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.
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.
> 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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 dial button. Judges should take cognizance of this fact and not treat these actions as "contact".
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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."
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.