Sexting Case at the Supreme Court

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Do you think it's at all likely that the man's wife didn't know that the number she was sending her texts to wasn't his personal number? I mean, don't you think she would have known his personal number as well? Or known that he didn't have a personal pager capable of texts? Ditto for his girlfriend.

 

[Missourian]

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?

Because it's an invasion of the third parties right to privacy if they send emails/text of a personal nature without knowledge that the equipment is subject to monitoring.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Because it's an invasion of the third parties right to privacy if they send emails/text of a personal nature without knowledge that the equipment is subject to monitoring.

No it isn't. If you send a letter to someone you loose all control over what the addressee does with that letter, even if it is the most private thing in the world to you. It is his property, and if the police get a search warrant and find you conspiring with him you are toast. The only thing you can do is claim copyright if he tries to profit off of it, but that does not give you a right to privacy.

It works the same way with electronics. You loose your right to whatever you send once you send it. Hell, in California police can search your cell phone if you are arrested, and that means any texts that you receive are no longer the property of the sender.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, it isn't, because "photo cop" is taking pictures of actions I perform on a PUBLIC street, whereas your analogy talks about invading my PRIVATE home. Do you understand the difference between "public" and "private"? I have no reasonable expectation of privacy for actions I perform in public. And I have no expectation of privacy for texts I make on someone else's equipment. If I ask to borrow your cell phone and send a text on it, can I then reasonably be mad at you for later reading the text I put on YOUR phone? I don't think so.

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.

Why would you think you have any expectation of privacy for personal use of a company telephone when you don't think you have any expectation of privacy for personal use of a company computer? I mean, seems to me the phone is even less private than the computer, when you consider that someone can simply walk by at the wrong time and hear you talking.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Because it's an invasion of the third parties right to privacy if they send emails/text of a personal nature without knowledge that the equipment is subject to monitoring.

Why is the idea of exercising discretion such a puzzler to people these days? My mother always told me to NEVER put anything down on paper or film that I wouldn't want everyone to read or see, and I've always applied that to electronic media as well, since it's just as permanent. This idea that you behave in an embarrassing fashion and then throw a tantrum and blame everyone else for not being more discreet with your behavior than you yourself were is bewildering to me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

CeCelie1200 is correct in general above but she herself does exactly that on the Board all the time.