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

11–20 of 203 posts

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#11

Post by DominikR »

voidr wrote: post #7

Just opened up Google+ on a 15" Mac Book Pro in Chrome and all I see is whitespace and "You may know", "Interesting people and pages" and other useless crap, what I'm not seeing is my feed . Only around 10% of the screen space is used for things I care about, it really baffles me how Google thinks that this is a contender against Facebook. They should realise that spamming people won't make them like their horrible U…

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?

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#12

Post by rjknight »

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…

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 to be unfair. If Google carries out automated actions on behalf of its users, without their knowledge or permission and in a way that they cannot reasonably predict or prevent, then it seems unjust to punish the user.

You can say that the person should have removed the victim from their contacts, but it's not even obvious that they would have known that the victim was on their contact list (basically, anyone you ever email gets added to it), and even if they did know, they would have no particular reason to assume that Google would contact this person automatically.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#13

Post by rjknight »

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.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#16

Post by tluyben2 »

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.

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!

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#17

Post by BitMastro »

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…

Slightly unrelated, but how does a restraining order behaves when dealing with a broadcast?

For example, if the attacker buys an ad on a newspaper or tv and says something without addressing the victim specifically, is it against the law?

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#18

Post by narag »

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…

Maybe I don't understand correctly the legal terms but this:

You (and I) don't know the circumstances that led to the restraining order.

... doesn't seem to be very consistent with this:

I'm with the victim on this.

Isn't it possible for a court to issue mutual restraint orders? Or maybe the order is a preventive measure for alledged facts that are still to be evaluated.

We don't know what happened to motivate the order. We know who the victim is here: the guy that got jailed.

Also, I don't think it's very reasonable to expect most users to know how to purge personal information from sites, it's a recurring theme over here.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#19

Post by awk23 »

voidr wrote: post #7

Just opened up Google+ on a 15" Mac Book Pro in Chrome and all I see is whitespace and "You may know", "Interesting people and pages" and other useless crap, what I'm not seeing is my feed . Only around 10% of the screen space is used for things I care about, it really baffles me how Google thinks that this is a contender against Facebook. They should realise that spamming people won't make them like their horrible U…

That is beside the point. Also G+ isn't a 1:1 Facebook competitor.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#20

Post by buro9 »

rjknight wrote: post #12
buro9 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 the subjects of restraining orders to ensure that their contact lists are purged appropriately.

Post reply on HN