;)
I'm sayin' nuthin' :D
Printable View
And you left yourself logged into online services on this phone, so that anybody who got the phone could access your accounts? I think it's also safe to say that you didn't have permission from the child's parents?
As you have been told, you can follow procedures defined by the services at issue to try to have your password reset. If you want to try reporting the intrusion to the police, they may find a reason to investigate -- but under the circumstances, you may not want them looking at you -- or the contents of your phone.Quote:
Quoting Mr.Pickles
You gave the phone to a child to use, and it was found by the child's parents. It's not at all unreasonable for parents of a child to examine a phone that they unexpectedly find among their child's possessions. While the intentional, unauthorized access to a protected computer and obtaining information from that computer can constitute a misdemeanor under that statute, you have not yet stated facts that would implicate a more serious offense, and it's questionable whether state authorities would act under the circumstances. Not only are the facts bad for any attempt to prosecute, or for even getting a prosecutor interested in the case, but there are serious issues of proof. If you foolishly give away a computer device on which you've stored passwords for online services, even if the service's records show access or activity from that device, once it leaves your custody it's not going to be apparent from those records who accessed your accounts. Has mom confessed to changing the passwords, or are you speculating?Quote:
Quoting Mr.Pickles
And... you hope to prove that by demonstrating that you have not read the thread. Nobody has suggested that mom could not face criminal charges.
You mention a case from 2008 in which a man hacked into his co-worker's email, hundreds of times, in the context of what was characterized as stalking behavior, and was charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1030. Charges might also have been possible under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2701. Under the facts given here, the most serious charges that could follow under either statute would be a misdemeanor. Similarly, there might be a misdemeanor offense chargeable under 720 ILCS 5/17-51.Quote:
Quoting TechWorker
There's no "probably" about that. But as others more informed than you have already pointed out, the FBI is not going to investigate allegations that mom supposedly changed passwords on accounts accessible through a phone an adult secretly gave to her child.Quote:
Quoting TechWorker
I hope you're not holding your breath while you wait for his answer.
"She has every right to protect her child.
Leave the child alone, and you'll probably get your phone back.
Maybe."
Dogmatique
"I was wondering if there was possibly anything I can do?
Yes, there is.
You can refrain from diddling children.
There's something else you can do, too.
You can refrain from violating the order of protection.
Oh, you mean, is there anything you can do about the mother protecting her child? No, there isn't."
cbg
So, you have nothing.
Actually, a non-famous person is more vulnerable to being prosecuted. So, if they went after someone famous, they should go after someone non-famous.
What do you mean, I have nothing? I just showed you two posts that said, that the mother has not broken the law and that the OP has no legal recourse.
I don't see, The mother has not broken the law, in either of those posts.
My friend, if you cannot see the very vast difference between what has happened here and the case you're trying so very hard to link this to, then I'd say your logic and comprehension are no better than your reading comprehension.
Depending upon the full facts and what a prosecutor believes can actually be proved, it is possible that the facts could support a misdemeanor prosecution of somebody. But when the police or a prosecutor hear the context, the odds that they're going to investigate to try to determine exactly who did what, how and when, to lock the OP out of accounts he carelessly leaves accessible through devices he gives to children would be... I don't want to say 0% because there's always a chance, but it's a chance at or below the level of a rounding error.
Meanwhile, the adult has been communicating with the child over what may well be an unlawful sexual relationship, using that device, and it may be brimming with evidence that could be used to support charges against him, as well as to support the petition for a protective order.
It is not clear that the OP has broken any laws at all.
The OP states that the mother THINKS that the OP and the girl have had sex. There is no proof that they HAVE had sex.
Also, there is no proof that the OP and the girl have been in contact since the order of protection was established. The OP could have given the phone to the girl BEFORE the order was established.