Sign in / up

back to article Ex-soldier slapped with sex offender order after flouting private browsing mode ban

A disgraced former Territorial Army soldier who made indecent images of children has been given a sexual offences order after being caught breaching a previous one – by enabling private browsing mode on his iPhone and iPad. Paul Martin McGarrity, 56, of Wandsworth Bridge Road, Fulham, UK, received the sexual harm prevention …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *
  1. CustardGannet
    WTF?

    Am I reading this right ?

    Under the original SOPO, he was banned from using "any device capable of accessing the internet unless it has the capacity to retain and display the history of internet use, and he makes such device available on request to a police officer".

    He broke that stipulation, and as a consequence, he is banned from using "any device capable of accessing the internet unless it has the capacity to retain and display the history of internet use, and he makes such device available on request to a police officer" ?

    That'll learn 'im, eh ?

    33 0 Reply
    1. Chris G
      Reply Icon

      Re: Am I reading this right ?

      Yeah! It sounds as though his punishment was a stern expression from the beak and told 'Don't be nuaghty!'

      3 0 Reply
    2. Donn Bly
      Reply Icon

      Re: Am I reading this right ?

      The device DOES have the capability of retaining and displaying history - he just didn't have it turned on. Seems like he was following the letter of the law, just not its intent.

      The order should be changed to reflect intent, that is, it should state that a log must be kept and presented on request. It should also state how long such logs should be kept (so that "delete on logoff" or some such would still be a violation). It should also be clear on the definition of "Internet", as it appears that the original intent of the order means "Web".

      My DVD player has the ability to access the Internet but doesn't keep a log. Should he be prevented from using such devices? How about a refrigerator that has some stupid IOT interface to order milk? Or any stupid home based router that doesn't have logging -- if it is part of his connection to the internet then he is "using" the "device".

      Rules should be clear and unambiguous.

      19 0 Reply
      1. Adam 52 Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Am I reading this right ?

        The powers that be don't like clear and unambiguous, this way they can brand anyone they like a sex offender.

        The whole thing needs throwing out, and if the English Courts won't do it then the ECHR should.

        28 4 Reply
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Am I reading this right ?

          "The powers that be don't like clear and unambiguous [...]"

          The law makers are generally too incompetent or lacking in due diligence to cover the awkward detail. They leave that to the Appeal Courts to make the fine detail into case law - if innocent people can afford to pursue the appeals process over their conviction.

          The vested interest lobbyists and law enforcers like the career enhancing flexibility to push beyond the intended limits.

          8 0 Reply
        2. Fungus Bob
          Reply Icon
          Headmaster

          Re: Am I reading this right ?

          "they can brand anyone they like a sex offender"

          The Powers That Be generally do that to people they don't like....

          12 0 Reply
    3. MrDamage Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Am I reading this right ?

      Not only that, but this could screw him.

      > "2) deleting, encrypting, hiding or otherwise interfering with such device"

      So technically, they can bust him for just having a smart phone in his pocket.

      12 0 Reply
  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Indecent image of a child

    That would be any pic of my nephew, he's that ugly.

    16 5 Reply
    1. cortland
      Reply Icon

      Re: Indecent image of a child

      That would be a picture of Trafalgar square with any children under 18 in it -- and FWIW, any number of streaming television screens.

      0 0 Reply
  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    When the government realises that The Snooper's Charter doesn't track VPN content etc - then they will make these PC logging conditions compulsory for everyone - just in case.

    If that seems unlikely - then it appears no different from being prosecuted for having an encrypted file for which you cannot offer the decryption key to the police when requested.

    10 0 Reply
    1. Dave 126 Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      >it appears no different from being prosecuted for having an encrypted file for which you cannot offer the decryption key to the police when requested.

      It's not an encrypted file, it's just a log of some atmospheric noise I recorded.

      Shit, the 'Forgotten your password? Click here to send reset email' button gets a lot of use from me.

      Turns out my 1024 bit keys are themselves just ascii art of kittens.

      7 0 Reply
  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Infantilization is now an officially recognized disability?

    taking any photograph of a child under 18

    Well, yeah, you know....

    Reminds me of the day when, as a young primary school lad, I got rustled nastily by the evidently triggered school mistress for drawing "indecent images" (they weren't even that good) and a sealed letter with the incriminating evidence was sent to my parents via the neighbours' urchin.

    This put me off sex for the next 20 years or so right there.

    7 0 Reply
    1. Dave 126 Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Infantilization is now an officially recognized disability?

      The trick is to swap the exercise book in which you drew the naughty pictures for an otherwise similar

      -looking exercise book.

      Maybe this is why they say public school is good training for prison - or indeed, public life.

      1 0 Reply
  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Interesting detail

    If I want to talk about, say, Brian Blessed's beard do people with these orders automatically violate them if they click the link without reading it?

    1 0 Reply
  6. AndrewDu

    How will he know if they're under 18?

    Some under-16's look about 30 if you believe the Home Office.

    9 0 Reply
  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    >not to use any device capable of accessing the internet unless it has the capacity to retain and display the history of internet use and he makes such device available on request to a police officer

    Couldn't the Police just use this excuse to abuse their power whenever they see fit?

    1. Guy doesn't access Internet

    2. Police: "Oh yeah, he totally did. It was just in a manner that wasn't retained."

    6 0 Reply
  8. Joeman

    So if the pervs start using old-school dial-up bulletin board services, they can avoid using the internet and dial directly into the porn server, thus not breaking any rules as they haven't used the internet!

    0 0 Reply
  9. Happy Ranter
    Stop

    Why the need to put a forces angle on this?

    Why the need to say he is an ex-TA?

    Why not say he is an ex-teenager or ex-student or ex-child?

    This has nothing to do with the forces, they didn't make this guy into a sex offender.

    it would be more relevant to say "ex-child of really bad parents who couldn't instil any decent moral values into their brat....."

    1 1 Reply

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like