“You shall not use an electronic bulletin board system, [I]nternet relay chat channel, instant messaging, newsgroup, usergroup, peer to peer; i.e., Napster, Gnutella, Freenet, etc. This would include any site-base; i.e., Hotmail, Gmail, or Yahoo e-mail, etc., which allows the user to have the ability to surf the [I]nternet undetected.”Would you know exactly what this prohibits? I don't (internet relay chat channel?). Neither does this Fourth District panel which holds the language is void for vagueness. The panel, quite reasonably, concludes that it is fine to place certain restrictions on Mr. Navarro's use of communicative technology, but the restrictions have to at least be comprehensible.
This would seem a nice spot to poke fun at the drafters of this gobbledygook, but I don't think it would be deserved. I do not think I could do much better. And even if I could come up with a better worded proscription, it would likely be meaningless in a matter of months as new software and devices emerge. Erring on the side of inclusion doesn't seem to be an option either. You cannot, in today's world, ban a parolee from all internet usage as my better-educated (and better-paid) friends in the technology sector inform me that anytime you pay for goods using a credit card, debit card, EBT card, gift card, or bank check, you are using the internet. So too when using an ATM or asking your bank clerk for a balance slip. As parolees are usually required to have jobs, any job involving commerce is likely to require using the internet.
It is a deceptively difficult assignment.
No comments:
Post a Comment