Great job. Really, I feel a damn lot safer now.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If someone really wants to get on MySpace, it won't be any problem at all to make a Yahoo address and get around the system. As always, this contradicts with my opinion on how sex offenders should be handled. The way I see it, if the offender doesn't pose a significant risk of repeating the offense, leave him alone once he has served his time. If he does pose a significant risk of repeating his offense, either leave him in jail or, at the very least, put him in an environment similar to a group home where he can be monitored effectively. When the government puts someone out on the street but tries to monitor them in this way, it makes me think of two scenarios. Either they're wasting time and money by harassing someone who has already served his time, or they are doing a half-assed job of watching someone who is a legitimate danger to the community.
I agree. If they get released they should have the same rights as everyone else (minus perhaps "Working as teachers").
If they're a danger, then they shouldn't have been released in the first place.
Statistically, sex offenders have a very high commit-it-again rate.
Complete BS. http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060516_predat or_panic.html
For what we know, sex offenders are like other offenders ; many are just your once-in-a-lifetime (because they had oppotunity or whatever) type, a few are true maniacs in the medical meaning of the word. While the first type desserve a sentence, and don't need more attention than anybody else afterward, and probably less than a DIU convict, the latter type are mentaly ill persons, and they need constant medical attention instead of jail ; and they should be held in hospital until proven safe for release. Jail only prevent them from accessing adequate cure for their condition. The social pressure for a trial is in fact at the root of their early release (because neither a judge nor a jury is a qualified MD). This is medieval justice at its near best, if you don't count capital punishment.
If I was a viagra spammer, I'd love to get a copy of that list.
Legislators still have no idea about technology or how the Internet works.
Seriously is this really news worthy?
on the black market for Gmail adresses.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I keep on reading that no matter what...
at least it makes everyone read that again and again....
this must be driving the sex offenders all nuts
The best thing that ever happened for pedophiles. No longer to the have to use strange handshakes and special winking patterns to find other pedos to play with, all they have to do now is look them up.
Wonderfull.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
McDonnell said. "We want to be a leader with legislation to protect kids."
All i can say is think on Mr McDonnell Think on !
Gary Glitter is the leader come on
Come on, come on, Come on, come on, Come on, come on, Come on (2x)
D'you wanna be in my gang , my gang, my gang, D'you wanna be in my gang, Oh Yeah! (2x)
I'm the leader, I'm the leader, I'm the leader of the gang I am
I'm the leader, I'm the leader, Well there's no one like the man I'm
I can take you high as a kite every single night
I can make you jump out of bed standing on my head
Who'd ever believe it, Come on come on (3x)
D'you wanna be in my gang, a my gang, my gang, (2x)
D'you wanna be in my gang, a my gang, my gang, oh Yeah! Do You ? my gang,
Come On! Come on, come on, Come on, come on, Come on, come on, (2x)
D'you wanna be in my gang , my gang, my gang,
D'you wanna be in my gang, Oh Yeah!
D'you wanna be in my gang , my gang, my gang, D'you wanna be in my gang, Oh Yeah!
I'm the leader, I'm the leader, I'm the leader of the gang I am
I'm the leader, I'm the leader, I'm the man who put the bang in gang
I can take you over the hill, ooooh what a thrill
I can make you sell me your soul for my rock and roll
Who'd ever believe it, Come on come on (3x)
D'you wanna be in my gang, a my gang, my gang, (2x)
D'you wanna be in my gang, a my gang, my gang, oh Yeah!
Do You ? my gang Come On!
I hope you are being sarcastic. If our society deemed that serving prison time paid for crimes, then nobody would ever be asked "Have you ever committed a crime?" on job applications and no ex-con would have to register for previous crimes.
The purpose might not to be prevent specific email addresses and nicks to access the websites, since they can be easily circumvented by just getting another email address.
Instead, the purpose could (or should) be to deter the use of the services in wrong ways. If a sex offender is caught (search warrant, data traffic logging or whatever) to be using an unregistered ID, severe penalties would apply.
In reality the traffic will not get logged.
In reality sex offenders' drive will make them repeat their offences despite attempts like these.
won't someone think of the children!?
* ducks *
Like for example this 4 year old and only hugged his teacher. Ofcourse he touched some private part and that is an A class felony in the States.. So, nice to make all these kinds of rulings: just think about where its coming from.
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
Wow, bloody insightful.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"...Virgina", said Homer.
Maybe it's the lack of sleep and recent "getting any", but am I the only one who glanced over the front page and saw "Sex Offenders to Register Emails in Vag*na"? :P
The reality is that probably 90% of "sex offenders" pose little or no threat to the general population, and 90% or more (probably MUCH more) of the people who do pose a threat (and are trolling for kids on MySpace etc.) are not registered sex offenders. As others have pointed out, all kinds of relatively innocuous things can get someone registered as a sex offender. People think of someone snatching strangers off the street and raping them at knifepoint, or raping 5-year old kids, but that kind of thing is fairly rare even among sex offenders. (Vague and scarily-named legal charges that can be applied to a wide range of borderline activitities can also make a lot of crimes sound even worse than they are.) Plus it's kind of ironic that about 2/3 of kids have sex (mostly with each other) before they're 18 (and many more, nearly all, have sexual activity that would get a man over 18 thrown in prison for), and in most states it's ok for a young (say 13 year old, if not younger) girl to choose to MARRY an older man (and have sex with him - but only with parental consent!!), but it's categorically illegal for them to have sex outside of marriage. (American prudishness rivals that of Islamic fanatics.)
In addition, yes indeed, it is unconstitutional (and rightly so) to impose any further punishment on someone who has already been convicted and sentenced, unless they commit another, separate crime. Some things applied to sex offenders (and arsonists, and now meth dealers) have been able to be passed off as "not a punishment", since the laws all say "blah blah blah, this is not intended as punishment blah blah blah", and the registries have all kinds of useless boilerplate like "this information should not be used to deny jobs, housing, etc." But as the new measures become more limiting, restrictive, and onerous (and even more useless), they increasingly become obviously punishments, and nothing else. And those cannot be applied retroactively to people (yes, people: husbands, fathers, family members, otherwise-valuable members of communities, with good friends and other people that love them) that have already served their sentences. (And these new proposed laws could also run afoul of constitutional protections to the right to assembly, since it seems they might be applied to a braod range of discussion areas, such as slashdot.)
And if all that doesn't bother you, then this should: EVERYTHING THAT IS BEING DONE TO SEX OFFENDERS TODAY WILL ONE DAY BE DONE TO YOU AND ME AND EVERYONE ELSE. It will be a slippery slope, but the logic will always be too compelling (at each point that it becomes trivially inexpensive to track/monitor/restrict any given group): "it will keep us safer". The restrictions and monitoring will gradually slide from more-serious to less-serious types of criminals (which has already happened with sex offenders), then to petty criminals, "traffic offenders" and the like, until finally it just makes too much sense not to monitor everyone, just in case they were to commit a crime (and as a deterrent - if you're always being watched, it will never be safe to do anything wrong. What more perfect way to have a crime-free society? You don't have anything to hide, do you??) The problem is that nobody is looking at these ridiculous laws and saying "this is just plain wrong" (just like we think it's OK to torture people, so long as they are "terrorists").
We're simply too ignorant and too susceptible to scare tactics to do the right thing.
This may well be true of criminals generally.
You complain about bad spelling, but you can't even spell submitter?
Maybe it's about reducing their oppertunity to abuse positions of trust?
Oh I agree they should be disqualified from certain jobs.
But if you're going to require them to be constantly monitored and register email addresses etc because they clearly present a danger in ordinary life, don't release them.
There is an implicit assumption that sex offenders, particularly paedophiles will reoffend.
If you do not accept that assumption, they have done their time, they are now starting over.
If you do accept that assumption then either:
a) Hang them
b) Never Let them Out of Prison Again
c) Keep them under 24x7 Surveilance for the rest of their lives.
How much does a good rope cost these days?
So, assume I've previously been convicted of a sex offence. I am now rehabilitated and would never considering doing anything like that again, and am on the sex offenders register. I want to get my life back on track, and have found that I like MySpace and other social networking sites as a way to meet people / share music / read blogs / find out about cool things happening in my town. To ensure that I can use it without accusations of grooming kids for sex offences, I make MySpace etc clearly aware that I am on the sex offenders register and that my actions on MySpace etc are totally traceable to ensure I don't do anything dodgy.
Therefore, I can re-integrate slowly into society, approving people to make checks on me so I can prove I'm not a potential re-offender.
This will help make people who've committed crimes more able to re-integrate safely, which is a good thing. It will not stop potential sex offenders grooming kids, but so what, very little will without infringing the rights of everyone else.
--- Band: Joey Ultra
Basically, the law is bullshit for prevention, and what ever mouth breather they have as a consultant to this has to know it. There's no real way to prevent people from registering a bullshit email address or using multiple addresses. So it won't prevent a damn thing and it won't help them catch anyone. So what good is this law? Well, the one thing I can think of is that when, by other means, the police catch a sex offender re-offending, showing that they were using a different address than the one they registered will help build a case that they were deliberately trying to conceal their activities and were trying to evade the mandated consequences of being a sex offender.
So, this will help them strengthen the very occasional weak case where other evidence doesn't pan out. Which is stupid, if I'm right (and I'm probably not, I'll freely admit that) then the law fails completely to do what it sets out to do but will be trumpeted as a success if a single DA gets a single prosecution that he might otherwise have missed. Ignorant people making bullshit laws that occasionally and accidentally provide some small unintended benefit to someone while failing to do what they set out to, and calling that success. Ain't politics grand!
because registering a new email address and IM account is so hard. Better still, get an .i2p email address.
But like Capone with tax evasion, catching a pedophile using an unregistered email address would then be a chargeable offense. Probably easier than proving intent of kidfuckery.
This is an ill-thought-through measure designed only to court acceptance from the public. Now that it's no longer politically acceptable to go after witches, blacks, jews or gypsies, sexual offenders are the current untermenschen -- somebody to whom everybody else can feel superior; and against whom no measure is unjustifiable, irrespective of whether or not it would ever be workable in practice and/or the extent of collateral damage it would create.
Have you ever received junk mail addressed to a former occupant of your home?
Have you ever been refused credit because of a bad debt run up by a former occupant of your home?
I can answer yes to both questions. I've even received late-night faxes from abroad on my voice line, because my phone number used to be a fax number (the telco had run out of never-before-used numbers and so had to give me a recycled one; it had been out of service for over a year, but that didn't help against some overseas scumsucker with an out-of-date phone book).
Now think of the way that information tends to hang around on the internet: somebody sees an interesting story, makes a copy of it on their website, the original goes away but the copy persists. Also, "sexual offences" cover a broad gamut. Legally there is no distinction between someone who has non-penetrative sex with a 15 year, 364 day old girl who managed to get into an over-18s bar; and someone who participated in gang-rape of a pre-school child. Being caught taking a leak in the street (in times when councils are closing public toilets, and bars and restaurants are erecting bogus "toilets are for customers' use only" signs [they're bogus because entering the premises for the purpose of using the toilet makes you automatically a customer]) is also deemed a sexual offence.
Still think all this tracking of sexual offenders is a good idea? I know exactly why this man did what he did.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
They could use "secret" accounts, and perhaps "social networking" (via log trawling) is the "bigger picture" the authorities are looking at. I have no sympathy for rock spiders but I belive they are "criminally insane". If they are a danger to the public what are they doing roaming around anyway? If they are not a danger and have done their time they should be free from government harrasment.
Of course in the real world you have to trust the people who get to declare someone else as "dangerous". Give them free reign and lists get made, the net widens, and before you know it Stalin is back in town! OTOH: It is obvious that someone who has molested children is not to be trusted either, and should not be allowed to come into contact with kids through their job, ect. In other words the courts sould be free to set/review whatever conditions they deem are nesassary on an individual basis rather than be bound by blind obiedience to politically inspired red tape.
Having said that, has anyone in the US taken a critical look at the "targets" on the sex offenders list? As I understand it the US "sex offenders" list lump's together streakers and child abuser's, and by an interesting "coincidence" the list was the crusade of one congressman Foley who, it turns out, used his position of power to prey on teenage boys.
My question is: Did Foley create the list in order to obufscate the search for predatory social networks by broadening the search to include victimless "public decency" type offences or have I got may facts wrong concerning the list?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
...are that they're hard-coded to reproduce. And when that basic instinct goes wrong, it's bloody hard to reverse. If some guy wants children/animals/his sister/whatever else badly enough, no amount of jail time is going to change him. There doesn't seem to be an easy solution, except, perhaps, counselling to try to sort out the root of their sexual preference and perhaps help them to move on to more mainstream preferences. But then again, isn't this how we used to look at anyone who wasn't perfectly straight?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Given 5 minutes I could easily have anonymous email addresses from at least 1/2 dozen locations along with IM addresses from all the majors with absolutly no way for anyone to link those accounts back to me personally.
Although more than likely the real reason for this law is so that if they are ever able to link a sex offender to an email or IM address not in the database they have something they can use to lock the sex offender up (after a fair trial obviously) without the need to prove that the sex offender did something untoward (i.e. whatever it is that sex offenders do that is illegal)
The reason this law will be useful is it can't be effectively enforced. Are you going to require that convicted sexual predators are monitored 24/7? If thats the case why have this silly rule? It would take me, as others have said, 30 seconds to create a new anonymous email account. They then are free to register with myspace, and do whatever they want again. It would take near constant monitoring to catch this. I could have 100s of email accounts registered with VA, but all it takes is one unregistered one to get in.
This also does nothing to protect against those who have not yet been convicted of sexual abuse. If the illusion of security is all you want, enjoy your dream world, but that will just make you less safe.
Clones are people two.
Just like movie theater warnings of nudity and violence, you kind of wonder how many myspace members will see 'sex offender' as an attraction or turn-on?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
While the intent of Mr. Robert F. McDonnell's attempt to protect our children is admirable, this method has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Anyone with any computer literacy knows how easy it is to get an online email, or just "pop in" to Yahoo chat or whatever...
A better (remember, I said better, not great) solution would be to make the internet a privalege, and ban sex offenders from the use of public internet (libraries), or private third party (Comcast, ATT) providers. Instead, offer them a government provided internet connection. Work with ISP providers to allow them to gateway the sex offenders through the government controlled servers for monitoring and then let them do what they want.
Obviously, any sex offender could wander off to a library, log in, and start preying on people again, but surely this idea is better than "registering their email and IM name"...
Read up further down about complex stuff like, sex offenders being people, not dumb animals. Any 'one fix' solution will most likely be sub-optimal, most likely in a depressing way.
Anyways, except from this proposal being either too intrusive and too little inclusive (yes, you require an adress, either this WILL have loopholes, or it will be an incredible privacy issue for 100% of the Internet).
analog < infinite binary (Heisenberg is with me on this one)
Seems fitting that the antichrist would post as AC.
Free as in mason.
About as useful as the No-Fly list.
... it's exactly as useful as the No-Fly List. Which does its job admirably.
Yep
It's just that its job isn't what you think it is. The No-Fly List doesn't really have anything to do with keeping terrorists off of planes, because as you pointed out, even the most retarded Al Qaeda operative is probably going to think of using a false name. What it does do, is create a (arguably false) sense of security in the general populace, and make them think that their government is "doing something." This is its function, its raison d'être, just like most of the other post-9/11 government "security" measures.
This registry is exactly the same thing. Nobody in their right mind can possibly believe that it's actually going to do anything to save children; it's a trivial requirement, one that if you're already OK with doing something illegal (like propositioning children), you're not going to have any trouble avoiding. But it's going to make a nice talking point for a few politicos, and help to create that 'warm, fuzzy feeling' in the hearts of the voters who are too stupid to see through it -- which is basically most of them, I've come to believe.
When you see a government program that's failing horribly but yet still allowed to continue year after year, chances are it's not really failing; it's doing exactly what somebody wants it to do.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
It's still pending at the moment, but on Friday I submitted this story which describes pretty much the same thing, only it's a planned bill for next year's Congress spearheaded by Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and John McCain (R-AZ.) The entire US will be looking at this soon, not just Virginians.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Do you really think that a sex offender who is ready to re-offend will register his latest email address or IM screen name? Only those that are willing to play by the rules again will do so while those who you should be worried about in the first place will go to a cyber cafe that dosen't require ID and create a brand new screen name without anyone ever knowing about it.
Canadians tried something similar a few years ago with the gun registry program to help identify owners of guns, hoping that in the end, they would be able to control illegal firearms.
It's all nice in theory, until you realize that bad guys are the ones who won't be playing by your rules.
Simply put, if someone is about to re-offend, the last of their worries would be register their email address and screen names.
...and have mail to unknown users forward to their own mailbox, do they have to register every possible alphanumeric combination?
How about on IRC when the server decides arbitrarily to change your nick:
SexOffender is now known as SexOffender_
SexOffender_ tells #SupportGroup: @()$*@$. Now I have to register the new nick!
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
BUT; I for one can't wait to have my hands on the statistics this will come up with! Who's got the biggest sex-offender approval rating of @yahoo.com, @hotmail.com and all the rest? I say this could be interesting.
analog < infinite binary (Heisenberg is with me on this one)
What's sad here is that no politican will vote against this. It would be political suicide. I could see whoever is running against him using this to smear him in the next election. "Representative Smith is weak on sex offenders! He voted no on a bill protecting your children!" yada yada yada...
After the state obtained a predator's e-mail addresses, officials would turn them over to MySpace. The company, using new software, would then block anyone using that e-mail address from entering the site
My gawd ... this kind of blatant stupidity and lack of understanding from public officials is almost too painful to watch.
Maybe they should empanel a group of 9 year olds to review legislation before they actually propose it in public? Probably save themselves a lot of embarrassment.
Another case for never, ever voting for incumbent politicians. Apparently more than 1 term in office causes brain rot (along with ethics decay).
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
Those should be added as well. And xbox should add a special icon to those gamer tags so that it shows they are a sex offender. Now I know why some people really get into teabagging on Halo.
Can I bum a sig?
Since having kiddy porn, especially for a previously convicted sex offender, is an offense that causes the person to serve jail time again, this brings this possibility:
- find out sex offender's name, picture, and place of residence. (from standard sex offender registry)
- file some sort of complaint to the police that will at least cause them to investigate him and his computer. (easier if he's only on parole, and not fully released yet)
- arrange for anonymous email forwarders to send him a bunch of kiddie porn right before the cops arrive.
Sometimes I really think that they should make Les Miserables into a tv special short enough to fit most Amercans' attention spans.
I would really like to know the underlying issue that is driving this legislation. Not withstanding the numerous mechanisms around this law (as stated in previous posts), I don't think the Attorney General has thoroughly researched this issue. How do they intend on enforcing this law? This law (not unlike the majority of laws passed) is based upon good intention, but is destined for a miserable failure if the appropriate resources are not allocated to enforce it. The reasonable expectation of the public would be that registered Sex Offenders could not use a registered email/IM Screen Name in the commission of an offense. Does Virginia have the resources and budget to sustain this expectation? Unfortunately, this is becoming fairly common with proposed legislation. The individual (or group of individuals) proposes legislation based on a good idea, but with no feasible way of enforcement/support. If the legislation is rejected, the individual (or group) points the finger at the opposition (and in this case) could state that he/she doesn't want to protect the children. It's been a few years since I opted to leave the law enforcement field in pursuit of a paycheck, but I can't see how things have changed too much in my 5 year absence.
"Does this wine taste funny to you?" -- Socrates
The politicians aren't as stupid as we think they are. They know that the offenders who intend to repeat their crimes will just get a new e-mail, so for what the proposed bill doesn't prevent, if (or more hopefully when) the repeat offender gets caught, there is yet more ammo for the Commonwealth to use to keep the offender behind bars longer. Failure to be in compliance with registration requirements is a major offense and a serious felony in Virginia. Sexual predators are serious criminals, and while I do agree that the Government does a little too much "Big Brothering" over us, failure to act could be seen as negligence by a few Americans and can cause more harm than good, ie... "If the Commonwealth was tougher on this offender, he would've never raped my 10 year old daughter!" You'll never hear someone say, "Awe, this guy would've raped someone no matter how great our justice system was." Oh yeah, and by the way, those offenders who do not repeat their crimes have nothing to worry about.
I mean, they paid their debt. Give them a break. If you are worried about relapse, increase the sentences or don't let them out!
It's not like they killed someone, and it's not really fair to keep chainging the rules. Are murderers required to register emails? I should hope so!
I gotta question the wisdom of a state that sucks up $1.66 for every measley $1.00 they pay in Federal Taxes. Hopefully Virginia residents aren't bitching about welfare social equality programs putting a hurt on their income.
Blar.
For some reason I kept reading "Sex Offenders to Register Emails in Vagina", and I thought, "Is this a joke?"
damn, i'm totally set....
They paid their debt? Are you kidding me? You're right. They didn't kill anyone. What they did, in a lot of cases, is FAR worse than murder. As for worrying about a relapse, it's never been a question of 'if', only 'when'. I personally think violent (all) sexual offenders should face the death penalty, and barring that never get out of jail. Sadly, we live in a nation where there are actually people who defend the rights (rights the guilty maliciously stripped from others, often repeatedly) of these animals.
Hmmm...or is it automatically assumed if you have a MySpace page that you already are an offender? ~CYD
//Nothing to see here, please move along.
My problem with these laws is that they seem to add conditions to the sentence after the fact. (And this one's just dumb, but that seems to be well-covered in the other posts already.) But it seems that if you're a sex offender, you can have new conditions placed on your sentence years after you've done your time and gotten out. That's not how the legal system is supposed to work.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
And this is one thing in Canada that I'm rather happy about. When you've got a guy in prison, and his evaluation says he is 99% likely to reoffend, you should not let him loose on the world. There's a new law going into place that basically says after three strikes (for violent/sex offenders), your release can be held back unless it can be shown you are no longer a risk to society. Room for error, yes, but after three times I think that it's unlikely you're going to have a huge amount of collateral damage.
As a Virginian, I am astonished at the stupidity in this proposal. Obviously, Bob McDonnell doesn't realize that it is possible to obtain more than one email address or im nickname.
[i]I mean, they paid their debt. Give them a break. If you are worried about relapse, increase the sentences or don't let them out![/i] If you imagined all the people on earth in line waiting to be [i]given a break[/i], or to have us care about their rights, then sex offenders would be some of the last people in line. There are far better people out there that we should make sure are treated fairly before we think of these assholes.
Shit, I used [] tags instead of html tags to quote you. Still not awake yet, sorry.
... It seems to me that the simplest solution might just be to make it illegal (that is, strictly a fineable offense) to allow a minor to have unsupervised access to a computer that is connected to the internet, whether by choice or by negligence. The upshot of the increased security measures that most people would take as a result of it would probably also go some distance to preventing the proliferation of computer viruses and rooted computers used to send spam.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
This is only done so polititians can say to other computer ignorant people "Look, We *are* doing somehting about it", Then those other computer ignorant people can say "phew, Thank fuck for that, Now it's safe for little billy to go on the internet", and we can all pretend the world is a much safer place because of a stupid law that makes no fucking sense what-so-ever.
God Be Gone
I have a child and family who have been victims of violent sex crimes. I also believe the AC above in that some of the predators committed crimes that could be thought of as worse than murder. Has everyone convicted of a "sex crime" committed worse than murder? Of course not. Those convicted of heinous crimes should be punished accordingly. The rest should be treated as the rest of America's criminals and not with some special distinction because the crime involved genitalia. Too many stupid laws are being written by pandering politicians because it's easy to claim they are "protecting our children". Violent crime is violent crime regardless of the motivation.
If you believe that sexual predators are more dangerous than other criminals, the length of imprisonment should reflect that. Permanent tracking and ridicule seems to be counter-productive to rehabilitation but if that is what the community wants to do, include it in the sentences at conviction. Below is an excerpt from the NY Times in 2001:
The RIAA and the honorable senator from Utah predict that everyone on
_damnit_
It's my job to freeze you. -- Logan's Run
I should say: I agree this is an idiotic bill. All it accomplishes is reminding the sex offenders who *are* at risk of recidivism that chatrooms and social networking sites are monitored, and if they want to be "smart" they'd better research ways to troll truly anonymously. So the people who are *not* going to re-offend mostly just lose some privacy, and the ones who *are* going to re-offend sure as hell aren't going to do it using the registered email, and probably will find a way to do it as untraceably as possible.
But it's certainly not an issue of "stay in jail until you're 100% normal". Contrary to apparent popular belief, people do not spend their time in jail learning how to live nicely and normally in society. Because they are in jail, not amongst nice and normal people.
No; people with mental illnesses need treatment more than jail. People with drug addictions need treatment more than jail. People who have no possible source of income need training and a job more than jail.
Most of these people do something stupid or desperate and end up in jail. For a lot of them, it just *increases* the forces that pushed them to screw up in the first place. I'm not saying jail has no purpose -- for a lot of people, a spell in jail is like a bucket of cold water in the face, and they rethink their lives. But if you have a problem that won't be helped by a bucket of cold water or time to think, more buckets and more time is not the answer.
There are certainly specific cases where the likelihood of recidivism is high even with supervision, treatment, etc. (so for the protection of society, the person can't be freed). But that's not the case with most of these people.
I know a guy that's on the sex offender list for having sex with a 17 year-old. He was an 18 year-old at the time. I don't know who complained to the cops, but once the complaint was filed, he was duly busted and it went to court. They was no "she looked over 18" defense. That would have been laughed out of court. I don't remeber his sentence, but I know he landed on the sex offender list.
They got married when it all blew over. They are living quietly and have two kids. But their neighbors would love to get them out of the neighborhood because he is still on the sex offender list. I know of one house sale that fell through because the prospective buyer didn't want his daughter living near a registered sex offender.
Also, the sex offender list is polluted with domestic violence cases. Those guys don't belong on the list.
The really scary ones are not the sex offender list. They have never been caught. And they're out there right now...
Laws for sex offenders are out of control. Just recently, a 12 year old and a 13 year old were both convicted as sex offenders for having consensual sex with one another (admittedly too young, but...). And of course the registry will, for the rest of their lives, merely say that they raped a child, not noting the details. And now this...
shouldn't they just be blocked from using myspace and instant messaging.. thats like limiting a murderers use of a gun.. Authoriy: "you can only fire 5 shots and then thats it.. off to bed you go!" stupid.. just block your fucking kids from the computer and let these dudes get on an talk to 30 year olds claiming to be 14 year old virgins.. sex offender + sex offender = okay. ever heard of the song "stop having kids" by dj condom man
I think Washington state has 16 years old as the age of consent, but with exceptions. It seems liberal to allow it that young. Then again, horse sex was completely legal here, provided the horse isn't considered a small animal. Not sure if they changed the law yet.
I think for age of consent laws, maybe require that both parties must be 18+ OR the younger party must be 80% of the older party's age. I.e., 16 is 80% of 20. I don't know if it would work though, since 80% of 15 is 12. Would that be too young?