Can your spouse spy on you and your friends at home?
Couple's case raises questions about privacy, surveillance.
Cincinnati- Even when Catherine Zang was home alone, her husband was watching.
A hidden video camera tracked her movements inside parts of the couple's Cincinnati-area home. A microphone behind a wall recorded sound in the living room and kitchen. Software in the computer copied her emails and instant messages.
The secret recordings went on for months, maybe longer, Zang believes. In that time, she thinks her husband spied on her day after day while she talked on the phone, sat on the couch or used the computer in what she thought was the privacy of her own home.
The recordings, discovered during divorce proceedings in 2009, are now at the heart of a federal court battle over the growing use of surveillance technology and the right to privacy in the 21st Century.
Zang's divorce from her husband, Joseph C. Zang, became final this year. But the couple's fight continues in U.S. District Court here with two lawsuits involving almost a dozen friends and relatives, a prominent Cincinnati defense lawyer and a company that manufactures computer monitoring software.
"I haven't seen anything like this before," said Javier Luis of Tampa, who sued after learning his online conversations with Catherine Zang were monitored. "It's scary."
Privacy experts and divorce lawyers say the Zangs' case is unusual only because their fight is playing out in court. They say high-tech snooping among friends, housemates and relatives is increasingly common, but those targeted often don't find out about it -- or are too embarrassed to challenge it.
The higher quality and lower cost of surveillance equipment today is driving its popularity. The technology is especially attractive to suspicious spouses, who have found that spying in a wireless world is easier than ever.
Whether they install cameras, hack an email account or just pick up an unattended iPhone, spouses have a multitude of ways to find out what their partner has been up to.
Catherine Zang’s suit lists several friends and relatives who claim their privacy was violated while they were in the home. Luis’ suit claims Awareness Technologies, which makes the software that copied the emails, knew its product could be used to violate privacy.
Both suits say Joe Zang violated not only the law but the unspoken moral and ethical rules husbands and wives should follow even when they don’t entirely trust one another.
No criminal charges were filed as a result of the revelations during the divorce proceedings, but one of the issues in the civil lawsuits is whether the husband’s divorce attorney engaged in improper, if not illegal, conduct:
According to her lawsuit, Joe Zang’s divorce lawyer, Mary Jill Donovan, revealed she had obtained evidence that portrayed Catherine Zang in “unflattering, embarrassing and private settings.”
The objective was clear, the lawsuit says. Donovan hoped to use the surveillance to strong-arm Catherine Zang into a favorable settlement.
Donovan, who is a defendant in both lawsuits, is a well-known Cincinnati defense lawyer and wife of a Hamilton County sheriff candidate. Both she and her lawyer declined comment.
To complicate what is already a complex case to begin with, Catherine Zang’s lawyer, Donald Roberts, was removed as her counsel in the lawsuits because he might be a witness if the case goes to trial. Donald Roberts is married to Catherine Zang’s sister and represented Zang in the divorce. But Joe Zang claims that Roberts advised him in 2009 to install the surveillance system to keep an eye on his wife.
“Joe took Donald’s advice,” Joe Zang’s lawyer wrote in a recent legal brief. “The software worked as intended. It captured inappropriate Internet and email communications by Catherine Zang.”
The crux of the legal issue is that both federal and Ohio wiretapping laws are based on single-party consent. Joe Zang didn’t need his wife’s or guests’ or anyone’s permission to record conversations in his own home using concealed audio recording. But did he need consent to intercept or copy e-mail communications?
And does constant surveillance raise this to a new level and different set of rules? Does your right to install monitoring devices in your own home or on your own equipment trump your spouse’s expectation of privacy in their own home and on a shared computer? And what about the privacy of those who communicate with the spouse via shared computer or phones?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012/09/12/couples-case-raises-questions-about-privacy-surveillance/57753902/1
http://www.pogowasright.org/?p=30302