SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Imagine you found out that your former spouse had opened a fake LifeLock credit monitoring account in your name, and then used it to follow your every financial move for two years? Then imagine that no one at LifeLock will take your query seriously, even after the police get involved.
That's the story of an Arizona woman who learned in March that her ex-husband had been keeping track — literally, their son found a five-page Excel spreadsheet on his computer — of her bank accounts, credit cards and other financial activities.
"He knew everything I did," she tells the Arizona Republic. "I had no idea about all the things he knew."
That spreadsheet didn't just have financial info. It also included his ex-wife's passwords and answers to her security questions. When she reviewed the file — which her son had sent her after finding it on dad's computer — she saw mention of a LifeLock account that her ex was paying for.
The next question is, if people freak out about this, why don't they freak out about the government or companies knowing the same information?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @09:25PM
A pity you two would have made a cute couple two such nice low UIDs. We could have held the bachelor party here on SN, poll options to select your wedding gifts...
More seriously on the whole ex- and annulment axis something to think about is if .gov has him sending money to her as a dependent they're not really completely separated and as part of that I think it reasonable for him to have her financial records to verify to him and the court that she "deserves" (note the quotes) the alimony payment. Of course in that case I'd feel the same way in reverse.
Some random ex boyfriend or crazy coworker or serial axe murder yeah that would be totally freakish, but IF (empasis IF) she is NOT a self supporting adult I think it totally reasonable he have some input or view into her financial life. IF (again emphasis IF) she was a financially independent woman not a financial sponge judicially appended to his financial life like a tumor, then yes indeed that is in fact pretty much nuts insane lunacy. I mean, play the part of a child WRT financial support, expect the person playing parent to do a little parental oversight... Seems rational and fair.
How very paternalistic of you. Because women really need to be supervised by their men, don't they?
And, of course, since many women delay or give up their careers to stay home and take care of the children (since day care is often more expensive than an extra income would cover), they aren't partially responsible for the success of their spouse's career.
Because a man doesn't have those limitations of women (read: reproductive organs on the inside), they shouldn't have to compensate their former spouses for enabling their careers, should they? If it were a man taking care of the children, he'd be able to spend the day changing diapers and watching young children *and* become CEO of a Fortune 50 company.
Because women are just worthless chattel. You are so right. Thanks for setting us all straight, VLM!
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Thursday December 03 2015, @06:52AM
So, did you miss the part where he said "Of course in that case I'd feel the same way in reverse" completely, or did you stop reading before that in order to so breathlessly and self-righteously incant the party line faster?
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @07:42AM
So, did you miss the part where he said "Of course in that case I'd feel the same way in reverse" completely, or did you stop reading before that in order to so breathlessly and self-righteously incant the party line faster?
No. I didn't.
I find it interesting that GP thinks *anyone* should have access to this person's financial information, and here's the important part, without their consent.
If you can't see how the comment completely disregards the victim's privacy, then your reading comprehension is pretty poor. What's more, we don't even know if alimony or child support (I know, child support -- what a burden that is. No man should have to pay to support their children, should they?) is involved, but even if there is alimony/child support involved, that does not give this person the right to invade his ex-wife's privacy.
All we really know is that some dickhead committed fraud and identity theft to stalk his ex-wife. How that should be the ex-wife's fault eludes me.
But clearly, I'm missing something here. Please, enlighten me Master Po.
For your reference, the entire rant is quoted below.
A pity you two would have made a cute couple two such nice low UIDs. We could have held the bachelor party here on SN, poll options to select your wedding gifts...
More seriously on the whole ex- and annulment axis something to think about is if .gov has him sending money to her as a dependent they're not really completely separated and as part of that I think it reasonable for him to have her financial records to verify to him and the court that she "deserves" (note the quotes) the alimony payment. Of course in that case I'd feel the same way in reverse.
Some random ex boyfriend or crazy coworker or serial axe murder yeah that would be totally freakish, but IF (empasis IF) she is NOT a self supporting adult I think it totally reasonable he have some input or view into her financial life. IF (again emphasis IF) she was a financially independent woman not a financial sponge judicially appended to his financial life like a tumor, then yes indeed that is in fact pretty much nuts insane lunacy. I mean, play the part of a child WRT financial support, expect the person playing parent to do a little parental oversight... Seems rational and fair.
Also something to point out is most Americans are total flakeout about state vs federal credit laws and technically my wife and I are required by my state to have our names and signatures on ALL accounts. We can in daily speech call that my VISA or her checking but legally its all ours, and from talking to couples that separate this is a total screw up part of the state and its not entirely unusual to find you need your ex-wife's signature to close a bank account a decade after your divorce or WTF lunacy. So I'm sure its great clickbait that he's got access to all her accounts, but it may very well be because she's a moron and hasn't rebooted her financial life like you're supposed to after a divorce. At least that's how it works in this state. I mean, you better get an account at a different company, not just a new account, or god knows how Fed up they'll be WRT still linking your married accounts. I hope gay people know the bullshite they're getting into, life's a lot simpler when you're just living together at the same address... Given some of the BS I've heard from my coworkers WRT marriage, holy cow.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Thursday December 03 2015, @09:48AM
Oh dear.
No. I didn't.
I find it interesting that GP thinks *anyone* should have access to this person's financial information, and here's the important part, without their consent.
If you can't see how the comment completely disregards the victim's privacy, then your reading comprehension is pretty poor. What's more, we don't even know if alimony or child support (I know, child support -- what a burden that is. No man should have to pay to support their children, should they?) is involved, but even if there is alimony/child support involved, that does not give this person the right to invade his ex-wife's privacy.
You seem to have a strange preconception that there is someone here that thinks child support shouldn't be awarded to people. I do not recall anyone saying that, so until it happens, you should probably drop the witch hunt.
So, the thing about alimony is that it hinges on circumstances varying from divorce to divorce. There's a lot of factors involved in determining how much to award, or even if there is any given at all. The vast majority of that is financial in nature. At least, based upon the divorced couples I've interacted with, there's a lot of nastiness that goes on hiding numbers and "he said/she said" on BOTH sides of the fence when these proceedings happen, because people are the reason why we can't have nice things. I do believe sometimes it is also actually awarded to the man as well. I know that might surprise/offend you, but it's true. Using the traditional meaning of "true", that is.
I'm going to paraphrase my understanding of what VLM was saying: "You know, to be fair about alimony, both people should really have open access to each other's financial information. Of course, since each person would have the other's information, in this situaiton, each person would obviously be aware of it. That last part doesn't even need to be said, really." It might have been a little tangential to the actual events that transpired, but some of us are abstract thinkers. You'll note at this point that he never actually condoned the behavior of the ex here either.
Now, I'm going to compare that to what you think he was saying: "I find it interesting that GP thinks *anyone* should have access to this person's financial information, and here's the important part, without their consent. If you can't see how the comment completely disregards the victim's privacy, then your reading comprehension is pretty poor. What's more, we don't even know if alimony or child support (I know, child support -- what a burden that is. No man should have to pay to support their children, should they?) is involved, but even if there is alimony/child support involved, that does not give this person the right to invade his ex-wife's privacy."
He never said that first sentence. Your second sentence kinda hinges on the first, and I kinda feel that as part of alimony, you SHOULDN'T really have any privacy on either side of the fence, since that's what the court decision is made upon. Your third sentence starts technically true, but again, no one is condoning anything here, merely waxing hypothetical, well, except you, who appears to have established with certain fact that that we all believe "no man should have to pay to support their children", a presumption that I both find tiresome and borderline offensive.
All we really know is that some dickhead committed fraud and identity theft to stalk his ex-wife. How that should be the ex-wife's fault eludes me.
Indeed. Again, no one has blamed her for the actions of this creep. No one said he was right. Read it again, really, no one ever says he was right. What someone said was "man, people should really have this kind of information on each other in very specific, certain, court oversought situations."
For your reference, the entire rant is quoted below.
I don't know what that gets me. It was literally three inches higher on my screen. It... it just happened, like, earlier.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @11:00AM
Far more effort than I would have spent on a shrill, loser Gender Studies major.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @02:48PM
Far more effort than I would have spent on a shrill, loser Gender Studies major.
Same AC here.
Shrill? You don't get out much, do you? Gender studies? I do like "studying" those of the opposite gender and have for the last 50 years or so. You are so off base about who I am that I have to wonder if you're really just butthurt because you can't get laid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @02:44PM
a presumption that I both find tiresome and borderline offensive.
Same AC here.
Only borderline offensive? Clearly I'm not trying hard enough. Perhaps we should talk castration?
The entire rant was based on the idea that it was somehow appropriate for a stalker ex-husband to, well, stalk his ex-wife.