Print 145 comment(s) - last by ThePooBurner.. on Jun 23 at 12:04 PM

Bozeman request: Big brother snooping, or legitimate request?

The city of Bozeman, with a population of 25,000 people in southwestern Montana, likely isn't one you heard of recently. However, it's in the news after a city job requirement has drawn heavy criticism over possible privacy issues.

An anonymous citizen who applied for a city job alerted local media that he or she had to provide log-in information and passwords for any and all social networking web sites they use while applying for a job with the city.

Along with the normal background check, criminal history, education and employment past, the following is written into the Bozeman city employment waiver statement:

"Please list any and all, current personal or business websites, web pages or memberships on any internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo,, MySpace, etc."

The application also gives room for three different web sites, account names and passwords, according to the applicant.

There are obvious privacy concerns related to what the city is attempting to do here, regardless of whether or not an applicant has something possibly incriminating posted on a social networking web site.  

In Article 2, Section 10 of the Montana Constitution, it says "the right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest."

"So, we have 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," Bozeman city attorney Greg Sullivan told local media.  "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."

It's possible Bozeman may create an official Facebook page where they have the ability to view an applicant's profile without the ability of looking at that persons friends through the site.

City officials say no applicants elected to refuse to turn over social networking information and end their application process.

It's interesting to hear that a city seeks to have a peek at an applicant's MySpace or Facebook profile as part of the application process.  There are a growing number of professors and experts who warn college students and young people that they should be extremely careful what they publicly post on the internet, though normally companies don't have direct access to a person's account.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By Golgatha on 6/18/2009 4:42:23 PM , Rating: 5
I'm not sure how this information could be used to determine suitability for a certain government position. I do however see how it could be abused for age, race, disability, and/or religious affiliation discrimination even if you chose to not share this type of information on the optional demographic info (which is typically anonymous and certainly not considered as part of a job application anyway) that you can opt-in to share after a normal job application.

Would you like to confirm "Big Brother" as a friend on Facebook! Add or Ignore?

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By Jimbo1234 on 6/18/2009 5:12:42 PM , Rating: 3
I'd say Block.

By Cypherdude1 on 6/19/2009 1:27:39 AM , Rating: 4
There'll be a lawsuit coming on soon over this. The city has no right to request the passwords of your private online accounts. Why don't they also ask for the passwords of your Amazon, PayPal, credit card, and bank accounts also?

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By Samus on 6/19/09, Rating: 0
By BZDTemp on 6/19/2009 4:20:18 AM , Rating: 5
I don't see anywhere in the actual article that states the city was demanding a password but just for you to list your facebook and myspace account names/url's.

So you don't think that having boxes for that info on the job application form is not a request for that info. I guess you never filled out an application form.

hey could potentially search this information anyway (as many employers do) and for the most part, you shouldn't have any information on your public facebook/myspace account that would be detrimental to your employment anywhere. That's just stupid.

You need to wake up. One can easily have a myspace or similar that is used to voice political views and similar. I can easily imagine potential employers factoring in such info to choose whom to employ. Getting access to private info is taking it a big step further.

A buddy of mine has pot leafs and shit all over his myspace. Can't wait for him to get fired from the pharmacy he works at as a medical tech over it...

A buddy... were nice wishes you have for your "buddy". I hope for that your buddies do not have similar nice hopes for you.

I think the city is way out of line for asking for such information. Do they also ask what you vote, what clubs you are a member of or which TV/Radio news programs you listen to.

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By PrezWeezy on 6/19/2009 5:35:02 PM , Rating: 1
"Please list any and all, current personal or business websites, web pages or memberships on any internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo,, MySpace, etc."

The application also gives room for three different web sites, account names and passwords, according to the applicant .

It says right in the article the application requires people to list account names and passwords. That's why everyone is so upset.

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By Samus on 6/19/2009 9:19:30 PM , Rating: 1
You guys are throwing this completely out of proportion. The fucking forms don't REQUIRE you to fill out this information. They just ask it. It isn't REQUIRED. RTFA!

And as far as putting illegal content such as drug para. on your public myspace, well, if you don't see how stupid that is, then I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to your dumbasses.

In this country, you need to have a level of civil responsibility, and its simply irresponsible, especially financially, to risk your employment by openingly expressing your illegal views. If somebody asked me if I smoked pot, I'd admit it. But until they did, I wouldn't tell them. THATS ALL THERE IS TO IT.

So rate me down. You know I'm right, and that's the sad part. You just don't want to admit it. Keep lying to yourselfs.

By CGfreak102 on 6/20/2009 1:58:18 PM , Rating: 1
You guys are throwing this completely out of proportion. The fucking forms don't REQUIRE you to fill out this information. They just ask it. It isn't REQUIRED. RTFA!

are you seriously that retarded you can't even read...

And yea i have a facebook and i post my experience at work, my voice basically what i think of it, sure they could fire me for it but i am sure they wont. And to your point of openly saying you smoke pot, what if an officer of the law asked you. cause i hope you like your jail sell.

god i love re-re's

By Noliving on 6/20/2009 9:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually yes it does, just becuase it used the word please doesn't mean it is optional. Plus it also states that no one refused to hand over the information and end the application process. "and end the application process" pretty much says its required.

By ZachDontScare on 6/18/2009 5:15:01 PM , Rating: 5
Thats a very good point.

Its illegal in a lot of places/organizations to ask a job candidate about something like age and maritial status, and where its not explicitly illegal, its highly discouraged because it potentially opens companies up to discrimination suits by people rejected for jobs (whether they have merit or not). So this rediculous policy very well may cost Bozeman millions of dollars in lawsuit settlements.

If applicants were smart, they'd make up 3 or 4 fake social networking accounts on which they promote homosexuality and cross dressing, as well as suing organizations that discriminate based on sexual orientation. I bet they then get every job they apply for!

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By mmntech on 6/18/2009 5:26:42 PM , Rating: 5
I'm wondering if this is even legal in the first place. If it isn't illegal, it should be. There are major privacy issues with people prying into others Facebook accounts. There have been several cases where kids have been suspended or expelled from school for saying bad things about their teachers on social networking sites. Allowing this just opens up the door for abuse.

I do know it is an employee's right to refuse such requests. No job is worth having your entire private life exposed like that. You wouldn't hand over your bank card number and PIN if they asked you. Never trust these people.

By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/18/2009 6:21:20 PM , Rating: 5
I would not be against giving out facebook, myspace... name (location). They are more or less open to the public and you should not be afraid of what you list on these pages. However, giving out login and password? Not a chance in Hell. No one is going into my account but me (outside of the host admin. of course). I'm not going to give a stranger the chance to contact my friends and relatives while using my login in.

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By Xerstead on 6/18/2009 7:34:45 PM , Rating: 2
It's more than just letting them contact your friends etc.
I would never give my username/password. Doing so would allow full access and controll of your account by anyone in the HR department who had access to your application form. Once in they could pretend to be you and do anything (join groups/send messages etc.) or even change the password and lock you out of your own account.
Also many people use similar login/passwords for different sites, a further personal security risk.
Giving your home page should be optional, but as most sites have security settings blocking non-friends from seeing your profile you would need to 'add' them first.

By RagingDragon on 6/19/2009 2:29:11 AM , Rating: 2
Better yet, some city HR employee could log in with your ID, and while posing as you post something offensive, then use that as grounds not to hire you.

Conversely you could post something offensive shortly after being asked for the information (using a local internet cafe or some random unsecured wireless connection, so the post can't be definitely tracked back to you), then use then sue city for on the grounds one of their employees masquerading as you made the offensive post.

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By dever on 6/19/2009 3:30:52 PM , Rating: 3
Providing your login information and allowing someone else to use your account is typically against the terms and conditions of sites such as MySpace & Facebook. That means the city is explicitly asking people to violate contracts between private parties... just for a job application. Wow, that's huge!

By Xerstead on 6/19/2009 4:24:23 PM , Rating: 2
Just wondering how they would react if you were as open about work related log-ins and passwords on the next chain-mail/quiz that gets sent around Facebook.

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By Darkk on 6/18/2009 11:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
It's not legal at all. Mainly being asked to provide them your username and PASSWORD violates your rights to privacy and personal protection.

The city will be sued and even bankrupt over stupidity.

It's really up to the HR department to snoop on their own which usually is the case. They just google your name and see what pops up. Go ahead, google yours and you'd be surprised what you might find.

By Mojo the Monkey on 6/19/2009 4:46:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'll tell you what comes up, 2000 other people with my name. I am not surprised.

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By GaryJohnson on 6/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By Hvordan on 6/18/2009 5:40:37 PM , Rating: 5
A face to face interview is not part of my private life. You can ask me in the interview if I have accounts at networking sites.

If you ask me who is mailing me, who my friends are, what groups I am a fan of etc, I will politely halt the interview, leave, and quite likely file suit against you.

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By GaryJohnson on 6/18/09, Rating: -1
By Old Man Dotes on 6/18/2009 5:50:41 PM , Rating: 5
Gary, are you married? Heterosexual? Gay? Celibate? Do you have sex in the living room with the curtains open, or out on the front lawn, or do you at least close the curtains? If you're not screwing on the front lawn, what have you got to hide? After all, you wouldn't be hiding it if you weren't doing anything illegal, would you?

Some questions *ARE* illegal to even ask a job applicant.

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By GaryJohnson on 6/18/09, Rating: -1
By ClownPuncher on 6/18/2009 5:59:49 PM , Rating: 4
He listens to Slayer, we can't hire him.

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By GaryJohnson on 6/18/09, Rating: -1
By zsdersw on 6/19/2009 9:54:14 AM , Rating: 2
That's not the point. The point is that it's no business of theirs to demand any of this information.. especially to demand USERNAMES AND PASSWORDS.

By ThePooBurner on 6/23/2009 12:04:57 PM , Rating: 1
He didn't vote for, and doesn't support the supreme and exalted one: High Lord Obama (ala bless him), not only can we not hire him, but we must turn him over to the Civil Defense Force for questioning. May his children be cursed.

By Old Man Dotes on 6/18/2009 6:06:13 PM , Rating: 5
Answer the question, Gary. Are you gay or not? Do you engage in beastiality or not? Oh, it's none of my business? Well, I guess I can't hire you, then.

*SOME* questions are simply *ILLEGAL* to ask a job applicant. Your attempt to avoid the point is laughable. How much did you donate to Rush Limbaugh's "rehabilitation" fund?

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By GaryJohnson on 6/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By Spuke on 6/18/2009 6:25:28 PM , Rating: 2
Am I supposed to feel violated now?
Where would you draw the line?

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By GaryJohnson on 6/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By Keeir on 6/18/2009 6:38:44 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not saying there aren't some questions that I wouldn't answer at an interview. What I am saying, though, is that they can ask me those questions all day and I won't in the least feel inclined to take legal action.

What if your denied the job/promotion and it is clearly because of your answers or declining to answer?

By ebakke on 6/18/2009 6:59:03 PM , Rating: 3
Is that really a company you'd want to work for anyway?

By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/18/2009 7:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
Well if you were truly qualified for the job... then two things come to mind right away.
1) was anyone hired? - maybe they did not fill job - company might have said, well we can not afford anyone right now....
2) was someone with higher levels of talent hired instead of you?

People always want to assume these questions are the biggest problem for not getting the job. When the simple answer might be, maybe you and the job where not meant to be one.... Not always a bad thing. If you can not pass the interview question (personal and professional) then do you really want to work there? If you failed the questions but got the job, you'd probably hate going to work everyday. To me that would suck more then not getting the job.

However, I do agree with you some questions are unfair.

By Shmak on 6/20/2009 10:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
If anyone here has read the book "Blink" by Malcom Gladwell there is a great section about the audition process for symphonies up until the 80's.

Until that point the auditions were held face to face as the player performed for the maestro. When they started the "blind audition" where the performer was behind a screen, the female population of nearly every symphony grew from 2% to about 50% today. This is simply from gender.

Now, if we are talking about the "best person for the job", there is certainly irrelevant information that can cloud the judgment of the reviewer. I'm pretty sure that this kind of thing can only make the review process worse, not only for the applicant, but for the reviewer with his needless foray though a huge mine of mostly useless information.

By christojojo on 6/18/2009 7:51:23 PM , Rating: 4
Why do I have a feeling that if you saw a mugging, a fire, an accident you wouldn't do anything either?

Sometimes doing the right thing means defending others, and that includes their privacy.

It is supposedly illegal to ask your religion, how many children you have, if you are married. Facebook and other way over publicized (cough cough twitter) social cites can have that info on to share with your friends. BTW: My employers though fairly decent people are not my friends. If you are an employer (Which I suspect)using data found there is kind of low.

By Hvordan on 6/18/2009 6:10:57 PM , Rating: 4
The purpose of the interview is for the interviewer to ask questions of the interviewee that you hope will show how good a fit your are for the organisation.

No interview I've been to has ever required me to hand over a substantial part of my personal realm for their perusal with the assumption that they will only look at the pertinent pieces to determine how well I will perform the duties of the position I applied to.

By ClownPuncher on 6/18/2009 5:58:41 PM , Rating: 4
Some people like their right to privacy. Delving into someones personal life is inexcusable as an employer.

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By Keeir on 6/18/2009 6:05:04 PM , Rating: 2
Delving into someones personal life is inexcusable as an employer.

Thats a bit broad. If a person is applying for a job that can entail delving into someone else's personal life... its important a through and complete background check is performed. Thats going to require at least moderate investigation into "personal" life

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By GaryJohnson on 6/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By Hvordan on 6/18/2009 6:12:17 PM , Rating: 4
...and interestingly they do not require the user IDs and passwords to your mail accounts.

By Spuke on 6/18/2009 6:26:49 PM , Rating: 2
and interestingly they do not require the user IDs and passwords to your mail accounts.
That's very true and very interesting why they don't.

By Keeir on 6/18/2009 6:27:02 PM , Rating: 2

Is a persons Facebook Profile Identifier valid or invalid for the purpose of a complete background check that will include family interviews and neigherbor interviews?

Not the password. The required information to find and confirm thier presense on Facebook?

By Oregonian2 on 6/18/2009 10:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure if that's true.

One can use email web accounts to participate in yahoo (and other) email group forums, which sound like they count.

If I log into my Amazon account, I can and have participate in posting reviews about products that are somewhat forum-like in that postings refer to each other. So I might have to give them the one-click purchasing key to my Amazon account. EggHead is somewhat similar with being logged in for review postings which are then shown to the public, forum-like.

By ebakke on 6/18/2009 7:02:05 PM , Rating: 2
they autopsy your dead pets to make sure you didn't bludgeon them to death or have sex with them.
Not with real pathologists though. ...and I told it not to bite me again.

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By Xerstead on 6/18/2009 7:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote: make sure you didn't bludgeon them to death or have sex with them.

Before or after?

By RagingDragon on 6/19/2009 2:34:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote: make sure you didn't bludgeon them to death or have sex with them.
Before or after?


By tlampen on 6/18/2009 10:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
How about your "Friends" privacy? on facebook I have it so that people can't see my profile until I accept them as my friend. However, full access to a facebook or myspace account allows access to view anyone who has accepted that account as a "friend". They are not only invading the privacy of the applicant but they are also invading my privacy. Facebook and myspace accounts open up more than one individuals life. I am not someone who complains about "big brother" and I am also a realist by understanding that true privacy in this day and age is a myth but I for one am pissed that this is happening and further degrading our freedom of privacy.

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By Hvordan on 6/18/2009 6:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
I will say that right after submitting, I was contemplating the suing part of the message as it was too big of a flame-bait and that I probably should have left it out or been more specific. The point is really that being asked about ethnical background, age, etc (which are usually easily gleaned from your profile) in an interview are grounds for law suits, and there's a lawsuit waiting to happen with asking about social sites too for that reason alone. I should have been more particular about the point, my apologies.

You are right in that I probably wouldn't sue for innocuous questions about my private life. The larger point however is that there is a big difference in asking general questions and handing over your private life wholesale to an interviewer. (Nor do I think that a face to face interviewer would even dream of asking for it.)

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By tmouse on 6/19/2009 7:56:59 AM , Rating: 2
I think that asking about these things (ethnic background, age ect) is in and of itself not illegal but having them be a deciding factor for employment is. As an example the child issue has been raised and it would be perfectly legal to ask if an applicant has children, they could be asking to tell you about their daycare programs or other benefits, now asking a woman if she plans to have children and not hiring on that information is totally illegal. So there are parts of an interview than can be refused and parts of applications that do not have to be filled out, but there are other parts (someone mentioned SS#'s) where it would be obvious that that would be needed for a security check where not providing the information could lead to not being hired and you would have no legal recourse.

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By Hvordan on 6/19/2009 1:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine you interview someone and you asked those types of questions and subsequently decide not to hire the person. You are now open to get sued.

Also, from a professional stand-point there is no reason for you to ask the questions. My race, gender, etc are protected by law not to be a factor in my employment etc, so why are you even asking?

By tmouse on 6/22/2009 9:10:08 AM , Rating: 2
Actually in some circumstances the employer is REQUIRED to ask to comply with regulations to prove your are not biased in your interview process.

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By paperfist on 6/18/2009 6:13:35 PM , Rating: 3
You can answer that question just fine without divulging personal matters that are no ones business and in all likely hood unconstitutional.

I'm not sure during a terrorist interrogation they ask you for you login information and passwords.

What you are suggestion though is that it's okay to ask such questions and continue down the line with:

"what color are your panties" - it's pertentinet to the job interview to know if you are a risk taker or a safe grandma type

"what is the login name and password to your Capital One account" - surely if you've been late on a payment you are not an acceptable person for this job. If your balance is high we'll offer you less per hour.

All those questions including what you do socially is irrelevant to a job interview. If you can't uncover what is needed through a standard interview then you need to go back to interview school.

By GaryJohnson on 6/18/2009 6:27:21 PM , Rating: 1
What you are suggestion

No that's definately not what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is that if they ask you what your favorite color is you shouldn't run out of the interview and sue them.

RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By walk2k on 6/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: The potential for abuse is just ridiculous!
By Hvordan on 6/18/2009 6:17:39 PM , Rating: 2
How about a picture of my non-caucasian self?
How about one where I hold hands with my same-sex partner?
How about the one with me receiving holy communion?
How about...

By Hvordan on 6/19/2009 1:46:47 PM , Rating: 1
For the examples listed (except same-sex possibly, I'm not sure if it rises to the same level as race or religion based bias) the protections are there to protect against discrimination. It shall not be a factor in my hiring/firing, which is why it is generally a bad idea to ask the questions when interviewing people.

By DING on 6/18/2009 6:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
They could do stuff like this

By WoWCow on 6/18/2009 4:48:10 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone remember when Obama required every applicants to answer all sorts of embarrassing questions and secrets?

Well, I don't think it applies here, but there needs to be a standard which the governments and citizens can follow rather than some obscure laws.

Otherwise, I can see the lawyers gleaming with joy with lawsuits filed over ambiguous statements and written laws.

Following that, we allow a judge to dictate the interpretation and set a precedent that can become bad or good for future cases. I ponder about the fairness of the law system when it happens.

Also, the linked news page in the article had a poll in which 99% agreed it is an invasion of privacy.

RE: Precedent
By Belard on 6/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: Precedent
By pequin06 on 6/18/2009 5:28:09 PM , Rating: 1
What's your favorite flavor of kool-aid? You seem to drink it up.

RE: Precedent
By Doormat on 6/18/2009 6:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
I think what he was referencing was the long form asking about embarrassing or controversial things from your past that the other side would no doubt try to find out about and drag up to make Obama look bad.

Though the situations are absolutely not comparable. Cabinet level positions assisting and advising the president vs some low level faceless bureaucrat in the middle of the 44th most populous state. Does anyone care that my garbage man likes to dress in drag? I don't care what he does in his off time as long as its legal.

I could understand asking for usernames - I could probably find the same by searching with your name. The problem they ran into is that as the myspace exodus continues, Facebook is by default more private. So whatever they could gleam from myspace they cant from FB.

But account access is entirely inappropriate. Do I have to notify them when I change my password so they can continue to check up on me after I'm hired?

RE: Precedent
By pequin06 on 6/18/2009 7:41:06 PM , Rating: 4
Here's the one about the application:

As far as you trying to tie the "no birth certificate" folks and national tea-baggers party together, you show that you have no idea what you are talking about.

RE: Precedent
By Belard on 6/19/2009 2:18:09 AM , Rating: 3
Thanks for the link.

For the most part, that is a sensible questionnaire for high position govt. positions. It can help prevent having such situations such as currently going on with the Senator from Nevada who has been cheating on his wife with another married woman, yet he himself has publicly told others "caught with their pants down" (including Clinton) to resign... Sen. Ensign , what are ya doing?

So if a staff person says "No, I'm not having an affair" and later does, the grounds for being fired is far more cut & dry. To a degree, I find the part about "5 last live-in lovers" invasive... who knows. Everything else seems justified. Look at all the corruption from the previous administration. Those questions are things like crimes you've might have committed, land and business deals, lawsuits, etc.

Theres not much difference between the two. Same sort of crowd, yelling the same talking points. When you have guys and women walking around with TEABAGS on their heads... well, its not impressive. And the sponsorship of the Tea-baggers is... oh yeah, FoxNews.

Saying Obama is not an American is like saying Bush isn't a Texan. Oh wait, he's not a Texan.

RE: Precedent
By foolsgambit11 on 6/19/2009 2:56:01 AM , Rating: 3
Seems to be standard vetting process stuff. It's not unique to Obama. Both major parties do it, have done it for decades, and will continue to do it. But hey, if you want to blame it on Obama, just go ahead and keep your head in the sand.

RE: Precedent
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/19/2009 5:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
Hillary Clinton is the one who brought up that he has no legal birth certificate. Since it is one of three requirements you have to have to become president of the USA and he outright refuses to show this document to the correct and proper people, well I have to saw... Hillary must have a good point to look into... but blind people like you refuse to say, "What's the big deal, just show the courts your Birth certificate and be done with it." Instead you say, no why should he do that? Why, because he wants to be president, show it or do not run for the job, very simple.
Tea party are Democrats, Republican, Liberal, concervitives, libertarian, Independents and more. If you bothered looking into verse listen to your one side liberal media source you know it all Americans who are just plain tired of the Government wasteful spending of tax money... It has nothing to do with one party verse another. Just US citizen who are tired of all round bad management from all parties. Remember it was only 6 weeks in planning and it was the largest protest every view (world wide)

RE: Precedent
By Old Man Dotes on 6/18/2009 6:01:01 PM , Rating: 1
"Anyone remember when Obama required every applicants to answer all sorts of embarrassing questions and secrets?"

No. Provide a citation to back up your ridiculous allegation - a respected new organization's site, with evidence that this Bush-like behavior actually happened. Otherwise everyone will understand that you're just a dittohead making up slanderous lies about the President of the United States.

Oddly, I *do* remember that the Bush Administration ordered the NSA to spy on US citizens without warrants, in violation of the Constitution. See for *my* citation.

RE: Precedent
By Keeir on 6/18/2009 6:09:59 PM , Rating: 4
You know what annoys me

Defending someone by saying they "aren't as bad as"

That is a terrible defense. Especially when the OP did not directly (or indirectly) infer that Bush/Republican would have done differently than Obama... or even mention party affliation, etc

Bush is not the President. Obama has to grow up and be an actual President now, not just a smidgen better than Bush/Mccain.

RE: Precedent
By pequin06 on 6/18/2009 7:29:15 PM , Rating: 2
(CNN) -- If you want to work for President-elect Barack Obama's administration, be prepared to spill almost everything there is to know about yourself.

Jeez, just Bing it!

Wow! It's a CNN source and not a Fox news source! Wow....

Oddly, I remember a president who's not giving up any of those evil dubya powers either.
Yeah, what a way to show equal outrage.

You're source is about Obama.
Stop blaming Bush for every stubbed toe, headache, natural disaster, or whatever else.

RE: Precedent
By pequin06 on 6/18/2009 7:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
you're = your. I know the libs will jump on it.

RE: Precedent
By jimbojimbo on 6/19/2009 2:16:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm far from an Obama supporter but those types of questions aren't unusual for those positions. Has nobody here gone through a top secret clearance?? They'll get down to everything including going through your financial records, personal life, what kinds of friends you have. If there's anything there that could make you an easy target to become a spy for another country, that needs to be brought up. At least it should be anyway but things don't work by the book in the white house.

Let's see...
By marvdmartian on 6/18/2009 4:40:19 PM , Rating: 5
Facebook = N/A
Myspace = N/A
Google or Yahoo login? That would be my personal and private e-mail address and password, which no one's getting, let alone some dipstick HR clown. Afraid I'd have to give them this one:

RE: Let's see...
By bighairycamel on 6/18/2009 5:09:02 PM , Rating: 3
Well a clever person could make accounts at each site and post information about how high there moral standards are. I would make myself look like the patron saint of outstanding citizenry!

RE: Let's see...
By Jackattak on 6/18/2009 5:18:10 PM , Rating: 2
Mine would point to graphical imagery of all the rude hand gestures used throughout the world.

Legal problems here too
By Old Man Dotes on 6/18/2009 5:47:42 PM , Rating: 3
The city is requesting applicants to violate the contracts that they have agreed to with those social networking services; the "terms of service agreement" of every single network specifically asks the user to agree to NOT share his password with any third party, and that is a contract with an electronic signature under US Law. I am not a lawyer, but I'd hire one in a heartbeat if I had applied to the city for a job, refused to provide that information, and was turned down for the job. Refusing to hire someone because he refused to violate a contractual agreement with an unrelated third party is easy to construe as "tortious interference with a business relationship."

RE: Legal problems here too
By mcnabney on 6/18/2009 8:33:59 PM , Rating: 3
Even better than that.

Having access to these potential employees accounts also gives them access to trusted relationships(ie - friends) who have granted the account holder and not the City of Bozeman access to THEIR private information. If I was a friend of a Bozeman employee, I would also be looking for a lawyer.

RE: Legal problems here too
By RagingDragon on 6/19/2009 3:04:12 AM , Rating: 3
Refusing to hire someone because he refused to violate a contractual agreement with an unrelated third party is easy to construe as "tortious interference with a business relationship."

Just putting the question on the application implies a threat not to hire people who refuse to answer, which could be construed as an attempt at coercing someone to violate a contract, which should be enough for an enterprising lawyer to have fun... Even better this could give any social networking or forum site with one or members who've applied for a job with the city, grounds to sue the city as well - i.e. "tortious interference" for coercing (or attempting to coerce) the sites customers into violating their contract with the site.

I have a "solution"
By ipay on 6/18/2009 5:29:13 PM , Rating: 3
Lie and tell them you have no online IDs. Then, get yourself fired for not disclosing your logins. Sue, and live happily ever after.

RE: I have a "solution"
By Jackattak on 6/18/2009 5:44:17 PM , Rating: 2
Just how much money do you think Bozeman, MT has? There's more money in the West Hills of Portland than there is in the whole state of Montana.

RE: I have a "solution"
By Ticholo on 6/19/2009 9:37:58 AM , Rating: 2
I think that means he'd own the town, then.
But maybe that's not such a good thing...

Account info
By Hvordan on 6/18/2009 5:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't it against Facebook, MySpace, etc EULAs to give IDs and passwords to someone else?

At what point do we recognize that communications on the internet should be protected just as much as other forms of communication. If I make a reasonable effort at keeping my communication private, government should need a warrant to intentionally look at my stuff.

I would not hand over the keys to my mailbox so why would I give them the passwords to my accounts?

RE: Account info
By Jackattak on 6/18/2009 5:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
This very article is PRECISELY the reason why I have my Facebook account on utter and complete lockdown. Only my friends on Facebook can see anything outside of my name and avatar.

All your password are belong to us....
By clickitysplit on 6/18/2009 6:01:38 PM , Rating: 2
Many thousands of people are going to be VERY surprised in the coming decades just how damaging participation in online social networking can be. There will come a time when opening a Facebook account will be the same as tattoing your neck. It may not ruin your life but it'll close a whole lotta doors.

As the need for security in America increases, so does freedom decrease. Bozeman is just the tip of the iceberg. Bozeman and cities like it are on a straight path to demanding copies of keys to your home and vehicles in exchange for employment. And there WILL be those who consider themselves 'patriotic' enough to put up with it -- everyone else will be either suspect or enemy. Which are you?

By theslug on 6/18/2009 8:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
Putting up with it would be the complete opposite of patriotic.

By yacoub on 6/18/2009 8:58:46 PM , Rating: 4
I'm just shocked that anyone would be dumb enough to fill that part of the form out. Give up my passwords? Yeah, right. That's the whole purpose of passwords: To prevent other people from using something that is mine, taking something from me, impersonating me, or viewing something that is private.

Great Idea.
By tjr508 on 6/19/2009 9:09:20 AM , Rating: 2
You guys have it all wrong. This is one of the best ideas that any employee has ever come up with. The point is that if anyone will willingly give up such passwords, then they should be considered a serious IT security risk and terminated immediately.

RE: Great Idea.
By superflex on 6/19/2009 5:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
After you provide us with your user names and passwords, please run this executable file on your laptop.

By btc909 on 6/18/2009 11:46:50 PM , Rating: 3
Go ahead & keep the job. What's to keep me from changing the password the minute I get home.

...but for how long?
By UsernameX on 6/18/2009 4:39:43 PM , Rating: 2
I would be changing my passwords ASAP after I was accepted lol

By Chupamiheuvos on 6/18/2009 4:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
No way in HADES would I ever give out passwords to ANY site I frequent.

Screw that noise, I would rather be unemployed then have big BOTHER (Yes I said BOTHER) in my life.

By corduroygt on 6/18/2009 5:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
I am not giving my Gmail, Facebook, etc. password to anyone!

I Don't Think...
By Jackattak on 6/18/2009 5:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
I can say anything better than what's all ready been said, but I just want to be on the record here as showing that I oppose this like I would oppose an 80-hr. work week.

Thanks, Jackattak

The world today
By Titanius on 6/18/2009 5:47:16 PM , Rating: 2
The world today is missing some serious things like common sense and ethics...which brings me to that last point:

It is UNETHICAL to ask someone for their usernames and passwords to various popular websites just like it is unethical to ask someone to disclose that they voted for a certain political party.

By limitedaccess on 6/18/2009 5:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
The main problem here isn't the background checks, but the fact you are giving them your login password as well.

Do you consent to credit checks by handing over your bank card, pin number, account #, and online banking password? I mean what is to stop that person from then making withdrawals for instance from your account?

Just like in this case, what is to stop those with the login information from posing as you online?

By clickitysplit on 6/18/2009 6:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
Many thousands of people are going to be VERY surprised in the coming decades just how damaging participation in online social networking can be. There will come a time when opening a Facebook account will be the same as tattoing your neck. It may not ruin your life but it'll close a whole lotta doors.

As the need for security in America increases, so does freedom decrease. Bozeman is just the tip of the iceberg. Bozeman and cities like it are on a straight path to demanding copies of keys to your home and vehicles in exchange for employment. And there WILL be those who consider themselves 'patriotic' enough to put up with it -- everyone else will be either suspect or enemy. Which are you?

By tech329 on 6/18/2009 6:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
No chance. Neither the state or any other employer is entitled to require you to divulge a password.

That may not be true for a convicted felon or for investigatory purposes. But certainly not for employment. The only choice is to walk out. And if the employment is important enough you should file a suit.

isn't bozeman
By Gul Westfale on 6/18/2009 7:16:33 PM , Rating: 2
the hometown of james t. kirk? the original kirk, not the retarded one from the new movie.

In a nutshell...
By Hakuryu on 6/18/2009 9:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
Bozeman is asking for admin rights to your online accounts. If not, then why don't they just ask for a username? With the password they can change, add or delete things, and even remove your account.

Not only is this unreasonable, but like others have said it goes against online site EULA's (and common sense). What happens when a disgruntled Bozeman worker adds porn to your Facebook page and you get fired or perhaps your wife wants a divorce? What happens when some idiot leaves his laptop with all city employees usernames and passwords at a McDonalds?

Bozeman is asking to be sued when the first little thing goes wrong because of this.

By callmeroy on 6/19/2009 8:31:13 AM , Rating: 2
First my rule on this -- if your position requires an election, then ok fine --- get the elected person's facebook and myspace information. Elected positions are normally the positions with the highest influence, prestige and power - if the concern is "moral integrity checks"....the ones in highest power should be put through the ringer, not the average worker.

For non-elected positions - no.

Even with elected positions i think its kind of silly, but that would be my compromise with the city.

Also, i think this bad for business if this practice evolved into "normal business across the country and all employers"....this may be a stretch but think about it --- if all employers started adopting this wouldn't it make large volumes of folks more and more weary of using social networking sites and writing blogs? Would that then not have a detrimental effect on the very thing that made the Internet so awesome in the first place --- freedom of expression and information sharing? Suddenly the web would be a much less interesting then why join those sites...people don't join sites loose advertisers and then the domino effect continues....

By SleepyGreg on 6/19/2009 10:17:00 AM , Rating: 2
I especially don't like the idea of listing any forums you post on. Imagine having your online conversations analysed going back x number of years. A lot of it can be very polarising when forming an impression of someone.

By bubba551 on 6/19/2009 1:33:59 PM , Rating: 2
when you pry them from my cold, dead, cache.

Trick question
By jimbojimbo on 6/19/2009 2:00:03 PM , Rating: 2
If you're stupid enough to hand out passwords so easily, you really aren't qualified to work for the city.

By zander55 on 6/19/2009 3:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
Make sure to give them your dailytech login info.

Two words...
By TGIM824 on 6/19/2009 5:38:19 PM , Rating: 2
By nstott on 6/21/2009 7:52:25 PM , Rating: 2
What?! No DNA sample? No genital photograph requirement? What about turning over my firstborn?

Ummm no.
By SiliconAddict on 6/18/2009 10:36:00 PM , Rating: 1
Really just no. Da fuck people? o.O

No applicants refused...
By SilthDraeth on 6/19/2009 5:34:03 PM , Rating: 1
City officials say no applicants elected to refuse to turn over social networking information and end their application process.

Well no shit. They need a job, or they wouldn't be applying with the city. And refusal to submit that information automatically end's their application process.

Of course no one refused to submit the information.

What the fark?
By Oyster on 6/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: What the fark?
By Ratinator on 6/18/2009 4:54:19 PM , Rating: 5
So you would willingly hand over your account names and passwords (especially being in the business you are in)?

What business do you work for? I want to be sure not to ever purchase anything from you.

RE: What the fark?
By Chris Q on 6/18/2009 5:24:01 PM , Rating: 4
For me the issue is the assumption that people who do not want to share private information have something to hide. This viewpoint is the rational that advocates of this type of information request use to rationalize these types of un-warranted searches. It is the type of behavior that the Framers of this Country had in mind when they drafted the Constitution. They believed in the notion that the onus is on the government and its agencies to provide probable cause that a crime is being committed before gaining access to a private individual's private information.

What bothers me most, like other people, is the requirement that applicants hand over login credentials to a third party, with little to no oversight over the process.

Having said that, it is still a free country and people who disagree with this policy can choose not to apply for the job.

The last thing that I will say is, that while I agree that private sector firms should have broader rights in the method that they select candidates for employment, I think that government agencies should be held to a different standard. As agents of the government, these institutions have a duty to uphold the laws of the country and not push the boundaries of what is acceptable.

RE: What the fark?
By PitViper007 on 6/19/2009 9:30:19 AM , Rating: 3
Having said that, it is still a free country and people who disagree with this policy can choose not to apply for the job.

While I agree with you that you can either not apply for the job, or just not provide that information, this isn't a private company that's asking for your logon credentials, which would be bad enough, but a GOVERNMENT BODY! I agree with the bulk of comments in here, that the Bozeman government can expect lawsuits from all who don't provide their usernames and passwords (Lord knows I wouldn't) and don't get the job.

RE: What the fark?
By eegake on 6/18/2009 7:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
One might well expect his line of work to draw individuals with personality disorders. No irony in that, now is there?

RE: What the fark?
By icanhascpu on 6/18/2009 7:43:27 PM , Rating: 2
Well im thinking the "private sector" for him is alone in his bathroom making strange sounds.

RE: What the fark?
By Jimbo1234 on 6/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: What the fark?
By Jimspar on 6/18/2009 5:27:57 PM , Rating: 5
Oh no you di'ent just call me and everyone else a pedophile. You don't know me. The way you describe how to create an account from a friends computer sounds like you have done it a time or two. So don't project your seedy life onto us, pervert! I for one will not give out any of this information unless served with a court order. And by the way Oyster, I live in the United Frakin States of America, where my freedoms are still guaranteed to me by the constitution, where I'm innocent until PROVEN guilty, and if I don't want someone pokin into my private personal buisness, I don't have to let them. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
And for your information, we are not whining, we are presenting a different, yet valid opinion.

RE: What the fark?
By Regs on 6/18/2009 5:34:18 PM , Rating: 3
In that case I think Obama or any other elected official must give up that information to the general public. We did elect them to guard us and protect us after all .

I see your point and it's valid (in this day and age), so I give you a lot of respect for saying it. It's become common over many years that we give up more of our privacy for a compelling state interest. The problem is that there is no explicit context in the US Constitution that protects Americans right to privacy. It was only until the 1960's that the US supreme court decided it was implied by the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. This means it's open for interpretation.

In cases like this, one amendment comes to mind and that is Due Process. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law. Procedural due process requires that any government decision to take life liberty or property must be made equitably . Fair procedures must be used in determining whether a person will be subjected to punishment or have some burden imposed on them.

This is where we have a problem in interpretation and it's how it could be implied. The employer is screening every candidate for the job the same way, and it's doing it for a "justifiable" reason. Or is it? If they took it to a federal court, it could make a very interesting case. Especially in hind-sight of the Patriot Act.

RE: What the fark?
By Belard on 6/18/2009 5:34:20 PM , Rating: 2
They have no business asking for peoples passwords and login.

Your and their reasoning is stupid. If the person is a pedophile, why would he give the city or whoever that account info... oh wait, they'd couldn't have ANOTHER account.

So, you're Oyster on every site on the web?

The PW and log-in info is none of their business. Whatever crimes a person has committed is in the public record (mostly - as we see politicians tend to get away with more than they should and records are not legally available to us)

You might as well give them the keys to your home and let them confirm you wear underwear.

RE: What the fark?
By Alexstarfire on 6/18/2009 5:36:25 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't the F'in Secret Service over here. I don't see how anything on a Social Networking site is going to change the fact that you are good, or bad, firefighter. I don't know all the jobs that this includes, but if it's every city employment job then it covers a ton of jobs for no reason. I could possibly see this info being useful for lifeguards, just to check for pedophiles and nothing more, and cops, but that's it, nothing else. And even then I say it's still pretty useless.

RE: What the fark?
By Jeffk464 on 6/19/2009 12:05:02 AM , Rating: 2
If you say things in chat-rooms that the perspective employer finds offense it might change your odds at getting hired. Maybe your employer is a member of Scientology and you had a long diatribe about how ridiculous the religion was, maybe you made advances towards women in a chat-room and the person interviewing you is a militant feminist, political affiliation, etc. The obvious workaround for now is to just never use your full name and maybe if your applying for a company that checks create a second myspace/facebook profile that you want your employer to see. Anyways with facial recognition software someday they might be able to find all of your accounts just through the pictures you post. Scary stuff in my opinion and its exactly the governmental abuse that was on our founding fathers minds when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

RE: What the fark?
By tmouse on 6/19/2009 8:15:52 AM , Rating: 2
I think the biggest problem is people consider these sites the same as being in private with friends. Now the "private" sections are somewhat private but if you put up things you would not be comfortable with everyone seeing on these sites (especially in public areas) you deserve what you get. There is a lot of legal precedence of employers being able to fire people for doing things during there off time that hurt the public perception of their jobs and employers (especially for police and firefighters). Maybe it stinks but go to an interview in cutoffs, all sweaty and curse every other word, except for very few jobs I'll bet you won't get the job no matter how qualified you are and you will not have a legal leg to stand on. If you want to have sex with any animal, vegetable or mineral you fancy , at least do it in private and don't have your "friends" video tape it and don't post it on the web. If you do don't come crying to others why you lose your job because of it.

RE: What the fark?
By callmeroy on 6/19/2009 8:43:53 AM , Rating: 1
Ahh the old view of blaming the many on the actions of the incredibly few.....

good theory......not

Despite the number of cases in the news on pedophiles with facebook or myspace accounts -- when looked at the number of those accounts against the number of total accounts with each of those services how small of a % do you come up with? I'm guessing very small , less than even 5%.

Also would folks just lie if they know big brother is looking over their shoulder on their Myspace accounts now? I mean it takes just a little computer savvy and I could register an account with completely fake personal information, a crazy user name, an email address that's web based and created solely for the site registration....and if I wanted to spend a little extra effort and time I could manipulate and/or masked the IP of my computer during all this so you couldn't even trace it back to me electronically.

So in the end -- how this "checking up" on me help if you had no idea in the faintest who I was in the first place because nothing could be linked back to me?

Internet is no longer inheriently "closed"
By Keeir on 6/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: Internet is no longer inheriently "closed"
By Hvordan on 6/18/2009 5:29:37 PM , Rating: 4
This should not be expected. It is easy to grab mail out of a mailbox, sift through, and return it too, but carries fairly stiff penalties if you do.

Seeing that most of your communication nowadays is through internet, would you feel just as comfy about handing over the key to your mailbox or allowing them to tap your phone? It is probably less private than most of the stuff in your facebook account anyway.

RE: Internet is no longer inheriently "closed"
By Keeir on 6/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: Internet is no longer inheriently "closed"
By Keeir on 6/18/2009 5:59:23 PM , Rating: 3
That is not proof enough for me, since it seems even a rural township should understand the risk of someone who will just hand out sensitive information.

Just saw the link someone posted to the actual application. Wow, it does indeed ask for passwords. I think its about time we extended the legal protections of "normal" mail to email communication as well. And the legal protections of "invitation only" areas as well. IE, your facebook profile that is "private" should be granted the same protection as something occuring in your own home.

RE: Internet is no longer inheriently "closed"
By TomZ on 6/18/2009 6:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
Stating the obvious, but just leave that part of the application blank. When I'm asked to fill in forms in general, I provide the information I'm comfortable providing and leave the rest out. It really hasn't been a problem ever for me. Things I typically would omit would be SSN, home phone number, employer, salary, etc. - I consider these items confidential unless there is a compelling need for them.

By Keeir on 6/18/2009 6:45:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well.. the issue is that its part of a background check authorization form for a small town government.

I don't think you can leave out alot of those things that you list on such a form and I think that most would consider a job application form to be nearly 100% required for the job. IE not filling it out completely might lead to discrimination.

RE: Internet is no longer inheriently "closed"
By Hvordan on 6/18/2009 6:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
I personally don't think asking for the user ID is acceptable. I do see your point though and understand where you're coming from. I am expected to provide you with a phone number, an address, etc. I am not required to give you one, (but I'd be pretty stupid not to ;-) but I am not likely to give you all of my phone numbers, or even my address if I happen to use a PO Box.

I would be fine with being asked for account ID, but I'd be incensed with being required to.

RE: Internet is no longer inheriently "closed"
By Keeir on 6/18/2009 6:43:24 PM , Rating: 2
I would be fine with being asked for account ID, but I'd be incensed with being required to.

Don't apply for a government job or job that requires security clearence. They can and do interview your neighbors about your personal habits. They run credit checks. They do multiple things alot worse than looking at your "public" information on things like facebook.

RE: Internet is no longer inheriently "closed"
By dagamer34 on 6/18/2009 7:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
Well, let them go mine that information on their own instead of you handing it to them. If a job requires that much security, resources will be provided to make sure that a potential hire is qualified in all aspects required for the job. Otherwise, YOU should be an enabler to snoop into the private areas of your life.

And I doubt the FBI ask for passwords of all your e-mail accounts. That's just plain stupid and filled with the potential for account tampering.

By tmouse on 6/19/2009 7:47:42 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, as most do , that asking for passwords is just plain stupid, and there is a lot of legal precedence protecting this information. As for leaving things blank and expecting them to go get it themselves, good luck with that mindset, more than likely you will simply be denied the job or clearance and it will be perfectly legal for the reason the applicant did not complete the application process.

By Hvordan on 6/19/2009 2:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
They look at your public record, credit history, do interviews with your neighbours etc. They do not open your mail, wiretap your phone, or go look in your photo albums at home. My point is that, in my personal opinion, social networking sites are part of my private realm and not your business if you want to employ me.

I understand that the current trend is that we find it more and more acceptable to look into these sites for the simple reason that it's fairly easy to do in this day and age. In my view, I find it unacceptable. I don't want it to be ok for my social networking accounts to become a mandatory input for my employment. Why would anyone feel that would be acceptable?

I guess I'm having trouble with understanding what the business purpose looking at my account fulfills.

By Chris Q on 6/18/2009 5:30:10 PM , Rating: 3
I agree. That is the most troubling part for me. To use your analogy, it would be one thing to give them your address and have them look at the outside of your house. It would be another thing to let them in to look around while you were there (a la letting you log in and they would look over your shoulder at your profile).

What they are asking for is the keys to your house so that they can look around without you there . . . hell with no one there. When governments and their agencies operate without oversight, bad things usually (but not always) happen!

RE: Internet is no longer inheriently "closed"
By Murloc on 6/18/2009 5:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
providing your account name is ok, because they can just search your name, so it doesn't change much, but requesting the password is just stupid, who knows who will check your account?

By Xerstead on 6/18/2009 7:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
Your public 'User Name' can be different from your 'Account/Login Name'
My actual name, and possibly 'User Name', may be John Smith, which will show up in a search of the sites users.
The Account name I use to log in can be completly different, eg. J_5m1th. This offers much better security as hackers will need to guess both account name and password before they can gain access.
As I said above this gives them the option of doing far more than just checking, it gives them complete controll of your accounts.

By limitedaccess on 6/18/2009 6:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
However with them asking for your password it would be the equivalent of them asking for your house keys, and the right to use those keys to enter your home without you being present and consenting.

By yacoub on 6/18/2009 10:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
Irrelevant. Has nothing to do with "the Internet" and everything to do with a person's private life.

Passwords really requested?
By keegssj on 6/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: Passwords really requested?
By Brandon Hill on 6/18/2009 4:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
The anonymous viewer emailed the news station recently to express concern with a component of the city's background check policy, which states that to be considered for a job applicants must provide log-in information and passwords for social network sites in which they participate.

RE: Passwords really requested?
By VoodooChicken on 6/18/2009 5:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
But this doesn't directly quote the application for actual passwords. Requesting site ID's seems a bit more reasonable, but I'm still not sure that is a valid requiest either.

RE: Passwords really requested?
By GaryJohnson on 6/18/2009 5:38:39 PM , Rating: 2
"According to the Applicant" may be the operative word. Can someone find the actual application?

I've found several online and none of them ask for sites, IDs, & passwords.

As you say, ID's are reasonable. Generally they ask for your SSN too. So if giving out your myspace ID frightens you, then you probably didn't make it that far through the app to begin with. You saw "SSN:" and shredded it.

RE: Passwords really requested?
By GaryJohnson on 6/18/2009 5:48:51 PM , Rating: 3
RE: Passwords really requested?
By bighairycamel on 6/18/2009 5:05:53 PM , Rating: 4
Haha, did you stop reading there to post this? Go to the very next line:
The application also gives room for three different web sites, account names and passwords, according to the applicant.

RE: Passwords really requested?
By omnicronx on 6/18/2009 5:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see why you were rated down, nor do I see why the OP was rated up. I read the passwords portion the first time through.

"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki