Live data from Hacker News

Google+ invite lands man in jail

fastcompany.com

151–160 of 203 posts

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#151
post #132
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

>clicky clicky friend request sent to everyone in person b's list The person with the restraining order has the responsibly to remove that person from their lists. Email, phone, etc, so they don't accidentally press a wrong button, butt dial, etc. I know once or twice I dialed the wrong contact. They also have the responsibility to drive a different way home so they don't go by their house. They didn't take the prope…

I agree!

It is a shame that the law doesn't distinguish between people maliciously breaking the order and people who because of stress and distress forget to remove all old. Ontacts from all old lists and accidentally sends, via an automated service, a boiler plate message.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#152
post #132
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

>clicky clicky friend request sent to everyone in person b's list The person with the restraining order has the responsibly to remove that person from their lists. Email, phone, etc, so they don't accidentally press a wrong button, butt dial, etc. I know once or twice I dialed the wrong contact. They also have the responsibility to drive a different way home so they don't go by their house. They didn't take the prope…

In this scenario, B didn't get the papers to let them know about the restraining order until after the "clicky clicky".

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#154
post #14

Why did the former girlfriend did not block the profile ? Google may have not advertised this feature but it doesn't look like hard to find...

Blocking does not prevent him from seeing her public posts, though. She may not notice, but you could still argue it's a form of stalking. And because of that notification, she now knows.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#155

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 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.

The data is here. Common? You decide.

http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/ortner/docs/sorenson_doc2.pdf

The available information about restrained persons typically has been documented within the context of assessing the efficacy of restraining orders that were issued because of domestic violence. A random sample of 200 defendants in domestic violence or civil protection orders in San Diego during a 10-week period in 1990 (Meloy et al., 1997) indicates that most (72%) were men, and that the average age was 38 years (range 15 to 70 years). Caucasians predominated (57%), but there were substantial proportions of Blacks (22.5%) and Hispanics (17.5%) as well; ethnicity was unknown for 3% of the defendants. (Whether any of these groups were disproportionately represented is unknown; rates were not calculated.) A total of 11% had at least one contact with the county’s mental health services agency. A study of all 663 men against whom civil protection orders were granted in Quincy, Massachusetts (Klein, 1996), also in 1990, found an average age of 33 years (range 17 to 70 years) for the defendants. Half (49.5%) were not married, 46.6% were married, and 3.9% were formerly married. Almost 80% of the defendants had a prior criminal record within the state; more than half (54%) had at least one prior record for an alcohol or drug crime, usually drunk driving. Information on defendant ethnicity was not reported. The primary, albeit not the sole, focus of the present research is the person to be restrained. Such information can help increase the effectiveness of violence prevention efforts, which is not a small consideration given the history of violence among restrained persons—about three fourths of men against whom restraining orders are issued have prior criminal records (Isaac, Cochran, Brown, & Adam, 1994; Klein, 1996), and nearly half have committed a violent crime (Isaac et al., 1994).

Results indicate that about one fifth of the restraining orders are to restrain someone of the same gender as the protected person. It is not possible to ascertain with the available data whether these cases represent violence in gay and lesbian relationships or heterosexual pairings gone awry (e.g., to order the former male partner of a woman to stay away from her current male partner) or an unrealized relationship, as is often the situation in cases of stalking. Further research is needed to address the nature of same- and opposite- sex pairings in restraining orders.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#156
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…

Completely agree. I'm astonished that somebody got a restraining order against sending normal (as oposed to threatening or something like that) email. If he phoned a radio station while she was listenning it, would he also go to jail?

> If he phoned a radio station while she was listenning it, would he also go to jail?

I doubt it. The radio is a public forum that has nothing to do with her. As long as he doesn't mention her at all, it should be fine. (I assume; I'm no lawyer.)

Similarly, he can have a blog, and her accidentally stumbling upon it should not count as a violation.

Sending any kind of email directly to her, however, is direct contact and probably a violation of the restraining order.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#157
post #143
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…

What if it was a spam email from a bot impersonating Google+? I occasionally scan my spam, and it doesn't seem out of the question. Once printed out, would you be sure that all judge/prosecutors would notice or want to notice? Restraining orders don't come out of the blue, but there is plenty of reason to avoid sending someone to jail because a no-content email contained their name.

That would be an awful situation to be in.

I very much hope that someone in such a situation would be able to submit some evidence showing that it was not them that sent the message. Unfortunately, suing for wrongful arrest takes tome and money and might happen after the person has spent time in prison and lost jobs etc etc.

Do you know anything that can reduce the number of spouses being murdered or hospitalised by their spouse, and that could reduce the need for court procedures, and could reduce the miscarriages of justice, and that would cost less than the current system?

I'm not being facestious either. UK has removed legal aid for famy court proceedings and so people have to muddle through this with no legal representation. It takes ages and is weird and stupid.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#158
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

From a purely letter of the law interpretation, you're not wrong (at the moment). What you're missing (and the reason that you seem to have to respond again and again with this type of comment) is that we're in the middle of redefining what the word "contact" means, and that heavily influences the spirit of the law.

When restraining order laws were written, contacting someone took at least a modicum of effort. You had to write a letter, or type an email, or pick up the phone and dial a number, or take the time to travel to visit someone. It was a process that took premeditation. You simply couldn't contact someone with as little as a button press (that may or may not even make it explicitly clear who you're contacting). In fact, the law explicitly has exemptions for contact that was not premeditated, such as running into someone accidentally in public.

However now we've got systems that intentionally place people in contact because it increases revenue for the service running it. They've made it so easy to contact wide swaths of people in a completely impersonal manner that my cat could "contact" people on Facebook by walking across the keyboard.

So the real question people are asking is: does an automated online service sending an email with my name in it to a person constitute contacting that person. I'm not sure it does. By the general attitude in the thread, it seems a lot of people are also hesitant to call that contact.

So sure, you're right about this constituting contact in current law, but what we're seeing is that current law has not kept up with social perceptions of what people think of as contact. This means the law is probably going to change in the next decade or two. Hell, it might even change right now because of this case.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#159
post #153

sigh , and with this comment thread, Hacker News has completed its transformation into Reddit. Well, that and the multi-day outage. So, where to next?

Re-read the guidines about accounts less than a year and Reddit. You're right about the flood of MRAs from reddit.

But flag the submissions you think don't belong here and up ote the submissions that do belong here.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#160
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

From a purely letter of the law interpretation, you're not wrong (at the moment). What you're missing (and the reason that you seem to have to respond again and again with this type of comment) is that we're in the middle of redefining what the word "contact" means, and that heavily influences the spirit of the law. When restraining order laws were written, contacting someone took at least a modicum of effort. You ha…

A judge tells me not to contact X.

I should be hyperaware of anything around "contact" - this includes automatic systems.

There are not many systems that will access your contact list wihtout permission.

There are not many systems that will then send a contact to everyone on that list without permission.

So a person has to take several steps:

1) not remove X's contact details

2) allow access to contact list

2a) allow contact to happen

(2 and 2a are often bundled into on step).

This feels really clear to me. But perhaps we need to give a "single accidental blerate contact exemption" - this allows someone to male a mistake once, but not to abuse the system by joining dozens of networks to send many many requests.

It should be noted that the changing definition of contact isn't particulay new.

Bob is givi g a restraining order, so he starts shopping i. A new part of town. He doesn't know that Ann uas got a job there. He will be thought of as breaking the order until he. An explain that he had no way of knowing that Ann worked there.

Post reply on HN