As part of my SHPO the police are entitled to install monitoring software on my devices. 

After a long time of having no monitoring software they have now installed monitoring software on my devices and I have to say I am unhappy about the software on my Android Tablet.

It appears that screen cast is constantly running on my tablet and it looks like everything that I do is being monitored not just my internet history. So any family picture I look at, family video, online video, book, online banking, any email I read or write etc is all being monitored.

My assumption was that they were only allowed to record my internet history. My offence is internet based and my SHPO only states I must register the device and not delete internet history or use incognito mode.  

I can't really see what they have installed on my laptop and what it is doing but I dread to think

Does anyone have any experience of this and has anyone challenged the police when they install software on their devices?

I have not got any monitoring software on my SHPO, but I can only assume the software used will likely use key loggers and screenshots every few seconds which they will have access too. You could argue all sorts with your PPU but they will not care or help you remove what is written on your SHPO. You could take it back to court to amend the order on the grounds that it is not smith compliant :

SHPO's are designed to only include negative actions in which your restricted from doing and should not include positive actions to provide further information, this is would conflict with the Notification requirements which already outlines what information you are required to provide, which does NOT include device information. But SHPO's are constantly being abused in order to get information they are not entitled too. This is out lined in the Smith Court of Appeal. http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1772.html&query=(R)+AND+(v)+AND+(Smith)+AND+(indecent) para 17

"Notification requirements and the conditions of a SOPO are generally two different things. The first require positive action by the defendant, who must report his movements to the police. The second prohibit him from doing specified things. Ordinarily there ought to be little or no overlap between them."

I would argue that monitoring software should also be considered a positive action because its purpose is to collection information which SHPO's are not made for.

If monitoring software is not specifically mentioned in your SHPO then you can ask for it to be removed. It is specified in mine, giving the police a choice. Only on devices that hasn't had it installed are the rules about deleting internet history enforceable. For a couple of years I had a Windows Phone, which had no monitoring software available for it. My PPO just checked the internet history. I currently have an iPhone. I handed it in to my PPO and it was returned 2 days later with no software on it. They did an audit in January and, shock horror, "why is there no monitoring software on it?" "Because you didn't put any on it". This is why you must get everything in writing. Interestingly even now knowing there wasn't a monitor on it, they didn't install any.

It's a control thing, to let you know that they are in charge. In my experience a lot of what the PPUs do is done under "colour of law" and unlawful. Note the difference between unlawful and illegal. Unlawful is beyond their powers. Illegal is against the law. If a gentle word with your PPO doesn't work, unfortunately your only remedy is to challenge it in court.

Monitoring software has been installed on all my laptop(s). My force uses Guardware. I only have one left now, but it was previously on one that was stolen and one which stopped booting. I was having space problems on the one that was stolen which had prompted me to look for disk space savings. It appears to work in two modes. One is a key logger which searches for trigger words and phrases and uploads them to the police servers with severity flags. I did a search for "Child of Light" (which is both a video game and a soundtrack album of the game by Coeur de Pirate). This was deemed enough to trigger an out of band visit. I've had no other questions raised. And yes, it does take screen snapshots and saves copies of temporary video files (so it monitors your iPlayer and You Tube plays). My thought is that it periodically sends file hashes of those temporary files to the central servers and then deletes the local copy when that's finished. I say this because after 5 years if it wasn't deleting the local copies, I'd be needing  a 10Tb hard drive. I didn't dig any further, however, in 3 weeks my SHPO runs out so I'm thinking of seeing what it has actually been up to for the last 5 years for my own curiosity. 

Yes I have got Guardware installed on my laptop which I don't really have much of a problem with. It seems to work okay and doesn't really cause me any issues.

It is my tablet that really bugs me. I have eSafe installed on there (who I believe also makes Guardware). Everytime it starts up it asks me if I want to start casting to record my screen and audio which I always say yes to and then it is monitoring everything I am doing. I would have thought the software shouldn't prompt me and it would be a breach of my SHPO (not allowed to interfere or bypass monitoring software) if I said No.

The tablet also can not now be used to cast to my TV which I used to do from time to time as I would have to switch the eSafe Cast off which again would probably be a breach. I did accidentally switch it off the other day and I had to reboot the tablet to get it back on again.

Also when the battery got low the software stopped working and I had to restart it. It is bad enough having monitoring software on but I don't want to be responsible for ensuring it is working.

Guess I am stuck with it. I have been told by my officer that everyone is getting the software now but I can't help but think they are targeting me for some reason. Not sure why as I had fairly good visits from the police and have tried to work with them. 

Unfortunately my SHPO states that they are allowed to install risk management software. It doesn't though give any details of what this risk management software should do so I take it that what they have done is compliant and not worth fighting. It looks like they can install anything they like. It really winds me up with these orders that they are not more black and white and a little bit more in depth as there always seems room for interpretation.

As mentioned above, the SHPO should NOT contain positive actions. this includes providing information on devices and monitoring software. The smith court of appeal which I also linked also states that SHPOs should be drafted in such a way not to cause confusion to avoid accidental breaches. They should also be drafted to the facts of the case and not imply restrictions "just in case" you did this, did that. I do not recall what your offence was, but this is something you should amend ASAP because police are well known to not be trusted and will set people up to fail if it suits them. Remember, they are NOT your friends and will never tell you the truth.

Hi xDanx
Unless the Justice system has created the tools of the Minority movie, SOPO / SHPO do often have conditions that are cleverly designed as "just in case". The system is learning and becoming more eloquent in the wording used, remember their experience of failure develops their skills to improve their success rate.
That is why things change. 

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

Just on the point about whether having monitoring software installed, counts as a positive action.

The SHPO is normally written very carefully, to make it sound like a negative and to get around those rules. Typically it will say something along the lines of; 'you agree NOT TO REFUSE, to allow them to install monitoring software on the device. 

I imagine they won't have software compatible with all devices / operating systems. It could be a case of choosing something that is not supported to bypass the issue. I wouldn't know exactly what. These sort of requirements make it difficult for anyone who shares a device with a partner. What about the rights of an offenders partner to share a computer and not have their activity monitored?

Here is how it is written on my SHPO regarding the monitoring software

• They make the device available on request for inspection by a police officer, or police staff employee, and they allow such person to install risk management monitoring software if they so choose.

Whether this is a negative or a positive action I can't really say. However it is a standard line on most Internet SHPO's if you search the internet so I am assuming that the police/CPS have this covered. Whilst it might be challengeable in court I feel that if I refuse or remove the software this is an immediate breach of my SHPO. Unfortunately when you have a visit and they ask to do this you only have little time to agree to consent them to put the software on your devices.

My offence was internet based and was basically talking to an underage female in a chat room who turned out to be an undercover policeman. So I think the court was correct to give me an Internet SHPO although my solicitor/barrister didn't challenge this (but they were awful anyway which is a different long story)

What has made me even more annoyed is when I had the software installed I was asked to sign a contract to agree to additional conditions about notification to the police around devices. With the threat that if I do not follow these additional conditions they may go to court to apply for an amendment to my SHPO. This is something I am not sure they should be doing.

Since I have been on my SHPO myself and my partner have always had separate devices.

It is really to make sure that any of her searches, her facebook posts etc are not linked to me and do not raise questions. They can be fairly inquisitive about the things I search for....we were renting out a house a while ago and I was looking for comparative properties to get prices. I then had a long chat about why I was looking for rental properties and was I planning to move. It is not really any of their business anyway as I have no restrictions where I can live only have to tell them once I have moved.

But I agree if you did share a device with someone it would be an invasion of their privacy.

My tablet also worries as everytime it restarts there is a big pop up saying this device is monitored by the police and press Continue to accept..I don't think that is really on as if it fell into the wrong hands or someone saw that pop up it could lead to loads of uncomfortable questions.