Google+ invite lands man in jail • Hacker News Board

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#191

Post by einhverfr » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 2:43 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #160

bluntly_said wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would still expect the state to have to prove that he actually sent the invite. They can do this easily enough, issuing a subpoena for a criminal case to Google under the stored communications act or a search warrant under the same act if it is necessary. If Google doesn't have records to show that a link was actually clicked on, or the records don't show that, no violation.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#192

Post by einhverfr » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 2:44 AM UTC

knorby wrote: post #143

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…

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.

simple defence is "I didn't send it. I didn't know or could have known that Google would do this if I didn't act."

If the state doesn't produce records from Google, they lose. Simple.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#193

Post by einhverfr » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 3:00 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #187

einhverfr wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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. The trier of fact -- jury in a jury trial, judge in a bench trial -- is free (expected, even) to assess the credibility of evidence, including witness testimony. The fact that you get a witness to claim an alternative explanation to one that can be inferred from the…

This is true, of course, and the prosecution will try to impeach the witness. But testimony without a significant reason to disbelieve I would think would be reasonable doubt if I was on a jury.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#194

Post by einhverfr » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 3:10 AM UTC

hyperpape wrote: post #126

einhverfr wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh sure. I would even say a "credible threat of murder."

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#195

Post by rmc » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 9:26 AM UTC

parennoob wrote: post #179

rmc wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts told him "no contact". This wasn't some frivilous law suit of "emotional harm", this was a judge saying "If you do this, you'll go to jail", and the person did the thing.

If courts can send you to jail for sending a service invite to someone (something that might easily be done by accident and completely unintentionally -- think LinkedIn's dark pattern for inviting friends), then people should be outraged by that. Once upon a time, courts also used to send you to jail for marrying a person from a different race. That does not mean you should accept that decision unquestioningly.

Agreed that if Google automatically sent the invite then that means that the accused didn't send it, and hence didn't break the law. However we don't know, in this case, if that's the case. If he did sent the invite, then he broke the order

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#196

Post by rmc » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 9:32 AM UTC

einhverfr wrote: post #190

rmc wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a restraining order is the last thing I would get. I'd go into hiding instead Not an option for some people. You need savings and cash while hiding. What if you have children, can you just pull them out of school (say), while you hide? How long would you hide for? 5 years?

If you have kids together, the restraining order is going to be very limited due to custody issues. A no contact order would be silly in that case.

No necessarily, the custody issues might be solved. e.g. what if a couple (with kids) break up due to the husband beating the wife and kids. Father gets no custody and there is a restraining order to prevent him contacting them (y'know so he doesn't beat them again).

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#197

Post by rmc » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 10:18 AM UTC

hyperpape wrote: post #149

aestra wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If someone is out to kill you, go hide with relatives, some ways not too close. Define not too close. My closest relatives are over 200 miles away. Am I expected to quit my job? Take my children (If I had them) out of school? For how long? This person may know exactly who all your relatives are and where they live, thus know exactly where to find you anyways.

I think the real answer is "don't take advice from HN". I know someone who moved halfway across the country to avoid domestic violence. Sometimes it is an answer. It shouldn't ever need to be, but in reality, it's sometimes the only option a woman has available.

So let's create some new options like restraining orders.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#198

Post by DanBC » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 10:20 AM UTC

parennoob wrote: post #182

DanBC wrote: 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.…

Wait, so you think putting a person in jail for accidentally forgetting to uncheck a "Send requests to all my contacts" box is a perfectly reasonable thing, and the MRAs are deranged? I think you need to empathize more with people who are not as familiar with the web as you are. Spotting dark patterns in webapps and avoiding them is a far, far more difficult thing than, for example, not accidentally pressing a speed…

Perhaps you didn't read it yet, but i have already said that there should perhaps be a single exemption for auto generated boiler plate text.

But still, breaking a court order is never a good idea. Saying that you broke it inadvertantly isn't enough. The court order is a clear bright line and you're expected to take special measures to avoid breaking the order.

If you want me to have any sympathy you'd need to find numbers of people caught by this, broken down by temporary and full orders, and by consequences (police chat, arrest and chat, arrest and prosecution, arrest and prosecution and punishment, arrest and prosecution and jail).

I've heard of a few instances of people getting into trouble after this kind of auto contact. Either it's rare enough to not be a problem, or it's so common that it isn't reported. I'd agree that if it was happening to tens of people a year that it would be too many.

Finally, use of prison for people who do not have a history of violence is not suitable, so i only support it if it's only a week or so.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#199

Post by DanBC » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 10:27 AM UTC

parennoob wrote: post #180

DanBC wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The behaviour he was put in prison for was not "sending a G+ in invite" but "violating a court order".

Again, in several regimes, "court orders" have been served that are accepted as being human rights violations today. You don't accept a ruling as being correct just because it is a court order (not going any further to avoid invoking Godwin's Law.)

You either obey the court order while you appeal it and fight the injustice. Or you disobey the court order and go to jail and appeal the court order and fight the injustice.

But while the order stands it will be enforced by the apperatus of the law.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#200

Post by DominikR » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 11:18 AM UTC

kgarten wrote: post #87

DominikR wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look at the screenshot I posted on the original content. Seems to be a new (or inactive) G+ account that is following few (if any) active users. What are you honestly expecting to see in your newsfeed?

If I'm going to my news feed, I'm expecting to see NEWS. Not people/groups etc. I might be interested in ... Same for me around 10% even less are actual news posts from the first page I see on my "news feed". Check Facebook or twitter for a comparison ...

You first have to follow/befriend someone to see any news, this is NOT different on Facebook!

If you log in with a new account on Facebook and have less than 10 active friends, you will see the same suggestions because there are not enough posts from your friends to fill your newsfeed.