Invasion of privacy reaches new heights
This must be the work of some idiot who does not know what he is doing:
"If you're planning to apply for a job with the city of Bozeman, Montana, be prepared to hand over much more than your references and résumé. The Rocky Mountain city instructs all job applicants to divulge their usernames and passwords for "any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc."
"Before we offer people employment in a public trust position we have a responsibility to do a thorough background check," Chuck Winn, Bozeman's assistant city manager, told CBSNews.com in an interview on Thursday. "This is just a component of a thorough background check."
"Shame on us if there was information out there available about a person who applied for a job who was a child molester or had some sort of information out there on the Internet that kind of showed those propensities and we didn't look for it, we didn't ask, and we hired that person," Winn said. "In many ways we would have let the public down."
After CBS affiliate KBZK highlighted the requirement on Wednesday, a firestorm of sorts has erupted online: irate e-mail messages have jammed mailboxes in City Hall, snarky Twitter.com comments have poked fun at a place once awarded the sobriquet of "All-America City," and a poll indicates 98 percent of respondents believe the city's policy amounts to an "invasion of privacy." ...
Under the policy, which the city says has been in place for a few years, a police officer logs into and reviews the social networking sites of people applying for public safety (that is, police and fire) jobs. For other jobs, the city's human resources department will perform the investigation.
An attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group based in San Francisco, questioned Bozeman's choice to ask for usernames and passwords. "I think its indefensibly invasive and likely illegal as a violation of the First Amendment rights of job applicants," said Kevin Bankston, an EFF attorney. "Essentially they're conditioning your application for employment on your waiving your First Amendment rights ... and risking the security of your information by requiring you to share your password with them... Where does it stop? How about a photocopy of your diary?"
Another possible hitch: Some social networking sites flatly prohibit disclosure of passwords, so a job seeker who complied with Bozeman's request could lose his account. Facebook's terms of service, for instance, say: "You will not share your password (or) let anyone else access your account."
Source
21 comments:
They have backed off.
I would have no problem with giving a prospective employer usernames for the various web sites listed.
I draw the line at giving them the passwords.
What's the difference some might say? The same difference as telling an employer my home address and giving them a key. The get one, but not the other.
This appears to be a touchy situation. On the one hand, and with the way things are today, (ie: with the ultra-intrusive media) one can understand the city wanting to be as cautious as possible about who they hire for sensative positions. Many govt. agencies and private companies have been embarrassed (and sued) for previously unknown info about an employee that had come to light.
On the other hand, there are the legitimate concerns of people for their privacy. Well, if that's your major concern, then look for a job elsewhere!
BTW, the internet is a world-wide, public arena, and there is no legal expectation of privacy in a public place.
BTW, the internet is a world-wide, public arena, and there is no legal expectation of privacy in a public place.
While the internet itself may be a "public place," that does not mean that websites, forums, or social sites are public. That is why sites have privacy statements and regulations.
One must wonder where the government has the right to determine the groups you may or may not associate with. While I can almost understand the government taking an interest in a new hire belonging to a group that has a history of illegal activities in the past, that does not mean that my right to freely associate with people that are not breaking the law is any of the government's business.
For example, assume that a person is in a pro-life group. The person doing the "investigation" into the background of the person is pro-abortion. The stance of the applicant on abortion has nothing to do with their ability to do the job. The group with which they are associating is not illegal. So why is it any business of the government?
The fact of the matter is that it isn't their concern.
Anon 4:30, unless the types of websites, forums, and social sites to which you refer require a login and password for entry, (ie: a membership) they are part of that www, and therefor a public place with no expectation of privacy.
As for having to provide information to a prospective employer, my response is the same. If you feel the questions are intrusive, look for employment elswhere. The choice is yours. But, if you put yourself in the position of head of that company, the need for that information (well, perhaps not all of it) becomes a bit more understandable, since it's you who will have to bear the brunt of something negative coming out at a later date.
Today, we find ourselves living in a time, and in a country, where people are "offended" by anything and everything. This is the result of a country being consumed by political correctness (and) an overabundance of lawyers who will sue anyone for any reason, or no reason. Either way, they get paid. Your chances of getting a ton of money in a courtroom are far, far greater than trying to hit the lottery or pick a winning horse, and everybody knows it.
Remember the "cutie pie" who got $1 Million for spilling hot coffee into her own lap?
Anon 4:30, unless the types of websites, forums, and social sites to which you refer require a login and password for entry, (ie: a membership) they are part of that www, and therefor a public place with no expectation of privacy.
Of course there is an expectation of privacy if 1) you are making your comments anonymously (as you and I both are and 2) your comments are made with a non-de-plume.
If you feel the questions are intrusive, look for employment elswhere.
This case is different. This is a case where the government is being intrusive. The Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, the right to assemble, and the right of association. In this case, the government doing the hiring wants to say "we don't like that group" or "we approve of this group." Sorry, but they don't get that option as long as the association, group, activities or speech are legal.
In essence what you are trying to say is that the government has the right to tear up the Constitution in order to not be sued or "embarrassed" down the road. I don't buy that at all.
Constitutions of any country are a joke, as governments can and often do modify them with "essential" legislation - eg. for national security (or courts interpret them at will). You only have to read "Animal Farm".
Anyone who wants that level of control over my identity is not someone I'd want to work with let alone for.
"If you feel the questions are intrusive, look for employment elswhere."
Then when the government is full of people that think such invasive policies are OK what happens? If I lived in Bozeman I would be very concerned but then I recently passed a city by that had traffic cameras to buy gas and food in the next town instead. I value your freedom as much as mine.
I have to say, that normally, I would be very much against anything like this. However, in the public sphere, you are working for the people and not an individual (or group of individuals).
I have never felt there should be very much of any privacy in the world of public employees. As members of the public, we should have access to vast amounts of information about the people who work for us, such as how much money they make, what sort of disiplinary problems they may have, their work hours, how much vacation and sick time are used, the results of any and all disiplinary hearings, and so forth. For some things, such as undercover police work, or things that require additional security can be kept under wraps, but I would say we should have full access to these people's lives so they cannot hide if/when they become a problem. The one thing I hate is that when someone who is given broad powers because of their position, the public should have greater access to their lives so every citizen perform their own "employee evaluation".
The people working in government should fear the public, never the other way around.
I have never felt there should be very much of any privacy in the world of public employees.
I missed the part of the Constitution where it says that if one works for the government, one loses all protections and rights guaranteed by the document.
Can you point that section out to me?
Well, what about various military standards, such as freedom of speech. Unless you think a private can say anything about commanders both in the field and in private.
I seem to remember a certain Air Force general who expressed a bit of concern over Bill Clinton becoming elected, who was then swiftly removed from his post. His crime, he talked bad about his boss.
There are times when you take part in government services where you are not afforded the same protections because of your unique position within the government.
If you think I'm wrong, I think you should start looking there.
If you think I'm wrong, I think you should start looking there.
A private or any member of the military still has the right to speak their mind. They still have freedom of speech. The difference is the consequences of that speech.
(And in case you didn't know, US has long recognized the difference between the need for order and discipline in the military and that of private citizens.)
So once again, I ask you to cite the provision in the Constitution where a private citizen who works for the government gives up the very rights defined in the document that says what the government is and may do.
Well first of all, where does the right to privacy come from?
No where. You will not find it anywhere. You will find that the government cannot come to you and ask to see your papers with just cause. What is just cause? Well that's for the legislature to decide.
Remember, the idea of a right to privacy didn't come about until sometime in the 40's or 50's, about the same time Miranda took place. Remember when cops used to be able to say you didn't have the right to speak with an attorney? Those were the days.
Since privacy, in and of itself, was a construct by the courts, then it can be interpretted any way by the state. And by saying that you wish to work for the government, then it is the right of the government to decide what sort of standard should be used. And since it is we, the public, who make up the government, I don't see any problem with requiring those in positions of authority to relinquish some rights.
Sorry, it was the 20's with:
Meyer v Nebraska (1923)
Pierce v Society of Sisters (1925)
Although in both cases, it was an instance in which the state was compelling people who could not make any other choice, most pertinently in Pierce because the state wanted to send all children to public school, essentially eliminating the ability of parents to send their children to religious schools.
In both cases, it was the state attempting to change the entirety of how people lived their lives. Working for the government is not something that is required of the citizenry at large. In fact, it is entirely voluntary (unless you are talking about conscription, but that is another matter) and therefore any sort of restrictions, regulations, requirements do not need to pass the same level of constitutional muster that you are asking for.
Well first of all, where does the right to privacy come from?
Amazing. Simply amazing.
If you would reread what I have said, you will find that I have never even broached the subject of the "right to privacy." Although some have, it was not the primary thrust of the argument. Yet if you had bothered to read the cases you cited, you will find that the courts say that the government cannot abridge the rights of citizens.
Quoting the decision, "denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized…as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
You are proposing that the normal actions of citizens be subject to review from a governmental official.
What I argued, and what you have failed to address, is the government's assertion that it has a right to look into a person's associations, a person's speech, and a person's electronic papers. Once having done that, the government wants to make a judgement on whether an individual is "worthy" of working for the people.
The problem with this is that the very testing of associations, writings, and speech have nothing to do with a person's ability to perform a particular job or function. Courts have long held that criteria for jobs must relate to the job itself.
Once again, please address the hypothetical situation where a clerk who is pro-life and a member of a pro-life group is evaluated for hire by someone who is pro-abortion. The association of citizens (guaranteed by the Constitution) is not relevant to the job the clerk performs and therefore cannot be part of the criteria for evaluating them for hire.
And since it is we, the public, who make up the government, I don't see any problem with requiring those in positions of authority to relinquish some rights.
Once again, please point to the section in the Constitution where the government can demand that a citizen must relinquish rights in order to ger a job. In any case where such "rights" are relinquished, there must be an overwhelming benefit to the general populace.
Please explain how knowing what church, synagogue or atheistic associations a person has benefits the citizenry. Please explain how, once such associations are known, someone in the government won't use that information against the person - even if it is in not hiring them.
The government does not have the right to go on a fishing expedition into people's lives and then essentially make a value judgement on that person's legal activities.
"The government does not have the right to go on a fishing expedition into people's lives and then essentially make a value judgement on that person's legal activities."
Yes they should if they are going to have any authority over us.
This is the same type of vetting that goes on for elected politicians, I'm just applying it to anyone else who wants to work in the government.
Yes they should if they are going to have any authority over us.
Your opinion that they "should" is noted.
The problem is that your opinion is not the law. It is not Constitutional.
This is the same type of vetting that goes on for elected politicians,
Except it is NOT the same. A person running for an elected office does not, by law, have to supply associations with others. They do not have to supply sites they visit. They do not have to supply writings they have made. They do not have to supply passwords for sites they visit.
Your assertion that people running for an office are subject to the same requirements that this town wants to apply to its applicants is factually wrong and inaccurate in any interpretation and claim of similarity you wish to make.
I'm just applying it to anyone else who wants to work in the government.
No, you're not. Your trying to apply what you think is right but is in fact, illegal and unConstitutional.
A better way of handling this would be to advise the applicant that if he has anything on Facebook, Myspace, YouTube, etc. that would prove embarrassing to the agency hiring him, he has 24 hours to clean up such sites where he controls the material before the presence of such material on public sites would constitute cause for dismissal if the agency finds it on the web. That would give the applicant a chance to pull any pictures of himself naked, getting drunk, acting stupidly, or otherwise misbehaving from any sites he might have posted such pictures. As we are re-learning yet again, the moral character of those who would wield power over the lives of other people matters greatly. If an individual chooses to become part of the government, he is making himself a public figure, and restrictions on those who wield government power are necessary in order to safeguard the liberty of the people.
If an individual chooses to become part of the government, he is making himself a public figure, and restrictions on those who wield government power are necessary in order to safeguard the liberty of the people.
A clerk in a DMV office is not a public figure. A mechanic that repairs trucks for the city is not a public figure.
A guy who runs for office may be considered a public figure, but the woman who writes his speaches is not.
Only a relatively small percentage of people in government can be considered "public figures." The average Joe who works for the government is not.
A better way of handling this would be to advise the applicant that if he has anything on Facebook, Myspace, YouTube, etc. that would prove embarrassing to the agency hiring him,
I have no issue with the government saying "clean up any sites," as that seems to be reasonable advice.
he has 24 hours to clean up such sites where he controls the material before the presence of such material on public sites would constitute cause for dismissal if the agency finds it on the web.
You were fine until you said this. What you are advocating is content based censorship. Who decides what is "embarrassing?" Some other goverment worker who may or may not have an agenda?
Assume for a moment that a city has a mayor that is strongly "pro-choice." The head of the Health and Human Services Department for the city is strongly pro-life and maintains a Facebook, MySpace, and blog advocating the pro-life position.
That sure sounds like it could be embarrassing to the Mayor to me.
I would suspect that you may want the guy fired for that "embarrassment." The problem is that you don't give up your right to political speech when you work ANYWHERE. Not in the private sector and not in the public sector. The guy's speech is protected and any attempt to fire him based on the content of that speech is a lawsuit waiting to be filed.
There is really one good reason to fire someone and that is their ability or inability to do the job. If a person has comments on Facebook, MySpace, or a blog that can be shown to impact their ability to perform a job, then that is the case that needs to be made. I would have no problems with that.
"Embarrassing" the city because someone in the city feels embarrassed or hurt is not a reason to terminate anyone.
Doing so would be a tangible and real quelching of protected speech.
Post a Comment