4 ms·

The judge violated human right of Internet access. Regardless, they should be disbarred and mistrial called until a replacement judge with technical competence

by Joakal 15y ago

The judge violated human right of Internet access. Regardless, they should be disbarred and mistrial called until a replacement judge with technical competence to preside can be found. You'll understand that this right is inalienable if you can't pay your bills online, transfer money, etc. In fact, in article, he can't even communicate with his team overseas. The order only serves to punish and discourage honest people from society due to the unenforceable nature of it. Despicable judge.

dot 15y ago
internet access is not a human right. the crimes this guy is on trial for mostly took place on the internet... he can talk to his lawyers on the phone. he should be happy to be out of jail and go enjoy the outdoors!
- Joakal 15y ago
  So how is he going to pay online-only bills? Are the courts going to give him taxpayer money for late fees? Or it's his own fault for not predicting his arrest? Can he read about politics as part of his duty as a voter? Due to Internet as a medium for accessing news, he's further restricted on being an informed voter. How is he meant to send material to his lawyers? "Mail it" So instead of sending it virtually for free, he has to print it out, determine postage, go find a postal office and then ship it. Vice versa to receive it but it takes time. Not to mention the massive phone bill because VOIP is INTERNET. How is he going to be monitored from accessing Internet that's everywhere? Anti-Satellite jammers? Anti-Wifi jammers? How is it possible to prevent him from giving the password to someone to start a megaupload website? Better prevent phones, mail, etc, in that case. Since I know he's technically proficient, he's probably using the Internet as we speak. So this order only serves to pad the ego of the prosecution team, show incompetence of judge and punish honest people for being honest.
  - tzs 15y ago
    How did he pay his bills, etc., when he was in jail? I think you might be overlooking that he's merely out on bail. That means he is still charged with the crimes he was arrested for. The court has decided that he is not a flight risk and so they are going to let him stay out until his trial rather than housing him in jail, but it is quite common for courts to place restrictions on the person as a condition of offering them bail.
    - Joakal 15y ago
      Internet access is a fundamental right since it's quickly becoming a necessity. It is also quite common for the courts to disregard asinine restrictions. If he used electricity to infringe on copyright, are they going to turn off his electricity too? Or is the Internet too young? Did we forget that Library Internet access issue thread already? There are crucial needs being served by the Internet just like water, electricity, security, etc.
  - SquareWheel 15y ago
    "So how is he going to pay online-only bills?" "Can he read about politics as part of his duty as a voter?" Paying bills online and reading about politics are not human rights either. There are alternatives available for any task he's expected to do as a member of society. "Since I know he's technically proficient, he's probably using the Internet as we speak." That's a really bad argument, and I think you know it. He very well may be online as we speak, his neighbors probably have an unsecured network, but why is that a good reason to intentionally give the man internet access? He's shown time and time again that he uses the internet to commit criminal acts, there is no reason for him to have that access. This is not a human rights violation.
    - Joakal 15y ago
      > Paying bills online and reading about politics are not human rights either. There are alternatives available for any task he's expected to do as a member of society. I'm sorry, but Internet access is the human right. You're putting human right implications in my mouth. The alternatives available? Jeez, I wonder how he can find out as an Internet user. Hopefully he had heard about yellow pages? Yes, there actually young people who do NOT understand non-Internet alternatives. > He's shown time and time again that he uses the internet to commit criminal acts, there is no reason for him to have that access. He used electricity too. So, cut off his electricity too? Remember, he needs electricity to run servers and not necessarily the Internet. Seize all electronics instead? He may have files embedded in the house alarm. Personally, I didn't want to respond because your rationale is asinine!
      - SquareWheel 15y ago
        You could take that argument as far as you'd like. He used oxygen to help him commit the crimes, thus we should take away his oxygen. No, the internet has directly helped him commit crimes. It is a tool he used. As it is non-essential, and we may disagree on that point but the courts are agreeing with me, then it is logical to remove his privilege. I don't believe my rationale is asinine at all. I think you're equating this man's freedom with the protection of the internet itself, and are overstepping your position because of it.
- felixfurtak 15y ago
  He very much looks the 'outdoors' type ;)
ugh 15y ago
Whether or not internet access really is a human right isn’t really all that important. Human rights can be and are frequently limited or taken away. Prisoner have no freedom of movement, for example. When two human rights conflict, one or the other has to give. That’s just normal and exactly what judges are there for to decide. What we are talking about here is someone who used to be in jail. That is a much more severe limitation of his human rights than merely no being allowed to access the internet. People who are prosecuted end up in jail because they might flee, but also because they might otherwise be able to manipulate or destroy evidence. That is in no way automatically a violation of human rights, at least not on balance. You would have to know how exactly the judge justified the decision.
- Joakal 15y ago
  That's understandable. There was a bail and thus, the charged person has limited freedom again. However, by attempting to order someone with an Internet proficiency to avoid the Internet is impossible due to electronics, wirless, government services, postal, etc. Some people even live off the Internet. You can enforce restriction of freedom of movement. However, as I said, it's too impractical to restrict Internet access and would only serve to restrict honest people. The greater concern is that other people to see the judge as incompetent since it's an unenforceable order. It then raises questions on whether the judge can understand the technical issues with the trial, whether Dotcom will get a fair trial.
nikcub 15y ago
the first two judges denied him bail, so I don't think he will press his luck any further with another change
wilfra 15y ago
If its a human right then why don't people in jail and prison have access to it and why do no human rights groups demand that they should? If you get arrested for committing crimes on the internet and are free on bail it is perfectly reasonable for a condition of your bail to be that you can't use the internet. If its really important he can have somebody else do it for him, as he surely did while he was in jail.

by Joakal 15y ago

dot 15y ago

internet access is not a human right. the crimes this guy is on trial for mostly took place on the internet... he can talk to his lawyers on the phone. he should be happy to be out of jail and go enjoy the outdoors!

Joakal 15y ago
So how is he going to pay online-only bills? Are the courts going to give him taxpayer money for late fees? Or it's his own fault for not predicting his arrest? Can he read about politics as part of his duty as a voter? Due to Internet as a medium for accessing news, he's further restricted on being an informed voter. How is he meant to send material to his lawyers? "Mail it" So instead of sending it virtually for free, he has to print it out, determine postage, go find a postal office and then ship it. Vice versa to receive it but it takes time. Not to mention the massive phone bill because VOIP is INTERNET. How is he going to be monitored from accessing Internet that's everywhere? Anti-Satellite jammers? Anti-Wifi jammers? How is it possible to prevent him from giving the password to someone to start a megaupload website? Better prevent phones, mail, etc, in that case. Since I know he's technically proficient, he's probably using the Internet as we speak. So this order only serves to pad the ego of the prosecution team, show incompetence of judge and punish honest people for being honest.
- tzs 15y ago
  How did he pay his bills, etc., when he was in jail? I think you might be overlooking that he's merely out on bail. That means he is still charged with the crimes he was arrested for. The court has decided that he is not a flight risk and so they are going to let him stay out until his trial rather than housing him in jail, but it is quite common for courts to place restrictions on the person as a condition of offering them bail.
  - Joakal 15y ago
    Internet access is a fundamental right since it's quickly becoming a necessity. It is also quite common for the courts to disregard asinine restrictions. If he used electricity to infringe on copyright, are they going to turn off his electricity too? Or is the Internet too young? Did we forget that Library Internet access issue thread already? There are crucial needs being served by the Internet just like water, electricity, security, etc.
- SquareWheel 15y ago
  "So how is he going to pay online-only bills?" "Can he read about politics as part of his duty as a voter?" Paying bills online and reading about politics are not human rights either. There are alternatives available for any task he's expected to do as a member of society. "Since I know he's technically proficient, he's probably using the Internet as we speak." That's a really bad argument, and I think you know it. He very well may be online as we speak, his neighbors probably have an unsecured network, but why is that a good reason to intentionally give the man internet access? He's shown time and time again that he uses the internet to commit criminal acts, there is no reason for him to have that access. This is not a human rights violation.
  - Joakal 15y ago
    > Paying bills online and reading about politics are not human rights either. There are alternatives available for any task he's expected to do as a member of society. I'm sorry, but Internet access is the human right. You're putting human right implications in my mouth. The alternatives available? Jeez, I wonder how he can find out as an Internet user. Hopefully he had heard about yellow pages? Yes, there actually young people who do NOT understand non-Internet alternatives. > He's shown time and time again that he uses the internet to commit criminal acts, there is no reason for him to have that access. He used electricity too. So, cut off his electricity too? Remember, he needs electricity to run servers and not necessarily the Internet. Seize all electronics instead? He may have files embedded in the house alarm. Personally, I didn't want to respond because your rationale is asinine!
    - SquareWheel 15y ago
      You could take that argument as far as you'd like. He used oxygen to help him commit the crimes, thus we should take away his oxygen. No, the internet has directly helped him commit crimes. It is a tool he used. As it is non-essential, and we may disagree on that point but the courts are agreeing with me, then it is logical to remove his privilege. I don't believe my rationale is asinine at all. I think you're equating this man's freedom with the protection of the internet itself, and are overstepping your position because of it.
felixfurtak 15y ago
He very much looks the 'outdoors' type ;)

ugh 15y ago

Whether or not internet access really is a human right isn’t really all that important. Human rights can be and are frequently limited or taken away. Prisoner have no freedom of movement, for example. When two human rights conflict, one or the other has to give. That’s just normal and exactly what judges are there for to decide. What we are talking about here is someone who used to be in jail. That is a much more severe limitation of his human rights than merely no being allowed to access the internet. People who are prosecuted end up in jail because they might flee, but also because they might otherwise be able to manipulate or destroy evidence. That is in no way automatically a violation of human rights, at least not on balance. You would have to know how exactly the judge justified the decision.

Joakal 15y ago
That's understandable. There was a bail and thus, the charged person has limited freedom again. However, by attempting to order someone with an Internet proficiency to avoid the Internet is impossible due to electronics, wirless, government services, postal, etc. Some people even live off the Internet. You can enforce restriction of freedom of movement. However, as I said, it's too impractical to restrict Internet access and would only serve to restrict honest people. The greater concern is that other people to see the judge as incompetent since it's an unenforceable order. It then raises questions on whether the judge can understand the technical issues with the trial, whether Dotcom will get a fair trial.

nikcub 15y ago

the first two judges denied him bail, so I don't think he will press his luck any further with another change

wilfra 15y ago

If its a human right then why don't people in jail and prison have access to it and why do no human rights groups demand that they should? If you get arrested for committing crimes on the internet and are free on bail it is perfectly reasonable for a condition of your bail to be that you can't use the internet. If its really important he can have somebody else do it for him, as he surely did while he was in jail.