Beware of snooping...

[2long]

This is one of those gray areas.

 

I can see the point of not confronting without proof - so there's reason for snooping if confrontation is the next step.

 

I can also see the point that, if you need 2 snoop, you're quitely likely married 2 someone who doesn't deserve you, so what's the point?

 

The point is usually that a BS in that si2ation hasn't gotten 2 the stage of acceptance and recognition of their own intrinsic value and capability 2 promote their own happiness.

 

...and so the gray area becomes, in my view, the point where the BS asks themselves "do I have enough evidence 2 confront?", "do I want 2 fight for my marriage, or do I want 2 bail?".

 

And the real value of getting things moving sooner rather than later is 2 give the WS the oppor2nity 2 pull their own head out of their nethers and fight for their marriage before the BS decides - and doesn't bother 2 tell the WS - that they want nothing more 2 do with the WS.

 

I came very close 2 the latter.

 

-ol' 2long

[NoLongerSad]

Actually, they appear to be trying to prosecute this as a case of "hacking", based on his 'techie background'.

 

 

 

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.

 

And even if there is some "crime" here this is a ridiculous case to prosecute. Mark my words: This DA has some sort of personal issue/emotional involvement. A lot of female prosecutors have a "crusader" attitude and believe themselves as an advocate for women, not an advocate for the public.

 

I'm sure it's going to turn out that this DA has some sort of track record or has made her career on going after supposedly "abusive men", or else she has some entirely personal issues (infidelity of herself or a partner, or an ex) which is why she was so interested in this nothing of a case.

[NoLongerSad]

FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER NETWORKS (EXCERPT)

Act 53 of 1979

This is the law which Leon Walker is alleged to have violated:

 

 

752.795 Prohibited conduct.

Sec. 5.

A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:

(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

[112233]

FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER NETWORKS (EXCERPT)

Act 53 of 1979

This is the law which Leon Walker is alleged to have violated:

 

 

752.795 Prohibited conduct.

Sec. 5.

A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:

(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

 

It seems he did in fact do just what is proscribed. To whittle that down to the specific parts he seems to have violated:

 

"A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization ... access ... a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to ... use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network."

 

Seems like he did just that unless she had told him he had permission.

[rowell2024]

Just because someone's charged, doesn't mean much. It can still be easily dismissed by a judge. I've seen many cased that the charges are dropped down to a lesser offense or dismissed entirely. The spirit of the law is to punish real hackers, not personal email accounts of people in a marital relationship. If the guy's lawyer is even remotely competent, this shouldn't even get far.

 

Time and again I've seen this happen. Heck, I got a driver for felony DUI last year, and the judge dropped it down to reckless driving.

[PegNosePete]

"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."

Wonderful skills and highly trained in........ reading post-it notes?!

What a joke.

 

Seems like he did just that unless she had told him he had permission.

IMO: she gave him permission when she said "I do".

[112233]

IMO: she gave him permission when she said "I do".

 

Think about what you're proposing from a legal standpoint. Google is a 3rd party. Microsoft is a 3rd party. Ford motor company is a 3rd party.

 

If you work for Ford in the R&D dept. and Ford wants to incorporate Microsoft technology (as they do, BTW) into their products, you will be under NDA. How can that work unless either (1) your wife also signs all your employment contracts or (2) she doesn't automatically get authorized to use your computer access accounts.

 

It becomes unworkable pretty fast. Maybe your wife works for GM, or Novell, or IBM. Wow, how can that work out?

[sally4sara]

I totally agree. The wh0re lawyer has men issues. "Nothing but a highly trained hacker who used his skills to infiltrate her privacy.":lmao:

 

She's pathetic.

 

This is just out of line.

Yes the situation sucks. Yes, if he is prosecuted, I think its a crying shame. But in what way does the wife's lawyer qualify for the term whore? Do you even know what a whore is? Representing someone in legal situations, even less savory people, is not the job description of a whore. Our entire legal system is based on lawyers representing anyone who needs a lawyer - not just representing wonderful shining examples of humanity and good ethics.

[2sure]

None of it will fly anyway. Its a news blurb.

[Distant78]

This is just out of line.

Yes the situation sucks. Yes, if he is prosecuted, I think its a crying shame. But in what way does the wife's lawyer qualify for the term whore? Do you even know what a whore is? Representing someone in legal situations, even less savory people, is not the job description of a whore.

 

How is it out of line? What, because I'm not a conservative and "speak out of the ordinary?" You have your opinion and I have mine. I know what a lawyer's job is and she's certainly not following the rules. Anyone in their right mind would never take the case of a cheater plaintiff, and then say a discriminatory remark about the guy's profession, saying he's "a highly trained hacker who effortlessly, cunningly, and maliciously used his skills and experience to abruptly infiltrate her precious email account." Seriously? C'mon. She made it sound like he was some sort of covert government operative who assassinated U.S civilians.

 

Our entire legal system is based on lawyers representing anyone who needs a lawyer - not just representing wonderful shining examples of humanity and good ethics.

 

Oh yea, right. Our legal system is so unbiased.

[sally4sara]

How is it out of line? What, because I'm not a conservative and "speak out of the ordinary?" You have your opinion and I have mine. I know what a lawyer's job is and she's certainly not following the rules. Anyone in their right mind would never take the case of a cheater plaintiff, and then say a discriminatory remark about the guy's profession, saying he's "a highly trained hacker who effortlessly, cunningly, and maliciously used his skills and experience to abruptly infiltrate her precious email account." Seriously? C'mon. She made it sound like he was some sort of covert government operative who assassinated U.S civilians.

 

 

 

Oh yea, right. Our legal system is so unbiased.

 

Are you kidding?! How do you think murderers get represented?

 

You're like those people who claim to not be racist and then the moment a black person does something you don't like you call them the n word. Whore isn't even applicable in this.

[thomasb]

Distant, I feel you are so wrong. Even the wost pedophile(may the devil burn their souls!), has the right to an attorney. Otherwise you may as well go live in a communist state where you are judged by the damn government. Is that seriously what you would wish upon the citizens of this country! Just wow.

[Distant78]

Are you kidding?! How do you think murderers get represented?

 

Murderers don't deserve a chance unless it was in self-defense or something along of that nature.

 

You're like those people who claim to not be racist and then the moment a black person does something you don't like you call them the n word. Whore isn't even applicable in this.

 

Why does race have to be called in this? But seriously, a cheater is just a nice name for the term, whore.

[112233]

Murderers don't deserve a chance unless it was in self-defense or something along of that nature.

 

Justifiable homicide is not murder.

 

Second, how can you know a person is guilty before they have a fair trial? If she floats, she's a witch?

[Distant78]

Distant, I feel you are so wrong. Even the wost pedophile(may the devil burn their souls!), has the right to an attorney. Otherwise you may as well go live in a communist state where you are judged by the damn government. Is that seriously what you would wish upon the citizens of this country! Just wow.

 

No thomasb, I don't wish any harm on this country, but this guy should not be on trial.

[Distant78]

Justifiable homicide is not murder.

 

I know. Just didn't want to get bashed on that end.

 

Second, how can you know a person is guilty before they have a fair trial? If she floats, she's a witch?

 

Have the military special ops. operators and covert operatives solve the case before it goes to trial. Off the books. They know how to solve cases better than half of these fat-azz lazy lawyers and detectives anyway. They're trained in tracking. And the government can give them their paycheck since they spend so much of our money.

[PegNosePete]

Think about what you're proposing from a legal standpoint. Google is a 3rd party. Microsoft is a 3rd party. Ford motor company is a 3rd party.

 

If you work for Ford in the R&D dept. and Ford wants to incorporate Microsoft technology (as they do, BTW) into their products, you will be under NDA. How can that work unless either (1) your wife also signs all your employment contracts or (2) she doesn't automatically get authorized to use your computer access accounts.

 

It becomes unworkable pretty fast. Maybe your wife works for GM, or Novell, or IBM. Wow, how can that work out?

You're doing exactly what this idiot of a prosecutor is doing. Taking laws which are meant to protect corporate data and/or classified materials, and applying them to a husband and wife's relationship. Those laws are not meant for this kind of thing. The guy logged into his wife's email account, to which she had left the password written next to the computer. He didn't hack into a government network, transfer $1,000,000 from NASA to his own account, or take down the stock exchange. He didn't even use a keylogger or network snooper. She left it in plain view...!!!

 

There is a line in there somewhere. Clearly some people cannot tell their spouse about their work for various reasons (they are a spy, etc), and they should take precautions with any computers they have at home. But clearly the husband in this case did nothing wrong. The line is somewhere in there, and I am glad I am not the person who has to draw it

[Distant78]

You're doing exactly what this idiot of a prosecutor is doing. Taking laws which are meant to protect corporate data and/or classified materials, and applying them to a husband and wife's relationship. Those laws are not meant for this kind of thing. The guy logged into his wife's email account, to which she had left the password written next to the computer. He didn't hack into a government network, transfer $1,000,000 from NASA to his own account, or take down the stock exchange. He didn't even use a keylogger or network snooper. She left it in plain view...!!!

 

Agreed 100%.

[112233]

You're doing exactly what this idiot of a prosecutor is doing. Taking laws which are meant to protect corporate data and/or classified materials ....

 

Actually there are laws for those already, this is also aimed at Russians who want to steal you eBay account or your local felon who wants to scan through your private email for information. It's to protect your data from anyone who's not authorized.

 

I don't know where you guys get these dramatic espionage ideas, but that's NOT what these laws are for, they are to protect you and I, average Joes, privacy.

 

Maybe too many hacker movies.

[Distant78]

Actually there are laws for those already, this is also aimed at Russians who want to steal you eBay account or your local felon who wants to scan through your private email for information. It's to protect your data from anyone who's not authorized.

 

I don't know where you guys get these dramatic espionage ideas, but that's NOT what these laws are for, they are to protect you and I, average Joes, privacy.

 

Maybe too many hacker movies.

 

No these laws are not meant to protect us, but merely try to control us. The female prosecutor has a biased grudge against a kind man who merely wanted to see if his wife was cheating on him and crapping on their marriage. And when you marry, nothing is really private anyway. You don't want to be tied down, don't put that ring on your finger.

[sally4sara]

No these laws are not meant to protect us, but merely try to control us. The female prosecutor has a biased grudge against a kind man who merely wanted to see if his wife was cheating on him and crapping on their marriage. And when you marry, nothing is really private anyway. You don't want to be tied down, don't put that ring on your finger.

 

I think you're projecting your own bias here. With any case, it is your lawyer's job (if they're any good at it) to represent you fiercely via any law or statue that applies to your situation. 112233 has pointed out many times, no matter what any of our opinions on the matter may be, the guy did break the technical law. Making sexually derogative remarks about wife's lawyer for doing her job is only serving to make you sound stupid and unhinged. Dollars to donuts a male lawyer would work the same angle - because he CAN. An extra buck on that bet that you'd only change your style to suggest he was getting paid in BJs to continue showing your misogyny.

 

Do you ever stop?

[Distant78]

I think you're projecting your own bias here. With any case, it is your lawyer's job (if they're any good at it) to represent you fiercely via any law or statue that applies to your situation. 112233 has pointed out many times, no matter what any of our opinions on the matter may be, the guy did break the technical law. Making sexually derogative remarks about wife's lawyer for doing her job is only serving to make you sound stupid and unhinged. Dollars to donuts a male lawyer would work the same angle - because he CAN. An extra buck on that bet that you'd only change your style to suggest he was getting paid in BJs to continue showing your misogyny.

 

She is out for blood against someone who's innocent. We're all biased if you want to be technical. All humans are. If the defendant was a woman there wouldn't be so much backlash. He didn't break a technical law-it was his computer in his home, with her password next to it. She's not doing her job. If anything she wouldn't be taking the case if she was in her right mind. By the way, what does this has to do with him getting BJs.

 

Do you ever stop?

 

Do I ever stop what?

[PegNosePete]

the guy did break the technical law

His wife broke it first. I believe adultery is illegal in Michigan? Will she be prosecuted too?

 

Plus there is a strong case for entrapment here. She caused him to be suspicious that she was having an affair, and then left her password in plain view. Would he have committed the "crime" if she hadn't done that?

Edited December 31, 2010 by PegNosePete

[sally4sara]

Look, trying to convince me this situation is screwed up is preaching to the choir. But I ran it by 5 lawyers and they all said yes, technically he broke the law he is being charged with. None think this will result in him being punished to the full letter. Someone is trying to set a precedent. Be it the lawyer or a firm she is working for, being the first to work a law in a new way builds careers; it gets you noticed and brings in new clients.

But these are things any go getter lawyer of any gender would want to do. Not because they oooh grrrrr HATES the menfolk or something petty like that.

 

When it it seems to not matter what the subject is, you're right there lickity split to express your indignancy by suggesting any woman involved to be of questionable character in a sexually derogative manner - even when it involves nothing about their sexual history or with you aware of anything about them sexually other than they are in fact, female, you being to sound obsessive and hateful. Its hard to miss for a bit when the only threads one even posts in are always about questioning some woman's sexual behavior. In this instance it becomes glaringly clear - you got issues with the womenfolk. Nothing the wife's lawyer has done falls into the definition of any of the slurs you're resorting to. Kinda weird that it doesn't matter how unrelated to sex some woman's actions are - you're still going to look at her as whore/slut/tramp. I can only imagine you're domestic fights.

Its cheap. Its ignorant. Its bigoted. Its off topic.

[flying]

Look, trying to convince me this situation is screwed up is preaching to the choir. But I ran it by 5 lawyers and they all said yes, technically he broke the law he is being charged with. None think this will result in him being punished to the full letter. Someone is trying to set a precedent. Be it the lawyer or a firm she is working for, being the first to work a law in a new way builds careers; it gets you noticed and brings in new clients.

But these are things any go getter lawyer of any gender would want to do. Not because they oooh grrrrr HATES the menfolk or something petty like that.

 

When it it seems to not matter what the subject is, you're right there lickity split to express your indignancy by suggesting any woman involved to be of questionable character in a sexually derogative manner - even when it involves nothing about their sexual history or with you aware of anything about them sexually other than they are in fact, female, you being to sound obsessive and hateful. Its hard to miss for a bit when the only threads one even posts in are always about questioning some woman's sexual behavior. In this instance it becomes glaringly clear - you got issues with the womenfolk. Nothing the wife's lawyer has done falls into the definition of any of the slurs you're resorting to. Kinda weird that it doesn't matter how unrelated to sex some woman's actions are - you're still going to look at her as whore/slut/tramp. I can only imagine you're domestic fights.

Its cheap. Its ignorant. Its bigoted. Its off topic.

 

Totally agree. I was with you on this thread, Distant, until you called the lawyer a whore and pretended her case was about sexual politics. I don't think this guy should be prosecuted either, I think the wife in this case is a moron and the whole thing is a damn shame.

 

But Jesus H. Christ, is it really necessary to go from there to saying it's about a feminazi lawyer? For reals??? You just lost 50% of the people who agreed with you up until now. Nice work.

 

From what I read, it's about a lawyer taking the case and prosecuting it based on what she's got. A male lawyer would've done the exact same thing.

 

Sally is absolutely right that you're projecting your biases and anger onto this. We can agree that the guy in this case is being unfairly prosecuted and the wife is crap. But we are not going to agree that that makes the wife's lawyer a feminazi, just because she's doing her job and also happens to be a woman.