Slashdot Mirror
Sex Offenders Must Hand Over Online Passwords
mytrip writes "Privacy advocates are questioning an aggressive Georgia law set to take effect Thursday that would require sex offenders to hand over Internet passwords, screen names and e-mail addresses. Georgia joins a small band of states complying with guidelines in a 2006 federal law requiring authorities to track Internet addresses of sex offenders, but it is among the first to take the extra step of forcing its 16,000 offenders to turn in their passwords as well."
Yay Big Brother!
Seriously, if these people have done their time, leave them the fuck alone.
There is a war going on for your mind.
...and you are better off swimming across the Rio Grande in the wrong direction than complying with this. This almost makes the county that makes you live under a bridge look sane by comparison.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
...this won't work? Or is that redundant because this is slashdot, and people here aren't idiots? I mean seriously, do these bureaucrats ACTUALLY believe sex offenders won't just make more accounts, or are they pretending to do something important(tm)?
My first reaction was that this is a grievous and unnecessary violation of privacy that would lead to nothing more than snooping by bored civil servants.
But FTFA:
"Staton said although the measure may violate the privacy of sex offenders, the need to protect children "outweighs a lot of the rights of these individuals."
So it's alright then...
I dreamed of Freud: What does this mean?
Remember what "Sex Offenders" means.
It means people who raped others, or abused others.
It means people who were accused of rape or abuse and couldn't defend themselves.
It means 23-year-olds who were caught sleeping with their 17-year-old boyfriend or girlfriend.
It means 18-year-olds who were caught sleeping with their 17-year-old boyfriend or girlfriend.
It means 17-year-olds who took photographs of themselves naked, to send to their 17-year-old boyfriend or girlfriend.
It means 17-year-olds whose 17-year-old boyfriend or girlfriend, unasked, took pictures of themselves naked and sent them.
It means people who were driving cross-country late at night, couldn't find a public bathroom, stopped off behind a bush at 3am in the morning, and were arrested for "public indecency".
Fall into any of the above categories? You're already shunned for life, and now, you'll have to turn over all the keys to your privacy to a bunch of government workers. But don't worry, I'm sure the well-paid honorable government employees wouldn't dream of breaching the privacy of a bunch of sex offenders.
That could never happen.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
What is the point of this? If the sex-offenders have already been caught and tried, then what does this prove? If they have already been sentenced, then any incriminating evidence is merely extra. If they haven't been tried, then can't they plead the "5th"? Finally, if this is to deter them from doing heinous acts in the future, then what is to stop them from opening another account?
To me, this smacks of government types trying to set a legal precedent for taking over peoples passwords, online identities, etc. Because it is the evil sex offenders, the public won't care. Then later the government can say: "But there is a precedent for taking passwords; its been done for a long time." Then the public shrugs and figures that if it has been going on for a while, then it can't be all that bad. And another personal liberty is thus erased.
Unity in Diversity
From the article:
The Internet isn't safe for children. That's why parents should do their job and know what their kids are doing online not using the government to create a nanny-state.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
If they're already a sex offender , then they've already been convicted, and presumably done whatever time/penance for their "crimes", right?
What if they just say "No." when asked for their passwords? What can happen? Is it a crime to deny someone the right to violate your rights now? Remember, criminals have rights, just like the rest of us. You can't just slap some "rider" on their crime and force compliance.
And more importantly, what would handing over those passwords do to protect the rights and privacy of those who have been "offended"?
If someone has already done their time and chooses to go online and join some knitting mailing lists or decides to take up scrapbooking (let's not forget that women are an equal, if not larger percentage of sex offenders, caught and convicted, not just men), does some government lackey then log into their email account "just to make sure" there's nothing incriminating in there? Do they log into all of the systems they have access to? I just don't see the point.
Nothing good can come of this.
Do the government lackeys change the password, locking out the original owner? Do they send emails on their behalf? I don't see the point of asking for this information, since it can provide ABSOLUTELY zero additional security to the "offended", nor can it stop a determined prior offender from creating a new identity and account.
This does nothing, except further erode our existing privacy and rights and sets a precedent that is impossible to undo, once ingrained. The government has proven themselves time and time again to be incapable of properly handling data in a secure way (losing emails, warrantless searches and wiretapping, etc.) that handing them this information would be downright stupid.
Seriously, " Just Say No ", and let them slap you with contempt or a fine, then fight that in court, instead of setting a precedent that erodes all of our rights; those who are not being convicted of any crimes.
I have access to systems that requires password access to, that I will NEVER give access to anyone from any government, especially if they say I "have to" give them the password. (But I've already made this clear before).
I was going to post pretty much the same thing. Ignoring kids using their parents' email accounts, the only reason anyone ever has for taking someone else's password is to pose as them. There is exactly zero valid reason for anyone to be forced to give up their passwords.
Perhaps more importantly, as soon as those registered sex offenders turn in their passwords, those accounts are effectively compromised. That means that from that point forward, they are free to sexually prey upon anyone online without any risk of successful prosecution. In effect, by requiring these people to give their passwords away to third parties, they are giving sexual predators a free pass to do pretty much anything they want online....
Wow. Two stories about state governments run by idiots on Slashdot today alone. That has to be some kind of record....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
1) Hand over passwords
2) Commit illegal online acts
3) Cite inevitable failure of state security audit as proof that your username/password can no longer be uniquely tied to you
4) Reasonable doubt acquittal
It's meant to be an excuse to toss people into jail when they slip up. It'll either be unenforced but used to toss someone in jail when the prosecutor has a bug up his ass over someone otherwise innocent, or be unevenly punished across racial/class/whatever strata.
Nearly the entirety of US law is built for this purpose.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
First problem: the fifth amendment. Second problem: ex post facto. This is imposing a new punishment after the crime was committed, so it can't apply to any current sex offenders.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The reasoning behind letting people out of prison is that they are sufficiently rehabilitated to once again live in society. When a prisoner walks out the doors, society's responsibility is to allow him a chance to reintegrate. You don't do that by alienating him and strapping a giant red warning light onto his back. That creates recidivism.
THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
THEN THEY CAME for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
-Martin NiemÃller
Your neighbour can use this lie because there ARE actually people to whom it happened.
"It wasn't me your honor. It must have been that government official to whom I gave my password."
If they surrender their screen name and their password, can someone else log in and pretend to be them while saying doing whatever? It seems like an unethical person could log in as one of these people and get them into a lot of trouble.
What's to prevent this sort of thing from being extended beyond sex offenders to include other types of crime, such as gangs, drugs, theft, etc? Before you know it, anybody convicted of anything is required to hand over everything. And then you accidentally cross the street when it says, "Don't Walk" and you're toast.
But why is it a sex offense if the people peeing in bushes are actually concealing their genitals from view?
It's _peeing_. What's wrong with the people who came up with such laws? What kind of perverts are they?
If the pee touches property they don't own, fine them for littering or illegal dumping of waste.
Say I wear adult diapers, and somehow people find out that I'm peeing, does that mean I could be considered a sex offender too?
So what's the difference if I hide my genitals using bushes and pee, and people spot me doing it but not my "privates"?
Heck, IMO those who peek at (or even expose) people who try to conceal their peeing, are more likely to be sex offenders than those doing the peeing.
In some states, if you are caught streaking and it "is possible" that a child saw you, it is grounds to be labeled a sex offender. Makes me wonder how far will we go to stop undesirable behavior?
"You have the right to remain silent - well, except for passwords..."
I'll post this A.C. because it is so clearly off-topic.
and yes, this planet belongs to me, and people like me - the people who uphold REASON.
On what are you basing that? I would like to consider myself among those whose opinions and actions are guided by reason, and in my estimation the planet does not belong to us. Not by any stretch. This planet belongs (for now) to the majority of our species who are ignorant, emotional, and stupid.
Entire continents are crippled by diseases that spread through the very mechanisms the populace employs to combat them. (Got HIV? Get cured by fucking a virgin!).
Our principal means of producing energy is the same one our proto-human ancestors came up with 800,000 years ago (burn something!) and is known to be adversely affecting the habitability of the planet.
A major cause of conflict between nations is the ongoing debate over what name should be given to the invisible wizard who lives in the sky.
We are not in charge, my friend. The 80 or 85 percent of our number who are irrational or unintelligent have control of this planet, and even they have only wrested it for themselves for a short time, geologically speaking. In truth, it belongs to the insects.
So by "one" you actually meant "lots and lots" in this case? Anyway, I'm sure that guy will be thrilled to know that at least he's one of only a few people who are totally screwed for no good reason.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"