101–110 of 203 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually know jack-shit about Google+. I assumed what the article was talking about was like a Facebook friend request where you have to individually invite a specific person. Will Google+ really just randomly spam people you've had e-mail conversations with?
Facebook can and does "randomly spam" people you've had e-mail conversations with if you let them at your address book.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A restraining order means no contact, period. Life isn't kindergarten. Just because it's "online" doesn't mean that kindergarten rules apply. "No touching" doesn't mean "let's see if I can get away with just touching you with one pinky." A friend request, even if easily rejected, is definitely contact, as much as a text message or a phone call (which can also be blocked). The issue isn't how easy it is to block, it's…
You're right of course, but I struggle to view the world in such a black-and-white manner to be honest especially when there are black boxes like in play, Google+'s source code in this case. How much proof would have to be provided that the Google+ invitation was sent deliberately by the user? Sworn testimony from a Google employee? There can of course exist bugs that send invites erroneously that nobody knows about.…
The order is designed to be black and white to provide clear, firm, boundaries over which you will not pass. Before the restraining order there are several levels of allowance which let people obey the spirit (no contact) or to experiment with boundaries.
When under a restraining order you need to take special steps to ensure complyance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually know jack-shit about Google+. I assumed what the article was talking about was like a Facebook friend request where you have to individually invite a specific person. Will Google+ really just randomly spam people you've had e-mail conversations with?
Facebook can and does "randomly spam" people you've had e-mail conversations with if you let them at your address book.
Do we know if Google+ invites are sent deliberately? I think on Facebook you can prove who sent a friend request. That said, being arrested for a friend-request is silly. She could just block/ban/reject the request and no harm done. I would like to know the name of judge or prosecutor(?) who accepted a Google+ friend request as breach of restraining order . I get the very strong feeling that judges/prosecutors and la…
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…
It is kind of telling that people seem to have become inured enough to the extremely anti-male nature of such laws in the US that they are seriously discussing whether or not sending a man to jail over sending a Google+ invite to a woman is okay or not, saying "it depends upon the circumstances" and whatnot. Are you kidding me? Seriously, seeing "You got a Google+ invite from X" can cause you so much mental harm that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook can and does "randomly spam" people you've had e-mail conversations with if you let them at your address book.
True, and furthermore, services like this (FB, G+, LI, etc.) have every incentive to escalate their involuntary contacts over time. Every once in a while they'll go too far too quickly and have to backtrack due to public outcry, but there won't be any outcry about the plight of alleged order-violators. In general you should expect every service that knows your name and any other person's contact info to send that per…
It would be even nicer if courts put a stop to this madness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does this case clarify whether the Google+ invite was sent individually and deliberately, or as part of a mass "find friends" style feature and thus inadvertently?
I actually know jack-shit about Google+. I assumed what the article was talking about was like a Facebook friend request where you have to individually invite a specific person. Will Google+ really just randomly spam people you've had e-mail conversations with?
Man: {apparently continues harassing her}
Police: {enforce}
Not seeing what the problem is here. The question of whether he actually did attempt to contact her is a fact-based one for the courts...
Similarly, if the woman receives a phone call with heavy breathing from the man's home phone number, it's certainly possible that he didn't do it: perhaps someone broke into his house and called her. He can certainly argue that in court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right of course, but I struggle to view the world in such a black-and-white manner to be honest especially when there are black boxes like in play, Google+'s source code in this case. How much proof would have to be provided that the Google+ invitation was sent deliberately by the user? Sworn testimony from a Google employee? There can of course exist bugs that send invites erroneously that nobody knows about.…
When someone has taken a restraining order out you've lost your rights to shades of grey. The order is designed to be black and white to provide clear, firm, boundaries over which you will not pass. Before the restraining order there are several levels of allowance which let people obey the spirit (no contact) or to experiment with boundaries. When under a restraining order you need to take special steps to ensure co…
It's not at all far-fetched for scenarios where apps automatically send messages to current/previous contacts without the user's consent (in fact we've seen this time and time again). Should the immediate response really be to jail the offender, especially if the process for proving intention one way or another can be long and arduous? Because if that's the case, what we're really asking is for people with restraining orders to become technology-shunning luddites since they can't guarantee the apps they use won't have mined their connections in the past, or that apps they've stopped using after the restraining order don't send messages on their behalf.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Te…
If the situation is life-threatening, how would a restraining order prevent it?
A full restraining order is different.