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.
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...
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