Seems like that possibility alone should preclude such a law from being implemented.

t.ferg on January 2, 2009 at 12:37 PM
True, but if the person trying to set up a sex offender has nothing but the user name and password, it should be easy enough to tell it was a set up going by the IP address.

Esthier on January 2, 2009 at 12:48 PM

What if Bureacrat A goes to the local FedEx Kinko’s and signs in using Offender B’s account? Then wouldn’t A be able to claim B had went there instead?

Also, do you think this is mis-reported and that maybe they mean the sex offender’s screen name, rather than their password? On many services you can add screen names of your friends (in this case the Bureacrat would add in all the ofenders screen names instead) and you can “see” when they are online.

Doesn’t anyone remember the big controversy over censoring computers at libraries? Librarians don’t believe in it, even for computers in the children’s section of the library.

Mr. Sex Offender can hang out in the library, using the computers for free, doing whatever without being monitored. Not to mention all of the anonymous tools for surfing.

As for all of the stupid “sex offenders can’t live within ___ of schools, daycares, etc.” who said they had to live in a particular place in order to go there?

Then there are the cases of people tagged with sex offender who did nothing but urinate in public or moon someone. We have a current case here where a bunch of loons went streaking in Boulder with pumpkins on their heads for a Halloween prank. They’re jumping through a lot of expensive hoops in order to not become registered sex offenders. Ridiculous!

highhopes on January 2, 2009 at 6:49 PM

Credit reporting agencies information aren’t public databases. Are you saying that a government entity has bogus information about you and are unwilling to correct it?

Credit reports are legally available to employers, banks, landlords, taxing authorities, credit card companies – how much more public do you need? Anyway, the point was not that it was a credit report; the point is that once wrong information gets into any database, is d__ned difficult – nearly impossible – to get corrected.

That being said, since you clearly support the rights of sex offenders in the spirit of “slippery slope” policy…..

Don’t put words in my mouth. Do you honestly believe that the only way to address sex offenders is to erode the rights of society? How sad.

How would you protect children from these monsters? Clearly parents need to be part of the equation but are you honestly saying that the state should just wish the parents well and uphold the right of these deviants?

If the State is going to track the web-surfing of sex predators, it needs to get a court order – same as for any other searches & seizures. With a court order, the IP addresses of the offender can be tracked – whoever is doing the tracking will know what websites the offender is visiting. Why would the trackers need to actually go into the account? The cyber-cops are not fools; they know what goes on “in there”. Or do you think that our civil authority should be reading the sex offenders e-mail? Well, then, as I said before – “you’re next.” Yes, it is a slippery slope – what significant government programs can you think of that have been rescinded, de-funded, curtailed, or abandoned? Versus what government programs can you think of that have been expanded, engorged, broadened, and made eternal?

I’m in the “whatever is necessary” camp.

highhopes on January 2, 2009 at 6:44 PM

Agreed, but adding yet another layer to the cake accomplishes what?

How about a simple solution. Do the crime, go to jail forever + 1. That protects the kids better then some SkyNet machine will ever do.

Really. Read your Bill of Rights lately? I seem to remember some bits regarding the rights of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed, as well as the right to be secure in one’s home against unreasonable searches.

Silly me. I must be one of those crazy wacko Constitutionalists.

MadisonConservative on January 2, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Did any of that prevent you from bearing arms? Did any of it search your home? No.

Apparently you have never had wrong information entered against your name in a public database. Once that info gets in there, it never, never goes away; it will haunt you the rest of your days. Ten years after some false credit info got put against me it still pops up, even though I have the letters from all three major credit reporting agencies acknowledging that that credit information was false.

ss396 on January 2, 2009 at 5:02 PM

Credit reporting agencies information aren’t public databases. Are you saying that a government entity has bogus information about you and are unwilling to correct it?

That being said, since you clearly support the rights of sex offenders in the spirit of “slippery slope” policy….. How would you protect children from these monsters? Clearly parents need to be part of the equation but are you honestly saying that the state should just wish the parents well and uphold the right of these deviants?

I’m usually more tolerant but when it comes to protecting children, I’m in the “whatever is necessary” camp.

Such databases might eventually be the only way to recover your identity once its stolen.

Count to 10 on January 2, 2009 at 1:25 PM

Apparently you have never had wrong information entered against your name in a public database. Once that info gets in there, it never, never goes away; it will haunt you the rest of your days. Ten years after some false credit info got put against me it still pops up, even though I have the letters from all three major credit reporting agencies acknowledging that that credit information was false.

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.

This is pure crap. For all you folks who think that this is a good idea, all I can say is “you’re next.”

Plus, I’ve been forced to show my ID to an officer before just while outside my own apartment.

Esthier on January 2, 2009 at 4:36 PM

You should check your laws about that. While I do not necessarily condone the obnoxious ACLU crusader attitude that some use as an excuse to hassle cops and try for a lawsuit, I do condemn cops who use their authority to make people do things that they are not legally bound to do, and there are quite a few of them.

My friend, there is quite a difference between a business verifying your age in their private establishment, and a government agent demanding identification.

Of course. Still, it is the government who forces them to verify it in the first place rather than simply being able to take my word.

Plus, I’ve been forced to show my ID to an officer before just while outside my own apartment.

But honestly I don’t care much about this issue either way except in the cases of illegal voting.

There is a piece of computer code installed on the offender’s PC, which monitors and records everything going through a firewall-type application. All of this data is recorded by a server, which then sorts and prioritizes all the data to be reviewed by a monitoring service person, and then gets turned into a report for the probation officer.

Agreeing to being monitored is a condition of release from jail/prison onto a probation or parole program. If the offender doesn’t agree, he/she can simply go back to jail.

I drink too much and look too young to have a problem with IDs.

Esthier on January 2, 2009 at 3:28 PM

My friend, there is quite a difference between a business verifying your age in their private establishment, and a government agent demanding identification.

otherwise, it’s the Wild West, complete with vigilantes and feuds.

Esthier on January 2, 2009 at 3:15 PM

We could certainly use a shove in that direction compared to what we have now, like four-minute response times where police act as cleanup crews while those same officers express their concerns about citizens being armed.

Papers, please.

MadisonConservative on January 2, 2009 at 3:12 PM

I drink too much and look too young to have a problem with IDs.

BohicaTwentyTwo on January 2, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Yes, I have a cousin with a similar issue. Though for him, he was accused of rape. I’d be less inclined to believe his story but several years after the incident, his lawyer interviewed the woman, who is now shocked that my cousin had to go through all of this. She apparently only cried rape because she was late coming home from a party and needed an excuse.

Now he can’t even come to family dinners, because his sister is a minor.

The people of this nation are always having to ask themselves: Which do you want more, “safety”, or liberty?

MadisonConservative on January 2, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Because it’s always a trade off. As a government, we must have some sort of law enforcement (and some laws), otherwise, it’s the Wild West, complete with vigilantes and feuds.

It seems that the more freedom we have, the less we can actually practice, since citizens cannot safely move about their business. But on the other hand, if the government takes total control in order to end crime, citizens have their own government to fear and are likewise cannot roam freely.

You always have to find some kind of balance.

Personally, I favor giving citizens as much freedom as is logical (a relative term, certainly), though I don’t care at all about what freedoms people who shouldn’t be here are given.

ID cards are fine…

Esthier on January 2, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Papers, please.

I have no problem with ID cards and DNA and fingerprint databases.

Count to 10 on January 2, 2009 at 1:11 PM

ID cards are fine, but DNA and finger prints? Really?

I was lucky I passed out and he thought I was dead. What a way to finally believe you kid.

sheebe on January 2, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Wow, that’s horrible. And yeah, that’s exactly how it often goes, a close personal friend no one would ever suspect. I’m sure your parents may have seen a sign or two, but who wants to face up to a reality that horrible.

I used to have an uncle I had concerns about. But with nothing much more solid than concerns, it was always too toxic to even bring up.

None of those are any infraction on liberty. None.

Count to 10 on January 2, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Really. Read your Bill of Rights lately? I seem to remember some bits regarding the rights of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed, as well as the right to be secure in one’s home against unreasonable searches.

Silly me. I must be one of those crazy wacko Constitutionalists.

But as for those (such as parents) who are convicted of an offense via the kids… it is a half and half senerio.

Example: a friend of mine has a 16 yr old who is in all respects .. out of control. He (the Dad) told her to do something, though I can not remember but I think it had to do with schoolgrades, and threatened to ground her. She didn’t do well and flunked. He then grounded her for the summer and in which she went to the police and told them that he had raped her. He hadn’t, and it took quite a bit of money from Him as well as the city, which had to investigate the claim. They deemed him innocent and couldn’t decide what to do with the girl…. due to the lie and the fact he also couldn’t control her. I feel for him and anyone wrongly accused, because it may never come off a record nor off the minds of people who do not think he is innocent.

Are you saying that if they don’t have my DNA, they don’t know who I am? They seem to find me at tax time well enough.