Google Plus Invite Results In Man's Arrest For Violating A Restraining Order
from the requesting-permission-to-post-on-your-behalf,-jailbird dept
To many people, Google's social media platform, Google+, remains a conundrum. Is it a Facebook competitor? Is it Google's efficient way of consolidating its power disparate services into a cohesive whole? Is it an ASCII penis generator?
One thing it might be is a brand new way to get in trouble. Matthew A. Sawtell sends in this story of one man whose dip into Google's social media pool resulted in his arrest.
Prosecutors say Thomas Gagnon violated a restraining order by sending his former girlfriend an invitation to join his Google Plus circle.Gagnon's attorney may not be far off. If Gagnon's estranged ex used other Google services like Gmail to communicate with Gagnon back in happier days, there's a good chance she was inserted into a list of potential Google+ "friends*" in order to easily insert them into Circles.
But Gagnon’s attorney says his client has no idea how the woman he once planned to marry — popping the question with a $4,000 ring earlier this month — got such an invitation, suggesting that it might have been sent by a robot.
Then again, how Google generates its suggested contacts is considered a black art by much of the population, although the prevailing notion is that if Google owns it and you use it, you're on the list. The judge presiding over Gagnon's somewhat unexpected appearance in court had this bit of insight on the social media platform.
A Salem District Court judge yesterday admitted he wasn’t sure exactly how such invitations work on Google’s social media site…That didn't stop him from setting Gagnon's bail at $500 and ordering him to stay away from his ex-girlfriend.
Gagnon's attorney continued to maintain that Google+ auto-violated the restraining order. The judge countered by expressing his doubt of Gagnon's ability to follow court orders, suggesting something went a bit off the rails during the original hearing.
Whether or not Google+ attempted to widen Gagnon's social circle by including a woman who had taken out a restraining order against him is still unclear. What's perfectly clear, however, is that the situation behind Gagnon's current legal problems escalated very quickly.
On Friday, Gagnon gave his momentary fiancée a $4,000 engagement ring. The next day (Saturday) she broke up with him. By Monday, she had taken out a restraining order. By Thursday, Gagnon was back facing the judge after his allegedly inadvertently "mailing out" a Google+ invitation to his ex. (This itself was the result of some speedy escalation. Gagnon's ex took a printout of the invitation to the police who had him in custody less than ninety minutes later.)
What could have provoked this expeditious onslaught of small, personal calamities? Details are sparse, but the article signs off with these lines.
It’s not clear from court papers whether the ring has been returned to Gagnon.If Gagnon wants to stay on the good side of the law, he should probably just unplug from the internet. Plenty of social media services mine contact lists and are more than happy to mass mail out invitations with a single click of the "accept" button.
A status hearing in the case is set for Feb. 6.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: automatic invites, google plus, restraining order
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yet another reason...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet another reason...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet another reason...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yet another reason...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yet another reason...
Did you get the one for the children too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free with this group comes with a hidden price I'm not willing to pay. Maybe some others are finding the price a bit steep as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Quite another matter when you are using someone else's service (original YouTube for example), which is then "purchased" by Google, who then, after completely obliterating it's usability, subsequently pulls the rug out from under one's feet (whilst sliding a new one beneath) in furtherance of deceiving both advertisers and investors saying: "Look at how many Google+ users we have!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then suddenly, google started eating those services, and now it's trying to unify them. I didn't opt into Google+, I didn't opt into gmail, or google docs. But I certainly own an account with all those things now.
Why? Because at one time, long ago, I made a youtube account. Now that information is available to google. Is that fair? Is that worth be forfeiting my rights because one giant entity ate another and now owns all of my stuff?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh TD, we so much want to trust you, but trust is earned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then delete all the data associated with that account and close it. You can do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: blaktron on Jan 10th, 2014 @ 1:55pm
And I don't get your license to steal comment at all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Messed up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Messed up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Messed up
google has your phone # (and your distant friend)...
and, google has your address book/contact list of many years. they might simply connect the dots and see who's missing from the circle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Messed up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Messed up
Wanna bet. If you have a phone with a number and you gave gave your number to someone with an android phone they got it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Messed up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Messed up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It happens
Neither I nor my friend added the other, yet we both received notice of having done so.
Hardly surprising, really, given G+ has been one big failure after another. The judge's failure to recognize the possibility is not at all surprising either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And The Google spies on you all the while too!
10:13:19[l-170-1]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My verdict? After about five seconds of "deliberation"?
To him: Take a break from social media for a while. Maybe once this is all settled you can find another gold dig...er... marriage prospect to help relieve that uncomfortable bulge in your pants. (No, no, no, not THAT one! I mean your wallet!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My verdict? After about five seconds of "deliberation"?
Who talks like this - seriously this is Fox News territory
gmafb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It should therefore be clarified in a court of law, but like every other branch of the government, Google believes it is above the law, unwilling to clarify anything at all for any reason whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish they responded like that the last time I was assaulted.. It only took them 4 1/2 hours to show up at my house.
I guess I should have said I was assaulted on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sure this will become apparent in the court hearing, or not, because it seems the judge wants to avoid all technology and keep his head stuck in the ground, Maybe him and the judge that was caught texting the prosecution can get together sometime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hate those auto-invites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let the Witch trials begin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even though these are highly farfetched circumstances, it still illustrates that people being coerced or force to join against their will is a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uh . . . yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no automatic invitations from Google+
1. google never sends automatic invitations to put someone to your circles. It however proposes possible candidates to be included in your circles based on your emails (i think), or based on the number of common "friends", people who appear in both of your circles.
This should not be considered an invitation from the other party (i.e. this case her ex), as it is not an invitation from the other person, rather an automatic suggestion for you to put someone in your circles (which can be anything, e.g. "most hated men on Earth").
If this was the case, the lawsuit should be dropped, as the exgirlfriend only got an automatic suggestion from Google, based on common friends.
2. The ex-boyfriend might have put the ex-girlfriend into one of his circles. The ex-girlfriend in this case got an automatic report on this fact. Google then suggest, that she can also put him in one of her circles. Again, this is something totally different from Facebook. Putting someone into my circles does not mean anything. It can mean that i can share information in the future with her more easily (if I want). It can also mean that i created a circle where i put the craziest persons I ever known.
It does not imply however, that the other person needs to put me into her circles at all.
So - unsimilar to Facebook, where invitations for "friendship" are sent, putting someone into your circle does not mean you want to become their friends.
(of course if you put someone in your circle, by default you will receive updates on their PUBLIC activity, which is shared with the public)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]