logo
Don't snoop through your partner's phone. Learn to sleuth instead

Don't snoop through your partner's phone. Learn to sleuth instead

Yahoo3 days ago
Put yourself in Emma's shoes: You're scrolling on your phone and get a text notification that says, 'Hey girly, your boyfriend said you guys would have a threesome with me, and I think he didn't tell you about that.'
Would you (a) ignore the message or (b) look through his conveniently unattended phone?
If you chose (b), don't feel too bad. Nearly 30% of American adults say it's at least sometimes acceptable to look through a significant other's phone without permission, according to a Pew Research Center survey.
'I have looked through many of my partners' phones, and I definitely have quite a few stories,' said Emma, who didn't want to include her last name to protect her privacy.
An age-old debate surrounding phone snooping has been revived by the July breakup between JaNa Craig and Kenny Rodriguez, stars of the 2024 season of the reality dating show 'Love Island USA.'
'Discovering that someone you loved isn't who you thought they were and that the relationship you thought you were building hasn't been genuine since day one has been truly devastating,' Craig wrote in an Instagram story post confirming the split. Craig's friend then took to Instagram to advise other women in relationships to 'go thru your mans phone TODAY' if they had access and search for 'keywords like 'I don't like black women, I thought I would get more money from this'' — potentially implying newly discovered racism and dishonest intentions for being in the relationship on Rodriguez's part. (Craig and Rodriguez haven't confirmed these implications nor the more specific details of their breakup.)
Searching through someone's phone may not be aligned with a person's character and values, but they might have valid suspicions and no other way find the truth — so they look.
Doing so may turn out to be fair game when you learn incriminating information, according to divorce lawyer Dennis R. Vetrano, who is also a mediator and content creator based in New York's Hudson Valley.
Not so much to this psychologist.
'In general, I think that invading another person's private space — whether it's snooping on their phone, reading their personal journal, or invading their physical space — is unethical without their permission,' said Dr. Cortney Warren, board certified clinical psychologist and adjunct clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Snooping also can be illegal, depending on privacy laws in your state or other jurisdiction, so it's not advised that you go through your partner's phone, according to Vetrano.
But is such snooping even necessary anymore? With so much out in the public sphere online, do you really need to snoop? Why not replace snooping with sleuthing?
Do you need to look through a partner's phone?
The easy answer is no.
While snooping is considered a breach of privacy because you're searching for information someone hasn't given you permission to access, with sleuthing you're working with information that's available in an online public space.
And so many people are online: Seventy percent of American adults are on Facebook, 50% on Instagram, and 33% on TikTok, according to a 2024 survey.
Sleuthing is easier these days with the creation of websites that can locate dating profiles, apps that track location, and most notably, social media platforms that allow you to see everyone who a person follows and the content they like. It's all there for anyone to mine.
That was the case with Emma.
'I had already been kind of suspicious of this boyfriend for a while,' Emma said. 'So I was sleuthing through (his) TikTok following, and it was just girl after girl after girl of those OnlyFans models and anime cosplayers that, you know, cosplay minor characters in very inappropriate ways.'
Is sleuthing OK to do?
'Technology is out there to track everything that you do, so I think the question — is it the right thing to do — is really something that we have to center on,' said Dr. Angela Corbo, a professor and chair of the department of communication studies at Widener University in Chester, Pennsylvania.
As far as Emma was concerned, going through her previous partners' social media followings was justified because she was accessing public information and she ended up finding evidence of behavior she didn't like.
'I had been very straight up with my partners, and I don't like (them) following OnlyFans models because honestly, it was kind of embarrassing when everybody can see that your partner is liking photos and sharing weird adult content videos publicly,' she said.
When it comes to social media, people can formulate an image of what another person is like based on who they follow and the content with which they interact.
'I think social media is a great way of getting an idea without waiting for someone to show you, or without having to break someone's boundaries and invade their privacy,' said Diana Prime, a relationship coach on Instagram and TikTok. 'If someone has adult-rated content, if they're following OnlyFans models, that is enough to not continue a relationship with that person because it gives you an insight to what they do.'
Is snooping through someone's phone still wrong?
Yes, Warren said.
Snooping is also a sign of other troubles, such as not respecting your partner, Prime said. In that case, you're 'not going to think twice about invading their privacy.'
Generally, sleuthing 'is different in the sense that the material online is often public — so the deceptive element of violating a partner's personal boundaries is less pronounced,' said Warren, author of 'Letting Go of Your Ex: CBT Skills to Heal the Pain of a Breakup and Overcome Love Addiction.'
Think of it like this: Say you're sitting beside a partner and happen to glimpse a notification on their phone. 'You've done nothing wrong,' Corbo said. 'I think it's when you go behind somebody's back to retrieve information that they're not giving you permission for — I think that's when a violation has occurred.'
You're already in breakup territory if you're feeling like your partner's behavior leaves you no other option but to snoop. 'That's a deeper-rooted problem that will lead to bigger issues down the road, and that's enough to walk away from someone, because what happens when you find information by snooping is that you hurt your own feelings times 10,' she said.
'It will do you more damage to snoop through that person's phone than to honor your own intuition about something being off,' Prime added. 'What within you wants to play things out, versus just trusting yourself the first time?'
If your ex-partners have treated you badly and you're regularly suspicious of a partner who hasn't given you a reason to be, Corbo suggested evaluating your feelings and considering the evidence before you assume the worst.
Get inspired by a weekly roundup on living well, made simple. Sign up for CNN's Life, But Better newsletter for information and tools designed to improve your well-being.
CNN's Kristen Rogers contributed to this report.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Travis Hunter featured in rare Sports Illustrated fishing cover bobblehead
Travis Hunter featured in rare Sports Illustrated fishing cover bobblehead

Yahoo

time17 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Travis Hunter featured in rare Sports Illustrated fishing cover bobblehead

Travis Hunter featured in rare Sports Illustrated fishing cover bobblehead originally appeared on The Sporting News Travis Hunter's talents will be showcased on a new level. Colorado's Heisman Trophy winner will be featured in a new Sports Illustrated bass fishing bobblehead available now. The statue from New Jersey-based manufacturer Foco Hunter poses with two trophy fish and is a depiction of the real SI cover on the right side. It's a perfect addition to any collection, but is only limited to a production quantity of 100. Foco's quality is on full display with this rare piece and has hand-crafted, hand-painted touches. The 'Travis Hunter Jacksonville Jaguars Biggest Fish In The Pond Sports Illustrated Cover Bobblehead' cost $100 and can be ordered here. Hunter and the Jacksonville Jaguars are preparing for the upcoming season. The second overall pick in the 2025 NFL Draft was a hot prospect and aims to be the NFL's first full-time two-way talent in over seven decades. The Jaguars traded up three spots to secure him, recognizing his potential as a two-way player capable of excelling at both wide receiver and cornerback. MORE COLLEGE FOOTBALL NEWS: Michigan Football's punishment for scandal handed down by NCAA, per report ESPN analyst's blue-chip son named No. 1 recruit In America Denzel Washington sends clear message to Shedeur Sanders haters Deion Sanders turns heads with his latest kids rankings

Quentin Tarantino Opens Up About Why He 'Pulled the Plug' on THE MOVIE CRITIC — GeekTyrant
Quentin Tarantino Opens Up About Why He 'Pulled the Plug' on THE MOVIE CRITIC — GeekTyrant

Geek Tyrant

time18 minutes ago

  • Geek Tyrant

Quentin Tarantino Opens Up About Why He 'Pulled the Plug' on THE MOVIE CRITIC — GeekTyrant

Quentin Tarantino is still on the hunt for his final film, and now we finally shares why The Movie Critic didn't make the cut. The legendary director had previously teased the project as his tenth and final movie, and fans were eager to see what kind of cinematic mic drop he had in store. But as it turns out, Tarantino decided to walk away from the project even after writing the full script. On The Church of Tarantino podcast, Tarantino opened up about why he ultimately scrapped the film. 'No one's waiting for this thing per se. I mean, I can do it whenever I want. I mean, it's already written. So OK, let me just not start it right now,' he explained. 'Let me try writing it as a movie and let me see if it's better that way. And I was like, 'Oh, OK, no, I think this is going to be the movie.' And then it wasn't. I pulled the plug on it. And the reason I pulled the plug, it's a little crazy.' The idea for The Movie Critic began as an eight-part limited series, which Tarantino then shaped into a feature film script. While he admits he was hyped about the writing process, the energy didn't carry over to pre-production. 'I was so excited about the writing, but I wasn't really that excited about dramatizing what I wrote once we were in pre-production.' That lack of enthusiasm wasn't the only red flag. Tarantino also challenged himself with the subject matter, which centered around a seemingly mundane profession. 'But there was a challenge that I gave to myself when I did it. Can I take the most boring profession in the world and make it an interesting movie?' he said. 'Every Tarantino title promises so much, except The Movie Critic . Who wants to see a TV show about a f*ing movie critic? Who wants to see a movie called The Movie Critic ? If I can actually make a movie or a TV show about somebody who watches movies interesting, that is an accomplishment.' Set in 1977 California, the story was reportedly inspired by a real-life, lesser-known writer who reviewed movies for a porn magazine. Despite earlier reports that it would be a continuation of Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood , Tarantino shut that down hard. 'It's a spiritual sequel to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood in so far as they take place in the same world and they take place in the same town. But there were no crossover characters. Cliff Booth was never in The Movie Critic . That's all a bunch of bull**. That never was the case ever, ever, ever.' That hasn't stopped Brad Pitt's character Cliff Booth from living on. While The Movie Critic is no longer on the table, Pitt is reprising his role in Netflix's upcoming film The Adventures of Cliff Booth , directed by David Fincher. So what's next for Tarantino's final movie? That remains a mystery. According to sources, he's gone back to the drawing board, looking for a new idea that will truly excite him and his fans. I'd still like to see what Tarantino had planned for The Movie Critic . He should just go back to his original plan and develop it as a series. Then it wouldn't count as his finale film. Source: Deadline

Newsmax Will Pay $67 Million to Settle Dominion Defamation Lawsuit
Newsmax Will Pay $67 Million to Settle Dominion Defamation Lawsuit

New York Times

time19 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Newsmax Will Pay $67 Million to Settle Dominion Defamation Lawsuit

The right-wing cable channel Newsmax has agreed to pay $67 million to settle a libel lawsuit that Dominion Voting Systems had brought against the channel for falsely claiming that the voting machine company had rigged votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The settlement, which the companies completed on Aug. 15, was disclosed in an S.E.C. filing by Newsmax. It noted that Newsmax would make the payments in three installments by Jan. 15, 2027. A Dominion spokeswoman confirmed the deal in a statement, saying, 'We are pleased to have settled this matter.' Newsmax did not offer an apology, saying in a statement on Monday that it stood by its coverage as 'fair, balanced and conducted within professional standards of journalism.' In 2021, Dominion sued Newsmax for $1.6 billion, accusing the cable channel of knowingly broadcasting conspiracy theories that falsely implicated the company in election fraud and vote rigging. Dominion accused Newsmax of making the baseless claims in 18 statements on television, as well as in a social media post. The statements included false claims that Dominion's software had manipulated vote counts, that Dominion had ties to a Venezuelan company and that Dominion paid kickbacks to certain government officials. In April, Judge Eric M. Davis of the Delaware Superior Court ruled that Dominion had presented 'clear and convincing evidence' that the statements from Newsmax were false and defamatory, allowing the case to proceed to a trial. The trial, where a jury would decide whether Newsmax had broadcast the claims despite knowing they were false and the extent of damages to Dominion, had been set for earlier this year but was postponed. Nearly five years after the 2020 election, a wave of litigation over the broadcasting of false claims is nearing a conclusion. In April 2023, Fox News agreed to pay Dominion $787.5 million to resolve a separate defamation lawsuit over the network's extensive promotion of conspiracy theories that falsely linked Dominion to interference in the 2020 election. Newsmax settled a similar case brought by another voting technology company, Smartmatic, in September for $40 million. Some cases are still underway. Fox News faces a $2.7 billion lawsuit from Smartmatic, which is set to proceed to trial in a Manhattan state court unless the parties reach a settlement. Fox has said it is willing to defend itself at trial, and it has criticized Smartmatic's damages claims as 'intended to chill First Amendment freedoms.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store