|
|
|
|
|
| | For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheatingPage 3 of 15 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) |
The man didn't acquire any property, including intellectual property, through this action, nor is it, in my view, reasonably arguable that it was his intent to do so. I thought he copied the mail? Sent it on to someone else, too. Sounds like "acquiring" to me.
In this case I doubt it can be proven he did it underhandedly.
BUT.. I still stand by this: no one should be able to get away with hacking into any sort of account, of anyone, if it can be proven they did so.
Yes, as someone mentioned, we have big crimes to worry about in these days. Well, actually we've always had big crimes to worry about.
So do we just ignore all the little crimes? "Go ahead and do the little things, we're only going to go after the big ones"?
Is that how people want to live their lives now?
"We have murderers to go after, stop going after the little guy" is not going to be any comfort to me when someone does a 'little thing' against me.
"Stone HER.. she committed the bigger crime".. someone said.
Yes, she did wrong.. and it may be against (probably so) the law of her state.
So yes, she SHOULD face punishment, if it can be proven.
But he also did a crime, according to what's written in the law, so he also should face the consequences, if it can be proven.
And the person who said the "you americans" bullsh1t.. what utopia do you live in?
I did not know there was a country on this world that was perfect with perfect people. | |
|
| For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 12/29/2010 5:37:13 AM |
So do we just ignore all the little crimes? "Go ahead and do the little things, we're only going to go after the big ones"?
Ok then why isn't she being prosecuted for the adultery then?
It is a "small" crime as well!
THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931
Chapter V
ADULTERY
Back to Infidelity Cases
*
750.29 Adultery; definition.
Sec. 29.
Definition - Adultery is the sexual intercourse of 2 persons, either of whom is married to a third person.
*
750.30 Adultery; punishment.
Sec. 30.
Punishment - Any person who shall commit adultery shall be guilty of a felony; and when the crime is committed between a married woman and a man who is unmarried, the man shall be guilty of adultery, and liable to the same punishment.
*
750.31 Adultery; complaint and time of prosecution.
Sec. 31.
Complainant and time prosecution to be commenced - No prosecution for adultery, under the preceding section, shall be commenced, but on the complaint of the husband or wife; and no such prosecution shall be commenced after 1 year from the time of committing the offense.
*
750.32 Adultery; cohabitation of divorced parties.
Sec. 32.
Cohabitation by divorced parties - If any persons after being divorced from the bonds of matrimony for any cause whatever, shall cohabit together, they shall be liable to all the penalties provided by law against adultery.
My point was there are far more important crimes to prosecute than this and if the DA is going to charge one "small" crime he should charge the other "small" crime! | |
|
| For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 12/29/2010 5:46:23 AM | I think this sort of snooping is... well, just not right.
On the other hand, it IS very different from opening mail - particularly in the US, where very strict federal mandates protect mail, as the founders wanted it to be a dependable infrastructure. Also why mail order in the US is much safer than internet commerce, which is not subject to the federal mail mandates.
Exactly what laws come into play with e-mail probably varies widely across jurisdictions, as it's a fairly new field.
ED BEAR | |
|
| For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 12/29/2010 10:43:14 AM |
acquire property
Personal data should always be protected if the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy and conducts themselves as if the data is confidential. It is not property in the tangible sense, but it belongs solely to the individual - and, IMO, it is every bit as important.
That said, the real crime here is the guy’s conduct. Taking steps to learn someone’s PIN number or password is bogus, but more importantly it is a step towards the larger issue - using the information to your benefit and to the other person’s detriment. THAT is (and should be) a crime.
Seems to me the intent of the parties is a factor. My wife has access to many of my accounts (and mail). Occasionally she will check bank balances, transfer funds or even forge my signature - with my permission and consent. While that conduct violates the letter of the law, it lacks mens rea (and is done with consent - a clear counter indication of malintent). However, if she transferred the funds from my private accounts to our joint account and “runnofft”, that conduct would have been performed with bad intent.
One example that comes to mind is sex (What can I say? It’s always on my mind.) If I access my wife’s amusement park with her consent we’re good. If not, it’s a crime.
My point was there are far more important crimes to prosecute than this and if the DA is going to charge one "small" crime he should charge the other "small" crime!
This might be a case of selective enforcement, I’m not in position to say. But in order for the prosecutor to charge her with adultery, he needs proof she did the deed with the other guy. That’s difficult to come by. | |
|
| For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 12/29/2010 11:05:22 AM |
This might be a case of selective enforcement, I’m not in position to say. But in order for the prosecutor to charge her with adultery, he needs proof she did the deed with the other guy. That’s difficult to come by.
Yes but in this case we have her e-mails proving it so why is the husband being singled out?
The laws says the wife and the man she was with should be charged too.
So in this case if the DA is truly trying to clean up crime he/she would charge the wife and lover with adultery.
I see this as a case of sensationalism.......Something to grab headlines.....I don't see it going anywhere.
Just a DA looking for their 15 minutes of fame. | |
|
| For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 12/29/2010 11:12:14 AM | At the end of my marriage to my first husband, after I told him I wanted a divorce, he actually hacked into my computer using a network I had no idea of. He read every email and every instant message coming and going. Of course I was upset to have my privacy invaded this way. He actually printed some of my emails for his lawyer to try and use against me. It didn't work for him. I would have liked to press charges at that point because I felt emotionally raped. It definitely made me see I was right to want the divorce.  | |
|
| For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 12/29/2010 11:27:52 AM |
In this instance, I think it'll be a very successful defense, should it even come to that (I strongly suspect it won't), that if one expects privacy, one doesn't keep passwords written down next to a shared family computer!
While I tend to agree with you, let me play devil's advocate and ask, does that mean, if you were to leave a journal or diary in a place where a spouse had access to it, that you would not have an expectation of privacy with respect to it's contents?
This might be a case of selective enforcement, I’m not in position to say. But in order for the prosecutor to charge her with adultery, he needs proof she did the deed with the other guy. That’s difficult to come by. Yes but in this case we have her e-mails proving it so why is the husband being singled out? The laws says the wife and the man she was with should be charged too.
In my experience and opinion, selective enforcement is the norm and not the exception. There are too many crimes being committed on a daily basis pretty much everywhere for the limited legal resources available to process and prosecute them. As a result, decision makers often have to arbitrarily pick which cases to move forward, which to let sit, and which to toss out.
As for the idea that the emails could be used to prove the adultery, my bet would be that they would be inadmissible as hearsay. Furthermore, assuming they could be admitted into evidence, and assuming that they included explicit reference to facts and events that would prove establish such a crime, the prosecution would still have to prove both the authenticity of the emails as well as the veracity of the contents. So what happens when the second husband says that the emails were all just an exercise in creative writing between him and his former wife? Very difficult to prove without a direct (peeping tom) witness who saw the actual act of adultery taking place.
So do we just ignore all the little crimes? "Go ahead and do the little things, we're only going to go after the big ones"?
Is that how people want to live their lives now?
"We have murderers to go after, stop going after the little guy" is not going to be any comfort to me when someone does a 'little thing' against me.
In a perfect world, every crime, no matter how big or how small, would be dealt with according to the applicable law(s). However, in the real world, it's just not possible to do that. So, unfortunately, the "little crimes" typically don't get prosecuted, or much white collar crime for that matter, unless it is a significant enough case, a media worthy case, or a situation where it is otherwise politically expedient to do so.
While that conduct violates the letter of the law, it lacks mens rea (and is done with consent - a clear counter indication of malintent).
Mens rea? Someone either went to law school or is well read. :) | |
|
| For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 12/29/2010 12:32:15 PM |
Yes but in this case we have her e-mails proving it so why is the husband being singled out?
I haven't seen the content of the e-mails so I can't judge, but as Fastdog points out - her e-mails would pretty much have to come out and say "baby I really enjoyed ****ing you last night". Too I suppose that - since he (the other victim) had access to her e-mail - there might be a question as to who was the author of the messages. There are just too many variables to second guess the county attorney's decision.
In my experience and opinion, selective enforcement is the norm and not the exception.
Disagree. Not to say that it doesn't happen at the prosecutorial level (vs enforcement), but it isn't the norm.
There are too many crimes being committed on a daily basis pretty much everywhere for the limited legal resources available to process and prosecute them.
True re: the limited resources and processing. IMO, resources are even more limited on the defense side. Either way, the result is more plea agreements and not fewer charges. I think a look at the rising number of cases (and the declining resources) speaks volumes there.
As for the idea that the emails could be used to prove the adultery, my bet would be that they would be inadmissible as hearsay.
IMO - If proper foundation were laid, the e-mails would be admissible.
Someone either went to law school or is well read.
Airport paperbacks! | |
|
| For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 12/29/2010 2:12:10 PM | Just as I expected, now it is coming out that this was NOT a case of a married man checking up on his wife, using the family computer. It is a case of a DIVORCED man, breaking into his ex-wifes private email, as part of a general invasion of her privacy.
This should be most reasonably looked upon, as being functionally identical to someone opening your REGULAR mail without your permission, AFTER the two of you had your lives LEGALLY disentangled. He SHOULD be prosecuted.
I wont predict how the case might come out, because again, we DON'T HAVE ALL OF THE FACTS. All we have is a few clumsily written news blurbs. What I can say, is that in my opinion, it will not be justice for HER, if he is found to be within his rights to do what he did. | |
|
| For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 12/29/2010 4:14:34 PM |
Ok then why isn't she being prosecuted for the adultery then?
It is a "small" crime as well!
Duh. She isn't being prosecuted because adultery is not a crime.
At worst, it is a civil matter, as in the breaking of the marriage "contract".
When you cheat on your spouse the penalty is usually that you lose your spouse/marriage. Or not. You don't go to jail. Crime= jail.
So in this case if the DA is truly trying to clean up crime he/she would charge the wife and lover with adultery.
LOL. As if the DA or Crown Prosecutor give a flying **** about people who cheat on their spouses. If your partner cheats, leave. You don't need the government to fight that battle for you.
I see this as a case of sensationalism.......Something to grab headlines.....I don't see it going anywhere.
You couldn't be more wrong. This is an American case that is getting lots of news coverage in Canada and other countries as well. It is an important test case. The law is struggling to keep up with technology, and in this case, the "hacking" laws are being tested, and may well be drastically redefined in the near future. A lot of people will be watching this case very closely. | |
|
| For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 12/29/2010 4:27:42 PM | Here's the latest:
(CNN) -- Leon Walker, a Detroit, Michigan, computer technician, faces a jury trial in February for allegedly hacking into his then-wife's e-mail account.
"She'd asked me to read her e-mails before," Walker said in an interview this week. "She gave me the password before. She didn't hide it."
Walker says the e-mails revealed that Clara Walker, who has been married three times, was having an affair with her second husband.
Walker, the third husband, shared the documents with his wife's first husband, who then used them to file an emergency motion to obtain custody of his son with Clara Walker. Leon Walker said he and the first husband were both concerned because, according to Walker, husband No. 2 had a prior arrest on a domestic violence charge.
"He took action with the courts to have himself protected and I took action with the court to have my daughter protected," Walker said.
When Clara Walker learned how the e-mails made their way into court, she complained to police.
Oakland County, Michigan, Prosecutor Jessica Cooper used a state anti-hacking law to charge Leon Walker with a felony.
Cooper did not immediately respond to CNN calls for comment, but the Detroit Free Press published a voice-mail from her.
"The guy is a hacker," Cooper told the newspaper. "It was password protected, he had wonderful skills, and was highly trained. Then he downloaded them and used them in a very contentious way."
The Michigan statute forbids someone from accessing "a computer program, computer, computer system or computer network" to acquire property "without authorization."
New York criminal defense lawyer Paul Callan said all 50 U.S. states have such laws, but he called this "a highly unusual use of a criminal statute."
The laws are typically used to prosecute "some technological guy who's broken into a company's computer system and damaged it or stolen something," Callan said.
Leon Walker's defense lawyer agreed.
"I find it so hard to believe that our legislature would enact a law and say 'You know what, if husbands and wives are reading each others' e-mail, that's a priority for us and we've got to stop that,'" attorney Leon Weiss said.
Walker said his decision to peek into his wife's e-mail account was like someone kicking in a door to save someone from a burning house.
"Do you kick the door open or do you let it burn?" Walker said. "I did what I felt was absolutely necessary."
Clara Walker responded in a written statement submitted by her attorney, saying "Leon is not the saint portrayed in the media."
"If you believe news reports you would think he was the faithful husband looking to protect my children. Nothing could be farther from the truth," she said.
The couple's divorce was finalized earlier this month. | |
|
| For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 12/29/2010 4:42:55 PM |
Duh. She isn't being prosecuted because adultery is not a crime.
You must have missed the posting of the law that says it is a felony in their state. I'll re-post.
THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931
Chapter V
ADULTERY
Back to Infidelity Cases
*
750.29 Adultery; definition.
Sec. 29.
Definition - Adultery is the sexual intercourse of 2 persons, either of whom is married to a third person.
*
750.30 Adultery; punishment.
Sec. 30.
Punishment - Any person who shall commit adultery shall be guilty of a felony; and when the crime is committed between a married woman and a man who is unmarried, the man shall be guilty of adultery, and liable to the same punishment.
*
750.31 Adultery; complaint and time of prosecution.
Sec. 31.
Complainant and time prosecution to be commenced - No prosecution for adultery, under the preceding section, shall be commenced, but on the complaint of the husband or wife; and no such prosecution shall be commenced after 1 year from the time of committing the offense.
*
750.32 Adultery; cohabitation of divorced parties.
Sec. 32.
Cohabitation by divorced parties - If any persons after being divorced from the bonds of matrimony for any cause whatever, shall cohabit together, they shall be liable to all the penalties provided by law against adultery.
So DUH.......it is a felony!
LOL. As if the DA or Crown Prosecutor give a flying **** about people who cheat on their spouses. If your partner cheats, leave. You don't need the government to fight that battle for you.
It is a felony just like he is charged with so they should treat it the same!
You couldn't be more wrong. This is an American case that is getting lots of news coverage in Canada and other countries as well. It is an important test case. The law is struggling to keep up with technology, and in this case, the "hacking" laws are being tested, and may well be drastically redefined in the near future. A lot of people will be watching this case very closely.
I could be wrong but I believe when the facts are presented he will walk. | |
|
| For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 12/29/2010 4:48:54 PM |
(myrgth) I know that on my computer, unless I specifically log out of site then it will keep me signed in.
Seems to me if you had something to hide then you would purposely log out each time you used it.
Then again, he may have just guessed her password.
I don't get that using a shared computer is grounds to invade privacy.
I do get that being married is, though, to some degree.
This story has the feel of "Urban Legend" all over it. But, if true, it's plainly and simply that she's PO'ed that she got busted cheating. Her claiming invasion of privacy is just an attempted smoke-screen, 'sall...
Dr. ES...  | |
|
| For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 12/29/2010 5:04:47 PM | Funny thinig you should mention this.
My longtime girlfriend Joanne_69, or something like that,has been using this service to **** and suck men from POF.
I come home last week to find her email acct open and on my desktop. I simply looked and found she was trading emails with dozens of men from here.
she even had a code with one of her "johns". MMBJ stands for Monday morning blowjob. Very classy indeed!
I also found that she was carrying on a sexual relationship with at least 3 men from here. Along with the other 50-75 emails she was getting regularly from horny men all over. What a ****ing tramp. She got thrown out of my home,but not before she played "Victim" in front of the Deputies she called.
Was a ****ed up X-Mas,as she had been stealing my money for months to play hide the salami with numorous men from here. I am seeing my Dr tomorrow to be sure she hasnt given me the gift that keeps on giving
I will give her credit where credit is due.. She gives an excellant blowjob
Unfortunately,thats where her skills end. I am sure she will find someone else to pay her way. Thats what Whores do! | |
|
| |
| For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 12/29/2010 7:24:02 PM |
You must have missed the posting of the law that says it is a felony in their state. I'll re-post.
LOL. I didn't miss anything, since it wasn't there. You went back and edited your post to add that in later. It's from when? Oh, I see 1931. Hmm....am excellent example of how the law changes and evolves to where some laws are so infrequently prosecuted that they cease to be part of commonly practiced law. I suppose in time, antiquated laws are formally stricken from the books, but for the time being that law is basically unenforceable since so many millions of people cohabit, not to mention cheat.
Cheating is not a crime where I live, and you don't need to prove (or claim ) adultery to get a divorce, anyway.
No prosecution for adultery, under the preceding section, shall be commenced, but on the complaint of the husband or wife;
^^^^^^
Even from your ancient excerpt, it is pretty clear that the prosecutor has no vested interest in such cases. It was up to the husband or wife to decide to follow through. Only a tiny segment of the population might be interested in that law, and even those folks best be careful....since so many people are shacking up with separated partners. Meh... they'd probably decide not to rock that particular boat. Like the Michigan dude, for example; if he charged her, she would charge him, according to what the article says.
Now, any law that concerns people's privacy in this age of information technology, identify theft, etc. has got some legs.
I could be wrong but I believe when the facts are presented he will walk.
It doesn't matter, though. The case is shining a big, bright light on computer privacy issues, and more cases will follow until the new laws are on the books. | |
|
| For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 12/29/2010 9:27:23 PM |
LOL. I didn't miss anything, since it wasn't there. You went back and edited your post to add that in later. It's from when? Oh, I see 1931. Hmm....am excellent example of how the law changes and evolves to where some laws are so infrequently prosecuted that they cease to be part of commonly practiced law. I suppose in time, antiquated laws are formally stricken from the books, but for the time being that law is basically unenforceable since so many millions of people cohabit, not to mention cheat.
But it is still a law and it seems he is being the better person seeing as he is not demanding the DA prosecute.
Even from your ancient excerpt, it is pretty clear that the prosecutor has no vested interest in such cases. It was up to the husband or wife to decide to follow through. Only a tiny segment of the population might be interested in that law, and even those folks best be careful....since so many people are shacking up with separated partners. Meh... they'd probably decide not to rock that particular boat. Like the Michigan dude, for example; if he charged her, she would charge him, according to what the article says.
Yes but does she have the proof he has? As I said it shows him to be the better person as she had to go to the DA with the e-mail issue to start with.
Maybe but the fact the computer was at least shared somewhat make this case really weak. | |
|
| For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 12/30/2010 11:33:20 AM |
Yes but does she have the proof he has? As I said it shows him to be the better person as she had to go to the DA with the e-mail issue to start with.
By that rationale, the better person is the person who has better proof! The wife did not specify publicly how she knew he was a cheater, but that does not mean she has no proof. I think they are both morally corrupt. Cheating is despicable, and so is going through your spouse's private correspondence. Besides, nothing on earth would induce me to have my personal business play out publicly, unless I were already a public figure. | |
|
| |
| What has happened to common sense
Posted: 12/31/2010 9:01:30 PM |
The judge is a complete fool!
Case shouldn't be heard!
I agree, and I'm not at all sure that it has been. AFAIK the judge may yet refuse it.
Ooo! Fireworks going off!
HAPPY NEW YEAR! | |
|
| For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/1/2011 6:42:05 AM | To OP
I visited the web site you provided
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40820892/ns/technology_and_science-security and found the comment below.
Who has she been sleeping with, what has she been possibly exposing him to, doesn't he have a right to know that? It looks like this case will make it a more "interesting" New Year. Should exposing one's trusting partner to risk of STD's be a felony? | |
|
| For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/1/2011 7:40:11 AM |
mjyawn67
We have killers and rapists walking around free and some jackazz DA is prosecuting a guy for looking at a cheaters e-mail!
And people wonder why this country is in the shape it is.
Yea hell, I have read where a BANK EMPLOYEE actually took a cheque made out to someone else and photocopied it to give to the spouse. THAT is breaking the law ... but hey who cares. All is fair in divorce and it is always the other persons fault.
Now personally I think that Bank Employee show be fired. If anyone gave anyone else information about my bank accounts, and I don't care if it is my husband, father or kids I would go after the employee and have them dismissed on the spot. But making a photocopy was really blatantly breaking the law.
Just as I expected, now it is coming out that this was NOT a case of a married man checking up on his wife, using the family computer. It is a case of a DIVORCED man, breaking into his ex-wifes private email, as part of a general invasion of her privacy.
Yep just another dumb ass stalker. He SHOULD be charged. Guessing there was more to the divorce than meets the eye. Hahaha .... | |
|
| For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/1/2011 9:38:59 AM | He used her password. Unless she had given him permission to do that, it's as if he stole a key to a lock. There's the offense, in my mind. If the email had been out in the open and not required a password to read, then I don't think it would be the same thing. It would be like the difference between someone opening an unopened, sealed letter and just picking up an opened letter left sitting out in the open.
I think even married couples are entitled to privacy. I would not snoop on a spouse and would expect them not to snoop on me.
Oh, wait a minute, they were *divorced*? And he did it after they were divorced? That's bad. Really bad.
I did once, many years ago, snoop into someone's mail when I shouldn't have. What I found out really wasn't all that important but it bugged me and I couldn't admit that I had that information. That, in itself, was its own punishment. I've never done it again, no matter how easy the opportunity presented or how much I've been tempted. I don't want to be put in the position again of knowing something I'm not supposed to know and either having to live with it silently or else admit I've been snooping.
<div class='quote'>Ok then why isn't she being prosecuted for the adultery then?
Because laws against adultery, if they are still on the books, are no longer enforced.
| |
|
| For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/1/2011 10:46:42 AM |
Yea hell, I have read where a BANK EMPLOYEE actually took a cheque made out to someone else and photocopied it to give to the spouse. THAT is breaking the law ... but hey who cares. All is fair in divorce and it is always the other persons fault.
For some people, the morally correct thing and the thing that works for them, are always the same thing. No matter what.
Now personally I think that Bank Employee show be fired
Screw fired. Prosecuted to full extent of the law. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Page
3
of
15 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
|
|
Home
login 
