Is Reading Other People's E-mails and Text Messages a Felony?

[XLFD]

The facts are basically undisputed, but a little hard to follow.  A wife files for divorce from her third husband.  The wife has a popular web-based E-mail account.  She never shared her password.  It is alleged that the wife had communicated to a friend through E-mail that she was having an affair with her second husband while married to her third.  Her third husband correctly guesses her password and passes some information he gets to the wife's first husband, copied from her E-mails.  The first ex-husband then uses that information as evidence in a custody hearing.

This happened in Michigan's Oakland County where the prosecutor brought charges against the third husband, alleging the violation of this law  MCL 752.795  which states:  "A person shall not intentionally and without authorization...

(a) Access... a computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a ... computer network."

and then states in MCL 752.797 :   "(2) A person who violates section 5 is guilty of a crime as follows:

(a) ... the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both."

And it was looking bad for Leon Walker, the third husband, when the MI Court of Appeals ruled in 12-2011 that the case could go to trial and Supreme Court backed that decision in 6-2012, with some misgivings-- Justice Marilyn Kelly noting that the existing law was 33 years old (with a minor revision 16 years ago), long before the prevalence of the internet in our daily lives.  She also noted that a parent could be convicted under the statute for monitoring her child's internet use or E-mails.  Or even for using word processing or calculator applications on their spouse's computer without permission, under the plain language of the statute.

But then in the process of discovery, it was found out that the wife had actually did the same thing that Leon Walker did, when she had admitted in E-mails to a friend that she had looked at the text messages of Leon's cell phone.  By early July, the charge was dropped against Mr. Walker.  A second similar charge being pressed was then dropped within two weeks against the man.

So, at least for now, the questions brought forth by this prosecution will not be answered through the Michigan courts, and there is some hope for a bill going through committee in the State legislature that would amend the law to keep up with the times and offer some relief for parents and spouses so that  they do not inadvertently commit a felony when they borrow a phone or a computer, or do some well-meaning snooping.

What do you think should be done?  Leave the law as it is, repeal the law, amend the law to protect parents and spouses, or gut the law so that it only tackles true hackers, spies, and other folks with malicious intent?

Epilogue:  Mr. Walker, whose snooping appears to have been for the well-being of the first husband's child, has recently struck back at the system that put his liberties in jeopardy for two years by filing a lawsuit against the Oakland Prosecutor's office.  PA Jessica Cooper (no relation to our honorable Coopers) was very intent on persecuting this law from early on, now it's his time to turn the screws on the system so eager to do the same to him.   Read his own blog which was started from early on in the process to gauge the full extent of what happened in this case.

http://www.leonwalker.com/

[Jane]

"What do you think should be done?  Leave the law as it is, repeal the law, amend the law to protect parents and spouses, or gut the law so that it only tackles true hackers, spies, and other folks with malicious intent?"

Somewhere between gutting the law and amending it to protect parents spouses etc....who actually logs out of any device/system? Nobody in my house seems to log out, someones account is almost always up on one device or another and we share everything so I guess we are all felons!

[XLFD]

It's hard to be non-felons when your family has to share devices, whether it be computers, phones, or anything else able to access the net. 

[Jane]

"  MCL 752.795  which states:  "A person shall not intentionally and without authorization... "

So I am curious if a person leaving an account logged in and then another getting on that device and reading through that account would make a without authorization situation?

I mean you can read an written word on a piece of paper laying around the house, is a logged in email any different than a diary?

[Willy]

In my opinion this law, MCL 752.795,  has no bearing on this case. This law is in regards to computer hacking not snooping. The law does not stipulate " what" computers or systems need authorization and by whom? I don't see how any prosecutor could even begin to enforce this law regarding any computer crime especially with the word "intentionally" in the description.                 

A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:

(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

(b) Insert or attach or knowingly create the opportunity for an unknowing and unwanted insertion or attachment of a set of instructions or a computer program into a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network, that is intended to acquire, alter, damage, delete, disrupt, or destroy property or otherwise use the services of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network. This subdivision does not prohibit conduct protected under section 5 of article I of the state constitution of 1963 or under the first amendment of the constitution of the United States.

[XLFD]

This is one reason why this would have been an interesting case if it was prosecuted, because the 'legislators intent' and the 'plain wording of the statute' have never been interpretted by the courts in similar circumstances.  Thus, if the prosecutor, who may have been politically motivated, would have continued the case, we may have got an answer.  As it is, it may just spur legislative changes that will come into place so there isn't such a fuzzy interpretation in the future by PAs.