[Massachusetts] Parent-Child Privacy

[Chesamo]

Originally Posted by TinkerBelleLuvr

You are on a LEGAL forum. You, are NOT a party to this. Therefore, it makes you a LEGAL stranger.

It would be no different than if you were a grandparent, aunt, uncle. In the LEGAL perspective, you are considered a LEGAL stranger.

I'm lost: define your use of the term "legal forum".

If you're arguing that I have no right to question the law because I am not involved in the situation, then I would like to gravely differ.

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

It means that you have no standing to sue, or be heard in a court of law when it concerns "Michael."

We look at it from a LEGAL perspective. Nothing says you cannot research. No one has stated that.

You just have no standing in court, or in any legal aspect for Michael.

[Chesamo]

The fact that I can't sue for Michael is not even the point of this discussion. Bringing it in is completely irrelevant. Very delicate use of the straw-man argument though; I almost thought you were arguing against what I was saying for a second there.

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

Bella stated that it sounded like you were interfering in the relationship between Michael and Michael's parents. You questioned what was meant by LEGAL stranger, and it was answered.

[Chesamo]

Originally Posted by TinkerBelleLuvr

Bella stated that it sounded like you were interfering in the relationship between Michael and Michael's parents. You questioned what was meant by LEGAL stranger, and it was answered.

I'm trying to help my friend gain back the privacy he deserves. I'm not interfering with any relationship, unless you're referring to the horribly fascist "child doesn't breathe without parent saying so" relationship.

[Adalaide78]

I'm interested in knowing what website is responsible for Michael's email. Most websites include in the agreement that you must be of legal age to form a binding contract. This means being 18. If it doesn't say you have to be of legal age it is simply implied since it is a binding contract that is agreed to. Until then the only one in the house allowed to have that email is the parent. What you mean then is that Michael is using a parent's email as his own, in which case of course they can check it. This is something I took a great interest in since my ex-husband's girlfriend keeps reading my daughter's email. I can't find an email that specifically allows a child to get an email address. This is one in particulre that states the age restriction. (2.3 a)

[url=http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en]Google Terms of Service[/url]

[Chesamo]

Originally Posted by Adalaide78

I'm interested in knowing what website is responsible for Michael's email. Most websites include in the agreement that you must be of legal age to form a binding contract. This means being 18. If it doesn't say you have to be of legal age it is simply implied since it is a binding contract that is agreed to. Until then the only one in the house allowed to have that email is the parent. What you mean then is that Michael is using a parent's email as his own, in which case of course they can check it. This is something I took a great interest in since my ex-husband's girlfriend keeps reading my daughter's email. I can't find an email that specifically allows a child to get an email address. This is one in particulre that states the age restriction. (2.3 a)...

Yahoo!'s terms of service state: "In consideration of your use of the Yahoo! Services, you represent that you are of legal age to form a binding contract..." However, with parental consent, the child can be considered to be of legal age to form a contract for the purposes of the contract. Michael had consent when he created the account. This does not, however, transfer the power of attorney for the account to the parent.

Unfortunately, most e-mail ToS are badly in need of reworking to account for the millions of teenagers who depend on it (I was unable to even communicate to my university admissions representatives before I had an e-mail, and this was when I was 17), but that's a different debate for a different time.

[The Occultist]

Chesamo, you are thinking about laws the wrong way. Laws are typically not set up to GIVE rights, but are more set up to RESTRICT allowable actions. You're asking for us to provide a law that says parents are allowed to "snoop" through their children's' belongs, electronic or otherwise, but the laws are not set up that way.

If there are any laws in this area, they will be set up to say that a parent is not allowed to snoop, not that is a parent is allowed to snoop. Absent a law saying that parent may not snoop, that makes it legal for the parent to snoop. So here is the challenge: YOU find a law that says parents are not allowed to snoop.

[Chesamo]

Originally Posted by The Occultist

Chesamo, you are thinking about laws the wrong way. Laws are typically not set up to GIVE rights, but are more set up to RESTRICT allowable actions. You're asking for us to provide a law that says parents are allowed to "snoop" through their children's' belongs, electronic or otherwise, but the laws are not set up that way.

If there are any laws in this area, they will be set up to say that a parent is not allowed to snoop, not that is a parent is allowed to snoop. Absent a law saying that parent may not snoop, that makes it legal for the parent to snoop. So here is the challenge: YOU find a law that says parents are not allowed to snoop.

I already did. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article XII.

[Stevef]

Originally Posted by Chesamo

I already did. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article XII.

What court enforces that "law"?

[Chesamo]

Originally Posted by Stevef

What court enforces that "law"?

That law was laid down by the United Nations. Elanor Roosevelt was one of the authors. It was ratified on October 10, 1948. It's not a "law", it's a law (notice my lack of scare quotes). It was adopted by the UN to define "human rights" in its Charter, which all participating countries must abide by (the United States is one of them).

[Stevef]

Originally Posted by Chesamo

That law was laid down by the United Nations. Elanor Roosevelt was one of the authors. It was ratified on October 10, 1948. It's not a "law", it's a law (notice my lack of scare quotes). It was adopted by the UN to define "human rights" in its Charter, which all participating countries must abide by (the United States is one of them).

So if a parent does not have a right to search their child's computer, would that imply a parent cannot consent to a police search of the child's room?

[Chesamo]

Originally Posted by Stevef

So if a parent does not have a right to search their child's computer, would that imply a parent cannot consent to a police search of the child's room?

Technically, yes, although generally the police have a warrant before searching anywhere (school lockers, for instance) or can get one fairly easily.

[CdwJava]

Who owns the computer? Who pays for the account? Did the parent have to HACK the account, or did they simply log in because they know the account information because they set it up?

In my house I know all the kids' accounts, I am the administrator for all the computers on the home network, and I have made it very clear that I can and will access anything on their computers at any time I wish. I have even implied I have nanny software installed (which I do not).

Much of the law has to do with EXPECTATION of privacy. If this minor child have not been provided any EXPECTATION of privacy with regards to their e-mail or parental snooping, the child does not have a leg to stand on.

So, if you are so dead sure that the minor child has grounds to stand on,l see if the minor is willing to go to the police. On the off chance that the police do not tell the child to pound sand and listen to their parent, and they actually take a report that gets forwarded to the DA, you and the child will get an opportunity to find out how the state will treat this.

From a practical standpoint, I cannot imagine that the police would pursue this. On the off chance they did, I doubt a DA would file it. But, strange things could happen. If I were told that I can't do this, my reaction would be simple - kiddie would be off-line until he or she was 18 and using their own computer, phone line, and account.

Oh, by the way, Chesamo (and you've been here before with this argument but under a different name, if memory serves), the United Nations articles are not state or federal statutory law and not enforced here. If this child wanted to go through the United Nations they could knock themselves out.

- Carl

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Chesamo

Technically, yes, although generally the police have a warrant before searching anywhere (school lockers, for instance) or can get one fairly easily.

What? Schools have a much lower threshold of probable cause. And most searches are done via consent or probable cause and exigency. Very FEW searches actually require a warrant unless we're talking about some major incident. Mom and dad are not the government and do not NEED a warrant.

- Carl