creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Susan Estrich
10 May 2013
Mother Love

My daughter was born on Mother's Day, 23 years ago. It was the happiest day of my life — matched only, … Read More.

8 May 2013
The Drunk Guy in the Parking Lot

The report from the Arlington, Va., Police Department is, on its face, hardly newsworthy: "SEXUAL BATTERY,… Read More.

3 May 2013
Mary Thom, Thank You

Mary Thom, former editor of Ms. magazine and feminist visionary, died last week in a motorcycle accident. I … Read More.

Is Nothing Private?

Comment

Two guys are at a conference, looking bored. On stage, there's been talk about "dongles," which, if you aren't aware, are devices you plug in to laptops to get connectivity. Bigger ones are supposedly more powerful. Can you guess the joke? (Hint: about whether size matters.)

Actually, I thought it was kinda funny. The women sitting in front of them didn't. These guys weren't on the stage. No one was making her listen to them. She could've turned and told them to shut up. She could've changed seats. She could've had her own conversation about what jerks some guys are.

Instead, she snapped a picture of them and tweeted about their dirty jokes.

The tweet goes viral, and one of the guys — married, three kids — gets fired for talking dirty to another guy at a conference. In some circles, the woman is lauded as a hero, making tech politically correct and comfortable for future generations of women. In others, there is shock and awe that a private joke with another guy while sitting in a huge room could cost you your job.

I can't begin to imagine how many raunchy, tasteless, incorrect comments I've made to companions sitting next to me at boring meetings — about the speakers, the subjects, how creepy some guy or girl in the room is, etc. — without once worrying that I would be the subject of a national controversy.

There has been much talk lately, as well there should, about what standards should govern the use of drones as the government's eyes and ears domestically. But the threats and challenges of dealing with privacy extend well beyond the government, even if the Fourth Amendment itself is so limited.

Back in the 1960s, a guy named Charles Katz used a phone booth in Los Angeles to place bets in Boston and Miami. Unbeknownst to him, the FBI had placed (without a warrant) a listening device on the outside of the phone booth (yes, there used to be phones in booths that took dimes and then quarters), and they used the recording to convict him.

Katz challenged the government's right to use the evidence, on the grounds that it had been illegally searched and seized in violation of his constitutional right to privacy.

He lost in the district court. He lost in the appeals court, which ruled that since the FBI had not intruded physically into the inside of the phone booth, there was no search.

He won in the United States Supreme Court, which held that an invasion of privacy did not (as it must have in the time of the Founding Fathers) require a physical intrusion. Concepts of privacy have to be adjusted to take account of changing technology (more than the court in 1967 could have ever imagined). The test, the court ruled, was whether the individual had a "reasonable expectation of privacy." The whole idea of a phone booth was that it was a private space in a public place where you could make a call. We really don't have places like that anymore.

So where can you reasonably expect to be in private space in this utterly public bubble? Do you know what's private and what's not?

The two guys cracking jokes might have assumed that the woman in front of them was using her phone for something other than photographing them. But why assume that? Why should a politician assume that he can tell people one thing in one room that he would never say in a debate or anyplace where a lot of people would hear it — and not get caught on tape?

Every mike is hot; every room has a smartphone shooting. Assume it. Clean up your Facebook account. Your GPS is on. Somebody's flying overhead. Your footsteps could be retraced. In most cases, honestly, who cares? Made a stop for ice cream. When I used to call a friend whose phone, we believed, was being wiretapped, we'd have long talks about my mother. It doesn't matter. Until it does. And then it can make all the difference in the world.

What is private is not something you figure out by looking at the outside world. You get to know it by inventing and defining it as it applies to your world. As for me, I think if you're going to eavesdrop, you generally ought to keep it to yourself. And when telling dirty jokes in a public space, even if speaking to one individual, keep your voice down. And don't fire people for this.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM



Comments

9 Comments | Post Comment
We can expect more of this stupidity as we approach the state of the USSR (remember) through the progressive agenda.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Oldtimer
Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:53 AM
The short answer to your question is "no".

Once upon a time we would have used more informal societal mechanisms to control this sort of bad behavior. The lady within range of the dirty jokesters would have turned around and, with either a nasty stare or a single word (Please!), have embarassed the men into more civilized behavior. (Ideally, she wouldn't have had to say anything at all. A man near the jokesters would have been expected to note that there was "a lady present" and that would have reminded them of the expected language/behavoir in public places).

Someone taking actions that resulted in another person being fired over such trivialities would have recieved a good dose of social ostracism that would have taught him/her (and more importantly everyone else in the community) that that type of payback was inappropriate.

In rare cases, even a bit of violence was deemed appropriate to obtain proper behavior (e.g., Abraham Lincoln once told a story about how the men in Springfield, IL had gotten together and had a rather physical training session with a known wife beater. With the promise of addition instruction if his behavior lapsed, the wife beater became a much gentler individual.). In any case, self policing was more of the norm back then.

With the equalization of men and women, the world has become a much coarser place. The old informal mechanisms don't work anymore because no one really cares what others think about them anymore. As a result, some people feel the need to resort to more dramatic actions and things spiral out of control. (N.B., Think of how different things might have turned out for the Clinton presidency if someone on Bill's staff had suggested he and Monica "go to a hotel".)

Living together successfully requires people to show tolerance for others and a sensitivity for how others will be effected by our actions. This can only be achieved if we realize we are not the center of the universe and our happiness and wants are not the most important thing in the world. Until we get back to these basics, this type of occurence will only become more common. This has already fed into our politics which are now of the "take no prisoners" variety.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Old Navy
Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:27 AM
Under the new law the government will have a copy of everyone's medical records. There is no question that this will lead to abuse, both to harass political opponents and also to extort concessions from people vulnerable to embarrassment. Under Obamacare the IRS will know if you have had an abortion, venereal disease or cancer. This information will spread to the private sector via the black market of gossip and snooping.
It's useless to expect that a Supreme Court decision will protect anyone from the abuse of such invasions of privacy. Government employees will simply use the information and avoid getting caught. We saw this happen in the election of 2008. Palin's emails were stolen and published; Joe the Plumber had the facts about a tax lien published, which was contrary to law. The President never said a word against these things.
Most disappointing in this administration is that many people who claim to support civil rights have utterly surrendered their principles. The right to abortion is founded on the right to privacy. But where is the compelling need for the IRS to know that a woman has had an abortion?
How is it possible for the President to order a U.S. citizen blown to bits by a drone and not be subject to judicial review? Obama campaigned that foreign nationals at Gitmo should have Due Process rights, but he can kill a U.S. citizen abroad in a foreign country at his whim AND DOES NOT THINK THAT HE HAS ANY DUTY TO PROVE THAT HE ACTED LAWFULLY.
How weak are people who rose to power advocating the principles of civil rights. They abandon them for political expediency. They proclaim their righteousness in the midst of their wrong. It's just the same old story: O tempora! O mores!
Comment: #3
Posted by: Cowboy Jay
Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:21 AM
Big Brother is watching you.
"Big Sis" is arming up to subjugate you.
What are you going to do?
Comment: #4
Posted by: joseph wright
Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:14 AM
Re: joseph wright Stock up on bottled water, canned foods and ammunition.
Comment: #5
Posted by: David Henricks
Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:41 PM
Didn't you know? You have the right to not be offended, or be exposed to offensive things, or to have other people nearby thinking of offensive things.
Comment: #6
Posted by: pb1222
Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:04 AM
Cypriots with money in Cypriot banks thought it was their private property. But no ! Government decided their money belonged to Government.

Coming soon to your 401K and to a bank near you.

What are you going to do about it?
Comment: #7
Posted by: joseph wright
Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:31 PM
Re: joseph wright
If this doesn't happen to us it will happen to our children and grand-children. Does anybody care? Is anybody listening? Our elitist Progressive politicians don't give a damn about us or our children!
Comment: #8
Posted by: Oldtimer
Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:06 AM
Re: Oldtimer
True so far as it goes Oldtimer. The real truth is that a plurality of your fellow citizens, those selfish hand out craving imbeciles that put Obama and his ilk in power care not for your children or grandchildren but worse still care not for their own .
Comment: #9
Posted by: joseph wright
Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:32 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Susan Estrich
May. `13
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 15 May 2013
Dennis Prager
Dennis PragerUpdated 14 May 2013
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 14 May 2013

30 Jul 2008 Just One

29 Jan 2010 Don't Ask, Don't Tell

9 May 2012 Saturday Night with Bea