Should reading your wife's e-mail be a crime?

[zomgwtf]

Well I believe that the term marriage that means the legal union of two persons. I'm pretty sure it's written out in black and white in the US Code sa the legal union between one man and one woman.

Now... legal union in MY mind means that they are legal being bound together as ONE unit. That means no right to privacy from each other.

 

[NeoDevin]

They did make an explicit verbal and signed pact before witnesses to share their life.

To my recollection there is nothing in the marriage laws about sharing information.

 

[NeoDevin]

Now... legal union in MY mind means that they are legal being bound together as ONE unit. That means no right to privacy from each other.

Don't suppose you could support this claim?

 

[zomgwtf]

Don't suppose you could support this claim?

I don't suppose I really have to since I clearly stated it was from MY mind. But hey... I'll support it by how I came to that conclusion.

Simple: English dictionary.
Legal = legal.
Union = describe unite/unify = to become one.

 

[zomgwtf]

To my recollection there is nothing in the marriage laws about sharing information.

Which marriage laws are you talking about, I know in Canada there are a crap load of laws that specifically single out married couples and treat them as one. This to me is clearly defined as requiring information to be shared, or at least viewed as shared by the government.

 

[JaredJames]

Well OK, what about in a marriage when one party takes out a loan and doesn't tell the other?

From what I've read, under certain laws in some states any debt created within the marriage is considered equal to both parties.

Community property states determine that the debt of one spouse is equally the debt of the other. This is true in obtaining debt at the time of marriage. The separate spouse does not have to apply or put her name on anything to be held responsible for the debt of her partner. After divorce, both partners are responsible for this debt individually and it does not transfer to a new partner.

Read more: Will My Wife Inherit My Debt if I Get Remarried? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_7372814_wife-inherit-debt-remarried_.html#ixzz19QkmHqDN

Now, I don't know how strictly this is applied but I'd say you have no right to privacy with such matters. You don't have the right to rack up debt within the marriage, that your spouse may end up jointly responsible for and keep it private from them. From what I've seen, I could go out and get a bunch of loans with nothing to do with my spouse and yet they can possibly end up as joint debt.

I know this doesn't really help with the "right to read emails" question, but I feel it brings an interesting point in relation to privacy within a marriage.

 

[DaveC426913]

To my recollection there is nothing in the marriage laws about sharing information.

mhm. I'll wait patiently while you finish reading that post.

 

[WhoWee]

It would be a legal matter in any case where the pair is not married. It is against the law to access another person's email without their permission. Do you disagree with this?

If you agree with the above, and cannot point out where in the marriage contract/laws couples (implicitly or explicitly) give up their right to privacy, then the only sensible conclusion is that it is a legal matter in this situation as well.

Perhaps one shouldn't be married to someone they don't trust?

 

[Newai]

You can have sex with me, but don't you dare read my email!??

OST, I suppose there could be a fair rationalization. If I send a letter or email to someone, I might have cause to expect privacy between me and that person, and not shared with that person's spouse, whose secretly reading his/her email. So, if I were in his shoes, I might seek permission first.

 

[drankin]

I could give a rats *** about my wife's email. I don't want her reading mine! But, realistically, our assets and information are mutual due to our marital contract.

 

[NeoDevin]

mhm. I'll wait patiently while you finish reading that post.

You mean the part where you make a bunch of unsupported assumptions?

 

[NeoDevin]

Perhaps one shouldn't be married to someone they don't trust?

I would agree with this. Too bad not everyone considers this before they get married.

 

[NeoDevin]

You don't have the right to rack up debt within the marriage, that your spouse may end up jointly responsible for and keep it private from them. From what I've seen, I could go out and get a bunch of loans with nothing to do with my spouse and yet they can possibly end up as joint debt.

Actually, you do have that right. Your partner agreed to it when they married you.

Example: My wife went and got approved for a car loan without me present, or my signature on anything. There's no law requiring her to disclose that to me (though financial records will likely be subpoenaed in any divorce proceedings).

We can argue the ethics of keeping certain secrets from your spouse until the cows come home, it doesn't change that every single person still has a right to privacy.

 

[NeoDevin]

Which marriage laws are you talking about, I know in Canada there are a crap load of laws that specifically single out married couples and treat them as one. This to me is clearly defined as requiring information to be shared, or at least viewed as shared by the government.

They are treated almost as one for most financial matters. And information shared with a spouse is considered privileged. As far as I'm aware, there is no requirement in the US or Canada to give up your privacy. If there is such a requirement, please cite the appropriate law in either country, or stop claiming it.

 

[Char. Limit]

You know there's a multi-quote button, right? It'll save you having to make four posts in a row.

 

[Jack21222]

I haven't read all 4 pages of posts, but I think it should be, at most, a misdemeanor. Possibly a civil suit. Not a felony.

 

[NeoDevin]

To all:

You all (I presume) agree that, as individuals in either Canada or US, we have a right to privacy. If you are claiming that this right is given up, or altered in any way shape or form when you get married, please cite the appropriate laws, or stop making unfounded claims.

If something is a crime outside a marriage, it's a crime inside a marriage. Unless there is a specific law stating otherwise. If you can't cite such a law, you are making an unfounded claim in violation of the forum guidelines. If you can cite the law, I will concede the point.

 

[Char. Limit]

Where in the Constitution are we granted a right to privacy? I don't see that phrase anywhere in the Constitution. Am I missing it?

 

[NeoDevin]

You know there's a multi-quote button, right? It'll save you having to make four posts in a row.

I know. I just tend to read through the thread and open a quote in a new tab with each post I want to respond to, then go to each of the tabs and fill out a response. I find it more convenient that way.

 

[Jack21222]

To all:

You all (I presume) agree that, as individuals in either Canada or US, we have a right to privacy. If you are claiming that this right is given up, or altered in any way shape or form when you get married, please cite the appropriate laws, or stop making unfounded claims.

If something is a crime outside a marriage, it's a crime inside a marriage. Unless there is a specific law stating otherwise. If you can't cite such a law, you are making an unfounded claim in violation of the forum guidelines. If you can cite the law, I will concede the point.

You're confusing "ought" and "is." This thread is entitled "SHOULD reading your wife's email be a crime?" It does NOT say "IS reading your wife's email a crime?"

Therefore, current law is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and none needs to be cited.

 

[NeoDevin]

Where in the Constitution are we granted a right to privacy? I don't see that phrase anywhere in the Constitution. Am I missing it?

For the general (unmarried) case, I would point you to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_email_hack" :

On April 30, 2010, the jury found Kernell guilty on two counts: the felony of anticipatory obstruction of justice and the misdemeanor of unauthorized access to a computer.[5][6] Sarah Palin posted a note on her Facebook page stating that she and her family were thankful the jury had rendered a just verdict.[7]
Kernell was sentenced on November 12, 2010, to one year plus a day in federal custody,[8] followed by three years of supervised release.[9] The sentencing judge recommended that the custody be served in a halfway house rather than in federal prison.[8][9]

This is a good example, because it involves access to an email account in the cloud, and thus sidesteps the issue of ownership of the computer (had the emails been stored on the local computer, rather than on Gmail, the case could be made that since it is a shared possession, he has a right to access the data on it).

 

[NeoDevin]

You're confusing "ought" and "is." This thread is entitled "SHOULD reading your wife's email be a crime?" It does NOT say "IS reading your wife's email a crime?"

Therefore, current law is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and none needs to be cited.

People have been discussing the "is" and making specific claims. It is up to them to support those claims.

 

[Newai]

Actually, you do have that right. Your partner agreed to it when they married you.

Example: My wife went and got approved for a car loan without me present, or my signature on anything. There's no law requiring her to disclose that to me (though financial records will likely be subpoenaed in any divorce proceedings).

We can argue the ethics of keeping certain secrets from your spouse until the cows come home, it doesn't change that every single person still has a right to privacy.

It seems that the rules of disclosure are handled at the state level. In California, for example, there are certain fiduciary duties:

California’s community property laws view marriage as a partnership; and just as partners in a business have rights and duties to one another, so do those in marital ones. These include the right to have access, and the duty to make available books concerning a financial transaction, and when asked to make available true information concerning the parties’ marital assets and debts and all transactions which could affect it. One partner does not have a greater right to these records than the other.

http://www.divorce360.com/divorce-a...-responsibilities-in-marriage.aspx?artid=1459

 

[NeoDevin]

It seems that the rules of disclosure are handled at the state level. In California, for example, there are certain fiduciary duties:

http://www.divorce360.com/divorce-a...-responsibilities-in-marriage.aspx?artid=1459

Finally, someone can support a claim! In general there is no requirement to disclose financial matters to another person, so they explicitly required it for married couples. Given that they explicitly require disclosure of financial matters, they implicitly do not require disclosure of anything else not mentioned.

Ergo: No legal right to access your spouse's email.

I concede the point of requirement to disclose debts.

 

[Newai]

Finally, someone can support a claim! In general there is no requirement to disclose financial matters to another person, so they explicitly required it for married couples. Given that they explicitly require disclosure of financial matters, they implicitly do not require disclosure of anything else not mentioned.

Ergo: No legal right to access your spouse's email.

I concede the point of requirement to disclose debts.

The laws look very complicated and exceptions may exist depending on circumstances, and again, at the state level. There is this bit here:

The ECPA also prohibits the use or recitation of information obtained from any interception. Most of the cases developed under the ECPA involve wiretapping of telephone and E-mail communications by law enforcement. Civilly, most of the case law, until recently, involved telephone monitoring. Under the ECPA, though, the owner of the communication equipment and services can usually monitor activities from that equipment. And in the marital setting, the courts have generally refused to review unauthorized access of the spouses' electronic communications. (This unwillingness to review possible violations probably wouldn't apply to people merely living together or involved in a relationship and not living together.)

In certain states where they exist, the person being spied upon may be able to seek relief under the common-law tort of invasion of privacy. Although many state courts have held that no such tort exists, the tort generally requires an intentional intrusion, "physical or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another upon his private affairs, or concerns ... if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person."

One of the key conditions to prosecuting an action for invasion of privacy is whether or not the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The courts across the country are finding with more and more frequency that no reasonable expectation of privacy exists with E-mail in the workplace setting. And a court in New Jersey reviewed whether a spouse's accessing of E-mails of the other spouse on a home computer violated New Jersey wiretap laws (modeled closely on the ECPA), finding that no expectation of privacy exists on a home computer when the family is involved and that the seized E-mails could be introduced as evidence of infidelity. This case focused largely on whether the spouse violated the section of the ECPA and the state equivalent by accessing "stored communications." The state judge ruled that E-mails, once saved on the hard drive automatically in the sent E-mail folder, were no longer stored communications under the act and were legally accessed, copied, and admitted into court.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/privacy/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=15600188

I'm afraid it's not so cut and dry, then.

 

[Newai]

The full article is at http://www.freep.com/article/20101226/NEWS03/12260530/1001/&template=fullarticle

There's more to this story:

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.

"I was doing what I had to do," Leon Walker told the Free Press in a recent interview. He has been out on bond since shortly after his arrest. "We're talking about putting a child in danger."

Here's an interesting point from the article:

Several area defense attorneys were astonished by the filing of the criminal charges.

"What's the difference between that and parents who get on their kids' Facebook accounts?" attorney Deborah McKelvy said. "You're going to have to start prosecuting a whole bunch of parents."

The statute he's being charged under reads,

Michigan statute 752.795

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

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.

Being a family computer, I don't see how he doesn't have authorization, so this charge is hard pressed. He didn't have explicit permission, necessarily, because of password accessibility, but then that's where the expectation of privacy becomes the weighing stone.

 

[drankin]

Anything I do on my work puter is work property. Including my personal email if I chose to access it with it. At least I've always understood that.

Following that reasoning, I would think that the home computer and everything accessed on it is property of those in the home.

Just think if your kids could sue you for monitoring their email as a responsible parent might be inclined to do on occasion.

 

[DaveC426913]

Anything I do on my work puter is work property. Including my personal email if I chose to access it with it. At least I've always understood that.

Following that reasoning, I would think that the home computer and everything accessed on it is property of those in the home.

Just think if your kids could sue you for monitoring their email as a responsible parent might be inclined to do on occasion.

Hang on. A couple of issues here.

1] "The home" is not an entity in the sense that anything in it belongs to the home. All office equipment at my office also belongs to the company, but it does not follow that my camera, my razor or my favourite novel are the property of those in the home.

2] Kids are a separate issue. Parents are legally responsible for their children. Children do not have a legal right to privacy from their parents.

 

[drankin]

Hang on. A couple of issues here.

1] "The home" is not a legal entity in the sense that anything in it belongs to the home. All office equipment at my office also belongs to the company, but it does not follow that my camera, my razor or my favourite novel belongs to the home.

2] Kids are a separate issue. Parents are legally responsible for their children. Children do not have a legal right to privacy from their parents.

Good points.

In general, and maybe it's a state by state thing, when you get married it is a legal contract making your assets and debts from that point on mutual property. I would think that would include all information. That would seem logical to me. Maybe it's more assumed than legally defined. I believe a lot of laws are written without considering all the consequences over what probably should be exceptions.

 

[JaredJames]

I know it's the UK, but the company I worked for made all staff members hand over any passwords to personal sites (email or otherwise) that they access whilst on the premises or on company equipment. You weren't entitled to any privacy when using any equipment with access to / when you have direct access to company data.

However, back to topic. Does anyone here have a link to the actual marriage laws themselves so we can put this to bed once and for all?

 

[drankin]

I know it's the UK, but the company I worked for made all staff members hand over any passwords to personal sites (email or otherwise) that they access whilst on the premises or on company equipment. You weren't entitled to any privacy when using any equipment with access to / when you have direct access to company data.

However, back to topic. Does anyone here have a link to the actual marriage laws themselves so we can put this to bed once and for all?

I know that in the US, state by state, the marriage contract differs. If only it was as easy as a single law.

 

[JaredJames]

I'm not asking for every law "state by state", I just want the law pertaining to the specifics of this case.

And then once we've dealt with that, perhaps we could then expand into other states / countries and see how they define it.

 

[DaveC426913]

However, back to topic. Does anyone here have a link to the actual marriage laws themselves so we can put this to bed once and for all?

That will not put it to bed. Laws don't tend to mention what they don't cover.

 

[Evo]

I know it's the UK, but the company I worked for made all staff members hand over any passwords to personal sites (email or otherwise) that they access whilst on the premises or on company equipment. You weren't entitled to any privacy when using any equipment with access to / when you have direct access to company data.

However, back to topic. Does anyone here have a link to the actual marriage laws themselves so we can put this to bed once and for all?

I doubt that there are any laws that state that a spouse can't read your e-mails. Would he be arrested for reading her diary?

Was the internet account billed to him? If it was, then it was his account she was using.

I haven't seen this in any valid news reporting service, so I wonder if this is some internet myth that was started and picked up by some non-mainstream *news* sources. I've seen retractions in major news sources that were duped into thinking something circulating the internet was a real story.

 

[JaredJames]

That will not put it to bed. Laws don't tend to mention what they don't cover.

Unless there is something within the marriage contract that removes / reduces privacy between the partners, then it doesn't affect it. In which case, the rules regarding privacy remain the same before and after marriage.

So I'd say yes, it would put it to bed unless it has something a bit vague in it.

I doubt that there are any laws that state that a spouse can't read your e-mails. Would he be arrested for reading her diary?

Same thing, regarding privacy statements within the marriage contract as above.