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."

Comments

Constitutionality

[Jaysyn]

Yay Big Brother!

Seriously, if these people have done their time, leave them the fuck alone.

Re:Constitutionality

[BSAtHome]

Equality under the law is a Gaussian distribution from law offenders of a kind to law offenders of another kind. A bit like 2+2=5 for large values of 2. Some people are always a bit more equal than others.

Re:Constitutionality

[Firehed]

"Sex Offender" != "Child Molester" (!= "Pedophile" for that matter, not that it's relevant)

You can get tagged as the former for getting caught urinating in public in some places. Yeah, I'm fine with banning child molesters from social networks and forcing at least a reasonable degree of transparency in their online activity (I can see no reason they'd have to give up their banking passwords, etc.), but do you think it's fair that someone who got cited for doing something stupid after having a bit too much to drink would have no online privacy, period? Because if so, please get the fuck out of my country.

Re:Constitutionality

[Anthony_Cargile]

Scratch that, not every sex offender necessarily looked at kiddie porn - my ignorant mistake. What actually made me remember was a neighbor that moved in a while back that had to do the door-to-door signature thing, and when I asked him what he did he said he got caught pissing in the bushes by the wrong cop back when he was in his twenties, and now he's registered for life.

Its kind of sad for those situations really, because for one I didn't even know you could get registered for that, and now that poor guy who probably just had to pee really bad now has to get sigs and (if he lives in Georgia) hand over his internet passwords. Pissing in the bushes apparently lands you on the same level of shame as Gary Glitter these days.

Re:Constitutionality

[Kibblet]

YEah, my neighsbor said he pissed in public and got arrested and put on the list. LAter on I found he sexually assaulted a 14 year old -- after he was picked up again for assaulting a 16 year old. But hey, yeah, he "pissed on a bush". I can understand not trusting the government, but that doesn't mean that you can trust the criminal, either. Don't let your hate for the government mean your common sense goes out the window.

Re:Constitutionality

[Darkness404]

Look, like other posters have pointed out Sex Offender != Child Molester != Pedophile. The main problem is, someone who did something stupid once (like deciding to pee on a tree rather than indoors) that didn't harm anyone but just managed to make the wrong cop mad, gets stuck on the same list as the guy who raped 10 kids. What we really need is a ranking of things.

Level 1 is small things like indecent exposure, etc. Which has 6 months of tracking and then its wiped off your record.

Level 2 is small things that are considered to be morally bad but did not harm anyone such as child pornography. Which has 2 years of tracking and is not wiped off your record but would not be publicly listed.

Level 3 are things in which people were harmed, but the offender has made positive steps towards rehabilitation. This has 15 years of tracking and is not wiped off your record. Such people would be publicly listed and for the 15 years might have to give online info.

Level 4 are things in which people were harmed and no or little steps were made towards rehabilitation. This has life tracking and is not wiped off your record. They would be publicly listed and would have to give out info. This could be lowered down to level 3 after 5 years if positive steps towards rehabilitation were taken.

Our current system makes people who have had minor, trivial offenses equivalent to those who have raped children which is about the same as punishing someone who stole $25 worth of goods to a guy who killed 3 people.

Re:Constitutionality

[magarity]

and when I asked him what he did he said he got caught pissing in the bushes by the wrong cop back when he was in his twenties
 
Just getting arrested doesn't mean he has to be on the sex offender list - he had to also get charged by the wrong DA and sentenced by the wrong judge. And all this time he hasn't written to the governor for a pardon? If the arrest record DOES show '~20 yro pissing in bushes while drunk in view of underage passersby' then the gov would probably take pity. With all the registration whatnot he has to go through you can probably verify his story. If you feel sorry for him and his story is true you can write to the governor yourself in support of his pardon request.

Re:Constitutionality

[nightfire-unique]

Yeah, I'm fine with banning child molesters from social networks and forcing at least a reasonable degree of transparency in their online activity

No, NO, NO.

These are the little cracks facists drive a wedge into. You may be well intentioned, but not everyone is as well-intentioned as you.

The constitution is not just a silly piece of paper.

If the convict has served his time, his name must be cleared. For every crime. Always. Without condition.

If he is still perceived as a danger to the public, then someone fucked up. He should have been sentenced more time in jail, or should not have been released on parole.

Any attempts to punish a person after they have served their sentence are unconstitutional and petty facism, masquerading under the sick guise of morality.

Re:Constitutionality

[nightfire-unique]

Scratch that, not every sex offender necessarily looked at kiddie porn - my ignorant mistake. What actually made me remember was a neighbor that moved in a while back that had to do the door-to-door signature thing, and when I asked him what he did he said he got caught pissing in the bushes by the wrong cop back when he was in his twenties, and now he's registered for life.

Its kind of sad for those situations really, because for one I didn't even know you could get registered for that, and now that poor guy who probably just had to pee really bad now has to get sigs and (if he lives in Georgia) hand over his internet passwords. Pissing in the bushes apparently lands you on the same level of shame as Gary Glitter these days.

Kind of sad? Kind of sad is when your hampster dies. How about it's a travesty, and an unconstitutional abuse of the justice system?

Let's not mince words here.

Re:Constitutionality

[Aranykai]

I believe the point of the whole idea is that the monitoring/tracking is part of their sentence.

Re:Constitutionality

[websitebroke]

Um, your example for level 2 seems a bit off. The kids featured in child pornography are definitely harmed.

Re:Constitutionality

[MillionthMonkey]

I'm reminded of that teenage girl who sent a naked cellphone shot of herself to her friends and now has to register as a sex offender for life.

Re:Constitutionality

[Darkness404]

They have a name for this "system" you speak of. It is called tyranny. We fought a war to get rid of the English tyranny.

After fighting the American revolution our country created a supreme law of the land, called the constitution. Through amendments to it, we now have rights that our founding fathers thought that everyone was entitled to. Among these include the right to be protected from "unreasonable searches" no matter who it is. Guess what, Hitler used same tactics to convince the German people to go along with his fascist rule. He took a group that was unpopular (Jews) and took away their rights, then he took away rights of other people till he took away the rights of everyone else.

The American people are are just like the German people, because of their hatred for sex offenders they are willing to let the constitution and all freedoms to be lost for everyone.

Re:Constitutionality

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Usually these things are applied retroactively. As in there is so such law on the books when the guy commits the crime, there is no such law on the books when the guy is convicted and sentenced and no such law when he is released. But then some politician bent on proving that he is tough on crime decides to write a new law and apply it retroactively to anyone classified as a sex offender.

Imagine if they did that to people for other types of crimes. Former jay-walker? Not allowed within 50 feet of a street intersection.

Re:Constitutionality

[kimvette]

You can get tagged as the former for getting caught urinating in public in some places.

That's ridiculous; it's a natural function and when you have to go, you have to go. It shouldn't be a crime. The worst I could see is charging someone with littering or vandalism if it's in the middle of a lawn or sidewalk. Now, I don't want to see all you guys taking a whiz out in the city streets, but if you duck behind a bush, who the hell cares? It's NOT exposure, let alone indecent exposure, and certainly isn't sexual harassment.

If you're a holy roller bent on extinguishing any glimpse of human genitalia from public view, then maybe you might want to consider who designed the human body to excrete waste fluids and eliminate waste. Blame God, if you think it's so evil.

I'd have a problem with people taking a dump out in the middle of a street, but geez, if someone uses a little discretion and takes effort to find some privacy, what's the big deal? I grew up in a rural area and when I was growing up, if we were working out in the garden or whatever, if my dad had to go, he went, out in the middle of the field. He'd just turn his back to us and take a whiz or whatever.

It's nature. It's natural. Just deal widdit already and get over yourselves.

I find it insane that you can land on a sex offender list for taking a whiz outside. It's bullshit, plain and simple.

That actually happened to my friend's dad. He eventually fought it and got off the lists, but it was a long and expensive fight (this IS massachusetts after all) --- and he should have never been on the list in the first place. When you have to pee, you have to pee. If you have a problem with seeing someone peeing behind a bush, maybe you should start minding your own business and not be a peeping tom? :)

Re:Constitutionality

[jythie]

DAs and Judges both have an incentive to convict people. DAs get promotions and office based off their conviction rate and judges tend not to be re-elected if they are not 'tough on crime'.
 
It is pretty easy to 'get the wrong DA and Judge' because the system encourages them to be wrong. They both have a financial incentive to behave that way... esp if they get to mark up the number of 'sex offenders' they can claim to have put away. People don't look to hard at the details.
 
The governor even more so. Parden a convicted sex offender? But only child molesters are sex offenders! Front page news while the details saying the guy only pissed in the bushes might make the 7th page in a little correction bubble. Meanwhile the political damage has already been done.. so the governor has NO incentive to help the guy.

Unfortunately, there is little to no incentive for the inverse behavior.

Re:Constitutionality

[b4upoo]

I am for doing things that work. This registration of sex offenders does very little good at all and it seems to keep people in a more dangerous state of mind as they simply can not get jobs or find places to live outside of prison. The game is sort of loaded against them to the point that they might as well commit crimes as theirs lives are a misery anyway.
          As a matter of fact the entire criminal justice system is a failure. Regardless of the crime we need to decide which types of offenders can be set right and which probably can not and apply intense rehabilitation to people who can be helped while keeping others permanently in prison.

Re:Constitutionality

[0100010001010011]

IN some states, the age of consent and child porn statutes have the same age limits.

For instance, a quick read of NV law shows the AOC to be 16. Child porn is defined as sexually explicit blah blah blah involving a person under 16. Federal law makes it a crime with a person under 18, but there may be some state line/interstate commerce nexus that needs to be fulfilled.

I didn't feel like looking at too many states, but found this same AOC/CP thing with NH-16/16.

Many states forbid distributing/exhibiting obscenity to people under 18, regardless of their AOC/CP statutes.

SO, excluding the feds, it's not a crime to have sex with a 16 year old or film it. But, she can't watch the tape afterwards. It's a crime to allow her 16 year old friend to watch the act as it occurs, but not a crime to have her join. Neither of them can smoke a cigarette or have a beer afterwards. If either one were to rob,beat,kill one of their fellow particpants, they would be tried as an adult in every state in the country.

-- Stolen from a Fark Thread.

Re:Constitutionality

[Anonymous Coward]

So, just like all the other retarded "patriotic" Americans. Where does it stop. Do you think if you give the Government an inch (Sex Offenders) they will stop at that. Fuck no, they will move on to anything else they see as "offensive" to whatever lobbying group gives the most money and puts on the most pressure. You fucktards never look at the bigger picture because you are too busy sadistically looking to punish someone for something. The fact is Sex Offenders of all kinds are usually grouped together as one hated group and it is such an easy issue to get dumbass Americans like yourself incited it keeps the current generation of privileged career politicians elected. So go ahead, let the Government select a demographic to punish unconstitutionally because before you know it, it will be be whatever demographic poses a political or social threat. I'd also charge that it is a very interesting thing that people like yourself get off so hard on social justice that you would leak it into the realms of the criminal justice system. If sex offenders commit a harsh crime, put them away longer, don't lock them up, set them free, then take away their civil liberties because of the next generation of drool faced retards might be in danger thanks to the hysteria of the media and coin-op reelectables.

Re:Constitutionality

[stonecypher]

They have a name for this "system" you speak of. It is called tyranny.

All amusing melodrama aside, tyranny is a form of Greek government under which a single person makes all decisions. This law was voted into place by the public before we switched to representative government, and has been validated by thousands of judges and tens of thousands of independant juries. There are very few examples in modern or ancient history of a law more thoroughly vetted and inspected than the public than this one (the death penalty and abortion come to mind, but there aren't that many others.)

You just could not be wronger here.

We fought a war to get rid of the English tyranny.

The English weren't a tyranny when we were subject to them, nor was their treatment of us tyrannical. Typically people misuse "fascist" in a fashion like this; it's quite refreshing to see something else be bandied about cluelessly, if only briefly. A personal favor: could you try falwellianism? That's another mode of government which most people don't actually know about, but it's more obscure, and I want to see if this baseless vitriol and random namedropping without regard for actual logical basis works when it's attached to a word that stupid people don't equate with "evil".

Through amendments to it, we now have rights that our founding fathers thought that everyone was entitled to.

... except felons. You should try reading the document you talk about. People have a right to liberties regardless of their identity, but not regardless of their actions or history. You can't be denied your rights because of your race, your gender, your religion, but you sure as hell can for sticking it in some kid's butt.

Guess what, Hitler used same tactics

No, he didn't. Godwin isn't spoken here.

German people to go along with his fascist rule

Hitler was totalitarian. Mussolini was the fascist. There's a pretty big difference.

He took a group that was unpopular (Jews) and took away their rights

God, dude, do you even think before you speak? Rapists aren't an ethnic group. Rapists are rapists because they chose to rape. There is absolutely no parallel between stripping an ethnic group of their rights then killing them and between forcing sexual predators to expose their communications.

A smarter person would be embarrassed to say something like that. If you have a Jewish friend, ask them their opinion of the comparison you just made.

The American people are are just like the German people, because of their hatred for sex offenders they are willing to let the constitution and all freedoms to be lost for everyone.

Yeah, we're Nazis because we ignore a part of the constitution that isn't actually there, and making sex offenders give up their passwords is very similar to murdering six and a half million people.

You, sir, are a debating genius. I won't be reading your next reply, but given what I've read in what you wrote, I suspect that won't stop you from writing it; it's quite clear that you're looking for a soapbox to preach from, and that you haven't at all thought through the text coming from your pulpit.

I'm amazed that you believe tracking rapists equates to the holocaust. Seriously, this is a new low from a Slashdotter from what I've read, and I've been here almost 12 years. That's really the most appalling comparison I've read on the internet in a year or more, and that includes IRC.

Rapists are Jews in Nazi Germany. Dude, if you aren't part of this "oppressed minority", I can't imagine why you think this way. I really hope the people you know in real life don't know who you are on Slashdot.

Re:Constitutionality

[gknoy]

I realize it's not really fashionable, but I'd like to address some things you wrote, as i do not agree with them. (:

[T]yranny is a form of Greek government under which a single person makes all decisions. This law was voted into place by the public before we switched to representative government, and has been validated by thousands of judges and tens of thousands of independant juries.... The English weren't a tyranny when we were subject to them, nor was their treatment of us tyrannical.

The founding fathers of the US, when they declared their independence, would disagree that England wasn't a tyranny. The Declaration of Independence says, "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world." Yes, absolute tyranny, which for the colonies in America was the way the King's rule was seen. I won't touch the origins of sex offender laws, though I believe they do not (in general) predate the US Constitution. Even if they had, many other unjust laws have predated the Constitution. Age is no basis for holding to a law.

Granted, I don't think a law like this is a good example of tyranny... but it sets precedent which makes tyrannical practices more publically accepted.

People have a right to liberties regardless of their identity, but not regardless of their actions or history. You can't be denied your rights because of your race, your gender, your religion, but you sure as hell can for sticking it in some kid's butt.

Felons, in the US, cannot vote, can't hold public office or posses/buy firearms, and some other things. NOWHERE does the Constitution say that felons lose the other rights that all people have -- protection against unreasonable search, etc. More importantly, punishment should be just.

Sex offender lists are more than "these are felons convicted of sex crimes". Peeing in public is, as far as I know, not a felony -- but CAN land you on the list. Moreover ... what's the point of letting people out of prison, if we don't feel that they've served their time? Whether you believe prison should be about punishment or rehabilitation, I believe it's reprehensible to feel that criminals should be permanently persecuted for past mistakes. Prison is the punishment, or fines for non-felonies. A lifetime of shunning? Please. I thought we moved past that Puritan practice of branding adulterers and other criminals for life. (I know, it wasn't just the Puritans.)

Hitler used same tactics

No, he didn't. Godwin isn't spoken here.

German people to go along with his fascist rule

Hitler was totalitarian. Mussolini was the fascist. There's a pretty big difference.

Hitler's political leanings are immaterial to the tactics he used. The tactics which the GP is referring to is the gradual taking away of rights of people that aren't popular. Sex offenders are a perfect example of social pariahs: No one wants to be the one to say, "Hey wait, these men and women still have rights"; no one wants to say, "Perhaps this is a too-extreme punishment" for some of them (I refer to public urinators, not to rapists). As someone else said, no politician will ever help them, or back down, because they will be branded as "soft on pedophiles".

Sex offenders are not a racial group... but the parent poster never said that they were. He merely said that they were an unpopular group.

Yeah, we're Nazis because we ignore a part of the constitution that isn't actually there, and making sex offenders give up their passwords is very similar to murdering six and a half million people.

WRONG. You're setting up a straw man argument. Americans are similar

Re:Constitutionality

[hahafaha]

I have to say, you missed the grandfather's point completely. I personally agree that comparing rapists and Jews is stretching it more than somewhat (I am ethnically Jewish, for the record, not that that's especially relevant) but that's all it is -- a bit stretching it. His point was that this is still unconstitutional and a slippery slope. Just because something is democratically decided doesn't make it constitutional. This is, IMHO (and IANAL, etc.) a clear violation of fourth amendment privacy rights, and a dangerous one at that.

What's really quite disturbing about all this is that it hardly stops the problem. Think about it -- what are some of the most "questionable" places on the Internet? IRC and 4chan come to mind as the top examples, and neither require passwords (for the most part). Besides, how are you supposed to know _which_ passwords to hand over? The court won't know about that password you set on your handle on Freenode and they're likely not going to know what to do with it if they had it ("There's no form! Oh noes!"). If these people still pose danger to society, then you should imprison them. All this will accomplish is give the government an easier way of oppressing people.

In a truly free country, all have to be protected, even child molesters (note, by the way, that the main discussion concerns "sex offenders" which is hardly the same thing). The problem is that we have a representative democracy and so the senator that's going to stand up for them is going to get his carreer ruined. With something as delicate as this, it might just be some guy who looked a girl the wrong way.

Re:Constitutionality

[mweather]

The Bill of Rights doesn't grant you a single right. Every enumerated right existed prior to it's ratification.

Re:Constitutionality

[stonecypher]

The founding fathers of the US, when they declared their independence, would disagree that England wasn't a tyranny. The Declaration of Independence says, "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world." Yes, absolute tyranny, which for the colonies in America was the way the King's rule was seen.

I would remind you of John Adams' strenuous disagreement with this terminology, which he felt was chosen by Franklin and Jefferson to incite feelings of rage, rather than to reflect accuracy - indeed the very grounds on which I objected to the use of the term. Please remember that the soverignity that America was seeking was against the laws of Parliament, not of the King; particularly the Stamp Act and the Townshend Act. The phrase "no taxation without representation" doesn't make sense in an actual tyranny, and of course, that was the rebelling pretext: that America should be represented in Parliament if Parliamentary law was to apply to them. Indeed, the very concept of representation cannot, by definition, exist under a tyranny.

It is critical in understanding the works of our founding fathers to remember who Benjamin Franklin was: in every sense a pulpit liar, and a damned good one. He made not one but several careers from spinning things with a sort of careful carelessness, allowing his flair for writing to spill over his accuracy in speech. It is a minefield to attempt to take Franklin's writing literally. This propensity for flair over substance was the crux of Franklin's division with Adams (and indeed also between Adams and his cousin Sam, who with Jefferson and James Wilson ran slipshod over using the King as a focus for their rebellion against the acts of Parliament).

I appreciate that you're working from source material; that's new and refreshing in this discussion. I entreat you to resolve one riddle: how can someone be represented in a tyranny? Alternately, how am I misunderstanding the Parliamentary debacle regarding juxtaposed representation by proxy through Crown citizens?

I mean, really, it's important to remember that America's founding fathers tried to be a voting part of the British empire, when you discuss their views of the British governmental system. If it was a tyranny, there would be no Parliament to be a part of.

People have, for thousands of years, misappropriated the word "tyranny" to create an emotional reaction in their audience. I hope you'll resist the urge; simply citing Ben Franklin doing the same thing that grandparent poster did doesn't actually show the founding fathers believing in a fantastically inaccurate view of the British government. The British king was not an absolute monarch, and had not been for several hundred years. The founding fathers were perfectly aware of the Magna Carta. Please be serious.

I won't touch the origins of sex offender laws

That's unfortunate, since it's the immediate context of the things I said, and distancing yourself from that does damage to the legitimacy of your arguments.

Hitler's political leanings are immaterial to the tactics he used.

You're quoting two disconnected issues and treating them as related. That's problematic.

The tactics which the GP is referring to is the gradual taking away of rights of people that aren't popular.

Yeah, that's exactly my point. Sex offenders aren't being punished because they're unpopular. You might as well suggest that murders are being persecuted for being unpopular. I immediately and candidly disagree with this viewpoint. This isn't a popularity contest. It never has been. This is a question of people who go out and hurt other people being kept in check.

The equivalent argument in a mo

Re:Constitutionality

[TheSpoom]

The thing is that the group that needs to be kept permanently in prison is likely so small that they're practically infinitesimal. Likely this group consists mostly of people who should be institutionalized rather than kept behind bars without further specialization.

If you've seen the deleted scene of Norway from Sicko, you'll know what I'm talking about.

Unfortunately the US prison system especially seems more concerned with punishing than rehabilitating. This is, again, likely due to politics, because voters like seeing images of "hardened criminals" behind bars. The problem is that these criminals, while some may be genuinely evil people, are also human. Treating them as a separate group, a form of "the other", just sweeps a group of people under the rug.

And frankly, the idea of leaving a group of people to rot just makes me sad.

Re:Constitutionality

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering the prisons."
~ Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Can I be the first to say...

[DreamsAreOkToo]

...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)?

Re:Can I be the first to say...

[QuantumG]

this is slashdot, and people here aren't idiots

You must be new here.

Re:Can I be the first to say...

[Ethanol-fueled]

No, I'm new here!

Oh, shit. Wrong account...

Re:Can I be the first to say...

[hairyfeet]

Not only that, but they keep changing the damned rules so much we can pretty much all be called "sex offenders". It used to be there was no such things as "sex offender"-there was rapist, and there was child molester. And that worked pretty well but it just wasn't Big brother enough for the "Save teh childrenz!" types. Of course those damned save the childrens types always seem to forget that a good 80%+ of all child molestation is done by RELATIVES and NOT the evil boogie man hiding in the Internet tubes. So as others have pointed out if you are 17 and get a BJ from your 15 year old GF you are a "sex offender", you piss on a bush in some states you are now a "sex offender", and as we saw on Slashdot yesterday if you look at ANY hentai, or if your friend sends you a lame ass dirty Simpsons cartoon, well guess what? You are now a "sex offender" too!

This is nothing but a big brother style power grab, nothing more. it quite being about protecting kids when they replaced rapist and child molester with their nice blanket term of "sex offender" which it is quickly becoming apparent can mean ANY damned thing. Did you scratch your balls in public? Sex offender! This crap passed insane a few exits back IMO and we have gone into full blown Mccarthy style witch hunting. It frankly disgusts me as an American that we have fallen so far. If this keeps up there won't be any freedoms left at all, they will just run up the "sex offender" or "terrorist" flag every time they want to take something else from us.

And the worst part is as long as there aren't people publicly fighting against this BS the public will go right along with it and dance themselves right into a police state. And as this thread has proven, as long as you say it is for those eveil "sex offenders" there are way too many that will happily sign our freedoms away. Just fucking sad.

Re:Can I be the first to say...

[pitchpipe]

this is slashdot, and people here aren't idiots

You must be new here.

I'm an idiot, you insensitive clod!

I'm an insensitive clod, you idiot!

First Reaction

[notseamus]

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...

Re:First Reaction

[Aladrin]

I die a little inside every time someone says something is more important that the rights set down in our earliest documents. You know, the ones we wrote in response to England's tyranny. I can't believe anyone could actually believe something like that while living in this country.

Re:First Reaction

[The Master Control P]

If you're going to strip people of their rights, start with a group/groups that everyone hate(s). Then anyone protesting is clearly pro-[group everyone hates] so they are untrustworthy and suspect themselves. Works for anti-west terrorists. Worked for Bush. Worked for Pol Pot. Worked for McCarthy. Worked for Hitler. Worked for Stalin.

So, why do you want to help rapists, notseamus?

Re:First Reaction

[SLi]

To me it's a sign of hope that some people living in the US question some of the things written in the Constitution.

While I agree that in this case the law is bad, I very much despise blind trust in any document (a piece of paper if you will) written by humans. The Founding Fathers were exceptionally wise men, but far from the gods many Americans make them.

Besides, you know, the Constitution has been amended a large number of times too.

Please, just stop worshipping the Constitution blindly. I guess it comes from the American education. Don't they teach critical thinking there at all?

Re:First Reaction

[Arthur Grumbine]

Besides, you know, the Constitution has been amended a large number of times too.

Please, just stop worshipping the Constitution blindly. I guess it comes from the American education. Don't they teach critical thinking there at all?

Do you realize that the foundation for the explicit right to privacy is actually an amendment, itself? Specifically, the 4th.

Terminology

[ZorbaTHut]

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.

Re:Terminology

[lamapper]

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.

You hit the nail on the head here. Anyone who molests a baby and/or child, IMO, you can shoot them and society would be better off. The problem is the definition of child. At 15 with my 18 year old girl friend, leave me alone. And at 16 with her 19, again, leave me alone....etc, etc...

Many would have arrested my girlfriend, simply because she was 18, never mind that we started dating when I first turned 15 and she was already 17 and did not have sex until just shy of a year later. (For those of you who think she should have been arrested, this is why I never told anyone and I would certainly not have told you! If I were your child, you have obviously lost the war even if you win that battle as you have lost my trust and I would NEVER talk to you again about anything...as soon as I was 18 I would have left you cold and never looked back!)

These issues are hardly black and white, and too many conservatives have a problem with the gray areas. I do not and my preference for judges are those that use the brain they have and apply the law appropriately to the situation. Mandatory sentencing is simply wrong.

So for me, 15 is old enough if the person you are having sex with is in your peer group, however, 14 is not. That is my arbitrary cross to bear. And this runs against laws in at least two states where a person can be married younger than 15. That magic word "marriage" and morality is somehow placated...please.

As usual, the devil is in the details and one persons hell is another person's heaven.

Personally I think people need to stay out of other peoples business as long as another person is NOT being harmed.

Can we legislate morality, sure we can, the intelligent question is should we? I think not.

P.S. Do NOT get me started about the teenager who lied to me, told me she was 18, when I was 21, I believed her. We dated for over a month before something she said simply did not add up and I finally got her the truth out of her, that she was 15. I had no choice but to drop her like a hot potato due to her age alone, however I did NOT like the fact that it hurt her. Thank goodness I was not one to rush into sex at that stage of my life or I might have ended up in a compromising position. The whole month I was in her home, she was in my home, never saw her parents who traveled and obviously trusted her enough to leave her on her own. Another reason I assumed she was 18, her parents were in Europe and she was in the US on her own.

I feel very sorry for the people who get lied to as I did, have sex with someone that is under the age of consent for their state, say 15 or 16; the parents find out and press charges. As a 17 year old teenager to get saddled with the label sex offender and have it follow you forever is simply pathetic and should NEVE

what is the point?

[a302b]

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.

i am on not on Sex Offenders side

[arbiter1]

i think this violates the 5th amendment in my view, cause you are givin' up information stored in your head up to be used against you.

Choice quote from the article

[Matt Perry]

From the article:

State Sen. Cecil Staton, who wrote the bill, said the measure is designed to keep the Internet safe for children.

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.

Re:Choice quote from the article

[snowgirl]

From the article:

State Sen. Cecil Staton, who wrote the bill, said the measure is designed to keep the Internet safe for children.

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.

The WHOLE WORLD isn't safe for children. People need to get out of this Disney fantasy world...

Unconstitutional?

[diewlasing]

Didn't a federal court in Vermont recently rule that even child pornographers didn't have to turn over their passwords on the grounds that they might incriminate themselves?

I have a question...

[hacker]

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"?

• Does having a sex offender's password protect another child from harm? No .
• Does having a sex offender's password stop them from opening up a new account? No .
• Does having a sex offender's password reduce their own right to privacy, as well as everyone else's privacy? YES .

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).

Re:Nice.

[dgatwood]

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....

This says it all...

[suprcvic]

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

Re:BRILLIANT!

[afidel]

It wasn't even penetration, he got a BJ from a girl a few weeks on the wrong side of a magical line and for that and being black he had his life messed up. He spent 2 YEARS in jail before the Georgia Supreme Court tuled that a 10 year sentence was cruel and unusual ("grossly disproportionate") linky. Luckily that particular law got changed to a misdemeanor with no registration requirement due to the public outcry over his case, but there are still literally thousands of bad laws on the books which can land you on lists and with crazy out of whack sentences all due "But think of the children" pandering from politicians and suburban housewives.

See what happens here

[Nicolas MONNET]

Your neighbour can use this lie because there ARE actually people to whom it happened.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

You are kidding right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just getting arrested doesn't mean he has to be on the sex offender list - he had to also get charged by the wrong DA and sentenced by the wrong judge. And all this time he hasn't written to the governor for a pardon?

Sex offenders don't generally get pardons, no matter how silly the offense is. The reason is that no politician wants to be the one who has attack ads about them pardoning sex offenders.

Re:You are kidding right?

[Lendrick]

* Cue creepy music and desaturated photo of current governor looking sneaky.

"Governor so-and-so is soft on crime. He's so soft on crime that he pardons sex offenders. Also, he hats old people and puppies. Vote for Other Dude, who we know is tough on crime because when he was DA he sent some kid to jail for 8 years for shoplifting a pack of gum.

"I'm Other Dude, and I approve this message."