Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

An Interesting Article.....

Expand Messages
  • Ricky Gurley
    For all of the people in the cyber-investigaitons communicty; you may ... Police blotter is a weekly News.com report on the intersection of technology and
    Message 1 of 32 , Mar 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      For all of the people in the cyber-investigaitons communicty; you may
      find this news article of interest:

      "Police blotter" is a weekly News.com report on the intersection of
      technology and the law.

      What: Husband uses keystroke logger to spy on wife's suspected
      relationship with another woman, who sues to prevent the records from
      being used in the divorce case.

      When: U.S. District Judge Thomas Rose in the southern district of
      Ohio rules on February 14.

      Outcome: Rose denies request for injunction preventing the electronic
      documents from being introduced as evidence in the divorce case.

      What happened, according to court documents:
      Once upon a time, tempestuous divorces might have included one spouse
      snooping through the other's private correspondence or eavesdropping
      on private conversations taking place in another room.

      That kind of snooping was, for the most part, entirely legal. But
      when the same kind of snooping happens in electronic form, it can be
      a federal crime. (Last year, Police Blotter covered the case of the
      Garfinkel divorce. Another case involving spyware arose a year

      That doesn't seem to be the case here. Jeffery Havlicek filed for a
      divorce from his wife Amy Havlicek in Ohio's Greene County Common
      Pleas Court. Amy had been chatting through e-mail and instant
      messages with a woman named Christina Potter. Jeffery suspected that
      Potter and his wife, Amy, were romantically involved in a
      lesbian "relationship of some sort," his attorney would later say in
      a legal brief.

      Around that time, Jeffery installed some sort of monitoring software
      on the family computer--a Dell Precision 220 that was located in the
      guest room, was used by multiple family members including teenage
      children, and did not have a password on it most of the time. (There
      is disagreement about why the software was installed; Jeffery says it
      was in part because of his daughter's increased use of the Internet.)

      Jeffery has admitted this much. In a sworn affidavit (PDF), he said
      that he installed an unnamed monitoring utility in September 2005,
      three months before his wife moved out of their home. The affidavit
      said the utility "collects keyboard typing, screen shots, and
      requested access to Web sites...The keyboard typing utility logs the
      time and sequence of keystrokes...The screen shot logging feature is
      similar to hitting the 'print screen' button on most keyboards. It
      saves an image of what appears on the monitor."

      He also admitted to downloading e-mail from his wife Amy's Web-based
      e-mail account, but claimed it was authorized because she had chosen
      to save her username and password through the browser's "remember me"

      Now on News.com:
      Adobe to bring Photoshop online
      House panel grills Sirius CEO on XM merger
      NASA releases first photos of Jupiter from New Horizons
      Extra: $10 wok works as TV satellite dish
      Video: Tom Perkins: HP did not want independent directors
      In total, Jeffery has acknowledged compiling 80 keyboard and Web site
      log files in HTML format, over 2,000 individual screen snapshots in
      JPEG format, six video tapes, six audio tapes, and numerous other
      files including "24 electronic documents from diaries, love letters,

      He planned to use that vast array of electronic evidence as
      ammunition to win his divorce case. Eventually his lawyer showed some
      of the correspondence between Amy Havlicek and Christina Potter to
      Amy's own attorney. In an affidavit (PDF), Potter claims that the
      correspondence was also shown to neighbors and a court-appointed
      custody evaluator "to harass, annoy, and inflict emotional injury on

      Potter, his wife's alleged paramour, responded by filing a federal
      lawsuit designed to shut Jeffery up. She asked for an injunction
      barring any "disclosure" or "dissemination" of the electronic
      documents, including preventing them from being used in the divorce
      case taking place in state court.

      The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a federal law, was
      violated during the recording, Potter claimed. ECPA (18 USC Section
      2511) bans anyone from disclosing "to any other person the contents
      of any wire, oral, or electronic communication" that was obtained

      Potter lost. U.S. District Judge Thomas Rose said that ECPA does not
      permit courts to disallow such evidence, saying that appeals
      courts "have concluded that Congress intentionally omitted illegally
      intercepted electronic communications from the category of cases in
      which the remedy of suppression is available." He also rejected her
      request for a broader injunction, saying it would violate Jeffery's
      freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment.

      Rose did say, however, that "disclosure of the information in state
      court by Jeffery Havlicek or his attorney" might be "actionable
      civilly or criminally." He suggested that the "remember me" option
      probably didn't give Jeffery an implied right to view his wife's e-
      mail messages. And he ordered Jeffery to provide Potter, his wife's
      alleged paramour, with the complete set of electronic evidence that
      he had planned to use in the divorce case.

      Excerpt from Rose's opinion:
      Because the suppression provision excludes illegally intercepted wire
      and oral communications from the courtroom, but does not mention
      electronic communications, several courts, including the Sixth
      Circuit, have concluded that Congress intentionally omitted illegally
      intercepted electronic communications from the category of cases in
      which the remedy of suppression is available.

      With this distinction in mind, the court finds that it does not have
      the authority to forbid the disclosure of the allegedly intercepted
      communications to the state official determining custody of the
      Havliceks' children or any other state court proceeding. This is not
      to imply, however, that disclosure of the information in state court
      by Jeffery Havlicek or his attorney might not be actionable civilly
      or criminally under 18 USC (Section) 2511. In any event, the court's
      inability to enjoin the presentation of this evidence in state court
      does not resolve the question of whether the injunction on disclosing
      this information in other context should issue. Therefore, the court
      will proceed to consider the appropriateness of relief in this case,
      beginning with plaintiff's chances of succeeding on the merits.

      Defendant's response to the motion for preliminary injunction claims
      that the keystroke recording and screen shot recording software do
      not record communications contemporaneously with the transmission of
      the communications. Contemporaneousness was an element originally
      introduced to 18 USC (Section) 2511 when the law applied only to wire
      and oral communications...

      We conclude that the term "electronic communication" includes
      transient electronic storage that is intrinsic to the communication
      process for such communications. That conclusion is consistent with
      our precedent...

      Moreover, the court views the screen shot software as distinct from
      the keystroke software in regards to the interstate commerce
      requirement. In contrast to the keystrokes, which, when recorded,
      have not traveled in interstate commerce, the incoming emails
      subjected to the screen shot software have traveled in interstate
      commerce. Additionally, there is no evidence before the court to
      allow any conclusion that the technical aspects of the instant case
      result in Potter's claim being defeated by a lack of
      contemporaneousness, even if the court were to find this element

      Defendant raises another hurdle to success on the merits, however, by
      referring to the case of United States v. Ropp, which focuses on the
      requirement in 18 USC (Section) 2510(12) that the interception be of
      an interstate or foreign communication or be of a communication
      affecting interstate commerce. Ropp notes that keystroke software
      records the entirely internal transmission from the keyboard to the
      CPU, and records all keystrokes, whether they initiate signals
      destined to travel in interstate commerce or not. The decision,
      however, seems to read the statute as requiring the communication to
      be traveling in interstate commerce, rather than merely "affecting"
      interstate commerce. It seems to this court that the keystrokes that
      send a message off into interstate commerce "affect" interstate

      Because the ECPA does not provide for the relief of suppression of
      illegally intercepted electronic communications sought to be used as
      evidence in a court case, and because a balancing of plaintiff's
      impending irreparable harms and the public interest in the requested
      injunction against plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits of
      her claims weighs in favor of not granting the requested injunction,
      plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, Doc. 16, is denied.
      URL: http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6163368.html?part=rss&tag=2547-


      Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc.
      "He Who Forgets, Will Be Destined To Remember"

      MAIL BOX: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
      OFFICE ADDRESS: 607 N. Providence, Columbia, MO. 65203

      Phone: (888) 571-0958
      Fax: (877) 795-9800
      Cell: (573) 529-0808



    • Vicki Siedow
      I m here for you, Jimmy! ;) Vicki Siedow Siedow & Associates Investigations & Legal Support Services 2629 Foothill Blvd. #262 La Crescenta, CA 91214 Los
      Message 32 of 32 , Mar 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        I'm here for you, Jimmy! ;)

        Vicki Siedow
        Siedow & Associates Investigations
        & Legal Support Services
        2629 Foothill Blvd. #262
        La Crescenta, CA 91214
        Los Angeles County
        CA PI License # 22852
        800.448.6431 toll free
        818.242.0130 local
        818.688.3295 fax
        <http://siedow.lawandorder.com/> http://Siedow.LawAndOrder.com
        <mailto:Siedow@...> Siedow@...
        Member NCISS, IWWA

        Need economical legal help?
        Concerned about Identity Theft?
        Check the links on my site, or contact me directly.


        From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
        On Behalf Of Jim Parker
        Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 7:30 AM
        To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....

        <<<< when I auto store a pw, does that imply that i give the world
        permission to access the program?...i would think not.. >>>>


        First it was Rick Gurley, then Sue Sarkis, and now me and Tom Eskridge are
        agreeing with one another. Pretty soon I'm going to have no one left to
        fight with.


        -----Original Message-----
        From: infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
        yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@
        <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com]
        On Behalf Of Thomas Eskridge
        Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 7:14 PM
        To: infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....

        As to florida and I know there is virtually identical in California.the
        reasonably question is of course, when I auto store a pw, does that imply
        that i give the world permission to access the program?...i would think

        The 2006 Florida Statutes

        815.06 Offenses against computer users.--

        (1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization:

        (a) Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or
        computer network;

        Much more redacted for this email..

        815.03 Definitions.--As used in this chapter, unless the context clearly
        indicates otherwise:

        (1) "Access" means to approach, instruct, communicate with, store data in,
        retrieve data from, or otherwise make use of any resources of a computer,
        computer system, or computer network.

        (2) "Computer" means an internally programmed, automatic device that
        performs data processing.

        (3) "Computer contaminant" means any set of computer instructions designed
        to modify, damage, destroy, record, or transmit information within a
        computer, computer system, or computer network without the intent or
        permission of the owner of the information. The term includes, but is not
        limited to, a group of computer instructions commonly called viruses or
        worms which are self-replicating or self-propagating and which are designed
        to contaminate other computer programs or computer data; consume computer
        resources; modify, destroy, record, or transmit data; or in some other
        fashion usurp the normal operation of the computer, computer system, or
        computer network.

        (4) "Computer network" means any system that provides communications between
        one or more computer systems and its input or output devices, including, but
        not limited to, display terminals and printers that are connected by
        telecommunication facilities.

        (5) "Computer program or computer software" means a set of instructions or
        statements and related data which, when executed in actual or modified form,
        cause a computer, computer system, or computer network to perform specified

        (6) "Computer services" include, but are not limited to, computer time; data
        processing or storage functions; or other uses of a computer, computer
        system, or computer network.

        (7) "Computer system" means a device or collection of devices, including
        support devices, one or more of which contain computer programs, electronic
        instructions, or input data and output data, and which perform functions,
        including, but not limited to, logic, arithmetic, data storage, retrieval,
        communication, or control. The term does not include calculators that are
        not programmable and that are not capable of being used in conjunction with
        external files.

        (8) "Data" means a representation of information, knowledge, facts,
        concepts, computer software, computer programs, or instructions. Data may be
        in any form, in storage media or stored in the memory of the computer, or in
        transit or presented on a display device.

        (9) "Financial instrument" means any check, draft, money order, certificate
        of deposit, letter of credit, bill of exchange, credit card, or marketable

        (10) "Intellectual property" means data, including programs.

        (11) "Property" means anything of value as defined in 1s. 812.011 and
        includes, but is not limited to, financial instruments, information,
        including electronically produced data and computer software and programs in
        either machine-readable or human-readable form, and any other tangible or
        intangible item of value.

        History.--s. 1, ch. 78-92; s. 9, ch. 2001-54.

        Copyright C 1995-2006 The Florida Legislature . Privacy
        > state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=privacy.html&Directory
        > state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=privacy.html&Directory
        =welcome/&Location=app&Tab=info_center&Submenu=4> Statement . C
        > state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=contact.html&Directory
        > state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=contact.html&Directory

        Tom Eskridge, Chief Operations Officer

        High Tech Crime Institute

        28100 US Hwy 19 N, suite 204

        Clearwater Florida 33761





        From: infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
        yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
        [mailto:infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
        <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Bob Hrodey
        Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 5:37 PM
        To: infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....

        Jim Parker, wrote the following at or about 3/1/2007 4:06 PM:
        > <<<< The webmail account is more troubling than the computer, at least
        > it is in my mind. The computer with shared usage, lack of password,
        > etc. is fair game. >>>>
        > Just because something takes place in cyberspace doesn't make it "fair
        > game". There is no special privilege accorded to legally protected
        > communications solely on the basis of where the communication took
        > place, except of course conversations that are directed at the public.
        > The communications between Amy and Christina were clearly intended to
        > be private, otherwise, Amy wouldn't be suing now.
        > <<< You help yourself to the mail, read my bank statements, etc. What
        > law have you broken? >>>
        > Probably none, but there's a big difference between something that is
        > in plain sight and something that you have to 'break in' to steal. If
        > a baker drops the key to his bakery on the way to his car, that
        > doesn't imply authority for you to use the key to enter the premises
        > and eat all his
        This analogy is flawed by the fact that Jeffrey & Amy both had access to the
        computer. He didn't break in to access it, he had every right (unless you
        can show me to the contrary in the article) to access it. I don't know where
        this webmail account was situated but I'm looking at this - probably more
        generously than I should but to play the devil's advocate... - as a
        situation where Jeffrey goes into the computer, looks at the web history and
        sees www.womeninsensibleshoes.com. He clicks that link and goes to the site.
        Lo and behold there's a link there for "Sexymail" He clicks on that and
        since Amy is too lazy to enter her user ID and password each time, he clicks
        on it. Wowsa! The list of emails and subject content is right before his
        eyes. That's why I liken this to scanning the mail sitting unprotected on my
        table by a person who has every right to be where he/she is.

        I contend that there is absolutely no question, under the facts outlined
        above, that Jeffrey has done nothing wrong up to that point. It only starts
        to get runny when he clicks on that email to read it and whether or not it
        rises to the level of a crime under these particular circumstance is
        questionable, that's all that I'm saying.

        There is no break-in as you refer to with the bakery or unlocked car since
        both parties have lawful access and use of the computer. If she had not used
        "remember me" we would not be having this discussion. But she did and so we
        will and, likely, just have to agree to disagree.

        Wanna take this private before we get assaulted by the gruesome twosome?

        > <<< I'm not going to argue the moral issue with you. We both consider
        > it wrong but... illegal? >>>>
        > Oh, but moral principals apply to the law too.



        Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
        Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS Woodstock, IL
        60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
        Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
        e-mail: inquiry@hrodey. <mailto:inquiry%40hrodey.com> com or rth@...
        <mailto:rth%40hrodey.com> <mailto:rth%40hrodey.com> Illinois License
        115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.