Husband Facing Felony Charges for Hacking Wife's Gmail Account

[Mike]

Well, if this doesn't beat all, and from Michigan no less.

A Michigan man found out about his wife's affair -- but somehow he's the one in trouble, and may is now facing criminal charges.
Thirty-three-year-old Leon Walker used his wife's password to get into her Gmail account, and says he learned of his wife's affair by reading her e-mail on their computer. Clara Walker filed for a divorce, which was granted this month, and Leon Walker will stand trial Feb. 7 -- on felony computer misuse charges.

​

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/27/michigan-man-criminal-charges-reading-email/

Forget about whether it's advisable or appropriate to have separate email accounts, can anyone conceive the the idea that a woman's husband would be facing 5 years in jail for using her password to get into her email account? He didn't steal anything from her, he didn't use separate funds to purchase anything. Yes, they likely had a mucked up marriage, and no, he probably won't get that kind of time. But should the law prohibit someone's spouse from reading an email account? Am I missing something here?

 

[th1b.taylor]

You are missing nothing! This is the Liberal's misuse of of the Intent of the law.

 

[PouringRain]

Sad. He should not be prosecuted.

To answer your question, Mike, no I do not think the law should prohibit a spouse from reading the other's e-mails.

IMO that woman was asking to be caught.

So, the thing I want to know is if she is going to get back with and marry her second husband all over again. (Beware husband #4!)

 

[Alabaster]

LOL! I saw that story on CNN this morning. My heart goes out to that husband.

The man knew the wife's password, so therefore it isn't hacking. The law was created to address corporate hacking, and this is an abuse of the law.

 

[farouk]

It's probably an instance of 'tunnel vision' on the part of prosecutors.

Example: If someone is horribly violated, and a criminal case ensues, the violator gets a certain sentence.

But if someone comes to the rescue but uses what is deemed to be excessive force, a separate criminal case ensues and it's not impossible for the person concerned to get a sentence equal to - or even greater than - the original person convicted.

In English-speaking countries, courts and juries work on the principle of narrowly focusing on the individual charges for which the person has been charged. Juries are so often not given information that might be deemed prejudicial to the specific charges against the particular individual in question.

This is how it so often works.

Whether it always works in a way that always seems just is another matter.

In France, an examining magistrate spends often a long time in researching the whole subject, and the actual charges are usually not laid until the last moment. This is not to say that the system with its checks and balances is inherently better in France: there, too, human nature can get the better of the fallible human beings to whom the system is entrusted, as in every country.

 

[Theofilus]

You are missing nothing! This is the Liberal's misuse of of the Intent of the law.

It's not "the Liberals" that pressed charges against the man, it was his wife. Do we know her political leanings? If she is, indeed, a Liberal, is she representative of all Liberals? No, I'm afraid you can't blame the Liberals for this one.

Forget about whether it's advisable or appropriate to have separate email accounts, can anyone conceive the the idea that a woman's husband would be facing 5 years in jail for using her password to get into her email account? He didn't steal anything from her, he didn't use separate funds to purchase anything. Yes, they likely had a mucked up marriage, and no, he probably won't get that kind of time. But should the law prohibit someone's spouse from reading an email account? Am I missing something here?

Yes, the law should prohibit it. Certain laws have been passed to guarantee our right to privacy. Among those laws is the prohibition against reading someone else's mail without their permission. Did the woman give up her right to privacy when she got married? If she did, then what about other forms of privacy? For example, should married couples take the lock off the bathroom door? If a woman gives up her right to privacy when she gets married, then the husband should be able to walk into the bathroom to wash his hands while she is sitting on the toilet. He shouldn't have to wait for her to finish or even knock, since she doesn't have a right to privacy. Right? But if she didn't give up her right to privacy, then her mail should remain private, just as the law said it should be before they got married.

What the woman did was wrong, and I'm not justifying it, but what the man did was also wrong. He violated her privacy by reading her mail, and this is illegal. In a good marriage, this would, at most, have lead to an argument, not a law suit, but it is still illegal, and the wife used that against him.

 

[farouk]

T:

I wrote some observations above in general terms, but in reading your comments I wanted to ask, do you really think the courts are the appropriate place for such domestic disputes?

Fact is, the US and nearly every country justifies in one way or another the reading of other ppl's mail. In the US, it's called the CIA, or another of the agencies of the intelligence community.

When there are no national security implications whatsoever to a couple's inability to get along with one another, do you really think that plastering their boring domestic disagreements in court and all over the media for campaigners to take sides over is the appropriate use of court time, air time and taxes? Really? ...and then there is a deathly silence from single-issue campaigners about real national security issues...

 

[Theofilus]

T:

I wrote some observations above in general terms, but in reading your comments I wanted to ask, do you really think the courts are the appropriate place for such domestic disputes?

Fact is, the US and nearly every country justifies in one way or another the reading of other ppl's mail. In the US, it's called the CIA, or another of the agencies of the intelligence community.

When there are no national security implications whatsoever to a couple's inability to get along with one another, do you really think that plastering their boring domestic disagreements in court and all over the media for campaigners to take sides over is the appropriate use of court time, air time and taxes? Really? ...and then there is a deathly silence from single-issue campaigners about real national security issues...

No, I don't think things like this should be taking up the courts' time. In fact, I said in my previous post:

In a good marriage, this would, at most, have lead to an argument, not a law suit

Mike asked a specific question.

Forget about whether it's advisable or appropriate to have separate email accounts... should the law prohibit someone's spouse from reading an email account?

That is the question I was answering, not what should an ideal marriage be like or how serious should something be before it goes to court, but what should the law say about reading other people's mail. The law doesn't just apply to ideal Christian marriages. It has to apply in all situations. Maybe this analogy can explain my thinking on it:

Suppose a woman takes a hundred dollars out of her husband's wallet without telling him. Later, he needs that money and descovers that he doesn't have it. What should he do when he discovers his wife took it? Technically, the wife stole her husbands money, which is illegal. But should he take her to court? No. They should sit down and have a talk about how to handle their finances and the need to ask before taking money. But should the law prohibit people from stealing from their spouses? Yes, absolutely! Theft shouldn't become legal when you get married.

The law doesn't tell us how to resolve our differences. It's there for those cases when we can't resolve our differences. When couples can work things out by talking or by seeing a marriage councelor or something similar, then they don't have to worry about what the law says. But when the situation has become so bad that they can't work things out any other way, then that's when the law steps in. It applies to married couples, just like everyone else.

 

[WIP]

Is it illegal for a spouse to open a hand-written letter addressed to the other spouse?

 

[Theofilus]

Is it illegal for a spouse to open a hand-written letter addressed to the other spouse?

I'm not a lawyer, but I know it's illigal to open other people's mail and, as far as I know, there's no exception for spouses.

 

[Mike]

For example, should married couples take the lock off the bathroom door? If a woman gives up her right to privacy when she gets married, then the husband should be able to walk into the bathroom to wash his hands while she is sitting on the toilet.

I don't see this applying to the story. A situation like this could be seen as combative or abusive in a bodily way. If she felt threatened by his intrusion into the locked bathroom, I could see her pressing charges, especially if there was a history of abuse. In this story, there is a history of infidelity. There was no threat of physical violence. If I were to have a secret hiding place in my home office, and I stored something there that I didn't want her to see, would she be breaking the law by snooping in her own house and discovering this material? Is it appropriate that I have a secret hiding place that I keep things from the one who I'm married to? I suppose a woman's personal diary could be considered. But intrusion into a diary might result in hurt feelings and distrust - not legal action.

Suppose a woman takes a hundred dollars out of her husband's wallet without telling him. Later, he needs that money and descovers that he doesn't have it. What should he do when he discovers his wife took it? Technically, the wife stole her husbands money, which is illegal.

Again, I don't think this applies. We don't know if this money comes from a shared pool of money.
1. If it comes from a shared pool, it would be polite to inform him that she took it, but it wouldn't be wrong or illegal.
2. If they have separate finances, then it would be wrong, and I could see this being grounds for legal action in a secular marriage. But, this too is unrelated to the story, because the husband didn't take anything of value from her. He was on their shared computer and accessed her email account. That is all. The legal system should have nothing to do with this, IMO.

 

[lamplady]

Private should mean private. What right has anyone got to invade that, just because they live in the same house?

 

[PouringRain]

The way I see it, is that if the woman wanted it to be private then she should have used a secret email account and used a good password. To use an obvious account, and passwords that her husband knew, she was asking to be caught.

I am not a secretive person, and when I was married my husband had all my account information and passwords. I expected, nor cared, to have any "right to privacy".

But when a spouse cheats, often that spouse actually wants to be caught (subconsciously), and does things to leave the door open to be caught. When a wife leaves her passwords for her husband and leaves emails of her affair in her email box-- she wants to be caught. Just as the husband who uses a cell phone to call his mistress, knowing full well his wife has access to the records. Or the man who leaves the evidence of his affair lying around. Etc.

I also wanted to point out that the man in the above article was concerned about the welfare of the child-- which is why he originally snooped through his wife's email. He said he was concerned and suspected that she might be taking his daughter to the man's house. Sure, we could say he is using that as an excuse, and maybe it was. But it was quite a valid excuse, when the man she was having an affair with had a history of domestic violence in front of children. I would be concerned about someone taking my daughter to that man's house also. So, it is one thing to question the right of privacy of the wife-- but it is another thing if the wife was putting the child in harm's way of an abusive man.

 

[Theofilus]

I don't see this applying to the story. A situation like this could be seen as combative or abusive in a bodily way. If she felt threatened by his intrusion into the locked bathroom, I could see her pressing charges, especially if there was a history of abuse. In this story, there is a history of infidelity. There was no threat of physical violence. If I were to have a secret hiding place in my home office, and I stored something there that I didn't want her to see, would she be breaking the law by snooping in her own house and discovering this material? Is it appropriate that I have a secret hiding place that I keep things from the one who I'm married to? I suppose a woman's personal diary could be considered. But intrusion into a diary might result in hurt feelings and distrust - not legal action.

Again, I don't think this applies. We don't know if this money comes from a shared pool of money.
1. If it comes from a shared pool, it would be polite to inform him that she took it, but it wouldn't be wrong or illegal.
2. If they have separate finances, then it would be wrong, and I could see this being grounds for legal action in a secular marriage. But, this too is unrelated to the story, because the husband didn't take anything of value from her. He was on their shared computer and accessed her email account. That is all. The legal system should have nothing to do with this, IMO.

Do you think you could try to respond without taking what I said out of context, addint to it things I never said and twisting it to mean something I never intended? You asked a question. You specifically told us to ignore what marriage should be like and focus on what the law should say. I answered that question. I pointed out that the right to privacy was at the core of this issue. I said that the law should protect our right to privacy, whether we're married or not. That's all. Please don't twist my words to mean something I never said.

 

[Mike]

Do you think you could try to respond without taking what I said out of context, addint to it things I never said and twisting it to mean something I never intended? You asked a question. You specifically told us to ignore what marriage should be like and focus on what the law should say. I answered that question. I pointed out that the right to privacy was at the core of this issue. I said that the law should protect our right to privacy, whether we're married or not. That's all. Please don't twist my words to mean something I never said.

Theo... I don't know what to say. This seems very out of character of you to respond this way. I wasn't trying to spin your post or take anything out of context. You used these examples, and I was just trying to point out the differences. Sorry if I misrepresented you, brother! Here - have a Diet Coke on me.

 

[Theofilus]

Theo... I don't know what to say. This seems very out of character of you to respond this way. I wasn't trying to spin your post or take anything out of context. You used these examples, and I was just trying to point out the differences. Sorry if I misrepresented you, brother! Here - have a Diet Coke on me.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. In my first post, I was just pointing out that, from a legal point of view, this is a case of invasion of privacy. Farouk seems to have misunderstood me and thought I was justifying the woman's pressing charges against her husband. My second post was to make it clear that I wasn't justifying this case in any way, but just pointing out that the law applies equally to everybody, even married couples.

What I didn't understand was why you added something about abuse to the picture.I never mentioned anything about abuse. People want privacy, whether they've been abused or not. I also didn't see what the difference between separate or common accounts had to do with anything. My point, as I pointed out earlier, wasn't how people should handle things, but what the law should say. That is, after all, what you asked about.

 

[Alabaster]

Is it illegal for a spouse to open a hand-written letter addressed to the other spouse?

That is what this boils down to. Opening emails to one's spouse without the spouse's knowledge may classify as immoral in some marriages (not in mine, as we don't care if either would open any email--and when in doubt, we ask)---but not illegal.

 

[Mike]

What I didn't understand was why you added something about abuse to the picture.I never mentioned anything about abuse. People want privacy, whether they've been abused or not. I also didn't see what the difference between separate or common accounts had to do with anything. My point, as I pointed out earlier, wasn't how people should handle things, but what the law should say. That is, after all, what you asked about.

Right. You didn't say anything about abuse. That was me taking your scenario a bit further on my own. I was just saying if a woman locks herself in the bathroom and her husband somehow gets himself in, this could be an abusive act. I didn't see how this email intrusion could escalate to that point. With regard to two separate bank accounts, I do believe legal action could be in order. If a spouse has an account in her name alone, and her husband somehow cracks into the account and withdraws her separate money, I could definitely see the law involved. None of these are signs of a healthy marriage.

I don't know if I'm digging myself in deeper with you. I understand your main point.

 

[Theofilus]

Right. You didn't say anything about abuse. That was me taking your scenario a bit further on my own. I was just saying if a woman locks herself in the bathroom and her husband somehow gets himself in, this could be an abusive act. I didn't see how this email intrusion could escalate to that point. With regard to two separate bank accounts, I do believe legal action could be in order. If a spouse has an account in her name alone, and her husband somehow cracks into the account and withdraws her separate money, I could definitely see the law involved. None of these are signs of a healthy marriage.

I don't know if I'm digging myself in deeper with you. I understand your main point.

No, you're not digging yourself deeper. In fact, I think I see now where the misunderstanding started. I'll try to be clearer with my analogies in the future.

 

[WIP]

That is what this boils down to. Opening emails to one's spouse without the spouse's knowledge may classify as immoral in some marriages (not in mine, as we don't care if either would open any email--and when in doubt, we ask)---but not illegal.

I suspect that it would have a lot to do with precedence. I never open my wife's email, paper mail, or listen to her voicemail messages....well....I do listen to the ones she leaves on my cell, most of the time. ;) On the other hand she does open my mail and email messages. I have nothing to hide so I don't care. I just don't open hers out of respect. I figure if there's something in there she thinks I need to see, she'll share it with me.

If this situation was to occur in my home, I suspect the precedent was set that it was okay for her to open and read my mail. Proving it in court would be a challenge though.