In one movie (Hackers, I think?) the protagonist was so good at hacking that he had some sort of court order that prevents him from using a computer.
My questions are:
Were teen hackers actually barred from using computers back then when caught?
If yes, how was this enforced and do they still do it now that every other phone is a pc?
Read about Kevin Mitnick:
So while it was eventually modified, a court order was issued preventing him from using computers connected to the outside world.
The Mitnick case was even crazier than that: At one time, while incarcerated, they wouldn’t even allow Mitnick to use a regular phone from jail. The authorities were so worried about Mitnick’s virtually unlimited hacking abilities that they assumed he would be able to launch nuclear missiles just by calling a secret number and whistling into the phone (this is a true story, I’m not making this up).
Whether judge can order it depends on the bail and sentencing powers assigned to the court by the relevant statute.
Here in Canada, it’s quite common to see such orders in cases of child pornography and commercial fraud cases, since those types of cases often involve computer use,
I’m surprised by the OP: why is such an ordr thought unusual?
Well, these days “can’t use a computer” is essentially a bar from any sort of employment except manual labor. That, and there are a lot more ordinary electronic and household devices which are “computers”. As the OP points out, every phone except the simplest land line is a “computer”. We’re not very far from a time when “can’t use a computer” is an effective exile from normal society.
[QUOTE=Cory Doctorow]
general-purpose computers have replaced every other device in our world. There are no airplanes, only computers that fly. There are no cars, only computers we sit in. There are no hearing aids, only computers we put in our ears. There are no 3D printers, only computers that drive peripherals. There are no radios, only computers with fast ADCs and DACs and phased-array antennas.
[/QUOTE]
Just because a law or court orders someone to do something does not mean it’s reasonable. IIRC several hackers have fought that, only to end up with modified rules; one I recall was that the parolee could not use a computer except for his job in the daytime; another common one was a requirement to report all userids (and passwords) they used on computer accounts to their parole officer.
I think the Mitnick appeal and several other appeals are based on the concept that this is how they earned a living. If a guy is a trained carpenter, does it make sense to order him to stay away from any woodworking tools? How does that help in re-establishing a life outside of prison?
The other thing is how ubiquitous computers are. I suppose you can still buy cellphones that are technically not computers… but note nobody typically gets a ban on using telephones - computers nowadays are almost as common. Heck, you can’t even work at McDonalds, the tills are computers, same in half the retail locations in the country. (Edit - I see Cory Doctorow beat me to this point)
I file these sort of requirements on “nothing is impossible for the person who does not have to do it himself”. Judge with limited understanding of technology, and prosecutors who don’t care what the impact is…
Also, IIRC, these are parole conditions. The conditions apply until your sentence is done. Hence, the tendency to give Ariel Castro 1000 years plus life, or threaten Aaron Swartz with 35 years for (not) hacking. If the person is convicted and ever released, you have a firm grip on his anatomy for the rest of his life.
Even before the Mitnick case, Asimov wrote a short story with exactly that as the premise. The poor guy ended up needing help from bystanders just to do something as simple as ordering a meal.
Right—even manual laborers need to use ATMs and vending machines.
Aren’t these often situations where the person agrees to the conditions, for example as part of a plea deal?
In my experience with parolees , it’s generally not a restriction on using a computer. It’s a restriction on owning a computer or using the internet , although there are also less restrictive conditions- such as no social networking sites or a requirement to provide all userids/passwords to the parole officer. I believe ( although I’m not looking at it) that the conditions define “computer” in such a way as to exclude cars , radios, and other appliances and tools. The parolee can use the till at a store, can use an ATM, can use the company intranet, can use a phone that doesn’t have internet access. The person can’t have a job that requires him or her to own a computer or one that requires access to the internet. ( and there are plenty of jobs that require neither). Unless, of course it falls under the "without the permission of my parole officer " clause- in which case they may be permitted internet access or computer ownership with restrictions.Most of the people with such restrictions are those with convictions for computer related crimes of some sort.
It’s more like the guy is a trained carpenter, used woodworking tools to commit a crime and is ordered to stay away from woodworking tools. That sort of thing happens all the time- an embezzler is forbidden to act in a fiduciary capacity, to have signing authority on a checking account or credit card etc- even if that person is a banker or accountant by training . Someone convicted of DWI is not allowed to drive even if he previously made his living by driving. Someone convicted of making fraudulent charges to credit card accounts is not going to be permitted to have a job involving any processing of credit card charges. It’s not specific to computers.
Using this toy whistle to be specific.
Indeed, that’s how the hacker magazine 2600 got its name.
In case anyone’s interested in the origin of that whistle and phreaking (manipulating telephone systems), I just happen to have written a series of magazine articles about it. I interviewed John “Captain Crunch” Draper for the articles, among others. Here’s the first of the articles: The Origins of Phreaking.
Yes … just like locking someone away in jail.
If the guy ‘earned their living’ by using their training & skills for criminal purposes, it’s fairly common to forbid them from using that training in the future.
Stockbrokers who defraud clients are forbidden to sell stocks. Accountants who embezzle lose their CPA license. Truck drivers convicted of DWI lose their driving license. Surgeons who bungle operations lose their hospital operating privileges. Carpenters who’s buildings fall down can’t get building permits. Priests who molest altar boys get moved to a new parish.
All of these actions deprive them of their professional status, and end or limit their chances to earn a living. But that is recognized and legitimate consequence of misusing their professional skills.
We had a guy convicted of a certain crime come work for us. (2nd chances and all that)
His job required that he use a computer, his parole conditions detailed that use of computers was allowed, albeit monitored. We had to install a system to monitor his Internet access and prevent any Internet access that was not monitored.
It was a pain in the ass.
I did say the questions popped up after seeing a movie. I just never bothered to look up the answers before:p Hackers isn’t exactly the most realistic movie about computers. Legally banning a teen from PCs could just as easily have been a lazy writer’s shortcut to make the protagonist seem like a hacking badass.
I’m more puzzled by how it’s enforced. dam0’s reply tells me that it’s at least as big a pain in the ass as I thought it would be.
Psh, and they will sentence people to this - there was somewhere in Florida basically a hooverville of sex offenders living under a bridge because of the restrictions on living a certain distance from anywhere kids would gather in the Miami-Dade area.
Well, yes, if you need to exile someone from normal society in order to punish them for their crimes or prevent them from reoffending, locking them away in jail is a good way of doing it. I feel the same way about sex offender registries.
