X
Xcon065
Guest
- Jurisdiction
- Oregon
I want to begin this question by disclaiming that issues of computer restrictions are highly jurisdictional and this question pertains specifically to people under federal supervision in the 9th. Circuit. I recently stumbled on the default URL block list used by Internet Probation and Parole Control. After evaluating the list I do not believe that it is legal in my case because I am not prohibited from visiting any type of website or using any type of computer software, yet I am subject to URL blocking that can be expanded to include anything my P.O. adds to their list.
For making a threatening communication in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. 875(c) I have a condition that reads "defendant shall participate in the U.S. Probation Office's computer monitoring program, which may include installation of software or hardware on the defendant's computer that allows random or periodic monitoring of defendant's computer use." As a result I consented to the installation of IPPC Impulse Control. Notice how my conditions do not prohibit me from viewing any specific website or using any specific program, yet I found a block list that includes articles by Microsoft, antivirus programs from Webroot, and Bing Videos among other things. I believe that blocking my access to such sites constitutes an unauthorized sentencing enhancement that is not reasonably related to the offense of conviction.
Case law on computer restrictions in the 9th. Circuit frowns on overly broad restrictions on content one may view on their computer. See U.S. v. Riley (576 F.3d 1046) in which a blanket prohibition on viewing any web page relevant to kids had to be replaced with one against kiddie porn. So, I do not believe that this would be legal if imposed as an actual release condition due to the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 3583(d) and 3553. It seems the government is using the software company as an end run to restrict usage without having to go to court. I've also noticed their app shutting down my Tor Browser, which is not related to my offense at all.
Furthermore the software crippled my computer so badly that I had to get a new one. When objecting to putting IPPC on the new one U.S. Probation said "risk damaging your computer or disconnect it from the internet." I interpret my conditions as only requiring that I permit the installation of monitoring software or hardware, not that I must disconnect the computer if monitoring is not installed. I believe it is their responsibility to provide monitoring solutions that are compatible with my computer and not my responsibility to only use computers that are already configured with their monitoring tools.
For making a threatening communication in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. 875(c) I have a condition that reads "defendant shall participate in the U.S. Probation Office's computer monitoring program, which may include installation of software or hardware on the defendant's computer that allows random or periodic monitoring of defendant's computer use." As a result I consented to the installation of IPPC Impulse Control. Notice how my conditions do not prohibit me from viewing any specific website or using any specific program, yet I found a block list that includes articles by Microsoft, antivirus programs from Webroot, and Bing Videos among other things. I believe that blocking my access to such sites constitutes an unauthorized sentencing enhancement that is not reasonably related to the offense of conviction.
Case law on computer restrictions in the 9th. Circuit frowns on overly broad restrictions on content one may view on their computer. See U.S. v. Riley (576 F.3d 1046) in which a blanket prohibition on viewing any web page relevant to kids had to be replaced with one against kiddie porn. So, I do not believe that this would be legal if imposed as an actual release condition due to the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 3583(d) and 3553. It seems the government is using the software company as an end run to restrict usage without having to go to court. I've also noticed their app shutting down my Tor Browser, which is not related to my offense at all.
Furthermore the software crippled my computer so badly that I had to get a new one. When objecting to putting IPPC on the new one U.S. Probation said "risk damaging your computer or disconnect it from the internet." I interpret my conditions as only requiring that I permit the installation of monitoring software or hardware, not that I must disconnect the computer if monitoring is not installed. I believe it is their responsibility to provide monitoring solutions that are compatible with my computer and not my responsibility to only use computers that are already configured with their monitoring tools.