• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court to hear texting privacy case

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled Monday to hear the case of an Ontario, California, police officer who used his city-issued text-messaging pager to exchange hundreds of personal messages -- some sexually explicit. The case carries ramifications for employee privacy rights in the workplace.

You know, I have always been quite an advocate against government spying on people, but he was texting his messages on a phone that the government, HIS EMPLOYER, provided. I think his right to privacy ended with that. Now, if it was his own phone, it would be a different story, but don't you think that, if his employer is paying for the phone, then they have a right to monitor what he does with it? After all, it's not his property. It's his employer's property. This is how I think SCOTUS will rule.

Discussion?

Article is here.
 
If the court rules against this guy then there could easily be ramifications for the common law. Though this of course depends on the judges' construction of their reasoning, it seems possible that a broad ratio, or precedent, may leave the door open for a diminution of the common law right to privacy.

In regards to the fact that it was a city-issued phone, I'm not sure how relevant that would be considering that it was still in his possession (even if not under his ownership) when he was making those texts. If I took revealing photos on my friend's camera, would it be within reason to suggest that I still had a right to privacy vis a vis those photos? These are the sort of scenarios that a ruling against the plaintiff could throw up.
 
You know, I have always been quite an advocate against government spying on people, but he was texting his messages on a phone that the government, HIS EMPLOYER, provided. I think his right to privacy ended with that. Now, if it was his own phone, it would be a different story, but don't you think that, if his employer is paying for the phone, then they have a right to monitor what he does with it?
Not based on your argument. If I use a government pencil, do they have a "right to monitor" everything that I write with it?

Would a more appropriate action been to simply confiscate the phone and be done with it?
 
Not based on your argument. If I use a government pencil, do they have a "right to monitor" everything that I write with it?

Maybe a hyperbole, but still, this is the gist of the problem.
 
Having worked for the government a bit, I can assure you that he was notified that everything he did on work equipment (which included that phone) was monitored. Many people choose to ignore that notification, though, and assume that they're not REALLY reading everything you type.
 
You know, I have always been quite an advocate against government spying on people, but he was texting his messages on a phone that the government, HIS EMPLOYER, provided. I think his right to privacy ended with that. Now, if it was his own phone, it would be a different story, but don't you think that, if his employer is paying for the phone, then they have a right to monitor what he does with it? After all, it's not his property. It's his employer's property. This is how I think SCOTUS will rule.

Discussion?

Article is here.

Hard to say.

The employer might have the right to demand that he not use it this way, but to actually read the texts? (Unless, as rivrrat pointed out, he was notified that he would be monitored).
 
What's more disturbing here? That an employer took a peek at private emails, or that cell phone companies have saved transcripts of every text message you write? :?
 
What's more disturbing here? That an employer took a peek at private emails, or that cell phone companies have saved transcripts of every text message you write? :?

Not every place does, nor does every plan. It depends on your phone, the service provider, your data plan, etc. You can ask your service provider and they'll tell you if they keep your texts on a server somewhere.
 
As I understand it, the right to privacy is predicated on the expectation of privacy. When the company gave him the phone to use, were they explicit in the parameters of it's use or that the records could be reviewed? This will decide whether or not he had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
 
The chief justice appeared sympathetic to the police officer in the case, Sgt. Jeff Quon of the Ontario Police Department’s SWAT team, who had received mixed guidance from his superiors about the status of messages sent on his pager. The messages included communications to and from his wife and his mistress.

The department’s written policy allowed “light personal communications” but cautioned employees that they “should have no expectation of privacy.” Under an informal policy adopted by a police lieutenant, however, those who paid for messages over a monthly maximum would not have their records inspected.

Chief Justice Roberts said the combination of the two policies might be enough to give Sergeant Quon a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. “I think if I pay for it,” the chief justice said, “it’s mine and not the employer’s.”

Neal K. Katyal, a deputy solicitor general, disagreed, saying that a low-level employee had no power to change a general policy. “The computer help desk cannot supplant the chief’s desk,” Mr. Katyal said.

Justices Get Personal Over Privacy of Messages - NYTimes.com

Looks like this, and the fact that this is a 4th amendment claim because the government is the employer, is why this went all the way to the Supreme Court.
 
You know, I have always been quite an advocate against government spying on people, but he was texting his messages on a phone that the government, HIS EMPLOYER, provided. I think his right to privacy ended with that. Now, if it was his own phone, it would be a different story, but don't you think that, if his employer is paying for the phone, then they have a right to monitor what he does with it? After all, it's not his property. It's his employer's property. This is how I think SCOTUS will rule.

Discussion?

Article is here.

I would assume no right to privacy on my employer's equipment. Most employers monitor internet usage and actively block sites they don't want their employees to visit.

Knowing that the contents of texts might be saved at the wireless service provider, I wouldn't send messages with private information or that would embarrass me.

Having worked for the government a bit, I can assure you that he was notified that everything he did on work equipment (which included that phone) was monitored. Many people choose to ignore that notification, though, and assume that they're not REALLY reading everything you type.

The city's policy seems pretty clear and Quon signed an agreement:
(from the article in the OP)
Quon signed a statement acknowledging that "use of these tools for personal benefit is a significant violation of City of Ontario Policy" and that "users should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using these resources."
 
Hmm, it's a tricky case I think. On one hand, it wasn't his phone and the owner of the phone may be able to look through the messages. On the other hand, there is clearly the 4th amendment. I think it's probably best to err on the side of the 4th amendment though.
 
I would assume no right to privacy on my employer's equipment. Most employers monitor internet usage and actively block sites they don't want their employees to visit.

Knowing that the contents of texts might be saved at the wireless service provider, I wouldn't send messages with private information or that would embarrass me.



The city's policy seems pretty clear and Quon signed an agreement:
(from the article in the OP)
Exactly. I've signed many of those myself. And believe me, I never took for granted that everything I did was monitored. I watched numerous people escorted out by guards who DID take that for granted though. LOL
 
Hmm, it's a tricky case I think. On one hand, it wasn't his phone and the owner of the phone may be able to look through the messages. On the other hand, there is clearly the 4th amendment. I think it's probably best to err on the side of the 4th amendment though.

I respectfully disagree with you here. Any right is a right as long as it does not infringe on the rights of someone else. The way I see it, the phone was his employer's property, and he was notified in advance that he could be monitored. You can't argue 4th amendment here because the claim to a 4th amendment right would violate the employer's right of ownership of their own property.
 
Does the 4th Amendment even apply in this case at all though? The officer is not being charged with any crime, from what I read. It seems like they were just going to punish him for it, either through disciplinary actions or firing. From what I've read and the cases that have gone to the Supreme Court over the 4th Amendment since MURRAY'S LESSEE V. HOBOKEN LAND & IMPROVEMENT CO., 59 U. S. 272 (1856), the 4th Amendment only applies to criminal cases, not civil cases.

And, besides, as far as I see it, he signed an agreement that said that he understood that the device was subject to monitoring. Whether it actually was being monitored or not, before this instance, doesn't nullify the agreement he signed.
 
I respectfully disagree with you here. Any right is a right as long as it does not infringe on the rights of someone else. The way I see it, the phone was his employer's property, and he was notified in advance that he could be monitored. You can't argue 4th amendment here because the claim to a 4th amendment right would violate the employer's right of ownership of their own property.

No I get you argument fully. You are pretty much right. My only concern about it is how far would the government take this. Would they understand a "property rights" sort of argument, or would they see the doors flung open sort of case. I don't trust the government, in which case I'd side with more 4th amendment. But you are right and if this were private business I'd be right there with you. I just don't think government is terribly reasonable when it comes to power.
 
That idiot of a cop used a device owned by his employer to send messages he knew could and would be monitored. I wish the Supreme Court would stop bothering with such petty issues and deal with issues which are actually divisive like gay marriage.
 
No I get you argument fully. You are pretty much right. My only concern about it is how far would the government take this. Would they understand a "property rights" sort of argument, or would they see the doors flung open sort of case. I don't trust the government, in which case I'd side with more 4th amendment. But you are right and if this were private business I'd be right there with you. I just don't think government is terribly reasonable when it comes to power.

I think I can agree with your sentiments here. After all, the government does not have a very good record at protecting the privacy of it's citizens.
 
Does the 4th Amendment even apply in this case at all though? The officer is not being charged with any crime, from what I read. It seems like they were just going to punish him for it, either through disciplinary actions or firing. From what I've read and the cases that have gone to the Supreme Court over the 4th Amendment since MURRAY'S LESSEE V. HOBOKEN LAND & IMPROVEMENT CO., 59 U. S. 272 (1856), the 4th Amendment only applies to criminal cases, not civil cases.

I think the only reason the 4th is involved is the employer is the government. A big stretch.
 
I think the only reason the 4th is involved is the employer is the government. A big stretch.

I don't agree with this rationale, as far as, it seems to presume that the government, as an employer, is using its influence, as the government, to get the records from the phone company for its phones. If the government is the employer, and it is reasonable to assume that civilian employers would have the same access to the texting/phone records of those communication devices the company owns and gives to its employees as the government does, then it wouldn't be as if the government was actually using any government pull to invade its employees' privacy. Now, if the phone company was unwilling to give those same records to a civilian employer that it would give to the government, as an employer, then I might say there is a case. Now all of this is assuming that the phone carrier is the same, otherwise, it wouldn't necessarily be the government's pull that was giving it access to the records, but the policies of the phone service company.

Now, I will say that I think any employer should be able to access the texting/phone records of communication devices that it lends out to its employees. The employer owns those phones and pays for them. To use the example given before that if it was your buddy's phone, well then the buddy most definitely should be able to access what was sent over his phone. I'm not sure what exactly the buddy could do to punish you for improper use of his phone, since he probably isn't employing you, but if you compare it to this case, it might be like suing him for telling your wife that you were using his phone to text your girlfriend.

And even if you assume that the employee is paying any overage charges, it doesn't mean that the overage, if there was any, was the only minutes that were used for personal purposes. And, from this case directly, it said that the guy only actually used the device 3 times while on duty to text for official purposes. So, that could be used to determine ways to buy the least expensive plan the employer actually needs. If official texting is only needed for a few times a month, per employee, then maybe the force could save money by paying per text, but they aren't going to know that without looking into the records.
 
You know, I have always been quite an advocate against government spying on people, but he was texting his messages on a phone that the government, HIS EMPLOYER, provided. I think his right to privacy ended with that. Now, if it was his own phone, it would be a different story, but don't you think that, if his employer is paying for the phone, then they have a right to monitor what he does with it? After all, it's not his property. It's his employer's property. This is how I think SCOTUS will rule.

Discussion?

Article is here.
I have to agree on this one. The employer has the right if they pay the phone bill.
 
Back
Top Bottom