Google+ invite lands man in jail • Hacker News Board

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#111

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 2:42 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #106

jessaustin wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 will be nice when the courts figure this out; I don't expect it to take them more than twenty years. It would be even nicer if courts put a stop to this madness.

Eh, maybe. I can't really picture a law forbidding automated email that wouldn't have horrible consequences for most citizens. Perhaps the courts ought to just accept that the world changes and change along with it?

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#112

Post by DanBC » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 2:46 PM UTC

andybak wrote: post #51

chillingeffect wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Look at botnet and malware numbers.

Some of that malware is really crude, and pretty much said "you didn't install any software, but here I am, a bit of software installing itself and asking you for permission. Be careful, because i could be a virus and do real damage to your system. So, you know nothing about me, and I could be dangerous. Do you want to install me?"

See also the numbers of people who fall for 419 scams.

Hell, I don't know how to use the gmail iPhone app; the Facebook iPhone app, the Reddit mobile site. I come from a generation where you click it and see what happens. Without a confirmation step that click could now land me in jail.

What's weird is that Google have the numbers and the skill to test their UI Changes. The UI must make sense to most people or Google would iterate it.

It makes me feel decidedly behind the apex. Like an old man needing a 12 year old to set the VCR clock.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#113

Post by rayiner » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 2:47 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #111

rayiner wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It will be nice when the courts figure this out; I don't expect it to take them more than twenty years. It would be even nicer if courts put a stop to this madness.

Eh, maybe. I can't really picture a law forbidding automated email that wouldn't have horrible consequences for most citizens. Perhaps the courts ought to just accept that the world changes and change along with it?

The world changes, but at the end of the day, unwanted, unsolicited contact is the same whether it's via e-mail, text message, phone call, fax, carrier pigeon, etc. The fact that technology makes it easier for companies like Facebook and Google to do stupid things like spam your contact list doesn't mean that courts should change unrelated rules as a result.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#114

Post by jaredmcateer » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 2:49 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #102

xtirpation wrote: post #94

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…

Say hypothetically you have a restraining order against you, and a company sends a piece of mail to your ex with your address as the return address and worded to look like it was from you. According to what you're saying, you'd be in the wrong because you didn't go through every company you've ever dealt with to tell them not to do that?

Because this is exactly what social media sites experiment with every day, they spoof their users or make it very confusing as to who exactly is sending correspondence and with email it's extremely easy to make it look like it came from the user when in fact they had no knowledge of this practice.

What are your thoughts on spammers spoofing you? Plenty phishing attempts happen this way, a spammer gets a hold of a mutual acquaintance's contact list, and sends email to one pretending to be another, without shades of grey you're saying that the spoofed individual should not be given some slack?

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#115

Post by sophacles » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 2:50 PM UTC

sedha wrote: post #66

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 'aggres…

I haven't consciously used G+ in a long time, yet people still occasionally get emails about me "adding them back". It's a very strange system and since I have no idea wtf it does or how it works, it can't really be said I'm doing that. I just read emails and use docs, and occasionally chat with a handful of people.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#116

Post by DanBC » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 2:55 PM UTC

jellicle wrote: post #108

Judge: do not contact this woman. 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…

I agree with you.

The problem is that the order of events is sometimes:

Person a: "i swear in court under penalties that person B poses a risk of harm to me and I want the court to prevent access"

Judge "person b must not contact person a at all. This is a temporary order until we get a full hearing. Serve the papers so that person b knows about this because their not here for this meeting."

Person b: "my life sucks. I need some friends to support me. I'll join this social network", clicky clicky friend request sent to everyone in person b's list

Papers served

Person b: well, fair enough, i wont contact them.

Police: arrest.

Sadly this is yet another topic being distorted by deranged MRAs.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#117

Post by farginay » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 2:56 PM UTC

jellicle wrote: post #108

Judge: do not contact this woman. 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…

I think that if it was your money paying for a lawyer you'd see the problem more readily.

The way you described the legal process is accurate: have a trial, having findings of fact. The thing people forget is that the process of being arrested, posting bail, paying for and going through the legal system, and putting one's life on hold for a period of time, is often more punishment than the fine or sentence under consideration.

This is why prosecutorial discretion and police discretion are important. When they are abused people suffer. And, sadly the accused have no voice at that stage of the process.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#118

Post by einhverfr » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 2:57 PM UTC

hyperpape wrote: post #81

einhverfr wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It's true that it isn't nearly as effective as you'd hope but it does help enhance your ability to get the police quickly involved, establish a paper trail, etc.

None of that matters if you are dead.

If someone is out to kill you, go hide with relatives, some ways not too close. Don't serve them with a restraining order.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#119

Post by einhverfr » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 3:00 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #102

xtirpation wrote: post #94

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…

> When someone has taken a restraining order out you've lost your rights to shades of grey.

Silly me. I thought proof beyond a reasonable doubt was still required. I would expect that it would only apply to knowing (or even deliberate) behavior.

Oh wait, due process was so 20th century....

You don't get to throw someone in jail for something that doesn't reach the "known or should have known" threshold in this case. Due notice and due process are still the law of the land.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#120

Post by einhverfr » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 3:01 PM UTC

jellicle wrote: post #108

Judge: do not contact this woman. 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…

> 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.

And all he has to do to win is raise reasonable doubt. Get a friend to say "I did it as a prank, and he told me not to." No restraining order violated.