To print: Click here or Select File and then Print from your browser's menu

This story was printed from silicon.com, located at http://www.silicon.com/

Story URL: http://networks.silicon.com/webwatch/0,39024667,39169542,00.htm

Hillary Clinton talks tech
From Facebook to BlackBerrys…

By

Published: Thursday 03 January 2008

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed extensive Real ID requirements restricting which state ID cards can be accepted at federal buildings and airports. Do you support those regulations as written, would you want to repeal Real ID, or would you prefer something in between?
I believe we need to seriously re-examine Real ID and make changes that take into account legitimate concerns raised by states. I have long expressed concern with the Real ID Act, dating back to its initial consideration in the Senate in the spring of 2005.

Had there been an opportunity to properly consider this legislation, it would have been revealed that the Real ID Act imposes dramatic new burdens on our states and substantially changes our immigration and asylum laws in ways that deserve critical examination.

Among other things, Real ID's driver's licence provisions impose a massive unfunded mandate on states, while ignoring our broken immigration system.

But there never was an opportunity to consider it properly. Senate Republicans brought this legislation up for a vote without holding hearings or engaging in serious debate and by tacking it on to an emergency spending bill for our troops. By employing these tactics, Republicans revealed they were determined to bulldoze this law through without serious discussion.

I support a comprehensive review of Real ID to determine whether its various ID provisions make sense in light of our very real security needs and the challenges facing our states.

Recently, there's been a lot of talk about sex offenders using social-networking sites. What, if any, new federal laws are needed in this area?
Protecting children against sexual predators is an issue of great importance to all parents. In the Senate, I was proud to co-sponsor and support the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which became law in 2006.

This legislation strengthened sex offender laws already on the books and updated registration requirements to include internet offences. It also places the responsibility on sex offenders to register with local authorities, requires them to notify those authorities when they move or change jobs and makes it a felony to fail to register.

Additionally, it set national minimum standards for classifying sex offenders, a big step toward eliminating the lag time in classification and registration that occurs when sex offenders move across state lines.

Parents - and all concerned citizens - should have the ability to access information to see if a convicted sex offender is living in their neighbourhood or near other places where their children spend time. As president, I will continue to fight to protect children and keep sexual predators from reaching them.

The Bush administration has supported legally requiring internet service providers, and perhaps search engines and social-networking websites as well, to keep logs on who their users are and what they do. Do you support federal legislation, such as HR 837, to mandate data retention?
Our primary concern must always be the protection of our children. I believe that we must strike a balance between blanket data retention and activity tracking of all internet users that some bills propose and legitimate law enforcement efforts to seek out online predators who are using the internet to prey on victims.

I would support effective and constitutional efforts to strengthen law enforcement's ability to track and stop online predators. Simultaneously, I would ensure that the privacy rights of lawful users of the internet are protected.

We have to know: what's your favourite gadget?
Clinton: My BlackBerry.

Anne Broache and Declan McCullagh write for CNET News.com