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

[Newai]

The full article is at http://www.freep.com/article/20101226/NEWS03/12260530/1001/&template=fullarticle

There's more to this story:

Leon Walker was Clara Walker's third husband. Her e-mail showed she was having an affair with her second husband, a man who once had been arrested for beating her in front of her small son. Leon Walker, worried that the child might be exposed to domestic violence again, handed the e-mails over to the child's father, Clara Walker's first husband. He promptly filed an emergency motion to obtain custody.

"I was doing what I had to do," Leon Walker told the Free Press in a recent interview. He has been out on bond since shortly after his arrest. "We're talking about putting a child in danger."

Here's an interesting point from the article:

Several area defense attorneys were astonished by the filing of the criminal charges.

"What's the difference between that and parents who get on their kids' Facebook accounts?" attorney Deborah McKelvy said. "You're going to have to start prosecuting a whole bunch of parents."

The statute he's being charged under reads,

Michigan statute 752.795

A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:

Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system or computer network to acquire, alter, damage delete or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system or computer network.

Being a family computer, I don't see how he doesn't have authorization, so this charge is hard pressed. He didn't have explicit permission, necessarily, because of password accessibility, but then that's where the expectation of privacy becomes the weighing stone.

 

[drankin]

Anything I do on my work puter is work property. Including my personal email if I chose to access it with it. At least I've always understood that.

Following that reasoning, I would think that the home computer and everything accessed on it is property of those in the home.

Just think if your kids could sue you for monitoring their email as a responsible parent might be inclined to do on occasion.

 

[DaveC426913]

Anything I do on my work puter is work property. Including my personal email if I chose to access it with it. At least I've always understood that.

Following that reasoning, I would think that the home computer and everything accessed on it is property of those in the home.

Just think if your kids could sue you for monitoring their email as a responsible parent might be inclined to do on occasion.

Hang on. A couple of issues here.

1] "The home" is not an entity in the sense that anything in it belongs to the home. All office equipment at my office also belongs to the company, but it does not follow that my camera, my razor or my favourite novel are the property of those in the home.

2] Kids are a separate issue. Parents are legally responsible for their children. Children do not have a legal right to privacy from their parents.

 

[drankin]

Hang on. A couple of issues here.

1] "The home" is not a legal entity in the sense that anything in it belongs to the home. All office equipment at my office also belongs to the company, but it does not follow that my camera, my razor or my favourite novel belongs to the home.

2] Kids are a separate issue. Parents are legally responsible for their children. Children do not have a legal right to privacy from their parents.

Good points.

In general, and maybe it's a state by state thing, when you get married it is a legal contract making your assets and debts from that point on mutual property. I would think that would include all information. That would seem logical to me. Maybe it's more assumed than legally defined. I believe a lot of laws are written without considering all the consequences over what probably should be exceptions.

 

[JaredJames]

I know it's the UK, but the company I worked for made all staff members hand over any passwords to personal sites (email or otherwise) that they access whilst on the premises or on company equipment. You weren't entitled to any privacy when using any equipment with access to / when you have direct access to company data.

However, back to topic. Does anyone here have a link to the actual marriage laws themselves so we can put this to bed once and for all?

 

[drankin]

I know it's the UK, but the company I worked for made all staff members hand over any passwords to personal sites (email or otherwise) that they access whilst on the premises or on company equipment. You weren't entitled to any privacy when using any equipment with access to / when you have direct access to company data.

However, back to topic. Does anyone here have a link to the actual marriage laws themselves so we can put this to bed once and for all?

I know that in the US, state by state, the marriage contract differs. If only it was as easy as a single law.

 

[JaredJames]

I'm not asking for every law "state by state", I just want the law pertaining to the specifics of this case.

And then once we've dealt with that, perhaps we could then expand into other states / countries and see how they define it.

 

[DaveC426913]

However, back to topic. Does anyone here have a link to the actual marriage laws themselves so we can put this to bed once and for all?

That will not put it to bed. Laws don't tend to mention what they don't cover.

 

[Evo]

I know it's the UK, but the company I worked for made all staff members hand over any passwords to personal sites (email or otherwise) that they access whilst on the premises or on company equipment. You weren't entitled to any privacy when using any equipment with access to / when you have direct access to company data.

However, back to topic. Does anyone here have a link to the actual marriage laws themselves so we can put this to bed once and for all?

I doubt that there are any laws that state that a spouse can't read your e-mails. Would he be arrested for reading her diary?

Was the internet account billed to him? If it was, then it was his account she was using.

I haven't seen this in any valid news reporting service, so I wonder if this is some internet myth that was started and picked up by some non-mainstream *news* sources. I've seen retractions in major news sources that were duped into thinking something circulating the internet was a real story.

 

[JaredJames]

That will not put it to bed. Laws don't tend to mention what they don't cover.

Unless there is something within the marriage contract that removes / reduces privacy between the partners, then it doesn't affect it. In which case, the rules regarding privacy remain the same before and after marriage.

So I'd say yes, it would put it to bed unless it has something a bit vague in it.

I doubt that there are any laws that state that a spouse can't read your e-mails. Would he be arrested for reading her diary?

Same thing, regarding privacy statements within the marriage contract as above.

 

[NeoDevin]

The laws look very complicated and exceptions may exist depending on circumstances, and again, at the state level. There is this bit here:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/privacy/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=15600188

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

Being a family computer, I don't see how he doesn't have authorization, so this charge is hard pressed. He didn't have explicit permission, necessarily, because of password accessibility, but then that's where the expectation of privacy becomes the weighing stone.

The emails in question were not on the family computer. They were on Google's servers. In the example you cite above it specifies that the emails be on the home computer.

As far as your employer insisting on access/ownership of anything you access at work: That's an agreement you make with your employer when you agree to work for them/use their equipment.

 

[Jack21222]

Was the internet account billed to him? If it was, then it was his account she was using.

I fail to see how that's relevant. My internet is billed to me, does that mean I get to have access to my roommates' emails?

You can have an email account without even having internet service. The two are completely separate.

 

[JaredJames]

I fail to see how that's relevant. My internet is billed to me, does that mean I get to have access to my roommates' emails?

You can have an email account without even having internet service. The two are completely separate.

If you specify when allowing your roommate access that you want to know what they are doing, including seeing their emails, then yes it is relevant as to use it they will have to agree to let you read their emails.

However, if you don't specify it you cannot simply go and read their emails. It isn't relevant as you have granted unrestricted access and they haven't agreed to allow you to read their email.

 

[Jack21222]

However, if you don't specify it you cannot simply go and read their emails it isn't relevant as you have granted unrestricted access and they haven't agreed to allow you to read their email.

That was a rhetorical question. Of course being billed for internet access doesn't give you access to every email account that uses it. I didn't expect an actual response.

 

[JaredJames]

Of course being billed for internet access doesn't give you access to every email account that uses it.

It does if you specify it via means of a contract when granting access and the party wanting access agrees to it.

But no, simply "being the bill payer" doesn't grant you automatic access.

 

[Evo]

I fail to see how that's relevant. My internet is billed to me, does that mean I get to have access to my roommates' emails?

You can have an email account without even having internet service. The two are completely separate.

But it's your service they're using to read and write them. It's part of the files that your ISP would have logged as part of your account.

Just like if you checked your personal e-mail account at work, it's now in their system, you gave them consent to log your e-mails when you used their network. Unless you work for a company with no internet policy.

 

[JaredJames]

But it's your service they're using to read and write them. It's part of the files that your ISP would have logged as part of your account.

Unless the people you have offered access to the internet via your service agree to the terms of you accessing (or monitoring) them you cannot do it (at least not legally).

Just like if you checked your personal e-mail account at work, it's now in their system, you gave them consent to log your e-mails when you used their network. Unless you work for a company with no internet policy.

No, it is specified and you need to agree to the company doing it (generally in order to get access to the internet). If they don't specify they are doing it and get your agreement, they can be had for an invasion of privacy.

In any circumstance, if you simply give access to the internet without specifying you are monitoring the other person hasn't agreed to you accessing their stuff and you are invading their privacy.
If you specify it as a term in order for someone to gain access, and they agree to it, then you have the right to do it.

 

[Evo]

Here it is,

2 (d)It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication

If it's your internet service that they use, it would not be illegal. Unethical and illegal are not the same.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html

I think a lot of people have misconceptions about their rights when it comes to the internet.

 

[JaredJames]

Here it is,

If it's your internet service that they use, it would not be illegal. Unethical and illegal are not the same.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html

Here is the full segment:

It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.

Note the bolded parts. I'm not entirely sure providing the internet service makes you "a party to the communication", otherwise every ISP out there could be charged when someone accesses illegal material through their services. Which only leaves them giving you consent to do it.

 

[Evo]

Here is the full segment:


Note the bolded parts.

Note the word OR, it's not both, so the part you pointed out does not need to apply.

You should read this.

Your e-mail isn't private.

http://public.findlaw.com/internet/email-privacy.html

 

[JaredJames]

Note the word OR, it's not both, so the part you pointed out does not need to apply.

Yes I know this, like I said:

"Which only leaves them giving you consent to do it."

As in, either you are "a party to the communication" or you have the consent of the person to intercept their communication. If you aren't the former, you can only do it on the bases of the latter (consent).

So, if you aren't the former and you don't have the latter, you can't do it legally.

You should read this.

Your e-mail isn't private.

http://public.findlaw.com/internet/email-privacy.html

I'll have a glance now.

EDIT: I've read through it and there's nothing in there I didn't already know. This article deals more with the issue of the ease at which access can be gained as opposed to the legality of it.

 

[WhoWee]

If you give your spouse a key to a car (registered to you) and they take it for a ride (without asking) - is it a stolen vehicle? The answer is NO - providing they return the car when you request they do so.

If you give someone your cell phone and they answer a call - can they be arrested? The answer is NO. If the same person checks the messages on your phone - can they be arrested? The answer is NO. If the same person checks the emails on your phone - can they be arrested? The answer is NO. Why? Because you gave them access.

This should also hold true for the OP case - the password was available to the spouse. All she needed to do was change her password if she wanted to protect her privacy. He had access and she knew it. This is known as tacit approval - a silent understanding between known parties.

Whether or not she wanted him to read the messages is another issue. However, she could have deleted the messages.

 

[JaredJames]

If you give your spouse a key to a car (registered to you) and they take it for a ride (without asking) - is it a stolen vehicle? The answer is NO - providing they return the car when you request they do so.

You gave the key to your car, not permission to drive. There is a difference.

If you give someone your cell phone and they answer a call - can they be arrested? The answer is NO. If the same person checks the messages on your phone - can they be arrested? The answer is NO. If the same person checks the emails on your phone - can they be arrested? The answer is NO. Why? Because you gave them access.

Again, as above. Giving someone something to hold / look after isn't the same as granting access.

I say "here's my rucksack whilst I go to the toilet", that doesn't give you the right to have a good rummage.

This should also hold true for the OP case - the password was available to the spouse. All she needed to do was change her password if she wanted to protect her privacy. He had access and she knew it. This is known as tacit approval - a silent understanding between known parties.

If I give you a key to my house to hold for me until I get back from holiday (let's say I'm paranoid about losing mine whilst abroad), that's all I've done. I haven't given them any right to go to my house and access it.

The only difference is whether or not it is considered "breaking and entering" or simply "trespassing".

Knowing the password is irrelevant. It is the act of accessing the emails without consent that is a breach of privacy. Knowing the password (providing it isn't because you 'stole' it) simply lessens the severity of the case. If you don't have a password at all, then it gets a bit awkward but it's still illegal to access them (look at the Google WiFi fiasco).

 

[Evo]

Jared, can you find any law that states reading the e-mail of someone else in your home on your internet service is illegal?

 

[xxChrisxx]

You gave the key to your car, not permission to drive. There is a difference.Again, as above. Giving someone something to hold / look after isn't the same as granting access.

I say "here's my rucksack whilst I go to the toilet", that doesn't give you the right to have a good rummage.If I give you a key to my house to hold for me until I get back from holiday (let's say I'm paranoid about losing mine whilst abroad), that's all I've done. I haven't given them any right to go to my house and access it.

The only difference is whether or not it is considered "breaking and entering" or simply "trespassing".

Knowing the password is irrelevant. It is the act of accessing the emails without consent that is a breach of privacy. Knowing the password (providing it isn't because you 'stole' it) simply lessens the severity of the case. If you don't have a password at all, then it gets a bit awkward but it's still illegal to access them (look at the Google WiFi fiasco).

All made irrelevant due to two words.
Implied consent.

Which makes all of the above a 'gray area', which means each point is taken on a case by case basis.

You can't go around explicitly stating what is and isn't allowed for every circumstance as nothing would ever get done. Which is why 'implied consent' works until someone has an issue. Then the court decides a precedent.

 

[JaredJames]

Jared, can you find any law that states reading the e-mail of someone else in your home on your internet service is illegal?

You gave the law relating to when it is legal to access someone's communications. If you do not satisfy the conditions within it you are breaking the law.

As I pointed out, if you do not satisfy either of the two criteria within 2d, you are illegally accessing (or intercepting in that case) the communications of another person.

There is no more to add and no need to. I don't have to find another law because that one covers it.

EDIT: I am curious as to whether or not being the bill payer makes you a participant and as such whether or not you satisfy the first of the criterion.

 

[Evo]

You gave the law relating to when it is legal to access someone's communications. If you do not satisfy the conditions within it you are breaking the law.

As I pointed out, if you do not satisfy either of the two criteria within 2d, you are illegally accessing (or intercepting in that case) the communications of another person.

There is no more to add and no need to. I don't have to find another law because that one covers it.

Okay, it says it is legal, consent is not necessary. Or consent can be given. It's not both.

 

[JaredJames]

Okay, it says it is legal, consent is not necessary. Or consent can be given. It's not both.

What? I've never said consent is necessary.

It says you either have to be a participant or you need consent. I get that (as I've stated multiple times).

If you aren't a participant (which is what I'm curious about because I don't see how being the bill payer makes you a participant) and you don't have consent, it is illegal.

 

[xxChrisxx]

it is illegal.

In your opinion.

 

[JaredJames]

In your opinion.

According to the law. Read the post please.

It's section 2d here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html