Accessing Personal Information

[jsmjr57]

What is the name of your state? NJ My ex-wife to be has been accessing all of my personal, business and private information. Is there something legally I can do to stop her. What is the law?

 

[Curt581]

Change your PINs and passwords?

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

You can't do a thing about it unless she does something illegal like get credit in your name. Just accessing it is not illegal.

Wrong. Ignore this poster.

How is ex accessing information? Where is information stored?

There are potentially both criminal and civil penalties.

 

[>Charlotte<]

You can't do a thing about it unless she does something illegal like get credit in your name. Just accessing it is not illegal.

You sure about that, Sandee? You don't think it might matter what she's accessing and--more importantly--how she's accessing it?

 

[quincy]

Actually, I think Curt has the best solution and sandee is not too far off-base on this, either.

You are responsible for securing your own personal information on a computer. The key to securing this information is to create a user name and password that is strong and secure.

Civil action, and especially criminal action, is difficult to take against someone who is merely accessing personal information. There must be an indication that something illegal is being done with the accessed information (ie. identity theft, impersonation, harassment) and there must be proof of economic loss for any action to be worth pursuing.

Check out Title 18 USC 1030, Computer Fraud and Abuse. Actions against those accessing personal information are based on damages suffered, and losses are limited to economic damages. While technically obtaining information through unauthorized access is a misdemeanor and punishable by up to one year in jail, and if damages are suffered or if medical information is accessed it can be a felony, in reality these "access crimes" are rarely prosecuted.

I recommend that jsmjr change his user name and password, and then keep a close eye on his credit reports and bank statements for unusual activity.

 

[>Charlotte<]

I'll stick to my assertion that OP's question can't be properly addressed without having more specific information as to what, exactly, the ex-wife is doing.

I absolutely agree, however, that the best and most practical way to deal with the problem is to change his user names and passwords to something more secure--and to continue to change them on a regular basis. But even that is an assumption that the manner in which the ex is accessing this information is with his log-on information.

 

[quincy]

It is not actually his ex that is accessing this information. He said it was his "ex-wife to be ".

I believe the damages must amount to over $5000 before any action will fall under Title 18's Computer Fraud and Abuse. Jmsjr did not mention any economic damages that have resulted, so I assume he would have little legal recourse if his wife has only accessed the information for her own personal knowledge (ie. for an impending divorce, perhaps?).

But I agree, Clt, that a definitive answer would be impossible without all of the facts and details.

 

[CavemanLawyer]

Trust me, the Feds don't care about a case like this regardless of much the damages are.

It's true that computer crimes dealing strictly with unauthorized access against private individuals are rarely prosecuted but when they are it is under State law, not Federal Law. New Jersey's applicable statute does not require any monetary damages to prosecute, though if you have any it can raise the degree of offense. Of course this still requires some sort of access to your computer or to an online database of yours, and we still haven't heard how the information was accessed.

2C:20-25 Computer criminal activity; degree of crime; sentencing.

4.A person is guilty of computer criminal activity if the person purposely or knowingly and without authorization, or in excess of authorization:

a.Accesses any data, data base, computer storage medium, computer program, computer software, computer equipment, computer, computer system or computer network;

http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=125375505&Depth=2&depth=2&expandheadings=on&headingswithhits=on&hitsperheading=on&infobase=statutes.nfo&record={179F}&softpage=Doc_Frame_PG42

Most States now have statutes like this, but reserve them for egregious situations. They are not going to prosecute your future ex just because she won't stop snooping through your Yahoo email account.

 

[quincy]

As I read New Jersey's statute, unauthorized computer access can only result in a petty disorderly person's offense at the most (a $500 fine), when there has been no demonstrated disclosure of data to others and/or where there is no demonstrated economic damages resulting from the access.

The disorderly person offense would be with proof that the computer was, in fact, accessed without authorization or in excess of authorization. If this is a "family" computer we are talking about here (is it, jsmjr?), it would be more difficult for jsmjr to prove his wife did not have authorization to access any and all files on it.

To be more than a disorderly person offense under New Jersey law, then, jsmjr would have to show that his wife knowingly and without authorization (or exceeding authorization) accessed or attempted to access his computer, with her purpose being "a scheme to defraud" or obtain services, money or property from jsmjr. In addition, jsmjr would need to show actual damages of at least $200 (up to more than $75,000). Accessing the computer under these other circumstances would fall under New Jersey's "computer-related theft crimes" and result in more than a disorderly person offense (ie. misdemeanor in other states).

So, it really doesn't seem to matter, does it, how the data was accessed (under federal or state law) so much as what the purpose of accessing it is and/or what is done with the data once it is accessed? Or am I missing something fundamental here with the "access" part of it all?

At any rate, I agree with CavemanLawyer about prosecution in this matter.

 

[CavemanLawyer]

As I read New Jersey's statute, unauthorized computer access can only result in a petty disorderly person's offense at the most (a $500 fine), when there has been no demonstrated disclosure of data to others and/or where there is no demonstrated economic damages resulting from the access.

If this individual did nothing more than access the information, and didn't cause any damages, than yes it would be a petty offense. But from the poster's description it seems like the information would contain personal identifying information so if any copies of files were made than it would be a crime of the second degree, Subsection e. I don't really see what the degree of offense has to do with the poster's question though.

So, it really doesn't seem to matter, does it, how the data was accessed (under federal or state law) so much as what the purpose of accessing it is and/or what is done with the data once it is accessed? Or am I missing something fundamental here with the "access" part of it all?

Of course this still requires some sort of access to your computer or to an online database of yours, and we still haven't heard how the information was accessed.

All I'm saying here is that I cited a computer crime statute and we still don't know for sure whether she accessed his computer or some database or other digital storage device. For all we know she went digging through his filing cabinet.

How the data is accessed is a crucial piece of information, yes. Not only does it have to fall within the statute, (ie: be computer related) but it provides evidence of lack of authorization. There is a huge difference between logging into an email account using someone's login and passwords that they told to you and hacking your way into that same account.

 

[quincy]

Ahhhh.

I guess I read jsmjr's original post as being computer-related accessing of data. No idea why. I also guess that would make a bit of a difference if it wasn't computer-related, seeing as how computer crime statutes would not then apply.

Thanks, Caveman.