California, which has the largest sex offender registry in the United States, has received the news from the California Sex Offender Management Board that their registry is not working. The board reported that the fast-growing registry included too many unnecessary people and that it did not help law enforcement or the public differentiate potentially risky offenders from those who would likely not reoffend.

The board reported that about 95 percent of solved sex crimes are committed by people who are not on the registry, and said that the registry was created, in part, on assumptions that have since been proved to be wrong. The board called for an overhaul of the registry.

The board recommended to the California legislature that only high-risk offenders, such as violent predators and kidnappers–that is, offenders whose offenses are also characterized by something other than sex–should be required to register for life.

The list currently has 100,000 offenders registered, and is growing. California requires lifetime registration of all sex offenders. The nature or circumstances of the offense are not usually relevant to registration.

When the board reported earlier this year, they had found that the registry included many offenders “who do not necessarily pose a risk to the community.” Nine hundred such registered offenders last offended more than 55 years ago.

The registry is also used for Megan’s Law, a tool of law enforcement used to notify the public about sex offenders. It offers the public a searchable website of what are considered the most serious registered sex offenders. However, around 80 percent of all of California’s 100,000 registered offenders are posted on the Megan’s Law website.

In 2011, the California Sex Offender registry was audited. The audit found that the government department responsible for the state’s prison and parole system, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, had been illegally abusing the sex offender registry by forwarding all offenders for examination as possible sexually violent predators rather than using discretion. That is, anyone convicted of any sexual offense was forwarded to be considered for classification as a violent offender and so registered. The law did not permit this.

Not only that, since 2005, the audit found that although 59 percent of released sex offenders violated parole, only 1 percent committed a new offense. That one percent represented 134 convicts. Of those 134, only one committed a new sex offense.

California State Auditor

SFGate

On The Media

NPR

Pop Sugar

Freakonomics

The post Nation’s Largest Sex Offender Registry Finds Sex Offender Registry Does Not Work appeared first on The Speaker.

The DC Appeals Court sided with Facebook and founder Mark Zuckerberg Friday in a case over several pages on Facebook, such as “Third Palestinian Intifada,” which called for Muslims to rise up and kill Jews. The ruling was based on the protections given to all Americans using the internet under a section of a 1996 law.

Three years ago, Klayman saw the Facebook page “Third Palestinian Intifada,” of which there were 360,000 members, as well as three similar, smaller pages, and complained to Facebook because the pages called for Muslims to rise up and kill Jews. After receiving a letter from Israel’s Minister for Public Diplomacy as well as from Klayman, Facebook removed the pages, but not fast enough, according to Klayman, who filed suit against Facebook and Zuckerberg. Klayman alleged that the delay of “many days” constituted intentional assulat and negligence.

Mark Zuckerberg

The district court which heard the suit found for Facebook and Zuckerberg on the basis of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) (1996), Section 230. Klayman appealed the decision, and Friday the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit upheld the decision of the district court.

“In enacting the Communications Decency Act,” wrote the court in its decision, “Congress found that the Internet and related computer services ‘represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources,’ and ‘offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for

intellectual activity.”

The court concluded that Facebook and Zuckerberg–internet providers under Section 230–could not be held responsible for any content on their site(s), no matter how egregious it may seem to another user. “Facebook is not responsible for the actions, content, information, or data of third parties,” the court found.

“Congress accordingly made it the ‘policy of the United States’ to ‘promote the continued development of the Internet,’” the court continued, “and ‘to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation[.]‘”

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was passed in 1996. It was in part an effort by the US Congress to regulate internet pornography, but in 1997 the US Supreme Court unanimously struck the “community standards” provision of the CDA in Reno v. ACLU because the provisions violated the First Amendment guarantee to freedom of speech.

Another part of the CDA, however, has been strengthened by court decisions over the years. Section 230 protects operators of internet services–such as Facebook–from being construed as publishers. Section 230 protects social media sites, ISPs and users by making them not liable for words posted on their sites by other people (except  regarding federal criminal liability and intellectual property). The section reads, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Providers are even protected if they fail to take action after receiving notifications that harmful or offensive content exists on their sites.

Section 230 is considered a main protection of free speech online. Last year, after 47 state attorneys general signed a letter to Congress requesting the civil immunity in Section 230 be removed, the ACLU wrote, “Section 230 is directly responsible for the free, messy, uncensored, and often brilliant culture of online speech. By prohibiting most state civil or criminal liability for something somebody else writes or posts, it created the single most important legal protection that exists for websites, bloggers, and other internet users… If Section 230 is stripped of its protections, it wouldn’t take long for the vibrant culture of free speech to disappear from the web.”

CADC

ACLU

The post Facebook Beats Conservative Lawyer in Lawsuit Over Facebook Page Encouraging Muslims to Kill Jews appeared first on The Speaker.

In a recent report on the current Russian propaganda “netwar” being waged against non-Russia minds, the Center for Eastern Studies (OSW) found that Russia is actively carrying out organized campaigns to convince non-Russians that Russia is justified in its recent actions–particularly with regard to Crimea and greater Ukraine–but, the report found, the Russian info-war will likely not be successful outside of the Russian-speaking world where people are “less receptive to Russian disinformation.”

The report, entitled “The Anatomy of Russian Information Warfare; the Crimean Operation, a Case Study,” was written by the Centre for Eastern Studies’ Jolanta Darczewska.

“The Crimean operation has served as an occasion for Russia to demonstrate to the entire world the capabilities and the potential of information warfare,” the report states. Russia’s goal is to convince the world of a context for Russia actions in which Russia is participating in a struggle against an “Atlantic civilization led by the USA” which “intends to disassemble Russian statehood and gain global hegemony,” and in which Russia struggle for “a just multi-polar world, which defends tradition, conservative values and true liberty.”

Darzcewska did not think Russian propaganda could convince any but Russian speakers who are already invested in the Russian side of the conflict. “The Russian propaganda is rather incredible and easy to verify in the era of new technologies,” Darzcewska wrote. “Furthermore, the propagated ideas are not appealing.”

The audience Putin is successful with is already “receptive to Russian propaganda,” and the rest of the world is “less receptive to Russian disinformation.” Darzcewska’s phrased it, “Ideological newspeak based on disinformation falls on fertile socio-cultural ground in the East.”

Russia is attempting to promote its messages outside Russia, Darzcewska says, through “specialist media” such as Voice of Russia (VOR) and Russia Today (RT), official websites of Russian institutions such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and also through “local opinion leaders.”

“The geopolitical doctrine,” Darzcewska wrote, “treats information as a dangerous weapon: it is cheap, it is a universal weapon, it has unlimited range, it is easily accessible and permeates all state borders without restrictions. The information and network struggle, as well as its extreme forms, such as information-psychological warfare and netwars, are means the state uses to achieve its goals.”

“Through information war, Darzcewska wrote, a state can also gain geopolitical advantage: “Geopolitics offers ideological grounds for information battles. In opposition to the ideology of liberalism, it promotes ‘a neo-conservative post-liberal power (…) struggling for a just multi-polar world, which defends tradition, conservative values and true liberty.’ The ‘Russian Eurasian civilization’ is set at contrast to the ‘Atlantic civilization led by the USA’ which allegedly intends to disassemble Russian statehood and gain global hegemony.” Darzcewska wrote that the crisis in Ukraine was presented in the context of the rivalry between the two civilizations.

In information war, specific techniques are used by the various practitioners, Darzcewska wrote. These “sociotechnical principles of successful propaganda” include “the principle of massive and long-lasting impact (the ‘orange plague’ and ‘Banderivtsy’ propaganda stero-types have been incessantly reiterated since 2003), the principle of desired information (Russians and Russian-speaking people expect that their rights should be protected, so they believed the manipulated information that the Russian language had been banned), the principle of emotional agitation n (bringing the recipients of the message to a condition in which they will act without much thought, even irrationally), the clarity principle (the message is simplified, uses black-and-white terms, and is full of loaded keywords, such as Russophobe), the principle of supposed obviousness (causing the propaganda thesis to be associated with created political myths: the Russian spring equals patriotism, Banderivtsy equals fascism, Maidan equals chaos, etc.).”

In her report, Darzcewska concluded, “Russian information warfare is set to continue since Putin’s new doctrine has crystallized. This doctrine is geopolitical, Eurasian, anti-liberal and oriented towards rivalry with the West and Russia’s dominance in Eurasia.”

The Anatomy of Russian Information Warfare; The Crimean Operation, A Case Study, by Jolanta Darczewska, Centre for Eastern Studies, Poland

The post Investigation on Current Russian Information War Finds Will Not Be Successful Against Western Minds appeared first on The Speaker.

Bill HR4490, which has passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee with bipartisan support, would make Voice of America (VOA) officially a designated “public diplomacy” service, as well make additional changes in US international news communications–as a reaction against the alleged media manipulations of “countries like Russia.”

VOA would be mandated to “provide a sharper focus on explaining the United States, US government policies, and international news that affects the United States. The VOA’s role would be “public diplomacy” as well as providing objective, comprehensive news coverage. There is also a new VOA director provision that sets out the responsibilities–as well as the qualification requirements–of that position, and sets the VOA director under the supervision of the USICA CEO.

Currently, the tax-funded VOA has a mission expressed in the VOA Charter, which was created in 1960 and signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1976. The Charter, which states that “to be effective, [VOA] must win the attention and respect of listeners,” and sets out three principles: 1) serving as a consistently reliable and authoritative news source which is “accurate, objective and comprehensive;” 2) represent America in a balanced and comprehensive way;” and 3) will present US policies clearly and effectively, as well as responsible discussions and opinion on the policies. The VOA Charter is not included in the bill, but “elements are integrated into the bill’s new VOA principles,” according to the report. The bill alters the mission of VOA by explicitly stating that VOA has a role in supporting American “public diplomacy” and government policies.

VOA was created in 1942 as part of the Office of War Information and with a mission of countering Nazi and Japanese propaganda. VOA became part of the State Department during the Cold War, and then became part of the US Information Agency, countering Communist propaganda in East Germany and other Soviet-backed states. VOA has been overseen by the BBG since 1999.

Related:

Big Changes in US News Communications if Bill HR4490 Passes

New USICA Act Would Create a New US News Agency “Freedom News Agency,” Subsuming Other International News Agencies

Sources:

HR4490

Congressional Research Service report

Federation of American Scientists

US Foreign Affairs

The post US Bill To Make VOA Officially a “Public Diplomacy” Service appeared first on The Speaker.

Bill HR4490, which has already passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee with bipartisan support, and is expected to be taken up by the full House as early as this summer, would create a new “federal news network,” called Freedom News Network, which would subsume other US international news agencies.

Under a section of the bill headed “Creation of the Federal News Network,” the bill is explained to provide for the creation of the Freedom News Network (FNN), consolidating the grantee broadcasters Radio Free Europe/Radio Libety (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN) into one “surrogate” grantee broadcaster. The brands would remain unchanged, thus maintaining “audience name recognition.”

The board for the FNN would be composed of new individuals appointed by the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House of Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees.

The FNN would also expand its programming “into regions where no current individual surrogate broadcaster currently operates,” such as sub-Saharan Africa.

The FNN’s mission is provided by the new bill: “[sharpening] the legislative vision of the proper focus for surrogate programming, directing the new grantee to promote democracy, civil society, free media, political freedom, and uncensored flows of information”

Related:

Big Changes in US News Communications if Bill HR4490 Passes

HR4490

Congressional Research Service report

Federation of American Scientists

US Foreign Affairs

Share and Enjoy

The post New USICA Act Would Create a New US News Agency “Freedom News Agency,” Subsuming Other International News Agencies appeared first on The Speaker.

A new bill has passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee with bipartisan support. The USICA bill, if it passes into law–it is expected to be taken up by the full House as early as this summer and the Senate is working on a similar bill–will abolish the current USIB Act, and the current bipartisan board in charge of international communications for US media, as well as the IBB, will be replaced with a new CEO vested with the authorities currently entrusted to the groups.

The bill was explained for members and committees of Congress in a report published recently by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which was written by Matthew Weed. Representative Ed Royce (R-CA), who is chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said the legislation was essential in the face of negative and inaccurate information increasingly disseminated about the United States abroad, referring to “countries like Russia” and their information campaigns.

The United States International Communications Reform Act of 2014 (H.R. 4490) was introduced April 28 by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Edward Royce with co-sponsors, and the Committee voted in favor of the bill April 30.

The bill states that the BBG “operates poorly under a flawed structure, that the BBG’s internal operations and personnel
decision making have deficiencies, and that U.S. international broadcasters lack clearly defined missions.” The flaw of the “international broadcasters” leads, the bill finds, to “duplicative services and a lack of focus on the ‘public diplomacy’ and ‘surrogate’ missions of the broadcasters.”

The bill has several central provisions. One provision is the creation of a US International Communications Agency (USICA). If the bill is enacted, the current USIB Act would be repealed in its entirety (although HR4490 includes several provisions similar to those in USIB), and effectively abolish the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB). A new agency–USICA–would be established.

There would also be a new board, which would presumably mirror the BBG’s structure. But the USICA Board would only have an advisory role in the new agency. The authority over communications–which is now vested in the bipartisan BBG board of nine governors–would instead be vested in a new USICA Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The CEO would also have the authorities currently vested in the IBB. The board would retain the power to appoint and remove the CEO.

The current system under the BBG is a presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed board, with the Secretary of State serving as the ninth member ex officio. The BBG oversees the IBB, VOA, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB and Radio/TV Marti), Radio Free Europe/Radio Libety (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN).

The bill also provides that US international broadcasting “is alligned with ‘broad’ US foreign policy interests, and reduce overlap in broadcast services.” The bill will do this by requiring the USICA and a new grantee surrogate “Freedom News Network” (FNN) to meet regularly and “coordinate with the US Department of State to share relevant information.”

The USICA would answer and report to Congress, including on matters such as “the size of the workforce, the structure of the organization, contracting methods and practices, and language services performance.”

Modern US international broadcasting is said to have begun during World War II. Since 1994 (United States International Broadcasting Act; USIB Act), all US international communications have been handled by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) within the United States Information Agency (USIA). Members of Congress have frequently expressed interest in oversight over the BBG and its individual broadcasters, according to the congressional report. In 1998, Congress passed legislation establishing the BBG as an independent entity within the executive branch at the same time that it incorporated USIA’s functions into the State Department.

Bill HR4490 and the wider issue of increased congressional power over US broadcasting is expected to receive increased congressional attention during the second session of the 114th Congress, which began January 3.

Related:

New USICA Act Would Create a New US News Agency “Freedom News Agency,” Subsuming Other International News Agencies

HR4490

Congressional Research Service report

Federation of American Scientists

US Foreign Affairs

Share and Enjoy

The post Big Changes in US News Communications if Bill HR4490 Passes appeared first on The Speaker.

American mass surveillance programs, such as those carried out by the NSA, have begun to change, as Wednesday the US House Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a revision of the USA Freedom Act, Human Rights Watch reported Thursday.

The rewrite purposes to prohibit government bulk data collection of records, including phone and internet metadata. The data collection currently takes place under several US laws, such as Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows collection of all phone and other business records.

The rewrite includes many of the proposals suggested by President Barack Obama earlier this year. The revision aims to end the massive sweeping style of records collection, instead creating “specific selection terms” for collection.

The rewrite also places new reporting requirements on the government, provides a mechanism for emergency requests, and allows companies to report limited information about orders receives. The rewrite also creates an expert panel that will be able to intervene in FISA court in some instances.

The revised version of the Act is one step toward bulk data and telephone metadata collection reform, but Human Rights Watch says there is still work to be done. Cynthia Wong, senior internet researcher at the organization, said, “The USA Freedom Act revision would help end one of the most problematic programs Edward Snowden revealed last year. However, the bill does not address needed reforms to surveillance programs that affect millions of people outside US borders.”

Also, several provisions that had been included in the earlier draft of the revision were removed or weakened, according to Human Rights Watch. A special advocate to represent the public’s interest in FISA trials is no longer included. In the earlier draft version, there was also a provision for challenging government gag orders, but it was removed.

A further criticism of the revision is that other laws and regulations, such as Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act and Executive Order 12333, also allow mass surveillance and bulk data collection, and these laws, which affect more people than the US Freedom Act and include actual content–not just metadata–are not affected by the current actions of the House.

Thursday, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is scheduled to review the US Freedom Act, and is expected to pass the revised Act without further modifications, after which the revision will move to Congress.

Source:

Human Rights Watch

Share and Enjoy

The post NSA Reform Begins: US House Revises USA Freedom Act to End Bulk Data Collection and Telephone Metadata appeared first on The Speaker.

Further strictening of Russian internet law passed the legislature Monday, and is expected to further cool Russian internet expression, while Russian President Vladimir Putin explained the law in terms of “the way its done everywhere” to deal with the CIA-initiated internet, and thanked Edward Snowden for playing his part.

Under the law, commonly refereed to as the “bloggers law” because the owner of any website–referred to as a “blog” in the language of the bill–with a daily following of 3,000 or more, including social media followers such as those on Twitter and Facebook, will be forced to register a real identity and address with the government, and will be responsible for any content posted on the site, including its accuracy. Henceforward, no internet user with a basic amount of social media clout will be anonymous legally in Russia, and will be held to the same standards as mass media outlets, but without the protections granted regular media. The law is expected to have a cooling effect on expression on the internet in Russia.

Recently, two of Russia’s largest blogging services, Yandex and LiveJournal–announced that publicly visible counters would stop below the 3000 number.

The law also requires all online platforms–search engines and social networks–to maintain records of everything posted online for the previous six months. The records must be kept inside Russia. In is not clear in the law whether this provision covers Google, Twitter, Facebook, and other international social media.

The new internet regulations will take force August 1.

The legislature also ruled Monday that as of July 1, common swearing will no longer be allowed in movies, television, theater or music. The four words that were banned are those crudely denoting male and female genitalia, sex and prostitutes.

Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed his views of the internet a few weeks ago on a live national TV broadcast, saying, “You know that it all began initially, when the Internet first appeared, as a special C.I.A. project.” “Special services are still at the center of things,” Putin continued, and thanked American fugitive exile in Russia, whistleblower Edward Snowden, for showing the world the efficiency of NSA data collection.

Putin explained the new law, saying that anyone affecting thousands or more people with their opinions should be considered a media outlet, and said that this was “the way it is done all over the world.”

Comparing the new internet laws to the Chinese model, one prominent critic said, “It is part of the general campaign to shut down the Internet in Russia. They have not been able to control it until now, and they think they should implement the Chinese model. But they don’t understand how it works. The Chinese model also stimulates the development of local platforms, while the Russian laws are killing the local platform.”

China employs a policy of tightening censorship of the internet, and has banned all Western social media, including Google, Facebook, YouTube and twitter.

Sources:

The Wire

Land and Sea Journal

Share and Enjoy

The post New Russian Internet Law Against All Bloggers and Providers Passed, Thanks to Edward Snowden and the CIA? appeared first on The Speaker.