SandBoxBlogs: Watchdog.Org "IA: Secretary of State denies release of emails related to identity theft case"

Good for Iowa Sec of State Matt Shultz.  Who was exonerated from accusations of state ethics law violations.

This was the first case in the judicial history of the United States where law enforcement took charge of the outdated, vague and sorely lacking 'identity theft' laws when it comes to internet crime. 

Because Shultz is a public figure and not a  private citizen made the courage of law enforcement to take on now convicted Zach Edwards and the infamous 'Link Strategies' company he was associated with even more significant. 

Public figures have far less ability to protest attacks on their lives from false allegations or types of viral assaults such as Zach Edwards did.  Private citizens attacked in similar manner are protected more strongly by the 4th amendment.  Even though the act committed against both is the same.

Kudos to Matt Schultz for keeping hands on the reins and not letting media fester what is now a historic ruling that benefits all victims of internet crime and 'high-tech lynchings' by others.    

Sheena Dooley:
"DES MOINES – The Iowa Secretary of State’s Office is refusing to make public emails related to an identity-theft case involving its elected leader Republican Matt Schultz and a former Barack Obama presidential campaign staffer.

Iowa Watchdog asked the secretary of state’s office multiple times for emails related to the case. It also sought access to all documents associated with the former Obama staffer, Zachary Edwards, including written correspondence, emails, police reports, phone logs and written notes to staff......

.......Edwards, 29, committed identity theft when he sent at least one email saying Thomas Schultz received inappropriate payments from former GOP presidential nominee Rick Santorum, court documents show. He sent that email to Matt Schultz’s Secretary of State office from an email address that was almost identical to the secretary of state’s personal address.

Edwards was also behind a libelous blog post that prompted articles in The Salt Lake Tribune and

Politico.com accusing Thomas Schultz and his brother of engaging in unethical or illegal behavior, according to Thomas Schultz’s victim impact statement.

Around the same time, Matt Schultz, 33, faced an ethics complaint for using his office to issue a statement sharply criticizing Jon Huntsman for his failure to participate in the Iowa Caucuses. Matt Schultz received at least $12,500 in campaign contributions from a political action committee Santorum ran. Thomas Schultz was behind the Draft Santorum website urging his candidacy for president.

The Iowa Ethics & Campaign Disclosure Board later tossed out the complaint, saying Matt Schultz didn’t violate state ethics laws......"  (Read more?  Click title)

"Unapologetic pursuit and tracking of patterns within news others make since 2010"

SandBoxBlogs: Durango Herald "Are you exposed on Internet?"

(See related story links here)

Yes, but here lies the rub.

Until law enforcement recognizes that they actually already have enough law in place to enforce what others 'do' to your personal information on the web and that politicians and legislators will spin their wheels until the boots that are on the ground, that are watching the consequences of that ill-intent, push the boundaries to get those perpetrators off-line; there will not be any hope for internet regulation laws that work in the real world.

Paige Blankenbuehler:

"Josh, a 26-year-old Durango resident who asked that only his first name be used, said that he will never create an online profile.

“You never know what information that you share might come back to haunt you in 10 years, or even 20 years,” he said. “To me, sharing information online is like sending it up to this floating island of information, I don’t understand it, and I don’t know the extent of who can access that information even if I think that I’m keeping it private.”

Josh also has concerns about potential employers holding information that they find online against him when he is looking for a job.

On March 30, Facebook said in a public statement that reports of businesses asking potential employees for passwords in order to view private posts and pictures as part of the job-application process were ‘alarming.’

In a survey released by Microsoft Research in 2010, 70 percent of recruiters said they’d rejected applicants based on information they found online.

But before you delete or deactivate your Facebook account, note that the research also identified the opposite: 68 percent of job granters said social-networking profiles contributed to a candidate getting hired.

Josh acknowledged that social media may not always be a negative in the job search, but that didn’t change his mind.

“When I am applying for jobs, that employer should look at my credentials, not my personal life,” he said.

In February, the Obama Administration released a proposed ‘Bill Of Rights’ for online privacy.

The bill’s main purpose is to enable users to easily tell Internet companies with a single click whether they want their online activity tracked.

Josh’s preference is clear.

“I just think that it’s better to be safe than to be sorry,” he said....."  (Read more?  Click title)

"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."

SandBoxBlogs: The Hill "After killing SOPA, Internet activists take aim at a new House cybersecurity bill"

Meet CISPA.  The 'Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act' (CISPA).


Without having read the bill itself, it sounds as though lawmakers have stepped up their game and isolated cyber controls and enforcement down to security threats such as hacking and cyber warfare.  It sounds like a step in the right direction.


Why the broad language though? 


Why is it that lawmakers have such a difficult time seeing that multiple enforcement mechanisms need to be placed on governing the  internet and keeping users from harm?  Hacking and cyber warfare are not the same modus operandi as internet crime and day-to-day law enforcement needs.  Pirating is not the same beast as internet crimes such as impersonation, identity theft, stalking, harassment, etc.  Not to mention the bottomless pit of issues with jurisdictions, crime tracking, reporting, interaction between federal, state and local enforcement.


There are so many needs when it comes to law enforcement and the internet.


Couldn't we simply agree to leave the broad and sweeping language on the cutting table and instead get basic laws in place now?  Refine them as we come to understand more and our officers, agents and military learn what they need to do their jobs?


So simple.  So very simple.  Yet made to be so complex by political influences. Maybe the time has come for law enforcement and prosecutors to start pushing  the boundaries of existing laws and broadening out interpretation of existing law.


Simply for the sake and wellness of the folks they serve and protect.


(Read the article?  Learn about CISPA?  Click title)

"Unapologetically pursuing and tracking patterns within the news others make since 2010."

SandBox Comments: UK Telegraph "Criminals and cyber bullies to be banned from the web"

Just one more thing above and beyond the United States that law enforcement and justice get right over in the UK: 

"It calls for police and courts to make more use of existing “cyber sanctions” to restrict access to the social networks and instant messaging services in cases of hacking, fraud and online bullying. Sex offenders and those convicted of harrassment or anti-social behaviour also face more internet restrictions under the new strategy.

Similar orders have been imposed on those charged with involvement in a series of cyber attacks by the Anonymous and LulzSec groups earlier this year, while they await trial.

Cyber sanctions were also used following the riots this summer. Two teenagers in Dundee were banned from the web for inciting riots via Facebook.

Officials are now looking into whether "cyber tag" technology could be used to monitor offenders and report to authorities if break their bail or sentence conditions by using the internet.

"The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office will consider and scope the development of a new way of enforcing these orders, using ‘cyber-tags’ which are triggered by the offender breaching the conditions that have been put on their internet use, and which will automatically inform the police or probation service," cyber security strategy said...."
(Emma Barnett)

(Read more on how they're going to accomplish this without harm to free speech?  Click title.)