this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
121 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

41079 readers
52 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

“This is the most extreme type of monitoring that I’ve seen,” says Pilar Weiss, founder of the National Bail Fund Network, a network of over 90 community bail and bond funds across the United States. “It’s part of a disturbing trend where deep surveillance and social control applications are used pretrial with little oversight.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nodester@partizle.com 1 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Prosecutors and judges really need a reminder of the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

The day her husband was released on bond, Hannah sat down with their kids and tried to explain how all of their devices were going to be monitored: The probation department would see anything they looked at on their phones and assume it was their father using the device. The constant surveillance had an immediate impact on the family, Hannah says.

And:

In near real time, probation officers are being fed screenshots of everything Hannah’s family views on their devices. From images of YouTube videos watched by her 14-year-old daughter to online underwear purchases made by her 80-year-old mother-in-law, the family’s entire digital life is scrutinized by county authorities. “I’m afraid to even communicate with our lawyer,” Hannah says. “If I mention anything about our case, I’m worried they are going to see it and use it against us.”

Any reasonable person would describe that as not just a punishment, but a pretty severe one.

And one that affects children. Having a teenager know that a person she never met, who she has no way to contact, is looking at her activity every minute isn't just punishment in fact. It's victimization.

Thus, I think we can conclude from this that the Monroe County, Indiana prosecutors office is victimizing children. Full stop. Time to make some arrests.

[–] imbrucy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The very idea that they can forcibly monitor the entire families devices in order for him to be granted bail is insane. Personally, I think the idea of not being allowed any electronic device shouldn't be allowed anymore, but using that as a pretext to affect the entire family is absurd.

[–] nodester@partizle.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Absolutely.

In 1950, if you were told as a pretrial release condition, you weren't allowed to use paper because your alleged crime involved a book, no one would have thought that reasonable. Today, devices are the equivalent of paper.

[–] MyFeetOwnMySoul@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I agree that this is cruel and unusual punishment, however, I strongly dislike the paper == computer metaphor. The two are hardly comparable.

Compared to paper, it is easy to comit serious crimes from the comfort of your own home with a computer. Computers facilitate Lightspeed communication, and can be used for instantaneous financial transaction. They can be used to collect information anonymously, and deseminate information publically.

Very very different risk levels.

That said, subjecting an entire family to 24/7 electronic surveillance (and making them pay for it!?!) Is fucked up. I think we need a different paradigm for dealing with "e-criminals" like perhaps the state provides state-administered devices to those charges with electronic crimes? Idrk, but this ain't it cheif.

[–] nodester@partizle.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Computers are remarkably efficient but at the dawn of the Gutenberg press, you could have made similar observations. For the first time with paper, it was possible to commit crimes in the privacy of your own home merely by writing things down and sending them to a publisher.

[–] MyFeetOwnMySoul@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Except for the "instantaneous" and "Lightspeed" observations, which I think are the real key here. Also, commiting a book crime would require conscious cooperation and coordination with another person/people (the publisher), whereas internet crimes can be done completely solo.

I think a more sensible comparison could be made between computers and telephones or telegraphs

[–] nodester@partizle.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It’s more efficient, certainly. But telling someone pretrial in 2023 they can’t use a computer isn’t realistic.

[–] MyFeetOwnMySoul@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

In large part I agree, however, it leaves a problem unsolved.

In the case of cp possession/production, how do you effectively sanitize a person's internet traffic?

I think providing devices that only connect to state DNS servers, and only serve approved content could be one way. But it also raises privacy concerns.

[–] LwL@lemmy.fmhy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Honestly I would argue it doesn't matter in either case.

If it is about possession, there just isn't enough of a negative effect from allowing someone to look at that stuff for another month or so to justify serious infringement on rights without a conviction. The abuse has happened, and a single individual looking at it some more won't affect things much. And after an actual conviction they'll just be in prison, or after release you would have a justification to monitor at least their own internet traffic.

If it's about production, the internet traffic isn't likely to be the problem. Someone sexually abusing children isn't likely to stop just because they can't put it on the internet anymore. At that point you'd rather need to keep them away from children in the first place.

[–] MyFeetOwnMySoul@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Well, I'm happy to say I have no idea how the consumption of cp works, but I imagine it's not ad supported. Perhaps you can find it for free, but if you're paying for it, than stemming the flow of funding for child abuse seems worthwhile. Also, do people really get through trail in ~1 month?

[–] nodester@partizle.com 0 points 2 years ago

Part of the premise of the criminal justice system is supposed to be that the system is designed to occasionally fail to punish the guilty if it protects the innocent. That's often expressed as, "it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to prison."

You might just have to accept that you can't always be completely sure that someone's internet usage is sanitized. Could they reoffend awaiting trial? Possibly. Same as letting an alleged mugger walk the streets until trial or an alleged rapist be around women. Innocent until proven guilty means that, as it stands right now until a verdict otherwise is returned, an innocent man and his family are having their right to use a very basic feature of modern existence, the internet, infringed upon.

[–] Nymphioxetine@beehaw.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Doesn’t this also violate right to privacy of everyone else in the home? I smell a civil rights issue.

[–] nodester@partizle.com 0 points 2 years ago

Oh totally. And they’re not even alleged to have done anything wrong.

The prosecutor will say “well they could have lived in a Four Seasons instead of with their father.” Prosecutors are seldom reasonable people.

[–] reverendsteveii@beehaw.org 0 points 2 years ago

not just a punishment, but a pretty severe one

It's also clear interference in this person's ability to organize a defense, which is yet another way it could be unconstitutional.

[–] possiblylinux127@beehaw.org 0 points 2 years ago

Time to sue

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

Jayzuz. If the app's EULA specifically states it's NOT to be used as a judicial tool, why in the f*ck are cops using it anyway???

Murica is so far down the Big Brother rabbit hole rn I fear for its survival.

[–] SomethingBurger@beehaw.org 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Laws and rules only apply to people, not cops.

[–] Wintermute@lemmy.villa-straylight.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I wish we could leave cynical takes like this back on Reddit. They don't add anything of value to the conversation.

[–] mycelium_underground@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

It does add to the conversation. Cops ruin lives, or end them illegally and only get let go from their current position and offered a new one somewhere else. Cops do not have to follow the laws, it's not cynicism. Sometimes the truth just sucks. You have the same chance of being killed by the police as you do from any other stranger.

ACAB

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The app is clearly done by religious nutjobs that get off on societal voyeurism, they don't mind the cops, they are just covering their legal asses.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

True ... but again if the EULA clearly states the app will not hold up in court, why use it? At the very least it's a waste of taxpayer dollars and at worst it's a blatant abuse of constitutional rights.

[–] Notyou@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It doesn't matter if it doesn't hold up in court. Most of the time it is enough to scare someone into taking plea deals.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago

And this is how innocent people spend 20 yrs in prison or end up on death row.

Murica and her justice system are FUBAR.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Isn't cops another word police in the US? In the article they write it was the probation office who mandated the app and then a court prosecuted him because of it.

[–] mustyOrange@beehaw.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm not a lawyer in the slightest, but wouldn't stuff like that be grounds for a mistrial?

[–] reverendsteveii@beehaw.org 0 points 2 years ago

not a mistrial, this isn't happening during trial. It might be interesting if they do arrest him for violating the pre-trial terms to see what sort of civil liability the courts may have if it turns out they were wrong, but even then these are often drawn up as 'consent decrees' which are essentially contracts you enter into with the court where a lot of things are possible that wouldn't be normally.

[–] howdy@thesimplecorner.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I saw this application once in the past doing tech support for customers. It used a proxy or forced dns servers to allow you on to the internet it seemed "safe". The user was trying to access websites we used for work. That crazy software takes screenshots of your desktop every few minutes. We worked in the healthcare industry... I forwarded it to our security dept and had to file a HIPAA report...

Terrible software. The persons family didn't trust their own adult kid... I figured it was some form of religious thing.

[–] firead@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

It is a religious thing. I grew up fundamentalist Baptist and then softened up into the Evangelical world before leaving Christianity behind, and this was very common for both parents to use to get reports and see if their children were looking at porn and for men who had gotten caught or admitted to struggling with porn or cheating to have another man as an "accountability partner" and give access to his internet history through this program.

The software came up during the Josh Duggar trial because his wife had put it on his computer before either his cheating or his other inclinations became public knowledge.

[–] CookieJarObserver@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago

What the actual fuck?!?

[–] uglytruck@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

And here I worry about eliminating ads, trackers and Google Play services on my phone. There's no way I would agree to that shit.

[–] SoManyChoices 0 points 2 years ago

They get you to agree because the alternative is sitting in jail for a year awaiting trial.

[–] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The legal system is so detached from reality when it comes to technology that it leads to this kind of horseshit where someone, before any court proceedings proving guilt are even started, is subject to extreme and unjust punishment.

The internet is a lifeline at this point and they might as well be cutting off his water or electricity, which would be only slightly more egregious. But the people who create legislation and operate the judicial system are comprised largely of crusty old boomers who need a secretary just to send an email or open a fucking PDF. They are information troglodytes who are simply incompatible with the modern world.

[–] MyFeetOwnMySoul@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago

Covenant Eyes doesn’t just block pornography. Though the app is designed to block traffic to adult sites, Hannah shared reports that show she was unable to access The Appeal, a nonprofit news organization that focuses on injustice in the criminal-legal system

LMAO.

the irony is so depressing.

[–] BasedDebianUsr@monero.town 0 points 2 years ago

This just feels like the wrong generation to be in. The fact that this could have ever been passed by any judge is genuinely frightening to me.

[–] Kuroneko@beehaw.org 0 points 2 years ago

Huh, I thought this was America, not North Korea.

[–] Darren@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

To my knowledge, a lot of these tracking and accountability applications end up in hot water because of their usage from bad actors.

I know there was an app on Android called Cerberus that was supposed to help you track your phone if it was lost/stolen, and it had the ability to open the covertly take videos/screenshots, so you could provide it as evidence to authorities.

Eventually, Google Play Store pulled the application after it became a fairly popular app for people to stalk their significant others without them knowing. I know for certain that iPhones already limit a lot of features from these types of apps. Just look at the limitations that CE admits to having when installed on iOS, including the inability to grab text messages, and only working through Safari.

The major players in tech, imo, have done a good job in preventing people in accidentally installing these applications that could invade their privacy (and instead, allow their own applications to steal your data...) It's another discussion to see how much personal data we allow big tech to access, but I can say that they've done a solid job preventing these third party tracking applications to stay on their devices. The only way they can be installed is if you agree to it being installed on your devices, or being coerced into it.

The only solution I can think that would work long-term is if people get educated on the benefits and sanctity of their right to privacy, and don't give these tracking companies any business, leading to their eventual collapse. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen, but until that happens, more and more of these stories will pop up.

[–] reverendsteveii@beehaw.org 0 points 2 years ago

we're gonna monitor all of your family's devices, including people who are not charged with or suspected of a crime. if any of them do anything we don't like, we'll assume it's you and charge you

we acknowledge that requests to forbidden sites can be made without the user's knowledge or consent, but we're still going to throw you in jail over it

Imagine you're legally banned from driving a car. Let's even make the hypothetical situation a little bit more cut and dry than the real one from the article and assume you've actually been convicted of something and aren't just charged. This is the equivalent of saying "we're going to put monitoring devices in every car in your driveway, if any of them start up we'll get an alert. If we get an alert, we'll assume you're driving and come arrest you for violating the ban. We also get an alert if the alarm goes off and even if it's because an acorn fell on your car we're going to come and arrest you."

This is truly an amazing violation of the rights of several people. Welcome to the panopticon, you're never sure you're not being surveilled so you have to always act like someone could be watching.

[–] possiblylinux127@beehaw.org 0 points 2 years ago

She should sue the state of Indiana. I'm sure nonprofits like the eff, ACLU and freedom of the press foundation would be willing to help

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 0 points 2 years ago

Holy fucking shit

[–] Kirpy@iusearchlinux.fyi 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Hard to believe they unlocked and gave their phone to these weirdos. If you truly have a reason to see this data you can send a court order their isp.

[–] mycelium_underground@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

It was a condition of his release, so their choice was either leave him in jail or turn over their phones. The US justice system only exists to fuck people, not to provide justice or follow the laws.

[–] ComradeMiao@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

What the heck

[–] BlackXanthus@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I have to say this is quite a worrying abuse. Both of software, and of privacy.

It's being deployed for something it's not meant for, and being used to remove liberties for it. Of course, much of this will be lost to media circles as in CSA cases, the presumption is guilt in the public's mind.

Whatever the truth of the original conviction, the use of this software as a condition of bail should be banned, and abhorrent to anyone who values justice.

That is not to say the software doesn't have it's uses - especially in cases of porn addiction. However, the software is nowhere near good enough to be used in legal cases. It says so itself. It errs, intentionally, on gathering more data, on being more conservative, simply because it's not good enough to make the judgement on its own.

That's before we look at the unintentional consequences of impinging on the freedom of an innocent person ('Hannah'), and the way in which the software is not 'intelligent' enough to make judgements on whether or not it should take a photo of emails. It also led to fear of accessing help (and an inability to access help).

Use of this software in this way is an abuse.

[–] nodester@partizle.com 0 points 2 years ago

Not to mention the fact that any reasonable person would say that its use constitutes a punishment in and of itself.

We need a standard for pretrial release where if any measure could, if taken in isolation, be considered punitive, prosecutors are not allowed to ask for it.

[–] SolemnAttic@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago

So ToS is an oversight when money is involved. And the wife is paying for the sub aswell wtf

load more comments
view more: next ›