On TV.com: FLASHFORWARD is Given a Get-Well Break
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 11 of 35:
Next »
« Previous
Re: Clarification needed...
"Was the computer solely his property or was it joint property of him & his wife?"

Whether it was or wasn't is irrelevant. The laws surrounding ownership of tangible property and those dealing with privacy of communications are two entirely separate beasts.

With regards to interception of communications, the law (both Federal and State) are neither confusing nor ambiguous, and state:

"ANY PERSON who... intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept... any wire, oral, or electronic communication... shall be punished... " [emphasis added]

The courts have consistantly held that a spouse falls under the category of "Any person".

Unless a statute has a specifically enumerated exemption for a class or group of individuals, then it is generally understood that Congress or Legislature intended to include them.

For example, you may have bought your phone from Radio Shack with your own money; the phone account may be solely in your name; and you may pay every dime of the phone bill every month, but you still cannot legally record your spouses conversations on that phone with impunity.

See: Glazner v. Glazner, No. 02-11799 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2003).

Hope that clarifies it a little.

Jim Parker
AXIS Investigative Services, Inc.
http://www.FloridaDetectives.com
Posted by: vccooper   Posted on: 02/19/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Yahoo IM  naran | 02/15/05
Clarification needed...  RM Antala | 02/16/05
I have to agree, and I'll expand on that...  el1jones | 02/16/05
only the law can illegally wiretap you  linuxoverwindows | 02/16/05
Doesn't really matter.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/16/05
So..  Patrick Jones | 02/16/05
spyware wife broke law  christine1986 | 02/16/05
Children have no right to privacy from parents.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/16/05
Clarification needed...  dniemczycki | 02/16/05
Re: The law  osreinstall | 02/16/05
Re: Clarification needed...  vccooper | 02/19/05
It was the KIDS computer  CJMom | 05/04/06
Its VERY simple  Roger Ramjet | 02/16/05
Not true  FirstNLastN | 02/16/05
I hate to be picky, but...  el1jones | 02/16/05
It is against the law to "record" a person's "conversation" without their c  dniemczycki | 02/16/05
Actually, thats not entirely correct either..  widge_z | 02/16/05
Actually, thats not entirely correct either  dniemczycki | 02/16/05
ahhh..  widge_z | 02/16/05
Re: Actually, thats not entirely correct either  vccooper | 02/19/05
Jesus, and just think of how CRIMINAL the spyware companies must be then!  Jeff Spicoli | 02/16/05
nothing  linuxoverwindows | 02/16/05
Precisely why I am starting my own company  Jeff Spicoli | 02/16/05
count me in happy (nt)  linuxoverwindows | 02/16/05
Spying criminal  Roger Ramjet | 02/16/05
You are bound by the license  osreinstall | 02/16/05
The Laws Are Crazy  chivikos | 02/16/05
The Laws Are Crazy  dniemczycki | 02/16/05
what i find funny is...  linuxoverwindows | 02/16/05
this only made it to print because...  linuxoverwindows | 02/16/05
Young one, can you speak English?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/16/05
i no speaky ingrish  linuxoverwindows | 02/19/05
dear i no speak ingrish  phillipp1 | 02/08/07
These Judges are smokin Somethin  Edward@... | 02/17/05
How to use the Information  Laedeke | 06/19/06

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

Meet Doc