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

51–60 of 203 posts

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#51

Post by andybak »

chillingeffect wrote: post #44
DominikR wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you possibly exaggerate any more? 10%? Really? With the multi column newsfeed on Google+ it's just impossible that you see less content than on Facebook. And how does your comment have anything to do with the article?

One of the points of the article is that it's hard to tell and control what is happening on the Google+ interface and system. Add A/B testing and rollout of new features, utter lack of accountability and bugs, and probably no one in the world can ACTUALLY TELL if the alleged abuser actually sent an invite.

> One of the points of the article is that it's hard to tell and control what is happening on the Google+ interface and system.

I was a little skeptical of that part. Is it really that easy to accidentally invite someone?

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#52

Post by einhverfr »

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…

If violating a restraining order is a misdemeanor or other crime, which it certainly is if bail is set, then the burden of proof goes the other way at trial (which we aren't at yet).

The state must prove he sent it (probably, I am assuming, knowingly --- I doubt that fat-fingering is enough given due process requirements), and they must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#53

Post by einhverfr »

chillingeffect wrote: post #36
ZoFreX wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There are 2 to 3 million of them handed out each year [1]. If not "normal," that's certainly _common_. There is no proof or evidence required to issue one. The judge only reads a description of events. It is not required for the restrained party to be there to defend or present counter-evidence. It's simply a 5-10 minute meeting between a judge and a person who alleges "fear" or "emotional harm." Exact laws vary from…

Right you are talking about a temporary restraining orders, right? For a full fledged restraining order there is at least supposed to be a showing of evidence and an opportunity to rebut the evidence on the part of the other party, right? The article you link to seems to lump these together with no real discussion of the process.

The idea behind a lax standard for TRO's is that if there is danger, the court should temporarily try to mitigate it, pending further process.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#54

Post by Joeboy »

It seems reasonable to me that courts should be able to issue temporary restraining orders without requiring much evidence, as long as it's generally understood that that's what happened.

The problem here seems to be that the man was held accountable for a breach of such an order that was both minimal and unintentional. I would guess that the law takes this possibility into account, and the police involved probably should have rejected the woman's complaint as vexatious, if that was the entire basis of her complaint.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#55

Post by einhverfr »

buro9 wrote: post #6
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.

A restraining order is against any form of contact. You (and I) don't know the circumstances that led to the restraining order. There may have been violence, intimidation, harassment, abuse. This may even form part of a consistent pattern of abuse. The woman in this case may feel so traumatised by any reminder of her ex, or contact from him, that the act of receiving an email from him (on his behalf) may actually be…

I don't know if the bar is too low, since crimes have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jailing someone here seems rather excessive though.

Keep in mind I find this no contact thing rather weird. Of course I spent most of my adult life in small towns in the US, where such a broad order would be met with "no contact? In a town of 3000 people? Are you saying he has to move out of town?"

I have also known people who were heavily threatened by exes and opted to just disappear for a while. The reason is that if you are really in danger, then the last thing you want is to tell the target of the order where to avoid (because that's where you will be). Due notice (a Constitutional requirement) makes restraining orders useless against someone dangerous enough.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#56

Post by einhverfr »

ithkuil wrote: post #49
buro9 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If Google did send an automated email (which is unclear), then lawyers should be updating their advice to the subjects of restraining orders to ensure that their contact lists are purged appropriately. so basically you are saying that when something in the law is not clear, it's the job of the lawyers to make it sure they give proper advice to the next person coming into that situation, while the unlucky first pers…

> "so basically you are saying that when something in the law is not clear, it's the job of the lawyers to make it sure they give proper advice to the next person coming into that situation, while the unlucky first person just has to face consequences?"

That is a lawyer's job, yes.

On the other hand, it is also our Constitutional tradition to give the defendant generally the benefit of the doubt on the law (rule of lenity, reasonable doubt, and so forth).

You can't hold someone in violation of a law he or she could not have reasonably foreseen.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#58

Post by patio11 »

rjknight wrote: post #13
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…

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.

Assume that a restraining order represents someone's strongly held desire to get a restraining order. That's the limiting factor. It's much closer to "X was sued" (Y filed some paperwork) than "X was found guilty of a criminal offense."

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#59

Post by einhverfr »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #27
buro9 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inten…

I would think it would be either "intentionally" or "knowingly." In other words if you sent the email intending to contact the other person that's pretty clearly there. I would suspect at least some states would draw the line at "knew or should have known" when you hit send.

But "couldn't reasonably have known" is different. If Google is, for example, looking at your past email contacts and sending invites out on your behalf then that is so far beyond "knew or should have known" that I can't imagine it applying.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#60

Post by DominikR »

voidr wrote: post #42
DominikR wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you possibly exaggerate any more? 10%? Really? With the multi column newsfeed on Google+ it's just impossible that you see less content than on Facebook. And how does your comment have anything to do with the article?

> Could you possibly exaggerate any more? 10%? Really? > With the multi column newsfeed on Google+ it's just impossible that you see less content than on Facebook. Look at the screenshot I posted on the original content. The point of my comment was that Google should focus on making their product actually usable instead of trying to carve out some market share by brute force.

> Look at the screenshot I posted on the original content.

Seems to be a new (or inactive) G+ account that is following few (if any) active users.

What are you honestly expecting to see in your newsfeed?

Post reply on HN