Okay. Truckers have the same kinds of systems; they use them to communicate. Let's say that a person working as a cab driver is convicted of something. I am sure that the judge is going to let him use the cab company's digital network. But, if he loses his job, he cannot get another one as a truck driver because he will no longer be complying with the condition. I think that is clearly an abuse. The general nature of the court's order is an abuse.
When you want to restrict someone's rights, you must be more specific than vague. That is why Mr. Lee's proposed amendment is perfectly appropriate and justifiable. I gave you the example of the person who wants to move from driving a cab to a truck, maybe even a truck in a mine. All three of those jobs involve working with digital networks with which employees communicate with each other.
If you want to prohibit someone from doing something, you have to tell him exactly what it is. If you don't, you have prohibited him from using all networks when you wanted to prohibit him from using one. The objective of the section was to prohibit access to one network, but it actually prohibits access to all other networks of the same kind.
In my opinion, the amendment that Mr. Lee has introduced is an important one.