Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google+ invite lands man in jail

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 203 posts

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#21

Post by ZoFreX »

tluyben2 wrote: post #16
rjknight wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it sounds unlikely, then there's probably more to the story. We don't know what happened between them that caused a judge to believe the order to be necessary, but I presume that such orders are not given lightly.

Well I presume that as well; I hope someone here has experience with that and can tell how hard it is? Because I just had that 'wow!' experience ; it feels like they hand them out at the police station to anyone asking :) I know they are not, but some 'actual', non media enlarged information would be great!

I'm confused as to why you are under the impression that restraining orders are 'normal', or that they hand them out to anyone asking, based on a single data point of one person getting one restraining order?

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#23

Post by pervycreeper »

tluyben2 wrote: post #10

I watch American tv shows and movies and am well aware of restraining orders but thought it was something very rare and almost never happens; now I read this. Is it that normal to get one 'after a breakup'? I have never heard anything like that in my country except for hardcore, life threatening criminal situations. Is it that easy to get one there and you actually get rounded up and hauled to a cell for violating wh…

(IANAL) Restraining orders are usually granted without requiring any evidence, aside from the testimony of the person requesting it. I believe it is a common strategy for (especially) women to exploit this in order to gain some sort of advantage over their partners following a breakup.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#24

Post by fridek »

I guess guy added her to his circles expecting a twitter-like model of following as a means of mild (or not) stalking. It's not that surprising that she got notified, but it would be great if "never send any email on my behalf" option existed in social networks.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#25

Post by Jgrubb »

blueskin_ wrote: post #15

Moral of the story: Don't use google+.

The story was that the "perp" claims he didn't even send the invite, that Google must've generated it for him. The moral of the story is that you might be a user of G+ and not even know it.

Read the article before boiling it down for us.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#26

Post by peterjancelis »

ZoFreX wrote: post #21
tluyben2 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I presume that as well; I hope someone here has experience with that and can tell how hard it is? Because I just had that 'wow!' experience ; it feels like they hand them out at the police station to anyone asking :) I know they are not, but some 'actual', non media enlarged information would be great!

I'm confused as to why you are under the impression that restraining orders are 'normal', or that they hand them out to anyone asking, based on a single data point of one person getting one restraining order?

He probably thinks so because of other comments above.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#27

Post by jiggy2011 »

buro9 wrote: post #20
rjknight wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "with the victim" here though. I mean, morally speaking, we are all with the victim - human decency alone demands that we have sympathy for their predicament, which is why we have things like restraining orders in the first place. But the enforcement of the order is done by the police and the state, and the state is in a position to imprison someone for an act which they did not commit, which seems to me…

I've edited my post. I side with the court (which is choosing to favour the person who asked for the restraining order). It's not been proven that Google did send an automated email. The only thing the court does know is that an email was sent, and it was "from" the person who is subject to the restraining order. If Google did send an automated email (which is unclear), then lawyers should be updating their advice to…

The question is where is the line drawn between contacting a person and a third party or script of some sort contacting the same person ostensibly on their behalf.

For another example a person working in telemarketing is usually given a list of numbers to call which are automatically dialed by the phone system so therefor has no direct control over who they "contact".

The usual standard for a court would be the intent of the alleged perpetrator (IANAL etc).

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#28

Post by MaulingMonkey »

tjgq wrote: post #3

The article focuses mainly on whether the man did indeed send the Google+ invitation to his former girlfriend. It seems to me that the actual troubling question is whether sending a Google+ invitation can be considered a violation of a restraining order. The bar is far too low when receiving a single inconsequential message that you have full ability to ignore can be considered a form of harassment.

Without knowing the details of the exact case behind the restraining order, it's hard to be certain the bar is set "far too low" as you assert. Set a hard bar like that, and many will simply see "I can get away with that!", and find as many such bars they can scrape under as possible - making up in volume what they lack in direct effect - or a line to slowly cross further and further when not nipped in the bud. This is, ultimately, why intent matters.

Sufficiently strong-willed people can ignore death threats as "inconsequential, empty bluster." However, this is neither necessarily wise, recommended, or easy, nor does it disqualify such threats as harassment.

While an invite is no death threat, I'd note there's another bar in play here too: The former girlfriend was, if we're to give her the benefit of the doubt, perturbed enough by this invitation to go down to the police station.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#29

Post by dredmorbius »

pervycreeper wrote: post #23
tluyben2 wrote: post #10

I watch American tv shows and movies and am well aware of restraining orders but thought it was something very rare and almost never happens; now I read this. Is it that normal to get one 'after a breakup'? I have never heard anything like that in my country except for hardcore, life threatening criminal situations. Is it that easy to get one there and you actually get rounded up and hauled to a cell for violating wh…

(IANAL) Restraining orders are usually granted without requiring any evidence, aside from the testimony of the person requesting it. I believe it is a common strategy for (especially) women to exploit this in order to gain some sort of advantage over their partners following a breakup.

There's a distinction in many jurisdictions between a temporary order (granted as a matter of course on prima facie statement of the requester) and a permanent order, which generally requires a hearing and evidence from both parties (though if only one shows, the order is generally granted base on preponderance of evidence).

ROs suffer from a number of deficiencies: if someone's really bent on doing harm, they can be grossly ineffective. And in some cases (particularly child custody, though also other divorce proceedings, as well as immigration situations due to provisions of VAWA), ROs can be grossly misused to attempt to gain benefits not otherwise available.

Typically a TRO should have a hearing within a few weeks, however this isn't always the case (particularly in more complicated situations), so "temporary" may be an extended period of time.

Orders are rarely granted reciprocally, that is, as mutual stay-away orders, though these are granted in some cases. A unilateral order turns what are otherwise lawful actions into criminal ones (usually misdemeanors, but not always). The requesting party may use the order to trap the restrained party, particularly as forms of indirect contact (as described in this story) may be construed as violations of the order.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#30

Post by einhverfr »

tluyben2 wrote: post #16
rjknight wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it sounds unlikely, then there's probably more to the story. We don't know what happened between them that caused a judge to believe the order to be necessary, but I presume that such orders are not given lightly.

Well I presume that as well; I hope someone here has experience with that and can tell how hard it is? Because I just had that 'wow!' experience ; it feels like they hand them out at the police station to anyone asking :) I know they are not, but some 'actual', non media enlarged information would be great!

IIRC the process is something like this (disclaimer, this is secondhand from listening to lawyers and I have no experience with the process):

1. Alleged victim goes to judge, gets temporary restraining order on essentially no evidence. This is supposed to be a stop-gap while further process is going on.

2. Alleged perpetrator is notified and a court date set to discuss whether the restraining order is appropriate.

Temporary restraining orders really require nothing more than an allegation to get. The idea is that if the situation is life-threatening, you don't want to wait for evidence, but they are also supposed to be temporary. Longer-term restraining orders are supposed to require evidence and an actual adversarial process.

The article does not say what sort of restraining order was at issue.

Post reply on HN