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.'"
If there weren't people over 50 I wouldn't be so scared...
If they are able to hire people with these policies, then they are hiring people that they deserve, and those being hired are getting what they deserve. I honestly cannot envision going into a job interview and writing down, on a piece of paper that will end up who knows where, all of my user names and passwords, for every account I have on the Internet. I have trouble envisioning the idiots who would do so, but I'm guessing they look like the people who came up with this policy. And they deserve each other.
Why should workers have to supply personal information that isn't in any way relevant to the job? Why should workers give their bosses the means to invade on their personal lives? I realize there are cases (mainly national security type jobs) that may view these as compromising security, but then they should only require NDAs or, at worst, closing these accounts.
FTFA: "No one has ever removed his or her name from consideration for a job due to the request, Sullivan added."
Then they're getting exactly what they asked for. Considering that users will hand out their passwords for a chocolate bar, this sort of line doesn't scare me much any more. Is that sad or am I just bitter?
If pressed, I would consider handing out the *wrong* passwords, though; when they come back saying they couldn't log in, I'd alert it to the sites in question as a TOS violation, employment discrimination, etc..
That is just plain moronic. You do NOT ask for people's passwords ever. That's bloody ridiculous. You'll get a total of two types, liars who give you nothing or fakes, or idiots you actually give you this info.
"Please list any and all, current personal or business websites..." Really? Even if they can justify asking for personal information, business websites could include things like previous employer intranet logins, personal bank accounts, etc. If presented with a job application that included this kind of stuff, I would run, not walk, to the nearest exit.
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Do the user names and passwords to Banking Sites count as Business Accounts? Mortgage Accounts, e-trade accounts? Crazy Bozeman, MO city HR people. HR should stick with paper hats and cake. It is the only thing they are good at.
I suspect that the available pool of applicants all favour abrogation of privacy rights for whatever personality driven reason. The problem will perpetuate.
So, they are offically asking to violate the Terms of Service of all of these services?
I'm sure that each one has a policy about not sharing login information for your personal accounts.
What's next, asking for your login for your banking information, so they can see how you spend your personal money?
Personal background checks are fine (and valid for many jobs, maybe not for a rank-and-file city job, but meh).
But they need to be done properly and honestly. This is just a really lazy and silly way to do it.
Obviously this policy and application wasn't vetted by anyone with a clue.
Maybe my bank access info?
Keys to my house?
Maybe a beaver shot of my wife?
There is a LOT of stuff that prospective employers can't ask you (race, sex, family status, disability, etc.). One of those things is asking you about social organizations you belong to (presumably because someone could derrive illegal information from this like your age, nationality, religion, etc.). Asking for your Facebook/Myspace/etc. information would almost CERTAINLY fall under this (since things like age/sex/etc. are standard categories on most social websites, and this information is supposed to be basically anonymous) and is really opening them up for a rather impolite visit from the EEOC.
I suspect that, in these hard times, it's just that no one has bothered to file a claim against them yet.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Ok, new plan:
1) Make up phony job.
2) Put up lots of "now hiring" signs.
3) Ask for online account information, passwords.
4) Massive credit card fraud -- chances are people use the same passwords for everything
5) PROFIT!
Most of those sites (if not all of them) probably state in the TOS that you are not to share your login information. So... they're asking people to violate their agreements, and won't hire people who refuse. For example, Facebook's Terms section 4 item 6 states "You will not share your password, let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account."
Brilliant. If you want to bribe a city official, go to Bozeman, because they only hire people who violate policy.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Is there any level at which collective action (otherwise known as 'government') is a good thing? What is wrong with city jobs? Would you have the private sector take over all functions of government, on all levels? I would think, at the very least you would be in favor of a public police force to protect your property. No matter how many guns you have, someone has more, and is more willing to use them than you are. Fire departments are nice, too. As are public roads. In fact, I can't think of many things that city governments currently do that the private sector could do better. The private sector exists to give you as little value for your dollar as you can be convinced to accept. The government is an agent working on your behalf.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
are they genuinely fishing for stuff to exclude applications from consideration? Or just looking for an excuse to fire you later because you didn't disclose all of your online activities?
perhaps trying to avoid employer liability for stuff you say "in secret". They ask you for it so they can vet you, and you hid stuff from em; so they are not liable?
The potential for misuse is absolutely incredible. I recall reading many events during which folks at the US Social Security Administration were looking up political candidates' records, where hospital employees in Los Angeles were looking up the medical records of celebrities that visited their hospital for care.
Now they want me to let the HR drones have the ability to log into my facebook, slashdot, etc accounts?
Thanks.
How are there even 2% that don't consider it an invasion of privacy?
They're the trolls who loudly proclaim "if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to hide" regarding every privacy issue.
Abuse it yourself and claim that the City did it!
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
You're right. This is the thin end of the wedge - how can they even think that they have the right to ask for people's passwords!
I'm so astounded, I don't even know how to put my objections into words - I don't know where to start!
change all your passwords to the same dummy password, then fill out your application with said dummy password. After compromising your dummy password, adhere to the sites' ToS by changing it (back). You didn't falsify your application, the information just became obsolete. I'm sure they don't require you to submit an addendum any time any piece of information on you application is rendered false.... right?
You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
Well, depending on the filtering they use they may not get to see it. :) Point taken though. Who wants to volunteer? I worked with a guy that almost got fired because he linked back to suicide girls on his company intranet site, that is until the lawyers reigned in the boss. This was about 4 or 5 years ago.
Don't blame me for redundant posts. I can't type very fast. Hence the user ID.
Look, the requirement is clearly illegal. If I was ever confronted with such a form, I'd simply write in the line "ACLU" with the phone number.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
is a complete hex string of the pirated Wolverine mp3. Store that in your database, suckers!
It's only going to deter people with average or above intelligence.
Free Martian Whores!
I'm living in Bozeman, great community - and believe me, there's a ton of uproar here about this. I spoke this morning with the city's HR department, trying to get a hold of our city attorney. This has certainly done a lot of damage to our credibility as a tech friendly city (there are strong optics and software/service companies already operating here).
When this gets bounced out of court as un-Constitutional, I hope the city fires their attorney, Greg Sullivan. It's one thing for a clueless HR person to come up with BS like this, but it's the job of people like Sullivan to review it for legality issues. This guy is clearly not up to the job if he allowed this to pass.
And, really, if I give them no information at all, how are they going to prove it? "Anyone not here, please raise your hand."
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
But how do you prove that I am lying? Especially if you do something like drive past a City Hall or a City employee's house and use an open Wi-Fi access point to perform the abuse.
By asking for the account details the City has opened itself up to a whole can of worms of which unscrupulous people can make wonderful use of with little or no repercussions.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
>Start on Slashdot ... that's what the rest of us do.
And end on Slatshot ... that's what the rest of us do.
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
You'll get a total of two types, liars who give you nothing or fakes, or idiots you actually give you this info.
hang on. I now see the logic in this.
this is for GOVERNMENT work. I think you just described the ideal government civil-service worker!
maybe there's more thought to this than it appears.
Oh hi. I'm a rocket scientist. Welcome to NASA, your friendly national air and space administration, run by civil servants.
Seriously though, even I've hardly ever seen my password in plain text in front of me! It hurts my eyes.
No kidding, the only time I ever see my password is when i type too fast and the keyboard misses the enter or tab press between username and password... O.o
RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
No, because unions are a collection of workers who can collectively bargain with an employer. If you're hungry (and we are in a recession right now) and desparate, you'll put up with a lot of meaningless crap. With a union you don't have to.
Unless, of course, you're in the Teamsters (I was in that union once, BAD union, BAD BAD BAD)
Free Martian Whores!
I'd say you get a fair amount of people in positions that should not be there, but are there for various reasons (liek seniority) and are entrenched and hard to remove. So you have people doing jobs they don't know because the job they did know was elimintated and they had 10 years. So the guy who knew his job, but only ahd 3 years is let go so they can keep the guys with 10 years.
You also get a fair amount of the "that's not my job" types. Their job has a job description and a list of tasks on their yearly review. If a task does not show up on them, they refuse to do it. They have the right to be this wy, because they do do the task that are on their yearly review. In the private sector (non-union), you get rid of these people.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
If it deters people from applying for city jobs, it could prove to be a good thing.
-jcr
Yes, because cities work best when no one runs them. Roads, schools, parks, fire departments... no good can come of them! /sarcasm
If you think this story is crazy enough, people you didn't read the document far enough. They want you to also waive the State Consititution's protections!
In accordance with Montana Constitution, [...], I understand I have the right to review information obtained through the reference check process; however, by signing below, I realize the City of Bozeman will NOT release the information provided to them to any person, including myself.
Is is possible to sign away your constitutionally protected rights?
However, my beef is WAY more basic than that...why the hell are they asking for my internet information for in the first place!?!?
It is no ones business what websites I have up, or what forums I participate in...
What is this, the electronic version of submitting to a drug test?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Considering that Montana is ground zero for right wing militia types (as well as pygmy pony & dental floss farmers). I think a lot of folks need to screw their heads back on, wake up & realize that it's the right-wing & not the left that poses the greatest threat to their privacy. Somebody up-thread asked if this was China. Nope, but it sure looks like Munich circa 1931. I'll betcha a dime to a doughnut that's a Republican city administration.
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
Many of these sites have Terms of Service stating that you are not to share your account information, including passwords, with a third party.
Since we all know that breaking a website's TOS is a felony, any applicant who fills this form should be thrown in jail.
And whoever designed the application form should be charged with aiding and abetting a felony.
My response would go something like, "I'm pretty sure it's illegal for you to ask me this, so I'm gonna just leave this section blank."
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
It's different.
This is quite different than being mugged and getting nothing in return. If you don't like the bargian, you have options.
What is this, the electronic version of submitting to a drug test?
Yes. Absolutely.
This is the definition of the slippery slope. Employers have been able to get random drug tests an accepted and even expected part of every job; now that they've completed that goal, it's time to test the waters even further out.
Make no mistake about it, employers who use such tactics want to control their employees lives, plain and simple. They figure that they can make sure nobody in the company does anything even remotely controversial by basically putting a tracking device on their employees' social lives.
And to them, like all employers who would subject me to such non-employment related screening, I say a big, hearty fuck you.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Solution to this is what a lot of people I know (including myself) have done for a long time: have fake myspaces and such up for family to see and interact with you on, then have your actual one with friends.
On a side note, never had a drug test, and know only a few people in California in their early 20s who have had one. It seems more like an accepted thing now a days here that people doing entry level jobs do that sort of stuff.
I know what you mean. I really miss those 60hr work weeks we had before the unions. Oh wait, we are in software development or IT, we aren't part of a union and we are still working 60 hours a week. Fortunately, we only get paid for 40 hours so it doesn't count.
Let's not assume that being against surveillance cameras (or asking ridiculously invasive questions about one's web surfing habits) is a red state/blue state situation. For instance, Mississippi (which I think is generally considered a red state) recently banned red light cameras.
--sabre86
I made a contact in Bozeman, and she's forwarding my insights directly to the city attorney's office. My thoughts?
1) Requesting the logon IDs and passwords is likely asking them to violate the ToS or EULA of the site or service. Most sites have restrictions against sharing logon information. Therefore, they're basically asking potential employees to breach a contract.
2) You would never want to hire someone who would hand over user IDs and passwords to a third party, otherwise you'll have employees who will gladly turn over city/employee logon information to every social engineer out there.
Honestly, I was surprised when I got a reply back indicating she would forward the information on. She was unaware of the new policy, and was thankful that I brought it to her attention.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Employers have been able to get random drug tests an accepted and even expected part of every job"
No job I would ever want. If an employer cares about what I do in my free time I don't want to work there.
Drug tests are a presumption of guilt, a demand for proof of innocence, and a monitoring of the inner workings of ones body (a violation of personal sovereignty).
The means of achieving them are irrelevant to their status as unjust.
Of course, you could attent Union meetings, and try to get the rules on breaks and workweeks changed.
That might work when there are enough similarly minded people in the union. In my case, there were six of us in the shop, and oh....a couple hundred linemen who liked things the way they were. It would have taken an act of God to change things there.
...but isn't it better that the workers have the ability to change the rules instead of the employer?
I guess that depends upon how marketable your talents are. I've only had one job, waaaaay back at the beginning of my career, where I couldn't negotiate better working conditions for myself. Since then, I have found that things are better when I negotiate my own terms of employment than when a union does it "on my behalf".
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
All very true and unions are often very inflexible both to employers and members. (I've been on both sides - once had a union file a grievance against me for stringing network cable, until they found out that it wasn't covered by their contract - but it was a pile of annoyance and paperwork.) But there are usually reasons for this - often enough some of those rules came about because employers were trying to subvert the union by introducing non-union labor - and once you establish that it is ok for a non-union person to unlock the computer (or whatever) suddenly the employer will find that that is much easier (and invariably cheaper) to hire non-union labor to do it.
The problem now is that both sides have become intransigent and usually employers have the upper hand, which makes the unions dig their heels in even deeper.
Just a guess, but couldn't at least part of that be due to increased danger while working at night ? It's a lot tougher to see workers from any appreciable distance at night, regardless of headlights and safety vests.
or, apply for the job, and refuse on the drug test. They can either drop the test, or drop you from the application process after expending hundreds, or even thousands of dollars of effort on moving you through it. If you get through to the final interview, and they say "congratulations, you've got the job, now go pee in this cup" and you refuse, they can scrap all the stuff they did to get you there, or give up trying to test you. Having to let the best candidate slip through their fingers repeatedly might also wake them up to how boneheaded the policy is - they won't figure that out if you just sit at home.
FGD 135
Please cite any relevant passages of Montana state or Federal law, kthx.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Mine would be:
"Sure thing, boss!
satanrules.org. Check.
gayhornyandproud.com. Check
nambla.org. Check.
gnaa.org. Check.
ACLU.org. Double check.
EEOC.gov. Triple check. Read that one again, please. EEOC.GOV.
find-a-lawyer.com. Checkcheckcheck.
So, bi-weekly pay, right? Great. Where do I sign?"
My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
I have to say your example for a slippery slope argument is bad. I'm actually for random drug testing. I'd like to think that I can feel safe in that some doped out worker didn't assemble my car or a nuclear warhead. I certainly don't want a building full of drunk and high workers at the local Nuclear power plant. You know, just in case something goes wrong, I'd like to think I can feel better that sane, sober and rational workers will be able to solve a problem BEFORE the reactor goes super-critical. Or that the engine won't fall off the jet I'm flying in. And a million other little things like that.
That said, good luck to those geniuses in Montana. They had what maybe ten job applicants? Now they might get two? I can see how this will help them make a hiring decision. How many people live in Bozeman, MT? Yeah, I just love those nice sunny summer days up there. Both of them.
There's a huge difference between testing positive for drugs and actually getting high on the job. Testing positive for weed doesn't mean that you were actually high on the job, it just means that you were high some time in the past month. What this means is you can be fired for something you only do in your own personal time and which doesn't affect your job performance in any conceivable way. That is what is wrong with drug screenings, my employer should keep their damn nose out of my personal life.
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
A better solution would just be to not give them the information! If they find out about it later, then you can simply explain to them what their limits are as far as your personal freedoms are concerned. If they want to pursue the issue or somehow punish you for not giving them everything they want, then you start a legal action against them. Even if nothing happens at or after that point, there's still that bit of precedent that says "some of the applicants may actually have personal privacy rights and a desire to maintain them" and will likely tread more softly next time.
Even better, since I don't use illegal drugs I'll go ahead and give them the sample, wait for the tests to come back negative, and explain to them very clearly why I'm declining their employment offer at that point.
That "prevents" them from dismissing my refusal as "oh, a druggie who didn't want to get caught"