Stupid Criminal of the Day

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
You know what sounds like fun? Using Pinterest to violate a restraining order. Then you can just pin stuff to the wall in your jail cell.

But police say a Beverly woman used a Pinterest account to violate a restraining order and harass her estranged daughter last year. It’s just the latest example of how the law is struggling to keep up with technology and social media.
Click to expand...
 
It’s just the latest example of how the law is struggling to keep up with technology and social media.
Click to expand...
Not quite sure I think the law is struggling, she's going with the whole "It wasn't me who did it" excuse, which has been in play since the days of Hammurabi.
 
How is the law struggling here? They caught her. Does the author of the article propose that if you have a restraining order placed upon you, the police get to start monitoring your every internet communication?
 
I thought restraining orders were meant for physical distant restraint.
 
Not really sure how just following someone's public page is a violation of a restraining order. Next it could be argued that just thinking about the person is a violation.
 
beowulf7 said:
I thought restraining orders were meant for physical distant restraint.
Click to expand...

Depending upon the scope of the order it can apply to harassment of any sort originally for telephone, but with that internet thing now apparently really popular it does link over to that.
 
If you post your shit on Pinterest for the world to see then you have no right to bitch about someone accessing it.
 
What about if she wrote a piece in the local paper and it got read? Public media, it's open to everyone. If someone follows me on Twitter, even an enemy that I have a restraining order against, there's nothing I would do about it. Public media.
 
What you guys are discussing is what the article is talking about in regards to the laws needing to cach up. What do you consider as the line for violating. If you are told to stay away from somebody and you start staking them online instead at what point is this wrong? If a 13 year old post pictures online does it make it any different if the people looking at them are some kids from her class vs a 50 year old guy that jerks off to them? The guy isn't hurting her. Same logic can be used for somebody following / friending you on social media. If they are just staking you online and no longer in person does that count as harassment? Is that considered close enough to count it the same as some other actions. Which both these cases are hard, where do you draw the line to protect people but not be going overboard?
 
According to the article, it sounds like there is no gray area online vs physical. Imo, it should stay that way. If there is a restraining order on you, that should apply to every facet of communication to the person who filed it. Once you start to pick this or that, the lines get blurred.
If someone cannot stop themselves from even following you online after a restraining order, that is a serious problem that needs to be addressed ASAP!
 
cptnjarhead said:
According to the article, it sounds like there is no gray area online vs physical. Imo, it should stay that way. If there is a restraining order on you, that should apply to every facet of communication to the person who filed it. Once you start to pick this or that, the lines get blurred.
If someone cannot stop themselves from even following you online after a restraining order, that is a serious problem that needs to be addressed ASAP!
Click to expand...

Online is public domain. Posting your shit on a public forum/pinterest feed is no different than posting it on a billboard on the side of a highway. If the person posting the stuff doesn't make their feed private then that's their own damn fault.
 
HydroBudz said:
Online is public domain. Posting your shit on a public forum/pinterest feed is no different than posting it on a billboard on the side of a highway. If the person posting the stuff doesn't make their feed private then that's their own damn fault.
Click to expand...

First.. relax. second. Its not about posting, its about stalking someone online. If your a victim of stalking, then you shouldn't have to change your life because someone cannot stop stalking you. The article talks about notifications or "likes" which obviously means someone is not only viewing your profile or what ever, they are letting you know it. By definition they are communicating with you to that effect. Sure there is responsibility on the user for their actions, example: leaving your profile public can make things easier for the stalker, but this is about a restraining order, which means NO contact. Looking at someone picture or post is not contacting them, letting them know it, is.
 
cptnjarhead said:
According to the article, it sounds like there is no gray area online vs physical. Imo, it should stay that way. If there is a restraining order on you, that should apply to every facet of communication to the person who filed it. Once you start to pick this or that, the lines get blurred.
If someone cannot stop themselves from even following you online after a restraining order, that is a serious problem that needs to be addressed ASAP!
Click to expand...

Public vs. Private. If that person messages them, then it's too far. But, online public website where you 'follow' people? I don't see that as crossing the line.
 
cptnjarhead said:
First.. relax. second. Its not about posting, its about stalking someone online. If your a victim of stalking, then you shouldn't have to change your life because someone cannot stop stalking you. The article talks about notifications or "likes" which obviously means someone is not only viewing your profile or what ever, they are letting you know it. By definition they are communicating with you to that effect. Sure there is responsibility on the user for their actions, example: leaving your profile public can make things easier for the stalker, but this is about a restraining order, which means NO contact. Looking at someone picture or post is not contacting them, letting them know it, is.
Click to expand...

That would be crossing the line. A simple 'like'. While it doesn't seem like much, it can be. Following them on Facebook (I'm sure they took you off), or Twitter is fine. Going around, liking their stuff or commenting? That's why there is the restraining order - they obviously didn't get the hint of "Leave me alone".

So, I agree with you on that one.
 
cptnjarhead said:
According to the article, it sounds like there is no gray area online vs physical. Imo, it should stay that way. If there is a restraining order on you, that should apply to every facet of communication to the person who filed it. Once you start to pick this or that, the lines get blurred.
If someone cannot stop themselves from even following you online after a restraining order, that is a serious problem that needs to be addressed ASAP!
Click to expand...

You should reread the article be that is not what it said. The judge kept questioning why they were trying to claim there was a violation. They compared it to trying to charge somebody for violating a 100 feet restraining order for them being 120 feet away.

Judge Robert Brennan questioned whether the situation is akin to a person who is the subject of a 100-foot restraining order standing 120 feet away.
Click to expand...

The judge then compared the situation to a star athlete being hounded by an obsessed fan until the celebrity obtains a restraining order. Is the fan now barred from even reading about the athlete on the sports page of the newspaper?
Click to expand...

So what you are saying isn't what the article states. The judge in this case does put many questions in place about if this is a legit claim or not.
 
Exavior said:
You should reread the article be that is not what it said. The judge kept questioning why they were trying to claim there was a violation. They compared it to trying to charge somebody for violating a 100 feet restraining order for them being 120 feet away.
So what you are saying isn't what the article states. The judge in this case does put many questions in place about if this is a legit claim or not.
Click to expand...

"It sounds like" really? I did not say anything about the "judge" i said it seemed like there was no gray area, The complainant felt that a notification from the stalker was a violation and i feel the same way.
Never said, "according to the judge". Im looking at it from the victims point of view, which many people seem to overlook.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Public vs. Private. If that person messages them, then it's too far. But, online public website where you 'follow' people? I don't see that as crossing the line.
Click to expand...

I see it differently, its one thing to view their profile or whatever, but to "like" or "follow" is a acknowledgement to the person that "you" are doing it. Be definition that would be deliberate contact.
Anyone can look, but its in the decision to let them know it, thats a problem for me.
 
cptnjarhead said:
I see it differently, its one thing to view their profile or whatever, but to "like" or "follow" is a acknowledgement to the person that "you" are doing it. Be definition that would be deliberate contact.
Anyone can look, but its in the decision to let them know it, thats a problem for me.
Click to expand...

Read my post directly after that one.

That would be crossing the line. A simple 'like'. While it doesn't seem like much, it can be. Following them on Facebook (I'm sure they took you off), or Twitter is fine. Going around, liking their stuff or commenting? That's why there is the restraining order - they obviously didn't get the hint of "Leave me alone".
Click to expand...

I don't think you're seeing it differently. Follow on Twitter? Fine. Like/repost/etc.? Too far.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Read my post directly after that one.



I don't think you're seeing it differently. Follow on Twitter? Fine. Like/repost/etc.? Too far.
Click to expand...

Well, i guess i cannot argue with you on how i think ;)
Follow, like or anything else that sends a notification to the person you are not supposed to have contact with, is a violation imo.
Its easy, you can look but don't notify.
Now if the the police arrested someone for viewing a picture of the person, i would say that does not constitute contact, and I would be against it because the victim would have not knowledge i.e "contact" of it.
 
I don't think you're seeing it differently. Follow on Twitter? Fine. Like/repost/etc.? Too far.[/QUOTE said:
I do however see your point. Only if you could "follow" a person on twitter without actually sending the notification of it. Its the deliberate action of clicking "follow" knowing that is being communicated to that person.
Following without contact, then its the plaintiffs responsibility to not give information out to the public.
Click to expand...
 
Ur_Mom said:
What about if she wrote a piece in the local paper and it got read? Public media, it's open to everyone. If someone follows me on Twitter, even an enemy that I have a restraining order against, there's nothing I would do about it. Public media.
Click to expand...

Yeah except when you start reading an article in a public newspaper the author of the paper isn't sent an email that says that this person is now reading everything you write.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Yeah except when you start reading an article in a public newspaper the author of the paper isn't sent an email that says that this person is now reading everything you write.
Click to expand...

Yea, but the guy didn't send that email - it was an automatic notification from the service. He had nothing to do with that one. It's the same as if he visited a website, and the website logs showed his visit - guilty of stalking? No way.

If he goes out of his way to get attention (liking, retweeting, messaging), then that is too far. Just following a Twitter feed? No way. Adding as a friend on Facebook/LinkedIn/MySpace/others - too far. Foursquare? Way too far.

I think it's a fine line, and it'd be hard to draw the line and I'm sure it's different in certain situations (maybe some would go as far as following on Twitter to be too much - if it's a dangerous situation, etc.).

I guess if I can read what you post publicly personally communicating or letting you know, then it should be fair game. I can visit your website, read your Twitter, visit your public Facebook profile... Although, if you're getting a RO against someone, you'd probably make your FB private.
 
cptnjarhead said:
"It sounds like" really? I did not say anything about the "judge" i said it seemed like there was no gray area, The complainant felt that a notification from the stalker was a violation and i feel the same way.
Never said, "according to the judge". Im looking at it from the victims point of view, which many people seem to overlook.
Click to expand...

You stated that "according to the article" it sounds like there is no grey area. Giving the impression that the article stated that there is no grey area. Where as in fact the article clearly stated that there is a grey area and that the law needs to catch up with technology. While you never said according to the judge you did make a statement that sounded as if the article gave an opinion that is actually your own and not stated anywhere in the article.

Yes the victim feels that they were still being harassed. However that brings into question at what point is somebody harassing you vs just being on the internet. How do you measure distance online? Can you both use the same service / site? can you both have the same friends? Can you both comment on the same article? There is no clear line of how a physical restraining order translate into an online one. Which sucks as some of these people really are looking for loop holes, others might be caught up in accidental communications.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top