Blog Enhancements

We've added some new stuff to each post and also to the sidebar on the right to allow you to share each post or this blog on social networks. Please use them, the more people do, the more people will be made aware of this blog and help us out.

And on the right sidebar you will see the following, which will allow you to share this blog on other social networks.

Below each post you will now see what is below, which will share the specific post on Facebook, as +1's on Google+, on your Google+ profile, or on Twitter.

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.

OH - Could Sex Offender Registration Requirements Be Changing In The M.O.V.?

Original Article

We are having issues embedding the video from the link above, so visit that link to watch the video.

06/24/2012

By Erin Pulsanti

A new law in Louisiana mandates sex offender and predators must post on their social networking profile that they have been convicted of a sexual crime. Could a similar law be headed for the Mid-Ohio Valley?

The concept of a sex offender registry is not new, in fact each state in the nation has a system where they track and keep a record of those convicted of a sexual crime. Those registering have to provide personal information, including (but not limited to) address, phone numbers, vehicle information, employment information and Internet information.

"In the state of Ohio- they (the offender) have to give their screen name," explains Sgt. Patrice Tornes of the Washington County Sheriff''s Office. "Any social media outlet they are with- they have to provide passwords for them as well."
- Passwords?  I don't think so, and if they do, this is definitely unconstitutional.

"In West Virginia they (the offender) have to register and tell us who their provider is and they also have to give their email address... or addresses." Cpl. Mark Mayhugh of the West Virginia State Police. "They also have to let us know if they are on Facebook or any social networking site. They have to give us their user name as well."

How frequently an offender or predator registers varies from once a year to every 90 days depending on their original conviction. A new law in the state of Louisiana builds on existing registration requirements and now mandates that the offender must include in their social networking profile that they are a sex offender or predator. The new law says the offender must list the jurisdiction of conviction, description of the offenders physical characteristics and their address.

Local law enforcement says although the new law seems great in theory, in practice it could make their jobs of tracking sex offenders more difficult.

"It's not necessarily a bad thing. I think it would be difficult to enforce because a lot of the offenders would just go on and register using aliases," Cpl. Mayhugh says. "I think it will also probably result in more violations."

"I don't see this making law enforcement's job any easier," Sgt. Tornes agrees. "In fact, I think it will make it harder when trying to track them on the social media. When they get busted under their original name- they're just going to go in and create another account and this can happen multiple times."

Officials say it depends on the results in Louisiana to see whether or not the new requirements will take hold in the Mid-Ohio Valley.

"I would think that the public is probably going to like the idea, it sounds good," Cpl Mayhugh concludes. "I think Louisiana is the only state that requires it thus far. So, they'll be a good tester state."

"If something works out well in one state than, naturally, other states are going to want to look at it. All that they're out to do is protect the public in any way that they can," Sgt. Tornes says.

IN - Judge Upholds Ind. Facebook Ban for Sex Offenders

Original Article

06/24/2012

By CHARLES WILSON

A national civil rights group said Sunday it would appeal a federal judge's decision to uphold an Indiana law that bans registered sex offenders from accessing Facebook and other social networking sites used by children.

On Friday, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt said in an 18-page order (PDF) that the state has a strong interest in protecting children and that the rest of the Internet remains open to those who have been convicted.

"Social networking, chat rooms, and instant messaging programs have effectively created a 'virtual playground' for sexual predators to lurk," Pratt wrote in the ruling, citing a 2006 report by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that found that one in seven youths had received online sexual solicitations and one in three had been exposed to unwanted sexual material online.
- Yeah, mainly by other peers, not adults who are on Facebook, but that's why you need to look elsewhere, instead of the NCMEC, like here for example, which is a newer, larger study done in 2008 by many organizations, not just one with a vested interest.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the class-action suit on behalf of a man who served three years for child exploitation, along with other sex offenders who are restricted by the ban even though they are no longer on probation. Federal judges have barred similar laws in Nebraska and Louisiana.

"We will be appealing," ACLU legal director Ken Falk said in an email Sunday to The Associated Press. Appeals from federal courts in Indiana go to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

Courts have long allowed states to place restrictions on convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences, controlling where many live and work and requiring them to register with police. But the ACLU claimed that that Indiana's social networking ban was far broader, restricting a wide swath of constitutionally protected activities.

The ACLU contended that even though the 2008 law is only intended to protect children from online sexual predators, social media are virtually indispensable and the ban prevents sex offenders from using the websites for political, business and religious activities.

But Pratt found that the ban is limited only to social networking sites that allow access by children, and that such sites aren't the only forms of communication on the Internet.

"The Court readily concedes that social networking is a prominent feature of modern-day society; however, communication does not begin with a 'Facebook wall post' and end with a '140-character Tweet,' " she wrote.

Though the law doesn't list which websites are banned, court filings have indicated the law covers Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Google Plus, chat rooms and instant messaging services. Earlier filings indicated LinkedIn was also covered by the ban, but Pratt's ruling said it wasn't because children under 18 can't sign up for it.

"It is a very well-reasoned opinion and the Indiana statute has certainly attempted to be specific," said Ruthann Robson, a professor of constitutional law at the City University of New York. But she faulted the judge and the law for treating all sex offenders as if they were likely to commit another offense.

"A better statute might provide for some sort of individualized determination rather than a blanket prohibition," she said.

Social networking bans have been struck down in two other states.

In February, U.S. District Judge Brian Jackson found that Louisiana's prohibition was too broad and "unreasonably restricts many ordinary activities that have become important to everyday life."

Pratt said Indiana's ban wasn't as broad the overturned Louisiana ban.

Louisiana lawmakers passed a new law last month that more narrowly defines which sites are prohibited. News and government sites, email services and online shopping are excluded from the new rules, as are photo-sharing and instant messaging systems. The measure takes effect Aug. 1.

In Nebraska, a federal judge in 2009 blocked part of a law that included a social networking ban. A second legal challenge by an Omaha-area sex offender is set for trial in July.

Scarlet Letter

Original Article

06/22/2012

By Ann Sattley

It’s no secret that I’m against sex offender registries. In fact, it’s one of the more controversial stands I’ve taken.

As a libertarian, I oppose sex offender registries because they intrinsically restrict freedom while not actually doing anything to protect anyone.

As a Christian, I oppose sex offender registries because they intrinsically assume nobody can change. I obviously believe that people can change through the power of Jesus Christ.

As a regular person with common sense, I already know that most sex crimes occur by someone who knows the victim. I also realize, using my brain, that these registries serve to increase paranoia. Additionally, the crimes listed on the registry may not correspond to what we think they do. We hear legal terms like “criminal sexual conduct” and we have no idea about the corresponding offense. I also know that people have no tolerance for anyone suspected of a sexual crime. They presume guilt because they don’t want to upset the person who is alleging the crime (see Duke lacrosse scandal). I’m not saying that all people on the sex offender registry are innocent. But, I at least reserve the option that some of them are due to our societal perception of sex crimes. And, that’s not all. There are people on the registry who have committed a “crime,” but the definition of crime is too strict (as I often point out). Here’s Lenore Skenazy’s take on the issue:

There are now commercially available mobile phone apps that map out their addresses. Looking at a map with lots of red dots makes people terrified of their neighbourhoods. It also ruins the lives of many of the ‘red dots’ – a lot of whom are no threat to children at all. They may be a 19-year-old who had consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend (that’s considered statutory rape), or a guy who was convicted for peeing in public. So what we need is a law that identifies where DANGEROUS people are living, not just anyone who ran afoul of our increasingly draconian — and sometimes ridiculous — sex offender laws. Policy must change, and that begins (once again) with a reality check! (Source)

Instead of our society implying the common sense reasoning that I have detailed above, we continue to get more and more totalitarian about sex offender registries. Today, I found out that Louisiana passed a law mandating that all registered sex offenders have to list their status on social networking websites! Nevermind the fact that the Louisiana sex offender registry is already online. That’s not good enough for us anymore! We need to see these people hanged.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the vast amassing of government for which it stands, one nation, under siege, with indignity and paranoia for all.

Chris Voss talks about Sex Offender Laws

Only the first portion of this video is them discussing the sex offender laws, the rest is about Microsoft Windows and other unrelated stuff.

Facebook mom trolled so badly she sues to stop the madness

Original Article

05/14/2012

By Suzanne Choney

A mom who dared to share words of encouragement on Facebook to an unpopular reality-show contestant found herself as the target of a hate campaign that's raged for six months. After trolls allegedly set up a fake Facebook page in her name and used it to solicit girls as young as 9, Nicola Brookes decided to sue Facebook to find the names of the unseen people who persist in harassing her.
- How familiar this sounds.  Many people we've came in contact with over the years, have done this same thing to others, and they continue to this day posting lies about people, just because they speak out and do not agree with their warped reality.

Brookes, who lives in Brighton, England, has been the target of troll hatred on Facebook since last fall, when Frankie Cocozza, an "X-Factor" contestant, was thrown off the British equivalent of "American Idol" for boasting about drug use. Brookes, whose daughter is a fan of the show, was looking at a Facebook page about Cocozza and saw all the snarky remarks posted to him.

"Keep your chin up, Frankie," she said in her Facebook post. "They'll move onto someone else soon." Move on they did, to Brookes herself.

On the fake Facebook page they created in Brookes' name, the trolls apparently solicited young girls for drugs and for sex, then posted comments on the same page calling Brookes a pedophile. The trolls also later posted Brookes’ Brighton home address and a photo of her daughter, says Brookes.
- Hopefully they were or will be arrested and thrown in prison?

Facebook removed the fake page, but Brookes wants the social network to turn over the Internet addresses of the perpetrators, hiding behind various identities. She maintains that she did nothing more to inflame their bile than share her "keep your chin up" remark.

"As soon as she posted that comment about the singer, people started hurling awful, nasty comments toward her," attorney Rupinder Bains told msnbc.com in a phone interview. Her London-based firm, Bains Cohen, took the case on a pro bono basis. Brookes, in her 40s, has Crohn's disease and has not been able to work for a while. The Facebook fiasco has made her scared to leave her home, with threats continuing, Bains said.

When the law firm asked Facebook to remove the fake page last fall, it did so quickly — "they were great," said Bains.

"But the trolling hasn't stopped," she said. "The trolls will constantly be on there, making comments about Nicola ... and then they say things on other blogs elsewhere and on their own Facebook pages. We have to take steps to get the identity of these trolls."

Facebook, contacted for comment by msnbc.com, shared this statement:

Nothing is more important to us than the safety of the people that use our service. Unlike other websites and forums Facebook has a real-name culture, which provides greater accountability and a safer and more trusted environment. We are clear that there is no place for bullying or harassment on Facebook and we respond aggressively to reports of potential abuse.

The site gives users "the tools to report abuse on every page and the option to block people from having any further contact with them. Reports involving harassment are prioritized, reviewed by a trained team of reviewers and removed if they violate our terms."

In a story in the Telegraph, a Facebook spokesman said much of the same, adding that the site responds "aggressively to reports of potential abuse," but declining to comment on the legal action.

Bains believes there may be four or five people behind the harassment/bullying effort on Facebook, but she doesn't know for sure. The law firm plans to request an injunction from the court in Britain to compel Facebook to turn over the computer addresses of those involved in the cruel campaign.

What happens if such an order is granted and the law firms gets ahold of the names? "We would see criminal prosecution once we've identified the trolls," Bains said. Charges could include violations of harassment and communications laws in Britain.

The case, she said, "just goes to show how the veil of anonymity gives an individual so much strength and power," including the power to wound.
- And it's these same idiots who are going to ruin it for everyone else.

Meanwhile, Brookes has been "through times of depression because of this," but she remains on Facebook, Bains said: "She refuses to be beaten by them."