Federal Judges Take a Stance Against Workplace Monitoring

parvati writes: "The NYTimes is reporting that federal judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the largest of the 12 regional circuit courts) disabled software on their office computers that monitored downloading of music, streaming video, and pornography--software that had been installed by the Washington-based Administrative Office of the Courts after a survey showed that 3-7% of the judicial computer traffic included streaming video and the like. The judges say that they are concerned about "the propriety and even the legality of monitoring Internet usage." The AOC is not pleased."

Comments

Re:Monitoring is here to stay - so I'm leaving

[JWhitlock]

Control your enthusiasm. While they may have shut off the software, this will almost certainly be a "Do as I say not as I do." result. Consider that most judges who break the speed limit getting into court are probably not revoking their own licenses.

Did you hear the story about the two judges arrested for drunk driving on the same night? They get to talking, and figure out that they could be the judge at each other's trial, and get off a lot easier.

So, on the day of the trial, the first judge takes the bench, the second says he is representing himself, etc., etc.. To speed things up, the defendant pleads guilty, the judge asks, are you sorry for what you did, etc., etc., the defendant shows "due remorse", and the judge decides to let him off with time served.

The two then switch places, even swapping the same black robe there in the court room, each wearing their golfing outfits underneath, and switch places.

The current defendant pleads guilty, and shows "due remorse". The judge looks over the desk, and says, "if memory serves, this is the second DUI in a row that has come before the court. In the past, the court has been lenient on this particular offense, but it looks like we have to send a message to the community. $5000 fine and time served!"

I agree, this probably won't turn into a real court case. All this talk about illegal wiretaps and other nonsense sounds scarier than a nice, simple privacy amendment to the constitution. I wouldn't like my IT department getting a court order to "wiretap" my connection because they think I may be "stealing" excessive bandwidth from the company. Is it a worse crime if you are "stealing" from a government institution?

The solution is clear - either a privacy ammendment, which clearly states the right to privacy and lets future legislation and court cases decide the boundaries (not likely in the near future), or just go to a better company, one that's not as draconian. And you wonder why there is a shortage of tech workers for government jobs?

See how we feel

[Deanasc]

So maybe if the judges know how the little guy feels they may see us in a favorable light.

Judge not lest ye be judged... or something like that.

Re:Missing the Point

[kris_lang]

I agree with you.

Note that in the article, Judge Kozinski is reported to state in a memorandum that he believes monitoring for content is a violation of anti-wiretap statute. This is independent of whether the judges themselves or the judiciary employees want to avoid monitoring for idealistic and legalistic reasons or simply as an end-run around being caught downloading MP3s, AVIs, inappropriate content for the workplace, or simply stealing the bandwidth provided to them as a matter of course for their use in their employment. Don't forget that the judges are employed by us (the taxpayers) via the government to administer and adjudicate the laws that are created by the legislative and executive branches that we choose to elect.

I didn't elect them to use workplace time and equipment for personal use. Now I agree with Kozinski that if this policy was not well-articulated, then it is wrong for monitoring to be allowed to occur. But I also feel that it is not appropriate to suck bandwidth or waste time on the company dime. Especially when that company dime came from my pocket via taxes.

I also feel that if the company or gov't office allows people to use telephones to make personal calls, they ought to allow some leeway in using internet bandwidth for personal use.

But since it would be inappropriate to use the office telephone system to call Mabel in Australia every day from the AOC office in the U.S.A., it would be just as inappropriate to waste huge amounts of bandwidth for MP3's (unless you are Judge Marilyn Patel, working on the Napster case), porn (unless you are working on a porn-related case), or even voice-over-IP phone calls (unless you are going to work on that case that ATT, MCI, et al, all WANT to file!).