6 ms·

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

by tjgq 13y ago

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.

rmc 13y ago
If the restraining order says "Don't contact them", then it makes sense that if you manually triggered an invite that would break the order.
ronilan 13y ago
> the actual troubling question is whether sending a Google+ invitation can be considered a violation of a restraining order. In America we, the people, go to court to get answers to tough questions. Easy questions we google.
buro9 13y ago
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 deeply upsetting and disturbing. It may undo any efforts she has put in place to move on with her life, and restore her to the place of being abused. If a court has put in place a restraining order then there is no acceptable basis for the ex to contact her. Including whether that contact is via an automated email on his behalf. I'm with the v̶i̶c̶t̶i̶m̶ court on this. Someone is to blame, and the bar isn't too low. I do think that a decision like this will cause Google to evaluate the impact of any automated emails. I also think that if you get a restraining order against you it's not enough to lazily avoid contact with the other person, you should proactively ensure that you do not contact the other person... so purge your address book if need be, the court has made it your responsibility to not contact the other person.
- rjknight 13y ago
  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.
  - buro9 13y ago
    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.
    - jiggy2011 13y ago
      The question is where is the line drawn between contacting a person and a third party or script of some sort contacting the same person ostensibly on their behalf. For another example a person working in telemarketing is usually given a list of numbers to call which are automatically dialed by the phone system so therefor has no direct control over who they "contact". The usual standard for a court would be the intent of the alleged perpetrator (IANAL etc).
      - 13y ago
rjknight 13y ago
I disagree. A restraining order is precisely meant to bar all forms of communication so that we don't need to decide on a case-by-case basis which communications violate the order, which would lead to highly unequal enforcement with some people being punished for things that others are not punished for.
- krcz 13y ago
  I agree, but I don't find it obvious if following (adding to circles) someone on Google+ is a form of communication at all.
- tjgq 13y ago
  Perhaps I wasn't too clear in my original post. I was making a normative statement, not a positive one. In other words, I accept that the actual law may consider this a violation; I'm questioning whether the law itself is acceptable in those terms. Then again, I don't live in the USA, and the concept of a restraining order is a bit alien to me since it's not something heard of as much over here. There surely is some cultural bias at play. I don't think it's too much to ask for courts to decide on a case-by-case basis. Establishment of intent is one of the main things courts exist for.
tehwebguy 13y ago
I spent a few minutes reading up in restraining orders in Massachusetts (the state this happened in) and it doesn't look like contacting someone would even count as a violation!
MaulingMonkey 13y ago
Without knowing the details of the exact case behind the restraining order, it's hard to be certain the bar is set "far too low" as you assert. Set a hard bar like that, and many will simply see "I can get away with that!", and find as many such bars they can scrape under as possible - making up in volume what they lack in direct effect - or a line to slowly cross further and further when not nipped in the bud. This is, ultimately, why intent matters. Sufficiently strong-willed people can ignore death threats as "inconsequential, empty bluster." However, this is neither necessarily wise, recommended, or easy, nor does it disqualify such threats as harassment. While an invite is no death threat, I'd note there's another bar in play here too: The former girlfriend was, if we're to give her the benefit of the doubt, perturbed enough by this invitation to go down to the police station.

by tjgq 13y ago

rmc 13y ago

If the restraining order says "Don't contact them", then it makes sense that if you manually triggered an invite that would break the order.

ronilan 13y ago

> the actual troubling question is whether sending a Google+ invitation can be considered a violation of a restraining order. In America we, the people, go to court to get answers to tough questions. Easy questions we google.

buro9 13y ago

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 deeply upsetting and disturbing. It may undo any efforts she has put in place to move on with her life, and restore her to the place of being abused. If a court has put in place a restraining order then there is no acceptable basis for the ex to contact her. Including whether that contact is via an automated email on his behalf. I'm with the v̶i̶c̶t̶i̶m̶ court on this. Someone is to blame, and the bar isn't too low. I do think that a decision like this will cause Google to evaluate the impact of any automated emails. I also think that if you get a restraining order against you it's not enough to lazily avoid contact with the other person, you should proactively ensure that you do not contact the other person... so purge your address book if need be, the court has made it your responsibility to not contact the other person.

rjknight 13y ago
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.
- buro9 13y ago
  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.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    The question is where is the line drawn between contacting a person and a third party or script of some sort contacting the same person ostensibly on their behalf. For another example a person working in telemarketing is usually given a list of numbers to call which are automatically dialed by the phone system so therefor has no direct control over who they "contact". The usual standard for a court would be the intent of the alleged perpetrator (IANAL etc).
    - 13y ago

rjknight 13y ago

I disagree. A restraining order is precisely meant to bar all forms of communication so that we don't need to decide on a case-by-case basis which communications violate the order, which would lead to highly unequal enforcement with some people being punished for things that others are not punished for.

krcz 13y ago
I agree, but I don't find it obvious if following (adding to circles) someone on Google+ is a form of communication at all.
tjgq 13y ago
Perhaps I wasn't too clear in my original post. I was making a normative statement, not a positive one. In other words, I accept that the actual law may consider this a violation; I'm questioning whether the law itself is acceptable in those terms. Then again, I don't live in the USA, and the concept of a restraining order is a bit alien to me since it's not something heard of as much over here. There surely is some cultural bias at play. I don't think it's too much to ask for courts to decide on a case-by-case basis. Establishment of intent is one of the main things courts exist for.

tehwebguy 13y ago

I spent a few minutes reading up in restraining orders in Massachusetts (the state this happened in) and it doesn't look like contacting someone would even count as a violation!

MaulingMonkey 13y ago

Without knowing the details of the exact case behind the restraining order, it's hard to be certain the bar is set "far too low" as you assert. Set a hard bar like that, and many will simply see "I can get away with that!", and find as many such bars they can scrape under as possible - making up in volume what they lack in direct effect - or a line to slowly cross further and further when not nipped in the bud. This is, ultimately, why intent matters. Sufficiently strong-willed people can ignore death threats as "inconsequential, empty bluster." However, this is neither necessarily wise, recommended, or easy, nor does it disqualify such threats as harassment. While an invite is no death threat, I'd note there's another bar in play here too: The former girlfriend was, if we're to give her the benefit of the doubt, perturbed enough by this invitation to go down to the police station.