Slashdot Mirror
What Do Court-Ordered Internet Bans Really Mean?
tcd004 writes "Chris Lamprecht, a.k.a. Minor Threat, was the first person to be banned from the internet back in 1995. Since then, the practice has gained popularity worldwide. In the last year, courts in Australia, Britain, Canada, and the United States have all banned people from the Internet. A British court recently banned a convicted pedophile specifically from entering chatrooms for 10 years. But how effective are the bans? Minor Threat contends that the rules governing his internet ban use were toothless. How much harder is it to keep people off the internet in an age when everything--from parking meters to refrigerators--comes with an IP address." (Note: the Globe and Mail story requires registration.)
Login: CowboyNeal
Password: CowboyNeal
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
If you're banned by the court to normally legal X activity, and you are caught doing X activity, then you can be fined and/or sent to jail.
Minor Threat along with Mucho Maas authored ToneLoc, a great war dialer. Hours upon hours I sat, watched, and listened while it scanned. Great Stuff..
time is a perception of a being's consciousness
time is your 6th sense, the wierd ones are 7+
The phrase you are looking for is "English Common Law".
Exactly, in opposition to (e.g.) "Roman Law" (the basis of the Napoleonic Code and many other European-originated law codes), which comes out of Justinian. IANAL.
I am afraid that you do not understand the subject matter. These terms would be parts of parole, not Contempt of Court. Parole is basically the prisoner trading hard time for external life, with extreme restrictions.
Contempt of court (in the American System) has two forms of occurence and two forms of punishment. There are Direct (telling the judge to go fuck himself) and Indirect (disobeying a court ordered moratorium on proceedings) forms. The punishment can be either Criminal (jail time) or Civil (removal from the courtroom). Civil punishment ceases once compliance with the judge's orders are met, and Criminal punishment requires a trial, with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I really don't see too much room for "pure arbitrariness", because Judges who act improperly can be censured, and federal judges can be impeached. Local judges are typically elected officials, so they have the same responsibilities to the public as say the sheriff, who has far more power.
I am sorry that you seem to think that it opens the door to "pure arbitrariness", but doesn't giving any position of power do the same? I would hope that we have enough faith in the judicial system that this small bit of power isn't so abused as to be to a net deficit?
That was the problem with the Mitnick case, if I understood it correctly. The way I heard it, the judge in the case banned him from using a computer, in general, for professional or personal reasons, for some number of years. Which prevents him from doing anything but manual labor. McDonalds uses computers for taking orders, so he couldn't even work there. I could be mistaken, but that was what I was given for the details of the case. Of course, I was 16 and rather impressionable at the time, and I was reading about this on 2600.com, so my information may not be correct. If that was the case, he might still be able to use VOIP services like Vonage, as you don't need a computer per-se, so much as an internet connection and a unit to perform the protocol conversion. But for all I know, the converter could be considered a computer, since it does have a processor, memory, os, etc., so he might not even have been able to do that. If a court order can go that far, they could kill a man these days. Couldn't work, couldn't park, couldn't use an advanced cell phone, couldn't use the self-check-out at the supermarket... IANAL, but if it does go that far, I'd be appaled.
The word 'arrest' actually means you have been physically taken into custody by a police officer.
I would answer on job applications with that definition and I bet most people would too. If my potential employer wants to start asking questions about my speeding tickets, I'll tell them I'm not a lawyer and that when I was in high school that the term 'arrest' meant what most other people still know it to be.
it is illegal for job applications to ask if you've been arrested. they can ask about convictions for crimes pertaining to the job being applied for, no more. one of the first links from google: http://career.boisestate.edu/IllegalInterviewQuest ions.html
My personal choice would be not to commit any crimes that might place me in such a situation.
I hope you don't live in Texas.
There, anyone, even you, could be a sex offender, and not even know it.
When the corruption of the system is so flagrant, I wonder if your personal choice holds any weight at all.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
i have a sort of fFriend (he's a bit of a dumbass and i'm reluctant to call him a fFriend -- he is, after all, a convicted criminal) who was ordered he may not live in a household with internet access.
fFor a time, this was enforced by him being under house arrest and a parole officer stopped by every now and then to check on things. at this point, his parole officer still comes by, by the inspections are much less stringent.
the answer to the topic here is: the courts dont really check so much. to wit, my example-person has perfectly good internet access on his mobile phone. his wife discreetly got an AOL account and logs in now and then. and of course he can swing by any public lab or internet cafe'.
now, officially, if the courts were asked fFor their stance on pedantry like the parking meter example, they would surely come out on the side of reason, stating the convicted may use anything without interactive connections to other users, or something delicately worded.
officially, of course, the "no internet" sentencing means just that: none. nadda. just as "no drug use" includes poppy seeds and sometimes caffeine.
Well Australia just took the parts of the US and UK that we liked and gelled them together. The first example to come to mind is the fact that our upper and lower houses are named after the US ones (Senate and House of Reps) whereas the institution itself takes it's name from the British (Parliament).