# Shouldn't there be a rule...



## DownByTheRiver

Shouldn't there be a rule against advising posters to do something illegal?


----------



## Diana7

Yes.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

It's a no-brainer.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

DownByTheRiver said:


> Shouldn't there be a rule against advising posters to do something illegal?


Illegal in which state? A serious question, kindly asked. What topic? Recording a conversation, substances, open marriages, anal, beating an AP's butt, etc. Context please.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Illegal in which state? A serious question, kindly asked. What topic? Recording a conversation, substances, open marriages, anal, beating an AP's butt, etc. Context please.


It's a federal law! It's all states, plus there could be some additional laws in some states. But yeah, it's a felony. 

Now, it's certainly not all countries.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

DownByTheRiver said:


> It's a federal law! It's all states, plus there could be some additional laws in some states. But yeah, it's a felony.
> 
> Now, it's certainly not all countries.


Who is the judge of whether or not what is being advised is illegal? Serious question. Who will be the legal advisor that can cover all states and all federal.law as well as laws outside of the US?


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

What law are you talking about I don't see it in this thread.


----------



## bobert

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> What law are you talking about I don't see it in this thread.


Looking at your spouse's phone.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

bobert said:


> Looking at your spouse's phone.


There's the problem, that does not violate a law. I'm not breaking any law when I look at my wife's unlocked phone, but I think DBTR thinks it is.. so who gets to play judge?


----------



## DownByTheRiver

BigDaddyNY said:


> Who is the judge of whether or not what is being advised is illegal? Serious question. Who will be the legal advisor that can cover all states and all federal.law as well as laws outside of the US?


It's federal law in the U.S. Before advising spying on your spouse, find out what country and google it to see if what you're advising is even legal. Be responsible.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> What law are you talking about I don't see it in this thread.


It's in the other thread. Didn't want to duplicate post it since that's against rules.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

BigDaddyNY said:


> There's the problem, that does not violate a law. I'm not breaking any law when I look at my wife's unlocked phone, but I think DBTR thinks it is.. so who gets to play judge?


The Federal Courts in the U.S. If you're looking at her communications and it's fine with her, that's still not having the persmission of the person she's communicating with, unless that is your child or parent or someone who knows you share and consents.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

DownByTheRiver said:


> The Federal Courts in the U.S.


So we will use a Google search to see if someone is breaking a law? Lol that is priceless.

I haven't seen anyone say go snoop in her phone. They are saying she should give access. I don't need to use Google to know that isn't illegal.


----------



## TexasMom1216

BigDaddyNY said:


> There's the problem, that does not violate a law. I'm not breaking any law when I look at my wife's unlocked phone, but I think DBTR thinks it is.. so who gets to play judge?


Not at all what she said.


----------



## Numb26

I have been through this. It depends on whose name the phone plan is under.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

bobert said:


> Looking at your spouse's phone.


Tx.
Well, if a couple is M and swapping spit, wtf why is it an issue. 
Add if a SO says hey its illegal you looking at my phone they've got wayyyyy more serious problems, it ain't the phone looking.

No anal is another ignored stupid law in some states still. 
Unless a couple is legally separated, it's ridiculous to think if even a federal law it wouldn't be laughed at by any police officer coming to investigate. 

Unless it's used as a political tool by either side extremist, telling one not to be looking at a SO's phone, on the same plan even, because it's illegal is pretty funny.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Here's the statute: 

*Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2523*


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Tx.
> Well, if a couple is M and swapping spit, wtf why is it an issue.
> Add if a SO says hey its illegal you looking at my phone they've got wayyyyy more serious problems, it ain't the phone looking.
> 
> No anal is another ignored stupid law in some states still.
> Unless a couple is legally separated, it's ridiculous to think if even a federal law it wouldn't be laughed at by any police officer coming to investigate.
> 
> Unless it's used as a political tool by either side extremist, telling one not to be looking at a SO's phone, on the same plan even, because it's illegal is pretty funny.


There are more and more successful claims each year on this as people learn their rights and despise being spied on electronically.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

DownByTheRiver said:


> Here's the statute:
> 
> *Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2523*


In '86 on a dial up modem? 🤣🤣🤣


----------



## DownByTheRiver

BigDaddyNY said:


> So we will use a Google search to see if someone is breaking a law? Lol that is priceless.
> 
> I haven't seen anyone say go snoop in her phone. They are saying she should give access. I don't need to use Google to know that isn't illegal.


Well, if you think you can decipher it, the legal statute is right up there.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> In '86 on a dial up modem? 🤣🤣🤣


It has amendments. You can rail against it all you want, but it doesn't make it any more legal.


----------



## jonty30

It looks like it's a grey area, when it comes to marriage, as to the legality of looking at your spouse's phone. 
However, their willingness to let you look at it will tell you everything you need to know about it without actually knowing anything about it.


----------



## DudeInProgress

DownByTheRiver said:


> The Federal Courts in the U.S. If you're looking at her communications and it's fine with her, that's still not having the persmission of the person she's communicating with, unless that is your child or parent or someone who knows you share and consents.


This is not correct as a blanket statement, at all. Most jurisdictions are single party consent. That means as long as one party consents (i.e. the wife) she can show communications to whomever she wants to. Her company may have prohibitions on her sharing work content externally, but that’s an HR/civil issue, not criminal.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

DownByTheRiver said:


> Here's the statute:
> 
> *Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2523*


Again, no one suggested snooping, only transparency. 

As for this as a suggestion, mods would then need to look this up, as if they don't already have enough to do. 

If someone suggests an illegal activity, report the post.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

DownByTheRiver said:


> Well, if you think you can decipher it, the legal statute is right up there.


The real question is in which states is sodomy still illegal.
It's also a federal law not to smoke pot. Where does one draw the line


----------



## DownByTheRiver

BigDaddyNY said:


> Again, no one suggested snooping, only transparency.
> 
> As for this as a suggestion, mods would then need to look this up, as if they don't already have enough to do.
> 
> If someone suggests an illegal activity, report the post.


If you're reading your wife's text from her friend, you are invading her friend's privacy.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> The real question is in which states is sodomy still illegal.
> It's also a federal law not to smoke pot. Where does one draw the line


Where you can no longer afford to lawyer up, I guess, if you get caught.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

DownByTheRiver said:


> If you're reading your wife's text from her friend, you are invading her friend's privacy.


If her friend is texting to a phone on one's family plan the primary on the plan may feel the need to check that no one is sending illicit spam containing illegal images. So?


----------



## BigDaddyNY

DownByTheRiver said:


> If you're reading your wife's text from her friend, you are invading her friend's privacy.


Not if she gave you permission, and she should willingly, as should the husband.


----------



## Numb26

I'm guessing that spy app was a bad idea? 🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## BigDaddyNY

And if the other person sending the text is assuming privacy on a communication medium where you don't even really know who is on the other end is a fool.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

DownByTheRiver said:


> Where you can no longer afford to lawyer up, I guess, if you get caught.


Most pot smokers, especially in states like California, Oregon, Colorado are breaking federal law but not state law, no lawyers there.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Tx.
> Well, if a couple is M and swapping spit, wtf why is it an issue.
> Add if a SO says hey its illegal you looking at my phone they've got wayyyyy more serious problems, it ain't the phone looking.
> 
> No anal is another ignored stupid law in some states still.
> Unless a couple is legally separated, it's ridiculous to think if even a federal law it wouldn't be laughed at by any police officer coming to investigate.
> 
> Unless it's used as a political tool by either side extremist, telling one not to be looking at a SO's phone, on the same plan even, because it's illegal is pretty funny.


It's federal, so you don't call police unless there's something else going on. You call the FBI.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

BigDaddyNY said:


> Not if she gave you permission, and she should willingly, as should the husband.


I wouldn't. I don't want someone's husband reading my private stuff. I could be talking about gyn issues or heartache or anything private. None of your business.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

DownByTheRiver said:


> It's federal, so you don't call police unless there's something else going on. You call the FBI.


Let's just guess how that call would go....


----------



## jonty30

In general, my only rule for a spouse to look at my phone is that they don't delete anything no matter what. 
If they don't do that, they can look at anything they feel the need to because I don't have anything to hide. 
However, if they delete something I will put a password on my phone.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Let's just guess how that call would go....


You just go online and fill out a claim form. Once you do that, they have to act some way on it. You can also bring civil suit and recover money.


----------



## DudeInProgress

DownByTheRiver said:


> It's federal, so you don't call police unless there's something else going on. You call the FBI.


“Hello, FBI? Yes my husband snooped in my phone last night because he wasn’t comfortable that I was hiding my conversations with my ex. I’d like you to investigate please…
Hello…”

Good luck with that. Also, when you call the regional office, be sure to ask for the SAC directly.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Here's a good law firm page about it. 









Hacking Into Your Spouse's Tech - Just Say NO - SIEGELLAW


Hacking into your spouse’s tech is a dangerous idea that could cost you money and even custody of your children. Just say no.




www.siegellaw.net


----------



## Numb26

DownByTheRiver said:


> Here's a good law firm page about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hacking Into Your Spouse's Tech - Just Say NO - SIEGELLAW
> 
> 
> Hacking into your spouse’s tech is a dangerous idea that could cost you money and even custody of your children. Just say no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.siegellaw.net


Seems like everyone glorifies and protects cheating and cheaters.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

DownByTheRiver said:


> You just go online and fill out a claim form. Once you do that, they have to act some way on it. You can also bring civil suit and recover money.


I doubt that. Unless you're a celebrity or political and want to immediately drop 50k thru a lawyer to the feds to even try.


----------



## DudeInProgress

DownByTheRiver said:


> If you're reading your wife's text from her friend, you are invading her friend's privacy.


Her friend is an idiot if she doesn’t recognize that there is a significant possibility that a husband might see a wife’s texts (for any number of reasons).


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

DownByTheRiver said:


> It has amendments. You can rail against it all you want, but it doesn't make it any more legal.


Amending to use a 98k modem? 🤣🤣


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Amending to use a 98k modem? 🤣🤣


The law was inclusive to begin with. "electronic devices" includes just about everything. All 50 states have stalking/harassment laws and a lot of that falls under this federal statute but also have state laws in place.


----------



## TexasMom1216

Numb26 said:


> Seems like everyone glorifies and protects cheating and cheaters.


I don’t feel like that’s really fair. There’s a need for privacy that isn’t related to cheating. While I personally tell my H more than he likely wants to know, I keep my friends’ secrets for them because they’re my friends. And a lack of trust in a relationship is a huge issue, and if there has been cheating then full disclosure is usually part of the punishment for a cheater. But that shouldn’t extend to their friends (honestly that should be communicated to the cheaters friends and isn’t for the victim to deal with) and to expect a non-cheating wife with no history of infidelity to not be allowed any privacy or independence in her life is not the right answer.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

TexasMom1216 said:


> I don’t feel like that’s really fair. There’s a need for privacy that isn’t related to cheating. While I personally tell my H more than he likely wants to know, I keep my friends’ secrets for them because they’re my friends. And a lack of trust in a relationship is a huge issue, and if there has been cheating then full disclosure is usually part of the punishment for a cheater. But that shouldn’t extend to their friends (honestly that should be communicated to the cheaters friends and isn’t for the victim to deal with) and to expect a non-cheating wife with no history of infidelity to not be allowed any privacy or independence in her life is not the right answer.


I agree. Betraying a friend is just as bad, IMO. And if spouse demands it, that's one of the foundational elements of abuse, because it ends up isolating the partner. It's just one of many ways abuse gets started, running their friends off by either covert or overt tactics. And it's not just a man thing. Women are quite guilty of it themselves.


----------



## Tested_by_stress

If it wasn't for snooping phones, a signifigant percentage of affairs would go undiscovered.


----------



## TexasMom1216

Omg who would even want to be married to someone who betrays their friends? That’s icky.


----------



## Numb26

TexasMom1216 said:


> I don’t feel like that’s really fair. There’s a need for privacy that isn’t related to cheating. While I personally tell my H more than he likely wants to know, I keep my friends’ secrets for them because they’re my friends. And a lack of trust in a relationship is a huge issue, and if there has been cheating then full disclosure is usually part of the punishment for a cheater. But that shouldn’t extend to their friends (honestly that should be communicated to the cheaters friends and isn’t for the victim to deal with) and to expect a non-cheating wife with no history of infidelity to not be allowed any privacy or independence in her life is not the right answer.


But usually there wouldn't be any searching UNLESS there is suspicion of cheating.


----------



## DudeInProgress

DownByTheRiver said:


> I agree. Betraying a friend is just as bad, IMO. And if spouse demands it, that's one of the foundational elements of abuse, because it ends up isolating the partner. It's just one of many ways abuse gets started, running their friends off by either covert or overt tactics. And it's not just a man thing. Women are quite guilty of it themselves.


I have a theory on why you’re not married…


----------



## Diana7

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Illegal in which state? A serious question, kindly asked. What topic? Recording a conversation, substances, open marriages, anal, beating an AP's butt, etc. Context please.


How is an open marriage illegal?


----------



## Numb26

In my case, since the phones were on my plan I was able to get call/text records legally. And also we were in a single party consent state, taping conversations really helped.


----------



## TexasMom1216

Numb26 said:


> But usually there wouldn't be any searching UNLESS there is suspicion of cheating.


Fair point. But you're admitting there that the searching of the phone is covert. Which means you're breaking into their phone, correct? And therefore are making public all the personal information of their friends?

It's a really hard problem, because there is no good answer. I think what's MOST clear in this discussion is that people who cheat cause all kinds of problems for everyone. They don't make good spouses and they don't make good friends.


----------



## Casual Observer

DownByTheRiver said:


> Shouldn't there be a rule against advising posters to do something illegal?


On the surface that sounds good. But when balancing a long term relationship and risks from both STDs and finances (not to mention mental health) against obtaining evidence “illegally” with a VAR, I’m going to side with the “illegal” option.


----------



## DudeInProgress

TexasMom1216 said:


> Omg who would even want to be married to someone who betrays their friends? That’s icky.


Spouses having access to each other’s phones does not equate to a betrayal of their respective friends. That’s a ridiculous, hyperbolic conflation.

Normal, competent human beings are aware of the fact that other people (especially spouses) might see a text that was sent, for any number of reasons.
And as such, normal, competent humans tend to share/discuss the deep dark secret personal matters in person (edit: or on a call), not over text.


----------



## Numb26

TexasMom1216 said:


> Fair point. But you're admitting there that the searching of the phone is covert. Which means you're breaking into their phone, correct? And therefore are making public all the personal information of their friends?
> 
> It's a really hard problem, because there is no good answer. I think what's MOST clear in this discussion is that people who cheat cause all kinds of problems for everyone. They don't make good spouses and they don't make good friends.


My searching wasn't really covert. Simply called my carrier.


----------



## TexasMom1216

DudeInProgress said:


> Her friend is an idiot if she doesn’t recognize that there is a significant possibility that a husband might see a wife’s texts (for any number of reasons).


Not everyone has a parent/child relationship with their husband.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Numb26 said:


> But usually there wouldn't be any searching UNLESS there is suspicion of cheating.


Yes, but there are SO many truly insecure just paranoid people.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

DudeInProgress said:


> Spouses having access to each other’s phones does not equate to a betrayal of their respective friends. That’s a ridiculous, hyperbolic conflation.
> 
> Normal, competent human beings are aware of the fact that other people (especially spouses) might see a text that was sent, for any number of reasons.
> And as such, normal, competent humans tend to share/discuss the deep dark secret personal matters in person (edit: or on a call), not over text.


Why should they have to be covert about it?


----------



## TexasMom1216

Numb26 said:


> My searching wasn't really covert. Simply called my carrier.


Weren't you looking for numbers instead of content? Specifically numbers that you knew weren't her friends? You weren't just snooping because you don't believe women have a right to privacy in marriage, you had substantial reasons to believe there was an issue and even evidence already of foul play on her part (emphasis on 'foul,' she was a bad person and I hate her on your behalf).


----------



## DudeInProgress

TexasMom1216 said:


> Not everyone has a parent/child relationship with their husband.


Spouses having access to each other’s devices is not a parent/child relationship. It’s actually extremely common and healthy. 
My wife might use my phone to take a picture and text it to herself while she’s on her own phone doing something else.
I might grab my wife’s phone to look something up while using my phone for a call, podcast, etc. This is normal behavior between spouses.
Or we might look at some thing because we’re curious about some thing. Or to check out/transfer pictures from a recent trip/outing.

There are 1 million reasons spouses might access one another’s phones, or even just notice a text message pop up as it arrives. So no, there is no significant expectation of privacy when you’re sending your friend a text.


----------



## Numb26

DownByTheRiver said:


> Yes, but there are SO many truly insecure just paranoid people.


This is true.


----------



## She'sStillGotIt

Oh hell, good luck getting the FBI to do a damned thing about chasing down those who "illegally" look in their spouse's cell phone.

They're WAY too busy hiding hard drives and covering up the crimes of certain high-profile people to worry about some plebian who "spied" on their cheating spouse by looking in their phone. 🤣🤣🤣


----------



## Numb26

TexasMom1216 said:


> Weren't you looking for numbers instead of content? Specifically numbers that you knew weren't her friends? You weren't just snooping because you don't believe women have a right to privacy in marriage, you had substantial reasons to believe there was an issue and even evidence already of foul play on her part (emphasis on 'foul,' she was a bad person and I hate her on your behalf).


I think everyone has a bad view of her now.


----------



## DudeInProgress

DownByTheRiver said:


> Why should they have to be covert about it?


For starters, the majority of this thread (and the one that I believe spawned it) we’re not about secretly spying on a spouse‘s phone, they were about open access.


----------



## TexasMom1216

DudeInProgress said:


> Spouses having access to each other’s devices is not a parent/child relationship. It’s actually extremely common and healthy.
> My wife might use my phone to take a picture and text it to herself while she’s on her own phone doing something else.
> I might grab my wife’s phone to look something up while using my phone for a call, podcast, etc. This is normal behavior between spouses.
> Or we might look at some thing because we’re curious about some thing. Or to check out/transfer pictures from a recent trip/outing.
> 
> There are 1 million reasons spouses might access one another’s phones, or even just notice a text message pop up as it arrives. So no, there is no significant expectation of privacy when you’re sending your friend a text.


The scenarios you describe here are not going to result in combing through someone's texts and reading them and are things that my H and I do with our phones. The only reason my phone has a code is because it's a company device and the only reason he doesn't know it is because he just asks every time. But if he went in and read my texts from my friends, even though all he's going to see is dirty jokes and mom memes, I'd be pissed, because I would never be so disrespectful to him. His silly **** jokes with his friends are his business.


----------



## TexasMom1216

Numb26 said:


> I think everyone has a bad view of her now.


Good, she's a bad person.


----------



## TexasMom1216

She'sStillGotIt said:


> Oh hell, good luck getting the FBI to do a damned thing about chasing down those who "illegally" look in their spouse's cell phone.
> 
> They're WAY too busy hiding hard drives and covering up the crimes of certain high-profile people to worry about some plebian who "spied" on their cheating spouse by looking in their phone. 🤣🤣🤣


There are also parents at school board meetings that need to be dealt with. 

Sorry, end t/j. 😉


----------



## She'sStillGotIt

TexasMom1216 said:


> _*There are also parents at school board meetings that need to be dealt with.
> 
> Sorry, end t/j. 😉*_



I think you mean....domestic terrorists. 😛

OK - sorry, really the end of the t/j.


----------



## DudeInProgress

TexasMom1216 said:


> The scenarios you describe here are not going to result in combing through someone's texts and reading them and are things that my H and I do with our phones. The only reason my phone has a code is because it's a company device and the only reason he doesn't know it is because he just asks every time. But if he went in and read my texts from my friends, even though all he's going to see is dirty jokes and mom memes, I'd be pissed, because I would never be so disrespectful to him. His silly **** jokes with his friends are his business.


And if I had reason to be suspicious of something, I would absolutely go through her communications. And I would expect that she would probably do the same.


----------



## Benbutton

DownByTheRiver said:


> Shouldn't there be a rule against advising posters to do something illegal?


How about a social experiment... call your local FBI field office and tell them you caught your husband snooping on your cell phone. Let us now how you make out.


----------



## Affaircare

Look this is easy.

First, every state has a law that says either 1 or 2 parties have to consent for electronic recording of a conversation. So that would be 1 party of the conversation or BOTH parties... not 0 parties. There is never a time when 0 parties of the conversation is "legal". But the concept of the recording is carrying a VAR when there's a risk of false DV charges. Then you hold out the recording device, you (as 1 party) say you consent on the recording and you tell the other party (STBX) that you are recording and anything they say will be recorded. If they don't want to be recorded they should not talk to you (and there's no DV)...and if they do talk to you, they have consented to the requirements of 2 party and that recording could be used in a court of law to prove not guilty of DV! 

Second, placing a VAR in a car is not legal. There are 0 parties of the conversation consenting -- neither the spouse nor the other person (whoever that may be). However the concept of that recording is not "to take it to a court of law to prove XYZ" but rather to break through the gaslighting of a cheating spouse. To prove To YOURSELF that what your gut is telling you is true, actually is true! Once you have proven that to yourself--that they are lying to you and cheating--that recording is worthless and a liability to keep. 

Finally, in the federal statute, please note--this law was primarily written for things like FBI wire-taps and law-enforcement phone taps or computer hacks. In fact, about computers section 2, paragraph (i) says:
_(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept the wire or electronic communications of a computer trespasser transmitted to, through, or from the protected computer,if—
(I) the owner or operator of the protected computer authorizes the interception of the computer trespasser’s communications on the protected computer;
(II) the person acting under color of law is lawfully engaged in an investigation;
(III) the person acting under color of law has reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the computer trespasser’s communications will be relevant to the investigation; and
(IV) such interception does not acquire communications other than those transmitted to or from the computer trespasser._

Just from this we can learn that a person/owner of a device can authorize interception in a legal way...and if someone is a legal spouse, the owner of a phone account, or the owner of the hardware phone device that they've given to their spouse...THEY are the owner and they can authorize. So...if a person was legally married, owned the cell phone account, was leasing the spouse's cell phone through their account ... they'd at least have legal legs to stand on arguing that they are an owner of that electronic device and can thus intercept their own device! 

The rest of the federal statute also defines even more. Section 3, paragraph (d) says:
_(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any__ State._

So if you are a person and you are NOT acting as a law enforcement or for some "law" reason, it is not unlawful for you to intercept communication if you are a party of the communication. See above about 1 and 2 party consent. 

Section 3, paragraph (g), subsection (i) says:
_(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;_

So if you are a person of law enforcement or not, it is not unlawful to intercept electronic communications that are public--so you can copy those social media posts all ya want and it's legal!

My point is that not everything is illegal regarding electronic surveillance. Not everything is legal either! In my opinion, a VAR should be a last-ditch attempt after going through much easier methods to prove or disprove the affair. Shoot...a PI would be a MUCH better option because they CAN be admitted into a court to testify, and their findings too! A VAR recording could not and really only has one purpose: you've been lied to repeatedly have to prove to yourself that you're not crazy. Beyond that, the recording would be worthless and a liability.


----------



## EleGirl

DownByTheRiver said:


> Here's the statute:
> 
> *Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2523*


The law is about intercepting and disclosing. 

It defines "intercept" as: "(4) “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device."

*18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited*


----------



## Casual Observer

DownByTheRiver said:


> Why should they have to be covert about it?


Yes, there is this.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

It's not limited to that. You quoted 2511 of the 13. It's 2510 through 2523. Also see the law firm pages on it.

And state laws supplementing.

And the interception does not have to be accompanied by disclosing, although disclosing publicly to the detriment of the victim adds more fuel to prosecute.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Tracking devices are the new cowbell.


----------



## EleGirl

DownByTheRiver said:


> Shouldn't there be a rule against advising posters to do something illegal?


Yes, there is a rule. Could you post a link to the post you are talking about? Or maybe report it so I know which post you are talking about?


----------



## RandomDude

She'sStillGotIt said:


> Oh hell, good luck getting the FBI to do a damned thing about chasing down those who "illegally" look in their spouse's cell phone.
> 
> They're WAY too busy hiding hard drives and covering up the crimes of certain high-profile people to worry about some plebian who "spied" on their cheating spouse by looking in their phone. 🤣🤣🤣


Hahaha agreed  



She'sStillGotIt said:


> I think you mean....domestic terrorists. 😛
> 
> OK - sorry, really the end of the t/j.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

EleGirl said:


> Yes, there is a rule. Could you post a link to the post you are talking about? Or maybe report it so I know which post you are talking about?


Thanks. There's someone telling someone to hack into their spouse's phone or use trackers on here every day, including today. I'll report them as I see them going forward since I don't think people on here knew there was a rule until just now, just to be fair. Is that okay?


----------



## RandomDude

DownByTheRiver said:


> Thanks. There's someone telling someone to hack into their spouse's phone or use trackers on here every day, including today. I'll report them as I see them going forward since I don't think people on here knew there was a rule until just now, just to be fair. Is that okay?


I guess this is why first advice should always be to seek legal advice, know what you can and can't do, your rights whatever, wherever you live. But you know, opinions, and it's just talk on this forum with people from everywhere trying to help.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

RandomDude said:


> I guess this is why first advice should always be to seek legal advice, know what you can and can't do, your rights whatever, wherever you live. But you know, opinions, and it's just talk on this forum with people from everywhere trying to help.


Yeah and just realizing that not everybody can afford legal advice. Especially those were being strongly monitored by their spouses!


----------



## RandomDude

DownByTheRiver said:


> Yeah and just realizing that not everybody can afford legal advice. Especially those were being strongly monitored by their spouses!


Or spouses who surrendered their financial independence. It's tough.

Still, not what you know it's what you can prove, even if it is illegal to look through, and you look through and find something, what are they going to do? Can always say the phone was unlocked and you thought the messages were important for your spouse 😝


----------



## DudeInProgress

Just had a vision of that retired neighbor down the street who likes to walk the neighborhood each morning, actively looking to record and report any chalk drawings on driveways, basketball hoops that aren’t being actively played with, the errant weed in someone’s front yard, or anything else that might possibly violate the HOA guidelines…


----------



## In Absentia

BigDaddyNY said:


> I haven't seen anyone say go snoop in her phone.


Really?


----------



## DudeInProgress

OK in the event that it was somehow ambiguous to some folks on the platform, let’s clear it up officially.

No guidance given here, by strangers on the Internet, should ever be taken as sound legal advice.
And even if it is sound legal advice, check with your own attorney.
If you cannot afford one, sorry, but anything said on site, by strangers on the Internet, is still not be taken as actionable legal advice.
Also, don’t eat paint.

Edit to add: 
So now there’s no need for nanny hall-monitors informing on each other over questionable advice or recommendations that may or may not be completely aligned with ambiguous laws. (not referring to MODs by the way).


----------



## DownByTheRiver

RandomDude said:


> Or spouses who surrendered their financial independence. It's tough.
> 
> Still, not what you know it's what you can prove, even if it is illegal to look through, and you look through and find something, what are they going to do? Can always say the phone was unlocked and you thought the messages were important for your spouse 😝


I think they fall into three camps, one who just needs to know for peace of mind, one who is being controlling and just wants to monitor everything, and then ones who are looking for financial stuff.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Numb26 said:


> I have been through this. It depends on whose name the phone plan is under.


Which is why you should never let anyone else be on your phone paperwork.


----------



## ConanHub

DownByTheRiver said:


> Here's the statute:
> 
> *Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2523*


Yeah. I'm gonna say you are way out in left field on this one with most households being on one plan and married people really don't operate under anti spying laws.

I would be far more interested in you showing court cases between man and wife and decisions.

Your interpretation is as valid as anyone's on this site which means nothing without past practice and proven cases.


----------



## TexasMom1216

DownByTheRiver said:


> Yeah and just realizing that not everybody can afford legal advice. Especially those were being strongly monitored by their spouses!


Yet another reason why no woman should ever surrender her financial independence. It removes your right to have a say in how you’re treated.


----------



## ConanHub

DownByTheRiver said:


> Which is why you should never let anyone else be on your phone paperwork.


Mrs. Conan and I don't have any issues being on the same paperwork about everything.😉


----------



## ConanHub

Seriously @DownByTheRiver , I would love to review actual case law on this.

Do you have anything?


----------



## BigDaddyNY

TexasMom1216 said:


> Not everyone has a parent/child relationship with their husband.


Us having access to each other's phones is not a parent/child relationship. It is just an open and transparent husband and wife relationship. We just don't keep any secrets from each other, period. We trust each other enough to share our secrets.

If you are not willing to share everything in your life with your spouse then you shouldn't get married.


----------



## Benbutton

ConanHub said:


> Yeah. I'm gonna say you are way out in left field on this one with most households being on one plan and married people really don't operate under anti spying laws.
> 
> I would be far more interested in you showing court cases between man and wife and decisions.
> 
> Your interpretation is as valid as anyone's on this site which means nothing without past practice and proven cases.


Yep, without case law that's all we have, interpretation.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

DudeInProgress said:


> Spouses having access to each other’s devices is not a parent/child relationship. It’s actually extremely common and healthy.
> My wife might use my phone to take a picture and text it to herself while she’s on her own phone doing something else.
> I might grab my wife’s phone to look something up while using my phone for a call, podcast, etc. This is normal behavior between spouses.
> Or we might look at some thing because we’re curious about some thing. Or to check out/transfer pictures from a recent trip/outing.
> 
> There are 1 million reasons spouses might access one another’s phones, or even just notice a text message pop up as it arrives. So no, there is no significant expectation of privacy when you’re sending your friend a text.


Exactly this. We really treat them like they are OUR phones, not mine and hers.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

TexasMom1216 said:


> The scenarios you describe here are not going to result in combing through someone's texts and reading them and are things that my H and I do with our phones. The only reason my phone has a code is because it's a company device and the only reason he doesn't know it is because he just asks every time. But if he went in and read my texts from my friends, even though all he's going to see is dirty jokes and mom memes, I'd be pissed, because I would never be so disrespectful to him. His silly **** jokes with his friends are his business.


The fact that you aren't afraid to share your phone with him is the whole point. You have nothing to hide, so you freely give him access. You also expect him to respect your privacy and not snoop through you messages with friends. That is how it should work. The problem is the spouse that guards their phone like Fort Knox for fear of what you will find.


----------



## Benbutton

DownByTheRiver said:


> Yeah and just realizing that not everybody can afford legal advice. Especially those were being strongly monitored by their spouses!


Did you obtain legal advice before you dispensed it?


----------



## BigDaddyNY

In th


In Absentia said:


> Really?


In thread that I think spawned this one.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

That is s


DownByTheRiver said:


> Which is why you should never let anyone else be on your phone paperwork.


That is just silly. You are thinking.like a single person. We combine everything because it is the most efficient and cost effective. This is not good advice for a married couple.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ConanHub said:


> Yeah. I'm gonna say you are way out in left field on this one with most households being on one plan and married people really don't operate under anti spying laws.
> 
> I would be far more interested in you showing court cases between man and wife and decisions.
> 
> Your interpretation is as valid as anyone's on this site which means nothing without past practice and proven cases.


If you were really interested you would have googled it yourself. You're pretty grandiose thinking you know better than the Bureau of Justice who published that law. I guess they're way out in left field too. 

Here's just one recent one of many I found by simply not being lazy and googling "man charged with hacking wife's"









US: Husband facing five years in jail 'for hacking wife's emails'


Leon Walker has been charged by prosecutors in Oakland County, Michigan, under the state's anti-hacking laws aimed at preventing identity theft in the US.




m.economictimes.com





These type prosecutions go back to about 2010 when it was still controversial. 

If you'd read everything that's been posted you would see what you can and cannot do when you are linked to your wife's account. But no just being married does not end your wife's right to privacy.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ConanHub said:


> Seriously @DownByTheRiver , I would love to review actual case law on this.
> 
> Do you have anything?


Why do you want case law when you have the actual Federal statutes???? If you want to review case law I suggest you enroll in law school or buy a subscription to find law if you seriously think you have what it takes to find them instead of harassing people online asking them to do things you could do yourself if you wanted it that bad. I'm not your employee. You're nobody's boss here.


----------



## DudeInProgress

BigDaddyNY said:


> That is s
> That is just silly. You are thinking.like a single person. We combine everything because it is the most efficient and cost effective. This is not good advice for a married couple.


Some people just have trouble grasping the concept that married is different than single.

Behavioral expectations are different, matters of privacy and independence are different. Hence, so many of the problems we see in marriages. 
If you want to maintain your independence, maintain complete (or near complete) privacy, go where you want/ when you want/ with whom you want, and don’t wanna have to answer or explain yourself to no man - you’re probably not a good candidate for marriage.


----------



## TexasMom1216

DownByTheRiver said:


> But no just being married does not end your wife's right to privacy.


There's a difference, a distinct one, between not hiding your phone from your husband and expecting that he will not be reading all of your personal communications. The idea that I have "nothing to hide" does NOT give my husband the right to comb through my text messages with my friends, no matter what is in there. Not only for my privacy, but for theirs. If there's an issue, and he asked to see them, that is a different situation entirely. But being married does not mean that I am no longer a human being. Of course, you'd have to have seen me as a person to begin with, which is a huge part of the issue here.

The heart of the question at hand has to do with respect. If you're in one of those "I'm the captain" marriages, you have zero respect for your wife, so of course you believe she has no right to privacy and of course you're going to go through her things. I'm sure these women have to be cautious about keeping diaries or talking to friends on the phone as well.


----------



## ConanHub

DownByTheRiver said:


> If you were really interested you would have googled it yourself. You're pretty grandiose thinking you know better than the Bureau of Justice who published that law. I guess they're way out in left field too.
> 
> Here's just one recent one of many I found by simply not being lazy and googling "man charged with hacking wife's"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US: Husband facing five years in jail 'for hacking wife's emails'
> 
> 
> Leon Walker has been charged by prosecutors in Oakland County, Michigan, under the state's anti-hacking laws aimed at preventing identity theft in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> m.economictimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These type prosecutions go back to about 2010 when it was still controversial.
> 
> If you'd read everything that's been posted you would see what you can and cannot do when you are linked to your wife's account. But no just being married does not end your wife's right to privacy.


Yup. That is a state law in Michigan, not federal and the husband possibly actually hacked an email.

What's the decision on that one?

The law is to prevent identity theft so it will be interesting to see how the faithless wife's lawyer spins this one.

The husband has to be proven guilty of hacking in the first place and then proven to have done it to steal her identity. In Michigan, not the continental US.

Are you referencing a thread where posters are advising a husband to hack his wife's email to steal her identity?


----------



## ConanHub

DownByTheRiver said:


> Why do you want case law when you have the actual Federal statutes???? If you want to review case law I suggest you enroll in law school or buy a subscription to find law if you seriously think you have what it takes to find them instead of harassing people online asking them to do things you could do yourself if you wanted it that bad. I'm not your employee. You're nobody's boss here.


Your interpretation is extremely questionable. Case law is a good determinate of how the law is actually enforced.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ConanHub said:


> Yup. That is a state law in Michigan, not federal and the husband possibly actually hacked an email.
> 
> What's the decision on that one?
> 
> The law is to prevent identity theft so it will be interesting to see how the faithless wife's lawyer spins this one.
> 
> The husband has to be proven guilty of hacking in the first place and then proven to have done it to steal her identity. In Michigan, not the continental US.
> 
> Are you referencing a thread where posters are advising a husband to hack his wife's email to steal her identity?


If you'd read the article you'd know that decision is the guy went to jail.


----------



## ConanHub

DownByTheRiver said:


> If you'd read the article you'd know that decision is the guy went to jail.


There you go making things up again.









Final Charges Dropped In Husband-Wife Hacking Case


Prosecutors dropped all charges against a man accused of violating Michigan's computer hacking law in 2010 by reading his then-wife's email to confirm suspicions she was having an affair with a previous husband.




detroit.cbslocal.com


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ConanHub said:


> There you go making things up again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Final Charges Dropped In Husband-Wife Hacking Case
> 
> 
> Prosecutors dropped all charges against a man accused of violating Michigan's computer hacking law in 2010 by reading his then-wife's email to confirm suspicions she was having an affair with a previous husband.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> detroit.cbslocal.com


So 12 years later and all those attorneys fees later he didn't go to jail. I didn't make up anything. I posted the article as I found it. But it's good to know you learned how to Google! Now you can stop asking me to do all your work just to harass me from now on.


----------



## wmn1

DownByTheRiver said:


> It's federal law in the U.S. Before advising spying on your spouse, find out what country and google it to see if what you're advising is even legal. Be responsible.


no It's a state issue, not a federal one. I would advise to do it if you need to, just look at the state law


----------



## wmn1

DownByTheRiver said:


> It's federal, so you don't call police unless there's something else going on. You call the FBI.


they are too busy violating others. Good luck with that.

It sounds like you are defending cheaters. I am not on board. These things are dealt with on state levels. Stop with your BS


----------



## wmn1

Numb26 said:


> Seems like everyone glorifies and protects cheating and cheaters.


exactly


----------



## wmn1

She'sStillGotIt said:


> Oh hell, good luck getting the FBI to do a damned thing about chasing down those who "illegally" look in their spouse's cell phone.
> 
> They're WAY too busy hiding hard drives and covering up the crimes of certain high-profile people to worry about some plebian who "spied" on their cheating spouse by looking in their phone. 🤣🤣🤣


exactly !!!!! They have their own dirt that they are covering up or political enemies they are going after. They don't give a crap about this 'small time' stuff


----------



## bobert

DownByTheRiver said:


> If you'd read the article you'd know that decision is the guy went to jail.


Uh, no. The article said "he _could _face 5 years in jail _if_ convicted". Based on what Conan said, he was not. 

So yeah, you did make the above quote up.


----------



## Benbutton

DownByTheRiver said:


> So 12 years later and all those attorneys fees later he didn't go to jail. I didn't make up anything. I posted the article as I found it. But it's good to know you learned how to Google! Now you can stop asking me to do all your work just to harass me from now on.


He asked about caselaw. You provided a news article...ugh....just...ugh.


----------



## Casual Observer

Affaircare said:


> Look this is easy.
> 
> First, every state has a law that says either 1 or 2 parties have to consent for electronic recording of a conversation. So that would be 1 party of the conversation or BOTH parties... not 0 parties. There is never a time when 0 parties of the conversation is "legal". But the concept of the recording is carrying a VAR when there's a risk of false DV charges. Then you hold out the recording device, you (as 1 party) say you consent on the recording and you tell the other party (STBX) that you are recording and anything they say will be recorded. If they don't want to be recorded they should not talk to you (and there's no DV)...and if they do talk to you, they have consented to the requirements of 2 party and that recording could be used in a court of law to prove not guilty of DV!
> 
> Second, placing a VAR in a car is not legal. There are 0 parties of the conversation consenting -- neither the spouse nor the other person (whoever that may be). However the concept of that recording is not "to take it to a court of law to prove XYZ" but rather to break through the gaslighting of a cheating spouse. To prove To YOURSELF that what your gut is telling you is true, actually is true! Once you have proven that to yourself--that they are lying to you and cheating--that recording is worthless and a liability to keep.
> 
> Finally, in the federal statute, please note--this law was primarily written for things like FBI wire-taps and law-enforcement phone taps or computer hacks. In fact, about computers section 2, paragraph (i) says:
> _(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept the wire or electronic communications of a computer trespasser transmitted to, through, or from the protected computer,if—
> (I) the owner or operator of the protected computer authorizes the interception of the computer trespasser’s communications on the protected computer;
> (II) the person acting under color of law is lawfully engaged in an investigation;
> (III) the person acting under color of law has reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the computer trespasser’s communications will be relevant to the investigation; and
> (IV) such interception does not acquire communications other than those transmitted to or from the computer trespasser._
> 
> Just from this we can learn that a person/owner of a device can authorize interception in a legal way...and if someone is a legal spouse, the owner of a phone account, or the owner of the hardware phone device that they've given to their spouse...THEY are the owner and they can authorize. So...if a person was legally married, owned the cell phone account, was leasing the spouse's cell phone through their account ... they'd at least have legal legs to stand on arguing that they are an owner of that electronic device and can thus intercept their own device!
> 
> The rest of the federal statute also defines even more. Section 3, paragraph (d) says:
> _(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any__ State._
> 
> So if you are a person and you are NOT acting as a law enforcement or for some "law" reason, it is not unlawful for you to intercept communication if you are a party of the communication. See above about 1 and 2 party consent.
> 
> Section 3, paragraph (g), subsection (i) says:
> _(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
> (i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;_
> 
> So if you are a person of law enforcement or not, it is not unlawful to intercept electronic communications that are public--so you can copy those social media posts all ya want and it's legal!
> 
> My point is that not everything is illegal regarding electronic surveillance. Not everything is legal either! In my opinion, a VAR should be a last-ditch attempt after going through much easier methods to prove or disprove the affair. Shoot...a PI would be a MUCH better option because they CAN be admitted into a court to testify, and their findings too! A VAR recording could not and really only has one purpose: you've been lied to repeatedly have to prove to yourself that you're not crazy. Beyond that, the recording would be worthless and a liability.


Not everybody can afford a PI, not everybody wants to immediately involve others, and, in some cases, there is empowerment in accomplishing the task on their own. And could be that’s a huge thing, going from feeling helpless and lack of control to knowing something that your spouse doesn’t think you know.

There’s too much at stake, with a cheating spouse, to let the truth remain hidden. Every single day that goes by increases the risk from a cheating spouse passing an STD to the betrayed. I truly feel that trumps concerns about the legality of snooping on your spouse with a VAR.

BUT. It (snooping illegally, or even legally) shouldn’t be done without understanding that your snooping may be discovered, and the ramifications of that if it turns out your spouse isn’t cheating.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

wmn1 said:


> no It's a state issue, not a federal one. I would advise to do it if you need to, just look at the state law


The federal statute is listed at the beginning of this thread.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

"In a recent case, a Texas Court of Appeals held that nothing in Texas law suggests that the right of privacy is limited to unmarried individuals."
........
"Courts have held that nothing in Chapter 33 of the Penal Code incorporates community property law for the purpose of establishing ownership of the computer. Rather, the statute defines “owner” as a person who has title to the property, possession of the property, whether lawful or not, and the right to restrict access to the property, for example, the use of password protection.

“This ruling reaffirms our understanding of one point of law. It is well-established that any person, including a spouse, commits a crime if he or she knowingly or intentionally intercepts wire, oral or electronic communications to which he or she is not a party without the permission of one of the parties to the communication. [ii]” – Texas Lawyer"








Invasion of Privacy Between Spouses - Fullenweider Wilhite


As trust breaks down between spouses, reasonable boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behavior can quickly become blurred, when it comes to invasion




www.fullenweider.com


----------



## Benbutton

DownByTheRiver said:


> Why do you want case law when you have the actual Federal statutes????


Case law helps determine interpretation. It is not uncommon for case law to be referenced in judges decisions.


----------



## DudeInProgress

TexasMom1216 said:


> The heart of the question at hand has to do with respect. If you're in one of those "I'm the captain" marriages, you have zero respect for your wife, so of course you believe she has no right to privacy and of course you're going to go through her things. I'm sure these women have to be cautious about keeping diaries or talking to friends on the phone as well.


The bitter feminist rage coming through…

Nowhere in the thread did I hear anyone talk about unilateral control of a wife by master husband. All the posts I read (and wrote) centered around joint access to devices and mutual expectations. None of this has anything to do with husbands not respecting wives or controlling them like children.

You’re projecting a bunch of nonsense that’s not relevant to, and hasn’t been a part of, the conversation at hand.
Seems like a pretty big chip you’re carrying there, must be heavy. Try setting it down, you might be more comfortable.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Benbutton said:


> He asked about caselaw. You provided a news article...ugh....just...ugh.


If you want case law go to law school or hire a paralegal. You have no right to ask anyone on a forum to pay someone to dig up case law. He has no right to ask me for anything anyway and neither do you. I did more than most of you do when I provided the federal statute. I could ask you for case law to the contrary if I just wanted to harass people like you two are doing.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

bobert said:


> Uh, no. The article said "he _could _face 5 years in jail _if_ convicted". Based on what Conan said, he was not.
> 
> So yeah, you did make the above quote up.


I didn't make anything up. I posted the first thing I could find that showed that you can get in trouble even if you're married to them.


----------



## Benbutton

DownByTheRiver said:


> "In a recent case, a Texas Court of Appeals held that nothing in Texas law suggests that the right of privacy is limited to unmarried individuals."
> ........
> "Courts have held that nothing in Chapter 33 of the Penal Code incorporates community property law for the purpose of establishing ownership of the computer. Rather, the statute defines “owner” as a person who has title to the property, possession of the property, whether lawful or not, and the right to restrict access to the property, for example, the use of password protection.
> 
> “This ruling reaffirms our understanding of one point of law. It is well-established that any person, including a spouse, commits a crime if he or she knowingly or intentionally intercepts wire, oral or electronic communications to which he or she is not a party without the permission of one of the parties to the communication. [ii]” – Texas Lawyer"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Invasion of Privacy Between Spouses - Fullenweider Wilhite
> 
> 
> As trust breaks down between spouses, reasonable boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behavior can quickly become blurred, when it comes to invasion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.fullenweider.com


What you quoted is civil in nature which opens the offender up to a tort action, there is no criminal penalty listed in the post.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

wmn1 said:


> no It's a state issue, not a federal one. I would advise to do it if you need to, just look at the state law


The federal statute is at the beginning of this thread. It's a felony all over the United States. And state laws have some additional laws, but it is a federal crime with a federal statute and if you can't see that I can't help you because I already provided all that and you just don't want to see it.


----------



## bobert

DownByTheRiver said:


> I didn't make anything up. I posted the first thing I could find that showed that you can get in trouble even if you're married to them.


You clearly said "the guy [in the article] went to jail". He did not. 

So yes, you did make it up. 



DownByTheRiver said:


> *If you'd read the article you'd know that decision is the guy went to jail.*


----------



## DownByTheRiver

DudeInProgress said:


> The bitter feminist rage coming through…
> 
> Nowhere in the thread did I hear anyone talk about unilateral control of a wife by master husband. All the posts I read (and wrote) centered around joint access to devices and mutual expectations. None of this has anything to do with husbands not respecting wives or controlling them like children.
> 
> You’re projecting a bunch of nonsense that’s not relevant to, and hasn’t been a part of, the conversation at hand.
> Seems like a pretty big chip you’re carrying there, must be heavy. Try setting it down, you might be more comfortable.


The big chip I'm carrying that's called the federal statute that you can't invade other people's privacy?


----------



## Benbutton

DownByTheRiver said:


> If you want case law go to law school or hire a paralegal. You have no right to ask anyone on a forum to pay someone to dig up case law. He has no right to ask me for anything anyway and neither do you. I did more than most of you do when I provided the federal statute. I could ask you for case law to the contrary if I just wanted to harass people like you two are doing.


I'm engaging you in an argument you started. You chose to post things you thought were relative to case law, no one made you do it.


----------



## MattMatt

DownByTheRiver said:


> Shouldn't there be a rule against advising posters to do something illegal?


*Moderation Note:- As there is already such a rule (please check the posting guidelines) this thread is redundant and is therefore being close down.*


----------

