home

Supreme Court: Employees' Text Messages Not Private

By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 11:36:06 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Supreme Court ruled today an employer can access and read an employee's text messages. The opinion is here.

The court said while doing so was a search, it was a reasonable one conducted for a legitimate work-related purpose.

In its first ruling on the rights of employees who send messages on the job, the Supreme Court rejected a broad right of privacy for workers Thursday and said supervisors may read through an employee's text messages if they suspect work rules are being violated.

< World Cup | Supreme Court Rules Amended Crack Cocaine Guidelines Don't Allow for Full Re-Sentencing >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Supreme Court: Employees' Text Messages Not Private | 29 comments (29 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    City-owned pager, issued by employer (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 11:42:41 AM EST
    to the officer.  

    If that were all there was to this (none / 0) (#6)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 12:07:57 PM EST
    Quon's immediate supervisor had stated that the Department would not review the pages so long as any pages over the monthly limit were paid by the individual officers....

    So, the issue was a de facto policy of giving the pages privacy; hence, a reasonable expectation of privacy.

    Parent

    Wondering if the immed. supervisor (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 12:54:36 PM EST
    had authority to make such a representation.  How is this different than employer stating computer is for work-related use only and reserving the right to examine?

    Parent
    Maybe the same (none / 0) (#9)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 01:07:13 PM EST
    And maybe a problem there too.

    Everyone uses work computers for personal use....Just what you do with that fact is the question.....

    The telephone was easier issue....Personal use was the norm.....If you made long distance calls, etc. from work you would have to pay.....but the content of the call was never subject to review.....Our technological prowess will make notions of privacy quaint.....

    You are on camera and tracked almost everywhere you go (through cell phone GPS) and it is only  a matter of people not caring to review such data that allows privacy to remain intact.  Every use of a debit or credit card (and use of cash is declining) and computer key stroke can be monitored--and reconstructed no matter how often the user deletes it.

    The use of e-mail and text messages makes it easier, if more time consuming, to reconstruct electronic "conversations" than the oral conversations (over the phone or in person) of the past that are subject to the vagaries of individual recollection.

    Parent

    Are there also issues with using bandwith (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 03:16:31 PM EST
    that could become needed in an emergency? Of course the employers would not have to look at the details of the texts to determine that.

    Parent
    I mean this in the case of city employees (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 03:17:18 PM EST
    issued pagers, not for the general public.

    Parent
    If Quon had (none / 0) (#26)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 06:31:07 PM EST
    manually wrote/typed the same message(s) using city-owned-issued paper/pen/typewriter and then put the paper in his city-owned-issued uniform does the department have a right to search his pockets and read the message(s)?

    Parent
    Or would the city have the right... (none / 0) (#29)
    by EL seattle on Fri Jun 18, 2010 at 08:45:57 AM EST
    ... to immediuately terminate the employment of a pilferer who is wasting company resources and isn't doing their job?

    Parent
    With all due respect (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 11:58:57 AM EST
    It does not require reading personal texts to know whether policy has been violated. I don't see this ruling as doing anything more than enabling employers to snoop and spy on employees even more, based on nothing more than hunches -- or prurient interest.

    If your employees are really spending so much time texting or on the internet that it is affecting their job performance, you know what will tell you something is wrong? THEIR JOB PERFORMANCE. Not the content of their personal messages. You perform on the job or you don't. WHY you don't, frankly, is no one's business but your own.

    I guess we're all still children, and the teacher can read our notes aloud in class to humiliate us into compliance.

    It's also about (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 12:01:53 PM EST
    Costs. right?

    Parent
    I doubt it's really a cost issue (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 02:33:54 PM EST
    Just my opinion. Lost productivity is what the claim is, I assume. We're a service economy, employees have downtime all the time. Expecting them to shelve their humanity and need for human connection when they have some downtime, I don't see the value. If someone is really dicking away their time texting all the time on the job, it will be apparent from their pitiful performance. No need to start peeping into people's private messages.

    My two cents. Worth One point three and current exchange rates.

    Peace.

    Parent

    What are they saving? (none / 0) (#28)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 09:35:39 PM EST
    How much does a disgruntled employee cost? Many of these cost issues are penny wise and pound foolish. Look at the success of the companies that still believe in treating their employees with a sense of dignity and respect.

    Parent
    Technology a distraction (none / 0) (#2)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 11:43:22 AM EST
    Is it just that technology is too distracting for some people?  I understand the right to privacy....  use a personal phone.  Also, shouldn't an employee be working while at work?  If you've got wife/girlfriend issues, take a day off and deal with it.

    There's been lots of blurring of work and personal (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 01:46:28 PM EST
    I am routinely at the office 10-14 hours a day, weekends too. So it's hard to take care of life exclusively outside of work hours when work is so pervasive. I'm not complaining because it's my choice. But if my employer said that the only thing I could do at the office was work, then I'd come in at 9 and leave at 5. And start looking for another job.

    I don't know this person's situation, and I am careful what I use my computer and blackberry for personal business because I don't expect privacy. But I do conduct personal business on them and so do most people that I know who work these kinds of hours. Taking a day off often isn't an option.

    Parent

    Salaried v hourly (none / 0) (#15)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 02:15:13 PM EST
    is different to me.  When I worked, I put in 60 hour weeks for a very long time so I understand that people need to take care of life out of necessity.

    If you put in 14 hour days and had to spend 2 hours taking care of personal business, you've put in 12 hours.  People can multi-task while placing phone calls.  Someone who works 8 hours and has spent 2 hours texting, where you can not multi-task, should have their pay docked.  

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#18)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 02:39:08 PM EST
    If you are being paid for 8 hours of work, you should put in 8 hours of work. Absolutely agree.

    Parent
    But some technically "hourly".. (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 03:33:39 PM EST
    workers are really more like salaried workers...paid to perform tasks and/or achieve certain goals.

    As far as I'm concerned if the work is being done in a satisfactory manner boss man needs to chill the f*ck out with the spying....the work the person was hired to do is being done...whats the problem?  

    If the work ain't getting done that's another story...but even then just fire the person, I don't see the need to dig for any dirt, work not getting done is cause enough for firing.

    Parent

    My simplistic reduction: employer gets to set (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 02:11:17 PM EST
    ... certain rules for the breakroom, but not paw through people's lunches without a damn good reason (and forewarning).

    I don't want to see the growing blur between tech used personally and professionally to offer yet another opportunity to erode civil liberties.

    IANAL, but if this were righteous, shouldn't there be a balance of, eg, someone's personal access point from home to the salt mine for equal spying on the employer's biz?

    It's a short hop from my salt mine to the equipment in my home office. I have a good relationship and (earned) mutual trust with my corporate overlord but I'm thinking also of unscrupulous players, including co-workers potentially abusing this.

    I completely untethered my individual work and personal activities from the grid at the salt mine. I also have completely private "web virgin" machines for copyrighted content, that don't twit, tweet, facebook, socially network or otherwise sync for the snooping and scoping ease of others.

    Parent

    Kwame Kilpatrick (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 12:00:19 PM EST
    Will not be happy either, as he was counting on suing SkyTel for turning over all his text messages to his mistress on a city-owned phone.

    Who gets employer paid (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 12:54:11 PM EST
    phones and pagers?  My husband has to have one, he's ordered to have one but he has to pay for it too.  He has to have a credit card too for military travel, and it is in his name and we carry the balance until the military reimburses us and sometimes accounting gets all screwed up for a few months.  All these perks others have.....and all this whining.  If I own the phone and I'm paying for it, I get to look at what it is used for.  If you own the phone, it isn't my phone.

    The way it use to be (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 01:42:22 PM EST
    was that if you lived off base and was on flight status you had to have a telephone... Paid for by you.

    Parent
    All officers must have a (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 02:35:06 PM EST
    cell phone, all pilots, any aviation mechanic or those who work the towers and anyone involved in recovery.  Since Fort Rucker trains pilots we sadly have a few aircraft recoveries a year.  Sometimes people die, sometimes they don't.  But officers pay for that themselves, and they must buy their own uniforms, and they pay for their meals in the chowhall too if they aren't in a combat zone.  I don't think they have a right to just go through any of the phones though unless they have specific documented reason to need to.  Defining what is a right and what isn't a right for people serving is becoming more and more defined and you aren't simply government issue in any situation that some commander says you are anymore.........well immediately you are but there could be some nasty legal issues that commander may have to deal with and you could really feck with his next promotion so they aren't stupid anymore.  I don't mind though, and if they paid for his cell phone and he was using it to sext someone with......he'd have more problems on his hands than just his employer :)  Try your evil pi$$ed off wife :)

    Parent
    We are not reimbursed (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 03:50:53 PM EST


    Parent
    We are reimbursed for travel (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 03:55:09 PM EST
    expenses properly documented.  If not properly documented you will eat that.  Enlisted persons are provided a specific number of uniforms but if they need more for some reason they must purchase those themselves.  They are not required to have cell phones, and I bet if they do need one there is a way for them to be reimbursed.  But if you are a "leader" you are expected to pay for things that the minions don't, because you get paid more yourself....and the wages are middle class wages for officers so they expect you to cover some things yourself and suck it up.  The phone is your personal property and the military gets to us it when they need to I guess :)

    Parent
    No, we were not reimbursed for (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 18, 2010 at 09:25:58 AM EST
    the telephone.

    We did get a housing allowance that paid for, maybe, 60% of the cost of off base housing. If you lived on base the allowance was stopped...

    If you traveled commercially you could, in some cases, draw an advance and then submit an "expense report" (civilian term). Most travel was by military aircraft from bases to base or base to carrier. Hopefully we could use Air Force facilities because they were always far better than the Navy's. Thule Greenland being a notable exception.

    You could "hitch hike" a ride on a space available basis both as an active and/or retired basis. Doesn't always work out well because the military frowns on being late for work and "I couldn't get a ride" is not an acceptable excuse.

    Parent

    This is Fairly Simple (none / 0) (#12)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 01:55:27 PM EST
    I work at a very large oilfield related company in Texas and I choose to comment on left leaning blogs using their property.  I realize that my privacy is not an issue, I have none.  Ditto for emails and texts on company equipment.

    The same is true if I use a friends laptop, if I don't want them (friend, company) in my business, I should not be using their property for to communicating said business.

    When I need to be private at work, I shut my door and use my phone to call, email, text.  It's not rocket science.

    Unlike many of my friends and colleagues, I use discretion when communication on company equipment.  I never put anything out there I don't want to discuss in my next review.  At some point I had to tell everyone, mom included, no more jokes, because I had no idea what idiotic non-sense would appear in my company inbox.  Companies have mining software and I don't need to be in the middle of some racist, sexist, or whatever bad taste joke email chain, that could offend someone.  

    Plus, it's a little tacky using company equipment for personal use.  I see people on Monster.com at work, should work not be able to regulate people searching for jobs while getting paid ?  What about porn ?  What if an employee decided to run another business at work using Ebay or Craigslist.

    Houston's very own Chuck Rosenthal was basically forced to call it quits after racist emails and an affair were discovered on his work email.  I don't remember one person arguing for his privacy and there was plenty of left-handed blogs writing loads about his sorry *.

    Similar here (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 03:13:53 PM EST
    Here I work, there is a logon banner that reminds you that you have no privacy on the company computer. Not supposed to use it for personal use, but everyone does, within reason. Knowing that they can look at what sites you visit, your mail, texts etc. No expectation of privacy here.

    Lots of web sites are blocked, like facebook, and other social sites.

    I very rarely use my company email address for personal stuff, and definitely not anything embarrassing. I should not be on the internet but if I keep it within reason no one will complain. (I hope) We are all allowed to have break time.

    Problem is that if they want to get rid of you for some reason they can haul out your internet use records as an excuse. Doesn't apply to me so much because I'm a contractor and they can terminate me at will anyway. For regular employees they need a paper trail of bad performance, and computer records are easy evidence.

    Parent

    The decision only applies to (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:20:13 PM EST
    Government employers, not private employers.

    Why the Distinction ? (none / 0) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 18, 2010 at 08:55:39 AM EST


    Parent
    Supreme Court: Employees' Text Messages Not Private | 29 comments (29 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment