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
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'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.
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!
that remotely installed spyware that takes advantage of security holes is also illegal? If so why aren't people in jail?
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
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
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
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.
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'
So we can conclude that so-called "Homeland Security" -- which routinely intercepts electronic communication without a warrant -- is a criminal organization.
Seastead this.
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!
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.
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
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? """