Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's Text Messages Raise Questions of Privacy

Detroit Mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, and Christine Beatty, his chief of staff, have caused controversy in more ways than one. Not only are citizens of Detroit up in arms over the affair between these city officials, but are now horrified to learn they lied about it under oath. Additionally, people all over, not just in Detroit, are puzzled about the privacy of text messaging (also called SMS messaging) and wanting answers.

First, a little background: "Kilpatrick and chief of staff Christine Beatty denied during testimony in August that they had a sexual relationship. But the records, a series of text messages, show them engaged in romantic banter as well as planning and recounting sexual liaisons." (Source: NowPublic) The text messages were sent to Beatty's pager, which was issued by the city of Detroit.

And the messages left no room for interpretation or political spin. A modest example:

Beatty: "And, did you miss me, sexually?"

Kilpatrick: "Hell yeah! You couldn't tell. I want some more. Don't sleep!" (Source: Huliq)

So this leaves us with two questions: How private are the text messages we send every day? And should text messages between public officials be private?

The first question has an easy answer. The text messages that are sent by the average Joe every day pretty much "disappear" after they are sent and reach their destination. "Regular text messages sent through regular cell phones are not kept in any central repository . . . In Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's case, the reason his messages have been exposed is because of the specialized service the city has contracted with to handle wireless communications between city officials." (Source: Mike Wendland, The Detroit Free Press) So our privacy is not in any danger on our average cell phones.

The other question is not quite as easy to answer. Should text messages between public officials be private? In my opinion, if an exchange is made by way of equipment that is paid for by any branch of government (and thus taxpayers), it should be considered "official business." There should be nothing "private" about it. I think expecting privacy while using equipment provided by one's employer, especially if one's employer is a branch of the government, is just plain clownish. Was common sense in play here? I don't think so.

However, I do believe that text messages between public officials, as long as they are off-duty, using their own personal equipment, and are not discussing work or public issues, should most definitely be private. It's a matter of boundaries and respecting privacy in one's personal life. There should be a dividing line between public and private; between work and home.

In a way, that raises the question, "Is a public official's life ever private?" Public officials are "on" almost any time they are not home. They may be at a baseball game, grocery shopping, or going for a run, but every move they make is still up for scrutiny.

But when it comes to a text message on private equipment to a friend? Even if that friend happens to be another public official? Of course that should be private. Unless there is very good "probable cause," all private communications should be kept private.

So it seems the answer comes down to whether the equipment they are using is government-owned or privately owned, whether or not they are discussing work, and whether they are on "company time" or not. It's not a cut-and-dried answer, but it's an answer that uses common sense and just a little bit of reasoning.

Something tells me "reason" was not heavily in play while the mayor of Detroit and his chief of staff were texting, though. As a result, I think they gave up their right and claim to privacy. They either needed to be a bit craftier or a bit more upstanding to prevent what they are currently going through.

SOURCES:
NowPublic
Huliq
Mike Wendland, The Detroit Free Press