NY - Sex offenders challenge Suffolk law

Original Article

See the video at the link above. The videos below are from older articles.

05/20/2013

WOODBURY - Two registered sex offenders are challenging a Suffolk law that calls for closely watching the online activity of convicted offenders.

The Community Protection Act (PDF) allows Parents for Megan's Law to act for police by monitoring offenders' online activity.

According to Newsday, offenders say the law violates their civil rights.

See Also:

• 2 sex offenders challenging Suffolk law (Subscription required)
• New sex offender monitoring law approved by county legislature
• Letter: Don't hire victims group to police
• USA FAIR Demands Laura Ahearn of Parents for Megan's Law Retract NAMBLA Smear

Video Link


Video Link

---

OK - Federal Ruling Could Change Restrictions for Oklahoma Sex Offenders

Original Article (Video Available)

05/12/2013

By Mark Taylor

A recent ruling in Federal Court could change the way sex offenders are punished. The May 8th ruling decided in favor of the defendant, [name withheld], who was convicted back in 1994 of lewd acts in Illinois. [name withheld] challenged his probationary restrictions that barred him from internet use and won, "He was saying, I shouldn't have to do all of these things," Fox 25 Legal analyst David Slane said. "I think it's the first step in what may be a trend," added Slane. Right now sex offenders are often given blanket restrictions and rules on where they can live, work and spend time. Slane believes this may soon change, so that the punishment will fit the crime, "If a sex offender did not do something related to the internet for example, you're probably not going to be able to restrict his access to the internet," Slane added, "The courts seem to be saying, in the future, there needs to be a connection between the two, or they are not going to be able to restrict his (or her) access." Slane said this is only applies in federal cases, but unless the Supreme court overturns it, it may soon spread to lower courts.

---

MO - Editorial: Time to retool sex offender registry

Original Article

04/02/2013

Replacing Missouri’s punitive and catch-all sex offender registry with a more selective list is the right way for the state to go in addressing a serious problem.

Two bills (HB-462, HB-589) that are working their way through the Missouri Legislature seek to replace the current registry, which does not give offenders in most cases an opportunity to be taken off it, with registries that would ultimately give many offenders on the list that chance.

One of the problems with the current registry is that it does not discriminate among the types of offenses that result in a person being scarred for life with the sex offender tag.

As a result, it diminishes public perception of the severity of the crimes committed by serious offenders by lumping them in with people who have committed less severe crimes.

One example of lesser crimes is the so-called “Romeo and Juliet” offender, which generally refers to older teenagers who had consensual sex with a minor, usually a younger teen. The Missouri Highway Patrol, which manages the sex offender registry, has calculated that about 631 people would immediately be removed from the list if one of the bills, sponsored by Rep. Don Phillips, R-Kimberling City, was signed into law.

The sex offender registry is not intended to be a blotch forever on the reputations of such people. The point of the registry is to allow government authorities — and citizens — to keep track of the residence and activities of sex offenders, including those who have completed their criminal sentences, to make it more difficult for them to repeat their crimes.
- But statistics already show that ex-sex offenders already have a very low re-offense rate and are not likely to commit another related crime, if you'd look, and the online registry is nothing more than an online hit-list for vigilantes to use to target for harassment ex-offenders, their families and even innocent people, which many examples can be seen here.

Video Link

The information on the registry is available to the general public via a website maintained by the Highway Patrol. It includes the offender’s current address, place of employment, type of vehicle registered to him (an overwhelming number of offenders are hims) and the person’s criminal history.

Critics say the registry net is cast too wide, and they advocate the scalpel rather than the meat ax approach. Being listed on the registry can ruin people’s lives, making it difficult for them to get jobs, more likely to be harassed by neighbors and co-workers or to be targeted by law enforcement authorities.

An academic in the field, Wayne Logan, a professor at Florida State University law school, says there isn’t even agreement about whether registries serve as the deterrents they are intended to be.

Mr. Logan, who also has written a book about criminal registries and notification laws, was quoted in a front-page story in Monday’s Post-Dispatch by reporters Virginia Young and Stephen Deere. He said a recent study shows that while registries can serve as a deterrent, they can also promote recidivism by making life too difficult for the offender.

“They can never get out from that shadow,” Mr. Logan said.

The registry can be used to subject listed offenders to housing restrictions and parole or probation restrictions that don’t apply to others, such as being in the presence of minors, living in proximity to schools or day care centers, owning objects of interest to minors or use of the Internet.

Another reason to retool the registry is the cost of maintaining it.

Mr. Phillips, a retired highway patrolman, said his bill would keep minor offenders off the registry and would allow nearly a third of about 14,000 people currently on it to petition for removal within 20 years.

His bill has support from the Missouri Sheriffs Association, the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri and Missouri Kids First, a statewide organization that works to prevent child abuse.

County sheriffs who support the bill say they have limited resources to track the growing list of offenders and that by cutting back on the number of those on the list, they would be better able to concentrate on dangerous offenders.

The other bill that also has made it out of the House Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee is sponsored by Rep. Dave Hinson, R-St. Clair. While it shares some of the same ideas for redesigning the registry, it is more far-reaching and would give all offenders a chance to petition for removal.

It also would require mental health exams and be too expensive to administer. Mr. Phillips’ bill, HB462, is the better approach.

While there seems to be legislative consensus that the sex offender registry needs work, the method of getting there has not yet been determined. With the state’s criminal code also in need of reform for many of the same reasons, it’s heartening to see that the Legislature realizes the blunt approach to crime isn’t always the best approach.

See Also:

• Missouri considering changing its sex offender registry rules

---

How to Commit Internet Suicide and Disappear from the Web Forever

Sick of horribly embarrassing things showing up when potential employers Google your name? Tired of everyone knowing you live in a garden level dungeon apartment? Perhaps you just don't like the fact the internet makes you easy to find. Thankfully, it's not that hard to delete yourself entirely. Here's how to do it.

For mildly famous (or infamous) individuals, disappearing is essentially impossible, but for the average person it's surprisingly easy. It just depends on much info is already out there.

Click the image to read the article

---

Canada kills controversial internet surveillance bill, US should follow suit

Original Article

Now the USA needs to follow suit, and stop trampling on peoples privacy, freedom of speech, and other constitutional issues, but, the US government doesn't care what the American people think.

02/12/2013

The Conservative Canadian government is abandoning its much-criticized internet surveillance bill, which would have allowed the government to keep tabs on its citizens and was disguised under the cloak of fighting child pornographers.
- Any time the government wants to pass a bill to "protect the children," you'd better read the bill, because you can almost always guarantee that it will affect you.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced that Bill C-30, which caused public ire over privacy, is dead.

“We’ve listened to the concerns of Canadians,” Nicholson told reporters. “We will not be proceeding with Bill C-30 … including the warrantless mandatory disclosure of basic subscriber information, or the requirement for telecommunications service providers to build intercept capabilities within their systems”.

Bill C-30 or otherwise known as the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act was introduced in Parliament less than a year ago, and it was presented as a choice that Canadians must make: to either support the bill or be on the side of child pornographers.
- It's called "For the children politics," and has been used by America and others for many years, and needs to stop, things are not always black or white!

"He can either stand with us or stand with the child pornographers," argued Public Safety Minister Vic Toews in Parliament while attacking the opposition last February.

This comment led to public outrage, raising privacy concerns across the nation.

What made the legislation dangerous was that it forced Internet service providers to have systems that allowed police to intercept and track online communications.

Also, it would have permitted authorities to have warrantless access to Internet subscriber information, including name, address, telephone number, email address and Internet protocol address.

But, activists viewed the proposed bill as a huge infringement on privacy.

“This is a great day,” critic of the bill, Ontario Privacy Commissioner Ann Couvukian told The Globe and Mail, “This is a victory for privacy and for freedom.”

International hacktivist movement Anonymous also hailed the killing of the bill.

The killing of the bill in Canada is a major win for Canadians supporting privacy and internet freedom.

But, the battle over internet surveillance and wiretapping continues inside the country, with Bill C-12 still remaining before Parliament and if passed it would allow Internet service providers, email hosts and social media sites to voluntarily share personal information about their clients with the police.

Also, as was announced on Monday, Canadian authorities will be permitted to tap people’s phones without warrants in emergency circumstances or imminent harm such as in bombings or kidnappings.

Nicholson said that under the new guidelines, people whose phones were tapped in emergency situations would be notified within 90 days.

US’ similar privacy concerns still stand

The US is facing similar privacy debacle with the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).

The bill is supposed to help the US government investigate cyber threats and ensure the security of networks against cyber attack.

Opponents say it would allow companies to hand over a user’s private browsing information to the government, allowing authorities to spy on American citizens rather than simply track down cyber threats.

Unable to reach a deal with Congress, President Obama plans to use his power to exert executive actions against the will of lawmakers.
- Of course he will, that is what dictators do.

The order is a direct response to Congress’ refusal to pass CISPA last year, as members of Congress who opposed the legislation cited serious privacy concerns over giving the government greater access to Americans’ personal information that only private companies and servers might have access to.

---

TX - Proposed law would force sex offenders to list crimes on social media profiles

Original Article

01/16/2013

By James Muñoz

SAN ANTONIO -- Texas Voices, a group dedicated to supporting registered sex offenders and their families, estimates 111 new names hit the sex offenders registry every week in the Lone Star State.

"We've already put their names and their faces and all of their information on the public registry for the world to see," said Mary Sue Molnar, who serves as president of Texas Voices.

The group is speaking out against House Bill 23 (PDF). The proposed law would require registered sex offenders to post their crimes on social networking profiles or face a criminal penalty.

"There's a misconception that social media is a meet-and-greet and hook-up place. That is certainly not true," Molnar said. "Not everyone on the public registry is a predator. As a matter of fact, very few would be considered predators."

Texas Voices opposes the idea and said outing registered sex offenders is not always the answer.

"We've got to remember that almost all registrants have wives, families (and) children, so we're looking at, in a lot of cases, children (who) can be harmed because dad's information is out there just a little too much," Molnar said.

Similar social networking bans have been struck down in a few other states.

See Also:

• Bill would require new social media rules for sex offenders (Video)

---

OK - Sex offender law changes may be coming

Original Article

01/15/2013

By Joleen Chaney

OKLAHOMA CITY – A stunning change involving sex offender laws could be making its way to Oklahoma.

“I think it can open up an opportunity but being in prison around other sex offenders, if they want to reoffend, they’re going to find a way,” sex offender [name withheld] said. “If a person want [sic] to do something, they’re going to find it, if it’s the daycare down the street or church or a kid walking home from school.”
- But the issue is, most ex-sex offenders do not re-offend, that is a fact.

[name withheld] is a registered sex offender.

It is labeled on his driver’s license, on his criminal record and on every aspect of his life.

“It was statutory sex with a minor,” [name withheld] said.

He claims he did not know the girl was underage but a judge decided otherwise.

[name withheld] went to prison and as a stipulation of his eight-year probation, he was told to stay off the computer.

“No social media at all. No Facebook, MySpace at the time,” he said. “Actually I wasn’t allowed to use any internet access while I was on probation.”

However, a new California law could eventually ease the rules for some Oklahoma sex offenders.

It allows them to go online but requires them to disclose their internet activities and identities.

An Okla. attorney said California’s new law won’t fly.

“The California law that was approved by 81 percent of the voters is unconstitutional,” attorney David Slane said. “You cannot require people to disclose who they are before they are able to talk on the internet.”

Slane said you can’t take away a person’s First Amendment rights, even online.

But he said he believes other states are going to do the same thing.

Slane said he is ready to fight the law if and when it gets to Okla.

As for [name withheld] who is fighting to get his name off the sex offender registry, he said he believes the law may be fitting for predators who use the internet to prey on victims, he agrees with the fight against it.

---

CA - Prop 35: Sex Offender Act Could Have Unforeseen Privacy Consequences

Original Article

12/08/2012

By Cristina Maza

In March of 2013, a new law will be implemented in the state of California that ensures that every time a sex offender creates an online profile he or she has to disclose this information to local law enforcement within 24 hours. While some may cheer that Proposition 35 (PDF), also known as the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act Initiative, is a step forward to curb the impunity of sex offenders on the web, many have failed to consider the implications that a law like this could have for non-sex offenders.

As an article on this new law rightly pointed out, Proposition 35 will create a situation in which a select group of people will have their online anonymity prohibited and will be forced to publicly connect their online identity with their real life one. Given the uproar recently about Facebook’s privacy laws, people are obviously concerned about the fact that they are being forced to reveal their identities whenever they engage in any kind of online activity and that their personal details could be exposed without their knowledge.

While many may support the idea of online freedoms being revoked for those who have committed a heinous crime, it leaves one wondering whether it is only a matter of time before other social groups that law enforcement deem “threatening” are also forced to do the same. Where do we draw the line?

Recently, I wrote an article for PolicyMic about the important role the internet is playing in political mobilization and civic participation around the world. One of the main reasons that the internet has the heavy flow of traffic that it does, is because it is theoretically an anonymous medium through which people can engage in discussion about a variety of topics without having to reveal their identities.

Many times people avoid discussing politically charged issues face-to-face for fear of conflict. Removing the right to remain anonymous could adversely affect the way people use the internet for political or other forms of civic engagement.

A law like Proposition 35 not only highlights the ambiguity of online privacy laws, but puts a striking emphasis on the fact that our actual identities are increasingly connected to our online ones, whether we like it or not. While theoretically the viewing of child-porn may be curbed if online profiles are disclosed, isn’t it far more important to monitor the real life behaviour of sex offenders after they are released from prison than to ensure that they are buying the right type of online products from the right suppliers?

Somehow, I fail to understand how being aware of the Amazon user name of a sex-offender is making me, as a woman, any safer. Perhaps more energy should be put into therapy and rehabilitation than into enforcing a law that could create a precedent for violating the privacy of other citizens.

See Also:

• California Proposition 35, Sex Trafficking Initiative, Blocked By Judge
• Proposition 35 And Why Anonymity Is Good For You

Video Link


Video Link

---

TX - Bill would force sex offenders to update social network pages

Original Article

11/19/2012

By Noelle Newton

Sex offenders may soon have to update their status on social networks. A state representative wants all registered sex offenders to post their criminal information on social networking sites.

When Viviana Regalado's four children approached school age, she went to the DPS sex offender registry to see who might be on their way to the bus stop.

"It's very helpful. We can't keep 100 percent, but it is a tool that we can use," Regalado said.

She found two registered sex offenders in her neighborhood.

"I know where we don't go trick-or-treating, things like that," Regalado said.

State Representative Trey Martinez Fischer of San Antonio wants the information on the DPS registry to also appear on each sex offender's social networking profile.
- So what about the names, photos, criminal history, address and other information for other criminals who target adults and children, like identity thieves, gang members, etc?

In House Bill 23 (PDF), Martinez Fischer proposes all visitors to the person's site shall be able to view an indication that the person is a sex offender, the type of offense for which the person is subject, their height, weight, eye color and hair color and the address at which the person resides. If the person does not reside at a physical address, they must list a detailed description of the geographical location.

A violation would carry a criminal penalty.

We interviewed Mary Sue Molnar of Texas Voices for Reason and Justice--a help group for sex offenders last month.

"I think the laws have become such a mess," Molnar said.

She calls this a "feel good law." It makes the public feel comfortable Molnar says, but does nothing to enhance our safety.

"Laws that are based upon fear and paranoia rather than rational thinking," she described.

She says the truly dangerous won't report and those intent on trolling the internet are not going to give their real names.

The moms we spoke to disagree.

"I think that's a great idea," said mom Lauren Mouritsen. "As a mother, I'm very protective so keep them safe from people who make bad choices like that."

"At least it's making them work harder to be deceitful," Regalado said.

Louisiana was the first state to pass a sex offender social media law. It went into effect on August first. If a sex offender fails to disclose their criminal status, they face two to 10 years in prison. A second conviction would warrant up to 20 years.

---

CA - Crime and Punishment and the Internet

Original Article

11/19/2012

By Margaret Rock

Courts can ban sex criminals from Facebook and Twitter, but in San Diego, social media is being considered a First Amendment right, a freedom available to everyone -- even child molesters.

In Brief boils down complex events to give you the heart of the matter -- today and what it means for tomorrow -- clearly and simply.

A teen convicted of molestation can't be kept off social media, according to a court ruling, in a case that raises questions about the Internet's role in crime and punishment. Some argue social media is a First Amendment right, and it should be treated like other forms of freedom of speech, which can't be taken away.

Others think sites like Facebook and Twitter aren't covered, and prohibiting or curtailing use, like limiting a certain distance sex offenders can live from schools, is not only appropriate, but effective. In this gray area, the San Diego ruling provides a hint of the direction courts and law are taking with the issue. Is access to the Internet and social media an inalienable right? And if so, is it a right for those guilty of sex crimes or even some of the worst criminal offenders imaginable?

What's Happening: A California Appellate Court says a teenage boy who molested a toddler and grabbed and detained a teenage girl has a First Amendment right to use social media and chat rooms, in part because his offenses didn't involve the Internet.

The teen's lawyers argued the terms of his supervised probation -- which include a ban on using a computer for any purpose other than school-related assignments, so he can't maintain a social profile or engage in instant messaging or chat rooms -- went too far. The ban requires him, identified as "Andre" for privacy reasons, to have all computer use "supervised by a responsible adult over the age of 21 who is aware that the minor is on probation and of his charges."

Earlier this month, California Judge Terry O'Rourke ruled (PDF) these probation requirements were invalid because they "are not tailored to Andre's convictions for violating another's personal liberty, willfully annoying and molesting another, unlawful use of force, and lewd and lascivious conduct, or the juvenile court's dual goals of rehabilitation and public safety."

The trial court was ordered to modify the terms of probation, especially on the use of social media and the blanket computer ban.

See Also:

• Judge Blocks New California Sex Offender Law

Read the entire article here

---

UK - Internet ban on convicted sex offender 'unreasonable', rule judges

Original Article

11/13/2012

By Owen Bowcott

Court of appeal's decision to uphold complaint over internet restriction could set precedent in hacking and fraud cases

Banning anyone from the internet is an "unreasonable" restriction, two appeal court judges have ruled, suggesting that access to a computer at home has become a basic human right.

The decision by Mr Justice Collins and Judge Nicholas Cooke QC signals judicial recognition of how pervasive digital communications are in an era when a multitude of services can be obtained online.

The decision could prove a challenging precedent in computer hacking and fraud cases where suspects have frequently been banned from using computers for recreational purposes. At least one computer-hacking suspect, [name withheld], has been prohibited from going online.

Upholding a complaint from a sex offender that he was being cut off from the world, the two judges declared it was "unreasonable nowadays to ban anyone from accessing the internet in their home".

[name withheld] had been convicted of using a secret camera to film a 14-year-old girl in the shower. [name withheld], 55, of Dartford, Kent, doctored a shampoo bottle and hid his mobile phone inside it to take the surreptitious video of the girl.

He was arrested after the youngster spotted a flashing light in the bottle. Police investigated and subsequently found hundreds of sexual images, featuring animals and children as young as four, stored on [name withheld]'s computer.

He was sentenced to a community order with three years supervision at Woolwich crown court in June. He was also subjected to a sexual offences prevention order (Sopo), banning him from owning a computer, using a camera in public and coming into contact with children at work, and allowing the police to raid his home at any time.

His lawyers argued that the prevention order was unnecessary and disproportionate. When it was imposed the crown court judge had remarked that it should last until the day [name withheld] died.

Collins and Cooke, sitting in the court of appeal, overturned it and replaced it with an order that [name withheld] must make his internet history available for police viewing.

Collins told the court: "The judge imposing the Sopo said, 'I anticipate that you will die subject to this order – that is my wish anyway.' They were not appropriate remarks to have made."

He also criticised the "lurid language" used by the crown court judge, concluding that the order imposed on [name withheld] was "entirely excessive". He added: "Nowadays it is entirely unreasonable to ban anybody from accessing the internet in their home."

See Also:

• Court overturns sex offender's web ban, calls bans 'unreasonable'
• Internet Deemed a Human Right in Another Sex Offender/Internet Ban Case

---

CA - ACLU, EFF Sue to Block Parts of New Sex-Offender Law

againstthecaseact.com

Original Article

I am glad they temporarily suspended this, but I also find it ironic that if it was just pertaining to ex-sex offenders, then nobody would care, but since ex-prostitutes and others could be labeled sex offenders, it now, all of a sudden, matters? When you trample one person/groups rights, it tramples all rights. The video below comes to mind.

11/07/2012

By Karen Gullo

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued to block portions of a California law to combat human trafficking that creates new requirements for sex offenders, alleging parts of the measure violate free speech rights.

California’s Proposition 35 (PDF), which includes increased prison terms for human trafficking, requires anyone who is a registered sex offender to turn over a list of all their Internet identifiers and service providers to law enforcement, the groups said in an e-mail today.

The measure’s online speech regulations are overly broad and violate the First Amendment, both because they prohibit anonymous speech and because the reporting requirements burden all sorts of online speech, even when the speaker is using his own real name as a screen name, they said.

The suit, which seeks a judge’s order blocking the allegedly unconstitutional portions of the law, was filed today in federal court in San Francisco by two registered sex offenders and the non-profit group California Reform Sex Offender Laws.

The case is Roe v. Harris (PDF) (More Info), 12-5713, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

Update:

• Proposition 35 blocked (PDF)

See Also:

• Critics raise specter of police state in challenge to new Calif. law
• All related articles

Video Link

---

Googler watched child porn and beheadings daily for his job

Original Article

Makes me wonder, do the people at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children have to see a therapist from time to time to cope with seeing child porn on a regular basis? This is why police must see therapists from time to time, and why many officers think all people are criminals. They see it on a daily basis, so it has to affect how you think.

One other note, people always say that once you put something online it's there forever, well, what about child porn? They get rid of it, so why can't someone else get rid of something they don't want online?

08/23/2012

By Claire Gordon

There's a lot of creepy, repulsive, morally abhorrent stuff on the Internet, and that means there are also a lot of people whose job it is to watch it, review it and get it taken down. One guy who reportedly had that job at Google -- and whose identity was not revealed -- describes the "scarring" experience in an interview with Buzzfeed FWD. The former Googler says that the job was made all the worse when the company denied him a full-time position, leaving him to scramble for a new job at the end of his year there.

The ex-Google employee says that he spent his days exploring the ugly underbelly of humanity on all of Google's products, like its search engine, Google Images, the picture-organizer Picasa and the social networking site Orkut (that has its largest fan base in India and Brazil). There were beheadings, he says, and suicides. Grotesque fetishes, mutilations and bestiality. And lots of child porn.

Child porn, in particular, has to be removed within 24 hours of the service provider becoming aware of it and also must be reported to federal authorities. He says that there were perhaps 15,000 of those images a day.

After nine months of it, he thought he was coping fine, "but it was putting me in a really dark place," he says. Google had someone from a federal agency sit down with him, and she asked him to react to a series of photographs. "That's f***ed up!" he exclaimed in response to an ordinary photo that depicted a normal father and his kid. He decided he needed therapy, but Google would only cover one session.

The former Google employee says that he was a contractor, and so was not entitled to the benefits of a full-time employee, or any emotional support, despite the nature of his daily grind. Google contractors can also only stay on for a year, and at nine months, he was told that he wasn't going to be hired full-time. He claims that this has happened to several of Google's employees entrusted with the most blood-curdling work at the company.

This ex-Googler's story punctures Google's rainbow-hued image as one of the most magnanimous employers known to mankind: a company that feeds its employees three free meals a day, offers new mothers more than four months of paid leave, and has a complimentary laundry service on site.

Employee satisfaction at Google, in fact, jumped by over a third this past year, according to CareerBliss -- more than at any other U.S. company. This may be partly due to a generous new death benefit -- paying 50 percent of the deceased employee's salary to the spouse for a decade.

Google's unofficial slogan may be "Don't be evil," but when it comes to dealing with the evil others do, it seems it isn't always saintly.

See Also:

• How Child Porn And The Other Awfulest Things Ever Get Scrubbed From The Internet

---

Resolution on the Promotion, Protection, and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet

Click the image to read the entire article

---

Internet Access Is a Human Right, Says United Nations

Original Article

So tell me, how is it that Indiana, Louisiana and other US states getting a way with violating human rights by denying people (ex-sex offenders) access to social networks?

07/06/2012

By Alex Fitzpatrick

Is Internet access and online freedom of expression a basic human right? The United Nations’ Human Rights Council unanimously backed that notion in a resolution passed Thursday.

The resolution says that all people should be allowed to connect to and express themselves freely on the Internet. All 47 members of the Human Rights Council, including notoriously censorship-prone countries such as China and Cuba, signed the resolution.

China’s support for the resolution came with the stipulation that the “free flow of information on the Internet and the safe flow of information on the Internet are mutually dependent,” as Chinese delegate Xia Jingge told the Council in a sign that the country isn’t about to tear down the so-called “Great Firewall of China.”

The concept was first affirmed by a U.N. agency, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), in 2003. The ITU has recently come under fire after rumors arose that member states were preparing proposals to give the United Nations more control over the Internet ahead of a December conference. The ITU has rejected many of those claims.

Internet access as a human right has since been supported by several of the Internet’s most well-known proponents, including Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web.

“[It's] an empowering thing for humanity to be connected at high speed and without borders,” Berners-Lee told the BBC in April of last year while reflecting on the Internet’s role in the Arab Spring uprisings.

The Human Rights Council is a United Nations body that monitors human rights progress and violations across all member countries. It has previously called the right to freedom and expression “one of the essential foundations of a democratic society” and has recognized the Internet’s importance in the “promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”

A separate United Nations report called Internet access a human right in June of last year.

Video Link

---

NY - Teens' Online Activity A Secret From Parents: U.S. Survey

Original Article

06/26/2012

By Gianna Palmer

NEW YORK (Reuters) - More and more teenagers are hiding their online activity from their parents, according to a U.S. survey of teen internet behavior released on Monday.

The survey (PDF), sponsored by the online security company McAfee, found that 70 percent of teens had hidden their online behavior from their parents in 2012, up from 45 percent of teens in 2010, when McAfee conducted the same survey.

"There's a lot more to do on the Internet today, which ultimately means there's a lot more to hide," said McAfee spokesman Robert Siciliano.

Siciliano cited the explosion of social media and the wider availability of ad-supported pornography as two factors that have led teens to hide their online habits. The increased popularity of phones with Internet capabilities also means that teens have more opportunities to hide their online habits, he said.

"They have full Internet access wherever they are at this point," Siciliano said.

The survey found that 43 percent of teens have accessed simulated violence online, 36 percent have read about sex online, and 32 percent went online to see nude photos or pornography.

The survey reported that teens use a variety of tactics to avoid being monitored by their parents. Over half of teens surveyed said that they had cleared their browser history, while 46 percent had closed or minimized browser windows when a parent walked into the room. Other strategies for keeping online habits from parents included hiding or deleting instant messages or videos and using a computer they knew their parents wouldn't check.

Meanwhile, the survey found that 73.5 percent of parents trust their teens not to access age-inappropriate content online. Nearly one quarter of the surveyed parents (23 percent) reported that they are not monitoring their children's online behaviors because they are overwhelmed by technology.

Siciliano said that is no excuse.

"Parents can put their foot down and they can get educated," he said.

"They can learn about the technology at hand. They can learn about their children's lives," Siciliano said.

Many of the parents surveyed were already doing just that, with 49 percent of parents using parental controls and 44 percent obtaining their children's email and social network passwords. Additionally, three in four parents said they've had a conversation about online safety with their kids.

The results were drawn from a nationwide online survey completed by 1,004 teens aged 13-17 and 1,013 parents, conducted May 4-29 by TRU of Chicago, a youth research company. Its margin of error was plus or minus 3 percent.

---

NY - Ultra-Orthodox Jews Rally to Discuss Risks of Internet

Original Article

05/20/2012

By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM

It was an incongruous sight for a baseball stadium: tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jewish men, all dressed in black suits and white shirts, filing through the gates of Citi Field on Sunday, wearing not blue-and-orange Mets caps but tall, big-brim black hats.

There was no ballgame scheduled, only a religious rally to discuss the dangers of the Internet.

More than 40,000 ultra-Orthodox Jews were expected to attend — a sellout in a season where the average attendance at a Mets game has been barely half that. The organizers had to rent Arthur Ashe Stadium nearby, which has 20,000 seats, to accommodate all the interested ticket buyers.

The organizers had allowed only men to buy tickets, in keeping with ultra-Orthodox tradition of separating the sexes. Viewing parties had been arranged in Orthodox neighborhoods of Brooklyn and New Jersey so that women could watch, too.

For the attendees, many of whom said they came at the instructions of their rabbis, it was a chance to hear about a moral topic considered gravely important in their community: the potential problems that can stem from access to pornography and other explicit content on the uncensored, often incendiary Web.

Inside the stadium, a dais was set up by the back wall of center field, where rabbis led the packed stadium in evening prayers and offered heated exhortations to avoid the “filth” that can be found on the Internet. English translations of the speeches appeared on a jumbo digital screen, beneath an enormous “Let’s Go Mets!” sign.

Still, many attendees readily conceded that the Internet played a big role in their lives.

Shlomo Cohen, 24, of Toronto, said he used the Internet for shopping, business and staying in touch with friends — “Everyone needs e-mail,” he said.

Mr. Cohen said he came to Citi Field on Sunday because the rally was a good way to remind his community to keep temptation at bay.

“Desires are out there,” Mr. Cohen said, adding that men could be particularly susceptible. “We have to learn how to control ourselves.”

For an event billed as taking aim at the Internet, signs of the digital age seemed to pop up everywhere.

On a No. 7 train headed toward the stadium, several men wearing the clothing of the ultra-Orthodox whipped out smartphones as soon as the subway emerged from the East River tunnel, poking at e-mail in-boxes and checking voice mail messages.

Several opponents of the rally gathered outside the stadium, including a crowd that stood by police barricades holding signs that read, “The Internet Is Not the Problem.”

Many of the protesters said they shared the religious beliefs of the attendees but wanted to show support for victims of child sexual abuse, some of whom in ultra-Orthodox communities have been discouraged from calling the police and have been shunned after the crimes against them were reported.

The rally in Citi Field on Sunday was sponsored by a rabbinical group, Ichud Hakehillos Letohar Hamachane, that is linked to a software company that sells Internet filtering software to Orthodox Jews. Those in attendance were handed fliers that advertised services like a “kosher GPS App” for iPhone and Android phones, which helps users locate synagogues and kosher restaurants.

Nat Levy, 25, who traveled from Lakewood, N.J., to attend, said he frequently surfed the Web at a cafe, overseen by a local rabbi, that filtered out certain types of online content and monitored which Web sites he visited.

He said he often used the Internet to deal with customers for his company. “You get to do business the same way,” he said. “I have unlimited access, but it’s done in a kosher manner.”

Eytan Kobre, a spokesman for the event, delivered a more intense message to reporters outside the stadium. “The siren song of the Internet entices us!” he pronounced in a booming voice. “It brings out the worst of us!”

Still, Mr. Kobre confirmed that the event would be broadcast live on the Internet, via a stream available to homes and synagogues in Orthodox communities around the New York area. He said the general public would not be able to gain access, but several unauthorized streams appeared soon after the rally began.

The rally was also a hot topic on many Twitter feeds on Sunday evening.

The gathering had the feel of a gigantic family reunion — or perhaps, given the single-sex attendance, the religious version of a scouts’ jamboree — but many guests had arrived with only a friend or two.

“It may look like a community because we all look the same,” said Mr. Cohen, of Toronto. “But I don’t know almost any of the people here.”

For some attendees, the dangers of the Internet seemed more in line with the usual complaints voiced by any New Yorker tethered to a BlackBerry or besieged with Twitter messages.

Raphael Hess, 29, of New Jersey, pointed at his LG phone and said he found peace in simply keeping its Internet connection turned off.

“Life is more pleasant without it sometimes,” he said with a shrug.

Video Link

---

AR - Arkansas board eyes Internet ban for sex offenders

Original Article from Facebook

03/30/2012

THE FOLLOWING IS AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT FROM ROBERT COMBS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ATAT

This week the Arkansas Board of parole was scheduled to vote on their proposal to restrict ALL parolees on the sex offender registry from having internet access. At the Thursday, March 29th, scheduled board meeting they chose to postpone their vote.

This issue will come up again so if you are interests, May I suggest you contact your parole board members. Their names and addresses are listed at the end if this note.

What follows is a copy of the letter I hand delivered to each of the 4 parole board commissioners, the secretary, the vice chairman, and the chairman:

Arkansas Parole Board
ATTN: John Felts, Chairman
Two Union National Plaza Building
105 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 500
Little Rock, AR 72201
03/28/2012

Dear Chairman Felts,

As I understand it, the Parole Board is considering a new policy that would unilaterally eliminate Internet access for all paroled sex offenders.

Respectfully, such a policy would weaken the ability and undermine the capacity of Arkansas Parole Officers to appropriately regulate and monitor the conduct of parolees as a matter of professional discretion.

Having discretion to grant or withhold Internet access for any parolee permits Parole Officers to apply personal knowledge of the parolee and professional familiarity with risk factors to determine if and when limited access and monitoring is called for and/or when such restrictions impose unnecessary constraints which in turn result in lost productivity, wasted staff hours and increased risk of recidivism.

That is, to impose such restrictions regardless of the offender's history or the nature of the offense places additional systemic barriers to that individual's successful reentry to society and the workforce, effectively prohibiting him or her from searching and applying online for any form of employment. As the Internet has become the preferred method of employment application and training throughout the marketplace, without the ability to seek and secure employment in this requisite manner we put parolees at risk of being sent back to jail.

Respectfully, we must dedicate our resources to reducing systemic barriers to reentry for the 11,000 families in Arkansas that are on the state sex offender registry. As Declan McCullagh writes in “Kicking Sex Offenders Off The Internet?” (CBS News, August 13, 2009), “Like it or not, using Google, Yahoo, TV.com, and so on is part of modern life, and it's reasonable to hope that even sex offenders could be reintegrated into society rather than cordoned off from it and therefore more likely to relapse.”

Adding new systemic barriers when the remedy already exists in the toolbox of every Parole Officer seems counter-intuitive. If an individual has proven problematic in regards to Internet access, it is and should remain the Parole Officers responsibility to impose limits.

For further information on this and related considerations, I respectfully refer you to “No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the US,” published by the Human Rights Watch, September 2007, and “A Reasoned Approach (PDF),” published by the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, April 2011.

Thank you for being smart on crime.

Sincerely,

Robert Combs
Executive Director
Arkansas Time After Time
(501) 563-2197

Arkansas Parole Board members are listed below:

• John Felts, Chairman
• James M. "Jimmy" Wallace, III, Vice-Chairman
• Richard Mays, Jr., Secretary
• Carolyn Robinson, Commissioner
• Abraham Carpenter, Jr., Commissioner
• Joseph "Joe" Peacock, Commissioner
• Richard Brown, Jr., Commissioner

Their addresses are all:

Arkansas Parole Board
Two Union National Plaza Building
105 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 500
Little Rock, AR 72201

---

SOPA replacement uses child porn as excuse to spy on 99.7 percent of Americans

View the video here

Video Description:
The SOPA and PIPA bills that went down in flames earlier this year for their unbearable intrusiveness, used content piracy as an excuse to give the government powerful tools with which to censor Internet content.

For 2012 the primary author of those bills has switched to a fallback tactic: using child porn as an excuse to create a vast surveillance network from which the government can demand data on every email sent, site visited or link clicked on by all but a fraction of one percent of the U.S. population.

Internet anti-censorship advocates including Anonymous are calling for the ouster of Texas Congressman Lamar Smith, who is following his co-sponsorship of the failed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) with a bill critics call "Big Brother" disguised as an effort to curb child porn and sexual abuse.

Last May Smith, a Texas Republican credited as primary author of both SOPA and PIPA, the Senate version, also introduced H.R. 1981, a bill called the "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011″ (PCFIPA).

The anti-child-porn provisions in the bill are a "fig leaf for its true purpose: A sweeping data retention requirement meant to turn Internet Service Providers and online companies into surrogate snoops for the government's convenience," according to Julian Sanchez, Internet privacy and censorship researcherat the center-right Cato Institute.

Smoke and mirrors concealing observers watching you from behind the smoky mirrors

The bill amends existing laws empowering the U.S. Marshals Service to issue subpoenas and chase fugitives.

The amendments expand the Marshals' ability to issue subpoenas and adds online pornographers to their list of top targets.

The important, though administrivia-looking part of the bill is this: "A provider of an electronic communication service... shall retain for a period of at least 18 months the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account... records retained pursuant to section 2703(h) of title 18, United States Code..." -- FCPIFA, H.R. 1981 ISPs are already required to keep some customers' activity records for 180 days, so this doesn't look like a big change.

Except, PCFIPA, HR 1981, requires ISPs keep track of every single IP address they assign (except to wireless users) and all the activity flowing across that link.

It doesn't limit itself to just ISPs, either. By addressing the bill to cover any company providing "electronic communications" or "remote computing" services, the bill effectively covers any site offering services online.

PCFIPA, HR 1981, reverses that point of view (as did PIPA and SOPA), to create a vast database of every action of ever American online -- a deep pool of data on the activity of millions of Internet users, through whose private activity they can sift at will until they find something that looks like evidence of a crime.

That's exactly the opposite of the intent of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment prevents police from searching, questioning, holding or otherwise harassing suspects unless a judge agrees there's a good reason to investigate a specific person for a specific crime.

View the video here

---

Tor - Anonymity Online

Click the image to visit the site

---