June 16, 2006 4:00 AM PDT
Police blotter: Husband spies on wife's computer
- Related Stories
-
Police Blotter: Ex-cops sue over Net-sex video
June 9, 2006 -
Police blotter: eBay suit over $380,000 Porsche
May 26, 2006 -
Police blotter: 911 dispatcher misuses database, kills ex-girlfriend
May 19, 2006 -
Police blotter: Enhanced video used to convict arsonist
May 12, 2006 -
Police blotter: Wells Fargo not required to encrypt data
April 14, 2006 -
Police blotter: Porn-dialing firm loses appeal
March 31, 2006 -
Police blotter: Schools' IT chief loses bribery appeal
March 24, 2006 -
Police blotter: Judge orders Gmail disclosure
March 17, 2006 -
Judge to help feds against Google
March 14, 2006 -
Police blotter: Ex-employee faces suit over file deletion
March 10, 2006 -
Police blotter: Cell phone tracking rejected
March 3, 2006 -
Police blotter: Dot-com magnate loses fraud appeal
February 24, 2006 -
Judge: Firm not negligent in failure to encrypt data
February 14, 2006 -
Police blotter: Patriot Act e-mail spying approved
February 9, 2006 -
Verbatim: Search firms surveyed on privacy
February 3, 2006 -
Police blotter: Sysadmin loses e-intrusion case
January 13, 2006 -
Police blotter: Alleged eDonkey pirate gets trial
January 6, 2006 -
Police blotter: Nude 'profile' yields Yahoo suit
December 9, 2005 -
Police blotter: Legal flap over secret sex video
November 25, 2005 -
Police blotter: Judge questions Patriot Act bugs
November 4, 2005 -
Police blotter: Feds' cell phone tracking denied
October 28, 2005
What: Reports of home computer wiretapping surface in tempestuous New Jersey divorce case.
When: Superior Court of New Jersey ruled June 8.
Outcome: Wife succeeds in raising her share of the settlement in a divorce case.
What happened, according to court documents:
Peter Garfinkel, 41, asked for a divorce from his wife of six years, Lori Garfinkel, 38, in March 2001. They had separated earlier that month, and Lori remained in the marital home with three children under 3 years old.
After her husband started court proceedings for a divorce, Lori Garfinkel filed a counterclaim alleging the following: transmission of sexual disease, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress and wiretapping.
The wiretapping charges are what make this unfortunate case relevant to Police Blotter. During the trial in state court, the judge dismissed Lori's claims related to sexual disease and emotional distress. But Peter admitted to "wiretapping" Lori's computer.
The description is general: Peter used an unspecified monitoring device to track his wife's computer transactions and record her e-mails. Lori was granted $7,500 on the wiretapping claim.
Overall, though, the trial judge did not find her credible and ruled that she misrepresented her income, assets and expenses. Lori appealed.
A three-judge panel of the Superior Court of New Jersey appeared to side with her. The judges reduced the amount granted to Peter and handed the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings.
This is hardly the first time computer monitoring claims have surfaced in marital spats. As previously reported by CNET News.com, a Florida court ruled last year that a wife who installed spyware on her husband's computer to secretly record evidence of an extramarital affair violated state law.
In addition, makers of key loggers (hardware or software methods of recording keystrokes) are actively marketing their products as ways to expose spousal wrongdoing. KeyGhost's Web site mentions "multimillion-dollar divorce settlements," and the description of BlazingTools Sofware's Perfect Keylogger includes this line: "Are you wondering if your mate is planning a divorce?"
See more CNET content tagged:
Police Blotter, distress, divorce, New Jersey, wife
30 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
If there is a some evidence that one spouse is hiding certain things in a divorce(asests, actions that would prove fault) then access to those things can be gained through the discovery process.
- Bryan
What might an unspecified monitoring device be? Is the device. hardware, software or combination of both. Was the device installed external or internal to the computer and/or telecommunication transmission lines, inside or outside the marital home?
Since Pat Act I & II gives the FBI, NSA, DHS, IRS, INS and assorted members of the Inside-The-Beltway Bureaucratic Brotherhood license to electronically snoop on and monitor everyones personal communications in pursuit of terrorists, Mr. Garfinkel, Mrs. Garfinkels husband, should be free to do so as well.
The government says, Only those who have something to hide, should object to surreptitious electronic monitoring. If Mrs. Garfinkel HAS NOTHING TO HIDE, why would she care? Maybe Mr. Garfinkel, as a concerned husband, was only trying to track down the bio-terrorist that infected Mrs. Garfinkel with the STDs that caused her emotional distress.
This article has caused me to ponder this question. Does passage of the Patriot Act mean the sanctity and privacy of the top sock drawer in my armoire is no longer protected?
I love it! Thanks for a good laugh! :)
Well, they DID just sign into LAW that police no longer have to knock a warning before entering your house with a warrant!
So, NO, your top sock drawer in my armoire is no longer protected!
This discovering a cheat digitally is how we've to this messy Heather Locklear, Richie Sambora, Denise Richards triangle <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.iwantmyess.com/?p=50" target="_newWindow">http://www.iwantmyess.com/?p=50</a>
truth is, we keep asking for more of it, even in the face of their
utter incompetence.
He spies on her, he violated her privacy, thus he has to pay.
But what about the cases of the past where SHE spies on HIM and the courts ruled that it was NOT a violation of HIS privacy since they lived in the same household?
Double-standards abound...
It's just another clear sign of bias in the system where Divorce is concerned: She is presumed innocent until you prove her guilty, but you are presumed guilty until you prove your innocence. And the system promotes that, and this story is a clear sign of it.
conclusions on many legal issues. You come across as a complete
loser by claiming this result turned on the genders of the parties.
adventures her husband was apparently hoping to discover by
spying.
That said... can this really be considered wire-tapping? Per the phone wiretapping rules, wiretapping is performed with a special physical device attached to the wire of a phone line.
Is capturing/loggin online information really considered wire tapping?
Walt