Man goes to jail because Google+ sent email without his permission

[Calzaeth]

Well they can be if they come from a single site. They might have issues with the system or something. Oh and if he didn't even know Google sent her the mail, how is he supposed to avoid it in the future? He might rearrange some stuff every day for whatever reason so it can happen more often by accident.

To be fair, he'd have to be a Darwin Award-nominee to not be careful doing that in the future :P

[Frogguh]

Seriously, people are blaming the guy here? I don't know what his situation is with his ex to have the restraining order, but just due to the facts of this case, how could anyone blame the guy when he didn't do anything wrong? I checked my contact list out of curiosity, I have email addresses in there that I can barely remember who they belong to. It's not Google's fault, it's not his fault, and he should not have gone to jail. As far as the woman goes, I withhold judgment on whether she overreacted because I don't know why she has the order against him.

[zealo]

Who uses G+?

Its integrated into gmail quite much these days but never uses it for its actual functions.

[Darksoldierr]

And Google should be liable because they never went out of their way to think of restraining orders? I'm sure that's always the first thing that a company thinks of whenever they make anything automated. Besides, the restraining order was against the man, not Google, so no party should be at fault.

Why would it be google's fault? Next time you send a friend invite to someone, should google scan you and the person if you ever had any issues beforehand? And then keep scanning every now and than to make sure nothing like that can occour again?

Be reasonable.

- - - Updated - - -

Its integrated into gmail quite much these days but never uses it for its actual functions.

You can use gmail without g+, i mean, i have literally noone on g+ on circles or whatever its called, and i have 2 gmail accounts

[Shinrael]

All of this aside... the thing that annoyed me the most is that she reported him to the police for some e-mail......holy fck. What the fuck is wrong with people *sigh*

[Eats Compost]

I'm surprised that this was taken as a breach of the restraining order at all, assuming that it actually was an automated email. If that's the case, I don't think that anyone should be liable here under these particular circumstances.

[Jester Joe]

I used to use Gmail too and never registered for Google+.. and I sometimes still log into my old account to see if anyone has sent anything important maybe (old friends I've lost contact with etc.). Does that mean they automatically made a "proud" member of the Google+ family too? Hope not..

Well, I meant more of a basic setup. Like if you go to make one I believe it asks you if you want to sign up for G+ too, and it will ask you to sign up for G+ if you haven't already...it "might" force it onto you, because I think they did mash them all together, but eh. Not sure honestly.

[Gheld]

Why is she on his contact list at all?

Because syncing errors never cause deleted contacts to reappear. This has never ever happened. All those emails from 15 years ago that randomly show up on my skype list and what not. I'm actually stalking those people. The court of smart has spoken. Guilty as charged.

[Danuru]

Why would it be google's fault? Next time you send a friend invite to someone, should google scan you and the person if you ever had any issues beforehand? And then keep scanning every now and than to make sure nothing like that can occour again?

Be reasonable.

Sorry if my post was unclear, that first part was meant as sarcasm, hence the question mark. You just made the exact point that I was attempting to.

[Calzaeth]

Personally, I'd say the court is responsible for this mess. I mean, the guy has no control over Google+'s automated messages, so he didn't do anything bad. She's not responsible because a restraining order is a restraining order, and she DID get a mail sent via his account. Google shouldn't be held responsible because it would be silly to expect companies to take restraining orders into account when coding their websites.

The court showed an amazing lack of knowledge, they should be liable for this whole thing.

[DEATHETERNAL]

The very idea of holding Google liable is ridiculous. Google provides a service which he chose to use. He then, knowingly or unknowingly, failed to use it right and screwed himself over. To hold Google responsible would be like holding a gun shop responsible for an accidental death that occurred with a firearm sold to someone whom it was perfectly legal to sell a gun to.

[darkwarrior42]

I voted that G+ should be held liable, but morally I'm blaming the ex here. If he started spamming her, then yeah, go ahead and drag him in, but after a single automated e-mail? That tells me that she's not looking to protect herself, but to punish and attack him, which removes any and all sympathy she would get from me. If she wants him to leave her alone, then she needs to not go after him just because she has the opportunity to do so; restraining orders are supposed to be for protection, not for legalized revenge.

- - - Updated - - -

The very idea of holding Google liable is ridiculous. Google provides a service which he chose to use. He then, knowingly or unknowingly, failed to use it right and screwed himself over. To hold Google responsible would be like holding a gun shop responsible for an accidental death that occurred with a firearm sold to someone whom it was perfectly legal to sell a gun to.

It'd be more like holding the gun shop liable if they sold a customer a gun that could fire itself without his knowledge or conscious decision and only mentioning that it has this capability once in the middle of a pile of paperwork in the most inconspicuous way possible.

[Deleted]

1) Why is she still on any of his contact list?
2) why was there a restraining order from her in the first place?

and more importantly, why does he get arrested for one single automated email without any personal words in it?
crazy world ...

[dess]

Who removes people from there contact list? I still have ppl from like 10 years ago who i haven't spoken to in about as long

Every month I flush people I hardly know or have contact with.

[Danuru]

Personally, I'd say the court is responsible for this mess. I mean, the guy has no control over Google+'s automated messages, so he didn't do anything bad. She's not responsible because a restraining order is a restraining order, and she DID get a mail sent via his account. Google shouldn't be held responsible because it would be silly to expect companies to take restraining orders into account when coding their websites.

The court showed an amazing lack of knowledge, they should be liable for this whole thing.

The court has done nothing wrong thus far, though. The man may have been arrested, but he was put in jail as opposed to prison. What's the difference, you ask? Jail is where you wait until the trial, where they decide if the charges pressed have any weight. If the court drops the charges either before the trial, or he is cleared during, the legal process has been upheld and they are not liable for anything.

[sidenorna]

1) Why is she still on any of his contact list?
2) why was there a restraining order from her in the first place?

While the whole e-mail; thing was probably an error on Google's part, the man had no sympathy from me.

Why? Do you go threw all your old email contacts list ever? Seeing as in gmail adds just about anyone I have ever mail or been mailed by... So yea. I have no sympathy for people who use gmail...

[LFPO8k]

Seriously, google+ should be EXTERMINATED.
It's a joke, it failed and google tried to shove it down our mouths by forcing us to use it on youtube.

[darkwarrior42]

The court has done nothing wrong thus far, though. The man may have been arrested, but he was put in jail as opposed to prison. What's the difference, you ask? Jail is where you wait until the trial, where they decide if the charges pressed have any weight. If the court drops the charges either before the trial, or he is cleared during, the legal process has been upheld and they are not liable for anything.

Even if he's convicted, I wouldn't hold the courts liable here unless they make a procedural error somewhere. The law is what it is, and even if it needs to be updated to reflect modern usage (something I would believe readily), that's still not the court's fault.

But you're absolutely right, this is a distinction that needs to be kept in mind.

[Calzaeth]

The court has done nothing wrong thus far, though. The man may have been arrested, but he was put in jail as opposed to prison. What's the difference, you ask? Jail is where you wait until the trial, where they decide if the charges pressed have any weight. If the court drops the charges either before the trial, or he is cleared during, the legal process has been upheld and they are not liable for anything.

In that case, nobody has done anything wrong. Thanks for educating me :P

[Torgent]

I wish I had grounds to sue Google .