Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

FL Court Rules Against Spouse-Installed Spyware 390

Posted by timothy from the well-that's-nice-of-them dept.
idobi writes "A Florida court ruled that it was illegal for a wife to install spyware on her husband's computer, in order to catch him in an extramarital affair. The three judge panel barred the woman from using the chat records from being introduced as evidence in the divorce proceedings. The court ruled that the software, Spector, violated Florida's wiretapping law - which states that it is criminal to 'intentionally intercept' any 'electronic communication.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FL Court Rules Against Spouse-Installed Spyware More

FL Court Rules Against Spouse-Installed Spyware

Comments Filter:

  • On the Upside (Score:5, Funny)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:23PM (#11703185) Homepage Journal
    The Florida Appeals Court, Fifth District said that Beverly Ann O'Brien "illegally obtained" records of husband James' online conversations with another woman as the two played Yahoo Dominoes together.

    The woman, tech-savvy enough to install spyware and obtain the results, should have no problem finding a new husband on Slashdot, where doubtlessly her activities have gained her a certain cred and mystique and a following.

    in today's news Beverly Ann O'Brien sought a mass restraining order against a poster on slashdot.org who has been stalking her and sending poems, such as 'r05e r r3d, v1o13t r b1u3, a11 my ba53 r b310ng t0 y0u'

    • r0535 R R3d
      5ug4r i5 5w337
      If U'd b3 m1n3
      I'd f33l pr377y 1337.

      Yes... it is shamelessly stolen from a web game... *sigh*
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:On the Upside (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      ..somehow that looked like 'all my balls'. somehow.

    • DWF seeks WM (Score:5, Funny)

      by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:39PM (#11703400)
      who isn't afraid to post anonymously and knows how to use his CAPS LOCK key...

      should have no problem finding a new husband on Slashdot

      I felt a great disturbance in the Force when I read this, as if millions of socially inept voices suddenly cried out at the opportunity to get laid.
    • Obligatory thinkgeek link [thinkgeek.com]

    • On the downside (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sulli ( 195030 ) *
      anyone who would partner with this woman would have to keep his PC under lock and key. Probably not a tradeoff most slashdotters would accept.

  • Are logs illegal? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:23PM (#11703190)
    So are logs now illegal in Florida? After all, logs are (usually) records of some form of communication which happens electronically.

    • Re:Are logs illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by UWC ( 664779 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:29PM (#11703272)
      I know in some states the recording has to be known by at least one involved party, and some states require that both are made aware. In this case, it seems that neither party involved in the communications was aware of what was functionally a wiretap. The ruling, while good for privacy, seems extremely frustrating for those hoping to use the logs as evidence.

      • Re:Are logs illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by commodoresloat ( 172735 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @06:29PM (#11705525)
        The ruling, while good for privacy, seems extremely frustrating for those hoping to use the logs as evidence.

        Which is precisely why the ruling is good for privacy. You should not be allowed to use logs of private conversations as evidence if the logs are obtained illegally.

        • Re:Are logs illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by UWC ( 664779 )
          Agreed. If the judge had allowed it as evidence, the precedent it set and the implications thereof would be downright frightening. I guess that's the sticky wicket of the justice system. Even if it was a murder trial with illegally obtained but incontrovertible proof of guilt, allowing the evidence would still be a precedent that should not be set.
    • Apparently, LOGS are not illegal, but INSTALLING a software that does make logs of (let's say) IRC chats or typed e-mail is illegal.

      All that the wife should have done to "be legit" is make sure she enables logging in all chat programs the husband uses, then provide the regular (possibly "undeleted") logs as evidence.
    • IANAL but I thought that logs were generally suspect because they are easily forged. Sort of the equivalent of hearsay.

    • Re:Are logs illegal? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @04:17PM (#11703867) Homepage
      it simply means she had a shitty lawyer.

      my divorce in 1996 I owned an ISP. my Ex was having an online affair and the court was happy to look at all her email logs, captured chat sessions and detailed logs of websites and captures of the images and the like.

      her lawyer tried the same tricks, the judge threw out the request stating "privately owned computer equipment is not under the jurisdiction of the wiretapping laws."

      granted I hired the best lawers in the state but it's still fishy that a judge would accept such a defense tactic.

      • Re:Are logs illegal? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        my divorce in 1996 I owned an ISP. my Ex was having an online affair and the court was happy to look at all her email logs, captured chat sessions and detailed logs of websites and captures of the images and the like.

        her lawyer tried the same tricks, the judge threw out the request stating "privately owned computer equipment is not under the jurisdiction of the wiretapping laws."

        Sorry, that's no longer true.

        If you read the decision [5dca.org], you'll see that the Security of Communications Act was passed in 2003,

  • Interesting (Score:5, Funny)

    by Vordak ( 855348 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:24PM (#11703195)
    You would think, in a marriage, the wife owns half of everything, so maybe she was just spying on her half of the pc.

    • Community Property State? (Score:5, Informative)

      by darthmundt ( 593622 ) <junk.mundtnet@com> on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:30PM (#11703293) Homepage
      According to this site [divorcelawinfo.com], "Florida is an "equitable distribution" state. Each spouse can retain their non-marital property. Non-marital property is all property acquired prior to the marriage, or acquired by gift or inheritance, or any property that the spouses agree is non-marital property in a written agreement."

      Unless the PC was his before the marraige, the whole PC is 'theirs' and she can install whatever she wants on it.

      • > Unless the PC was his before the marraige, the whole PC is 'theirs' and she can install whatever she wants on it.

        This is clearly not true, even if the computer was all hers. Their is clearly some software which it is illegal to install or use (e.g., commercial somftware that you don't have a license for, or software whose only purpose is illegal (not sure what would fall into that category). And even if it was legal for her to install the software, it would still be illegal to use it to break the l
      • Maybe she can install anything. However, that doesn't mean she can use it to tap into otherwise private conversation. I'll have to duck and run after I type this, but it would be similar to installing LimeWire on your pc. LimeWire, by itself, isn't illegal. However, using it to download copyrighted material might be.

      • Re:Community Property State? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:58PM (#11703625)
        I think that the courts ruling has more to do with the interception of the spouses communications than the act of the wife installing the spyware on the PC.

        From the article:

        "It is illegal and punishable as a crime under (state law) to intercept electronic communications," wrote Judge Donald Grincewicz on behalf of a three-judge panel.

        ...and...

        But Grincewicz concluded that "because the spyware installed by the wife intercepted the electronic communication contemporaneously with transmission, copied it and routed the copy to a file in the computer's hard drive, the electronic communications were intercepted in violation of the Florida Act."

        The act of the wife installing the software was not ruled on and thus the question of what she can and cant do with marital property is not at issue, but the actual interception of the husbands communcations is what the court ruled on, and found to be unlawful. You dont have carte blanche over your partner.

    • Yeah... if it's MY computer, I should be able to log any activity on it. I have a keylogger on my work computer so I can tell if anyone else uses it any what they're doing. I don't plan on spying on my wife but I'm also pretty sure she isn't having an affair.

      But if, for instance, she used my work laptop with the keylogger and I had evidence of an affair, would that be acceptable in court? After all I didn't install it to spy on her and it's not HER computer.

  • On one hand, that's cool (Score:4, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:25PM (#11703206) Homepage Journal
    On the other hand, if the PC belongs to both of them, shouldn't either one of them legally be able to tap communications on it? And since they are married, doesn't it belong to both of them?

    I have a serious problem being told what I can do with my computer when others do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If I'm giving people shell accounts, I'm not going to sniff their traffic. On the other hand, I am very likely to install a keylogger on my console.

    • I don't think it is an issue of who owns the PC. It is an issue of the legality of "wire tapping" the computer, regardless of ownership. They jointly own the phone line coming to the house, too. It would also be illegal for her to secretly record his telephone conversations, even though they share "ownership" of the phone line.
    • I tend to doubt that the courts would uphold the law as strictly if charges were actually brought against her for wiretapping. In this case, they just ruled that evidence obtained that way was not admissible.
    • No thats not the point. You are invading thier data. It does not matter who owns the pc. Same way, if your friend uses your phone to make a call, that does not mean you can wiretap that phone, since its your phone..

  • Now what about... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tuxedo Jack ( 648130 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:25PM (#11703209) Homepage
    How about text-sensitive software like Claria and WhenU that track certain websites using URLs through the IE address bar and pop up competitor's ads? Couldn't that be termed wiretapping as well, since it's actively monitoring addresses visited and keystrokes typed into a field?
    • When you don't click through the EULA, yeah, that should be illegal. But the ones that piggyback on other programs generally present their functions but are just clicked through without a second thought. While shady and arguably immoral, I think those are probably legal.

  • Ha (Score:5, Funny)

    by tehshen ( 794722 ) <tehshen@gmail.com> on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:25PM (#11703215)
    "I'll be down in a second, honey! Just running Adaware!"

  • This sounds the same as a spousal wiretap to me (Score:5, Interesting)

    by davidwr ( 791652 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:25PM (#11703216) Homepage Journal
    I'm sure there are numerous cases in the last 20 years where spouses recorded their home telephone calls in the hopes of catching a cheating spouse.

    If this judge's ruling is in line with prior court ruling since the most recent changes in the law, then I don't see the problem.

    On the other hand, if he broke with precedent, he could be overturned.
    • I'm sure there are numerous cases in the last 20 years where spouses recorded their home telephone calls in the hopes of catching a cheating spouse.

      Don't be so sure. Audio recording of telephone conversations without consent is a felony. In Florida, ALL PARTIES must give consent. Federal law states (last I checked) that only ONE party needs give consent. Other States vary. Also, the law (Federal) requires a notification tone (that beeping you hear) unless you have a court ordered wiretap.

      This is why

  • Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

    by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:26PM (#11703219) Homepage
    How long before every kid in Florida gets an injunction on their parents from installing any monitoring software?

    • " How long before every kid in Florida gets an injunction on their parents from installing any monitoring software?"

      Actually....it HAS happened. I don't remember the details, but, was watching the news the other night, and recently, a judgement AGAINST a parent was declared in conjunction with the mother listening in on her daughter's phone calls. The mother was worried about drug use or something with the boy the girl was talking to.

      I was shocked...I didn't think a kid had any expectation to privacy. Do

      • Re:Wow! (Score:3, Informative)

        by Dasein ( 6110 )
        Yes, it happened but it was in the context of the boy's drug trial. The evidence obtained from the mother's evesdropping was ruled inadmissable. So the court didn't say she couldn't do it but rather said that the information couldn't be used to convict someone else.

        At least that's my recollection.
    • Privacy laws are based on a reasonable expectation. Kids don't have the same expectations of privacy from their parents that adults do from other adults.

      • Re:Wow! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Hentai ( 165906 )
        Privacy laws are based on a reasonable expectation. Kids don't have the same expectations of privacy from their parents that adults do from other adults.

        I'd like everyone to think long and hard about this one, please. Privacy laws are based on a *reasonable expectation* of privacy. So if OTHER people stop expecting a certain level of privacy, that level of privacy ceases to be 'reasonable', and YOU can no longer expect it. Your level of allowed privacy is dependent on how much your fellow Americans care

  • Spouse vs. Work (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Concern ( 819622 ) * on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:26PM (#11703221) Journal
    Many states have different laws regarding what is legal in terms of wiretapping; some allow one party to record a phone call only if all parties consent, and others, famously D.C., for instance, do not.

    Most all of them recognize that, outside of law enforcement activity a 3rd party isn't permitted to eavesdrop.

    One thing that occurs to me is that there have been a spate of decisions in a law enforcement context to the effect that electronic communications like email lack the same "expectation of privacy" that phone calls and postal mail do. Whereas this seems to acknowledge that chat serves a similar function to the phone, just with distinct technology, and thus extends the same protection.

    The article briefly mentioned that while this wife wasn't allowed to wiretap her husband, her husband's employer is (while he's at work, anyway). I thought this was funny, the different standards between the workplace and the home. There are a variety of justifications for wiretapping your employees - something that, as far as I know in most states, employers have carte blanche to do - but the interesting thing is that when you start thinking about them, most of them apply to the spouse as well.

    At work, you use your employer's computer, in your employer's building (their machine, their house), but the wife jointly owns both. At work, you may make the argument that wiretapping is necessary to insure reliability and integrity of your business, but the spouse can argue the same is necessary to insure the integrity of the marriage. Both will claim: "What's their privacy for anyway? Do they have something to hide?"

    The only strong argument I can think of for surveillance by employers is that the employee "consents." I suppose spouses don't have the same leverage to compel "consent" to eavesdropping as employers do.

    Ugly business, trying to get a job that will promise to respect your privacy. You can always "just work somewhere else," but there are quite a few things we already prevent employers from doing because "somewhere else" is nowhere if we don't.
    • At work your employer "owns" your time, not just the equipment you are using.

    • Re:Spouse vs. Work (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jargoone ( 166102 ) *
      When you start employment with a company, you agree to a policy manual that spells these things out. In there somewhere is probably a usage policy that says that they can monitor you. In order for your analogy to apply, the husband would have had to sign an agreement giving his wife permission to log his activity. If he had, this story wouldn't be here, would it?

    • Re:Spouse vs. Work (Score:3, Interesting)

      by JSBiff ( 87824 )
      Hello,
      Yes it is an interesting discussion, why spouses don't have the same rights as employers lol. One of the reasons that employers are allowed to eavesdrop, is because while you work for them, everything you do is considered something done by the company, so they need the ability (at least they claim) to monitor you in order to 1) ensure you are doing your job, in a manner consistent with company standards, and 2) to have control over what employees are saying on behalf of the company, because the com

      • Re:Spouse vs. Work (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Concern ( 819622 ) *
        I could potentially be sued, even jailed, because of any traffic that can be shown to have originated from my internet connection and computer. If I am held liable for what is done with my electronic communications equipment, I should have the legal right to ensure that it is being properly used.

        Oh yeah. That's a really good point. Didn't even think of that.

  • So..... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Jailbrekr ( 73837 )
    what is the difference between intercepting and storing chat room conversations, and taking photos of him smooching his mistress? Neither are methods which the target has consented to.



    • smooching pictures are generally in public... if she had bugged the motel room where he was banging her that would probably be inadmissible as well.
  • We have community property laws, it seems to me that any data stored on the computer would be property of both parties. The spyware issue seems more straightforward, but what if she had only made copies of logs?

  • Doesn't this mean... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zev1983 ( 792397 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:27PM (#11703238)
    that remotely installed spyware that takes advantage of security holes is also illegal? If so why aren't people in jail?

  • Didn't FL courts also rule... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...a wife couldn't give her husband a blowjob?

  • What about hardware? (Score:3, Funny)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:27PM (#11703245) Homepage Journal
    Is it now illegal for a husband to insert his hardware into the wife's plug'n'play ports?
  • That's not electrical!

    On her next pre-nup, it is obviously essential that it include a clause that allows either of them to install spyware and security cameras clandestinely!

    And what if he has his internet connection through a infrared connection to another computer? Or a WiFi network? So many non-electrical means of connecting to the internet!

  • What about an email filter? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bwindle2 ( 519558 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:30PM (#11703288)
    At my job (in Florida) we maintain an email filter, which isolates in-bound and out-bound emails if they contain certain qualities (either spam-like, or have big attachements, etc).

    I wonder if that would mean we are violating that law, since we are clearly intercepting electronic communications?
    • Most courts have ruled (like it or not) that employees have few expectations of privacy in the workplace. (with the exception of obvious places like bathrooms). This means employers can monitor just about anything an employee does in the workplace.

  • Coming Soon: No actual evidence permitted, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zoomba ( 227393 ) <mfc131.gmail@com> on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:30PM (#11703289) Homepage
    So, if I think someone is gaining illegal access to my computer while I'm not around, I can't install a keylogger to figure out who it is?

    This case is the equivalent of a woman hiding a camera in her own bedroom to catch her husband in the act, only to be told it's inadmissable because they didn't know they were being taped.

    There need to be reasonable limits to this sort of stuff. Soon we won't be able to submit any evidence at all that was gathered without the permission of the accused...

    "I'm sorry sir, I did not allow you to take that bloody knife covered in my finger prints"

    • This case is the equivalent of a woman hiding a camera in her own bedroom to catch her husband in the act, only to be told it's inadmissable because they didn't know they were being taped.

      Except for the fact that the husband doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy from his wife in their bedroom. A phone conversation, or an email chat is obviously different.
    • IANAL, etc.

      Part of the problem is that it's his bedroom as well. In his own bedroom he has a reasonable expectation of privacy. And that privacy shouldn't be violated without due process of law.

      How about if she taped her husband masturbating without his knowledge, and then distributed the tapes after their divorce to embarass him. Is that OK? At the time it was her house after all.

  • Makes some sense (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dotslashdot ( 694478 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:31PM (#11703296)
    Actually the law makes sense--you cannot wiretap your own phone or record conversations in many states without disclosing it to the third party (the no good cheatin' mistress, NOT the husband). I believe (because I don't really KNOW anything here, but it's slashdot, so I can post without knowledge but with authority) the wife would have to notify the mistress before recording their conversation (and possibly the husband, too.)

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:31PM (#11703299)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • What age does this become illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gadgetfreak ( 97865 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:31PM (#11703302)
    Is it illegal to have that software on there to monitor your kid's use of the internet? Or do you have to tell them ahead of time?

    Also, "not admissible as evidence" doesn't necessarily imply illegal, so it may be legal to monitor, but not to use against someone.

    • Re:What age does this become illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by renderhead ( 206057 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:53PM (#11703558)
      Personally, I would deliberately tell my kid (if I had one) that I was spying on their computer use. The purpose of monitoring your kids' internet use is not to "catch them in the act," it's to provide motivation for them to stay on their best behavior.

      Proving that my [hypthetical] son has been surfing porn sites would bring me no satisfaction. I'd rather have him not looking at porn in the first place because he knew I would probably catch him.

  • IM Program Chat Logs (Score:2, Interesting)

    by eseiat ( 650560 )
    What about the IM programs that conversation logs as a default option of the program itself. In theory, both parties could unknowingly be recording their conversation.

    Does anyone know if these laws apply in any other states?

  • FBI keylogging factoid (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mveloso ( 325617 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:34PM (#11703333)
    I just finished reading a computer forensics book, and found out something interesting.

    Apparently the FBI can't keylog you while a modem is in operation because of some bizarre issue with phone tapping (something like you can't tap modem communication without a separate warrant). The FBI keylogger actually turns off when a modem is active. How about that?

    I guess this sort of the same, but on a local level (and with a broader reach).

  • Sign of the times... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elrick_the_brave ( 160509 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:35PM (#11703342)
    I hate how sometimes this comes up to near something personal. It shows how screwed up people are. My wife was searching sex search sites recently and I only discovered after some recent oddities when trying to fix her computer. It definitely woke up the relationship. Trust is so hard to rebuild though.

    I spoke to a lawyer and in courts.. it ends up being next to useless. You may as well just leave the relationship... that being said.. it's not easy.
  • How do you think this would apply to Cell phone instant messaging logs? I've heard from some people that cell phones save even the drafts of SMS messages. Would intentionally searching someone's Cell Phone logs be wire tapping since the logger is already present by default?
  • so ... wait.

    what does the spyware do in Soviet Russia? does it still spy on YOU?

  • Florida cheaters (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Lord Kano ( 13027 )
    I'm in Pennsylvania, several years ago a lawyer that I won't name hired me to search a client's computer for proof that it was used to communicate with the person that s/he was cheating with during a family vacation to Florida.

    It took me a few hours, but I located copies of all of the email sent between them that wasn't properly deleted.

    It's been like 8 years since then, so I don't remember exactly how many there were, but I think it was something like 80 in a week.

    They happily paid about $500 for the pr

  • how far (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LuxFX ( 220822 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:41PM (#11703417) Homepage Journal
    So I guess the question in how far can you take this? Does this automatically mean that any spyware is wiretapping? After all, most adware does observe and report a person's internet browsing activity. But I'm sure some people would argue it's a gray line, because is sending URLs really a form of electronic communication? Does spyware 'listen' to enough human-inteprettable language to be considered a wiretap?

    In a phone analogy, it's more like listening in on which phone number is being dialed, not the conversation. But in a lot of instances there is more information, thanks to the query string. A URL can tell an adware program what books someone is looking at on Amazon, or what they are searching for at Google.

    Just thinking out loud....

  • Homeland Insecurity (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Baldrson ( 78598 ) * on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:45PM (#11703456) Homepage Journal
    it is criminal to 'intentionally intercept' any 'electronic communication.'

    So we can conclude that so-called "Homeland Security" -- which routinely intercepts electronic communication without a warrant -- is a criminal organization.

  • What bothers me the most is that the judge claims it's wiretapping because it logged data contemporaneously. Since you have to log something contemporaneously by definition, doesn't this render logs illegal, or better yet, inadmissabile?

  • I am not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that such wiretape laws were regarding installation of such software on hardware that *does not belong to you*. Most if not all States, as has been specified already, acknowledge a single individual in a marriage to speak for the whole except on matters, usually financial, that do not require dual signatures, such as the husband getting a credit card for himself.

    In that case the PC is owned by both individuals; therefore, she did not install software o

  • But in LA its ok? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Evil W1zard ( 832703 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:55PM (#11703578) Journal
    This is what I find amusing about states and their differences in laws. LA recently had a similar case where a man used a keylogger to keep tabs on his employer. This was ruled as not breaking wiretap laws. http://www.securityfocus.com/news/9978

  • Similar Parental Rights Case (Score:5, Informative)

    by Chokai ( 10224 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @04:20PM (#11703915)
    There was recently a case in Washington State [nwsource.com] where a suspicious mother had picked up the phone to listen to her daughter's conversation with one of her friends. Well it turns out the friend was a suspect in a robbery and the mother was called to testify. Now the testemony has been ruled inadmissible for similar reasons.

  • consider everything logged (Score:3, Insightful)

    by trufflemage ( 860010 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @04:44PM (#11704216)
    This story, posted on the same day as the story about the thief who was caught by a web cam that uploaded its photos to an external server, brings home to me the changing nature of today's world. Electronic activity is inherently insecure and I'm beginning to think my baseline assumption ought to be this: someone is eavesdropping on everything I do.

    My job allows a certain amount of free time at a PC with high-speed internet access and I make use of it. My employer certainly has the legal right and means to log every key I strike. Have I ever accessed my paypal account from work? Probably...so my employer (or my employer's IT guy) can probably purchase things on my credit card. How about my ebay account? Again, yes. Yahoo? Yes. Other accounts (like slashdot) and forums and blogs? These may all be open books to him/her/them/Big Brother. Fortunately I'm not a spy and not even particularly daring in my Googling ("office-appropriate websites" is my motto) so I expect I'm flying below the radar. But suppose someone really was interested? They could literally read my mail, and some of my personal email is...well...personal. Scarier still is the fact that I've used (I know, I oughtn't, but I'm human and it's embarassing to always be forgetting) certain short-cuts to help me remember which password belongs to which accounts and sometimes my screen name is the same from site to site. So someone could conceivably hack my yahoo account and use data learned there to access other accounts and basically domino-effect their way through my whole schizophrenic tree of online personas. Okay, I've mixed paranoia in there, but I really want to examine the worst-case scenario.

    Proposed new worldview: every computer I use logs everything. Can I retain my privacy nevertheless?

    For now, if I'm careful, yes. One key is staying below the radar, as it were. If I attract a lot of attention, I may become a target, but if I mind my own business, I'm not likely to be bothered. We're not yet at the point where everyone is considered a criminal. The man whose wife was suspicious wouldn't have gotten caught if he had not aroused her suspicions in the first place. (The method I recommend for avoiding arousing suspicions is to be scrupulously innocent; not a fail-safe, but a big help.)

    If I pretend my employer is reading over my shoulder 100% of the time at work, I'm unlikely to type anything compromising.

    If I pretend the other people in my household are reading over my shoulder at home, I'm likely to stay out of trouble too.

    But where do I go if I want to be particularly clandestine, for example buy my wife a present without her knowing about it? Someplace anonymous. Anonymity is the great bastion of protection in the digital age. There are some freely available web-based email systems that do not even require a real name to register; with a working email address, one can open all sorts of online accounts. If I'm paranoid, I may open a unique account for the sole purpose of registering for a specific online activity, and never let the account mix with any other activity of mine.

    In other words, if I'm careful, I can avoid linking myself to anything I do online. Say I use a public computer, perhaps at a library or an internet cafe, to open an anonymous free email account, and I use that email address to open a slashdot account. As long as I never access that email address again and never access the slashdot account at home or at work, I can avoid leaving a thread from it to me--even assuming every keystroke was logged on every computer I used.

    That kind of covering my tracks is a pain, and not really necessary because I'm not up to villainy, but if I were paranoid, and I'm beginning to think I should be, it would offer protection.

    But wait...anonymous public internet access is rapidly disappearing, even from libraries. One frequently must have a library account to use the library computer, and many libraries now use software that logs on a specific user f
  • Now, I don't condone doing stupid things like cyber-cheating on your wife, but you have to admit that this is the perfect application for a Knoppix CD. Not a trace on your hard drive and you get a clean system on every boot.

    Let's drop the tired TCO argument and put that on the brochure.

    • The all new Knaughtix distro! Doing something naughty, like surfing porn or cheating on your spouse? With the Knaughtix CD, and an optional floppy disk or USB key with your network settings, you can surf or cheat in safety! Just reboot the machine, and all evidence is gone gone gone!

  • I'm confused... (Score:4, Informative)

    by hyfe ( 641811 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @06:50PM (#11705730)
    This is one part of American society that has always dumbfounded me, why do you guys need to prove all this cheating? Could somebody be nice enough to explain it?

    Over here, I think it goes something like 'you keep any property you can conclusivly prove you took into the marriage, everything else is split 50/50'. No judge would give a rats ass for the reasons you want a divorce.. you agreed the share everything, and if you now want to stop sharing everything that's your deal.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close