Justices will determine privacy of government workers' txt messages

[OutHouse]

im not sure where i stand on this. My IT side says company policy and property wins but my personal side says no way txt and email is private and should be treated as USPS mail.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/14/scotus.messaging/index.html


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- When Ontario, California, Police Sgt. Jeff Quon used his city-issued text messaging pager to exchange hundreds of personal messages, some of a "sexually explicit" nature, did he have a right to expect those messages would be kept private?

The Supreme Court decided Monday that it will determine whether a police officer has a "reasonable expectation" of privacy on his official wireless two-way text-messaging pager.

The justices accepted a pair of appeals on this free-speech and privacy dispute, and will hear oral arguments in the spring.

At issue is how far a government employer may go to monitor the private communications of its workers when they believe that the use of such equipment is being abused.

And the court will explore whether service providers can be held liable for providing those communications without the consent of the sender.

Courts have said that private communications -- even when delivered or transmitted through a public portal -- are generally protected from "unreasonable search and seizure," such as handwritten letters sent in sealed envelopes through the U.S. Postal Service.

 

[heyheybooboo]

~~~


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- When Ontario, California, Police Sgt. Jeff Quon used his city-issued text messaging pager to exchange hundreds of personal messages, some of a "sexually explicit" nature, did he have a right to expect those messages would be kept private?

~~~

No.



-

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I don't understand why anyone with a company provided cell phone or laptop for that matter thinks it is "private". If you want to text or do other "private" things, you should use your own equipment.
I have both a cell and laptop that the company provides. We don't have texting enabled but even if we did, there is no reason to think that they couldn't/shouldn't be able to access the records - it's theirs - they are paying for it.

 

[spidey07]

I don't believe there is any expectation of privacy here. This is really the issue here:

At issue is how far a government employer may go to monitor the private communications of its workers when they believe that the use of such equipment is being abused.

I know analogies suck sometimes but if I had a company messaging device, say a blackberry, I would not have any assumption of privacy. It's not my device or my service.

 

[Robor]

If the device/plan is provided by the employer I can't get that upset about the privacy of the messages. The courts may see differently though.

Edit: Spidey beat me too it.

 

[crownjules]

If you have a job issued phone/computer it is 100% the company's property. Their property therefore their rules apply. Most companies that I'm aware of have policies in place that say their equipment is for company use only and so you're in breach if you use it for any private/personal reasons. A lot of people get away with it but that doesn't make you any more right if you get caught.

 

[ElFenix]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/14/scotus.messaging/index.html


WASHINGTON (CNN) --
Courts have said that private communications -- even when delivered or transmitted through a public portal -- are generally protected from "unreasonable search and seizure," such as handwritten letters sent in sealed envelopes through the U.S. Postal Service.

and just what do job-issued cell phones, even if from the .gov, and the USPS have in common?

 

[MotF Bane]

Company-issued communications device, no expectation of privacy there.

 

[OutHouse]

and just what do job-issued cell phones, even if from the .gov, and the USPS have in common?

thats exactly why the justices are hearing this case.

If personal mail comes to your employers address and it is put in in your mailbox which happens to be owned by the company, does the company have a right to open your personal mail? Of course not, because USPS mail is protected by federal law. What difference is there between physical personal mail sitting in your mailbox to virtual mail sitting in a electronic device. both are owned by your employer...

 

[Robor]

thats exactly why the justices are hearing this case.

If personal mail comes to your employers address and it is put in in your mailbox which happens to be owned by the company, does the company have a right to open your personal mail? Of course not, because USPS mail is protected by federal law. What difference is there between physical personal mail sitting in your mailbox to virtual mail sitting in a electronic device. both are owned by your employer...

Personal mail delivered to work doesn't cost the company anything. Personal messages to/from a cell phone do. I don't know if that matters in a legal sense - just saying there is a cost difference to the company.

 

[n yusef]

Personal mail delivered to work doesn't cost the company anything. Personal messages to/from a cell phone do. I don't know if that matters in a legal sense - just saying there is a cost difference to the company.

As a hypothetical, what if the company phone has an unlimited plan? Then the marginal cost of each communication is 0.

 

[Fern]

Personal mail delivered to work doesn't cost the company anything. Personal messages to/from a cell phone do. I don't know if that matters in a legal sense - just saying there is a cost difference to the company.

As a hypothetical, what if the company phone has an unlimited plan? Then the marginal cost of each communication is 0.

Forget about the cost for a moment.

If someone sends an employee personal mail to the employee's office address the employee is likely entitled to privacy because:

1) The person sending the personal mail to the employee's office address is not bound by the employee's company policy prohibiting that (the sender doesn't work there).

2) The employee's personal info, and right to privacy, could be violated even though they themselves did nothing to warrant it.

3) The employer's mail dept accepted delivery, they could have refused if in violation of their policy.

4) Allowing such personal communication sent from 3rd parties (usually without the employee's consent) provides for shenanigans such as 3rd parties purposefully embarrasing employees for their own reasons (sending 'embarrasing' mail in divorce proceedings, collection of personal debts etc).

Fern

 

[Robor]

As a hypothetical, what if the company phone has an unlimited plan? Then the marginal cost of each communication is 0.

I thought about that after I posted and all I could come up with is if the personal messages/calls pushed the user into needing an unlimited plan.

Edit: Excellent points, Fern! :thumbsup:

 

[heyheybooboo]

Forget about the cost for a moment.

If someone sends an employee personal mail to the employee's office address the employee is likely entitled to privacy because:

1) The person sending the personal mail to the employee's office address is not bound by the employee's company policy prohibiting that (the sender doesn't work there).

2) The employee's personal info, and right to privacy, could be violated even though they themselves did nothing to warrant it.

3) The employer's mail dept accepted delivery, they could have refused if in violation of their policy.

4) Allowing such personal communication sent from 3rd parties (usually without the employee's consent) provides for shenanigans such as 3rd parties purposefully embarrasing employees for their own reasons (sending 'embarrasing' mail in divorce proceedings, collection of personal debts etc).

Fern

There should be no expectation of 'personal' privacy using the email server of the employer.

And in the case of the public sector there should be no expectation of privacy what-so-ever. That is why we have 'Sunshine Laws' and specific rules and regulations regarding the retention of public sector records and communications.



-

 

[Modelworks]

Some places tell you up front you have no expectation of privacy. Depending on security levels and what the place works with it can be everything from we can confiscate your personal phone to we can record every word you say while here.

My feeling is that if you want to send personal emails , text, phone calls, you need to do it on your time not the employers.

 

[Modelworks]

thats exactly why the justices are hearing this case.

If personal mail comes to your employers address and it is put in in your mailbox which happens to be owned by the company, does the company have a right to open your personal mail? Of course not, because USPS mail is protected by federal law. What difference is there between physical personal mail sitting in your mailbox to virtual mail sitting in a electronic device. both are owned by your employer...

It is their equipment , their electricity and you are there to do a job they paid you for, not use it for your home mailing address or personal email site. Email when you get home.

People using networks at work to do things like personal email, shopping, youtube, etc then complaining about privacy.

 

[marincounty]

This is typical police dept BS. Everyone else in the working world has to put up with their employer having the right to look at anything that passes through their network, servers or computers. But somehow the police are above the law?

Similar to how you can't get access to their disciplinary records, there is a double standard when it comes to police.

 

[DrPizza]

If the justices rule in favor of no expectation of privacy - it should be fun afterwards. At least, in that case I believe that just about any citizen could file a Freedom of Information request. i.e. if you're running for office next year - the current incumbent's text messages, emails, etc., might be fair game? Yes? No? What do you guys think?

 

[Thump553]

Given that at least a decade ago the Supreme Court ruled there was no expectation of privacy -therefore no wiretap warrant needed -for phone calls made on wireless telephones (this was before cell phones became prevalent), there's not much doubt in my mind where this will come out.

 

[jonks]

If the justices rule in favor of no expectation of privacy - it should be fun afterwards. At least, in that case I believe that just about any citizen could file a Freedom of Information request. i.e. if you're running for office next year - the current incumbent's text messages, emails, etc., might be fair game? Yes? No? What do you guys think?

They already have done this. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2008-03-15-textmsgs_N.htm

I believe a gov't employee's non-governmental email accounts (gmail, etc) and personal cell phone txts would not be subject to FOIA, except such emails residing in a govt computer cache perhaps, or if that private email were used to conduct state business, which I understand it is not supposed to be precisely because it circumvents public records laws. But a cell phone paid for by tax dollars? I don't have a problem with that being subject to public records laws. Want privacy, buy a phone and pay for it with your salary, not the public's, and keep your gmail account private.