Sexting Case at the Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by chanel, Apr 18, 2010.

  1. chanel
    Offline

    chanel Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    12,130
    Thanks Received:
    2,746
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    People's Republic of NJ
    Ratings:
    +2,749
    Sexting Case at the Supreme Court Liveshots

    Tricky one. Comments?
     
  2. George Costanza
    Offline

    George Costanza A Friendly Liberal

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,087
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Los Angeles area.
    Ratings:
    +1,187
    I hate cameras on street corners and interception of e-messages which are intended for only private reception. I view both as invasions of privacy.

    I, of course, am not a United States Supreme Court justice.
     
  3. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    137,104
    Thanks Received:
    12,322
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +32,452
    I have no problem with photo cop: don't speed, don't run red lights, don't push bicyclists off the road, don't rob convenience stores or me.

    I have no problem with the concept that I can't expect privacy in my communications if they are done with my employer's equipment, period.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,553
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,971
    Work owned, not private. The 9th got it wrong.
     
  5. chanel
    Offline

    chanel Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    12,130
    Thanks Received:
    2,746
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    People's Republic of NJ
    Ratings:
    +2,749
    I agree Jake, but the issue is the privacy of those who were in contact with them. Did they know they were work pagers? Cautionary tale folks.
     
  6. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    137,104
    Thanks Received:
    12,322
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +32,452
    Thanks, I missed that. No, I don't think third-party privacy is an issue when it comes to someone using work communication devices. That is merely my opinion.
     
  7. George Costanza
    Offline

    George Costanza A Friendly Liberal

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,087
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Los Angeles area.
    Ratings:
    +1,187
    I see - "Don't do anything wrong and you won't have anything to worry about." I'm sure you would have no problem whatsoever with a group of uniformed police officers marching into your home at midnight and into your bedroom where they would proceed to turn all of the shelves in your dresser drawers upside down on the floor in search of drugs. Since you didn't have any drugs, you would have "no problem whatsoever" with that, right?

    Not the same thing as photo cop? Yes, it is.

    I am much closer to agreeing with you on this one. However - there should be limits. My telephone at work is my employer's equipment. No one from higher-up management has ever told me one way or the other whether my phone line is tapped, but I would assume it is not. If it was, and I got called on the carpet for something I said to someone in a personal conversation over that phone (whether during business hours or not), I would be less than pleased. I feel that I have a reasonable expectation of privacy when I use the phone at work.

    I also have a computer. We are expressly told that (1) we are not to use the computer for personal purposes and (2) our use of the computer is subject to being monitored from the network center. Fair enough. Of course I totally ignore this, and crawl all over the Internet whenever I have some free time - if I ever get caught (haven't yet in 17 years), it'll be my bad.

    I guess it has to do with that phrase, "reasonable expectation of privacy." What's reasonable? That has been the subject of decades of litigation.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    137,104
    Thanks Received:
    12,322
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +32,452
    George, I will let you in on your inconsistency: in the public road is not in my bedroom. If you are having such a problem with this, then do not move to the United Kingdom. We can agree to disagree on this one.

    However, work devices are subject to monitoring, from your phone to your computer to your pager, etc.

    Most businesses have the software to do it. Many businesses do it, and they don't have an obligation to tell their employees about it.
     
  9. George Costanza
    Offline

    George Costanza A Friendly Liberal

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,087
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Los Angeles area.
    Ratings:
    +1,187
    We're going to have to because what I think you are saying here is that you don't feel that citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are driving their cars or when they are at work. I think they do.

    Maybe the reason I feel that way is that this business of public photography and eavesdropping at work is a relatively new phenomenon. "Photo cop" has only been around for twenty years or so. Internet eavesdropping has been around for even less time.

    I grew up in an era where NONE of this existed and people would have been outraged if they had had it thrust upon them. That's probably why it is harder for me to accept something like this.

    But you haven't addressed my reply to your "if I'm not doing anything wrong, I have nothing to worry about" argument, at least not in the context of a warrantless search of your home. Let's assume that the home is different from the road in the context of expectation of privacy - would you still contend that "if I'm not doing anything wrong, I have nothing to worry about" would apply to a warrantless search of your home? Or would you make them show you a warrant?

    I know that computers are subject to monitoring by businesses - I think phones are an entirely different matter, at least in the colony here (;)). In the U.S., one party cannot monitor another party's phone conversation, or tape record it, unless a warning beep is delivered at certain time intervals.
     
  10. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    137,104
    Thanks Received:
    12,322
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +32,452
    I am probably older than you, George, and, yes, I recognize the phrases. It has nothing to do with matters such as the fascist "if you are not guilty, then . . .". In public or in the work place, I do believe the expectation of personal privacy is greatly lowered. And in our society today, I feel glad to have "eyes" in public like that; I see it as a 'visual cop' not as an intrusion. That's our differences, I think.
     

Share This Page