NationStates Jolt Archive

Since my job is boring as fuck I spend all day listening to the radio while I 'work'. Some woman emailed one of the shows I listen to, asking for some advice from the presenters and the show's listeners. tl; dr version: She tried to read her 12 year old daughter's text messages, but found that one needed a password to do so, and found a joke video about a kid pestering his Dad about what a wanker is. She wanted to know what to do. The advice the listeners gave fell into two general categories.
Confront her daughter and threaten to remove the phone if she doesn't show her the messages regularly(interspersed with suggestions that a 12 year old shouldn't even have a phone) and
Respect her daughter's privacy and let her know that she can talk to her mother if she needs/wants to(interspersed with suggestions that she shouldn't have been snooping in the first place)

There were two people that fell firmly in the first category. One was a mother that read everything of her children's she got her hands on. Text messages, letters, diaries, the lot. And her children knew this. The other was a parent of unspecified gender who did the same, but without his/her daughters' knowledge.

So what say you, oh wise generalites? How much privacy did you have when you were a young'un/do you have now, young'un? How much privacy do/will your kids have?

For children, privacy is a privilege that is earned. I don't snoop in my kids' stuff but they understand that I reserve the right to do so if I feel it necessary, and that my trust is earned, not entitled.

Works great.

A cell phone is a tricky issue privacy-wise, since privacy comes into conflict with the parents' duty to keep kids from watching naughty things underage, and cell phones are pretty open to abuse. A diary, on the other hand, is none of anyone elses business.

Any parent who likes to spy on, snoop, and read private diaries and text messages of their kids really ought to get therapy. Being a control freak who leaves no room for privacy will only alienate their children and ensure that real trust can never be established.

Every kid has their own little secrets and emotional refuges only they can visit. If a parent really wants to know what's going on in their kid's head, they have to bloody well earn their trust and confidence so that their kid will feel at ease sharing their secrets with them willingly.

To rape their privacy amounts to trying to enforce thought police on your own children. It's unhealthy and sick.

There's a line. If I feel they are acting within the range of our values then they can have some privacy, otherwise, it's my responsibility to know what's going on. That cell phone is paid for by her mother I assume so she doesn't have much of a case for privacy.

(shrugs)

Oh, and the mother in question managed to sneakily get around the password and checked out the messages. Nothing to worry about. She also intends to get a phone without such a feature for her daughter at some point.

I figure it's about getting a balance. If you interfere too much your child will just end up trying to rebel against you, if you take no interest at all then you're not really much of a parent. Though, I don't have kids so feel free to dismiss my opinions :)

Oh, and the mother in question managed to sneakily get around the password and checked out the messages. Nothing to worry about. She also intends to get a phone without such a feature for her daughter at some point.

I figure it's about getting a balance. If you interfere too much your child will just end up trying to rebel against you, if you take no interest at all then you're not really much of a parent. Though, I don't have kids so feel free to dismiss my opinions :)

Well, there is also the medium to consider. If it's 'public' it's public, that means email, text messages, blogs, etc. A diary or personal letters are different.

Any time they send something through an intermediary then it's fair game.

Oh, and the mother in question managed to sneakily get around the password and checked out the messages. Nothing to worry about. She also intends to get a phone without such a feature for her daughter at some point.

I figure it's about getting a balance. If you interfere too much your child will just end up trying to rebel against you, if you take no interest at all then you're not really much of a parent. Though, I don't have kids so feel free to dismiss my opinions :)

That's actually a good point. Trust is something that builds a kid's self-esteem if they've EARNED it. My kids have demonstrated that I can trust them so I generally feel no need to snoop. It's a give and take.

If you deny them the trust they've earned, then they'll resent you and wonder why they should bother.

Well, there is also the medium to consider. If it's 'public' it's public, that means email, text messages, blogs, etc. A diary or personal letters are different.

Any time they send something through an intermediary then it's fair game.

I could see blogs, given that they are generally open to the public, but how does one differentiate text messages and email from personal letters? Email and snail mail are both types of mail. I doubt many people wish for either to be publicised, even if there is nothing scandalous or embarrassing in them.

There's a line. If I feel they are acting within the range of our values then they can have some privacy, otherwise, it's my responsibility to know what's going on. That cell phone is paid for by her mother I assume so she doesn't have much of a case for privacy.

"Values" :rolleyes:

Well, there is also the medium to consider. If it's 'public' it's public, that means email, text messages, blogs, etc.
Blogs != personal email, text messages, letters, or phone calls. Nice attempt at weaseling in a false comparison to make private things public. Even blogs may not be public, though personal blogs are more public than email, text messages etc. Email, text messages, etc are all private means of communication. If the world is CC'd a copy of the text message/email, that does not make the communication medium, or even the communication, public. It is still a private communication, but to everyone. You can of course easily access all those things, just like you can easily access a diary, but none of those things are made any less private by that fact.

At 12 years, I think communications privacy isn't yet entirely earned. And after all it's the parent who bought the kid the phone in the first place, and the parent who pays for all communications. Of course if that's not the case, it's different. Still, 12 years is about the borderline age for most of one's rights, but not yet that far.

So, I think, for this age the privacy should be somewhat respected, such as not scrutinizing everything, just checking something if there are suspicions. And most certainly not seeing that as a right. And most certainly not using that information unless in extreme need. And preferably doing it openly.
Diaries are completely another case, but still... I'd not feel guilty checking one, if I had a suspicion the kid is involved in drugs, sex, or other things not for the age.
Nonetheless, it's all if there are suspicions. Reading everything is just low.

I'm not sure if a 12-year old needs a cell phone, but I think that yes, mostly for emergency reasons.

At 14 years already, we can be talking about privacy much more seriously.

I'm torn.

I find myself somewhat agreeing with Neo B yet I am of the school of thought that privacy is important. As if you don't give your children privacy they may not respect yours. It's a sticky issue.

I could see blogs, given that they are generally open to the public, but how does one differentiate text messages and email from personal letters? Email and snail mail are both types of mail. I doubt many people wish for either to be publicised, even if there is nothing scandalous or embarrassing in them.

I'd say snail mail =/= e-mail or text/chat.

I know in principle they're the same, but there's an important difference: In th electronic media, things tend to progress RAPIDLY because the medium of communication is instant. That means that people are way more likely to get into trouble with someone with one of those items than with snail mail.

I'd liken electronic messaging more to a phone call than a paper letter. So let me ask this: What's your take on listening into a phonecall?

I could see blogs, given that they are generally open to the public, but how does one differentiate text messages and email from personal letters? Email and snail mail are both types of mail. I doubt many people wish for either to be publicised, even if there is nothing scandalous or embarrassing in them.

True - but sending is sending. The intended receiver might well post the contents all over town.

I'm torn.

I find myself somewhat agreeing with Neo B yet I am of the school of thought that privacy is important. As if you don't give your children privacy they may not respect yours. It's a sticky issue.

I agree it's important, but not absolute.

if your kid can have a cell phone they can have privacy in text messages.

once they are out of your sight, they say whatever they want to whomever they want. texting doesnt make it more dangerous.

if your kid can have a cell phone they can have privacy in text messages.

once they are out of your sight, they say whatever they want to whomever they want. texting doesnt make it more dangerous.

True.

But I was thinking about this... Most kids aren't adhering to Department of Defense security guidelines. They become complacent and lazy about covering their tracks. If they're up to no good, getting a look at the texts is still a valuable resource.

I figure if my kid is smart enough and diligent enough to keep me from knowing what he/she is up to, chances are they can handle the situation they put themselves in.

...or at least, that's my hope.

Parents do have the right, in a literal sense, to invade their children's privacy, that's true.

However the relationship that the parents set up with their children will reflect the relationship they will have once those children are adults. And that's something every parent should keep in mind.

If you want to violate your children's privacy go ahead, nothing can stop you. Just remember how it will affect your relationship with your children, because it will.

For the rest of your life.

Well, there is also the medium to consider. If it's 'public' it's public, that means email, text messages, blogs, etc. A diary or personal letters are different.

Any time they send something through an intermediary then it's fair game.

That's illogical. Not only are texts and emails decidedly "private", but also, the premise that an intermediary justifies any amount of parental intervention is odd. Why?

I'd trust my child.

if your kid can have a cell phone they can have privacy in text messages.

once they are out of your sight, they say whatever they want to whomever they want. texting doesnt make it more dangerous.
Exactly. I had a blog about this somewhere. The gist of it was how people were complaining about the internet being "unnanniable" or something. Which is absurd, stuff like this is the easiest thing to snoop in. Do you go to the mall and lurk around corners to watch your kids? No. I'm surprised parents don't give their kids a phone just because it makes it a million times easier to snoop on them.

True.

But I was thinking about this... Most kids aren't adhering to Department of Defense security guidelines. They become complacent and lazy about covering their tracks. If they're up to no good, getting a look at the texts is still a valuable resource.

I figure if my kid is smart enough and diligent enough to keep me from knowing what he/she is up to, chances are they can handle the situation they put themselves in.

...or at least, that's my hope.

if your child seems to be headed in the wrong direction it is your duty as a parent to intervene. going through the cell phone shouldnt be your first clue.

Exactly. I had a blog about this somewhere. The gist of it was how people were complaining about the internet being "unnanniable" or something. Which is absurd, stuff like this is the easiest thing to snoop in. Do you go to the mall and lurk around corners to watch your kids? No. I'm surprised parents don't give their kids a phone just because it makes it a million times easier to snoop on them.

that drives me CRAZY.

the internet is 1000X safer than real life and yet how many people drop their 11 year olds off at the mall on saturday morning then pick them up at closing time?

I'd say snail mail =/= e-mail or text/chat.

I know in principle they're the same, but there's an important difference: In th electronic media, things tend to progress RAPIDLY because the medium of communication is instant. That means that people are way more likely to get into trouble with someone with one of those items than with snail mail.

I'd liken electronic messaging more to a phone call than a paper letter. So let me ask this: What's your take on listening into a phonecall?

I was concerned with Smunkee's public/private distinction and its inconsistency. A phone call is, circumstances dictating, private. So is snail mail and email.

My own views is a I dunno. I don't have kids, for one. I also see that while I can see why parents would want to check on their kids, often for valid reasons, the technologically astute youth will know this too and seek to block their parents access. This leads to a technological arm race of parents finding ways to spy on their kids and kids finding ways to circumvent them. Does that sound particularly healthy? *shrugs*

if your child seems to be headed in the wrong direction it is your duty as a parent to intervene. going through the cell phone shouldnt be your first clue.

Not the first, but definitely a potential resource.

I'd say snail mail =/= e-mail or text/chat.

I know in principle they're the same, but there's an important difference: In th electronic media, things tend to progress RAPIDLY because the medium of communication is instant. That means that people are way more likely to get into trouble with someone with one of those items than with snail mail.

I'd liken electronic messaging more to a phone call than a paper letter. So let me ask this: What's your take on listening into a phonecall?

I'd say that electronic media are more obviously private, since it's so much easier to keep the content from anyone but the intended recipient. What says 'This is private' more clearly than needing a password. You know, aside from big signs with flashing lights.

I was concerned with Smunkee's public/private distinction and its inconsistency. A phone call is, circumstances dictating, private. So is snail mail and email.

My own views is a I dunno. I don't have kids, for one. I also see that while I can see why parents would want to check on their kids, often for valid reasons, the technologically astute youth will know this too and seek to block their parents access. This leads to a technological arm race of parents finding ways to spy on their kids and kids finding ways to circumvent them. Does that sound particularly healthy? *shrugs*

No it certainly doesn't.

I feel fortunate that so far this hasn't been a problem. My kids have passwords to their computers and E-mail, and I don't know them, but I know how to get or change them if I need to. We have our own E-mail server and I'm the admin. To date, I've never messed with that.

My kids know I can get into their stuff but I don't do it so there had been no 'tech arms race' thus far. I figure if the time comes that I don't feel I can trust them, I can take away their E-mail access altogether.

I'd say that electronic media are more obviously private, since it's so much easier to keep the content from anyone but the intended recipient. What says 'This is private' more clearly than needing a password. You know, aside from big signs with flashing lights.

Maybe... but I think it's more there to prevent tampering, since when you're chatting with someone online, the only assurance you have that the person is who you think it is is the fact that their account is protected by a password.

Phones would be the same way I think, if we couldn't identify someone by voice.

Maybe... but I think it's more there to prevent tampering, since when you're chatting with someone online, the only assurance you have that the person is who you think it is is the fact that their account is protected by a password.

Phones would be the same way I think, if we couldn't identify someone by voice.

With some phones you have to put in a password to get into the inbox, as the mother in the OP discovered. Most email accounts require you to enter a password to do anything. I agree about the chat thing though, that is clearly much more for the sake of securing whatever nickname you're using.

With some phones you have to put in a password to get into the inbox, as the mother in the OP discovered. Most email accounts require you to enter a password to do anything. I agree about the chat thing though, that is clearly much more for the sake of securing whatever nickname you're using.

I mean using a password just to pick one up, dial it, and talk.... for phones in general like a landline. I know there are phones that have passwords to keep them from being used but that seems more like anti-theft security to me. I'm just being generic.

I'd say that electronic media are more obviously private, since it's so much easier to keep the content from anyone but the intended recipient. What says 'This is private' more clearly than needing a password. You know, aside from big signs with flashing lights.

And yet it's sent through God knows how many intermediary devices/computers/servers where anyone who wants to can read it.

Sending an email is the equivalent of standing on your porch and shouting out what you want to say.

It's a crime for someone to open my snail mail, it's not a crime for my husband to read my email.......or even for Google to read it if they wanted to, it's on their server anyway right?

I was concerned with Smunkee's public/private distinction and its inconsistency. A phone call is, circumstances dictating, private. So is snail mail and email.

My own views is a I dunno. I don't have kids, for one. I also see that while I can see why parents would want to check on their kids, often for valid reasons, the technologically astute youth will know this too and seek to block their parents access. This leads to a technological arm race of parents finding ways to spy on their kids and kids finding ways to circumvent them. Does that sound particularly healthy? *shrugs*

it all depends on the age of the kid and his/her sophistication.

the younger they are the more you have to keep an eye on their activities. your 7 year old's email should be looked at by you before they are even allowed to access it. your 17 year old's email should be left alone unless you have good reason to believe that it is leading them into an dangerous situation.

And yet it's sent through God knows how many intermediary devices/computers/servers where anyone who wants to can read it.
A letter is a flimsy piece of paper houses in an equally fllimsy piece of paper held together by what I hope is glue. It is dropped off unattended in a metal cave that anyone can open and is then carted around by any number of other people, physically. However, opening it is a violation of US federal law. Just because people have access to something, that something is not magically public property.


Sending an email is the equivalent of standing on your porch and shouting out what you want to say.
Sure, if you live in a bubble under the sea and are shouting in Russian and some one just happens to be swimming by and puts their ear against the glass and understands Russian.

First group. If they don't want you to see it its worth seeing!!!!!!!

And yet it's sent through God knows how many intermediary devices/computers/servers where anyone who wants to can read it.

Sending an email is the equivalent of standing on your porch and shouting out what you want to say.

It's a crime for someone to open my snail mail, it's not a crime for my husband to read my email.......or even for Google to read it if they wanted to, it's on their server anyway right?

Emails are subject to copyright laws, but I'm not sure how or when they are enforced.

Let me put it this way - there's a reason I don't have kids. My wife would tell me that going through their text history, phone history, etc. is an invasion of privacy. I would say it's necessary and demand that they submit their phones on a regular basis for inspection. I would also learn the ins and outs of their phones so they couldn't put one over on me. I may even make them use phones that can only call certain people.

I wouldn't trust my kids one bit. I just couldn't do it.

Parents do have the right, in a literal sense, to invade their children's privacy, that's true.

However the relationship that the parents set up with their children will reflect the relationship they will have once those children are adults. And that's something every parent should keep in mind.

If you want to violate your children's privacy go ahead, nothing can stop you. Just remember how it will affect your relationship with your children, because it will.

For the rest of your life.

I feel like it's something you have the right to do, but should almost never exercise unless you have good reason to believe that something's wrong. (And I mean good reason. Not WMD in Iraq reason)

And yet it's sent through God knows how many intermediary devices/computers/servers where anyone who wants to can read it.

Much like how letters are sent through God knows how many intermediary people, no?

Sending an email is the equivalent of standing on your porch and shouting out what you want to say.

In that case, letters are like stripping naked, painting the message on your body and going jogging through the center of town.

It's a crime for someone to open my snail mail, it's not a crime for my husband to read my email.......or even for Google to read it if they wanted to, it's on their server anyway right?

My husband pays pretty close attention to IP law and the like, and he says it actually is a crime to read someone else's email.

I don't have an actual source to back that up, so take it for what it is, but I generally believe him on these things.


On the original topic, the lady in question sounds like she was snooping just to be snooping, and that's out of line. But how much snooping is appropriate really depends on the situation. As a general rule, reading your child's diary would be out of line. But if you're truly worried that their mental health might be suffering and they won't talk to you about it, you may need to do so. Of course, it would be a hard trade. Doing so could certainly cause trust issues...

Let me put it this way - there's a reason I don't have kids. My wife would tell me that going through their text history, phone history, etc. is an invasion of privacy. I would say it's necessary and demand that they submit their phones on a regular basis for inspection. I would also learn the ins and outs of their phones so they couldn't put one over on me. I may even make them use phones that can only call certain people.

I wouldn't trust my kids one bit. I just couldn't do it.

thats ok, they would delete all their text messages from the phone as they came in and you would have to jump through whatever hoops the provider has in order to get the messages from them.

its annoying and probably expensive so you wouldnt do it very often and then only for urgent cause.

I agree that kids of different ages need different degrees of privacy and that need to earn the trust of their parents. However, reading text messages, email, diary, or anything that was not meant to be read by anyone is not acceptable.

A 4 year old will appreciate having a parent around while taking a bath or wiping his butt, but a 7 year old will object to that. However a 7 year old wouldn't mind having a parent check her writing, while an 12 year old could be writing a very private diary.

In general, kids should be given the privacy they request, and the privacy they assume they should have based on observing their parents. If parents have a certain kind of privacy, like they don't let anyone read their email, the kids will expect the same. On the other hand, if parents leave their mailbox open on the family computer and don't mind if the kids read it, the kids will also expect the same treatment of their own email.

Parents should just talk to their kids every day, and if there is anything wrong, the parents will be able to notice. Anything else creates trust issues which are only deepening the gap in the communication.

My husband pays pretty close attention to IP law and the like, and he says it actually is a crime to read someone else's email.

I don't have an actual source to back that up, so take it for what it is, but I generally believe him on these things.

For example, the government notes with respect to Yahoo! (which has similar TOS):

Because a customer acknowledges that Yahoo! has unlimited access to her e-mail, and because she consents to Yahoo! disclosing her e-mail in response to legal process, compelled disclosure of e-mail from a Yahoo! account does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
The government relied on a Supreme Court case where a bank customer could not complain when the government subpoenaed his cancelled checks from the bank itself and where the Court noted:

The checks are not confidential communications but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions. All of the documents obtained, including financial statements and deposit slips, contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business.
In essence, the government is arguing that the contents of your e-mails have been voluntarily conveyed to your ISP and that you therefore have no privacy rights to it anymore. In a previous proceeding in Warshak, the government went even further, arguing that automated spam filters, antivirus software, and other automated processes that examine the contents of your e-mail, establish that you cannot possibly expect your communications to be private.


http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/456/3


On the original topic, the lady in question sounds like she was snooping just to be snooping, and that's out of line. But how much snooping is appropriate really depends on the situation. As a general rule, reading your child's diary would be out of line. But if you're truly worried that their mental health might be suffering and they won't talk to you about it, you may need to do so. Of course, it would be a hard trade. Doing so could certainly cause trust issues...

Like I said earlier, I wouldn't snoop unless I had good reason. If my child for example ran away from home I would check her computer and email to try to find out where she was.

I find the government's arguments scary. As it says in the article basically one waives one's rights to privacy when one uses email or one's ISP.

I find the government's arguments scary. As it says in the article basically one waives one's rights to privacy when one uses email or one's ISP.

Pretty much.

Is it illegal to hack into someone's computer? Yes.
Is it illegal to read your child's email? No.
Is it illegal for the ISP to turn over your web communications to the police without your permission? Probably not.

Email isn't private.

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/456/3

If you use a Yahoo account, Yahoo can read your email. You're using their service, so they can look at it.

Yahoo would not, however, be able to look at your email if you used Gmail. Doing so would be "Computer Invasion of Privacy" or something along those lines.

If I read your email, it would be the same charge.

From what I understand, the charge requires you to use a computer system or network "without authority". Yahoo has authority over their network and email system, but I have no authority (unless you give it to me) to read your email.

Of course, there's no such charge if you're reading your child's email. (a) You're their parent and thus can infringe on them in ways you can't do to an adult and (b) you most likely are the one who actually set up and pay for their email account, so any email accounting service would have a contract with you, not them. You would therefore have authority to read it.

*just walked up a steep hill and got all hot and sweaty, so this may or may not make sense*

Like I said earlier, I wouldn't snoop unless I had good reason. If my child for example ran away from home I would check her computer and email to try to find out where she was.

Indeed. And I see no problem with that at all. I would hope that you'd open her snail mail under the same circumstances, if you thought it would help you find her. And, being her parent, you are entitled to certain breaches of privacy that would not be allowed with another adult.

Pretty much.

Is it illegal to hack into someone's computer? Yes.
Is it illegal to read your child's email? No.
Is it illegal for the ISP to turn over your web communications to the police without your permission? Probably not.

Email isn't private.

You can access your child's medical records without her permission. So can the police.

Does that mean that medical records are not private?

The fact that some unintended people can gain access to your communication - even legally - doesn't mean it isn't private.

If you use a Yahoo account, Yahoo can read your email. You're using their service, so they can look at it.

Yahoo would not, however, be able to look at your email if you used Gmail. Doing so would be "Computer Invasion of Privacy" or something along those lines.

If I read your email, it would be the same charge.

From what I understand, the charge requires you to use a computer system or network "without authority". Yahoo has authority over their network and email system, but I have no authority (unless you give it to me) to read your email.

Of course, there's no such charge if you're reading your child's email. (a) You're their parent and thus can infringe on them in ways you can't do to an adult and (b) you most likely are the one who actually set up and pay for their email account, so any email accounting service would have a contract with you, not them. You would therefore have authority to read it.

*just walked up a steep hill and got all hot and sweaty, so this may or may not make sense*
My point earlier (and I don't remember if it got posted as I was having conectivity issues) was that my child has no reasonable expectation to privacy in her email because it's on my computer, my network, my server, my domain. I can read it all I want, legally.



Indeed. And I see no problem with that at all. I would hope that you'd open her snail mail under the same circumstances, if you thought it would help you find her. And, being her parent, you are entitled to certain breaches of privacy that would not be allowed with another adult.
Of course I would. My other tangent being that people for one reason or another think their email is private communication and it's just not.

I assume the parent is responsible for the phone bill and all other associated expenses. that means that the use of the phone is the parent's responsibility, and therefore the parent has the right to monitor usage.

Even if the phone is entirely paid for by the child, the parent is responsible for the child's safety. Communications with potential stangers needs to be monitored by concientious parents.

The government relied on a Supreme Court case where a bank customer could not complain when the government subpoenaed his cancelled checks from the bank itself and where the Court noted:

The checks are not confidential communications but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions. All of the documents obtained, including financial statements and deposit slips, contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business.
In essence, the government is arguing that the contents of your e-mails have been voluntarily conveyed to your ISP and that you therefore have no privacy rights to it anymore. In a previous proceeding in Warshak, the government went even further, arguing that automated spam filters, antivirus software, and other automated processes that examine the contents of your e-mail, establish that you cannot possibly expect your communications to be private.
Am I the only person who noticed the bank argument has nothing in common with email. The government, as usual, is stretching in order to infringe on our privacy rights.


My respect for Smunkee is quickly diminishing by her multiple, terrible, US-gestapo-like argument in this topic.

EDIT: I'm not the only one who saw the bullshit a mile away, here are the next two paragraphs from the quotes article
What is silly about this is the fact that, at least for the government, the argument is unnecessary. The Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" invasions of privacy interests. The government could effectively argue that, by obtaining a subpoena or other court order for the records which are relevant to a legitimate investigation, the search or seizure is reasonable, and therefore comports with the Fourth Amendment. All subpoenas and demands for documents infringe some privacy interest, and unless overbroad, they are generally reasonable. The statute which permits government access to stored communication pursuant to a mere subpoena may likewise be perfectly reasonable and may withstand constitutional scrutiny. But that doesn't mean that the Constitution doesn't apply.

No, the government is seeking to eliminate any Constitutional privacy interest in e-mail. Under this standard, if the FBI walked into your employer or ISP, and simply took your e-mail (no warrant, no court order, no probable cause, no nothing), you would have no constitutional argument about the seizure, because you had abandoned your expectation of privacy. This appears to be more than a mere argument in support of the constitutionality of a Congressional e-mail privacy and access scheme. It represents what may be the fundamental governmental position on Constitutional e-mail and electronic privacy -- that there isn't any.

Am I the only person who noticed the bank argument has nothing in common with email.
No, I noticed that as well.
The government, as usual, is stretching in order to infringe on our privacy rights.
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy with electronic media sent through the internet. It's not my opinion, it's fact, based on numerous court rulings.

My respect for Smunkee is quickly diminishing by her multiple, terrible, US-gestapo-like argument in this topic.
Oh dear! I'm so wounded. You don't have the ability to seperate what you think is happening with what is actually happening. How will I ever ever continue without your "respect"? Woe is me. :rolleyes:

You have no reasonable expectation of privacy with electronic media sent through the internet. It's not my opinion, it's fact, based on numerous court rulings.
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy with physical correspondence, but that's not the point now is it?

You have no reasonable expectation of privacy with physical correspondence, but that's not the point now is it?

Isn't it? For something to be private you have to have a reasonable expectation of privacy, if you do not, it is not by definition private.

Let me help you out. Gays can't marry in Oklahoma, our consitution says marriage is between a man and a woman. Stating these facts says nothing about what I think "should happen" or whether or not I think it's right. If a gay couple asked my husband to marry them, he would tell them he legally cannot, that it wouldn't be a legal marriage. This says nothing about what he thinks should happen or what is right, it's about what the facts of the matter are.

Email is not private communication, I am not invading on my child's privacy by reading her email.

Isn't it? For something to be private you have to have a reasonable expectation of privacy, if you do not, it is not by definition private.
What is your argument that electronic medium has less of an expectation of privacy than a letter?

Also
It's not my opinion, it's fact, based on numerous court rulings.
Name some.

Email is not private communication, I am not invading on my child's privacy by reading her email.
The difference between your anecdote and that statement is you have no basis for that statement but your opinion. My opinion says you are patently wrong.

The difference between your anecdote and that statement is you have no basis for that statement but your opinion. My opinion says you are patently wrong.
My computer, my server, my bandwith, my hard drive, my domain, mine. You can't say any different.

My computer, my server, my bandwith, my hard drive, my domain, mine. You can't say any different.
Great, so your own emails and emails sent to you can be accessed by you. Were you trying to make a different point and epically failing?

Great, so your own emails and emails sent to you can be accessed by you. Were you trying to make a different point and epically failing?

My children's emails and emails sent to them. My house, my rules, my server, my data.

My children's emails and emails sent to them. My house, my rules, my server, my data.
And now since your original argument fell through on the basis that it was obvious bullshit, we are down to what it was obviously in the first place - "under my roof" snoopy bullshit. You could have just said that in the first god damn place instead of all this other "there is no tech privacy" horse shit.

You buy the phone and pay for the plan, yeah, whatever; otherwise, no it's none of your god damn business.

I grew up in a family that respected no one's privacy and no one's boundaries. Not just the kids -- the adults had their private business poked into inappropriately all the time, too. And my relatives didn't just snoop, they blabbed as well. Some of my earliest childhood memories are of me flying into a rage as my most personal and embarassing moments were bandied about in general conversation, and I remember adult family members flying into similar rages hearing gossipy stories about their private stuff, too. I swear, it was like growing up in a Home for Bored Spies.

Perhaps not surprisingly, I never kept a diary in my life. I learned that lesson even before I learned how to write.

Another lesson my upbringing taught me is that privacy is a precious illusion. It is absolutely necessary for the smooth running of society, but it can only exist by mutual agreement of everybody in the society. If even a small number of people break the agreement, then all privacy is destroyed for everyone. This is because, above all, privacy is a matter of trust -- you have to trust that you are not being spied on to feel that you have any privacy at all.

In my family, the majority of people did not sign on to that "gentlemen's agreement" and the result was that there was no such thing as privacy in my family, and also no such thing as trust. However, there most certainly was such a thing as distance and secrets. Yeah, it's just great having your own family be the people you can never talk to and never trust. Did I mention that we hardly ever see each other? We go whole decades without ever seeing or speaking to each other, but when we do get together, like for a funeral, I'm amazed at how much relatives I haven't talked to in years know about my recent doings. Once a spy, always a spy, I guess.

Smunkee is right. Only a fool thinks their emails are private. This is not because anyone necessarily has a right to snoop into them, but only because it is so easy to snoop into them, and if there are even just a few people who want to, there is no way for you to stop them short of not hitting that send button at all. Just like I preserved my secrets by not writing them down in a diary where my family could read them.

When it comes to how far a parent should snoop on a child or respect their privacy, I think of how I wish my family had been, and this is what I would do, if I had a child: As long as they are actual children and I am responsible for their well-being, I would not want them having friends I didn't know about. In their socializing, emailing, web surfing, etc., I would want to know where they went and who they met at all times. I would keep up that vigilance until I felt they could defend themselves if someone tried to hurt or take advantage of them. However, once a friend/acquaintance passed my "OK" criteria, then I would respect my child's privacy in their conversations/correspondence with that person. I would not violate that privacy unless I had good reason to think my child was in trouble and that I had to break that boundary to help him/her. And looking at such private communications without my child's permission would be a last resort, not a first one. Basically, I believe a parent can be forgiven for snooping if they don't trust the strangers around their child, but not if they don't trust their child.

When it comes to privacy in general, I would teach my child the same lessons my family taught me (only I'd try to do it more kindly):

1) Never say anything you don't want to hear repeated.

2) Never do anything you would be ashamed to have to explain a photo of.

3) Never, NEVER write down anything you don't want to read on the front page the next day's newspaper.

Get an account on any italian server.
D. Lgs. 30 giugno 2003 N. 196 prohibits reading, copying or using e-mails or attachments without authorization.

My other tangent being that people for one reason or another think their email is private communication and it's just not.It's nto in the sense that some people will be able to read it, but in that sense virtually no communication is private. It is private in the sense you can reasonably expect no one to read it without your, the recipient's, the ISP's or the government's involvement.

I suppose you could always compile your message into a program, and slap on a license for the recipient only. Anyone else would be infringing your copyright and you can hit them with the DMCA (or equivalents).

Under this standard, if the FBI walked into your employer or ISP, and simply took your e-mail (no warrant, no court order, no probable cause, no nothing), you would have no constitutional argument about the seizure, because you had abandoned your expectation of privacy.

And this is, I think, a very strong argument for reading your kids' emails.

They should learn that privacy is, first of all, an illusion.

And this is, I think, a very strong argument for reading your kids' emails.

They should learn that privacy is, first of all, an illusion.Yes, crush their little spirits while their still young, muahahaa

Email isn't private.
Maybe not in your country, but here - and I'd gather across the Europe - it's basically covered by same rights as regular mail.

Exceptions come when the emails are related to your work, though even then they cannot be read without the agreement of the employee (this might possibly be contract dependent). Oh, and during work hours when using work email they have the right to find out where the email is sent to (and by whom).


edit:
As for the topic, the way I see it is that as long as they're not adults the level of privacy granted depends on the parent: There's nothing wrong in intruding your kid's privacy if you percieve it as necessary.

It represents what may be the fundamental governmental position on Constitutional e-mail and electronic privacy -- that there isn't any.

And this is, I think, a very strong argument for reading your kids' emails.

They should learn that privacy is, first of all, an illusion.

I personally strongly object parents snooping without damn good reason. Trust is a two-way road. If you're a good parent your children will tell (or you will notice without snooping...) if there is something wrong.

Only case where I believe parent's have any right to snoop on their children is if/when they know something is wrong, or have reason to believe so.

For me personally, however, this never was a problem. My mother always showed interest in what I was doing, but - as far as I know - she never snooped on me. Mostly because she didn't have to - as she was always asking how my day went, I mostly did tell if there was anything of note. Good or bad.

About the only times I did not tell her something was when it had more to do with my friends and their activities than mine. As I knew my mother would tell theirs ASAP, I respected my friend's privacy in the matter.

In short: If you're a good parent you will know, one way or another, if/when something is wrong. I'd take it more as a sign of bad parent if you have to stoop low enough to spy on your children constantly.

Of course, these are my opinions, subject to change when/if I have children of my own :rolleyes:

edit:
As for the topic, the way I see it is that as long as they're not adults the level of privacy granted depends on the parent: There's nothing wrong in intruding your kid's privacy if you percieve it as necessary.That depends on whether your perception has any correlation with reality. Overcontrolling can be very damaging to children (which isn't to say a total lack of parental control isn't at least as damaging).

And this is, I think, a very strong argument for reading your kids' emails.

They should learn that privacy is, first of all, an illusion.

Are you a bot?

Children are human beings, and as such they have a right to privacy. I can understand breaches in this privacy for very serious, life threatening issues, like if you have deep reasons to believe the kid is using drugs, and only if you can't speak about it in another way.

The other point is that a parent-child relationship should be a trust relationship. You can't ask your child to not lie to you and to trust you if you betray him (or her) by spying on him. Trust is hard and long to build, but it's much more efficient than any other way of control.

Of course it depends of the age, you can't behave the same with a 2-years old and a 12-years old, but a 12-years old is accessible to reason and trust.

As a teen, I wouldn't have gone to porn site on home's computer. Not because of fear of my parents discovering it, I was much better than them with computers, but because they trusted me to use the computer alone, with Internet (good old slow analog modem...), and that trust was something I couldn't break. If I knew they were spying on me... first, I wouldn't have felt bad to "betray" them since they were betraying me already, and then, well, the challenge would have made it more interesting than the porn itself ;)

Children have the same right to privacy as absolutely anybody else.
That goes for diaries, text messages, phone conversations just as much as for any kind of normal conversations. I can't see any excuse to violate that right, other than in the most extreme circumstances.

I grew up with a mother who regularly would open and read my letters, not out of any kind of control issue but out of pure nosiness, and I always felt it was an inexcusable way to trespass on my privacy (even if it was just some pointless advertisement or something, it was addressed to ME, not her).

Yes, trust is earned not given, but I wouldn't want to go and intrude on the privacy of my child any more than I would want to do a cavity search on it on a weekly basis.

Like I said earlier I don't make it a habit of snooping in my kids' stuff.

Having said that, they do know that I might, form time to time, perform checks to make sure there's nothing untoward going on. I've only ever done this once and, ironically, there WAS something going on and I missed it.

But I do not operate in the shadows. I told my kids (after the fact) that I'd checked out their computers. My younger son was surprised that I'd missed what he'd been doing and confessed it to me. That was awesome, because it meant that not only was our mutual trust intact, but it was strong enough that he felt like he was able to come to me and admit what he'd done. So we talked about it, man to man, no punishment, no recriminations, and while we're still working together on a solution, I sleep pretty well at night knowing that we have this trust.

You see, my kids know that I trust them, but that they also have a lot to learn and when I inspect their computer it's not because I think they're being sneaky, but because I know how easily adolescents can get blindsided. With so many adult entertainment companies targeting their marketing for teenagers (Not that they'd admit it, but come on... You think Girls Gone Wild isn't aimed at teen aged boys?) it's easy as hell for them to fall into it, especially with their curiosity at its peak and their hormones raging.

I hate to imagine what sort of trouble I'd have gotten into if the Internet had existed in its present form when I was a teenager. As it was, I was able raise significant hell with just my C-128 and a 1200 baud modem.

I think whatever method you use with your kids, as long as they feel like they're in on it with you and that you're working together with them, they'll be fine. Start treating them like an inmate and you're asking for trouble. Give them carte blanche and you're in trouble. Being a good parent means BEING a parent and not letting them do whatever the hell they want, but you don't need to be the Gestapo either.

You see, my kids know that I trust them, but that they also have a lot to learn and when I inspect their computer it's not because I think they're being sneaky, but because I know how easily adolescents can get blindsided. With so many adult entertainment companies targeting their marketing for teenagers (Not that they'd admit it, but come on... You think Girls Gone Wild isn't aimed at teen aged boys?) it's easy as hell for them to fall into it, especially with their curiosity at its peak and their hormones raging.


Meh... when one of my brothers first fell for a site like that, my mom got a phone bill (phone+internet) for several hundred Euros. She checked with the provider how that sum came together, and simply made my brother pay her the money back. He worked in a cleaning company all summer for it, and there were never any similar problems afterwards...

Any parent who likes to spy on, snoop, and read private diaries and text messages of their kids really ought to get therapy. Being a control freak who leaves no room for privacy will only alienate their children and ensure that real trust can never be established.

Every kid has their own little secrets and emotional refuges only they can visit. If a parent really wants to know what's going on in their kid's head, they have to bloody well earn their trust and confidence so that their kid will feel at ease sharing their secrets with them willingly.

To rape their privacy amounts to trying to enforce thought police on your own children. It's unhealthy and sick.


Um, I just have to say that as far as I am concerned, parents are entirely within their rights to be the thought police for their own children. Especially at that age. My parents simply avoided the issue by being very involved in our lives. They never had to ask for our passwords because we were never allowed to use any they didn't know. Yeah,, it got old after a while, but now all but one of use are either in college ar have graduated from it, so I think they did a rather good job.

Bu hey, I might be kind of biased.

Blogs != personal email, text messages, letters, or phone calls. Nice attempt at weaseling in a false comparison to make private things public. Even blogs may not be public, though personal blogs are more public than email, text messages etc. Email, text messages, etc are all private means of communication. If the world is CC'd a copy of the text message/email, that does not make the communication medium, or even the communication, public. It is still a private communication, but to everyone. You can of course easily access all those things, just like you can easily access a diary, but none of those things are made any less private by that fact.

My respect for Smunkee is quickly diminishing by her multiple, terrible, US-gestapo-like argument in this topic.

EDIT: I'm not the only one who saw the bullshit a mile away, here are the next two paragraphs from the quotes article

And now since your original argument fell through on the basis that it was obvious bullshit, we are down to what it was obviously in the first place - "under my roof" snoopy bullshit. You could have just said that in the first god damn place instead of all this other "there is no tech privacy" horse shit.

You buy the phone and pay for the plan, yeah, whatever; otherwise, no it's none of your god damn business.

And that's YOUR opinion. Is there a way you might be better able to get it across without sounding like a bully or an asshole? You were not provoked.

Reading this thread convinces me that there's no better place for a flexible option than this issue. Neither extreme (permissiveness or control) seems particularly healthy for or responsible to the child-parent relationship.

Emails can wind up in some pretty surprising places, so while I agree that they are nominally private, the reality is that access is so easy that it's a bastard privacy at best. Therefore it seems that Muravyets has hit the nail on the head -- don't send anything you wouldn't want broadcast. All it takes is for one recipient to decide that what you wrote should go on MySpace or Facebook and that's all she wrote (literally...).

Reading this thread convinces me that there's no better place for a flexible option than this issue. Neither extreme (permissiveness or control) seems particularly healthy for or responsible to the child-parent relationship.
I couldn't agree more.

Emails can wind up in some pretty surprising places, so while I agree that they are nominally private, the reality is that access is so easy that it's a bastard privacy at best. Therefore it seems that Muravyets has hit the nail on the head -- don't send anything you wouldn't want broadcast. All it takes is for one recipient to decide that what you wrote should go on MySpace or Facebook and that's all she wrote (literally...).
A truer word was never written. I see MySpace and Facebook as the ultimate reality check for how people use the internet, but it amazes me how hard it seems to be for people to get the hint. But I guess my beloved family gave me a head start in the life-lesson department.

Smunkee is right. Only a fool thinks their emails are private. This is not because anyone necessarily has a right to snoop into them, but only because it is so easy to snoop into them, and if there are even just a few people who want to, there is no way for you to stop them short of not hitting that send button at all. Just like I preserved my secrets by not writing them down in a diary where my family could read them.
Exactly.

When it comes to how far a parent should snoop on a child or respect their privacy, I think of how I wish my family had been, and this is what I would do, if I had a child: As long as they are actual children and I am responsible for their well-being, I would not want them having friends I didn't know about. In their socializing, emailing, web surfing, etc., I would want to know where they went and who they met at all times. I would keep up that vigilance until I felt they could defend themselves if someone tried to hurt or take advantage of them. However, once a friend/acquaintance passed my "OK" criteria, then I would respect my child's privacy in their conversations/correspondence with that person. I would not violate that privacy unless I had good reason to think my child was in trouble and that I had to break that boundary to help him/her. And looking at such private communications without my child's permission would be a last resort, not a first one. Basically, I believe a parent can be forgiven for snooping if they don't trust the strangers around their child, but not if they don't trust their child.

When it comes to privacy in general, I would teach my child the same lessons my family taught me (only I'd try to do it more kindly):

1) Never say anything you don't want to hear repeated.

2) Never do anything you would be ashamed to have to explain a photo of.

3) Never, NEVER write down anything you don't want to read on the front page the next day's newspaper.

This is what I meant to say but I got distracted.

Well, there is also the medium to consider. If it's 'public' it's public, that means email, text messages, blogs, etc. A diary or personal letters are different.

Any time they send something through an intermediary then it's fair game.

Email and text messages are concidered Private communications ... the only waver I have seen in that is in a work place with a pre-signed work waver

Blogs i agree with as well as something like forums

But Email and text messages are not "public"

Snip

Smunkee is right. Only a fool thinks their emails are private. This is not because anyone necessarily has a right to snoop into them, but only because it is so easy to snoop into them, and if there are even just a few people who want to, there is no way for you to stop them short of not hitting that send button at all. Just like I preserved my secrets by not writing them down in a diary where my family could read them.

Snip
There are PLEANTY of ways to secure emails between two people

That being said

The ability to crack into them does not make them "public" communication it simply makes it non secure like talking in a closed room. Yeah you can be overheard but that still is not public communication

There are PLEANTY of ways to secure emails between two people


Which all fail if the recipient decides to share the contents.

Would anyone here like to share every single convo they have ever had with their parents?

Which all fail if the recipient decides to share the contents.

That is absolutly true of ANY communication

Again that does not make it "public" communication

That is absolutly true of ANY communication

Again that does not make it "public" communication

Wrong - it does. Whenever you tell something to someone else it is no longer solely yours to know. You have made it public. It doesn't matter how much you trust that other person not to share it -if they wish to do so against your wishes, they can.

Of course, we do have some laws to discourage that. And blabbermouths will soon discover noone tells them stuff anymore.

There are PLEANTY of ways to secure emails between two people

That being said

The ability to crack into them does not make them "public" communication it simply makes it non secure like talking in a closed room. Yeah you can be overheard but that still is not public communication
Not the point.

Which all fail if the recipient decides to share the contents.
On point.

That is absolutly true of ANY communication

Again that does not make it "public" communication
Not the point.

Here's the point: Privacy exists ONLY when sender AND recipient AND all handlers in between agree to respect it. Period. You can intend your messages to be private and classify them as such all you like. It won't matter a damned bit if anyone else who has access to them (properly or improperly) decides to publish/broadcast them. And once they are broadcast, you can cry and stamp about how they were private all you like, too. They're still out there for all to see, hear, and know about. Just think of cases in which people found compromising pictures of themselves posted on the internet without their consent. Yeah, sometimes they were able to sue, but how many of them had any success at all in getting those images out of public view -- versus how many of them had to just learn to live with them being out there?

There is only one way to make sure your private business stays private and that's to keep it private. Don't share it. Don't email it, mail it, talk about it in public places, write it down, photograph it, etc. Don't leave that pesky trail of evidence.

Privacy depends on a relationship or system of trust. You tag a communication as "private" and then you just have to trust that other people will respect that tag. But you cannot know that they will. You can fence your emails in with all kinds of protections to keep out outsiders, but you still have to trust the recipient to respect your privacy. I learned the hard way not to trust. Even when I trust people, I don't trust systems.

So how do I deal with it? Easy. Every communication I send via any media or system whatsoever, is written for public consumption, just in case. Everything I do, I do in a manner that will not reflect badly on me if information about it is broadcast by someone else. Having lived my life surrounded by spies, gossips and Nosey Parkers, I just operate on the assumption that they are out there.

I choose to respect other people's privacy because I know how it feels to have that trust betrayed. Mostly I honor privacy by staying the hell out of other people's business, but either way, I can be trusted not to leak private info. But I do not trust others. Not even a little.

Wrong - it does. Whenever you tell something to someone else it is no longer solely yours to know. You have made it public. It doesn't matter how much you trust that other person not to share it -if they wish to do so against your wishes, they can.

Of course, we do have some laws to discourage that. And blabbermouths will soon discover noone tells them stuff anymore.
100% truth. And even with laws and social backlash to discourage blabbermouths, as long as people love to hear and trade gossip, they will never be anything stronger than discouragements.

Wrong - it does. Whenever you tell something to someone else it is no longer solely yours to know. You have made it public. It doesn't matter how much you trust that other person not to share it -if they wish to do so against your wishes, they can.

Of course, we do have some laws to discourage that. And blabbermouths will soon discover noone tells them stuff anymore.

Again that is not public communication that is private communication which is then made public after the communication is done

At the time of communication it was intended solely for specific recipients and reasonably can be expected to go to that one recipient (depending on the technologies used but that is a matter of the amount of security rather then the intent of the communication)

I am not saying that children necessarily should expect private communication to remain private

Or even adults for that matter but laws based on the publication of private data impact that transition rather then that of the communication and my point originally was that the laws differ between this private communication and something knowingly published to a public location and have reasonable different expectations

100% truth. And even with laws and social backlash to discourage blabbermouths, as long as people love to hear and trade gossip, they will never be anything stronger than discouragements.

How can any law be anything more then a discouragement anyways?

In the end disclosure of private data is a concern for sure, that still does not make the private communication which transmitted that data public

There NEEDS to be a differentiation between private and public communication in the real world regardless of your view of everything as public. There needs to be a reasonable expectation of privacy to allow some things to function and for those laws to exist and make sense

If all communication itself is considered public then what ability to discourage disclosure of confidential information do we have? I mean if you treat all the same there is no real difference between submitting a medical record to a clinic via secured VPN and posting it to a public blog

It does not make sense to treat the expectations of the two exactly the same even if there is always some risk after transmission of incorrect disclosure

How can any law be anything more then a discouragement anyways?
I think it was Benjamin Disraeli who said, "Where men have good manners, laws are unnecessary. Where men have bad manners, laws will be broken."

In the end disclosure of private data is a concern for sure, that still does not make the private communication which transmitted that data public
No, it's the leaking of the private communication that makes it public.

There NEEDS to be a differentiation between private and public communication in the real world regardless of your view of everything as public. There needs to be a reasonable expectation of privacy to allow some things to function and for those laws to exist and make sense
Hence the social contract of agreement and trust. See Disraeli, above.

If all communication itself is considered public then what ability to discourage disclosure of confidential information do we have? I mean if you treat all the same there is no real difference between submitting a medical record to a clinic via secured VPN and posting it to a public blog
Welcome to the information age. And the social contract of agreement and trust. And the Disraeli quote. (Gods, I hope it was Disraeli.)

It does not make sense to treat the expectations of the two exactly the same even if there is always some risk after transmission of incorrect disclosure
You are trying to attack an argument I never made.

I never said that, because privacy can be so easily violated, that means that all information is public. What I said is that people have to recognize the limitations of privacy and learn how to secure their information to minimize invasion, leaks or exposure. This includes knowing the security limitations of the medium one is using to communicate. Email is NOT a secure channel. And in reference to the topic, neither is a phone used by a teenager but owned by a parent.

If you read what I've been saying in this thread, I hope you will see that I feel the parent in the OP story behaved wrongly and violated her child's trust. I doubt that child will ever send such text messages on any phone that her mother might even possibly get access to, ever again. But that does not mean she will never do things her mother wouldn't approve of ever again. It just means that now she is more security-minded and will likely take measures to keep her mother out of her affairs, rather than rely on her mother as someone she can trust for advice or help in her affairs.

The problem is that the laws really haven't caught up with the technology. We can go around all day and debate how it SHOULD be, but there are still a lot of gray areas and places where the law may exist but isn't adequate to truly deal with the situation.

That's what makes it all the more imperative that parents take the initiative to be aware of what's going on with their kids.