11-29-2011 US Congress:
WASHINGTON — The sexual abuse allegations at Penn State and Syracuse Universities have caught the attention of Congress, but changing a few reporting laws might not have been enough to alter the alleged crimes of Jerry Sandusky or Bernie Fine.
A Senate committee has already reacted to the events at the two schools and scheduled a hearing to examine if stricter laws are needed to protect children from child abuse and neglect.
“In terms of whistleblowers, you’re up against this vague notion that it’s against the law, but you’re entrapped in this kind of total institution where you get the sense that Joe Paterno or people like him are more powerful than the local district attorney,” said Rick Eckstein, a Villanova University professor who specializes in the sociology of sports.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee on Children and Families will convene a hearing on Dec. 13 to examine whether federal laws adequately protect children from sexual abuse.
“No child should ever be subjected to sexual abuse. And no adult should ever turn a blind eye to such abuse,” said Maryland Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski, the subcommittee’s chairwoman, in a press release.
The hearing follows the introduction of child abuse-related bills by members of both the House and Senate. Rep. Karen Bass of California and Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, both Democrats, drafted legislation in wake of the Penn State scandal.
Democratic Rep. George Miller of California has also called for a similar hearing in the House Education and the Workforce Committee. Miller sent a letter to Republican chairman Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, but the committee has not yet announced whether it will hold its own hearing.
“We have a responsibility to our children and our communities to maintain vigorous oversight of child safety issues,” Miller wrote in the letter. “Any specific remedies we identify through such collective oversight should be immediately taken up by this House.”
But calling for stricter reporting laws might me more of a public relations move by members of Congress more than anything else. What Sandusky and Fine allegedly did in their coaching roles was already against the law.
As for adults reporting sexual abuse, observers are concerned that both Penn State and Syracuse are environments where the university or an athletic team might weld greater power than police.
Former Penn State president Graham Spanier was an administrator at Stony Brook University (then SUNY-Stony Brook) when Villanova’s Eckstein was there as a graduate student. When Eckstein heard that Spanier stepped down after the Sandusky scandal, he was not surprised.
“He always wanted to be a college president, and he became one,” Eckstein said. “He’s a solid human being, but you get caught up in this culture of entitlement and you make bad decisions.”
Players can get caught up in it, too, but for different reasons. To date, no Penn State or Syracuse player has been accused of failing to report Sandusky’s or Fine’s alleged behavior. But their lack of power can make it hard to challenge authority.
“It’s a lot tougher,” Ramogi Huma, the head of the National Collegiate Players Association and a former UCLA football player, told The Daily Caller. “[Coaches] control everything about you and your situation — your scholarship and your playing time. You do everything to protect the program. You do everything to strengthen the program.”
Because of that Huma is advocating for a way for players to anonymously report everything from sexual abuse to not getting enough water at practice.
Protecting students who report sexual abuse is one area where new laws could have an impact.
“Currently, only 18 states require all adults to report suspected child abuse, and Pennsylvania is not one of them,” wrote Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. Bob Casey, when he asked his colleagues in Congress to re-examine federal laws that govern reporting sexual assaults.
“I would hope that any revisions in the laws would include adequate protection for whistleblowers,” Michael Malec, a Boston College sociology professor who specializes in sports, told TheDC. “It would seem to me if we don’t provide that kind of protection, then it becomes very, very difficult to expect that people will do the right thing.”
As for the current players at Penn State and Syracuse who were indirectly affected by the allegations that surfaced this month, Congress and the NCAA are quiet — but Huma is not. He believes student athletes should have more options.
“Players from these schools should have an option to transfer if they want to without being punished,” Huma said. “The NCAA should make an exception and allow players to go wherever they want to go without losing a year of eligibility.”
The NCAA did not immediately reply to a request for comment about that possibility.
But while Penn State and Syracuse have brought sexual abuse to the public’s attention, college athletics are not the only arena where large institutions have a potentially counterproductive amount of power and leverage.
“It’s not just schools,” Eckstein said. “It’s all kinds of social institutions. When they have a certain amount of power and a certain amount of influence, they are able to make their own rules and own laws. They don’t necessarily have to answer to the outside world.” ..Source.. by David Cassilo - The Daily Caller
November 29, 2011
As Congress joins national discussion about sex abuse, university athletics seem above the law
March 17, 2011
WHAT DO YOU THINK: Recent Congressional Hearing on the Adam Walsh Act
A new series from eAdvocate. What do you think?
Recently the US House, Judiciary Committee, held a hearing with respect to the Adam Walsh Act: See “The Reauthorization of the Adam Walsh Act”
The hearing was chaired by Rep. Sensenbrenner, and I think everyone noticed that Rep Sensenbrenner cut Panel members off when they presented their personal opening remarks; Sensenbrenner saying "Your time is up" and claiming a 5-minute time limit.
To me it was very important to hear what Panel Members had to say, and cutting them off claiming a 5-minute time limit bothered me. So I looked up the House rules to see what they had to say. Here it is:
Calling and questioning of witnessesNowhere in the House Rules is there any other 5-minute rule, except this rule on "Questioning Witnesses" and Panel Members OPENING STATEMENTS is not questioning witnesses.
(j)(1) Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.
(2)(A) Subject to subdivisions (B) and (C), each committee shall apply the five-minute rule during the questioning of witnesses in a hearing until such time as each member of the committee who so desires has had an opportunity to question each witness.
(B) A committee may adopt a rule or motion permitting a specified number of its members to question a witness for longer than five minutes. The time for extended questioning of a witness under this subdivision shall be equal for the majority party and the minority party and may not exceed one hour in the aggregate.
(C) A committee may adopt a rule or motion permitting committee staff for its majority and minority party members to question a witness for equal specified periods. The time for extended questioning of a witness under this subdivision shall be equal for the majority party and the minority party and may not exceed one hour in the aggregate.
Folks may remember that, it was Rep. Sensenbrenner who got the Adam Walsh Act pushed through Congress using or misusing "Suspension of the Rules" which IS NOT supposed to be used except for noncontroversial topics, certainly sex offenders nationally WAS and STILL IS a very controversial topic, else why is Rep Sensenbrenner trying to AGAIN push the Adam Walsh Act.
While it is clear Rep. Sensenbrenner is a master at the Rules, here I feel he incorrectly applied the rule which stopped Panel Members from introducing very valuable input, especially that which Rep. Bobby Scott had to say.
Is it time for folks to start addressing issues like this with DC Representatives and Senators?
I think so!
For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
Hearing procedures
(k)(1) The chair at a hearing shall announce in an opening statement the subject of the hearing.
(2) A copy of the committee rules and of this clause shall be made available to each witness on request.
(3) Witnesses at hearings may be accompanied by their own counsel for the purpose of advising them concerning their constitutional rights.
(4) The chair may punish breaches of order and decorum, and of professional ethics on the part of counsel, by censure and exclusion from the hearings; and the committee may cite the offender to the House for contempt.
(5) Whenever it is asserted by a member of the committee that the evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or it is asserted by a witness that the evidence or testimony that the witness would give at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate the witness---
(A) notwithstanding paragraph (g)(2), such testimony or evidence shall be presented in executive session if, in the presence of the number of members required under the rules of the committee for the purpose of taking testimony, the committee determines by vote of a majority of those present that such evidence or testimony may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person; and
(B) the committee shall proceed to receive such testimony in open session only if the committee, a majority being present, determines that such evidence or testimony will not tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person.
In either case the committee shall afford such person an opportunity voluntarily to appear as a witness, and receive and dispose of requests from such person to subpoena additional witnesses.
(6) Except as provided in subparagraph (5), the chair shall receive and the committee shall dispose of requests to subpoena additional witnesses.
(7) Evidence or testimony taken in executive session, and proceedings conducted in executive session, may be released or used in public sessions only when authorized by the committee, a majority being present.
(8) In the discretion of the committee, witnesses may submit brief and pertinent sworn statements in writing for inclusion in the record. The committee is the sole judge of the pertinence of testimony and evidence adduced at its hearing.
(9) A witness may obtain a transcript copy of the testimony of such witness given at a public session or, if given at an executive session, when authorized by the committee.
February 15, 2011
UPDATE: U.S. House Hearing on “The Reauthorization of the Adam Walsh Act”
2-15-2011 Washington DC:
HEARING: The U.S. House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held its hearing on “The Reauthorization of the Adam Walsh Act” today February 15, at 10AM.
The testimony of those that testified is available at THIS LINK. Just click on the person's name.
A quick note, the link posted on the House site to view the video of the hearing, does not work, but if folks use THIS LINK then you will be able to watch the video...
For now, have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
January 27, 2011
UPCOMING HEARING on SORNA: Various Resource and Policy Papers
UPDATE 2-4-2011: The Hearing Date has been changed, see New Date
The new House Judiciary Committee Chairman, U.S. Representative Lamar Smith (R) from Texas, has scheduled a hearing on Jurisdictional Implementation of SORNA for February 14th.
(Hearing information and who will testify will appear on the Judiciary Committee UPCOMING HEARINGS page when they get it posted.)
Four states have implemented SORNA: Ohio, Delaware, Florida, and South Dakota; one US Territory has implemented: Guam; and two tribes have implemented: the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation; for a total of seven jurisdictions having implemented.
The timing of the hearing is interesting because the following materials recently published in Texas recommend against SORNA implementation in Representative Smith's own state.
TEXAS:
Two documents have come out of Texas over the last few weeks that recommend against Texas implementing the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). First, the Texas Senate Criminal Justice Report states very clearly in its recommendations "not to implement the AWA" (see page 19). The discussion in this report re: the Adam Walsh Act (AWA)/SORNA on pages 13-19 are very useful for advocacy work against jurisdictional implementation of the SORNA:
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senate/commit/c590/c590.InterimReport81.pdf
Second the Texas Legislative Budget Board, an independent review agency for the state's legislature, published its legislative biennium-based report. Its summary offers this fiscal impact information from Texas:
"Both state and federal laws play a role in establishing sex offender registration and notification requirements. In 2006, the federal government passed the Adam Walsh Act establishing comprehensive sex offender registration and notification requirements that may be costly for states to implement. Early estimates indicate it could cost Texas $14 million a year to comply with the Act. The penalty for non- compliance in fiscal year 2010 would have been $2.2 million."See Summary Report pg-56:
http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Performance%20Reporting/TX_Govt_Effective_Efficiency_Report_82nd_Summary.pdf
The full report has a lot of other SORNA implementation fiscal impact information, including info from other states. Take a look at pages 355-363. The full report is here:
http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Performance%20Reporting/TX_Govt_Effective_Efficiency_Report_82nd.pdf
NOTE COMMENT:
"AWA requires that states’ tier (I, II, or III) registered sex offenders, and AWA assigns risk by crime type and not by risk assessment score. [The Texas Council on Sex Offender Treatment] CSOT believes establishing risk with an assessment rather than using crime type is more accurate and predictive of future behavior, and changing the way Texas tiers offenders to comply with AWA would be a step backwards." (Bold added by me.)
COLORADO:
Colorado Sex Offender Management Board White Paper on the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. see:
http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom/sex_offender/SO_Pdfs/SOMB%20AWA%20White%20Paper%20Final%20-%2009-19-08.pdf
CALIFORNIA:
California Sex Offender Management Board Adam Walsh Act Position Statement. See:
http://www.casomb.org/docs/Adam%20Walsh%20Position%20Paper.pdf
Council of State Governments:
Resolution in Opposition of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act as it Applies to Juvenile Offenders. See:
http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/drupal/sites/default/files/userfiles/CSGResolutionOpposingSORNAApplicationtoJuvenileOffenders.pdf
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA):
Public Comment to DOJ on the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act Proposed Guidelines. See:
http://www.atsa.com/pdfs/SORNA.pdf
National Congress of American Indians:
Public Comment to DOJ on the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act Proposed Guidelines. See:
http://www.ncai.org/ncai/resource/documents/governance/Adam_Walsh_Act/interim_rule_comments_final.pdf
National Alliance to End Sexual Violence:
Legislative Analysis of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. See:
http://naesv.org/Policypapers/Adam_Walsh_SumMarch07.pdf
National Conference of State Legislatures:
Statement on the Adam Walsh Act. See:
http://www.ncsl.org/statefed/LAWANDJ.HTM#AdamWalsh
Coalition for Juvenile Justice:
Remove Federal Juvenile Sex Offender Requirements (Adam Walsh Act)
http://www.juvjustice.org/position_10.html
Many thanks to Alisa Klein of ATSA for this information.
Alisa Klein, MAIPS
Public Policy Consultant
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers
18 Chestnut Avenue
Leeds, MA 01053
(413)586-9123
aklein@atsa.com
www.atsa.com
January 25, 2011
U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing
1-25-2011 Washington DC:
The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold a Hearing on January 25, 2011 at 10:00 AM in the Rayburn House Office Building.
Hearing on: Data Retention as a Tool for Investigating Internet Child Pornography and Other Internet Crimes
Related News: GOP pushing for ISPs to record user data
The House Republicans' first major technology initiative is about to be unveiled: a push to force Internet companies to keep track of what their users are doing.
A House panel chaired by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin is scheduled to hold a hearing tomorrow morning to discuss forcing Internet providers, and perhaps Web companies as well, to store records of their users' activities for later review by police.
One focus will be on reviving a dormant proposal for data retention that would require companies to store Internet Protocol (IP) addresses for two years, CNET has learned.
Tomorrow's data retention hearing is juxtaposed against the recent trend to protect Internet users' privacy by storing less data. Last month, the Federal Trade Commission called for "limited retention" of user data on privacy grounds, and in the last 24 hours, both Mozilla and Google have announced do-not-track technology.
A Judiciary committee aide provided a statement this afternoon saying "the purpose of this hearing is to examine the need for retention of certain data by Internet service providers to facilitate law enforcement investigations of Internet child pornography and other Internet crimes," but declined to elaborate.
Thanks to the GOP takeover of the House, the odds of such legislation advancing have markedly increased. The new chairman of the House Judiciary committee is Lamar Smith of Texas, who previously introduced a data retention bill. Sensenbrenner, the new head of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, had similar plans but never introduced legislation. (It's not purely a partisan issue: Rep. Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, was the first to announce such a proposal.)
Police and prosecutors are the biggest backers of data retention. FBI director Robert Mueller has said that forcing companies to store those records about users would be "tremendously helpful in giving us a historic basis to make a case" in investigations, especially child porn cases. An FBI attorney said last year that Mueller supports storing Internet users' "origin and destination information," meaning logs of which Web sites are visited.
And the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which will be sending a representative to tomorrow's hearing, previously adopted a resolution (PDF) calling for a "uniform data retention mandate" for "customer subscriber information and source and destination information." The group said today in an e-mail exchange that it still supports that resolution.
Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the free-market Cato Institute, says the push for legislation is an example of pro-regulatory Republicans. "Republicans were put in power to limit the size and scope of the federal government," Harper said. "And they're working to grow the federal government, increase its intrusiveness, and I fail to see where the Fourth Amendment permits the government to require dragnet surveillance of Internet users."
Representing the Obama administration at tomorrow's hearing will be Jason Weinstein, deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's criminal division, who has previously testified (PDF) on intellectual property infringement and was chief of the violent crime section of the U.S. Attorney's office in Baltimore.
For now, the scope of any mandatory data retention law remains hazy. It could mean forcing companies to store data for two years about what Internet addresses are assigned to which customers (Comcast said in 2006 that it would be retaining those records for six months).
Or it could be more intrusive, sweeping in online service providers, and involve keeping track of e-mail and instant-messaging correspondence and what Web pages users visit. Some Democratic politicians have previously called for data retention laws to extend to domain name registries and Web hosting companies and even social-networking sites. The police chiefs' proposal talks about storing information about "destinations" that Internet users visit.
AOL said today that "we are waiting to see the proposed legislation to understand what data needs to be retained and for what time period."
These concepts are not exactly new. In June 2005, CNET was the first to report that the Justice Department was quietly shopping around the idea, reversing the department's previous position that it had "serious reservations about broad mandatory data retention regimes." Despite support from the FBI and the Bush Justice Department, however, the proposals languished amid concerns about privacy, liability, cost, and scope. (Would coffee shops, for instance, be required to ID users and log their activities?)
Retention vs. preservation
At the moment, ISPs typically discard any log file that's no longer required for business reasons such as network monitoring, fraud prevention, or billing disputes. Companies do, however, alter that general rule when contacted by police performing an investigation--a practice called data preservation.
A 1996 federal law called the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act regulates data preservation. It requires Internet providers to retain any "record" in their possession for 90 days "upon the request of a governmental entity."
Because Internet addresses remain a relatively scarce commodity, ISPs tend to allocate them to customers from a pool based on whether a computer is in use at the time. (Two standard techniques used are the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol and Point-to-Point Protocol over Ethernet.)
In addition, Internet providers are required by another federal law to report child pornography sightings to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is in turn charged with forwarding that report to the appropriate police agency.
When adopting its data retention rules, the European Parliament required that communications providers in its 25 member countries--several of which had enacted their own data retention laws already--retain customer data for a minimum of six months and a maximum of two years.
The Europe-wide requirement applies to a wide variety of "traffic" and "location" data, including the identities of the customers' correspondents; the date, time, and duration of phone calls, voice over Internet Protocol calls or e-mail messages; and the location of the device used for the communications. The "content" of the communications is not supposed to be retained.
But last March, a German court declared the national data retention law to be unconstitutional. ..Source.. by CNET News, Declan McCullagh
