Six years ago, then-13-year-old Savana was strip searched by officials at her middle school. What were they looking for? Automatic weapons? Switchblades? Bindles of cocaine? Internet porn?
No. She was strip searched because somebody was convinced she was trying to sneak in a bottle of Ibuprophen.
Redding did not have a drug problem (or an Advil addiction). She had no record of troublemaking whatsoever. But the strip search so humiliated her that she didn't return to school for two months and finally transferred to another school. And it so angered her parents that they sued. So far, the courts have agreed with them, and the school district has appealed. That's why her case is now headed up to the nine craggy old cranks in billowy black robes.
Here's the money quote, the one that still burns me every time I read it.
The school district does not contest that Ms. Redding had no disciplinary record, but says that is irrelevant.
"Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules," the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, "only that she was never caught."
So, in other words, you're guilty until proven guilty. Now drop your knickers and bend over.
What does this have to do with technology? In a literal sense nothing; in a general way, everything.
It's less about the specifics of Savana's case and more about the attitude that caused it. This is the same mind set that allows . "We know you've got something bad on here, just give us a second to find it."
It's the same mind set that causes the DOJ to (and only Google had the cojones to say no to that). It's the one that for every subscriber.
It's probably the same mind set of your employer. I recently asked a well-respected security wonk who's worked for some of the biggest companies and government institutions in the United States how many of them read their employees' e-mail and/or snoop on their Web browsing. His answer? All of them. Not that they read everyone's e-mail all the time, but if your name comes into suspicion, you can expect somebody is reading over your shoulder (though odds are you won't know about it until well after the fact).
He also says in three out of four cases someone gets disciplined or fired; the other 25 percent turn out to be clean.
I am not a lawyer, for which the American Bar Association should be offering Hosannas on high, but: The legality of most privacy violations in this country are based on the question of whether someone in that situation has "."
At most workplaces, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That's why you probably pass under the watchful eyes of security cameras when you enter and leave the cubefarm. But even this has limits. When a trucking company in California tried to put cameras in its bathrooms because it thought employees were doing blow in the toilet, it got flushed by the courts. (The .) Even at work, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the crapper.
If you've done nothing wrong, I think you should have a reasonable expectation that the private contents of your laptop remain private, regardless of what border crossing you happen to be at. I believe when you use the Web, you should have a reasonable expectation your search histories won't end up on a server at the DOJ or the NSA. And I certainly believe when you send your daughter to school, you have a reasonable expectation she won't get strip searched and humiliated for no reason.
Let's hope the Supes agree. Otherwise, better start wearing clean underwear -- you won't know when you might be asked to drop your trousers.
Does the Savana Redding case burn you up too? E-mail me: cringe@infoworld.com.