[Massachusetts] Parent-Child Privacy

[Chesamo]

It's a wonder you have so many posts when you fail to read the entire thread before you posts. Basic netiquette.

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?

It's his computer. He accidentally left his computer logged in.

Sidenote: it's not "hacking", it's cracking. Hacking is a much broader term and can refer to non-malicious activity. Cracking is also called black-hat hacking.

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).

That's exactly what I'm against.

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.

See "read thread first".

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.

Once again, making a statement that clearly shows you haven't taken the time to read the entire thread.

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.

And that's where you and I differ.

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.

No, I've never been here before. I found this site through Google about ten minutes before my first post.

But my understanding of the UN is that all member countries must follow all of the laws set down in its Charter or face removal of their sanction. If they have no power, then what's the point?

 

[Mass_Shyster]

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

It appears the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court does not agree.

"The judge found that the father validly consented to the search of a bedroom in the home. The defendant was not living with his parents at this time, but kept some belongings there. The father considered the bedroom to be his son's bedroom, although his son's former girl friend stayed in the room. Assuming, but not deciding, that the motion judge was correct in ruling that the defendant had a possessory interest in the bedroom, the father's consent was sufficient to make the warrantless search valid."

COMMONWEALTH vs. RENE G. ORTIZ. (422 Mass. 64 1996)

 

[CdwJava]

UN rules have no legal standing in state and federal law with regards to enforcement of the statutes.

Whether you agree with my contentions or not is entirely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that those charged with enforcing the laws (the police and the DA) are unlikely to concern themselves with this issue as a crime. On the off chance that they do concern themselves, the state MIGHT pursue it or simply tell the parents that they have no legal right to access an account that they are not privy to. Then mom and dad can simply remove the computer and cut off internet access - matter resolved until the child is 18 and on their own. There is no RIGHT to the internet or to a computer.

Part of such a problem is that of the parent(s) if they allow their child to have that much internet freedom. If the parent is very clear on the conditions of such access, then no expectation of privacy exists and no charges are likely forthcoming. MA may have a different standard, but in my state if the parent retains a right o control or access to the secure information, then there is no claim to privacy or violation of the law. if no such claim has been made by the parent, then unlawful access COULD be charged ... in theory. Though I doubt ANY DA in the state would file on anything but the most egregious case. Parents are given a great deal of latitude over the control of their minor children.

If this is a TRUE scenario, then tell the kid to call the cops. Let us know what happens.

- Carl

 

[Chesamo]

It appears the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court does not agree.

"The judge found that the father validly consented to the search of a bedroom in the home. The defendant was not living with his parents at this time, but kept some belongings there. The father considered the bedroom to be his son's bedroom, although his son's former girl friend stayed in the room. Assuming, but not deciding, that the motion judge was correct in ruling that the defendant had a possessory interest in the bedroom, the father's consent was sufficient to make the warrantless search valid."

COMMONWEALTH vs. RENE G. ORTIZ. (422 Mass. 64 1996)

One case, one time. This is indeed a precedent, though I doubt the Court would agree now seeing as this state has become more liberal in the past decade.

UN rules have no legal standing in state and federal law with regards to enforcement of the statutes.

I guess you don't have a clear understanding of what the UN does, then.

Whether you agree with my contentions or not is entirely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that those charged with enforcing the laws (the police and the DA) are unlikely to concern themselves with this issue as a crime. On the off chance that they do concern themselves, the state MIGHT pursue it or simply tell the parents that they have no legal right to access an account that they are not privy to. Then mom and dad can simply remove the computer and cut off internet access - matter resolved until the child is 18 and on their own. There is no RIGHT to the internet or to a computer.

Did I say there was?

Part of such a problem is that of the parent(s) if they allow their child to have that much internet freedom. If the parent is very clear on the conditions of such access, then no expectation of privacy exists and no charges are likely forthcoming.

They never set forth any specific rules until now. You can't violate rules that don't exist. Retroactively enforcing laws is pointless.

If this is a TRUE scenario

I'm somewhat insulted by your assumption that this isn't a real situation.

then tell the kid to call the cops. Let us know what happens.

After the reaction I got here, that's unlikely.

 

[Adalaide78]

My girls don't live with me sadly. I have long considered my policy on this subject though and it is quite simple. If I do not have access to their internet activity, they don't have internet activity. Problem solved. If a kid gets online and gets mixed up in something they shouldn't and ends up the victim of a crime the media and public will put the parents on trial for not being involved. Parents are responsible for ensuring the safety of their children which in today's world involves access to everything they do online as well as their cell phones.

 

[>Charlotte<]

The bottom line is this: the parents have complete authority of their child. Complete authority. Their only restrictions are those imposed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States. There is no law that restricts them from monitoring, taking away, installing spy software on, re-setting the home page of, or drawing daffodils on, the computer their child uses. They can sell it, give it away, burn it, make a mailbox out of it, or hang the motherboard on their freaking Christmas tree.

Second verse, same as the first: the parents have complete authority of their child, subject to the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States of America. They are not obliged to the United Nations, Eleanor Roosevelt, or you.

Your stubbornness is not going to change any of that, and if you go putting ideas to the contrary in this kid's head he's going to be in worse trouble than he's already in.

Furthermore, if they tell you to stay the hell away from their 14 year old and you don't, you're going to learn a lot about the law.

 

[Chesamo]

My girls don't live with me sadly. I have long considered my policy on this subject though and it is quite simple. If I do not have access to their internet activity, they don't have internet activity. Problem solved. If a kid gets online and gets mixed up in something they shouldn't and ends up the victim of a crime the media and public will put the parents on trial for not being involved. Parents are responsible for ensuring the safety of their children which in today's world involves access to everything they do online as well as their cell phones.

Who says the media and the pubic even get involved? Have you seen the number of cases that go to court every year where the child commits a crime and the parent is blamed? Not very many of these get publicized.

Second verse, same as the first: the parents have complete authority of their child, subject to the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States of America. They are not obliged to the United Nations, Eleanor Roosevelt, or you.

You're missing my entire point. The laws of Massachusetts, as a part of the United States, cannot directly contradict the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Furthermore, if they tell you to stay the hell away from their 14 year old and you don't, you're going to learn a lot about the law.

Wow, you people make a lot of assumptions about the relationship between he and I.

I'm finished with this silly website, because this level of disrespect is just pathetic. None of you are legal counsel (or have not proven as such yet) and I've only seen one post that actually answers the question I asked. It's sad that an eighteeen-year-old has a better understanding of what the word "privacy" means than people on a law website with over a thousand posts. Then again, it's not too surprising considering maybe half of you know how to type properly.

 

[>Charlotte<]

None of you are legal counsel (or have not proven as such yet)

Well then, let me clarify that for you. I'm not a lawyer. I'm still right.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

One case, one time. This is indeed a precedent, though I doubt the Court would agree now seeing as this state has become more liberal in the past decade.

It seems that as recently as August 26, 2009, an appeals court decision cited this case.

I count sixty two cases citing this case, not 'one case, one time'.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

You're missing my entire point. The laws of Massachusetts, as a part of the United States, cannot directly contradict the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not binding on the federal government nor the state of Massachusetts.

but.....

The fourth amendment of the United States Constitution seems to say something similar:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

So your best line of attack is to claim that Michael's civil rights were violated by his parents.

I still don't think it will fly, but nobody can argue that the fourth amendment isn't binding in Massachusetts.

 

[Isis1]

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.

as minor, he doesn't deserve any privacy from his parents.

 

[Isis1]

It's his computer. He accidentally left his computer logged in.

no no. mom and dad have control over the computer until he is 18. even if bill gates gave him the computer personally.

whether that computer was logged on or not.

 

[CdwJava]

I guess you don't have a clear understanding of what the UN does, then.

Sure I do. But, one thing they do NOT do is legislate law in the United States. The feds might come down and mandate that the state's create laws that reflect our treaty obligations, but I fail to see where the UN has said that parents have no control over the activities of their child.

there are already laws here against hacking and unauthorized access to computer systems. But, assuming that a parent is going to be charged with such a thing is a pipe dream. Might it happen? Sure. But, as I said, all the parent would have to would be to disconnect the computer from the internet, take away the child's cell phone, and even take away the computer if desired. Or, are you going to argue that a parent must allow their minor, dependent child all the access to the internet they wish?

They never set forth any specific rules until now. You can't violate rules that don't exist. Retroactively enforcing laws is pointless.

Who is "they"? 4th Amendment laws have been around for ... oh ... let's say a little more than 200 years. But, since parents are not government agents, they really do not apply in the same way. A parent can simply set down the rules and the child must abide by them.

I'm somewhat insulted by your assumption that this isn't a real situation.

If it were a REAL situation with a child that is so miffed at mom and dad that he or she wants to report them to the police, let him or her do so. Good luck with that.

After the reaction I got here, that's unlikely.

Yep. Since virtually no one in the criminal justice system is going to side with the child unless this is simply egregious and wholly unreasonable, I agree - it would be a waste of time for the child to call the cops to report his parents. If my kid tried that, he'd be computer-less, phone-less, and probably grounded.

- Carl

 

[You Are Guilty]

So your best line of attack is to claim that Michael's civil rights were violated by his parents.

Really? His parents are state actors? (If this is his "best" argument, I'd hate to see the others...)

Folks, this thread has run it's course. This 18-year old has cleverly found out the dirty secret we've been trying to hide - that the UN secretly controls all aspects of American jurisprudence. So, the jig is up.

OP, here's who you have to contact if you want your friend's basic human rights restored:
http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?p1=0

Just one small caveat - you cannot file until you become a sovereign member nation. So just as soon as you do that, you're all set.

Good luck.

 

[stealth2]

Poor argument. You're saying that my e-mails to and from my place of occupation, which requires Secret-level DoD security clearance to work at, are public? I think not.

"Public" has different levels. It doesn't necessarily mean that everyone in the world has access. But you betcha there are people in the DoD and other areas of government that have access to your "private" "secret-level" email. Apart from those you directly send them to.

And, by the way... if you are in any way inappropriately involved with this child (and yes, he IS a child) - whether it be sexual or not (encouraging him to defy his parents, for example) - you could find that security clearance of yours revoked. In a heartbeat. Even if you don't use your computer at work. 'Cause guess what? Your home computer won't be immune from search with proper cause.