So calling himself by his own name will encourage him to reoffend by being anonymous?
A man called Peter has been banned from using the name "Peter" on the internet as a bail condition after being charged today with unauthorised use of a computer. Peter David Gibson, 22, from Hartlepool, was among three men and one unnamed 17-year-old charged at the City of Westminster Magistrates Court this morning for …
... he has been bailed after being *charged" with the offences. He has not yet been found guilty of anything, so he is innocent, by dint of the Rule of Law. You cannot seriously be suggesting that innocent people should be tortured merely because they are suspected of doing things - we passed that stage several hundred years ago.
> Not to use the internet using the name "Peter".
What the hell does that mean? Is his mom not allowed to call him by his first name when he's sat at a computer? If Amazon send him email starting "Dear Peter," is he screwed? If his email address is firstname.lastname@example.org can he not sign in?
I tried to join the musicians' union with my own name but they wouldn't let me because a famous (non-musician) performer at the time had the same name, and the local judge backed them up. So I tried to register as "Ringo Starr", arguing that he was a drummer, not a musician.
Some people have no sense of humor.
So, not yet convicted but the Judge has already determined they might 're-offend'.
Humm. Due process etc..
It they are such a threat why not keep them on remand? I thought these were the international criminal cyberterrorist masterminds intent on destroying our way of life?
Cant we at least show them who's boss by hitting them with a control order and maybe forcing them to move to somewhere without broadband? Or is that only for men with beards?
Since Peter is nothing but a nickname he should surely go back to the real name of Simon.
Peter, from the greek "πέτρα", meaning stone or rock.
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18
I guess my education wasn't entirely wasted!
"A judge overstepping his authority...." Wrong! The judge can set the terms of bail and, seeing as the accused is suspected of committing a cybercrime, the judge is well-within his remit to limit the chances that the accused will re-offend in a similar manner.
".....I mean, applying sanctions to this guy before a verdict is delivered....." Maybe you should go do some reading on bail conditions and the whole bail process before showing yourself up again.
...an alleged non-anonymous member of Anonymous is ordered to become anonymous (presumably within Anonymous and elsewhere) in order to prevent re-offending as an for a crime he has not yet been found guilty of while courts decide if if is in fact an Anonymous bloke who chose not to be anonymous or just some anonymous bloke who chose not to be in Anonymous?!?!?
My brain hurts!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019