It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No privacy for state-issued messaging devices, justices rule

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

No privacy for state-issued messaging devices, justices rule


www.cnn.com

Washington (CNN) -- Public employees who send personal messages on their state-issued communication devices do not enjoy a "reasonable expectation" of privacy, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The justices unanimously concluded that state officials had the right to review the review the records of a California police officer who exchanged hundreds of personal messages -- some of a "sexually explicit" nature -- on his department text pager.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I only agree with this because these phones or other devices should only be used in a work related way. Surely when these devises are issued there is some kind of waiver stating this fact?


The court was skeptical of Ontario, California, police Sgt. Jeff Quon's claim that his privacy was violated over messages exchanged with his wife, his girlfriend and a fellow officer on his official wireless two-way text-messaging pager

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I don't blame him for not wanting anyone to see the contents of the phone in question, lol but he shouldn't have been wasting tax payer money using this device for personal use.

Buy your own phone you cheap ass.....

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
If you are foolish enough to send sexually explicit messages on someone else's device, you deserve to be found out.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I agree.. that device is bought and paid for with tax dollars..

and should be regarded as such..
no privacy for you on a state/government owned device..




posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Chalk one up for SCOTUS for a change.

The device was not his. It belonged to the taxpayers. Why should the taxpayers foot the bill for his affairs. *pun intended*



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
How many of you in office work all over the world have looked at porn on there?

I do not work in office, but i would assume plenty of you do.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


Nope. I assume there are people monitoring work computers and devices. They don't belong to the employee



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


Most places I've ever worked make it perfectly clear that you are using their equipment, and they are watching. Most of the time though it is no big deal as they have the sites they do not want you to go to blocked.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join