Jayzuz. If the app's EULA specifically states it's NOT to be used as a judicial tool, why in the f*ck are cops using it anyway???

Murica is so far down the Big Brother rabbit hole rn I fear for its survival.

I have to say this is quite a worrying abuse. Both of software, and of privacy.

It's being deployed for something it's not meant for, and being used to remove liberties for it. Of course, much of this will be lost to media circles as in CSA cases, the presumption is guilt in the public's mind.

Whatever the truth of the original conviction, the use of this software as a condition of bail should be banned, and abhorrent to anyone who values justice.

That is not to say the software doesn't have it's uses - especially in cases of porn addiction. However, the software is nowhere near good enough to be used in legal cases. It says so itself. It errs, intentionally, on gathering more data, on being more conservative, simply because it's not good enough to make the judgement on its own.

That's before we look at the unintentional consequences of impinging on the freedom of an innocent person ('Hannah'), and the way in which the software is not 'intelligent' enough to make judgements on whether or not it should take a photo of emails. It also led to fear of accessing help (and an inability to access help).

Use of this software in this way is an abuse.

I can maybe understand monitoring the accused, especially when accused of possessing cp, with this.

The article doesnt go a whole lot into the case, but it sounds like it was flimsy, but then again i like to think cases like that are hopefully well researched to make sure the person is guilty, but often in the legal system, with any accusation, the goal is not to find truth but to find jail time on sometrhing the prosecution has made its mind up about, because a loss i guess could be seen as embarrassing.

But if this was going to be deployed the limit should be the accused phone, not family members, and from what i understood they have to pay for it?

Several legal experts expressed concern about the monitoring conditions imposed by the judge in Hannah’s husband’s case. But Phyllis Emerick, the chief deputy public defender in Monroe County, argues that because Hannah’s husband and his family consented to the surveillance, they gave up their rights to privacy. “He agreed that he would not access electronic devices in his household in exchange for release,” she says. “It was the family’s choice to continue living with him.”

what the fuck kind of logic is this, lets say the guy is a piece of shit, if he is, still its not easy to just move, especially with the stress of leaving someone youve known for years, or forever. Not to mention the financial burden.

This is some CCP shit. If we allow this to permeate across the US, we will have a far worse problem than the NSA constantly monitoring us which most people didnt care about, device level spyware is next level, and maybe people wont care then either.

This feels like that shit in the game watch dogs, while i imagine not as fantastical as the game, what if control of these apps is gotten not just b the governemnt, already doing shady shit, but hackers as well. the precedent set here can be very alarming.

even if the guy did and would be found guilty of child porn (for which he would deserve to rot in hell)

in this guy's shoes i would be this close to encasing a bulldozer in concrete and going for a ride.

Prosecutors and judges really need a reminder of the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

The day her husband was released on bond, Hannah sat down with their kids and tried to explain how all of their devices were going to be monitored: The probation department would see anything they looked at on their phones and assume it was their father using the device. The constant surveillance had an immediate impact on the family, Hannah says.

And:

In near real time, probation officers are being fed screenshots of everything Hannah’s family views on their devices. From images of YouTube videos watched by her 14-year-old daughter to online underwear purchases made by her 80-year-old mother-in-law, the family’s entire digital life is scrutinized by county authorities. “I’m afraid to even communicate with our lawyer,” Hannah says. “If I mention anything about our case, I’m worried they are going to see it and use it against us.”

Any reasonable person would describe that as not just a punishment, but a pretty severe one.

And one that affects children. Having a teenager know that a person she never met, who she has no way to contact, is looking at her activity every minute isn't just punishment in fact. It's victimization.

Thus, I think we can conclude from this that the Monroe County, Indiana prosecutors office is victimizing children. Full stop. Time to make some arrests.

we're gonna monitor all of your family's devices, including people who are not charged with or suspected of a crime. if any of them do anything we don't like, we'll assume it's you and charge you

we acknowledge that requests to forbidden sites can be made without the user's knowledge or consent, but we're still going to throw you in jail over it

Imagine you're legally banned from driving a car. Let's even make the hypothetical situation a little bit more cut and dry than the real one from the article and assume you've actually been convicted of something and aren't just charged. This is the equivalent of saying "we're going to put monitoring devices in every car in your driveway, if any of them start up we'll get an alert. If we get an alert, we'll assume you're driving and come arrest you for violating the ban. We also get an alert if the alarm goes off and even if it's because an acorn fell on your car we're going to come and arrest you."

This is truly an amazing violation of the rights of several people. Welcome to the panopticon, you're never sure you're not being surveilled so you have to always act like someone could be watching.