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

61–70 of 203 posts

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#61

Post by zamryok »

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.

I would word it differently: "for women to use this in order to regain some sort of advantage" considering the fact that women generally are at a strong disadvantage in society (especially when it comes to personal safety and income)

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#62

Post by einhverfr »

dredmorbius wrote: post #29
pervycreeper wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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…

> if someone's really bent on doing harm, they can be grossly ineffective.

Indeed. Among other things you have to tell the target where to stay away from (namely where you live, work, etc).

if someone really wants to hurt you, the restraining order contains all the information they need to carry out an attack.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#63

Post by einhverfr »

rmc wrote: post #32
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…

Well if the person is threatening your life, then it makes sense that you might break up with them...

But if the person is threatening your life, it makes no sense to get a restraining order.

"Yes, I know you want to kill me, so don't contact me, don't come near my home at such and such address, or my work at such and such address, or you will be guilty of a minor misdemeanor!" Right.... that's a good idea...

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#64

Post by [deleted] »

philbarr wrote: post #50

I have a friend who works the emergency telephone line and is getting increasingly frustrated with calls regarding Facebook. A typical call will have the caller complain that, "[person x] has written something horrible on my wall!" So he says, "hang on? They've written on your wall ? So you're friends with them?! Just un-friend them!" In fact in a recent review he was told off for groaning loudly on the telephone whe…

[deleted]

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#65

Post by sedha »

fridek wrote: post #24

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.

On Twitter you also get notified by email when someone follows you, only the recipient can opt out of this behaviour (which as it should be).

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#66

Post by sedha »

philbarr wrote: post #50

I have a friend who works the emergency telephone line and is getting increasingly frustrated with calls regarding Facebook. A typical call will have the caller complain that, "[person x] has written something horrible on my wall!" So he says, "hang on? They've written on your wall ? So you're friends with them?! Just un-friend them!" In fact in a recent review he was told off for groaning loudly on the telephone whe…

G+ did nothing out of the ordinary here (if indeed it did anything, there is plenty of guess work in that post) Facebook friending and Twitter following have landed many a person in jail, none of these services got this sort of blame for it.

When adding someone to your circle they get an email notification, same as when you follow someone on Twitter they get an email telling them that, But suddenly in G+ it's 'aggressive'?! sensationalism and blaming one service for something that is done by all and is mainly innocuous is bad form.

And for the record G+ doesn't bulk send invites to all your contacts that just misinformation and FUD spreading.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#67

Post by a3n »

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!

Probably varies from state to state. I once had a temporary restraining order served on someone based on nothing but my say so. I went to a judge with my lawyer, and the other party wasn't there and knew nothing about it until they were served.

To an outside observer it probably looked pretty mundane, but inside the little circle of conflict there were real dangers and the judge went with caution.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#68

Post by tomp »

zamryok wrote: post #61
pervycreeper wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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.

I would word it differently: "for women to use this in order to re gain some sort of advantage" considering the fact that women generally are at a strong dis advantage in society (especially when it comes to personal safety and income)

I don't want to discuss how and if women or men are disadvantaged by the society, but don't you think that gaining an unfair advantage over someone that did nothing to cause you to have the disadvantage initially doesn't really solve the problem?

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#69

Post by skrebbel »

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…

My thoughts exactly! I don't even know what "restraining order" is in my language.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#70

Post by adekok »

Joeboy wrote: post #54

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 s…

> 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 potential for abuse is high. The actual abuse is high.

"My partner hit me!" And he's out. The courts are required to have a hearing within 30 days. Call the court and ask for that, and you'll be laughed at. 6 months later, the accusation is dropped.

In the mean time you've lost your house, kids, and likely your job.

DoS attacks aren't limited to computers. When we make it easier to do something... we get more of that behavior. Both good and bad.

Post reply on HN