I would get in touch with a solicitor and question your orders, If their role is to monitor your internet history they have no business accessing your personal information or seeing everything you type. That's the information I was told from a legal advisor I spoke to previously, however she never contacted me back to give me actual confirmation on that from her boss. In my view and as I mentioned before this is a breach of article 8 of the human rights, not only that but if the software becomes compromised it would then be a breach in data protection, your data. Everything about how the police function is wrong. You see people out there being sentenced for dishonesty yet the whole system is entirely based on dishonesty.

Hi Was, 

You made me think there as well, PPU look over my phone and iPad yearly, would never look over my work laptop because of data protection, and your answer above just made be think they never check the Smart TV or other media devices in my flat, again they would be disappointed as i dont use them to web browse.

I was told it was a key logger and I assume they do read everything I type and know every site I visit. It makes my life a lot simpler - although simple data logistics would dictate that the amount of data would be too much to read even if it is machine processed. My SHPO says Monitoring Software OR on devices it can't be installed, not to delete internet history. It does not proscribe any particular software or features, so they are free to pick and chose what they want. In my case it is called Guardware. I have not even dared look up the technical details, lest they suggest I am trying to find ways to circumvent it.

It's completely inconsistent though. I have been allowed to have Amazon FireTV sticks. They have browsers built in. They have never been examined. They would be very disappointed though as all they would find is links to the FA Player.

Confucius, he say: “The green reed which bends in the wind is stronger than the mighty oak which breaks in a storm."

Exactly, and when the message of a 'successful trial' is spread as a reason to expand their use, it creates a feeling among the passive society that they ARE reliable/useful/they work when in reality nothing has changed and they're still just as unreliable as before. These things need challenging and for whatever reason, I'm not seeing it.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

That is ridiculous, They may as well be ordering you to have a key logger on your system and have them read literally everything you type. How long are you expected to continue having this monitoring software and was it actually ordered upon you from court? And could you not apply to remove the order?

I agree with whats been said about lie detectors, I actually watched the full video about the Jeremy Kyle incident and I was shocked the producers could not answer the questions. In the end they said their tests were only 66% accurate and that Jeremy himself was a true believer of the results. I was very mixed with the show as he has helped a lot of people but when it comes to the lie detector results he just lashes out with out any consideration, glad the show ended as it was just demoralizing.

I was asked once why I had performed an internet search for "child". Because I work in paranoid mode and assume that they are reading everything I post (including this!) I not only do not delete any internet history on my monitored PC (which would be allowed) but I use Microsoft Edge and have all my devices linked to a shared account which preserves that data in the cloud as well to protect myself. My investigation revealed that I had actually searched for "child of light" two months previously which is an album by Couer De Pirate, but it's a good example of how and what they monitor. (and I've probably just triggered it again!)

Morning mr W 

Quick point to make, there's a few of us here, imagine if everyone who had a SHPO joined this forum, it would explode just like our brains trying to work out what all of these wordings mean. Shambles of a system which is ruining our lives even further.

From a personal point of view, as I said to someone else who was asked voluntarily to have a lie detector test, if I was asked to have monitoring software I'd absolutely say no to both. Here's why...
Lie detectors are being rolled out on the quiet now after the 'successful trial with certain offenders' which no doubt our comrade on this forum was probably unaware being part of. And, as is documented on this forum, it's brought a whole new raft of problems to sort after going through what has already been a tough ordeal. Add to that, of course, the Jeremy Kyle guest's suicide was after a lie detector test which is tragic moreso when they're not 100% correct (...just what IF that test was wrong?). And know that one thread of their use is to apply mental pressure to a confession before the test starts. Police tactic or more mental abuse? Haven't quite figured that one out yet.
Agreeing to monitoring software will probably go the same way and, I believe, would play a part in more suicides. Eg. If one has a relapse, 'one last fling' knowing it's on the monitoring software and then off to the bath with the toaster before the second knock on the door. These systems offer nothing but constant relentless fear even when you are fully compliant.

The answer is rehabilitation, it's just that no-one knows (or cares?) what that looks like.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

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'

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.htm

there 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.