@Sargasm: This is a violation of most online services' terms of service contracts that you agree to you when you join up.

$\"user-pic\"$

IMoriarty

@Sargasm: Indeed. This is gets a big \"As if\". There's a reason I have passwords on my stuff - to keep people out. Why would this even be relevant to the hiring process?

~I

$\"user-pic\"$

farcedude

Hate to say it, but I'd probably make fake accounts, and give them those.

13 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Coles_Law

June 19, 2009 8:34 PM

@farcedude: I'd just write the asterisks in place of my password.

$\"user-pic\"$

fanboy.took.my.star

June 19, 2009 9:54 PM

@Coles_Law: what if you just tell them you dont believe in facebook? its not like having a fb account is mandatory...

$\"user-pic\"$

snowburnt

June 19, 2009 7:18 PM

@farcedude: or you could just say you're a luddite and don't have anything other than your aol account that you pay $100 a month to have someone type out and mail to you.

$\"user-pic\"$

Tankueray

June 21, 2009 4:26 AM

@snowburnt: I can actually do that. I've got AOL.
We had a girl flip out a while back and post things on Myspace. They didn't officially ask for our user names, but they did online searches for us. Where I live, I can only get dial-up or GSM wireless, so I don't watch YouTube or do anything that uses any bandwidth (hi Myspace). I have accounts in many places, but the most you're going to find out about me is that I'm a huge geek and biology nerd. (And there's some guy on WoW that's started using the same name recently.)

Off Topic: Can I request he stop using my screen name since I've had it for 15 years?

$\"user-pic\"$

SpruceStreetPhil - in a new Pine flavor

June 21, 2009 12:16 PM

@Tankueray: sorry but I could very easily change my name and picture to yours right now and there would be very little for you to do to stop me besides complaining to the higher-ups and seeing if they respond. So on a game like WoW I doubt it. I thought you said you used dial-up, and you play WoW? How? And if you don't play why do you care he's using your online name? Just wondering.

$\"user-pic\"$

SonalStevenson

June 21, 2009 1:15 AM

@snowburnt: They've already invented a machine for old people who don't want one of those new intartube computator jobbies, so there goes another job. http://www.presto.com/

$\"user-pic\"$

EinhornIsAMan!

June 19, 2009 7:01 PM

@farcedude: I understand them looking into your history, but asking for your passwords is a very lazy poor man's background check. Unbelievable

$\"user-pic\"$

jimconsumer

June 19, 2009 6:09 PM

@farcedude: I just wouldn't give them anything, period. If they asked, I'd tell them no way in hell. If they didn't hire me over it, no loss.

$\"user-pic\"$

greenunicorns

June 19, 2009 6:19 PM

@jimconsumer: Yeah, unless you needed a job. To pay for food and stuff. Like most of the people applying probably do.

$\"user-pic\"$

Tzepish

June 19, 2009 6:44 PM

@greenunicorns: I don't blame people for signing this stuff away for a job. Like you said, paying for food and living is generally preferable to, say, not living.

If it were me, however, I'd give them the finger and pilfer their trash for food before storming out.

$\"user-pic\"$

menty666

June 19, 2009 6:25 PM

@greenunicorns: No job is worth having a POTENTIAL employer stick their hand up your business. You're not even hired at this point and you've just exposed yourself. Not to mention most people are lazy and use the same password in multiple places, like on their bank accounts. So next thing you know, some underpaid HR goon is helping themselves to what little cash you have.

$\"user-pic\"$

Ann O'Dyne

June 19, 2009 7:05 PM

@menty666:
and your yahoo password is also the password for your yahoo mail, where you may be receiving banking statements, etc. Also all kinds of strange folks send you unsolicited mail about how to enlarge various body parts, and how to get DEA scheduled drugs without an Rx. This could easily be misinterpreted. There's no way they could justify needing access to your private mail account.

$\"user-pic\"$

kateblack

June 19, 2009 6:35 PM

@menty666: Or your fine upstanding coworkers filching your info from the communal file cabinets in order to do their websurfing.

$\"user-pic\"$

farcedude

June 19, 2009 5:37 PM

@farcedude: Just discussed this with coworkers, and they pointed out that this is probably a CYA (cover your a$$) maneuver, so that when an applicant is hired, and five years later turns out to be a pedophile, they can look back and say that he didn't give them the passwords to those sites, so he was defrauding them on the application (or something to that effect).

$\"user-pic\"$

NerdBurger_GitEmSteveDave

June 19, 2009 5:33 PM

@farcedude: That's why I keep two entirely seperate online identities. My real life persona doesn't even have a myspace page.

$\"user-pic\"$

snowburnt

June 19, 2009 7:16 PM

@NerdBurger_GitEmSteveDave: so THAT's why you change your posting name semi-daily!

$\"user-pic\"$

downwithmonstercable

June 19, 2009 7:43 PM

@snowburnt: He's untraceable like The Saint!

(has anyone seen that movie? that was a bit of a stretch on my part...)

$\"user-pic\"$

NerdBurger_GitEmSteveDave

June 20, 2009 3:34 AM

@downwithmonstercable: Yes. I saw it in the theaters. I still enjoy it.

@snowburnt: No, I do that b/c I like being different, and it keeps my mind....uh...what is it....oh yeah, sharp!

$\"user-pic\"$

chemicalpink

June 19, 2009 10:13 PM

@downwithmonstercable: Ahh, it was an old TV show before it was a movie. But yes, I've seen both.

$\"user-pic\"$

LegoMan322

June 19, 2009 5:15 PM

@farcedude: Yeah I completely agree. But I can somewhat understand why people want to see what you are doing to a very small extent. I would never give it up, especially passwords, but there are some crazy people out there. The faster you learn about your new hires...the easier the problem can be resolved.

They still have no right to ask for passwords.

$\"user-pic\"$

Erik Schlange

June 19, 2009 5:08 PM

@farcedude: Watch Facebook declare they're 2x as popular as 3 yrs ago only to find out they have 1/2 the IPs because people have their \"professional\" page and their \"leisure\" page.

$\"user-pic\"$

qxrt

\"no one has removed their name from consideration because of the requirement\"

Well, that's a silly way of judging things. Obviously people who are turned off by this thing aren't going to apply in the first place, not send in an application and then retract it...

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Coles_Law

June 19, 2009 8:35 PM

@qxrt: Translation: We have no applications to date.

$\"user-pic\"$

Aladdyn

June 19, 2009 6:00 PM

@qxrt: Exactly right, and like a previous poster mentioned whos to say weather people either made up an account so it looked good or only gave them sites with clean information on thm and omitted the raunchy stuff.

$\"user-pic\"$

LegoMan322

@qxrt: Also...if I was unemployed and needed a job I would not take my name off of it either.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

June 19, 2009 5:25 PM

@LegoMan322: I don't think I want to work for a place that actively wants to play Big Brother.

$\"user-pic\"$

MostlyHarmless

June 19, 2009 6:01 PM

@pecan 3.14159265: I'd just give my Stackoverflow.com, serverfault.com and wikipedia passwords...

...and then change them.

$\"user-pic\"$

snowburnt

June 19, 2009 7:23 PM

@MostlyHarmless: or you could give them the password of the email you used to sign up for the job and say you don't participate in anything else...

$\"user-pic\"$

Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh

I know jobs are hard to get right now.. but I ain't givin up my passwords on a job application.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

edison234

June 19, 2009 6:27 PM

@Kimaroo: I wonder if the application could ever become public record...

$\"user-pic\"$

azsumrg1rl

June 19, 2009 6:55 PM

@edison234: Depending on Montana's public records laws, yes. I know, for example, that personnel files for city employees in AZ are public record. But in Texas, they are protected by an exclusion in their public records laws.

$\"user-pic\"$

Easton21

What? The legality of using any info they get seems rather dubious.
Guess I won't be working at the Prehistoric Museum any time soon...

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

June 19, 2009 5:07 PM

This is legal? Since it's the city, and not a private company that's doing this, they obviously think there's a loophole or precedent.

I mean, if you undergo a background check and your friends express that you may be a shifty character, they can probably deduce that you may go to some shifty websites as well. But they don't need to spy on you for that.

What happens if you give them the wrong passwords? When they call you back, you can just say you had them changed? But they'll probably ask you for the current ones. I wonder how long you could do this before they just give up and evaluate you without this information..

This is an extreme invasion of privacy. This isn't like running a credit check, this is digging through e-mails and having access to financial data. I regularly communicate with Mr. Pi on various topics, including bills and such. I don't want anyone knowing where I bank, or how much is in my account because I happen to mention it in an e-mail planning a vacation.

15 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

spanky

June 19, 2009 6:29 PM

@pecan 3.14159265: As I understand it, governments are actually a little more limited than private employers, because private employers can't violate the fourth amendment.

My bro works for the federal government, and he used to have a supervisor who regularly bemoaned the fact that they're not allowed to do drug tests.

$\"user-pic\"$

BytheSea

June 19, 2009 10:48 PM

@spanky: They're not allowed to ask your date of birth.

$\"user-pic\"$

Gramin

June 19, 2009 6:20 PM

@pecan 3.14159265:

I actually agree with the city. They're not requesting login credentials for private information (i.e. online banking or email). Rather, they're requesting login credentials for those sites that are easily accessible by the general public. Instead of waiting for a news reporter to find a photo of the chief of police and a couple teenage girls on his Facebook, the city is being proactive. This is no more invasive than a credit check or background check.

$\"user-pic\"$

Sommer Conley

June 21, 2009 6:37 PM

It's not in my nature to bash anyones opinion.. that being said you're an idiot for saying that. Illegal activities are monitored on facebook and myspace. If you have a sexual predator record, you WILL be booted off of myspace. Have you ever read the TOS where it says if you have offensive material you will be KICKED OFF the site. No one has the right to my buisness, just as I don't have the right to theirs. The companies asking for that information might as well ask to come check your personal mailbox everyday. You would probably agree with that tho right? Make sure I'm not getting Hustler or Penthouse. Because nobody reads those articles, it's just for the raunchy pictures, and if you look at those pictures you don't deserve to water, food,electricity or a roof over your head. You probably helped right the legislation. That's sad, pretty soon with thinking like yours, we won't be a democracy anymore. We'll just be the 2009 version of 1984.

$\"user-pic\"$

Sommer Conley

June 21, 2009 6:48 PM

sorry. my above response was aimed at Gramin

$\"user-pic\"$

korybing

June 19, 2009 8:06 PM

@Gramin: I don't see a problem with your potential employers looking at your Facebook or Myspace page to see what sort of person you are; that information is being posted in PUBLIC places and you should be responsible for what you're showing off to the world.

The problem is that the city is asking for PASSWORDS. Why on earth would they want to log into your social networking sites as you? That is where the invasion of privacy starts. They can look at your public information all they want, they shouldn't request you to give them your sensitive personal information that has nothing to do with the job at hand.

$\"user-pic\"$

EinhornIsAMan!

June 19, 2009 7:12 PM

@Gramin: You are insane.

What if you get online statements from ING Direct? What if they get an Amazon receipt of a weird book, or a receipt from a porn website. An email account is a window into lots of personal information. If you're a hacker, how do you get iTunes gift cards and passwords to porn websites, and bank accounts? Email is one of the easiest ways to get this information. It is more invasive than a credit card or background check. Your facebook can be checked without your password. Your email is PERSONAL. PERIOD.

You're a fascist lunatic. This is a POOR MAN'S BACKGROUND CHECK. They're too cheap to do it anyway but get your passwords from you and spy on you. God you scare me.

$\"user-pic\"$

Red_Flag

June 19, 2009 6:50 PM

@Gramin: Since it's so benign to you, why don't you post your Gawker password right here? Nothing to hide, right?

$\"user-pic\"$

mianne

June 19, 2009 6:31 PM

@Gramin: Login credentials are very personal. Others here have pointed out with Google (specifically requested on the app) that credit card information may be stored with Google Checkout. And I couldn't even begin to count how many different message boards or other forums I've registered for over the years. Since there's only three lines on the app, I could probably find three completely innocuous sites (allrecipes.com perhaps?) Make up a username and for the password, write down '*********'.

As for your paraphrasing the old saw of, \"If you have nothing to hide...\" I say: \"Everybody poops, but it takes a very special kind of person to do so in public.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

jenl1625

June 19, 2009 6:26 PM

@Gramin: They can see what I've posted on my facebook page without having my facebook PASSWORD.

What happens when the person assigned to go researching dislikes a job candidate and uses the person's password to send vicious emails or put up inappropriate photos on facebook?

$\"user-pic\"$

HiPwr

June 19, 2009 5:22 PM

@pecan 3.14159265: It's legal if you give permission. Police departments routinely give polygraphs to applicants, too.

$\"user-pic\"$

redskull

June 19, 2009 6:34 PM

@HiPwr: A polygraph doesn't have passwords in it that could grant a stranger access to my bank account.

$\"user-pic\"$

HiPwr

June 19, 2009 10:03 PM

@redskull: If you are posting your bank account information on \"current personal or business websites\" or \"any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs, or forums\", then you shouldn't even be walking around, much less working for the city.

$\"user-pic\"$

JoshRogan

June 20, 2009 1:09 AM

@HiPwr: Except that by providing your passwords to Google and Yahoo, which are explictly requested, you are providing your e-mail passwords.

$\"user-pic\"$

HiPwr

June 20, 2009 1:29 AM

@JoshRogan: It doesn't say anything on the form about email passwords.

$\"user-pic\"$

Red_Flag

June 20, 2009 2:24 AM

@HiPwr:

It says \"Google\". Right there.

Google Account password gets you access to Gmail, Google Talk, Google Calendar, Google Docs, Google Checkout.

It also says Yahoo. Yahoo password gets you access to Yahoo profiles, Yahoo Messenger, Yahoo Mail.

It doesn't explicitly use the word \"email\". But that is what it ends up getting when it asks explicitly for Google and Yahoo.

$\"user-pic\"$

EinhornIsAMan!

June 20, 2009 3:53 AM

@Red_Flag: I never thought having 5 gmail accounts would ever come in handy, but it looks like my inability to settle on one name pays off.

$\"user-pic\"$

dragonfire81

June 20, 2009 1:21 AM

@JoshRogan: I can only surmise the company wants the passwords so they can look and see if you deleted and/or changed a bunch of information on your page prior to applying with the city.

Not that I am in ANY WAY agreeing with what they are doing.

How far can businesses go to control their employees outside of work hours??

I was at a bar with one of my buddies and someone started an argument with him, it got pretty heated. One of the other patrons recognized my buddy from where he worked and reported the incident to his (my buddy) superiors the next day. His superiors told him to be careful what he does when he's out and about as these kinds of incidents could result in a negative image for the company. He didn't take too kindly to that.

I should also mention my buddy was not wearing a work uniform nor anything on him that had the company logo. The only reason the guy knew he worked there was because he'd seen him at the business before.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

June 19, 2009 5:26 PM

@HiPwr: A polygraph is different because your answers determine your results. Giving over your information allows them to spitball it and make decisions based on perceptions, ill context and snooping.

Soooo creepy.

$\"user-pic\"$

henwy

June 19, 2009 5:39 PM

@pecan 3.14159265:

There's no way something like this is illegal. It's actually a lot more open. Did you know it's legal (and around a third of businesses admit to doing it) to moniter your employee's internet traffic on the job? That means everything they do online. You can get a direct feed so you can read their emails, im's, whatever. It's been ruled legal a buncha times now despite court challenges.

$\"user-pic\"$

BytheSea

June 19, 2009 10:44 PM

@henwy: It's legal to monitor your employees' internet usage AT WORK because they're supposed to be working at work. If you get caught playing Party Poker they can you, not only because you're wasting time, but you're costing the company hundreds of dollars to fix all the viruses you're downloading.

$\"user-pic\"$

snowburnt

June 19, 2009 7:29 PM

@henwy: That's entirely different. And in someways impossible.

How is it different? Everything you do at work is using company resources and most of the time you sign something when you start the job saying that anything you do at work on work resources belongs to the company you work for. Ergo, monitoring your work internet use is far from illegal.

Also, unless they have keystroke loggers and spy software installed on your computer (which is entirely likely), most email websites are TLS encrypted and can't be decrypted by a middleman (firewall or monitor)

This (the article) is pre-emptive stalking. Not only can they check what you've sent out recently, but they can continue checking if you don't get the job and fail to change your password. Additionally they can act as you and send out mail, sign up for websites under your name...It's like identity theft made easy.

$\"user-pic\"$

Red_Flag

June 19, 2009 7:31 PM

@snowburnt: Not \"like identity theft made easy\", actually \"is identity theft made easy\".

$\"user-pic\"$

mianne

June 19, 2009 6:10 PM

@henwy: Sure, when you are on your employers' computers, you should always assume that the can and will monitor everything you do on it from what websites you visit to the content of every email you send or receive whether you're on the clock or on lunch.

Your employer does not have the right however to monitor every action that transpires on your personal home computer outside of work hours. That is in effect what this application is asking you to provide.

$\"user-pic\"$

MostlyHarmless

June 19, 2009 6:06 PM

@henwy: As you said, its legal to monitor the employee's traffic on the job.

What I do on facebook at home does not fall under their jurisdiction. Most places that monitor this also use filters that block social/dating sites.

And it probably is not a good idea to use facebook at work anyways. Slippery Slope.

$\"user-pic\"$

Etoiles

June 19, 2009 5:57 PM

@henwy: Yes, but that's while you're on the job, using, presumably, the employer's network and hardware. That's entirely different than if my employer wants to log into my Facebook (or Consumerist!) account as me. How is it relevant to my performance or use of company resources if I look at my friend's wedding pictures at 7:30 p.m. on a Tuesday?

$\"user-pic\"$

Deweavy

June 19, 2009 6:25 PM

@Etoiles: I had to sign a form of acknowledgement that they can and periodically will monitor, as I assume most people do at a job with internet access

$\"user-pic\"$

Starphantom12

June 19, 2009 5:55 PM

@henwy: In that situation, employees are using company resources. A company has the right to know how their resources are being used- and arguably, employees should not be doing anything but work on work computers. In this case they are wanting to trawl through information that has nothing to do with them.

$\"user-pic\"$

katstermonster

June 19, 2009 5:55 PM

@henwy: I'd be surprised if people didn't know this. I'm not unbiased though, I interned at a pretty big defense contractor for 3 summers, so I got kind of used to knowing that they were watching. And blocking fark! LAME.

$\"user-pic\"$

HiPwr

@pecan 3.14159265: I think they are leaving themselves wide open to litigation if they decline to hire someone based on some arbitrary judgement about on-line activity.

If they are wise, they will stop this practice.

$\"user-pic\"$

Gramin

June 19, 2009 6:25 PM

@HiPwr:

You're completely wrong. For example, sexual orientation is not a suspect class and an employer can choose not to hire someone for that reason. Furthermore, several schools have been justified in punishing athletes or students for pictures posted online. The courts will side with the city. Privacy only exists if you have a reasonable expectation of it. Posting something online for anyone to view immediately removes any and all expectation of privacy.

$\"user-pic\"$

SonalStevenson

June 21, 2009 1:31 AM

@Gramin:My yahoo and google passwords would also allow them to look at personal e-mail I've sent from home, and thus are none of their business. Also, many people don't allow the general public to look at their facebook profiles in their entirety. Passwords overcome that. The password part makes this an invasion of privacy. Otherwise, I wouldn't be able to expect privacy in my house because my friends sometimes come over.

$\"user-pic\"$

EinhornIsAMan!

June 19, 2009 7:15 PM

@Gramin: Sexual orientation should be. But anyway.

Nobody is disagreeing with the employer's right to do a background check and not hire you based on your facebook activity, etc. The point is that they are asking for passwords. I have nothing I'm ashamed of on facebook, but I refuse to give someone my password

And it is COMPLETELY unacceptable to ask for access to your personal email. It's PERSONAL, and it's a gateway to sensitive info. You are a lunatic.

$\"user-pic\"$

Red_Flag

June 19, 2009 7:26 PM

@TheDayIsMine: No, no, no, he's not a lunatic, he simply must believe in the intrinsic goodness of all his fellow human beings. I mean, obviously, no person would ever, ever in a million years abuse someone else's security credentials. It's just unheard of.

Which is why he will prove how nothing bad could ever happen from handing strangers the keys to one's online personas: by posting all of his login information here... right, Gramin?

$\"user-pic\"$

HiPwr

June 19, 2009 6:39 PM

@Gramin: I didn't say that they set themselves up to lose lawsuits, I said that they set themselves up to be sued. They could lose in court, but whether they win, or lose, it is still costly for the city to defend and (in my judgement), not worth the expense.

I believe that this practice is legal only because the applicant is giving the city permission to snoop. Where they will run into trouble is when they turn someone down for a job because of something they posted on their facebook page. They are going to have to have very clear guidelines on what they consider inappropriate.

$\"user-pic\"$

SarcasticDwarf

June 19, 2009 5:19 PM

@pecan 3.14159265: The larger question in Montana is whether it is in violation of the constitution. Montana's constitution (re-done in 1976 because we can't make up our minds) has very strong privacy statements. I would assume that the state AG will issue an opinion on this at some point.

The city manager, etc should be damn thankful that the legislature just got out of session, otherwise they would have been reamed.

$\"user-pic\"$

Aphex242

June 19, 2009 5:11 PM

@pecan 3.14159265: Technically everything's legal until a law is passed against it or a court rules an existing law a violation of a state/federal constitution.

So this is legal until it's challenged, and when challenged, it'll likely be overturned. Until then, it's \"legal\".

$\"user-pic\"$

mianne

June 19, 2009 6:05 PM

@aphex242: It IS illegal to ask for information such as one's age and marital status in connection with a job application. These are standard data on the social networking sites explicitly listed on the application.

Furthermore, it is a violation of these sites' TOS to share yourlogin information with anyone. Therefore, to be considered for employment, you must be willing to breach contracts you've already agreed to.

It goes to follow then, that if you're willing to selectively break policies to secure a government job, you are therefore corruptible. Likewise, if you are willing to give out your personal login details to anyone who asks, you are likely susceptible to social engineering attacks in which you give the root password to the city's mainframe to a hacker posing as a fellow employee on the phone.

Finally, that could be moot anyway with open government/sunshine provisions that may require these applications to be in the public record.

$\"user-pic\"$

jenjen

June 20, 2009 5:09 AM

@mianne: The TOS violations is exactly what occurred to me too. I can see asking for disclosure of usernames so they can read up on you and make sure you're not likely to embarrass the city, but definitely not passwords. Do you have to give them your house keys too?

$\"user-pic\"$

Gramin

June 19, 2009 6:28 PM

@mianne:

You're somewhat mistaken. You're required to provide your date of birth. I think most people can figure out your age from that bit of information. It is illegal to use that as consideration in the hiring decision.

$\"user-pic\"$

Smashville

June 19, 2009 7:00 PM

@Gramin: It is illegal to ask for a date of birth on an application.

$\"user-pic\"$

HiPwr

June 19, 2009 7:02 PM

@Smashville: In what country?

$\"user-pic\"$

snowburnt

June 19, 2009 7:38 PM

@HiPwr: In the United States

You aren't allowed to ask for Date of birth, sexual preference, marital status, or race prior to employment.

They can find out that information after you've been hired for benefits reasons etc...but until that point, if they ask you...

$\"user-pic\"$

Smashville

June 19, 2009 7:30 PM

@HiPwr: The United States. It's an EEO violation. Trust me...I work in HR. You can ask if they are under 18, but you cannot ask them their date of birth.

$\"user-pic\"$

HiPwr

June 19, 2009 7:38 PM

@Smashville: I've never filled out an application that didn't have the date of birth on it. Can you get a credit report without a date of birth?

$\"user-pic\"$

Smashville

June 19, 2009 7:43 PM

@HiPwr: It's illegal if it has it on there. They might ask you after you are hired for the purposes of your background check, but if they are asking before an offer has been made, they can face some pretty serious fines.

$\"user-pic\"$

mianne

June 19, 2009 6:43 PM

@Gramin: Not for any job I've applied for. Some have tried to ask what year I graduated from highschool, and backed off when I informed them that was a backdoor way of asking my age.

$\"user-pic\"$

Dooley

June 19, 2009 5:09 PM

This sounds illegal, and an invasion of privacy.

How about \"We need copies of your car key, house keys, and the time your child leaves from school, and you are not to open any personal mail you receive at home until you bring the envelopes in here first so we can read it\"

Where do you draw the line?

7 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Gramin

June 19, 2009 6:30 PM

@Dooley:

Privacy only exists where there is reasonable expectation of it. If I have a kilo of cocaine in the back of my car and a police officer notices it from outside my car, he is not invading my privacy and is justified in making an arrest. Likewise, if I post something online, making it easily viewable for the general public, I no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court would rule with the city.

$\"user-pic\"$

Sommer Conley

June 21, 2009 6:55 PM

@Gramin
Wow. You continue to astonish me. Lets use your car example, as a metaphor for the computer. (the car being a computer, the coke being your privacy). If the coke is in plain view, ie front seat or back seat, yes the police have the right to search your vehicle. But, if the coke is in your locked glove compartment or trunk, they need a WARRANT to search your vehicle. What you are basically saying is the cops should search everyones car, without motive, for cocaine, and that they should also have access to their trunk or glove compartments. Either you're saying all of this to get everyone riled up, or your just a simple suzie. If it's the simple suzie... dear God don't procreate.

$\"user-pic\"$

RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com

June 19, 2009 8:43 PM

@Gramin: You're not getting it, are you? Just because I have a picture window that allows you to see my living room doesn't mean you have a right to barge on in and see what's going on in the bedroom.

But, since you don't seem to have a problem with it, can I have your usernames and passwords to Facebook and MySpace? After all, since it's right out there in the open, you have no expectation of privacy, right? So you don't mind if I go in there and poke around?

$\"user-pic\"$

Dooley

June 19, 2009 7:44 PM

@Gramin:

There is a difference between something you post publicly and access to ALL YOUR PASSWORD-PROTECTED DATA.

I can post items on Facebook that are only viewable to friends and family. Similarly, I can post pictures on Flickr that are viewable to nobody but me.

Once you have my password, you will be able to see everything, so the reasonable expectation of privacy will be violated.

$\"user-pic\"$

Red_Flag

June 19, 2009 7:51 PM

@Dooley: Not just see your data, they will be able to alter it, destroy it, and even create their own by impersonating you.

$\"user-pic\"$

EinhornIsAMan!

June 19, 2009 7:22 PM

@Gramin: That is a terrible analogy.

Did you read the article? You're not addressing the question everyone else is debating.

Nobody in the previous thread, nor Dooley, are questioning an employer's right to do a background check or look at facebook.

The city is asking for your passwords. I'll put that in bold in case you missed it: passwords. If I post that online, that's fine, but reasonable expectation extends into the government not logging into my own personal account. It's not about them SEEING your information.

Anyway, the real issue here is not social networking login info. It's email passwords. Reasonable expectation of privacy would extend here as well. Why should the government be able to access my personal email account. They can do a credit check, but not access my personal email and obtain sensitive information.

That's like your kilo being hidden and the cop asking you to open your trunk and show him its empty even though he can't see your drugs (i.e. he doesn't have probable cause so he's asking you to do his work).

Do you understand now? Please tell me you do. For the good of this country, please reread the article and tell me you understand what we're talking about.

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

June 19, 2009 7:14 PM

@Gramin: \"if I post something online, making it easily viewable for the general public, I no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy.\" You are right, but are forgetting the fact that many Facebook pages, and such are not public, but PRIVATE or semi-private. Plus you do have a reasonable expectation that only you know your passwords, thats the whole point of passwords

$\"user-pic\"$

Red_Flag

June 19, 2009 6:58 PM

@Gramin: The activity inside your account is not akin to what a police officer can see from outside or akin to any situation involving what is viewable by the public.

In fact, for someone to log into another person's account using the provided credentials would be, I do believe, a violation of the Stored Communications Act (US Code Sec. 2701).

\"(a) Offense.- Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section whoever-
(1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or
(2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility;
and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.\"

Also, see the MySpace suicide case for how local DA's look at the interpretation of electronic trespass.

$\"user-pic\"$

Red_Flag

June 19, 2009 7:29 PM

@Red_Flag: Link to the text of the Stored Communications Act (US Code, Title 18, Section 2701):
[www4.law.cornell.edu]

$\"user-pic\"$

Baxterjones

June 19, 2009 5:10 PM

And this is why my profession gets a bad rap. I go Hulk when I see bad HR in action. There is 100% no reason at all that they should ask this on an application.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

JohnQPublic

June 19, 2009 5:56 PM

@Baxterjones: Are you saying that not all HR employees are soulless meat sacks manipulated by Satan himself?

$\"user-pic\"$

Baxterjones

June 19, 2009 8:19 PM

@Greg []: @Greg []: No. I, myself, am a marginally-useful hunk of meat employed by a government institution. It's a whole different bag.

$\"user-pic\"$

JohnQPublic

June 22, 2009 4:10 PM

@Baxterjones: Well that's good to know :)

$\"user-pic\"$

Prole

June 19, 2009 5:10 PM

It speak a lot to the type of employee they are seeking. Apparently, they want someone who will mindlessly turn over their personal social data without question. So, who works for the city of Bozeman MT? The desperate? The folk who have only heard of the internet? Those with no social life? Certainly, no one who respects privacy.

$\"user-pic\"$

pjstevens77

June 19, 2009 5:12 PM

right or wrong they are doing it, so my guess is people are either killing all of there social media memberships, at least temporarily or just simply not applying. The problem is if no one pushes back on this, whats next?

$\"user-pic\"$

juri squared

June 19, 2009 5:13 PM

You know, I tend to be pretty relaxed about privacy matters, but this is WAY over the line for me. There is no way I would give up my passwords.

$\"user-pic\"$

ubermex

June 19, 2009 5:14 PM

Zefram Cochrane is retroactively rolling in his future grave.

$\"user-pic\"$

Psychosocial

June 19, 2009 5:14 PM

This is the most retarded thing I've ever seen. I don't even use facebook or tweeter or nospace. Guess they'd just call me a liar and not hire me. Oh well, my credit sucks anyway...

$\"user-pic\"$

angelzero

Regardless of the privacy implications, any company that explicitly demands that any security credentials be provided written down on a piece of paper automatically fails at meeting nearly every security standard I can think of.

They would also be failing to meet the legal standards of several states that are not Montana.

Finally, if anything, public workers should be demanding more privacy, not giving up more confidential information.

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Gramin

June 19, 2009 6:33 PM

@angelzero:

What are you smoking? What security credentials? Facebook? Myspace? Are you serious!? Those sites don't contain confidential information. If they were requesting my credentials for the private financial information I have for several companies around the world, that's different. This is a social networking site. Apples and oranges.

$\"user-pic\"$

Sommer Conley

June 21, 2009 7:03 PM

@ Gramin

It doesn't matter. That is not for public viewing. Whether or not Myspace or Facebook is for fun, the messages I recieve are MY messages. The pictures I set to private, or for certain people to view, are NOT to be viewed. You're trying to piss people off. You CANNOT be that dense, because several times people have asked for your information and you still haven't given it.

$\"user-pic\"$

EinhornIsAMan!

June 19, 2009 7:25 PM

@Gramin: They're also asking for Google passwords (i.e. email, calendar, reader, etc.)

Please be trolling. Please please please be trolling. Don't tell me you're really that dumb. Right?

$\"user-pic\"$

angelzero

June 19, 2009 6:45 PM

@Gramin: you're missing the point, not to mention misreading the article.

I said \"any\" security credentials, not just credentials leading to financial information. Handing out security credentials to anything is a gross violation of numerous security best practices.

Furthermore, the application specifically lists \"Google\" credentials among its requirements. You do realize that many Google accounts do in fact store financial information, do you not?

You'd do well to go through and read the dozens of other comments that all say essentially the same thing that I am.

$\"user-pic\"$

clint07

June 19, 2009 5:29 PM

@angelzero:I was thinking the same basic thing. As a tech person in a high security industry, anybody who is willing to give their password to someone else is not a person that I would want to hire. The whole point of a password is secrecy.

$\"user-pic\"$

angelzero

June 19, 2009 5:45 PM

@clint07: Man, good point! It's obviously a trick question meant to lull you into automatic rejection ;)

$\"user-pic\"$

rpm773

Can't we just plead the 5th on all job applications?

Seriously, if true, this is outrageous.

$\"user-pic\"$

Deweavy

I can understand certain jobs searching your name or profiles, but to ask for passwords, which give other people the power to modify your information is insane

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

spanky

June 19, 2009 6:24 PM

@Deweavy: My very first encounter with HR people doing internet background checks was many, many years ago. Someone apparently searched Dejanews (carbon date THAT, historians!), and somehow misunderstood something I had posted at some point; then called a former coworker of mine and asked him if I was disabled.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that similarly unscrupulous HR people regularly use such information to avoid hiring people who are members of protected classes; and I've been waiting a very long time for someone to successfully sue an employer for discrimination, supported by evidence that HR is combing through people's personal information, actively looking for information they're legally prohibited from basing hiring decisions on.

$\"user-pic\"$

Michael Ortega

June 19, 2009 5:20 PM

I'm not giving them my match.com password LOL
Seriously this is a little overboard, if this is what is required of new city hires then the public should have access to all of the current city hire's info, it's only fair to make sure that our city leaders are of Moral value to us.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

June 19, 2009 5:22 PM

Mr. Sullivan says the City has \"positions ranging from fire and police, which require people of high integrity for those positions, all the way down to the lifeguards and the folks that work in city hall here. So we do those types of investigations to make sure the people that we hire have the highest moral character and are a good fit for the City.\"

Okay, I get it, the new fire chief might be into all sorts of seedy stuff and you wouldn't know it - but I have to say, from what I've read in textbooks and studies, people who want to hide things will find a way. This is why people go \"He was such a nice family man,\" and are surprised when they see police swarming their neighbor's house and find out later he was into children. People find a way. Asking for passwords and stuff is probably just the tip of the iceberg for them because if you give it over, that links you to email addresses, other users, and from there they could follow the trail and dig deeper into the people with which you associate yourself. It's not my fault the next door neighbor is running a bootleg moonshine business in his basement, but if we end up on the same wine enthusiast website, what is the city going to do if I hand over my password, and then the news breaks that my neighbor's moonshine business has been shut down.

$\"user-pic\"$

scouts honor

June 19, 2009 5:23 PM

According to Greg Sullivan's LinkedIn profile, he's only been a lawyer for four years and this appears to be his first legal job. Prior to becoming city attorney in April 09, he worked in the planning department. It seems he's got a lot to learn.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

DoubleBaconVeggieBurger

June 19, 2009 6:17 PM

@scouts honor: Nice work. If only he'd give us his password, we could change it so he sounds much more impressive.

$\"user-pic\"$

kepler11

June 19, 2009 5:26 PM

some general comments:

1. First, no one who has any measure of sense associates their real name with their online names, when it comes to chat boards or comments that have any possibility of being used for unforseen purposes. You use a dummy/spam email address to register for things -- I'm surprised at people who get all indignant about forms asking for your personal information online -- just put in junk crap. (although I know people for whom even creating one email account is a challenge, so who knows if they could manage more than one)

2. So if you've done that, why even write anything down when they ask you? I mean, aside from Facebook or other things that can obviously be traced to you via a Google search. If your online alias names cannot be traced to your online presence, there is no need to tell them, because you and that name are never associated. Aside from that, who in their right mind asks for your password? The person writing this questionnaire is obviously an idiot.

3. And related to that, someone in this podunk town got the idea that they're big important people, and decided to emulate the background check that the Obama administration runs on new staffers -- they have this exact question (without the passwords). But that's understandable -- for a very public, federal administration job with important public relations implications. This is, what, Bozeman, where we want to make sure the manager of garbage collection doesn't have a negative online reputation? come on. Part of the responsibility of authority is realizing where it does not extend do, and excusing yourself from policing that.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

gaywolverine

June 20, 2009 2:03 PM

@kepler11: The fact that they ask for the information is the issue, not what people choose to do regarding aliases. I am sure the application says any lying on the application can lead to termination. If you said you did not have an account, and it turned out you did, you have lied and they can fire you. I would walk out of any interview or write NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS on the application if somebody asked me that.
I did have an interview several years ago where the interviewer asked me about my relationship with god and nature. I said, I dont think thats any of your business and left the interview

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

June 19, 2009 5:34 PM

@kepler11: But they're asking for online social networking blogs, websites, etc. that aren't just Facebook where you can (or not, I guess now) use your real name. If they have your user name and password, that IS you! It doesn't matter that you use a screen name - your act of putting it down on paper for them tells them that you are this alias.

Armed with your user name, they can search your chat logs, they can look through your comment history, they can build a profile based on what you say behind your alias - and contrast that with how you are in public. I can say confidently that I am the same person publicly and privately, but of course a person's word is no longer enough. In some ways, I get it - but in a great deal of other ways, not everyone is out to embezzle funds or steal company secrets or poison Tylenol. Most of us just want to make an honest living.

$\"user-pic\"$

RobertBaron

June 19, 2009 8:48 PM

@pecan 3.14159265: I think what Kepler is saying is that unless you use your real name, like on Facebook or MySpace, for your online identity, then it would be impossible for the employer to discover that it is you and therefore you wouldn't put down info for the sites you know you're on but would be impossible for an employer to discover.

For example. You wouldn't put down the login info for this site since (I'm assuming Pecan Pi) isn't you real name. The employer would receive your app, then probably check whatever sites you may have listed. Then probably google your real name. Your consumerist account would never show up since you don't use your real name on it. Knowing this, you'd be stupid to list this site since they would never discover it anyway. And since a job application isn't a legal binding document where swear to tell the truth under penalty of perjury or a subpoena, then you're in the right.

$\"user-pic\"$

xthexlanternx

June 20, 2009 11:26 AM

@RobertBaron:

Some job applications are legally binding agreements. I am specifically referring to government jobs where they ask for your online aliases/handles so that they can do an Internet background check in addition to the real life check. I'm sure there are legally binding agreements in the private sector (at least legally binding enough to fire you if you were ever linked to an alias you did not claim on your application).

$\"user-pic\"$

ludwigk

June 19, 2009 5:26 PM

Your google password allows access not only to your email account, but to other services like Google Checkout, which contains credit card information and purchase history. There's no way I'd submit that kind of information for a job application. I mean, its just full of clothes and video games, but that's noone's business but my own.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

ludwigk

June 19, 2009 5:27 PM

@ludwigk: Besides, if they want to see my Facebook and Youtube content, they can send me a friend invite, just like everyone else!

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

June 19, 2009 5:27 PM

One would think that a small town in Conservative America would be more respectful of individual privacy and keep away from overreaching government demands intruding into personal liberty.
One would think.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Pandrogas

June 19, 2009 6:37 PM

@Trai_Dep: Yeah, but Bozeman is probably one of the least conservative towns in Montana (Which isn't saying much, we're still fairly conservative). That said, this move hasn't been too popular here as everyone can imagine.

It comes down to fear that they might have picked the wrong person for the job, but honestly, it's still BS. Question is will they drop the requirement when they see the applications dwindle away.

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

June 19, 2009 7:27 PM

@Pandrogas: Optimistically, when they see the online ridicule, they'll hopefully retract this absurdity.

$\"user-pic\"$

MostlyHarmless

June 19, 2009 6:12 PM

@Trai_Dep: That depends on whether or not you donate during the election cycles and whether or not you run a shady business that aims to exploit the poor people / environment / kittens.

If you answered YES to any of them, they'll stay well out of your personal and business life.

$\"user-pic\"$

Xay

June 19, 2009 5:50 PM

@Trai_Dep: Because if there is anything that conservative small town government excels at, it's keeping government out of people's personal lives.

$\"user-pic\"$

angelzero

June 19, 2009 5:49 PM

@Trai_Dep: meet the new government, sam^H^H^H^H^H... completely different from the old government! :)

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

June 19, 2009 5:28 PM

\"the things that the federal constitution lists as protected things\"

Like, um, speech and association? Like the things you pretty definitionally do on social networking and e-mail?

$\"user-pic\"$

chiieddy

June 19, 2009 5:30 PM

This hit the mainstream media this morning (saw it on boston.com). The ACLU is having a field day. Also, the city is saying NOT filling in the fields will have no adverse effect on your application...right.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

BluePlastic

June 19, 2009 11:13 PM

@chiieddy: Ha! Then why did they put it there? What a bunch of nuts. No way would I ever put my passwords there. You're not even hired, and you're supposed to just trust them and give them your passwords. Yeah, right.

I googled my name and found some other people with my name on Facebook and LinkedIn. I hope no prospective employer would think they were me. I don't even have accounts on those places or MySpace or anything. I'm such a relic.

$\"user-pic\"$

justinph

June 19, 2009 5:30 PM

The Terms of Service for just about all of the sites they listed explicitly prohibit users with sharing their passwords with a third party. So by giving the city your facebook login, you're breaking your contract with Facebook and giving them reason to close your account. Pure genius.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

lockdog

June 19, 2009 11:45 PM

@justinph: Can we say \"Mod parent up!!\" on consumerist?? That was my first thought. Every EULA or TOS I've ever bothered to read expressly forbids sharing your password with another person.

$\"user-pic\"$

Xerloq

June 19, 2009 5:31 PM

Privacy issues aside - if someone is trying to be so precise as to use the terms \"any and all\" or \"to include, but not limited to\" to describe their request, I wouldn't infer they are implying that I should list sites to which I personally belong. Are they asking for my memberships, my parents', my wife's, whose? Just skip it and move on.

Then again, I'm not looking for a job.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

RobertBaron

June 19, 2009 5:37 PM

@Xerloq: Technically, if you really want to parse the request, they're not even asking for your sites and logins. Simply personal and business sites.

I'd give them:

IBM.com
Microsoft.com
Joe Shmoe's Facebook
Sara the Myspace angle hot girl I don't know but am friends on with on Myspace.com

But in all serious, I've been on the internet for like 15 years and have signed up for hundreds of sites. I can't even remember 99% of the sites let alone the logins for them.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

June 19, 2009 5:40 PM

@RobertBaron: Apparently, you just have to remember three.

$\"user-pic\"$

PdxPhoenix

June 19, 2009 5:33 PM

I like the last paragraph of the waiver statement about how the Montana Constitution gives the applicants the right to review any information gotten from this background check & that the city won't let you see the information anyway...
So invasive, (probably) illegal, & unconstitutional.
Amazing. What law school did this guy go to?

$\"user-pic\"$

TouchMyMonkey

June 19, 2009 5:34 PM

I routinely peruse left-wing websites like DailyKos, which would without doubt include quite a few Communists among its tens of thousands of members. Does that make me a Communist? I'm waiting for the first guy to get fired because he inadvertently forgot that he opened an account at Democratic Underground six years ago, but hasn't so much as visited the site since 2004. This policy opens itself up to so much abuse, lawsuits are inevitable. I'll be so looking forward to the hilarity that will ensue.

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

ZekeSulastin

June 19, 2009 5:40 PM

@HurtsSoGood: ... although I'm sure there'd be no complaints whatsoever if someone was rejected because of perusing sites on the hard-right side of the spectrum, right? ;)

$\"user-pic\"$

TouchMyMonkey

June 19, 2009 5:49 PM

@ZekeSulastin: Probably not, but that wasn't my point, which admittedly wasn't very clear. The real point was, what if they wanted to get rid of you? The easiest way would be if you had omitted something on your application or resume, right? You could get around just about any anti-discrimination law with that.

\"No, we didn't fire Mrs. Beasley because she got pregnant, we fired her because she left her account information for cutefluffykittens.com off her application.\"

THAT's the hilarity I was talking about.

$\"user-pic\"$

ZekeSulastin

June 19, 2009 5:41 PM

@ZekeSulastin: (I'm kidding, by the way; if I came across crap like the OP I'd be indignant as well)

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

@HurtsSoGood: This is a funny point, because I read a ton of newspapers and magazines and websites. Every day I read WSJ, HuffPo, WaPo and a ton of other news sites. I guess if the town were to look at my browsing history, they might think that I'm on the fence about politics!

$\"user-pic\"$

TouchMyMonkey

@HurtsSoGood: Ack! Let me rephrase that. There is probably a smattering of Communists at DailyKos.

$\"user-pic\"$

TouchMyMonkey

@HurtsSoGood: As in, a statistically insignificant number of Communists.

$\"user-pic\"$

JGKojak

Easy... give them fake accounts.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

TouchMyMonkey

June 19, 2009 5:53 PM

@JGKojak: Or give them all the accounts. For some of them, that'd take several extra sheets of paper. I bet as soon as they have all their people checking out endless lists of chat rooms, forums, blogs, MMORPGs, etc. and so on and so forth, they'll rethink this idiotic idea.

Or they'll pick three at random and check those.

$\"user-pic\"$

cc82

Asking for your google account is beyond ridiculous. That would give access to emails, documents, financial info (google checkout)... goes way beyond wanting to see if there are any drunk pictures of you.

$\"user-pic\"$

I Love New Jersey

June 19, 2009 5:38 PM

Even more reason to use your dog as the person who signs up for these things.

$\"user-pic\"$

Slow2Whine

June 19, 2009 5:40 PM

I was reading this story last night on www.boingboing.net,
and another commenter made a good point,

\"In an interview, they couldn't ask me about my religion, my marital status, my politics, and various other prohibited categories. That's black-letter federal law that every employer knows, especially employers with in-house government-paid lawyers.

My Facebook page alone has all that information and more, most of it conveniently gathered together in a little box.

I know the bar for discrimination lawsuits is pretty high, but wouldn't any rejected applicant have a real leg up given that there's no way the city could claim it didn't know it was demanding information it wasn't entitled to know?\"

I can't imagine this new rule sticking around for longer then a week.

$\"user-pic\"$

RB_Bhoy

June 19, 2009 5:44 PM

i just went for a job interview (not even for an office job or anything, a stupid catering co. position) and the manager slid a piece of paper across the desk and asked for my social networking site URLs.

when i asked what that had to do with the job, i was told they want to get to know the \"real me,\" and not the \"brown-nosing [me], that everybody shows up as in interviews.\" i told him i only have a facebook (lied, i have a myspace set to private, but haven't used in months), but it's set to private so nobody who wasn't a friend could view it, and i only add close friends and family...about 60 or so people. he said he'd when i got home to accept his friend request, that it'll be from his profile with his name. i told him \"sorry eric, but i just don't think you and i can be friends anymore.\" and i left.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

johnva

June 19, 2009 8:14 PM

@RB_Bhoy: You could always ridiculously parse his request by accepting the request, but setting up filters to completely lock everything down first. After all, he never specified that he has to able to view everything.

But you did the right thing. Employers should be made to feel they are losing qualified candidates for even attempting this sort of thing. And I guarantee they are, even if they're unaware of it. No one intelligent would ever comply with a request like this (unless you were applying for a job at the CIA requiring a security clearance or something, but that's kind of different as a) there's a good reason for it, and b) that's the expectation when you work for the CIA.

$\"user-pic\"$

EinhornIsAMan!

June 19, 2009 7:44 PM

@RB_Bhoy: I'm not adding my boss as a friend either.

$\"user-pic\"$

Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh

June 19, 2009 6:20 PM

@RB_Bhoy: Lol.. good for you.

$\"user-pic\"$

KhaiJB

June 19, 2009 5:45 PM

well considering some of the forums I goto have stores attached to them (Steam anyone?) that can hold CC details etc, they can go fuck themselves.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

realserendipity

June 19, 2009 6:35 PM

@KhaiJB:
I was just thinking that too.

$\"user-pic\"$

grapedog

June 19, 2009 5:47 PM

Sorry, after reading this application I closed every single one of my e-mail, message board, news, and social networking sites yesterday.

Like the above poster, I have at least a hundred open accounts at forums across the web. From Gamespot to Wired to Bigsoccer...they can take a long walk off a short pier if they think I'm giving them all that information.

3 lines would not be enough anyway, haha...I could start with the least worthy and just run out of space before I got to anything worthwhile.

$\"user-pic\"$

jvanbrecht

June 19, 2009 5:48 PM

As someone else noted, providing your authentication credentials is a violation of the policies of every site out there.

That said, while FISMA is not a requirement for individual states, it is required that certain systems that tie into federal systems comply with FISMA requirements (no state agency would permit MOU's of any sort with a system that does not atleast meet the minimum baselines, ala NIST 800-53 and FISMA). Most states also use NIST guidelines.

Why did I post all that mumbo jumbo above, well because they list Police personnel, police systems tie into federal systems, especially when it comes to criminal databases. The policy of requiring users to provide credentials violates every security control listed in FISMA requirements (which are generally based on NIST guidelines).

I would like to see every federal system that is in use in that city get their access pulled..

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Veeber

June 19, 2009 8:12 PM

@jvanbrecht: But if they don't have an existing MOU with the State government would they necessarily get their access pulled. The ISA/MOU should only be in place if the two systems are interconnected. If the police department only has a login account to the federal system they may be only considered users. They could potentially revoke their user accounts, but that would be a stretch given that the Rules of Behavior probably only related directly to the system the user is on and does not prescribe violations of TOS for other systems, especially non-Federal.

And which 800-53 control are they failing for requesting the userID and password? Maybe PS-3 or an MP control?

$\"user-pic\"$

jvanbrecht

June 19, 2009 5:52 PM

@jvanbrecht: I mean \"no federal agency\" not \"no state agency\"

$\"user-pic\"$

FLConsumer

June 19, 2009 5:50 PM

What's up with \"business website\" passwords? Those are property of my company, NOT me!

$\"user-pic\"$

Robobot

June 19, 2009 5:57 PM

I get that the city wants to \"make sure the people that [they] hire have the highest moral character and are a good fit for the City,\" but who is defining \"moral character\" here?

For instance, there are many many people who believe that unwed mothers lack \"moral character.\" So if a woman is a member of the group \"single mommies\" on Facebook is she going to be considered an unfit candidate?

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

dahlink_natasha

June 22, 2009 4:36 AM

@Robobot: also identifying yourself as Pagan or Wiccan. We don't drink the blood of Christian babies, but there's a lot of silly stereotypes out there.

$\"user-pic\"$

the_wiggle

June 20, 2009 9:54 PM

@Robobot: you know it. likewise a fan of the gay rights movement or whatever.

$\"user-pic\"$

HRHKingFridayXX

June 19, 2009 6:04 PM

I'm ok with this as long as its all publicly viewable webpages-- but even then, no to the passwords. They have a right to know what you're publishing about yourself.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

johnva

June 19, 2009 8:19 PM

@HRHKingFridayXX: Yeah, they probably do have a right to know what you're publicly publishing. But that is COMPLETELY different from having access to ALL the data you put online. You should have a right to choose what the employer sees of your data, if it's done on your own time. As long as you're not publishing it openly, they don't even have a right to ASK, in my opinion, much less login as you and snoop through.

$\"user-pic\"$

RB_Bhoy

June 19, 2009 6:05 PM

also, since this has been going on a lot recently and facebook allows you to make up a username for your URL, my friend jose chose [www.facebook.com] genius!

$\"user-pic\"$

RB_Bhoy

June 19, 2009 6:06 PM

oops, that's supposed to be /greatemployee

$\"user-pic\"$

Marco Deppe

June 19, 2009 6:07 PM

It ends right here:
[www.facebook.com]
Registration and Account Security
[..]
6. You will not share your password, let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Black-Cat

June 19, 2009 6:18 PM

@Marco Deppe: It only ends 'right there' if you don't want the job...otherwise, just assume the position and take it.

$\"user-pic\"$

Marco Deppe

June 21, 2009 4:24 AM

@Black-Cat: This is America: You don't take the job and sue the heck out of them. :p

$\"user-pic\"$

Black-Cat

June 19, 2009 6:17 PM

Just stop the crying now all you pussies. This is just another step towards New World Order. Even if you don't believe that, which is fine, believe the fact that more and more employers will be pulling this shit. It's really actually very old news...

$\"user-pic\"$

ospreyguy

June 19, 2009 6:19 PM

So what if I get hired and the asshat HR rep (not the one that hired me but that guy who sits and files crap) that is all pissy at me beacuse I hit on his GF logs into my account and changes it so I look like a pedofile, or some other offending action, and then says \"you know that ospreyguy seems wierd. Did you ever check his online stuff?\" Totally screwed.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

LibraryGeek

June 21, 2009 6:55 PM

@ospreyguy: Yeah, this is the thing I'm not seeing many posters noting -- with a password others can pretend to be you and do godonlyknowswhat in your name :( I really really don't think this guy thought this through.

$\"user-pic\"$

heart.shaped.rock

June 19, 2009 6:30 PM

It isn't a matter looking at the material, it's a matter of what they DO with the material that could get them in hot water. Say someone's facebook shows photos of them at a particular religious ceremony, or the person lists their religion on the profile. If that person doesn't get hired, they could say that it was because of their religion. Whether or not that's the case, the city will still end up in court and paying legal fees.

$\"user-pic\"$

VikingP77

June 19, 2009 6:33 PM

Hahahahahaha! Ridiculous for them to ask for this info!

$\"user-pic\"$

mistifi

June 19, 2009 6:37 PM

doesn't this violate many social networking sites' Terms of Use which tell their users to not distribute their login and password information?

$\"user-pic\"$

henrygates

June 19, 2009 6:40 PM

I think whoever thought this up doesn't understand the technology. They probably just want to be able to look at your Facebook page. As an employee, you represent the company you work for, even when you're on private time. They probably don't want one of their employees pictured in the paper next to a Facebook photo of them drunk and half naked in a bar. Or a screenshot of their KKK Myspace page. Considering all the stupid things people put on the Internet of themselves, I don't blame the city/company one bit.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

bibliophibian

June 21, 2009 12:03 AM

@henrygates: \"They probably don't want one of their employees pictured in the paper next to a Facebook photo of them drunk and half naked in a bar. Or a screenshot of their KKK Myspace page.\"

While this might seem like an understandable thought at first glance, it's insupportable and therefore irrelevant. Just because my Facebook account doesn't have a drunk/naked photo of me on it today, doesn't mean it won't have that photo up next week or next year. Just because I'm a member of Mytown Deeply Religious Really Good People Church today doesn't mean that in six months I can't decide that I feel more comfortable at the Satan Is My Overlord Let's Kill Puppies congregation.

Bearing in mind the fluidity of human nature and the fact that an online presence can be changed, falsified, and/or deleted at whim, this request just doesn't hold any water.

$\"user-pic\"$

angelzero

June 19, 2009 6:48 PM

@henrygates: \"As an employee, you represent the company you work for, even when you're on private time.\"

Wow. What paper state do you live in? Remind me to never, ever, ever move there.

$\"user-pic\"$

the_wiggle

June 20, 2009 9:57 PM

@angelzero: sad to say that attitude has become the norm rather than the exception.

we can crucify our employees for anything - public or private - they have to take it in this economy - HAHAHAHAHAHA.

$\"user-pic\"$

realserendipity

June 19, 2009 6:43 PM

I'm employed and don't need a job but even if I did Im not giving it up. I would just leave the spot blank and if anyone asked questions, I would answer honestly that those logins and passwords are private information and of no relevance on how I do my job.
I have memberships on sites on everything from pit bull rescures, tattoos, piercings, politics, and more. All it means is that I have a variety of interests and try to keep myself informed all sides of issues.

$\"user-pic\"$

razremytuxbuddy

June 19, 2009 6:59 PM

This was some city official's really bad idea. I don't think this has anything to do with identifying potential criminals and predators. I suspect the City is trying to monitor and control its employees' political speech and whistleblowing. Governments basically hate civil servants who are politically-outspoken, because they can embarrass and cause trouble for government officials--which can be very annoying to the people trying to run the government. So, if the gub'ment has its employees' subscriber info and passwords, it can monitor, edit and delete objectionable free speech, and then come up with cause to terminate the employee.

$\"user-pic\"$

EinhornIsAMan!

June 19, 2009 7:05 PM

Luckily I have about 7 different email accounts (college email-which is a violation of school policy to give my password out), 4 gmails, a yahoo, and a hotmail. I use them for different reasons-one for college apps, one for school/work, another for online orders (of all sorts) and that I don't mind getting spammed at. My myspace is long gone, and I could easily make up a new facebook and have random people friend me.

If there weren't a bad recession, I'm sure someone would have sued. Maybe the next one to get fired sues out of spite.

$\"user-pic\"$

gafpromise

June 19, 2009 7:08 PM

In the paragraph quoted I don't see anything about handing over passwords, just listing the account.

Granted, I can't get to the full article because my work server is blocking it.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

scouts honor

June 19, 2009 9:02 PM

@gafpromise: Then try looking at the picture of the application at the top of the post.

$\"user-pic\"$

SacraBos

June 19, 2009 7:12 PM

Sorry, I can't give you those passwords because it is against the Terms of Service of these services to disclose my password to any third party. So, if I gave you those passwords, I would be breaking this agreement, and therefore I cannot ethically disclose them to you.

If you would like a more unethical candidate, please choose one from the pile that contains working usernames and passwords.

Thank you.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

johnva

June 19, 2009 8:27 PM

@SacraBos: Totally correct response to this request.

$\"user-pic\"$

Red_Flag

June 19, 2009 7:21 PM

@SacraBos: ::applause::

$\"user-pic\"$

Deweavy

June 19, 2009 7:16 PM

I think with all the layoffs that are going on employers think (and do) get away with way more than they have in the past. I went on a part time job interview at a market and they asked some questions that were leading toward very personal and political matters. I told them that I didn't feel it was appropriate to answer them. Despite all my experience I didn't get the job, though that probably is due to the attitude I developed after being asked irrelevant and annoying questions

$\"user-pic\"$

itsallme

June 19, 2009 7:22 PM

Handing over your password probably violates the EULA.

$\"user-pic\"$

catastrophegirl chooses not to fly

June 19, 2009 7:42 PM

um, no.
access to my google account means access to the email confirmation from my pharmacy that confirms that i just refilled my prescriptions, the calendar entries on my google calendar for my doctor's appointments so you can look as see what doctor i go to and infer why i am going, my e-billing emails that tell me how much money i owe the power company and the satellite company. and the emails from netflix that say which DVD just shipped. and the... and the... and the.....

yeah, if i ever got handed that application in a job interview, i'd leave, right after i quit laughing so hard i choked.

$\"user-pic\"$

shiftless

June 19, 2009 7:42 PM

Sounds like they have too much free time to be nosy.

$\"user-pic\"$

uptown

June 19, 2009 7:54 PM

Give it to them ... then sue them for illegally accessing an account which they had no legal right to access. Solves the whole \"needing a job\" problem.

$\"user-pic\"$

mdoublej

June 19, 2009 7:58 PM

Though I totally disagree with anyone asking for UN/PW's, it seems like some of the posters here REALLY trust Google.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

catastrophegirl chooses not to fly

June 19, 2009 9:28 PM

@mdoublej: i see a big difference between google having access and an employer having access. to google i am a small fish in a big sea and not likely to be worth looking at. also, using their services means i have an agreement with them, specifically. the entity that is \"google\" doesn't live near me, work with me, speak to me on a daily basis. or have the power to fire me.

$\"user-pic\"$

johnva

June 19, 2009 8:25 PM

@mdoublej: It's actually quite scary how much surveillance Google can do. They can see a LOT of things that people would probably consider very private. Still, at least in that case, they have privacy policies and such and are probably mainly interested in the data in aggregate rather than you as an individual. A job interview is a way more invasive context to be revealing all that information.

$\"user-pic\"$

johnva

June 19, 2009 8:03 PM

Anyone willing to give this out to get a lousy city job is not only an idiot, but an enemy of the rest of us. If people routinely refused to give this sort of invasive crap out, maybe employers wouldn't be emboldened to try this kind of thing.

$\"user-pic\"$

u1itn0w2day

June 19, 2009 8:35 PM

This is flat out creepy . And even more scary is that they said no one has withdrawn their name so either they are lying , created false accounts or brainwashed job seeking fools . Most work to live but these chumps will be living to work . Bozeman now owns you .

And if Pentagon Security secrets can be leaked to the press I guarantee you one day YOUR personel file for the City Of Bozeman or who ever can be leaked as well . One of these toads runs for office and the opposition and/or reporters will have access to YOUR ONLINE LIFE and put YOUR non work activities out of perspective and context all they want . You will be profiled worse than a management applicant with a bad credit score . Sheeple=public employees of Bozeman .

And by the way : is this retro active on existing employees ?

How do they say it on Star Trek - WE ARE THE BORG , YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED , YOU WILL COMPLY ...

Bozeman Montana - I wonder if Bozeman is a tourist destination ? or WAS .

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

LibraryGeek

June 21, 2009 7:00 PM

@u1itn0w2day: If I recieve an application and see this on it -- never submit it, I don't think I would be considered in the category \"withdrawn\". They are being clueless using that as a measure. What they need are the number of incomplete (received and never completed) applications.

$\"user-pic\"$

BluePlastic

June 19, 2009 11:28 PM

@u1itn0w2day: You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

$\"user-pic\"$

u1itn0w2day

June 20, 2009 1:17 AM

@BluePlastic: Thank You ; sounds better .Although I hope resistance is NOT futile here .

$\"user-pic\"$

u1itn0w2day

June 19, 2009 8:45 PM

Another frieghtning thing with this is that I don't think the Bozeman HR was ignorant enough to this on their own .

They probably got this from some HR website,consultant or recent HR graduate with the latest and greatest in intrusive privacy smashing background profiling techniques . Which means this won't be the last place where we see this kind of invasion/errosion of our rights .

$\"user-pic\"$

strathmeyer

June 19, 2009 8:55 PM

I wonder if they would mind if, after you started working there, you stole the usernames and passwords of all of your bosses.

$\"user-pic\"$

RobertBaron

June 19, 2009 9:31 PM

I wonder how secure their files are.

It would be very easy for an employee to grab a stack of apps and write down a bunch of usernames and passes and have a field day when they got home.

And now that this story is public and making the mainstream press, I would think there might be some enterprising thieves and hackers circling the office.

I'm also assuming the city HR department is probably treating these job applications like normal job applications and throwing them in a file bin with a shitty lock (if that) or even the trash. And probably without shredding them.

$\"user-pic\"$

James Davis

June 19, 2009 9:40 PM

Hmmmm. My place of employment can and will terminate you for the sharing of passwords. Perhaps it's a test...

$\"user-pic\"$

RodolfoRabulous

June 19, 2009 10:14 PM

This form isn't linked to from their applications page right now. http://www.bozeman.net/bozeman/humanResource/applications.aspx I think they're changing their minds.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

RodolfoRabulous

June 19, 2009 10:18 PM

@RodolfoRabulous: I was wrong. It is currently linked to from this page: http://www.bozeman.net/bozeman/humanResource/forms.aspx

$\"user-pic\"$

BytheSea

June 19, 2009 10:37 PM

I doubt the person who drew up the form knows what a social networking website is, or what a password does.

$\"user-pic\"$

u1itn0w2day

June 19, 2009 10:57 PM

Before the day and age of computers if they asked if you were a member of a club did they call that club and ask what you did ? Did they even ask did you frequent bars . If an HR saw you enter a bar on your own time would they have the right not hire you just because they saw you go into a bar and yet you have no DUIs or signs of alcholism ? This is just another form of profiling .

And lets say there wasn't the internet . Unless you gave them permission would a potential employer even bother calling or asking that club about you ? Would that club be required to respond without permission or a court order ?

How did employers survive in pre internet times ?

$\"user-pic\"$

MissPiss

June 19, 2009 11:21 PM

Thats why my one and only social networking account is listed under a mixture of my first and middle name. You will not be able to access me by typing in my real name.

$\"user-pic\"$

mariospants

June 20, 2009 1:05 AM

Employer/schemployer. I'm more concerned about nosy and potentially abusive new co-workers gaining access to this information. I'd love to know the processes they follow when handling these applications.

$\"user-pic\"$

H3ion

June 20, 2009 2:49 AM

The city of Bozeman has repealed the requirement.

[www.msnbc.msn.com]

$\"user-pic\"$

u1itn0w2day

June 20, 2009 1:43 PM

The stupidity of all this is that it really cannot prevent someone from creating a new ID in the future, placing embarassing photos, or saying something contreversial . IN other words you have to be monitored on a regular basis which is even more scary .

Stuff like the online check or credit check is nothing more than a form of profiling . These HR types/firms need something better to do with their time .

$\"user-pic\"$

gaywolverine

June 20, 2009 1:57 PM

I would never give this to anybody. If you give it to a PERSON, that person has the ability to go on there at any time and post anything under your name. What happens when the next thing they want to do before hiring is a detailed list of all past sex partners, every time you have ever had an alcoholic beverage, how many times you eat at McDonalds, and if you give enough money to your church. All employers need to stay the fuck out of peoples business.

$\"user-pic\"$

maruawe42

June 20, 2009 2:07 PM

This is just a way for Bozeman to intrude to intrude in the personal lives of employees. No one should have to give this information to anyone else esp. passwords. The reason a person use passwords is for personal privacy....
without a warrant I would not give out the passwords.
actually my passwords come up as >.......... so this is what I would put in the questionnaire.

$\"user-pic\"$

Jessie Newburn

June 20, 2009 3:31 PM

Yuk.

$\"user-pic\"$

Winteridge2

June 20, 2009 4:22 PM

Did anyone ask why they would need this personal information? My social security #, yes. How would they even know that you twitter, or twit, or tweet, or whater?

$\"user-pic\"$

Derek Bentley

June 20, 2009 4:33 PM

Forget it. There's no reason why they need that information. If they say they need to spy on you perhaps you should look for another place to work.

$\"user-pic\"$

MonkeyMontage

June 20, 2009 9:19 PM

One other worrisome element (clearly, I am not Bozeman material) - I run a private Yahoo group, and handing over my Yahoo account information would mean exposing several hundred people who had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Sort of - however, it is reasonable to assume the group moderator will not suddenly turn over control of the group to a municipal entity.

Oddly enough, Billings, Montana is often discussed on the group due to a certain municipal policy - I smell a rat!

$\"user-pic\"$

nycdesigner

June 21, 2009 4:49 AM

A day in life's 24 hours = 8 hours work; 8 hours personal; 8 hours unconscious (sleep).

Keep a balance.

No company deserves more than 1/3 of your life.

$\"user-pic\"$

ciaright

June 22, 2009 1:17 AM

I think is should be noted that this level of scrutiny is not even placed on applicants for a security clearance with the Federal Government.