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: 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.