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.
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!
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).
>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.
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.........
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
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
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?
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