Apple's Find My Friends App Catches Cheating Wife

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
It's sad how there's this attitude of "Well what did he do?" when it's a husband who's cheated on, as if he deserves it... but what's also sad is he'll probably still have to pay her alimony because the court system hasn't been reformed since the 50's or 60's in regards to what women recieve in payment, so them cheating doesn't gurantee they won't get a guy's money or house.

Consider this a warning guys; don't get married, it's got nothing to offer other than a one sided contract. Date, live together, but don't get married.

-in most states, your wife can cheat on you, and can still get the house, kids, and years of your money
-more than 2/3 of those that file for divorce in the US are women. The most common reason is "mutual differences" or just no-fault divorces. Abuse and infedilty are much lower on the list.
-55% of married women cheat while 60% of married men cheat in at least one marriage (Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy in 2002)
-your wife can have her own job and income and still recieve alimony from you
-In many states, it is illegal for you to take a lower paying job if you are paying alimony
-you still have to continue paying alimony if your wife remarries.
-in some states like california, dating and living with a single mother for a certain amount of can end up with you paying child support
 

Sentox6

New member
Jun 30, 2008
686
0
0
Princess Rose said:
Speeding isn't a felony.
Except you didn't specify a felony, you simply said "breaking the law". Roll your eyes all you want, but you can contravene the law without committing a felony offence. I'm glad you agree that minor offences don't outweight the moral gravitas of cheating (at least I think that's what you're saying), but there's no reason I should have given you the benefit of the doubt when trying to ascertain your meaning in the first place.
 

SidingWithTheEnemy

New member
Sep 29, 2011
759
0
0
Very nice story...

Imagine what would have happened if she wasn't actually cheating, but her husband would have surveiled her in vain. Now that would be quite bad for the husband's Karmathing. Bad bad bad husband!!!

Now imagine, he didn't spy on her, but she was still unfaithfull. Very very very bad Karmathingy for Ms. Treacherousspouse here.

To conclude, the man was fully aware that his wife had a bit on the side. He just used the iPhone to prove it. He could have confronted her directly. He could have followed her himself to make kinky photos of the different kamasutra poses of his wife and her lover. He could have paid an Investigator (like our Princess here already said) to find incriminating evidence.
HE DIDN'T DO THAT.

He simply is a lazy coward wussy with a decent gut feeling. That's all.
His wife however, well she is... well no, I'm not saying that loud here. Don't want to get banned here, sorry.
 

Cocamaster

New member
Apr 1, 2009
102
0
0
Wow, maybe I'm missing the whole story, but people here are making some serious leaps.

1) How does anyone know the woman was actually cheating?

For what I can tell, all he discovered was that she lied about her location, and he suspected she was seeing some other guy in the general area where she really was. Keyword: suspected. He doesn't know if the meeting took place at all.

2) How is this not invasion of privacy?

He gave her a phone without disclosing the tracking software included in it, and as far as I can tell she never conceded to be tracked. GIVING SOMEONE A PHONE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE IMPLICIT RIGHT TO TRACK SOMEONE WITH IT, people.

So maybe she cheated; the guy suspected as much so he probably had his reasons. What a ***** if she did.

But as far as the actual information available here: he could be the grieved husband who caught his unfaithful wife red-handed, or he could be a chauvinist overbearingly jealous control freak spying on this woman without her consent and misconstruing the whole thing.

Who the hell knows for sure? Can we PLEASE stop playing judge and jury?
 

Icehearted

New member
Jul 14, 2009
2,081
0
0
vansau said:
Honestly, I'm not sure who's more in the wrong here, since both parties violated each other's trust.
An evidently justified act of mistrust, or the risk of pregnancy by other men, STDs (any number of which could be fatal if unchecked), and broken oaths. How the two are remotely equal mystifies me, utterly.
 

chif-ii

New member
Aug 31, 2010
206
0
0
It sounds like he bought an Iphone 4S for his wife JUST so he could install this app on it and find out where she was. If he takes the iPhone in the divorce settlement, I will give him a cookie.
 

littlewisp

New member
Mar 25, 2010
273
0
0
Nuke_em_05 said:
To all the "he was justified" folks...

What if he installed that without notifying her, checked her location, and she was actually in the East Village? Then she finds out he had been spying on her?

Ends don't justify means.

I mean, why don't we have the government install cameras in our homes? So long as we aren't doing anything illegal there should be nothing to worry about, right?

Either way, this marriage was doomed.
If my fiance did that it would be because he was seriously hurt about something or felt I was seriously keeping him out of the loop. Either way, it'd be a 'need to talk' situation that could likely be resolved peacefully.

When I was a teenager in high school my dad became friendly with a physical trainer at the gym he went to. My mom has had disc problems with her lower back for awhile now, and combined with her inability to do much exercise and the weight-inducing meds she's been on (though she's not obese), she likely had more than a few body image issues. To compound it my dad is a looker, and gets noticed by other women. He looks great for his age (people think I'm married to him whenever I go somewhere with him, I'm 24 and he's 50, much to my chagrin). We became friendly with the family in question and a few years passed.

shtf when we started getting weird calls from a woman who sounded like the trainer who would hang up whenever my mom answered and everything ended when my mom asked the trainer to stop hanging around my dad so much, and my dad pretty much sided with my mom (though he was a bit upset at being accused of cheating, but it wasn't like my mom had no ground to stand on). They've been married for 20 some years and look to keep going a good while longer. She hasn't had jealousy/trust issues since, and he's never had any with her I've known of.

Yet, she is the kind of person who probably would have collected information if she could have. My dad loves her in spite of that.

So, y'know, jealousy and trust issues can be resolved and doesn't necessarily spell doom and gloom.
 

Robert Ewing

New member
Mar 2, 2011
1,977
0
0
Well played on the males part. He has every right to find out if his wife was being faithful, and It's the sort of thing that might be illegal, but is actually only JUST legal.
 

Corporal Yakob

New member
Nov 28, 2009
634
0
0
As usual I shall look to tales of domestic bliss gone sour for my amusement: ah dead marriages and emotional pain, you always make me laugh!
 

Clonekiller

New member
Dec 7, 2010
165
0
0
You know, if you don't trust your spouse to the point where you're spying on them, why don't you just skip straight to the divorce stage. Saves everyone a bunch of time a hassle.
 

Motiv_

New member
Jun 2, 2009
851
0
0
Princess Rose said:
It certainly is debatable.

Cheating is not illegal.

If the app breaks the wire-tapping law, then what he did was illegal.

You don't get to break the law because someone broke a promise.

Breaking the law is worse than cheating.
Interesting story about that.

I have no idea how many of you have read the laws of New York [http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28b%29.htm], but it's actually a little blurry on the whole "Wipetapping" thing. I can't read this legal jargon, you all are probably much smarter than I and will be able to find it with ease.

ARTICLE 250--OFFENSES AGAINST THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Section 250.00 Eavesdropping; definitions of terms

The following definitions are applicable to this article:

1. "Wiretapping" means the intentional overhearing or recording of a telephonic or telegraphic communication by a person other than a sender or receiver thereof, without the consent of either the sender or receiver, by means of any instrument, device or equipment. The normal operation of a telephone or telegraph corporation and the normal use of the services and facilities furnished by such corporation pursuant to its tariffs or necessary to protect the rights or property of said corporation shall not be deemed "wiretapping."

2. "Mechanical overhearing of a conversation" means the intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat, by means of any instrument, device or equipment.

3. "Telephonic communication" means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of communications and such term includes any electronic storage of such communications.

4. "Aural transfer" means a transfer containing the human voice at any point between and including the point of origin and the point of reception.

5. "Electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical system, but does not include:

(a) any telephonic or telegraphic communication; or

(b) any communication made through a tone only paging device; or

(c) any communication made through a tracking device consisting of an electronic or mechanical device which permits the tracking of the movement of a person or object; or

(d) any communication that is disseminated by the sender through a method of transmission that is configured so that such communication is readily accessible to the general public.

6. "Intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication" and "intentionally intercepted or accessed" mean the intentional acquiring, receiving, collecting, overhearing, or recording of an electronic communication, without the consent of the sender or intended receiver thereof, by means of any instrument, device or equipment, except when used by a telephone company in the ordinary course of its business or when necessary to protect the rights or property of such company.

7. "Electronic communication service" means any service which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications.

8. "Unlawfully" means not specifically authorized pursuant to article seven hundred or seven hundred five of the criminal procedure law for the purposes of this section and sections 250.05, 250.10, 250.15, 250.20, 250.25, 250.30, and 250.35 of this article..


Section 250.05 Eavesdropping

A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication.

Eavesdropping is a class E felony.


Section 250.10 Possession of eavesdropping devices

A person is guilty of possession of eavesdropping devices when, under circumstances evincing an intent to use or to permit the same to be used in violation of section 250.05, he possesses any instrument, device or equipment designed for, adapted to or commonly used in wiretapping or mechanical overhearing of a conversation.

Possession of eavesdropping devices is a class A misdemeanor.


Section 250.15 Failure to report wiretapping

A telephone or telegraph corporation is guilty of failure to report wiretapping when, having knowledge of the occurrence of unlawful wiretapping, it does not report such matter to an appropriate law enforcement officer or agency.

Failure to report wiretapping is a class B misdemeanor.


Section 250.20 Divulging an eavesdropping warrant

A person is guilty of divulging an eavesdropping warrant when, possessing information concerning the existence or content of an eavesdropping warrant issued pursuant to article seven hundred of the criminal procedure law, or concerning any circumstances attending an application for such a warrant, he discloses such information to another person; except that such disclosure is not criminal or unlawful when permitted by section 700.65 of the criminal procedure law or when made to a state or federal agency specifically authorized by law to receive reports concerning eavesdropping warrants, or when made in a legal proceeding, or to a law enforcement officer or agency connected with the application for such warrant, or to a legislative committee or temporary state commission, or to the telephone or telegraph corporation whose facilities are involved, or to any entity operating an electronic communications service whose facilities are involved.

Divulging an eavesdropping warrant is a class A misdemeanor.


Section 250.25 Tampering with private communications

A person is guilty of tampering with private communications when:

1. Knowing that he does not have the consent of the sender or receiver, he opens or reads a sealed letter or other sealed private communication; or

2. Knowing that a sealed letter or other sealed private communication has been opened or read in violation of subdivision one of this section, he divulges without the consent of the sender or receiver, the contents of such letter or communication, in whole or in part, or a resume of any portion of the contents thereof; or

3. Knowing that he does not have the consent of the sender or receiver, he obtains or attempts to obtain from an employee, officer or representative of a telephone or telegraph corporation, by connivance, deception, intimidation or in any other manner, information with respect to the contents or nature thereof of a telephonic or telegraphic communication; except that the provisions of this subdivision do not apply to a law enforcement officer who obtains information from a telephone or telegraph corporation pursuant to section 250.35; or

4. Knowing that he does not have the consent of the sender or receiver, and being an employee, officer or representative of a telephone or telegraph corporation, he knowingly divulges to another person the contents or nature thereof of a telephonic or telegraphic communication; except that the provisions of this subdivision do not apply to such person when he acts pursuant to section 250.35.

Tampering with private communications is a class B misdemeanor.


Section 250.30 Unlawfully obtaining communications information

A person is guilty of unlawfully obtaining communications information when, knowing that he does not have the authorization of a telephone or telegraph corporation, he obtains or attempts to obtain, by deception, stealth or in any other manner, from such corporation or from any employee, officer or representative thereof:

1. Information concerning identification or location of any wires, cables, lines, terminals or other apparatus used in furnishing telephone or telegraph service; or

2. Information concerning a record of any communication passing over telephone or telegraph lines of any such corporation.

Unlawfully obtaining communications information is a class B misdemeanor.


Section 250.35 Failing to report criminal communications

1. It shall be the duty of a telephone or telegraph corporation, or an entity operating an electronic communications service, and of any employee, officer or representative thereof having knowledge that the facilities of such corporation or entity are being used to conduct any criminal business, traffic or transaction, to furnish or attempt to furnish to an appropriate law enforcement officer or agency all pertinent information within his possession relating to such matter, and to cooperate fully with any law enforcement officer or agency investigating such matter.

2. A person is guilty of failing to report criminal communications when he knowingly violates any duty prescribed in subdivision one of this section.

Failing to report criminal communications is a class B misdemeanor.

Section 250.40 Unlawful surveillance; definitions.

he following definitions shall apply to sections 250.45, 250.50, 250.55 and 250.60 of this article:

1. "Place and time when a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy" means a place and time when a reasonable person would believe that he or she could fully disrobe in privacy.

2. "Imaging device" means any mechanical, digital or electronic viewing device, camera or any other instrument capable of recording, storing or transmitting visual images that can be utilized to observe a person.

3. "Sexual or other intimate parts" means the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks, or the female breast below the top of the nipple, and shall include such part or parts which are covered only by an undergarment.

4. "Broadcast" means electronically transmitting a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person.

5. "Disseminate" means to give, provide, lend, deliver, mail, send, forward, transfer or transmit, electronically or otherwise to another person.

6. "Publish" means to (a) disseminate, as defined in subdivision five of this section, with the intent that such image or images be disseminated to ten or more persons; or (b) disseminate with the intent that such images be sold by another person; or (c) post, present, display, exhibit, circulate, advertise or allows access, electronically or otherwise, so as to make an image or images available to the public; or (d) disseminate with the intent that an image or images be posted, presented, displayed, exhibited, circulated, advertised or made accessible, electronically or otherwise and to make such image or images available to the public.

7. "Sell" means to disseminate to another person, as defined in subdivision five of this section, or to publish, as defined in subdivision six of this section, in exchange for something of value.

Section 250.45 Unlawful surveillance in the second degree.

A person is guilty of unlawful surveillance in the second degree when:

1. For his or her own, or another person`s amusement, entertainment, or profit, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing a person, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate parts of such person at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person`s knowledge or consent; or

2. For his or her own, or another person`s sexual arousal or sexual gratification, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate parts of such person at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person`s knowledge or consent; or

3. (a) For no legitimate purpose, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person in a bedroom, changing room, fitting room, restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, shower or any room assigned to guests or patrons in a motel, hotel or inn, without such person`s knowledge or consent.

(b) For the purposes of this subdivision, when a person uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device in a bedroom, changing room, fitting room, restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, shower or any room assigned to guests or patrons in a hotel, motel or inn, there is a rebuttable presumption that such person did so for no legitimate purpose; or

4. Without the knowledge or consent of a person, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record, under the clothing being worn by such person, the sexual or other intimate parts of such person.

Unlawful surveillance in the second degree is a class E felony.

Section 250.50 Unlawful surveillance in the first degree.

A person is guilty of unlawful surveillance in the first degree when he or she commits the crime of unlawful surveillance in the second degree and has been previously convicted within the past ten years of unlawful surveillance in the first or second degree.

Unlawful surveillance in the first degree is a class D felony.

Section 250.55 Dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the second degree.

A person is guilty of dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the second degree when he or she, with knowledge of the unlawful conduct by which an image or images of the sexual or other intimate parts of another person or persons were obtained and such unlawful conduct would satisfy the essential elements of the crime of unlawful surveillance in the first or second degree, intentionally disseminates such image or images.

Dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

Section 250.60 Dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the first degree.

A person is guilty of dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the first degree when:

1. He or she, with knowledge of the unlawful conduct by which an image or images of the sexual or other intimate parts of another person or persons were obtained and such unlawful conduct would satisfy the essential elements of the crime of unlawful surveillance in the first or second degree, sells or publishes such image or images; or

2. Having created a surveillance image in violation of section 250.45 or 250.50 of this article, or in violation of the law in any other jurisdiction which includes all of the essential elements of either such crime, or having acted as an accomplice to such crime, or acting as an agent to the person who committed such crime, he or she intentionally disseminates such unlawfully created image; or

3. He or she commits the crime of dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the second degree and has been previously convicted within the past ten years of dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the first or second degree.

Dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the first degree is a class E felony.

Section 250.65 Additional provisions.

1. The provisions of sections 250.45, 250.50, 250.55 and 250.60 of this article do not apply with respect to any: (a) law enforcement personnel engaged in the conduct of their authorized duties; (b) security system wherein a written notice is conspicuously posted on the premises stating that a video surveillance system has been installed for the purpose of security; or (c) video surveillance devices installed in such a manner that their presence is clearly and immediately obvious.

2. With respect to sections 250.55 and 250.60 of this article, the provisions of subdivision two of section 235.15 and subdivisions one and two of section 235.24 of this chapter shall apply.


While, on the other hand, turns out cheating IS illegal. Not nearly as bad a crime as wiretapping, mind you, but still illegal.

NY Penal Law said:
Section 255.17 Adultery

A person is guilty of adultery when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse.

Adultery is a class B misdemeanor.
I'm not taking any sides here, just thought I'd post some information that might be of some use to you all. Cheers!
 

Cain_Zeros

New member
Nov 13, 2009
1,494
0
0
Princess Rose said:
I do hope she nails his ass for invasion of privacy.

Still, I do hope they both enjoy their divorce. **sigh** This is why people shouldn't get married unless they set ground rules they can both live with.
I think "don't fuck other guys" is implied. "Don't give me a phone that allows you to track me" might need a bit more establishing, but not much.
 

vivalahelvig

New member
Jun 4, 2009
513
0
0
Well, the Man is in the right because he did buy the phone so it is his property, and then he lent it to his wife, but not before installing the app. Invasion of privacy doesn't mean anything when your wife is cheating on you. Or something. I'm tired.
 

ProjectTrinity

New member
Apr 29, 2010
311
0
0
Anyone who is in love with the law ought to be in jail...because I'm sure there's an app for that a law that prohibits you from saying "all laws = better than immoral actions". Jokes aside, I wanted to say that just because the law says it's evil, doesn't make it less evil than a legal action...such as...I don't know, breaking your spouse's heart by cheating on 'em? Maybe? Am I being too old-fashion here? [/done the mean]

Anyways, I just came in to say that I don't really care for the legality of the situation, the cheating, or the somewhat smart method of tracking her down. I'm more concerned about how flippant he sounds about all of this. I mean: "Ahahaha, he totally stole my butter knife, but the courts obviously has proof, so ladada! Who cares?!" is what he sounds like. I'd sound a lot more torn about the situation if my wife was cheating on me. Am I being too old fashion here? [/done]
 

TKIR

New member
Sep 7, 2011
20
0
0
Counter point: The Husband is a paranoid controlling, possible emotionally, abusive asshole. Just because someone lied about their location actually tells nothing about that person. Here look I'll lie right now, I'm in the United States. But lets look at the husband, he installs monitoring software on a gift, the whole point of the gift seem to be to monitor his wife. Send multiple demanding texts about her location. Seem like this douche(about as fair as calling the wife a '*****' or a 'whore') likes to monitor his wife every behaviour(see I use 'u' in all sorts of words, take this as evidence I'm not in the United States). I guess it not that much of a stretch to consider maybe he tells where she can go. And if that's the case I would label him emotionally abusive.

Maybe there is a guy, maybe she even went to see him. That does not mean she cheated. Maybe the husband banned her from having male friends. Maybe it isn't a guy but a female friend that he had banned her from seeing. Maybe she was at some hobby he was banned her from going too. See making assumptions is such a fun game.

Anyone that disagrees with my assumptions, consider this are they greater than the assumptions that the wife is cheating based on two phone screenshot.
 

punipunipyo

New member
Jan 20, 2011
486
0
0
I may just piss many people off today... but...

1. This is stalking to the next level! GPS on your wife?

2. Installing a tracing app with out her knowing, isn't that against the law?

3. He posted this on public forum? Isn't this like... personal life?

4. This is clearly plotting for court action! Maybe even suit for money!~

5. Clearly, this marriage have no love, at lease from the guy's side, distrusting the wife first, and took action too... what ever happens to "talk it out"? what happen to honesty? doing so, he had become something worse than his wife... she just lack love, couldn't decide, torn between 2 men? (thinking romance?) but he clearly just want to kick her in the ass, and probably get some a$$et while doing so... yes, she lied, but you are worse, you tapped/GPSed her/Plotted your divorce while PRETEND to be innocent... that's just messed up....

there... I said it... need to get that out of my system...
 

Olrod

New member
Feb 11, 2010
861
0
0
There should be a poll to this thread correlating people's genders with whether they think the husband or the wife was in the wrong.

I'm sure it will be both interesting and revealing.