Print 127 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Apr 6 at 3:49 PM

  (Source: Universal Pictures)
A picture posted on Facebook and refusal to access said Facebook has led to a legal battle

A Michigan teacher's aide was put on unpaid leave, then suspended after refusing to give her employer access to her Facebook page.

Kimberly Hester, a teacher's aide at Frank Squires Elementary School in Cassopolis, Michigan, was suspended due to a questionable picture on her Facebook page, which she wouldn't allow her employer to see.

In April 2011, Hester posted a picture of a co-worker that showed nothing but a pair of pants around her ankles and a pair of shoes. There is nothing pornographic in the picture, such as genitalia or inappropriate gestures. A parent, who was friends with Hester on Facebook, told the school about the questionable picture.

Days later, Lewis Cass ISD Superintendent Robert Colby pulled Hester aside into his office and confronted her about the picture. Colby reportedly asked Hester for access to her Facebook page three times, where Hester denied this access each time.

According to Hester, the picture was not taken at work. It was on her and the co-worker's own time, out of school.

Still, Hester was put on unpaid leave. She received a letter from the Lewis Cass ISD Special Education Director saying, " the absence of you voluntarily granting Lewis Cass ISD administration access to your Facebook page, we will assume the worst and act accordingly."

The picture in question from Hester's Facebook [Source: wsbt]

While on unpaid leave, Hester collected workman's compensation and was given several directives, which included almost 50 online courses regarding various topics like fire extinguisher safety.

"I stand by it," said Hester. "I did nothing wrong. And I would not, still to this day, let them in my Facebook. And I don't think it's OK for an employer to ask you."

Hester isn't the only one who feels this way. Just last month, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stepped in when Maryland Department of Corrections Officer Robert Collins complained that his government job had asked for applicants and employees' Facebook usernames and passwords. There also complaints from student-athletes at the University of North Carolina, who were forced to add a coach or administrator to their friends lists on their social networks.

Then, late last month, an Indiana high school student was expelled for posting a tweet on Twitter that contained foul language. The student said he posted it during non-school hours, but the school, which tracks its students' social networks, said he posted it during the school day.

With so many issues regarding Facebook privacy from employers arising, Democratic Congressman Ed Perlmutter introduced an amendment to section H.R. 3309 last week, which would have allowed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to step in if employers were to ask for online social networking information or access. However, the proposed amendment was shot down quickly.

This doesn't appear to be the end, though. Hester was approached by Republican Michigan lawmaker Matt Lori about her situation, asking if her story could be included in a proposed bill that would make it illegal for employers (or potential employers) to ask for social networking usernames/passwords.

Sources: South Bend Tribune , Huffington Post,

Comments     Threshold

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

I just can't get my head round this
By Tunnah on 4/2/2012 10:21:33 AM , Rating: 5
How is this even slightly legal ? To me this is like asking for access to your email, but I know a lot of people are saying facebook is more public than that and emails aren't on display so much, so in that case, say you're having a party with a group of friends, are your bosses allowed to insist on an invite ?

This is just madness.

O and the part about 'you won't provide proof so screw it we'll just assume the worst!' is gold...

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By B3an on 4/2/12, Rating: -1
RE: I just can't get my head round this
By MrBlastman on 4/2/2012 11:08:03 AM , Rating: 3
I'm _glad_ I live in America. Our Constitution gives us the potential for having the greatest Country in the world. We have the best written, most well-defined document in world history that affords our citizens freedoms that has lead to a mass influx of people from other Countries, all around the world.

I love my country. I also salute and respect all those who have died for our freedoms. I also honestly don't give a darn if people poo poo us, belittle us, trash talk our nation or say they are glad they aren't here.

I'm glad you aren't here, either. You don't understand our Country, don't understand what it stands for nor have a clue about the underlying principles of it all.

Sadly, most of our own citizens don't, either. They've forgotten about our Constitution. They have forgotten about State rights. They have forgotten about separation of Church and State and they gladly wave the Bill of Rights about without ever understanding it. This doesn't stop me from loving it, though--it just points out how complacent people have become and the filtering of our population through the breeding effect.

Beyond that, you will find people who are ignorant everywhere. You will also find people who feel "entitled" all around the world--in some regions, the "entitlement" philosophy is far stronger that others. You'll also find people who are unwilling to accept responsibility.

This situation is not so much about America being a "retarded place," because it isn't, but it is instead about a Teacher's aide who made a mistake. It was a simple mistake, one that is obvious that YOU, like most people, are failing to see.

Her mistake was she used Facebook.

That's her biggest mistake. Her second mistake was she added business acquaintances, in this case, a parent of a child in her classroom, to her friends list (or whatever you call it). Why on earth someone would do this befuddles me.

She now thinks she is not responsible for pictures she posts on her Facebook account because it was done on personal time and privately--yet she already opened her doors to people she serves--her students and their parents.

This is a mistake. She screwed up. Her employer also partially screwed up--they can't force her to reveal her password/login information. This is private. They did, however, receive a complaint from a parent which led to them investigating the situation, as they should have. They gave the teacher the option to fess up and she could have just shown them the page. This is reasonable because of the parent complaint. The only thing not reasonable here is them trying to gain complete access to the account. They did become reasonable again by saying if she wouldn't co-operate or fess up, they would take actions as required.

She caused her own problems, not the school. There is a privacy issue here worthy of discussing, but there also is a bigger issue worthy of scrutiny as well--should we or shouldn't we use Facebook?

My vote is no, we shouldn't. If you want it private, keep it private and off the internet for others to see.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By FITCamaro on 4/2/2012 11:20:21 AM , Rating: 2
I was talking to a coworker last week and the Supreme Court case on Obamacare came up (we were already along this line). He basically admitted that it wasn't all good but something is better than nothing and at least gets them focused on the problem. Then went on to say that he doesn't care about the legality of what Congress does as long as they do something that works.

I just walked away....

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By MrBlastman on 4/2/2012 11:40:55 AM , Rating: 5
Then went on to say that he doesn't care about the legality of what Congress does as long as they do something that works.

:-| ... And there you have it folks, a large component of our problem.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By mcnabney on 4/2/2012 5:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, what happened is exactly what needed to happen.

We have tried the Republican version of healthcare - the individual mandate, which is a GOP idea straight from the 90s. Do you think Romney made the whole thing up on his own? The only Democratic idea in the whole thing was the pre-existing condition clauses.

Now SCOTUS will kill GOPcare so that we can proceed to move on to single payer (medicare for all). That is the real solution and 100% legal. All we have to do is double the earnings tax and everybody will be covered, cradle to grave.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By JediJeb on 4/2/2012 7:14:05 PM , Rating: 3
All we have to do is double the earnings tax and everybody will be covered, cradle to grave.

Then the government will find a way to rob more money from Medicare and we will be right back in the same situation we are in now.

Wouldn't it be better to foster a healthy economy so that everyone could have a good paying job and they can work hard and earn enough to pay their own expenses for things like saving for retirement and health insurance? Or would that empower individuals and cause less need for reliance on the government thus reducing the power the government has over everyone, making elected officials and government workers more like servants of the people instead of rulers of the people?

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By Parhel on 4/3/2012 12:25:08 AM , Rating: 2
For the 95%, the free market works just fine for providing your health care. For the other 5%, not so much. Two years ago, my son was diagnosed with autism, and I simply can't get coverage for his medical expenses. I'm not talking about any off the wall stuff - we don't believe in any of that. I'm just talking about regular visits with psychologists and therapists and so forth.

We spent over $10,000 out of pocket last year on medical services. And I have the highest tier medical plan my company offers, plus $5000 in a FSA.

You see, our insurance provider has decided that they don't consider autism to be a medical condition. If my son had ADHD, or depression, or schizophrenia, etc, etc, they'd pay for that. But not autism.

The health plans at my wife's employer also don't cover autism. These aren't small shops either. She works at a Fortune 500 company, and I work at a Fortune 20 company. And, we've both looked into other employers, hoping to find one that offers a health insurance plan that would at least pay for our son to see his weekly occupational therapist. That's the one treatment where we've really seen results. But no luck. I called my old job back, knowing that they'd hire me in a second. I'd even be willing to take less money . . . but guess what . . . same old plans, same restrictions, same bullshit.

And that's the double edged sword of the free market. Paying for my son to see a therapist every week for his autism would reduce the insurance provider's profit margins, and make them less competitive with other insurance providers. So, they stop covering it, then pretty soon everyone has to stop covering it, or they can't keep up with their competitors.

I know you free market "purists" out there will rate me down, and say I'm looking for a "handout," but I really don't care what you think. I paid over $25,000 in just my federal income tax last year. I paid $11,000 in property tax to support a school district who couldn't be bothered to schedule a visit to diagnose my clearly autistic son. So, I had to pay $1500 for private testing.

But there's not even an advocate, public or private, for people in these situations. You never think, when your child is born, you're going to find out they have problems. But if you do, you're also going to find out that you're truly on your own, and that it's in every parties interest to make sure you don't get help.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By EricMartello on 4/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: I just can't get my head round this
By StormyKnight on 4/3/2012 2:38:30 AM , Rating: 3
You sir, are an incredibly insensitive dick. While I agree with your views on government controlled healthcare, your opinion on this family's child is completely reprehensible. Do us all a favor and deepthroat a cactus.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By lepa71 on 4/4/2012 10:56:44 AM , Rating: 2
You are just a stupid F$ck. I hope you will never reproduce and just die out. I'm neither R or D, but if you think you will pay less to somebody you are wrong. It's a matter of who is going to get more profit margin. That is all.

By EricMartello on 4/6/2012 3:49:47 PM , Rating: 1
You are a M, as in moron. That is all.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By sedoo on 4/3/2012 2:38:30 AM , Rating: 3
As far as healthcare - I do not want to pay for your retarded/defective kids

Maybe try reading the post, the poster has insurance and the insurance is not covering her selected disability then went and paid for services themselves. If we are puting down defective\retarded adults, you would be first in line. They want value for services paid, not a free handout moron.

Instead trying and failing miserably at being clever or funny, try educating yourself on disabilities of others. Then perhaps others wouldn't spend a lifetime correcting dumbasses like yourself.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By Ramtech on 4/3/2012 11:06:03 AM , Rating: 2
Disposing mentally defective children is not novel idea Germans had similar plan in thirties

By edge929 on 4/4/2012 12:19:11 PM , Rating: 2
The Greeks/Spartans had the Germans beat by about 2500 years. Although they mainly "exposed" of babies at birth, I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say they exposed of non-productive members of society at any age. From a moral standpoint it's difficult to fathom but logically it's hard to argue against.

By BZDTemp on 4/3/2012 7:33:06 AM , Rating: 3
That is a terrible situation.

Health care is one of the reasons why I and most of the other 5½ million souls here are happy to live in the tax capital of the world.

Like many other countries here in Europe our health care is free (except dentist bills and some medicine where there is only partial cover). And this is regardless of employment which makes for a more flexible worker-employer relation which benefits all.

As a European I simply can not understand how a rich nation like the US is not making sure everyone gets good medical (and good education for that matter). The current system in the US is so expensive that the money spend could easily pay for all were it not also funding insurance companies and all that goes with it.

Parhel. Just a few years ago I would have suggested for you and your family to move here but that is not so easy anymore. However it may be still be possible and it could be a way forward (a radical one).

By JediJeb on 4/3/2012 1:40:52 PM , Rating: 2
As I have said in another post here, there will always be cases where help is needed, but the government should be putting the bulk of their efforts into helping people become independent of government instead of making them more dependent on it. If the waste could be cut in the federal government maybe instead of $25,000 you had to pay in taxes it could be reduced to $10,000 which would leave an extra $15,000 to put towards the doctor's bills. Also if the waste could be reduced in medical treatment those costs would be reduced. That is the direction I feel we need to be moving to solve these problems. Reduce the tax burdens and not only do the patients have more disposable income to put towards health care, but health care providers have a lower tax burden and can pass the savings along to everyone else. Reduce their need for extra staff to handle the redundant paperwork and you reduce that cost even more.

The flip side is that we just hand over everything to the government and they will just keep taking more and more taxes to pay for it, and in the end we end up with a country of serfs working to support an overlord government which decides what are needs are and how they are met.

And to anyone would say to get rid of your child, those are the same people who have put this country into the shape it is currently in, being, those who only care about their own pleasures being met and nothing else.

Welfare should come from people in their own communities, why should it have to go through the government where the more hands that have to handle it only reduces the effectiveness of the original amount of help. If I want to give you $100 to help with your needs, is it better for me to give you that $100 or to give it to someone who needs 10% to cover their costs, they hand it to another person who needs 5% to cover their costs and then another who takes 20% to cover costs? Your employer has to pay for someone to figure the withholding of taxes from a paycheck. Then the IRS pays people to process the money that comes into them from the employer. Next people who calculate which portion of the government gets what portion of that tax money have to be paid. Then if it is paid out through Medicade/Medicare there is someone there who has to be paid to handle the disbursement to a health care company that has to pay someone to handle the paperwork for the claim. With so many steps along the way the money you pay in taxes becomes so diluted how much good does it actually do for individual citizens? My original comment was not so much about how well or badly free markets handle the problems, but how inefficient the government is in how it handles the problems.

By Warwulf on 4/3/2012 11:43:44 AM , Rating: 3
I like the way you blame Obama's signature healthcare legislation on the Republicans despite them voting overwhelmingly against it. That's cool.

By Samus on 4/3/2012 3:23:08 AM , Rating: 2
B3an is just one of those African princes that depends on America (the country he hates so much) for pretty much all of his revenue.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By nolisi on 4/2/2012 1:28:51 PM , Rating: 3
I just walked away

I love it when people who support politically conservative ideas argue: the government does nothing, then when the government tries to do something that the free market has had plenty of time to do but is obviously incapable/unwilling to do (fixing health care), they argue against it based on legality, thereby proving the original theorem.

Except regulating a woman's uterus and the definition of marriage. Two of the "few" conservative exceptions to the absolute "get government off your back" policies they love to claim.

I'm walking away now...

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By Breathless on 4/2/12, Rating: -1
By saganhill on 4/3/2012 8:13:16 AM , Rating: 1
WHen the kid is born we'll put them on your doorstep and you can take care of them.

Bottom line, its none of your business.

By Raraniel on 4/3/2012 3:53:22 PM , Rating: 1
Technically every one of my million sperm I produce every day has the potential to become a human being. Therefore, I think we should enact legislation guaranteeing each of them the chance to become a human by making sex with me compulsory for all females. After all, aren't you glad your father didn't shoot you into a sock?

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By FITCamaro on 4/2/12, Rating: -1
RE: I just can't get my head round this
By Invane on 4/2/2012 3:55:31 PM , Rating: 5
This is obviously a flame ridden topic, and no one is going to change anyone's opinion here in any case.

However, you are most definitely oversimplifying this:
And every scientific aspect (which liberals claim to cling to) says that an unborn child in its mother's womb is a human being

The point at which a collection of cells can be called a human being is the heart of this debate. I do not claim to know the answer. I do know these two facts:

1) a fertilized egg is not a human being
2) a born child is a human being

Lacking an understanding where a collection of cells can be called a human being, and where eradicating that collection of cells is definitely 'murder', I choose to leave that ethical decision to the person involved as it in no way impacts me. They are the one that has to live with the decision, not me.

Until you can definitely prove the point at which 1 becomes 2 above, you can only fall back to gut feelings, your personal moral compass, and whatever other method guides your decisions. Attempting to force someone else to also adhere to your moral compass is the base of a multitude of other problems.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By Reclaimer77 on 4/2/12, Rating: -1
RE: I just can't get my head round this
By Invane on 4/2/2012 6:42:38 PM , Rating: 5
There was absolutely nothing trollish or ignorant about my comments.

Collection of cells? Unless you believe in the Bible, I'm pretty sure we all came from a "collection of cells". Saying this isn't life is a very scientifically ignorant statement.

Oh come now. We both know I did not state a collection of cells was not 'life'. I stated that a collection of cells does not equate to a human being. This is the crux of the argument and you dodged a difficult point rather poorly here it as there is no valid argument to make against this.

Unless you believe that a human egg is a human life (in which case I will bet you are religious and having this discussion will go nowhere), you must agree that the actual point that a 'human being' exists during pregnancy falls somewhere between conception and birth. If this is the case, then you must also agree that abortion up until some point in time is most definitely not murder. This makes a 'no abortion' argument much more difficult as you must define where that line is.

Wait what? So you don't become human until you exit a vagina? You obviously aren't a doctor lol. Please, you're embarrassing yourself.

All I said was that it was a fact that once born, you are indeed a human being. I don't believe your position needs to argue against this, so let's leave that. I have read many of your comments and actually believe you to be a reasonably intelligent fellow, so I'm pretty sure you already picked up my intent with the two statements. However, just in case, here it is again.

The point is that there is a point (conception) where you cannot conceivably argue there is a human being in the womb. There is a second point (birth) where you cannot conceivably argue there is NOT a child in the womb. Somewhere between those two points is a nebulous area where cells may or may not have developed to the point that a human being is in the womb.

Morality is the basis for quite a few of our laws, hate to clue you in.

Very true, and unfortunate when those laws stem from ideological and religious beliefs that not everyone subscribes to. This is precisely why a separation of church and state should be strictly enforced.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By Reclaimer77 on 4/2/12, Rating: -1
By Invane on 4/2/2012 7:35:15 PM , Rating: 4
The only personal attacks I have seen have been calling me a troll and scientifically ignorant thus far.

I'm really not some crazed liberal and I agree there are points during pregnancy that an abortion is murder. I'm just not willing to say I know where that line starts and stops and would prefer that decision be left up to the person involved as much as possible, not somebody else trying to push down their version of morality.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By maugrimtr on 4/3/2012 9:26:18 AM , Rating: 1
I always figured the answer was easy. Sperm meets Egg. The two "merge" and you end up cells containing unique DNA inherited from a mother and father. That package of unique DNA is a new lifeform - it's definitely alive.

I'm a liberal on almost all issues if we need to take sides. But on this one point, by this very simple logic, I will always equate abortion with murder. About the only exception should be where the Mother's life is obviously at risk during a pregnancy. For those looking to avoid the inconvenience or the responsibility, there should be other options that less extreme. Adoption is the obvious one.

It's a pity that the religious folk are all up in arms over contraception. It's silly nonsense like that that make the religious overtones to anti-abortion campaigning unwelcome.

By Invane on 4/3/2012 5:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
This is the only logically consistent platform you can take if you are arguing that all abortion is murder. You must also argue that the fertilized egg is a human being.

I disagree with this as I believe the argument for a fertilized egg being a human being is very weak and little different from trying to argue that an acorn is a tree. I find people with this argument are typically religious and believe in a 'soul' in one sense or another. Please note this is not an attempt to take a jab at religion, just my personal observations. Usually the argument goes from a debate of facts and logic to an emotional appeal based on personal beliefs.

In cases where it is difficult to definitely prove one or the other side's arguments, I prefer to leave maximum autonomy to the individual to make their own decisions as they are the ones that must ultimately live with them.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By Invane on 4/2/2012 6:53:15 PM , Rating: 4
Roe vs. Wade was probably THE single worst Supreme Court decision in modern history.

Actually, that would go to the Citizens United decision hands down, in my opinion.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By Reclaimer77 on 4/2/12, Rating: -1
RE: I just can't get my head round this
By Invane on 4/2/2012 7:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
If it makes you feel better, I'm 100% anti gun control.

I am an independent with my own opinions on many political issues. I don't fit very neatly into any one party, with perhaps libertarian being the closest.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By Reclaimer77 on 4/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: I just can't get my head round this
By Invane on 4/2/2012 8:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
A Libertarian who believes in the Government taking over healthcare

Not sure I follow that one. Being pro choice has little to do with the government taking over health care.

But I probably qualify as a confused individual :)

By Reclaimer77 on 4/2/2012 9:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
I confused you with the other poster. My bad. I realized that but lack of edit feature meah, and I had to go eat.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By FITCamaro on 4/3/2012 8:46:56 AM , Rating: 2
Well according to "ethicists" who follow your line of thinking, a born child isn't necessarily a human being because it hasn't achieved "personhood" yet.

How many terms are you people going to invent to make yourselves feel better about killing unborn children. It's DNA is human.

I think I'll go find some pregnant dogs and slice out their unborn puppies since according to you, they're not dogs yet so I'm just saving the mother from some parasites sucking the life from her.

Your view of life comes down to whether or not the child is wanted or not. Pure and simple. If its not wanted, you invent terms to make getting rid of that life more justifiable to you. If it is wanted it's a miracle of life to be cherished.

Keep trying to convince yourself that your actions are justified. I hold human life to far higher standards than just whether or not the person can survive on their own. Why don't we just start slitting old people's throats who can't survive on their own anymore either. Or maybe the man or woman in the hospital who needs life support to survive until they heal.

By Invane on 4/3/2012 5:37:46 PM , Rating: 3
You're entitled to handle it however you want. I prefer a rational debate of the facts as opposed to emotional appeals involving killing unborn puppies.

Forgoing a logical argument and personally attacking me as creating my line of logic just so I can kill a child is about as juvenile and immature an approach as you could possibly make to undermining my argument.

And my actions? I have never had an abortion. I have never had anyone I had sex with have an abortion. No one is currently pregnant with my child that I am encouraging to have an abortion. There is absolutely zero for me to justify.

Why can you not understand not all people view things the same way you do? Not only that, but you make the assumption that your position is the 'correct' position. I have laid out my thoughts on the matter. It would appear some people agree with them. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that yours is not the only valid position and, in fact, may not even be the 'right' position instead of attacking those who do not share your viewpoint.

By Meaker10 on 4/2/2012 4:44:37 PM , Rating: 2
What a load of sentimental garbage.

So killing a human heart in a jar is murder now is it? Cause at that point its the same thing as there is no real brain connected to it.

Also on your second point, people in groups are IDIOTS, it's the job of government to make sure the rights of minorities LIKE THOSE WHO SETTLED THE US IN THE FIRST ****ING PLACE, DON'T get completely trampled over.

Your points show how easily you will eat ANYTHING people will shovel into your face, so try going away for several years and actually figuring out an intelligent opinion on these matters and stop posting your utter garbage ANYWHERE.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By nolisi on 4/2/2012 5:25:42 PM , Rating: 3
Conservatives have no such desire to "regulate" a woman's uterus.

Absolutely, yes, they do. It extends to attempts to remove birth control from the market and reduce its availability. You assume the idea only covers abortion. It does not. There exists a large constituent of conservatives supported by who fight against the availability and want to elminate the education and use of birth control. This is beyond the recent debate about birth control mandates.

The cute part about the recent debate regarding birth control is that no one fights against coverage or use viagra. Funny. I suppose it's important for a bishop to be able to purchase a hard-on using his clergy sponsored coverage.

As far as marriage, as a conservative, I believe its up to the states to define marriage. Not the federal government.

So the argument here is 'we don't like the "federal government" regulating things, but we like the "state government" regulating things?' So what I'm to understand that government is only functional at the state level, right? Funny, because along with the federal government, almost every state is broke, and that includes a whole lotta red ones. Government regulation is government regulation whether it happens at the state or federal level. State regulation only functions to do one thing- make interstate commerce more complex and reduce competition (which is beneficial to the consumer) in critical areas such as health care.

No instead lets have the government go beyond its authority and pass a bill the people highly dislike, violates the Constitution, and that eventually takes over the health care market.

I'll congratulate the conservatives for an awesome ad campaign against what people lovingly call "Obamacare".

But let's leave the part of "violating the Constitution" out of this- we as a nation have passed laws and acts that violate and undermine the constitution in more fundamental ways than the recent healthcare mandates. These were acts that had popular support due to successful propaganda campaigns in favor of them. We can start well before the internment of Japanese (and anyone who looked Japanese) and go beyond the Patriot Act.

The fundamental difference between this law and others is that this is designed to make every citizens life better in terms of health and resolve issues of a failing healthcare system versus incarcerating citizens.

So if the government at the state and/or federal level is going to violate the constitution, I'd appreciate them doing it in a manner which makes Americans lives better, even if it means some drug companies shareholders pocketbooks suffer in the process. At least we're not throwing them in detainment camps this time around.

While I think a lot of the Republican provisions were solid proposals, I definitely don't think they went far enough, and much could have been incorporated into what Obamacare (especially opening up competition). I'm sorry to say that the Democrats were very shortsighted in that regard.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By WalksTheWalk on 4/2/2012 6:28:10 PM , Rating: 3
You're missing the whole point, although it was not identified very well.

Based on the Constitution, the federal government was meant to regulate a few very select things. Those things are enumerated in the Constitution. The rest was left up to the states. What this does is provide for choice between states where each state has the ability to define their own rules and people are free to live in that state or move to another state that suits them better. Each state becomes a lab for its own democracy.

Where healthcare is concerned, the federal government has no authority to tell me how I can purchase it within my own state. The Constitution only gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce. It also has no authority to mandate that I must purchase anything as a condition of citizenship.

For women's rights/abortion the Constitution does not enumerate it so it should be left up to the states. The Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade under the Due Process clause was a very big stretch. To be applied to all states equally it needs to be included in a Constitutional amendment.

I recommend reading the Federalist Papers. The founding fathers were brilliant in their design of the Constitution, but unfortunately there's been a massive power grab at the Federal level, especially in the past 100 years.

The government cannot de-regulate everything or regulate too much. The balance between the two is everything.

By Fujikoma on 4/4/2012 7:15:23 AM , Rating: 2
I'd say the Civil War pretty much determined that the federal government is in charge and not individual states. The Supreme Court typically rules in favor of the Federal government over state government. A uniform set of laws would definately be preferable to this current patchwork. The only given, for 50 set of laws and regulations, is that businesses will continue to play states against each other to avoid taxes and following the law. I'd be happy with a Federal mandatory curriculum for education and get rid of this religious harpy garbage that's insinuated itself into my state's education system (that would be South Carolina).
As far as health care goes, you can either pay for others with your tax money or with higher premiums. It's going to happen whether you like it or not. My preference would be to remove the profit motive from the insurance company instead of limiting it as the health care law does. One federal health care system will be preferable to 50 versions of health coverage.
I think you missed the point that our system of government has changed over time. We allow women to vote, we don't own black people, we restrict child labor and we're starting to address open discrimination against gays... things that certain states would have overlooked. The states didn't do their jobs and have now lost that power. Piss and moan all you want about it, but it's unlikely to change.

By JediJeb on 4/2/2012 6:55:33 PM , Rating: 3
The fundamental difference between this law and others is that this is designed to make every citizens life better in terms of health and resolve issues of a failing healthcare system versus incarcerating citizens.

What they never want to talk about is that before Medicare/Medicade was enacted health care cost were much lower and even in worse case situations people would not be totally bankrupted if they didn't have insurance. In one year after Medicare began health care costs rose 300%. Hospitals were hit with costs for things such as having to purchase all new beds because the old ones did not meet new standards set by bureaucrats which most likely got new specs from businesses wanting to sell more equipment. Staffing in hospitals doubled from then needing to hire more staff just to keep up with all the new paperwork. I know growing up in a small town my doctor had more clerks than he had nurses, why should you need more clerks than nurses in a health care office?

Everyone complains about the 1%ers, but how many of those people made their money selling to the government which was spending money like crazy to help lift the poor out of poverty? Why do we see Cadillac Escalades parked outside public housing and the welfare offices? People should be the ones working hard to improve their position in society, not government. I was raised by parents living on a farm and working minimum wage jobs and yet I made it through college and now work as a chemist, have my own house and pay my own bills. We didn't need government handouts to live, we just got by with the necessities instead of trying to live above our means, and placed priority on saving to pay for college instead of having a big screen TV and gaming console in every room of the house. People CAN do things for themselves, problem is people just do not WANT to do things for themselves. If people spend their time working hard trying to improve their situation with a good job that pays for their insurance instead of spending their time waiting for the next government handout maybe we would not have a problem with healthcare right now. Sure, there will always be a few who are simply at an unlucky point in life that need help, but those should be the exception not the rule, and maybe it doesn't happen in the big cities, but around where I live, when someone does have a catastrophe the community pitches in to help them through it.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By EricMartello on 4/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: I just can't get my head round this
By Fujikoma on 4/4/2012 10:56:20 AM , Rating: 2
Separate but equal doesn't hold Constitutional muster. The term 'marriage' is already in use and all legal documentation uses that word. The government won't change the term to 'civil union' to satisfy some religious bigots, mainly due to the cost. The fact that the government would recognize gay marriage does not prevent a particular religion from not practicing or admitting members who do. Marriage is a social construct used by religion and as such, religion has no claim to the term (or really, any term). They'd have better luck claiming sole ownership to the word 'pedophile'. They can't be required to sanction gay marriage, but they won't be allowed to prevent it in the public sphere (U.S. as soon as this works its way to SCOTUS).

By EricMartello on 4/5/2012 12:50:23 AM , Rating: 1
Marriage was created to allow families to legally merge together, usually to gain wealth, power and property. Since the church was as powerful as the government back in the day, the church would "bless" the marriage and that's how it got mixed up in that business.

Marriage was never really designed to be a union of's purely business. With that in mind, there should not be any stipulation on who gets married so long as they are not siblings and are both more-less human.

By saganhill on 4/3/2012 8:19:38 AM , Rating: 1
Conservatives have no respect for minorities. You act like marriage is some sort of supernateral BS handed down from some invisible old man who lives in the sky.

Bottom line; Couples, no matter if they are same sex, want the same rights as married couples. If you live with someone for 50 years you expect that. Current laws are nothing but religious "blue laws" meant to hurt and demean any one who doesnt fall into conformity.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By Cobra Commander on 4/2/2012 12:50:34 PM , Rating: 3
We're glad you don't live here, too.
It's a win/win situation.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By tamalero on 4/2/12, Rating: -1
By KCjoker on 4/2/2012 6:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
What about the ego of those that think their country is better? Oh wait it's only wrong for people from the USA to say those things. /sarcasm off

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By icemansims on 4/2/2012 10:42:36 AM , Rating: 1
It's completely legal because it is an employer, not the federal government for prosecution. It wouldn't be legally admissible as evidence, but anything else, they can ask you to do anything. It's the same with, say, freedom of press or whatever. Private firms don't have to abide by the restrictions.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By amanojaku on 4/2/2012 10:56:32 AM , Rating: 5
It's totally illegal. Facebook is not the public library, where all information is available to everyone. It is a private company, and a Facebook account is a service that is offered to only one user, to be used however he or she sees fit (within the terms of the agreement). That means a user has the right to decide who gets access, and has the right to keep out EVREYONE except Facebook admins, because Facebook owns the account.

The first time an employer asks to see your account, ask him or her to dump the contents of his bag on the desk. Im' pretty sure the answer will be "why?", even though there's nothing to hide. But why stop there? Ask to inspect his or her house, too. After all, if your employer doesn't trust you, why should you trust him or her?

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By icemansims on 4/2/2012 3:12:54 PM , Rating: 1
You're missing the point. There is nothing that currently makes it illegal for private companies to require you to divulge personal information as a condition of hire or of continual employment. Credit histories are equally up for grabs. Or drug tests. Or political affiliation. Anything that's not considered protected against discrimination. What you do on your free time is totally, currently legally within the realm of your employer's control and oversight.

Isn't laissez faire capitalism lovely?

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By Solandri on 4/2/2012 4:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
There's a clear list of things private employers cannot require you to divulge:

Personal info is not in that list, so in that respect you're correct. However, the employer in this case is a school, which is a government organization. That means they're also bound by the limitations on government listed in the Constitution. In particular, the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches without a warrant. If a judge declares giving up your Facebook password is an unreasonable search, then that's it. School loses.

For private companies though, there's another dynamic at play here. Facebook is also a private company you enter into a contract with by opening an account. Their terms of service state that you are not allowed to share your login credentials with anyone else. If a private employer requires you to give them your Facebook password, you would be in violation of your agreement with Facebook. Essentially, the employer would have made their conditions for employment incompatible with having a Facebook account.

So the employer basically cuts itself off from 80% of potential employees by having a policy which de facto prohibits using Facebook. Word gets out that you cannot have a Facebook account if you work for this employer. That puts them at a competitive disadvantage against companies which don't pry into your Facebook account, and they either don't grow as large as they could or they go out of business. That's how laissez faire capitalism deals with the situation.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By mcnabney on 4/2/2012 5:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
There are a bunch of questions an employer can never ask you.

Political affiliations

All of that info is generally posted to Facebook and requiring access allows them to illegally bypass asking those questions.

Also, I am surprised that nobody has mentioned it yet, but the Facebook EULA specifically prohibits allowing others to access your profile or sharing of user ID/passwords.

By Invane on 4/3/2012 6:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
Surprised you have not been uprated. Allowing businesses to access someone's personal information and glean any illegal information they wanted from it would seem to be a pretty strong argument against allowing this kind of thing.

I mean, if they LOOK at it it should be fine. But man I'm glad our government made it illegal to ask for it.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By Motoman on 4/2/2012 10:57:25 AM , Rating: 2
It's not legal, because no one has a right to invade your privacy...not without a court order anyway. No private firm or individual can just walk into your house and start looking around...this is essentially the same thing.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By gamerk2 on 4/2/2012 11:16:34 AM , Rating: 3
Playing devils advocate here: Why should you have a right to privacy on the the internet, which is about as public a place as can be?

Thats the primary, underlying issue here: Does one have a right to privacy while on a public domain?

And based on recent court rulings on the subject, I'd suspect the answer would be a "no".

Not saying I like it, but thats the underlying issue.

By AmbroseAthan on 4/2/2012 11:34:15 AM , Rating: 4
I think the problem is determing what is considered private and not.

I agree, I don't have rights to privacy on something I leave public out in the world that anyone with a link could see. In that case, I gave up my privacy rights once I made it a public post to the world at large.

But it is a very different thing to ask for my login to see the things that the public would normally not have access to (messages, private photos, etc). That is definitely an invasion of privacy. The information might exist on a public domain, but it is not available to the public.

By isayisay on 4/2/2012 11:55:00 AM , Rating: 3
Your definition of "the internet" being a public place is flawed.

Information can be unsecured and public (a news article), information can be highly secured and private (your bank account). And everything in between.

The information posted by this woman was not public, hence the woman being put on leave for refusing access to the school to her internet page.

If there is no 'right to privacy', where do the requests stop? Does an employer get to request access to your credit card purchase history to be sure you are a good upstanding citizen?

By wolverine65 on 4/2/2012 11:57:16 AM , Rating: 2
So by your logic, since you bought something online with a credit card we should all have access to your account now, and do what we want with that information.

By RocketChild on 4/2/2012 12:11:57 PM , Rating: 4
Maybe I'm over simplifying this. But, this is not really public. Even though people think posting something is public, on facebook, it is not public. Posting here to this forum is public because it is not behind a wall setup by the service for those with only login rights.

With Facebook, the post was made in private and was set for only friends to be seen. That means it is not a public conversation, but a private conversation. If her account had been set to show her wall publicly, then it would be public.

This is private. No different then having a nude statue 'Virgen de Milo' in your house. Sure a guest could come over and see it then report back to the school district about it...but does that give them the right to knock on your private home and ask to come in and see what only private guests have access to through invite only?

People need to recognize that FB is private like a conversation you have with people at the BBQ in your backyard. It is not public. The only problem is it is now recorded and documented so people like to go back and think they can have their hands on it. People don't have a right to my safety deposit box or my diary or even the right to look in the backseat of my car without a warrant.

Someone could argue that with the car analogy, if it is parked on their campus, they have a right to look in it. Well...sure, if there is 'criminal activity suspected' then a police officer would need to conduct the search, not school staff.

By Aloonatic on 4/2/2012 12:56:48 PM , Rating: 2
If facebook is public, why would they need to ask for a username and password? Surely they should be able to see everything anyway, as it's public.

The very fact that they do need a un/pw to view the person's facebook tells anyone with an ounce of common sense (ruling out 90% of judges and politicians in any country) that facebook is not public.

By Motoman on 4/2/2012 1:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
You've lost the plot.

Sure, the internet is "public." But your employer doesn't just get to have access to your email - even though it's sent over the internet. A secured FB profile is private. Even though it's on the internet - no real difference between that and email.

Look at it this way: Central Park in NYC is a public place. If you're wandering about Central Park, people can take pictures of you, make note of what you're doing, listen to words that you say, etc. Until such time as you go into a *private* part of that park. Like the restroom for example. Can people take pictures of you on the toilet? Hey, you're in Central Park, and that's a public place, right? So therefore people can take photos of you with your pants down taking a dump in one of the rest room stalls, right?

Um, no. Just in case you weren't sure.

By Camikazi on 4/2/2012 3:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
So when your boss asks you for your online bank info, eBay account or PayPal account info you are gonna turn it in quickly and without any arguments right? Those are all on the internet and by your thinking are public domain.

Actually you should give us all this information since it is all public domain, in fact I demand it since there is no privacy on the internet :)

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By FredEx on 4/3/2012 1:17:26 AM , Rating: 2
You are assuming she posted it to a public forum. She did not. It was posted to her friends. One brought it to the attention of the school.

The girl is friends with family of mine and just 25 minutes away. I've been told her friend list is small, she is not somebody with hundreds or thousands in her friends list. It is nowhere even close to her having posted it publicly.

It has become public due to all this BS and to show it all is much ado about nothing.

By Invane on 4/4/2012 2:43:42 PM , Rating: 2
Well I believe that girl should be commended for standing up to the school and saying 'no', and if you see her I hope you tell her so.

There are fewer and fewer Americans willing to stand up for their rights these days. I appreciate seeing and hearing of those who do.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By Targon on 4/2/2012 11:04:36 AM , Rating: 2
Don't the terms of use for Facebook say you are not to share your login with anyone(the way most online services do)? If that is the case, then it would be grounds for termination of service to give your password to an employer. Now, I can see the requirement to be a friend of a boss so they can check for inappropriate material that is being shared with "friends", but that's about all they can expect.

By Cheesew1z69 on 4/3/2012 4:06:49 PM , Rating: 2
Now, I can see the requirement to be a friend of a boss so they can check for inappropriate material that is being shared with "friends", but that's about all they can expect.
They can't and shouldn't expect it, this is NOT a requirement of employment. Sorry.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By stimudent on 4/2/2012 11:12:42 AM , Rating: 3
Before you know it, people will be getting suspended for not having a Facebook account!

By delphinus100 on 4/3/2012 10:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
It's increasingly becoming impossible to post on other forums without one (or Twitter, or one of a few others). and (soon) come to mind. (the latter suggests you set up a separate account if you want to continue to post anonymously, but should I have to create a dummy account in order to do this?

(And what if my employer thinks I'm 'Anonymous Joe' at a possibly controversial site that requires Facebook or some other social media to log in, will I have to give up my password for that, too?)

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By GotThumbs on 4/2/2012 4:29:59 PM , Rating: 1
While it should continue to be 'illegal' to request passwords to individual accounts, I do have to agree that people posting stupid and ignorant a reflection on them and their employers. What if a parent of one of the schools children saw this....well someone did and they reported her for it. It's NOT illegal, but it is showing of this teachers lack of class and moral character. Do we really want to continue having idiots teach OUR children. There should be NO more excuses for stupid people. Time for raising the bar instead of continuing to lower it for the dummies of society.

By Invane on 4/2/2012 4:38:09 PM , Rating: 2
What I definitely want is that someone like you does not get to bin people as 'stupid', 'ignorant', and 'lacking in moral character'. While you seem to believe this girl is poor material for a teacher based on a single photo you know nothing about, your own post displays arrogant sweeping generalizations and ignorance.

I will leave it there as I halfway suspect you are just trolling.

RE: I just can't get my head round this
By Trisped on 4/2/2012 9:45:31 PM , Rating: 2
When dealing with teachers, school districts must be very careful.

If a teacher posts an inappropriate image and gives access to other individuals (parents and likely students) to view the image then the school will be liable if they do not take steps to resolve the issue.

If an inappropriate action is reported against an individual and the individual has ways to prove they are not in the wrong, and they do not/will not provide that proof then it is unreasonable to assume they are wrongly accused. This just makes sense, as an innocent person will usually want to provide proof of their innocence, while a guilt person will try to obstruct the obtaining of proof because it will be damning to them.

While I can understand your point that it should not be legal to require access to employee's Facebook accounts to maintain employment, it should also not be illegal to fire a teacher for providing access to inappropriate content to their students. If you want to post inappropriate content on your Facebook page, make sure your page is not accessible to your students, coworkers, or your students parents. That should be common sense.

Also, it should not be illegal to fire someone for making public company secrets or encouraging/helping others take advantage of the company (like by using your Facebook page to tell your friends how to get your companies products for free).

Personally I believe if you do not want people to know it, then do not post it.

By FredEx on 4/3/2012 1:22:31 AM , Rating: 2
The picture is not inappropriate and no kids had access.

By Invane on 4/3/2012 6:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
If an inappropriate action is reported against an individual and the individual has ways to prove they are not in the wrong, and they do not/will not provide that proof then it is unreasonable to assume they are wrongly accused. This just makes sense, as an innocent person will usually want to provide proof of their innocence, while a guilt person will try to obstruct the obtaining of proof because it will be damning to them.

Makes sense? I believe that someone that wants to make accusations had better provide their own proof. Our legal system works on a innocent until proven guilty (theoretically) basis for a damn good reason.

It is quite easy to throw accusations around and far more difficult to provide prove of those accusations for either side. With that being the case, I firmly believe the side making the accusing had better bring something better than "cuz I say so and they haven't disproven me" to the table.

Using the fact that someone hasn't proven themselves innocent yet as proof they are indeed guilty is fantastically absurd.

By delphinus100 on 4/3/2012 10:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
Personally I believe if you do not want people to know it, then do not post it.

Is everything on the Internet highly secure? No. Is Facebook? Of course not.

But just because it's possible for you to break into my house despite my cheap locks anyway, does not mean I must be compelled to hand you the keys, or otherwise make it any easier for you...

By Brandon Hill on 4/2/2012 10:26:12 AM , Rating: 3
A parent, who was friends with Hester on Facebook, told the school about the questionable picture.

One of the many reasons why my wife doesn't friend parents on Facebook.

RE: Figures
By TSS on 4/2/2012 10:38:41 AM , Rating: 3
I hope for your wife's sake the time never comes that you have to mandatory friend people on your facebook as part of the job, so they can keep tabs on your behaviour. That might sound crazy, but IMO not nearly as crazy as handing over your account information to your employer, or be fired.

RE: Figures
By aphan25 on 4/2/2012 11:27:14 AM , Rating: 2
I'm in agreement with you TSS. I believe in some states it's "mandatory" that you become "Friends" with a school member or parents or w/e crazy committee they felt will fullfill the requirement for that position. Sadly it's come to that point now... it seems like an invasion of privacy but with employers YMMV. So before folks go on a witchhunt to stone the girl let's get a clearer understanding of the situation first...

RE: Figures
By StraightCashHomey on 4/2/2012 11:51:00 AM , Rating: 4
In that situation, what many people SHOULD do is to create a separate account for business purposes. If a teacher is somehow "required" by his/her employer to friend parents and students, then just create a Facebook account with "Mrs. Smith" as your name instead of your real name.

Also, if someone is making their photos available to the public, then it's not a matter of privacy at all. If students and parents can see a picture of her with her pants around her ankles, then disciplinary action SHOULD be taken. There is likely an employee code of conduct that needs to be upheld, and posting that picture, while not pornographic, isn't appropriate to post on Facebook, either.

RE: Figures
By Gurthang on 4/2/2012 10:50:52 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed, while I don't use any social media websites myself my feeling is that people should maintain at least two identities. One personal and private, one professional and public and never link the two.

I also think ideas like this one are good:

Admittedly I don't know the details but I can see the use in a social website/app that allows you to share just between two people or small invite only groups. With protections against snooping, stalking, and if the relationship goes bad allows any party in the "group" to shred the content shared and no ability to extract or save recieved content outside the website/app. (And no it does not always have to be romantic parings)

RE: Figures
By tamalero on 4/2/2012 1:23:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think thats why you should limit your posts to just your friends, not friends of friends.

the chain of links and third party access due of this security loop is retarded.

specially considering how many people add everyone like mad.
like it was a number contest.

Take them out.
By Motoman on 4/2/2012 10:33:47 AM , Rating: 3
I hope she sues the pants off the school district. Then she can post similar photos of all of those idiots too.

Anything you post on a public Facebook profile is fair game. You made it public, so you can't complain about any action anyone takes based on it. But private profile information is...private. Just as your personal conversations with friends & family in your own home would be. Attempting to gain access to such private information is tantamount to installing wiretaps and bugs in a person's private home. You can no more justify claiming access to private information on FB than you can justify claiming access to someone's diary, email, love letters, whatever.

I hope she bankrupts the school district and puts the board of directors, and/or whoever else is involved, into jail. An awe-inspiring show of force is needed to reinforce and defend the line between public and private life. Let's see how popular these people, and this practice is, after the state of MI has to bail their a$$es out.

RE: Take them out.
By Creig on 4/2/2012 1:21:54 PM , Rating: 3
I hope she sues the pants off the school district.

Taking her pants off was the act that got her into trouble in the first place. Now you want her entire school district to drop their drawers, too? ;)

RE: Take them out.
By Schrag4 on 4/2/2012 1:26:05 PM , Rating: 2
I hope she sues the pants off the school district.

I see what you did there, LOL!


Thanks, moto - I needed some cheering up today.

RE: Take them out.
By Motoman on 4/2/2012 1:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
I live to serve. Or is that sever? Whatever.

My favorite part of this
By anactoraaron on 4/2/2012 10:38:15 AM , Rating: 2
" the absence of you voluntarily granting Lewis Cass ISD administration access to your Facebook page, we will assume the worst and act accordingly."

So it's "voluntary" to grant them access and if you don't "volunteer" your personal facebook info then they are going to "assume the worst and act accordingly" meaning if you don't comply then you could lose your job... and this is what our kids' educators define as "voluntary." What's next? "Voluntary" video monitoring of teachers who don't have a FB account? What if the teachers refuse? Do they get a " the absence of you voluntarily granting Lewis Cass ISD administration access to videotape your personal life 24/7, we will assume you are running a criminal enterprise and will act accordingly and contact the proper enforcement agency." kind of letter?

RE: My favorite part of this
By kyp275 on 4/2/2012 12:13:18 PM , Rating: 3
pretty much, that "request" is about as voluntary as a robber telling the bank clerk "if you don't voluntarily give me all the money, I'll just have to shoot you in the face"

RE: My favorite part of this
By Schrag4 on 4/2/2012 1:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
That's a really horrible analogy. I'd say a better analogy would be if you were pulled over for speeding and the cop asked you if he could search the trunk, you refuse, and you go to jail because they assume you must be hiding drugs or dead people.

While I think she's an idiot for posting the picture and friending students and/or their parents, I don't understand why the school didn't just ask the student or parent to log into their FB account and show them the aide's posts. Wouldn't that be much easier and achieve the same goal?

RE: My favorite part of this
By JediJeb on 4/2/2012 7:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly! If the parent was so upset, why didn't she offer to give the school admins her password to Facebook? I wonder if there is anything on her Facebook page she would not want the school admins to see?

No difference
By viperpa33s on 4/2/2012 11:02:47 AM , Rating: 2
What is difference when a company asks for your username and password on Facebook, and asking for a key to your house? There is absolutely no difference. If we let this continue, a company would be able to do what they want, when they want. The next thing a company would want:

1) Username and password to access your personal computer

2) Username and password to access your personal emails

3) Username and password to access your personal bank accounts

4) A key to your personal car

5) A key to your house or access to your alarm system

6) Access to family members username and passwords

Doing this all in the name of having the perfect employee

RE: No difference
By Invane on 4/2/2012 4:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly correct.

RE: No difference
By mcnabney on 4/2/2012 5:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
Or if you apply to work somewhere else, can the future employer ask for your curent company's logins/passwords? Just to make sure you aren't doing something bad at your current employer.

Dark Path
By MrX8503 on 4/2/2012 10:25:03 AM , Rating: 2
I think this leads down a dark path. Sometimes people want their work and personal life separate. I think everyone should be able to hide/show what they want pertaining to their personal life.

RE: Dark Path
By FITCamaro on 4/2/2012 11:24:22 AM , Rating: 2
And they can....

Either don't friend people or post things with restrictions on who can see it. You can totally restrict who sees what.

Regardless, an employer has no business asking for your Facebook information. Unless you're doing something illegal or its affecting your work, it isn't their business. And even if it is affecting your work, they still don't have cause to see what's on your Facebook account. They can pursue the issue in other ways. If you're a drunk, that you're posting drunk pics on Facebook is none of their business. What matters is are you showing up to work drunk or committing crimes when drunk. They don't need Facebook to tell them either.

Most employment contracts have an ethics clause
By Beenthere on 4/2/2012 1:04:05 PM , Rating: 1
Most employment contracts these days have an ethics clause that essentially states that if an employee acts in a manner that is determined by the employer to be inappropriate or embarrassing to the employer, the employee can be terminated immediately regardless of where or how this event took place.

People should think before they act irresponsibly.

By FITCamaro on 4/2/2012 2:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
I agree but I'm not seeing any irresponsibility here. This was a picture that wasn't offensive to anyone but some uptight parent.

By Beenthere on 4/2/2012 10:26:05 AM , Rating: 2
Then we'll know what they think.

My uncle looks forward to this
By FITCamaro on 4/2/2012 11:18:26 AM , Rating: 2
He is a wrongful termination lawyer and if anything smacks of it, this does.

Sorry but my personal life, unless illegal, is none of my employers business.

What's really sad here
By Boingo Twang on 4/2/2012 12:40:39 PM , Rating: 2 that the school district will be successfully sued and the tax payers will end up picking up the tab. There's only so much governmental immunity they can hide behind. What will put a stop to this type of intrusive nonsense is when the INDIVIDUALS perpetrating it are sued and lose their assets too.

Maybe I'm an optimist...
By jeff834 on 4/2/2012 3:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
but I see the pants as half on, not half off.

Back to the dark ages
By Helbore on 4/3/2012 5:22:48 AM , Rating: 2
She received a letter from the Lewis Cass ISD Special Education Director saying, " the absence of you voluntarily granting Lewis Cass ISD administration access to your Facebook page, we will assume the worst and act accordingly."

Goodbye "innocent until proven guilty," hello "if you don't prove you did no wrong, we'll assume you're all deviants."

What a slippery slope this is.

Here we go
By Dr of crap on 4/2/12, Rating: -1
RE: Here we go
By chmilz on 4/2/2012 10:24:32 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe I want to be on Facebook, and maybe it's none of your or anyone else's damn business.

RE: Here we go
By Dr of crap on 4/2/2012 11:08:38 AM , Rating: 2
I never said what they did was RIGHT.

Facebook and all the things it brings with it is over used, over hyped, over everything.

You know this will fade after awhile and the next new thing will take over.

I just said I won't be on Facebook. It's your choice to be on it, just don't be so surprised if something happens.

RE: Here we go
By Invane on 4/2/2012 11:49:50 AM , Rating: 2
The "just don't use Facebook" response is shortsighted and apathetic. It's the same argument as the old "why worry about x when I have nothing to hide." Avoiding the issue does nothing but allow them to move further down the slope of taking away your rights. If you continue to allow them to do so, they will move on to more invasive demands.

Seeing how many of you people are responding like this makes me shake my head. I for one do not believe your employer has any damn right to what you do outside of work unless it affects your job performance. At that point, they can deal with the problem as they see fit. Until that point, stay the out of my personal life. It's none of your business.

This certainly is wrong and needs to be confronted directly. Seeing people say "don't use Facebook" astounds me. Next it will be "don't use email" or "just don't use your cellphone".

If I ever have a potential employer ask me for my facebook login info (which I don't have), I will respond by asking for his house key and his computer login credentials. I want to make sure I'm not working for someone morally questionable that could hurt my reputation later. If they don't want to allow me to look through their house and computer, they have zero ground to ask for my personal information beyond that required for tax and payroll.

RE: Here we go
By isayisay on 4/2/2012 12:09:31 PM , Rating: 2
While I completely agree with you on this, there are many (many, many) people desperate for any work so they can avoid losing everything and put food on the table. These people don't have the luxury of walking away from anything.

We have to stand up for them.

RE: Here we go
By isayisay on 4/2/2012 12:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
Nice reasoning there.

Please allow me to expand upon it...

It's your choice to be outside a lot not using Facebook, even though some people think that is not normal. But hey, it's your choice to spend time outside so don't be surprised if something happens.

RE: Here we go
By Schrag4 on 4/2/2012 1:38:06 PM , Rating: 2

Let me get this straight - you should be able to post whatever you want on FB but what you do in your spare time isn't "anyone else's damn business." Do I have that right?

Look, if you want to store personal info of that nature with a company that will inevitably sell it someday, be my guest. I just think it's funny when people complain that their FB data isn't as private as they'd like it to be. Personally, I think an employer using Google Maps to find out what you do in your backyard is a bigger intrusion than looking at what you voluntarily post on FB. If you want it private, don't post it. At least you have control over that.

Just my 0.02

RE: Here we go
By amanojaku on 4/2/2012 10:42:18 AM , Rating: 2
I am not on Facebook as I, too, feel it is a waste of my time, yet I will defend this woman's actions. Hiding by not being on Facebook is not the solution to invasive requests. A big "F U" and a lawsuit are. Your line of thought is similar to someone saying a burglary happened because there was a TV in the house, so don't own a TV.

RE: Here we go
By Dr of crap on 4/2/2012 11:18:09 AM , Rating: 2
If you volunteer pics, info out there for all to see, don't be surprised if it comes back to bite you in the a$$, that's all I'm suggesting.

Before Facebook it was be carefull what you put out on an email. Before that it was don't start a rumor, it'll come back to get you.

That's my line of thinking.
I don't need to show the world what I did last night.
I don't need to brag or show off.

RE: Here we go
By amanojaku on 4/2/2012 11:30:20 AM , Rating: 2
Your information is not out there for all to see. That's the reason the employers WANT access, so that they CAN see it. How is Facebook any different from email? Both have permissions to keep the wrong folks out. You're telling me you'd allow your employers to go through your email, just because it's online?

RE: Here we go
By Dr of crap on 4/2/2012 12:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
Like I said I DO NOT AGREE WITH WHAT is happening.

But IF you post something, pictures this time, and it gets you in trouble, who is to blame?

Asking for login info - I DO NOT AGREE is right.

But again, you post pics - suffer what happens!

RE: Here we go
By Invane on 4/2/2012 2:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
You are, however, assigning the blame to the victim here. This is the root of the problem.

Is this picture in some way wrong or breaking some law? I believe the clear answer to that question is "No". Given that, there is a single victim here.

Saying, "I think the school is wrong" and following it up with "But it's her own fault" is implying she has done something wrong and gives a certain amount of legitimacy to the school's actions.

RE: Here we go
By Dr of crap on 4/2/2012 2:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
Ok they're both wrong - how's that.
Can't please everyone now can we!

Teacher (victum) is wrong for "inviting" the wrong people to view pics.
School wrong for thinking she's doing wrong. There are worse pics the kids see everday!

Watch Harry's Law (NBC) of 3/25. It has a very similar type story and of course while scripted is very good.

I think we all can agree there is a certain Leave it to Beaver type standards we think teacher "should" have.

RE: Here we go
By Invane on 4/2/2012 3:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
Man *woosh*. Point missed again.

Let's start at the top.

1) Picture is not illegal.
2) Picture is not even morally questionable.
3) Picture was taken prior to even being employed by the school.
4) Picture has zero bearing on the quality of the employee's work.

Stating that someone is 'wrong' for allowing other people to see a picture that may as well be a picture of a random tree is what I have an issue with on this point. Heather here has done absolutely nothing wrong in any way whatsoever, including inviting people to see her pictures.

Now, I'm going to go off topic to rant a bit.

Since you brought up the standards 'we' think a teacher should have, let me touch on that. I will also point out that the above article references a mere teacher's aide, not a teacher.

A teacher is a person. Expecting them to be a paragon of virtue while paying them a measly 430-40k a year is ridiculous. I expect one thing from teachers: They teach my child well. What they do in their off time is their business as long as it's not brought into the classroom. You will immediately make the argument that a Facebook page *is* bringing this into a classroom, and I will simply disagree with you on this point as defending the argument would be a very long post.

This idealization of the perfect teacher is, in my opinion, a direct result of poor parents not wanting to take responsibility for doing their job (and, to a lesser degree, also stemming from the general American "Nothing's my fault" culture). Instead, parents expect some angelic being (deemed a 'teacher') should perfectly impart an infinite ocean of wisdom, saint like morals, and impeachable ethical standards upon their children with a magic fairy wand.

Now, when their child (who was undoubtedly a perfect unmarred slate of innocence prior to the teacher) does something wrong, they find it easier to point at a picture on a Facebook page and blame poor teaching than to accept that they possibly should have done a better job engaging their child.

Character imparted by a good parent will trump a poor teacher (and any Facebook pictures) and day of the week. Don't expect teachers to do your job.

RE: Here we go
By Invane on 4/2/2012 3:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
430-40k should be 30-40k. My apologies and curses upon DT's lack of an edit button.

RE: Here we go
By GotThumbs on 4/2/2012 4:22:04 PM , Rating: 1
Do we really want to OK the 'teachers' of our children be this ignorant?

You should not accept stupid people teaching YOUR children.

Photo SCREAMS of low character and high level of ignorance.

Only an ignorant person would think this is ok to post on the WORLD WIDE WEB. This stuff is global...and you twits think its secure. Well...its NOT.

RE: Here we go
By Dr of crap on 4/3/2012 8:26:46 AM , Rating: 2

I pity those parents that think their kid is the best, and expect everything from the teacher. And these parents are way off when they think their kid can do no wrong and it's UP TO THE TEACHER do set the kid straight.

Parenting 101 is that the parents set the kid straight and it's NOT up to the teacher, the daycare person or anybody else - parent! Smack that kid if needed, I'll look the other way if the little sh$t needs it.

There now that I'm done ranting -

It's very simple to not "friend everbody". We have new tech now and you need to be careful what you do. Again be careful WHO YOU allow full access to!

OK the pic she posted is NOW WHERE near bad, it's parents and the stupid school board that jumped to conclusions.

There will be parents that "hunt" for teachers on Facebook. You know there are those kind. So if you are in the public eye, as a teacher is, you'd better be extra careful!

RE: Here we go
By Invane on 4/3/2012 4:35:46 PM , Rating: 2
I pity those parents that think their kid is the best, and expect everything from the teacher. And these parents are way off when they think their kid can do no wrong and it's UP TO THE TEACHER do set the kid straight. Parenting 101 is that the parents set the kid straight and it's NOT up to the teacher, the daycare person or anybody else - parent! Smack that kid if needed, I'll look the other way if the little sh$t needs it.

That's what I was saying.

As for the rest of your post, I'm going to disagree. What we need to do is stop grovelling before every over sensitive idiot that gets their panties in a bunch over some insignificant detail that's none of their damn business. Did they do something illegal? Fine, have the authorities deal with it and leave it at that. Otherwise, shut up, mind your own business, and get enough self confidence that you can take seeing something that might offend you without having to fly off the handle and try to make someone else conform to your self-centered ideology.

RE: Here we go
By FredEx on 4/3/2012 1:24:20 AM , Rating: 1
What are you doing here? GET OUTSIDE!

"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

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