Information on Post Conviction Supervision for Cyber Crimes
If an individual has been convicted of a cyber crime, the government may place restrictions on their use of computers and the internet in general. The amount and severity of restrictions placed on an individual are dependent on a variety of factors decided on a case-by-case basis.
A Court May Need to Articulate Its Position for it To Be Valid
It is generally not sufficient for a court to simply ban an individual from having access to a computer or to the internet. Courts have consistently held blanket bans or bans lasting for a long period of time serve to deprive a person of his or her liberty beyond a necessary scope. Generally, restrictions will be constructed based on the following: the individual’s offense; whether or not he or she has a history of offenses; and whether or not a ban would impede that person’s rehabilitation.
Why Blanket or Long-Term Bans are Generally Resisted by Courts
While it may seem intuitive that an individual who has been convicted of viewing child pornography or another serious cyber offense should lose computer privileges altogether, doing so could pose a long-term hindrance. Along with loss of current employment, it could also limit a person’s ability to learn new skills and find future employment. As the internet becomes more integrated into daily life long-term and blanket bans may become more difficult to enforce.
Supervision Methods May Change Over Time
As a general rule, a defendant may present evidence to the court that a proposed method of supervision is too broad. As monitoring technology evolves it is within an individual’s rights to petition the court to alter or update his or her supervision. If new supervision methods are now available but were not at the time the terms of supervision were imposed, they generally must be implemented or at least thoroughly reviewed by a sentencing or other appropriate court.
Protecting the Public is Always the Top Priority
While courts are not permitted to infringe on a defendant’s rights to an unreasonable degree, the rights of the public always come first. If it can be established that limiting an individual’s use of computers or other technology serves the public good, then the limitation will be imposed. Even courts expressing concerns about restricting access to electronic devices or technology stress that anyone on post-conviction supervision should have no expectation of unlimited access.
Limited Case Law Makes Creating Precedents Harder
Courts face a lack of case law regarding cybercrime and the limits that may be imposed on someone convicted of a cybercrime. Frequently, defendants who have had limits imposed on their computer or internet usage do not challenge their court-ordered restrictions out of fear that doing so may cause the court to enforce a broader ban.
In the cases that have been tried, courts may rely on studies and outside data to determine if a limitation is too broad to be reasonable or too narrow to be effective. Computer use is generally monitored either through software on the computer itself or by gathering data from an ISP when appropriate.
Exceptions May Be Made Even When Blanket Bans Exist
If an individual has been told not to use the internet or access a computer, they may request that certain exceptions be made. Primarily, an individual may be granted an exception when it is necessary to use the internet or access a computer for educational or employment reasons. For instance, if someone wants to take a course online or make a resume, the court may grant access to necessary technology.
Probation Officers May Have Authority to Approve Computer or Internet Usage
The court may grant a probation officer broad authority to approve or deny a request to use a computer or the internet. Typically, it is easier for those whose crimes do not involve young children or minors to be granted broader access.
Committing a cyber crime is a serious offense. The penalties are often stiff but are necessary in order to restrict access to tools that could be used to commit similar crimes in the future. While crafting terms of supervision is a complicated process, almost any restriction is on the table in order to protect public safety.
