Supreme Court Says Gov't Employee Texts Not Private

e9th writes "The Supreme Court, in a 9-0 ruling, has decided that government employers are entitled to examine all text messages sent with government-provided devices, even if the employee has agreed to pay for any excess message charges out of his own pocket. While the ruling only applies to government employees (at all levels), it may give private sector employees something to think about when using employer-provided devices."

Comments

Simple.

[Mark4ST]

Couldn't an employee just use their own phone to send private texts?

Re:Simple.

[Shakrai]

Now why would you go and do something silly like pay for your own phone service when you can get the taxpayers to pick up the tab instead?

Re:Simple.

[XxtraLarGe]

Now why would you go and do something silly like pay for your own phone service when you can get the taxpayers to pick up the tab instead?

I know what you're saying, but there may be some good reasons. We have employer issued phones at our workplace with unlimited plans. Making personal calls or sending texts during non-work hours does nothing to change the final bill, so we've been told to use them for our own personal use as well. We're required to have the phones & be "on call." Why would I want to pay for a second phone I don't need?

Re:Simple.

[Shakrai]

We have employer issued phones at our workplace with unlimited plans. Making personal calls or sending texts during non-work hours does nothing to change the final bill, so we've been told to use them for our own personal use as well. We're required to have the phones & be "on call." Why would I want to pay for a second phone I don't need?

Technically your employer is supposed to figure out the percentage of business calls vs personal calls and either bill you the difference or include it on your W-2 as a taxable benefit. Few employers actually bother to do this but it is required by the US tax code.

As for "why" you would want to pay for one, I think the headline answers that question. If you value your privacy then you should be willing to pay to ensure it. If employers can monitor your text messages why not your voice conversations?

Re:Simple.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in the exact same boat, but I've never considered giving up my personal phone, and the why seems obvious to me. I pay for a second phone so that my employer has no say in or knowledge of what I do with it. You obviously don't have to have your own phone, but you can't have it both ways. If you use your employers phone, it's their phone, not yours, and they'll do what they want when it comes to monitoring usage. It's not your phone, you have no right to complain about it.

Re:Simple.

[rgviza]

So you can send private texts and calls that your employer isn't allowed to see.
So you can deal drugs with it.
So you can buy drugs with it.
So you can watch porn on it.
So you can make your own porn with it.
So you can sext your girlfriend and MMS pictures of your cock to her.
So you can text your best friend the lurid details of your latest sexual conquest.

I can think of lots of reasons someone would want a second phone not financed by their employer. Most of these reasons involve stuff you don't want your employer to know about or see.

If you are straight edged AND boring, there is no reason. If you like to live dangerously on the fringe or are sexually adventurous, get your own phone. It's a necessity if you regularly have unprotected textual intercourse.

Re:Simple.

[Shakrai]

So you can text your best friend the lurid details of your latest sexual conquest.

If you can fit the lurid details of your latest sexual conquest into 160 characters then it probably wasn't all that impressive ;) Besides, everybody knows that those conversations need to happen over a pint of beer....

Re:Simple.

[Pharmboy]

Why would I want to pay for a second phone I don't need?

Easy to answer: Use it all you want, but assume that your employer will see everything you do. If you want to do something without them knowing, then use your own device. It isn't YOURS. Go ahead and call mom, order that pizza, call a cab, use it for anything that you are fine with it being public, but nothing else.

My experience is that you are better off if you act like everything you do is completely public, be it on any phone, computer, device. Even with the best proxies and encryption, it still *almost* is. If you need to do something that requires no one knowing, then expect that you will have to take extraordinary steps. Simply texting on your company phone is NOT "extraordinary steps".

Re:Simple.

[Red Flayer]

Technically your employer is supposed to figure out the percentage of business calls vs personal calls and either bill you the difference or include it on your W-2 as a taxable benefit. Few employers actually bother to do this but it is required by the US tax code.

Actually, it's still under debate... the IRS has not issued a final ruling on inclusion of company-paid cell phone charges as taxable fringe benefits.

Companies are not required to itemize charges and bill and/or include as taxable fringe; they can instead use some flat percentage.

But in practice, the IRS doesn't pursue the cell phone issue much -- if there are a lot of other taxable fringe that is escaping tax, they may include it, but if that's your only questionable item, they'll let it go.

I'm not your tax accountant or tax lawyer, so don't take what I've written as sound advice. It's just my experience with dealing with the IRS on this issue for my past couple employers.

Re:Simple.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can fit the lurid details of your latest sexual conquest into 160 characters then it probably wasn't all that impressive ;)

Yo-I jst fckd yr mom. She is 1 crzy btch. Lft her cuffd to yr bdrm clng fan. BTW u shld pbly burn yr pillow now. And yr shts. And yr bed. And all yr actn figrs.

Exactly 160 characters.

And?

[2obvious4u]

The ruling was for devices provided by the government, did you expect anything less? If it was for your own personal phone, that would be different.

Re:And?

[Shakrai]

No, the Government only compels them to keep the pen-register data, i.e: who you called/texted and when. I am unaware of any law or regulation that compels them to retain copies of the actual messages. If you have a citation for such a law in the United States I would be most interested in reading it.

Is anyone surprised?

[sean.peters]

Your employer having access to things you do with IT equipment they furnish is pretty much standard operating procedure, and has been for some time now. I'm having some trouble understanding how this even got to the Supreme Court. The fact that the government allowed them to use the devices for personal messaging doesn't mean that it gave up the right to see what they were doing with them.

Always seperate work and personal

[alphax45]

My wife’s job wanted her to use her personal Blackberry for work emails and such. I told her that you always have to keep it separate because: - what if you leave? - what if we go over our data? Are they going to pay the overage? can we prove it was because of work stuff? - what if you accidently send work things to personal contacts and vice versa? It opens too many issues. If work wants you to have a device for work, they provide and pay for it and you use it ONLY for work. Simple.

Something to think about?

[TheGreatHegemon]

it may give private sector employees something to think about when using employer-provided devices

Not really, I've always assumed nothing is private on employer provided devices, no matter who my employer.

I wonder...

[avatar4d]

Would this also lead to your own personal device that an employer pays a portion of the bill to also give them rights to view your records? I bought my device and have an account in my name, but my employer reimburses a portion of the bill to me since I am on call every other week and get pages sent via SMS to the device.

Not so simple

[CheeseTroll]

My first reaction was like most here - it's an employer-provided device, so why would you expect privacy? However, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act says that while employers have the right to monitor employee's phone conversations, they must stop if/when they realize that the conversation is personal, not business.

http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs7-work.htm#2a

So this is a mobile phone, not a landline, and it's texting not talking, which just complicates an already murky law.

Thanks to politicians like this...

[mayko]

After someone like Kwame Kilpatrick (former mayor of Detroit) exchanged 14,000 text messages with his chief of staff (both married to other people), most of which were related to their sexual affair with one another and others which were about illegally firing another government employee and I believe a bribery scandal (this has been local news here for a while), I'm not surprised they are finally doing this.

What I'd really like to know, is how the hell someone could send 14k text messages between September/October 2002 and April/May 2003. All the illegal and corrupt stuff aside... If that time period is accurate that means they were exchanging over 50 text messages a day... what the fuck.

Re:Confused

[mr_matticus]

They seem to think this is a positive ruling, which is at odds with this slashdot post.

It's not at odds. It only seems that way:

"Today's S. Ct. decision in Quon v Ontario at http://eff.org/r.4mq (pdf) assumes w/o deciding that 4th am protects privacy of txt msgs (yay!)"

That's completely accurate. The opinion holds that it is assumed but not decided that Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages (see e.g. III-A [p. 9]).

A REOP doesn't mean you can't be searched. It means that searches have to comply with the Fourth Amendment. This search did comply, given the workplace exception, pp. 15-16, and therefore the city is entitled to conduct such audits of the equipment it pays for.

How is this a surprise?

[MistrBlank]

You get a work phone, it's work's property. Don't do shit with it you don't want your employer to see.

If you work in public sector, don't do or say things on it you don't want the public to know.