believe it or not there have only been a handful of spyware cases in the US that deal with personal privacy. All of them have been in the 6th circuit, and my case was moved there by the defendants. One of my defendants brags in ads that their software was developed by an EX- NSA programmer. These companies have peddled software developed in govt labs to the average citizen, many of whom use them to coerce, blackmail and abuse women. It works as a nice workaround the constitutional protections wherein the govt needs a warrant. its effectively a CyberPlatter - reminiscent of the "SilverPlatter" days prior to the exclusionary rule, where the feds would use the states to do their footwork, then not have to worry about constitutional restraints on the evidence gathered. IM arguing that the software companies, entities that were once the bane of the internet, who went legit and turned their rootkit spyware into empires, are de facto spying for the govt, free and clear of constitutional restraints. Luckily, the judge in my case is the same judge who ruled on Warshak - which ended up making the 6th circuit the first (nd i htink only) to block the feds from freely spying on our in boxes- , so she will appreciate the net argument - albeit standing on shaky legal grounds, but it does have a point.
she initially ruled on it, then it went back and forth for years. Now in the internet age, its so very important this gets changed. The NSA is building a million square foot facility in Utah to collect all words ever spoken on the internet. They can do it because the laws allow them to, as long as they dont "read" them at the time of intercept. This is an ominous development. I understand the need for national security, but the things going on where they are pressuring and demanding google and companies like that retain records for years and years, is omonus. ANd repats the same pattern, albit in a high tech manner, that my family saw in Cuba. There, the communists had little indians on every corner who would inform on a neighbor who dared speak ill of Castro (so much so that even TODAY cubans in cuba never say CASTRO out loud, they point to their beards. Now the "little indians" are the 100K employers that monitor their employees every word and move on their company laptops, and millions of people like the abusive defendnt in my case who used it to strip his wife of house, home, and any monthly payments and interest in this CEO guys 2 successful businesses. ANyway, the citation is United States v. Warshak, "Warshak VI", 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25415 (6th Cir. Dec. 10, 2010)
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).