Slashdot Mirror
FL Court Rules Against Spouse-Installed Spyware
idobi writes "A Florida court ruled that it was illegal for a wife to install spyware on her husband's computer, in order to catch him in an extramarital affair. The three judge panel barred the woman from using the chat records from being introduced as evidence in the divorce proceedings. The court ruled that the software, Spector, violated Florida's wiretapping law - which states that it is criminal to 'intentionally intercept' any 'electronic communication.'"
The woman, tech-savvy enough to install spyware and obtain the results, should have no problem finding a new husband on Slashdot, where doubtlessly her activities have gained her a certain cred and mystique and a following.
in today's news Beverly Ann O'Brien sought a mass restraining order against a poster on slashdot.org who has been stalking her and sending poems, such as 'r05e r r3d, v1o13t r b1u3, a11 my ba53 r b310ng t0 y0u'
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Now please put down that gun.
So are logs now illegal in Florida? After all, logs are (usually) records of some form of communication which happens electronically.
You would think, in a marriage, the wife owns half of everything, so maybe she was just spying on her half of the pc.
I have a serious problem being told what I can do with my computer when others do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If I'm giving people shell accounts, I'm not going to sniff their traffic. On the other hand, I am very likely to install a keylogger on my console.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
How about text-sensitive software like Claria and WhenU that track certain websites using URLs through the IE address bar and pop up competitor's ads? Couldn't that be termed wiretapping as well, since it's actively monitoring addresses visited and keystrokes typed into a field?
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
I'm glad they ruled against her... Granted, I would be tempted to do the same. However, what ever happened to being human and TALKING about it? If it came down to it. Do it, but don't try to use it in court. It's a very hard thing to deal with, but invading anyones privacy is against any ethical code there possiby is... But that's just my opinion
I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on disk somewhere.
violated Florida's wiretapping law - which states that it is criminal to 'intentionally intercept' any 'electronic communication.
hang on, doesnt the USA PATRIOT act allow the government to do exactly this? inspect your electronic communications? i'm no expert on US law, so somebody correct me if I'm wrong...
Enjoy an e-piphany
"I'll be down in a second, honey! Just running Adaware!"
Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
I'm sure there are numerous cases in the last 20 years where spouses recorded their home telephone calls in the hopes of catching a cheating spouse.
If this judge's ruling is in line with prior court ruling since the most recent changes in the law, then I don't see the problem.
On the other hand, if he broke with precedent, he could be overturned.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
How long before every kid in Florida gets an injunction on their parents from installing any monitoring software?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Yes, even if it's your spouse. Nothing new. Next story.
www.kiwilyrics.com - a wiki for lyrics
Many states have different laws regarding what is legal in terms of wiretapping; some allow one party to record a phone call only if all parties consent, and others, famously D.C., for instance, do not.
Most all of them recognize that, outside of law enforcement activity a 3rd party isn't permitted to eavesdrop.
One thing that occurs to me is that there have been a spate of decisions in a law enforcement context to the effect that electronic communications like email lack the same "expectation of privacy" that phone calls and postal mail do. Whereas this seems to acknowledge that chat serves a similar function to the phone, just with distinct technology, and thus extends the same protection.
The article briefly mentioned that while this wife wasn't allowed to wiretap her husband, her husband's employer is (while he's at work, anyway). I thought this was funny, the different standards between the workplace and the home. There are a variety of justifications for wiretapping your employees - something that, as far as I know in most states, employers have carte blanche to do - but the interesting thing is that when you start thinking about them, most of them apply to the spouse as well.
At work, you use your employer's computer, in your employer's building (their machine, their house), but the wife jointly owns both. At work, you may make the argument that wiretapping is necessary to insure reliability and integrity of your business, but the spouse can argue the same is necessary to insure the integrity of the marriage. Both will claim: "What's their privacy for anyway? Do they have something to hide?"
The only strong argument I can think of for surveillance by employers is that the employee "consents." I suppose spouses don't have the same leverage to compel "consent" to eavesdropping as employers do.
Ugly business, trying to get a job that will promise to respect your privacy. You can always "just work somewhere else," but there are quite a few things we already prevent employers from doing because "somewhere else" is nowhere if we don't.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
what is the difference between intercepting and storing chat room conversations, and taking photos of him smooching his mistress? Neither are methods which the target has consented to.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
We have community property laws, it seems to me that any data stored on the computer would be property of both parties. The spyware issue seems more straightforward, but what if she had only made copies of logs?
What if she used built in logging of the IM software (if it has it)? Would that be considered "interception"?
ART on dA
I thought there had to be voices for wire tapping to considered. Video with out audio has been thrown out from wire tapping. So she could have put a camera up to record him on the computer.
Spyware must not exist. This might help.
Seriously, this is snooping with electronic communication. Maybe the case is not so bad, but this is not excusable. The judge did right in forbidding the logs as evidence.
that remotely installed spyware that takes advantage of security holes is also illegal? If so why aren't people in jail?
...a wife couldn't give her husband a blowjob?
Is it now illegal for a husband to insert his hardware into the wife's plug'n'play ports?
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
All is fair in love and war. Florida's law doesn't change this.
I'm not a lawyer (nor do I like abbreviations) but I kind of remember from when we bought a house, that once married, you are considered a single legal entity. That one person can give consent for both.
I'm expect this changes from state to state so I don't know that I'd rely on this decision to hold true in all 50 states...
She must have gathered more information before going at the courts with web chat info. Pictures of the guy with his girlfriend, taped confession from him or her. (tape is sometimes difficult to admit as evidence but as long as you participate in the conversation it is legal to do because it is not intercepting) I have to believe she was not that stupid. SFA
On her next pre-nup, it is obviously essential that it include a clause that allows either of them to install spyware and security cameras clandestinely!
And what if he has his internet connection through a infrared connection to another computer? Or a WiFi network? So many non-electrical means of connecting to the internet!
At my job (in Florida) we maintain an email filter, which isolates in-bound and out-bound emails if they contain certain qualities (either spam-like, or have big attachements, etc).
I wonder if that would mean we are violating that law, since we are clearly intercepting electronic communications?
So, if I think someone is gaining illegal access to my computer while I'm not around, I can't install a keylogger to figure out who it is?
This case is the equivalent of a woman hiding a camera in her own bedroom to catch her husband in the act, only to be told it's inadmissable because they didn't know they were being taped.
There need to be reasonable limits to this sort of stuff. Soon we won't be able to submit any evidence at all that was gathered without the permission of the accused...
"I'm sorry sir, I did not allow you to take that bloody knife covered in my finger prints"
Unless the PC was his before the marraige, the whole PC is 'theirs' and she can install whatever she wants on it.
- no sig here
Actually the law makes sense--you cannot wiretap your own phone or record conversations in many states without disclosing it to the third party (the no good cheatin' mistress, NOT the husband). I believe (because I don't really KNOW anything here, but it's slashdot, so I can post without knowledge but with authority) the wife would have to notify the mistress before recording their conversation (and possibly the husband, too.)
The court ruled that the software, Spector, violated Florida's wiretapping law - which states that it is criminal to 'intentionally intercept' any 'electronic communication.'"
So, does this apply to other, more illegitimate spyware as well, then?
Is it illegal to have that software on there to monitor your kid's use of the internet? Or do you have to tell them ahead of time?
Also, "not admissible as evidence" doesn't necessarily imply illegal, so it may be legal to monitor, but not to use against someone.
"No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
The only rights the government cares about are the rights of big businesses and the rich.
Does anyone know if these laws apply in any other states?
I just finished reading a computer forensics book, and found out something interesting.
Apparently the FBI can't keylog you while a modem is in operation because of some bizarre issue with phone tapping (something like you can't tap modem communication without a separate warrant). The FBI keylogger actually turns off when a modem is active. How about that?
I guess this sort of the same, but on a local level (and with a broader reach).
I hate how sometimes this comes up to near something personal. It shows how screwed up people are. My wife was searching sex search sites recently and I only discovered after some recent oddities when trying to fix her computer. It definitely woke up the relationship. Trust is so hard to rebuild though.
I spoke to a lawyer and in courts.. it ends up being next to useless. You may as well just leave the relationship... that being said.. it's not easy.
(1st sig) If this were a snappy sig, you'd be reading it right now. (2nd sig) I'm a karma whore. >Insert FUD here
the implications for porn surfing are mind numbing.
How do you think this would apply to Cell phone instant messaging logs? I've heard from some people that cell phones save even the drafts of SMS messages. Would intentionally searching someone's Cell Phone logs be wire tapping since the logger is already present by default?
so ... wait.
what does the spyware do in Soviet Russia? does it still spy on YOU?
IANL but... The judges ruled that she didn't have the right to install the software on his computer, but I am pretty sure that once you are married what's his is hers and what's hers is his. Doesn't that also make his computer her computer and wouldn't that also give her the right to install said software on her computer?
who isn't afraid to post anonymously and knows how to use his CAPS LOCK key...
should have no problem finding a new husband on Slashdot
I felt a great disturbance in the Force when I read this, as if millions of socially inept voices suddenly cried out at the opportunity to get laid.
I'm in Pennsylvania, several years ago a lawyer that I won't name hired me to search a client's computer for proof that it was used to communicate with the person that s/he was cheating with during a family vacation to Florida.
It took me a few hours, but I located copies of all of the email sent between them that wasn't properly deleted.
It's been like 8 years since then, so I don't remember exactly how many there were, but I think it was something like 80 in a week.
They happily paid about $500 for the proof.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
So I guess the question in how far can you take this? Does this automatically mean that any spyware is wiretapping? After all, most adware does observe and report a person's internet browsing activity. But I'm sure some people would argue it's a gray line, because is sending URLs really a form of electronic communication? Does spyware 'listen' to enough human-inteprettable language to be considered a wiretap?
In a phone analogy, it's more like listening in on which phone number is being dialed, not the conversation. But in a lot of instances there is more information, thanks to the query string. A URL can tell an adware program what books someone is looking at on Amazon, or what they are searching for at Google.
Just thinking out loud....
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
Is it also illegal, under Florida law, for an employer to monitor all computer activities on their employees' machines? If not, I really think that her evidence should be allowed.
It's not often I read a worthwhile first post but you did it on that one. Good Work! SFA
So we can conclude that so-called "Homeland Security" -- which routinely intercepts electronic communication without a warrant -- is a criminal organization.
Seastead this.
What bothers me the most is that the judge claims it's wiretapping because it logged data contemporaneously. Since you have to log something contemporaneously by definition, doesn't this render logs illegal, or better yet, inadmissabile?
*blinking cursor*
Reguardless of whatever laws may or may no have been broken, these are electronic logs, and the source just might have an interest in tampering with them. What else was she trying to use as evidence, a drawing of them having sex?
Electronic. Electronic. Electronic.
Electrical communication is when you use a cattle prod to let your spouse know you're upset about the affair.
anyone who would partner with this woman would have to keep his PC under lock and key. Probably not a tradeoff most slashdotters would accept.
sulli
RTFJ.
I think if he cheats on her. She talk to him. If it is over is over. I don't think trying to catch him and then sue him for more than 1/2 of his state is the reason they got married on the first place. I don't get that now marriage is the union between a pig and a bitch. It is supposed based on love not money.
I am not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that such wiretape laws were regarding installation of such software on hardware that *does not belong to you*. Most if not all States, as has been specified already, acknowledge a single individual in a marriage to speak for the whole except on matters, usually financial, that do not require dual signatures, such as the husband getting a credit card for himself.
In that case the PC is owned by both individuals; therefore, she did not install software on someone else's PC. She installed it on her own, so I don't see why that would be considered a violation.
Maybe I'm wrong, although I hope that I'm not. Personally, I wonder if this would have a different turn if she caught him doing something illegal as opposed to immoral.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
IN SOVIET RUSSIA
poems write YOU!
This is what I find amusing about states and their differences in laws. LA recently had a similar case where a man used a keylogger to keep tabs on his employer. This was ruled as not breaking wiretap laws. http://www.securityfocus.com/news/9978
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
Firstly, you are clearly not the typical slashdot poster who only dreams of having a girlfriend/wife who would watch porn with them.
Stereotypes aside I understand that pornography is completely offensive to many people so I'm not judging. But doesn't this suggest that perhaps you and she need to communicate more about what each desires sexually from the other so she doesn't have to go looking other places (or you for that matter in other female acquaintences -- companionship, not necessarily sex)?
I am certainly not any sort of authority on relationships, but your post made it sound like after the first offense you were ready to throw in the towel and divorce this woman without evaluating what brought you both to this point.
Just an innocent question. I don't mean to pry, accuse, or otherwise offend you - perhaps just get you to elaborate and/or reflect on the situation.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
The couple must have discussed this after her discovery. Are those discussions admissable?
Could the wife simply subponea the mistress? While the chatlog isn't admissable, would any significant deviation from its content open the mistress up to perjury?
What does the woman gain by having extensive documentation of infidelity in a divorce proceeding?
Should have installed M$oft (or should that be Giant) anti-spyware :) would have picked up on the fact that his wife was spying on him through some dodgy keystroke logger..
Imagine she found he had millons stashed in some dodgy accounts somewhere, she could have nicked his stash before filing for divoce.
Mind, then he'd have freaked and probably kicked her ass and then been locked up..
To quote RAW "if i ever get married, i have to goto the woods of africa and get me a naked-zebra bitch, with a bone and a plate and a big f***ed up afro"..
G
I know that this took place in Florida, where anything insane can and will happen, but aren't most wiretapping laws aimed at law enforcement to protect the individuals against tyrannical governemt actions? It seems to me that a private citizen would not be violating a law such as that. But hey, I didn't read the actual text of the law.
Another valid point: It's her computer, too, so she can do with it what she wants. At least, that's how property and marriage is viewed. If I bought something, regardless of whose paycheck the money actually came from, my wife could sell it when I wasn't looking. I would have no recourse under the law since the property is considered mutually owned. At least, in most states. We are talking about the Florida Fark tag here.
That wasn't a conversation they were having over Yahoo! They were merely "trash talking" over a game of Domninoes.
Come on, where's the common sense? Who's never played a head to head competitive game without yelling out "You can't touch this, Biatch!!", "Who's your daddy? WHO'S your daddy!!!" Illicit affair... bah!
Live forever, or die trying.
Acidus (of Blackboard and Magstripe Fame) has a cool (but rather primitive) project called Phasmatis which reads and writes Spector Data capture files. There is a SF project page, but for some reason all his stuff is still on his personal webpage. It doesn't work with the most recent versions, but provides a good foundation for cracking the files. http://www.yak.net/acidus/software/phasmatis/index .html
There are also some pretty detailed lecture slides about the Spector File Format, and how he decoded it.
http://www.yak.net/acidus/talks/index.html
Enjoy
Even more important, what about IM logging programs like Parent Tools used to monitor children's conversations in chat rooms? Does the parent have to notify their children that they are being recorded?
And how about sites like Perverted Justice that post recorded IM conversations between two adults? I guess they should avoid child predators in Florida. Even if the police get involved, a judge would likely toss the case since the initial investigation was done illegally.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
Or does it require a connection to POTS/PSTN?
What if you have VoIP?
Postings which I have read have all discussed spying on each other and learning the sex habits of your partner.
We all have personal quirks and fantasies but such a thing would have to be extreme (i.e. necrophilia) to even warrant interest by others.
Unless your partner(s) share these things, there is no reason to be concerned. Except in the necrophilia case ... Lock up those crazy corpse-fuckers.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Considering then how most marriages are, would not an argument for her case be that indeed a hsuband is an "employee" of the wife?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2005 OSTG.
There was recently a case in Washington State where a suspicious mother had picked up the phone to listen to her daughter's conversation with one of her friends. Well it turns out the friend was a suspect in a robbery and the mother was called to testify. Now the testemony has been ruled inadmissible for similar reasons.
Only that Florida is not a community property state. Very few states use that system.
There are some innocent explanations as to why she may have been visiting these sights. It could simply be morbid fascination that people would put themselves on display like that. For example, my roommate and I used to read the Russian bride type sitess just to laugh at some of the foolishness posted there. We would create demented back stories for the poor women. Perhaps your wife is doing something similar.
It could also be an idicator of a more serious problem. She could get a thrill out of visiting these sites and imagining what could be, but with no intention of following through. It is very similar to looking at porn if you think about it.
Obvioulsy you and she need to talk.
WE own the government. You seem to be confused.
This story, posted on the same day as the story about the thief who was caught by a web cam that uploaded its photos to an external server, brings home to me the changing nature of today's world. Electronic activity is inherently insecure and I'm beginning to think my baseline assumption ought to be this: someone is eavesdropping on everything I do.
My job allows a certain amount of free time at a PC with high-speed internet access and I make use of it. My employer certainly has the legal right and means to log every key I strike. Have I ever accessed my paypal account from work? Probably...so my employer (or my employer's IT guy) can probably purchase things on my credit card. How about my ebay account? Again, yes. Yahoo? Yes. Other accounts (like slashdot) and forums and blogs? These may all be open books to him/her/them/Big Brother. Fortunately I'm not a spy and not even particularly daring in my Googling ("office-appropriate websites" is my motto) so I expect I'm flying below the radar. But suppose someone really was interested? They could literally read my mail, and some of my personal email is...well...personal. Scarier still is the fact that I've used (I know, I oughtn't, but I'm human and it's embarassing to always be forgetting) certain short-cuts to help me remember which password belongs to which accounts and sometimes my screen name is the same from site to site. So someone could conceivably hack my yahoo account and use data learned there to access other accounts and basically domino-effect their way through my whole schizophrenic tree of online personas. Okay, I've mixed paranoia in there, but I really want to examine the worst-case scenario.
Proposed new worldview: every computer I use logs everything. Can I retain my privacy nevertheless?
For now, if I'm careful, yes. One key is staying below the radar, as it were. If I attract a lot of attention, I may become a target, but if I mind my own business, I'm not likely to be bothered. We're not yet at the point where everyone is considered a criminal. The man whose wife was suspicious wouldn't have gotten caught if he had not aroused her suspicions in the first place. (The method I recommend for avoiding arousing suspicions is to be scrupulously innocent; not a fail-safe, but a big help.)
If I pretend my employer is reading over my shoulder 100% of the time at work, I'm unlikely to type anything compromising.
If I pretend the other people in my household are reading over my shoulder at home, I'm likely to stay out of trouble too.
But where do I go if I want to be particularly clandestine, for example buy my wife a present without her knowing about it? Someplace anonymous. Anonymity is the great bastion of protection in the digital age. There are some freely available web-based email systems that do not even require a real name to register; with a working email address, one can open all sorts of online accounts. If I'm paranoid, I may open a unique account for the sole purpose of registering for a specific online activity, and never let the account mix with any other activity of mine.
In other words, if I'm careful, I can avoid linking myself to anything I do online. Say I use a public computer, perhaps at a library or an internet cafe, to open an anonymous free email account, and I use that email address to open a slashdot account. As long as I never access that email address again and never access the slashdot account at home or at work, I can avoid leaving a thread from it to me--even assuming every keystroke was logged on every computer I used.
That kind of covering my tracks is a pain, and not really necessary because I'm not up to villainy, but if I were paranoid, and I'm beginning to think I should be, it would offer protection.
But wait...anonymous public internet access is rapidly disappearing, even from libraries. One frequently must have a library account to use the library computer, and many libraries now use software that logs on a specific user f
Allow illegally-obtained evidence as evidence IF and ONLY IF they prosecute the person that illegally obtained that evidence.
So if a private investigator illegally obtains evidence that can put away a murderer, then use it to hang that murderer and charge the PI for breakin-and-enterin or wire-tappin.
I have most chat programs on my PC set up to log my chats. If someone else sits down at my PC without my knowledge and has a private conversation that gets recorded.. am I breaking federal wiretapping legislation?(Or even just state legislation?) I certainly hope it's not the kind of thing that would stand up in court, but geeze, it makes one worry.
Let's drop the tired TCO argument and put that on the brochure.
This space intentionally left blank.
This is true, isn't it? You have to be warned about voice recording and transcripts of what you say/type, but hidden camera video generally *can* be used as evidence, can't it?
In much corporate law, an employee acts on behalf of their corportation and in doing so, the corporation assumes responsibility for its employee's decisions and actions (while at work).
The key difference between a Programmer and a Senior Programmer is that one of them is Mexican.
"Just a minute, honey! I'm installing this new OS called Linux!"
And let's imagine that wife catches husband doing something actually illegal because she's installed this spyware, which maybe was meant to keep an eye on her kids. Apparently this precedent would mean that a) the evidence of his wrongdoing isn't admissible in court (or at least not civil court?) because it's been collected by electronic eavesdropping; but b) she's potentially liable for his behavior on her computer, so reporting it may get her in trouble, both for the spyware and for the crimes he's committing?
This is one of those items where every post should use "IANAL" as the sig line. I hope we're all just mistaken about the basics, here.
Granted, if you need to resort to this in marriage, there is already something seriously wrong with your marriage.
People who advocate the end of "no fault" divorces because it'd help marriage (cue heavenly choir) might want to think about how whacked out situations like this are. In a world without no fault, every split would take on this logic. She caught him, they both know it -- but is the evidence admissible? Lawyers debate the evidentiary precedents... That's kind of nuts.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
If I read between the lines correctly, you might want to look into the Straight Spouse Network.
Next time, I hope the wife installs a spy camera that's pointed at the keyboard. This way, she can capture a transcript of his fingers pressing keys, which is a physical activity and is not electronic.
Granted, she'll only get his side of the story, but often, that's enough.
"The Florida Appeals Court, Fifth District said that Beverly Ann O'Brien "illegally obtained" records of husband James' online conversations with another woman as the two played Yahoo Dominoes together."
:P
Good lord, she must have been a controlling bitch. Now playing online games of DOMINOS is cheating too? I swear, women need to quit redefining "cheating" because it's getting kinda crazy here.....
Ok where to begin..
First off they are married. Last I checked married couples own everything 50 / 50 or so in a perfect world. So how is installing software on "his" computer. It's His fault for getting caught, err doing it in the first place. I mean seriously. And it's not like she was watching a neighbor. They are married there is a legal requirement there, if not why have to get divorced in court?.
Preposterous
It may be their joint PC, but it's not joint privacy. They can install whatever they want, yes, but using it to invade someone's privacy and betray their trust is a different matter. What's more, it's morally wrong, no matter what any local law says.
Nice talk from an anonymous coward.
Doug Alcorn
Oh, wow! The wife installed the spyware to see if her husband was cheating on her. But the judge says that was illegal. I guess the wife can rest easy now, since she didn't (legally) catch him cheating... ..and why does she need to present this evidence in court anyway? These days, you can get divorced for any reason or no reason. Court is just to figure out who gets what...
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
It's a sign of the times, like being a nerd. I'm criminal and a thief in so many ways that it hurts.
Hah, just turned down the volume on the radio during a commercial, that makes me even more of a thief.
It is legal to hire a private investigator to follow your spouse around, why should it not also be legal for a wife to keep track of her husband's activities herself? If you do not want to give up your rights as an individual to your spouse, don't get married.
I seem to recall something not too long ago that discussed the issue as it pertained to parents and their kids. I can't remember if it was a local story, or on one of the national broadcasts. In any event, they basically stated that it may be against the law in certain states to spy on your kids, by listening to phone calls, intercepting internet communications, etc. I'm sure this can be extrapolated to include other adults.
Just the same, as far is it pertains to kids, I find this quite disturbing. It's easy to rail on parents who don't do their job, but it's completely insane with the law makes it illegal.
now if they can just extend that to employers, we finally can get some privacy back.
Spyware should be against the law anyway. It just is a legal virus anyway and it should be made illegal.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
What if I introduce the contents of /var/adm/syslog at trial? After all, the data present in syslog were captured "contemporaneously with transmission, copied and routed . . . to a file in the computer's hard drive". Are all computer logs to be inadmissible, as all of them represent essentially the same thing the output of the Spector program -- real-time data captured from an electronic data-processing device and stored electronically for later retrieval?
she should've made him agree to an EULA first
You *can* do this in Kansas. I visited a client who wanted someone to interpret what Specter had caught her husband at. He'd secretly videotaped the two of them having sex and wanted to know if he'd posted it anywhere. Also, had he been surfing child p0rn? Had he taken any illicit pics of their children?
Her attorney told her it was legal in Kansas.
(All I could see him doing was saving a bunch of free p0rn videos. He'd set the date on the PC back a couple of years so he could say it was all old stuff if he ever got caught -- and he changed the file extensions so nobody could accidently run the movies.)
I report to Colonel 2.6.1 and General Chaos is his boss.
> Yeah, because by the "kids have no privacy" argument, a father could require his 16-year-old daughter to allow him into her room when she's getting dressed. I think we'd all agree that was unreasonable.
Unreasonable but not illegal due to privacy issues. If a father did this to his daughter, he'd likely face an investigation pursuant to incest charges, but he wouldn't face any charges based on violation of privacy.
Virg
> How long before every kid in Florida gets an injunction on their parents from installing any monitoring software?
Such an injunction is powerless. A parent is not required by any law to allow a child access to or use of a computer. The parent needs only state that he told the child that use of the computer is contingent on allowing monitoring. Notification and consent to monitoring eliminates the ability of injunction.
Virg
We run a proxy here at work. It could easily record everything that passes through the wire, including chat conversations (if we didn't block most chat services in the first place anyhow).
The word "intercept" means: " To stop, deflect, or interrupt the progress or intended course of"
(http://www.answers.com/intercept&r=67)
If the messages were truly "intercepted" then the intended receiver of the message would not have received the message. Therefore, that law would not apply.
That may be nitpicking, but lawmakers purposefully use elaborate wording in the laws, trying to look intelligent but actually end up leaving loopholes.
-Nick
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Over here, I think it goes something like 'you keep any property you can conclusivly prove you took into the marriage, everything else is split 50/50'. No judge would give a rats ass for the reasons you want a divorce.. you agreed the share everything, and if you now want to stop sharing everything that's your deal.
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
If you think spying is parenting, well, you have a lot of counselling ahead of you. (Shudder. I hate to think of the damage you do to your kids.)
If you think parenting doesn't involve keeping an eye on what your kids are doing, you have a very ill-conceived notion of what parenting really is.
Hmm... I never thought "keeping an eye" on your kids meant with a hidden video camera and recorder. I thought it meant paying attention to what they say and do, while respecting their privacy.
With kids, there are unfortunately many circumstances which might necessitate "violating" their privacy. We might have 13 innocent people still alive today if the parents of Harris and Klebold had any idea what their kids were up to.
"...it is criminal to 'intentionally intercept' any 'electronic communication.'"
Just imagine, intercepting your own mail for analysis, that would be illegal in Florida!
> The court ruled that the software, Spector,
> violated Florida's wiretapping law - which
> states that it is criminal to 'intentionally
> intercept' any 'electronic communication.'"
And children surfing for porn everywhere rejoiced. Said one 10 year old to his dad, "You can't spyware where I'm going, ass! The government overrules you! Ass."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
If anyone wants to have some fun hacking, make sure to target computers in Florida. Apparently, it is illegal for ISPs or anyone else to log your attempts at destroying their property. Even if you get caught red handed, all that evidence is not submitable.
I have a paranoid wife. She admits she is, and she will see me typing this. To keep peace in our marriage, I installed a similar package to this, called Spy Anywhere and allowed her to control it and the password.
I have nothing to hide, and it keeps her happy. Some of you may think I'm nuts, but if you are in a relationship that depends on a high level of trust, this is a great way to earn it. At least it has been for me.
With apologies to Ernest Lawrence Thayer
The outlook wasn't brilliant for the student march that night;
The quads were filled with rent-a-cops and not a picket sign in sight;
With Cooney busted for possestion, and Barrows, the riot laws;
A sickly silence fell upon the supporters of The Cause.
A straggling few got up to go, in deep despair. The rest
Clung to that hope which "springs eternal in the human breast;"
They thought, If only Gay Concern could be rallying that mob,
We'd put up even money now, with Concern at the quads.
But Flynn preceded Concern, as did also Jimmy Blake,
And the former was a no-good and the latter was a fake;
Forlorn, that stricken multitude discouraged by the odds,
For there seemed but little chance of Concern's getting to the quads.
But Flynn let fly a bottle, to the wonderment of all,
And Blake, the much despised, set a bomb off in the hall,
And when the dust had lifted and men saw what had occurred,
Jimmy beaned the Dean of Students, while the bombed out library burned.
Then from five thousand throats and more there rose a lusty yell,
It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell,
A Harley roared up from the street, and was tearing up the sod,
And Concern, Gay Concern, was advancing through the quads.
There was ease in Concern's manner as he wheeled into his place;
There was pride in Concern's bearing and a smile on Concern's face,
And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly gave a nod,
No stranger in the crowd could doubt `twas Gay Concern at the quads.
Ten thousand eyes were on him as he gunned the throttle loud;
Five thousand tongues applauded as he signaled to the crowd.
And while the nervous officers grabbed the night sticks from their hips,
Defiance gleamed in Concern's eye, a sneer curled Concern's lip.
And now a can of tear gas came hurtling through the air,
And Concern stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there,
Close by the haughty Concern, the can unheeded sped --
"That ain't my style," said Concern. "Break it up!" the coppers said.
From the streets, black with people, there went up a muffled roar,
Like the beating of the storm waves on a stern and distant shore.
"Kill them; kill the pigs!" shouted someone from the mob;--
And Concern guns his engine, and wipes-out on the lawn.
With a fist of protest shaking, Concern's visage shone;
He jumped back on his Harley; he bade the march go on;
The Harley takes off through the quads, 'till it hits a vicious bump;
And Concern sails through the air, landing smack upon his rump.
"Fascists!" he screeched, "Capitalist, Imperialist, Racist, Sexist pigs!"
"If I must I'll ride a tricycle, but we'll have this march - you dig?"
They saw his face grow stern and cold; they saw his muscles strain,
And they knew that Gay Concern wouldn't lose that bike again!
The sneer is gone from Concern's lip; his teeth are clenched in hate;
He sniffs with cruel derision as he lets go of the brake.
And now he throws it into first, the clutch he now he lets go,
And now the air is shattered as the bike takes off - alone.
Oh! somewhere there's a campus town where they drum and chant all night.
They protest for the rain forest, and demand the wart-hog's rights.
And somewhere bongs are being passed, and somewhere radicals shout;
But there is no joy at Old State U -- Gay Concern has Wiped Out!
Help! Help! I've been moded down by a Jewish conspiracy!
Shouldn't it just read "A Florida court ruled that it was illegal for one to install software on their spouse's computer in order to catch them in an extramarital affair." ?
The article calls it "her husband's computer," but in most marriages that would be a euphemism for "their computer, which her husband mostly uses but is just as much hers." It doesn't make it clear whether it was truly "his" computer in this case, but that probably doesn't matter. In today's law-bound world there are all kinds of things you can't do on your own computer without somebody's permission, so I'm not totally surprised.
No. No. No! You use illegally obtained evidence to lead you to legally obtainable evidence, just like the police do! Keystroke log his ass to find out when they are meeting then show up and videotape it!
Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
Anyhow, divorce law varies wildly by state. For instance (and I am no expert in divorce so this could be old info now) in New York, there is no such thing as a no-fault divorce. You you get the absurd situation of a couple agreeing to make up a story about who was at fault just to get a divorce.
Pretty much everywhere else you can get a no-fault divorce for "irreconcilable differences". If one spouse sues the other for a no-fault divorce, it is impossible to lose because even if the other spouse claims that there are no irreconcilable differences, that in itself constitutes an irreconcilable difference. So the divorce will be granted.
If the couple agrees that they should split and can agree on how to divide up all their shit, divorces can happen real quick. Even if they can't agree, if all their assets are liquid, it's easy to split their shit in half and send them on their merry way. The problem is if there are kids and/or property, disputes can arise and that is where things tend to get ugly. Also, if the couple is pissed at each other, they can try to "win" and get more out of the settlement. This, unfortunately, happens frequently.
Fact of the matter is divorce sucks, and I would not wish divorce on anyone.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
When any user logs into your PC, pop up a brief dialog box warning that all use is being monitored.
My rights don't need management.
That is why most major companies that perform monitoring will display disclaimers on company PCs, perhaps as a login message, as a proxied web start page, or as a signature appended to email. There will probably be a page in the employee handbook as well.
Failure to notify might put the companies in a delicate situation if action is taken over the content of transmissions. They do not necessarily have carte blance just yet.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered Concern community when recently IDC confirmed that Concern accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that Concern has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Concern is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict Concern's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Concern faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Concern because Concern is dying. Things are looking very bad for Concern. As many of us are already aware, Concern continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeConcern is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenConcern leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenConcern. How many users of NetConcern are there? Let's see. The number of OpenConcern versus NetConcern posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetConcern users. Concern/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetConcern posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of Concern/OS. A recent article put FreeConcern at about 80 percent of the Concern market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeConcern users. This is consistent with the number of FreeConcern Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeConcern went out of business and was taken over by ConcernI who sell another troubled OS. Now ConcernI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that Concern has steadily declined in market share. Concern is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Concern is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. Concern continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Concern is dead.
Fact: Concern is dead
If this stands up to appeal, it seems to me that if you use a network packet sniffer to gather evidence against spyware/virus writers, it will be inadmissable unless you got a court order before doing it. Can't intercept their communications without their permission. Ridiculous!
Clearly the law was not intentionally written to restrict individuals in this way. Maybe our legislators will think about fine tuning it a bit, before it becomes a factor in something like a serial child-murder case.
Dang! I just gave someone advise about setting up just such a thing. Hope they didn't install it on very many systems. Their ad was targeted at spouses and parents.
We might have 13 innocent people still alive today if the parents of Harris and Klebold had any idea what their kids were up to.
They'd be alive if the parents simply paid attention - they left gun parts and crap lying around for months. Hell, what about the cops? They got a tip off a month in advance and blew it off.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Seastead this.
You run afoul of the other point there--if the kids have no defense, the parents have no defense either. So enjoy having no right to privacy, sucker!
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Most states' divorce laws recognize the basic fact that no court is going to be able to preserve a doomed marriage with the stroke of a gavel.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent