Should reading your wife's e-mail be a crime?

[Grid]

He shouldn't have been going through his wife's e-mail, but in my opinion this should be more of a moral problem than a criminal problem. In other words, he was in the wrong, but he shouldn't go to jail or go to court over something so stupid.

A Rochester Hills man faces up to 5 years in prison — for reading his wife’s e-mail.

Oakland County prosecutors, relying on a Michigan statute typically used to prosecute crimes such as identity theft or stealing trade secrets, have charged Leon Walker, 33, with a felony after he logged onto a laptop in the home he shared with his wife, Clara Walker.

Using her password, he accessed her Gmail account and learned she was having an affair. He now is facing a Feb. 7 trial. She filed for divorce, which was finalized earlier this month.

Legal experts say it’s the first time the statute has been used in a domestic case, and it might be hard to prove.

Read more: http://landofthefreeish.com/privacy/is-reading-your-wifes-e-mail-a-crime/

 

[cobalt124]

A purely domestic case, it going to court is a waste of taxpayers money.

 

[WhoWee]

IMO - 5 years is a long time to serve in jail for reading the email of your spouse. However, Michigan typically locks up felons for 3.7 to 14 years so it might be in-line with local standards?
http://www.ingham.org/pa/PDF/ReducingCrimePart2.pdf

 

[cristo]

It's illegal to open someone else's mail, so why not email?

 

[xxChrisxx]

Nigh on impossible to prove and therefore a waste of time. It can easily be claimed that it auto logged in. Further to this, should a text message be included in 'mail' if you are going to include emails?

 

[cristo]

It can easily be claimed that it auto logged in.

Auto log-on would not enable one to read an entire email, so no, this cannot be easily claimed.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Auto log-on would not enable one to read an entire email, so no, this cannot be easily claimed.

Well, time will tell.

 

[Pengwuino]

It's illegal to open someone else's mail, so why not email?

If you opened your wifes mail, should society see it as a crime?

 

[WhoWee]

If you opened your wifes mail, should society see it as a crime?

This is the point I consider most important - the email of a spouse - possibly on a shared account.

On a side note, wasn't there a ruling a few years ago that business emails were the property of the business - not the individual.

 

[DaveC426913]

Husband and wife have made a pact in front of witnesses to share their lives.

What he did was, at worst, a crappy violation of that trust. But not a crime.

 

[Char. Limit]

Husband and wife have made a pact in front of witnesses to share their lives.

What he did was, at worst, a crappy violation of that trust. But not a crime.

This. It's not a crime to read the email of someone who promised to share their life with you. Besides, there shouldn't be any secrets between you anyways.

 

[DaveC426913]

This. It's not a crime to read the email of someone who promised to share their life with you. Besides, there shouldn't be any secrets between you anyways.

Well, I'm not that strong. I do feel it's a violation of trust (though his suspicion was vindicated). She is entitled to some privacy.

Hwo much privacy there "should" be between a couple is not for us to decide.

 

[NeoDevin]

Husband and wife have made a pact in front of witnesses to share their lives.

What he did was, at worst, a crappy violation of that trust. But not a crime.

"Share their lives" NOT "Give up every bit of privacy and any right to privacy in the future".

My wife doesn't have access to my email or my cell phone. Nor I hers (though I know her passwords, since I helped her set up most of her online accounts and have helped her trouble-shoot them at some point or another). I don't remember "access to my email" being a part of my wedding vows.

In fact, considering some sensitive (patient) data I work with, it would be a crime for me to give my wife access to my email. My laptop is encrypted and I can't give her access to that either.

There are many legitimate reasons for maintaining privacy from one's spouse (that was just one example), and to assume that simply because they are married he has a legal right to do something which is illegal in every other circumstance is ridiculous.

 

[NeoDevin]

Another example, more relevant to this particular case:

What if she had been corresponding with a divorce lawyer, intending to leave him, but didn't want him to know for some legitimate reason (he might take the money and run, he might take the kids and move out of country, he might become abusive, etc.)? Even if her fears are unfounded, she still has a right to private communication with a lawyer, and he has no right to access that.

 

[Char. Limit]

Another example, more relevant to this particular case:

What if she had been corresponding with a divorce lawyer, intending to leave him, but didn't want him to know for some legitimate reason (he might take the money and run, he might take the kids and move out of country, he might become abusive, etc.)? Even if her fears are unfounded, she still has a right to private communication with a lawyer, and he has no right to access that.

You know, I always thought that both parties were supposed to know of a divorce before it happened. I didn't know that one party could arrange the entire thing right up until the day where she sweeps the rug from under the guy.

 

[NeoDevin]

Hwo much privacy there "should" be between a couple is not for us to decide.

Exactly. But the above is inconsistent with the below.

What he did was, at worst, a crappy violation of that trust. But not a crime.

By saying there is no penalty for someone who accesses their spouses email without permission, you are implicitly deciding for them that there is no privacy allowed, or at least no recourse for them to defend their privacy.

If someone gives one permission to access their email, it's not a crime to do so. If one doesn't have permission, but accesses it anyways, that is a crime, whether or not the people involved are married.

 

[Jasongreat]

"Share their lives" NOT "Give up every bit of privacy and any right to privacy in the future".

My wife doesn't have access to my email or my cell phone. Nor I hers (though I know her passwords, since I helped her set up most of her online accounts and have helped her trouble-shoot them at some point or another). I don't remember "access to my email" being a part of my wedding vows.

In fact, considering some sensitive (patient) data I work with, it would be a crime for me to give my wife access to my email. My laptop is encrypted and I can't give her access to that either.

There are many legitimate reasons for maintaining privacy from one's spouse (that was just one example), and to assume that simply because they are married he has a legal right to do something which is illegal in every other circumstance is ridiculous.

Well if she had that vital of info on the community computer, she should have kept her passwords secret. In the article it says "Using her password, he accessed her Gmail account and learned she was having an affair. He now is facing a Feb. 7 trial. She filed for divorce, which was finalized earlier this month."

A breach of trust, surely, a felony crime no way.

 

[NeoDevin]

You know, I always thought that both parties were supposed to know of a divorce before it happened. I didn't know that one party could arrange the entire thing right up until the day where she sweeps the rug from under the guy.

I don't know that one party can, but there could be communication with a lawyer well before actual divorce proceedings have been started. Deciding what the best approach is, documenting assets and income, determining which assets one has a right to, and which should go to the other partner, arrange for an application for temporary custody of children, etc.

In fact, in extreme cases, one can apply for an "ex parte" order for restraint, support, and custody. This is a court order that is made without representation of one of the parties (owing to the fear of abuse), and generally serves as a combination restraining order, order of financial support, and custody order against the party who was not represented at the hearing.

 

[Char. Limit]

In fact, in extreme cases, one can apply for an "ex parte" order for restraint, support, and custody. This is a court order that is made without representation of one of the parties (owing to the fear of abuse), and generally serves as a combination restraining order, order of financial support, and custody order against the party who was not represented at the hearing.

Remind me not to get married. I don't want to have to fear that axe.

EDIT: I honestly didn't know women had such a large club to swing. I'm really seriously starting to fear marriage now.

 

[NeoDevin]

Well if she had that vital of info on the community computer, she should have kept her passwords secret. In the article it says "Using her password, he accessed her Gmail account and learned she was having an affair. He now is facing a Feb. 7 trial. She filed for divorce, which was finalized earlier this month."

A breach of trust, surely, a felony crime no way.

It isn't clear from the quoted sections of the article how he obtained her password. Did she give it to him at some point in the past (if she did, and then had an affair documented via email, she's an idiot)? Did he watch over her shoulder when she was typing it in? Did he install a keylogger on the computer or a video camera pointed at the keyboard to obtain it?

What is clear is that the information was not on the community computer, but was on Google's servers in her Gmail account. He somehow obtained her password and accessed her account without her permission.

Had this happened to anyone else, it would be a clear felony, and there would be no debate. In what part of the marriage contract is access to email implicitly or explicitly granted? If you can't provide evidence that access is granted, then it's still a felony to access someone else's email without permission.

 

[NeoDevin]

Remind me not to get married. I don't want to have to fear that axe.

EDIT: I honestly didn't know women had such a large club to swing. I'm really seriously starting to fear marriage now.

Tell me about it. I only learned about them after I got married. j/k

In other news: You don't have to be married for them to use it (support is harder for them to get if you weren't supporting them prior, but restraint and custody are still pretty easy).

Some lawyers apparently make it a standard practice to apply for an ex parte order, because even if the order is overturned later (the husband convinces the court that he's not abusive, probably takes months) the wife has custody of the children, and the court is less likely to move the children later.

Moral of the story: If you're a husband, and you think your wife is considering divorcing you, file first.

Anyways, this is off topic, if you want to keep going, make another topic, and we can talk about the ethics and practicalities of ex parte orders..

 

[Char. Limit]

Anyways, this is off topic, if you want to keep going, make another topic, and we can talk about the ethics and practicalities of ex parte orders..

This I have done. Anyway, I would like to say that I have nothing to hide, and never will. If you have something to hide, and for legitimate reasons (and having an affair is NOT a legitimate reason), then why the hell does he have your password in the first place?

Also, remember to use strong passwords. A random combination of letters, numbers, and symbols is best.

 

[NeoDevin]

Note: In the poll question, I assumed there was an implicit "without her permission" appended, as I'm sure everyone else did too.

 

[Char. Limit]

Note: In the poll question, I assumed there was an implicit "without her permission" appended, as I'm sure everyone else did too.

Nope. I didn't assume a thing. I took the question at face value.

 

[DaveC426913]

Note: In the poll question, I assumed there was an implicit "without her permission" appended, as I'm sure everyone else did too.

Yes. It is a good assumption for the sake of argument because everyone likely agrees that, if she gave him her password, there is no discussion to be had. Thus, we only need to discuss the case that has some grey area.

 

[Pengwuino]

Ok let's all stop playing stupid. We all have gmail accounts I'm sure. How do you log into your average users account? You click the login box, press the down arrow to see the history of login names, click yours, and the password automatically pops up because it's saved into your history.

$100 says these people were stupid enough to have their browser auto-retrieve their login/password. I can almost guarantee that's what happened and the wife was an idiot and is like "zomg how can he access my account? HE SUPER HACKER!".

 

[NeoDevin]

Ok let's all stop playing stupid. We all have gmail accounts I'm sure. How do you log into your average users account? You click the login box, press the down arrow to see the history of login names, click yours, and the password automatically pops up because it's saved into your history.

$100 says these people were stupid enough to have their browser auto-retrieve their login/password. I can almost guarantee that's what happened and the wife was an idiot and is like "zomg how can he access my account? HE SUPER HACKER!".

That's quite possible. It doesn't change the fact that he accessed her email without her permission, which is a felony in the US.

If you leave your (snail) mail sitting on the table, it doesn't make it legal for a guest in your house to open it.

If you leave your front door unlocked, it doesn't make it legal for someone to walk in.

 

[Char. Limit]

That's quite possible. It doesn't change the fact that he accessed her email without her permission, which is a felony in the US.

If you leave your (snail) mail sitting on the table, it doesn't make it legal for a guest in your house to open it.

If you leave your front door unlocked, it doesn't make it legal for someone to walk in.

We're not talking about a guest in your house, though. And besides, my father opens email and snail mail marked for my mother all the time (and vice versa). They don't seem to have a problem with it... why would you have a problem with it anyway? It's the person you're sharing your life with. Unless it's illegal for them to see it, what possible purpose could you have to hide?

 

[NeoDevin]

It's the person you're sharing your life with. Unless it's illegal for them to see it, what possible purpose could you have to hide?

Planning a surprise party, ordering a gift for them, discussing topics which you know upset them (eg. one partner has decided they are atheist, while the other is devoutly religious, and is seeking advice for how to approach the subject with their spouse, especially true with religions where the punishment for apostasy is excommunication), keeping someone else's secrets (perhaps a friend of yours is planning to divorce their spouse, and their spouse is a good friend of your spouse), planning for divorce...

That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are a lot of other reasons for keeping privacy, probably even better ones than I have come up with here. The fact is: Even though you are married, you are still two separate people, with two separate (though connected) lives. Nowhere in the marriage act is your right to privacy implicitly or explicitly given up. If a particular married (or even unmarried) couple decides to share unrestricted access to each other's emails, or even non-symmetric access, that is up to them. The law affords the same right to privacy to married people as it does to unmarried people.

We're not talking about a guest in your house, though. And besides, my father opens email and snail mail marked for my mother all the time (and vice versa). They don't seem to have a problem with it... why would you have a problem with it anyway?

If your father and mother do it all the time without complaint, then they have implied consent (just like my wife doesn't care if I open bills addressed to her).

 

[WhoWee]

A little bit of common sense is called for in this debate. If there is a legal issue concerning access to confidential information - it is clear cut that a spouse has no right to access.

If the communications are strictly personal - it should be a question of trust and respect between the spouses - not a legal matter. This is comparable to a spouse listening on a telephone extension to the other spouses telephone call.