Is Reading Spouse's E-Mail a Crime?

Hugh Pickens writes "The Detroit Free Press reports that Leon Walker is charged with unlawfully reading the e-mail of Ciara Walker, his wife at that time, which showed she was having an affair with her second husband, who once had been arrested for beating her in front of her son. Walker says he gave the e-mails to her first husband, the child's father, to protect the boy. 'I was doing what I had to do,' says Walker. 'We're talking about putting a child in danger.' Now prosecutors, relying on a Michigan statute typically used to prosecute crimes such as identity theft or stealing trade secrets, have charged Leon Walker with a felony for logging onto a laptop in the home he shared with his wife. Prosecutor Jessica Cooper defended her decision to charge Walker. 'The guy is a hacker,' says Cooper, adding that the Gmail account 'was password protected, he had wonderful skills, and was highly trained. Then he downloaded [the emails] and used them in a very contentious way.'"

Comments

Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[HungryHobo]

Is opening a spouses physical mail a crime?

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[groslyunderpaid]

Letter of the law? I believe so.

However, in practice, though mail addressed to you may have your name on it, it's the address that's important. As long as you live at that address, you can open that mail.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

So by that logic, if you rent out a room in your house you can legally read that person's mail? I think that name is pretty important.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[oodaloop]

I don't think so. US Postal regulations forbid anyone other than the recipient to open the letter, until delivery. Once a letter is delivered, they don't care what happens to it. After all, I throw out junk mail addressed to my wife. Is that also a crime?

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[ComputerGeek01]

Almost but not quite, Look at it with the same logic that we do programming with protected\private members. If a letter is addressed to the occupent of 123 Raintree St then anyone living at that address can open it. If the same letter is addressed to John Smith at 123 Raintree St then we know that the letter had been addressed to a specific person.

The deciding factor here is if state law in Michigan grants any power of attorney like rights to a spouse in which case he's free and clear, or if his lawyer can convince the jury that reading his wifes e mail was in the interest of protecting the child. IANAL but given the hindsight from this stub, I think even I could pull that off in court.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[Opportunist]

Please, don't give the junk mail senders ideas for their next lobbying move.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[vlm]

Letter of the law? I believe so.

However, in practice, though mail addressed to you may have your name on it, it's the address that's important. As long as you live at that address, you can open that mail.

Err, not exactly. Slashdot-lawyering is always fun to watch.

http://www.ehow.com/about_6293417_federal-mail-not-addressed-you_.html

In grotesque summary of a website's summary at the federal level "The statute is essentially about stealing mail from the Post Office.". In other words the feds pretty much don't care as long as there are no post office employees or post office property directly involved.

In the computer world that we live in, we all know and understand there is a desperate goal to re-legislate all our crimes with the words "on a computer" suffixed at great expense and publicity, etc. But in the real physical world, they mostly use general statutes which only tangentially happen to involve a piece of physical mail in this specific case.

So you might get charged with stealing, if you stole someones mail. Or identity theft if you do that, with someone elses mail. Or maybe some weird insider trading law, if thats what you do based on some stolen mail.

In other words the trial will be about them doing some naughtyness, and the stolen mail will be a piece of evidence. But there will be no charge of "opening the mail"

That being said, just as anyone can be civil sued for anything at any time by any one, the same applies to criminal court, although that doesn't mean it won't be thrown out with laughter by the judge, or involved as the start or end of a plea bargain, or tossed out on appeal by a sane judge.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[Mr. Freeman]

This might come as a surprise to you but you give up a lot of privacy to your spouse when you get married.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[vlm]

It is unless your spouse is your property.

Actually that's a pretty good first level short summary analysis of tax law, inheritance law, bankruptcy law (depending a bit on state), several legal liability issues, some real estate and titled property law (think "car title"), a wide variety of medical ethics law such as DNR orders, and how the right of self incrimination at least somewhat extends to spouses in court. There are probably other areas but thats just off the top of my head.

Being a summary, means only an idiot would think it is the entire story for all situations, but it IS pretty much the base assumption of a heck of a lot of law, its the assumption you should start with and then refine. Following the rules of the game doesn't mean you like either the rules of the game or playing the game, it just means... you're following the rules of the game... Thats all I mean, not that I agree with it.

So, enough fact, now some opinion, which is, at the core of it, the big problem with the whole gay marriage thing, is that a basic right of many of our laws is being denied to people pretty much because "a living dude, whom pompously claims to speak for a powerful invisible unprovable guy in the sky, claims some people are bad because of how the guy in the sky made them, yet both the dude doing the talking and the guy in the sky are so incredibly weak and unimportant that they can't actually do anything about the people they don't like, so we'd like a law so policemen with guns can force them to live under our sad, twisted worldview" Not that I am showing any bias about that issue, naaaaaah.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[jbengt]

That analogy fails to address the issues in this case.

The relevant law he is being charged with, according to TFA:

A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:

Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system or computer network

Well, he did access a computer that he bought for his wife and that he had often used, possibly while exceeding valid authorization, but he used the password that his wife had written down in a book next to the computer, so from the provider's viewpoint, he was authorized.

to acquire, alter, damage delete or destroy property

No he didn't do any of those and didn't have intent to do those.

or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system or computer network.

I read this as theft of services, which he did not do and he did not intend to do.

I don't think there was\ any reason to charge him under this statute.
IANAL, YMMV, etc.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[Monchanger]

... considering that accessing an email address requires you to verify that it's "really" you ...

Ah- but those quotation marks are key here.

Email only requires that you are a partner to the secret for unlocking access, not the person whose name is on the account. Gmail doesn't care that I'm neither my mother nor grandmother when I'm asked to sign into their accounts on occasion. So an identity verification analogy doesn't well. A closer analogy would be to FedEx delivering a package to my house and giving it to anybody who opens the door and signs for the package (even a burglar could get it).

As for technical ability to open the email, the defendant claims she stored the password in a book sitting next to the computer, which is the only thing you'd need as her husband. That she didn't seek to guard it settles arguments about locking her account.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[oodaloop]

I worked at the post office briefly years ago, and my father has worked there for 30+ years. I remember there being a bin for letters to Santa, with addresses like "North Pole" written in crayon. It all went to trash. Canada has a special zip code it uses for Santa: HOH-OHO. I seem to remember reading that they all get answered, but I could be wrong.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[Runaway1956]

How about a more common sense approach to the question? When you're married, what's yours is hers, what's hers is hers, and what's our's is hers. That's the way it's always been, unless prenuptuals were signed. My wife opens all my mail - for the most part, I never bother looking at it. I routinely open mail that has her name on it - especially if she isn't home for a couple of days. Something may need to be brought to her attention, for pity's sake! Not to mention that ALL of my dealings are her business, and ALL of her dealings are my business. Marriage. I'm responsible for her, she's responsible for me, we're a team, a partnership. Only if, and when, an announcement of separation and/or impending divorce is made, are the married couple no longer a team or a partnership. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, then yes, it should become illegal to open his/her mail, or to tamper with his/her finances, property, or whatever. Oh yeah. The article mentioned that she was having an affair? That is most definitely the husband's legitimate concern. He has the right to know that the ho is cheating on him. And, also, a child's welfare was mentioned as the reason for forwarding the emails to a third party? Extenuating circumstances. It's ILLEGAL for a large percentage of the population to FAIL to report possible child abuse and endangerment. Hacking? Horse shit. I've read nothing to indicate that the guy didn't just GUESS the Gmail password. Hacking. My ass. Stupid bitch who is prosecuting him doesn't have a clue what hacking is all about.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[xmousex]

This is also my take on it. "two become one". But I am starting to wonder if either I was mislead somewhere about what marriage was, or if marriage is quickly being redefined into something completely meaningless.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[magarity]

You need to recheck your definition of hilarious. Hilarious would be if the wife was having a secret affair with his mistress. Still seeing the guy who beat her is pathetic and disturbed.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

This reeks of a racially motivated prosecution, quite honestly.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[easterberry]

Santa Letters in Canada are distributed to volunteers (mostly post office staff and the family thereof) who read them and write responses according to specific sets of rules and guidelines. My family does it every year since my father's a post man. It's fun.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[darkpixel2k]

Don't be a disingenuous ass. Having a room mate is clearly different than being married in the legal sense. There are special rights given to married couples. You share a credit rating, your lives are linked. Again, don't be an ass.

Ha! I wish we shared a credit rating. When my wife and I got married, we had pretty much the same credit scores. She stayed home to raise the kids, and I went back to work. When I had to unexpectedly resign and spend the next two months searching for work, a few of the credit cards got behind. I spent months simply dumping money towards paying late fees. After about a year, we started making a dent, but the credit card companies weren't too happy. All the cards were in my name.

So fast forward a few years, we have everything paid off and I have a good job. (Hell--I have a job in this economy.) We both had been receiving credit card offers in the mail since about a week after everything was paid off. We both received offers for Discover cards with under 15% interest rates--so we both applied. I put down that I made about $40k/year. My wife put down that she made $0/year. I was approved for $1,000. She was approved for $2,500.

You don't share credit scores when married.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[BobMcD]

I think, in terms of law, "spouse is property" isn't quite as accurate as "spouse is self". But yes, otherwise this is a really good point. It should be noted, in support of this view of the law, that it wasn't until only very recently that it was possible, legally, to rape your spouse. The concept of these being individual people is somewhat new, I think.

As to the gay marriage issue, in all due respect to your atheist religion, I think pinning everything on God is cheap logic. As we saw with the Prop 8 trial, there's a fairly solid line of logic behind the bans as well. The reasoning goes like this:

A) We need children, or we're going to die out. Further we'd like these children to be raised in two-parent homes wherever possible.

B) To encourage this behavior, we're going to incentivize marriage at the government-subsidy level, the employee benefit level, and others.

C) Because gay couples cannot directly produce children raised in two-parent households, they're not entitled to the incentives.

I do realize that I'm simplifying. Gay couples can, indeed, successfully raise children from other couplings. And being more than one of them in the household, the technical standard of 'more than one parent' has been met. There should, however, be some extra credit provided for having a parent present from each gender, as their individual experiences can be instrumental to raising a well-adjusted child. Imagine a child raised without contact with any women, for example, who does not understand mood swings due to biological timing. Further imagine a hetero child who cannot relate to the western concept of being 'tough'. It gets messy.

Now, as for the caveats, yes there exist single parent households. Yet those don't receive the benefits of marriage, by definition. Also there exist childless homes, but I assume that the legal situation was all well established before the widespread use of birth control, so it is entirely possible that children were assumed to be a 'risk' worthy of the benefits.

And, divorce happens and causes more harm than the benefits provide. But to be fair, I think this needs to be changed. Parents who divorce are getting benefits without providing child-rearing homes in return...

All that said, the ban isn't necessarily the right answer. There exist many:

A) Remove all benefits. It isn't working, and we seem to have ample supplies of children, so why continue to subsidize it?

B) Incentivize the children without respect to marriage. This risks 'puppy mills', but is legally more fair than the current situation.

C) Increase incentives for model child-rearing environments.

There are a lot more ways to address the disparity.

Anyway, while I do concede that Judeao-Christian cultures codify these benefits, you should also concede that other cultures do as well. Blaming it all on God is just a cop-out.

Also, to preempt the ad hominem, I'd like to state for the record that my stance is similar to that of the Rent is Too Damn High Party. I do not think that the government has any role whatsoever in this situation, and in that light support the right of anyone to participate in any cultural/religious ceremony they so wish.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[TheABomb]

My first thought was that he just went to Gmail and let the browser's stored password do the work. Then I read TFA: "Leon Walker told the Free Press he routinely used the computer and that she kept all of her passwords in a small book next to the computer."

So no. He didn't "guess" the password. He didn't have to—she gave it to him. By this lawyer's logic, someone who enters a building via a door that has the word "PUSH" written on it is a master catburglar.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[KhabaLox]

All the cards were in my name.

Don't get divorced.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[hairyfeet]

Hell I'd be willing to bet my last dollar he didn't even have to guess, she most likely had the browser remember the fricking password! I had a buddy that was handed a laptop by a wife who believed her husband had been looking at porn on her laptop. The only "hacking" he had to do was simply pick his icon at log in and load up his browser, because Mr Moron had set everything to auto log in. dumbass. That case was why I don't take those kinds of jobs anymore, because my bud had to spend a week halfway across the state testifying because it turned out NOT ONLY was Mr Moron banging his SIXTEEN year old stepdaughter he had also banged his FIFTEEN year year old ex stepdaughter, and damned if Mr Moron didn't not only save emails from both but he actually saved pics of them naked in his my pics folder no less! Wow, what a genius he was. Needless to say my buddy called the cops, the wife got everything and he got a trip to PMITA prison.

And it is illegal as you pointed out in most jurisdictions to know about a child in danger and do nothing about it. Then add in the fact that they were married and if they weren't currently separated at the time he damned sure DID have the right to know his wife was risking his life and safety by having an affair. Let us not forget that with AIDS, Hep C, and all the other nastier side effects one can get from unprotected sex he life was most definitely in danger. After all we are talking about a wife beater that doesn't even give a shit if the kid is in the room, who is to say he isn't a junkie or banging half the girls in the area? Yeah I don't think this guy will have ANY problems getting off, then I would sue that prosecutor for enough money that I wouldn't have to work ever again.

It sounds to me like a case of malicious prosecution, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if this female prosecutor tends to heavily favor females in cases. We had one of those a few years back where the cops would come out to a place and the guy could look like he had been beaten with a tire iron while the wife wasn't even scratched and she would ALWAYS charge the male, no matter what. Needless to say most of the guys in the area were damned glad to see her go.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[TheABomb]

I thought that when I saw the photo in the article along with the prosecutor's contention that he possessed some sort of unnatural skill at "hacking" because he read the paper on which his wife wrote all her passwords that she kept next to the computer. In other words, due either to institutional racism or affirmative action lowering the bar so far, black people are no longer expected by our legal system to be literate or have any sort of basic problem-solving skills.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[KhabaLox]

he used the password that his wife had written down in a book next to the computer, so from the provider's viewpoint, he was authorized.

By "provider" do you mean the email hosting service? If so, then every "hacker" is authorized. It's clear that the "authorization" the law is referring to is authorization given by the account owner/user.

No he didn't do any of those and didn't have intent to do those.

He most certainly intended to acquire her emails and the information within, and he did.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[BlueStrat]

So no. He didn't "guess" the password. He didn't have to--she gave it to him. By this lawyer's logic, someone who enters a building via a door that has the word "PUSH" written on it is a master catburglar.

My guess is that the female prosecutor has a vicarious emotional stake in this case. The prosecutor herself likely has either gone through a contentious divorce, and/or got caught cheating herself.

If I were the defense counsel, I'd have investigators looking more at the *prosecutor's* past marital/relationship history, rather than the defense's client or the prosecution's witness. There's probably some dirt there that makes the pursuit of this case in this manner by the prosecutor make a lot more sense.

Strat

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[Teancum]

Again, don't be an ass.

Is this compatible with a technical discussion about law ?

Absolutely! The best laws are ones where common sense prevails, and where somebody being an ass is laughed out of the courtroom. If you can clearly demonstrate to a judge that the opposing counsel is being an ass, they most certainly have proven that they have lost the argument.

Fortunately it is the person who responds with name calling because they lack other tools to demonstrate the benefits with their side of the argument who most often loses, but that isn't always the case as is most certainly true here. The advise to not "be an ass" is certainly most appropriate in this context, although the point could have been proven without such language.

Certainly a spouse is given extra consideration in such a context like reading mail that isn't normally afforded even a supervisor or landlord. If your employer can read your e-mail with impunity, the same argument can be used with a spouse. This prosecution, if successful, has some major legal consequences if it gets anywhere near to common law status for more than a single courtroom.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[blackest_k]

In Ireland it could be,

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001

9.--(1) A person who dishonestly, whether within or outside the State, operates or causes to be operated a computer within the State with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another, is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.

I had a laptop brought to me because a friend thought her husband how she was divorcing had done something to it. I found a keylogger installed, working and password protected after some googling i found a way round the password and got access to the encripted logs which had credit card info passwords to email and other accounts.From what i could tell it looked like it had been running for nearly 2 years. It was a free version but the paid version could email an account with the days log files. It could also be set to uninstall on a particular date.

Now the irish law says for gain (not financial gain just to someones advantage) and he had used emails she had written in his divorce petition pretty much incriminating himself and in violition of this law.

Now obviously I performed this investigation with her consent in fact at her request.
that consent can be withdrawn at any time is obvious. for example if somebody consents to sex with you once, it doesn't mean consent is given forever, and that if consent is withdrawn and you persist then its rape, married or not.

The idea that marriage means complete openness is crazy, there is always some things held back and when a marriage is on the rocks more so on both sides. I guess divorce is a thorny issue at this time of year because often there is a lets get christmas over and start divorce proceedings in the new year. When you lose respect for your partner and their privacy your marriage is all but over and you can not assume you have your partners consent just because your technically still married.

A wife isn't a possession and you do not have a right to do as you please with her. obviously this works both ways. That you might present credentials to convince someone that you are acting on behalf of your wife does not mean you are not presenting these fraudulently and it seems obvious that its without her consent when it is used against her.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[Teancum]

It sounds like you are somebody who doesn't either need nor deserve marriage in any form. Part of the point of a marriage is that you share your life in such an intimate level that it becomes difficult to distinguish any separate property. Marriage is about serving and cherishing each other, about giving more than you receive and doing good for others in spite of personal limitations.

In such a situation, marriage is something that is incredibly powerful where two people support and sustain each other to fill in the weaknesses of each other to be much stronger together. Unfortunately when you have two selfish people who fight against each other rather than work with each other to make each other stronger, the effort to cut each other down actually backfires and makes both "partners" all that weaker and makes attacks from outside of the marriage all that easier to destroy the lives of those bound in the marriage.

Marriage is thus a two edged sword that can be incredibly powerful or to be absolutely horrible, depending on how those involved make it. Divorce in particular is awful because intimate details have been shared and are being used against each other, often as a sort of a game. I'll also point out that with rare exceptions (and I'm not even sure with that) there are no "winners" in a divorce. At best it can be said to be a form of "cutting your losses" and at worst the equivalent of a thermonuclear war in terms of relationships. Amicable divorces can happen, where at least those married can agree to disagree and move on with their lives and a minimum of damage to each other. Unfortunately it is all too easy to lob that first "bomb" and start the war where everybody loses, including those outside of the marriage and in particular the kids in the marriage in particular are the ones hurt the most.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[HeronBlademaster]

And marriage does not require love.

No, but "two become one" does not require love either. The concept is simply that two people become unified in purpose and intent, and that's largely what marriage law is based on. If that's not what you want, you shouldn't be getting married, whether or not you're in love.

Marriage is a legal arrangement. If you feel you must marry to show or "proof" your love, you're in the wrong relationship.

Marriage is indeed a legal arrangement, but that does not mean "legal arrangement" is the only way in which it should be viewed. Indeed, many view marriage in a religious or spiritual light as well. You may not personally view religion in this light, but do not pretend it is an invalid motivation for marriage.

I decided to marry my wife not because of any perceived legal or social benefits, but because I want to be with her forever, and I would argue that that is a far better reason for marriage than "we got married because we wanted the legal benefits associated with it". Your opinion on whether it's possible to be with someone forever is not relevant.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[ZenDragon]

Though you dont share scores, you most certainly share the debt. Im still being haunted my ex wifes debt. The only real benefit to being married is the ability to put your spouse on your insurance at a reasonable rate, although these days some let you list as domestic partner for the same benefits. Honestly, with the laws, and the credit card companies these days its almost financially more responsible to just NOT get married at all.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[Nikker]

It's not going to be easy pulling on the jury's heart strings with words like "hacker" when he ultimately found out his wife was having an affair with an abusive ex husband especially with children involved. Most parents would commit murder to protect their children from stuff like this and it's likely a some have, as well some would likely have been let off with relatively light sentences. So for this prosecutor to go this route it may ultimately pave a legal avenue to a grey area in terms of hacking when it involves the safety of others.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[HeronBlademaster]

That's why I am never getting married. My stuff is MY stuff and it's not going to suddenly belong to somebody else like that. I don't need somebody opening my mail, thinking for me, choosing what I watch on TV or what I eat for dinner, or what I get to spend my money on.

There's no rule saying your spouse has to think for you, choose what you watch on TV or what you eat for dinner, or what you spend your money on, and as you have pointed out, that attitude from either spouse will do great harm to the relationship. This is doubly true if either partner has this attitude before the marriage even begins - and based on your comments, you already think that every potential spouse will treat you this way. You are not doing yourself any favors with that attitude.

It is not the case that one partner must take precedence over the other. The fact is, you can choose a spouse who will hold you in as high a regard as you hold her, who will treat your happiness as if it is just as important, if not more so, than her own. I know this is true because my wife and I treat each other this way. We both strive to make the other happy. That is one of the most important cornerstones of any successful relationship, married or not.

Don't avoid marriage just because you have friends who suck at choosing good spouses. All it means is that you should choose more carefully than they did. Yes, the divorce rate is disturbingly high, but that does not mean marriage itself is inherently flawed. In reality the two biggest reasons couples get divorced are as follows: either they disagree on financial issues, or one spouse has some habit or engages in some other activity that they know the other finds distasteful, but refuses to change or compromise at all. Both are issues that should have been worked out before marriage was considered in the first place. If all couples discussed these things before deciding to get married, the divorce rate would plummet.

The modern marriage mindset seems to be "if it doesn't work out, we can just get divorced". This encourages people to marry too soon, to give up rather than work together to fix problems, discourages relationship-building, and cheapens the concept of marriage entirely. Indeed, the most successful marriages are marriages where neither spouse views divorce as an acceptable solution.

I'm going to say this again, because it bears repeating: these are all issues that can and should be resolved before marriage.

Difficult to see the upside honestly.

You only have difficulty seeing the upside because you can't fathom the possibility that you might find a spouse that won't treat you like dirt. Perhaps you're finding your relationships in the wrong place.

Surely you can see the benefits of a marriage where both spouses treat each other equally?

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[snowgirl]

Imagine a child raised without contact with any women, for example, who does not understand mood swings due to biological timing. Further imagine a hetero child who cannot relate to the western concept of being 'tough'.

So, the "extra credit" purpose--as you put it--of having two heterosexual parents in a marriage is to enforce sexist gender roles upon their children?

Hot damn, it's memetic survivalism apparently.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[snowgirl]

to acquire, alter, damage delete or destroy property

No he didn't do any of those and didn't have intent to do those.

So, by accessing her emails and printing them out, he didn't acquire any property?

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

And sadly pretty normal. Guys like this set themselves up as being the only one that can give them affirmation and they are pretty controlling. That she got away from him and remarried in the first place is practically a miracle! The worst part is that by returning they affirm his behavior as being okay, submits herself, and the behavior WILL get worse. It might not happen right away but the moment he can lever her away from a support network of friends or in this case her new hubby she can pretty much expect a really shitty ride right down the drain. Women in this kind of situation usually leave many many times only to return to the abusive situation hoping it will somehow turn out different and the man often makes them feel that the reason it doesn't is their fault. Any woman that truly escapes that and get into a normal life is truly lucky :-(

I, sadly and stupidly, dated a woman coming out of this situation (or so I thought) who had 4 kids. He DID abuse at least three of them physically complete with child services intervention and abused the entire family verbally. Verbal abuse leaves no mark except on the mind and it takes FAR longer to heal. After nearly a year of working to earn these children's trust this guy found out she had come into some money and turned on the charm full blast. He convinced a counselor for the children that he had somehow "changed" and the counselor in turn teamed with him to get him a second chance. I got the boot nearly overnight which shocked the children nearly as badly as it shocked me but she wanted to "get the family back together". Seems leaving this asshole was somehow making her feel like a failure! Well, sure enough he's burning her money, has begun hurting the kids, and my ass is as far away from her as possible. That was an E ticket ride that in hindsight I'm glad to have escaped mostly intact. I lay awake at night worrying about the kids but there's zippy I can do about the situation other than watch the obituaries and hope that I don't see anyone but him in there. I truly believe the situation will only end in violence or not at all. What a mess...

Anyway sorry to rant but you pressed a button. Indeed it IS disturbed that someone would return to that sort of hell but it is so very very common it's not funny. I once asked her if she missed the screaming fights and she actually told me that yeah she did miss them sometimes. How screwed up is THAT?!

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[LordLucless]

Uh-huh. Because all those countries that haven't evolved through Judeo-Christian values are so tolerant of homosexual marriage: China, North Korea, India, etc.

While cultures have tolerated homosexuality (also in the Western tradition: see ancient Greece, Rome), very few (none?) have allowed homosexual marriage as an institution equal to heterosexual marriage.

So, yeah, your little anti-religious rant is a clear indication of bias. It obviously has little to do with anti-homosexual marriage, or we would see it in avowed atheist nations like China, or polytheistic nations like India. You're trying to justify your dislike of religion, not to uncover the root cause of why homosexual marriage is not supported.

Re:Is opening a spouses mail a crime?

[Grishnakh]

Two tips if you're worried about marriage wrecking your finances:

1) Move to a non-community property state before dating and marrying. Any debt she accumulates in her own name stays with her after divorce. This is helpful because, if you do get into trouble financially but want to stay together, the one with most of the debt can declare bankruptcy while the other one keeps his/her credit score intact. Can't do that in a community-property state (CA, AZ, TX, etc.). "Community property" is a terrible legal creation with no benefits for married people, and something else we can thank those stupid Spaniards for polluting this continent with.

2) Get a pre-nuptial agreement.

Of course, as you correctly point out, having kids really throws a wrench into the works. My advice there? Don't have kids before you've been married for 10 (TEN) years, and are absolutely sure your spouse is someone who will help you bury a body. Your spouse is supposed to be your best friend in the world, and a good friend is someone who will help you bury a body. If you can't say that about your spouse, then your relationship really isn't very solid.

Are you guys really loosing it in the U.S?

[Post-O-Matron]

What's next? Charging a husband who read his wifes diary. Oh yes there was a lock on it and he broke it. No that wouldn't reach court, but hackers - those smelly dodgy think they are smarter than us geek types - let's lock all of them up and throw away the key! They are terrorists! And they want to give away the fruit of all of hard work for free!

What the hell are they putting in your water?

Re:Are you guys really loosing it in the U.S?

[Anonymous Coward]

>My wife has the password for my email account.

hand over your geek badge, please

Re:Are you guys really loosing it in the U.S?

[aliquis]

Personally I think this case is a good thing. Her account, her cell phone, her diary..

Why should you give up all personal integrity just because you're in a relationship?

Re:Are you guys really loosing it in the U.S?

[Nursie]

Trust is not needing that password.

Lack of trust is asking for it.

End of.

Not sure what I would do in that situation.

Re:Are you guys really loosing it in the U.S?

[robot256]

She was having an affair with her abusive ex-husband. What integrity?

Re:Are you guys really loosing it in the U.S?

[pknoll]

My wife doesn't know any of my passwords, and I don't know any of hers. However, I do have an escrow file which she can open in the event of my death which contains them all.

She will need access to banking sites etc. when that happens, so privacy until then, and full disclosure after.

Re:Are you guys really loosing it in the U.S?

[Nursie]

My wife has all my passwords: email, login, local admin, server roots, domain, banking logins, etc, etc. I gave them to her especially BECAUSE I trust her.

Did you do that because you wanted to or because she asked and made it into a trust issue?

What a hacker!

[Xelios]

According to TFA, her email password was written down in a little book kept by the family computer. And yet, "The guy is a hacker" and "It was password protected, he had wonderful skills, and was highly trained."

Really, I don't see how it can get any more ridiculous than this. I realize the prosecutor has to put on a show to support such ridiculous charges, but good lord...

Re:What a hacker!

[Mitsoid]

DUDE, Reading is hacking, don't you know anything about the US Legal term for hacking?!?

Re:What a hacker!

[CODiNE]

"he had wonderful skills, and was highly trained."

Perhaps he's an MCSE??

Re:What a hacker!

[DragonDru]

Charged not convicted. His defence team hasn't started to play yet.

Re:What a hacker!

[Opportunist]

What's one got to do with the other?

We're furious about this, let's say, "liberal" use of the term "hacker". By that definition, anyone able to read and open a mail program is a hacker.

That should be, like, everyone.

Re:What a hacker!

[Registered Coward v2]

According to TFA, her email password was written down in a little book kept by the family computer. And yet, "The guy is a hacker" and "It was password protected, he had wonderful skills, and was highly trained." Really, I don't see how it can get any more ridiculous than this. I realize the prosecutor has to put on a show to support such ridiculous charges, but good lord...

You obviously have not seen some of the products of the US education system - being able to recognize and open a book, and then actually read what is inside may very well qualify someone as having "wonderful skills" and being "highly trained."

Re:What a hacker!

[UDChris]

The paper notebook, with the password written in it, sitting next to the computer, is also joint property.

Totally with you on that one. To expand on my analogy, what if both spouses have a joint PO box? Both have a key, but do they have the right to open the letters addressed solely to the other spouse? So, I did a little homework.. I think this one is going to come down to whether the judge equates e-mail to postal mail.

Re:What a hacker!

[selven]

I know Slashdot likes pretending they know everything about law, but what you guys don't realize is that "hack" has a far more nuanced and complex definition than you think.

Here you go:

1) chop: cut with a hacking tool
2) one who works hard at boring tasks
3) be able to manage or manage successfully; "I can't hack it anymore"; "she could not cut the long days in the office"
4) machine politician: a politician who belongs to a small clique that controls a political party for private rather than public ends
5) cut away; "he hacked his way through the forest"
6) a mediocre and disdained writer
7) kick on the arms
8) a tool (as a hoe or pick or mattock) used for breaking up the surface of the soil
9) cab: a car driven by a person whose job is to take passengers where they want to go in exchange for money
10) fix a computer program piecemeal until it works; "I'm not very good at hacking but I'll give it my best"
11) an old or over-worked horse
12) significantly cut up a manuscript
13) a horse kept for hire
14) cough spasmodically; "The patient with emphysema is hacking all day"
15) a saddle horse used for transportation rather than sport etc.

For all we know, this guy could be an expert at chopping up a manuscript with an axe while coughing.

Re:Depends on prenap

[Anonymous Coward]

Pre-nap? You mean I'm bound by things I said before I first slept with her? Oh god.

Re:"Hacking"

[codegen]

I am going to guess that either her password was easy to guess, or that he used a keystroke logging program to learn it.

from the TFA, the wife kept the passwords written down in a book beside the computer.

Considering...

[ewhenn]

Considering that when you are married, in terms of property rights, you are considered a single legal entity, I honestly don't see how this would stand up in court.

Re:Considering...

[BobMcD]

If my wife gets an important letter she's waiting for, while she's at work, I phone her to ask for permission to open it and read it to her.
It's one of the cornerstones of marriage that you respect the privacy of your partner, even if you're a jealous asshole.

Wait, wait, wait. The wife in this story is cheating on her third husband with her ex-second, who by the way has a criminal record for abusing her. The third goes into her email and provides it to the first husband, the father of their son, so that he might intervene and prevent any contact between his son and the second.

And the third is the asshole?

Really??

It seems to me that the Mrs has very poor judgement, and her privacy has less value than making sure her son stays safe. Sometimes individuals need to violate the law in order to do the right thing. This appears to be one of those times.

Further, he's not 'jealous'. That appears to be his WIFE that we're talking about. Everyone that she sleeps with is also sleeping with him, in terms of VD, and she genuinely has no right to keep that sort of secret until after they're separated. Vis-a-vis him cheating on her.

I'm just out-and-out stunned that you'd defend her by blaming number three. Do husbands really have NO rights any more? Are they genuinely just boyfriends with joint bank accounts? Marriage means NOTHING additional?

Re:Is-ought fallacy

[pedantic bore]

Wait, are we asking whether reading your spouse's email IS a crime (in Michigan, at least), or whether it OUGHT to be a crime?

This is slashdot. Laws are irrelevant here. Just stick IMHO in front of everything, including this paragraph, and you'll be fine.

Stupid prosecution

[Attila Dimedici]

I think it is ridiculous that this is being brought as a criminal prosecution. If his ex-wife had brought a civil suit, I would still think he should win, but that would be a sensible case. The man's fear of the child being exposed to domestic violence (possibly even physical abuse of the child) was perfectly legitimate. I would really like to know why the prosecutor is really going after this man. It sounds personal.

Re:Stupid prosecution

[bsDaemon]

he successfully used a computer, which makes him a nerd. The prosecutor is a chick, and chicks hate nerds.

Re:Stupid prosecution

[VendettaMF]

>>I would really like to know why the prosecutor is
>>really going after this man. It sounds personal.

He located evidence that the mother is not the best suited of the two parents to keep custody of the child. In the US this is blasphemy of the highest order. He shall be stoned forthwith.

Re:Stupid prosecution

[Totenglocke]

Pretty accurate. It's ridiculous how much the US legal system is biased in favor of women.

Shit like this is a great example of why I will never get married. You can't trust a woman farther than you can throw an AT-AT.

Re:Stupid prosecution

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty accurate. It's ridiculous how much the US legal system is biased in favor of women.

Shit like this is a great example of why I will never get married. You can't trust a woman farther than you can throw an AT-AT.

Actually, your last sentence is a great example of why you'll never get married.

Re:Stupid prosecution

[Dave114]

If you look in the right government sources, you can find evidence of similar sorts of stuff. examples:

• the mother is the most likely perpetrator of child maltreatment
• the mother is the most likely perpetrator in cases involving child fatalities
• outside of sexual assult, women are most likely to be the perpetrators of every other kind of child maltreatment that the U.S. department of Health and Human Services tracks

(I think that part of this is due to the distribution of childcare responsibilities in typical households amongst parents, but I think that it also suffices to illustrate that mothers aren't necessarily the best caregivers for there children in cases of custody issues surrounding divorce).

Re:Depends on prenap

[Anonymous Coward]

The state of Michigan does not recognize prenuptual agreements. State law here recognizes, in effect, one generic marriage "contract", which is very vaguely defined. Michigan law *barely* defines how property is to be divided upon divorce. It certainly does not go in to any detail about the boundaries of privacy.

In practice, what happens in a Michigan divorce is that property is divided equally between "the parties", regardless of who filed, what caused the divorce, or either party's behavior during the marriage. Not an entirely unreasonable approach - family law judges have enough to sort out withou having to hear divorcing spouses' laundry list of grievances.

Michigan law *does* allow for unequal distribution of marital property in cases of egregious misconduct by one spouse. Presumably this is a "out" to allow one spouse to keep the marital property if the other spouse is convicted of trying to bump them off. But the bar for unequal distribution is set pretty high, meaning you pretty much have to have a felony conviction against your ex in order to get more than 50% of the family assets. Unfortunately, this means that the spouse who made the charges in this case has a financial interest in elevating the reading of spousal e-mail to the level of a felony.

DISCLOSURE: I am not a lawyer, but I was divorced in Michigan (more than the statute of limitations ago), and my ex tried to raise this same charge against me in family court. Judge and lawyers agreed at that time the was no clear statutory guidance on this issue, suggesting that the state courts will have to make this up as they go.

What About The Children?

[cob666]

Imagine if the second husband DID assault the child? Then the new husband would be in trouble for NOT doing anything to prevent this atrocious act.

Funny that when we actually SHOULD be thinking about the children something else gets in the way.

Hey Hugh Pickens,

[netsharc]

i.e. summary writer: learn to summarize better! Your first sentence had me so fucking confused. My mind as I read through that mess: "so he's the guy's husband, and he read his wife's email, he finds out his wife is having an affair with the second husband. Second husband? Oh, so do you mean the "hacker" is the first husband, and at the time the article was written, she's married to the guy she's been having an affair with? OK. But then he printed the emails and handed them to the woman's first husband. Wait, what? Isn't the hacker the first husband?"

You could have added ", who is Ciara Walker's third husband," in there to make the whole fucking thing easier to comprehend! I even RTFA to see if that incomprehensible mess was a copy/paste job, but lookie there: "Leon Walker was Clara Walker's third husband."

*mumble mumble kids and stupid American education these days.*

Sexism?

[AmberBlackCat]

In this particular case I wonder, if the wife had checked the husband's email and found out about an affair, would she have been charged with a felony too? This seems almost like an attempt to abuse the law for sexist purposes to me. Unless the prosecutor just needs attention.

Re:Sexism?

[jedidiah]

There's a very good chance that the American cult of female victim-hood would have prevented that.

Re:Sexism?

[Totenglocke]

Exactly - it's extremely irritating how men are blamed for everything in the US. From time to time I'm around when a girl in my family is watching Dr. Phil and he always has his mantra of "it's always the man's fault" - the most he'll ever blame a girl is saying that "she could've done things better" but then say that "it's still his fault".

Be that as it may, Cooper is a lamer

[Suki I]

Prosecutor Jessica Cooper is totally lame and would not know what a real hacker is if she said "he had wonderful skills" vs he had mad skillz. Typical know-nothing government official.

educational system

[Anonymous Coward]

DUDE, Reading is hacking, don't you know anything about the US Legal term for hacking?!?

Given the state of large parts of the US educational system, I think reading could qualify as "wonderful skills" and being "highly trained".

Not according to the federal government

[whoever57]

How many times have the Feds argued in court (or filings) that people have no expectation of privacy in emails?

Re:Not according to the federal government

[mounthood]

The EFF has thankfully fought that fight for all of us:
Breaking News on EFF Victory: Appeals Court Holds that Email Privacy Protected by Fourth Amendment

Are MI prosecutors elected?

[Registered Coward v2]

This would seem like a classic ad - "XX wants to protect child abusers...prosecuted someone for warning a parent of potential abuse...weak on crime...wrong then, and wrong for MI..."

Cooper might not be sexist, just incompetent

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is another case where she made a big mistake, was proven wrong by evidence and wouldn't admit that she made a mistake. http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/09/did_oakland_county_prosecutor.html http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/prosecutor-laura-johnson-freed-murder-evidence-not-enough-20100927-wpms

This should only be a civil case...

[realsilly]

First of all, the woman is now divorced from her 3rd husband. So she marries the 1st one and has a child, then Divorces #1 for some reason. Marries a second man who BEATS her in front of the child from the 1st Marriage. Why was the child not taken from the mother then? Probably because she sought a better life, divorcing husband #2 and found a third man to call husband.

While we don't have the full story, and of course the News doesn't always provide all the facts, so this assessment is one of pure speculation based on information available, here is how I see the situation.

The third husband is a smart guy, and knows his way around a computer, and may likely make a decent living. The third husband seems to give a shit about the wife's son from a previous marriage, which provides the impression that he's a decent guy. The wife CHEATS on her third husband with the second husband, the one who BEAT her. So husband number three figures out his wife is cheating on him, and finds proof via her email, and in finding proof he notifies husband #1 to offer protection to the child. Here he could have gone to authorities and tried to protect the child that was living under his roof, but he went back to the birth father and say "hey man, you might want to know the potential danger your child is in..." (not an actual quote).

I suspect the Wife is pissed off because she's caught cheating which likely means she's lied to husband #3. I suspect she is probably pissed off, for child being removed from her custody, which she may have used the child as a tool against husband #1 for Child Support or as a power play . Now she's made to look the fool, by all three of her husbands past and present. The 1st husband has the child now, the 2nd husband is having sex with her again, and the 3rd husband caught her violating the vows of marriage. So she punishes the 3rd with legal action and finds a prosecutor to find possible Felony charges against husband #3.

She's already proven, by cheating, that she has the ability to lie, so why should her version of the story be more credible? At this point, based on a limited amount of facts, I see the 3rd husband as a victim. And when you are married there is a measure of trust between spouses, or should be. If he was always using the PC and she has the passwords in a book then only the act of him reading and typing in the password to an account that was not his is in question, right? The one thing that helps him is that he's no longer married to someone who didn't respect him enough not to cheat on him.

I believe we have a right to privacy even in our own homes from our spouses. I feel that while the man did violate her privacy, I honestly feel that his motives were right. I hope that a judge looks at this case and treats both parties fairly. He did violate privacy, but she, in my eyes has violated far more and deserves to be punished.

Again, all this is based on speculation of the facts as the new has reported them up to now.

THE GUY IS A HACKER ! HEAR YE !!

[unity100]

IT IS SO EASY. all you need to do is to grab a laptop which some idiot have logged into a website with autologin cookies and YOU ARE A HACKER !!!

so thinks a moron, who somehow ended up as prosecutor in united states of america, random state. tells millions about the quality of education in usa (helloo capitalism) and justice system. (hi again capitalism)

Re:Depends on prenap

[mapkinase]

"The state of Michigan does not recognize prenuptual agreements"

Here we go. Here is the problem with the state of Michigan: when government automatically annuls agreements between two sane adult parties except for very specific clauses, so the rest of the clauses of that agreement could magically become a "crime".

Maine is the Same

[pgn674]

I've been told... actually, that's not good enough. I'm going to look it up.

OK, in Maine, under the Maine Revised Statutes, Title 17-A: Maine Criminal Code, Part 2: Substantive Offenses, Chapter 18: Computer Crimes, unauthorized access is a Class D crime, and unauthorized copying, computer resource damaging, and virus introduction is a Class C crime. The classes are defined as such:

• Class D: Crimes punishable by up to 364 days incarceration and a $2,000 fine
• Class C: Crimes punishable by up to 5 years incarceration and a $5,000 fine

If I recall correctly, beating up a small child is also a Class C crime. By printing or forwarding these emails, this person in the article could be accused of a Class C crime in Maine.

So yeah, the courts may actually try and be reasonable, but be bound and restricted by the unreasonableness and especially the vagueness of the law.

Hmm...

[davidwr]

I guess "criminal invasion of privacy" allegations is the new "he's child molester" allegation.*

*Until courts got wise to it way too many divorcing moms in the 1990s would accuse their husbands of child molestation as a divorce tactic, sometimes brainwashing the kids in the process. I'm sure some still try but most courts are wise to it. By the way, "way too many" is not actually a large number but it was enough to be a noticeable trend. One malicious allegation is too many.

Re:Depends on prenap

[Myopic]

Having recently gone through the pre-nuptial process, I was surprised that you claimed there is a state of the union which does not recognize prenups. So I looked it up, as you could have done, and found that -- as most of us immediately suspected -- you are totally wrong about that.

Frankly, it would be quite a shock if any of the United States outright refused to recognize an entire class of contracts recognized in the other 49 states. It wouldn't be impossible, but it would be highly irregular. Luckily for Michiganders wanting to get married, you are mistaken. You might want to talk to your divorce lawyer about that.

How does Michigan handle non-common property?

[davidwr]

Some states have "share and share alike" for property acquired during the marriage possibly including appreciation of pre-marital property but most of these recognize that pre-marital property and inheritances are still separate.

For example:

I have a $500,000 net worth and my wife-to-be has $100,000. There are no retirement assets or trusts and there are no debts older than 30 days and none that won't be paid off within a month (we both carry credit cards and pay them off in full when due).

We marry and buy a house shortly thereafter.

She inherits $1M during the marriage which she immediately put in a separate bank account. It's now worth $1.1M.

At the time of our divorce the only remaining "specific" assets that haven't been sold off and co-mingled with the common money is my collection of artwork that was worth $75,000 but is now worth $200,000 and my wife's jewelry collection which was worth $5,000 but is now worth $7,000. Our common net worth is $1.5M, for a total of $1.5M (joint) + $1.1M (her inheritance), $0.2M (my car), and $0.007M (her jewelry).

At the time of our divorce filing we have no debt older than 30 days other than the mortgage and neither of us accumulate any during the divorce.

Some "Share and share alike" states would consider either the original value or current value of the car and jewelry as separate assets. Some would consider the entire "initial net worth" including the car and jewelry as separate. Some would consider the initial or current value of the inheritance as separate property. By definition, all "share and share alike" states would consider what's left as common property.

What does Michigan do?

a few links + thoughts

[drew30319]

(First, IANAL but am on break before my final semester of law school)

When we're asking if something is a crime I believe that we're actually asking two things: (1) is it a crime, and (2) should it be a crime? Here, the answer to (1) is pretty straightforward because it's been addressed by the state legislature. The trickier issue is if it *should* be a crime, for example, if the statute is held to be unconstitutional then it would be invalidated; trickier still are public policy issues. In any case I'll focus on the straightforward aspect.

Here's, the Michigan statute in question: Section 752.795 FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER NETWORKS (EXCERPT)

A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:

(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

(b) Insert or attach or knowingly create the opportunity for an unknowing and unwanted insertion or attachment of a set of instructions or a computer program into a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network, that is intended to acquire, alter, damage, delete, disrupt, or destroy property or otherwise use the services of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network. This subdivision does not prohibit conduct protected under section 5 of article I of the state constitution of 1963 or under the first amendment of the constitution of the United States. [note: the section of the Michigan constitution alluded to here relates to freedom of speech & the press]

History: 1979, Act 53, Eff. Mar. 27, 1980 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 326, Eff. Apr. 1, 1997

As his actions were presumably intentional it appears that the issue is: Were his actions without authorization or did they exceed his valid authorization? According to the following article this is a fact-based issue that will be up to the jury to decide. Essentially "she" claims that the computer was hers alone and the password was a secret and "he" claims that he regularly used the computer and had easy access to the passwords. Ease of access to the password will likely be the determinative factor as to if he had "authorization" to access those emails.

Although his rationale for accessing those emails do not appear to be relevant per the statute, I imagine that it would be an issue when it comes time for sentencing. If instead of finding out that she was (presumably) engaged in adultery with an ex-spouse who (presumably) beat her, how would the prosecutor's office have reacted if he had accessed emails showing that:
- she was a drug dealer?
- she was a child pornographer?
- she was a terrorist?

Is reading wife's e-mail a crime? Rochester Hills man faces trial

In the preliminary exam, Clara Walker testified that although Leon Walker had purchased the laptop for her, it was hers alone and she kept the password a secret.

Leon Walker told the Free Press he routinely used the computer and that she kept all of her passwords in a small book next to the computer.

"It was a family computer," he said. "I did work on it all the time."

My initial question was why the prosecutor's office pursued this case in the first place; the following article discusses Cooper's decision to stop supporting treatment courts due to its need to "deal with the surge in violent crime and the surge in technically complex cases." The pursuit of the case at hand doesn't fit with the purported need to focus on a "surge in violent crime...".

Doesn't pass prima facie IMHO - IANAL

[jhains]

I see a couple of problems here:

1. In Michigan, for Computer Misuse to become a felony, there must be over $1000 in actual damages as a direct result of the crime.

2. Computer Misuse is defined as "willfully, knowingly or purposely accessing computer-based data with intent to steal, destroy or alter computer-based information, steal services, passwords, or otherwise interfere with hardware or software, etc."

Neither of these appear to be the case in this circumstance, though the articles are severely lacking in detail, and none of the press seemed to do any research whatsoever.

Additionally, one could argue that both the computer used, and the email account accessed were community property of the family, and that the husband had the legal right to view the emails in the account. Further, the husband didn't even have to hack the account (or "breaking in" as Paul Lilly wrote) because the spouse didn't take any reasonable precautions against protecting the account; she left passwords in notebooks around the house. This means there cannot be any reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of the wife.

Taking all of this into account, the prosecutor seems to be either emotionally invested in the outcome of the trial (i.e. he's somehow connected to the wife or her attorney and is doing them a favor) or he's trying to set some sort of new precedent for Computer Misuse.

Re:The "computer system" is gmail.

[darkpixel2k]

FTFA: Using her password, he accessed her Gmail account and learned she was having an affair.

He did not have authorization to access gmail's computer system using her credentials.

So what you're saying is that Google does not permit my wife to access my gmail account even though I've given her permission and the password? I think you're a bit off there. I have several clients that setup one gmail account and give all their office staff access to that account. Is that illegal according to you too?