Laws, Laws , and More Laws

From: Motion for Innocence, http://amotionforinnocence.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/laws-laws-and-more-laws/

Laws, Laws And More Laws

In off all places, Louisiana, Home of the bare breast, casual sex and Mardi Gras.  It’ll never fly.  Someone will deem this unconstitutional.  Perhaps the sex offender will now be required to wear a scarlet letter, have a micro-chip inserted or be forced to drink liquid that reduces the sex drive.  More fear based propaganda from the vote begging lawmakers.

Online, sex offenders must reveal past

Chris Miller Reporting

Louisiana lawmakers tried banning convicted sex offenders from joining online social media, like Facebook and Google+, but courts found it unconstitutional.  A new law takes a different approach.
Instead of an outright ban, this law requires sex offenders to mention their conviction in their online profiles.  State representative Jeff Thompson says it’s no different than requiring them to notify the neighborhood when they move in.

“In today’s society, people come into our homes via the Internet, whether it’s Facebook or Pinterest or Instagram,” Thompson said.  “We should have the same information available.”
Thompson says he knows anyone intending to do harm isn’t much for following rules, but there’s value in the new law.

“This provides prosecutors with another tool to make sure that those people which intend harm to our children are going to face the consequences,” he explained.
Penalties for failure to comply are the same as when convicted sex offenders fail to give notice in the real world — two to ten years in prison.

SO Laws Based on Rage and Fear

<>From: Corrections.com<>

http://www.corrections.com/news/article/30085-sex-offender-laws-are-based-on-rage-and-fear Sex Offender Laws Are Based On Rage and Fear

By Chris Dornin, Retired Statehouse reporter

Published: 03/12/2012

Nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford was kidnapped from her Florida home, raped and buried alive in February 2005. Lawmakers filed the 82-page Jessica Lunsford Act in her memory on April 1. Gov. Jeb Bush signed the new law on May 2. That’s light speed for any legislature. It passed unanimously in both houses. The most draconian sex offender code in America at the time had a mandatory 25-year minimum sentence for any sex crime against a child under age 12. The bid was life without parole for perpetrators older than 17. Bill O’Reilly of FOX News urged viewers to push their governors for even tougher laws to protect kids. “This is literally a life-and-death battle to save our youngest and most vulnerable citizens from abuse, torture, and murder,” O’Reilly warned. “I hope you'll do your part.” New Hampshire and 16 other states had passed versions of Jessica’s Law within a year. That’s how sex offender laws get made. By rage and fear in a hurry. “People who prey on children are the most dangerous criminals in our state, targeting our most precious and vulnerable citizens,” Gov. John Lynch told the New Hampshire Senate Judiciary Committee. “It is time for us to send a clear message in New Hampshire. If you prey on children, we will send you to prison, and we are going to keep you there for a long time.” Rep. Peter Batula, prime sponsor of the predator bill, said the state needed to keep from becoming “a haven for sexual predators to move over the borders.” NH Attorney General Kelley Ayotte told senators about 17 repeat sex offenders who had gotten off too lightly. She testified that the sex offense recidivism rate for pedophiles “is between 90 and 94 percent. Offenders who sexually abuse children have a lifelong problem that is not amendable to treatment.” Sex offender laws have bred a universal hysteria about sex offenders by branding them all as equally and intolerably dangerous. The Michigan public registry law promises to help the public know about sexual predators living near them “who, by virtue of relatively high recidivism rates among such offenders and the devastating impact that sex crimes have on society, pose a serious threat to society.” The US Justice Department made the same argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark Alaska v John Doe case. The court ruled that the Alaska public registry is not an ex post facto punishment. In their amicus brief, the feds said sex offenders pose a huge threat because of their high recidivism rates and the injury they inflict on children. New Hampshire State Sen. David Boutin sponsored a bill two years ago to encourage police departments to use active public notice when sex offenders are released into a neighborhood. He filed the legislation to please constituents hoping to drive all the sex offenders from his home town. Joel Dutton, a man on the sex offender registry there, had been charged with a new sex crime. When Dutton made bail, his neighbors started a website against him with these and similar comments: "You show true restraint by not beating the tar out of this lowlife." Chris Johnson "I hope you guys get rid of the bastard. What a piece of crap." MTgirl "This is an incestuous family of whack-jobs and psychopaths, and it makes me feel good to know they are going down." Steve "Hang'em high and let the sun set on em. Only in a perfect world right? Haha" Josh T Boutin echoed those feelings in Senate testimony for his legislation. "Late September of 2009 a convicted child sex offender heinously struck again and was charged with felonious sexual assault against a 7 year old Hooksett girl," Boutin told lawmakers. "Quick adoption of this bill and dissemination of notification guidelines to local law enforcement will go a long way towards preventing another sexual assault, with regrettable consequences for the victim, family and community, who all share in the burden of the pain." Boutin failed to mention that the prosecutor had already dropped the case against Dutton for lack of evidence. A neighbor had accused Dutton of molesting his own niece, who still lives with Dutton, his wife, and his brother in law. The bill died on the Senate floor, even in an election year A growing body of research calls into question the wisdom of all this crusading against sex offenders. Dr. Karl Hanson, a corrections researcher for the Canadian Department of Public Safety, is a pioneer in the risk assessment of sex offenders. He has also co-authored numerous studies of sex offender recidivism, including several meta-analyses that followed large groups of offenders over many years. One of his projects found a 13.4 percent sex offense recidivism rate after five years. Another reported a 14.3 percent after six years. A third found a 14 percent rate after five years, 20 percent after 10 years and 24 percent after 15 years. Recent American studies suggest even lower rates. One by Sarah Schelle of the Indiana Department of Corrections, entitled “Juvenile Recidivism, 2010,” said that only two of 71 juvenile sex offenders released in 2007 had committed new sex offense within three years. That’s a 2.8 percent sex offense recidivism rate, although the sample size was small and the tracking period was shorter than Hanson used. The comparable rate for hundreds of adult sex offenders in Indiana the same year was 1.05 percent three years after release. A report in July 2011 led by Mark Rubin of the University of Southern Maine’s Muskie School of Public Service followed 900 sex offenders released from prison or probation in Maine between 2004 and 2008. Within three years after release 3.8 percent had been convicted of a new sex crime. The study entitled “Sexual Assault Trends and Sex Offender Recidivism in Maine, 2010” can be found online by clicking here. Rubin told the Portland Press Herald the public still thinks sex offenders have high re-offense rates. “There’s really no data to support that theory,” he told the newspaper. A report in March 2012 by the State of Connecticut tracked 746 sex offenders for five years after release from prison in 2005. Only 3.6 percent had been charged with a new sex crime, 2.7 percent were convicted, and 1.7 percent had returned to prison for that new crime. The author of the report, Ivan Kuzyk, noted these low rates contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. “The real challenge for public agencies is to determine the level of risk which specific offenders pose (to) the public," Kuzyk said. Here is the full report. I wrote a piece for Corrections.com a couple of years ago entitled “Facts and Fiction about Sex Offenders ”, which summarized similar low American sex offense recidivism rates in study after study: 1.2 percent after two years in Britain; 3 percent after 4.3 years in Iowa; 8 percent after a decade in Ohio; 5.3 percent after three years in a 15-state federal study; 3 percent after three years in Alaska; 4.7 percent after three years in Tennessee; 2 percent after three years in West Virginia; 3.38 percent after 10 years in California; 7.2 percent after 25 years in Utah; 2.3 percent after three years in Arizona; 3.8 percent after three years in Delaware; 2.4 percent after three years in Illinois; 1.8 percent after three years in New Mexico; 4 percent after three years in South Carolina. My article on this literature is still available elsewhere on corrections.com. Hanson said the earliest Canadian and American sex offense recidivism studies found unusually high rates because the investigators looked only at high- and medium-risk populations. Most were repeat offenders to begin with. Hanson is familiar with the recent U.S. studies, but questions some of those low numbers because parolees in states like Iowa and Alaska can return to prison after a new sex offense without counting officially as re-offenders. “I know that first-hand,” Hanson said. “The way they capture their data underestimates the recidivism. And not all repeat offenders go back to prison. Or they might return in a different state.” In an unlikely alliance, victim advocates have begun standing up for sex offenders in litigation and battles over legislation. Atty. Margie Slagle wrote an amicus brief representing the Cleveland and Texas rape crisis centers in the Williams v Ohio case. They intervened on the side of the plaintiff, a sex offender challenging the public registry law before the Ohio Supreme Court as an ex post facto punishment. Slagle helped Williams to win last summer. Below is a passage from her brief. While protecting Ohioans from sex offenders is a compelling interest-and indeed, it is the core mission of the amici- none of the changes implemented as part of Ohio's AWA has been proven to achieve that goal. Research shows that the law's more burdensome requirements on law enforcement, the public, and sex offenders can cause higher levels of recidivism and thus pose increased danger to the community. More onerous sex offender registration and community notification laws threaten to harm the very people they are intended to protect and to undermine goals of community safety and treatment of offenders. These laws perpetuate myths and create a false sense of security. Research demonstrates that victimization can be reduced when sex offenders successfully reenter the community. These changes also put law enforcement agencies, already in budgetary crises, in the position of spending precious dollars on monitoring low risk individuals with a limited impact on public safety. Thus, any argument that Ohio's AWA is simply a remedial law designed to protect children and the public from sexual abuse and sex crimes is seriously flawed. Ohio's AWA is not based on empirical evidence or proven research, but on fear and misinformation. In an interview, Slagle said prosecutors and other officials pander for votes by playing the sex offender card. “The sad truth is we leave parents and children more vulnerable when lawmakers pass laws based on myth and not facts,” she said. “The public registry makes thing so difficult for them. Part of rehabilitation is getting them accepted back into the community.” Hanson said the research fails to support claims that the public sex offender registries deter sex crimes or prevent recidivism. “The recidivism rates before and after implementation of registries are essentially the same,” he explained. “When policies are going to affect other people, it is worth collecting data first.” Chris Dornin is a former New Hampshire State House reporter and the founder of Citizens for Criminal Justice Reform. In the interest of full disclosure, he helped to kill Sen. Boutin’s active notification bill. Other articles by Dornin

"Prison Hotels" in CA?

Riverside County, CA Wants Jails to Become "Prison Hotels," Without the Amenities

http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/04/pay-to-stay-prison

Seth McKelvey | November 4, 2011

The board of supervisors in Riverside County, California wants to start charging inmates rent. Supervisor Jeff Stone introduced an ordinance -- unanimously approved by the board -- that would charge prisoners about $140 for each day they serve in jail.
Stone told The Huffington Post:

If the parolee does not have liquid funds to pay, the County will put a lien against the property to receive payment when the property is sold. The County will do the same on the parolee's parents' property if that's the only way to get the money.

The $140 would also go towards expenses such as drug tests, medical care, parole costs, and even public defenders for inmates.
This policy would basically force prisoners to participate in a government monopoly. With no competition and the ability to compel "consumers" of its service, officials gain unilateral control in determining what services prisoners get and at what price, with no pressure to reduce or even maintain costs. Based on Stone's initial estimate, each prisoner would be paying around $51,000 a year for all the luxuries of jail. Texas prisons' public-private partnerships proves it can be done for cheaper, but don't count on diminished financial liability to bring about those sort of improvements.
Stone's ordinance would also result in disastrous conflicts of interest. He expects "the measure would bring in $3 million to $5 million a year. " When government officials have a monetary impetus for every additional prisoner behind bars, that creates an incentive for dubious convictions and arrests.
Incarceration already substantially diminishes economic mobility, hampering ex-prisoners' reintegration into society. Depriving prisoners of any remaining capital won't help.
A question for Stone: if prisoners don't pay their rent, will they be evicted?
Loads more Reason on criminal injustice here, here, here, here and here.

Santa Clara Co. Recieves 1/2 Million $'s to Conduct Raids

Justice Department COPS grant goes to Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office

By Carol Rose for Silicon Valley Community Newspapers

Posted: 10/10/2011 07:33:14 PM PDT

Updated: 10/10/2011 07:33:14 PM PDT

The U.S. Marshal's office and the U.S. Department of Justice have awarded the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office nearly $500,000 for work to police child sexual predators.

The two-year $499,250 grant is part of the Justice Department's Community Oriented Policing and will provide the funding for an extra detective to augment the county's child predator force for two years.
The COPS Child Sexual Predator Program grant provides funding directly to law enforcement agencies to assist them in establishing and enhancing strategies to locate, arrest and prosecute child sexual predators and exploiters. The grant also helps enhance state sex offender registration laws.
The money is aimed at supporting community policing initiatives throughout the United States by promoting partnerships between local law enforcement, U.S. Attorneys' Offices, the U.S. Marshals Service, and other community partners to reduce and prevent child endangerment by sexual predators.
Fifty percent of the money will go to fund the detective's position; the remaining funding will be used to assist the county's Safety Assault Felony Enforcement Task Force with the 11 other Northern California county sheriff offices in region 2, most of which are unable to receive such grants because they have fewer than 1,000 registered sex offenders. These counties, from the northernmost Del Norte south to Monterey, will receive the equipment necessary for sweeps and forensic
computer inspections for child pornography.
There are 3,872 registered sex offenders in Santa Clara County. Forty percent of them have committed pornography or molestation crimes against children under 14 years old, says Michelle Sandoval, senior management analyst for the sheriff's office. The county's SAFE task force is composed of a sergeant, two detectives and a crime analyst. The new detective work with the SAFE team that assists local municipal agencies, including the San Jose Police Department, and with Megan's Law sweeps, she adds.
Sandoval, who wrote the grant, notes that Santa Clara County is one of the first agencies in the state to have a SAFE Task Force, which has existed since 1994. The sheriff's office has received funds through the state and has worked with the other 11 counties to help fight against child molestation and pornography.
Back in 2007, county officials asked if sheriff's departments in the other region 2 counties wanted to participate, so funds are split between Santa Clara and the other agencies, Sandoval says.
The county is one of 20 throughout the United States to receive such a grant. Officials applied for the maximum $500,000 to fund a three-year license for software but did not receive the additional $1,750 because the license period was one year too long.
The sheriff's office will work with the U.S. Marshal's office and with the U.S. Attorney's office in San Francisco.
"Every child deserves a safe and secure childhood. There is nothing more important than protecting our children from the unfathomable crimes committed by child sexual predators and exploiters. This funding will assist in the fight against the very real problem of child sexual abuse and exploitation," said county supervisor Dave Cortese in a release.

Sex Offender Registry a Failure

From: http://www.thereporter.com/opinion/ci_18667566

Remedy an Injustice: Too many names on sex offender registry

By John Aspinwall

Posted: 08/12/2011 01:05:33 AM PDT

There should be little public doubt about the fallibility of the legal system.
Not only are laws enforced with wide disparity from place to place, they endure dramatic changes over time. With each fragmented, arbitrary addition, their purpose, strength and effectiveness disintegrates, just as a scattered army loses its force.

As the truth of the law is lost, we become increasingly susceptible to injustice. One injustice especially is in dire need of remedy. Its intentions were admirable, but the law has been an utter failure: the sex offender registry program.

An extreme minority of registrants are truly dangerous people who continue offending, showing no signs they've received adequate treatment. And some evidence indicates that registry programs exacerbate conditions that lead to reoffending.

But there are many nonviolent registrants who do not reoffend. In fact, the overall recidivism rate for sex offenders is the second-lowest for any crime.

Still, our protective system is overloaded with nonviolent offenders, and that drains funds that should go toward keeping tabs on the dangerous minority. These programs offer a negligible and dangerously false sense of security in our communities.

Those who make up the enormous chunk of the registry were primarily in their teens or 20s at the time of conviction and their "crimes" were an expression of natural behaviors. Their "crimes" involved no threat, no force, no coercion, manipulation or violence.
They had consensual sexual contact with someone who'd developed past puberty, but was still a minor.
Yet they are placed next to child molesters and rapists on the registry, branded alike for life.

They present no real danger. They might have incredible gifts that will never be shared, beautiful families that will never be formed. They might teach and inspire a future president or Army general.

But often they can't find jobs, let alone ones that suit their unique talents. They have great difficulty developing normal relationships for fear someone may think they are child molesters or serial rapists. Because the public is led to believe such things, these individuals are unjustly scarred and scandalized. They transgressed the law, but a scarlet letter does not belong on their chests.

I want to offer a different way of responding to sexual indiscretions and those who commit such offenses. I hope the benefits will be self-evident.

If those nonviolent people were removed from the registry, it would in no way endanger society. They pose no more a threat than would any random person plucked from a crowd. It may even relieve communities to see that there aren't, as they'd believed, pages and pages of dangerous, prowling sexual predators.

The tax money used to track these nonviolent people might be put toward more treatment facilities that focus on individuals who do threaten our communities -- programs for people suffering from compulsions they are ashamed of, for which they want help without fearing social damnation.

If these plans were developed with genuine care, we could study these cases and derive the sort of qualitative results by which to make significant strides toward eliminating these serious crimes. Consider the potential victims who might be spared irreparable suffering by any small advance in the ability to prevent actual sexual abuse.

This doesn't take into account funds currently put toward welfare programs for those who have work skills but are denied jobs because they are on the registry. They often can't find housing, as few landlords will rent to them. This creates a drag on local government that can't be underestimated.

These are members of our communities who made a young mistake. They shouldn't continue to be isolated and cut off from society, their contributions unfairly shunned. They can't keep being heaped, so inhumanely, with burdens that aren't theirs.

Would we rather let them move on, trying to improve with a job and home, or have them living under bridges, forever disgraced, with the truly dangerous few whispering sickness in their ear?

- - -

The author, a former Solano County resident, resides in River Falls, Wis.

Are All Internet Users Child Pornographers?

From: Lubbock Online  http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/bert-knabe/2011-08-03/hr-1981-presumes-we-are-all-child-pornographers

H.R. 1981 presumes we are all child pornographers

Submitted by Bert Knabe on August 3, 2011 - 4:26am

In her "Pulp Tech" blog at ZDNet Violet Blue reported that the House Judiciary Committee has passed the "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011," a bill that is supposedly designed to protect children from Internet pornographers. Violet has several concerns with this bill, ranging from the fact that it seems to confuse pornographers - people engaged in a legal, if unsavory to some, activity - with pedophiles, who are among the most despicable people on the planet.
That is a big problem, but it surpassed by the specifics of the bill itself. Section 4 requires "A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service shall retain for a period of at least 18 months the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account." That makes it a requirement for ISP's to keep complete records of everywhere you surf for at least 18 months. Further into the bill (Section 11) it modifies Section 3486(a)(1) of title 18 regarding administrative subpoenas.
A lot of people have been complaining about this bill. It is a privacy nightmare, requiring ISPs to keep records of everything you do online for a year and a half and allowing the records to be requested by just about anyone for any purpose. Violet Blue quotes Representative John Conyers:

“The bill is mislabeled,” said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the panel. “This is not protecting children from Internet pornography. It’s creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes.”

From small ISPs (most large ISPs folded to government pressure years ago), privacy groups like the EFF and EPIC to congressmen, the concern over this bill is widespread. But if we don't get involved it will pass. The next step will be to make technologies like TOR illegal so you can't hide what you are doing from the government. The next likely step would be to outlaw open wifi. As long as people can go to Starbucks and surf this law will be easily circumvented, so open wifi will have to go. And there might be another attempt to outlaw encryption technologies. That was unsuccessfully attempted before, but the steady erosion of rights and civil liberties since 9/11 make it's passage more likely now, especially if bills like "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011" pass and are not overturned by the courts.
Contact your senators and representatives and let them know that this bill serves only one purpose, and that is to make it easier for government agencies to spy on law abiding citizens.
The text of the H.R. 1981 is here (PDF).

TAGS:  

• HR 1981
• pedophile
• presumed guilty

Congress wants to Spy on EVERYONE'S Internet Usage

Congress wants to spy on everyone's Internet

Goodbye, civil liberties! The government is using a bill disguised as anti-child pornography legislation to allow them to start monitoring Web-usage of everyone.
The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 (H.R. 1981) is aiming to keep the Web safe for children, but in the process it will treat any user logging on to the Internet as a potential criminal.
Bill sponsor Lamar Smith, House judiciary committee chairman and Representative from Texas, says that pedophiles have been able to avoid prosecution in the past because vital records linking them to web usage were never required to be retained. Under H.R. 1981, Internet Service Providers would have to hold onto those records for 12 months.
Those records, however, won’t apply to just suspected child pornographers and pedophiles. Instead, ISPs will be doing data retention on all of their customers.
If passed, the bill will keep the names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers and temporarily-assigned IP addresses of everyone on the Internet on file for a full year.
Smith says that the law is similar to what telephone companies are currently required to do by keeping phone records of their customers. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), however, says it’s just an attempt to pry even deeper into the public lives of citizens.
“This is not about child porn. It never has been and never will be,” Issa said. “This is a convenient way for law enforcement to get what they couldn’t get in the PATRIOT Act.” Issa further added that he is “offended” that lawmakers would use the issue of child pornography to gain leverage in passing the law.
Fellow California Democratic Representative Zoe Lofgren shared the same sentiments as Issa. “This is among the most astounding increases in the power of the federal government to gain access to private information,” she said.
“The bill is mislabeled,” Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) tells CNET. "This is not protecting children from Internet pornography. It's creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes."
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) proposed an amendment to H.R. 1981 which would limit the data retention to only cases involving child pornography or terrorism. Despite that being why backers claim the bill exists, it ended up being withdrawn. When he tried another amendment to reduce the time that data is retained from one year to 180 days, it failed to win on the voting floor.
Rep. Smith responded that doing so could undermine current cases regarding other issues.
In a statement issued by the Center for Democracy & Technology out of Washington DC, the non-profit advocacy group says that the passing of H.R. 1981 would “fundamentally violate users’ rights to privacy and free expression.”
The CDT adds that telephone companies that offer Internet service to customers will be faced with an enormous burden of handling the request of data retention, which will be a costly mandate to wireless carriers.
“In other words, the data retention provisions in H.R. 1981 would threaten our civil liberties, create significant economic burdens for small businesses and wireless carriers, and put consumers at a greater risk for identity theft and other privacy invasions,” writes the DCT.
In addition to receiving backing from Rep. Smith, H.R. 1981 is also receiving praise from Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the National Center for Victims of Crime, the National Sheriff’s Association, the Major County Sheriff’s Association, the International Union of Police Associations and the Fraternal Order of Police.

Why Taking Pictures of Your Kids at Park is now a Crime

From: A Motion for Innocence http://amotionforinnocence.blogspot.com/

‘Suspicious Man Photographing Kids’ Just Guy Taking Pics of Grandson

Watch out, residents of Pocatello, Idaho! A "suspicious man" driving a "tan/brown van" was seen at the local park, "taking pictures of children." Is he a pedophile? A murderer? A Satanist sex perv? He "ran off" when confronted by parents!
"If anyone has information about this man," Local News 8 reported on Tuesday, "police would like them to call police dispatch." Well! Someone did have information: The man himself, who "was at the park taking pictures of his grandson." Also, the whole "ran off when confronted" thing?

The man also said that he did not run away, but simply walked away from a woman who had gotten very close to him and was yelling at him. Manning said police are no longer worried about the man and he is not suspicious.

This is how LocalNews8 originally reported the story.

Pocatello Police are warning people of a suspicious man spotted taking pictures of children at Ammon Park.
Police say parents spotted the man photographing their kids, and when they confronted him the man ran off.
He is described as an older white man with white hair and a beard. He was wearing a western-style button-down shirt and blue jeans and was driving a tan/brown van.
If anyone has information about this man, police would like them to call police dispatch at 234-6100.

And this is how they explained it afterward in the updated version.

Lt. Paul Manning said the man in question called in the Pocatello Police Department himself, saying he was at the park taking pictures of his grandson. The man also said that he did not run away, but simply walked away from a woman who had gotten very close to him and was yelling at him. Manning said police are no longer worried about the man and he is not suspicious.

The hysteria of adults photographing children in public has reached epidemic proportions.
Earlier this week, we reported on a New York man who was threatened by a mom's boyfriend, then warned by cops not to take photos of the woman's kid, even though it was never proven that he had taken photos of her kid.
And before that, a pair of photographers were told they were not allowed to photograph children swimming in the frog pond at Boston Common, which Boston Common later apologized for on its Facebook page.
And earlier this year, New Jersey lawmakers tried to pass a law that would have made it illegal to photograph children in public without parental consent.
Last year in the United Kingdom, a man was accused of pedophilia for photographing his son in a mall.
In 2008, a UK man was called a "pervert" for photographing his own kids in a park.
If parents are so worried about pedophiles, then they should look within their own families or circle of friends, not the stranger with the camera.

Cell Phone GPS Tracking

Find Out Your Husband through Cell Phone Tracking

Do you think your husband is lying to you?  Are you afraid that your husband is having an affair, or is doing something he knows you wouldn’t approve of?  Do you wish you could find out where he’s really going when he tells you he’s working late?  Do you wish you could find out just using his cell phone, so he wouldn’t know you were checking up on him?  Cell phone tracking is your answer!
Cell phone tracking software is actually one of the easiest ways to find out what your husband is really up to when he says he’s at work or out with his friends and you don’t believe him.   For one, you don’t have to leave your house to see if he’s lying.   Two, he won’t catch you checking up on him as long as you hide the software on your computer.   And three, it costs less than a private investigator, so if you find out he is telling you the truth, you aren’t wasting your money.
How does cell phone tracking work?  Basically, you need to find a phone tracing software that you can install on your husband’s phone.   It will then send information to your computer, where you can log in and see what he’s doing.   You can get information immediately, every time he uses his phone.
Phone tracking software will give you GPS information on your husband’s location.   You can see exactly where he is at any given time, as long as he has his phone on him.   Plus the cell phone tracking software will give you much more information too.   You can find out all sorts of information about his phone usage.   You can see the numbers he calls, how long he talks to the person, and the name of the person if it’s stored in his phone contacts.   You can even see how many texts he sends to the person, and what they say.   You can get all of this with just the software, and you can get it instantly, as soon as it happens.
If you want instant, concrete proof that your husband is lying to you, using phone tracking software will help you.   And if you find out that your husband isn’t lying, and he really is working until 11 pm every night, then you can rest easy.   He will never have to know you didn’t believe him.