Sex Offenders In Georgia Required To Hand Over Passwords... To Protect The Children

from the fighting-the-wrong-problem-again dept

Wed, Dec 31st 2008 8:35am — Mike Masnick

It's really amazing what sort of laws are being passed in the name of "protecting the children." The latest is a law in Georgia that requires all sex offenders not only to hand over all of their online usernames and email addresses (which some other states require), but also the passwords to all of their accounts. The idea is that authorities can now log into their accounts and see what they're doing -- which seems like a massive privacy violation. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with punishing convicted sex offenders, but these sorts of laws go beyond punishment -- especially when the majority of sex offenders these days aren't the "internet predators" that everyone's so worried about, but people who already know the victim in some way. Also, this would mean that any time a convicted sex offender signed up for a new account somewhere, they'd have to hand over the info -- and even one slip-up can put them back in jail. It's hard to see how this law could possibly be constitutional, and I'm guessing that eventually we'll see a lawsuit to address just that issue, wasting plenty of taxpayer money. I'm not sure how that actually protects any children.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: georgia, passwords, privacy, sexual offenders

76 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2008 @ 8:51am

Nevermind that giving out your password is a bad idea. We've already seen people use the registry to stalk and harrass people, and nearly every month we hear about this or that government database being abused. It's no great stretch to imagine someone using the password to pose as someone else, either to directly hard that person or just as a convenient way to cover their own tracks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lucretious, 31 Dec 2008 @ 8:51am

given the recidivism rates of convicted sex offenders, I can understand why they want to do this.

I do have an issue with subjecting statutory rape offenders to this though since most of them are simply 18-22 yr old guys who have 16-17 yr old girlfriends and are the victims of douchebag cops who need career points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 31 Dec 2008 @ 9:49am
  
  Re:
  "given the recidivism rates of convicted sex offenders, I can understand why they want to do this."
  
  Why, so that they can offend more? If you read anything outside of tabloids, the recidivism rates for sex offenders are actually very low:
  
  http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism
  
  "Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders."
  
  It's also worth pointing out that you leapt straight to "sex offenders = pedophiles", even though the new law covers all offenders, whether their crimes involved a child, an adult or were actually victimless (the proverbial guy who gets convicted of a sex crime for pissing against a bar wall).
  
  What's sad here is that even though it won't possibly work - and the *guy who wrote the bill* admits as much in the article - people are allowed to be systematically stripped of their rights in the name of "protection" (wasn't there some kind of constitutional amendment regarding search & seizure, maybe preventing cruel and unusual punishment, etc.?)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Common sence for all, 5 Apr 2009 @ 10:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    Mabey those that that think that breastfeeding in public is ofensive and somehow sexuall should have these women convicted of sex crimes and put them on the sex offender list for life.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Loraan, 31 Dec 2008 @ 9:49am
  
  Recidivism
  There is a misconception that sex offenders are particularly likely to reoffend. Estimates of general criminal recidivism vary between 40% and 60%, depending on various factors, including the length of the time window within which you count a subsequent offense as "recidivism," depending on whether you count an arrest, conviction, or prison visit as "recidivism," and depending on the specific type of crime you're considering. Estimated recidivism rates for sex offenders fall within this normal range. Conclusion? Some times of offenders are more likely to reoffend than other types, but sex offenders in general are no more likely to reoffend than anybody else.
  
  But even if you don't accept that premise, there are definitely crimes out there for which the recidivism rate is higher than some types of sex offenders, and we don't require registration and violate the privacy of those offenders, so it's not consistent to say that we do that to sex offenders because of their recidivism rate.
  
  What this is really about is stigmatizing and demonizing people who have been convicted of a sex offense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - LadyGrey, 31 Dec 2008 @ 11:09am
    
    Re: Recidivism
    "What this is really about is stigmatizing and demonizing people who have been convicted of a sex offense."
    Very simple - the ideological inheritance of Puritan ideals brought into the 21st century - the same thing that makes the big stink about marriage and is the reason that parents seem to require euphemistic tales to teach their own kids sex ed - a simple refusal to accept nature and teach our kids to respect themselves and others when it comes to this subject...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lucretious, 31 Dec 2008 @ 2:03pm
    
    Re: Recidivism
    Some times of offenders are more likely to reoffend than other types, but sex offenders in general are no more likely to reoffend than anybody else.
    
    First off its a pathology, not a means of survival in an urban area. We are NOT talking about victimless crimes here. The chance of physical injury and, perhaps worse, a lifetime of mental anguish/scarring can result from a single attack so numbers mean nothing.
    
    Further, paroled perpetrators already have waived a sizable portion of their rights to privacy. They have the option of serving their remaining time behind bars.
    
    * Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent.
    * Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent.
    * Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent.
    * Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent.
    * Exhibitionists ranged between 41 and 71 percent.
    
    Again, Lets keep in mind we aren't talking about a victimless crime here such as drug addicts being locked up for using. A person who has physically violated an innocent person/child pays a heavy price (or should) which includes a reduction or elimination of said rights until their full sentence has been served. Stop trying to intellectualize this or use the "slippery slope" argument to paint offenders as a victim of heavy handed law enforcement. The public has a right to be protected first and foremost.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Loraan, 1 Jan 2009 @ 10:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Recidivism
      Further, paroled perpetrators already have waived a sizable portion of their rights to privacy.
      
      These are not all paroled perpetrators, at least not in the state of Georgia. This is anybody on the sex offender registry, which includes lots of people who have served their time in full, but who are still required to register, as a result of ever having been convicted.
      
      ...until their full sentence has been served.
      
      See above. Their sentences have been served. So your argument about reducing a person's rights until their sentence has been served is moot. How about reducing a person's rights for years after their sentence has been served?
      
      The public has a right to be protected first and foremost.
      
      At what cost? At any cost?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Lucretious, 2 Jan 2009 @ 6:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Recidivism
        Obviously I'm wrong about Georgia's laws so I stand corrected on that count.
        
        Sorry, but I still don't see an issue with controlling a sex offenders access (particularly pedophiles) to the internet. I can understand the "slippery slope" concerns behind it but at some point the argument can't be used to stifle every single decision due to what MIGHT happen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Loraan, 2 Jan 2009 @ 2:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Recidivism
        Sorry, but I still don't see an issue with controlling a sex offenders access (particularly pedophiles) to the internet.
        
        Well, it doesn't make sense to me. If we're going to make them give over their computer passwords, we might as well also let the government tap their phones and read their mail, since the Internet is at least that fundamental to many people's lives today. ... Which is ridiculous to me. "Get convicted of a sex offense and lose your 4th Amendment rights for the rest of your life." This isn't a slippery slope. This is already going too far.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg, 31 Dec 2008 @ 5:51pm
  
  Re: Recidivism rates
  Actually many studies have found recidivism rates for sex crimes to be in the 2-3% range when other crimes have much higher rates. The media tends to focus on sex crimes and report false recidivism rates all the time. What I hate is they clump all sex offenders into one category. A person who was caught peeing on the side of a street 15 years ago and a person who molested a child are all in the same category and are all treated the same. Of course one does more jail time, but after they get out (if they do) then its the same rules for all of them. Do all thieves get the same rules. If someone steals a car stereo valued at $200 they are treated differently then if they broke into a house and caused $20,000 of theft and damage. Lawmakers do this for publicity and for their own political gain and no one really ends up benefiting from the new law. Handing over the passwords is not going to really do anything to "help the children." It's the same falsehood that keeping sex offenders away from parks and schools does anything to protect kids, most sexual offenses take place at home and by people the victim knows, not by strangers. It's just the strangers are the ones on the news. I think this is a horrible precedent to be putting out there personally.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- concernedINga, 5 Jan 2009 @ 8:35pm
  
  Re: recidivism rate
  What recidivism rate? Do you mean the one cited by "the public" or the one coming from empirical data, HARD studies? How about a rate of less than 5% (Dept of Justice). From the same people - DUI's, 21% and drug offenses, 45%.
  Your inflammatory statement is tragically how statistical data is mis-represented.
  
  Regarding the text of the article, what about those who finished their sentences and been off probation/parole for a few years, have been in no trouble, but suddenly the state decides that "for the protection of the children" any sex offender must now give up usernames and passwords to a governmental agency that has no idea what to do with this information? Oh please, I'd love to hear your response, for once you tell me that it *might* protect a child from being hurt I will ask you that all the state has to do now to protect children (because the door is open to implementing ex post facto law) is to subject all those who have ever been convicted of a DUI (or another crime) that they now can't ever drive a vehicle since they have shown the inability to know when is when. Once you propose these things, our society begins to mimic Hitler's. Hitler once said that people will accept any deprivation of liberty if they believe it will protect their children.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cipher-0, 31 Dec 2008 @ 8:54am

Sex Offenders defintion...
... is a huge part of the problem. It covers child rapists (the true scum of the earth) as well as people who get drunk and convicted of indecent exposure for urinating in public.
Fact is, there's a lot of jobs where keeping your password safe is a condition of employment - and never mind the complications of trying to get a job with a "sex offender" credential bright and pretty on your background check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Poster, 31 Dec 2008 @ 9:03am
  
  Re: Sex Offenders defintion...
  Totally agreed, the definition of a "sex offender" is the most troublesome part of the problem. Not only are rapists and child molesters defined under the term, but so are people who commit statutory rape (but not actual rape), and that group can include people aged just a year or two over the legal age of consent having sex with someone just under the legal age (which is complete bullshit).
  
  This whole plan is horrible, and everyone who says it's "to protect the children" should be ashamed of themselves for using the old "child protectionism" bit to push it through.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- common sense for all, 5 Apr 2009 @ 11:54am
  
  Re: Sex Offenders defintion...
  The next time I am in public and have to pee and can't get to a rest room, I would at least try to go where no one can see me. I would then be faced with two choices, either take a piss and risk getting caught, and becoming a sex offender for life, or rupture my bladder and cause enormouse damage to my body and possible death. With neither option fesable,I guess then I would just have to piss in my pants.
  It will be a sad society where an person can't even releive themselves without worring that they will become a sex offender for life. I am sure people will realy get off watching others taking a piss.
  
  I am not advocationg urinating in public, but some times you have to go right now and can't wait without causing serious damage to your body.
  
  Since when is an discrete short unintintional exposure of a boby part have anything to do with sex.
  
  Our lawmakers need to use some common sense. You know damn well that if ank of them got stuck in public somewhere, and had to pee and couldn't get to a bathroom right now that none of them would be charged with a sex crime and put on the sex offender list.
  
  Are we living in the USA or the USSR.
  
  Next time I am out in the woods and take a pee and someone happens to see me, will this make me a sex offender to be put on the sex offender list. Do I take the risk of having this happen, or do I have to strap a colostomy bag to my leg with a tube stuck up my urithra and just let loose when I have to go.
  
  All kidding aside, this is a very serious issue. How will a person know exactlly what areas are considerd public and what are not to take the risk of destroying the rest of your life because you had to releive yourself. What if I am driving down some rurlal highway with knowone else around, and I have to go, what if stop and get out and start to go and a cop drives by and sees me.Will he charge me with a sex crime and be put on the sex offender list.WE shouldnt have to fear these tyes of things in the USA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heywood, 31 Dec 2008 @ 9:20am

Children
Mike, why do you hate children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Troy (profile), 31 Dec 2008 @ 9:35am
  
  Re: Children
  Why are you dim?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2008 @ 10:25am
    
    Re: Re: Children
    not certain, but i think he was going for irony there
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Heywood, 31 Dec 2008 @ 11:17am
    
    Re: Re: Children
    It was a joke, dipshit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Javier, 31 Dec 2008 @ 9:28am

sex offender
They lose their constitutional rights when convicted of the crime. They're lucky to have the privilage to get on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger, 31 Dec 2008 @ 9:35am
  
  Re: sex offender
  That's a little broad of a comment there. We're not just talking about online predictors or child molesters. We're talking about that guy who just made the wrong joke at the wrong time, or that drunk guy who really had to go.
  
  We aren't talking about rapists, We're talking about ALL sex offenders. Do you have any idea how easy it is to get on that list?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- CVPunk, 31 Dec 2008 @ 9:37am
  
  Re: sex offender
  Wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Anti Javier, 31 Dec 2008 @ 5:42pm
  
  Re: sex offender
  The constitution by it's very definition was designed to protect the rights of the accused and convicted. It was never intended to be anything less then inalienable for any of its citizens who chose to live within the borders of the united states. If you don't like the intent of the constitution then perhaps you should leave.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2008 @ 8:19pm
  
  Re: sex offender
  Are you George W. Bush? No one loses their Constitutional rights because they are convicted of a crime.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BTR1701, 1 Jan 2009 @ 1:22pm
  
  Re: sex offender
  > They lose their constitutional rights when
  > convicted of the crime.
  
  Ummm... no, they don't. At least not according to 200+ years of constitutional jurisprudence.
  
  But I guess some guy in the internet knows better...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2009 @ 6:13pm
    
    Re: Re: sex offender
    Ummm... no, they don't. At least not according to 200+ years of constitutional jurisprudence.
    Would that be the same jurisprudence that keeps people from being held in Gitmo for years with trial or even charges? Oh yeah, that really counts for a lot.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sex offenders do have right too!, 9 Mar 2009 @ 9:07am
  
  Re: sex offender
  I dont know who you are, but i dont care what you do wrong in this country, which i think it still is the united states here, and every one here has a constitutional right no matter what they have done wrong in there past or present, people need to get a life. people who dont have nothing better to do than worry what other people are doing. If more adults would watch there children mor closely i dont think these things would go on..plus sex offenders who have done there time in prison should not have a life sentence!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bill, 29 Mar 2009 @ 7:31am
    
    Re: Re: sex offender
    once convicted of a felony, most of your Constitutional rights are forfeited. While I agree that having a statutory rapist provide all their passwords is a bit much, I have no problem with maintaining the tightest possible reins over the child molester.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
kash, 31 Dec 2008 @ 9:32am

Convicted felons often, and rightfully, have many restrictions placed on them. In many states felons are prohibited from voting and even drinking alcohol. Federally, all felons are prohibited from owning or purchasing firearms, regardless whether their crime involved firearms or not. It's hard for me to see how having big brother looking over your shoulder is worse than many of the other restrictions already in place.

Simply doing's one time doesn't pay the debt to society when you're a felon. Just because a crime doesn't involve the internet, doesn't mean that restrictions can't be placed on a felon in that regards. Just as alcohol may not have been part of their crime, or voting or holding public office or owning a firearm, or holding many state licenses.

Just a couple days ago Techdirt wondered why DHS wasn't already monitoring blogs and forums for terrorists. Now the authors are suggesting that monitoring known felons is a goofy idea?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Loraan, 1 Jan 2009 @ 10:43pm
  
  Re:
  Convicted felons often, and rightfully, have many restrictions placed on them. Simply doing's one time doesn't pay the debt to society when you're a felon.
  
  Some of the crimes that get a person onto the sex offender registry are misdemeanors, not felonies. Assuming that we agree that it's appropriate to invade the privacy of felons, what about the non-felons who are also required to register?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2008 @ 9:33am

Children
Just one quastion... Do U have kids ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
elduderino, 31 Dec 2008 @ 9:36am

establishment establishment, you always know whats best!
hey I guess I should go ahead and get a jumpstart on handing over all my account names and passwords for everything I do online, including banking and work related accounts! after all, I've got nothing to hide, and one time my cousin's girlfriend's sister's babysitter had sex in front of her and if handing over my info can help stop that bad man from exposing himself to my cousin's girlfriend's sister, well sign me up!

and hey I guess if the government misuses or accidently leaks my information, I'll just sue! it's the capitalist way!

oh wait, can't sue the government, well.. I still think establishment always knows whats best!

LEARN THE RULES!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- elduderino, 31 Dec 2008 @ 9:37am
  
  Re: establishment establishment, you always know whats best!
  p.s. I'm not a sex offender, I just want to beat the rush to hand over all of my private information to the government
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lucretious, 31 Dec 2008 @ 2:08pm
    
    Re: Re: establishment establishment, you always know whats best!
    another "slippery slope" idiot? Are you that dim that you can't differentiate between convicted offenders and the general public?
    
    Let me guess, you feel 9/11 was an inside job maaaaann??
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AJ, 31 Dec 2008 @ 9:40am

easy fix...
I don't have any kids that I know of, but if I did, I don’t think I would want the government deciding what is best for them. I could handle that myself. So instead of using my tax dollars to create laws to "protect the children" I would like to see the parents that are so scared for there kids, spend their money to learn how to protect their children from predators, online or not. This would be a win win. We would protect the children, create jobs, and the people that were so worried can rest easy that they have the knowledge and skills to properly protect their children from the savages of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2008 @ 9:45am

re: sex offender
you're wrong. Felons do lose their rights, but most sex offenders aren't felons.

Those with underage girlfriends, naked in public, peeing in public, etc aren't felons. Many of them have no criminal record at all because it was erased when they turned 21 - yet they still are sex offenders because there's no way off the list.

all sex offender restrictions should be unconstitutional unless they're applying to people on probation.

I think if they're "dangerous" keep them in jail. if you release them, treat them the same as any other american.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lance, 31 Dec 2008 @ 12:46pm
  
  Re: re: sex offender
  Finally some sense!! I think if you are going to let them out treat them like anyone else. I personally think that no child rapist should ever see the light of day. One strike and you are out. If these people are so dangerous that every email and chat needs to be monitored they should not be released.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lucretious, 31 Dec 2008 @ 2:13pm
  
  Re: re: sex offender
  
  all sex offender restrictions should be unconstitutional unless they're applying to people on probation.
  
  and where did you read otherwise? No one is talking about monitoring offenders who have served their sentence fully or aren't on probabtion or parole.
  
  some of you guys froth at the mouth to rebel against an imaginary, all-knowing police force bent on removing our rights. Calm down.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2008 @ 4:09pm
    
    Re: Re: re: sex offender
    Umm, you're an idiot. Sex offender policies apply to all sex offenders for the rest of their lives!! They cannot be removed from the list and have to put up with these restrictions until they die. Even if their parole is only a few years.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lucretious, 31 Dec 2008 @ 4:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: re: sex offender
      Sex offender policies apply to all sex offenders for the rest of their lives!!
      
      ah, no. The stigma may last but the policies (in most states that I am aware of) do not.
      
      Can you get any more hysterical?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Loraan, 1 Jan 2009 @ 10:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: re: sex offender
        I'm sorry, but you're wrong. In Georgia, it's for life, and the only way to be removed is to petition a state Superior Court, and even then it must be ten years or more from your release, and only certain offenders are eligible.
        
        Georgia is not unique in this respect.
        
        See this page for facts:
        
        http://gbi.georgia.gov/00/channel_modifieddate/0,2096,67862954_87983024,00.html
        
        16. HOW LONG DOES A SEXUAL OFFENDER REMAIN ON THE REGISTRY?
        
        * LIFE Or
        
        * Per O.C.G.A. 42-1-12 (g) (1) “Any sexual offender required to register under this Code section who meets the criteria set forth in paragraph (2) of this Code section may petition the superior court of the jurisdiction in which the sexual offender is registered to be released from the registration requirements of this Code section. The court may issue an order releasing the sexual offender from further registration if the court finds that the sexual offender does not pose a substantial risk of perpetrating any future dangerous sexual offense.
        
        (2) In order to petition the court pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection, the sexual offender shall:
        (A) Have been sentenced pursuant to subsection (c) of Code Section 17-10-6.2; and
        (B) Have had ten years elapse since his or her release from prison, parole, supervised release, or probation.”
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - commonsense, 1 Jan 2009 @ 12:03pm
    
    Re: Re: re: sex offender
    Where did you learn to read dumbass? The law DOES apply to all sex offenders - even the ones who have completed their sentence and parole or probation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2008 @ 10:13am

for the children, all men should have their penis cut off at birth, no more births, no more children to save, problem solved. Along with every other human problem known to man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2008 @ 10:18am
  
  Re:
  "Along with every other human problem known to man."
  And woman!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lucretious, 31 Dec 2008 @ 2:15pm
  
  Re:
  no, that would be the request of most womens studies majors wielding their dog-eared copies of "Our Bodies, Ourselves".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2009 @ 6:44pm
  
  Re:
  "for the children, all men should have their penis cut off at birth"
  
  What, just the foreskin isn't enough anymore?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rehabilitating Sex Offender, 31 Dec 2008 @ 11:29am

Oops
"and even one slip-up can put them back in jail."

I slipped up and molested a 7-year-old. I shouldn't have to go back to the slammer for that!
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MKR, 31 Dec 2008 @ 1:00pm
  
  Re: Oops
  Or going into the city for a doctor's appointment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2008 @ 1:35pm

Holy crap. Considering that in California (and probably other states) 'public urination' is classified as a sex crime and could land you into this mess... that seems terribly extreme.

Parent's should be doing more to protect their children... Big Government is doing plenty already and this is a huge step too far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lucretious, 31 Dec 2008 @ 2:22pm
  
  Re:
  wouldn't it make more sense to amend the law so public urination and statutory rape (non-violent) aren't subjected to the same rules rather than withhold a tool from law enforcement that would give them the ability to monitor the dangerous offenders? Does Georgia even consider public urination a "sex crime"?
  
  BTW, this isn't "Big Government". This is a law enforcement issue. Big Government "Protecting the children" comes under things such as passing videogame legislation and other useless grandstanding.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2009 @ 6:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    wouldn't it make more sense to amend the law so public urination and statutory rape (non-violent) aren't subjected to the same rules....
    Except, that's not what they're wanting to do.
    
    Does Georgia even consider public urination a "sex crime"?
    Most states do.
    
    BTW, this isn't "Big Government". This is a law enforcement issue.
    This is tyranny.
    
    Big Government "Protecting the children" comes under things such as passing videogame legislation and other useless grandstanding.
    And this proposed law.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MSLGWCEO, 31 Dec 2008 @ 2:48pm

Stupid is as stupid does
This law is more than stupid. Passwords. Do you think giving all the passwords is going to protect anyone??? Lets see, bank account passwords, credit cards, etc. Now I can see a whole lot of abuse by law enforcement or anyone who has access.
"Stupid is as stupid does."

www.cfcoklahoma.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 31 Dec 2008 @ 2:54pm

I know a woman who was raped by her neighbor's teenaged son. She was somewhat drunk at the time. The parents found out that something happened between them and accused her of having seduced their son. Rather than have her name dragged through the mud and face the possibility of a harsher sentence, she agreed to a plea bargain with minimal jail time. As a result, she's now a registered sex offender for life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2009 @ 6:11pm
  
  Re:
  I know a woman who was raped by her neighbor's teenaged son.
  Yeah, right. Sounds to me more like she got drunk and raped the kid. She even admitted to it. I'm sick of women getting special treatment under the law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
moz, 31 Dec 2008 @ 4:28pm

what a great alibi ...
There's the secondary problem that anything the offender does online after disclosing the passwords etc can now be denied with the "no, that must have been someone in the sheriff's office". Proving otherwise will be interesting.

Not to mention that some of the child pron laws have no exemption for law enforcement until charges are filed. So looking at what's in the email account could be "distributing child pron".

Exciting times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2009 @ 12:07pm

BTW this comment "Where did you learn to read dumbass? The law DOES apply to all sex offenders - even the ones who have completed their sentence and parole or probation." was directed to Lucretious.

You know nothing and are just posting bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
commonsense, 1 Jan 2009 @ 4:19pm

Re: Sex Offender user BTR1701
BTR1701 - maybe the guy on the internet was thinking about how the state(s) can ignore Ex post Facto for sex offenders and only sex offenders. Example regarding the Sex Offender registry itself - many persons that had a sexual in nature conviction 20 or 30 or more years before the requirement to register found themselves required to register. Sex offenders, when convicted and sentenced, were given certain restrictions to complete their sentence. Then a new law was passed and they find out that has all changed and they are required to complete something else or additional time on certain things.

Have you ever - ever - heard of stuff like this happening to any other offense? A resounding answer is NO you haven't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
commonsense, 1 Jan 2009 @ 4:38pm

Re: Sex Offender user BTR1701
Sorry, I forgot to bring the response back around...

Since Ex Post Facto is a state and federal right under the state and federal constitution, I guess a sex offender looses constitutional rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mikey Boy, 1 Jan 2009 @ 9:00pm

OK.. Here's the thing...I havent read all the posts...but I dont have to.

As far as I am concerned Child sex offenders shouldn't be allowed to even have a computer. In fact, upon their conviction the judge should stand up and push aside his robe, pull out a .357 and put one in the convicted child sex offenders head.....NEXT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jan 2009 @ 6:24pm
  
  Re:
  OK.. Here's the thing...I havent read all the posts...but I dont have to. Just do like the people of the State of Georgia did when they elected the ass who wrote this law. Vote Republican. It's easier than thinking.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Randy, 13 Jan 2009 @ 6:10am
  
  Re:
  Sure Mikey Boy, you are all for that, until someone in your family,, ie: your son, daughter, mom, dad, brother, sister, niece, nephew, commits a sex crime. Then you will want to make an exception to your solution because you KNOW that person, and he/she is NOT a bad person, just someone who made a stupid mistake. Tell us truthfully, if it was your son who slept with a 16 yr old, would you walk up to him, tell him he is scum of the earth, and then shoot him in the head with your .357 ? Would you? be honest.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ttlkaos, 2 Jan 2009 @ 2:50am

sex offender
As a woman married to a "convicted sex offender" let me just say everybody should walk a mile in another's shoes. My husband was convicted for going on porn sites at work (all legal and above 18 sites) and because one picture looked like a teenager they arrested him. State charges were dropped but because of his postion and he would not give other names of other people on the porn sites they pursued it federally. The prosecuter kept looking until she found a Dr. who noncomitally said it "might" be someone who was 17 even though she was on a legal site. Already $18,000 in debt, and unable to fight the federal govt. he took the plea deal offered him and plead guilty to one charge of "child possesion" of pornography. He served 22 months and 3 years probation but was not required to register until this past July when the Adam Walsh law was enacted.

This is a monkey on your back that never goes away and you need to be very careful before you throw stones. I know very few men that don't go or have never gone to pron sites. You never know when "big brother " is watching any more.

Not only do you lose your "rights" you can never get a decent job, if you are on that registry a state police man comes in to "verify" for the rest of your life every 3 months that you work there, every 3 months he comes to your home to make sure you still live there, so even if your conviction is more than 5-7 years you still most say yes on a job application because a state trooper will be checking on you like a two year old.

You can never start over because when people "find out" whether it's thru googling your name or thru "well meaning busy bodies" or just plain old vindictiveness people begin to judge and don't even want to hear the truth and when they hear it they still judge and come to their own conclusions.

That person is never judged agsin on his own merits, his own life since that time in prison.

But a murderer, the person down the street giving the drugs to your child, do you think when he gets out from his few months has really stopped giving your child drugs??? But he isn't own a list!! He is recruiting your child to help him.

The gang violence in this country is killing and hurting children and they can't even stop that but are spending tax payer money to make sure my husband is at his job in the middle of the night earning 7.00 an hour. Or that we are still living where we have lived for years and years.

And the people who so smugly sit in church on Sunday and condemn us and turn their noses at us go home and either they or their husbands, brothers, friends, children, or fathers go online in the darkness behind closed door looking at the same sites that put my husband in jail.

So be very careful before you throw rocks. He who has no sins throw the first rock!!! He who has lived a perfect life who can honestly say he never looked at a play boy, victoria secret catalog (by the way they have a model who is only 14 years old in there, can you tell which one???? looking at her in a bra and panties...is that child porn?) or who has never ever gone even once to an internet porn site or even a couples sexuality site, then you can say something, but I bet even you have a sin on your soul.

My husband has more than paid his dues for looking at porn at work, but lord, everything else we have to go thru for the rest of our lives????????? For something 99.9% of the rest of the world has done??

Our life is hell, this law makes it even worse. He has paid for his sin, but not only has he, so have I, our children and now our grandchildren will too.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jerry Garcia, 2 Jan 2009 @ 10:42am

Georgia Law Requiring Sex Offendor Passwords
Lucretious,

You need to go better research. DOJ statistics show the recidivism rate for sex offenders is lower than 5.2 percent nationwide. I used to believe it was high also. Actually the rate is lower than the vast majority of other crimes. I used to believe it was high also. The high recidivism rate myth is used by the media to attract viewers and politicians to attract ignorant voters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kap, 5 Jan 2009 @ 11:16am

Hey
All you people asking if you have children, answer me this. If these people are such a risk to society why the hell aren't we just executing them instead of letting them out. If the system doesn't work they need to be executed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bigsurfer, 6 Jan 2009 @ 5:41am

sex offenders must hand over passwords
i'm a registered sex offender (i'm not a child molester nor did the crime have to do with kids etc..) in Georgia. I can tell you it has been very difficult living here in Georgia but thru the grace of God my family & I are getting by fine. Yes,i do have a family,1 boy & 1 girl & happily married & very involved in my community as well.The law makers have said they want to rid the state of all sex offenders etc...but in reality this will never happen. The public also needs to understand that if you are a sex offender it dosent mean ones crime was against a child etc...in Georgia,there is no level 1,2 or 3.Every sex offender is lumped into the same catagory etc...You can even be on the registry for urinating on the side of the road if caught!! In Georgia,"The Southern Center OF Human Rights"represent all sex offenders in Georgia as a class action law suite on all these crazy insane laws the state is trying to pass,for example:: the state of Georgia passed a law saying that if a sex offender owned their home that it could be taken away etc...if it was in a 1,000 feet of a school/day care center/church/playground(which includes a playground @ McDonalds or Burger King etc..)/public swimming pool (which also includes pools in a apartment complex or hotel)/bus stop/roller rink etcccccccc...Because it was challenged in the Georgia courts by the SCFHR,the Georgia Supreme Court said it was unconsitutional to take one's home etc....so the law makers had to go back & re-write the law & now say that a sex offender does not have to move if he or she owns their home/property & that they can keep their job(s) if they work near any of the mentioned sites if they were employed by 2006.The law makers in Georgia arrested loads of homeless sex offenders(locked them up for 30 yrs) in Georgia cause they didnt have a perm address & they couldnt use a shelter or bridge as an address,but again this was challenged in the Georgia courts by The SCFHR & again the Georgia supreme court ruled that if you are homeless you cant be arrested in violation of this & that it was unconsitutional (double jeporady) & that a homeless sex offender can now use a shelter or the bridge or park bench where he or she resides as their perm address.The SCFHR is also challenging the church law (prohibiting a sex offender from volunteering @ a church etc..) in the courts. This law is crazy cause it prohibits a sex offender from getting help/rehab/accountability etc...from churches & what programs they have to offer etc....The law states that a sex offender cant....read scripture aloud in church/bake a cake for a church function/participate in any kind of church activities,programs etc.../sing in the adult choir/play an instrument in the worship band/prepare a sermon for the pastor etc/no kind of church activity on any level cause it may put a child @ risk etc....how does singing in a adult choir or playing drums in the worship band put a child @ risk???Also too,if a sex offender is found in @ a church doing anything like this,the church's pastor/priest can be arrested for aiding & abedding & be in prison up to 30 yrs. its dumbfounding!!! But,this law will also probaly be found unconsitutional in the Georgia Supreme Court.With this new law in Georgia requiring all sex offenders to register all their email accounts/screen names/passwords is crazy. I've got nothing against letting them know about my email accounts & screen names but not my passwords cause i've got loads of personal info there like bank account info etc....how do i know that somebody in the sherriff's office or GBI office wont clean out my bank accounts etc..........think about that before all of you out there say that i have no privacy. What if the govt.,said tomorrow you had to do that,how would you feel? Just something to think about.I've been off probation now for years & trying to get on with my life.When i was on 5 years probation i did what was required of me.....sex therapy class every week which i had to pay $80 every week/a polygraph test (which i always passed) every six months while i was on probation which i had to pay $475 each time i took it/everything my probation officer required of me etc......so when i was released from oberservation(probation)i thought me & my family would have a so called "normal life".These politicians in Georgia are not really keeping the children safe by passing these insane laws.They should get the idea that they're not going to work ,especially if they're getting challenged & The Georgia Supreme Court are finding some of them unrealistic & unconsitutional etc...Georgia needs to pass laws that are realistic etc...that will protect your children & my children ! The public is always fast to pass judgement on a sex offender & have he or she lynched,but it's funny how the public forgets that the sex offender has children & a spouse.Who's going to protect the sex offenders children & spouse???I never hear that mentioned.Just something to think about. Hey,i believe if you are a child molestor,they need to have the harshest laws & restrictions upon them,but the local govt's & media need to make a difference & catagorize the different sex offenders & sex crimes etc....Like i said before,i'm not a child molestor,nor did my crime have anything to do with children.I made a mistake & i've paid the consequences for my crime. I'm a born again christian & Jesus/God has forgiven me & knows my heart, my true repentance,in fact everyone in my family are saved (wife & kids)& we are very involved in my local church.Thank God for The Southern Center For Human Rights for paying attention & giving us some dignity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
starry-eyed dreamer, 12 Jan 2009 @ 5:58pm

sex offenders
my husband is in prison at this very moment, doing time because of a lie his daughter told so she could stay with her mother after a summer visit, (he had raised her and her sister since their births because the mother wouldn't take care of them). She has come forward since growing up and told the truth, but the only thing we are told is it is too late for the 'truth'. HUH????? how is it too late for the truth??? Now, when my husband comes home after his three years, we will try to put our lives back together. I am the first to say sex offenders need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law, but we also need to realize that everyone who is in prison, or who has been convicted - ESPECIALLY in Georgia, one of the most backwards states in the nation, isn't guilty of the crime they are there for. You are badgered and railroaded into pleading guilty to get a 'lesser' sentence to save the counties money on a trial, which will get you MORE time if you insist on the trial, which COULD be 'fair'....IF you're lucky....I mean, come on people, we're supposed to be intelligent here. I never dreamed the things that actually go on in our 'so-called' justice system. Wise up...it could happen to anyone, all it takes is ONE and I mean ONE liar. There was NO proof in my husbands case, he passed the polygraph HE offered to take...naievely believeing this would clear his good name. He remained free on bond for SIX years before his case went to trial....so now the 'heinous' crimnal is behind bars, we can all sleep well at night. The only thing Georgis did was take a productive member of society and lock him up and devastate our lives because he had the misfortune to have children with a lying bitch, who perpertrated the entire scheme and was able to get her two daughters to join in. I honestly hope this never happens to anyone of you, I hope if it does you will IMMEDIATELY contact Dean Tong - www.abuse-excuse.com and have him assist you in your defense and please spend the money on a GOOD attorney from Atlanta...don't rely on anyone from podunkville...they will hang you out to dry, then throw you under the bus...in front of the train...and all the other cliches'. Pray for us that we are able to piece together our shattered lives and move on from this with no bitterness in our hearts.
As far as the ignorant laws Georgia keeps coming up with to protect the children...PARENTS need to start taking responsibility for their children and keep them off the internet. I have grandchildren and they are NEVER allowed on it unsupervised. Predators are going to go after children(and adults) no matter what the law makers do. Sin has invaded our planet and it is alive and well. I don't condone it and when they catch someone who has harmed a child they need to deal with him accordingly....BUT let's be sure he HAS indeed done the deed. Don't believe ANYTHING you hear on TV or read in the paper either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smedley, 5 Feb 2009 @ 10:39pm

Not me!
I am a sex offender in this state, and I will NOT be giving ANYONE my password. They can take me to court.

And I advise anyone else in this state, to do the same.

This is a total invasion of privacy, and the Gestapo and Big Brother, can kiss my a--!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Dirt, 5 Feb 2009 @ 10:42pm
  
  Re: Not me!
  And so am I, and I talked with several sheriff's, and they said they will NOT be asking for this information, because they feel it violates our rights.
  
  If you follow the news, you will see, this is only a precursor of what is to come. They will continue to eradicate the rights of others, and when they come for you, who will be able to fight?
  
  Also, I found this GREAT blog about these issues. Check it out some time!
  
  http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bill, 29 Mar 2009 @ 7:33am
  
  Re: Not me!
  before I judge what you just said, will you be forthcoming enough to say what "kind" of offense placed you squarely on the sex offender registry?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2009 @ 8:46pm

So unfair
I'm tired of arguing with the idiots that would deny sex offenders their rights. Rapists are citizens too!
Just because I was caught sodomizing cub scouts doesn't mean I lose my rights!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill, 29 Mar 2009 @ 7:39am

At least in GA, the vast majority of registered sex offenders are child molesters. In spite of what NAMBLA and other organizations of their ilk may say, these people are very sick and dangerous, and will likely reoffend if not watched and monitored closely.

I too feel differently about those who may have fallen through the cracks because of urinating in public, and I even feel differently about statutory rapists.

Child molesters are a continuing threat to society, whenever they are out of jail. They need to be kept on a very short leash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill's an idiot, 5 Apr 2009 @ 1:14pm

Bill's an idiot
Sorry, "bill," but you're dead wrong. No one "forfeits their rights" when convicted of a crime. That's why they are RIGHTS, and if they can be forfeited simply by virtue of other people handing down a conviction, then what does that imply about YOUR rights? I also saw you abstract away sex offender categories and refer to them using the term "child molesters." Not all sex offenders are child molesters. Even those who "possess" but do not distribute or create child pornography are not child molesters in any way. (Oh, you might respond with "...yet" but punch up http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=864 and feel the pain as your Orwellian desires crumble.)

Also, your straw man attack where you ask someone to divulge their offense is irrelevant: you're attacking the person writing the material, not what the person actually talks about.

Where's your source for the bold statement that "in Georgia, most sex offenders are child molesters?" You somehow managed to forget to include a reliable, verifiable, unbiased third-party source for that nugget of information.

I feel that those such as yourself who are not able to handle basic logical arguments properly are the ones that should be on a very short leash. See the movie "Idiocracy" for an example of what the world might be like if you keep it up. What's next? You want to force sex offenders to drink only sports drinks to fix their issues because it has electrolytes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Mother, Aunt, Wife of Victim and past vi, 29 Jun 2009 @ 5:39pm

Sex Offenders
Just thought everyone would be interested to know that the sex offender registry no longer protects kids as it claims, it now convicts them to the same fate as well. In Iowa the youngest person on the sex offender registry is a six year old. He is not the only child on the sex offender registry. Most states don't even have a minimum age requirement and those that do the youngest age is 12-14. Apparently children aren't even allowed to be children anymore. An assistant teacher at a school had a 4 year old suspended because she filed a complaint that the child put his face in her breast when he gave her a hug before getting on the school bus to go home. Also if you look up past and present treatment of juvenile sex offenders you can come to the conclusion that I did that we might be responsible for creating some of the adult sex offenders. If you don't believe me look it up. I am a student studying law right now and I had to for an assignment and I was appalled. If you are looking for change go to sexoffenderreform.org and sign the petition and then go to wederserveourlivesback.com and send an email to the creator of that sight asking him to incorporate his idea to sex offender laws. It only takes a minute of your time and can make a lifetime of changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kathleen, 23 Jul 2009 @ 5:52pm

How sad are law makers are
The problems with the sex offenders list, is that it is to long, no one should have to have this on there mind every day the rest of there life. We have to ask the question, what is a sex offender, every little thing or sin they are put on list. This is a terible law , we have to ask how educated are the leaders of are country?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
terry, 6 Aug 2010 @ 2:38pm

u-2
this could happen to you are your love one that someone yells he touch me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2011 @ 11:38pm

and who is going to inforce it?, who stopped jessica lunsford from being attacked, They are on the streets and waiting to prey on our children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]