61–70 of 81 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if this would now technically be an offence under the Computer Misuse Act (CMA) as presumably she didn't give you authorisation to access her laptop?
Diary-reading was bad form even before. If you want your adolescent child to never ever trust you again for the rest of their life, go read their diary.
Data retention is negotiated and spelled out in detail in NDAs for contract research organizations. It's easy to delete data from servers once a project is done, but the backup tapes also have copies. You can't throw the tapes out, because the company needs them, hence there are agreements what happens to the data and tapes, and nowadays these are standard practice. This is a solved problem in the real world, but som…
But an NDA can't prevent a company from turning over their backup data to the authorities when presented with a legitimate warrant from a court.
Data retention is negotiated and spelled out in detail in NDAs for contract research organizations. It's easy to delete data from servers once a project is done, but the backup tapes also have copies. You can't throw the tapes out, because the company needs them, hence there are agreements what happens to the data and tapes, and nowadays these are standard practice. This is a solved problem in the real world, but som…
But an NDA can't prevent a company from turning over their backup data to the authorities when presented with a legitimate warrant from a court.
Relevant and coincidental personal anecdote: 10 years ago I caught my x-wife in an affair as she was using this same method the communicate with her lover. Her choice of email address for the shared account raised alarms on my firewall, so it was a simple matter to track to her machine. While she had gone to the similar trouble to delete all records on Yahoo (coincidentally), she had been browsing with IE which, due…
> Her choice of email address for the shared account raised alarms on my firewall What does that even mean?
Relevant and coincidental personal anecdote: 10 years ago I caught my x-wife in an affair as she was using this same method the communicate with her lover. Her choice of email address for the shared account raised alarms on my firewall, so it was a simple matter to track to her machine. While she had gone to the similar trouble to delete all records on Yahoo (coincidentally), she had been browsing with IE which, due…
That's a pretty serious firewall you have there. Assuming that s/he was not using encrypted smtp and imap or pop, then you still have a L7 filter that reads and logs email addresses and alarms on them. Now it is unlikely (to me) that you would have a whitelist of acceptable email addresses with which to alarm. I can think of a few other things you might have done to trigger alarms and all of them are pretty distasteful.
So I will conclude you simply violated her civil rights and spied on her.
I feel sorrow for you, genuinely, that you have had a relationship problem but I suspect that it would have been easier to find out what was going on in the various old fashioned ways, rather than farting around with IT and being a bit creepy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if this would now technically be an offence under the Computer Misuse Act (CMA) as presumably she didn't give you authorisation to access her laptop?
Spouses share communal property. Hard to argue that your husband can't be allowed to use a common resource of the household.
He described it as "her laptop", there's a clear demarcation of ownership. I just wonder if those ownership laws of the physical property would overshadow the unauthorised access to material parts of UK's CMA (and it's ilk depending on your jurisdiction). AFAIR it just says unauthorised access nothing about 'of a system not owned by the accused'; indeed there was a case (Court of Appeal case at bottom of http://www.computerevidence.co.uk/Cases/CMA.htm) specifying that it was unlawful access to data on any computer (ie including the one you're entitled to access).
It might serve to consider if your wife had secretly taken lewd pictures that wouldn't give you, as spouse, entitlement [eg because you owned the computer] to access them without her permission.
Just because one owns the computer system doesn't mean one owns, nor has a right of access to, the data. That's quite clear in many areas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spouses share communal property. Hard to argue that your husband can't be allowed to use a common resource of the household.
It probably is hard to argue, but that's what lawyers love isn't it?? He described it as "her laptop", there's a clear demarcation of ownership. I just wonder if those ownership laws of the physical property would overshadow the unauthorised access to material parts of UK's CMA (and it's ilk depending on your jurisdiction). AFAIR it just says unauthorised access nothing about 'of a system not owned by the accused'; i…
Relevant and coincidental personal anecdote: 10 years ago I caught my x-wife in an affair as she was using this same method the communicate with her lover. Her choice of email address for the shared account raised alarms on my firewall, so it was a simple matter to track to her machine. While she had gone to the similar trouble to delete all records on Yahoo (coincidentally), she had been browsing with IE which, due…
"Her choice of email address for the shared account raised alarms on my firewall" That's a pretty serious firewall you have there. Assuming that s/he was not using encrypted smtp and imap or pop, then you still have a L7 filter that reads and logs email addresses and alarms on them. Now it is unlikely (to me) that you would have a whitelist of acceptable email addresses with which to alarm. I can think of a few other…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've banned this account for violating the HN guidelines. Normally I would let you know that personal attacks are not allowed on HN, that this is a bannable offense, and ask you not to do it again. But in your case we already did that. Edit: I reversed this because I'm not sure I interpreted the comment correctly. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12153922 and marked it off-topic.
This wasn't a personal attack and I don't follow how how it could be interpreted is a personal attack. It didn't in any suggest jacquesm's wife was engaged in adultery. It was a statement that jacquesm comment to codemogul was irrelevant. The conversation unfolded as follows: codemogul: "I caught my x-wife in an affair as she was using this same method the communicate with her lover." jacquesm: "Funny, I've run the m…
If it's true that you're not posting personal attacks but merely things that look like them, it would be a good idea to make the distinction clearer in the future.