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

[WhoWee]

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).

We are talking about a spouse - not a stranger, not a neighbor, not a friend, not a blood relative - a legal partner.

 

[xxChrisxx]

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

That is legislation covering a broad spectrum of cases, they are not hard and fast to specific cases, in reality 'laws' for specific cases are made in courts by setting precedents on legislation.

This is the whole reason there is a 'debate' about this, it's a gray area. So until a court rules on this specific scenario, setting a precedent. It's all opinion and speculation.

 

[WhoWee]

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

Please identify the part that stipulates SPOUSE.

 

[JaredJames]

Please identify the part that stipulates SPOUSE.

It doesn't, it applies "broadly" as chris put it.

Unless there is something specific in the marriage contract that changes things, this law still applies.

The problem we have is that because it's a spouse, people aren't sure whether or not they deserve the same privacy. So far, I haven't seen anything in marriage law that stipulates privacy post-marriage is any different to privacy pre-marriage.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Unless there is something specific in the marriage contract that changes things, this law still applies.

(Again) in your opinion.

In reality I would offer odds on that it gets dismissed by a court. Setting a precedent that it's not a criminal matter. Ruling that it is a criminal matter in this scenario would just open up a major can of worms in almost every divorce case.

 

[JaredJames]

(Again) in your opinion.

Well last time I checked, the law is the law. If it says X is illegal, it's illegal. The only reason it wouldn't be is if there is an amendment or clause making it legal in certain circumstances. So far, I haven't seen anything specifying that standard privacy laws don't apply or are affected by getting married.

In reality I would offer odds on that it gets dismissed by a court. Setting a precedent that it's not a criminal matter. Ruling that it is a criminal matter in this scenario would just open up a major can of worms in almost every divorce case.

Completely agree.

 

[Evo]

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

You misread it, it does not say "participant". It says if you are a party to it, such as owning the internet service account used would make you a party to it.

Most law is directed at hackers or government or employer rights. I have gone out of my way to find law that could be used to argue it is legal in certain circumstances outside any of these. If you insist that it can never be legal, then you need to cite your source.

 

[Jack21222]

You misread it, it does not say "participant". It says if you are a party to it, such as owning the internet service account used would make you a party to it.

This is absolutely false. I cannot think of a single reason why simply owning the internet service makes you a party to an email account. An email account is completely disconnected from the internet service. If I send you an email, and you access it at the library, I did NOT include the library personnel as a party to the email. The only parties to an email are the one listed in the "To:, From:, CC: and BCC:" fields.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Well last time I checked, the law is the law. If it says X is illegal, it's illegal.

Do you not understand that it's not 'law' yet? That's the whole reason why this thread is now a gazillion pages long.

It's not been decided that the statute you linked to applies in this case.

 

[Evo]

bows to xxChrisXX

I think we can all agree that we don't know since laws are still being made and challenged concerning internet privacy.

I do believe that if this is a real scenario, it will be thrown out.

 

[xxChrisxx]

bows to xxChrisXX

It's just one of the funny complexities of a common law system. The 'law' isn't the 'law' until a court rules (i.e interprets) it.

I would have gone to study law (I sometimes wish I had), until I found out just how much reading there is to do.

 

[JaredJames]

You misread it, it does not say "participant". It says if you are a party to it, such as owning the internet service account used would make you a party to it.

Apologies, I was using it in the sense of "party", not "participant".

If you insist that it can never be legal, then you need to cite your source.

I've never insisted that, but you provided a law that does make it illegal in all circumstances other than those specifically outlined. Based on that law, unless you conform to one of those circumstances it is illegal.

Do you not understand that it's not 'law' yet? That's the whole reason why this thread is now a gazillion pages long.

It's not been decided that the statute you linked to applies in this case.

It's just one of the funny complexities of a common law system. The 'law' isn't the 'law' until a court rules (i.e interprets) it.

It's a law that basically says, unless you are covered by one of the below circumstances, to intercept a communication is illegal. How does that not apply to this case?

I still don't see how 'owning' the internet connection to a house makes you a party to the communications of those who use it. On this basis, if someone sends me information on how to build a bomb, my mother can be considered a party to this communication and therefore said to be 'involved'.

Let's look at this situation on the basis of the law evo provided:

The husband is not a party to the communication of the emails.
The husband did not have permission to read the emails.
Therefore, on the basis of what is written in this law he has acted in an illegal manner by intercepting the mail.

Why this law wouldn't apply I don't know. Hopefully we'll see more on it soon.

I do agree though, it will be dismissed.

 

[╔(σ_σ)╝]

I wonder why breaking marriage vows is not a criminal offense.

 

[Evo]

I wonder why breaking marriage vows is not a criminal offense.

Adultery would count against her, he could make it a "fault" divorce, which might be why she's grasping at straws.

 

[lisab]

I wonder why breaking marriage vows is not a criminal offense.

Are prisons not crowded enough with 'criminals' who smoke a bit of weed?

 

[JaredJames]

Adultery would count against her, he could make it a "fault" divorce, which might be why she's grasping at straws.

It does sound like she's just trying to get back at him because of the whole "alerting the father to possible violence".

Aside from wasting money, it will achieve nothing.

Are prisons not crowded enough with 'criminals' who smoke a bit of weed?

Until the law says otherwise they are still criminals.

I don't know about the US, but the UK is currently cutting back on sentencing even for things such as knife crime. So I'm not so sure if that statement holds true.

(Yeah, I know it's not meant to be taken seriously. But I felt compelled to mention it.)

 

[╔(σ_σ)╝]

Adultery would count against her, he could make it a "fault" divorce, which might be why she's grasping at straws.

If intercepting your spouses email is a brigde of privacy then it seems logical to me that a bridge of the marriage contract should also be punishable by law( i.e a felony).

I think this issue is a bit rediculous. Mothers infrige on the privacy of their children daily; perhaps they should also be put in jail!

I think the guy should sue for emotional distress.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

It would certainly be grounds for divorce and settlement, but not for imprisonment.

 

[JaredJames]

I think this issue is a bit rediculous. Mothers infrige on the privacy of their children daily; perhaps they should also be put in jail!

As I believe DaveC mentioned earlier, this is a different situation.

 

[╔(σ_σ)╝]

As I believe DaveC mentioned earlier, this is a different situation.

Why is it any different ? If the child is not a minor then I do not see the difference.

Why is it that a mother can search the room of her son whom she suspects to be engaging in clandestine activities without a search warrant ?

 

[DaveC426913]

Why is it that a mother can search the room of her son whom she suspects to be engaging in clandestine activities without a search warrant ?

Uh, whose room is it exactly?

Children under 18 are pretty much entitled to what their parents give them.

Can you specify why a child would have a legal right to privacy?

If you are talking about offspring that are over 18, please say so.

 

[JaredJames]

Why is it any different ? If the child is not a minor then I do not see the difference.

Why is it that a mother can search the room of her son whom she suspects to be engaging in clandestine activities without a search warrant ?

If the child is under age, they are the legal responsibility of their parents. That is why parents can infringe on the privacy of their children.

Once the child is considered an adult, the parent has no right to do so.

I remember watching an episode of "Worlds Strictest Parents USA" and they were explaining that in Texas (I believe that was the state), if a minor 'runs away' from home the parent has the right to call the cops and have the child arrested. Something which they demonstrated when the unruly child run off and they had her thrown in a cell for a few hours.

 

[DaveC426913]

Once the child is considered an adult, the parent has no right to do so.

Though that does not preclude the adult-child from waiving those rights "as long as you're under my roof".

 

[╔(σ_σ)╝]

I honestly thought the whole legal responsibility "thingy" ended when the child ceased to be considered a minor which is at age 16.

 

[JaredJames]

Though that does not preclude the adult-child from waiving those rights "as long as you're under my roof".

Certainly, as I mentioned before, that then becomes the 'terms for living/staying in the house'. It is the agreement between you and your parents.

 

[JaredJames]

I honestly thought the whole legal responsibility "thingy" ended when the child ceased to be considered a minor which is at age 16.

Once the child reaches the ages of legal responsibility (18 I believe in most places) they are no longer the responsibility of their parents/guardians.

Nobody here has said any different.

 

[╔(σ_σ)╝]

Once the child reaches the ages of legal responsibility (18 I believe in most places) they are no longer the responsibility of their parents/guardians.

Nobody here has said any different.

Well where I live ( Ontario) it is age 16; basically,when you can leave home without parental consent.

 

[JaredJames]

Well where I live ( Ontario) it is age 16; basically,when you can leave home without parental consent.

It does vary from country to country, but legal responsibility is the age at which you can vote and enter a contract basically. As far as I'm aware, that is the age at which you are no longer legally a minor and considered the responsibility of your parents.

Something that is bugging me with this case is that you don't enter a contract with your spouse to lose your right to privacy from what I've seen. Heck, your doctor still has to keep things confidential.

EDIT: I've just skimmed law in Canada and it seems the age is 18 when full responsibility is removed from your parents. Being able to leave home is not the same as full responsibility being removed from your parents. Until 18, if you are arrested your parents are informed. Until you are 18, your parents can apply for custody of you. Until you are 18, you can be considered financially dependent on your parents.

 

[╔(σ_σ)╝]

It does vary from country to country, but it's the age at which you can vote and enter a contract basically.

Something that is bugging me with this case is that you don't enter a contract with your spouse to lose your right to privacy from what I've seen. Heck, your doctor still has to keep things confidential.

I think this kind of issues should be kept out of court. There are so many different scenerios like this that could arise.

Does a husband have legal right you ask his spouse "who called ? " on a phone line that they share when the call was not for him ?

Does his spouse have the right to take a message for him without permission ?

 

[DaveC426913]

Well where I live ( Ontario) it is age 16; basically,when you can leave home without parental consent.

Age of majority in Ontario is 18. Sorry. Might want to unpack that suitcase.