Wife wants help tracking husbands Internet history

[Tekko]

Then send him/her this decision from 2010 which was MY first Google result when checking into it - the decision of the court was BASED on the ruling from 38 years ago.

But as I edited my initial post to say, I did find conflicting information on the subject. Some courts rule it's ok, some rule it's not. If you dig you'll find both.

The point of the 38 year old decision is that it is not what CONGRESS intended, as Title III was intended to deal with combating organized crime not domestic disputes. It further states that domestic matters in the home should be governed by STATE level statutes not FEDERAL ones.

Did you finish reading your own link? I really don't mean to make waves here man, but the simpson case doesn't sean to hold much precedant at all anymore.

Despite the Simpson ruling, the majority of circuits have denied that any marital exception exists in the Wiretap Act. The Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have extended wiretapping actions to interspousal parties. In fact, the Eleventh Circuit’s 2003 Glazner v. Glazner decision expressly overruled Simpson. There, the court found no “implied exception” to the Wiretap Act “for interspousal wiretapping within the marital home.” The court stressed the statute’s express language permitting “any person” whose communications are intercepted to bring a civil action. The court deemed Mrs. Glazner such “any person” under the statute and asserted there should be “no distinction between married and unmarried persons or between spouses and strangers.” The court also maintained that since the Fifth Circuit decided Simpson three decades ago, most courts have similarly declined to find a spousal exception to the Wiretap Act. The concurring opinion added “Simpson was a badly reasoned decision rejected by virtually every other circuit to consider it.”

 

[Tekko]

You can sue the computer guy if it will make you feel better about losing your wife, but you won't win.

Yes you would. Double check.

 

[compnet]

Yes you would. Double check.

I suppose every one whoever sold a gun used to kill someone could be held liable as well.

 

[Tekko]

Edit, my next result "Courts have construed stored communication acts to not apply to surreptitious access of e-mail and voicemail from computers in the home. In addition, silent video surveillance is not regulated under wiretap or stored communications acts."

Let's break that down....

Nowhere does it exempt email and voicemail. It says courts have construed stored communication acts(Not even the legislation we're talking about) to not a apply to surreptitious access of e-mail and voicemail.

It is illegal, plain and simple. And you can get in trouble for installing it for someone else. PERIOD.

 

[FoolishTech]

Did you finish reading your own link? I really don't mean to make waves here man, but the simpson case doesn't sean to hold much precedant at all anymore.

No, I didn't finish reading, I moved on to the next result which confirmed it:

Edit, my next result "Courts have construed stored communication acts to not apply to surreptitious access of e-mail and voicemail from computers in the home. In addition, silent video surveillance is not regulated under wiretap or stored communications acts."

Point being, you can spend all the time researching it you want, you'll still find arguments on BOTH sides.

This is all that matters.

We're computer techs, not lawyers. I would do the job and advise it may or may not be legal, but that's for the customer to find out.

I install software. I'm not spying on anyone. You can sue the computer guy if it will make you feel better about losing your wife, but you won't win.

Well said.

And if you dispute that, then you dispute it. That's just your opinion. Show me one precedent where a computer tech is liable in this type of situation and I'll concede so we can quit arguing over the internet.

It is illegal, plain and simple. And you can get in trouble for installing it for someone else. PERIOD.

*sigh* ok at this point you are just being childish.

Bottom line is that we're NOT lawyers, nor are we judges who interpret the law. So continuing this argument is pointless without being recognized by the bar to practice law

 

[Tekko]

I suppose every one whoever sold a gun used to kill someone could be held liable as well.

That's not analogous.

If you want to disagree with me, that's cool. I wouldn't have any friends if I required everyone to agree with me. But keep in mind you're giving out advice to others here, and you don't really KNOW what you posted to be true, do you?

 

[Tekko]

*sigh* ok at this point you are just being childish.

Bottom line is that we're NOT lawyers, nor are we judges who interpret the law. So continuing this argument is pointless without being recognized by the bar to practice law

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as childish. But seriously, re-read this:

"Courts have construed stored communication acts to not apply to surreptitious access of e-mail and voicemail from computers in the home. In addition, silent video surveillance is not regulated under wiretap or stored communications acts."

It doesn't mean what you think it does, don't know what else to tell you.

I'm really not trying to argue here. I really respect you as a contributing member here. All I am trying to do is answer the question posed by the thread. And my answer matches the legal consensus of just about every else on the internet, as well as my own attorneys interpretation.

 

[FoolishTech]

Don't know what to tell you, what you're quoting does not mean what you think it means.

Only in your opinion!

Any further posting and you'll just be arguing with yourself.

 

[FoolishTech]

I'm really not trying to argue here. I really respect you as a contributing member here. All I am trying to do is answer the question posed by the thread. And my answer matches the legal consensus of just about every else on the internet, as well as my own attorneys interpretation.

If you're replying to my replies, then make a new post instead of editing your existing post.

And yes, you are doing your best to be as argumentative as possible... You have made your opinion known as has everyone else, so let's leave it at that.

 

[Tekko]

If you're replying to my replies, then make a new post instead of editing your existing post.

Sorry, lost track of which post I was replying to, it's almost time for happy hour.

And yes, you are doing your best to be as argumentative as possible...

Wasn't my intention. But if I was, you were too. So nanaabooboo

In all seriousness, I'll concede you did provide a recent example of a circuit court interpretation that matched your opinion; which is I asked you for. I should have dropped the aggressive tone after that.

 

[Paul Rodgers]

Lets look at it this way:

Do you really want to risk your or your companies name and reputation if the media catches wind of this? When the husband finds out it will get ugly.

"Local computer repair tech helps wife spy on husband"

 

[Rodrick]

Lets look at it this way:

Do you really want to risk your or your companies name and reputation if the media catches wind of this? When the husband finds out it will get ugly.

"Local computer repair tech helps wife spy on husband"

This ^ ^ ^

Basically, if it makes you uncomfortable at all (which it obviously would to many members here), just don't do it. I've yet to find a customer react badly to me taking a moral stance.

 

[carrcomp]

I have a new customer that called last night wanting me to track her husband's Internet history on his laptop. She says he uses Internet Explorer, but does not know what software he uses to Chat online.

Other than printing out the IE history, checking temp files and using IE PassView to extract the Web site URLs and passwords stored by Internet Explorer; what else should I do for her?

I can only have the computer for about 5 or 6 hours. Thanks in advance guys and gals.

Do nothing.

Give her back the laptop and inform her that you will not charge her for coming in the door.

 

[anglian]

Having thought about this since my first reply to the subject.......

If a client comes in and asks "I think someone is accessing my laptop when I am not around, can you install any software so I can monitor what other people are doing on my Laptop" Then it would be a different case.

I still wouldn't install anything to allow a person to spy on someone elses machine, but if they thought about it a bit the client could end up looking a lot more respectable to the tech, and maybe getting the work done without placing the tech in a moral situation like this.

 

[mason]

sorry i didnt read all of this topic but the software i would use would be desktop shark. cheap and works very well, used it for a few customers now.

 

[rsarceno]

First I would check for legal advice. I think this forum will serve you better. http://forum.freeadvice.com/


If it's legit, I would be on the safe side and I would recommend and teach the spouse how to use wireshark. Then have the spouse give me the capture for data analyst.

 

[shamrin]

I've very much enjoyed the legal discussion here between Tekko and Foolishtech (who both acquitted themselves well even when things got chippy at the end). However, I don't think the OP needs a lawyer on this one, this job doesn't pass the sniff test for good business or ethics. Really, helping customers spy on someone?

 

[16k_zx81]

I've very much enjoyed the legal discussion here between Tekko and Foolishtech (who both acquitted themselves well even when things got chippy at the end). However, I don't think the OP needs a lawyer on this one, this job doesn't pass the sniff test for good business or ethics. Really, helping customers spy on someone?

+1

Interesting discussion.

StoneCat mentioned some software earlier in the thread. I wonder what their take is on it?

 

[PCX]

I honestly have not read over this thread, but my suggestion is to stay away from these situations. Unless you want to get involved in something ugly or get mixed up in some legal suit that your not going to get paid for, just stay away.

 

[nate1579]

I have done this for a few people but my lawyer said he would right up a no-liability contract and everything is fine so far no repercussions so far but it can thought I had one client try to sue me but because of the no liability contract it all fell on the client that hired me so i was not Involved after the contract was shown but I also work in a small area (everyone knows everyone kinda place). But that is just what I have done but anybody I have done it for I had them prove they bought usually just a receipt.