Soon to be ex is trying to get me fired.

[Noshaw]

What is the name of your state? Texas

My husband and I are going through a very nasty divorce. He has done everything he can to ruin me at my place of business, and to make this worse, we work for the same company. He now claims that he has AOL conversations that was taken off my personal laptop, that happened between I and another co-worker, that he has threatened me, that if I do not back down from the divorce, he will take it to HR and have me fired. I have no idea what these conversations say, or if he has altered them in any way. HELP!! As I do not know what to do.. I have already gone to HR about him harrasing me at work, and I informed them that he is trying to get me fired, but nothing came from that. If I get fired, can I sue the company and him?

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

When and where did the AOL conversations take place?

 

[Noshaw]

He says that he took them off my personal laptop. The only time that I am on my persoanl laptop though is at night, when I get home from work.

 

[quincy]

As for a defamation suit, at this point I don't see that you have one that you could successfully win. You need to prove damages - and since you still have your job, you cannot show a monetary or reputational loss, at least in your place of business. Also, if I am not mistaken, Texas is an at-will state, which means your employer can fire you for any reason whatsoever at any time - it would not take a purloined AOL conversation to do so. So, a suit against your employer would not be successful. In addition, divorcing spouses are often spouting off nonsense about the other, and very few wise people believe this nonsense. If no one believes it, it generally cannot be considered slanderous or libelous.

As for emails or conversations taken off your laptop, right now the privacy issue involved with these is changing. Although most people believe emails to be private, in reality they have not been considered private by the courts. Employers can access materials written by and received by employees on employer-owned computers, universities can access materials written and received by students on university-owned computers, and people sharing computers can access materials written and received on these shared computers.

A very recent federal appeals court ruling on email privacy, however, may change the nature of privacy in postings on the Internet. It would require permission from the email sender before the email could be accessed. It is currently a major victory for privacy rights on the Internet....but it may not hold up on further appeals.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

A private computer at home is protected. Let him know if he distributes or otherwises uses the information he unlawfully obtained, you will sue him and seek criminal charges.

The decision quincy refers to simply upholds the Federal Electronic Communications Act. So, unless the act is determined to be unconstitutional, there are limited exceptions to email privacy. Generally, no privacy exists on a workplace computer, particularly if notice is provided.

 

[quincy]

Ozark_Sophist -
Actually, I was talking about the 1968 Stored Communications Act. The government ordered email, stored with an ISP, turned over to them. Under this Act, the government could obtain these messages with no need for a warrant based on probable cause that the sender of these emails did something wrong. The emailer, however, argued that he did, indeed, STORE emails with an ISP but never gave the ISP permission to READ them or distribute them, as he reasonably expected them to be private. A federal appeals court in Cincinnati agreed with the emailer and told the government that having the ISP turn over the emails to them, without first notifying the sender and getting his permission, was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Now, up until this decision, emails have not been considered private messages, but have been treated more like postcards sent through the mail.
This is the first time, unbelievably, that courts have made such a decision on email privacy.
Yes, this was a government case and involved stored emails, but it bodes well for privacy protection for all emails, unless it is overturned by a full appeals court or even the Supreme Court.
And where are you getting that private computers have any more privacy for emails than school or work computers? Especially if the emails are accessed by someone living in the home with access to the computer? Is there a specific privacy law on this that I am unaware of??? (the FECA applies to INTERCEPTED wire or oral communications - not emails accessed on a computer by the spouse, the employer, the university - but through electronic, mechanical or other devices, as in wiretapping, etc.)

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 121 > § 2701 Prev | Next
§ 2701. Unlawful access to stored communications

How Current is This?
(a) Offense.— Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section whoever—
(1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or
(2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility;
and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Punishment.— The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is—
(1) if the offense is committed for purposes of commercial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or private commercial gain, or in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any State—
(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of a first offense under this subparagraph; and
(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense under this subparagraph; and
(2) in any other case—
(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 1 year or both, in the case of a first offense under this paragraph; and
(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under this subparagraph that occurs after a conviction of another offense under this section.
(c) Exceptions.— Subsection (a) of this section does not apply with respect to conduct authorized—
(1) by the person or entity providing a wire or electronic communications service;
(2) by a user of that service with respect to a communication of or intended for that user; or
(3) in section 2703, 2704 or 2518 of this title.

Here you go. A different section than you were referring to (accessing versus interception).

 

[quincy]

Ozark_Sophist -
Section 2701 DOES focus on protecting email (and voicemail) from unauthorized access, but it is designed to protect such communication (stored by providers of electronic communication service) PENDING the messages' utlimate delivery to their intended recipients. As usually understood by the government, electronic storage refers only to the TEMPORARY storage made in the course of transmitting the message by a provider. And not every computer connected to a communication system is a facility through which an Electronic Communications Service is provided. The 11th Circuit Court has held that hacking into a HOME computer does not implicate section 2701 because a HOME computer does not provide an Electronic Communications Service to others. United States v. Steiger, 318 F. 3d.1039, 1049 (11th Cir. 2003)

Now, you know how great I am at screwing up the legal stuff, so correct me if I am interpreting this way wrong....but I am PRETTY sure that privacy laws do not, as yet, protect emails except in very limited circumstances, and not home computer emails at all.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

Ozark_Sophist -
Section 2701 DOES focus on protecting email (and voicemail) from unauthorized access, but it is designed to protect such communication (stored by providers of electronic communication service) PENDING the messages' utlimate delivery to their intended recipients. As usually understood by the government, electronic storage refers only to the TEMPORARY storage made in the course of transmitting the message by a provider. And not every computer connected to a communication system is a facility through which an Electronic Communications Service is provided. The 11th Circuit Court has held that hacking into a HOME computer does not implicate section 2701 because a HOME computer does not provide an Electronic Communications Service to others. United States v. Steiger, 318 F. 3d.1039, 1049 (11th Cir. 2003)

Now, you know how great I am at screwing up the legal stuff, so correct me if I am interpreting this way wrong....but I am PRETTY sure that privacy laws do not, as yet, protect emails except in very limited circumstances, and not home computer emails at all.

Unless the individual saved the emails to the home computer when read, the emails remain on a server. If the email was not saved on the home computer, the only way to read the email is to intercept as it is transmitted to or from the home computer or access it on the server (yah--, gma--, etc.).

 

[quincy]

Okay. Yes. I am assuming this soon-to-be ex-husband accessed the conversations made by his soon-to-be ex-wife and that these conversations were saved to her laptop computer. I am assuming that he did not intercept them as they were being transmitted.

If he merely accessed them by going into her email account, then he did not violate any privacy law. These emails were not electronically stored emails (per the government's definition of electronically stored) but rather saved emails.

Now, maybe my assumptions are wrong and he intercepted these emails, but it doesn't sound that way, since even Noshaw couldn't remember what these conversations were all about - so apparently (again with my assuming) these were conversations that occurred some time ago. It could also be that this guy lied to his soon-to-be ex (which would not be unheard of) and actually accessed the conversations from the company computers, since these conversations were apparently between Noshaw and a co-worker - and this, again, would be legal, since there is no presumption of privacy on workplace computers.

In other words, I don't see any of what this ex-husband has done to be illegal - crappy, perhaps, but not illegal.