Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
from the abusing-the-law dept
We've talked a lot about how prosecutors have been abusing the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), which is supposed to be a law against malicious hacking. However, it's being stretched in all kinds of ways. It looks like similar state laws are also being abused similarly by prosecutors. A bunch of folks have sent in this story of a guy in the suburbs of Detroit who is facing five years in prison for reading his wife's email. He did access her laptop and then logged into her Gmail account using her password, which she supposedly kept in a little notebook next to the computer. What happened next is a bit complex, so we'll toss it over to the Detroit Free Press to explain the chain of events:Leon Walker was Clara Walker's third husband. Her e-mail showed she was having an affair with her second husband, a man who once had been arrested for beating her in front of her small son. Leon Walker, worried that the child might be exposed to domestic violence again, handed the e-mails over to the child's father, Clara Walker's first husband. He promptly filed an emergency motion to obtain custody.After Clara found out about the emails, she apparently reported Leon for snooping on her emails, and prosecutors thought it was a case worth prosecuting claiming: "The guy is a hacker. It was password protected, he had wonderful skills, and was highly trained. Then he downloaded them and used them in a very contentious way."
Not that any of this makes it okay to snoop on a spouse's email when they wish to keep it secret, but it seems like a huge stretch to claim that it's a crime worthy of five years in prison under a law designed for malicious computer hacking. The issue here had nothing to do with "computer hacking," at all. It's an abuse of the law by prosecutors.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
hack1
vb
1. to cut and clear (a way, path, etc.), as through undergrowth
2. to cough in short dry spasmodic bursts
3. to manipulate a computer program skilfully, esp, to gain unauthorized access to another computer system
4. to use a computer in a way that observers do not fully understand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
My money is on Webster's..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I tend to use Wiktionary then Google then Oxford, in order of ease of use and funnily enough probably inverse to their actual trustfulness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The Lobo doth misquote too much, methinks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I strongly believe in 'those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it' and 'history repeats itself' and 'there's no point in re-inventing the wheel' so... you can see how these all lend themselves towards a desire to incorporate applicable quotes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I hope you know that Shakespeare wrote fiction..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Revenge would have been if the current husband used the info to inflict harm or cause damage to his wife or her lover(2nd husband) by making the affair public or sending the info to his employer or hers.
As a parent, I'd say what this guy did with the email was his best option and done with honorable intentions with the child's welfare as the cornerstone reason for his actions.
Now, if the 3rd husband KNEW the 1st husband despised the 2nd husband to a point where this kind of information might cause a violent reaction by the 1st on the 2nd then you MAY have a some leg to stand on by saying this was purely revenge.
What really becomes obvious is that this woman has some serious issues to resolve and her child certainly should not be exposed to a man that is prone to spousal abuse which I believe is what the 3rd husband had in mind as well.
No, I'm not a psychic and I don't claim to know what others thoughts are but having the parental perspective and only a couple of paragraphs of text I'd err on the side that the 3rd husband was certainly acting in the child's best interest rather than the conspiracy of revenge being his motive for his actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Please explain how what the guy did was a better option than talking to his wife first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Despite most definitely not being a parent myself I somehow managed to miss that completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is true, in general, but I don't think it has much bearing on this case. This guy is neither the biological parent nor the step-parent. He was one guy that (actual legal filing dates aside) lived with this child's mom for a fairly short amount of time in between other flings.
I really doubt that he's what anyone would call a parent, especially since he doesn't call himself a parent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If that is not easily understood then there is simply nothing more that I can offer except my sympathy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It would appear that you are mistaking disagreement for misunderstanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
2. Acting in the best interest of a child doesn't make you a parent. Even if it did, that's not what this man did. Calling CPS would have been in the best interest of the child, but subjecting him to another court battle over his custody is not.
3. This man doesn't even call himself a parent, so I'm not quite sure who you're attempting to defend here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You do get to call yourself a step-parent though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I don't know about all that. It seems like the term 'parent' should only be used with people who, you know, parent."
Ummm, sorry that happens to be your personal definition and as proof of how incorrect that statement is go visit juvenile hall - you'll find hundreds if not thousands of kids whose parents didn't parent. This is a quite a stretch to claim that you can only be (step)parent if you actually parent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wouldn't call their biological donors 'parents', either, and my 'personal definition' happens to coincide with the real dictionary definitions, which use terms like 'caretaker'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As much as I like semantics, I think you both left the point of your disagreement some time ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He did. She's being sued for custody. If you don't think that most custody suits are fueled by anger at the other parent, then you're not paying attention.
...by making the affair public or sending the info to his employer or hers.
That would be an ineffective revenge, because who cares? Most employers certainly don't. Unless the wife is a politician and I missed it?
As a parent, I'd say what this guy did with the email was his best option and done with honorable intentions with the child's welfare as the cornerstone reason for his actions.
As a parent, I'd say that his step-son wasn't in danger from the e-mails, and that if the wife moved in with the allegedly abusive ex, then it would be time to call the local Child Protective Service organization, who would interview the child, mom, any live-ins, and the bio dad, who would then be alerted to the situation in an appropriate way.
Now, if the 3rd husband KNEW the 1st husband despised the 2nd husband to a point where this kind of information might cause a violent reaction by the 1st on the 2nd then you MAY have a some leg to stand on by saying this was purely revenge.
It didn't cause a violent reaction, but it certainly caused a legal one. How does that not count as a revenge action?
What really becomes obvious is that this woman has some serious issues to resolve and her child certainly should not be exposed to a man that is prone to spousal abuse which I believe is what the 3rd husband had in mind as well.
What's really obvious is that one alleged incident of abuse is not enough to make person ineligible for parenthood, and exchanging e-mails with someone who may or may not have previously abused a spouse certainly isn't grounds for a child abuse case.
No, I'm not a psychic and I don't claim to know what others thoughts are but having the parental perspective and only a couple of paragraphs of text I'd err on the side that the 3rd husband was certainly acting in the child's best interest rather than the conspiracy of revenge being his motive for his actions.
I'm not a psychic either, but having a parental perspective (which doesn't give either of us any sort of moral high ground here), and after a few paragraphs of text, I certainly believe that if the husband wanted to protect the child he would have:
a. waited until there was something to protect him from.
b. contacted the appropriate authorities to take care of the situation.
Instead, this guy chose to:
a. contact the kid's dad and prompt him to begin a suit
b. which probably won't protect the child at all.
With all of that being said, no way should this guy have even been charged with a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
b. contacted the appropriate authorities to take care of the situation."
Errrrrrrr, so wait until the kid is traumatized again before taking steps to protect him?
Whatever you say...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, if she started dating this man, and/or moved in with him, I can certainly see how he might be in danger of being traumatized, and could certainly see someone calling Child Protective Services so that they could take care of the situation.
Please note that even if the child's father gets custody, the child still has the same risks when he visits his mom. A custody battle doesn't solve anything for the son, whereas CPS most certainly could. Of course, if you're intent on revenge, inciting a custody battle is certainly a potent weapon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just have sex in front of the child or be loud and do it in the middle of the day when the child is home.
C'mon the lady is in the third marriage, cheating one with the ex, she is not a saint, and I doubt she is fit to be a mother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't see? Then you're not thinking this through, because unless you have the answers to some very important questions, you should be able to see how her sex life affects her son.
Where is the child while his mom is banging his former stepdad? Is he in the same room/domicile as his abusive step father? If so, he's potentially in danger. If not, he may be neglected and/or abandoned, which is definitely affecting her son.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you're thinking way too much about it.
Where is the child while his mom is banging his former stepdad?
School, friend's, relatives, babysitter? Where is any child while their parents are getting laid, seeing a movie, visiting friends, getting hair or nails done, shopping, or anything else not child-friendly?
Is he in the same room/domicile as his abusive step father? If so, he's potentially in danger.
If he's in danger, then someone needs to call CPS. A custody battle is not going to get him out of the living room of the place where his mom may or may not be having sex anytime soon, if at all. (Do you see why I don't think he was acting 'in the best interest of the child' yet?)
Regardless, if she's having an affair, I doubt she's taking the kid over there.
If not, he may be neglected and/or abandoned, which is definitely affecting her son.
Wow. So I'm neglecting my kid every time my husband and I take a nooner, huh? Good to know. I'll be sure to drag my children with me everywhere I go from now on, instead of leaving them in the care of other competent adults. Also, I've never have sex again. (That'll be good for my parenting skills, I'm sure.)
Look, parents have sex lives. Many kids don't even notice, and successfully pretend that it isn't happening. When you take that level of blissful oblivion and add in the fact that she was carrying on a clandestine affair, I doubt he knew anything about it until this happened, and maybe not even now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow. Why do you and vivaelamor take what I say and enter hyperbole mode? Notice how I say "may be." Based off the details in the article I'm going to go on a limb and say non of these people will be up for parent of the year. Is it so difficult to imagine that she might have her ex-husband over for a nooner while her current husband is at work? Or leave her kid unattended while she heads to a motel to meet her ex? Of course I'm speculating, but considering the type of behavior and judgement she's exhibited, it doesn't seem that far fetched to me. Obviously it does to you, and that's fine.
BTW, that was TMI Rose. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If that's your idea of TMI, then you should stay off the of the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And telling me I should stay off the internet is pretty condescending. That's like me saying, if you can't tell I was joking with you, you should stay off the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for the rest, while I don't have a problem with your suggestion, the two cases are not analogous. In my case, you made a sex reference, I replied with a similar sex reference, then you said it was TMI. That's hypocritical. In your case, you made a joke (?), no one else did, you got butthurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hyperbole is a common tool of the lazy to point out poor logic.
'Notice how I say "may be."'
Saying 'maybe' isn't a get out clause, you're still suggesting a possibility. Suggesting that a kid may be neglected while their parents are having sex is pretty much the same as accusing the parents of negligence. If they weren't negligent then the possibility wouldn't be there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Suggesting a possibility is much different than expressing a certainty.
Are you saying there is no possibility for neglect in this household? I'd say based on the mother's behavior, it's a strong possibility. Just speculation on my part, and only my opinion. If you think she's a saint, or somewhere in between, that's fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UNBELIEVABLE SPECULTATION
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
a. Who said the step-son was in danger from the e-mails? The danger is that his mom was seeing a man who previously beat her in front of him.
b. Wait until there was something to protect him from? See 'a' above. Also, should he not involve some authorities until the 2nd husband has beaten the wife again? Actually, I doubt any authorities would do anything at all unless he beat her again, assuming no restraining order is in place.
c. What he did was possibly motivated by revenge. What she did was definitely motivated by revenge.
Maybe the prosecutor is her second husband...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, the 'danger' was that the mom was secretly sleeping with a man who had allegedly abused her on a previous occasion. This doesn't insinuate any level of danger or even any level of interaction between the child and the alleged abuser.
However, if there was cause for concern, calling CPS would have helped. A custody battle does not.
Wait until there was something to protect him from? See 'a' above.
If there's no interaction, there's no potential for abuse. As I stated previously, if she starts seeing or moves in with Alleged Abuser, then someone needs to call CPS so they can evaluate the household and remove the child, if they find it necessary.
Also, should he not involve some authorities until the 2nd husband has beaten the wife again?
As I stated previously, Hubby #3 should call CPS if he believes that the child may interact with someone that may be dangerous. CPS can get a court order that blocks the mom from letting the child and Alleged Abuser interact, right down to not being able to visit her son in a home where Alleged Abuser lives. Unfortunately for the child, Hubby #3 didn't do that.
Calling Bio Dad doesn't count as a protective action because it won't protect the child. Bio Dad doesn't really have any standing, and custody generally stays the same until the final determination, which can take up to a year, and usually does.
Even then, the child would still be visiting his mom and Alleged Abuser (if the mom moves in with him or starts seeing him), so he's still in 'danger'.
Actually, I doubt any authorities would do anything at all unless he beat her again, assuming no restraining order is in place.
Again, he hasn't ever been convicted of beating her, and it's obvious that she has some honesty issues, so I'm going to hold off on judging him.
c. What he did was possibly motivated by revenge. What she did was definitely motivated by revenge.
Absolutely. No way do I think that this guy should be charged. But I also don't believe that he should be lauded for his actions, because they were either:
a. motivated by revenge, or
b. stupid and unhelpful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Easy ace - he's not the one suing for custody - the father is and he certainly is well within his rights to do so especially if he feels his son may be endangered in an an unsafe environment. Sorry - no revenge motive for you.
"That would be an ineffective revenge, because who cares? Most employers certainly don't. Unless the wife is a politician and I missed it?"
Rose - I've never seen you so closed minded on a topic before but certainly many other professions would frown on this info being made public about an employee: counselor, school board member, public employee, any church related job, any government related job, etc. Politicians don't have a monopoly on extra marital affairs being bad for their careers and/personal lives. This aspect could easily be more damaging to a parent than a custody battle that is lost because you can wait until the child is of age (usually 18) and the child can see you whenever they wish whereas the career damage may become irreparable.
"As a parent, I'd say that his step-son wasn't in danger from the e-mails, and that if the wife moved in with the allegedly abusive ex, then it would be time to call the local Child Protective Service organization, who would interview the child, mom, any live-ins, and the bio dad, who would then be alerted to the situation in an appropriate way."
The emails aren't the danger, the man she's sending them to is the danger. Waiting for abuse to re-occur before doing anything about it - really? That's what you'd wait for? Hopefully it won't involve a sheet for Mom and the son as they are removed from the crime scene. There is a previous records of undesirable behavior and abuse - this is one of those types of behavior that overwhelmingly repeats itself - citation not even required on this one.
"It didn't cause a violent reaction, but it certainly caused a legal one. How does that not count as a revenge action?"
How does this not count as taking every reasonable step to ensure the child's safety from a known violent person? Wow!
"What's really obvious is that one alleged incident of abuse is not enough to make person ineligible for parenthood,..."
You'd be surprised what alters the courts decisions and proof is not especially needed when a woman's word is used against a man in a court room for custody purposes. She can say just about anything she wants and the gavel falls right before the guy says "But...!!" Been there - seen it first hand, sorry epic fail and if you're fortunate its because of a lack of experience or exposure to the Family Court System.
The parental perspective is not for moral high ground (those who claim moral high ground are usually in a ditch proclaiming such!) but for experience in child custody and divorce situations and what step parents may or may not do and whether they are better to ignore or act on the child's behalf as an adult if not as a biological parent.
and exchanging e-mails with someone who may or may not have previously abused a spouse certainly isn't grounds for a child abuse case.
"...and after a few paragraphs of text, I certainly believe that if the husband wanted to protect the child he would have:
a. waited until there was something to protect him from.
b. contacted the appropriate authorities to take care of the situation."
There is already a known occurrence of violence involving the two individuals - conviction or charges are NOT necessary when deciding on an appropriate action - he is not the law, nor should he act as if he were.
"Instead, this guy chose to:
a. contact the kid's dad and prompt him to begin a suit
b. which probably won't protect the child at all."
If that were my child you can bet your last dollar I'd want to be the first to know and you can be certain that I will protect my child at all costs - again the parental experience comes into play but not for moral high ground.
"With all of that being said, no way should this guy have even been charged with a crime."
Whatever happened to community property in a marriage? I think it's great that we both agree this man should not be charged with a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bio Dad may not have a revenge motive, but you're telling me that you really believe that Hubby #3 calling Bio Dad up with potentially damaging info about the mom isn't supposed to be revenge?
Calling CPS would be a protective action. Calling the ex is revenge.
...certainly many other professions would frown on this info being made public about an employee... This aspect could easily be more damaging to a parent than a custody battle...
Okay, I can see this being a problem in any of the professions that you named, but I don't see a woman who's been through this many husbands/lovers in this short amount of time being in a sex-negative church or profession.
Regardless, this isn't a good argument. The availability of a 'better' revenge doesn't preclude the possibility of this action being motivated by revenge.
The emails aren't the danger, the man she's sending them to is the danger.
Is he? Really? Are you sure? Because I'm not. A man with no history of violence, who was never prosecuted or convicted for the sole arrest? I don't see any evidence of potential child abuse here, especially because the child and Alleged Abuser aren't currently interacting.
Waiting for abuse to re-occur before doing anything about it - really?
Who said anything about waiting for abuse? This child is not in danger from someone that he doesn't even see, especially a person that may not even be violent.
Hopefully it won't involve a sheet for Mom and the son as they are removed from the crime scene.
Wow, where's Helen Lovejoy when you need her?
Can you please explain to me how someone who may or may not be violent is a danger to people that he's not even around?
Also, can you explain to me how calling the ex to begin a long and arduous legal battle helps remove the child from danger?
How does this not count as taking every reasonable step to ensure the child's safety from a known violent person? Wow!
A reasonable step would be calling CPS, who can remove the child immediately, quickly obtain a court order barring the mother from letting the child and Alleged Abuser interact, or any other number of options.
Calling the ex is not a reasonable step.
You'd be surprised what alters the courts decisions and proof is not especially needed when a woman's word is used against a man in a court room for custody purposes. ... Been there - seen it first hand, sorry epic fail and if you're fortunate its because of a lack of experience or exposure to the Family Court System.
Wow, you're incredibly wrong. Most states don't allow a judge to consider past physical abuse of the mother, because 'it's not proof that they would abuse the child'. Been there, lived it first-hand. Sorry, epic fail on your part.
The parental perspective is not for moral high ground (those who claim moral high ground are usually in a ditch proclaiming such!)...
Agreed.
...but for experience in child custody and divorce situations and what step parents may or may not do and whether they are better to ignore or act on the child's behalf as an adult if not as a biological parent.
Calling yourself a parent doesn't denote experience in child custody situations, and this man didn't act on behalf of the child, or in a way that might help secure the child from potential danger. Nice try, though.
There is already a known occurrence of violence involving the two individuals...
No, there's a known allegation. There's pretty different from a 'known occurrence'. Also, didn't you just say that you had experience in a situation where a woman made a baseless accusation about a man?
"...conviction or charges are NOT necessary when deciding on an appropriate action - he is not the law, nor should he act as if he were."
No, he should have called the law, but he didn't.
If that were my child you can bet your last dollar I'd want to be the first to know and you can be certain that I will protect my child at all costs - again the parental experience comes into play but not for moral high ground.
Your desire to know is irrelevant. Hubby #3 didn't say that he called Bio Dad because he knew Bio Dad would want to know. That would be more acceptable than his crappy 'Child Protection' excuse.
Whatever happened to community property in a marriage?
I don't think community property applies to this case, but I do think it's stupid to charge a man for reading e-mail when they would ignore reading a diary. It's laughable when you put it that way.
"Officer, arrest this man! He read my diary without my permission!"
"Lolwhut?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Wow, you're incredibly wrong. Most states don't allow a judge to consider past physical abuse of the mother, because 'it's not proof that they would abuse the child'. Been there, lived it first-hand. Sorry, epic fail on your part."
Obviously you were not in the same courtroom I was when my own child was taken across state lines in the middle of the night and was out of contact for several months because Mommy was on the run from creditors. As she literally yelled at the judge I simply said "This is what I've been dealing with Your Honor". Less than two minutes later bang went the gavel and she was found of no wrong doing despite violating several portions of the custody agreement while I had no violations or other concerns regarding my well being and the ability to care for my child whom I could no longer see because of the 1500 miles between us.
Two handed face palm for you Rose - this was my personal experience and for you to even claim that I'm wrong is at least somewhat insensitive and at most completely disrespectful of the facts.
"Calling yourself a parent doesn't denote experience in child custody situations, and this man didn't act on behalf of the child, or in a way that might help secure the child from potential danger. Nice try, though."
I still believe contacting bio-Dad is the right first step, if bio-Dad says "Call the cops!" then onward and away to the authorities. CPS is not the first call to make unless the child is already being subjected to the abuse.
"Your desire to know is irrelevant. Hubby #3 didn't say that he called Bio Dad because he knew Bio Dad would want to know. That would be more acceptable than his crappy 'Child Protection' excuse."
This is beyond obvious that I'm conveying an opinion here so it can't possibly be irrelevant to making my point - it provides perspective. Opinions aren't ever wrong because they belong to the person who holds them despite what their reason is for having said opinion. So my point still stands that calling bio-Dad regarding his child is warranted, however I can agree that we simply disagree on this point.
"No, there's a known allegation. There's pretty different from a 'known occurrence'. "
The story says: "Her e-mail showed she was having an affair with her second husband, a man who once had been arrested for beating her in front of her small son."
So we have at least one witness to the alleged action - compared to wishful thinking tied to the "innocent until proven guilty" side of it.
Again, this is my opinion and IANAL, but if the son witnessed it - it is awfully hard to claim that it didn't happen regardless of whether there were charges or a conviction involved.
We have come to the point where we actually agree that the guy shouldn't be charged but disagree on his actions and I'm OK with that. This isn't a win-lose scenario, simply a debate on actions of others with literally nothing at stake on the pages of TD.
Respectfully,
Ron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What facts? I was speaking of the law concerning spousal abuse and child custody. You're talking about something else entirely.
I still believe contacting bio-Dad is the right first step, if bio-Dad says "Call the cops!" then onward and away to the authorities.
And I still believe that running to the ex is a revenge move, pure and simple.
CPS is not the first call to make unless the child is already being subjected to the abuse.
According to you, the child was already in danger. I was the one arguing that since he wasn't around Alleged Abuser, he wasn't in any danger. Regardless, with questions of child welfare, the first step is always to call CPS.
Opinions aren't ever wrong because they belong to the person who holds them despite what their reason is for having said opinion.
I didn't say that your opinion was 'wrong'. I said it was irrelevant to this discussion.
The story says: "Her e-mail showed she was having an affair with her second husband, a man who once had been arrested for beating her in front of her small son."
So we have at least one witness to the alleged action - compared to wishful thinking tied to the "innocent until proven guilty" side of it.
Again, this is my opinion and IANAL, but if the son witnessed it - it is awfully hard to claim that it didn't happen regardless of whether there were charges or a conviction involved.
Did the police report say that her son was a witness? The story I read did state that he was arrested for abusing her, but it was Hubby #3 who claimed that the abuse happened in front of her child. Regardless, the child would have been a toddler at the time, and hardly any kind of witness to the alleged incident.
If he wasn't a toddler, then he's now old enough to report any abuse on his own, without 'help' from his mom's ex-husband. Also, he's old enough to sit at home reading books and playing video games while his mom has an affair, goes to a movie, or whatever. No neglect involved.
We have come to the point where we actually agree that the guy shouldn't be charged but disagree on his actions and I'm OK with that.
That's been my stated opinion since the beginning of the thread. :)
This isn't a win-lose scenario, simply a debate on actions of others with literally nothing at stake on the pages of TD.
Indeed, but debate is certainly interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What he did after finding the email sounds like an honest thing to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd kinda given the benefit of the doubt and presumed that he already knew something was going on, which wouldn't excuse his actions but would at least explain them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What would she have lost (if anything) if he had borrowed her car without her permission? I don't agree with the case against this guy but I would hope you could still appreciate the importance of privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
KG wasnt auth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Training?
WTF? He looked in a notebook she kept by the computer. If that's what our government considers highly-skilled training, then we're in some serious trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Training?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Training?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Training?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Training?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Training?
Were I still an evil teenage hacker type, the very first thing I would do if I were looking for passwords on a machine I had physical access to would be to check if they were already saved in the browser. The second thing I would do is look around for a post-it, piece of paper, or notebook with the passwords written down. Only if both failed would I bother with anything remotely technical. Which is exactly why we now adult admin types tell you never to do either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Training?
I think this is more about bad law than the definition of hacking. I don't see why hacking apparently carries harsher penalties than trespassing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Training?
"Officer, arrest this man! He read my diary without my permission!"
"Lolwhut?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Training?
When I was looking up penalties for trespassing it made me think about the Gary McKinnon case. While they were pretty much planning to lock him up and throw away the key if he got extradited, I have to wonder what the maximum penalty would have been if he'd physically trespassed on military property (being shot on sight excluded).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Training?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the analogous scenario
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am a hacker!
I shall put that on my next tax return.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Caveate user/hacker!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caveate user/hacker!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caveate user/hacker!
Careful, you may break a stereotype..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hacking?
"It was password protected, he had wonderful skills, and was highly trained"
Being able to open up the book next to the computer and type in the password makes him a highly trained hacker. Nice. Let's take a look at that skill set:
1) He can read
2) He is observant enough to notice the book next to the computer
3) He can turn on the computer (unless the computer was on already - that's not clear)
4) He can type a password (I think hunting and pecking is ok here)
5) He was able to click the button to open her email (this may have required looking at her browser history to figure out she had a gmail account, but my guess is that her home page was google or she had the google toolbar and he just clicked the mail button)
6) He found and clicked the print button
I believe this makes everyone in any modernized part of the world older than the age of 6 a highly skilled and trained hacker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hacking?
I think I'll apply to the Detroit DA's office as a computer expert/technicial advisor...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She's claiming hacking charges for what he's done, but she clearly has wronged twice over in this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
She's claiming hacking charges for what he's done, but she clearly has wronged twice over in this."
Why is being unfaithful automatically worse than invasion of privacy? Why do you presume that she put the child at risk? Why does this earn her the label crazy bioch? From my perspective his actions seem crazier than hers, however positive the intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Really!? Maybe our views are different because you're on the other side of the pond from me, but I can honestly say I'd much rather my wife snoop through my computer than sleep with her ex.
Now lets talk about the fact that the woman in this article is now finished with husband #3. What's the common denominator in all her marriages? Her. That should tell you something about how stable she is. Nevermind the fact she's cheating on her current husband with an abusive former husband. Is that something normal, sane, stable people do? I think not. If you can't see that, then we likely won't find any common ground on this issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm unsure why me being British would explain my views on this matter, I don't think many of my countryfolk would consider me typical in most respects. Regardless, I wasn't asking which people think is more important but why they think that. I think privacy is more important because short of a partner not taking precautions then infidelity is unlikely to harm anything more than my feelings, whereas an invasion of privacy may harm my autonomy.
"Now lets talk about the fact that the woman in this article is now finished with husband #3. What's the common denominator in all her marriages? Her. That should tell you something about how stable she is. Nevermind the fact she's cheating on her current husband with an abusive former husband. Is that something normal, sane, stable people do? I think not. If you can't see that, then we likely won't find any common ground on this issue."
I presume you know that none of her husbands ever cheated or married more than once. Otherwise your comment seems to rely on a presumption that the woman is worse than any of the men, despite one of them allegedly abusing her. I hope you can agree, at least, that physical violence of any sort is a whole lot worse than any sort of infidelity. She may not be innocent but if you're to assume the worst of her then I might presume that you're just being sexist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's see if I can keep my formatting straight this time.
I'm merely pointing out that European attitudes towards sex are much more relaxed than here in the States. Anyway, there a couple of reasons I feel spousal infidelity is worse than spousal privacy violations. First, even if the cheater is careful, there is no guarantee they won't contract an STD and pass it on to their unsuspecting spouse. Second, I see a privacy violation of this sort to be a minor breach of trust, whereas infidelity is a major violation. Subjective to be sure, but if I marry someone, I trust them and if I trust them, I won't have much, if anything, that needs to be private. My wife has my computer, smartphone, and email passwords. If you can't trust your spouse, then you're either shady, insecure, or a spook, IMHO. Communication being the foundation of a healthy relationship, etc., etc.
I presume you know that none of her husbands ever cheated or married more than once. Otherwise your comment seems to rely on a presumption that the woman is worse than any of the men, despite one of them allegedly abusing her. I hope you can agree, at least, that physical violence of any sort is a whole lot worse than any sort of infidelity. She may not be innocent but if you're to assume the worst of her then I might presume that you're just being sexist.
You presume too much. I don't know the details of her three husbands and their track record on fidelity. I'm not making any presumptions about them; I'm merely looking at the facts at hand which are: married three times unsuccessfully, cheated on husband #3 with husband #2 who was charged with spousal abuse. Based on these details, I drew the conclusion that some, if not most, of the blame for her failed relationships probably falls on her.
I honestly don't know why you're implying that I'm condoning spousal abuse, or a sexist, from what I said. I said nothing about who was "worse." I said she was the common denominator in three failed marriages and that she wasn't stable. How you managed to twist my words in your mind to make is seem I was assigning value to this "Jerry Springer" cast is beyond me.
Happy New Year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Eh. Formatting shit happens. No biggie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One day It'll annoy me enough to find a way to stop it from happening.. even if it is a Greasemonkey script.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure about mainland Europe, but apart from the lack of fundamentalist religious influence our attitudes towards sex don't seem that different to yours.
"First, even if the cheater is careful, there is no guarantee they won't contract an STD and pass it on to their unsuspecting spouse."
I agree that this is an issue, but would you rather every invasion of privacy was justified with 'I thought they were cheating on me'? If the guy suspected that his wife was cheating on him then he already has the options of confronting her or leaving her. If he doesn't suspect anything then how would he justify invading her privacy? You can argue that there shouldn't be any privacy in marriage, but I'd argue that unless privacy isn't normal outside marriage then you should have to explicitly give it up.
"My wife has my computer, smartphone, and email passwords. If you can't trust your spouse, then you're either shady, insecure, or a spook, IMHO."
While I don't know about being shady or a spook, being insecure is allowed even in marriage.
"Communication being the foundation of a healthy relationship, etc., etc."
I thought the cliche was that trust is the foundation. I'm not advocating infidelity, secrecy or dishonesty, merely saying that people should not be expected to give up their right to privacy as a condition of marriage.
"I'm merely looking at the facts at hand which are: married three times unsuccessfully, cheated on husband #3 with husband #2 who was charged with spousal abuse. Based on these details, I drew the conclusion that some, if not most, of the blame for her failed relationships probably falls on her. "
You had said 'That should tell you something about how stable she is'. Perhaps you were implying that it told us she is very stable, either way you were implying that it told us something. Now you're backtracking with 'probably', which may be what you meant.
Let me spell it out for you: you essentially said that any woman who is on her third husband has a questionable frame of mind. Perhaps you would apply the same warped logic to a man with three wives.
"I honestly don't know why you're implying that I'm condoning spousal abuse, or a sexist, from what I said. I said nothing about who was "worse." I said she was the common denominator in three failed marriages and that she wasn't stable. How you managed to twist my words in your mind to make is seem I was assigning value to this "Jerry Springer" cast is beyond me."
Well I was annoyed and the choice was to either call you sexist or stupid, I thought it fitting to make an uninformed assumption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I only was talking about this woman, but I can see how you can make the inference that my statements apply to everyone who's been in three failed marriages, and I'd say that yes I do believe if you've been in three failed marriages, you're probably either not that stable, have something deeply wrong with you, or are a lousy judge of character. If you or anyone else takes offense to that view, I don't care.
Well I was annoyed and the choice was to either call you sexist or stupid, I thought it fitting to make an uninformed assumption.
And here I thought we were getting along so well. *sigh*
Don't worry, I won't cry about "personal attacks" the way some around here do. Especially since you were able to word it so well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not only do you presume that I might be unfaithful but you presume I have already been unfaithful. Hell, I don't even have a significant other. Way to miss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't presume anything about you. It was a rhetorical question intended to point out why many people wouldn't agree with your premise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wasn't touchy. I was pointing out all the flaws with your rhetorical question. Rhetorical questions aren't there so that you can say what you like without fear of someone pointing out the flaws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, so flippant or joking tone doesn't seem to go over too well, so let me state in plain dry terms what I was implying earlier. I believe that almost no-one (at least here in the US) is going to accept the idea that sexual infidelity is less important than personal privacy.
I understand from reading many of your other comments what your position is on that, but I suspect your views would be quite a minority opinion here.
Having said that, thanks for your generous contribution to a rousing discussion today. It was certainly interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course, we're all under 40 (mostly) so maybe it's a generational gap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Considering popular themes of the sixties, I can't imagine that age is the the primary divide. Also, I actually thought that 'swinging' was more popular in America than Britain.. but then I have no real way to measure that :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If one person in a marriage has a bank account in their name and the spouse doesn't have access to it, the funds are still seen as joint ownership unless a previous agreement has been made. Could one not apply the same logic to an email account?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is quite despicable. I can imagine it must suck to get out of prison and have no monetary or physical assets...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To what end? Would you also split up all the snail mail that had been addressed to either party?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Info
Also if a judge even allows this to go further they need to have there job seriously be reconsidered.
Second his wife is committing adultery and there are more worried about a husband who figured out his wife password to find out if she was having an affair. What IS going on with this country and the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Info
Weirdly, while looking up whether adultery is a crime in Michigan I came across an article from 2007 claiming the penalty may be life imprisonment. Which highlights how much views on adultery differ. Personally, I value privacy over someone upholding a trust; privacy is a natural right to be taken whereas trust is given freely to be broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More Info
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More Info
The same thing that makes property a natural right, that it is needed for civilisation to function. If you can imagine a society without privacy then fair enough, it's only my opinion, I wasn't quoting anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: More Info
I can imagine a civilization where people can read their wive's emails though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More Info
Fair enough, I agree that privacy is a complex issue and absolute privacy would not be desirable.
"I can imagine a civilization where people can read their wive's emails though."
Without their consent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the real world, it would be trespassing and breaking and entering. In the online world, the best way to describe it is hacking. He obtained access to a password protected email account without permission. That really isn't much to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why would he force the door open when the key was hanging on a string on the doorknob?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How about if it was hidden under the mat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When you go live with someone you are giving up a great deal of privacy, that is why is called "living together" and not "living apart", although there is strange people out there that live separate lifes in separate homes and still say they are married this is not the actual fact for most.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Opposed to hanging on a door, yes.
"When you go live with someone you are giving up a great deal of privacy, that is why is called "living together" and not "living apart", although there is strange people out there that live separate lifes in separate homes and still say they are married this is not the actual fact for most."
I would think that giving up a great deal of privacy would make what you have left all the more valuable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He opened his wife's mail.
There really isn't much to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Officer, arrest this man! He read my diary without my permission!"
"Lolwhut?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's not PC to ask this question, but here goes...
-- NOTE: I did not ask whether the gender of the prosecutor should be relevant, as all would likely agree that it shouldn't be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have to wonder who might be concerned about political correctness on the Techdirt comments page. Those who are actually involved in political issues should hate political correctness as it is a means to avoid the issues. I definitely don't know of any politically correct feminists.
"Do you think the gender of the prosecutor relevant to the circumstances of this case?"
It may be relevant to her client. I don't see how it might concern anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As such, I suspect a male prosecutor would not have filed criminal charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trust issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trust issues
Why is it a bigger breach of trust? I can make some assumptions as to why people think so, but I'd rather know their thoughts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trust issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trust issues
Says who? I don't know about you, but I define fidelity as being faithful to the actual promises and agreements that my husband and I have made together, rather than some undefined, undiscussed code of behavior gathered from our own personal experiences, which are usually different than your partner�s view of fidelity.
Not saying that she didn't cheat. I am simply saying that the absence of an agreement is simply that - an absence. There is no uniform, standard agreement, so your agreement doesn't revert to some other agreement in the meantime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trust issues
As Rose has said, sans a specific agreement there would seem to be no reason other than convention to make such assumptions. If both of you are clear on which conventions you rely upon then you may not need a specific agreement, but that hardly backs a universal statement like yours.
"Otherwise, fidelity is part of the vows and the contract they made at the time of marriage."
Which vows do you refer to? I don't even know whether you're religious let alone which religion you may be, am I supposed to guess?
"Given that it is a lifelong contract that has huge implications beyond just emotions, including property and custody, it is a much larger breach of trust than reading your spouse's email."
Privacy doesn't need a contract (it is even considered an inalienable right under some laws), is more of a lifelong issue than marriage and can also have huge implications. I still don't see why you consider it less important than marriage.
'The fact that the wife was trying to hide it shows pretty clearly that it is a breach of "trust."'
I hope I haven't suggested that it wasn't a breach of trust. My question was why is it considered a bigger breach of trust than the issue of privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trust issues
Honestly, it's more conventional to secretly cheat on your spouse than it is to stay faithful, so what she did was definitely conventional.
This is why people should discuss what their vows mean before they take them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trust issues
I think it also helps if people don't perpetuate the stigma associated with having multiple partners. Ofc, at that point you're going up against a hell of a lot of religious and 'conservative' dogma about family values.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trust issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't get how people can claim a universal standard for marriage. Apart from the concept being pretty fluid throughout history, no one seems to even know the actual origin. Saying that a complete stranger signed up for something because they got married makes no sense to me, you don't even know whether they wrote their own vows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As I said it's just an opinion, or "what marriage means to me" barring any other special agreement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Fair enough, I guess I didn't pay much attention to you clearly stating it was your opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These opinions of her may well be valid, however isn't this just another instance of legislators making laws that aren't well thought-out?
It would seem that laws should be more carefully constructed, as it is very likely that the law-makers who wrote this one didn't foresee this.
Why can't legislatures, and on the national level, Congress take a more organized approach and retrospectively analyze the consequences of the laws they have enacted. Does this have to be the sole province of the courts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you didn't have good reason to be suspicious and you are just paranoid it's a different story of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can find those apps everywhere and it is for dummies, you just need to remember the magic key combination that brings up the menu.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A side note...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A side note...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A side note...
For all I knew your post came first as I tend to reply before I've got to the bottom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
definition of hacker
a "enthusiast" of golf can be called a golf hack.
computer hacker same thing.
THUS WERE ALL GUILTY under that law. putting hte wrogn word in a legal document is really awful.
who terms whats malicious the dumb bitches last husbad beat her so .....they have kids and and and...he gets 5 years?
what ya bet he never reports a crime ever again now.
YA DONE SOCIETY GOOD ON THIS ONE BONEHEADED AMERICANS ONCE AGAIN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why did charge?
2) That must be worse than him reading her email.
3) I wonder if she used her skills and influence to get someone in law enforcement to push this case for her? :)
It seems to me that the case should never been brought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why did charge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why did charge?
It's just occurred to me that asshat is probably a fitting term for a signature..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why did charge?
Are you aware of the exact preventative measures (or lack of) to make that assessment?
"3) I wonder if she used her skills and influence to get someone in law enforcement to push this case for her? :)"
Would you have said that if a guy had cheated on a woman?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why did charge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why did charge?
"Since no method of prevention is 100% effective, there is at least some increased risk of acquiring an STD from his adulteress spouse."
I'm not trying to dismiss the point completely but even beyond physical prevention she could rely on clinical testing to minimise the risk. I don't know much about the subject but claiming she is putting him at risk without further details is a pretty bold claim.
If there is a significant risk then it backs up my position that the stigma associated with people who have multiple partners is a bad thing as it encourages people to cheat rather than define honest boundaries for their relationships.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why did charge?
However, if she is sleeping with both her 2nd & 3rd husband then there is statistically an increased risk and that doesn't even take into account if both of them only have one partner namely, her.
Whether or not they are present at the same time is a whole different story! That would imply consensual sex unless she is letting them share her and then still seeing #2 on the side unbeknown to #3. I'll stay off that road thank you. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why did charge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skills
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hacker
So how is this guy in trouble? It doesn't make sense. Spouses have been playing these games since marraige was invented. Everyone will be in court soon!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is nuts!!! Brybola!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reading wife's email
Ed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reading Spouse's Email
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trust issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trust issues
; sorry, my english is not so good...but still want to join the group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trust issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trust issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Investigation of WikiLeaks turns to Twitter
Come on people! Perhaps this guy is to thanks for unsealing the #2 document (dated January 5th!)thanks to this action by some twit!?! (Twitter...get it?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Investigation of WikiLeaks turns to Twitter
Come on people! Perhaps this guy is to thanks for unsealing the #2 document (dated January 5th!)thanks to this action by some twit!?! (Twitter...get it?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Email hacking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Email hacking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and further more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leon Walker accused of email hacking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whatever
good for her i was always taught if its not urs keep ur hands off unless u have permission
u have only read part of the story
put ur selfs in their shoes
or better yet wait i may happen to u
laws read u have to have written permission to go into anyones electronic mail just as u.s postal mail
because there was a notebook next to the computer makes it ok so i supose u get the mail from ur mailbox and just open whoevers mail its addressed to thats a crime also if u want to live by the 10 commandments find the garden
u wont know how it feels till it happens to u
hacking is hacking weather u found the password or found a program that u installed to find it for u
i hope he get the 5 years and can never use a computer ever again along with anyone else that uses a computer for a crime of any sort
u say the can read good then check out the laws before u hack and email facebook ect account u wont do it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]