OWoman Posted December 28, 2010 Posted December 28, 2010 For those in the US, this ruling may be significant: American charged with hacking after snooping on wife's emails. It's being contested, but the charge - whatever the outcome - has landed the Michigan man on the wrong side of the law and generated much negative publicity for him. The broader issue - whether one's individual right to privacy is ceded on marriage - seems to be contentious one on LS, so I thought this case may spark some interesting discussion.
sally4sara Posted December 28, 2010 Posted December 28, 2010 If an employer can monitor your online activity and go through your email - surely a spouse can do the same to a PC in their home that they own half of. I don't care what laws get made about this. Till no one can monitor you in this way, I see no sense in a law preventing spouses access. Scare tactics . If I were so convinced I was being cheated on, I'd snoop and follow before leaving. Its the ones you snoop, follow but don't intend to leave that I find ridiculous. Why find out what you're not going to do anything about?
Distant78 Posted December 28, 2010 Posted December 28, 2010 For those in the US, this ruling may be significant: American charged with hacking after snooping on wife's emails. It's being contested, but the charge - whatever the outcome - has landed the Michigan man on the wrong side of the law and generated much negative publicity for him. The broader issue - whether one's individual right to privacy is ceded on marriage - seems to be contentious one on LS, so I thought this case may spark some interesting discussion. Yea, I heard this on the news while going to work this morning. But I know why this has been posted on forums and it's not going to stop people from snooping and finding out their spouse is a cheater whatsoever. This case is nothing but some futile attempt to cuddle cheaters and scare betrayed spouses. I don't care what some law says. Employers and the government do it every single day. No such thing as privacy on computers anyway.
donnamaybe Posted December 28, 2010 Posted December 28, 2010 Seems to me the negative publicity would be more on the cheating POS woman than the husband who simply wanted to know the truth about his own life.
Distant78 Posted December 28, 2010 Posted December 28, 2010 Its the ones you snoop, follow but don't intend to leave that I find ridiculous. Why find out what you're not going to do anything about? Agreed.
carhill Posted December 28, 2010 Posted December 28, 2010 Related thread IMO, no need to snoop when proactive transparency is a normal part of the marital relationship. If other, it would merely be a matter of compatibility in my view. YMMV.
Spark1111 Posted December 28, 2010 Posted December 28, 2010 Seems to me the negative publicity would be more on the cheating POS woman than the husband who simply wanted to know the truth about his own life. Agreed! And what exactly did he find out? That his now xW was cheating on him with H2. H2 had been abusive to her in the past. She was returning to H2 with H1's son. He informed H1 of his discovery and it could have an impact on their continued custody dispute over the son. But he is being prosecuted under anti-hacking laws, which protects corporations. He gained nothing finacially from his hacking into her account. Ahhh....hell hath no fury like a techie man scorned!
donnamaybe Posted December 28, 2010 Posted December 28, 2010 Agreed! And what exactly did he find out? That his now xW was cheating on him with H2. H2 had been abusive to her in the past. She was returning to H2 with H1's son. He informed H1 of his discovery and it could have an impact on their continued custody dispute over the son. But he is being prosecuted under anti-hacking laws, which protects corporations. He gained nothing finacially from his hacking into her account. Ahhh....hell hath no fury like a techie man scorned!Well, if she's so busy screwing around with various and sundry men, maybe she COULD be considered a corporation.
Distant78 Posted December 28, 2010 Posted December 28, 2010 Well, if she's so busy screwing around with various and sundry men, maybe she COULD be considered a corporation. And the men are the stockholders.
2long Posted December 28, 2010 Posted December 28, 2010 From what I'm hearing, the prosecutor is losing his job and the case isn't going anywhere. Also, it's secrecy that the waywards are trying 2 protect, not privacy. Also some more, adultery is still on the books as a felony in Michigan, though it's unlikely 2 be enforced. -ol' 2long
redcurls Posted December 28, 2010 Posted December 28, 2010 If you find yourself needing to snoop - its too late... And then, what's the point?
Spark1111 Posted December 28, 2010 Posted December 28, 2010 If you find yourself needing to snoop - its too late... And then, what's the point? To reassure yourself that you are not crazy....that your intuition was spot on....that that hinky feeling you had was correct and your sanity can be restored. To restore your trust in yourself. To verify your perception of your world. To finally learn the truth of what has been happening in your life without your knowledge of permission. To make a decision on your future based on truth, not lies or gaslighting. It is soooooo worth it.
Distant78 Posted December 28, 2010 Posted December 28, 2010 If you find yourself needing to snoop - its too late... And then, what's the point? The point is that I found out the partner I vowed to spend my life with, is not someone worth spending my life with. And that they selfishly made a conscious decision to keep viable intelligence from me that concerns my sanity and well-being.
NoLongerSad Posted December 29, 2010 Posted December 29, 2010 From what I'm hearing, the prosecutor is losing his job and the case isn't going anywhere. Also, it's secrecy that the waywards are trying 2 protect, not privacy. Also some more, adultery is still on the books as a felony in Michigan, though it's unlikely 2 be enforced. -ol' 2long One would presume that there certainly must be much more high priority crimes upon which to spend public resources, than this.
sally4sara Posted December 29, 2010 Posted December 29, 2010 I read a few articles about the story. The laptop was in their shared home and originally purchased by him. He, her, and her son used this laptop which would indicate it was common ground for the entire family. He suspected she was cheating with her second husband - a man who had been charged with beating her up in front of her son. He told the boy's dad (first husband) about it because it looked like she was going to be putting husband number two back in the boy's life. Husband number three did not seek a monetary profit by his actions nor did he gain any information that was a trade secret. Unless we are now suggesting racking up a string of divorces is a skilled trade. If this same item can be fought over in the division of property during a divorce proceeding, it was paid for out of his pocket (or their shared marital pocket) and it was in his residence when he hacked it - he should not be prosecuted under this law or any other. I thought it was ridiculous before but now its just damn disgusting. Guy gets cheated on, tries to protect his step son, and gets charges brought against him. WTF?!
Distant78 Posted December 29, 2010 Posted December 29, 2010 I read a few articles about the story. The laptop was in their shared home and originally purchased by him. He, her, and her son used this laptop which would indicate it was common ground for the entire family. He suspected she was cheating with her second husband - a man who had been charged with beating her up in front of her son. He told the boy's dad (first husband) about it because it looked like she was going to be putting husband number two back in the boy's life. Husband number three did not seek a monetary profit by his actions nor did he gain any information that was a trade secret. Unless we are now suggesting racking up a string of divorces is a skilled trade. If this same item can be fought over in the division of property during a divorce proceeding, it was paid for out of his pocket (or their shared marital pocket) and it was in his residence when he hacked it - he should not be prosecuted under this law or any other. I thought it was ridiculous before but now its just damn disgusting. Guy gets cheated on, tries to protect his step son, and gets charges brought against him. WTF?! And the pathetic part about it is that she goes back to the person that knocked her 2 front teeth out.
112233 Posted December 29, 2010 Posted December 29, 2010 I thought it was ridiculous before but now its just damn disgusting. Guy gets cheated on, tries to protect his step son, and gets charges brought against him. WTF?! I couldn't agree more, except the case is about access to the email account, not the personal computer. Still, probably best if her case is dismissed for lack of evidence, that would be the same as him winning without requiring a precedent be set.
Distant78 Posted December 29, 2010 Posted December 29, 2010 I couldn't agree more, except the case is about access to the email account, not the personal computer. Still, probably best if her case is dismissed for lack of evidence, that would be the same as him winning without requiring a precedent be set. Oh well, if she wasn't so dumb she should've used someone else's computer or went to the library or something. Tough luck he broke in her email account. It was on his computer, on shared property. "Privacy" flies out the window when she decides to start riding another man's c0ck behind my back.
misternoname Posted December 29, 2010 Posted December 29, 2010 Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't infidelity still illegal in many states? Maybe he should press charges for her being a ho!
PegNosePete Posted December 29, 2010 Posted December 29, 2010 The question is, why on earth did he admit to hacking? Why not just say she left her email open one day? No way to prove it... innocent until proven guilty...
Owl Posted December 29, 2010 Posted December 29, 2010 If you find yourself needing to snoop - its too late... And then, what's the point? Not true. I was able to save my marriage...and snooping was key in doing so. My long time experience on this site and others has shown me a huge number of other stories that played out very similar to mine. Point of interest...confronting a cheating spouse WITHOUT having "snooped" and gotten "proof" is pointless, and will likely result in the affair going more underground, rather than giving the marriage a chance to reconcile. Once the truth is out there...THEN recovery can become an option.
PegNosePete Posted December 29, 2010 Posted December 29, 2010 Point of interest...confronting a cheating spouse WITHOUT having "snooped" and gotten "proof" is pointless Ah, I can say "not true" to that one, I confronted without proof and got a confession in a matter of minutes. I wouldn't recommend it to everyone, though.
Owl Posted December 29, 2010 Posted December 29, 2010 Ah, I can say "not true" to that one, I confronted without proof and got a confession in a matter of minutes. I wouldn't recommend it to everyone, though. Fair enough...there are always exceptions. And I'll grant that successfully recovering a marriage after infidelity is likely the "exception" rather than the norm as well. I'm just saying that from what I've seen...most WS's will EVADE/LIE/GASLIGHT to avoid admitting to the affair, unless they're simply not able to do so. That's where the "snooping" is normally required.
Owl Posted December 29, 2010 Posted December 29, 2010 I couldn't agree more, except the case is about access to the email account, not the personal computer. Still, probably best if her case is dismissed for lack of evidence, that would be the same as him winning without requiring a precedent be set. Actually, they appear to be trying to prosecute this as a case of "hacking", based on his 'techie background'. She also notified authorities about the breach of her e-mail account, something prosecutors have not taken lightly. "The guy is a hacker," Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper said in a voice mail response to the Free Press. "It was password protected; he had wonderful skills and was highly trained. Then he downloaded them and used them in a very contentious way." According to CNN, Walker said he did not hack the computer and simply entered her password, which she kept next to the computer. Walker's defense attorney, Leon Weiss, told the Free Press that Cooper is misusing the law by charging his client under a statute that typically applies to identity theft or stealing intellectual property or trade secrets. And that doesn't make sense, given the bolded portion above. She forfeited an expectation of privacy by keeping her password next to the computer. This has nothing to do with the laws/statutes the DA cited previously.
Recommended Posts