- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled Monday to hear the case of an Ontario, California, police officer who used his city-issued text-messaging pager to exchange hundreds of personal messages -- some sexually explicit. The case carries ramifications for employee privacy rights in the workplace.
Not based on your argument. If I use a government pencil, do they have a "right to monitor" everything that I write with it?You know, I have always been quite an advocate against government spying on people, but he was texting his messages on a phone that the government, HIS EMPLOYER, provided. I think his right to privacy ended with that. Now, if it was his own phone, it would be a different story, but don't you think that, if his employer is paying for the phone, then they have a right to monitor what he does with it?
Not based on your argument. If I use a government pencil, do they have a "right to monitor" everything that I write with it?
You know, I have always been quite an advocate against government spying on people, but he was texting his messages on a phone that the government, HIS EMPLOYER, provided. I think his right to privacy ended with that. Now, if it was his own phone, it would be a different story, but don't you think that, if his employer is paying for the phone, then they have a right to monitor what he does with it? After all, it's not his property. It's his employer's property. This is how I think SCOTUS will rule.
Discussion?
Article is here.
What's more disturbing here? That an employer took a peek at private emails, or that cell phone companies have saved transcripts of every text message you write? :?
The chief justice appeared sympathetic to the police officer in the case, Sgt. Jeff Quon of the Ontario Police Department’s SWAT team, who had received mixed guidance from his superiors about the status of messages sent on his pager. The messages included communications to and from his wife and his mistress.
The department’s written policy allowed “light personal communications” but cautioned employees that they “should have no expectation of privacy.” Under an informal policy adopted by a police lieutenant, however, those who paid for messages over a monthly maximum would not have their records inspected.
Chief Justice Roberts said the combination of the two policies might be enough to give Sergeant Quon a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. “I think if I pay for it,” the chief justice said, “it’s mine and not the employer’s.”
Neal K. Katyal, a deputy solicitor general, disagreed, saying that a low-level employee had no power to change a general policy. “The computer help desk cannot supplant the chief’s desk,” Mr. Katyal said.
You know, I have always been quite an advocate against government spying on people, but he was texting his messages on a phone that the government, HIS EMPLOYER, provided. I think his right to privacy ended with that. Now, if it was his own phone, it would be a different story, but don't you think that, if his employer is paying for the phone, then they have a right to monitor what he does with it? After all, it's not his property. It's his employer's property. This is how I think SCOTUS will rule.
Discussion?
Article is here.
Having worked for the government a bit, I can assure you that he was notified that everything he did on work equipment (which included that phone) was monitored. Many people choose to ignore that notification, though, and assume that they're not REALLY reading everything you type.
Quon signed a statement acknowledging that "use of these tools for personal benefit is a significant violation of City of Ontario Policy" and that "users should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using these resources."
Exactly. I've signed many of those myself. And believe me, I never took for granted that everything I did was monitored. I watched numerous people escorted out by guards who DID take that for granted though. LOLI would assume no right to privacy on my employer's equipment. Most employers monitor internet usage and actively block sites they don't want their employees to visit.
Knowing that the contents of texts might be saved at the wireless service provider, I wouldn't send messages with private information or that would embarrass me.
The city's policy seems pretty clear and Quon signed an agreement:
(from the article in the OP)
Hmm, it's a tricky case I think. On one hand, it wasn't his phone and the owner of the phone may be able to look through the messages. On the other hand, there is clearly the 4th amendment. I think it's probably best to err on the side of the 4th amendment though.
I respectfully disagree with you here. Any right is a right as long as it does not infringe on the rights of someone else. The way I see it, the phone was his employer's property, and he was notified in advance that he could be monitored. You can't argue 4th amendment here because the claim to a 4th amendment right would violate the employer's right of ownership of their own property.
No I get you argument fully. You are pretty much right. My only concern about it is how far would the government take this. Would they understand a "property rights" sort of argument, or would they see the doors flung open sort of case. I don't trust the government, in which case I'd side with more 4th amendment. But you are right and if this were private business I'd be right there with you. I just don't think government is terribly reasonable when it comes to power.
Does the 4th Amendment even apply in this case at all though? The officer is not being charged with any crime, from what I read. It seems like they were just going to punish him for it, either through disciplinary actions or firing. From what I've read and the cases that have gone to the Supreme Court over the 4th Amendment since MURRAY'S LESSEE V. HOBOKEN LAND & IMPROVEMENT CO., 59 U. S. 272 (1856), the 4th Amendment only applies to criminal cases, not civil cases.
I think the only reason the 4th is involved is the employer is the government. A big stretch.
I have to agree on this one. The employer has the right if they pay the phone bill.You know, I have always been quite an advocate against government spying on people, but he was texting his messages on a phone that the government, HIS EMPLOYER, provided. I think his right to privacy ended with that. Now, if it was his own phone, it would be a different story, but don't you think that, if his employer is paying for the phone, then they have a right to monitor what he does with it? After all, it's not his property. It's his employer's property. This is how I think SCOTUS will rule.
Discussion?
Article is here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?