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

D

Dreadnought10

CAG Veteran
He shouldn't have been going through his wife's e-mail, but in my opinion this should be more of a moral problem than a criminal problem. In other words, he was in the wrong, but he shouldn't go to jail or go to court over something so stupid.

A Rochester Hills man faces up to 5 years in prison — for reading his wife’s e-mail.

Oakland County prosecutors, relying on a Michigan statute typically used to prosecute crimes such as identity theft or stealing trade secrets, have charged Leon Walker, 33, with a felony after he logged onto a laptop in the home he shared with his wife, Clara Walker.

Using her password, he accessed her Gmail account and learned she was having an affair. He now is facing a Feb. 7 trial. She filed for divorce, which was finalized earlier this month.

Legal experts say it’s the first time the statute has been used in a domestic case, and it might be hard to prove.

Read more: http://landofthefreeish.com/privacy/is-reading-your-wifes-e-mail-a-crime/
Click to expand...
 
You sure are posting alot of threads...

Oakland County prosecutors, relying on a Michigan statute typically used to prosecute crimes such as identity theft or stealing trade secrets, have charged Leon Walker, 33, with a felony after he logged onto a laptop in the home he shared with his wife, Clara Walker.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a bullshit use of the law to me.

- edit Also, wow, what a crazy bitch. Husband number 3 did a great thing. That is a strange situation to be put into.

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.

Leon Walker, a computer technician with Oakland County, was arrested in February 2009, after Clara Walker learned he had provided the e-mails to her first husband.

"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."
Click to expand...

- edit 2 lol what a hacker that guy was

Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper defended her decision to charge Leon Walker.

"The guy is a hacker," Cooper said in a voice mail response to the Free Press last week. "It was password protected, he had wonderful skills, and was highly trained. Then he downloaded them and used them in a very contentious way."

(...)

Leon Walker told the Free Press he routinely used the computer and that she kept all of her passwords in a small book next to the computer.
Click to expand...
 
If he accessed it with her password without her permission (i.e. they had no prior agreement about using that account) then he should be able to be charged under whatever laws anybody else would if they stole her password and logged into her email account. If they wouldn't apply this in that situation then they shouldn't now, but his being married to her isn't really relevant I don't think.
 
[quote name='SpazX']If he accessed it with her password without her permission (i.e. they had no prior agreement about using that account) then he should be able to be charged under whatever laws anybody else would if they stole her password and logged into her email account. If they wouldn't apply this in that situation then they shouldn't now, but his being married to her isn't really relevant I don't think.[/QUOTE]

Give him another five years too if he looked in her diary. You know, because her rights were violated and stuff :roll:
 
Is it really "hers" though? I thought when it came down to it everything is pretty much joint property in a marriage. Would he be entitled to full ownership of the house if he paid the bills during the course of the marriage? Of course not.

This situation is a little bit more ridiculous though. He was proactively providing proof to the child's father that she was seeing someone who had beaten her in the past in front of her kids. What would have happened if he knew about the situation, didn't go out of his way to show it to the father, and the kids would have been put into another situation of domestic violence with the possibility of being beaten themselves? People would be up in arms too.

Whether you think he did it in good faith or not, he did what was right.

PS, it's not "hacking" when you log into someone's account by getting the information from the book next to the pc called "Passwords"
 
is it against the law for someone to log into your e-mail if you give them the password? Did she explicitly tell him to not go into her e-mail? If so how did he know the password?

I can't believe the DA is that interested in pursuing such a case.
 
:rofl: Everyone who knows how to operate a computer is a hacker to the press and law enforcement.

The guy was wrong for accessing her email without her permission, but I can't blame him for doing what he did with it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']If so how did he know the password? [/QUOTE]

If you read the article, you would have found out that the lady kept a book next to the computer with all of her passwords written down.

I imagine the dude thought something was up, logged into her email after he looked up her password in the book and printed out the emails when he found out that the person she was cheating on him with was husband #2...who beat her in front of her and husband #1's child.

Of course, the DA is technologically retarded, thought that "computer technician = hacker out of a movie" and decided to nail this guy to the wall.
 
his fault for marrying such a rotten women. Should've done some background check on her before proposing. Whether he wins the case or not, he will be in financial ruins.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Never ever marry a woman that was beat more than once.[/QUOTE]

Amen - if she was told once and didn't get it, what makes you think a second time will do the trick?

On a serious-ish side - I have no idea how this would work out. I mean, if her passwords were in the house, the computer in the house, etc etc, I would assume marriage would allow you to touch all of that stuff legally. She might have to first prove that the email was solely hers anyway.

What a shitty thing to do... I mean, she's already cheated on the dude. It's even more insulting that it was an abusive ex. I'd feel better if it was at least some guy with a little bit of class, whatall can be left after sleeping with someone who's married.
 
It's a sad statistic that people who beat someone will, majority of the time, do it again (I've heard the "I was drunk" thing before from some people...)

It's an sadder statistic that most of the time, women go right back to it. But he was drunk! He's really a nice guy! Whatever. She's a nut.
 
No 10 allows herself to get treated that way... they know they're 10's and have higher standards. If she was a high number on looks, I guarantee she has a 1 for personality. She sounds like trash though, so I'll give her a 4.

She should check out Ashley Madison dot com for discreet affairs. lol.
 
Actually, really pretty girls/women tend to be the most insecure. It doesnt take much to knock them off the high horse. In fact, the best way to catch the interest of a 'model pretty' woman is to talk to her a bit, then completely ignore her. She'll likely be so worried that something is wrong that she'll chase you down. I bet you wouldnt believe how many 'pretty' women are in abusive relationships.

On topic, this application of the law seems like bullshit to me. I'd imagine that since all of the stuff is in the 'marriage house' there is little expectation of privacy. I know I've been in my wife's email and she's been in mine. I could see having an objection on moral grounds, but legal? I think that's a stretch at best.
 
I'd be curious to see the wording of the statute he is being prosecuted under because if there's any ambiguity in it his lawyer should easily be able to argue that this wasn't the legislature's intent in creating this law.
 
[quote name='SpazX']If he accessed it with her password without her permission (i.e. they had no prior agreement about using that account) then he should be able to be charged under whatever laws anybody else would if they stole her password and logged into her email account. If they wouldn't apply this in that situation then they shouldn't now, but his being married to her isn't really relevant I don't think.[/QUOTE]

Yep. If the law does cover hacking into someone's e-mail without their permission, then being married wouldn't change that. Being married doesn't give one rights to access their spouse's e-mail, non-joint bank accounts etc.
 
Something that could be interesting - if this is an account tied to an ISP, who's name is the service under? If it's under the husband's name, wouldn't it still be his account? Just speculation though.

The husband shouldn't have to worry too much though - some kid cracks a Federal candidate's personal email for lolz and gets 366 days in a halfway house. Seems like this guy's punishment, if any, should be less than 366 days.
 
Yeah difference is they're married. They're going to have to go into court saying more than just "it's mine" since usually by default everything in a marriage is jointly owned, even accounts under only your name, possessions purchased solely by one side, etc.
 
She cheats, he reads the e-mails, he goes to jail. Screw the bitch, not literally of course since that has already been done.
 
[quote name='BigPopov']Yeah difference is they're married. They're going to have to go into court saying more than just "it's mine" since usually by default everything in a marriage is jointly owned, even accounts under only your name, possessions purchased solely by one side, etc.[/QUOTE]

Is that really the case? I thought any sole accounts were still only accessible by the person who's name is on the account etc. and not their spouses?

If not, I'll add that to my long list of reasons why I really couldn't give a shit less about ever getting married.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah I seriously doubt that's the case. Otherwise the policies of a large number of companies would run contrary to the law.
 
This prosecution is complete fucking bullshit and hopefully will bring nothing but shame and embarassment to the dickhead DA's pushing the charge.

FWIW, there is a necessity defense to most crimes. In a nutshell, if you can show a greater harm was trying to be averted by committing the crime, then it is an affirmative defense to the crime.

A prime example is an intoxicated father who drives his child to get emergency medical care when an ambulance is unavailable. Another might be speeding your pregnant wife to a hospital while she is in labor.

It seems that he might have a legit defense if he can show that his loggin into her email ameliorated a risk of further domestic abuse, but I wouldnt want to try that case. Perhaps there are other poltiical motives for this prosecutor?
 
[quote name='Pittpizza2']. Perhaps there are other poltiical motives for this prosecutor?[/QUOTE]

Yeah he will get a campaign ad that says he was tough on hackers.
 
I think of dual ownership under property laws of marriage.

Everything is 50/50. I love how she commits the "crime" (I think I read somewhere that Michigan was going to penalize people for cheating) and he's going to trial......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top