Some Fort Bend ISD Facilities Department employees are expressing concern over having been issued cell phones with GPS tracking capabilities and orders to have them “turned on and working at all times,” including during off-duty hours.
The employees are also concerned the GPS function on the phones could be used to track their movements even when they are not at work.
In a memo dated Jan. 23, then-Chief Auxiliary Services Officer Tom Carter instructed Director of Facilities Mike Johnson to ensure all exempt employees in his department carried the phones as a part of their job requirements and can be contacted in case of an emergency.
“Effective Monday, Jan. 26, 2009, all exempt FBISD employees in the Facilities Department to have a FBISD issued phone will, as a part of their job requirements, carry the phone at all times. The phone is also required to be turned on and working at all times,” Carter’s memo said. “This includes the GPS, if applicable to your phone. This is to ensrue that we can contact the closest individual to an emergency and respond as quickly as possible.”
Carter also instructed Johnson to “ensure that the appropriate personnel are notified of this requirement upon receipt of this memorandum.”
Exempt employees are those who are exempt from certain wage and hour laws, such as overtime pay. They are typically administrative, executive or supervisory employees.
A copy of the memo has been provided to FortBendNow.
Carter has since left the school district.
Some affected employees say having to be available for call “at all times” limits their ability to enjoy their free time.
“What if I’m having a barbecue or something on a weekend and have a few beers? If they call me to come in for something, I violate district policies for not reporting for duty after drinking alcohol. If I turn off the phone or don’t answer, I violate the order,” one employee said.
Other employees are upset that their movements could be tracked even when they are not at work.
“They don’t need to know where I go on my own time, the places I visit or the people I talk to; that’s violating my personal privacy,” another employee complained. “I just wonder how ethical this is, or if it’s even legal.”
Several district employees recently met privately with FortBendNow at a local shopping center to discuss their concerns over the cell phone issue and what they termed attempts by the school district to retaliate against those the district believes are talking to the media.
All asked that their names not be used and asked the FortBendNow reporter not to drive a marked news vehicle to the meeting for fear their supervisors might see them discussing their concerns with a media representative.
“I know this sounds paranoid to outsiders, but this is what it’s like inside Fort Bend ISD. Under (Superintendent Timothy) Jenny, it’s as bad as it’s ever been,” one employee said. “They actively try to hunt down and dig out people they think are talking to the media.”
One Fort Bend ISD insider said he believes the order to carry cell phones with tracking devices is a direct result of previous news stories the administration considered critical of district operations.
“I believe that this GPS tracking is a response by (FBISD administrators) to the information leaking out to FortBendNow. In my view, it isn’t a coincidence that these stories have been in departments under Tom Carter,” the source said. “They really want to know who’s releasing all this embarrassing stuff to the media; they want to control all district information through (district spokesperson) Mary Ann Simpson. They know she’ll peddle any lie the district wants to tell.”
FortBendNow requested comment on this story from Simpson. She did not respond to that request.
27. May 2009 at 11:57 pm
In # 17 I stated the following: “In living my life, what I noticed over the years is that whenever, I have been in a situation and noted that an undemocratic situation was occurring with someone else and chose to ignore it because it was not happening to me—it eventually reached out to grab me too.”
Willie, in a simplistic way, my #17 is stating what you have quoted in #30. So, certainly, I agree with you.
Even though, I agree with teacherindistrict in most instances, however, on this one, Willie, your comparison of what’s happening presently to what happened in the past with loss of liberties and undemocratic treatment is “right on” and, in my humble opinion, your stated sentiments are not a stretch. Your quote simply means, we cannot forget history or we are bound to repeat it.
27. May 2009 at 10:11 pm
Willie,
You don’t have standing. It is up to these employees to seek redress.
Yes, there may be civil right violations and even tort issues pertaining to lost wages, but I think you need to lay off your philosophical jargon.
This is not a college class in ethics. These are violations for employees who have families and damages, including civil right damages are their redress.
They are not idiots, these employees. Just lay off the Soviet Union stuff.
27. May 2009 at 10:03 pm
I need to chill? teacherindistrict, do you not find it shockingly objectionable to have human beings tracked and monitored 24 hours a day in their homes, in their churches, in their medical facilities? Keep in mind that I am not objecting to using gps on employees while tey are at work, but it is another matter when the gps tracking extends into the private life of these employees.
Teacherindistrict, you state that this is “a free society”, but does this human rights violation perpetuated by Jenney and Johnson hold to the values that this country was built on? You state that this is not Germany, this is the USA, and I argue that to keep it the USA that we know, we, as a community need to uphold the values of our country. If not, soviet bloc repressive and oppressive tactics by Commissar Jenney and Comrade Johnson will lead us away from our core American values.
27. May 2009 at 9:01 pm
Willie, with all due respect to you, you need to chill.
You don’t have any standing on this issue.
This is not Germany, this is the USA. Sorry but you are getting off the practicality of this situation.
Mr. Cain, I voted for you and I am sorry about the end results.
But this is a free society and education with its trademark accountability standings will come to judge our schools. Teachers will leave and things will change.
It will.
Later.
27. May 2009 at 6:04 pm
Mr. Cain, I agree with you 100%. Keep in mind that FBISD, being the largest employer in Fort Bend county will certainly set a precedent regarding the gps tracking of employees on their time off. Although this issue may not affect you now, it may down the road when your own employer, taking FBISD’s example, decides to track you 24 hours a day.Please keep this poem in mind, it states the case perfectly, and why, we as a community cannot remain silent on these human rights violations.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
27. May 2009 at 5:57 pm
Are there any lawyers in the house that can comment on the legality of this 24 hour surveillance by Commissar Jenney and Comrade Johnson? Can any lawyers comment on these human rights violations by Jenney and Johnson and any legal recourse that the violated employees may have?
27. May 2009 at 1:29 pm
“Jenney and Johnson are not too different than another famous duo. Stalin and Lenin.”
You can’t make this stuff up.
27. May 2009 at 12:26 pm
While I find it appaling that anyone would have the gall to force something like a GPS tracking system on their employees, I can say I did my part to stop this behavior. There were more than enough teacher votes out there to elect the best candidates. The fact is, nobody cares. By the time the multitude wakes up and speaks out, their first amendment rights will be completely gone. They already are in FBISD. If you openly speak your mind against Jenny & company, you will suffer the consequences. I find it ironic that students are constantly bombarded with the “Don’t be a Bully” mantra, by the biggest bully on the playground. However, if you didn’t vote, you haven’t earned the right to post a complaint. I’m guessing we had less than 500 teachers vote. In fact maybe someone can look into that. To use someone else’s words. I don’t have a dog in this hunt. What could I possibly do to help? You tell me. Nothing now, thats for sure.
carlos
26. May 2009 at 6:24 pm
The gps tracking of employees 24 hours a day, on their time off is no different than what happens under the old Soviet bloc countries under repressive rule. Jenney and Johnson are not too different than another famous duo. Stalin and Lenin.
25. May 2009 at 9:35 pm
Let us not forget the fundamental point that Jenney and Johnson are violating human rights when the monitor their employees on their time off, in their churches, or in their medical establishments getting treatment. How is it that FBISD could even try to justify something so oppressive and barbaric, that even I would love to hear them try. Wait a minute, FBISD spokespiece Simpson does have a track record of justifying any and every action of the administration, whether logical or not. Don’t we remember that she justified Johnson using district resources for personal gain as a “training exercise”?
25. May 2009 at 6:27 pm
Dearest Factually,
I have a law degree, and these are the legal recourses for our fellow bloggers, in my opinion.
At any rate, I agree with your last response.
25. May 2009 at 5:29 pm
teacherindistrict,
Smart thinking for ordinary situations; but under these set of circumstances which are far from ordinary, I say forget it due to the fact that the deck is stacked whatever course might be or could be pursued. I know an outstanding educator who has tried practically every legal option available and a brick wall keeps rising out of nowhere to block justice. It is like being in the no man land of the twilight zone; driving toward a destination, yet, ending up in the same place as you started; going in circles with no way out.
When an outstanding educator with a sterling track record of excellence cannot secure justice and the worth of excellence for children means “nothing” within an educational entity—well, that is, indeed, very scary. It is additionally scary at the state level also. Whoever the judge is who has jurdiction over complaints filed against school districts always rules in favor of the school districts. To my knowledge and please correct me if I’m wrong, there is not an existence of any case whereby this judge ruled in favor of the individual educator bringing the complaint.
25. May 2009 at 4:39 pm
Dear Factually Speaking,
A Criminal Complaint could work, but I think someone tried that and the District Attorney’s Office found no wrong doing after “an investigation.”
Jenny will control things. He’s even controlling a local column in some local newspaper that gets thrown into my front yard here at First Colony.
An individual needs a cause of action. If not criminal, argue disrimination, slander, libel…but is it worth it?
Filing a lawsuit is not merely to prove a point, one needs to think about the “cost benefit analysis.” Is it really worth it? Given, lost time, lost wages?
Voters screwed up.
Any lawyer will tell you this. He’s got control for quite some time.
25. May 2009 at 1:25 pm
teacherindistrict,
You nailed it. The voters failed to act so there is not anything anyone else can do to counter what the voters failed to do. The deck is stacked. I agree with you; things will get worse. The only possible deliverance is that as things get worse, and wrong doing becomes even bolder and more rampant than it already is, those who engage accordingly will become increasingly careless and will begin to trip over their own feet resulting in their own undoing.
25. May 2009 at 11:32 am
There is really nothing that can be done at this point. Everyone had an opportunity to vote out the two candidates that won the election. Jenny has a lot of power and will be given more power because he is able to justify his decisions– when he wants to. He won’t see anyone in his office who wants to question him.
Working for the district would have to require that an employee follow the grievance process I believe before any civil rights violation can be filed.
Even then, if the employee wishes to file any civil lawsuit, you’ve got retaliation, including your personal life revealed in open court. You’ve got interrogatories, court time set… for what? More time lost and an attorney that has the meter on? What legal damages or punitive damages could you get from this sovereign?
I have been telling everyone for awhile to vote and what has been happening since the last year — since the payroll problems, computer problems, viruses, calendar changes –; required teacher training on Saturday’s, poor law enforcement on campuses, prinipal’s that violate state law tea mandates, insufficient payroll increases for para’s and teachers, backed up pay for employees in general, bus issues, disciplinary problems that are busting out at the seems. It is going to get worse and not get better.
If these employees have an bleep, go to the media direct, even Wayne Dolcifino. Drastic situations call for drastic measures.
25. May 2009 at 11:00 am
Willie,
I have no doubt you speak the truth, but this type pattern has history.
25. May 2009 at 10:33 am
Joe Murphy, you hit the nail on the head. Jenney is, like George Orwell’s character in 1984, Big Brother, while his flunky Johnson is his enforcer. The tag team duo of Jenney and Johnson do not need any court orders and such to monitor their employees, all they need is to have people in need of a job, thus Jenney and Johnson are free to abuse these people. I plead with everyone to ask yourself, what if your employer started tracking your every movements 24 hours a day, seeing what churches you go to, what recreational spots you and your family go to, even what medical treatment you seek. WOuld this be acceptable?
If anyone requested the monthly cell phone bill charges for the facilities department, under the Freedom of Information Act, you will see a bill in excess of $5,000 a month for these Orwellian monitoring tactics that Jeney and Johnson have implemented. Is this money that is well spent? Would it not be more prudent to use this money for programs for the children of FBISD? We, as the community, need to stop the abuse and human rights violations that are perpetuated by Jeney and Johnson. The abuse of our fellow human beings under the repressive control of Jenney and Johnson must end. Is it not shameful to live in a district that has clowns like Jenney and Johnson in charge?
24. May 2009 at 6:03 pm
Patriot missive says, “We are giving away our civil liberties in Sugar Land, because most of us aren’t using them anyway, many of us are asleep at the wheel, and most of us don’t want to cause discord by speaking out, so we go shopping instead.”
It is called:
I’m so busy living the good life that I do not have time to notice that Rome is crumbling litle by little. Any way I cannot sweat the small stuff if it does not affect my day to day happiness in living my great life. Furthermore, I am not into politics. I don’t want to ruffle any feathers. Those complainers have issues and all is well with me.
Alas, too many realize too late that small things add up to big things. The gradual lost of civil liberties will eventually affect all of our lives, whether we are poor, middle class, or rich. Even when we think that we are not involved in politics, we really are all in politics because what happens in politics affect us all.
In living my life, what I noticed over the years is that whenever, I have been in a situation and noted that an undemocratic situation was occurring with someone else and chose to ignore it because it was not happening to me—it eventually reached out to grab me too.
24. May 2009 at 8:24 am
Spying on Criminals
GPS is an emerging frontier of law enforcement technology – and privacy invasion. New York’s highest court ruled last week that police must get a warrant before they track the location of a citizen using a Global Positioning System transponder placed in their belongings or on their car. But Criminal Justice blogger Matt Kelley describes that the country’s courts are split on the issue and it could be headed for the Supreme Court, raising privacy concerns for all of us. (Read more)
Welcome to 1984! Led by the largest employer in Fort Bend (FBISD)and precedence for all other employers. Wake-up-time people!
We are giving away our civil liberties in Sugar Land, because most of us aren’t using them anyway, many of us are asleep at the wheel, and most of us don’t want to cause discord by speaking out, so we go shopping instead.
God help us all.
23. May 2009 at 10:05 pm
FBISD is the largest employer in Fort Bend and what they do sets precedence for other employers. Jenney is fasttracking us all to Orwell’s 1984. EVERYONE should be demanding an end to all fascist control policies either from FBISD, other employers, or their Home Owner Associations.
None of us benefit from giving away our civil liberties so freely.
23. May 2009 at 3:47 pm
actually it is what you know. Why remain ignorant?
23. May 2009 at 1:22 pm
One thing I keep finding that seems consistent with this superintendent and senior admins is the fact that they are so lock step. I haven’t see this group uphold a single employee grievance this year. Now that’s what I call lame leadership and over-sight.
23. May 2009 at 11:02 am
Willie,
I love your logical, intelligent mind and thinking as you tie these actions and occurrences together to make the rest of us understand what is really happening.
Your commentary “calls it” just as it is so very accurately.
However, even if you are among the sharpest knives or, perhaps “the sharpest knife” in the drawer, the dull ones collaborate to keep the sharp ones out and down for the count. Being “well connected” is what allows the dull ones to win. I know it is horrible and shameful, but I just wanted to bring this “little fact” to your attention as to how wrong seems to continue to rule over right.
We do not know how long this will continue—only God knows; and he will fix it in due time, maybe not when we think, but nonetheless, in due time.
Willie, I know you have heard this old saying, it is not “what” you know, but “who” you know. Well, that is what allows the dull to reign. Smart has been out of business for awhile, now.
Look how long it took us to finally get another smart President; we were overdue for one, and, God moved in due time to bring it to bear.
So have patience, God has his own due date to right wrong, wherever it may reside.
23. May 2009 at 8:33 am
Has anyone thought of asking for an open records request for the monthly cell phone bills to see the tremendous amount of money the district is spending on this illegal monitoring of their employees? I assure you the cell phone bill will be in excess of $5000 to $6000 a month. Do you not think it would be better to spend this $5000 to $6000 a month of the children of Fort Bend? I am sure there are no shortage of activities that have been cut in FBISD due to “lack of funds”. This money would be better spent elsewhere. Oh by the way, has no one read that the gps satellite system will start failing in 2010?
23. May 2009 at 6:28 am
Willie says:
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:44 am (#)
“Well actually you would be surprised to know that the legal team, i.e, the district attorney is not the sharpest tool in the shed.”
You can’t make this stuff up.
23. May 2009 at 1:44 am
Well actually you would be surprised to know that the legal team, i.e, the district attorney is not the sharpest tool in the shed. Whether or not the phones are issued by FBISD does not constitute a right on the part of the district to secretly monitor their empoyees while they are off duty. There have been no contracts issued to the employees regarding the phones. Believe me when I tell you that FBISD does not cover their a#$ that well, for if they did, we would not uncover all of these things that we do. No one has blamed FBISD administration for being the brightest, for if they were would they really be pulling these nickle and dime schemes in a school district rather than in a fortune 500 company? If the district attorney was so sharp, would she really be working for three times her salary in the private sector?
22. May 2009 at 11:24 pm
(c) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.
If the units are for communication with FBISD only, it’s probably within their rights to listen or record. As for listening in, I’d read the contract and anything they made you sign to see if they put something in that gives them permission to “eavesdrop” or “monitor.” My guess is they covered their a#% somewhere. They don’t pay millions a year in legal fees for nothing.
22. May 2009 at 4:02 pm
I have been told that the phones are Nextel phones. If software is indeed installed on the employees’ phones for the purposes of listening, then that would constitute a violation of the Federal Wiretapping Laws.
Please note the following laws on wiretapping and illegal interception of information in the US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 119
§ 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited
How Current is This?
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who—
(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
(b) intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when—
(i) such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or
(ii) such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or
(iii) such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or
(iv) such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or
(v) such person acts in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States;
(c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;
(d) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or
(e)
(i) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, intercepted by means authorized by sections 2511 (2)(a)(ii), 2511 (2)(b)–(c), 2511(2)(e), 2516, and 2518 of this chapter,
(ii) knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation,
(iii) having obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and
(iv) with intent to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation,
shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5).
(2)
(a)
(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.
(ii) Notwithstanding any other law, providers of wire or electronic communication service, their officers, employees, and agents, landlords, custodians, or other persons, are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with—
(A) a court order directing such assistance signed by the authorizing judge, or
(B) a certification in writing by a person specified in section 2518 (7) of this title or the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required,
setting forth the period of time during which the provision of the information, facilities, or technical assistance is authorized and specifying the information, facilities, or technical assistance required. No provider of wire or electronic communication service, officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other specified person shall disclose the existence of any interception or surveillance or the device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance with respect to which the person has been furnished a court order or certification under this chapter, except as may otherwise be required by legal process and then only after prior notification to the Attorney General or to the principal prosecuting attorney of a State or any political subdivision of a State, as may be appropriate. Any such disclosure, shall render such person liable for the civil damages provided for in section 2520. No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, statutory authorization, or certification under this chapter.
(b) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of his employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the Commission in the enforcement of chapter 5 of title 47 of the United States Code, to intercept a wire or electronic communication, or oral communication transmitted by radio, or to disclose or use the information thereby obtained.
(c) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.
(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title or section 705 or 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, it shall not be unlawful for an officer, employee, or agent of the United States in the normal course of his official duty to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as authorized by that Act.
(f) Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system, utilizing a means other than electronic surveillance as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and procedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.
(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;
(ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted—
(I) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;
(II) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;
(III) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or
(IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system;
(iii) to engage in any conduct which—
(I) is prohibited by section 633 of the Communications Act of 1934; or
(II) is excepted from the application of section 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 by section 705(b) of that Act;
(iv) to intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of such interference; or
(v) for other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted.
(h) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter—
(i) to use a pen register or a trap and trace device (as those terms are defined for the purposes of chapter 206 (relating to pen registers and trap and trace devices) of this title); or
(ii) for a provider of electronic communication service to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect such provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, unlawful or abusive use of such service.
(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept the wire or electronic communications of a computer trespasser transmitted to, through, or from the protected computer, if—
(I) the owner or operator of the protected computer authorizes the interception of the computer trespasser’s communications on the protected computer;
(II) the person acting under color of law is lawfully engaged in an investigation;
(III) the person acting under color of law has reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the computer trespasser’s communications will be relevant to the investigation; and
(IV) such interception does not acquire communications other than those transmitted to or from the computer trespasser.
(3)
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication (other than one to such person or entity, or an agent thereof) while in transmission on that service to any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient.
(b) A person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public may divulge the contents of any such communication—
(i) as otherwise authorized in section 2511 (2)(a) or 2517 of this title;
(ii) with the lawful consent of the originator or any addressee or intended recipient of such communication;
(iii) to a person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to forward such communication to its destination; or
(iv) which were inadvertently obtained by the service provider and which appear to pertain to the commission of a crime, if such divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency.
(4)
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in subsection (5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b) Conduct otherwise an offense under this subsection that consists of or relates to the interception of a satellite transmission that is not encrypted or scrambled and that is transmitted—
(i) to a broadcasting station for purposes of retransmission to the general public; or
(ii) as an audio subcarrier intended for redistribution to facilities open to the public, but not including data transmissions or telephone calls,
is not an offense under this subsection unless the conduct is for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.
(5)
(a)
(i) If the communication is—
(A) a private satellite video communication that is not scrambled or encrypted and the conduct in violation of this chapter is the private viewing of that communication and is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain; or
(B) a radio communication that is transmitted on frequencies allocated under subpart D of part 74 of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission that is not scrambled or encrypted and the conduct in violation of this chapter is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain,
then the person who engages in such conduct shall be subject to suit by the Federal Government in a court of competent jurisdiction.
(ii) In an action under this subsection—
(A) if the violation of this chapter is a first offense for the person under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) and such person has not been found liable in a civil action under section 2520 of this title, the Federal Government shall be entitled to appropriate injunctive relief; and
(B) if the violation of this chapter is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) or such person has been found liable in any prior civil action under section 2520, the person shall be subject to a mandatory $500 civil fine.
(b) The court may use any means within its authority to enforce an injunction issued under paragraph (ii)(A), and shall impose a civil fine of not less than $500 for each violation of such an injunction.
22. May 2009 at 3:36 pm
Not only could they remotely record all conversations, texting etc., software can also be installed on phones that turns them into remote listening devices. Is it possible FBISD is trying to spy on their employees in more ways than GPS tracking. Anyone with one of these phones should not say a word anywhere near that phone that they are not willing to say directly to jenny himself. What kind of phones are they? Brand name, model etc.,? Anyone know?
Carlos Cain
832.859.5783
22. May 2009 at 1:05 pm
I agree with you Anthony H. The most plausible solution would have been to instal the tracking device on the vehicle and monitor the employee while they are at work. This excellent idea that you offer, Anthony, would have prevented the violation of the employees’ human rights by FBISD administration.
22. May 2009 at 8:29 am
There are tracking devices that can be installed to track the work vehicle and not the individual. This would be the most simple solution. In my opinion every person paid from tax dollars using a vehicle also paid with tax dollars should be held accountable for every action on the clock.
Check out http://www.advantrack.com/ or http://www.shadowtrackerlive.com/
These are vehicle mounted tracking devices that can either passively or actively monitor vehicle activity.
21. May 2009 at 7:21 pm
I do agree that tax payers do have a right to know where their tax dollars are spent, only when the employees are at work. It is a ridiculous point you make, conseravtive1, when you infer that the tax payers have the right to track these employees on their time off of work. I am sure, by your nick name, that you are the same type of character that argues the rights to bear arms and the rights to privacy, but then you argue that we have a right to track human beings on their own free time? Absolutely ridiculous, and a bit totalitarian if you ask me.
I challenge anyone to bring forth an example of any employer, aside from the CIA and the British Royal Service, who tracks their employees 24 hours a day? The state of Texas does this only t those individuals who have commited crimes and have been placed under house arrest. Dr. Jenney and his hoard of pirates have used their Machivellian philosophy to seize control, squash all oppsition, and now they have instituted 24 hour gps tracking, to track the movements of their employees. Even on their free time. Is this not an invasion of the most fundamental of rights to privacy.
By tracking an employee 24 hours a day, FBISD may be privy to information that they should not have. Information such as an employee’s religion, and political affiliations, as well as having access to an employee’s medical information. Who so? If an employee has some sort of ailment, and he goes to a cancer hospital, then FBISD would be able to deduce the fact that the employee has an ailment. Keep in mind that an employee is not required by any law or policy to divulge any of their federally protected medical information, but through the use of gps, Jenney and Johnson have access to this sort of information. This is an incredible violation of the basic human rights to whch every American is entitled to.
The reason that FBISD gives for implementing the gps is absurd. If a school has an emergency, there are guidelines set in place, such as emergency numbers, as well as individuals on call to respond to any and all emergencies. This lame excuse does not hold water.
I do not object with the use of gps. I believe that gps is a valuable tool that FBISD should use to monitor their employees while they are on the clock and at work. I do not believe, as some of the barbarians within the FBISD administration do, that FBISD has a right to invade these employees basic human rights, and have them tracked as literal slaves. Please keep in mind that the employees being tracked are predominantly minorities. Who is doing the tracking? The white administration, primarily made up of Jeney and Johnson. I know it sounds harsh, and I know that it sounds crude, but when you break it down, how else would you explain it?
First Johnson uses district resources for his personal gain, then a transportation supervisor assaults a bus driver and now FBISD tracks their minority employees as virtual slaves. Can it get any more absurd or ridiculous?
21. May 2009 at 4:33 pm
keep talking everyone, the public has a right to know how our tax dollars are being spent.