These men are deciding case law regarding technology?

[Gina]

Oral arguments were heard in the case of City of Ontario vs. Quon :

The case examines whether a California police department violated the constitutional rights of an employee when it inspected personal text messages sent and received by a pager owned by the city of Ontario, Calif.

Chief Justice Roberts is 55-years-old. Why in the world does he have to ask, "What is the difference between e-mail and a pager?" Pg 29

Justice Kennedy wants to know what happens when you receive a text at the same time you are sending one. HUH? Pg 44

This next one is the worst because it indicates both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy do not understand the technology at the crux of the case, the fact that text messages go through and are retained at the service provider. (Pages 47 and 48)

MR. DAMMEIER: Until the point that it is on
Quon's pager. I think under that scenario, that they
could have obtained the messages from Quon, but they
went over to Arch, the equivalent of the Post Office,
and got them from them.

It's like if I -- I make a copy of a letter
before I send it to somebody. You know, down the road,
I might not know what happens and I might lose my
expectation of privacy down the road, but that copy I
kept, I think there is still some expectation.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, what -- when you send
a text message to somebody else, aren't you quite aware
that that text message will remain confidential only to
the extent that either the recipient keeps it
confidential -- and he can disclose it -- or somebody
else who has power over the recipient or over the
recipient's phone chooses to look at it. Don't -- isn't
that understood when you send somebody a text message?

MR. DAMMEIER: I -- I -- I agree with that.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, so she should have
understood that, you know, whoever could get ahold of
his phone lawfully can read the message. In other
words, I don't see that she's in a -- in a different
position from Quon himself.

MR. DAMMEIER: I think it's just a slightly
different one. I mean, first of all they didn't
lawfully get it; there was a violation of the Stored
Communications Act.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, that's a different
issue.

MR. DAMMEIER: But here again, had they
gotten consent from -- from Quon and got it from him
directly, that's a -- that's a different story.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Again, it depends
upon their reasonable expectation. Do any of these
other people know about Arch Wireless? Don't they just
assume that once they send something to Quon, it's going
to Quon?


MR. DAMMEIER: That's -- that is true. I
mean, they expect -


CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, then they
can't have a reasonable expectation of privacy based on
the fact that their communication is routed through a
communications company.

MR. DAMMEIER: Well, they -- they expect
that some company, I'm sure, is going to have to be
processing the delivery of this message. And -


CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, I didn't -- I
wouldn't think that. I thought, you know, you push a
button; it goes right to the other thing.

MR. DAMMEIER: Well -


JUSTICE SCALIA: You mean it doesn't go
right to the other thing?

(Laughter.)

Simply amazing. They must live under rocks. Electronic communication has been around for a long while now and since that technology pervades every corner of our lives and the potential for invading those corners is rife, I'm a little less than confident in the decisions these justices will make on our behalf. If they don't understand the function and capabilities of a service provider, how texting works, and the difference between email and texting, how can they critically appraise how our privacy in using the ever more prevailing method of communicating?

Aside from how it impacts this case, do they understand our cell conversations can be snatched out of the air with no trace? There are an infinite number of methods that can be used to invade our privacy and rulings need to be based on knowledge of how technology functions lest they open loop holes because they don't understand how information is transmitted and stored.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Oh lord.

Maybe we should have the entire Supreme Court made up of tween girls.

At least they'll understand how to TXT, LOL.

 

[rathi]

The incompetence of judges when it comes to technology is quite annoying. Presiding case that hinges on technical matters should require you have clue about what is being discussed. Getting briefed by technical experts should have been a required for the SC before taking the case.

 

[Gina]

Oh lord.

Maybe we should have the entire Supreme Court made up of tween girls.

At least they'll understand how to TXT, LOL.

Of course not but then shouldn't we expect that our justices be at least as well versed in technology as tween girls?

The incompetence of judges when it comes to technology is quite annoying. Presiding case that hinges on technical matters should require you have clue about what is being discussed. Getting briefed by technical experts should have been a required for the SC before taking the case.

I agree. They shouldn't need to receive the basics of technology and how it functions during oral arguments. That should be a given so they then could proceed to privacy issue at hand and how technology plays into it.