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

121–130 of 203 posts

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#121

Post by nathanb »

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…

Bjarne Stroustrup has a great quote which is something like (from memory, so I don't guarantee complete accuracy) "I used to want a computer which was as easy to use as a telephone. I got my wish; I now no longer know how to use my telephone".

The problem is that software (and social networking software in particular) is designed to take advantage of general unfamiliarity / cluelessness and manipulate people into doing something they didn't actually intend to do. The case is legally interesting for two reasons:

1. As DanBC pointed out above, when you have a restraining order against you, you are expected to take reasonable precaution not to violate it inadvertently. However, accidentally running into your ex in the grocery store is not in itself a violation -- so long as you do not then proceed to intentionally violate the order. Could an inadvertent social networking invitation constitute a violation due to lack of reasonable precaution, or it it more like the grocery store scenario?

2. The argument from ignorance. Computer systems are frequently regarded by laypeople as being not just unknown but unknowable. Can it be successfully argued that this crazy computer stuff is just too complicated and that a reasonable person could not take adequate precaution against the whims of an unknowable computer system.

This is the adult, 21st-century version of "the dog ate my homework" -- "Google violated my restraining order". Should it go to court? Absolutely. But it's still of great interest to the HN crowd because -- depending on the technical understanding of the judge and the type of argument chosen by the counsel -- it could end up impacting the design of web services and the sort of legal arguments we see decades into the future.

Usual disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, anything I say about legal matters is probably wrong, if restraining order lasts for more than four hours consult a physician, etc.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#122

Post by einhverfr »

cdash wrote: post #74
einhverfr wrote: post #30

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?

Oh I agree with you. If I thought someone might actually try to kill me (not just hurt me), a restraining order is the last thing I would get. I'd go into hiding instead. But I understand that to be the theory.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#123

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast »

Joeboy wrote: post #78
leephillips wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some states the order will curtail your right to purchase a firearm or, possibly, to exercise other 2nd amendment rights. Depending on your circumstances, this might endanger your life. That the courts can eliminate some of a citizen's rights based on an unsupported complaint with no due process might not be considered reasonable by everybody.

I'm not from the US, so that concern sounds bizarre to me.

I am from the US, and that's just a normal gun nut asshole opinion.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#124

Post by DanBC »

jaredmcateer wrote: post #114
DanBC wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Did i do anything to trigger that company to send the mail?

Did I take that action after the order or not?

Because doing something when I'm married and forgetting to undo that after a restraining order is different to deliberately doing something after an order has been taken out.

If a spammer is spoofing my details I can demonstrate to the court that I had nothing to do with the sending of that spam. There's a reasonable point to be made about the burden of proof, i guess.

People who are spoofed did not send the contact.

Just checking but you do see the difference between:

Bob does nothing to contact Chris. But Sam Spammer sends an email to Chris using Bob's forged email details.

And

Bob joins a website. The website asks for access to Bob's email contacts, and offers to send emails to everyone on that list, and Bob says "go ahead".

When a judge tells you that you're going to jail if you break an order you either get ready to go to jail and break the order or you make efforts to not break the order. It is very normal to deal with i justice after the event by appealing at a pater date.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#125

Post by einhverfr »

king_jester wrote: post #82
cdash wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the situation is life-threatening, how would a restraining order prevent it?

In some places, restraining orders can be a barrier to things like purchasing a gun. But generally speaking, restraining orders alone aren't enough to prevent life-threatening situations.

Are there any jurisdictions where it is a barrier to, say, purchasing a knife? I doubt it. Again, if I thought my life was in danger, a restraining order would not be sought.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#126

Post by hyperpape »

einhverfr wrote: post #118
hyperpape wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fair enough for that literal description, meaning that the parent poster was sloppy. But at some point between an unfriendly breakup and literal threats of murder, the restraining order is the right response. I think that's the key point.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#127

Post by einhverfr »

drdaeman wrote: post #47

I wonder if restraining orders apply to third parties contacting on behalf of the restrained person? Suppose, it's violation only if it's proven that the person willingly made third party to make contact? (Otherwise it's nearly trivial to put anyone under a restraining order to courtroom, huh.)

If they did, the third party would have a right to be told about it proactively and a right to contest it. I am betting there is no jurisdiction that does this.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#128

Post by DanBC »

xtirpation wrote: post #109
DanBC wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sure, I agree that special steps should be taken, but in our age of automatic/transparent updates and data longevity I think we need to re-evaluate the immediate responses taken by law enforcement when restraining orders are violated. 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). S…

I agree that apps and aspects of modern life make it too easy for someone to appear to have broken an order even if they had no intent of doing so.

Perhaps some kind of pre-court mediation where the parties can apologies and explain and demonstrate willingness to abide by the order?

I kind of hope that headlines like "Facebook request sent me to prison" makes app authors think carefully about grabbing email address lists and sending to all of them.

Perhaps there could be a honeypot project where people include trap addresses on their contact lists?

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#129

Post by DanBC »

farginay wrote: post #117
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 cons…

Cultural note: is this the kind of thing that uk legal aid no longer covers?

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#130

Post by DanBC »

einhverfr wrote: post #119
DanBC wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Court orders are subject to due process. When you give software permission to access your email contact list, and then permission to send email to everyone on that lost, and you are under a court order that places restrictions on who you are allowed to contact, you don't the get to say "whoops! I didn't realise that all this contacting people stuff might be covered by the don't contact this person court order".
Post reply on HN