Probation Says Online Criticism of Contractor Does Not Cross the Line

Blast Zone No. 3244 - 0 Comments
Set Up On:
Category: Other - News
Current Courthouse Address:
1000 SW Third Ave.
Portland, Oregon 97204
Do Not Cross the Line
Do Not Cross the Line

My probation officer told me today that my online criticism of a probation contractor did not cross the line. By that he meant it did not break the law or violate any of my conditions of supervised release. I could tell that he was not happy about it and that was understandable. The company did not like it either even though as you can see by clicking on the link to the review that I have since turned it into a positive recommendation for RemoteCom because even if they did cause the problem, which they deny, the problem disappeared within 24 hours of me writing the review and contacting them. I simply asked that they not block me from a specific website that I own and offered to change my scathing complaint into a positive review. I am not saying that they did anything other than tell probation about this but if they did I am thankful and still want to do business with them.

This kind of consumer advocacy works great with companies even if the company is one contracted by the government to assist with law enforcement functions. By venting your problem online you are creating a problem for them beyond just being another number in the queue at customer service. Companies know that people use online reviews to decide what to buy and that resolving such disputes is good for business. If you have an issue with a government contractor I recommend venting it online and giving them the chance to turn that into a positive based on how they respond. RemoteCom responded well so their review now reflects that.

I say even though they did not block the website from my computer because they and probation deny that they had anything to do with it and I cannot conclusively prove that it was them. The situation was that I had been banned from running a website in an old case and that when that case expired and the site was back up I could not view it even though other people on the same network and other networks could. This led me to believe that it was a problem with my machine and not the website. I did not make any changes to the server that would explain the problem going away. On the other hand the tone of RemoteCom's last emails sounds like how someone would react that was falsely accused of something. Their last message stated:

"Thank you for your email. Since we were not blocking you in the first place, nothing has been changed in any way on our end. If you are now able to access your site, you may consider any changes you have made on the device in the last few days, to prevent having the same issues in the future. Thanks, RemoteCOM Support"

The important thing to remember here is that as a person on supervision I still have rights and so do others similarly situated. My heart was racing as I went to my meeting with probation because I have been falsely accused of violations in the past. Today I explained what I did, why did it, and why I would do it again. My PO although visibly dissatisfied ultimately did his job and admitted that none of it crossed the line.

Login to Comment using a Account.


Register if you don't have a local account.

Use another service to log in.

There are no external authentication services configured. See this article for reasons why ASP.NET applications should not support logging in via external services.