5 ms·

Judge: do not contact this woman. Man: {apparently continues harassing her} Police: {enforce} Not seeing what the problem is here. The question of whether h

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 called her. He can certainly argue that in court.

einhverfr 13y ago
> 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.
- aestra 13y ago
  Really? I think that's the legal equivalent of your mom saying "of course he couldn't have committed that murder, he was with me that night, we were watching Netflix."
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    The prosecution had better have forensic evidence proving your mom wrong in that case.
- rmc 13y ago
  Sure, but you've have to prove it in court. The criminal justice system is used to sorting out claimed alibi's. I'm doubtful you have discovered some novel hack to the justice system.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    No. That's not how it works. They'd have to prove you wrong. "I didn't do it" is not an affirmative defence.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > 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 prosecutions evidence does not, in and of itself, necessarily equate to reasonable doubt.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    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.
DanBC 13y ago
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. I need some friends to support me. I'll join this social network", clicky clicky friend request sent to everyone in person b's list Papers served Person b: well, fair enough, i wont contact them. Police: arrest. Sadly this is yet another topic being distorted by deranged MRAs.
- aestra 13y ago
  >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 proper precautions.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    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.
  - CUViper 13y ago
    In this scenario, B didn't get the papers to let them know about the restraining order until after the "clicky clicky".
  - nsxwolf 13y ago
    But can we at least agree it's now much more difficult to comply with the order and not make a mistake?
  - syntheticnature 13y ago
farginay 13y ago
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 consideration. This is why prosecutorial discretion and police discretion are important. When they are abused people suffer. And, sadly the accused have no voice at that stage of the process.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Cultural note: is this the kind of thing that uk legal aid no longer covers?
nathanb 13y ago
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.
- mindslight 13y ago
  > Computer systems are frequently regarded by laypeople as being not just unknown but unknowable In this case, it's not just the laypeople - it's even worse. This particular system is entirely under the control of a third party, so it's behavior is unpredictable to everybody.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    I'll raise you one more: the system is self-learning, to the point that Google engineers themselves don't understand how it reaches the results it does. Google engineers don't understand how their "deep learning" computer systems have gotten so good http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=292255 http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=292255 By Jack Clark, 15th November 2013 Google no longer understands how its "deep learning" decision-making computer systems have made themselves so good at recognizing things in photos. This means the internet giant may need fewer experts in future as it can instead rely on its semi-autonomous, semi-smart machines to solve problems all on their own. The claims were made at the Machine Learning Conference in San Francisco on Friday by Google software engineer Quoc V. Le in a talk in which he outlined some of the ways the content-slurper is putting "deep learning" systems to work.
qwerty_asdf 13y ago
Uh... well... Consider Google's propensity for certain dark patterns that feel like a kissing cousin to click-jacking. The plausible deniability applicable to this situation goes something like this. Guy has a Google e-mail address, but not a Google+ profile. Then he pops on over to YouTube, and wants to comment on some HILARIOUS kitten video... BUT WAIT! In order to do that... 1. Set up your channel and begin commenting on YouTube What you'll get: [ "A YouTube channel", "A Google+ profile" ] 2. > Continue to comment > 3. Join Google+ by creating your public profile Enter Profile Data > Upgrade > 4. Add People > Add All Using this "Add All" option, absent-mindedly, will of course snarf you're entire address book. Everyone you've ever chatted with, or e-mailed. That list can be quite huge. So there's a window of reasonable doubt that this COULD have been an innocent mistake. But now, that innocent mistake might mean the difference between an arrest, a night in jail, bail, a misdemeanor conviction, community service, and the difference between being able to truthfully answer "No" to the question "Have you ever been convicted of a 'crime'" on an employment application. How believable is it that a jilted ex-boyfriend might coincidentally make such a mistake, just as a restraining order was invoked upon him? Well, consider the very recent change that requires a Google+ account to comment on YouTube [0]. A requirement that wasn't necessary in the past? Anyway, too late to hypothesize about that now. Put 12 random strangers in a room, call it a jury, and find out. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6695935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6695935

einhverfr 13y ago

> 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.

aestra 13y ago
Really? I think that's the legal equivalent of your mom saying "of course he couldn't have committed that murder, he was with me that night, we were watching Netflix."
- einhverfr 13y ago
  The prosecution had better have forensic evidence proving your mom wrong in that case.
rmc 13y ago
Sure, but you've have to prove it in court. The criminal justice system is used to sorting out claimed alibi's. I'm doubtful you have discovered some novel hack to the justice system.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  No. That's not how it works. They'd have to prove you wrong. "I didn't do it" is not an affirmative defence.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> 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 prosecutions evidence does not, in and of itself, necessarily equate to reasonable doubt.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  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.

DanBC 13y ago

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. I need some friends to support me. I'll join this social network", clicky clicky friend request sent to everyone in person b's list Papers served Person b: well, fair enough, i wont contact them. Police: arrest. Sadly this is yet another topic being distorted by deranged MRAs.

aestra 13y ago
>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 proper precautions.
- DanBC 13y ago
  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.
- CUViper 13y ago
  In this scenario, B didn't get the papers to let them know about the restraining order until after the "clicky clicky".
- nsxwolf 13y ago
  But can we at least agree it's now much more difficult to comply with the order and not make a mistake?
- syntheticnature 13y ago

farginay 13y ago

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 consideration. This is why prosecutorial discretion and police discretion are important. When they are abused people suffer. And, sadly the accused have no voice at that stage of the process.

DanBC 13y ago
Cultural note: is this the kind of thing that uk legal aid no longer covers?

nathanb 13y ago

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.

mindslight 13y ago
> Computer systems are frequently regarded by laypeople as being not just unknown but unknowable In this case, it's not just the laypeople - it's even worse. This particular system is entirely under the control of a third party, so it's behavior is unpredictable to everybody.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  I'll raise you one more: the system is self-learning, to the point that Google engineers themselves don't understand how it reaches the results it does. Google engineers don't understand how their "deep learning" computer systems have gotten so good http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=292255 http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=292255 By Jack Clark, 15th November 2013 Google no longer understands how its "deep learning" decision-making computer systems have made themselves so good at recognizing things in photos. This means the internet giant may need fewer experts in future as it can instead rely on its semi-autonomous, semi-smart machines to solve problems all on their own. The claims were made at the Machine Learning Conference in San Francisco on Friday by Google software engineer Quoc V. Le in a talk in which he outlined some of the ways the content-slurper is putting "deep learning" systems to work.

qwerty_asdf 13y ago

Uh... well... Consider Google's propensity for certain dark patterns that feel like a kissing cousin to click-jacking. The plausible deniability applicable to this situation goes something like this. Guy has a Google e-mail address, but not a Google+ profile. Then he pops on over to YouTube, and wants to comment on some HILARIOUS kitten video... BUT WAIT! In order to do that... 1. Set up your channel and begin commenting on YouTube What you'll get: [ "A YouTube channel", "A Google+ profile" ] 2. > Continue to comment > 3. Join Google+ by creating your public profile Enter Profile Data > Upgrade > 4. Add People > Add All Using this "Add All" option, absent-mindedly, will of course snarf you're entire address book. Everyone you've ever chatted with, or e-mailed. That list can be quite huge. So there's a window of reasonable doubt that this COULD have been an innocent mistake. But now, that innocent mistake might mean the difference between an arrest, a night in jail, bail, a misdemeanor conviction, community service, and the difference between being able to truthfully answer "No" to the question "Have you ever been convicted of a 'crime'" on an employment application. How believable is it that a jilted ex-boyfriend might coincidentally make such a mistake, just as a restraining order was invoked upon him? Well, consider the very recent change that requires a Google+ account to comment on YouTube [0]. A requirement that wasn't necessary in the past? Anyway, too late to hypothesize about that now. Put 12 random strangers in a room, call it a jury, and find out. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6695935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6695935