<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Convictions : privacy</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/privacy/default.aspx</link><description>Tags: privacy</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.2)</generator><item><title>Fourth Amendment Protection in Text Messages</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/06/18/fourth-amendment-protection-in-text-messages.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:56:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">b38b617e-fbf1-4816-b2a6-f11ec83af8cb:3187</guid><dc:creator>Orin Kerr</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/comments/3187.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/commentrss.aspx?PostID=3187</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;P&gt;The 9th Circuit handed down a very important decision today in &lt;I&gt;&lt;A href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2CDDB4098D7AFB28825746C0048ED24/$file/0755282.pdf?openelement"&gt;Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co.&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/I&gt; holding that users of text-messaging services ordinarily have a Fourth Amendment reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the text messages stored on the service provider's network. Judge Wardlaw wrote the opinion, joined by Judge Pregerson and District Judge Ronald Leighton. It's a bit of a surprise that the panel decided the issue so squarely, given that it was &lt;A href="http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203482737.shtml"&gt;only lightly covered at oral argument&lt;/A&gt;, but it's a noteworthy holding that I think is correct and very important.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;(&lt;A href="http://volokh.com/posts/1213821576.shtml"&gt;continued over at the Volokh Conspiracy&lt;/A&gt;)&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.slate.com/blogs/aggbug.aspx?PostID=3187" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/Fourth+Amendment/default.aspx">Fourth Amendment</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/privacy/default.aspx">privacy</category></item><item><title>Yes, Marty ...</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/05/16/yes-marty.aspx</link><pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 16:30:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">b38b617e-fbf1-4816-b2a6-f11ec83af8cb:2885</guid><dc:creator>Diane Marie Amann</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/comments/2885.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/commentrss.aspx?PostID=2885</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;IMG title="Photograph of California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George by Paul Sakuma-Pool/Getty Images." style="WIDTH:210px;HEIGHT:150px;" height=150 alt="Photograph of California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George by Paul Sakuma-Pool/Getty Images." src="http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2185237/2187272/2188125/080516_CV_george.jpg" width=210 align=left&gt;... &lt;A href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/05/16/recalling-the-grand-old-party.aspx"&gt;there is a Republican core&lt;/A&gt; to &lt;A href="http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF"&gt;yesterday's California marriage decision&lt;/A&gt;.&amp;nbsp;Not only were&amp;nbsp;three of the&amp;nbsp;four justices in the majority Republican appointees, but they were appointed by either George Deukmejian or Pete Wilson, GOP governors not known for liberal tendencies.&amp;nbsp;(The sole appointee of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was among the&amp;nbsp;three justices, all Republicans, in dissent.)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;It should also be noted that all&amp;nbsp;seven have stood election since their appointments.&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/ca_judges_not_unelected.php"&gt;Voters reconfirmed all of them&lt;/A&gt;, by margins of 69 percent&amp;nbsp;or higher.&amp;nbsp;That this court voted as it did knowing it must seek ballot approval now and again is nothing to sniff at—this is the &lt;A href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E0D9133EF935A35751C1A96F958260"&gt;same electorate that in 1986 recalled the state chief justice and&amp;nbsp;two associate justices&lt;/A&gt;, following a campaign waged by Deukmejian.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Though it is tempting to suggest that the Grand, Old Party is returning to a tradition of privacy vis-à-vis the state—let's not forget that &lt;A href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18/"&gt;Republican appointees represented five of the&amp;nbsp;seven U.S. Supreme Court Justices&lt;/A&gt; in the majority in &lt;A href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html"&gt;&lt;I&gt;Roe v. Wade&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/A&gt; (1973)—it may be premature to make such a claim.&amp;nbsp;Perhaps the ruling says more about "living constitutionalism."&amp;nbsp;Might it be that &lt;A href="http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/03/california_fiel.html"&gt;changes in popular attitudes&lt;/A&gt; toward marriage equality helped to embolden&amp;nbsp;four California justices to enforce a rule that seemed to them compelled by proper interpretation of the applicable law, &lt;A href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html"&gt;California's Constitution&lt;/A&gt;?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.slate.com/blogs/aggbug.aspx?PostID=2885" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/living+Constitution/default.aspx">living Constitution</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/abortion/default.aspx">abortion</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/California/default.aspx">California</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/same-sex+marriage/default.aspx">same-sex marriage</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/california+gay+marriage/default.aspx">california gay marriage</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/Roe+v.+Wade/default.aspx">Roe v. Wade</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/privacy/default.aspx">privacy</category></item></channel></rss>