When The Cops Want Your Username

[The Straight Story]

Starting in March, any time one of the 73,000 registered sex offenders in California creates a new username on any website — whether to shop, pay bills, comment on a news article, or just play "Words with Friends" — he will have to notify his local police or sheriff within 24 hours. He (the overwhelming majority are men) will also have to hand over a list of all the usernames he has ever created, on any site. If he doesn’t comply, he could be charged with an automatic felony or misdemeanor, which could land him in jail.

The new requirements are part of a lesser-known section of California’s Proposition 35, also known as the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act Initiative, aimed at curtailing the sex traffic industry.

The proposition passed with 81% of the vote last November. The huge margin was no surprise: Who isn’t against exploitation? But critics say the voters may not have fully grasped what they approve — or the slippery slope on which it could be the first step. That’s because the new law legally prohibits — albeit for a small and often legitimately despised population — anonymous online speech and mandates that people have their online persona linked to their real “authentic” self.

If the underlying ethos of a mandatory, uniform online identity sounds familiar, it’s because it’s at a core value of the world’s largest social network. In some ways, Proposition 35 can be seen as the legislation of Facebook’s company policy, which prohibits people from creating anonymous profiles that aren’t based on their real offline name and identity. It’s a highly controversial position, one that rejects the Internet’s tradition as an open forum encouraging free anonymous speech. But as more and more people sign into other sites through Facebook, having one unified online identity — and seeing your full name and Facebook photograph automatically jump up on websites — is becoming the norm.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/justinesharrock/when-the-cops-want-your-username

[dlwickham]

1. I can understand the logic behind this

and I have to say I'm not opposed to it

[Ezlivin]

2. Can you please give me your real name?

The implementation of this law—which you don't oppose—will lead to that for all of us.

Many of these new laws concerning how we interact with people on the internet are touted as necessary to "keep us safe", "reduce piracy" or some other reason, when in fact they are designed to reduce our ability to use the internet. Ultimately the goal seems to be to reduce the possibility that something analogous to the "Arab Spring" can occur here. Basically we are witnessing a struggle to regulate and control users of the internet.

So be careful what you wish for (or don't oppose).

[dlwickham]

4. I'm not a sex offender

sorry

sex offenders have less rights than the average ex-con

if I was a parent and I was doing all I could to keep my kids safe, I'd want to know if sex offenders and the like were using the same chat rooms, websites, gaming sites as my kids

[Barack_America]

3. Wow. That's disturbing.

And this isn't just limited to those who have committed crimes online (i.e. kiddie porn)?

I also don't see how you begin to enforce this.