http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/when-can-your-employer-read-your-sexy-texts.ars

Personal Opinion: I think the swat guy should be found at fault and the rest of them also as it was sent to an govt owned device, regardless of intent. Same if you send an email to any govt employee. Most nowadays have a note at the bottom saying they will be held liable under open records laws. Phone calls to govt are the same as well if they are recorded (and follow recording laws).

Issue: I do think that the Supreme Court needs some new blood. Most of these guys are wayy old and they dont keep up with anything modern. What would happen if they got a RIAA case? They will be asking what CDs are and treating it like theft case (which I also think is how they need to treat piracy cases), instead of an intellectual property case. Hell they say that the Chief Justice doesnt even use a computer but pen and paper (his right which Im fine with) but that shows how behind they are with efficiency at the least.

4/21/2010 7:01:39 PM

Honestly, I can't think of any particular case that could reach the supreme court where the exact nature and an understanding of the particular technologies involved should be relevant to the outcome of the case. I realize it is the nature of every generation to believe that their issues and their culture is entirely different from everything that has ever come before, but ultimately while the names and objects may change, the issues presented are almost always the same. I think in many respects, the age of the court is a good thing in that it provides a depth of knowledge and wisdom that should allow the justices to see through all of the hype over whatever newfangled tech they're presented with to the core of the matter. I also don't see how the justices asking about how a page compares to an email and what happens with simultaneous pages necessarily demonstrates any real lack of knowledge. It is the job of the court to ask every possible question they can to find all of the angles. In fact, listening to oral arguments at the SCOTUS can be quite disconcerting when you hear the judges switch from asking one side to the other. It's about getting the complete picture, not the focused, narrow view that the lawyers and the interested parties want you to see.

On the specifics of the case, I don't see how allowing for limited personal use automatically implies and overriding of the "no privacy" policy in place.

4/21/2010 9:03:40 PM

I can't fault the justices for not being tech savvy, or even tech-competent. I can only assume they have the common sense to consult with technology experts before passing judgement on something they don't fully comprehend.

[Edited on April 22, 2010 at 1:14 AM. Reason : .]

4/22/2010 1:14:11 AM

their clerks do much of the legwork anyhow. and they are much younger.

4/22/2010 8:41:39 AM

1. Its not the judges fault he doesn;t know the technical differences between two relatively ancient messaging systems. There are significant differences, but i bet you dont know what they are yourself.
2. These devices are called pagers, but are the actual traditional pagers or are they devices on the modern cell network that only do SMS? This is something you cant know off the top of your head unless you actually ask the provider.
3. The context of the question is more important. Many many times these guys ask questions they already know the answer to in order to fish out the lawyers line of reasoning in order to support or destroy it.


Regarding the actual case, no one should have any expectation of privacy on a company owned device. This is doubly so for a government owned device where the tax payers could foot the bill for overages.

4/22/2010 1:35:17 PM

To my point about the judges examining every angle (and also a perfect example of why you should always go to the primary source if you can), from the actual transcript:

Quote :

"JUSTICE GINSBURG: But my question is, an employee reads this policy and says, oh, my e-mails are going to be subject to being monitored - MR.DAMMEIER: Sure. JUSTICE GINSBURG: Wouldn't that employee expect that the policy would carry over to pagers? When you think of what's the reason why they want to look at the e-mails, wouldn't the same reason apply? MR. DAMMEIER: Well, I'm sure the same reasons could apply but the -- the city is the one who writes the rules here. The -- if they want to make it clear on what it applies to, it certainly should be on them to write them clear so the employee understands it. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Maybe -- maybe everybody else knows this, but what is the difference between the pager and the e-mail? MR. DAMMEIER: Sure. The e-mail, looking at the computer policy, that goes through the city's computer, it goes through the city's server, it goes through all the equipment that -- that has -- that the city can easily monitor. Here the pagers are a separate device that goes home with you, that travels with you, that you can use on duty, off-duty. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: You can do that with e-mails."

Clearly this isn't a case of technical incompetence. Hooray for quotes out of context.

4/22/2010 5:38:36 PM