← Back to context

Comment by sandworm101

4 months ago

Question nobody wants to talk about: will this prevent courts from issuing "no computer" restrictions on persons convicted or being investigated for crimes involving computers?

I have seen clients go for many years without cellphones because a judge cassually attached a "no computer" protective order. It is hard enough finding work as a convict or person under investigation, but 10x harder for those without cellphones and email.

7 comments

sandworm101

Reply
zootboy  4 months ago

It does look to be a nudge in that direction, but it's not a slam-dunk. From my non-lawyer reading of the text, it seems like it would depend on how well you can argue that a total ban is not "narrowly tailored."

FpUser  4 months ago

These restrictions must be scrapped completely. Along with this barbaric "criminal record" they delegate big chunk of the population to an underclass, well, unless they are rich.

  • twodave  4 months ago

    I disagree for most crimes at least. Most crimes are either going to be some form of illegal dishonesty (theft, fraud, etc.) or violence. I would hope the company I work for is able to screen individuals for such behaviors before hiring them. “Willing to lie/cheat/steal for gain” in particular is such a huge red flag that any company who hired someone and ignored such red flags could reasonably be sued for negligence whenever that employee inevitably commits another similar crime. There are examples of this in the news literally today.

    • sandworm101  4 months ago

      "Most" crimes are posession and/or status crimes. Either you are caught with something illegal (drugs, guns etc) or you violate some sort of protective restriction (parole violations for guns/drugs/alcohol). That, and just generally being drunk or high, represent the bulk of crimes that land people in jail. No dishonoesty or violence is required.

      1 reply →