Path: ...!news.snarked.org!tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!69.80.99.26.MISMATCH!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 06:29:54 +0000 From: BTR1701 Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Canada to Start Punishing People for Pre-Crime References: User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:36:34 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 77 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-ff9QwW5iFVU1iuORSSdmLOPyWOEtI3qJroHZk1oGi+XD03rqTyQJ8/SYA1AS/jBuaO3kVlFMyZO0fo5!UqkBm3nc4Rssq0e9n3+sLkGqrbngpFeZqaPpZLaDY+/kzvUlbWMW8nlRpNhrVqsS8i5+VVajP3tC!UsQlf5LurkPtCUwat75RrwcHwBx/8jDZGZ/VZXLuIogTPA== X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 5876 In article , The Horny Goat wrote: > On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 20:34:51 -0700, BTR1701 wrote: > > >In article , > > The Horny Goat wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:07:09 -0700, BTR1701 wrote: > >> > >> >> Again this is being discussed for what someone might do and not what > >> >> they actually have done? At least so far as I know when such > >> >> restrictions on people using the Internet in the USA it has been in > >> >> reaction to things that they've actually done like with Kevin Mitnick. > >> > > >> >I've never understood how you can sentence someone to no internet use in > >> >today's world anyway. You use the internet in a million different ways > >> >every day. > >> > > >> There have been several cases where Canadians have been given "no > >> internet" as part of terms of parole - but those are people already > >> convicted of crimes by a judge or jury of one's peers. > >> > >> I agree with your analysis but in practice this clause has only been > >> invoked when the person's crime (for instance kiddy porn or wire fraud > >> committed over the net) directly involves the Internet And unless a > >> minor is the victim is almost never ordered on a first offence. > > > >Even so, it's still virtually impossible to not use the internet in > >modern society. Unless you're locked in a prison cell, any of thousands > >of daily interactions in the outside world will involve internet use. > > While I take your point, I don't think the government is particularly > all that excited about anyone whose terms of release bar internet > usage from making a credit card payment (since most stores' credit > card terminals DO use the net rather than phone lines) - it's when > they find the newly released individual is accessing things like > (made-up URL) prettyunderagegirls.com they are concerned PARTICULARLY > when the newly released has a record of certain types of crimes. Yes, but if you're going to put parole restrictions on people whose violation will result in re-incarceration, due process requires that you define precisely what those restrictions are. Saying "no internet use" leaves a person in a world of uncertainty. What does that mean? Do they mean just no social media? Can I still log on to my bank account from home? Can I file my taxes electronically? Can I watch Disney+? As a parolee, I can't just assume "they don't mean that" when it comes to something that could send me to prison if it turns out they actually *do* mean that. And even if "they don't mean that" in general, it's a helluva weapon to use against someone that a cop or a prosecutor wants to "get" but hasn't actually committed an overt crime or parole violation to hang on them. Like the guy who made the anti-Islam video that Hillary lied and tried to blame for Benghazi. There was nothing illegal about the video but (at the time, thanks to Hillary) he was seen as being responsible for a huge tragedy and national embarrassment, so since the guy was on parole, they went looking for anything they could hang on him to punish him for and they ended up violating him for "using an alias". Parolees are generally prohibited from using fake names to hide from police or to participate in gangs. That's the intent of that kind of parole restriction. In this case, the government decided his YouTube screen name was an alias under the terms of his parole-- something they'd never violated anyone else for, something that most people, if they thought about it at all, would have figured "they don't mean that"-- but in his case, they wanted to save face by punishing him for embarrassing the U.S. and getting Navy SEALs killed, so they said his YouTube account name was an alias and threw him back into prison. That's the sort of thing you have to worry about when a parole agreement says something like "no internet use". What precisely does that mean and can it be abused to fuck me over on a technicality? Because if it can be used that way, there's a good chance it will be used that way.