Friday, July 20 , 2018, 7:15 am | Overcast 66º


Susan Estrich: In an Age of Smart Phones and Twitter, Is Nothing Private?

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 U.S. 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.

Susan Estrich is a best-selling author, the Robert Kingsley Professor of Law and Political Science at the USC Law Center and was campaign manager for 1988 Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis. Click here to contact her or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are her own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through Stripe below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Enter your email
Select your membership level

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >