My wife opened my internet search history without my consent, took a picture of some content without my consent and sent it to another person without my consent. Has she committed a crime?
My wife opened my internet search history without my consent, took a
picture of some content without my consent and sent it to another
person without my consent. Has she committed a crime?
On 2024-01-28, Mike Dobson <mikedobson100@googlemail.com> wrote:
My wife opened my internet search history without my consent, took a
picture of some content without my consent and sent it to another
person without my consent. Has she committed a crime?
Almost certainly not.
On 28/01/2024 17:28, Mike Dobson wrote:...
... ^^^^^Has she committed a crime?
The tort of "misuse of private information"... ^^^^
If the answer to either of those questions is "No", you are left in the unenviable position of knowing that you wife has, in all likelihood
broken the law, but there is nothing you can reasonably do about it.
Which, may explain why other posters have given different answers.
On 28/01/2024 22:44, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-01-28, Mike Dobson <mikedobson100@googlemail.com> wrote:
My wife opened my internet search history without my consent, took a
picture of some content without my consent and sent it to another
person without my consent. Has she committed a crime?
Almost certainly not.
I thought anyone accessing your files without consent was illegal? When
did that change?
Isn't shaming with pictures also illegal? Or do they have specifically
be of a compromised nature?
On 29/01/2024 14:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-01-29, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/01/2024 17:28, Mike Dobson wrote:...
... ^^^^^Has she committed a crime?
The tort of "misuse of private information"... ^^^^
If the answer to either of those questions is "No", you are left in the
unenviable position of knowing that you wife has, in all likelihood
broken the law, but there is nothing you can reasonably do about it.
Which, may explain why other posters have given different answers.
A bit of that, but mostly see above.
Elsewhere in the thread, you have stated your belief that "convictions
under the Computer Misuse Act s1 are extremely rare, and the chances of
a wife being convicted under that Act for viewing her husband's internet search history are somewhere between "zero" and "none whatsoever", and
the chances of the police being interested in investigating such an allegation are less than that."
Do you believe that an offence has been committed under Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act, albeit one that is unlikely to be investigated
never mind prosecuted?
I'll remind you that the OP's question was "Has she committed a crime?"
not "Has she committed a crime in which the police are likely to take an interest and for which she'll be prosecuted?"
I took it as read that the possibility of getting the police interested
was, to use your phrase, 'somewhere between 'zero' and 'none whatsoever'
so I took the opportunity to outline civil remedies available to him,
and to point out that even these were extremely unlikely to be of any assistance in the circumstances.
I could have just answered, "Yes." and left it at that without
proffering any explanation for my answer which I would consider to be unhelpful in the extreme. As your initial response to the OP was
"Almost certainly not", I see that not only do we disagree on the answer
to the question, but also on the helpfulness extended by our respective replies.
On 04/02/2024 13:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-02-04, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 29/01/2024 14:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-01-29, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/01/2024 17:28, Mike Dobson wrote:...
... ^^^^^Has she committed a crime?
The tort of "misuse of private information"... ^^^^
If the answer to either of those questions is "No", you are left in the >>>>> unenviable position of knowing that you wife has, in all likelihood
broken the law, but there is nothing you can reasonably do about it. >>>>>
Which, may explain why other posters have given different answers.
A bit of that, but mostly see above.
Elsewhere in the thread, you have stated your belief that "convictions
under the Computer Misuse Act s1 are extremely rare, and the chances of
a wife being convicted under that Act for viewing her husband's internet >>> search history are somewhere between "zero" and "none whatsoever", and
the chances of the police being interested in investigating such an
allegation are less than that."
Do you believe that an offence has been committed under Section 1 of the >>> Computer Misuse Act, albeit one that is unlikely to be investigated
never mind prosecuted?
I'll remind you that the OP's question was "Has she committed a crime?"
not "Has she committed a crime in which the police are likely to take an >>> interest and for which she'll be prosecuted?"
I took it as read that the possibility of getting the police interested
was, to use your phrase, 'somewhere between 'zero' and 'none whatsoever' >>> so I took the opportunity to outline civil remedies available to him,
and to point out that even these were extremely unlikely to be of any
assistance in the circumstances.
I could have just answered, "Yes." and left it at that without
proffering any explanation for my answer which I would consider to be
unhelpful in the extreme. As your initial response to the OP was
"Almost certainly not", I see that not only do we disagree on the answer >>> to the question, but also on the helpfulness extended by our respective
replies.
That was a very long-winded way of admitting you were wrong about torts.
Do you consider I was more wrong or less wrong than you were when you
stated "almost certainly not" in answer to the original question?
Asking for a friend. :-)
Elsewhere in the thread, you have stated your belief that "convictions
under the Computer Misuse Act s1 are extremely rare
In message <l291vgFfnc3U39@mid.individual.net>, at 08:59:27 on Sun, 4
Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Elsewhere in the thread, you have stated your belief that "convictions >>under the Computer Misuse Act s1 are extremely rare
It's prosecutions which are very rare, which then leads to even fewer >convictions. See for example:
<"https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/one-computer-hacker-month-convic
ted-5461766">
nb "Hacker" is a popular terms for any CMA offender.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 00:04:06 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l291vgFfnc3U39@mid.individual.net>, at 08:59:27 on Sun, 4
Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Elsewhere in the thread, you have stated your belief that "convictions
under the Computer Misuse Act s1 are extremely rare
It's prosecutions which are very rare, which then leads to even fewer
convictions. See for example:
<"https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/one-computer-hacker-month-convicted-
5461766">
nb "Hacker" is a popular terms for any CMA offender.
I think that's possibly a somewhat misleading article. It alternates between "cybercrime" and "computer misuse" in a way which suggests that they're the same thing. But they're not.
The article states that one person is convicted of a CMA offence every month (ie, an average of 12 a year), despite there being 100,000 cybercrime offences each year. But that doesn't mean that all the other 99,988
offenders are getting away with it. Because many of them, if caught, will be prosecuted under other legislation.
In most cases, "hacking" isn't standalone, it's a means to an end. And that end is itself often an offence of some kind, such as harassment or fraud. So in many cases, the most appropriate charge is one of the primary offence,
not the enabling offence. And there's a whole range of other forms of cybercrime, such as malicious communication and CSAM offences, which don't involve hacking and therefore don't engage the CMA.
Sp pure CMA offences are rarely prosecuted, not because the police and CPS do't care about them, but because the more serious ones typically involve other offences and the less serious ones are often de minimis or can be
dealt with effectively with a warning.
Now, the article does correctly state that cybercrime policing in general is under-resourced, with the police concentrating on traditional offline offences. But the suggested solution, of making even more things
cybercrimes, isn't going to change that. Police priorities reflect the public's priorities. And the thing that the general public is always asking for is "more bobbies on the beat". Not more bobbies sitting at a desk
staring at a computer screen. If the Digital Trust wants to get more police resources allocated to cybercrime (an ambition which I broadly support),
then it needs a bottom-up, not top-down approach. Rather than lobbying the government to change the law to make yet more cybercrimes, it needs to
engage in educating the general public about how cybercrime can potentially affect them and get them to call for more police resources allocated to it.
Mark
On 11 Feb 2024 at 20:21:03 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 00:04:06 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l291vgFfnc3U39@mid.individual.net>, at 08:59:27 on Sun, 4
Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Elsewhere in the thread, you have stated your belief that "convictions >>>> under the Computer Misuse Act s1 are extremely rare
It's prosecutions which are very rare, which then leads to even fewer
convictions. See for example:
<"https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/one-computer-hacker-month- >>>convicted- 5461766">
nb "Hacker" is a popular terms for any CMA offender.
I think that's possibly a somewhat misleading article. It alternates between >> "cybercrime" and "computer misuse" in a way which suggests that they're the >> same thing. But they're not.
The article states that one person is convicted of a CMA offence every month >> (ie, an average of 12 a year), despite there being 100,000 cybercrime
offences each year. But that doesn't mean that all the other 99,988
offenders are getting away with it. Because many of them, if caught, will be >> prosecuted under other legislation.
In most cases, "hacking" isn't standalone, it's a means to an end. And that >> end is itself often an offence of some kind, such as harassment or fraud. So >> in many cases, the most appropriate charge is one of the primary offence,
not the enabling offence. And there's a whole range of other forms of
cybercrime, such as malicious communication and CSAM offences, which don't >> involve hacking and therefore don't engage the CMA.
Sp pure CMA offences are rarely prosecuted, not because the police and CPS >> do't care about them, but because the more serious ones typically involve
other offences and the less serious ones are often de minimis or can be
dealt with effectively with a warning.
Now, the article does correctly state that cybercrime policing in general is >> under-resourced, with the police concentrating on traditional offline
offences. But the suggested solution, of making even more things
cybercrimes, isn't going to change that. Police priorities reflect the
public's priorities. And the thing that the general public is always asking >> for is "more bobbies on the beat". Not more bobbies sitting at a desk
staring at a computer screen. If the Digital Trust wants to get more police >> resources allocated to cybercrime (an ambition which I broadly support),
then it needs a bottom-up, not top-down approach. Rather than lobbying the >> government to change the law to make yet more cybercrimes, it needs to
engage in educating the general public about how cybercrime can potentially >> affect them and get them to call for more police resources allocated to it. >>
Mark
Yes, my reaction to the article was that the Digital Trust's quoted reaction >was facile and misleading
- in a period of increasing legislation and recognition of various
crimes involving the Internet and other comms media
complaining about non-enforcement of the CMA just because the figures were >available
was downright opportunistic - and largely irrelevant to the Digital
Trust's propaganda areas.
It made said Digital Trust look pretty shady to me.
On 13 Feb 2024 at 10:55:43 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l2stq5FbalnU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:51:01 on Sun, 11
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 11 Feb 2024 at 20:21:03 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 00:04:06 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <l291vgFfnc3U39@mid.individual.net>, at 08:59:27 on Sun, 4 >>>>> Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Elsewhere in the thread, you have stated your belief that "convictions >>>>>> under the Computer Misuse Act s1 are extremely rare
It's prosecutions which are very rare, which then leads to even fewer >>>>> convictions. See for example:
<"https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/one-computer-hacker-month-convict
ed- 5461766">
nb "Hacker" is a popular terms for any CMA offender.
I think that's possibly a somewhat misleading article. It alternates between
"cybercrime" and "computer misuse" in a way which suggests that they're the
same thing. But they're not.
The article states that one person is convicted of a CMA offence every month
(ie, an average of 12 a year), despite there being 100,000 cybercrime
offences each year. But that doesn't mean that all the other 99,988
offenders are getting away with it. Because many of them, if caught, will be
prosecuted under other legislation.
In most cases, "hacking" isn't standalone, it's a means to an end. And that
end is itself often an offence of some kind, such as harassment or fraud. So
in many cases, the most appropriate charge is one of the primary offence, >>>> not the enabling offence. And there's a whole range of other forms of
cybercrime, such as malicious communication and CSAM offences, which don't >>>> involve hacking and therefore don't engage the CMA.
Sp pure CMA offences are rarely prosecuted, not because the police and CPS >>>> do't care about them, but because the more serious ones typically involve >>>> other offences and the less serious ones are often de minimis or can be >>>> dealt with effectively with a warning.
Now, the article does correctly state that cybercrime policing in general is
under-resourced, with the police concentrating on traditional offline
offences. But the suggested solution, of making even more things
cybercrimes, isn't going to change that. Police priorities reflect the >>>> public's priorities. And the thing that the general public is always asking
for is "more bobbies on the beat". Not more bobbies sitting at a desk
staring at a computer screen. If the Digital Trust wants to get more police
resources allocated to cybercrime (an ambition which I broadly support), >>>> then it needs a bottom-up, not top-down approach. Rather than lobbying the >>>> government to change the law to make yet more cybercrimes, it needs to >>>> engage in educating the general public about how cybercrime can potentially
affect them and get them to call for more police resources allocated to it.
Mark
Yes, my reaction to the article was that the Digital Trust's quoted reaction
was facile and misleading
The article I posted is simply a wikipedia compliant cite for the actual
numbers.
- in a period of increasing legislation and recognition of various
crimes involving the Internet and other comms media
The opposite in fact, lack of recognition and emerging new legislation
was the main reason the Digital Trust was trying to highlight the issue.
10yrs later, and it's hardly improved.
And the inability of the CMA to address issues like:
The law needs to change. It should, for example, be an offence to use
any technological device to locate, listen to or watch a person
without legitimate purpose.
In addition, restrictions should be placed on the sale of spyware
without lawful reasons. It should also be against the law to install
a webcam or any other form or surveillance device without the
target’s knowledge.
Was why the authorities need a better toolkit. It's no good saying
channelling "It's a civil matter, Sir", "It's a CMA matter Sir" when
that legislation is completely unable to cope (even if in theory it's
the legislation which could be used).
complaining about non-enforcement of the CMA just because the figures were >>> available
It took a PQ, so not especially already available. It was our initiative
which then made it available to the public.
was downright opportunistic - and largely irrelevant to the Digital
Trust's propaganda areas.
I strongly object to the word "propaganda" there. One woman a week being
murdered by her ex-partner, who quite likely used technology to track
them down, is just the tip of the iceberg.
It made said Digital Trust look pretty shady to me.
You approve of the Wild West where anyone can stalk and harass online,
unhindered? And then go on to murder people they have a grudge against.
Because I do not think stalking, violence or terror campaigns are a computer misuse problem I must be in favour of beating my wife? I expected better of you. I am in favour of making some of the things you mention illegal, but not
of making rudeness on the Internet a police matter. A delicate balance, but very little to do with "computer misuse".
In message <l2stq5FbalnU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:51:01 on Sun, 11
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 11 Feb 2024 at 20:21:03 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 00:04:06 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>
In message <l291vgFfnc3U39@mid.individual.net>, at 08:59:27 on Sun, 4
Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Elsewhere in the thread, you have stated your belief that "convictions >>>>> under the Computer Misuse Act s1 are extremely rare
It's prosecutions which are very rare, which then leads to even fewer
convictions. See for example:
<"https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/one-computer-hacker-month-convicte
d- 5461766">
nb "Hacker" is a popular terms for any CMA offender.
I think that's possibly a somewhat misleading article. It alternates between
"cybercrime" and "computer misuse" in a way which suggests that they're the >>> same thing. But they're not.
The article states that one person is convicted of a CMA offence every month
(ie, an average of 12 a year), despite there being 100,000 cybercrime
offences each year. But that doesn't mean that all the other 99,988
offenders are getting away with it. Because many of them, if caught, will be
prosecuted under other legislation.
In most cases, "hacking" isn't standalone, it's a means to an end. And that >>> end is itself often an offence of some kind, such as harassment or fraud. So
in many cases, the most appropriate charge is one of the primary offence, >>> not the enabling offence. And there's a whole range of other forms of
cybercrime, such as malicious communication and CSAM offences, which don't >>> involve hacking and therefore don't engage the CMA.
Sp pure CMA offences are rarely prosecuted, not because the police and CPS >>> do't care about them, but because the more serious ones typically involve >>> other offences and the less serious ones are often de minimis or can be
dealt with effectively with a warning.
Now, the article does correctly state that cybercrime policing in general is
under-resourced, with the police concentrating on traditional offline
offences. But the suggested solution, of making even more things
cybercrimes, isn't going to change that. Police priorities reflect the
public's priorities. And the thing that the general public is always asking >>> for is "more bobbies on the beat". Not more bobbies sitting at a desk
staring at a computer screen. If the Digital Trust wants to get more police >>> resources allocated to cybercrime (an ambition which I broadly support), >>> then it needs a bottom-up, not top-down approach. Rather than lobbying the >>> government to change the law to make yet more cybercrimes, it needs to
engage in educating the general public about how cybercrime can potentially >>> affect them and get them to call for more police resources allocated to it. >>>
Mark
Yes, my reaction to the article was that the Digital Trust's quoted reaction >> was facile and misleading
The article I posted is simply a wikipedia compliant cite for the actual numbers.
- in a period of increasing legislation and recognition of various
crimes involving the Internet and other comms media
The opposite in fact, lack of recognition and emerging new legislation
was the main reason the Digital Trust was trying to highlight the issue. 10yrs later, and it's hardly improved.
And the inability of the CMA to address issues like:
The law needs to change. It should, for example, be an offence to use
any technological device to locate, listen to or watch a person
without legitimate purpose.
In addition, restrictions should be placed on the sale of spyware
without lawful reasons. It should also be against the law to install
a webcam or any other form or surveillance device without the
target’s knowledge.
Was why the authorities need a better toolkit. It's no good saying channelling "It's a civil matter, Sir", "It's a CMA matter Sir" when
that legislation is completely unable to cope (even if in theory it's
the legislation which could be used).
complaining about non-enforcement of the CMA just because the figures were >> available
It took a PQ, so not especially already available. It was our initiative which then made it available to the public.
was downright opportunistic - and largely irrelevant to the Digital
Trust's propaganda areas.
I strongly object to the word "propaganda" there. One woman a week being murdered by her ex-partner, who quite likely used technology to track
them down, is just the tip of the iceberg.
It made said Digital Trust look pretty shady to me.
You approve of the Wild West where anyone can stalk and harass online, unhindered? And then go on to murder people they have a grudge against.
On 13 Feb 2024 at 10:55:43 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <l2stq5FbalnU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:51:01 on Sun, 11
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 11 Feb 2024 at 20:21:03 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 00:04:06 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <l291vgFfnc3U39@mid.individual.net>, at 08:59:27 on Sun, 4 >>>>> Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Elsewhere in the thread, you have stated your belief that "convictions >>>>>> under the Computer Misuse Act s1 are extremely rare
It's prosecutions which are very rare, which then leads to even fewer >>>>> convictions. See for example:
<"https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/one-computer-hacker-month-co
d- 5461766">
nb "Hacker" is a popular terms for any CMA offender.
I think that's possibly a somewhat misleading article. It
alternates between
"cybercrime" and "computer misuse" in a way which suggests that they're the
same thing. But they're not.
The article states that one person is convicted of a CMA offence
every month (ie, an average of 12 a year), despite there being
100,000 cybercrime offences each year. But that doesn't mean that
all the other 99,988 offenders are getting away with it. Because
many of them, if caught, will be prosecuted under other legislation.
In most cases, "hacking" isn't standalone, it's a means to an end.
And that end is itself often an offence of some kind, such as >>>>harassment or fraud. So in many cases, the most appropriate charge
is one of the primary offence, not the enabling offence. And
there's a whole range of other forms of cybercrime, such as
malicious communication and CSAM offences, which don't involve
hacking and therefore don't engage the CMA.
Sp pure CMA offences are rarely prosecuted, not because the police and CPS >>>> do't care about them, but because the more serious ones typically involve >>>> other offences and the less serious ones are often de minimis or can be >>>> dealt with effectively with a warning.
Now, the article does correctly state that cybercrime policing in >>>>general is
under-resourced, with the police concentrating on traditional offline
offences. But the suggested solution, of making even more things
cybercrimes, isn't going to change that. Police priorities reflect the >>>> public's priorities. And the thing that the general public is always asking
for is "more bobbies on the beat". Not more bobbies sitting at a desk
staring at a computer screen. If the Digital Trust wants to get more police
resources allocated to cybercrime (an ambition which I broadly support), >>>> then it needs a bottom-up, not top-down approach. Rather than lobbying the >>>> government to change the law to make yet more cybercrimes, it needs to >>>> engage in educating the general public about how cybercrime can potentially
affect them and get them to call for more police resources allocated to it.
Mark
Yes, my reaction to the article was that the Digital Trust's quoted reaction
was facile and misleading
The article I posted is simply a wikipedia compliant cite for the actual
numbers.
- in a period of increasing legislation and recognition of various
crimes involving the Internet and other comms media
The opposite in fact, lack of recognition and emerging new legislation
was the main reason the Digital Trust was trying to highlight the issue.
10yrs later, and it's hardly improved.
And the inability of the CMA to address issues like:
The law needs to change. It should, for example, be an offence to use
any technological device to locate, listen to or watch a person
without legitimate purpose.
In addition, restrictions should be placed on the sale of spyware
without lawful reasons. It should also be against the law to install
a webcam or any other form or surveillance device without the
target’s knowledge.
Was why the authorities need a better toolkit. It's no good saying
channelling "It's a civil matter, Sir", "It's a CMA matter Sir" when
that legislation is completely unable to cope (even if in theory it's
the legislation which could be used).
complaining about non-enforcement of the CMA just because the figures were >>> available
It took a PQ, so not especially already available. It was our initiative
which then made it available to the public.
was downright opportunistic - and largely irrelevant to the Digital
Trust's propaganda areas.
I strongly object to the word "propaganda" there. One woman a week being
murdered by her ex-partner, who quite likely used technology to track
them down, is just the tip of the iceberg.
It made said Digital Trust look pretty shady to me.
You approve of the Wild West where anyone can stalk and harass online,
unhindered? And then go on to murder people they have a grudge against.
Because I do not think stalking, violence or terror campaigns are a computer >misuse problem I must be in favour of beating my wife?
I am in favour of making some of the things you mention illegal, but
not of making rudeness on the Internet a police matter.
PS I have little doubt that many of these problems are a matter of police >attitude to things that are already crimes, and new laws will simply be used >by the police to persecute people they really don't like, such as political >and racial minorities, not the misogynists that many police officers seem to >secretly sympathise with.
In message <l311kcF4aekU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:20:44 on Tue, 13
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
[quoted text muted]
You presumably think that handguns should be legalised, because they are
a similar precursor to the offences that people will commit with them.
In message <l311rmF4bgaU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:24:38 on Tue, 13
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
PS I have little doubt that many of these problems are a matter of police
attitude to things that are already crimes, and new laws will simply be used >> by the police to persecute people they really don't like, such as political >> and racial minorities, not the misogynists that many police officers seem to >> secretly sympathise with.
Your paranoia is off the scale.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 37:44:06 |
| Calls: | 6,708 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,241 |
| Messages: | 5,353,507 |