Tuesday, June 5, 2012

"Hacking Exposed" might get your internet yanked - if you're in prison

In Green v. Maye, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76338 (June 1, 2012), a prisoner petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus after the Bureau of Prisons denied him access to the prison internet system for ordering the book Hacking Exposed.  The prisoner asserted a denial of due process, a violation of equal protection, and a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The basis of the defendants argument was that he should not be denied internet access for ordering a book about internet hacking if sexual offenders were still allowed to send emails. Pretty flimsy. Of course, there is a First Amendment issue lurking underneath here - i.e. the reason for the denial wasn't that he ordered a book, but that he ordered a book about computer hacking. But, as the court stated, it is working with rational-based scrutiny, such that:

the decision to deny Green access to TRULINCS was a result of his attempt to educate himself about computer hacking. Green's actions showed he was a potential threat to the prison computer system and possibly the public. The Court finds the BOP's decision to exclude Green from computer access is rationally related to a legitimate peneological interests.
While this case was rote and simply resolved, I found it worth noting for a few reasons: (1) the case is almost analogous to buying a book that tells you how to escape from prison; but (2) isn't allowing a prisoner to educate themselves a valiant goal, no matter the subject?; yet (3) isn't allowing an inmate to educate themselves through the study of legal books (surely allowed) another form of allowing them to "escape" prison? I suppose the former is done in an illegal manner, and the latter through legal process, but I doubt it is so clearly black and white.

While I tend to observe this question in the altruistic view that the inmate was trying to rehabilitate himself by learning about cyber security (furthering the penological goal of rehabilitation), that, of course, may be supremely naive. The court obviously felt an alternative motive was afoot - namely that an inmate, with access to a computer system (albeit hopefully severely locked down) was attempting to arm himself with the knowledge to affect that computer system negatively.

Yes, knowledge is power, and therefore dangerous. But is the onus for maintaining prison safety on the Bureau of Prisons, institutionally, or on the inmate to give up pursuing learning, personally?

0 comments:

Post a Comment