the court job against playing on behalf of the appellant thomas tallis the condition in this case is indeed a ban on unapproved internet access mr solace is permitted to use only those computers computer related devices usernames passwords email accounts internet service providers as approved by his probation officer he's permitted to use only those hand help p d s electronic games and cellular phones as approved by his probation officer if those devices can access the internet or be modified to access the internet the condition is all about internet access despite the fact that this case the offense has nothing to do with the internet and history solace has never used the internet for an improper purpose the plain language of the condition gives the probation officer the authority to decline to approve the use of any of those devices accounts password functional equivalent of the condition here is stated the defendant can use could not use a computer or any device that could access the internet without his probation officers approval and the same is true with mr saltus except m despite the fact that limitation wasn't present in t n this court found that that condition had to be struck down because there was no reasonable relationship between the condition and the offender who was convicted of a marijuana  his twenty year old history of child sex offenses and he did have such a history and there were some indications of more recent indications of sexual misconduct however mr policy has none of that t m is controlling maybe forbid him they have a printer your honor i think that would certainly be a closer call but i don't even know that i would agree that that's necessary but the vast majority of offenses involve some sort of employment but we don't see that kind of condition the court typically doesn't find it necessary for example when a defendant commits bank robbery we don't forbid that defendant from being able to enter a bank again in the future what devices were necessary for his crime he had to have a scanner of a printer well that's that's what he used in this case i don't believe the scanner was necessary though the way that he used the scanner he could just as well gone over to a copy machine for example i think any defendant who's convicted of me under the wording of this condition if mr salis is is out of his apartment if he's out to lunch with a friend and he wants to call his mother and borrow his friend's cellphone it would technically be a violation of this conditions to be able to do that without his probation officers permission the language of the condition is clearly designed to target internet access i think it's interesting that the condition that was issue in reared in the defendant in reardon argued that the phrase computer computer related devices could be interpreted to cover cell they tried to make it clear so that defect isn't here we're here on whether the substance of it is overbroad not whether it's confusing well that's correct or are although i think i think actually it could be confusing given that if you take it literally it would require him to pick up the phone and call his probation officer every time he's online and he's asked to enter a username or a password i think that you know it could be argued that doesn't really mean that i don't know that i explained terms i think that is clearly what it requires but the court is right my argument is not that the condition is honor the search condition in this case is again far beyond anything that would be permissible relating to mr solace or his offense it is i believe like the used condition designed to identify and ferret out but certainly it appears that this would condition would permit the installation of monitoring software that will allow the place an office to know everything that he's doing on his computer if he writes of love letter to someone on on a word processor he keeps his financial record think perhaps some form of monitoring the court might be correct but i disagree with respect to the point about internet usage because with respect to the internet you can say that of any kind is going to be articles about how to you know how to rob a bank more effectively how to manufacture of the cyberspace of other bank robbers i don't agree on because there's no indication the mr sellers has ever done anything like that there's no indication that he ever went on the internet to learn how to do counterfeiting or to access any such information i think that the general the machinery with which he committed the crime and they certainly make it tempting for counterfeiter but why cell phones flying that branched off conditions here i think the breath of it or his proclivities to do something wrong or something that makes it relevant i actually think it's a number of factors first of all the internet in this context at least is more like a place than it is anything else that offended to take due process an example there the court upheld at least facially valid a search condition with or without cause with or without a warrant presumably that would apply in that circumstance to the friend's home whether or not he committed the crime in his home because you can search a place as part of your monitoring of  supervisory use to determine whether committed other crimes like that feels with the monitor in question but it doesn't deal at all with the permission question people don't have to ask permission to go home at the end of the day and if they have agreed that you can come search with a probation condition well i think and that's not the condition that was issued but in this circumstance the explanation that was provided is by the probation office that will be monitoring the defendant in the court that will be making the ultimate determination in this case comes from the judge changes for somebody with ties to mean that they have to use and have access to their computers he needs advance permission of the probation officer and a probation officer can go and search and seize them computers and other people how do we deal with that him from doing security related work not that it affected his computer networking and in fact it says he's not going to work for himself after this federal case terminates that he will get employment with some employer and  worse this conditions if he uses a computer at his employer's employer has to get permission yes get permission from the probation officer and there has to be search equipment because he's using it well i don't know that i would circumstance if it was simply setting up a computer not personally using it but i think this is similar to what this court addressed in rearden there was also a challenge that it was an occupational restriction because computers were necessary to his business and what this court said there is the defendant has a native showing that that's actually the case i agree that it's possible in this record he can make a showing that this condition in fact his business what he hasn't done on this record is make that showing he hasn't shown how would affect his networking in any networking work he doesn't even talk about how much networking does of you and has to do that after the difference between this and weird and i'm sorry to be coming back to that after you're onto another thought but it seems to me that think it's much more closely related to the crimes that were committed they are on camera in the sun recollection so i may be wrong but i thought that was a child pornography case there was an interstate traveling to have sex with a minor internet so i don't understand what the relevance is of the internet at all but i think given the time between computers and internet the probation office in the district court don't act reasonably in saying they simply want to monitor what the defendant is doing on the internet looking committed like to use a computer to commit a computer related crime here and not an internet related crime it's not like that child porn that you get from iceland or wherever it comes from can still search the internet particularly when you have the close ties between computers and internet in general although not specifically in this case because the probation office and the district court aren't bound to look for evidence simply of a past crime i mean that's not what  pictures he's going to he's going to transmitted counterfeit money on the internet well i think you could if you want to make a connection to hit this particular case that crime that he committed you could have reason to believe he might given that he approval specific equipment and then searching the condition was reasonable you are it is the government's burden to demonstrate that this condition is reasonably related and reasonably necessary there is no evidence in the record that the internet was it all involved that mr solace had any intention of uploading or distributing these images than more counterfeit and again your honor i don't know that it's necessary here and i certainly don't know on this record what type of searching would be available that would not cross over the line into a greater intrusion of privacy and a greater jeopardy liberty and is reasonably