Georgia demands passwords from sex offenders

As unsympathetic interests groups go, sex offenders rank right up there with neo-Nazis and Islamist terrorists.  Efforts to control their access to the Internet and to just about everything else usually generate plenty of support from the public, for very good reasons.  Is it possible to go too far?  Georgia may have done just that with their latest requirement for sex offenders (hat tip: HA reader Lev Strauss):

The latest scuffle over online privacy is brewing up in Georgia.  An aggressive new law is set to take effect today which will force sex offenders to hand over their internet passwords, screen names, and e-mail addresses to the government for monitoring purposes.  Several other states also have efforts that track sex offender’s email and screen names.  However, Georgia, which has 16,000 registered offenders, will be the first state to demand the sex offenders’ passwords as well.

A similar law in Utah was already struck down by a federal judge, who ruled that it violated the privacy rights of an offender who challenged it.  However, that ruling was rather narrow as it applied to an offender tried on a military conviction who had never been in Utah’s court or prison system.

Critics of the Georgian law say that it not only violates the privacy rights of offenders, but it also places undue stress on the already tight-for-cash Georgian law enforcement.  Sara Totonchi of the Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights states, “There’s certainly a privacy concern.  This essentially will give law enforcement the ability to read e-mails between family members, between employers.”

State Sen. Cecil Staton (R.) who wrote the bill argues that it is necessary to strip the rights of some citizens to protect the rights to life and liberty of others, particularly children.  He states that the benefits of the bill, which will allow law enforcement to detect stalking by predators sooner “outweighs a lot of the rights of these individuals.”

In essence, we have two arguments, one philosophical and one pragmatic.  Taking the latter first, how exactly does Georgia plan to manage these username/password combos to keep the predators from exploiting the Internet?  The password will get Georgia into their accounts, but that seems like a highly labor-intensive effort for little more reward than having the usernames alone.  What exactly does having the password gain them, and what law-enforcement personnel stand at the ready to use it?  It seems more likely that it will become just another field to fill out on a form, made useless by subsequent password changes and put to no use whatsoever in the event.

The supporters of the regulation claim it will give the state access to communications, such as e-mail and presumably chat-room activities.  The state can already access both by getting a subpoena from a judge, when probable cause exists.  In reality, though, free (and anonymous) e-mail is so plentiful that most offenders will get more creative about hiding their activities and make it more difficult for law enforcement. Besides, who will enforce violations of this law?  Does Georgia have such a perfect record at parole supervision at the moment that they have the resources to add these difficult-to-detect violations to PO responsibilities?

That brings us to the philosophical argument.  Screen names and e-mail addresses are public information, and investigators can track usage on the Internet with that information alone.  The passwords protect financial information that has little to do with the on-line activities performed by the user.  Without a warrant or a subpoena related to specific crimes being committed in the present — and really relating to the kind of fraudulent blind-user activity that predators won’t disclose anyway — should the state have access to that information?

I’d argue that this steps over the line, regardless of the despicable nature of the people it targets.  And if we allow government to step over that line with one subset of people, it won’t be long before government starts expanding that oversight to others.  Even if that argument fails to convince, however, the fact that Georgia won’t be able to enforce its proposed law should be enough of an argument for its defeat.

Blowback