On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 22:53:19 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
wrote:
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 22:23:56 -0800, "ajpdla"
wrote:
That's bull****.
It's the MOM'S phone, she can damn well listen to ANYONE talking on it!
Nice try, but not true.
Why is it OK for an employer to monitor their adult employees but not
OK for a mother to monitor her minor child?
The legal term is "a reasonable expectation of privacy". No I am not
a lawyer but here's my somewhat educated layman's take on how it
works: In a workplace environment, you are using your employer's
resources to perform work for hire. In order to protect the employer
from legal problems such as sexual harassment and simply to ensure
that people are doing the work they contracted for (taking a job is a
contract, you agree to work for pay), the employer has some fairly
broad rights regarding monitoring and searching of desks and so on.
The employer owns the equipment,t he office space and pays for the
services.
In a private environment such as a home or even a hotel room, you have
a much stronger expectation of privacy regarding your affairs. A
hotel could not legally listen in on your phone calls as one example.
Note too, the court merely said (absent reading the opinion) that the
evidence obtained could not be used against the defendant. This is
not quite the same as saying listening in was illegal on the face of
it. I suspect it might have gone differently if the defendant was the
minor child rather than her boyfriend, but I'd not like to wager on
that as I just do not know enough law.
Children are not property, they have some rights separate from their
parents. This is why, despiter bibilical permission, a parent cannot
beat her child to death for disobedience as one example. I suspect
the principle used here had more to do with reasonable expectation of
privacy than the fact that it was her daughter she was snooping and
would have applied to anyone's conversation she was listening in on.
Would you be happy knowing your neighbor listened in when you norrowed
her phone?
Jim P.
|