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

In summary, a man in Rochester Hills, Michigan is facing up to 5 years in prison for accessing his wife's email without her permission. This is the first time a Michigan statute typically used for identity theft and stealing trade secrets has been applied in a domestic case. Legal experts say it may be difficult to prove and some argue that it should be considered a moral issue rather than a criminal one. However, others argue that there are legitimate reasons for maintaining privacy from one's spouse and that it is not our place to decide how much privacy should be allowed in a marriage. Overall, the situation has sparked a debate about the boundaries of privacy within a marriage.

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

  • Total voters
    21
  • #71
Newai said:
The laws look very complicated and exceptions may exist depending on circumstances, and again, at the state level. There is this bit here:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/privacy/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=15600188

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

Newai said:
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.

The emails in question were not on the family computer. They were on Google's servers. In the example you cite above it specifies that the emails be on the home computer.

As far as your employer insisting on access/ownership of anything you access at work: That's an agreement you make with your employer when you agree to work for them/use their equipment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Evo said:
Was the internet account billed to him? If it was, then it was his account she was using.

I fail to see how that's relevant. My internet is billed to me, does that mean I get to have access to my roommates' emails?

You can have an email account without even having internet service. The two are completely separate.
 
  • #73
Jack21222 said:
I fail to see how that's relevant. My internet is billed to me, does that mean I get to have access to my roommates' emails?

You can have an email account without even having internet service. The two are completely separate.

If you specify when allowing your roommate access that you want to know what they are doing, including seeing their emails, then yes it is relevant as to use it they will have to agree to let you read their emails.

However, if you don't specify it you cannot simply go and read their emails. It isn't relevant as you have granted unrestricted access and they haven't agreed to allow you to read their email.
 
  • #74
jarednjames said:
However, if you don't specify it you cannot simply go and read their emails it isn't relevant as you have granted unrestricted access and they haven't agreed to allow you to read their email.

That was a rhetorical question. Of course being billed for internet access doesn't give you access to every email account that uses it. I didn't expect an actual response.
 
  • #75
Jack21222 said:
Of course being billed for internet access doesn't give you access to every email account that uses it.

It does if you specify it via means of a contract when granting access and the party wanting access agrees to it.

But no, simply "being the bill payer" doesn't grant you automatic access.
 
  • #76
Jack21222 said:
I fail to see how that's relevant. My internet is billed to me, does that mean I get to have access to my roommates' emails?

You can have an email account without even having internet service. The two are completely separate.
But it's your service they're using to read and write them. It's part of the files that your ISP would have logged as part of your account.

Just like if you checked your personal e-mail account at work, it's now in their system, you gave them consent to log your e-mails when you used their network. Unless you work for a company with no internet policy.
 
  • #77
Evo said:
But it's your service they're using to read and write them. It's part of the files that your ISP would have logged as part of your account.

Unless the people you have offered access to the internet via your service agree to the terms of you accessing (or monitoring) them you cannot do it (at least not legally).
Just like if you checked your personal e-mail account at work, it's now in their system, you gave them consent to log your e-mails when you used their network. Unless you work for a company with no internet policy.

No, it is specified and you need to agree to the company doing it (generally in order to get access to the internet). If they don't specify they are doing it and get your agreement, they can be had for an invasion of privacy.

In any circumstance, if you simply give access to the internet without specifying you are monitoring the other person hasn't agreed to you accessing their stuff and you are invading their privacy.
If you specify it as a term in order for someone to gain access, and they agree to it, then you have the right to do it.
 
Last edited:
  • #78
Here it is,

2 (d)It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication
If it's your internet service that they use, it would not be illegal. Unethical and illegal are not the same.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html

I think a lot of people have misconceptions about their rights when it comes to the internet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #79
Evo said:
Here it is,

If it's your internet service that they use, it would not be illegal. Unethical and illegal are not the same.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html

Here is the full segment:
It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.

Note the bolded parts. I'm not entirely sure providing the internet service makes you "a party to the communication", otherwise every ISP out there could be charged when someone accesses illegal material through their services. Which only leaves them giving you consent to do it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #80
  • #81
Evo said:
Note the word OR, it's not both, so the part you pointed out does not need to apply.

Yes I know this, like I said:

"Which only leaves them giving you consent to do it."

As in, either you are "a party to the communication" or you have the consent of the person to intercept their communication. If you aren't the former, you can only do it on the bases of the latter (consent).

So, if you aren't the former and you don't have the latter, you can't do it legally.
You should read this.

Your e-mail isn't private.

http://public.findlaw.com/internet/email-privacy.html

I'll have a glance now.

EDIT: I've read through it and there's nothing in there I didn't already know. This article deals more with the issue of the ease at which access can be gained as opposed to the legality of it.
 
  • #82
If you give your spouse a key to a car (registered to you) and they take it for a ride (without asking) - is it a stolen vehicle? The answer is NO - providing they return the car when you request they do so.

If you give someone your cell phone and they answer a call - can they be arrested? The answer is NO. If the same person checks the messages on your phone - can they be arrested? The answer is NO. If the same person checks the emails on your phone - can they be arrested? The answer is NO. Why? Because you gave them access.

This should also hold true for the OP case - the password was available to the spouse. All she needed to do was change her password if she wanted to protect her privacy. He had access and she knew it. This is known as tacit approval - a silent understanding between known parties.

Whether or not she wanted him to read the messages is another issue. However, she could have deleted the messages.
 
  • #83
WhoWee said:
If you give your spouse a key to a car (registered to you) and they take it for a ride (without asking) - is it a stolen vehicle? The answer is NO - providing they return the car when you request they do so.

You gave the key to your car, not permission to drive. There is a difference.
If you give someone your cell phone and they answer a call - can they be arrested? The answer is NO. If the same person checks the messages on your phone - can they be arrested? The answer is NO. If the same person checks the emails on your phone - can they be arrested? The answer is NO. Why? Because you gave them access.

Again, as above. Giving someone something to hold / look after isn't the same as granting access.

I say "here's my rucksack whilst I go to the toilet", that doesn't give you the right to have a good rummage.
This should also hold true for the OP case - the password was available to the spouse. All she needed to do was change her password if she wanted to protect her privacy. He had access and she knew it. This is known as tacit approval - a silent understanding between known parties.

If I give you a key to my house to hold for me until I get back from holiday (let's say I'm paranoid about losing mine whilst abroad), that's all I've done. I haven't given them any right to go to my house and access it.

The only difference is whether or not it is considered "breaking and entering" or simply "trespassing".

Knowing the password is irrelevant. It is the act of accessing the emails without consent that is a breach of privacy. Knowing the password (providing it isn't because you 'stole' it) simply lessens the severity of the case. If you don't have a password at all, then it gets a bit awkward but it's still illegal to access them (look at the Google WiFi fiasco).
 
  • #84
Jared, can you find any law that states reading the e-mail of someone else in your home on your internet service is illegal?
 
  • #85
jarednjames said:
You gave the key to your car, not permission to drive. There is a difference.Again, as above. Giving someone something to hold / look after isn't the same as granting access.

I say "here's my rucksack whilst I go to the toilet", that doesn't give you the right to have a good rummage.If I give you a key to my house to hold for me until I get back from holiday (let's say I'm paranoid about losing mine whilst abroad), that's all I've done. I haven't given them any right to go to my house and access it.

The only difference is whether or not it is considered "breaking and entering" or simply "trespassing".

Knowing the password is irrelevant. It is the act of accessing the emails without consent that is a breach of privacy. Knowing the password (providing it isn't because you 'stole' it) simply lessens the severity of the case. If you don't have a password at all, then it gets a bit awkward but it's still illegal to access them (look at the Google WiFi fiasco).

All made irrelevant due to two words.
Implied consent.

Which makes all of the above a 'gray area', which means each point is taken on a case by case basis.

You can't go around explicitly stating what is and isn't allowed for every circumstance as nothing would ever get done. Which is why 'implied consent' works until someone has an issue. Then the court decides a precedent.
 
  • #86
Evo said:
Jared, can you find any law that states reading the e-mail of someone else in your home on your internet service is illegal?

You gave the law relating to when it is legal to access someone's communications. If you do not satisfy the conditions within it you are breaking the law.

As I pointed out, if you do not satisfy either of the two criteria within 2d, you are illegally accessing (or intercepting in that case) the communications of another person.

There is no more to add and no need to. I don't have to find another law because that one covers it.

EDIT: I am curious as to whether or not being the bill payer makes you a participant and as such whether or not you satisfy the first of the criterion.
 
  • #87
jarednjames said:
You gave the law relating to when it is legal to access someone's communications. If you do not satisfy the conditions within it you are breaking the law.

As I pointed out, if you do not satisfy either of the two criteria within 2d, you are illegally accessing (or intercepting in that case) the communications of another person.

There is no more to add and no need to. I don't have to find another law because that one covers it.
Okay, it says it is legal, consent is not necessary. Or consent can be given. It's not both.
 
  • #88
Evo said:
Okay, it says it is legal, consent is not necessary. Or consent can be given. It's not both.

What? I've never said consent is necessary.

It says you either have to be a participant or you need consent. I get that (as I've stated multiple times).

If you aren't a participant (which is what I'm curious about because I don't see how being the bill payer makes you a participant) and you don't have consent, it is illegal.
 
  • #89
jarednjames said:
it is illegal.

In your opinion.
 
  • #90
xxChrisxx said:
In your opinion.

According to the law. Read the post please.

It's section 2d here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #91
jarednjames said:
You gave the key to your car, not permission to drive. There is a difference.


Again, as above. Giving someone something to hold / look after isn't the same as granting access.

I say "here's my rucksack whilst I go to the toilet", that doesn't give you the right to have a good rummage.


If I give you a key to my house to hold for me until I get back from holiday (let's say I'm paranoid about losing mine whilst abroad), that's all I've done. I haven't given them any right to go to my house and access it.

The only difference is whether or not it is considered "breaking and entering" or simply "trespassing".

Knowing the password is irrelevant. It is the act of accessing the emails without consent that is a breach of privacy. Knowing the password (providing it isn't because you 'stole' it) simply lessens the severity of the case. If you don't have a password at all, then it gets a bit awkward but it's still illegal to access them (look at the Google WiFi fiasco).


We are talking about a spouse - not a stranger, not a neighbor, not a friend, not a blood relative - a legal partner.
 
  • #92
jarednjames said:
According to the law. Read the post please.

It's section 2d here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html

That is legislation covering a broad spectrum of cases, they are not hard and fast to specific cases, in reality 'laws' for specific cases are made in courts by setting precedents on legislation.

This is the whole reason there is a 'debate' about this, it's a gray area. So until a court rules on this specific scenario, setting a precedent. It's all opinion and speculation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #93
jarednjames said:
According to the law. Read the post please.

It's section 2d here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html

Please identify the part that stipulates SPOUSE.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #94
WhoWee said:
Please identify the part that stipulates SPOUSE.

It doesn't, it applies "broadly" as chris put it.

Unless there is something specific in the marriage contract that changes things, this law still applies.

The problem we have is that because it's a spouse, people aren't sure whether or not they deserve the same privacy. So far, I haven't seen anything in marriage law that stipulates privacy post-marriage is any different to privacy pre-marriage.
 
  • #95
jarednjames said:
Unless there is something specific in the marriage contract that changes things, this law still applies.

(Again) in your opinion.

In reality I would offer odds on that it gets dismissed by a court. Setting a precedent that it's not a criminal matter. Ruling that it is a criminal matter in this scenario would just open up a major can of worms in almost every divorce case.
 
  • #96
xxChrisxx said:
(Again) in your opinion.

Well last time I checked, the law is the law. If it says X is illegal, it's illegal. The only reason it wouldn't be is if there is an amendment or clause making it legal in certain circumstances. So far, I haven't seen anything specifying that standard privacy laws don't apply or are affected by getting married.
In reality I would offer odds on that it gets dismissed by a court. Setting a precedent that it's not a criminal matter. Ruling that it is a criminal matter in this scenario would just open up a major can of worms in almost every divorce case.

Completely agree.
 
  • #97
jarednjames said:
According to the law. Read the post please.

It's section 2d here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html
You misread it, it does not say "participant". It says if you are a party to it, such as owning the internet service account used would make you a party to it.

Most law is directed at hackers or government or employer rights. I have gone out of my way to find law that could be used to argue it is legal in certain circumstances outside any of these. If you insist that it can never be legal, then you need to cite your source.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #98
Evo said:
You misread it, it does not say "participant". It says if you are a party to it, such as owning the internet service account used would make you a party to it.

This is absolutely false. I cannot think of a single reason why simply owning the internet service makes you a party to an email account. An email account is completely disconnected from the internet service. If I send you an email, and you access it at the library, I did NOT include the library personnel as a party to the email. The only parties to an email are the one listed in the "To:, From:, CC: and BCC:" fields.
 
  • #99
jarednjames said:
Well last time I checked, the law is the law. If it says X is illegal, it's illegal.

Do you not understand that it's not 'law' yet? That's the whole reason why this thread is now a gazillion pages long.

It's not been decided that the statute you linked to applies in this case.
 
  • #100
bows to xxChrisXX

I think we can all agree that we don't know since laws are still being made and challenged concerning internet privacy.

I do believe that if this is a real scenario, it will be thrown out.
 
  • #101
Evo said:
bows to xxChrisXX

:blushing::blushing::blushing:

It's just one of the funny complexities of a common law system. The 'law' isn't the 'law' until a court rules (i.e interprets) it.

I would have gone to study law (I sometimes wish I had), until I found out just how much reading there is to do.
 
  • #102
Evo said:
You misread it, it does not say "participant". It says if you are a party to it, such as owning the internet service account used would make you a party to it.

Apologies, I was using it in the sense of "party", not "participant".
If you insist that it can never be legal, then you need to cite your source.

I've never insisted that, but you provided a law that does make it illegal in all circumstances other than those specifically outlined. Based on that law, unless you conform to one of those circumstances it is illegal.
xxChrisxx said:
Do you not understand that it's not 'law' yet? That's the whole reason why this thread is now a gazillion pages long.

It's not been decided that the statute you linked to applies in this case.

It's just one of the funny complexities of a common law system. The 'law' isn't the 'law' until a court rules (i.e interprets) it.

It's a law that basically says, unless you are covered by one of the below circumstances, to intercept a communication is illegal. How does that not apply to this case?

I still don't see how 'owning' the internet connection to a house makes you a party to the communications of those who use it. On this basis, if someone sends me information on how to build a bomb, my mother can be considered a party to this communication and therefore said to be 'involved'.

Let's look at this situation on the basis of the law evo provided:

The husband is not a party to the communication of the emails.
The husband did not have permission to read the emails.
Therefore, on the basis of what is written in this law he has acted in an illegal manner by intercepting the mail.

Why this law wouldn't apply I don't know. Hopefully we'll see more on it soon.

I do agree though, it will be dismissed.
 
  • #103
I wonder why breaking marriage vows is not a criminal offense.
 
  • #104
╔(σ_σ)╝ said:
I wonder why breaking marriage vows is not a criminal offense.
Adultery would count against her, he could make it a "fault" divorce, which might be why she's grasping at straws.
 
  • #105
╔(σ_σ)╝ said:
I wonder why breaking marriage vows is not a criminal offense.

Are prisons not crowded enough with 'criminals' who smoke a bit of weed?
 

Similar threads

Can an AI write a credible novel with Wikipedia and YouTube?
    • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
News Is Recording Police Interactions a Felony?
    • General Discussion
4
Replies
116
Views
20K
Wipe out an entire culture? You bet.
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Poll
What Kind of Humor Can You Find in a My Favorite Jokes Thread?
    • General Discussion
3
Replies
71
Views
9K
What happened to the beloved baker at Front Street Deli?
    • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
3K
For the first time I'm seriously considering suicide.
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
60
Views
10K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 266)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 257)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
5
Views
3K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 230)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 230)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top