Sexting Case at the Supreme Court

chanel

Silver Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
12,098
Reaction score
3,198
Points
98
Location
People's Republic of NJ
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in a case that could impact every American worker who uses a computer, blackberry or text messaging device--whether for innocent messages to loved ones or sexually-charged texts to a mistress.

A final ruling from the justices may establish guidelines on how far the right to privacy covers personal e-mail messages and other communications that workers send or receive on their employer-issued devices.

Sergeants Jeff Quon and Steve Trujillo were part of the Ontario, California SWAT team who received pagers capable of sending text messages.

Several months after the pagers were issued, Quon's boss asked for a read-out of his messages. As it turned out, most of Quon's texts were not work related. "To say the least, [the messages were] sexually explicit in nature," observed Judge Virginia Phillips. The majority of Quon's personal messages went to his estranged wife, his office girlfriend and Trujillo.

"The panel erroneously overextended Fourth Amendment protection with its sweeping ruling that individuals who send text messages to a government employee's workplace pager-rather than to a privately owned pager-reasonably expect that their messages will be free from the employer's review," Kent Richland argues.

The city further objects to the Ninth Circuit's ruling that also covered the privacy rights of the people on the other end of Quan's messages. The panel concluded that the recipients had a right to expect that their messages to Quon would not be seen by his boss; likening them to letters or phone calls.
Sexting Case at the Supreme Court Liveshots

Tricky one. Comments?
 

George Costanza

A Friendly Liberal
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
5,188
Reaction score
1,160
Points
155
Location
Los Angeles area.
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.
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,449
Points
2,165
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.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,715
Reaction score
9,730
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in a case that could impact every American worker who uses a computer, blackberry or text messaging device--whether for innocent messages to loved ones or sexually-charged texts to a mistress.

A final ruling from the justices may establish guidelines on how far the right to privacy covers personal e-mail messages and other communications that workers send or receive on their employer-issued devices.

Sergeants Jeff Quon and Steve Trujillo were part of the Ontario, California SWAT team who received pagers capable of sending text messages.

Several months after the pagers were issued, Quon's boss asked for a read-out of his messages. As it turned out, most of Quon's texts were not work related. "To say the least, [the messages were] sexually explicit in nature," observed Judge Virginia Phillips. The majority of Quon's personal messages went to his estranged wife, his office girlfriend and Trujillo.

"The panel erroneously overextended Fourth Amendment protection with its sweeping ruling that individuals who send text messages to a government employee's workplace pager-rather than to a privately owned pager-reasonably expect that their messages will be free from the employer's review," Kent Richland argues.

The city further objects to the Ninth Circuit's ruling that also covered the privacy rights of the people on the other end of Quan's messages. The panel concluded that the recipients had a right to expect that their messages to Quon would not be seen by his boss; likening them to letters or phone calls.
Sexting Case at the Supreme Court Liveshots

Tricky one. Comments?
Work owned, not private. The 9th got it wrong.
 
OP
C

chanel

Silver Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
12,098
Reaction score
3,198
Points
98
Location
People's Republic of NJ
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.
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,449
Points
2,165
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.
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.
 

George Costanza

A Friendly Liberal
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
5,188
Reaction score
1,160
Points
155
Location
Los Angeles area.
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 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 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.
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.
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,449
Points
2,165
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.
 

George Costanza

A Friendly Liberal
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
5,188
Reaction score
1,160
Points
155
Location
Los Angeles area.
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.
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?

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.
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.
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,449
Points
2,165
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.
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in a case that could impact every American worker who uses a computer, blackberry or text messaging device--whether for innocent messages to loved ones or sexually-charged texts to a mistress.

A final ruling from the justices may establish guidelines on how far the right to privacy covers personal e-mail messages and other communications that workers send or receive on their employer-issued devices.

Sergeants Jeff Quon and Steve Trujillo were part of the Ontario, California SWAT team who received pagers capable of sending text messages.

Several months after the pagers were issued, Quon's boss asked for a read-out of his messages. As it turned out, most of Quon's texts were not work related. "To say the least, [the messages were] sexually explicit in nature," observed Judge Virginia Phillips. The majority of Quon's personal messages went to his estranged wife, his office girlfriend and Trujillo.

"The panel erroneously overextended Fourth Amendment protection with its sweeping ruling that individuals who send text messages to a government employee's workplace pager-rather than to a privately owned pager-reasonably expect that their messages will be free from the employer's review," Kent Richland argues.

The city further objects to the Ninth Circuit's ruling that also covered the privacy rights of the people on the other end of Quan's messages. The panel concluded that the recipients had a right to expect that their messages to Quon would not be seen by his boss; likening them to letters or phone calls.
Sexting Case at the Supreme Court Liveshots

Tricky one. Comments?
There is no case that will deal with sexting


more FOX News bullshit fed to idiots
 
Last edited:

MHanson

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
98
Reaction score
17
Points
6
Location
Rancho Cordova, CA
I have no problem with an employer-issued devices being monitored. If you want to play such games, do it on your own phone and pay your own expenses. Of course one shouldn't be responsible for any spam unless they went to an unauthorized site. If so then they should pay to correct the problem and/or be reprimanded.

I find it amazing some people think they can do anything they want whenever they want to without any consequences.
 

Missourian

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
21,694
Reaction score
8,177
Points
900
Location
Missouri
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.

They do...their car does not.
 

Missourian

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
21,694
Reaction score
8,177
Points
900
Location
Missouri
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.

We agree on this Jake, but the outgoing messages should carry a warning that it is being sent on a government or company monitored equipment.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,090
Points
245
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in a case that could impact every American worker who uses a computer, blackberry or text messaging device--whether for innocent messages to loved ones or sexually-charged texts to a mistress.

A final ruling from the justices may establish guidelines on how far the right to privacy covers personal e-mail messages and other communications that workers send or receive on their employer-issued devices.

Sergeants Jeff Quon and Steve Trujillo were part of the Ontario, California SWAT team who received pagers capable of sending text messages.

Several months after the pagers were issued, Quon's boss asked for a read-out of his messages. As it turned out, most of Quon's texts were not work related. "To say the least, [the messages were] sexually explicit in nature," observed Judge Virginia Phillips. The majority of Quon's personal messages went to his estranged wife, his office girlfriend and Trujillo.

"The panel erroneously overextended Fourth Amendment protection with its sweeping ruling that individuals who send text messages to a government employee's workplace pager-rather than to a privately owned pager-reasonably expect that their messages will be free from the employer's review," Kent Richland argues.

The city further objects to the Ninth Circuit's ruling that also covered the privacy rights of the people on the other end of Quan's messages. The panel concluded that the recipients had a right to expect that their messages to Quon would not be seen by his boss; likening them to letters or phone calls.
Sexting Case at the Supreme Court Liveshots

Tricky one. Comments?
Nothing tricky about it, they were department issued pagers, and the officers were told that they were subject to monitoring. I am a strong privacy advocate, but you do not have privacy if you are using someone else's property.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,090
Points
245
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.
I agree with you completely, but this case is about them using department pagers for personal communication, and then complaining when they were caught in misusing it. If we try to apply privacy to that we will end up denying businesses, and taxpayers, the ability to monitor employees to ensure they are doing their job.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,090
Points
245
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.
That is a good point, but it does not invalidate the right of the city to monitor their employees.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,090
Points
245
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.

We agree on this Jake, but the outgoing messages should carry a warning that it is being sent on a government or company monitored equipment.
Apple adds that in for advertising, and passes the cost of that along to the people who rent their equipment. Why should I, as a taxpayer, have to pay extra for something that warns people of something the device should not be used for?
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
47,281
Reaction score
9,575
Points
2,030
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in a case that could impact every American worker who uses a computer, blackberry or text messaging device--whether for innocent messages to loved ones or sexually-charged texts to a mistress.

A final ruling from the justices may establish guidelines on how far the right to privacy covers personal e-mail messages and other communications that workers send or receive on their employer-issued devices.

Sergeants Jeff Quon and Steve Trujillo were part of the Ontario, California SWAT team who received pagers capable of sending text messages.

Several months after the pagers were issued, Quon's boss asked for a read-out of his messages. As it turned out, most of Quon's texts were not work related. "To say the least, [the messages were] sexually explicit in nature," observed Judge Virginia Phillips. The majority of Quon's personal messages went to his estranged wife, his office girlfriend and Trujillo.

"The panel erroneously overextended Fourth Amendment protection with its sweeping ruling that individuals who send text messages to a government employee's workplace pager-rather than to a privately owned pager-reasonably expect that their messages will be free from the employer's review," Kent Richland argues.

The city further objects to the Ninth Circuit's ruling that also covered the privacy rights of the people on the other end of Quan's messages. The panel concluded that the recipients had a right to expect that their messages to Quon would not be seen by his boss; likening them to letters or phone calls.
Sexting Case at the Supreme Court Liveshots

Tricky one. Comments?
Doesn't seem all that tricky to me. The electronic device, whatever it may be, is paid for by the employer, owned by the employer, and issued for the purpose of conducting the employer's business. Doesn't seem to me that the employee has or should have any "right to privacy" on someone ELSE'S equipment. If you want privacy, use your own pager/smartphone/Blackberry.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top