Do employees have a right to privacy when using their employer’s computer or cell phone?

By Paul Q.

In class, Dr. Dolan has emphasized the ever-growing landscape
surrounding privacy law. And he’s right – news stories come out everyday regarding privacy rights. With a growing
importance in the workplace for communication technology like
cell-phones, e-mail, laptops, instant messages, etc – the question is
begged – do employees have a right to privacy when using employers’
technology or time?

It appears the Supreme Court plans to examine
one of the issues brewing in the workplace.

At issue in City of Ontario v. Quon is whether a SWAT
officer — a public employee — had a reasonable expectation of privacy
when sending personal text messages on a police-department-owned
pager. The official policy at the Ontario, Calif., police department
had prohibited personal use of things like email and the Internet at
work, and employees were explicitly told they should have no
expectation of privacy in that regard, but the policy never said
anything about text messages.

At some point, pagers were issued to members of the SWAT team, who
were later told at a meeting (i.e. not in writing) that texts sent and
received on them would be considered by the department to be email,
and therefore subject to monitoring or audit. The officers were also
told they’d be responsible for paying any charges incurred when going
over the character limit in the department’s contract with the pager
service. Eventually this arrangement eased into an informal
understanding between officers and their superiors that as long as
they paid the extra charges, the department wouldn’t look at their
messages.

Sgt. Jeff Quon went over the monthly character limit a few times, but
he faithfully paid the overages. He also sent text messages —
sometimes sexually explicit ones — to his wife …

It seems to me, at the very least, Quon’s wife had her privacy rights
violated. And if the Court ruled as such, it would effectively halt
companies from viewing messages going to out-of-office friends.
However, I think it would be much more difficult to stop companies
from reading inner-office communications.

Cyberbullying goes against First Amendment right

By Morgan M.

I believe that bulling in a serious issue among the school systems in the United States. Many states are making laws against them, but many people wonder if its enough to stop this horrible thing going on. I believe that some people do not take bullying or cyberbulling as strongly as they should. Some adults and teachers see this as a part of growing up, but when childrens’ lives are jeoporidized there needs to be alternative actions taken.

The First Amendment does give people the write to freedom of speech and press, but posting rude and unacceptable comments on blogs or Facebook pages goes against that right. Offensive comments can be harmful to a person’s reputation or self-esteem and can result in death or many other serious consequences.

I think in the Phoebe Prince situation the fact that the school officals know about these bullies and did nothing they should be held for some blame. It almost looks to me that they were discriminating against her because she was Irish and siding with the bullying students.

As a teacher you have a responsibility to treat people fairly and be the adult role in the students lives. Teachers are the authority they have to mind and look up to during school hours. When a teacher does not help a student in need it does not make students feel like they can go to them with problems and some can be serious, like Prince’s bullying situation that went horribly wrong.

With blogs, how do you determine the difference between personal opinion and actual malice?

By Donica P.

What would you say to someone if you knew that your words would remain anonymous? Chances are you would be a lot more honest about your personal feelings and spend much less time attempting to be polite or politically correct.

Since the invention and launch of the internet millions of its users have hidden behind false names or handles. These people begin blogs as a way to express themselves, and they trust that their information (real name, address, etc) will remain safely tucked away in the hands of the company who has supplied them with a space in which to vent their issues.

There is no denying that anonymity can bring out the worst in people, but when, or how, do you determine the difference between stating a personal opinion and actual malice towards the person, business, or organization being discussed within a blog?

In a journalists world actual malice is far easier to determine. Pages of notes, audio and video tapes, and interviews with co-workers can all help lead to a conclusion that an article was printed with the intent to harm. But how do you determine malice from one person who only wanted to express themselves?

The only option is to review cases as they come. There is simply no way to create a precedent when dealing with bloggers, their anonymity, and the right to express their opinion as they see fit. The case of the New York city model would warrant a different ruling than a similar case with two high school students.

Plain Dealer should not have revealed identity of judge

Robin I.

When you write into a newspaper or forum that guarantees your comment or post will be completely anonymous, they should hold their up their end of the deal. Obviously the Plain Dealer had some animosity toward the judge and the paper saw this as a way to get back at her. Tracking down who wrote a comment to use as a way to get back at someone when you guarantee in the first place that all comments will be anonymous is unethical and wrong.

Through anonymity you are giving citizens their right to freedom of speech and the safety they need to express it to the public. The safety is by far the biggest concern anyone has when writing into something that is going to be made public. The judge’s words should have been kept private and her name should never have been made public. The newspaper, I feel is completely in the wrong and there is no excuse for them to have made it known who made the comment.

Google’s use of targeted advertising grabs attention of interest groups

By Betsy J.

Google, Yahoo and other major Internet advertising companies using targeting advertising, also known as “behavioral advertising,” is raising questions with politicians and interest groups. This applies toward the current online privacy issues occurring today.

No one can be completely private today in this world. Whether you walk into a convenient store or you are typing in your credit card information when purchasing something online. The Internet has become a public place. You cannot keep it a secret of what you do on the Internet today. Therefore, when companies use “E-commerce” as a way to stay in touch with their customers to promote a product it’s a smart idea. But companies should not abuse this privilege of knowing what their customers’ information is and then selling their customers personal data and content to another companies.

Internet advertising companies should recognize that while the Internet is a public playground, there should be a recognized and enforced border to where this line is drawn by the government.

FCC shouldn’t dictate how Comcast regulates its service

By Samuel S.

Net neutrality is the right of Internet customers to use the Web for almost any lawful purpose they want. In this case, the FCC tried to force Comcast to stop regulating internet usage and speed for customers who share large files such as video. The FCC pushed net neutrality stating that the internet should be free and unregulated for legal use.

I agree with the court’s ruling in favor of Comcast because even though in theory net neutrality is a good idea, when users share such large files it slows down the internet for other customers and I believe Comcast has the right to make their service equal for all of its customers. I don’t believe the FCC has the right to dictate how Comcast regulates its service when these “bandwidth hogs” affect their other customers.

Business and Technological Geniuses Should Reap Financial Rewards

By Andrew O.

Target advertising is an example of free enterprise, a concept our country was built on. People who go online need to accept personal responsibility for their actions and the sites they view. If they do not like this, then they should consider not using the Internet. Systems associated with the intellectual property and technologies were designed by goal oriented and technologically savvy entrepreneurs whose goals were to reap financial rewards. Google and Yahoos top executives have worked very hard in seizing and conquering unexplored territory when designing their company with the desire to make money. Their business and technological genius should not be penalized simply because some people are insecure and paranoid. These technologies were designed to sell advertising. When addressing the issues of privacy, it relates to class when discussing the topic of private facts. Intimate facts should not be shared online where there is a world-wide audience.

Scary that Google places ads relating to your email

By Ashley M.

I feel as if Google has tried to be as safe as possible with the way it handles its privacy. It has its pros and its cons. I say this because the fact that in so many ways Google has to act as a business. For example, when a person makes a profile, Google has certain information they collect. Google doesn’t let this information out, but when one sets a Google profile, Google sends a certain amount of Cookies to track one’s activeness on their account.

The only scary part to me as a Google account holder is the fact that Google is able to place ads that relate to my email. Through Google’s privacy policy of business, what they do is through the cookies that one receives at time of placing an account. Google allows many companies to use your browser numbers and such to advertise to you.

But to be as safe as possible Google does have and opt out for certain things such as information sharing. With this opt out positioning one has a choice about the information that is shared about them.
And lastly Google does assure one confidentiality in the case a merger or and other happenings that might suddenly come along.

Net neutrality: the First Amendment of the Internet?

By Michael S.

It has taken nearly 20 years, but the haze of wonder has cleared. An initial paralysis of awe across the globe as we got accustomed and inculcated into our evolution what is, essentially, a second brain. One where we can sift through a galaxy of information sharing and filing/storage, not limited to human memory. Now that the dust has settled, there are new questions surrounding this invention of man: For one, who is in charge?

What the argument boils down to is the jurisdiction of the FCC. Presently, and how Comcast won their case, “broadband” is not a medium that the FCC technically has jurisdiction over. Broadband is not considered to be along the lines of telecommunications or broadcast. So Comcast wasn’t in the wrong for preventing the file sharing (ultimately, the goal is to eventually install a tiered system where the more you spend the more info you get or are allowed to download). This should be a quiet victory for Comcast because, as a issue that is becoming hot-topic, they are going to have their hands full when the FCC fights back claiming First Amendment violations and giants like Yahoo and Google, whose business models are focused squarely around advertising through accumulating internet traffic and could really care less on how that traffic gets there, come crying “Net Neutrality!”

But think about it: If the FCC (read: Federal Government) was granted jurisdiction (read: control) over the Internet…where does that end? As Edward Murrow pleaded to the public about the future of television, it needs to be a tool for mankind to educate and inform. Not merely a government moderated sophisticated propaganda agent. The same holds true for the future of the Internet. It is ours to lose…

Facebook and Google create an illusion of privacy

By Emily S.

Bruce Schneier makes a very valid argument in this article. I do believe that Facebook and other sites such as Google do create an illusion of privacy. We all think that our photos, conversations, and other personal information are protected based on the settings we choose. However, that is not that case. Many people have trouble finding jobs because of their photos on Facebook etc. Giving any information on the Internet makes people susceptible to an invasion of privacy. The Internet gives us access to a huge amount of information within seconds, including other people’s private information. Privacy is obviously no longer an option in this new digital world we live in.