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 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Canada to Start Punishing People for Pre-Crime
References: <BlqdnWeTk-eAf3L4nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> <etg0vi500jelb00ghvu1o1n46i6e2mkq3v@4ax.com> <atropos-9F2E89.12070912032024@ec2-18-101-80-69.eu-south-2.compute.amazonaws.com> <dcr1vipm3mtr2oc9vef5lcnr5sh9jqdfq5@4ax.com> <atropos-4ACFDD.20345112032024@ec2-18-101-80-69.eu-south-2.compute.amazonaws.com> <vtd2viph8kdb0ptjjoglk8odd8vpu9r97r@4ax.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:36:34 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-2AE359.23363412032024@ec2-18-101-80-69.eu-south-2.compute.amazonaws.com>
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 <vtd2viph8kdb0ptjjoglk8odd8vpu9r97r@4ax.com>,
 The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 20:34:51 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> >In article <dcr1vipm3mtr2oc9vef5lcnr5sh9jqdfq5@4ax.com>,
> > The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:07:09 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> 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.