Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Andrew Moshirnia, Apr 5th, 2010 @ 11:10am

   
   

   Unfortunately, this court's order is fairly tame

   Hi Mike,
   
   I am sad to say that court's order does not widely oppose Internet or Computer bans "Here, however, the question is not the appropriateness of an internet restriction but its form and severity." Essentially, the court just wants an option for a probation officer to give individual waivers and (possibly) a shorter ban period. This ban is going to be reimposed with the hope that a probation officer's judgments will tailor the restriction.
   
   I actually published on this topic today as well. I have a slightly different take here http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2010/right-wrong-reasons-dc-court-appeals-vacates-30-year-computer-b an

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   GuyFawkes, Apr 5th, 2010 @ 11:27am

   
   

   I´m totally against banning anyone from the Internet, even cybercriminals. It´s like banning water. Anyways, it´s funny bc Hadopi and Debill will ban teenagers for downloading copyrighted songs while judges stop banning cracker that commited real crimes (I don´t think that casual copyright infrigiment is even a crime, ie, filesharing).
   
   So what´s now? Infringing copyright will be punished worst them stealing credit cards numbers?
   
   Dumb laws

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Don Morse, Apr 5th, 2010 @ 11:30am

   
   

   re:Once Again, A Court Overturns Internet Ban For Convicted Criminal

   hmmm, so a murderer who used a gun should not be banned access to a firearm, an knife wielding criminal should be able to have access to knives... so it stands to reason a hacker who causes millions/billions of dollars in damages should have access to the Internet in order to do more damage. As an IT manager who has been hired to come in an clean up after these morons, I say it smacks of more of the ACLU's (American Criminal Liberation Union) effort to keep criminals either on the street or able to commit crimes.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2010 @ 11:32am

   
   

   Bans

   I wouldn't think that computer bans are bad per say, and could be more akin for having your license pulled when driving. It wouldn't stop you from riding with someone else, or taking a bus, or taxi, or any number of other forms of transportation.
   
   What I can see with internet control would be a court ordering some control. So that you can still get a VIOP phone with your cable, but the computer being there only for work and living requirements. (Email to family, paying bills, looking for work, banking, ect and so on.)
   
   The only problem I can see with that is how you would enforce such a ban, or that it would even be possible. Between working with phones, work computers, rebooted ATMs running a win98 login, and library computers it would get nearly impossible.
   
   More then like the best option was be to state that a parole officer should set limits and then do their own work to try and help. (For crimes that don't involve outright murder, rape, vilance, or large amounts of money I tend to support aggressive rehabilitation.)

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   A Dan (profile), Apr 5th, 2010 @ 11:43am

   
   

   Re: re:Once Again, A Court Overturns Internet Ban For Convicted Criminal

   It's closer to saying that if you drove drunk, you're banned from using roads for 10 years.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2010 @ 11:44am

   
   

   the courts wont stop giving them as they are similar to banning someone from contact with certain people or staying out of a given area. the real question is when the courts will stop overturning what is a normal part of the sentence.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2010 @ 12:00pm

   
   

   Re:

   I don't think it's analogous to that at all. The internet has become an indispensable part of our lives in many ways. Lots of businesses will no longer accept paper resumes, instead insisting that you can only apply online. More and more government services are being put online only. People in small towns rely on internet ordering for delivery of goods that aren't locally available. Many public libraries now only make their catalogs available online.
   
   Hundreds more examples could be given. The scope of what is available online is now so broad, and in many cases so essential, that it's not analogous to banning people from contact with certain areas or people.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   ALANTONE (profile), Apr 5th, 2010 @ 12:14pm

   
   

   AT&T and Apple unfairly encroach on our liberties

   If these punishments can be overturned based on the logic that it is an "unfair encroachment on his liberties” why can we not apply this same argument to meter Internet access or any situations where ISPs try to limit our ability to access the Internet? And yes I understand the business side, but I still think that it is unfair for AT&T and Apple to limit our IPhones to how we can communicate using Skype or other similar services via their 3G system.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2010 @ 12:33pm

   
   

   A pedophile uses an internet social site to lure your under aged daughters and sons out to place were he then proceeds to molest them. He gets caught and then probation after X years. As soon as he gets out he gets right back on the computer to do it again and this time he kills the person so he cannot get caught. These are criminals we are talking about not normal citizens.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Apr 5th, 2010 @ 12:34pm

    
    

    Re: Re: re:Once Again, A Court Overturns Internet Ban For Convicted Criminal

    These days? It's like saying that if you drove drunk, you're banned from appearing outside for 10 years.
    
    It's nice because they don't have to house and feed you in the meanwhile.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    DH's love child, Apr 5th, 2010 @ 12:43pm

    
    

    Re:

    The problem with these blanket bans is they DON'T work. If the crime is really so bad that the person shouldn't be interacting with people, don't let them out of prison to begin with. You can't lump all 'cyber' crimes together.
    
    to use your example: what if, instead, the pedophile grabbed the kid as he came off public public transit and molested them. Should he now be banned from all forms of public transportation or just that bus, or not in public at all? The problem with broad strokes like this is that they're too broad - always.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    Anonymous, Apr 5th, 2010 @ 12:44pm

    
    

    I'm glad that these types of issues are coming before the court. As more and more Internet related issue come up, I think the court/society is going to have to deal with them in a more sensible way than just a complete ban.
    
    I know that it is easy to ban use of the Internet of a pedophile, but how about someone who's been convicted of downloading a couple of songs/videos illegally.
    
    As the Internet has become almost a necessity of daily life, I think that banning someone completely from the use of email or a job hunting site solves nothing and creates a completely new underclass of people.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    Atkray (profile), Apr 5th, 2010 @ 2:19pm

    
    

    Re: Re:

    "If the crime is really so bad that the person shouldn't be interacting with people, don't let them out of prison to begin with."
    
    
    This.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    GBH, Apr 5th, 2010 @ 2:21pm

    
    

    Re: re:Once Again, A Court Overturns Internet Ban For Convicted Criminal

    WOW: Logically fallacious on so many levels.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    

    Richard (profile), Apr 5th, 2010 @ 4:53pm

    
    

    Bu but but

    There are very few devices of modern life that don't include a computer these days. If you can't use a computer then you also can't use a telephone, drive a car, use a vacuum cleaner, a fridge, a washing machine, a dishwasher, listen to the radio etc etc. There simply is no job you could do without at some point encountering one. Such a ban is nonsense. The courts may make them - but then the courts are well know to be capable of all kinds of stupidity.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Apr 6th, 2010 @ 7:53am

    
    

    Re: Bu but but

    he isnt banned from computers he is banned from internet access. different story all of your points are moot.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    

    Anonyomous, Feb 8th, 2011 @ 9:42am

    
    

    Some one should tell the state of Illinois, they banned a guy from the internet for 2 years. Even after that 2 years is up, they will probably ban him completely from the internet. Not only was he banned from using the Internet, but this guy is a ham radio operator and they banned him from using his federally licensed radio station.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment