July 19, 2012 Update: The final charge against Walker — that he illegally accessed a police database to find out whether anybody else had ever been charged with computer hacking for reading a spouse’s e-mail — was dropped today, because the prosecution decided they couldn’t prove that he didn’t in fact have permission to use the police database in this matter. Also, very likely, because prosecuting this charge after the computer hacking charge was dropped simply reeked of desperation.
© 2012 by Bill Bickel unless otherwise noted.
Whatever happened to traditional marriage where “the two are one flesh”? The two parties become one unit, like when two businesses merge. One’s business is the other’s business.
I take marriage VERY seriously, which is one reason I have never made the slightest attempt to get married. Sometimes I think I’m the last person in the country to take marriage seriously.
The general rule is that one spouse acts as a general agent for the other, each able to manage or dispose of property of the other. Thus, it isn’t a violation of law for one spouse to read the other’s personal email (work email is a different story… it belongs not to the spouse but to the employer.) Now, if a separation occurs, so that each is no longer presumed to be a general agent of the other, all bets are off. Also, of course, a general agent’s authority may be specifically revoked for specific things while leaving the general authority intact.
Strictly speaking, I don’t think the question of “is this hacking” should be determined by who the target is, but rather by what you actually did. That is, if you didn’t have to bypass any security, then it isn’t hacking even if the e-mail belonged to to someone who’s suing you, whereas if you had to enter a password you shouldn’t know (or bypass the password process by other means) it’s hacking even if it’s your spouse or kid.
Whether it’s criminal or not is a separate question.
I was thinking the same thing. If her email was not password protected, then it’s no more hacking than hovering in a room next door and listening to her phone conversations.
Strictly speaking, that’s not true; accessing things for which you do not have permission is just as illegal (and just as wrong) whether it was protected by technical measures or not.
A burglar does not got get a pass for finding an unlocked home to burgle.
The key word in your post is “permission”. If I buy a couch and bring it home where my spouse and I both live, is there an expectation that she needs my permission to use it? That’s certainly not in the same ballpark as a stranger walking in and using the couch. There has to be some measure of reasonability in cases like this.
Going back to my earlier post, you have to look at who’s allowed to give permission. An agent can give permission, and spouses are general agents by default. So, absent permission, husband cannot access wife’s email. But, as husband, husband is agent for wife, and therefore can give permission. Husband gives husband permission to access. Thus, no illegal access. (Again, this rationale does not apply if wife has specifically revoked agency AND clearly conveyed that revocation to husband.)
Vicar, she has (as I understand it) a very complex password (I just see it as ************), and she only logs into her mail from her desktop computer at home (and once, unfortunately, from my phone), so I don’t think she every plans to change it. She has something like half a dozen passwords at work, each of which she’s required to change monthly, so the last thing she wants to do is change another password.
Though I suppose at this point, if she did suddenly change her e-mail password, I’d have to wonder. I might have to ask Leon Walker for advice.
(Since “Reply” seems to frequently not attach my replies to the original posts, this was in reply to the post by “Powers” on July 17 at 10:33 AM.)
Yes, because burglary is not defined by whether or not you have to break a lock. But the act of “hacking” is generally defined by actually taking steps to bypass limitations imposed via technology. If all you did was sit down and start reading e-mail, then although it may be an invasion of privacy it isn’t “hacking”.
What next, someone breaks the speed limit and gets charged for “hacking” because the speedometer has a microchip in it?
I would think the key would be “expectation of privacy”: if I’m going through my email at the kitchen table, with family members walking past me, my activities are fair game. It might be rude to look over my shoulder, but the offense wouldn’t go beyond that. If my wife figured out my password and logged into my account, that would be hacking.
Now, here’s an interesting twist: a few months ago, my wife had to use my smart phone to check her email. Even though she logged out, the phone browser now remembers her account information and defaults to it, password and all. No matter how many times I try to delete her information — I even deleted and reinstalled the browser — there’s her account, every time.
She’s well aware of this. I have no interest in reading her mail: but if I did, while it would be a betrayal of trust, would I be guilty of anything? Because clearly there’s no expectation of privacy at work here.
(Response to Bill Bickel this time, although since his message is showing up as a reply to my message and seems to actually be a reply to another message this is a fun game to play.)
Actually, if your wife is changing her password as often as just about every security expert suggests, that login won’t work any more anyway. (Note: outside of corporate networks, I suspect that nobody in the entire world changes their password as often as security experts suggest, including me. Nevertheless, if she changed the password even once, this would cease to be a problem.)
If there is trust between man and wife it should mean nothing to read each others e-mails. When that trust is gone the problems of that marriage must definitely be so grave that reading a mail constitutes just another nuisance. The couple in question must now be way into a divorce – or will be before long.