|
xDanx
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 355,
Visits: 10K
|
+x+x+x+xThank you both for your replies the order is worded "Intentionally deleting such history or any other files which record internet or file browsing history" I have spoke to some legal advisors about this and they seem just as confused as I am as to why this order even exists. It clearly only relates to "history" so why would deleting a demo or anything else for that matter which is unrelated to the internet be considered a breach? I feel it is only in place for police to interpret the order which ever way they see fit which in turn makes me feel I am being set up to fail potentially. I have searched for legislation on this but have so far found nothing. Its a grey area that really needs looking into. The wording of orders seems to get more complex as time goes on. It's the word 'files' that is throwing me, it's a clumsy word. If it means folders, it might mean cookies folder and/or temporary/"temp" files. "File browsing history" seems like 'recent' - so if you're on Windows 10, it shows what's been accessed most recently, so this instructs you not to delete that. Ie. so upon a check they can see what you've been using recently. Put in the simplest of terms, don't delete anything and then your ppu can't complain, I think that's the best way around it and try and get it removed from your order when the time is right. Plus, if you don't delete the demos, as per your example, and ask them to delete it, it shows you're willing to comply - win win! I'd like to think that they wouldn't arrest you for deleting a demo, but for now, I wouldn't take that risk until some considerable time has passed because they want to see you complying with the order (no matter how silly some of it is). Living with a SHPO is mentally difficult, everyone here who has a SHPO has found it tough, including myself, to get their head around what seems to be barrier-less rules. Having the order at the forefront of your mind is what they want. They're to keep you avoiding slipping back into old ways and to see how you react when questioned about it. If you keep calm, especially when they test you with their "catch up chats", all will be fine.
Let me explain where this confusion has originated from, I was visited by my PPU officer few months ago and I had a few questions I needed his guidance on relating to my orders. His words were basically "If it is not in your orders then there is no restriction". If that is the case and the order only makes reference to internet history, then why would I be in breach of the order for deleting a demo? Granted I would need internet access to download the demo but after that it becomes my personal data which ultimately does not need an internet connection in order to play. Lets take out the internet all together and say for example I purchase a game from the shops, I install the game from disc on the console hard drive which is standard in this day and age. I then purchase another game but no longer have the space for it and would need to delete the previously installed game. Am I technically breaching this order since the internet was not used? Its no different to writing on a bit of paper then throwing it in the bin.
This is what my ppu officer is failing to understand, but rather than understand it he is simply imposing a no data deletion ban which in all honesty, is going above his authority. I will be challenging this eventually but right now I am abiding by the "rules" and gathering information before I raise my issues.
I can sympathise with the confusion. I think the critical point with your example is around 'file browsing history'. If you delete a demo, you will be intentionally deleting the fact that you had that demo at all and it won't appear in the file browsing history. I'd suggest asking your ppu that exact question and it'll no doubt him ending up making a judgment call and then you'll have to go with that. I'm no legal expert, so I'd have to refer up on this one, your defence of 'some bloke on a forum said...' probably wouldn't get you too far. Haha. In the meantime, don't delete stuff, try and get clarity when you can and try to focus on what you can to help move forward with your life. It could be argued that is what file browsing history is relating to, however as a demo is not a file which records internet history or any sort of file browsing history. how can it be considered a breach? there are notifications which show I downloaded a demo which is considered history of that fact. I have actually already questioned my ppu officer including the demo example. he has claimed on many occasions he is not IT literate and has openly expressed that in terms of technology, the police are far behind. So the question really is, what guidelines does he use which ultimately define what my order is prohibiting me from or is it his own interpretation? It has been suggested that I contact the courts and ask them for clarity or ask another officer from the police, but I am hesitant.
|
|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 450,
Visits: 5.4K
|
+x+x+x+x+xThank you both for your replies the order is worded "Intentionally deleting such history or any other files which record internet or file browsing history" I have spoke to some legal advisors about this and they seem just as confused as I am as to why this order even exists. It clearly only relates to "history" so why would deleting a demo or anything else for that matter which is unrelated to the internet be considered a breach? I feel it is only in place for police to interpret the order which ever way they see fit which in turn makes me feel I am being set up to fail potentially. I have searched for legislation on this but have so far found nothing. Its a grey area that really needs looking into. The wording of orders seems to get more complex as time goes on. It's the word 'files' that is throwing me, it's a clumsy word. If it means folders, it might mean cookies folder and/or temporary/"temp" files. "File browsing history" seems like 'recent' - so if you're on Windows 10, it shows what's been accessed most recently, so this instructs you not to delete that. Ie. so upon a check they can see what you've been using recently. Put in the simplest of terms, don't delete anything and then your ppu can't complain, I think that's the best way around it and try and get it removed from your order when the time is right. Plus, if you don't delete the demos, as per your example, and ask them to delete it, it shows you're willing to comply - win win! I'd like to think that they wouldn't arrest you for deleting a demo, but for now, I wouldn't take that risk until some considerable time has passed because they want to see you complying with the order (no matter how silly some of it is). Living with a SHPO is mentally difficult, everyone here who has a SHPO has found it tough, including myself, to get their head around what seems to be barrier-less rules. Having the order at the forefront of your mind is what they want. They're to keep you avoiding slipping back into old ways and to see how you react when questioned about it. If you keep calm, especially when they test you with their "catch up chats", all will be fine.
Let me explain where this confusion has originated from, I was visited by my PPU officer few months ago and I had a few questions I needed his guidance on relating to my orders. His words were basically "If it is not in your orders then there is no restriction". If that is the case and the order only makes reference to internet history, then why would I be in breach of the order for deleting a demo? Granted I would need internet access to download the demo but after that it becomes my personal data which ultimately does not need an internet connection in order to play. Lets take out the internet all together and say for example I purchase a game from the shops, I install the game from disc on the console hard drive which is standard in this day and age. I then purchase another game but no longer have the space for it and would need to delete the previously installed game. Am I technically breaching this order since the internet was not used? Its no different to writing on a bit of paper then throwing it in the bin.
This is what my ppu officer is failing to understand, but rather than understand it he is simply imposing a no data deletion ban which in all honesty, is going above his authority. I will be challenging this eventually but right now I am abiding by the "rules" and gathering information before I raise my issues.
I can sympathise with the confusion. I think the critical point with your example is around 'file browsing history'. If you delete a demo, you will be intentionally deleting the fact that you had that demo at all and it won't appear in the file browsing history. I'd suggest asking your ppu that exact question and it'll no doubt him ending up making a judgment call and then you'll have to go with that. I'm no legal expert, so I'd have to refer up on this one, your defence of 'some bloke on a forum said...' probably wouldn't get you too far. Haha. In the meantime, don't delete stuff, try and get clarity when you can and try to focus on what you can to help move forward with your life. It could be argued that is what file browsing history is relating to, however as a demo is not a file which records internet history or any sort of file browsing history. how can it be considered a breach? there are notifications which show I downloaded a demo which is considered history of that fact. I have actually already questioned my ppu officer including the demo example. he has claimed on many occasions he is not IT literate and has openly expressed that in terms of technology, the police are far behind. So the question really is, what guidelines does he use which ultimately define what my order is prohibiting me from or is it his own interpretation? It has been suggested that I contact the courts and ask them for clarity or ask another officer from the police, but I am hesitant. It's not clear cut, all I can give you is my opinion, sorry. As I said I think use of the word "file" is clumsy, so I've interpreted what you've written best I can, with the knowledge I have, and offered my best advice. Maybe others on the forum have more experience.
===== Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
xDanx
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 355,
Visits: 10K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xThank you both for your replies the order is worded "Intentionally deleting such history or any other files which record internet or file browsing history" I have spoke to some legal advisors about this and they seem just as confused as I am as to why this order even exists. It clearly only relates to "history" so why would deleting a demo or anything else for that matter which is unrelated to the internet be considered a breach? I feel it is only in place for police to interpret the order which ever way they see fit which in turn makes me feel I am being set up to fail potentially. I have searched for legislation on this but have so far found nothing. Its a grey area that really needs looking into. The wording of orders seems to get more complex as time goes on. It's the word 'files' that is throwing me, it's a clumsy word. If it means folders, it might mean cookies folder and/or temporary/"temp" files. "File browsing history" seems like 'recent' - so if you're on Windows 10, it shows what's been accessed most recently, so this instructs you not to delete that. Ie. so upon a check they can see what you've been using recently. Put in the simplest of terms, don't delete anything and then your ppu can't complain, I think that's the best way around it and try and get it removed from your order when the time is right. Plus, if you don't delete the demos, as per your example, and ask them to delete it, it shows you're willing to comply - win win! I'd like to think that they wouldn't arrest you for deleting a demo, but for now, I wouldn't take that risk until some considerable time has passed because they want to see you complying with the order (no matter how silly some of it is). Living with a SHPO is mentally difficult, everyone here who has a SHPO has found it tough, including myself, to get their head around what seems to be barrier-less rules. Having the order at the forefront of your mind is what they want. They're to keep you avoiding slipping back into old ways and to see how you react when questioned about it. If you keep calm, especially when they test you with their "catch up chats", all will be fine.
Let me explain where this confusion has originated from, I was visited by my PPU officer few months ago and I had a few questions I needed his guidance on relating to my orders. His words were basically "If it is not in your orders then there is no restriction". If that is the case and the order only makes reference to internet history, then why would I be in breach of the order for deleting a demo? Granted I would need internet access to download the demo but after that it becomes my personal data which ultimately does not need an internet connection in order to play. Lets take out the internet all together and say for example I purchase a game from the shops, I install the game from disc on the console hard drive which is standard in this day and age. I then purchase another game but no longer have the space for it and would need to delete the previously installed game. Am I technically breaching this order since the internet was not used? Its no different to writing on a bit of paper then throwing it in the bin.
This is what my ppu officer is failing to understand, but rather than understand it he is simply imposing a no data deletion ban which in all honesty, is going above his authority. I will be challenging this eventually but right now I am abiding by the "rules" and gathering information before I raise my issues.
I can sympathise with the confusion. I think the critical point with your example is around 'file browsing history'. If you delete a demo, you will be intentionally deleting the fact that you had that demo at all and it won't appear in the file browsing history. I'd suggest asking your ppu that exact question and it'll no doubt him ending up making a judgment call and then you'll have to go with that. I'm no legal expert, so I'd have to refer up on this one, your defence of 'some bloke on a forum said...' probably wouldn't get you too far. Haha. In the meantime, don't delete stuff, try and get clarity when you can and try to focus on what you can to help move forward with your life. It could be argued that is what file browsing history is relating to, however as a demo is not a file which records internet history or any sort of file browsing history. how can it be considered a breach? there are notifications which show I downloaded a demo which is considered history of that fact. I have actually already questioned my ppu officer including the demo example. he has claimed on many occasions he is not IT literate and has openly expressed that in terms of technology, the police are far behind. So the question really is, what guidelines does he use which ultimately define what my order is prohibiting me from or is it his own interpretation? It has been suggested that I contact the courts and ask them for clarity or ask another officer from the police, but I am hesitant. It's not clear cut, all I can give you is my opinion, sorry. As I said I think use of the word "file" is clumsy, so I've interpreted what you've written best I can, with the knowledge I have, and offered my best advice. Maybe others on the forum have more experience. Don't misunderstand I definitely appreciate everyone's input, it has been of great help seeing how others interpret the order as well giving me the opportunity to vent my frustration. I understand my ppu will never see eye to eye with me as it is his job to enforce these orders are being carried out. I will continue to gather all the information I can about this. Once I have some hard facts I will happily contribute to the forum because there really is such a grey area on this that no legislation covers. Police do not have the best reputation given recent events so it is difficult to have any faith in their abilities. That being said I appreciate everyone's opinion.
|
|
Was
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 282,
Visits: 3.6K
|
Okay. I have a degree in computing and worked in the industry for 25 years. There are two issues here:
1) What will prompt a PPO to arrest you for breach of conditions.
2) What is actually a breach of conditions.
I have conditions which are to have approved monitoring software installed OR the general not delete internet file history clause. From a police officer ignorant of IT, they may demand that you don't delete anything at all but even a half-competent solicitor will be able to establish with some technical help that deleting a file or program from your computer is not a deletion of internet file history. Nor is deleting cookies. Basically on a Windows PC these are stored in AppData for each browser and as long as you don't go into your browser's history settings and delete them you are complying. Of course Microsoft didn't help when they introduced Storage Sense which started deleting my files behind my back, but as it was on a monitoring software PC my PPO accepted that there wasn't a breach. To be on the safe side I have Storage Sense OFF!
So, it's down to whether you want to comply with illogical instructions from in most cases an IT illiterate for a quiet life or stick to the letter of the order and have it chucked out in court using an expert witness. I suspect most of us chicken out and go for the first option!
|
|
Simon1983
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 202,
Visits: 6.4K
|
It goes to the point i made that SOPO and SHPO do not keep up with technology, and to top that PPU officers are not trained forensic it specialists, my SOPO was made back in 2007 before the like of what’s app, Snapchat, face book and twitter, at one stage they identified what’s app as social media, as i pointed out it is a messaging app and can only be used if you have another persons phone number to communicate with.
To top that i have no conditions around having to have monitoring software or around keeping internet history.
SOPO and SHPO needs to be taken Back to the drawing board and there needs to be a set criteria and sections that can be applied if a court orders a SHPO, not just come up with a phrase or sentence that is open to interpretation=, it should be clear and concise.
Oh yeah the court of appeal have already said that, thats why SHPO were brought out and still not used correctly.
I am of the true belief that it is kept like that to keep us on our toes, and the wording ambiguous so we are meant to trip up.
|
|
Hola
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 79,
Visits: 2.7K
|
+xIt goes to the point i made that SOPO and SHPO do not keep up with technology, and to top that PPU officers are not trained forensic it specialists, my SOPO was made back in 2007 before the like of what’s app, Snapchat, face book and twitter, at one stage they identified what’s app as social media, as i pointed out it is a messaging app and can only be used if you have another persons phone number to communicate with. To top that i have no conditions around having to have monitoring software or around keeping internet history. SOPO and SHPO needs to be taken Back to the drawing board and there needs to be a set criteria and sections that can be applied if a court orders a SHPO, not just come up with a phrase or sentence that is open to interpretation=, it should be clear and concise. Oh yeah the court of appeal have already said that, thats why SHPO were brought out and still not used correctly. I am of the true belief that it is kept like that to keep us on our toes, and the wording ambiguous so we are meant to trip up. but surely that's right ? it makes us think and therefore avoid putting ourselves in positions to re-offend ? Otherwise ot implies you're looking to find ways to circumvent your conditions ?
|
|
Simon1983
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 202,
Visits: 6.4K
|
Hi Hola
I think you might have miss understood the point i was making, i was trying to get across the inconsistency over SOPO and SHPO and how each PPU officer will interpret what is documented, and on many occasions this interpretation can be wrong.
The amount of money that has been spent by polices forces since SOPO came out is silly, over the years a large number of them have had to be taken back to court as they were either not worded incorrectly or the court of appeal stated that items that were documented could not be added.
That was the whole reason for the introduction of SHPO to try and clear this mess up, but it is still not working,
The affect that an active SOPO/SHPO can have eg not letting a conviction become spent, and the seriousness that these court orders are taken then there needs to be clear and precise wording.
How many men and women have been penalised by PPU because a SHPO/SOPO has been misleading and misinterpreted by PPU
Yes I totally agree you have to follow the rules, but these should be clear and concise, you should not have to spend your entire day trying to second guess what or how a PPU officer might interpret what you have done, because no one can agree on the interpretation of the document handed down by the court.
|
|
xDanx
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 355,
Visits: 10K
|
+xOkay. I have a degree in computing and worked in the industry for 25 years. There are two issues here: 1) What will prompt a PPO to arrest you for breach of conditions. 2) What is actually a breach of conditions. I have conditions which are to have approved monitoring software installed OR the general not delete internet file history clause. From a police officer ignorant of IT, they may demand that you don't delete anything at all but even a half-competent solicitor will be able to establish with some technical help that deleting a file or program from your computer is not a deletion of internet file history. Nor is deleting cookies. Basically on a Windows PC these are stored in AppData for each browser and as long as you don't go into your browser's history settings and delete them you are complying. Of course Microsoft didn't help when they introduced Storage Sense which started deleting my files behind my back, but as it was on a monitoring software PC my PPO accepted that there wasn't a breach. To be on the safe side I have Storage Sense OFF! So, it's down to whether you want to comply with illogical instructions from in most cases an IT illiterate for a quiet life or stick to the letter of the order and have it chucked out in court using an expert witness. I suspect most of us chicken out and go for the first option! Nailed it on the head. I am not under any orders to have any of this monitoring software installed, however my ppu did mention it to me and asked me if I would allow them to install it once it was developed. I said I would comply given I have nothing to hide, however is this not a breach of article 8? a right to a private life? if there job is to monitor internet history then would this software allow them access to all of your data on that particular device? Could you elaborate more on this monitoring software? as to further replies, Its not just the SOPO or the SHPO that need rewriting, justice system in general needs an update to modern times
|
|
Simon1983
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 202,
Visits: 6.4K
|
Evening XDanx I am not sure on the system the police have in mind as to monitoring software, the only time i have come across it is reading about it in 2010 via the Lucy Faithful foundation website https://www.lucyfaithfull.org.uk/computer-monitoring.amp.htmthere version is an app that scans the screen for set phrase, words and pictures etc etc and if it finds any thing it send a report to them I guess the police system is the same or something similar having not had the issue raised by my PPU, i have kept clear of it, and thankful i have, as the job i was in for 10 years you were part of many what’s app groups for work purposes and these would tend to end up having legal porn (over 18yrs olds) sent and links to porn sites. When you manage a group of young males all in there early 20’s making loads of money, all they can thing about is S** and money, and not in that order. They had an issue at first, The work around i had with my PPU was that they did not have an issue as long as i cleared the parts of the group chats i thought they might have issues with, if i was in there shoes, so was policing myself. And that is my point we either have a rehabilitation of offenders act in this country or we don’t when it comes to ex sex offenders, because these SHPO /SOPO when they are 10yrs or more in duration, penalise the person especially when they never see PPU other than once per year, they were activated at sentencing and down the line do not take into account any thing the person has done to address there offending behaviour, Yet a drug addict, or habitual robber that steals off old ladies can commit crimes and be in and out like a yo-yo, and as long as his/her sentence is under 4 years the rehabilitation clock will always restart for him, when it comes to disclosure and basic DBS where is the fairness in that.
|
|
xDanx
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 355,
Visits: 10K
|
+xEvening XDanx I am not sure on the system the police have in mind as to monitoring software, the only time i have come across it is reading about it in 2010 via the Lucy Faithful foundation website https://www.lucyfaithfull.org.uk/computer-monitoring.amp.htmthere version is an app that scans the screen for set phrase, words and pictures etc etc and if it finds any thing it send a report to them I guess the police system is the same or something similar having not had the issue raised by my PPU, i have kept clear of it, and thankful i have, as the job i was in for 10 years you were part of many what’s app groups for work purposes and these would tend to end up having legal porn (over 18yrs olds) sent and links to porn sites. When you manage a group of young males all in there early 20’s making loads of money, all they can thing about is S** and money, and not in that order. They had an issue at first, The work around i had with my PPU was that they did not have an issue as long as i cleared the parts of the group chats i thought they might have issues with, if i was in there shoes, so was policing myself. And that is my point we either have a rehabilitation of offenders act in this country or we don’t when it comes to ex sex offenders, because these SHPO /SOPO when they are 10yrs or more in duration, penalise the person especially when they never see PPU other than once per year, they were activated at sentencing and down the line do not take into account any thing the person has done to address there offending behaviour, Yet a drug addict, or habitual robber that steals off old ladies can commit crimes and be in and out like a yo-yo, and as long as his/her sentence is under 4 years the rehabilitation clock will always restart for him, when it comes to disclosure and basic DBS where is the fairness in that. Surely software like that can not be legal? complete breach of human rights, but of course do offenders even have human rights any more? In today's society it would appear not because the police and the courts can simply make the rules as they go along, ignoring their own codes of practice and guidelines to ensure they make headlines which only ruins lives instead of giving people the chance of rehabilitation. There really is no such thing as 'fairness'
|