RSS
Twitter
Is It Even Possible To Ban Someone From Using A Computer?
from the more-difficult-than-you-might-think dept
A few years back, after hearing about a few similar rulings, we wondered if it was reasonable (or even feasible) to ban someone from using computers or the internet if they were found guilty of committing crime online. It seemed pretty excessive, especially considering how integrated computers and the internet have become with every day life. Last summer, a judge came to the same conclusion overturning a ban while noting how excessive that is as punishment. Apparently, however, not all judges quite understand this. A woman accused of fraud in a tax preparation scam has been banned from using computers while she waits for trial. That seems excessively broad (especially for someone who hasn't been found guilty yet). And how do they define "computer" in this situation? Can she use a mobile phone? What about an ATM machine? Self-checkout computer? This seems like one of those things that sounds good to a judge who hasn't actually thought through the ramifications of such a broad ban in today's world.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
"Is It Even Possible To Ban Someone From Using A Computer?"
Yes. Solitary confinement. Complete appendage dismemberment. Etc.
In the real world?
No fricken way.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Wow!
A quick look up on the definition of a 'computer' and this is what came up:
An electronic, digital device that stores and processes information.
So that pretty much means she's sc*ewed! Hell, with that definition if pushed you could argue that almost anything electric that stores state information couldn't be used.
I often wonder in these cases what's the point. Can she by proxy have someone else use a computer for her. If so, isn't that dangerous.
What amazes me is that we have a significant number of successful business owners as clients that don't use a computer at all and frankly wouldn't see a problem with this. Then again, they have enough money to pay someone else to deal with everyone else that does have to use them.
Freedom
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Wow!
By that definition she's not even allowed to use a car as 98% of the ones still on the road today have a computer in them for fuel,mileage,air/fuel mixture,shifting for automatics, the list goes on.
Her scale is off limits as well if it's not the kind with a simple pressure plate that turns a wheel.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Lets hope she has an older version car
Cause if she has a "newer" car most likely a computer is involved in that as well. Pretty much she can't use anything produced since 1996. (i'm guessing here)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Not for this
I could see a ban for severe hacking charges. Like hacking into the PCs that control nuclear weapons. But I don't understand why they would ban her from using a computer for accusations of tax fraud. That douse sound a little extreme.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Not for this
I agree. What is she going to do? Write a blog about how mean the IRS is?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Sheesh
-Can't drive any car that was build after 1975 (guessing)
-Can't use a digital watch, clock, a stove w/digital read-out, microwave, radio, electronic keyboard
You get my point. The terms of the "banishment" should be limited to Internet access. That means no access from home, cell phone, library, etc.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Sheesh
Don't forget about the lowly, simple calculator...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
they did it to mitnick
as part of his probation, and he just hired someone to read and reply to his email for him.
then, when he went on lecture tours talking about security they tried to stop him from doing that too. i guess when they banned him from "using" computers, they meant "thinking about" computers.
honestly, it would be more humane to just kill the person.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This sort of idiotic ban is so common that it's barely even news here in Britain; curfews that prevent people from buying food, bans for 'offenders' too ravaged by mental illness or substance misuse to even understand them, bans that are impossible to enforce... I sometimes wonder if the all-consuming need to please the tabloids overwrote this administration's common sense of just filled a void that was already there.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
out of touch judges
This seems like one of those things that sounds good to a judge who hasn't actually thought through the ramifications of such a broad ban in today's world.
No, this seems like on of those things that sounds good to a 70-year-old judge who can't get his VCR to stop flashing 12:00 AM. There is a serious generation gap between the people who make and interpret law and the rest of us.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I certainly she doesn't have...
...a computerized pacemaker.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The judiciary is woefully uninformed technologically
A elderly district court judge here in the south ordered the seizure of "all records in whatever form including all computers in possession of the defendants" in a civil IP case. Would that mean his TV, radio, car, watch, calculators, PlayStation, iPod, telephone, R/C airplane, kids toys, fever thermometer, camera, oven, dishwasher, dryer, microwave, pacemaker, Makita drill battery charger .... the list goes on and on.
In industry we demand specificity --- in the justice system it is abhorred.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Wow..
Can a judge mandate that she lose her job? I can't think of a single person I know who could do their job without at least some computer use.
Why not simply just put her in jail if she's such a risk? That pretty much ensures she won't be using a computer..
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
You guys are all...
IDIOTS. Read the article. It says they are waiting for her to go to trail, so during that time she is banned from using computers. And if she can get out of jail on the 1 million dollar bail then there might be a problem, but she is probably going to jail for life if she is convicted of all the crimes she is charged with.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: You guys are all...
what?
She's being charged on fraud, id theft, and forgery counts...life in prison...what country do you live in?
If convicted, she'll be free within 5 years.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The many advances in technology have certainly both expanded the realm of possibilities and also blurred lines of the law in many cases, particularly when it comes to copyright issues with not only creative works (music files being the biggest of them all) but also software packages, etc. In the last 10 years, musicians and artists have worked to revise copyright law so it can better represent the possibilities for infringement that have been brought about by mp3's and file sharing, and many software companies are also starting to follow suit, at least in the form of penalizing those that use pirated copies. While technology has also given us the ability to very closely monitor everyone using the Internet and even in many cases watch everything anyone is doing at any given time, it's still impossible to imagine that a total ban on computers for a person could be enforced properly, if only because we haven't fully "defined" everything yet when it comes to the technological realm. It seems like it's probably going to take a long time before we revise all the rules of copyright and the law to keep up with the latest advances.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This topic
Why do such crappy topics end up on my Google home page!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I guess she doesn't get any phone calls while she is in prison, that would be using a computer, remotely.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Pet Peeve
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Pet Peeve
ATM or Automatic Teller Machine, not ATM machine. Redundancy is only really good for emergency backups and the like.
Also, forgive me for the blank post. That's what I get for hitting enter too soon.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Pet Peeve
It's good to know that someone is looking out for grammatical errors these days. I am so sick and tired of the lackadaisical attitude people have in regard to our language. Bravo to you Mr. English Teacher.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Yes
It's called the death penalty.As if dieing didn't suck enough.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Yes
Huh ?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Collect unemployment? Oops!
I have yet to work at any job in the past 20 years that didn't require me to use a computer. So, is she supposed to get fired just because she has been accused and not even convicted? Even if she is convicted, do judges just want her to be a drain on the tax payers in this country? She'll have to file for unemployment. Oh no! Maybe she won't be able to collect... don't they make you type a form on the computer to file? Hmm... better just live on the street and starve to death, then if this judge is right. And how would they know... are they going to embed finger-print recognition on every computer? You can use the library computers for free, and the IP address is not tied to you...
Where's Swift when you need another "Modest Proposal?"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Breathing
You know, I'd just bet that she was also breathing when she supposedly committed her crimes. Accordingly, the judge should order her to hold her breath until she's cleared at trial.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I know someone that was banned from the internet for deleting her friends on facebook in a custody case. That is all there is to it, even if it seems like there should be more. Judges have way too much power nowadays
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment