Should All Texts Be Private?

Before you pick up that office-provided cell phone to send out that text, think again.

On Monday, the Supreme Court will deal with the question: Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy for text messages transmitted on a police SWAT pager? The court's ruling could impact feds' right to keep private any messages sent out on cell phones supplied by the government.

The case, City of Ontario v. Quon, goes back to 2002 when the Ontario, Calif., police department issued pagers to its SWAT team. (Yes, remember pagers?) The city had no official privacy policy on text-messaging, but the department operated under a general policy that the use of "city-owned computers and all associated equipment" was not to be for "personal benefit," and that "users should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using these resources."

One complicating factor: SWAT team members were each allotted 25,000 characters of free texting each month, after which they had to pay the extra charges out of their pocket. The lieutenant in charge of the team also had an informal policy of not examining officers' messages as long as they paid up.

When the lieutenant got tired of being a "a bill collector," the department police chief asked for transcripts of texts sent by officers who had routinely exceeded their monthly limit of free texts. Turns out that Sgt. Jeff Quon, had exchanged hundreds of racy messages with his estranged wife, girlfriend and fellow SWAT officer. The four of them sued the department for violating their privacy.

In 2008, the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs' rights to privacy under the federal and state constitutions had been violated.

Monday's ruling remains an open question. If that decision is overturned, even apps like TigerText won't work their magic.