Is this the Roe vs. Wade of Privacy cases?

If this isn't the Roe vs. Wade, or Brown vs. Board of Education-type of landmark case for privacy rights, then I don't know what is...


Here's the story: A police department in Ontario, Calif., issued two-pagers pagers to its SWAT team, and initially told the team that any messages sent via the pagers would be treated just like computer e-mail is, with no expectation of privacy for the contents.

After a few months, the Police department lieutenant then reversed his position and told his subordinates that the department would consider any messages sent via the pagers private and would not review them only if the officers paid for any personal messages beyond a monthly character limit of 25,000.

A few months later, the police department decided to review its policy to determine if it needed to increase its monthly limit. The department reviewed the transcripts of one of the users with the most texts, a Sgt. Jeff Quon. What they found when they reviewed the messages was that Quon had exchanged hundreds of (what else?) sexually explicit messages with his estranged wife, his girlfriend and another member of his team (I guess there is no crime in Ontario with all this free time.). The Sergeant paid for all of the messages he sent, but he was eventually cited and reprimanded for using department-owned property for both personal use on the job, and for using obscene language on the device, which is a violation of department rules.

Quon, along with the ex-wife, girlfriend, and fellow officer involved with the messaging, all brought suit against the department for privacy violations.

The U.S. Supreme Court takes up the case next week.

The question is this: is the general expectation of privacy inviolate enough to rule in favor of the Sergeant. Or, should the US-oriented policy of ‘there is no expectation of privacy on any company-owned or issued equipment’ rule the day in favor of the police department?

This the first real, substantive case to test privacy rights in the Internet era The issue at the heart of the matter is whether personal messages are indeed private when transmitted by an electronic device provided by an employer. But here is why this case really matters in the long run: texting on a pager aside, what happens if you are using e-mail or Facebook or Instant Messenger to communicate with parties outside of your employer? Should those messages be the property of the company since they were transmitted using company-owned devices? What about the privacy rights of the parties that you are messaging? They do not work for the company so why should their privacy rights be infringed upon by the employer of the sender?

Next week’s decision could be a simple reaffirming decision of individual rights being protected, or a very ominous sign about the impending and continual loss of rights and privacy in the digital age. Either way, you should pay attention.