I would change my Facebook status to "Screwed".

I'd shut. down. EVERYTHING.

I'd correct his grammar.

Ok, I RTFA but still can't figure out why the judge ordered this. Can someone explain to the legally/ divorce court clueless?

nekom: I'd shut. down. EVERYTHING.

This! There would be no accounts of any kind on the interwebs. If you didn't screen cap it when it was public tough shiat.

Make them all as long, random, and complex as possible.

Take it all down. Immediately. And don't go back on later.

Andromeda: Ok, I RTFA but still can't figure out why the judge ordered this. Can someone explain to the legally/ divorce court clueless?

the dad's lawyers are trying to access the accounts so they can dig around and see if mom is slutting around when she should be watching the kids

by looking at her account records, they can either prove/not prove she is/isn't

because mom isn't being forthcoming about it, she was ordered by the courts. if she purges the accounts, she will be held in contempt of court

If I knew things were coming to a head, the accounts would already be history.

Facebook? Don't have one.
Twitter? Don't have one
Yahoo? Don't have one
Gmail? Just one for regular email. Here you go.

My wife knows all my user Id's and passwords, and I know hers. What's the big deal?

DAMN...they would find out about my passion for midgets.

simplicimus: My wife knows all my user Id's and passwords, and I know hers. What's the big deal?

Well I assume that if you were going to divorce, you'd go and change your passwords so she couldn't get to your shiat anymore.

Assuming, of course, she hadn't beaten you to it.

Giving your password to somebody else is a violation of Facebook's terms of service. (and most likely all the other social networking sites, but I can't be bothered to check)

Violating an internet site's Terms of Service is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse act (see the prosecution of Lori Drew)

Therefore, this judge has just ordered these two people to break the law.

Is that allowed?

EnviroDude: if she purges the accounts, she will be held in contempt of court

Merely failing to produce it would be "contempt of court". Erasing the account is called "destroying evidence".

RminusQ: simplicimus: My wife knows all my user Id's and passwords, and I know hers. What's the big deal?

Well I assume that if you were going to divorce, you'd go and change your passwords so she couldn't get to your shiat anymore.

Assuming, of course, she hadn't beaten you to it.

Heck, I'd just create new accounts.

EnviroDude: Andromeda: Ok, I RTFA but still can't figure out why the judge ordered this. Can someone explain to the legally/ divorce court clueless?

the dad's lawyers are trying to access the accounts so they can dig around and see if mom is slutting around when she should be watching the kids

by looking at her account records, they can either prove/not prove she is/isn't

because mom isn't being forthcoming about it, she was ordered by the courts. if she purges the accounts, she will be held in contempt of court

Ok, I get this. Typical of discovery in any court case. The headline is misleading here by far.

I've had emails subpoenaed by a court. (It was a business case we were barely involved in.) Had I refused, you bet they would have held me in contempt and sent someone to seize my computer. And if I password protected it and refused to give the password, you bet I'd be in county jail until I complied. They don't take lightly to refusing court orders.

Also, anything sensitive is generally sealed, so the rest of the public can't get it.

Its called discovery. Nothing to see here.

kingoomieiii: Merely failing to produce it would be "contempt of court". Erasing the account is called "destroying evidence".

Which is exactly why anyone with half a brain would have wiped their internet presence entirely clean at the first sign of an impending divorce. A judge can't order what isn't there.

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Giving your password to somebody else is a violation of Facebook's terms of service. (and most likely all the other social networking sites, but I can't be bothered to check)

Violating an internet site's Terms of Service is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse act (see the prosecution of Lori Drew)

Therefore, this judge has just ordered these two people to break the law.

I don't know the ins and outs of these things, but I'm sure there's a clause that allows a court of law to seize such things. That's the whole purpose of a warrant. It allows the government to do something technically "illegal" to satisfy the needs of a court case.

A cop can't march into your house and take your computer. That's illegal, obviously. With a warrant, said cop can do that. For obvious reasons.

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Giving your password to somebody else is a violation of Facebook's terms of service. (and most likely all the other social networking sites, but I can't be bothered to check)

I write software, sell software products, many web-based. Every EULA or privacy/security statement we've had written, or I've read, absolutely has a clause that we're going to give up whatever the courts ask for us to give up, and will participate fully in any legal investigation.

Wait.

WAIT.

A divorce court made a decision against a woman?

This thread is relevant to me; a friend recently found an old old OLD login on a dating website. Not sure if she ever figured out it was me though; I got an e-mail that said "such and such person has looked at your profile!" and recognized the name. I deleted the account ASAP.

*sigh* another nasty custody fight where both parents are morons and COMPLETELY miss the point of a Custody proceeding.

If I had a nickle.....

Okay everyone listen the fark up, I'm going to give you some free advice that will save you thousands of dollars should you eve rfind yourself fighting over custody:

Your Child is not a prize. You did not "win" if the judge grants you custody and it does not mean the judge found you to be a better person than your ex. Similarly if you lose custody, it does not mean the court thinks you are a bad person, and it is NOT punishing you for your gender or anything else.

Got it? Good.

The standard used in custody court is "best interests of the child" NOT "What is fair" or "who is the better person" or any other goddamned thing.

So unless your ex- is a crack addict or intending to sacrifice the child to the Elder gods, PLEASE , PLEASE PLEASE stop trying to smear them and convince the court they are an unfit parent. Instead focus on the farking CHILD, explain to the court why they'd be better off with you, why the schools near you are better, or that they have more friends near you, or close ties with your side of the family, or just that they WANT to be with you.

And if your ex isn't the aforementioned monster or otherwise a real danger to your kid? Then no matter how much YOU hate them, be a farking grown-up and deal them in for a little visitation time if they want it.

Do that and you'll raise a healthy well adjusted child and save yourself tens of thousands in lawyer's fees.

Fight to the bitter end with your ex and you'll end up with a judge that despises you, no money to actually let the child have a decent life, and a kid that hates you both and runs off to become a a Juggalo the first time your let her out of your sight

Laugh my ass off because I don't do social networking b.s. online.

It'd be interesting (and really bad) if some judge included porn sites as dating sites. Archives of one-on-one web cam sessions admitted as evidence. Not the sort of thing anyone would want in court records.

dittybopper: Change them to random number/letter combinations that you generated for that purpose, and then promptly forgot. Tell the court what you did, make it plain that no amount of jail time is going to make you remember the 16 characters of goobledygook you generated with Scrabble tiles and dice, and make them get the information the hard way.

That way, you can't be charged with destroying evidence, nor can you be held in contempt for refusing to give the password, because you don't know it, and you've explained why you can't possibly know it to the court.

You have to do this *BEFORE* you are asked to provide them, however.

That sounds like an excellent way to spend the next several decades being held in contempt until you "remember" what the passwords were.

Never fark with a judge's order. They can fark you back much, much, much harder, and they don't like it when people attempt to be clever with them.

dittybopper: I did point out that you have to do it before the judge orders you to provide them. Better yet, have a friend do it for you so that you never get to see the new passwords.

You can't give what you don't have, and no amount of jail time can change that. If you explain precisely *WHY* you can't give it, then he's got no basis to jail you for contempt: You don't have the ability to comply with the order, therefore you are not in contempt.



If you ever find yourself in that situation, you let us know how that works out for you. I have a very strong suspicion that it won't be the best, however.

dittybopper: Change them to random number/letter combinations that you generated for that purpose, and then promptly forgot. Tell the court what you did, make it plain that no amount of jail time is going to make you remember the 16 characters of goobledygook you generated with Scrabble tiles and dice, and make them get the information the hard way.

dittybopper: Well, am I wrong?

Would I be in contempt if the judge ordered me to hand over a document that I had destroyed before the judge ordered me to hand it over? No, I might be guilty of destroying evidence, maybe, but I can't produce that document, therefore I'm not in contempt.

If the judge believes that you're lying and that you are merely concealing the password, you're damned right he can, and will, find you in contempt, which would really suck for you if you actually couldn't produce it.

Once again, judges hate it when people try to be clever with them and they have considerable power when it comes to dishing out punishments for that kind of behavior.

Now, perhaps you could get away with that kind of stunt but, once again, I really wouldn't advise trying it. This idea reminds me far too much of all the schemes that EFF fans have for concealing data from subpoenas that have ended in tears whenever someone has actually tried one of them out.

But feel free to knock yourself out if you do find yourself in that situation. I'd love to be proven wrong.