Justices to to Hear Text-Message Case

[alp227]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON, Dec 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether privacy rights covered a worker's personal text message on employer-owned equipment, hearing a case about a police officer who sent sexually explicit messages from his department-issued pager.

The justices agreed to review a ruling by a federal appeals court in California that reading the text messages sent on devices provided by the employer violated the worker's privacy rights and amounted to an "unreasonable search" barred by the U.S. Constitution.

The city appealed to the Supreme Court, saying employers typically have policies in place establishing that workers have no expectation of privacy in electronic communications on employer-owned equipment.

As computers, cell phones and text messages devices have becoming standard equipment in the workplace, most employers have told their workers their use of the devices can be monitored. The Supreme Court could decide how much privacy workers have when using such devices.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/12/14/business/business-usa-court-textmessages.html

[rucky]

1. I'm sorry, but if it's an employer-issued phone

that's just stupid to use it for sexting. I'm surprised this case made it all the way.

[tomm2thumbs]

9. slippery slope?

If I wrote a note with a company-owned pencil on company-owned paper in the office, they'd also have the right to that note, correct?
But if it was a company-owned pencil on company-owned paper in my own home after hours, would they have the right to that note?

Ok, I'm going over the edge here... nevermind. They probably have a better case to argue for the Supreme Court to be interested in hearing it.

[customerserviceguy]

13. I regularly expose myself

in an employer-provided restroom. It's a question of when one has a reasonable expectation of privacy. I'll admit, the restroom has a long-established tradition of privacy, but perhaps the Court may recognize a form of privacy right in this situation.

[customerserviceguy]

2. This made me ponder the question

How many of the Justices have ever personally text messaged themselves? Yes, they all have clerks who do it on a regular basis, but how many of them can relate to this on a gut level?

[nyc 4 Biden]

8. I'd be surprised if the Supremes even know how to use a computer.

I know of Federal Judges that do not.

[customerserviceguy]

12. I'm sure that the younger Justices, like Roberts and Alito

have used computers, but I'd doubt that Stevens has. Once you get to a certain level, you can have underlings do all of the scut work, and Stevens became a Justice about five years before the first IBM PC was marketed.

[Bozita]

3. Replace 'police officer' with 'mayor' and this sounds a lot like

Kwame.

[iamtechus]

4. Stupid or greedy, maybe both

I sometimes see coworkers using the company phone for personal business when they have their own cell phone in their pocket. If I comment on this, they say that they're saving minutes.

[groundloop]

5. Sent explicit messages from his department issued PAGER ???

That's one advanced pager.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

6. Two way pagers have been around for ever.

http://www.bonanzle.com/booths/Payless328/items/BRAND_NEW_Motorola_Talkabout_Two_Way_Pager_T900

[rucky]

10. He entered "58008" and held it upside down. n/t

[timtom]

7. The SCOTUS shouldn't even rule on this.

It's a form of stealing. (Hmmm...no one will notice if I use this company car for something other than "de minimus" use. Think I'll drive to Vegas.)

[Mithreal]

11. Against letting employers allow personal use