fltc Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 There are some great legal reasonings presented here for not snooping. But it still wouldn't stop me, even if I did get a fine and 30 days. Sentence would probably be commuted, and maybe community service. Jails are too full for this kind of bullsh%t. I'll snoop any time I please-and keylog, gps, etc...if I feel like I am being had, I'm going to get the upper hand. The high road is so overrated, and I'm not Buddha, so I can take the fallout.That's just how I am. I hope everyone understands that not only are laws different in various jurisdictions but they are enforced differently in different jurisdictions and are enforced differently by different judges within the same jurisdiction so please don't take any legal advice here as indicative of what may happen where you live, see an attorney! I agree with datura_noir but don't forget that illegally obtained evidence isn't admissible in court so while you should know what's going on, snooping may not help you in court.
Spark1111 Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 That's the spirit! Pass the BBQ sauce Jeffery. It's a felony, even if you don't get prison there are serious consequences to having a felony criminal record. Almost impossible to prove and ludicrous to expect police and DAs have the time, money or manpower to prosecute. They need all their energies to find large global hackers and pedophile rings.
Spark1111 Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 Yeah, the Michigan PD is big on busting up overweight global hackers. Whatever that is. Seriously, you need to stop with the James-Bondian ideas of what a hacker is. We finally, just this last year, saw a really expertly done bit of malware and it's almost surely State sponsored and built. The "average hacker" is a guy living down the street with his mom who needs your credit card number to use to pay for cam-sex. The rest are mostly a few rings of spam-bot operators, many of which are being busted now, and DDoS operators in Eastern Europe. Yes....and I had my identity stolen on the internet, credit cards opened, computers shipped to boarding houses and sold on the streets before I even received the credit card it had been paid with. The DA was sympathetic but did nothing; the police had me sign an affidavit that I did not steal my own identity, and the onus of straightening out this entire hoary mess against my credit.....was up to me and me alone. They do not have the time or manpower or resources to even care, let alone prosecute, someone who hacks into my credit info, let alone my personal emails. The case, legally as it stands right now, is a total joke.
Spark1111 Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 Yeah, the Michigan PD is big on busting up overweight global hackers. Whatever that is. Seriously, you need to stop with the James-Bondian ideas of what a hacker is. We finally, just this last year, saw a really expertly done bit of malware and it's almost surely State sponsored and built. The "average hacker" is a guy living down the street with his mom who needs your credit card number to use to pay for cam-sex. The rest are mostly a few rings of spam-bot operators, many of which are being busted now, and DDoS operators in Eastern Europe. I am not talking about hackers. I am talking about what law enforcement is willing to do to about someone hacking into my personal emails, especially if they are married to me, especially if they are cheating on me.
Spark1111 Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 I suppose you probably brought the name, address, and known associates of the perp to them? Because the case we are discussing came in on a silver platter. That will most likely be laughed out of court as they were married at the time. In marriage, there are huge protections to privacy. Spouses cannot be forced to testify against each other. The computer, if it was marital property at the time, is a joint asset. The only one who has the right to prosecute is her company or Google. Last I saw, they are not touching it with a ten-foot pole. Doesn't that tell you something? Because to me, it speaks volumes. Namely, unwinnable.
Distant78 Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) That's the spirit! Pass the BBQ sauce Jeffery. It's a felony, even if you don't get prison there are serious consequences to having a felony criminal record. I won't get a criminal record. Never have never will. But the DA and state government has bigger fish to catch than wasting taxpayer's money on a man who wanted to know his own health was put at risk. Spark is right. This case is a joke and it shows just how our government is not doing their real job. Edited January 3, 2011 by Distant78
donnamaybe Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 I won't get a criminal record. Never have never will. But the DA and state government has bigger fish to catch than wasting taxpayer's money on a man who wanted to know his own health was put at risk. Spark is right. This case is a joke and it shows just how our government is not doing their real job.Brace yourself, D78, for the inevitable comeback of cutting remarks and sarcastic comments.
Distant78 Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 Brace yourself, D78, for the inevitable comeback of cutting remarks and sarcastic comments. Yea I know.
Distant78 Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 So are you saying you would never knowingly commit a felony, or that you could never be successfully prosecuted for one, or is it something else? Why are you redirecting the argument? I said I'm untouchable, as I'm sure others are also. But you can't deny that the gov. is wasting money civilians worked hard for on some jokey case to put an innocent man in jail. I mean seriously, look at the DA's track record. It speaks for itself.
Distant78 Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 OK well I'm just curious how you got that deal, and what crimes it extends to, or whether you're just full of sh*t. Also, I suspect that even if you are somehow immune to all prosecution and above the laws of your country of residence and various more local authorities, that's (1) a minority position and (2) not really a moral license to commit crimes. So because I'm untouchable I'm full of poo-poo? Okay I am, technically and biologically. I do have regular bowel movements like any other human being so in that case, yes I'm full of it. All jokes aside you know this case is just a waste of good money that can be put to other use.
carhill Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 A foreign diplomat from a country which refuses to waive immunity could snoop with relative freedom.
Spark1111 Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Brace yourself, D78, for the inevitable comeback of cutting remarks and sarcastic comments. Wait.....the plot thickens.... Mr. Walker has a 1-year old child with this woman. He, too, is fighting custody because she brought HIS child to her tryts with H2, the one SHE claimed was physically abusive towards her. So his motive was to protect two children, including his own flesh and blood. Now, I will/have snooped on a spouse I suspected of cheating. But, put MY child in harm's way, SNOOPING ON THE COMPUTER is the least I would do....Drive a truck over your head? More likely. Hard to believe a jury of his peers will convict him of anything!
Distant78 Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Wait.....the plot thickens.... Mr. Walker has a 1-year old child with this woman. He, too, is fighting custody because she brought HIS child to her tryts with H2, the one SHE claimed was physically abusive towards her. So his motive was to protect two children, including his own flesh and blood. Now, I will/have snooped on a spouse I suspected of cheating. But, put MY child in harm's way, SNOOPING ON THE COMPUTER is the least I would do....Drive a truck over your head? More likely. Hard to believe a jury of his peers will convict him of anything! If anyone should be in jail, it should be her. This why I state this DA is wasting time and money instead of convicting the REAL criminals.
jenifer1972 Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 There are some great legal reasonings presented here for not snooping. But it still wouldn't stop me, even if I did get a fine and 30 days. Sentence would probably be commuted, and maybe community service. Jails are too full for this kind of bullsh%t. I'll snoop any time I please-and keylog, gps, etc...if I feel like I am being had, I'm going to get the upper hand. The high road is so overrated, and I'm not Buddha, so I can take the fallout.That's just how I am. Is there a "Love it" button to press?
LadyN Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Employers and the government do it every single day. No such thing as privacy on computers anyway. Employee monitoring is very common nowadys, but why do you say that the goverment do it every single day?
Fight4Me Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Wait.....the plot thickens.... Mr. Walker has a 1-year old child with this woman. He, too, is fighting custody because she brought HIS child to her tryts with H2, the one SHE claimed was physically abusive towards her. So his motive was to protect two children, including his own flesh and blood. Now, I will/have snooped on a spouse I suspected of cheating. But, put MY child in harm's way, SNOOPING ON THE COMPUTER is the least I would do....Drive a truck over your head? More likely. Hard to believe a jury of his peers will convict him of anything! Thank you! This is the issue I have the most problem with in regards to this Prosecutor. Abusive H2 is out on bond, and here's an idiot woman continuing to put herself and HER CHILDREN in harms way by bringing them around this dangerous scum. So, the obvious question (to me, anyway), is why the heck isn't this Prosecutor going after this poor excuse of a mother for child endangerment??? Stop the world... I want to get off!
Distant78 Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Employee monitoring is very common nowadys, but why do you say that the goverment do it every single day? You didn't know what your own gov does?
Distant78 Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Thank you! This is the issue I have the most problem with in regards to this Prosecutor. Abusive H2 is out on bond, and here's an idiot woman continuing to put herself and HER CHILDREN in harms way by bringing them around this dangerous scum. So, the obvious question (to me, anyway), is why the heck isn't this Prosecutor going after this poor excuse of a mother for child endangerment??? Stop the world... I want to get off! That's exactly why I say something's fishy about this prosecutor and this case. Let's just hope the jury isn't tampered with.
fltc Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 That's exactly why I say something's fishy about this prosecutor and this case. I think what's fishy is, as always, the news media hasn't told the entire story and has mis-reported and screwed up the parts they have told.
pureinheart Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 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. I wonder if this could be covered under stalking laws also. When privacy is invaded, isn't this stalking in a sense?
Spark1111 Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Employee monitoring is very common nowadys, but why do you say that the goverment do it every single day? Well, I know someone who was doing extensive research on the internet on terrorism and happened to frequently visit some "hot" sites. The FBI knocked on his door. The internet is free, in the public domain, and not protected.
Spark1111 Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Thank you! This is the issue I have the most problem with in regards to this Prosecutor. Abusive H2 is out on bond, and here's an idiot woman continuing to put herself and HER CHILDREN in harms way by bringing them around this dangerous scum. So, the obvious question (to me, anyway), is why the heck isn't this Prosecutor going after this poor excuse of a mother for child endangerment??? Stop the world... I want to get off! There was a bigger case in Michigan where someone sued to see the teacher union emails during the work day. They filed a freedom of information letter to do so. The teacher's union refused to submit their 5500 emails on the school districts network claiming: The school district gave them permission to use its network to communicate with members and The writing of these emails to colleagues did not interfere with the performance of the public corporation. They won. But the emails were reviewed by attorneys from both sides and were found to be innocent and innocuous. It was an attempt to embarass the teachers and the courts agreed. But emotions ran high on both sides in Michigan. This may have been a knee-jerk reaction to a larger political controversy in the state regarding email disclosure.
Recommended Posts