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.)

Comments

I'm banned

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure how well it works for others, but I'm banned from the internet....

Re:I'm banned

[skotte]

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.

Internet Ban

[OneArmedMan]

Better not let em near touch tone phones either, just in case they want to launch a Nuclear strike! ...

Re:Internet Ban

[sexysciencegirl]

I assume you're referring to Kevin Mitnick's case where he was refused a phone call. This one actually made some sense from the law-enforcement point of view. We just need to pretend we are the police and start with the assumption that Kevin is indeed a powerful hacker-terrorist committed to causing death and destruction. Now what would a hacker-terrorist do for a contingency plan? He would set up his most devastating hacking scripts and make them activatable by a modem listening on a dedicated phone line. And all you need to launch the attack is a phone call to a specific number. Of course, Kevin was actually a pretty different character but the authorities didn't really have any way of verifying that this was the case.

Re:Internet Ban

[xchino]

"Of course, Kevin was actually a pretty different character but the authorities didn't really have any way of verifying that this was the case."

Nor do they have any way of varifying that my one phone call wont do the exact same, nor yours, nor anyone elses. We have the presumption of innocence in this country, and it's one of those troublesome rights given to us by our misguided founders. Of course, I'd like to make a phone call in that same situation, I'm sure you would too, but it's ok to forget about due process if it's someone else, right? I dont care if they thought the guy was Hitler reincarnate, he was an american citizen and deserved the same fair treatment as you or I.

Specific to anglo-american law system

[yanestra]

These bans are very specific to the anglo-american law system, I suppose. It works by threatening with punishment for "contempt of court", which is a construct, I think, not present in any other modern law system.

It shouldn't be there either, because it opens the door to pure arbitrariness.

Re:Specific to anglo-american law system

[CustomFort]

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?

Working globeandmail.com login

[IO ERROR]

Freshly registered during The Mysterious Past:

Login: CowboyNeal
Password: CowboyNeal

AOL

[Anonymous Coward]

I think if someone is banned from the Internet for hacking they should be forced to use AOL, dial-up, version 1.5.

Re:AOL

[chaffed]

I think that qualifies as Cruel and Unsual Punishment

The "unusual" provision, at least, is clear: providing that persons will not be subjected to arbitrary, humiliating, or carpricious punishment outside the normal course of the law

Did you know?

[Prophetic_Truth]

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..

Re:Did you know?

[QuantumG]

Ahh ToneLoc, those were the days. Here in Australia we used to have 008 freecall numbers (now we have 1800 numbers like the rest of the world). I remember I scanned a block of 10,000 numbers over the course of a week. I got a nasty little letter from the national telephone carrier Telstra warning me not to abuse the telephone system. I remember calling them up and demanding what the hell their problem was. "It's a free call, I can make as many as I wish" I said. They told me there had been a complaint. Some travel lodge claimed they had received over a hundred calls with no-one on the other end (the call would last nothing more than 1 or 2 seconds before the modem dropped the connection and moved onto the next number). I insisted that I had called each number in the block no more than once in the entire scan. Telstra sent me a list of dates and times for the calls that had been connected to the complaining travel lodge's phone. There was over 300 calls that had been connected. I correlated the times that Telstra had sent with my scan logs and found that Telstra had routed three 100 number blocks to the same telephone. Once I explained this to the technician who had been assigned the matter he immediately found and corrected the problem. These days I suppose they would have just sent the cops around to arrest me on some trumped up terrorist charge or something.

Tantamount

[KillerDeathRobot]

A ban from the internet for me would be tantamount to a death sentence.

Re:hard to verify

[Chess_the_cat]

It's not meant to be practical. It's put in place so that if you're caught again doing something illegal on the Internet they can nail you on breaking the ban and give you a heavier sentence.

Job Requirements

[Detritus]

At many jobs, a networked PC is standard office equipment and is needed for corporate email, time cards, etc. Would a court tell a convicted forger that he was prohibited from using pen and paper?

Re:Banned from the Internet?

[Kenshin]

Or, alternately:

"It's not the internet... it's AOL!"

Re:Edmonton man jailed for luring teen on-line (te

[theboyhope]

a 13-year-old girl who was obviously sucked in by the Internet

chat rooms are "extremely dangerous"

Now, this is a sad story, and I can only hope that this guy has a *really* bad time in prison, but how has the idea that the internet is an evil entity with malevolent intent managed to flourish? Chat rooms are as dangerous as warm fluffy socks. If he chatted her up in the local park no-one would have suggested the park was to blame. I'm off to register theinternetisnotababysitter.com

Perhaps lazy judiciaries and prosecutors?

[Shadowlore]

Essentially, I see such "punishments" as a result of laziness on the part of the sentencing entity. The judges are failing to apply reasonable standards and realize that online behaviour is fundamentally not different from offline behaviour.

If a person is convicted of pedophile behaviour with a child he/she met in the shopping mall, do they the judges ban them from shopping malls? If they met them at a McDonalds, do they get banned from fast food restaraunts? Not that I am aware of.

If someone "knocks over" a convenience store or a bank, do they get banned from entering convenience stores or banks? Again, not that I know of. With possibly one or two rare exceptions I don't know of any offline crime where the convicted is banned from all locations similar to the crime scene.

So why do we suddenly think that banning pedophiles and crackers from the Internet, or phones, or other communicative technology is useful or effective? In my opinion the idea that the Internet is somehow different and that you can be banned from using it by committing a crime on it (or using it to get information to commit a crime) is dangerous to freedom of speech and information. Indeed, may even serve to perpetuate crime.

In today's society it is becoming more and more commonplace to carry out one's business, education, and entertainment online. From online banking and bill pay to online shopping, getting one's degree or a job. Even the local job service and unemployment offices are online.

As the value of the Internet in our daily lives increases such a sentence -if enforcable and enforced- is a damming one in that it begins to perpetuate a class of have-nots with regard to such cost savings and opportunities. Increasingly with government going online the government itself would then be creating a class of citizen that is effectively banned from many government services.

Ultimately it will be impossible to monitor one's access to the Internet, chatrooms, etc. w/o constant supervision. This will naturally lead to a lack of respect for such actions/penalties causing a further drop in respect for law in general. As this increases additional crimes will be committed. Not unlike when as a child if you got "sentenced" to being house restriction but mom and dad were not around to enforce it you began to realize it was toothless and didn't care about it.

Only by treating "cracking" the same as we would such an act in the offline world (breaking and entering, theft, fraud, etc.) can we expect our laws and punishments to be anything near rational and respectable. Banning pedophiles from the place they met their victims doesn't change the pedophile's behaviour.

Just like (IMO) it is wrong to be able to patent something you can do online that you can't get a patent for doing in a "brick and mortar" store, it is wrong to view crime online as different than crime offline. Theft is theft, fraud is fraud, and pedophilia is pedophilia. The Internet doesn't change that.

You're Screwed Anyway

[BuenasOlas]

If you are on parole/probation you are screwed anyhow. Good luck getting a job at that internet company after checking the box that says "Have you ever been convicted of a felony", even if you aren't restricted from using the internet. Most companies now even ask if you have been convicted of a misdemeanor(do not check this box if it was posession of Marijuana). If you get rolled in this country you are royally screwed for a while. So get a good lawyer, and pay him a lot of money to get your record expunged.

I'm not really sure...

[laughingcoyote]

On the one hand, people are quite often prohibited from normally-legal activity (such as leaving the state) during a probation or parole period. However, it would seem to me that, with the Internet taking over more and more everyday functions (VoIP, the wide use of email, IM, and videoconferencing in business, Web-based applications coming into wider use by corporations, in some companies, including the one I work for, you have to log into an online server just to punch in), this could effectively amount to a prohibition from holding any but the most menial jobs during your probation/parole period. I think that, looked at that way, that would certainly seem to be cruel, excessive punishment.

The arguments that "they can bust the hacker if he's caught again" seem somewhat specious to me. They can already bust him for committing the same crime again, and they can already punish a second offense more harshly than a first. They don't need some "violation of an internet ban" to do either.

In balance, while I can understand the reasoning behind this line of thought, I don't think it's an acceptable punishment. I can see why it might've been thought so in 1995, but this is not 1995 and it no longer is.

Re:This would be difficult

[beerits]

This isn't like drunk drivers being banned from drinking.

No it isn't. It is more like banning drunk drivers from driving.

Banned from the net

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in '94, a federal judge in Seattle banned me and my codefendant for a period of three years from using a modem or "network device".

Strange how I was allowed to work at a media company there, that contained the word "Networks" in it, without hassle.

Of course all good things must come to an end, and the Feds raided my office and had me fired the next day.

What irritates me is the irrational fear that keeping a "bad person" off the information highway is going to rehabilitate him. After all the net is a mixture of both public and private services, and tightly integrated into the common everyday activities that normal people use.

I suppose the Judge felt he was revoking my "privilege" to use the Net, but it was more of a first amendment ban if anything.

The question becomes, should people be qualified and licensed to use the Internet, since judges feel that it an earned privilege, not a God-given right?

Internet Ban

[JWSmythe]

This would have been more appropriately asked to lawyers, not a bunch of IANAL's. :)

But, from the experience I have (a few law classes, and plenty of time on both sides with lawyers), a ban such as this, while to encourage the person not to do something, is more inclined to give a harsher penalty if they should do it again.

For example, if you get a DUI, you'll very likely lose your license. You may also be prohibited from drinking. It varies by the state and circumstances. Now say you go to a bar and drink. You probably won't get caught. But if you go to a bar and are involved in a bar fight, now you'll be dragged off for VOP. Judges don't generally like it when you do something directly against what they just told you, and will probably drop you in the nearest jail for the full term of your probation, or longer, depending on his mood.

I've heard judges let things go lightly, because they know it was a subtle offense. Like, the VoIP, and IP enabled appliances that I see referenced in the comments. If you were chatting up underaged girls and the judge said to stay off the Internet, but then you were caught talking to your mom on a Vonage phone, he'd probably let it go. But if you were on a PC in a Internet Cafe, trolling for underage girls, sure as hell you'd be spending time in jail.

Consider the incident with Richard Ricci in the Elizabeth Smart case (kidnapping in Utah). Ricci was told by the judge not to drink. They raided his house because they suspected he might be involved (and then it was later proven he wasn't), but arrested him for drinking a beer. If he didn't have the beer, they would have needed real evidence to arrest him. Since he had violated that prior ruling, he was screwed, even though that's the only thing he had done wrong. If they hadn't suspected him of kidnapping and murder, they would have probably let him go with a warning.

No different from other court orders

[EmbeddedJanitor]

There's nothing magic because the internet is involved.

Court orders that ban people from driving very seldom actually stop people from driving.

Court orders that ban people from going near someone they were harrassing/assualting/stalking seldom work.

Re:No different from other court orders

[DunbarTheInept]

Yeah, but everyone, no matter how clueless, understands what it means to drive. Everyone knows what it means to harass. But an awful lot of people don't actually understand what the phrase "the internet" refers to, and don't understand how ubiquitous it really is. In 1995 it wouldn't have been a problem to live without internet. Today it is still possible, but it is a bit limiting. A few years down the road I predict it will be next to impossible to avoid the internet and still be an active member of civilization. Avoiding the internet is going to mean never using a bank, never paying for anything with any means besides cash, never using a store, never having the ability to make remote contact (have to come to your house to talk to you since telephone service will merge with internet service.)

The internet is a lot more than "that thar web thingy", and it is becoming more so with each passing year.

There is something "magic" about the internet that makes it different - it is not an end-infrastructure in itself - it's an enabling infrastructure that other infrastructures are built on top of, and more and more necessary infrastructures of society are moving onto it.

Eventually "you can't use the internet" will be like "You can't use electricity."

Re:The presumption of innocence

[doodlelogic]

[In America...] While in custody you have the right to humane treatment, the right to remain silent and the right to contact a lawyer, a family member, or the like for help. But that is pretty much the limit.

That's bizzare. Here in Britain we have not historically had any constitutionally guaranteed rights, however a prisoner on remand retains all their rights other than those necessarily removed from them by the fact of their incarceration or specifically removed by legislation. I would have assumed that in the Land of the Free protections of the innocent would be even greater...