On The Media is produced by:
Our computers hold delicate personal documents, sensitive medical information and even confidential sources. So can border authorities search hard drives as freely as they search make-up bags? Adam Liptak, national legal correspondent for The New York Times, explains that a string of court cases may determine what protections (if any) extend to our data.
I'd like to suggest that the example of appeals court judges faxing memos to one another does not represent inability to use electronic media. Their Clerks are all young and fresh out of law school, and would seemingly have no hesitation about the technology. The problem, as I see it, is three (and possibly more)-fold: (i) the ease with which e-mailed messages/documents can be routed out into the world, whether intentionally or by accident: (ii) the irretrievability of e-mailed messages/documents; (iii) the ease with which they can be altered; and (iv) the ease with which they can be sent to the wrong addressees. Can you imagine the harm that would be done if confidential memos between judges -- especially appellate judges -- were revealed in connection with cases on appeal, particularly those which might have involved months or years of prior litigation and millions -- or more -- in dollars? I think those judges are simply acting sensibly.
Bill James
A mirror image is the an obverse reflection of something, therefore a mirror image copy would be all the data backwards.
On the topic of judge's lack of computer literacy, I think Bob got it quite right. The issue as I (and I think Bob, too) see it is: can we expect reasoned, cogent and logical rulings on technology issues when the judges ruling on them do not even know how to send an e-mail, which hardly requires any technological savvy? For goodness sake- sending an e-mail is no different than using a typewriter. There's just no bell when you come to the end of the margin. This is not to suggest that every judge needs to be able to dismantle and reassemble their own hard drive, but a CURSORY knowledge of what is being ruled on seems to me to be a minimal, and not unreasonable, requirement.
My entire day is spent dealing with brilliant people at the top of their fields who don't know the first thing about leveraging technology on even the simplest level to advance their business, personal or social interests. I'm sorry, but that is a problem. (Problem for them- business opportunity for me.) And when you are talking about civil liberties, which is what this argument is about, it is not OK to stick your head in the sand because e-mail is something your grandson does.
Technology moves at lightning speed, to be sure. But these are serious issues and court rulings can take a little bit of time to overturn. Bob's question, in my opinion, got right to the heart of the matter.
P.S. Bill James- (ii) e-mails are not irretrievable at all. On the contrary- nothing is ever lost in cyberspace which is, by turns, the greatest thing and the worst thing about e-mail. (iii) Virtually any document can be altered. I submit that it is actually a bit tougher to do online. (iv) Are you suggesting that regular mail has never been delivered to the wrong address or ended up in the wrong hands? That a fax has never been sent to the wrong number? And, further, why the suggestion that "confidential memos...[might be] revealed" is a danger that is exclusively endemic to sending something via e-mail? That doesn't really pass any logical test, does it?
Please keep your comments relevant to this entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments on On the Media are moderated. On the Media reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the onthemedia.org Comment Guidelines before posting.
Back to Episode
