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

RE: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....

Expand Messages
  • Jim Parker
    Message 1 of 32 , Mar 1 3:36 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      <<<< The biggest problem I have with Judge Rose's statement here is the
      word "probably" >>>>

      Most likely because that wasn't a determination the Judge was charged with
      making. The fact that the wife was only suing for injunctive relief means
      that whether or not what the husband did was legal or illegal, doesn't
      really matter, because the Federal law doesn't make a provision for what Amy
      was seeking from the court (to prevent the electronic communications from
      being disseminated).

      Amy wasn't asking the court to determine if Jeffrey had broken the law in
      retrieving her e-mails, so the court didn't make that determination
      (although Judge Rose did make a point of suggesting quite strongly that
      Jeffrey fooked up.)

      Jim



      -----Original Message-----
      From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
      On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
      Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 6:18 PM
      To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....

      Here is where I chime in a little......

      It would seem to me that Bob's statement: "Apples and oranges. Try this: I'm
      reading mail and leave it sitting on the table next to the sofa when the
      doorbell rings. I invite Jim Parker in and invite him to have a seat on the
      sofa while I run down to the liquor store in order to pick up some
      "essentials. " You help yourself to the mail, read my bank statements, etc.
      What law have you broken? I'm probably going to be pissed but that's about
      the extent of the problems you'll likely face."

      Relies some (at least in part) on the findings in U.S. v. Katz (Charles Katz
      v. United States, 389 U.S. 347) in which there are two determinations to be
      made on whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy: (1) Has the
      person demonstrated an intent to keep something private? And (2) is that
      privacy something which society is willing to grant? Mainly condition number
      (1).

      Perhaps this is what gave the Judge some reservation on whether or not
      Jeffrey's "defense" or "excuse" or whatever you choose to call it was valid
      and reasonable or not?

      I would submit one question to Bob Hrodey (with the understanding that the
      statement that you made Bob "I'm reading mail and leave it sitting on the
      table next to the sofa when the doorbell rings" implies that you left your
      laptop open and logged into your email account for anyone that was near it
      to see); Would you say that since the e-mail was NOT in plain view; and
      Jeffrey had to make an effort to get to the e-mail (no matter how poorly
      protected the email was); that the "plain view rule" can be applied?


      Jim you quote a part of the article here: "However, in this case, if you
      read the article again, you'll see that Judge Rose noted 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."

      The biggest problem I have with Judge Rose's statement here is the word
      "probably"; which to me that denotes a certain amount of uncertainty. And I
      have to wonder if Judge Rose makes this statement due to considerations like
      and/or similar to U.S. v. Katz or if he just simply has no clue and is
      trying to be "safe".

      One further note; Jeffrey sharing the data that he obtained from Amy's time
      on the Internet on the specific computer that he placed the key logger on;
      with anyone other than his attorney; is rated "10 Stupid"; that is the
      highest approval rating that a person can get for being utterly stupid!


      Just my thoughts....

      Rick.

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

      MAILING ADDRESS: 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

      Email
      RMRI-Inc@... <mailto:RMRI-Inc%40mchsi.com>

      RMRI, Inc. Blogs
      http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/ <http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/>
      http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/blog/
      <http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/blog/>

      Webpage
      http://www.rmriinc.com <http://www.rmriinc.com>

      ----- Original Message ----
      From: Jim Parker <Jim@...
      <mailto:Jim%40FloridaDetectives.com> >
      To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 4:06:12 PM
      Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....

      <<<< 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 pies.

      <<< 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. Every day, contracts are
      stricken by courts because the terms are morally unconscionable. Doesn't the
      Eighth Amendment to the Constitution protect you from cruel and unusual
      punishment? There's no absolute on what is considered "cruel and unusual",
      it's simply what would be considered acceptable according to society's moral
      reasoning.

      If the law were based on absolutes, no human factors would be taken into
      account in the courts at all, and we all know that's not the case.

      <<<< we might have seen the judge kicking some ass instead of hemming and
      hawing. >>>>

      How many times have we seen cases, particularly when technology is involved,
      where the judge has hemmed and hawed and eventually concluded something that
      just wanted to make us smash our face into our desk? I wouldn't base the
      legality of something just because some judge doesn't quite 'get it'.

      However, in this case, if you read the article again, you'll see that Judge
      Rose noted 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."

      Also remember that Amy only sued for injunctive relief, not pursue criminal
      prosecution for unlawfully accessing her electronic communications, so I
      expect the Judge did only what he was empowered to do.

      Jim

      -----Original Message-----
      From: infoguys-list@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:infoguys-list@ yahoogroups.
      com] On Behalf Of Bob Hrodey
      Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 4:04 PM
      To: infoguys-list@ yahoogroups. com
      Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....

      Jim Parker, wrote the following at or about 3/1/2007 2:43 PM:
      > Well Geez, Bob... You know me... I hate to be argumentative. ... BUT.....
      > LOL!
      >

      Ahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaah ahaaha. Help, I'm p*ssing me pants and
      I can't stop. LOL - right back atcha.

      > Your rationalization seems a bit off to me. Just because Amy failed to
      > secure her e-mail account doesn't imply consent for the husband to
      > enter that account and read or steal her personal correspondence.
      >

      Not so far off, I don't think, Jim else we might have seen the judge kicking
      some ass instead of hemming and hawing. It doesn't give the husband carte
      blanc to do anything but it doesn't prohibit it either.
      If I AM that far off the mark, it's because I didn't read the original post
      but merely glanced over it.

      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.

      > By entering the e-mail account absent authority, the husband has
      > essentially "broken in" and appropriated information which he has no
      > legal or moral right to.
      I'm not going to argue the moral issue with you. We both consider it wrong
      but... illegal? Again, if it's all that clear cut, the judge would
      have/should have come down with a ruling on it.

      > If you fail to lock your front door or leave the key in the ignition
      > of your car, that doesn't constitute consent for someone to enter your
      > house or steal your car.

      Apples and oranges. Try this: I'm reading mail and leave it sitting on the
      table next to the sofa when the doorbell rings. I invite Jim Parker in and
      invite him to have a seat on the sofa while I run down to the liquor store
      in order to pick up some "essentials. " You help yourself to the mail, read
      my bank statements, etc. What law have you broken?
      I'm probably going to be pissed but that's about the extent of the problems
      you'll likely face.

      It'll be interesting to see others' take on this. So far there's just the
      two of us spouting off.

      --
      Enjoy,

      Bob
      ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _ 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. com <mailto:inquiry% 40hrodey. com> or
      rth@... <mailto:rth%40hrodey.com> <mailto:rth% 40hrodey. com>
      Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063

      __________________________________________________________
      Looking for earth-friendly autos?
      Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
      http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ <http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/>

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • 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 3:12 PM
      • 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.. >>>>

        Dammit!

        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.

        :o)

        -----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
        not..

        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
        functions.

        (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
        security.

        (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
        <http://www.leg
        <http://www.leg.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=privacy.html&Directory
        > state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=privacy.html&Directory
        <http://www.leg
        <http://www.leg.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
        <http://www.leg
        <http://www.leg.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=contact.html&Directory
        > state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=contact.html&Directory
        <http://www.leg
        <http://www.leg.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=contact.html&Directory
        > state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=contact.html&Directory
        >
        =Info_Center/help/&Location=app&Tab=info_center&Submenu=4>

        Tom Eskridge, Chief Operations Officer

        High Tech Crime Institute

        28100 US Hwy 19 N, suite 204

        Clearwater Florida 33761

        727-499-7215

        888-300-9789

        www.gohtci.com

        _____

        From: infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
        yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
        [mailto:infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
        yahoogroups.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
        <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.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
        pies.
        >
        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.

        Agreed

        --
        Enjoy,

        Bob
        __________________________________________________________
        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> <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.