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

[thorium1010]

Just out of curiosity , how did she know he opened her email account ?

also how do you prove something like this in the court of law (what evidence can be produced that "he" actually opened her email account) ?

 

[NeoDevin]

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.

It would be a legal matter in any case where the pair is not married. It is against the law to access another person's email without their permission. Do you disagree with this?

If you agree with the above, and cannot point out where in the marriage contract/laws couples (implicitly or explicitly) give up their right to privacy, then the only sensible conclusion is that it is a legal matter in this situation as well.

 

[NeoDevin]

Put it this way:

(I think) We all agree that accessing a stranger's email without permission is illegal. If I'm wrong in this assumption, let me know and I'll look up some references.

What about if you're a guest in someone's house, using their computer? Is it still illegal to access their email without permission?

What if it's a friend/relative's email?

A friend/relative with whom you live?

A spouse?

Where is the line drawn? If you claim that the law should not apply in one or more of these situations, support your claim.

 

[NeoDevin]

Just out of curiosity , how did she know he opened her email account ?

also how do you prove something like this in the court of law (what evidence can be produced that "he" actually opened her email account) ?

The article doesn't tell us this. Possibly he confronted her with the evidence? If he tried to use the emails as evidence in divorce proceedings, proving he accessed it is easier.

 

[DaveC426913]

If you agree with the above, and cannot point out where in the marriage contract/laws couples (implicitly or explicitly) give up their right to privacy, then the only sensible conclusion is that it is a legal matter in this situation as well.

Where is the line drawn?

They did make an explicit verbal and signed pact before witnesses to share their life. That introduces a very large grey area wherein their right to privacy is not clear cut. Imagine a bride calling the cops on her new husband on the first night of their honeymoon for unlawfully breaking and entering.

I'm not saying she does not have a right to privacy, I'm saying it's a grey area. And the grey area favours him, because the burden is on her to prove her case.

Likewise, while the case will likely be dsimissed as domestic, the judge has ruled that, at least she has the right to make her case before the court.

 

[zomgwtf]

Well I believe that the term marriage that means the legal union of two persons. I'm pretty sure it's written out in black and white in the US Code sa the legal union between one man and one woman.

Now... legal union in MY mind means that they are legal being bound together as ONE unit. That means no right to privacy from each other.

 

[NeoDevin]

They did make an explicit verbal and signed pact before witnesses to share their life.

To my recollection there is nothing in the marriage laws about sharing information.

 

[NeoDevin]

Now... legal union in MY mind means that they are legal being bound together as ONE unit. That means no right to privacy from each other.

Don't suppose you could support this claim?

 

[zomgwtf]

Don't suppose you could support this claim?

I don't suppose I really have to since I clearly stated it was from MY mind. But hey... I'll support it by how I came to that conclusion.

Simple: English dictionary.
Legal = legal.
Union = describe unite/unify = to become one.

 

[zomgwtf]

To my recollection there is nothing in the marriage laws about sharing information.

Which marriage laws are you talking about, I know in Canada there are a crap load of laws that specifically single out married couples and treat them as one. This to me is clearly defined as requiring information to be shared, or at least viewed as shared by the government.

 

[JaredJames]

Well OK, what about in a marriage when one party takes out a loan and doesn't tell the other?

From what I've read, under certain laws in some states any debt created within the marriage is considered equal to both parties.

Community property states determine that the debt of one spouse is equally the debt of the other. This is true in obtaining debt at the time of marriage. The separate spouse does not have to apply or put her name on anything to be held responsible for the debt of her partner. After divorce, both partners are responsible for this debt individually and it does not transfer to a new partner.

Read more: Will My Wife Inherit My Debt if I Get Remarried? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_7372814_wife-inherit-debt-remarried_.html#ixzz19QkmHqDN

Now, I don't know how strictly this is applied but I'd say you have no right to privacy with such matters. You don't have the right to rack up debt within the marriage, that your spouse may end up jointly responsible for and keep it private from them. From what I've seen, I could go out and get a bunch of loans with nothing to do with my spouse and yet they can possibly end up as joint debt.

I know this doesn't really help with the "right to read emails" question, but I feel it brings an interesting point in relation to privacy within a marriage.

 

[DaveC426913]

To my recollection there is nothing in the marriage laws about sharing information.

mhm. I'll wait patiently while you finish reading that post.

 

[WhoWee]

It would be a legal matter in any case where the pair is not married. It is against the law to access another person's email without their permission. Do you disagree with this?

If you agree with the above, and cannot point out where in the marriage contract/laws couples (implicitly or explicitly) give up their right to privacy, then the only sensible conclusion is that it is a legal matter in this situation as well.

Perhaps one shouldn't be married to someone they don't trust?

 

[Newai]

You can have sex with me, but don't you dare read my email!??

OST, I suppose there could be a fair rationalization. If I send a letter or email to someone, I might have cause to expect privacy between me and that person, and not shared with that person's spouse, whose secretly reading his/her email. So, if I were in his shoes, I might seek permission first.

 

[drankin]

I could give a rats *** about my wife's email. I don't want her reading mine! But, realistically, our assets and information are mutual due to our marital contract.

 

[NeoDevin]

mhm. I'll wait patiently while you finish reading that post.

You mean the part where you make a bunch of unsupported assumptions?

 

[NeoDevin]

Perhaps one shouldn't be married to someone they don't trust?

I would agree with this. Too bad not everyone considers this before they get married.

 

[NeoDevin]

You don't have the right to rack up debt within the marriage, that your spouse may end up jointly responsible for and keep it private from them. From what I've seen, I could go out and get a bunch of loans with nothing to do with my spouse and yet they can possibly end up as joint debt.

Actually, you do have that right. Your partner agreed to it when they married you.

Example: My wife went and got approved for a car loan without me present, or my signature on anything. There's no law requiring her to disclose that to me (though financial records will likely be subpoenaed in any divorce proceedings).

We can argue the ethics of keeping certain secrets from your spouse until the cows come home, it doesn't change that every single person still has a right to privacy.

 

[NeoDevin]

Which marriage laws are you talking about, I know in Canada there are a crap load of laws that specifically single out married couples and treat them as one. This to me is clearly defined as requiring information to be shared, or at least viewed as shared by the government.

They are treated almost as one for most financial matters. And information shared with a spouse is considered privileged. As far as I'm aware, there is no requirement in the US or Canada to give up your privacy. If there is such a requirement, please cite the appropriate law in either country, or stop claiming it.

 

[Char. Limit]

You know there's a multi-quote button, right? It'll save you having to make four posts in a row.

 

[Jack21222]

I haven't read all 4 pages of posts, but I think it should be, at most, a misdemeanor. Possibly a civil suit. Not a felony.

 

[NeoDevin]

To all:

You all (I presume) agree that, as individuals in either Canada or US, we have a right to privacy. If you are claiming that this right is given up, or altered in any way shape or form when you get married, please cite the appropriate laws, or stop making unfounded claims.

If something is a crime outside a marriage, it's a crime inside a marriage. Unless there is a specific law stating otherwise. If you can't cite such a law, you are making an unfounded claim in violation of the forum guidelines. If you can cite the law, I will concede the point.

 

[Char. Limit]

Where in the Constitution are we granted a right to privacy? I don't see that phrase anywhere in the Constitution. Am I missing it?

 

[NeoDevin]

You know there's a multi-quote button, right? It'll save you having to make four posts in a row.

I know. I just tend to read through the thread and open a quote in a new tab with each post I want to respond to, then go to each of the tabs and fill out a response. I find it more convenient that way.

 

[Jack21222]

To all:

You all (I presume) agree that, as individuals in either Canada or US, we have a right to privacy. If you are claiming that this right is given up, or altered in any way shape or form when you get married, please cite the appropriate laws, or stop making unfounded claims.

If something is a crime outside a marriage, it's a crime inside a marriage. Unless there is a specific law stating otherwise. If you can't cite such a law, you are making an unfounded claim in violation of the forum guidelines. If you can cite the law, I will concede the point.

You're confusing "ought" and "is." This thread is entitled "SHOULD reading your wife's email be a crime?" It does NOT say "IS reading your wife's email a crime?"

Therefore, current law is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and none needs to be cited.

 

[NeoDevin]

Where in the Constitution are we granted a right to privacy? I don't see that phrase anywhere in the Constitution. Am I missing it?

For the general (unmarried) case, I would point you to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_email_hack" :

On April 30, 2010, the jury found Kernell guilty on two counts: the felony of anticipatory obstruction of justice and the misdemeanor of unauthorized access to a computer.[5][6] Sarah Palin posted a note on her Facebook page stating that she and her family were thankful the jury had rendered a just verdict.[7]
Kernell was sentenced on November 12, 2010, to one year plus a day in federal custody,[8] followed by three years of supervised release.[9] The sentencing judge recommended that the custody be served in a halfway house rather than in federal prison.[8][9]

This is a good example, because it involves access to an email account in the cloud, and thus sidesteps the issue of ownership of the computer (had the emails been stored on the local computer, rather than on Gmail, the case could be made that since it is a shared possession, he has a right to access the data on it).

 

[NeoDevin]

You're confusing "ought" and "is." This thread is entitled "SHOULD reading your wife's email be a crime?" It does NOT say "IS reading your wife's email a crime?"

Therefore, current law is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and none needs to be cited.

People have been discussing the "is" and making specific claims. It is up to them to support those claims.

 

[Newai]

Actually, you do have that right. Your partner agreed to it when they married you.

Example: My wife went and got approved for a car loan without me present, or my signature on anything. There's no law requiring her to disclose that to me (though financial records will likely be subpoenaed in any divorce proceedings).

We can argue the ethics of keeping certain secrets from your spouse until the cows come home, it doesn't change that every single person still has a right to privacy.

It seems that the rules of disclosure are handled at the state level. In California, for example, there are certain fiduciary duties:

California’s community property laws view marriage as a partnership; and just as partners in a business have rights and duties to one another, so do those in marital ones. These include the right to have access, and the duty to make available books concerning a financial transaction, and when asked to make available true information concerning the parties’ marital assets and debts and all transactions which could affect it. One partner does not have a greater right to these records than the other.

http://www.divorce360.com/divorce-a...-responsibilities-in-marriage.aspx?artid=1459

 

[NeoDevin]

It seems that the rules of disclosure are handled at the state level. In California, for example, there are certain fiduciary duties:

http://www.divorce360.com/divorce-a...-responsibilities-in-marriage.aspx?artid=1459

Finally, someone can support a claim! In general there is no requirement to disclose financial matters to another person, so they explicitly required it for married couples. Given that they explicitly require disclosure of financial matters, they implicitly do not require disclosure of anything else not mentioned.

Ergo: No legal right to access your spouse's email.

I concede the point of requirement to disclose debts.

 

[Newai]

Finally, someone can support a claim! In general there is no requirement to disclose financial matters to another person, so they explicitly required it for married couples. Given that they explicitly require disclosure of financial matters, they implicitly do not require disclosure of anything else not mentioned.

Ergo: No legal right to access your spouse's email.

I concede the point of requirement to disclose debts.

The laws look very complicated and exceptions may exist depending on circumstances, and again, at the state level. There is this bit here:

The ECPA also prohibits the use or recitation of information obtained from any interception. Most of the cases developed under the ECPA involve wiretapping of telephone and E-mail communications by law enforcement. Civilly, most of the case law, until recently, involved telephone monitoring. Under the ECPA, though, the owner of the communication equipment and services can usually monitor activities from that equipment. And in the marital setting, the courts have generally refused to review unauthorized access of the spouses' electronic communications. (This unwillingness to review possible violations probably wouldn't apply to people merely living together or involved in a relationship and not living together.)

In certain states where they exist, the person being spied upon may be able to seek relief under the common-law tort of invasion of privacy. Although many state courts have held that no such tort exists, the tort generally requires an intentional intrusion, "physical or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another upon his private affairs, or concerns ... if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person."

One of the key conditions to prosecuting an action for invasion of privacy is whether or not the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The courts across the country are finding with more and more frequency that no reasonable expectation of privacy exists with E-mail in the workplace setting. And a court in New Jersey reviewed whether a spouse's accessing of E-mails of the other spouse on a home computer violated New Jersey wiretap laws (modeled closely on the ECPA), finding that no expectation of privacy exists on a home computer when the family is involved and that the seized E-mails could be introduced as evidence of infidelity. This case focused largely on whether the spouse violated the section of the ECPA and the state equivalent by accessing "stored communications." The state judge ruled that E-mails, once saved on the hard drive automatically in the sent E-mail folder, were no longer stored communications under the act and were legally accessed, copied, and admitted into court.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/privacy/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=15600188

I'm afraid it's not so cut and dry, then.