FBI Deputizes Private Contractors

FBI Deputizes Private Contractors With Extraordinary Powers, Including 'Shoot to Kill'

By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive. Posted February 8, 2008.

The FBI has a new set of eyes and ears, and they're being told to protect their infrastructure at any cost. They can even kill without repercussion.

Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does -- and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials. In return, they provide information to the government, which alarms the ACLU. But there may be more to it than that. One business executive, who showed me his InfraGard card, told me they have permission to "shoot to kill" in the event of martial law. InfraGard is "a child of the FBI," says Michael Hershman, the chairman of the advisory board of the InfraGard National Members Alliance and CEO of the Fairfax Group, an international consulting firm.

InfraGard started in Cleveland back in 1996, when the private sector there cooperated with the FBI to investigate cyber threats.

"Then the FBI cloned it," says Phyllis Schneck, chairman of the board of directors of the InfraGard National Members Alliance, and the prime mover behind the growth of InfraGard over the last several years.

InfraGard itself is still an FBI operation, with FBI agents in each state overseeing the local InfraGard chapters. (There are now eighty-six of them.) The alliance is a nonprofit organization of private sector InfraGard members.

"We are the owners, operators, and experts of our critical infrastructure, from the CEO of a large company in agriculture or high finance to the guy who turns the valve at the water utility," says Schneck, who by day is the vice president of research integration at Secure Computing.

"At its most basic level, InfraGard is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the private sector," the InfraGard website states. "InfraGard chapters are geographically linked with FBI Field Office territories."

In November 2001, InfraGard had around 1,700 members. As of late January, InfraGard had 23,682 members, according to its website, www.infragard.net, which adds that "350 of our nation's Fortune 500 have a representative in InfraGard."

To join, each person must be sponsored by "an existing InfraGard member, chapter, or partner organization." The FBI then vets the applicant. On the application form, prospective members are asked which aspect of the critical infrastructure their organization deals with. These include: agriculture, banking and finance, the chemical industry, defense, energy, food, information and telecommunications, law enforcement, public health, and transportation.

FBI Director Robert Mueller addressed an InfraGard convention on August 9, 2005. At that time, the group had less than half as many members as it does today. "To date, there are more than 11,000 members of InfraGard," he said. "From our perspective that amounts to 11,000 contacts . . . and 11,000 partners in our mission to protect America." He added a little later, "Those of you in the private sector are the first line of defense."

He urged InfraGard members to contact the FBI if they "note suspicious activity or an unusual event." And he said they could sic the FBI on "disgruntled employees who will use knowledge gained on the job against their employers."

In an interview with InfraGard after the conference, which is featured prominently on the InfraGard members' website, Mueller says: "It's a great program."

The ACLU is not so sanguine.

"There is evidence that InfraGard may be closer to a corporate TIPS program, turning private-sector corporations -- some of which may be in a position to observe the activities of millions of individual customers -- into surrogate eyes and ears for the FBI," the ACLU warned in its August 2004 report The Surveillance-Industrial Complex: How the American Government Is Conscripting Businesses and Individuals in the Construction of a Surveillance Society.

InfraGard is not readily accessible to the general public. Its communications with the FBI and Homeland Security are beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act under the "trade secrets" exemption, its website says. And any conversation with the public or the media is supposed to be carefully rehearsed.

"The interests of InfraGard must be protected whenever presented to non-InfraGard members," the website states. "During interviews with members of the press, controlling the image of InfraGard being presented can be difficult. Proper preparation for the interview will minimize the risk of embarrassment. . . . The InfraGard leadership and the local FBI representative should review the submitted questions, agree on the predilection of the answers, and identify the appropriate interviewee. . . . Tailor answers to the expected audience. . . . Questions concerning sensitive information should be avoided."

more to come...

Upcoming Events

My name is Rod Wagner, RFSO and staff member of sosen. At present I am heading a committee for a symposium to be held at 2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK. on May 2nd 2008 between the hours of 1 to 5 PM. The theme of the symposium is "More Harm Than Good."

Guest speakers are Sarah Tofte of the Human Rights Watch Report "No Easy Answers."
Cheryl Griffin, who will represent sosen family which is a group of victims and survivors of sexual abuse. A Jane Doe who spoke at the Ohio Sex Offender Rally on Dec 1, 2007, Dr. Steven Davidson will also speak and we are approaching Dr Jill Levenson Spokes person from the Ohio Public Defenders Office, ACLU, Oklahoma and many others.

This is NOT a sex offender rally but rather an educational symposium to educate the public, the citizens of Oklahoma. 20/20 will air on March 7, a program entitled "Sex in America." You don't want to miss it.


by: letsgetreal

Ron Paul on Liberty and Privacy

The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters.

We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver’s licenses embedded with “standard identifier” data — a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we’re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005.

To date, the privacy focus has been on identity theft. It was Congress that created this danger by mandating use of the standard identifier (currently your SSN) in the private sector. For example, banks use SSNs as customer account identifiers because the government requires it.

We must also protect medical privacy. Right now, you’re vulnerable. Under so-called “medical privacy protection” rules, insurance companies and other entities have access to your personal medical information.

Financial privacy? Right now depositing $10,000 or more in cash in your local bank account will generate a federally-mandated report to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at the United States Department of the Treasury.

And then there’s the so-called Patriot Act. As originally proposed, it:

• Expanded the federal government’s ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight;
• Allowed nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight;
• Made it far easier for the government to monitor private internet usage;
• Authorized “sneak and peek” warrants enabling federal authorities to search a person’s home, office, or personal property without that person’s knowledge; and
• Required libraries and bookstores to turn over records of books read by their patrons.

I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives.

Ron Paul

Will sex offender restrictions really work?

2-3-2008 Georgia:

Placing restrictions on where registered sex offenders can live and work is politically popular, and certainly appears tough on crime.

But do those restrictions actually work? Do they do more harm than good?

Some Georgia legislators who fought against the passage of a bill to reinstate residency restrictions on sex offenders said that not only do the restrictions not prevent sexual abuse of children, but they suck up vital law enforcement resources and make it harder for offenders to stay on the up and up.

Sgt. Mike McGuffey of the Coweta County Sheriff's Office, who oversees Coweta's sex offender registry, said that he likes to know where his sex offenders are living. But it doesn't really matter where they live. McGuffey said he is thinking of testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee when it takes up the House version of the sex offender bill.

Last fall, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down the residency restrictions, saying that they violated property rights.

Under that law, sex offenders were forced to move out of their homes if a school, church, day-care center or other prohibited site were to open up within 1,000 feet of the home.

The new bill gives an exemption to sex offenders who own their property; renters are out of luck.

McGuffey sees a myriad of problems with the law. What if a sex offender is married but the house is in his wife's name? What if an elderly couple dies and leave their house to their child, who is a sex offender? "He inherits the family land where he grew up, and he's the owner and there's a day-care. What happens if it's been in his family for 50 years and a day-care went up a month earlier?"

"Technically, there's a lot of questions," McGuffey said.

When asked whether he thinks residency restrictions are effective, McGuffey said he has spoken to law enforcement officers in other states where there aren't residency restrictions. "They didn't seem to have a problem," he said. "It was better for them because the sex offender was not more likely to run or go underground."

The possibility that sex offenders will give up trying to be good and go underground was something mentioned several times by the legislators during discussion of the bill.

That is something that concerns McGuffey. "If we keep making them move ... one of these days they're going to get tired," he said. "And then we won't know where they live."

"I don't think the residential restriction in any way affects the purpose of the sex offender registry," he said. Staying away from areas where minors congregate might help them avoid temptation, but with the Internet, temptation is everywhere.

"The fact is knowing where they are ... it's not where they live, that's just a factor of keeping track of them," he said.

There is also the concern of what having to abide by these restrictions forever does to someone who was convicted of a minor crime — for example, someone who was a teenager and had consensual sex with a 15-year-old.

Though that crime is now a misdemeanor, if the perpetrator is only a few years older, there are many statutory rape offenders on registration lists all over the state, including in Coweta.

When offenders get out of jail, it can be very hard for them to find a place to stay and work. Many times, they can't stay with their family, said Rep. Alisha Morgan, D-Austell.

Additionally, Morgan said, many organizations that work with victims of sexual assault have opposed the new bill.

Those in favor of the restrictions always talk about protecting children.

But 94 percent of child sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone the victim knew, said Rep. Roberta Abdul-Salaam, D-Riverdale, who gave the minority report. And 75 percent of the assaults are committed by family members.

"By continuing to focus on child sexual abuse as a stranger abduction phenomenon, this bill may seriously damage the steps we have taken to create safer communities," she said.

A study by the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles found that each time a former inmate had to move the chances of his reoffending went up 25 percent. And the chance of reoffending goes up 1 percent every day that offender is out of work, Abdul-Salaam said.

If anyone knows where to find this study please e-mail eAdvocate with the link. Thanks

The sex offender registry, for the most part, treats all offenders the same. Someone convicted of statutory rape or public indecency has to abide by the same restrictions as a child rapist.

Rep. Steve Davis, R-McDonough, spoke in favor of the bill, saying "it just absolutely fascinates me how anyone can come in here and say that a convicted felon's right to property is more important than the safety of a child."

"We're talking about family values and our children," he said.

Sex offenders have families and children as well. Many of Coweta's sex offenders have children in school. One often goes to each lunch at school with his daughter. McGuffey said he often gets calls about sex offenders being at recreation fields and the like. Usually, they are there watching their children play sports. And they have every right to be. Sex offenders are prohibited from loitering at certain places, but if they have a reason to be there, that's OK.

McGuffey likes the fact that he knows exactly where every sex offender lives and works, and what kind of car they drive. And that they have to check up with him.

But when it comes to the residency restrictions, "I don't know what they're talking about when they're talking about protecting" children and families, he said.

The law doesn't keep predators from attacking children. It doesn't make them better or worse people.

"It's just going to restrict where a sex offender can and cannot live" McGuffey said. "That's all it's going to do." ..more.. by SARAH FAY CAMPBELL

Posted by A Voice at 2/03/2008

Will states say 'no' to Adam Walsh Act?

1-23-2008 National:

Facing a 2009 deadline to comply with a controversial federal law intended to crack down on sex offenders, states are nearing a crossroads. They either must fall in line with the statute or ignore it and absorb the penalty — a 10-percent cut to their share of funds in a congressional grant program used to fight crime.
With most state legislatures reconvening this month, debate is likely to resume soon over the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which President Bush signed in 2006.

The sweeping law, named after the murdered 6-year-old son of “America’s Most Wanted” host John Walsh, requires states to adopt, by July next year, strict new standards for registering sex offenders and providing public information about their crimes and whereabouts. It calls on states to publish photos and addresses of sex offenders online and dramatically toughens criminal penalties for those who fail to register, among other provisions.

For months, however, state legislators across the country have criticized the law as a “one-size-fits-all approach” that does not give states enough time, money or flexibility to make the changes sought by the federal government.

Critics point out that the U.S. Justice Department has yet to issue final guidelines for states to follow, leaving them with roughly half the time originally allotted by Congress to comply with the act. A Justice Department spokeswoman, Sarah Matz, said the guidelines still are being evaluated internally.

Strenuous objections also have been raised by states and advocacy groups over some of the act’s provisions. One in particular has raised concern: a requirement that some juveniles as young as 14 be listed on states’ online sex-offender registries. Most states do not include juveniles on online registries, and juvenile-rights advocates say listing young offenders on the Internet could subject them to harassment or violence.

“You’re damaging their lives and not serving any public safety,” said Sarah Bryer, director of the National Juvenile Justice Network. Bryer said juvenile sex offenders can be rehabilitated and are not as likely as adults to repeat their crimes.

Citing those complaints and others, state lawmakers are questioning whether it makes sense to comply with the act by its 2009 deadline, if at all, said Donna Lyons, a criminal justice analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), an alliance representing the nation’s state legislators. The organization recently released a policy statement — approved unanimously by more than 7,000 state lawmakers — seeking congressional amendments to revise the act.

“States are looking at cost-benefit analyses and asking, ‘Is it worth the 10 percent we’re going to lose?’” Lyons said, referring to the penalty states would face for not complying with the act — a 10-percent reduction in criminal justice funding provided by the Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.

States use Byrne grants to pay for drug task forces, anti-gang units, police overtime and other law enforcement activities. But funding for the grant program itself was slashed by 67 percent — from $520 million last fiscal year to $170 million this year — in a $555 billion appropriations bill signed by Bush last month.

That deep cut has figured into state lawmakers’ thinking as they compare the costs of complying with the Adam Walsh Act with the costs of not complying, said Susan Parnas Frederick, senior committee director of NCSL's Law and Criminal Justice Committee in Washington.

“What’s 10 percent of nothing, anyway? Maybe we’ll just do what we’re doing, lose the 10 percent and not have to deal with all this garbage,” Frederick said.

At least six states — Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada and Ohio — last year revised sex-offender laws in an effort to comply with the act. The Justice Department rejected Louisiana’s efforts as not enough, and has yet to rule on the other states’ laws, many of which went into effect Jan. 1.

States found to “substantially comply” with the act by July of this year are eligible for extra federal dollars for sex offender management. Frederick said federal financial incentives may motivate states to comply with the act, despite many lawmakers’ objections.

Matz, of the U.S. Justice Department, noted that states can apply for a pair of one-year extensions under the act if they fail to comply by next year’s deadline. Extensions must be approved on a case-by-case basis by Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey.

“We want to give people enough time. We want to be available for assistance,” Matz said.

In Ohio, legal challenges to the state’s three-week-old law already are mounting. Lawyers have challenged a provision of the law making new registration rules retroactive to old cases — another requirement under the Adam Walsh Act. The state recently sent notices to thousands of sex offenders informing them of new registration obligations.

Jon Paul Rion, a Dayton criminal defense attorney whose firm is representing more than 35 sex offenders with challenges to the new law, told Stateline.org the provision for retroactivity violates constitutional guarantees by imposing punishments beyond those originally handed down by courts.

But the Ohio attorney general’s office, which helped craft the state’s version of the Adam Walsh Act, has stood by the law, claiming that registration is not criminal punishment, but a civil regulatory measure that enhances public safety. ..more.. by John Gramlich, Stateline.org Staff Writer

Posted by A Voice at 1/23/2008

The Madness Continues, but...

Hello: Hey just wanted to write in support of the web site. I am registered in Ohio and we are currently battling the implementation of the Adam Walsh law that was effective in Ohio as of Jan 1st 2008.

I had 3 more years to go but received a letter in December 07 that I would be getting 15 years added onto my sentence and would have to report twice a year. There is an appeals process and the entire state is ON FIRE with lawsuits against it.

I know it will take years to educate the general public then to break thru to the "HANG EM ALL" crowd before the tide can finally turn but it is comforting to know that the tidal wave is finally hitting a formidable wall with more Doctors and Legal professionals getting on board armed with facts and research rather than fear anger and Myths.

I know that activism is the key I have personally sent out forms to every offender in my county with which they can file their own petition against re classification.

There has never been a law more draconian than the AWA with THOUSANDS of people going from "sexually oriented offenders" to tier 3 LIFETIME REGISTRANTS and lawsuits abound throughout the state.

This law, I believe is the one that will finally be the one that gets struck down by the supreme court. That may have even been planned and known when it was signed into law by the president trying to dig the last nugget from this political goldmine.

This law evokes new punishments based on the CRIME COMMITTED so its going to be awfully hard to make the same old argument that this is not additional punishment after the fact since its not a blanket law. The court system in my state is in Meltdown mode.

In addition to the thousands of individual lawsuits there is at least one class action suit that is suing all 88 counties in Ohio. Also there are several cases before the Ohio supreme court.

I could easily say that this law will cost the tax payers of Ohio more in postage to implement each year than any 10% decrease in funding that the federal government has threatened to withhold from any state that does not comply.

Some states are already balking when they actually stop and look at the law and the costs associated with implementation not to mention the fact that the law is nothing more the same old feel good, do nothing, useless, tactics with even more blind knee jerk nonsense based on crime committed not on the individual circumstances or plea arrangements.

This will lead to less compliance for offenders, less safety for everyone, more fear, more vigilantism and more collateral damage to our friends and families and I for one have had quite enough.

If there is anything I can do to help with the site please let me know.

Thank You
B.McCl.

Registered Sex Offender Recidivism

INTRODUCTION
Sex offenders are the most vilified group in society. People hate and despise them and think they should be locked up for life. Other criminals consider them too abominable to associate with. They are seen as dangerous sexual predators for whom treatment won’t work and who are at a high risk to reoffend. These beliefs are widespread, unsupported by facts, and have resulted in harsh laws specifically targeting sex offenders (Quinn, Forsyth, & Mullen‐Quinn, 2004). These laws are easily passed since it is politically dangerous to take any stance other than that of being tough on sex offenders. Such laws include central registries that exist in all 50 states, involuntary civil commitment laws in 16 states, and new laws in several states restricting where released sex offenders can live.

The focus is now on protecting society rather than individual rights. Janus (2004b) notes the paradigm of governmental social control has shifted from solving and punishing crimes to identifying “dangerous” people and depriving them of their liberty before they can do harm. I believe the net result of this may well be to increase rather than decrease recidivism of sex offenders and make society as a whole more dangerous rather than safer in terms of sexual violence.

CONCLUSIONS
Sex offenders are hated and reviled. Vilification of sex offenders has resulted in the passage of laws and sanctions that have broad public support, are politically advantageous to support, and give the illusion of increasing society’s safety from sexual violence. But there is no evidence they fulfill this promise. The registries, notification requirements, and housing restrictions make it far harder for sex offenders to turn around their lives and succeed in society. In such cases they may become more, rather than less likely to reoffend. Additionally, as Janus (2004a) points out, every dollar spent on these programs “is a dollar that could be spent on the much more ubiquitous, but relatively invisible, forms of violence against women and children” (p. 1250). But as long as sex offenders remain the most despised and vilified members of society, it is unlikely that any politician will have the courage to take a different stance.Back to: http://www.2nd-chance.info/

Sara Tofte from Human Rights Watch

January 23, 2008
Human Rights Watch SARAH TOFTE: Don’t adopt the Adam Walsh Act
Published: Jan 17, 2008 11:20 AM
Modified: Jan 17, 2008 11:21 AM

As state legislatures begin their 2008 sessions, lawmakers will need to decide whether to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Act on sex offenders or lose federal money for law enforcement. The choice for states is to dramatically increase their registration and community notification requirements for convicted sex offenders by 2009 or lose significant federal law enforcement grant money.

It doesn't seem like a difficult choice. Who wouldn't want to support laws targeting convicted sex offenders and be paid for it? Yet legislatures from Arizona to Illinois to Rhode Island are leaning against implementing the law. Because once you get past the painful emotions and look hard at the problem of child sexual abuse, it turns out that sex offender registration and community notification laws might not actually prevent sexual violence.

Sex offender laws are based on two popular myths about child abuse: that children have most to fear from strangers, and that sex offenders will repeat their crimes. In fact, more than 90 percent of child sexual abuse is committed by someone the child knows. And authoritative studies show that three out of four sex offenders do not reoffend within 15 years of release from prison. In fact, 87 percent of sex crimes are committed by people with no previous sex offense convictions.

The Adam Walsh Act doesn't tackle the real dangers to children, and contains disturbing provisions. It requires states to register and identify online children age 14 and older who commit sex offenses. Many states treat child sex offenders differently than adults, exempting them from community notification. They understand that child sex offenders respond well to treatment and have an excellent chance of rehabilitation - and that crimes they committed as children should not haunt the rest of their lives. Thus the Illinois legislature, knowing it was acting in conflict with the Adam Walsh Act, recently overrode the governor's veto of a law exempting child offenders from online registration.

In the past, federal law required only that states register sexually violent offenders for 15 years. The new act requires states to register virtually anyone convicted of a sex offense. This would force some states to significantly expand their registries. While it may seem a good idea to place all convicted sex offenders on a registry, law enforcement officials and child safety advocates say that expanding the registry to include all offenders reduces its usefulness in helping law enforcement to identify and monitor individuals considered a real risk to the community.

The Adam Walsh Act also extends from 15 years to 25 years or life the time someone is on a registry and subject to community notification, without the possibility of petitioning to be removed. If Congress had consulted experts on sexual violence, it would have found that the longer a convicted sex offender lives offense-free in the community, the less likely he is to re-offend, which is why experts often advocate giving convicted sex offenders an opportunity to be released from registry requirements upon a showing of rehabilitation.

Implementing the changes required by the act will cost states a lot of money. At a legislative hearing in Arizona, witnesses testified that the state would lose between $700,000 and $800,000 in federal law enforcement grants if it didn't comply with the law - but that it would cost millions of dollars to expand the state's sex offender laws to comply with the Adam Walsh Act.

And there are other costs to implementing the act. Subjecting convicted sex offenders to community notification for the rest of their lives may do great harm - both to the individuals and to community safety. Offenders included on online sex offender registries endure shattered privacy, social ostracism, diminished employment and housing opportunities, harassment and even vigilante violence. Their families suffer as well.

Unnecessarily expansive community notification laws may drive more offenders underground, away from supportive services like treatment, and away from the supervision and monitoring of law enforcement. Harsh enduring consequences also provide little incentive for former offenders to live without re-offending: as one registrant told Human Rights Watch, "No one believes I can change, so why even try?"

Every child has the right to live free from violence and sexual abuse. Promoting public safety by holding offenders accountable and by instituting effective crime prevention measures is a core governmental obligation. But states can address the real problem of sexual violence by refusing to adopt the Adam Walsh Act - and then limiting their registration and community notification laws to individuals identified as posing a real risk to the community.
Sarah Tofte is a U.S. researcher for Human Rights Watch and the author of "No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the U.S." Readers may write to her at HRW, 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10118-3299; Web site: http://www.hrw.org.