Petition to Declare Public Sex Offender Registration in the United States a Violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
Today, approximately one-million people in the United States are forced to register as “sex offenders”. The label leads to stigmatization, separation from society, loss of employment, loss of housing and even exposure to violence at the hands of vigilantes. The stigmatization extends to the spouses, children, family, friends, employer and anyone that associates with the registrant. The isolation, shame, stress, fear of violence, loss of income and other psychological effects are experienced by the entire household.
Ok, not as onerous as once thought but still punitive.
This FDLE guidance summary is almost as obscure as the text of the statute. But, in good faith, I am making the assumption that Internet Communication means communication ONLY with another human being. Since I don’t use any social networking applications, I’d need to be concerned with reporting only sites like FAC, where I occasionally post a comment to a blog. Maybe I’ll just start using my birthdate as a screen name every time I post.
Use something more original – someone else may use the same.
EVERYONE Needs to read the Statute closer. NO Way can they will they or ever try to Monitor all communications through every Registrant in Florida using the WEB. Nor can they technically! The FDLE needs your Internet Identifiers specifically any and all chat, email and instant messaging and any sites such as Twitter you use to converse with others, They are not asking for Blogs or Specific Websites were you may occassionally post a comment. Stop the Panic, its making the situation worse. Tell the FDLE Everything and they will be happy and you will too. COMPLIANCE IS THE KEY
JV you are absolutely incorrect.
You absolutely ARE required to register blogs or websites where you occasionally post a comment.
JV, you just communicated with me and many others. I am replying, thereby communicating with you. Nice to meet you.
Technology is such that ones E Mail is enough to trace an on line activity. More Unconstitutional Punitive Banishment, for Registered Citizens.
I’m not doing any of that plain and simple. Take me back to jail if you must. I’m not reporting every single freakin web site I go to. Not happening. Civil disobedience. Gotta happen from us at some point. If we all do it, what are they gonna do?
I may be overreacting a bit, but I’m just tired of all of this. I’m living my life as “normal” as I can, working 3 jobs just to survive. FDLE just leave me alone!! I just hope this lawsuit to postpone the enactment of this law goes through. What’s the update on that?
The hearing is on the 23rd of this month. Please refer to our site for updates.
We published the schedule here: http://floridaactioncommittee.org/internet-identifier-update/
so i wonder if i could list the ip address and provide them this list:
1.0.0.0 – 9.255.255.255
11.x.x.x – 126.255.255.255
129.0.0.0 – 169.253.255.255
169.255.0.0 – 172.15.255.255
172.32.0.0 – 191.0.1.255
192.0.3.0 – 192.88.98.255
192.88.100.0 – 192.167.255.255
192.169.0.0 – 198.17.255.255
198.20.0.0 – 223.255.255.255
it covers all public internet address’s
Don’t forget IPv6 addresses. But again, the law says URL, not host/domain. Listing every single IPv4, IPv6, and host address (which would be infinite), you’re still missing scheme, port, path, and argument data on each. And let’s not forget each of those need an identifier or “anonymous”, so now take the cartesian product of infinite with your list of usernames. Now we’re covered.
This all just goes to prove that this law is not ripe! the law is the law and FDLE Guidelines can’t change the law! Although H. Clinton did not have intent on breaking the law and was not prosecuted. humm i wonder how many people on the hit list had no intent and now their life is ruined!
All I can say is I hope this challenge goes through. This law is insane. I may as well be a hermit in the Everglades. The Registration laws and penalties are 2 pages or more long..Next they’ll put me in a concentration camp and require bandanas on my arm:/
I think everyone should make screen names of supporters of this law and register them as identifiers.
That’s a lovely idea… only issue is the information is freely accessible so the supporters whose names are used as screen names will know the identity of the person who is using their name. Generally they are politicians or those in law enforcement. Here in Florida they will mess with you!
FDLE can attempt clarification all they want, it does not change the law. The law says URL, not domain. A URL, which need not be confined to web traffic only, per the governing RFC 1738 (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1738.txt) takes the mandatory form “http://[host]:[port]/[path]?[searchpart]” (RFC 1738 section 2.2). When any part is left blank, it is assumed to be null or default. These elements must exist, either explicitly or implicitly, to constitute a URL.
Using the FDLE example of Facebook, a site used for communication without a doubt, simply browsing to the site will be one unique URL, per the governing documents (Again, see the RFC). e.g. https://www.facebook.com/
If you then browse to the page https://www.facebook.com/directory/, this is a different and unique URL because the [path] is clearly different. To say that it is not is to break the very RFC which defines the term Uniform Resource Locator (URL) in the first place, and is such invalid guidance by FDLE. Using their example as the invalid interpretation that it is, we can just as easily say the [domain], [port], and [searchpart] have no significance in the URL. Therefore, https://www.facebook.com/ must be the same as https://www.google.com and http://twitter.com and http://floridaactioncommittee.com:80/wp-login.php?even=morestuff
If the law were written as the FDLE wishes it had been, it would replace “Uniform Resource Locator (URL)” with “Fully Qualified Domain Name”, which can still get pretty wild in variations, but even better “Second Level Domain and Top Level Domain”, which essentially is the usually-significant part FDLE seems to be after (e.g. facebook.com, twitter.com, facebook.co.uk, etc.). See RFC 920, which defines these terms and the domain name hierarchy (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc920)
Plain and simply this law was written by incompetents who, per the usual, do not care about making sense or complying with the laws of the language, the laws of science, the laws of technology, and so forth. Ironic for a group of people whose job is to make laws. FDLE is doing their best to ensure it doesn’t get out of hand, by spreading official but unlawful and fundamentally incorrect information. Essentially, they are saying “despite the law and the true definition of the term URL, we only want you to tell us the main domain name”.
As an additional bit of fun information, every single page you visit, unbeknownst to the layman, is creating on average hundreds of additional requests in the background to other paths, other domains, and with other arguments, and even to other ports. In other words, when you browse to twitter.com, without having logged in yet, you have just requested 86 URLs (per my test as of this writing) for images, scripts, Async Requests (e.g. AJAX), etc. Even if we ONLY count domains, this single page visit requested resources from 9 different domains. This is on the low end, as large sites are able to significantly optimize things to perform fewer requests. Visit baynews9.com, a site which you can post comments (which is definitely considered communication), and on the home page alone you just performed 220 requests to individual URLs.
To be compliant with this law while still using the Internet in essentially ANY way is effectively impossible. If we were all to actually comply with the law as it is written, FDLE’s systems could not hold up against the onslaught of registered URLs that would have to be submitted.
Incredibly well informed! Thank you!!!
I wish I could hug you right now. Thanks for the post, which contains so much goodness I don’t know where to start praising it. In my hopeful dreams, you are actually connected with the FDLE and are trying to find a way to educate our legislators. Thanks to you sir/madam.
JV – I hear what you are saying about stopping the panic but in this case what the FDLE is saying and the way the statute reads do not match and what you call panic I call outrage – actually the statute is extremely obscure – the interpretation of it by the FDLE certainly makes a little more sense (however as mentioned above they cannot just interpret the law the way they want to) – I have read the statute more than once and it is misleading and confusing – the fact is when laws are made that can put a person in prison they need to be clear and concise – period.
Along a similar line regarding what the law requires and what law enforcement (LE) is willing to accommodate: Statute 943.0435 indicates that, upon re-registration, changes to personal data, including palm prints, MUST be reported to LE. However, Orange County is not ready/willing to take palm prints (a requirement added two years ago) except during one’s initial registration. Thus, they never took mine and, per the statute, I MUST provide them. I sent an email to FDLE over a year ago to let them know that I offered my palm prints to LE, but they would not take them.