a) Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" series: Of the over 229 offenders who showed up or were prosecuted, 4 were registered sex offenders, which is 1.7%.

b) MySpace RSOs: 7,000 then 29,000 Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs) were kicked off the social networking site. Following that, the Attorneys General from several states made a big to do over this, claiming they were possibly prowling for minors, and what did the AGs find? ONE RSO who had committed a MySpace type crime; ONE!

In reality what they found were RSOs who HAD ACCOUNTS on MySpace, and a few of them were on parole or probation, and had Internet restrictions. The fact that these supervised folks violated their supervised restrictions does not mean they committed an Internet Sex Crime, instead it was a TECHNICAL VIOLATION of Supervision; no crime.

c) Newspaper reports of Internet crimes committed by public servants: Currently we have cataloged over 145 cases of Internet Sex Crimes that have been committed by folks who serve, or have served, the public in some capacity (/Crimes-Internet).

OPPS, I blew it, someone just pointed out the following:

My recidivism calculation is wrong, I should have added 4 RSO recidivists from the Dateline stings ---TO--- 36,000 RSOs kicked off of MySpace (one being a recidivist), then calculated the recidivism percentage which would be .0001388 or .01388%. While there is not much difference in the final number, technically this is the proper way to do it.

i) "Social Network Website" (SNW) is a site which has a makeup similar to MySpace and operates as such, or is a site which permits a chat-room type conversation between two parties, or etc.,. (needs further development)

ii) SNWs do not include sites such as News sites or blogs or other sites which would impede "Freedom of Speech," etc. and are not covered by this SNWA (Needs further development);

iii) Both SNWs and Chat-room only websites need to restrict minors to: 1) chat-rooms of just minors; 2) Accounts that are not publicly accessible but are accessible to other minors.

i) Require parents to approve their child's account, and notify them of their responsibility as to their child's actions;

ii) Notify parents of the fines they will be subjected to if their child violates provisions: i.e., lying about age, etc. (Again needs further development)

i) If a minor (person less than 18) sets up an account, it cannot be activated until a parent approves such. Parents would have to provide a valid credit card, or a driver's license as proof they approved of the account;

ii) Such minor accounts could not be accessed by adults (excepting the parents who have approved a minors account); minor accounts would be non public accounts automatically upon opening. They will only be accessible to other minor accounts;

iii) Minor accounts should be allowed to further restrict who they deal with. i.e., if there is someone they choose not to deal with and that person is a minor too, they should be allowed to stop contacts;

i) If a minor is caught setting up an account as an adult (i.e., they lied about their age), the parents are reported to local police and they pay a fine; sort of a civil type penalty. That minor is then prevented from setting up another account for some period of time as a penalty to them.

ii) Social networking sites are fined for not following the law.

a) Currently requiring RSOs to register e-mail addresses and other Internet ID's is a bootless exercise which shows Congress and State Legislators know little about how the Internet operates. e-mail addresses -if not used for a period of time- will become dormant and ISPs will -at some point, usually within a year- allow that e-mail address to be used by someone else. Hence, down the road -if a RSO registered that e-mail address, and someone else uses it in a manner prohi d by law, then law enforcement will be arresting the wrong person. This causes a significant waste of law enforcement and the court's time and resources, and affect the RSO's arrest record.

b) The same is true of chat-room IDs, in fact, the same chat-room ID can be in use in hundreds of places around the world at the same time which could result in arresting the wrong person. i.e., the RSO who registered it when someone else is using the same chat-room ID in another chat-room.

c) The stance that is being taken is to stop RSOs from participating in virtually all online activities. Current legislation tells ISPs and Social Networking sites to cut-off the RSO. This impedes the reentry of RSOs into the community by thwarting employment and educational opportunities, and affects the RSO's family as well. All this type of legislation makes RSOs and their families welfare recipients.

d) Publishing RSOs' e-mail addresses, as well as other information, is causing them to be targets of hatred and they are being stalked harassed online and elsewhere. There are some who have been murdered!