How much privacy do spouse have from each other?

[bicker]

And that's really a much more extreme scenario than the OP, since you're talking about neighbors or perhaps even strangers. When you're talking about a married couple, clearly there should be some difference between the expectations there versus the expectations between strangers.

 

[ccgirl]

I think people are getting secrets and lies confused. If my friend/family member tells me something in confidence I am not going to run to my DH to tell him just for the sake of telling him. Now, if my sister told me she was having an affair and my DH flat out asked me if she was having an affair, I am not going to lie to him. But, I am also not going to offer him that information just for the sake of offering it to him. I just don't see any deception in not sharing my conversations with my DH. If I don't share with him that I went to the bathroom is that keeping a secret? I view information people shared in confidence with me the same way.

Lie –noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

 

[bicker]

I think people are getting secrets and lies confused.

That's not surprising, since some people are getting "wrong" and "illegal" confused, and some people are getting "a person finding something out" and "a person being compelled to reveal something" confused, as well.

If my friend/family member tells me something in confidence I am not going to run to my DH to tell him just for the sake of telling him. Now, if my sister told me she was having an affair and my DH flat out asked me if she was having an affair, I am not going to lie to him.

I suppose a good argument can be made for you providing the response, "You need to talk to your wife about that." It essentially provides the answer, but you're doing the very best you can do to preserve the confidence, without lying. Of course, none of that has anything to do with what's legal or illegal.

 

[sbell111]

Let's see if that position works with regard to communication.

Does a married individual have a right to a private conversation with a family or friend without the knowledge of his/her spouse?

Should your spouse go to jail for having overheard a conversation that you were having in the home you share with your spouse?

No.

Again, you fail to answer the question that is asked and instead twist it into something else. Why don't you just answer the question? Is it because if you do, your prior position falls apart?

From your answer, it appears that you do think that a married person does have the right to keep his verbal communication private. Why then, do you believe that he/she does not have the right to also keep written communication private?

Does a married individual have the right to personal correspondence? Can he/she write and mail a letter to a friend or family member without disclosing it's contents to his/her spouse?

No one is suggesting anyone be compelled to reveal anything.

Must he/she even notify his/her spouse of the existence of the sent letter?

No one is suggesting anyone be compelled to reveal anything.

However, you appear to be taking the stance that married persons do have the right to keep their personal correspondence private. If that is true about traditional writings, why do you believe that it shouldn't be true about electronic correspondence? Your positions contradict one another.

If you believe that a married person has the right to have a private conversation or send a personal letter without disclosing that information to his/her spouse, why would that person not have the right to keep his/her email communication private?

Still waiting...

 

[bicker]

Again, you fail to answer the question that is asked

Rather, you are seeking to impose your own perspective by asking a question that has nothing to do with the point I was making, trying to make it seem like you made a point. Stop doing that.

and instead twist it into something else.

I'm not twisting anything. I'm making the point I'm making instead of letting you try to make it sound like your point has more legitimacy than it does by allowing you to dictate the parameters of the discussion.

Why don't you just answer the question?

Because it would feed the deception you appear to be fostering with regard to the point I was making. I have no intention of helping you distract attention away from the point I made.

Is it because if you do, your prior position falls apart?

Not at all, given that my point is all about the matter of what is legal or not legal, as set forth in the OP of this thread. I'm still waiting for you to point out what law puts someone in jail for overhearing a private conversation taking place in their home.

Now please get back on topic.

 

[sbell111]

Didn't say you "would" lose that right. I said you "should." If you leave the key in the door, then you SHOULD also forfeit the right to keep people out of your home (if they go in and kill you, they should be prosecuted, but if they steal stuff or read your personal papers, too bad) I'm of the opinion that if you are careless and/or stupid enough to leave your car unlocked and your keys in the ignition, and someone steals it, say goodbye to it. That's obviously not how it works but that is how it SHOULD work in my opinion.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I'm of the belief that regardless of whether I lock down my belongings, if someone takes something that doesn't belong to them, it's their fault, not mine. I will have to go through the drama of replacing my stuff, but that thief is the one that should go to jail.

 

[sbell111]

Now please get back on topic.

1. You are not a moderator. You have no authority to direct the thread to go in the direction of your choosing.
2. Clearly, you are only involved in this thread to bicker. You appear to have no interest in actually having a reasoned discussion of the issues.

 

[sbell111]

And that's really a much more extreme scenario than the OP, since you're talking about neighbors or perhaps even strangers. When you're talking about a married couple, clearly there should be some difference between the expectations there versus the expectations between strangers.

Which is exactly why I attempted to discuss the expectations of privacy that married couples should have regarding their personal communications. For some reason, you elected not to go down that road.

 

[bicker]

You are not a moderator.

Which is why I said "Please."

You have no authority to direct the thread to go in the direction of your choosing.

Nor do you. That was the point I just made.

Clearly, you are only involved in this thread to bicker.

No, clearly I'm in this thread to discuss whether someone should go to jail or not for breaches in confidence. Meanwhile, you refuse to allow any discussion of the legal aspect of the situation to go on, within trying to distract away from those points, even though that was the context of the OP; you seem to be insisting that all comments kowtow to your intention to discuss only whether something is good or bad. Please stop doing that. If you want to discuss that, please do, but don't insist that everyone else has to go off onto that tangent from what the OP was discussing along with you.

You have no interest in actually having a reasoned discussion of the issues.

On the contrary, I do, and you don't, but each of us saying so is useless. Is this another way of trying to distract attention away from the points other people make that you don't like? If so, then please stop. Just let people make their points, reply to them if you wish, but please stop talking about the discussion, and please stop trying to make it sound like you're in charge of what can and cannot be relevant to this issue.

 

[sbell111]

Which is why I said "Please."

Nor do you. That was the point I just made.

No, clearly I'm in this thread to discuss whether someone should go to jail or not for breaches in confidence. Meanwhile, you refuse to allow any discussion of the legal aspect of the situation to go on, within trying to distract away from those points, even though that was the context of the OP; you seem to be insisting that all comments kowtow to your intention to discuss only whether something is good or bad. Please stop doing that. If you want to discuss that, please do, but don't insist that everyone else has to go off onto that tangent from what the OP was discussing along with you.

On the contrary, I do, and you don't, but each of us saying so is useless. Is this another way of trying to distract attention away from the points other people make that you don't like? If so, then please stop. Just let people make their points, reply to them if you wish, but please stop talking about the discussion, and please stop trying to make it sound like you're in charge of what can and cannot be relevant to this issue.

Wow. It's like you wrote an entire post to yourself.

 

[sbell111]

To anyone (except bicker):

I believe that if a person accesses another person's email without permission, then he/she has broken the law and should be prosecuted. I'm not entirely sure that the law being used in this case is appropriate, but it's easy enough to find the federal law that applies.

I do not believe just because a person is married that he/she should lose the basic right to have private communications.

 

[luvmy3]

I think people are getting secrets and lies confused. If my friend/family member tells me something in confidence I am not going to run to my DH to tell him just for the sake of telling him. Now, if my sister told me she was having an affair and my DH flat out asked me if she was having an affair, I am not going to lie to him. But, I am also not going to offer him that information just for the sake of offering it to him. I just don't see any deception in not sharing my conversations with my DH. If I don't share with him that I went to the bathroom is that keeping a secret? I view information people shared in confidence with me the same way.

Lie –noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

I don't know, I think there are people here who really do believe that if you choose not to share something with your spouse, that you are being dishonest just because you aren't sharing.

 

[Planogirl]

I don't know, I think there are people here who really do believe that if you choose not to share something with your spouse, that you are being dishonest just because you aren't sharing.

I think that you're right and that belief puzzles me.

 

[sbell111]

I don't know, I think there are people here who really do believe that if you choose not to share something with your spouse, that you are being dishonest just because you aren't sharing.

See 'Lies of Omission'.

Certainly, a married person should feel obligated to divulge any information that the spouse may need. I don't feel that a spouse not divulging information that does not affect his/her partner should be considered a lie of omission, however.

 

[jodifla]

On the surface, I don't think the guy did anything wrong.

Now if we are talking an abusive spouse who is controlling his/her partner--then I would think it were wrong.

However--in this case, wife should have pressed charges, not the DA. I don't believe the govt should be in the position to mandate how a household operates.

And since she wasn't too bright to not keep her password to herself and they shared this computer....

Kind of like on the job--the employer pays for the computer, they get to see what is on it. You don't get to hide.


To me, this isn't an issue of love, trust, or whatever.

The state doesn't belong in the matter at all.

What next, the state prosecuting b/c a partner put the laundry away and found something in the underwear drawer?

Do we really want the state to have this insane power?

Michigan has MUCH better things to do with its money than prosecute this person.

And it's the WIFE who should have the legal issues. Didn't adultery used to be against the law, once upon a time? Still is in many states, although prosecutors don't seem to enforce a law on the books. And more importantly, what about child endangerment??

If you share passwords with your spouse, I think you have ZERO expectation of privacy.

 

[Planogirl]

See 'Lies of Omission'.

Certainly, a married person should feel obligated to divulge any information that the spouse may need.

I don't see why a spouse would need to know about someone else's private life. Maybe in certain social situations...

 

[bicker]

And it's the WIFE who should have the legal issues. Didn't adultery used to be against the law, once upon a time? Still is in many states, although prosecutors don't seem to enforce a law on the books.

It was down to 22 states 15 years ago.

 

[RitaE]

Originally Posted by luvmy3 View Post
I don't know, I think there are people here who really do believe that if you choose not to share something with your spouse, that you are being dishonest just because you aren't sharing.

Fair enough, but I'd say there also seems to be some sort of perception that I'm under some sort of moral obligation to people outside of my marriage to be their "secret keeper" or confidant.

I'm not and I simply make that clear. In the few times over the last couple of decades a conversation has started with "Please don't tell your husband this but ..... "

I simply stop them. I'm not a Priest. I'm not a Therapist. As I said before, if it is something they don't want my husband to hear, I make no promises to that and they need to choose somebody else to unload on.

 

[sbell111]

I don't see why a spouse would need to know about someone else's private life. Maybe in certain social situations...

Agreed

 

[sbell111]

Fair enough, but I'd say there also seems to be some sort of perception that I'm under some sort of moral obligation to people outside of my marriage to be their "secret keeper" or confidant.

I'm not and I simply make that clear. In the few times over the last couple of decades a conversation has started with "Please don't tell your husband this but ..... "

I simply stop them. I'm not a Priest. I'm not a Therapist. As I said before, if it is something they don't want my husband to hear, I make no promises to that and they need to choose somebody else to unload on.

I agree with you. I should not be put in a position to keep information from my spouse. Certainly, I will elect to not divulge info that doesn't affect her, but I can't promise someone, prior to them telling me some unknown tidbit, that I will not tell my wife. Anyone who expects me to do otherwise doesn't understand how a marriage works, in my opinion.