Proposal would let parents listen in
OLYMPIA – Like most young girls her age, Jessica Kramer spends a lot of time on the phone. It infuriates her when her parents eavesdrop on her conversations.
“They keep eavesdropping, and we’ll (teenagers) rebel more,” said Kramer, 15, a Bowdish alternative student in Spokane’s West Valley School District. “I expect a right to privacy.”
No more than one month ago, the state’s Supreme Court agreed with Kramer about teenagers expecting a right to privacy while on the phone. The ruling, which upheld the state’s privacy act, pertained to a case where evidence obtained by the mother of a teenager was used in a criminal trial.
The court ruled the evidence should not have been used because the information was obtained by illegally listening in on a phone conversation.
“The Washington privacy statute puts a high value on the privacy of communications,” Chief Justice Tom Chambers wrote in the unanimous opinion. Chambers wrote that the privacy act “tips the balance in favor of individual privacy at the expense of law enforcement’s ability to gather evidence without a warrant.”
Now Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, has proposed legislation that will overturn a section of the state’s 38-year-old privacy act, making it legal for parents to monitor children’s phone conversations.
Established in 1967, the privacy act makes it illegal to intercept or record any private communication transmitted by an electronic device without getting all participants’ consent beforehand. This means parents cannot legally listen in on their children’s phone conversations without the consent of everyone on the line. According to the Associated Press, Washington is one of 11 states that require all parties’ consent.
“Parents not only have the right to parent – they have the responsibility to parent,” Roach said. “Parents innately want to protect their children.”
Roach, who has five children of her own – including Rep. Dan Roach, R-Bonney Lake – declined to comment on whether she eavesdropped on her children’s phone conversations when they were teenagers until the bill passed.
“Most parents don’t think about who their children are talking to on the phone,” said Roach. “But if the phone rings, and it is the voice of a mature male for a child, the parent should be able to stay on the line until they know who it is.”
“It could just be ‘Hi, I’m Joe the Scout leader.’ Or it could be ‘Hi Jane, we got together on the Internet the other night and you told me to call.’ ”
Roach said she has received support from parents across the state for the bill.
“I haven’t heard from one person who thinks it is a bad idea,” said Roach. The bill has also received support from an unusual source: the ACLU, an organization that usually advocates privacy rights.
The ACLU is in “full support” of the legislation, according to Doug Honig, spokesperson for the ACLU of Washington.
“Does the ACLU think it should be against the law for parents to listen in on their kids? Absolutely not,” Honig said. “It may or may not be a good parenting choice but parents should be able to know what their children are doing.”
In defense of teens, Kramer said she does not think it is reasonable for adults to expect teenagers to grow up and be responsible adults if they cannot trust their personal conversations.
“I expect my privacy. I don’t listen in to my parents’ conversations, and so I don’t think they should listen to mine,” said Brandon Fitzgerald, 14, a Spokane alternative school student.
However, other teens do not mind having their conversations monitored.
“Considering the conversations I have with my peers, I don’t really care if they listen in or not,” said Chris McDonald, 18, a former Ferris High School student.
McDonald said teens should have a right to privacy, but he thought of at least one instance in which parents have the right to listen in. “If the teen is talking about suicide or harming someone, the parents should be able to listen in,” he said. “But most teens in Spokane won’t really harm anybody with their conversations.”