[Massachusetts] Parent-Child Privacy

[Chesamo]

I have an interesting and possibly debatable question regarding a child's privacy from his parent. A friend of mine (who we'll call him "Michael") is a minor, about fourteen years of age. His father was found reading Michael's private e-mails and browsing his Internet history without his consent. Is this legal? It seems like a major breach of privacy to me.

I don't want a debate about how it should be or what is morally acceptable. I want to know, true or false, this is illegal.

[Antigone*of*Greece]

Originally Posted by Chesamo

I have an interesting and possibly debatable question regarding a child's privacy from his parent. A friend of mine (who we'll call him "Michael") is a minor, about fourteen years of age. His father was found reading Michael's private e-mails and browsing his Internet history without his consent. Is this legal? It seems like a major breach of privacy to me.

I don't want a debate about how it should be or what is morally acceptable. I want to know, true or false, this is illegal.

Until "Michael" reaches the age of majority "Michael's" parents own the air he breathes.

[Chesamo]

I find that hard to believe. Can you cite any specific laws?

[Stevef]

Originally Posted by Chesamo

I find that hard to believe. Can you cite any specific laws?

Originally Posted by Chapter 231: Section 85G

Parents’ liability for willful acts of minor children

Section 85G. Parents of an unemancipated child under the age of eighteen and over the age of seven years shall be liable in a civil action for any willful act committed by said child which results in injury or death to another person or damage to the property of another, which shall include any damages resulting from a larceny or attempted larceny of property as set forth in section thirty A of chapter two hundred and sixty-six, damage to cemetery property or damage to any state, county or municipal property or damage as set forth in sections one hundred and twenty-six A and one hundred and twenty-six B of chapter two hundred and sixty-six. This section shall not apply to a parent who, as a result of a decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, does not have custody of such child at the time of the commission of the tort. Recovery under this section shall be limited to the amount of proved loss or damage but in no event shall it exceed five thousand dollars.

How could the parents be responsible for something if they are prohibited by law to prevent it?

Originally Posted by Chapter 231: Section 85P

Age of majority; legal capacity

Section 85P. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, any person domiciled in the commonwealth who has reached the age of eighteen shall for all purposes, and any other person who has reached the age of eighteen shall with respect to any transaction governed by the law of the commonwealth, be deemed of full legal capacity unless legally incapacitated for some reason other than insufficient age.

A minor has no legal standing to sue parents.

[Chesamo]

Originally Posted by Stevef

A minor has no legal standing to sue parents.

I disagree with your interpretation of that law. Let me break it down.

Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, any person domiciled in the commonwealth who has reached the age of eighteen shall for all purposes...

Defining the age of eighteen as the age of majority.

...and any other person who has reached the age of eighteen shall with respect to any transaction governed by the law of the commonwealth, be deemed of full legal capacity unless legally incapacitated for some reason other than insufficient age.

Stating that the eighteen-year-old has full legal counsel.

I don't see how this disallows a child from suing. Nor how this gives the parent the right to invade his son's privacy.

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

Until internet-boy/girl gets to be the age of majority, there is NO right to privacy. Parents can snoop away. therefore, since parents have this right, there is nothing for internet-boy/girl to sue the parents about.

[Chesamo]

Originally Posted by TinkerBelleLuvr

Until internet-boy/girl gets to be the age of majority, there is NO right to privacy. Parents can snoop away. therefore, since parents have this right, there is nothing for internet-boy/girl to sue the parents about.

Where's the law?

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

In the absence of a law (because you won't find one), parents are not prohibited from reading internet boy's/girl's emails or going thru their history.

[Antigone*of*Greece]

Originally Posted by TinkerBelleLuvr

In the absence of a law (because you won't find one), parents are not prohibited from reading internet boy's/girl's emails or going thru their history.

Like I said...they own the air you breathe until the age of majority.

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

Parents' are responsible for "Michael's" behaviour. they have the DUTY to make sure that sonny boy isn't going where sonny boy shouldn't be going. If Michael objects too much, Michael should lose the privilege of even going on the internet.

You can ask my kiddo right now - I have confiscated said item until **I** decides that she deserves to be on a computer.

[Chesamo]

Originally Posted by TinkerBelleLuvr

In the absence of a law (because you won't find one), parents are not prohibited from reading internet boy's/girl's emails or going thru their history.

I don't believe that the absence of law implies right.

Originally Posted by TinkerBelleLuvr

Parents' are responsible for "Michael's" behaviour. they have the DUTY to make sure that sonny boy isn't going where sonny boy shouldn't be going. If Michael objects too much, Michael should lose the privilege of even going on the internet.

You can ask my kiddo right now - I have confiscated said item until **I** decides that she deserves to be on a computer.

And you are exactly the type of parent I object to. Irresponsible use is one thing, but accessing their private, confidential information without consent is quite another.

Again, I didn't ask for a debate about moral objectivity. If there is a law that explicitly states a parent's right to violate their children's' privacy, let me see it. Otherwise, I don't believe the parent has the right.

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

You do NOT have the right to "privacy" until you turn 18. Period. Not even.

If there is NO law forbidding said practice, then you are not violating a law.

Parents' have the DUTY to make sure their children are NOT going down the wrong path. I can and will look at my children's emails and history at whim.

It is the PARENTS, along with internet boy, who will face sanctions for internet boy's/ girl's use if they are going where they should not.

[Stevef]

Originally Posted by Chesamo

I don't believe that the absence of law implies right.

And you are exactly the type of parent I object to. Irresponsible use is one thing, but accessing their private, confidential information without consent is quite another.

Again, I didn't ask for a debate about moral objectivity. If there is a law that explicitly states a parent's right to violate their children's' privacy, let me see it. Otherwise, I don't believe the parent has the right.

Is there a law that explicitly grants a parent the right to breathe? If so, please cite it.

(hint: you won't find one)

[Chesamo]

Originally Posted by TinkerBelleLuvr

You do NOT have the right to "privacy" until you turn 18. Period. Not even.

Again, almost impossible for me to believe.

Originally Posted by TinkerBelleLuvr

If there is NO law forbidding said practice, then you are not violating a law.

I've already given my opinion on this.

Originally Posted by TinkerBelleLuvr

Parents' have the DUTY to make sure their children are NOT going down the wrong path. I can and will look at my children's emails and history at whim.

The ends do not justify the means. You're still invading another human being's privacy and volition.

The operative phrase here being "at whim". If you suspect involvement in illicit activity, then by all means. But get consent first. It's not that hard. Failing that, the legal system provides alternatives to gaining permission, such as the subpoena.

Originally Posted by TinkerBelleLuvr

It is the PARENTS, along with internet boy, who will face sanctions for internet boy's/ girl's use if they are going where they should not.

For one, read the whole thread, because I explicitly stated that the subject is male. For another, stop calling him "internet boy", because it's derogatory. Finally, there was nothing illicit in his activity, so your
argument is moot.

Originally Posted by Stevef

Is there a law that explicitly grants a parent the right to breathe? If so, please cite it.

(hint: you won't find one)

Different problem. Nice straw-man, though.

Privacy is a right that is granted to every human being in the United States. In order to violate it, you need a legal reason. Every person in a country participating in the UN, in fact. See: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article XII.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

When you put ANYTHING out on the internet, it no longer is private.