Distributing images without consent

[Mike Dobson]

My wife opened my internet search history without my consent, took a picture of some content without my consent and sent it to another person without my consent. Has she committed a crime?

[billy bookcase]

"Mike Dobson" <mikedo...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:4e721f2c-9160-485c...@googlegroups.com...

> My wife opened my internet search history without my consent, took a picture
> of some content without my consent and sent it to another person without my
> consent. Has she committed a crime?

A first question to ask is can you actually prove this ? More especially if
your wife and this other person deny having done so ? And having been forewarned
destroy any evidence ?

A second question to ask is, supposing you can indeed prove this, exactly what
damage have you suffered as a result ?

A third question would then be, have you suffered sufficient damage that it would
warrant pursuing your wife by way of a private prosecution or a civil case,
*given the likely costs involved*

But clearly whatever she's done, she's broken that sacred band of trust between you,
which you at least assumed existed

So that in the circumstances,as a first step, its probably best to remember to always
wipe your search history in the future or simply password protect your PC.



bb

[Jon Ribbens]

Almost certainly not.

[David McNeish]

And even if she had, what do you think the local cop shop are likely to
do about it?

[Fredxx]

I thought anyone accessing your files without consent was illegal? When
did that change?

Isn't shaming with pictures also illegal? Or do they have specifically
be of a compromised nature?

[Simon Parker]

On 28/01/2024 17:28, Mike Dobson wrote:
> My wife opened my internet search history without my consent, took a picture of some content without my consent and sent it to another person without my consent. Has she committed a crime?
>

I will proffer a dissenting opinion and say "Yes, she has.", providing
certain caveats don't apply - for example, when you say she "Opened"
your "Internet Search History", I have assumed that this meant you
didn't leave the history visible on a laptop that was left powered up on
the kitchen table and that it was necessary for your wife to perform a
number of distinct actions to view the history. Similarly, you say she
sent it to another person, so my assumptions here are that your "Search
History" doesn't contain evidence of illegal activity and that the
"other person" to whom she sent it is not connected with law enforcement.

The difference between my post and the other answers you've received is
that I will now go on to explain the legal basis upon which I have given
my answer.

Providing my assumptions are correct, as a general rule a person has a
"reasonable expectation of privacy", even within a marriage. By sending
the information to an unconnected third party, this is also a clear
"misuse of private information" in my opinion.

The tort of "misuse of private information" is, in legal terms,
relatively new and was first recognised as a distinct cause of action in
the case of Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 [1]
when supermodel Naomi Campbell successfully appealed to the House of
Lords in her claim against the publisher of 'The Mirror' newspaper for
publishing photos of her leaving a rehabilitation clinic following her
public denials that she was a recovering drug addict.

The case confirmed that the tort requires a two-stage test:

First, whether the claimant objectively has a reasonable expectation of
privacy in the relevant information considering all of the circumstances
of the case.

Second, whether the expectation of privacy is outweighed by the
publisher's right to freedom of expression. This is a balancing
exercise between the claimants ECHR Article 8 right to privacy and the
publisher's Article 10 right to freedom of expression.

In Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5 [2], the Supreme Court showed it has
an appetite to bolster an individual's right to privacy in a world where
the right is increasingly under challenge.

However, and this is the crux of the matter, what do you plan to do
about it? The police are unlikely to be interested so your main legal
avenue would seem to be an injunction, that no further copies be made of
the information, a demand explaining what she obtained and how, an order
preventing further disclosure of the information already accessed and an
order preventing further access to similar information in the future,
which takes you firmly into the territory of Santi v Santi [2021] EWHC
388 (QB).

Mr and Mrs Santi were going through the process of divorce and, whilst
"angry and upset", Mrs Santi was "looking for material to confirm her
suspicion that her husband was having an affair" whereupon she "accessed
and spread privileged material", including one of Mr Santi's bank
statements.

Now, here's the key point for you to consider: The cost of Mr Santi's
application was £90,000 of which his wife was ordered to pay £54,000
(being the portion relevant to the applications made in which Mr Santi
was successful).

And so the question for you is:

Regardless of whether or not your wife has broken the law, do you have a
spare £100,000 to take the matter to court? If you do and you win, does
your wife have £100,000 to pay a costs award that you may be granted.

If the answer to either of those questions is "No", you are left in the
unenviable position of knowing that you wife has, in all likelihood
broken the law, but there is nothing you can reasonably do about it.

Which, may explain why other posters have given different answers.
Realistically, there is nothing you can do legally to solve this problem
- other than filing for divorce, of course, which is something of a
"nuclear" option.

However, from a non-legal perspective, now might be a good time to sit
down with your wife and have a conversation about respecting boundaries. :-)

Regards

S.P.

[1] https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/22.html
[2] https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2020-0122.html [3]
[3] I've provided a link to the case on the SC site, rather than direct
to the judgment as you can watch the four sessions to see the arguments
advanced and the balancing required for yourself, if you wish.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2024-01-29, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> On 28/01/2024 22:44, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2024-01-28, Mike Dobson <mikedo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> My wife opened my internet search history without my consent, took a
>>> picture of some content without my consent and sent it to another
>>> person without my consent. Has she committed a crime?
>>
>> Almost certainly not.
>
> I thought anyone accessing your files without consent was illegal? When
> did that change?

It didn't. But I believe convictions under the Computer Misuse Act s1
are extremely rare, and the chances of a wife being convicted under that
Act for viewing her husband's internet search history are somewhere
between "zero" and "none whatsoever", and the chances of the police
being interested in investigating such an allegation are less than that.

> Isn't shaming with pictures also illegal? Or do they have specifically
> be of a compromised nature?

I guess you're referring to the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 s33,
aka the "revenge porn law". That requires the picture to be a "private
sexual photograph" in which the victim appears.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2024-01-29, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/01/2024 17:28, Mike Dobson wrote:

...

>> Has she committed a crime?

... ^^^^^

> The tort of "misuse of private information"

... ^^^^

> If the answer to either of those questions is "No", you are left in the
> unenviable position of knowing that you wife has, in all likelihood
> broken the law, but there is nothing you can reasonably do about it.
>
> Which, may explain why other posters have given different answers.

A bit of that, but mostly see above.

[Simon Parker]

Elsewhere in the thread, you have stated your belief that "convictions

under the Computer Misuse Act s1 are extremely rare, and the chances of
a wife being convicted under that Act for viewing her husband's internet
search history are somewhere between "zero" and "none whatsoever", and
the chances of the police being interested in investigating such an
allegation are less than that."

Do you believe that an offence has been committed under Section 1 of the
Computer Misuse Act, albeit one that is unlikely to be investigated
never mind prosecuted?

I'll remind you that the OP's question was "Has she committed a crime?"
not "Has she committed a crime in which the police are likely to take an
interest and for which she'll be prosecuted?"

I took it as read that the possibility of getting the police interested
was, to use your phrase, 'somewhere between 'zero' and 'none whatsoever'
so I took the opportunity to outline civil remedies available to him,
and to point out that even these were extremely unlikely to be of any
assistance in the circumstances.

I could have just answered, "Yes." and left it at that without
proffering any explanation for my answer which I would consider to be
unhelpful in the extreme. As your initial response to the OP was
"Almost certainly not", I see that not only do we disagree on the answer
to the question, but also on the helpfulness extended by our respective
replies.

Regards

S.P.

[Jon Ribbens]

That was a very long-winded way of admitting you were wrong about torts.

[Simon Parker]

Do you consider I was more wrong or less wrong than you were when you
stated "almost certainly not" in answer to the original question?

Asking for a friend. :-)

Regards

S.P.

[Jon Ribbens]

Well with the best will in the world I'd say the answer to that is
"noticeably more wrong". I'm the person who pointed out the relevance
of the Computer Misuse Act and also why it's not in practice likely to
be important, but even if I hadn't I could do so if necessary. Whereas
neither you nor anyone else would ever be able to provide a convincing
argument that torts are crimes - because they're not. Which is not to
say that your explanation regarding civil remedies was not helpful and
interesting additional information, because of course it was.

[Roland Perry]

In message <l291vgF...@mid.individual.net>, at 08:59:27 on Sun, 4
Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:

>Elsewhere in the thread, you have stated your belief that "convictions
>under the Computer Misuse Act s1 are extremely rare

It's prosecutions which are very rare, which then leads to even fewer
convictions. See for example:

<"https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/one-computer-hacker-month-convic
ted-5461766">

nb "Hacker" is a popular terms for any CMA offender.

Disclaimer: I was also a director of Digital-Trust.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 00:04:06 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <l291vgF...@mid.individual.net>, at 08:59:27 on Sun, 4
>Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>Elsewhere in the thread, you have stated your belief that "convictions
>>under the Computer Misuse Act s1 are extremely rare
>
>It's prosecutions which are very rare, which then leads to even fewer
>convictions. See for example:
>
> <"https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/one-computer-hacker-month-convic
>ted-5461766">
>
>nb "Hacker" is a popular terms for any CMA offender.

I think that's possibly a somewhat misleading article. It alternates between
"cybercrime" and "computer misuse" in a way which suggests that they're the
same thing. But they're not.

The article states that one person is convicted of a CMA offence every month
(ie, an average of 12 a year), despite there being 100,000 cybercrime
offences each year. But that doesn't mean that all the other 99,988
offenders are getting away with it. Because many of them, if caught, will be
prosecuted under other legislation.

In most cases, "hacking" isn't standalone, it's a means to an end. And that
end is itself often an offence of some kind, such as harassment or fraud. So
in many cases, the most appropriate charge is one of the primary offence,
not the enabling offence. And there's a whole range of other forms of
cybercrime, such as malicious communication and CSAM offences, which don't
involve hacking and therefore don't engage the CMA.

Sp pure CMA offences are rarely prosecuted, not because the police and CPS
do't care about them, but because the more serious ones typically involve
other offences and the less serious ones are often de minimis or can be
dealt with effectively with a warning.

Now, the article does correctly state that cybercrime policing in general is
under-resourced, with the police concentrating on traditional offline
offences. But the suggested solution, of making even more things
cybercrimes, isn't going to change that. Police priorities reflect the
public's priorities. And the thing that the general public is always asking
for is "more bobbies on the beat". Not more bobbies sitting at a desk
staring at a computer screen. If the Digital Trust wants to get more police
resources allocated to cybercrime (an ambition which I broadly support),
then it needs a bottom-up, not top-down approach. Rather than lobbying the
government to change the law to make yet more cybercrimes, it needs to
engage in educating the general public about how cybercrime can potentially
affect them and get them to call for more police resources allocated to it.

Mark

[Roger Hayter]

On 11 Feb 2024 at 20:21:03 GMT, "Mark Goodge"

Yes, my reaction to the article was that the Digital Trust's quoted reaction
was facile and misleading - in a period of increasing legislation and
recognition of various crimes involving the Internet and other comms media
complaining about non-enforcement of the CMA just because the figures were
available was downright opportunistic - and largely irrelevant to the Digital
Trust's propaganda areas. It made said Digital Trust look pretty shady to me.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <l2stq5...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:51:01 on Sun, 11
Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

The article I posted is simply a wikipedia compliant cite for the actual
numbers.

>- in a period of increasing legislation and recognition of various
>crimes involving the Internet and other comms media

The opposite in fact, lack of recognition and emerging new legislation
was the main reason the Digital Trust was trying to highlight the issue.
10yrs later, and it's hardly improved.

And the inability of the CMA to address issues like:

The law needs to change. It should, for example, be an offence to use
any technological device to locate, listen to or watch a person
without legitimate purpose.

In addition, restrictions should be placed on the sale of spyware
without lawful reasons. It should also be against the law to install
a webcam or any other form or surveillance device without the
target’s knowledge.

Was why the authorities need a better toolkit. It's no good saying
channelling "It's a civil matter, Sir", "It's a CMA matter Sir" when
that legislation is completely unable to cope (even if in theory it's
the legislation which could be used).

>complaining about non-enforcement of the CMA just because the figures were
>available

It took a PQ, so not especially already available. It was our initiative
which then made it available to the public.

>was downright opportunistic - and largely irrelevant to the Digital
>Trust's propaganda areas.

I strongly object to the word "propaganda" there. One woman a week being
murdered by her ex-partner, who quite likely used technology to track
them down, is just the tip of the iceberg.

>It made said Digital Trust look pretty shady to me.

You approve of the Wild West where anyone can stalk and harass online,
unhindered? And then go on to murder people they have a grudge against.
--
Roland Perry

[Roger Hayter]

Because I do not think stalking, violence or terror campaigns are a computer
misuse problem I must be in favour of beating my wife? I expected better of
you. I am in favour of making some of the things you mention illegal, but not
of making rudeness on the Internet a police matter. A delicate balance, but
very little to do with "computer misuse".

--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

PS I have little doubt that many of these problems are a matter of police
attitude to things that are already crimes, and new laws will simply be used
by the police to persecute people they really don't like, such as political
and racial minorities, not the misogynists that many police officers seem to
secretly sympathise with.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <l311kc...@mid.individual.net>, at 11:20:44 on Tue, 13

Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>On 13 Feb 2024 at 10:55:43 GMT, "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <l2stq5...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:51:01 on Sun, 11
>> Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>>> On 11 Feb 2024 at 20:21:03 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
>>> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 00:04:06 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <l291vgF...@mid.individual.net>, at 08:59:27 on Sun, 4
>>>>> Feb 2024, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Elsewhere in the thread, you have stated your belief that "convictions
>>>>>> under the Computer Misuse Act s1 are extremely rare
>>>>>
>>>>> It's prosecutions which are very rare, which then leads to even fewer
>>>>> convictions. See for example:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><"https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/one-computer-hacker-month-co
>>>>>

You presumably think that handguns should be legalised, because they are
a similar precursor to the offences that people will commit with them.
And hence as long as murder is an offence, there's no need to control
the guns.

>I am in favour of making some of the things you mention illegal, but
>not of making rudeness on the Internet a police matter.

Rudeness is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the landscape I'm
describing.

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <l311rm...@mid.individual.net>, at 11:24:38 on Tue, 13

Feb 2024, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

>PS I have little doubt that many of these problems are a matter of police
>attitude to things that are already crimes, and new laws will simply be used
>by the police to persecute people they really don't like, such as political
>and racial minorities, not the misogynists that many police officers seem to
>secretly sympathise with.

Your paranoia is off the scale.
--
Roland Perry

[Roger Hayter]

Oh really? Just a small topical example from Devon and Cornwall of police
minimising violence against women - not to say also committing it:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68242197


--
Roger Hayter