[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Thoughts?[/quote]
V[/quote]
I also caught my X wife with men. The foundation of a great marriage is Trust and Respect. If you do not trust and respect your spouse the like you said V get out. I wouldnt go through my best friends wallet or his email, should be the same with your spouse.
[quote]DJHT wrote:
Questions:
How many are actually on a grand jury? Does that vary for region and case load?
[/quote]
In NJ, there are 23 and they usually meet once a week for 16 weeks and are not open to the public. Most trials are open to the public unless the judge for some extraordinary reason has closed the proceedings. A grand jury is run by the prosecutor who decides what evidence to present. The grand jury then decides if there is enough evidence to bring the accused to trial.
^Thanks BG, last city I was in there was a lady I worked with who had been picked and there were 12 of them, I guess that is where the number came from.
I agree that there should be privacy in the marriage, and I certainly don’t think I would be entitled to know every facet of a wife’s life or that I should even be able to read everything she writes. However, if I had good reason to suspect my wife was cheating, and she left her password in public view, I don’t see anything criminal about a little snooping. No need to hire a PI when I could just as easily do it for free. I’ll try to find a more descriptive link.
I don’t think the law should be any different if I accessed someone else’s e-mail without their permission just because I am married to them, that doesn’t make sense. That they are married has no bearing IMO.
How is this any different then a woman going through a guys cell phone, Oh wait that’s right it’s a guy in a marriage, and the law clearly says FUCK HIM.
Reason 8596 not to get married.
This guy would get laughed off the tier.
[quote]debraD wrote:
I don’t think the law should be any different if I accessed someone else’s e-mail without their permission just because I am married to them, that doesn’t make sense. That they are married has no bearing IMO.
[/quote]
I guess we’ll see just how a jury views the issue of privacy in a marriage. But like a guy above me said, I don’t see how it’s any different than going through someone’s phone when you consider that she left her password in plain view of anyone at the computer. I definitely don’t think someone should go to jail for anything like that, or that it should ever go to trial.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
This guy would get laughed off the tier. [/quote]
He’s a computer programmer or something to that effect…methinks he wouldn’t do too well in prison.
I agree that there definitely should be privacy within a marriage. But I don’t feel that privacy within a marriage should be a “right”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that the Constitution specifically grants a right to privacy. There are four tort laws/requirements that define what privacy, or rather a violation of it, is.
Has the defendant unlawfully intruded into the plaintiff’s private affairs? In this case I would argue that the husband has not since he simply opened up a notebook that was inside of his home. I would argue that the notebook and everything inside of it is technically community property.
Has the def. disclosed the plaintiff’s personal/private information to anyone? In this case the husband has not.
Has the def. publicized anything about the plaintiff in a negative light? No. In fact, the plaintiff is the one who has made the details of this case a public matter by filing the lawsuit in the first place.
Has the defendant appropriated the plaintiff’s info for personal gain? This one is a little iffy. Is it considered personal gain if a husband finds out that his wife is cheating? I would argue no.
So it looks like the defendant has a very strong case here regarding privacy laws. Which is why this is being tried under a fairly new identity theft statute. But I would still argue that (assuming there is community property in Michigan) that the wife’s email account is technically also her husband’s. Unless it is strictly a work-related email account. I suppose the question here is whether or not an email account is property to begin with. I would argue that it is. Any other account a person has technically becomes shared property once a person gets married: bank accounts, trust funds, stock portfolios, etc.
I think what we really have here is an egotistical judge who would love the chance to attach his name to what he thinks may be a landmark precedent in the state of Michigan.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I think what we really have here is an egotistical judge who would love the chance to attach his name to what he thinks may be a landmark precedent in the state of Michigan.[/quote]
I read and appreciate the insight in the rest of your post, but DING DING FUCKING DING.
I do not believe the husband is going to face any real time. Also, TWO judges refused to dismiss this case. I do not think that they want to hang this guy. I am going on a limb and saying that their concern is how broad the statute is that brought this about in the first place. I think the judges want to address this issue as it will come up in the future. I don’t think it is for fame, I don’t think they want a free wack at the husband, I think they want to try and limit the statute that was written much too broadly at the onset of the internet blizzard of usage.
And a spouse does not have the legal right to open their spouse’s mail. It is a federal offense.
I think we will see a lot of this kinda thing in the future.
I just read this article about Firesheep which can enable you to listen in on a user on a shared network including if you are using a network at Starbucks.
This is just the legal community scrambling to deal with new technology.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I agree that there definitely should be privacy within a marriage. But I don’t feel that privacy within a marriage should be a “right”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that the Constitution specifically grants a right to privacy. There are four tort laws/requirements that define what privacy, or rather a violation of it, is.
Has the defendant unlawfully intruded into the plaintiff’s private affairs? In this case I would argue that the husband has not since he simply opened up a notebook that was inside of his home. I would argue that the notebook and everything inside of it is technically community property.
Has the def. disclosed the plaintiff’s personal/private information to anyone? In this case the husband has not.
Has the def. publicized anything about the plaintiff in a negative light? No. In fact, the plaintiff is the one who has made the details of this case a public matter by filing the lawsuit in the first place.
Has the defendant appropriated the plaintiff’s info for personal gain? This one is a little iffy. Is it considered personal gain if a husband finds out that his wife is cheating? I would argue no.
So it looks like the defendant has a very strong case here regarding privacy laws. Which is why this is being tried under a fairly new identity theft statute. But I would still argue that (assuming there is community property in Michigan) that the wife’s email account is technically also her husband’s. Unless it is strictly a work-related email account. I suppose the question here is whether or not an email account is property to begin with. I would argue that it is. Any other account a person has technically becomes shared property once a person gets married: bank accounts, trust funds, stock portfolios, etc.
I think what we really have here is an egotistical judge who would love the chance to attach his name to what he thinks may be a landmark precedent in the state of Michigan.[/quote]
I strongly disagree with this analysis.
First, this is not a civil suit. The plaintiff did not bring the action, the State did. Under no reasonable analysis is a married party’s private email account a shared account with the spouse unless specifically set up that way (Dan&Gina@fuckmywife.com). Also, in your point by point analysis, you seem to be stuck in tort law, and this is a criminal law action as I have already stated - and I understand that you know this. Finally, a judge did not make the decision to bring this case. We have an indictment. There has been no trial and no pretrial motions that we are aware of. What does this have to do with a judge?
This is actually pretty simple. There is a identity theft statute on the books that I’m sure never contemplated this “crime”. The wife has obviously contacted authorities and the prosecutor believes it applies. Apparently, a grand jury agreed with the prosecutor. The foregoing are reasonable assumptions, but could be wrong. What I do predict though, is that this gets plead down. And, like we’ve all acknowledged prior, we’re missing a lot of details here.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I agree that there definitely should be privacy within a marriage. But I don’t feel that privacy within a marriage should be a “right”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that the Constitution specifically grants a right to privacy. There are four tort laws/requirements that define what privacy, or rather a violation of it, is.
Has the defendant unlawfully intruded into the plaintiff’s private affairs? In this case I would argue that the husband has not since he simply opened up a notebook that was inside of his home. I would argue that the notebook and everything inside of it is technically community property.
Has the def. disclosed the plaintiff’s personal/private information to anyone? In this case the husband has not.
Has the def. publicized anything about the plaintiff in a negative light? No. In fact, the plaintiff is the one who has made the details of this case a public matter by filing the lawsuit in the first place.
Has the defendant appropriated the plaintiff’s info for personal gain? This one is a little iffy. Is it considered personal gain if a husband finds out that his wife is cheating? I would argue no.
So it looks like the defendant has a very strong case here regarding privacy laws. Which is why this is being tried under a fairly new identity theft statute. But I would still argue that (assuming there is community property in Michigan) that the wife’s email account is technically also her husband’s. Unless it is strictly a work-related email account. I suppose the question here is whether or not an email account is property to begin with. I would argue that it is. Any other account a person has technically becomes shared property once a person gets married: bank accounts, trust funds, stock portfolios, etc.
I think what we really have here is an egotistical judge who would love the chance to attach his name to what he thinks may be a landmark precedent in the state of Michigan.[/quote]
I strongly disagree with this analysis.
First, this is not a civil suit. The plaintiff did not bring the action, the State did. Under no reasonable analysis is a married party’s private email account a shared account with the spouse unless specifically set up that way (Dan&Gina@fuckmywife.com). Also, in your point by point analysis, you seem to be stuck in tort law, and this is a criminal law action as I have already stated - and I understand that you know this. Finally, a judge did not make the decision to bring this case. We have an indictment. There has been no trial and no pretrial motions that we are aware of. What does this have to do with a judge?
This is actually pretty simple. There is a identity theft statute on the books that I’m sure never contemplated this “crime”. The wife has obviously contacted authorities and the prosecutor believes it applies. Apparently, a grand jury agreed with the prosecutor. The foregoing are reasonable assumptions, but could be wrong. What I do predict though, is that this gets plead down. And, like we’ve all acknowledged prior, we’re missing a lot of details here.[/quote]
Well, of course my point by point analysis is concerned with tort. But I made those points for the benefit of those who refer to this case as a privacy thing. That’s why I said “Which is why this is being tried under a fairly new identity theft statute.” Were this to be a civil suit, as I argued above, I don’t think the plaintiff would have much of a case.
I think the case isn’t that simple. I think that what we have here is exactly what you said; a statute that does not clearly address this particular crime. The reason why it is being examined/tried is to set some sort of precedent in which future cases have some sort of standard by which to follow. Some of us may seem that this case is a wasteful expenditure (and I might be one of those, but again, we need much more info that what is provided) but these sort of cases can’t just keep being thrown out since there apparently isn’t any sort of precedent set yet.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Well, of course my point by point analysis is concerned with tort. But I made those points for the benefit of those who refer to this case as a privacy thing. That’s why I said “Which is why this is being tried under a fairly new identity theft statute.” Were this to be a civil suit, as I argued above, I don’t think the plaintiff would have much of a case.
I think the case isn’t that simple. I think that what we have here is exactly what you said; a statute that does not clearly address this particular crime. The reason why it is being examined/tried is to set some sort of precedent in which future cases have some sort of standard by which to follow. Some of us may seem that this case is a wasteful expenditure (and I might be one of those, but again, we need much more info that what is provided) but these sort of cases can’t just keep being thrown out since there apparently isn’t any sort of precedent set yet.
[/quote]
I’m not so sure it’s an interpretation issue for the courts so much as the job of the legislature to go back and close any perceived hole or ambiguity in the Statute. A judge can simply rule that the statute does not apply and throw the case out on a motion. A judge does not need a precedent to make a ruling on a motion. His ruling would be the precedent. Whether it becomes published and ends up being good law is another thing altogether. But throwing the case out, and the resulting publicity would probably move the drafters of the bill to either contract or expand the statute accordingly.
Next on LA Law, is that show still on? What is the new court show? Shit I forgot Law and Order right?
$10 says this shit will be an episode within a year, but the wife or husband is killed, someone always has to die.
Interesting perspective here.
http://ridethelightning.senseient.com/2010/12/yes-e-mail-snooping-on-a-spouse-is-usually-a-crime.html
I think this is the angle we’re going to see more of. Not the question of privacy, but of how the data is accessed. Especially when it involves corporate assets. Think of a company issued smartphone that the wife has gone and put something like FlexiSpy on. Or when hubby puts a keystroke logger on the wife’s corporate laptop.
[quote]blackhand wrote:
Interesting perspective here.
http://ridethelightning.senseient.com/2010/12/yes-e-mail-snooping-on-a-spouse-is-usually-a-crime.html
I think this is the angle we’re going to see more of. Not the question of privacy, but of how the data is accessed. Especially when it involves corporate assets. Think of a company issued smartphone that the wife has gone and put something like FlexiSpy on. Or when hubby puts a keystroke logger on the wife’s corporate laptop.
[/quote]
Finally more information. I completely agree with the law, the prosecution and that it was a crime. And as to above comments, I don’t think your examples have any bearing at all. Whether you are married or not, you have a right to privacy. Whether it was a corporate computer or phone should be irrelevant. Putting sypware on any computer, even a shared computer, is over the top and a crime. And you should not be accessing your wife’s personal email without permission.
Now, I do think it’s getting slippery given that the passwords were in the open and unprotected but when you consider that he accessed her account 4 MONTHS AFTER SHE FILED FOR DIVORCE, no reasonable person could expect that he was within his rights to view her email.
Does this case ever happen for a married couple? No. It is however entirely relevant that this occurred as they were in the throes of divorce and she had every right to privacy of her personal communication? Absolutely.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I do not believe the husband is going to face any real time. Also, TWO judges refused to dismiss this case. I do not think that they want to hang this guy. I am going on a limb and saying that their concern is how broad the statute is that brought this about in the first place. I think the judges want to address this issue as it will come up in the future. I don’t think it is for fame, I don’t think they want a free wack at the husband, I think they want to try and limit the statute that was written much too broadly at the onset of the internet blizzard of usage.
And a spouse does not have the legal right to open their spouse’s mail. It is a federal offense.
I think we will see a lot of this kinda thing in the future.
I just read this article about Firesheep which can enable you to listen in on a user on a shared network including if you are using a network at Starbucks.
This is just the legal community scrambling to deal with new technology.
[/quote]
End of thread right here.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
I agree that there should be privacy in the marriage, and I certainly don’t think I would be entitled to know every facet of a wife’s life or that I should even be able to read everything she writes. However, if I had good reason to suspect my wife was cheating, and she left her password in public view, I don’t see anything criminal about a little snooping. No need to hire a PI when I could just as easily do it for free. I’ll try to find a more descriptive link.[/quote]
This…I don’t see how a reasonable person could debate this…
If he was always snoopping into her shit frivolously, then fine, he is a jackass (still debatable whether or not he was breaking the law)…but if he is suspecting her of cheating, with good cause apparently, what is the issue with checking her email to verify?
Vegita’s advice to just “get a divorce and get it over with” if you suspect them of cheating is not good advice at all…what will be the grounds for your divorce? If you can’t prove an infidelity, you are going to lose half your shit…do you really want to give up half your shit? You can be a sucka if you want to, but count me out of that mess…