SCOTUS Gets an Education in PDA In More Ways Than One

I can sympathize with Roberts. As the only guy at work that doesn’t own a cell phone, I sometimes feel left out. Before work starts, during breaks and at lunch, they’re all on those things talking and texting. It can be funny though. When they ring you hear classic rock, cheers, bird calls etc. My favorite though is a scream and then a woman’s voice saying “Wrong hole you idiot”.

Hat tip to our dear Amy too for her blog post. There were some good comments. I pondered what happened when the offending texts were read out loud in court (no Jay, I didn’t quote them verbatim, so you won’t blush). Can an “Amy Sullivan” tag be added to the “related topics”? Thanks, Jay.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/04/19/quote-of-the-day-8/

I do not think that any of the reported questions indicate a lack of technical knowledge, but rather a desire to understand the legal ramifications of the use of city property improperly.
.
Clearly, if the officer were to take his squad car for a ride to Disney World with his family it would be an improper use of a city asset and probably a firing offense.
.
Should the use of other city property be treated any differently?..IMHO…not really.
.
Quon forfeits his expectation of privacy by using a city asset, also the city has a definitive right and responsibility to monitor and archive all electronic communications via city property, email, mobile calls, testing.
.
Take this example….suppose Quon was plotting a violent anti-government attack using that PDA…could the city be held partially responsible for NOT monitoring those communications?
.
In another case, a suit was brought regarding facial recognition being used at the Super Bowl in Florida a number of years ago….the plaintif was judged to have forfeited his expectation of privacy by presenting his face at a public gathering.
.
.
Finally…it seems to me JAY that you are sneering at the SCOTUS and trying to make the techno-dunce implication stick to them….Shame on you …..even you must know that they have all the time and resources to acquire whatever technical expertise they require to make a fair judgement…show a little respect!

I giggled when I read this, but this is just shoddy reporting for cheap laughs by the linked article.
.
Read the actual context:
.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1332.pdf
.
He’s asking about it in reference to how they work, which actually may be a very important legal distinction.

My personal rule of thumb: If it is issued to you by your employer, be it a computer, cell phone, blackberry, what have you, then assume they can/are monitoring it. It is your company’s property and you are working on their dime.

Thanks for the link to the transcript! I’m only at page 17 and can’t wait to get back. The librarian in me is very concerned about privacy issues and I feel strongly about privacy.
.
However, I also think that you don’t have an expectation of privacy when you are using your company’s property. A lawyer where I last worked was horrified that I wanted to look at a document on a staff computer, even though there was a university policy stating that everything on a university owned device was the property of the university and staff had no expectation of privacy. Each staff member had to sign the policy verifying that they had read and understood it.
.
On the other hand I will lead the march against anyone reading anything on your personal computer.

I work for Uncle Sam. We’re subject to monitoring. It’s their equipment and they make the rules. You violate the rules and it’s your ass. I have no problem with following their rules and restrictions. It shouldn’t matter one bit if your supervisor relaxes the rules, he doesn’t have the final say.

Right, but you’re talking about the issue, which seems to be the last thing anyone in the media wants to do. They like to make jokes about Roberts misunderstanding technology – even though if you read the transcript it’s an actual relevant question – instead of explaining properly what is actually at stake in this case.
.
And, I say the above as someone on the left. Say what you will about Roberts, but it’s demeaning to the institution to mock them when they didn’t earn it, and a disservice to the public to reduce an important legal debate down to whether or not Roberts & Co. use iPhones.

I’m going to start referring to you as sacred “Dice” h from now on.

SZ: I think I’m just another victim of the times. Life is crude and my observations reflect that. A bizarre sense of humor doesn’t help either so I have to plead guilty on that count. Think of my poor wife. She gets it 24/7. When you consider that her previous husband is a minister….

I read the whole thing and it was fascinating. Very interesting that I had seen a different quote from Roberts used to make fun of him, but both quotes in context make perfect sense. I am no fan of Roberts and think he is working very hard to move the law to the right – a true activist judge, however he can’t be faulted here.

I supervised a group of women and one man. One of the associates came running to me because she went past the male’s desk while he was on break and he was looking at pictures of “neked” women. I checked it out without his knowing and sure enough he was.
.
I went to HR and they and IT went and printed out all of the sites he visited in the short time he worked their. It was a lot and many of them porn sites. Now I have no patience with stupidity. I had hired this man, over objections, because I wanted diversity on my team. Well, I got it.
.
He was called into a meeting with me and HR. When shown the proof of his time ill spent, he said he was researching a book on pornography. I was able to say:
“You’re fired!”

Good for you! There’s no cure for stupidity. He was given a chance and blew it. I got called into the office last year because I checked out sports scores on ESPN on my break. It showed up in the office on the monitoring equipment.

::pfffffft!!1!::
.
Another mouthful of coffee, wasted on the computer screen, thanks to sacred!
.
Thanks, bro!