Hacking Statute Could Jail Man for Reading Wife's Email
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
She initially just asked for them to pay her hospital bill, since they were warned repeatedly that they served coffee at an unsafe temperature, and had already lost numerous lawsuits in other states.Warped_Ghost said:
Not her fault they refused her completely reasonable request for *only* the damages caused, and instead opted for going to court, knowing that they would lose, and knowing that a punitive award would be far greater.
*edit*
<a href=http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/ubb/get_topic/f/107/t/000479.html>This is far more detail about the case than I want to get into here.
I didn't say stupid shit only ever happens in America, you are placing words in my mouth. I'm well aware there are decent aspects of all legal systems, including America's. Simply speaking, there is more shit than decency within the system currently.danpascooch said:
What about O.J? The District Attorney had his chance to convict Mr. Simpson and failed miserably to do so. He gets a You Failed Award and nothing more. And Mr. Simpson gets to walk out the door a free man. What's wrong with that? Sounds like "justice" to me.Warped_Ghost said:
Indeed. The defence won because our juries are primarily made up of idiots who allow theatrics and emotions to influence their decisions, rather than the facts of the case. Smart prosecutors know this, and play to that level of stupidity.JDKJ said:
From the sound of things based on the article, the rationale behind the proesecution is tenuous at best, and egregiously blind to be frank. Using a family computer with a nearby book? Jessica Cooper needs to dig herself out of the shroud of unadulterated ignorance she's smothering herself in as that is by no means hacking. It's easy enough to claim an invasion of privacy out of the convenience of the circumstance now that the wife got caught but it does not sound like this was some black book of secrets that nobody was to know of but her on her personal computer. How is it difficult to conceive of the possibility that a married couple are aware of one another's gmail accounts and a listing of shared/available passwords, of all things?Therumancer said:
Should I take such an extreme objection if my [insert family member/hypothetical wife/ect.] goes over to the little password book I have by my PC, and goes into my Gmail? Hell, sometimes people will just sign up for a second account for online discounts using a [insert relation of sorts]'s email. So-and-so's gotta get that 50% off your first purchase coupon at the craft's store somehow, right?
I ask, would the husband never have undergone any legal pursuit had he, say, gone into his wife's email and found out she filed for a Macy's Credit Card? I would bet it would be "no biggie" then, right? Because heaven forbid he expose the wife and potential dangers to the child without taking him down with here!
As someone familiar enough (regrettably) with not only Michigan, but the specific region in question, you're dead on, 100% in the right. Unfortunately, Michigan is clouded by incompetency, and this extends to the law enforcement here as well. I say it again and again: Give me a gun because I am without a doubt dead as the dirt if I EVER have to rely upon this state's law enforcement.Therumancer said:
And I am quite glad that you brought up child endangerment because that is a prominent issue in America where offenders are passed off as mere delinquents when the life of a child is at stake. Again, speaking from a Michigan resident, I find this to be quite pervasive because I see instances where the law is unwilling to do its part around here for real crimes, while instead focusing on minor traffic violations to meet a quota. When one discovers that a sex offender is living within dangerous proximity and NO ONE has deigned to inform you of this potential threat, that's when I too say that my second amendment right is something most valuable.
Sniper Team 4 said:
Del-Toro said:
I don't even feel like Michigan is a real state more often than not; it's like a cluster**** of asinine twits handed the reigns over a bunch of feckless sheep who would vote in a moldy carpet if it's campaign promise was to lower taxes for the super-minority (MI does not = a wealthy population). Many aspects of the state government and the state laws themselves are just totally crooked. This case displays just how out for blood this particular area of Michigan is when it comes to anyone. And believe me, this is the type of area we're talking about that would try to bend you over a legal bench for indecent exposure if you were using the restroom and the entire building around you was magically destroyed. Nevermind the fact that some natural disaster/terrorist attack/Alien invasion just transpired, you were caught urinating in public you son of a biscuit!Deshara said:
But I digress, we can only hope that the father gets his due justice in this matter, in both the unreasonable sentence and the custody of the child.
Where your argument fails is in not recognizing that Michigan's law at issue in this case criminalizes unauthorized access to the property of another on a computer. Under the law as drafted, it doesn't matter that, for example, I've written my password on a Post-It-Note and stuck it on my computer monitor for all to see and, if they choose, use to access property on my computer. The operative word here is "unauthorized." As long as the person accessing the property on the computer is unauthorized by the rightful owner of the property to do so, then it is irrelevant by what means they came to know of the password, even if it can be attributed to the carelessness of the password's owner. There's still a good case to be made that the law has been broken. Whether to prosecute the alleged offender in this case is a wise exercise of prosecutorial discretion is another matter entirely, but it cannot be said that the law doesn't provide a basis upon which that prosecution may proceed. Given the facts and the law as I understand them to be, there does seem to be at least a colorable claim that criminal conduct was afoot.SelectivelyEvil13 said:
I'm not trying to make a purly legal argument, I am just stating my prospective on just how inane I find this legal statute.It fits in accordance with the local attitude of the law where there is some sense of legal bloodlust to take anyone down if the law's wording can be manipulated to suit an entirely different purpose. In this case, to prevent real hacking, not just an instance where we have to take one person's word that was found guilty of cheating because of a questionable action.JDKJ said:
I remain incredulous because the article's wording does not make this seem like the wife's black book of secrets type of computer and email under her exclusive control. I question whether or not the email account was always treated in this manner (i.e. the husband was not even privy to its contents whatsoever), or is she just now waving around the law to distract from the issue? The husband will have to argue this, but it does not seem in any way unreasonable in my opinion. I simply find it ludicrous that the salient matter of the woman's infidelity and the child's custody are being tossed aside over looking at someone else's emails. I guarantee that the wife in this case has NO fears of jail time for cheating.
Many jurisdictions require an intent to commit further crimes to convict for burglary. FYI. Actually, that's a good point, if I do say so myself; This law could easily be fixed to serve its intended purpose if they added a clause required an intent to commit further crimes. Anyway, if you live in one of these, all they'll be able to hit you with is disorderly conduct, or equivalent.JDKJ said:
And even if you don't, unless he's really bored (or you live in Michigan, judging from this story
), no DA is going to waste his state's resources going for a felony burglary charge against someone for just walking in the front door of his neighbor's house, and then leaving. Especially when the victim's lawyers would be too busy trying to explain why there was a thousand dollars of stolen goods in their client's living room to push for charges.Most you'll get is a misdemeanor if it's a really slow month in the courts. If you're in a busier district, and it's your first offense, you'll probably get off with a plea deal for probation, with the charge getting wiped from your record after serving it.
As just one example of the extent to which you may be understating the possible outcomes, I'll point you to the case of the actor Robert Downey, Jr., who, one night when high as a kite, mistakenly broke into and entered his neighbor's house in California, stumbled into an unoccupied bedroom, and feel asleep in a bed there. The neighbor discovered him in the bed, out like a light, and called the police. Downey, despite having no malicious intent, causing no real harm or injury to any one, and most likely himself being a victim of his own demons, was charged with breaking and entering (later reduced to misdemeanor trespassing), for which he received a sentence of three years probation with a requirement of mandatory drug testing. He later missed one of those court-ordered drug tests (he didn't fail it, he simply didn't show up to be tested) and, as a result, earned himself a four-month stint in the Los Angeles County Jail.SilentHunter7 said:Many jurisdictions require an intent to commit further crimes to convict for burglary. FYI. Actually, that's a good point, if I do say so myself; This law could easily be fixed to serve its intended purpose if they added a clause required an intent to commit further crimes. Anyway, if you live in one of these, all they'll be able to hit you with is disorderly conduct, or equivalent.JDKJ said:
And even if you don't, unless he's really bored (or you live in Michigan, judging from this story
Most you'll get is a misdemeanor if it's a really slow month in the courts. If you're in a busier district, and it's your first offense, you'll probably get off with a plea deal for probation, with the charge getting wiped from your record after serving it.
You make it sound like probation's a walk in the park. It isn't. Close to two-thirds of all persons sentenced to probation in California will violate some requirement of their probation (oftentimes some piddly-ass requirement like no alcohol consumption or possession) and will ultimately be sentenced to a stint in jail or prison. In fact, more than two-thirds of the prison admissions in California aren't first-time offenders being sentenced for new crimes. They're probation and parole violators. Get a sentence involving probation and the probability is around two-outta-three that you will ultimately violate that probation and end up seeing the inside of a prison or a jail. I wouldn't exactly call that "a slap on the wrist." I'd call that "getting enough rope to hang yourself."
The statute doesn't require that the wife's "secrets" on a computer have been in her exclusive control or privy to no one other than herself. Under the statute, for example, if she had given her husband her log-in and password information for the specific purpose of accessing a utility company's website in order to pay a bill electronically and he seized upon that opportunity to access and read her e-mail account while he was logged on, he'd still be guilty of violating the statute (which makes it a criminal offense to exceed any authorization for access which may have been granted). Or, similarly, if the wife gave the husband on Tuesday her authorization and the needed log-in and password information to access her e-mail account and read the specific e-mail "X" and he makes note of the log-in and password information to then access her account the following Friday and read e-mails "Y" and "Z" without her permission, then he's probably guilty of violating the statute. That's just how the statute as drafted works.SelectivelyEvil13 said:
Thank you for your clarifying illustration of the statute, as that helps see the various angels behind the prosecution.JDKJ said:
Speaking on terms outside of law specifics, I find this case to be rather saddening because the law is so openly written as to allow what I would consider more of contextual exploitation rather than outright criminal intentions. Given the domestic nature of the proceedings, the punishment being waved truly seems inordinate and misplaced. I especially feel this way because I know of incidents pertaining to identity theft and the like in the general area in question that not treated with such fervor, often entailing the identities of multiple individuals who were customers at a retail store/chain. Yet here is a case where a man is being labeled as a "highly-trained hacker" for typing in a written password and reading emails[footnote]I am merely stating this because I find it disturbing that a professional would sink to such inflammatory hyperbole.[/footnote]
I find that Mr. Walker's attorney summarized this legal struggle best: Don't the prosecutors have more important things to do with their time?"I would also add, more important things to do with our[footnote]The people's.[/footnote] money? As I mentioned prior, there are some real problems in the area mentioned in particular where I suppose the more "difficult" crimes are treated in lower priority, even though they would serve the common interest far better. The state of Michigan is not presently raking in funds and appropriations and resources for law enforcement are being stretched. I just find it unconscionable that this man faces the books being thrown rather than having the financial and legal efforts being pushed on salient criminal activity.
But I digress in my rantings over this sorry mess of a state ha ha!
As I said before, this probably isn't the most clear example of prudent exercise of prosecutorial discretion. But, by and large, prosecutors generally tend not to make the best decisions about what's a worthwhile case to pursue and what isn't. If you're looking for legal geniuses, you won't find many of those down at you local District Attorney's office.SelectivelyEvil13 said:
No, probation isn't a walk in the park, but it's a hell of a lot better than 5 years in a state penitentiary.JDKJ said:
What?
Are you saying that the American legal system is once again being a joke? Surprise surprise!
Are you saying that the American legal system is once again being a joke? Surprise surprise!