Slashdot Mirror
Montana City Requires Workers' Internet Accounts
justinlindh writes "Bozeman, Montana is now requiring all applicants for city jobs to furnish Internet account information for 'background checking.' A portion of the application reads, "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, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc.' The article goes on to mention, 'There are then three lines where applicants can list the Web sites, their user names and log-in information and their passwords.'"
According to the online poll accompanying the article, 98% of respondents think it's an invasion of privacy.
That's as big a landslide as it gets, folks.
Judging by TFA, it was apparently vetted by their city attorney. Maybe even written by him.
Oh, wait. Anyone with a clue. Never mind. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along, move along.
Its on the Background check form.
I've just contacted the Montana ACLU Here
The article links to a video interview with Greg Sullivan Bozeman City Attorney here (right side of page), who defends the policy.
His Contact info:
City Attorney Greg Sullivan gsullivan@bozeman.net 406-582-2309
What I just emailed off to Mr. Sullivan
Greg Sullivan
Your city's requirement for job applicants to provide a list of all personal internet memberships, logins, and passwords has recently come to my attention. I have just requested that the Montana ACLU investigate this policy as it seems a severe invasion of privacy. I have always appreciated the state of Montana's noble defense of the Constitution, exemplified with recent decisions by the state to support 2nd amendment rights. Your city's applicant policy is the exact opposite of what I'd expect from the state of Montana, and I would urge you to seriously reconsider this requirement.
You jest, but it's actually common to see job postings phishing for all sorts of personal information up to and including SSNs and DOBs. Be careful with any job postings, particularly from companies you don't know/trust. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thecheckout/2007/02/looking_for_a_job_phishers_are.html
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
Actually, it gets worse. The application has a "survey" portion at the end which requests things that are technically forbidden: age, race/ethnicity, disability. Everyone should read it, it's kinda comical...under "race/ethnicity" it says "check the one category which best describes your recognition in your community"...White (not Hispanic or Latino), Black or African American (Not Hispanic or Latino), Hispanic or Latino...a couple more, then this gem: Two or More Races (Not Hispanic or Latino)....w...t...f...who the hell came up with this? Oh, and if you do look at it...try to figure out what I'd pick if I came from the middle east...no option for Iranians and Syrians...Or, how about somewhere in, say, Kazakhstan? They don't really exist, do they?
They even ask if the applicant has violated any criminal law or -traffic- regulations within the last five years! Here's a flashlight, want me to drop my pants, too?
Pure offense...that's all I can say.
Depending on the union, you may just be exchanging one set of meaningless crap for another... like the union person at a conference I attended recently in which he couldn't leave the side of the computer unlocked so that people could plug cards in for testing purposes. He had to stand around for an hour and a half just in case he needed to unlock it. Or the TV unions in which you have your job and if you even touch a piece of equipment that's not on your list---even outside of work hours to lean how to use it---instant union grievance. Of course, the people who aren't jackasses poke fun at this and laugh about it, but there are enough people who take it seriously and crack the whip that it can make life for the workers genuinely unpleasant. And so on.
If unions were solely about collective bargaining, were entirely run by regular full-time workers (without significant time off for being the union boss or whatever), and were not designed around bizarre apprenticeship models dating back to the middle ages, there's no question but what unions would be great for workers. Unfortunately, enough unions stray far enough outside those lines that in many cases they are a worse taskmaster than the companies from which they are supposedly trying to protect you.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Unfortunately, enough unions stray far enough outside those lines that in many cases they are a worse taskmaster than the companies from which they are supposedly trying to protect you.
That's been my experience in the one union I was in. My working relationship with my employer was great...until the group went union (it was a done deal by the time I started working there). At that point, my boss became paranoid about being grieved for anything and everything, and therefore, the freedom I had had to just do what needed to be done disappeared. Two examples: 4-10 work weeks ("No, the Collective Bargaining Agreement specifies 5-8s for your position") and combining two 15 minute breaks and the 30 minute lunch break into a single lunch break of 1 hour ("No, the Collective Bargaining Agreement says that you have to be given a 15 minute break after 2 hours, a 30 minute lunch at four hours and another 15 minute break at 6 hours").
The Collective Bargaining Agreement that governs your workplace is truly a double-edged sword. It limits what your employer can require you to do, but it also limits what your employer can allow you to do as well.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
What does the phrase "any and all" add that the word "all" lacks by itself?
"All your base are belong to us" legally implies that if even one base is found to not belong to us, then it is possible that none of them do - the statement is false in its entirety. "Any and all of your base belong to us" means that if we accidentally let one of your bases slip through our fingers, the remainder still belong to us. To a lawyer, internet memes are full of loopholes and thus not binding.
Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
IANAL, but actually I think that you would be correct. Most of you I'm sure recall from not too long back that it is illegal to violate a website's Terms of Service - http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11519. I haven't checked, but it is a good bet that the Terms of Service for Myspace, Facebook, etc., forbid you from giving out your password to anybody. Additionally, were the city to recieve the username and password and then use those to log into your account, they would (within the spirit of the law even) be violating the same law.
This line of thought also raises the interesting possibility of using arbitrary terms of services to shield ones self from compulsory searches, such as drug screenings at work. You're asked to pee in a cup and reply "I'm sorry, but I just signed up for website X, and it forbids me from taking a drug screening when no probable use of illicit substances is shown. Violating the terms of service would be illegal."
"Sorry you're fired."
"oh really? You're firing me for refusing to break the law? I'm pretty sure that is grounds for a lawsuit, so the question is, do you want to pay my salary in exchange for me doing work for you, or after an expensive lawsuit?"
(Note, you wouldn't be able to agree to the terms of service if an existing employee agreement already requires you to submit to random drug tests, so don't be stupid. Also, again, IANAL, so don't blame me if you get fired/don't get a job.)