Teacher's Aide Fired For Refusing To Hand Over Facebook Password

An anonymous reader writes "You can add this one to the short but growing list of employers demanding access to Facebook accounts. After refusing to give her Facebook password to her supervisors, Kimberly Hester was fired by Lewis Cass Intermediate School District from her job as an aide to Frank Squires Elementary in Cassopolis, Michigan. She is now fighting a legal battle with the school district."

Comments

The battle now begins.

[sethstorm]

Is it required to break a legal contract with one entity to maintain employment with another?

Re:The battle now begins.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is FB going to ban the supervisor (if s/he has an account on FB) for breach of the terms of service? That could be an effective deterrent.

Re:The battle now begins.

[Khyber]

I would think it only permissible in the case of a clear conflict of interest.

Re:The battle now begins.

[fast turtle]

and that is why school districts require friending of specific people (HR/Legal) on Facebook. If they're posting anything inappropriate then it should show up where that individual can see/read/vet the posts. If they're contacting students on the sly outside of FB using alternative channels, then they have to rely on the parents and kids to report any inappropriate activity.

In this case, the supervisor was incorrect in demanding her FB PW and if they had suspicions, they should have reported them to either the HR or the Police Depts who's job it is. Instead, the idiot has just cost the district One Million plus for a wrongful termination suit and the Union is going to be all over this issue in the next contract negotiations where it's going to be a firing offense for someone to even ask a member to friend them for anyreason at all.

Re:The battle now begins.

[Stormthirst]

"Oh just think of the children!"

What the teacher does outside of school is none of the school's business.

If the teacher is stupid enough to friend her pupils, then he/she is going to find themselves in trouble. Teachers are by definition in a position of authority over their class, and they shouldn't be seen as a friend. Mentor perhaps - someone the kids can turn to if the going gets tough - but never a friend in the truest sense of the word.

If that is the way it is in classrooms these days - no wonder there's no discipline amongst school kids.

Re:The battle now begins.

[EdIII]

It is well understood that you give up some of your privacy and rights on a school campus.

Only in your head. In the real world, and a supposedly free country, your rights to privacy (in your personal life) never cease to exist anywhere.

The fact she posted it from home is irrelevant. She was on campus when a supervisor asked her for her password.

Bullshit. 1,000,000% relevant. If I am at work, on corporate equipment, I have no rights to privacy as long as I am performing work in accordance with my job. That's reasonable. Once I am off the clock, at home, using my own equipment (that I paid for), nobody can claim a "right" to invade my privacy.

What if this teacher had candid photos of children on their page? Or worse.

Ohhh, Golly Gee Willickers!!!! I had not thought about that!!!

Of course, I see it now. Think of the children! I forgot about that. Let's suspend Freedom, Liberty, and all that happy crap right away to protect them....

Re:The battle now begins.

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't care lesss... I wouldn't even care if my childrens teacher was a pornstar on the side... The only ones I wouldn't want teaching my children were religious people that deny science/evolution or people in hategroups.

Re:The battle now begins.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want my daughter's teacher to post such profane content on her FB page without repercussions. It is well understood that you give up some of your privacy and rights on a school campus. The fact she posted it from home is irrelevant. She was on campus when a supervisor asked her for her password. The supervisor had reasonable cause to suspect inappropriate content in this woman's FB account and sought rightfully to check it out. It is part of their responsibility to protect our children. What if this teacher had candid photos of children on their page? Or worse.

I am thankful that, given your incredibly moronic and misguided view of freedom of speech and expression, that we, in the US, at least have a modicum of excellent case law, e.g., Spanierman v. Hughes et al., to provide some protection for teachers from horrendous individuals like yourself.

Re:The battle now begins.

[lightknight]

Depends on the entity (if Uncle Sam wants that password, he's going to get it 9/10 times).

But what these people are currently doing? Illegal. While there may be reason (in the Puritan sense of the word) not to employ someone who conflicts with your company / community / whatever, there isn't any reason to ask for a password to an account that has no relationship with said employer. Employ the person or not, asking for the password is grounds for a lawsuit.

Re:The battle now begins.

[jbolden]

Funny enough there is a legal term for that "tortious interference". That is the act of encouraging someone to break a contract. She could have raised that position. Of course there is still the standing issue of whether account agreements are actually contracts at all but...

Re:The battle now begins.

[Chase Husky]

How could you even begin to assume that I am a liberal and a union supporter (when, in fact, I am not and do not, respectively) merely on the basis of my desire to see that freedom of speech and expression are upheld for public employees?

Re:The battle now begins.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm concerned you might be hiding candid photos of children in your car/boat/house/bedroom/safe/computer/phone/deposit box/mail/anus.

I trust there is no need to even add "I trust you will comply, citizen". Reluctance can often cause offense. And what is someone who causes offense? An - guess what!

Re:The battle now begins.

[eldorel]

Ironically, this is exactly what facebook started out as.
An .edu email address was required to register for the first couple of years, and the entire system was designed to facilitate inter-class communication between students and professors.

Then they added the "friend" feature, non students started trying to register, Zuckerberg got greedy, and things went downhill from there.

Re:The battle now begins.

[KingAlanI]

funny (well not funny, it's ridiculous), an Italian teacher caught hell because she was a sexy model on the side

Re:The battle now begins.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm more curious about what's going to happen to fools like me who don't have a Facebook account and have never used the site. If I fail to hand over a Facebook password, will they just think that I'm lying? Is there a way to prove that you don't use the service? Should I create an account just so I have something to hand over to Big Brother?

Re:The battle now begins.

[kenh]

Teachers need to understand the idea of boundries.

A teacher that chooses to go on Facebook has every right to post anything they want - period.

A teacher that chooses to go on Facebook has every right to "friend" anyone they want - period.

A teacher needs to understand that if they friend parents or students from the schools/school district they work in, everything they post and everyone they friend is not just a reflection of the teacher themself, but also of the school and school district they work for. The teacher may feel it robs them of some "rights", and they may be right, but in effect the parents in their community are their bosses, and there are certain things you just don't do in front of (or with) your boss.

Animals in the wild know not to "poop" where they eat, sadly, ,there appear to be teachers that need to learn that lesson.

Out of curiousity, where did she snap the picture of her co-worker's pants around their ankles? Per chance at work? Maybe in the bathroom?

If my suspicions are correct, she went into a school bathroom and snapped a picture of a partially undressed co-worker - any chance her district has a policy for staff and students regarding cameras in school bathrooms?

Re:The battle now begins.

[Smallpond]

Don't be ridiculous. Uncle Sam gets it 10/10.

Re:The battle now begins.

[EdIII]

Sorry, but that last part was so ridiculous it barely deserved an answer at all.

Candid photos? Seriously? "Or Worse"? That implies there is something wrong with candid photos of children. It further implies that my own parents are evil pedophiles simply because they have a picture of me naked in the tub at 3 years old in a photo album, that could actually be picked up by a guest in the house!

It's that kind of retarded sentiment from parents that want teachers thrown in jail for reading a sci-fi book out loud, the word dinosaur removed from tests because there can be emotions associated with the "controversy" of evolution that are part of a serious problem in this country that only keeps growing.

Those people honestly believe in suspending freedoms to shove their own hysterical beliefs down our throats. That AC was no better than a member of the Taliban, and I am sure we could get some of the very same statements out them to justify their own behavior.

Asking for passwords and going on witch hunts in every single teacher's personal lives on a regular basis is just a step forward to the time in which we bring them out to the basketball courts and hang them during assembly for "crimes against morality".

Re:The battle now begins.

[_KiTA_]

Is FB going to ban the supervisor (if s/he has an account on FB) for breach of the terms of service? That could be an effective deterrent.

Or if Facebook sues the company demanding this, which would put an end to this very, very quickly.

Re:The battle now begins.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uncle Stalin gets it 11/10.

Re:The battle now begins.

[rtfa-troll]

Is FB going to ban the supervisor (if s/he has an account on FB) for breach of the terms of service? That could be an effective deterrent.

Being banned from Facebook is an honor. If they want an effective deterrent then what they want to do is have the woman find out if the school took passwords from any other employees, then verify that these were used. At that point you have an unauthorized computer access for which there are serious laws with serious jail time. Throw the book at whichever members of the school conspired to make those illegal computer accesses.

If you or I accessed a girlfriend's account you would get into serious trouble. If Facebook doesn't make sure the same happens here, they are failing in their duty to use all reasonable means available to protect the integrity of their user's accounts.

N.B. Under section 4 point 8 of Facebook's terms of service, other members of staff are not allowed to hand over their passwords, so the access remains unauthorized even if they agreed to it.

4 Registration and Account Security

Facebook users provide their real names and information, and we need your help to keep it that way. Here are some commitments you make to us relating to registering and maintaining the security of your account:

• [.. intermediate points elided..]
• 8. You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.

Re:The battle now begins.

[Anonymous Coward]

And how does this matter to you or your child? I know your answer will be "she is a teacher so.." but that does not explain how this should matter to you or your child. If you think the only people taking pictures of co workers or them drinking a beer is the few you find on facebook you are NOT living in reality. Your current co workers right now next to in the office are the same way. There are people that work in your office now that are swingers, into S&M, do some illegal drugs,sneak looks into their neighbors bedroom, are bipolar, have deep emotional problems, eat toilet paper, in huge debt, gambling problems, cleptomanics so on and so forth. You don't know a lot of this because those actions have nothing to do with what they are doing in their job with you around and it does not effect and yo don't notice it. Why do you think teachers are any different? If everything everyone did public and private became was 100% public, this world would be a much different place for a while and eventually everyone would realize it just didn't matter because everyone has and does things that others would consider strange. People and teachers have been doing strange things for decades. You finding out about it on Facebook means nothing.

Re:The battle now begins.

[jklovanc]

I would understand that if there was a social network that allowed a teacher to "mentor" someone rather than "friend". Right now you are just arguing semantics due to the restrictions of current social network sites. Trying to put a precise definition on friend is ludicrous considering that one definition of friend is "someone I can talk to when things get rough".

Re:The battle now begins.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're putting too much emphasis on the origin of the word 'friending' rather than what it means on Facebook. There's no reason not to let teachers use facebook as another avenue to communicate with students, so long as it's done with the same type of professionalism they have in class.
 
One of my cousins is an American teaching a few classes to students in Armenia, and she puts up photos of the class and reminders about tests and such. Another friend of mine is an author who has well over a thousand friends, most of whom she's never met. I don't think anyone would blink an eye at that latter use of facebook for professional contacts, so why for teachers? My guess is it's American paranoia. If they know each other on facebook, the teacher might have sex with them! Yeah, facebook is going to be the determining factor in whether an unprofessional, criminal teacher does something bad. Right.

Re:The battle now begins.

[EdIII]

The first problem was that we defined our rights. What should have happened is that we defined the rights of the government to perform actions against the citizens, and that anything that was undeclared was a right of the citizens and a restriction upon government. We fucked up, and now we have to deal with it.

In any case, try looking at the 4th amendment if you want something spelled out. Privacy and anonymity is very much in the spirit of Freedom, which is what the US was founded for .

Most assuredly, not fiction in any sense of the word. If you live in the US, I suggest moving to someplace like North Korea or China. More suitable to your philosophies, I am certain.

The situation is all the more unconscionable since it does not even involve law enforcement. Those are the only people that should be able to violate your privacy to protect both you and the public, and with considerable checks, balances, oversight, and consequences when they fail.

If common sense prevails there will be a multi-million dollar judgment against the school and those administrators will be fired.

Re:The battle now begins.

[EdIII]

I, of course, did not read the article.

However, I did not need to do so. There is no situation in which it is correct or lawful for the administration to demand the credentials to any online accounts held by the teacher.

If the administration had reason to believe that such actions did in fact happen, then the correct and lawful course of action would be to report it to the authorities. The co-worker that may be a victim has rights and remedies under the law.

The proper venue for this argument is a court. Just because that may be difficult for some people (especially the MAFIAA), does not mean we can bypass due process.

Re:The battle now begins.

[jklovanc]

It is interesting that you would consider a picture that you never saw with the brief description of "co-worker’s pants around her ankles and a pair of shoes" as profane. What if the picture was of just the pants, calves, feet and a pair of shoes with not other body parts showing? To me, there is nothing profane about that at all.

Do you think that all police officers, judges, politicians, lifeguards, coaches, librarians, etc should have to give up their Facebook passwords?

There is also a very interesting assumption that the "think of the children" people seem to miss. Just because one does something away from children does not mean that they will do the same thing around children. For example, at a bar watching a hockey game it is quite common to use profanity. These same people are coaches in kids hockey but they know the venue is different and usually act differently. Many adults have had sex at home and done some "slap and tickle" does that mean these same people will do the same thing with an eight year old? No. Almost all people understand the different venues and act differently. What an adult does out of school has nothing to do with what they do in school.

Re:The battle now begins.

[sconeu]

The first problem was that we defined our rights. What should have happened is that we defined the rights of the government to perform actions against the citizens, and that anything that was undeclared was a right of the citizens and a restriction upon government. We fucked up, and now we have to deal with it.

May I suggest that you look at the 9th and 10th Amendments ( even though the .gov uses them as toilet paper)?

Re:The battle now begins.

[ohnocitizen]

If a parent from the community friend requests a teacher, during the time between that request and the teacher denying it, that parent can see some of the teacher's FB content. If the teacher friends someone who is unexpectedly connected to a parent in the community, that parent will be able to see the content. If the teacher's friend tags them in a photo, and that photo is public, or accessible to friends of friends, or friends, of which a parent in the community is a part - the parent will see that content. The last scenario doesn't even require the teacher to be on FB. In fact if the teacher isn't, they would have no way of knowing they had been tagged. The only solution is for teacher's to give up having any adult fun in the event they may be photographed being drunk, in any way sexual, or with less than desirable political or religious beliefs. All because there are "certain things you just don't do in front of your boss". Bullshit. How about we stop making having grown up fun and opinions a crime, and stop allowing Facebook to fill in the role of big brother? With everything else we ask of teachers, why are we asking them to give up their private life?

Re:The battle now begins.

[Cylix]

Funny and true, Ron Jeremy still has a valid teacher's license. However, I think his current job pays a bit better.

Re:The battle now begins.

[EdIII]

I know what they are.

The 9th is a blanket statement that is supposed to cover everything. Just more lawyer speak like, "Including, but not limited to", in many contracts. The 10th relates the power of the states and the restrictions on the feds.

However, the vast majority of people have no real understanding of the Constitution or those Amendments. There is a prevalent misconception in the public that any right not defined in the Constitution does not exist. Since there is not a right that specifically talks about Privacy and Anonymity (you have to do some thinking about search and seizures) some people think it does not exist at all and it is merely some consumer protection stuff that can be violated at will.

We should not have needed the 9th Amendment. I understand back then the prevailing thought was to protect people by enumerating rights, but in hindsight it was a bad idea. We should have stated that the people maintain all rights, especially those that cannot be currently articulated, and the government maintains no rights at all inherently. Starting at that point there should have been Amendments defining rights (and duties) of the government, defining federal government, interactions between states, etc.

Of course I say this precisely because of that AC poster. People like that honestly believe that there are no rights to privacy, this AC completely ignored the 4th, and that mere school administrators should have Judge Dredd like investigative powers. Then you get posts asking for citations for shit's sake.

Re:The battle now begins.

[allo]

they have no contract with the company, so they cannot forbid them to do so. But they can forbid their clients to give away login credentials.

Re:The battle now begins.

[fremsley471]

Sorry to be a little off-topic, but in the UK we're tarred with a constant 'Big Brother' brush and today's news (see next) doesn't help. But pretty sure the idea that an employer could demand access to your FB page, in any way, is simply unthinkable. It wouldn't be countenanced. How the hell did this happen in the US?

Re:The battle now begins.

[Paracelcus]

So whenever you wan't to take away bomebody else's right's to bring them in line with your own narrow minded, superstitious, archaic way of thinking, it's OK cause it's for "the children"?

Re:The battle now begins.

[tophermeyer]

... during the time between that request and the teacher denying it, that parent can see some of the teacher's FB content....If the teacher's friend tags them in a photo...the parent will see that content.

Facebook has implemented fixes to those bugs. For the privacy minded you can still prevent pending friends from accessing info, and set photo/location tags to require your permission before they go public.

I'm not trying to contradict your major point. Teachers should still be entitled to private lives. And Facebook has come a long way to help people protect that privacy (while farming their all of their personal data).

Re:The battle now begins.

[AthanasiusKircher]

Umm, no. The "Friend" feature arrived pretty darn early. It was originally limited to HARVARD e-mail addresses (then other elite schools and eventually all .edu), because they were trying to get elite students on first so it would be cool and a place to socialize and hook up. Professors were very rare on Facebook for the first 3-4 years it existed, so it was not at all designed as a way for them to communicate. It was always about socialization, just first among elite college students.

Re:The battle now begins.

[Anonymous Coward]

Demanding another person's login and password sounds like a pretty clear violation of "boundaries" as well, much more so than this woman's ill-advised facebook activity. The fact that you neglected to mention this shows that your understanding of "the idea of boundaries" is not so great either.

Re:The battle now begins.

[Truekaiser]

one example is the there is a push to allow employers to cut benefits to those who hold different beliefs in any circumstance.

Re:The battle now begins.

[Chase Husky]

I think you meant to reply to the grandparent poster, not my comment.

However, in case you gathered something different from my statements than what I intended, let me clearly state that I am in favor of protecting the speech and expression freedoms of teachers, both in, to a certain degree, and out of the classroom; for example, I don't agree with the ruling of Mayer v. Monroe County Community School Corporation et al., as it set a bad precedent due to, what was, a rather innocuous statement made by an instructor concerning seeking a peaceful solution to the war in Iraq. At the same time, it is difficult to determine what limits should be imposed, if there should even be any at all, given the gamut of views and beliefs held by others and the chances for offending those individuals or their parents.

Re:The battle now begins.

[CBravo]

Block its IP addresses.

Re:The battle now begins.

[CrimsonAvenger]

What should have happened is that we defined the rights of the government to perform actions against the citizens, and that anything that was undeclared was a right of the citizens and a restriction upon government.

Oddly enough, that's what we did.

The Constitution very carefully enumerates the Powers (not rights, only individuals have rights) of the Federal Government.

Then it enumerated SOME of the Rights of the individual.

Then they stuck the Tenth Amendment on, which pretty much said that if we didn't list it as a Power of the Federal Government earlier, then it was NOT something the Feds could do.

Alas, people in government ignore the Tenth, and people out of government whine whenever someone invokes the Tenth against one of their pet ideas....

Re:The battle now begins.

[jon787]

I believe the legal term is tortious interference and Facebook could pursue civil action for it. Possibly even pursue criminal action under the CFAA by arguing it is still unauthorized access despite the fact that the password was disclosed.

"Tortious interference with contract rights can occur where the tortfeasor convinces a party to breach the contract against the plaintiff, or where the tortfeasor disrupts the ability of one party to perform his obligations under the contract, thereby preventing the plaintiff from receiving the performance promised."

Re:The battle now begins.

[7-Vodka]

I know this is slashdot, but if you read the article you will see that she took the picture in question before she even worked at that school, maybe when she worked at a previous job.

Re:The battle now begins.

[shutdown -p now]

I don't want my daughter's teacher to post such profane content on her FB page without repercussions.

So homeschool like many of your ilk do, and you get to fully control what your precious flower sees, reads and does at all time, implementing your authoritarian dream if only on a small scale.

Re:The battle now begins.

[History's Coming To]

Ban? They should bring criminal prosecution for "unauthorised access to computer equipment" or whatever the US equivalent is. This is hacking via social engineering, pure and simple, case closed.

Re:The battle now begins.

[blerg]

What if this teacher had candid photos of children on their page? Or worse.

Then they need to take their suspicions to the relevant authorities and obtain a legal warrant. You know, due diligence? Innocent until proven guilty?

And since when is "candid" equated to porn? OMG Candid Camera was a TV show about pornography!

Re:The battle now begins.

[tqk]

I would think it only permissible in the case of a clear conflict of interest.

I would think it only permissable in the case of a valid search warrant. Nobody should expect themselves to be allowed to login to a system as another user. root/Administrator can do it other ways less destructively. Users should not let *anyone* use their login credentials.

Re:The battle now begins.

[tqk]

I'm more curious about what's going to happen to fools like me who don't have a Facebook account and have never used the site. If I fail to hand over a Facebook password, will they just think that I'm lying?

We're in "stealth mode." They think we're Luddites, never having learned that *everybody* is *supposed* to have a FB and Twitter account.

Meanwhile, we get to sit back, munching on popcorn, while crap like this happens to them. I'm off to the forest to memorize a book, a la Fahrenheit 451.

Re:The battle now begins.

[JoelKatz]

I think you're missing the point. The point is that they asked *her* to give them access to information held by Facebook, not her. This is information that *she* was granted access to by Facebook and by her friends. They were asking her to betray the trust extended to her by Facebook and her friends.

Re:The battle now begins.

[Darinbob]

"We require as a condition of employment to hand over the keys to your diary that you keep under your pillow. "

Re:The battle now begins.

[djhertz]

What you've written makes sense. However IMHO it is different to those things public (by posting on Facebook) then to just doing those things. As far as I'm concerned if it's posted on Facebook expect everybody you know, and will ever know, to see it. Forever. I try to be very careful about what I post online for that reason.

What I find most intriguing about Facebook isn't the actual content of the post, but that people choose to post things that will forever be available for viewing forever to perhaps anybody. It's like if you pull our embarrassing photos of your child to their date, but your child is planting embarrassing photos and comments to be shown at a later date to everybody. I can see that as a lack of judgement in some cases.

Re:The battle now begins.

[orgelspieler]

As a non-FB person, how are they going to fix the bug of other people tagging me in photos?

Re:The battle now begins.

[jbolden]

I get where you are going in that handing over the password would be an act of Computer Fraud against Facebook.... that's a stretch but yeah what the heck it might work.

Re:The battle now begins.

[im_thatoneguy]

In the US we have a political party which doesn't understand that corporations and employers are as great or greater of a threat to your freedom and liberty as the government.

Re:The battle now begins.

[kenh]

They asked for access to her Facebook accounts, she refused - three times. She could have provided access without having to give up her password, in the form of "Here, look, it's a very innocent post - I don't know what the parent I friended took offense with."

She crossed the line when she started friending parents of children at her school. She didn't do anything wrong, but she opened the door to world of issues by treating the parents of her students as if they were old college chums.

Re:The battle now begins.

[ChrisMaple]

If I am at work, on corporate equipment, I have no rights to privacy as long as I am performing work in accordance with my job.

Never had a security clearance, have you?

Re:The battle now begins.

[ChrisMaple]

So you wouldn't mind a teacher giving lessons in pickpocketing, extortion, inciting riot, fraud, etc.?

Re:The battle now begins.

[rtb61]

What triggered this was not the photo. What triggered this was a powerplay. Some arrogant idiot assumed he had powers they did not and made a over reach, when rebuffed this fired up their ego and they pushed for dismissal.

Contract law is bound by criminal law, criminal law is bound by the constitution. No contract can exceed the bounds of criminal law in any way shape or form, criminal law not exceed the bounds of the constitution. Private companies of individuals seem to think they are above the laws and have been granted special powers by legal contracts because foolish lawyers wrote them in. Sorry but what happens in reality is when a contract is tested in court, any illegal (exceeds the bounds of criminal or constitutional law) is scrubbed out, the benefit of the doubt always goes against those that prepared the contract (they are responsible for it's failings). Make no mistake private companies are just as bound by criminal law and the constitution as the government is, so you can quite readily guess which law this infringes.

Re:The battle now begins.

[wvmarle]

TFA says April 2011 "Hester was using Facebook on her own time (when she wasn’t working at the school).", and also that she was fired last year, apparently shortly after the posting of the offending image. I interpret this as: she was an employee at the time, but the picture was posted in her own time, when she was away from the school.

Though it's definitely ambiguous. And you may actually be correct.

Re:The battle now begins.

[geminidomino]

I'm pretty sure we have at least four political parties that don't understand that, actually. They just seem to vary on which corporations they take their marching orders from.

Re:The battle now begins.

[geminidomino]

So you wouldn't mind a teacher giving lessons in pickpocketing, extortion, inciting riot, fraud, etc.?

As long as the class was property labeled as "Political Science 101," I don't see the problem.

Re:The battle now begins.

[rioki]

Yea, get Agent Richard Gill on the task! Pronto!

Re:The battle now begins.

[pne]

and that is why school districts require friending of specific people (HR/Legal) on Facebook. If they're posting anything inappropriate then it should show up where that individual can see/read/vet the posts.

Ah, because Facebook does not allow you to post anything to specific groups of friends, rather than to any and all friends at once.

How clever of the school people!

Re:The battle now begins.

[Elrond, Duke of URL]

That's a really good question. I first heard of this debacle about a month ago and it surprised the hell out of me. When I read it, my first thought was how could any employer think this was ethical or legal to begin with. And, failing that, why didn't this practice produce a deluge of lawsuits as soon as an employer tried it?

I suppose, for the second question, this tactic is preferentially used on prospective employees for lower wage jobs. Against people who either really need the job or don't have the means to file a lawsuit (or both).

Also, the percentage of workers in the US who are in a union is abyssmally low... I believe it's below 10% for the private sector. Without a group to look out for workers rights, who will? Without a union to pool the workers' resources, it is very unlikely an individual employee will be able to do it.

Anyway, like you I find this trend both apalling and unthinkable. Clearly, however, employers seem to think very differently. Upon further reflection, this seems to be another case of "it's different because it's on the Internet" when in reality the old rules don't go out the window just because you used a computer.

This is one of a very few social problems I actually wish I might encounter, just so I could raise a big stink.

Re:The battle now begins.

[Anonymous Coward]

But then he/she won't be able to push their views and agenda on everyone else's kids, and thus create more brainwashed masses for their control.

Re:The battle now begins.

[hazah]

Still? Man, that guy is persistent!

Re:The battle now begins.

[Shadowmist]

In the US we have a political party which doesn't understand that corporations and employers are as great or greater of a threat to your freedom and liberty as the government.

The poster is wrong. In the United States we have two main political parties, both subservient to the corporations that feed them campaign funds. Or rather we have two houses of legislature staffed by politicians to whom thanks to our ruddy Supreme Court among others spend most of their time raising money for their war chests. The recent supreme court decision opened the floodgates to unlimited spending during campaigns. So who do you think THEY"RE representing then? Our politicians understand very well. They also know which side of their bread is buttered.

Re:The battle now begins.

[Shadowmist]

Bullshit. 1,000,000% relevant. If I am at work, on corporate equipment, I have no rights to privacy as long as I am performing work in accordance with my job. That's reasonable. Once I am off the clock, at home, using my own equipment (that I paid for), nobody can claim a "right" to invade my privacy.

Here's the problem. The internet not only blurs lines between countries, it blurs lines between work and non-work. Especially in the case of teachers or anyone else that uses Facebook in the course of professional activities. If you're a teacher and you friend your students, or post on their facebook pages, you've broken the separation between your private life and your working life. You've opened the door for legitimate inquiries into your actions from the professional side.

Re:The battle now begins.

[Shadowmist]

How could you even begin to assume that I am a liberal and a union supporter (when, in fact, I am not and do not, respectively) merely on the basis of my desire to see that freedom of speech and expression are upheld for public employees?

It's the popular opinion of a fair number of people that public employees have no such rights. There are public positions by de jure where a fair number of such rights are suspended for the time you're within those positions and those suspensions are 24/7. The military being a big example.

Re:The battle now begins.

[Saint Fnordius]

Let me rephrase this case so that you can understand why the administration was wrong in its actions, and why your suspicions are also wrong, with my Clever Analogy (sorry, no cars involved):

"Ms. Hester, we have heard from a mother that she saw a photo album in your home that had a picture of someone half dressed. We need you to hand over the keys to your apartment so that we can search it and see just how damaging that photo is. You refuse? Then we must assume the worst. You're fired."

Note in the article that the photo in question was taken before employment at the school, and that the state where this occurred is already considering legislation to make this sort of request illegal.

Re:The battle now begins.

[Stides]

You just set it to require you approve anything tagging you. Bug has been gone for a long time now.

Re:The battle now begins.

[pak9rabid]

Also known as Agent Richard Smoker.

Re:The battle now begins.

[BlueUnderwear]

they have no contract with the company, so they cannot forbid them to do so. But they can forbid their clients to give away login credentials.

But the company interferes with a contract that Facebook has with its end user. And tortuous interference is an actionable claim:

Tortious interference with contract rights can occur where the tortfeasor (employer) convinces a party (employee=facebook user) to breach the contract against the plaintiff (facebook)

Re:The battle now begins.

[BlueUnderwear]

If the school were to log in to the victim's Facebook account using a password that was extracted under duress, that should rise to any court's definition of "unauthorized access to a computer system," or whatever the relevant laws say. The user simply doesn't have the authority to grant "authorized access" -- only Facebook can do that.

Even if the user would have authority to grant access to third parties, trying to extract that access under duress would still be a crime. The real question is whether the threat of loss of employment counts as duress, or whether duress has to be a physical threat against life or health, such as a gun pointed to user's head.

Re:The battle now begins.

[BlueUnderwear]

And indeed:

1. The threat must be of serious bodily harm or death
2. The threatened harm must be greater than the harm caused by the crime
3. The threat must be immediate and inescapable
4. The defendant must have become involved in the situation through no fault of his or her own

Re:The battle now begins.

[allo]

> They have terms of use that forbid
gotcha.

they cannot forbid you anything, when you are not the customer. the company is not the customer, the employee is.

Re:The battle now begins.

[PriceIke]

Upmod upmod upmod upmod. Damn, where are my mod points.

Re:The battle now begins.

[Eponymous Hero]

lol @ "tortuous" -- ain't that the truth

Re:The battle now begins.

[CodeReign]

It's doubtful. SEARS requires you to apply via their Facebook app. One that can auto scrape data.

Re:The battle now begins.

[Eponymous Hero]

oh they know damn well. and anyone who's tried to warn us from their public office has been murdered and/or had their face put on money, like heads on pikes.

Re:The battle now begins.

[Paracelcus]

Sorry if I misunderstood!

Re:The battle now begins.

[rtfa-troll]

I'm not sure you can call it unauthorized access (from the criminal standpoint) if you give your password to someone else.

It's not "unauthorized access" to the user's account. It's unauthorized access to Facebook's systems. How you get that access is irrelevant; the question is whether you had permission from the owner (Facebook inc) to use the system (Facebook). If the terms of service allowed handing over of passwords or were ambiguous you might be able to argue that the original user had the right to authorize the access or even that you made a mistake and that you thought they had the right. As it is, however, the terms clearly don't allow that. That makes it completely clear that Facebook has not authorized the access and so it becomes illegal.

This is a clear criminal act for which someone should spend a short time in jail. As current law stands, however, they could be due years up to decades in jail. I would hope Facebook would ask for leniency.

Re:The battle now begins.

[jp10558]

This is one of so many reasons I don't use facebook. I understand that Google Ciricles deal with this in a better way, but I don't use social media at all - too insecure - to easy to leak data, and pretty much useless for me to keep people I care about informed about my life.

Of course, I do lose track of people who don't care enough to drop the occasional e-mail or phone call or letter or stop by or meet up - but hey, if the most effort a "friend" can offer is a facebook wall posting to keep me involved in their life - how much of a friend are they and will I *or* they miss not talking anymore?

Re:The battle now begins.

[jp10558]

That exact argument was had over the bill of rights. If you read the histories and such, it seems clear to me that the Constitution was supposed to be a whitelist of government powers, rather than the Bill of Rights being a blacklist of powers...

The problem is that no document is going to stop people who want to ignore it.

The fact that the courts could find that growing food for your own consumption would affect interstate commerce (cite: http://www.naturalnews.com/030799_food_freedom_Wickard_vs_Filburn.html) shows that good lawyers can go and twist anything written down so they don't even look like they're ignoring the text.

That all said, at least with the written "blacklist" regular people do seem to notice if they are egregiously enough infringed to get worked up... Would there be anything even thought about if people had to realize "all is permissible that isn't prohibited"? Because apparently people have serious issues with that sort of thought.

Re:The battle now begins.

[Bengie]

Said company is actively ENCOURAGING the user to break a valid contract. I'm pretty sure that if the terms of employment require breaking legally binding contracts, someone can be sued.

Re:The battle now begins.

[AK Marc]

We have *only* the rights enumerated for us. If they had enumerated none, we'd not even have those. It was a good thing they were enumerated. Assuming that if 1-8 didn't exist that #9 would be followed more isn't a logical stance. #9 and #10 are completely ignored now. The existence of 1-8 has no effect on that.

Re:The battle now begins.

[Elldallan]

Actually they can because if the employer is not a customer they have no legal right to access FB's servers and under the computer Fraud and Abuse act(as long as the information crosses a state/national border at some point) that is a felony. So if they do access FB's servers they are committing a crime and FB can then proceed to sue them.

FB's Terms of Service explicitly forbids the user to share their password with anyone and said Terms of Service is easily accessible on their front page and therefore the employer does not have a reasonable claim that they where unaware their actions was not accepted.

Excellent

[msobkow]

Now the ACLU has a case they can use to clarify that it's illegal to do this under current legislation and put a stop to the nonsense.

It's too bad it'll take so long for it to churn through the courts.

Presuming the ACLU, EFF, et. al. don't decide to wait for a "better" case, that is.

Re:Excellent

[Fjandr]

Another absolutely moronic thing is the article specifically says asking for the password is not illegal under current law, which will make it hard for the aide's case. It doesn't matter that they asked for it; it matters that they fired the aide for refusing to give it up unless the law allows for firing without cause (as I doubt that's granted as a legitimate cause under any state's laws).

Re:Excellent

[budgenator]

First In Michigan, a Right to Work state,it's actually easier to fire someone for no reason than it is for cause, and secondly entering Facebook's computer network in violation of their terms of service is computer trespass, which is a felony.

Re:Excellent

[cgenman]

One interpretation is that asking for the password is not illegal under current law. Another holds that the Facebook TOS forbidding said situation is enough that in other situations it would be considered hacking, which is illegal.

Though as a nice side note, if the article is correct they were going to fire her for something they thought she posted. Giving up her FB password would have prevented her from being fired, but her refusal to give up the password isn't why she was fired.

Re:Excellent

[tqk]

One interpretation is that asking for the password is not illegal under current law. Another holds that the Facebook TOS forbidding said situation is enough that in other situations it would be considered hacking, which is illegal.

This is hopelessly confusing criminal law with civil/tort law. It's not presently illegal (criminal law) for the employer to ask for it. FB has said they will sue (civil/tort law) employers who do this as it debases FB's security systems (at least).

... if the article is correct they were going to fire her for something they thought she posted. Giving up her FB password would have prevented her from being fired, but her refusal to give up the password isn't why she was fired.

What?

She posted a photo of a colleague who had her pants down. BFD! Typical Murrican complained to the authorities. !@#$ hits fan. Sigh.

Re:Excellent

[JoelKatz]

It would be criminal for the district to use her password to access Facebook:

18 USC 1030(a)(2)(C) says: "Whoever ... intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains .. information from any protected computer ... shall be punished[.]"

The district has no authorization from Facebook to access the teacher's account through Facebook's front end web servers, so they are exceeding their authorized access to those computers. Facebook's back end database servers that they obtain the information from are "protected computer"s as that is defined in the act per 18 USC 1030(e)(2)(B) because they are affecting interstate commerce.

Re:Excellent

[tqk]

The district has no authorization from Facebook to access the teacher's account ...

But if the user handed over their password, the user would have given authorization. Contrary to FB's ToS, yes. Authorized, yes.

Re:Excellent

[JoelKatz]

The user can't authorize the district to access Facebook's computers. Only Facebook can do that.

Re:Excellent

[geminidomino]

This is hopelessly confusing criminal law with civil/tort law. It's not presently illegal (criminal law) for the employer to ask for it. FB has said they will sue (civil/tort law) employers who do this as it debases FB's security systems (at least).

#include std_disclaimer_ianal.h

Wasn't there a fairly recent ruling that made violating the TOS of an online service a criminal act? If so, then asking for the password may not be criminal, but firing her for refusing is.

Under Federal law, even an at-will employee can't be legally fired for refusing to commit and illegal act

Re:Excellent

[tqk]

#include std_disclaimer_ianal.h

That's funny by itself. Must be a C++ thing? :-)

Wasn't there a fairly recent ruling that made violating the TOS of an online service a criminal act?

That was the bullying case, methinks, and that was overturned (violating a ToS is not a criminal act).

Under Federal law, even an at-will employee can't be legally fired for refusing to commit an illegal act.

Wow. Sanity prevails still.

Re:Excellent

[Eponymous Hero]

yep, violation of EULA

Re:Excellent

[Anguirel]

If I ask you for the password to your work e-mail, and you give it to me, I am still not authorized by your employer (the owner of the system) to access your e-mail. As you were complicit in the arrangement, we could both be found guilty of computer fraud. If I asked and you refused, I could still be found guilty of conspiracy to commit computer fraud.

Too bad..

[daffy951]

..it doesn't seem to be just another april fools joke :/

Re:Too bad..

[froggymana]

There should definitely be something to tell readers if an article is an April Fool's article or if it is real. Wouldn't have to be too obvious either, and could even be something like a "spoiler" button.

Re:Too bad..

[phorm]

It's not. It's actually a dupe as this same article was posted awhile back.

She did the right thing.

[__aaltlg1547]

Now we can have this out in court.

Re:She did the right thing.

[ZosX]

This shouldn't even be a debate for the courts. Whoever thought this was a good idea is a very unamerican person. Its sad that courts have to decides people's rights to personal privacy.

Re:She did the right thing.

[KingAlanI]

Yeah, let SCOTUS speak before people get in trouble and dragged through the courts.

Re:She did the right thing.

[__aaltlg1547]

There will always be assholes who will push the limits of any kind of decency.

So we wll always need courts to rein them in.

Re:She did the right thing.

[Eponymous Hero]

unamerican? is it uncanadian too? unfrench? unsamoan? in which country is this a good idea? on planet is ethnocentrism a good idea?

Re:She did the right thing.

[AK Marc]

Unamerican? What's more American than an employer demanding illegal acts from employees and exercising their right as employers to fire anyone for any reason, even if contrary to the law?

This just might be the end of this

[pijokela]

Up until now, I've only heard of harassing people applying for jobs. It is easy to demand anything from a job applicant: when they are not selected it was just because they "did not fit" or something. Firing an existing employee is a whole different thing. Now we can finally put a stop to this illegal activity. Or maybe we will learn that it is legal in the U.S. - you never know.

Re:This just might be the end of this

[Mr Z]

Well, this is a public school. They seem to make an artform out of administrative idiocy, whether it's installing spy software on laptops so they can confuse Mike & Ikes with drugs or applying zero tolerance nonsense to activities that take place off school grounds and outside school hours. They make it a point to stick their nose in where it doesn't belong.

Sure, students are largely the victims of this crap, but teachers and administrators occasionally get this crap splattered on them too.

Re:This just might be the end of this

[GmExtremacy]

or applying zero tolerance nonsense to activities that take place off school grounds and outside school hours.

Or even applying it in the schools...

Re:This just might be the end of this

[Sancho]

Zero tolerance is not idiocy. Well, it's idiocy in the same way that George W. Bush was an "idiot."

Zero tolerance basically gives them a get-out-of-court-free card against racism charges when the school has to punish someone for some activity. Before zero-tolerance, judgement was used, and when black kids were punished for the some activity, there were almost always cries of racism. ZT ended that, because the policy is easy to point to and there is no human judgement to call into question.

Re:This just might be the end of this

[GmExtremacy]

That's true, but he mentioned that these events take place outside of school hours. No one would be punished, so there shouldn't (Who am I kidding?) be cries of racism.

Re:This just might be the end of this

[Teun]

I don't think your assessment of ZT is correct but it's nonetheless an interesting idea.

Re:This just might be the end of this

[sjames]

Firing an existing employee is a whole different thingFiring an existing employee is a whole different thing.

Sadly, it takes a school to do something THAT stupid.

Re:This just might be the end of this

[demonlapin]

People who work in positions that involve interactions with children, like school employees, are often punished by the employer for things that happen at home. Your local McDonald's won't fire you for working as a stripper on the weekends, but the school district will.

Re:This just might be the end of this

[GmExtremacy]

That's because sexuality is pure evil and teachers have no rights. Can't let those children be corrupted by evil, now can we?

Re:This just might be the end of this

[Oligonicella]

To equate an eight year old level joke with working as a stripper is a tad far, m'thinks.

Those in charge used the complaint of an obviously corn cob impaired parent as an excuse. Any other rationale is bullshit.

Yes, school employees are required to maintain certain social standards through contract. If and only if she had a contract that explicitly stated she must friend the school somehow is this request and resultant action feasibly ethical. Even then, IQ needs to be applied to the selection criteria for importance of pursuit.

School fucked up.

Re:This just might be the end of this

[Mr Z]

ZT is idiotic, in my opinion. Sure, when you allow human judgment into the picture, you also allow for biases and selective enforcement. Those are both problems, and I would be wrong to argue otherwise. ZT, though, leads to suspensions and arrests ibuprofen to school, or suspending first graders for bringing Cub Scouts gear to school.

The policies themselves were not designed with ZT in mind. The policies are human-designed, and intended to be applied by humans, with human reasoning, to human situations. ZT effectively turns them into hard computer programs without actually requiring the policies to be fully elaborated to account for all the extenuating circumstances under which they might be applied. I argue that in most cases, that simply isn't possible. At the very least, it is very far from likely unless you spend considerable effort. If it were easy, we wouldn't have a court system (complete with appellate courts).

And, it doesn't even save you from capriciousness. Instead it leads you to amplify the whims of children. For example, in one of the links above, the student was "caught" because some other kid claimed she had a knife. The likelihood someone gets ratted out (and thus subjected to the worst effects of ZT) varies based on the attitudes and decisions of the fellow classmates, not the now supposedly immune administrators. That just sets the system up for worse outcomes, because a big lever of the system (detection/reporting) is left to the kids, and enforcement is automatic and uncontrolled.

Furthermore, if an administrator does notice something punishable, but lets it slide silently because nobody else notices, who would know? ZT only applies once its obvious to everyone that there's an infraction. The system isn't even airtight at that level, since the decision to let something slide undetected is an individual decision on the part of that administrator, and they can later claim (usually) to not have noticed the infraction.

Explain to me again how the sliver of legal protection offered by ZT isn't idiocy compared to these awful, stupid outcomes?

Re:This just might be the end of this

[Mr Z]

Edit fail: "arrest ibuprofen to school" => "arrests for bringing ibuprofen to school".

Re:This just might be the end of this

[Mr Z]

Hmmm... I apparently pasted the wrong link at "arrests" also. Here is the corrected link. Geeze, I fail at editing this morning. MOAR COFFEE!

Re:This just might be the end of this

[Sancho]

I don't think the grandparent poster was saying that these things were right--just that they were. People will get punished for extracurricular activities if the administration doesn't like said activities.

They'll do whatever they can get away with, because it's rare that they'll get fired even when they get caught doing these things. The school district might get sued, but that just comes out of the taxpayer's wallet. They won't get fired because the people doing the firing don't want a precedent set for firing administrators (they're administrators, too.)

Re:This just might be the end of this

[Sancho]

The racism slant is conjecture on my part, but removing judgement is absolutely the point. It's just like minimum sentencing for some crimes, except that it's not one branch tying the hands of another--it's an administration tying its own hands.

At the very least, it means that the administration has a very easy answer to parents who complain about punishments. Zero tolerance lets the school stonewall.

Re:This just might be the end of this

[GmExtremacy]

I don't think the grandparent poster was saying that these things were right--just that they were.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that he was. I was just stating how silly I think it is.

Re:This just might be the end of this

[Sancho]

Explain to me again how the sliver of legal protection offered by ZT isn't idiocy compared to these awful, stupid outcomes?

Because it's quite intentional and works well for the purposes for which it was implemented.

I'm not saying it's good. I'm saying it's not idiodic.

Re:This just might be the end of this

[Mr Z]

It achieves the goal of removing certain legal liabilities, and so is attractive to people who care only about their legal exposure. If schools existed only to serve the administrators, then that might be reasonable. They don't. They exist to serve the needs of the children by teaching them. On this measure, ZT fails horribly, and schools no longer serve their mission.

If you think schools are just about teaching the "the three Rs", then maybe you don't see it. Schools also teach children (whether they intend to or not) about how to behave in societ, and how to apply reasoning to human problems. ZT sends the message that "inflexibility is the key!" to the kids. Is that what we want? Mindless automatons churned out by the gross? I suppose there are many that think that's just fine. I'm not in that camp.

Re:This just might be the end of this

[zyzko]

In this case it was nothing like being a stripper, there are also limits on how far persons personal life can be monitored when they are evaluated if they are working with children.

And as an anecdote: I personally know strippers that have much higher ethical values and intelligence than some of my elementary school teachers had.

Re:This just might be the end of this

[drkstr1]

If you think schools are just about teaching the "the three Rs", then maybe you don't see it. Schools also teach children (whether they intend to or not) about how to behave in societ, and how to apply reasoning to human problems. ZT sends the message that "inflexibility is the key!" to the kids. Is that what we want? Mindless automatons churned out by the gross? I suppose there are many that think that's just fine. I'm not in that camp.

I'm not sure were you've been, but that has been the goal of the education system since the industrial revolution. I would most likely be one of those mindless automatons myself, had I not recognized the education system for what it was at a fairly young age. I barely passed high school, but am quite successful now at 28. Free thinkers run circles around the "educated."

Re:This just might be the end of this

[Mr Z]

I went to public school myself. Graduated 20 years ago, actually. Back then, we didn't have ZT policies, we didn't have all this teaching-to-the-state-test crap, and teachers and administrators had at least a little bit of flexibility in how they applied the rules. Sure, the system as a whole tended toward churning out "mindless automatons," but not to this degree. It wasn't previously this adversarial.

And I agree, free thinkers can run circles around the "educated." I had only a B+ GPA, and worked just hard enough to get that B+. Otherwise, I just tried to get my degree as quickly as possible. (Turned 16 during my senior year.) Everything else I put into my computer hobby, learning electronics, logic design, programming and so forth. Sure, there was a bunch of "book learnin'" there, but also a lot of out-of-the-box thinking. I was always trying to figure out different ways of doing things, after seeing multiple examples of the "accepted way". For the last 16 years I've been a very successful electrical engineer. I don't really directly use 90% of what I learned in class, though. Most of my success has come from looking at problems in new ways and coming up with wildly different ways of doing things.

All the paper shuffling and endless, pointless homework assignments from school didn't really help me, and likely held me back. And, I sat in suspension a couple times for stupid things like being tardy to 1st period too many times (I walked 1.5 miles every day, and I've never been good keeping to a schedule), or running in the halls (gotta be first in the lunch line!). I used to have Tylenol in my locker. It may have been against the rules, but it would probably have amounted at most to a warning or another night of detention, if anyone cared at all. In today's environment, would I have even graduated?

Re:This just might be the end of this

[otterpop81]

Explain to me again how the sliver of legal protection offered by ZT isn't idiocy compared to these awful, stupid outcomes?

ZT is implemented because many people believe that public school administrators (and most government employees) should not be allowed to use their own judgment in any situation. When actual use of judgment is suggested, anecdotal examples of selective enforcement are brought forth, and things like ZT are sold as ways to prevent favoritism for people like athletes. The people in the examples you mention are then sacrificed to the greater good of the many, because it's better in their mind that 10 first grade cub scouts be punished than it is that one athlete go free.

It seems that our judicial system and process was based on the opposite, but maybe I'm just old school.

The same thing happens when the teachers' unions want "objective" rules about compensation and review, and they assert that having any other kind of system subjects teachers to the biases of the principal (of course they then fight any type of objective metrics like test scores as well, because they're unfair (and to an extent I agree[1])). The result? Teacher benefits are based on years on the job, because that's the only thing about a teacher that can actually be objectively measured. Have the principal write an actual review of each teacher? No way! How do we know his buddies won't get the best reviews? It's better in their minds that many good teachers get the shaft than it is that one bad teacher get a raise because of favoritism. Is it any wonder there's a shortage of good teachers?

So that's why schools in the US are headed down the toilet. No judgment allowed from the people in charge, and no accountability for those below.

[1] I agree to the extent that test scores alone are a bad metric. What we need are good metrics, but I don't know what those look like. The day we have good metrics, I believe we should use them to evaluate teacher compensation.

Re:This just might be the end of this

[tqk]

She jokingly posted a picture of a co-worker's pants around her ankles and a pair of shoes ...

Ask yourself where the teacher got the picture of the partially undressed coworker ...

So what!?! It's a picture of pants around ankles. It does nothing to identify the subject. Who was harmed, and in what way?!?

You sound like the douche who reported the TA.

Re:This just might be the end of this

[Tynin]

Zero tolerance is not idiocy. Well, it's idiocy in the same way that George W. Bush was an "idiot."

Zero tolerance basically gives them a get-out-of-court-free card against racism charges when the school has to punish someone for some activity. Before zero-tolerance, judgement was used, and when black kids were punished for the some activity, there were almost always cries of racism. ZT ended that, because the policy is easy to point to and there is no human judgement to call into question.

When I was 15, I was removed from school and given a felony charge for bringing an Arkansas Toothpick to school. I brought it because I wanted to give it to my girlfriend (now wife) as I was going to get a bad grade on my report card and didn't want my dad to take it from me. The morning dean came around the corner and saw the knife, just as I realized that my girlfriends backpack wasn't long enough for her to close it up (the Arkansas Toothpick was just under 2 foot long and was sticking out of the top of her bag). Even after they investigated and found I had no issues with anyone, and was very much a normal kid, they still had no choice but to put me into a correctional facility (of which I was the tallest person, and the only white kid, neither 'should' matter but it made for some interesting days) and stick me with a felony charge. Keep in mind the same school had an after school fencing club, of which I was part of, and it was very much normal to bring your fencing gear to school (never mind the drama groups and their re-enactment swords of all sizes).

While I was at this facility, I was dismayed at how they treated the students. There was arcade games played for 1+ hours on days we were "good" (they had a full blown arcade, with an air hockey table and everything) and many days at least several hours of basket ball. Actual schooling/learning was kept to a minimum. No one was really trying to teach, it was like a vacation for young criminals. The least bad thing any of the other kids did to get in was steal a car... and here I was, because I brought 'just' a huge knife to school. It was an interesting thing to live through.

Being on the shitty end of the zero tolerance stick I'm likely biased when I tell you it is a bad thing. It allows the administration to stop applying reason and a measured response to issues, and instead turns teenagers into felons (with a poor outlook on society).

Re:This just might be the end of this

[Sancho]

That's a horrible story.

I never said Zero Tolerance was a good thing. I said that it wasn't idiocy. I believe that it's a calculated decision by the administration in order to make their lives easier. And it's been successful at that.

Re:This just might be the end of this

[ImprovOmega]

If parents would do their jobs then schools wouldn't feel the need to try and replace them.

Re:This just might be the end of this

[Mr Z]

I think we're left, then, arguing the semantics of the word "idiocy" then. According to my dictionary, idiocy is "utterly senseless or foolish behavior; a stupid or foolish act, statement, etc."

ZT policies make the teacher's and administrator's lives easier at the (sometimes extreme) expense of students. It doesn't really solve any problems. Actually, it appears to amplify them, but it mostly deflects them away from the administration. To think this is at all a good thing is foolish. The administrators who put these policies in place think they're good ideas, but I see them as foolish, and therefore idiots.

Re:This just might be the end of this

[AK Marc]

When whites and blacks were punished for some activity, the punishment for the blacks was almost always worse. I remember back in the day more than one time a black kid was caught smoking and was suspended or expelled for such, while white kids doing the same had a parent conference and nothing in their permanent record. That sort of thing was common. But I never pegged that as a reason ZT was instituted. ZT always seemed to me to be a policy to reduce incidents as a zero-strikes death penalty. And I think it doesn't work. Between human risk analysis and inconsistent application of zero tolerance, it hasn't satisfied any of the reasons given for its use. It's a bad idea, implemented poorly. ZT only works with 100% compliance. Something like instant expulsion for getting caught carrying in a weapon past the metal detectors. ZT for smoking in the bathrooms will never work because they have to be caught. What do you do if one student reports another, or a group of students report another? Does it matter if the sole witness is a teacher, rather than a student? What if the teacher uses discretion to not officially report the incident? There isn't any way to provide consistent rule enforcement when the rule can't be enforced 100% itself. And that is where ZT fails.

Re:This just might be the end of this

[AK Marc]

After some thought, I think ZT was a conservative conspiracy to push bad rules on the schools to force bad decisions. The "law" seems reasonable. Bring a weapon to school, get expelled. But then someone brings a birthday cake to school, along with a knife to cut it and plates to put the cake on, and expelled they go. So the Conservative legislature passes a reasonable law to protect children, and the school follows it, making the mistake. Put this one in there with NCLB and such where the schools get funding cut if they do poorly, and then are supposed to do more with less once they fall below a certain point.

But then, I beleive there to be a large conservative conspiracy to sabotage public schools to force vouchers. They claim to be helping the children, but then do things they calculate to be harming as many children as possible, with the final goal being collapse of the public school system.

Re:This just might be the end of this

[Sancho]

Finally, a reasonable voice in this discussion!

Another reason not to "friend" everyone you know.

[houstonbofh]

Another reason not to "friend" everyone you know. Seriously, if you want to keep personal and work separate, keep it separate! No one I work with is on my facebook.

Obsession and Acquiescence

[mfwitten]

I don't understand this obsession people have with gaining access to people's Facebook accounts. What is the origin of this craze? Why is it considered acceptable to require from people a Facebook password, but not, say, a Gmail account password?

Even more so, I don't understand this acquiescence to "authority" that many people seem to display; why in the world would you give somebody else your password like this?

Re:Obsession and Acquiescence

[vlm]

Most people are dumb enough to use the same email addrs / username / password for all online sites. So to be "k00l and Trendy" you ask for the facebook password, but you know that is also her eHarmony login info, her bank login info, her amazon login info, probably her /. login info, etc.

acquiescence to "authority"

That is the obsession HR is looking for. A nice mindless sheep who will never say "no". Illegal? Who cares. Immoral and unethical? Who cares.

I'd be terrified if I had kids in the "Lewis Cass Intermediate School District". The people they are looking to hire will have to be absolute monsters, unsuited to being in charge of kids. Holy Nuremberg Defense batman!

Re:Obsession and Acquiescence

[jbolden]

Why it is considerable acceptable is that Facebook is becoming a major factor in social interaction. Events are occurring on Facebook. And we have no body of law of how Facebook interactions are to be treated:

a) Are Facebook posts that are public subject to the same sort of rules as newspaper articles?
b) Are Facebook posts to be treated with the same seriousness as personal letters?
c) Are Facebook posts about work related activities to be considered work related materials and subject to the much broader rules governing work products?

etc...

No one knows the rules.

Re:Obsession and Acquiescence

[jbolden]

Why would Facebook need separate rules? Facebook isn't any different than email or paper letters.

Let me just take your question. The rules regarding email and the rules regarding paper letters are entirely different. The rules regarding email aren't entirely settled either. But more importantly in both the case of a paper letter and the case of an email there are automatic intended private recipients unless it is sent to a public list. Should facebook be treated like an email sent a public list? Or to take the paper analogy should a facebook post be treated like a published letter or like a private letter?

It's not the medium that matters, but the actions taken. If I blackmail you, it's not much different whether I do it by phone, email, UPS, SMS, or Facebook.

Actually let me just point out even your example is not true. If I do blackmail in person that's a state issue. If I do it by mail or wire that's quite often mail and wire fraud and suddenly becomes a federal crime as well. If I do it by Facebook, it is entirely unclear who has jurisdiction, what state did this take place in?

Re:Obsession and Acquiescence

[Nyder]

Most people are dumb enough to use the same email addrs / username / password for all online sites. So to be "k00l and Trendy" you ask for the facebook password, but you know that is also her eHarmony login info, her bank login info, her amazon login info, probably her /. login info, etc.

acquiescence to "authority"

That is the obsession HR is looking for. A nice mindless sheep who will never say "no". Illegal? Who cares. Immoral and unethical? Who cares.

I'd be terrified if I had kids in the "Lewis Cass Intermediate School District". The people they are looking to hire will have to be absolute monsters, unsuited to being in charge of kids. Holy Nuremberg Defense batman!

How about the trend of other sites requiring your Facebook or Twitter Login to log into a completely different site?

Re:Obsession and Acquiescence

[mpe]

If I was a hiring manager, I would actually hire the employee who used their real name and had flame wars, possible hate speech or racist posts--as long as it wasn't illegal content. The reason would be that they clearly had nothing to hide, in comparison to the other job candidate who may have done the same thing but hides behind a pseudonym. I would just, as part of the job orientation, remind all hired employees that if they post online while at work, they represent the company, and don't mention the company when posting outside of working hours.

Even the concept of a "real name" is rather less simple than it first appears. Plenty of people use different names in different contexts, Some people are virtually never known by the name on their birth certificate.

Re:Obsession and Acquiescence

[complete loony]

If you're talking about Open ID, then you aren't actually providing your facebook username and password. You're just linking these things you do on other sites to your facebook identity.

Re:Obsession and Acquiescence

[Toad-san]

Your email account password? That's coming, chum. If they get away with demanding Facebook, they're going to demand everything else they can get away with.

Tell them to go f*ck themselves and look for another job. If you can afford that kind of freedom. But wait! This is America! You shouldn't have to do that, right?

Riii-ight.

Damn, I know I should've saved that nice brown shirt and Sam Browne belt.

Notify facebook and contact an attorney

[Eravnrekaree]

This is not perfect, but one possibility might be to set up a dummy facebook account and give that to them, rather than your real one. However, it is clear, this should be illegal, people who run into this should contact a lawyer and file lawsuits, as well, Facebook has expressed interest in filing lawsuits against employers who do this, so, notify Facebook of this if an Employer, or anyone else, has requested your password.

Re:Notify facebook and contact an attorney

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not perfect, but one possibility might be to set up a dummy facebook account and give that to them, rather than your real one. However, it is clear, this should be illegal, people who run into this should contact a lawyer and file lawsuits, as well, Facebook has expressed interest in filing lawsuits against employers who do this, so, notify Facebook of this if an Employer, or anyone else, has requested your password.

Please use more commas in your next post.

Re:Notify facebook and contact an attorney

[gstrickler]

Setting up a dummy account is a violation of FB terms of service, as is giving someone else your password. Neither is acceptable. The company can have the password to my company owned/sanctioned accounts when necessary, but they will never have the password to my personal accounts, and they have no right to even ask for them.

Re:Notify facebook and contact an attorney

[Eravnrekaree]

By the way what they are asking is similar to demanding that you give them the keys to your house so they can search your house, or them demanding that they strip search you, even an employer searching your purse or bags is unacceptable, among other things. What is going on here is something like stalking, harrassment, invasion of privacy and so on, employers who do this must be punished. This is an example of how corporations and private entities can be as much or more of a violation of rights against us, and why we need legal protections against corporations and private entities as much as we do government.

Re:Notify facebook and contact an attorney

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called grammar, get used to it.

Re:Notify facebook and contact an attorney

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a run-on sentence composed of multiple comma-splices, and it's incorrect. Learn about it.

Re:Notify facebook and contact an attorney

[1u3hr]

but one possibility might be to set up a dummy facebook account

They already know what her real one is, from the complaint about it.

Re:Notify facebook and contact an attorney

[kenh]

How about a "Ms. Hester" account for school-related posts and another called "Kimberly Hester" account for her personal/non-work related posts?

She could take a lesson from "Independent George" from Seinfeld...

Re:Notify facebook and contact an attorney

[gstrickler]

FB ToS limits you to one account per person. They generally don't enforce it, but that is what the ToS say.

Re:Notify facebook and contact an attorney

[yacc143]

Actually, by requiring the password of another user, one could argue that the supervisor (would access) accesses server systems without the consent of the system owner. Aren't there statutes on the book that make such a thing a felony already?

Re:Notify facebook and contact an attorney

[master_p]

You can always have a 2nd account on Facebook, with your real credentials, but without any friends or contacts or messages.

The violation of terms of service is when you have an account with a name other than yours.

Re:Notify facebook and contact an attorney

[Toad-san]

I've created mine. Any future employers are NOT going to be happy with good old Toaderix Vandalrix.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003681319432

Well, if they demand my account information, they deserve what they get. [ptui, may they rot in hell]

Re:Notify facebook and contact an attorney

[gstrickler]

Apparently you never read the ToS.

Re:Fuck you Slashdot

[Travelsonic]

Well, YES it IS April 1st, BUT serious shit has, ironically, been reported on that day too.

Because it was in michigan....

[Lumpy]

She will be getting a few years of pay from illegal dismissal.

the school screwed up big time. Michigan is not a right to work state, so they cant fire you for any reason. and this school was retarded enough to publicize WHY she was fired so now it's a slam dunk in court.

If she get's a good lawyer, she will walk away with 10 years of her salary from the school.

Re:Because it was in michigan....

[HornWumpus]

She's an aid. 10 years will be 30,000.

Re:Because it was in michigan....

[ShanghaiBill]

Michigan is not a right to work state, so they cant fire you for any reason.

That is not what Right to Work means. Unless she is in a union, right-to-work doesn't even apply to her.

Re:Because it was in michigan....

[Stormthirst]

And quite right too! Too many in America just accept that their employer has the right to do anything they want, at any time even if they aren't paying their employee 24/7/365.

(Caveat: I'm assuming this isn't a April Fools joke seeing as it was posted after 12)

Re:Because it was in michigan....

[Kneo24]

Even in right to work states you can take someone to court for wrong dismissal. Unfortunately you can come up with any bullshit story. This has happened to my current employer a few times. We'll bend over backwards to try and get you to be a good fit for the company, and the malcontent people will just get a lawyer and make stuff up. I believe the most anyone has got out of us is about 10,000 in a settlement.

One of the people was claiming discrimination. Because he was Hispanic we apparently told him to clean the bathrooms, on his own time, because that's the only thing mexicans are good for. Because we didn't have documentation saying we didn't do these things, the judge was siding with him more than us. It's ridiculous. Now, I'm not saying that we don't discriminate against minorities, because I'm sure we do as far as wages are concerned (though I think a lot of people are underpaid there regardless of their race). I've also noticed that the minorities don't do business politics to well, which can only hurt their efforts for earning higher wages (let's face it, you have to place business politics to some degree), but I digress. I would frequently come in early, or stay late, never saw the man there early or late cleaning the bathrooms. I would come in on the weekends sometimes, never saw him there cleaning the bathrooms.

This individual was an ill tempered human being who tried to start fights with quite a few different people and still somehow kept his job for a decent time period. We even had former employees write in saying that he was one of the primary reasons they left. Yet, the judges didn't care because we didn't document not doing these things. Essentially, right to work doesn't always mean a lot for an employer. I realize my example is anecdotal, but it appears courts would rather err on the side of the caution and believe the person complaining instead of actually considering all evidence at hand when it comes to these matters.

Re:Because it was in michigan....

[Beelzebud]

Yeah that's a big part of what "Right To Work" is. The name itself is doublespeak. All it is about is limiting the rights of the workers, and giving all the power to the owners. Less retirement funds, less health care, less pay, and less rights for the worker is what "Right to Work" is all about. Yet another way for industries to abandon their social responsibilities.

Re:Because it was in michigan....

[GmExtremacy]

Because we didn't have documentation saying we didn't do these things, the judge was siding with him more than us.

If you were so innocent, then why couldn't you prove it!? Clearly everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

Re:Because it was in michigan....

[besalope]

Michigan follows the employment at will doctrine. Employers can terminate employment for any reason as they see fit, while workers retain the right to walk away from unsatisfactory working conditions. However, even with this model there is still the possibility of wrongful termination.

A number of workplaces are starting to develop and release Social Networking guidelines to restrict how employees are associating their personal social lives to their workplace's public image. If the school had a Social Networking clause in her contract or if similar information was covered or in a handbook provided at an orientation, then the school is within the bounds of employment law. Otherwise, they may be at risk for a lawsuit.

Re:Because it was in michigan....

[olsmeister]

Well, the "Right To Work" moniker is indeed misleading. Seems to be the trend lately; giving your policies a title which will appeal to the people you're targeting it at -- hopefully, a few (or a lot) won't do any research and just agree with you. Having said that, I think I agree with the policy, I just think they should call it something more descriptive. "Union Neutral" or something. Anyway, Michigan is an "at will" state, meaning employers or employees can sever their relationship for any (non-illegal) reason. I'm sure being under contract trumps that however.

Re:Because it was in michigan....

[lightknight]

Can they take it from the school admins who fired her?

Re:Because it was in michigan....

[tnk1]

As far as I know, RTW only prevents contracts from forcing all shop members to join a union. That's it. Having been forced to join a union in the past when I got absolutely no benefit from it, aside from the academic problems with it, I have very low patience for the concept. I was essentially subsidizing services that, in my particular job, I wasn't even allowed access to.

From what I can tell, wages are higher in non-RTW states, but cost of living is also much higher as well. Significantly higher, in fact. And you can go to the article above for the citation on that. In the end, the contracts that force all members to join simply limit liberties of individuals without providing an actual benefit to all of them.

I don't have a problem with collective bargaining, especially when it is done with the free will of the workers behind it. That's freedom of association right there, and unions are a good use of the liberty.

However, forcing me to join and pay for a union is not liberty at all, its just a different boss telling you what to do and who to vote for. And it doesn't matter that you can vote individually, because that is neatly undermined by having your dues handed over to the campaigns of the people who you voted against. Indeed, if you have to force people to pay for your operations, it seems to me that perhaps you aren't providing all of the benefits that those people need.

Re:Because it was in michigan....

[jbolden]

Did you actually get a judgement against your company or did the judge simply refuse to dismiss the case. The burdon for dismissing a case is high, the burdon for winning a case is high.

Re:Because it was in michigan....

[Anyd]

IANAL but... The Michigan public school system is unionized. Michigan is also an at-will employment state. Her unionized contract negates at-will employment, which could have prevented her from receiving any restitution.

Re:Because it was in michigan....

[Fjandr]

The only thing Right To Work laws do is prevent closed shops. Period.

They prevent organizations, employers, and other workers from imposing upon a given worker mandatory union dues. In a non-Right To Work state, if you do not join the union, stop paying your dues, quit the union, or are kicked out (even for non-work-related reasons), you are fired. Not my definition of "protecting workers rights," but I guess YMMV.

Re:Because it was in michigan....

[Anonymous Coward]

Right to Work means you aren't forced to join the union. The more you know...

Re:Because it was in michigan....

[karlandtanya]

Are you possibly conflating right to work and at-will employment?

Re:Because it was in michigan....

[Mitreya]

If she get's a good lawyer, she will walk away with 10 years of her salary from the school.

That's wonderful and as should be. But will people who cost the school (i.e. taxpayers) legal fees and 10 years of salary be fired? Because otherwise these problems will repeat forever.

Re:Because it was in michigan....

[iamnobody2]

context is important! it's more like "it's a right to work, not a privilege" as opposed to "you have a right to work"

Re:Because it was in michigan....

[Databass]

It is cynical doublespeak, or cynically truncated.

Right to Work (Yourself to Death as a Slave.)

Re:Because it was in michigan....

[Shadowmist]

>

From what I can tell, wages are higher in non-RTW states, but cost of living is also much higher as well. .

Unions have been eliminated from my working experience. They were eliminated from my last job midway through my 20 years working there. I can tell you that my cost of living has not decreased.

Re:I bet

[Anonymous Coward]

that she is really glad she is in the USA where there is a 200 year old document based on 300 year old philosophies to protect her liberty.

I know I am.

No foolin'.

what about the IT rule of not giveing passwords?

[Joe_Dragon]

what about the IT rule of not giving out passwords? acquiescence to "authority" what about breaking IT / security rules?

Simple, yet effective solution

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Create Facebook account
2. Make it a museum of disgusting art: goatse, tubgirl, dead fetuses.
3. Make them sign a NDA over the account's content. Happily hand over password.
4. ....
5. Profit!
6. Walk out of interview, wishing everyone sweet dreams.
7. Do so threatening to sue if they damage "your property" (i.e. the account), or notify facebook of its content.
8. Threaten to sue if they hire someone less qualifified to do the job.
9. Quote your income expectations, 50% above the market level.
10. ....
11. Profit!

Fuck them and their mentalitiy. AND let them know.

Re:Simple, yet effective solution

[sapgau]

AWESOME!

Re:Don't use Facebook.

[Soporific]

Pretty much everything but food and shelter is not absolutely necessary. Slashdot is equally unnecessary, so why would you post here if you believe what you say?

~S

Re:Don't use Facebook.

[VMaN]

Powerful powerful reasoning there.

Please tell me more.

Just to understand the other side...

[voss]

Kimberly Hester does not have clean hands. Posting an offensive picture of a co-worker with pants around ankles could be considered sexual harassment.

This is not harmless fun "A parent and Facebook friend of Hester’s saw the photo and complained to the school."
What teachers and employees do reflects upon the schools.

Teachers and school employees have a higher standard of care especially when posting comments about other employees.
Schools can and have been sued for failure to act in cases of sexual harassment. The school district had reasonable suspicion.

Re:Just to understand the other side...

[hazem]

Kimberly Hester does not have clean hands. Posting an offensive picture of a co-worker with pants around ankles could be considered sexual harassment.

This still does not justify asking for access to her account or firing her for it. If they need information from any of her accounts (email, social media, or otherwise) they should be going through the courts to go through a process of discovery to get access to that material.

As it is now, if they were to gain access, any evidence would be immediately suspect because now there is no way to prove that they themselves did not put the offending information there.

So even if the administration felt justified in asking for her account information, actually getting it and using it to log into her account would be monumentally stupid.

Re:Just to understand the other side...

[Jedi Alec]

The school district had reasonable suspicion.

If there is a reasonable case to be made that in order for justice to be done, an individual's privacy needs to be invaded, then there is this funny thing called the Judiciary that can authorize it.

Judges can tell you to cough up your password, not Principals.

Re:Just to understand the other side...

[Airline_Sickness_Bag]

"Kimberly Hester does not have clean hands. Posting an offensive picture of a co-worker with pants around ankles could be considered sexual harassment."

So you claim this to be a fact?

Re:Just to understand the other side...

[Omestes]

Back in the mid-90's when I was in high school, one of our hall monitor type people got drunk in Mexico, and did all manner of silly drunken things. She did this on a "faculty" trip. The guy who ran the study hall (yes, I was a bad apple) showed the pictures too all of us on a website maintained by another faculty member during one round of detention. I don't think he got in any trouble over it, and the woman in the pictures actually found it rather amusing too, as did we, since she was known as a hard-ass, and probably put most of us in study hall to begin with.

He was eventually fired though, since he allowed "bad" kids to sit around chatting instead of being duly punished (and would warn us when someone official was about to come in the room, so we could all scamper back to our corners). He also used to let us smoke in the bathrooms, keeping watch against teachers and monitors. I loved him. Then again, school was much more lax then, pre-Columbine.

Re:Just to understand the other side...

[gstrickler]

Even Judges can't according to recent rulings. However, they can issue a warrant requiring FB to turn over the items in question.

But more to the point, the person making the complaint/allegation should have provided a printout of the picture in question. Without that, there isn't even reasonable suspicion, just an unsubstantiated allegation.

Re:Just to understand the other side...

[crakbone]

Honestly how hard is it for the "offended" to take a screenshot. That right there is all the evidence the school needs.

Re:Just to understand the other side...

[lightknight]

They can, but it's still quasi-illegal. There's some debate to that, with some judges saying 'give us the password, or you can die in prison' and the other judges saying '5th Amendment, if the defendant doesn't want to give up the password, he / she doesn't have to.'

When we get a higher ruling, we'll know for sure.

Re:Just to understand the other side...

[jbolden]

Judges can't demand a FB password without giving 5th amendment protections after a 5th amendment claim is made. She wasn't subject to a criminal investigation, that wouldn't apply.

Re:Just to understand the other side...

[Nyder]

Kimberly Hester does not have clean hands. Posting an offensive picture of a co-worker with pants around ankles could be considered sexual harassment.

This is not harmless fun "A parent and Facebook friend of Hester’s saw the photo and complained to the school."
What teachers and employees do reflects upon the schools.

Teachers and school employees have a higher standard of care especially when posting comments about other employees.
Schools can and have been sued for failure to act in cases of sexual harassment. The school district had reasonable suspicion.

So? Then the person, or school district can sue her in court to remove the picture, or shit, even ask her to remove the pictures, but access to her account? Not yet, Obama hasn't passed that law (yet).

Re:Just to understand the other side...

[HBI]

I wonder if those Columbine assholes had any clue how much harm they were doing to the rest of the world, or even cared. No one will ever know school like I did ever again.

Re:Just to understand the other side...

[digitig]

If they have evidence that Kimberly Hester did that then they should follow their sexual harassment disciplinary process. If that process involves demanding that anybody violate Facebook's T&Cs by handing over their password then that process is not legitimate.

Re:Just to understand the other side...

[deanklear]

Do you know why American schools suck? Because the rise of puritanical paranoia removes human beings from teaching positions, and replaces them with dull, lifeless, carbon copies of Stepford Wives and Husbands who make life miserable, because they are miserable. They can't inspire because they aren't inspired. Their idea of excitement is ordering children around in fascist, legalistic systems built on top of the facade of justice, covering up their new role as conformity enforcement. America has created schools that are more like prisons than learning environments.

(Given, it's not just schools, but reflective of our entire society. I watched Wozniak talk about how he once almost got the Pope on the phone back during his phreaking days. If he were caught doing the same thing today, he'd be thrown in jail along with Steve Jobs, without a doubt. That's where we're at as a nation.)

Some of my favorite teachers were the most unorthodox, including an English teacher who spent the first two weeks teaching us how to save for retirement, because in his (paraphrased) words, "They teach you how to write a check in home ec, but they don't teach you how to balance a checkbook, or how to get on the right side of interest. And learning how to do that is far more important than anything else I'm going to teach you this semester."

Now where would my favorite teachers be in the days of No Child Left Behind, where every single minute is plotted out in advance in order to fill in the right circle on test day? Truthfully, I don't know, and I don't want to know. The thought of an administrative bureaucrat taking way their jobs based on some algorithm or zero tolerance rule sincerely depresses me, not only for the people we're excluding from teaching, but for all of the kids that will never get to meet them.

And now, instead of asking if Kimberly Hester was a great teacher's aide (and respecting her privacy when we don't have any evidence), we're asking for her Facebook password to see if she violated the small-mindedness of someone she happened to know on Facebook. Someone who's apparently terrified by ass cheeks.

And the Law? Well, it's defending the rights of the person who is afraid of ass cheeks. Heaven knows that after witnessing thousands of murders on television, and watching their leaders march off to war to kill a few hundred thousand people, and watching the nightly news in a western country filled with unparalleled gun violence, let's fire Kimberly Hester because she may have accidentally exposed someone, or even their children, to ass cheeks.

Re:Just to understand the other side...

[tqk]

Posting an offensive picture of a co-worker with pants around ankles could be considered sexual harassment.

That is possibly the silliest thing I've ever read. What's offensive about it? Can anyone recognize those ankles? WTF is sexual about it?!?

Holy two by four up your ass, Batman! Chill out and get a grip.

Re:Another reason not to "friend" everyone you kno

[DJRumpy]

Although this is probably a good practice, it is irrelevant to the story. It shouldn't matter if she keeps her personal and work contacts separate. The heart of the matter is that this is 'her' Facebook page. It is private, and none of her employers business as to what she posts there. If a judge orders her to reveal her password, that's a different matter, but her employer has no legal grounds to order and expect obedience for such regardless of who she friends, what combination she friends them with, or what content she posts.

Another reason not to "friend" everyone you know. Seriously, if you want to keep personal and work separate, keep it separate! No one I work with is on my Facebook.

Re:Don't use Facebook.

[mfnickster]

Without Facebook, I'd have to e-mail all my female friends indivisually and ASK them for photos of them making peace signs and duck faces.

Like it or not, FB is inarguably much more convenient for that sort of thing!

"At Will" Employment

[Ronin Developer]

This will prove VERY interesting in states that have "At Will" employment. In those states, an employer can fire you or you can leave...for no specific reason.

However, this is an invasion of privacy and also is requiring the employee to violate another contract via coercion (penalty is the loss of their job if they don't).

Some may say that if they don't have anything to hide, what's the big deal? Big deal is that should not be a reason to give up your privacy. Period.

If someone tried to force me to give up my privacy, I would expect them to sign a document stating their reason for having done so and what the penalties are for non-compliance. Then, I would take that immediately to a lawyer for litigation. I will not work for anyone this draconian. Already turned down a job because they wanted me to disclose more of my IP without being willing to sign an NDA/Non-Compete for that information. This is none of their business. Period.

I am not sure which political party is pushing this sort of access greater - Democrat or Republican - you hear how the Democrats are pushing us towards martial law. Yet, the restrictions and powers of individuals really started eroding following 9/11 under Republican rule. I am guessing (perhaps, incorrectly), on this being a Republican issue. If they win this time around, expect more "corporate" rights (they already have been ruled "individuals" by the Supreme Court) and fewer personal freedoms and protections for yourself - the "individual" with the deeper pockets will win - just as they always have.

Re:"At Will" Employment

[GmExtremacy]

I am not sure which political party is pushing this sort of access greater

Both. They're both absolute garbage. They aren't always proposing the same things, but both seem to be in favor of eroding our freedoms.

Re:"At Will" Employment

[houstonbofh]

The only difference between Republican and Democrat politicians, is that one side can cheat on a spouse and still have a career... Oh, wait... Newt... Never mind. No difference at all. That all want all the money and all the power for all time.

Re:"At Will" Employment

[FirstOne]

"However, this is an invasion of privacy and also is requiring the employee to violate another contract via coercion (penalty is the loss of their job if they don't).

It's called Extortion/Coercion, and I think this should be a test case for both criminal and civil prosecution. I have successfully made the argument before UI review board, that employment should not require an employee be a willing victim at the hands of an employer/supervisor.

Not quite

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

TFS gets it wrong and TFA never clarifies.

The administrator asked to view the Facebook account - no request was made for her password. Whether or not this is OK remains up for debate, but having the facts is always preferable...

Re:Not quite

[gstrickler]

It's still a warrantless search and and invasion of privacy. The person making the allegation should have provided evidence (e.g. a printout of the alleged photo and/or comments). Had the person making the complaint provided evidence, there would be no need to request access to her FB account, or if there was a question about the validity of the evidence presented, it would have been sufficient to obtain a warrant to have FB confirm/deny the existence of the picture and/or comments. Lacking that, it's a fishing expedition based on an unsubstantiated allegation, and almost certainly a wrongful dismissal.

IANAL

Re:Not quite

[The Evil Atheist]

TFS gets it wrong and TFA never clarifies.

The administrator asked to view the Facebook account - no request was made for her password. Whether or not this is OK remains up for debate, but having the facts is always preferable...

How retarded are you? Whether someone asks your for a PIN number or access to your bank account, the important thing is that they're after your money. They're the same. Hence...

Re:Not quite

[The Evil Atheist]

If they have evidence she had done those things, why do they need access to her account?

Re:Not quite

[kenh]

But, in the end, if the union defends her, it is just going to make it worse for everyone else.

What union? She was a teacher's Aide

Re:Not quite

[ClioCJS]

A drug test is a warrantless search too - cops can't just walk up to you on the street and demand your pee. The precedent was set, and every american that willingly pissed in a cup set the stage for this.

Re:Don't use Facebook.

[houstonbofh]

Just because you couldn't get anyone to "friend" you is no reason to be so bitter...

admin

[truavatar]

School Administrator responsible, Robert Colby: rcolby@lewiscassisd.org

Re:admin

[NovaHorizon]

voss posted something I feel should be referenced along with this information on the School Admin's email address.

Kimberly Hester does not have clean hands. Posting an offensive picture of a co-worker with pants around ankles could be considered sexual harassment.

This is not harmless fun "A parent and Facebook friend of Hester’s saw the photo and complained to the school."
What teachers and employees do reflects upon the schools.

Teachers and school employees have a higher standard of care especially when posting comments about other employees.
Schools can and have been sued for failure to act in cases of sexual harassment. The school district had reasonable suspicion.

One more reason to not have RTW

[sethstorm]

RTW only exists to kill unions, not provide choice to join one. Unless there is a law that prohibits indirect/contingent labor as any condition or form of employment, which is the employers' version of the labor union, RTW makes things worse. The only way you can get a population to accept it, is to use regional sensitivities to make it acceptable to "know your place" and not get too "uppity".

Re:Fuck you Slashdot

[Dahamma]

The only thing more annoying than /. April Fool's articles is people complaining about them. Especially on real stories...

Re:Another reason not to "friend" everyone you kno

[EdIII]

I take an even better step. My Facebook password is null. No account to start with....

Constitutional Argument?

[kidphoton]

Since her employer is a governmental body, doesn't this violate her rights under the 4th amendment to be secure in her private papers, and the 5th amendment in that she can not be forced to incriminate herself by allowing them access to her account?

equals search warrant

[minstrelmike]

Being fired for not giving up your password is the same thing as being fired for not voluntarily submitting to a whole house search but waiting instead for a search warrant. The district will lose big time on this. Giving up your password violates Facebook policy. I also wonder if the school district itself has a policy for protecting their own district-issued passwords. If so and if it is equally as strong or stronger than Facebook's, they're in a boatload of hurt.

Re:Another reason not to "friend" everyone you kno

[houstonbofh]

She was reported by a parent of a student. How did that parent see the post if not a friend? Lots of teachers friend students and parents. I think that is dangerous, and FaceBook is dangerous enough.

Re:Why is Facebook suddenly concerned about Privac

[Overzeetop]

Yes and no. Mostly no.

Facebook want you to open your soul to their system - to make connections and fan out to every friend you have. Until there are 7 billion people putting all of their most intimate secrets on FB, they will have growth potential.

It's true they sell data, but primarily they sell advertising - "anonymous" advertising so that you don't feel like you're being watched. They really don't give a shit how you are and what you do, as long as it can be categorized and sold to people who want to sell their products to people like you. Note I did not say "you" but "people like you."

Personal identification is exactly what FB is worried about when it comes to advertisers, because it scares off the users (aka their product). That's good for users, too.

Re:Don't use Facebook.

[Teun]

I never understood the reason people took a FB account, thanks for the explanation!

Now I see even less reason :)

I would donate to her legal defense

[TheGratefulNet]

is there a paypal (sigh; yeah, I hate PP but its what is used, these days) for donations?

this is something we all need to get behind and ensure that the school gets a VERY bloody punch in the face (figuratively) from their bad behavior.

the only way a corp will ever learn is if they are punished and punished HARD. almost put-them-out-of-business hard. I don't care if its a school; a lesson (lol) needs to be taught here.

I'll donate. but I don't see an addr for that; is there one?

and yes, I realize the lawyers will make out the best on this; but I still want a lesson to be taught to asshole companies and organizations who think they have free reign over workers' privacy.

Re:I would donate to her legal defense

[ClioCJS]

Did you feel this strong when drug testing was introduced?

Troll

[Oligonicella]

A relationship between two adults is relevant to a post about a teacher of children how?

Re:Troll

[allo]

even children may be over 18.

Postpone the Outrage!

[AO]

Before you turn red in the face, and your blood pressure raises to unsafe levels, please take note of the date of the article.

This is Slashdot...there has not been a true news story on April 1st for over a decade! (and some will claim it is not limited to just April Fools' day!!)

Re:Postpone the Outrage!

[DJ Particle]

No, this one's real...I Google searched and it's being reported in numerous news outlets, including a video story from WSBT-TV

Re:Postpone the Outrage!

[Travelsonic]

Ummmm... no. It being April 1st meens to apply skepticism, but to also keep in mind articles that are brought up on cases BEFORE April 1st, whether posted the night before, or updated ones from months ago.

Alternative Solutions

[paleo2002]

I've been seeing stories like this a lot lately. Of course, like most people, my immediate reaction is that this is ridiculous. Should employers be able to access your email accounts as well? How about your Amazon or eBay purchase histories?

But, aren't there other ways around this? If your Facebook is sufficiently secured, how would an employer even know you use Facebook unless you are honest/foolish enough to tell them you use it? If your employer can't just randomly look you up on Facebook, then they don't know you're using it.

I'm also tempted to suggest simply deleting your Facebook - better to let it burn rather than fall into "enemy" hands, if you will. But, for people who use it as a primary means of communication that's probably not an option.

Re:Alternative Solutions

[chrismcb]

But, aren't there other ways around this? If your Facebook is sufficiently secured, how would an employer even know you use Facebook unless you are honest/foolish enough to tell them you use it?

Because one of the people you friended tells the employer. As what happened in this case.

My personal answer

[sethstorm]

If I am asked that question, I'd say the following:

While I am aware of your concerns with my personal conduct, giving my credentials would signify a breach of trust. If I were to do the same in the workplace, it would add liability and likely result in my termination. Is there another way that I can supply this kind of information, such as additional references to my personal character, while retaining the trust that I have built with people that I know personally and professionally?

This might be a bit long(and can be shortened a bit), but it would properly answer both the shoulder surfing and password requests in a courteous manner.

Re:My personal answer

[TheGratefulNet]

my answer is: the TOS of fb are not acceptable to me and I have not joined because of this.

100% true (for me) and a graceful way to get out of this bullshit rat-race.

even if you do have a fb acct, they are asking you to break the rules. and so, if you have to lie back to them to right that rule breakage, so be it. fight fire with fire, basically.

but still, the more I hear about fb issues, the more I'm glad I never joined. and if I did join, I'd have removed all info and deleted the account after hearing so much employer abuse about this!

As a side note, why is it always schools?

[grasshoppa]

Why is it always schools where you see some seriously boneheaded management decisions made?

Don't answer, I already know; Because school administration attracts the kind of person that isn't employable elsewhere. The "waste" of society as it were. What that says about US, willing to put that type of person in charge of our kids, I don't even want to think about.

Re:As a side note, why is it always schools?

[cmholm]

Because school administration attracts the kind of person that isn't employable elsewhere.

That would be an easy answer, but I suspect by-and-large incorrect. In fact, primary and secondary schools (public, in particular) get a lot of attention, and given that they're full of almost everyone's children, are a magnet for moaning a bitching. Issues can and do escalate to lawyers, significant costs, and ruined careers very quickly. Thus, administrators are motivated to CTA in ways that at first blush seem responsive to parents' concerns. We may think this was a bone-headed move, but I'll bet that the district parents don't, and they're the customer.

Re:As a side note, why is it always schools?

[grasshoppa]

An excellent point, and for all I know you are correct on a national scale. But I've worked with a couple districts in my area, and have a couple friends in various systems, so I can tell you that, when it comes to these districts, I am actually quite accurate.

Even so. I view one of the jobs of school administrators is to cool the passions of the parents. I have yet to meet a parent that can act rational when it comes to their children, yet that is exactly what is needed when dealing with something as critical as their education. School administrators are to be that braking mechanism, they are to be the rational part of that equation.

Unfortunately, I have yet to actually meet any administrative manager that can or has done this. I'm not even sure I've met any that even know what that means.

Battle over before it begins.

[Oligonicella]

And I, as a father, would reject any attempts by a teacher to develop a 'social' network of any kind that I did not say OK to, and I'm not going to (well, wouldn't have).

The reason is that schooling is not part and parcel to every moment of a child's life. Just as with work, there needs to be down time. It's not the teacher's job to be my kid's "pal".

Kids are greatly influenced by the ideas of their "pals". I wanted my kid school aged kid influenced by her peers, not an adult other than me and my friends. Then as now, adults just couldn't keep politics out of other people's faces.

Re:Battle over before it begins.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I wanted my kid school aged kid influenced by her peers, not an adult other than me and my friends"

    Then teach your kids at home. Believe or not a teacher has influence by the nature of his/her job. It's a requirement.

Re:Battle over before it begins.

[KahabutDieDrake]

Terribly interesting that you seem to believe that your children's peers are likely to be a better influence than an adult teacher. Terribly sad if it's actually true, but it's almost certainly not. Even given the rather notable exceptions of teachers sleeping with high school aged kids, sex is hardly the worst you have to worry about. The other children are offering drugs, illegal activity (trespassing, and street racing were favorites in my day), and sex. Not to mention that peers are far more likely to reject adult supervision, and adult ideals of behavior.

That's all ok though, because we all know your kids haven't listened to you in 5 years, and they aren't going to start now. Your kids get their culture from TV, movies, games, and other kids, you as a parent have only a minimal influence over this, especially if like most people, your kid has been raised on multi-media with little or no oversight.

Re:Battle over before it begins.

[serviscope_minor]

I wanted my kid school aged kid influenced by her peers, not an adult other than me and my friends.

So, they don't go to school then? If they do, then what do you expect to them to do there if not be influenced by their teachers?

Re:Battle over before it begins.

[lgw]

It's the difference between teachers teaching their subjects, and teachers indoctrinating the little ones with political beliefs. I remember far to much of the latter (and sometimes little of the former) from my schooling. Stange how so many people just accept that tearchers are underpaid, no?

Re:Battle over before it begins.

[serviscope_minor]

t's the difference between teachers teaching their subjects, and teachers indoctrinating the little ones with political beliefs.

Either way, they are going to be influenced by adults other than you or your friends, especially if they teach well. If teaching is done properly, it should teach them how to think, not regurgitate facts. I simply do not see how it is possible to do that without the teachers influencing the kids.

Stange how so many people just accept that tearchers are underpaid, no?

I don't follow your point. If your point is that teachers should get low pay because they're bad, then surely the solution is to increase pay to get better teachers.

Re:Battle over before it begins.

[lgw]

In my schooling, the "teachers are underpaid" meme was regularly reinforced by teachers. Given how many people believe this, I doubt I was the exception. Bit sleazy, if you ask me.

Re:Battle over before it begins.

[serviscope_minor]

In my schooling, the "teachers are underpaid" meme was regularly reinforced by teachers. Given how many people believe this, I doubt I was the exception. Bit sleazy, if you ask me.

It's also true. It's why it is hard to get well qualified teaches in technical subjects: competent people could earn more money elsewhere. That leaves only the incompetent and the truly dedicated. Since there aren't enough of the latter to go around, teachers are underpaid.

Re:Battle over before it begins.

[lgw]

Nah, the pay is commesurate to the difficulty in becoming a teacher and the munber of people willing to do so. Plenty of people are able to be and want to be teachers at the salary offered. You can tell objectively when a posiiton is underpaid, because a significant percentage of open jobs will stay open, even in a down market like this.

I think what you want to say is "we should set standards higher for teachers in technical subjects, above what most current teachers are qualified for". If you could somehow do that (which wouldn't be practical in most places due to teachers unions or just general protest by existing teachers), the pay for those positions would certainly be higher.

Re:Battle over before it begins.

[Stormthirst]

My wife and I have commented along these lines several times with regards our son (and soon our daughter too). You have 5 or 6 years in which to instill in them the ability to tell right from wrong, and to hang out with the "right" crowd. After that, it becomes 100 times harder to keep them on track and out of trouble.

Re:what about the IT rule of not giveing passwords

[lightknight]

Well, apparently, the populace doesn't care for IT's rules and policies until they've been cited with a 'red cup' on one of their own accounts. Then they hide behind IT.

But yes, I see a power play going on here between IT and HR, and it's going to get ugly.

Google + anyone ?

[vpness]

I'm intrigued by the ... stupidity ? .. of this aide, who'd never *ever* consider talking about, or sharing a physical photo of a friend with their pants around their ankles with someone she knew to be a parent, and laughing about it with that parent. Yet that's what she did implicitly by having both the parent and her friend 'mixed.' While this is clearly an over-reach by the school system, and the aide ought to prevail, the bigger picture issue is that the naieve aide thought nothing of doing via social media what they'd never do F2F. While google+ seems to be losing against FB, they at least attempted to understand that we have multiple, continuously changing, overlapping circles of human interaction that we all move in.

No FB Account = ?

[craigminah]

What happens if one doesn't have a FB account? Didn't we care about the children before FB, what did schools do to vet teachers? Seems they want FB account access to make things easier but where does it stop and why isn't a search warrant needed?

Re:No FB Account = ?

[Skapare]

She obviously did in this case because someone complained about a picture she posted on hers. But sure, in other cases, that question would apply.

Re:Why is Facebook suddenly concerned about Privac

[lightknight]

And what exactly do you think the reaction would be from the local school HR pulling down more dossiers on the local populace than the CIA?

But for the life of me, I can't believe HR would actually jump on the opportunity to grab someone's password. It sets up a liability problem if anything, and I mean anything, is ever modified / posted on that account that the owner disclaims as being one of his / her action; the district will, of course, be out millions (emotional distress being expensive). Frankly, I'm surprised legal didn't put a knife into the practice before it was started, but I suppose you get what you pay for...

Wrong Angle

[Murdoch5]

First of all change you name so it's not even close to your name or nick name and then you officially no longer have facebook! so if they ask for the password you can tell them, "Oh I don't have an account, sorry!", also make sure to change your display picture to someone other then you.

I know you're a troll, but...

[Overzeetop]

There are two reasons to become a teacher

(1) You love to teach and work with youth. That's the good reason to become a teacher, because you'll be a good one as a result. I don't want anyone to take this as a slam, but you really don't have to be great in your field if you have drive and enthusiasm. Inspiration of students will cause them to lear so much more then having the smartest person in the world lecture monotonously every day. You'll get paid a good hourly rate with full benefits, but you'll work lots of uncompensated overtime. You'll get a nice break around Christmas and in the summer (or you could say you'll be forced to take leave without pay over Christmas and the summer). It will be like most white collar/professional jobs, except the pay is a little lower, the job security and benefits a little better, and you'll be off of work the same time the kids are. That last one can be good or bad, depending on your family situation.

(2) You want a short work day with good benefits and lots of time off to sit by the pool or go on vacation in the summer. These are the teachers for whom it's just a job. We all know some of them - they arrive 5 minutes before class, run you over if you're standing in the door as the buses pull away, try and put as many multiple choice or computer graded tests in the curriculum as possible, and rarely do projects. You will never see them at a PTA/PTO function. There is a large fraction of the workforce who is like this, and they give the teachers in part (1), above, a bad name.

Re:I know you're a troll, but...

[Overzeetop]

I want a teacher that makes learning fun. Projects don't always involve construction paper and paste.

WRONG!

[billybob_jcv]

Did you look at the picture?? I'm thinking you have not. Watch this video to see the picture:
http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/wsbt-teachers-aide-in-legal-battle-after-refusing-to-let-school-district-access-her-facebook-page-20120328,0,6869936.story

It is a picture of shoes and a pair of pants with some skin from her calves showing - that's all. It is NOT a picture of her co-worker - it is a picture of herself. No one was exposing anything. I guess the inference is that she's sitting on the toilet.

So - let's change the scenario slightly. Let's say she lost some weight and she proudly posts a picture of herself, fully clothed, but the outfit is tight enough to show she is obviously much thinner. Is that offensive? Inappropriate? Exhibitionist? What if she posts (again fully clothed) before and after pics from a boob job?

But set all that aside - judges make calls every day on harassment & inappropriate behavior - and they can do the same thing here. The bigger issues are that the employer wants her to give up a personal password for an "investigation", and that not complying meant she was fired. So - if someone reports that she has a porn magazine at her home, does that mean the school will demand to enter her home? This whole thing stinks. The employer is a jackass. The "friend" who reported her is a jackass. Kimberly is a typical clueless facebook user that doesn't understand that you need to separate real friends from people who shouldn't know what you post to your real friends.

Television, movies, magazines and online media continually gets more and more raunchy - yet our workplaces become more and more rigid and unrealistic. Our society is doomed.
           

Re:WRONG!

[Terwin]

Television, movies, magazines and online media continually gets more and more raunchy - yet our workplaces become more and more rigid and unrealistic. Our society is doomed.

Not at all, it is just leveraging the advantages of MPD and punishing those that do not adhere to that new standard.

I personally engage at least three distinct personalities on a regular basis.
I had several more, but my preferred local LARP group disbanded.
(LARPs are a wonderful resource for practicing and developing multiple personalities, especially the often tricky part of disassociating the constructed personality from your normal behavior so that you don't have as much spill-over)

Re:WRONG!

[RatherBeAnonymous]

But did they even ask for her password?

What Hester said is that "he asked me three times if he could view my facebook", and the excerpted letter asked for "access to" her facebook page. Nothing from what I have seen shows that Hester was asked to give up a password, except for news outlets editorializing the administrator's intent.

We also don't know if the co-worker made complaints. You can be sure that the school administration will not reveal this unless it comes to trial. The photo's perspective shows that Hester was standing in front of her co-worker while she was sitting exposed on a toilet. This was not a quick snap-shot taken under a bathroom stall door. Personally, I would have been deeply embarrassed if one of my "friends" posted a shot of me in this position.

Assuming that there is more to this than just a complaint from a parent, and there was a sexual harassment claim, if an employee under investigation stonewalled me like this, I would have fired them too.

Re:what about the IT rule of not giveing passwords

[xstonedogx]

What rule? Everywhere I've ever worked the rule is you don't give out the passwords to *their* network. They don't care whether you give out the password to your Netflix account.

Re:Another reason not to "friend" everyone you kno

[Oligonicella]

What's your point? That's not what happened to her. A *parent* of a child at the school was a friend of hers. That non-employed-by-school parent made the complaint. Are you suggesting she was negligent because she didn't poll everyone and unfriend those with children at the school?

Someone you have as a friend on FB could have a connection to your employer that you are unaware of.

BAD IDEA fro School (or any employer)

[DallasMay]

Employers should be VERY, VERY careful about how they treat employee's Facebook accounts. An employee's facebook account is likely to have information on the employee's Health Family History Sexuality Marriage Status Religion National Origin Age All of the above could be found on an average facebook account and can be used against an employer in a lawsuit claiming termination based on discrimination. It's really the best idea for employers to make it a clear policy that they DO NOT want to see any of their employees facebook information. If anything, employers should ban their employees from HAVING facebook pages, but that's not likely to make employees very happy.

Re:BAD IDEA fro School (or any employer)

[mark-t]

Neither does firing them. I'm pretty sure that one could find other people to do the same job quite happily who would be willing to give up facebook for a decent paying job.

Re:BAD IDEA fro School (or any employer)

[tqk]

If anything, employers should ban their employees from HAVING facebook pages ...

Jeebus. There goes the First Amendment. Yeah, I know, it really only applies to gov't, but still ...

Who picks your clothes in the morning that you'll wear for the day? Why the !@#$ should I care what my employer wants me to think?!?

From the article

[Oligonicella]

"A parent and Facebook friend of Hester's"

Article does not say if the student was one of hers or not.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Facebook users:

[geekoid]

You need to get active and start trying to get facebook to put some money into lobbying for a federal law that makes it illegal for companies to ask for this kind of personal information.

Make Facebook aware that it is in their best interest to stop this type of BS.

Re:Facebook users:

[gl4ss]

iirc zuck made a public comment about it.

it's bad for business too sounds bad if you're trying to run a legit service.

Re:Facebook users:

[tqk]

You need to get active and start trying to get facebook to put some money into lobbying for a federal law that makes it illegal for companies to ask for this kind of personal information.

You've already got too many laws. You don't need more. FB should sue (civil/tort law) to protect itself, is all.

IF IT"S ON FACEBOOK IT"S NOT PRIVATE!

[nicoleb_x]

Facebook and privacy should not be used in the same sentence. Anybody who claims that their facebook posts are private and deserve protection may be Mark Z's best friend but they don't live in real-ville.

Yeah, violating rules is "OK"

[Skapare]

So the superintendent wants her to violate one rule (and risk losing her account) just to see if she is violating another rule. So we must assume this superintendent believes rule violations are unimportant.

I'm not surprised, though. Schools systems are flooded in their management layer with lots of failed politicians that couldn't make it in the real world of manipulating adults, and so have to find a place where there are weaker people to manipulate (e.g. children). That's why we see so many jerks running school systems. In this case, one made the mistake of taking on an adult.

Re:Another reason not to "friend" everyone you kno

[kenh]

I'm reminded of the teachers that were raising holy heck because one state wanted to prevent teachers from knowingly friending students in the schools they teach in, with the reason being there was no way for the district to review the interactions between their teachers and students... As if there is a crying need for a teacher to let her students in on her flirting with a coworker (the photo that provoked the parent to complain)...

Re:I bet

[RodBee]

Most Americans should be proud there were people protecting your freedoms 200 years in the past. I would know, I'm not American and the Constitution in my country is much newer. and because of that, we have people nowadays whose parents simply vanished, because they did the crime of talking back against the government.

If You Wouldn't Want It In Newspaper, Don't Post

[cmholm]

First off, as a general rule, I don't approve of employers asking to log on to your Facebook account to poke around.

That said, this story provides yet another example of the maxim: "if you wouldn't want to see it on the front page of the local newspaper, don't put it on-line." My employer provides this practical advice to the staff every year.

Re:Another reason not to "friend" everyone you kno

[jklovanc]

which is why many people have two Facebook pages; a personal one and a professional one.

Tortious interference

[jkbull]

If, as the summary and the ZDNet article states*, the school administration asked for her password, they may have engaged in tortious interference -- interfering with a contract between two other parties (the teacher and Facebook).

The Facebook Facebook terms of use, section 4.8) says

You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.

* (According to an earlier comment, that is not true, the administration asked only to view her pages.)

Re:what about the IT rule of not giveing passwords

[vlm]

That's the next step. If your FB "friends" are business compatible, next they need to look in your current corporate "sent" folder to verify you can write up to a certain corporate standard.

Re:Bzzzt, they asked "administration access".

[RadioTV]

You are parsing that sentence incorrectly. "Lewis Cass ISD administration" is the name of the group requesting "access to you[r] Facebook page".

OK, Why does anybody "need" facebook?

[Paracelcus]

It sounds like nothing but trouble!

Re:OK, Why does anybody "need" facebook?

[tqk]

It sounds like nothing but trouble!

Ok, why does anybody "need" the Internet? I sounds like nothing but trouble!

I can control my interfacing with the Internet. You've no control over FB. You're their product.

Unbelievable

[Dr. Hok]

I am totally stunned by the fact that it is possible at all for employers do this in the US.

If it happened here in Germany, everyone would be outraged, and the company would be knee-deep in trouble. It would be in the news front pages and on prime-time TV. The employer's reputation would be damaged for a long time. IANAL but I am sure this level of threatening someone's privacy is a criminal offense here.

Re:Unbelievable

[tqk]

I am totally stunned by the fact that it is possible at all for employers do this in the US.

Modern day "Murricans" can be pretty strange. Cf. Janet Jackson's clothing malfunction, and the ensuing bruhaha. Tempest in a teapot, or Puritanical radicals running amok? You be the judge.

If it happened here in Germany, everyone would be outraged, and the company would be knee-deep in trouble.

The interesting bit is, it did happen there, but you got over it (with a little help from your friends :-).

It would be in the news front pages and on prime-time TV. The employer's reputation would be damaged for a long time. IANAL but I am sure this level of threatening someone's privacy is a criminal offense here.

And that's why I love the new Germany. I wish I was there with you.

Present day US is nuts. Their current modus operandi appears to have been taken lock, stock and barrel from 1930's Germany. Ick.

Re:Unbelievable

[Dr. Hok]

If it happened here in Germany, everyone would be outraged, and the company would be knee-deep in trouble.

The interesting bit is, it did happen there, but you got over it (with a little help from your friends :-).

Indeed, and I am honestly grateful. We were full of shit back then, and it is invaluable that someone (a lot of people actually) went through hell to beat it out of us. (Talking to my grandparents I learned that it took a generation to appreciate it.)

It is nice, too, that we were given a second chance (in terms of Marshall vs. Morgenthau plan).

Re:Unbelievable

[tqk]

The interesting bit is, it did happen there, but you got over it (with a little help from your friends :-).

We were full of shit back then, and it is invaluable that someone (a lot of people actually) went through hell to beat it out of us.

I blame their philosophers, and I think just about everyone was full of it back then. It was one cluster!@#$ of a century, and the repercussions of it are still reverberating through the system. Historians of the future are going to have a field day with it.

Case in point: I learned just the other day that "Ultra" was cracked by the Poles and the solution given to the Brits and French *five weeks before WWII broke out.* So, what did Bletchly Park and Alan Turing do, really? What else have they been lying to us about?

It'll all come out eventually, though we may not live long enough to see it. So many helpless victims caught up in the storm that is life. :-|

Re:Unbelievable

[tqk]

It is nice, too, that we were given a second chance (in terms of Marshall vs. Morgenthau plan).

Holy crap, what an abomination! I've never heard of that before. "There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a 'pastoral state'. It cannot be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it." Aiiee! Cold War East Germany was bad enough. The Morgenthau Plan would have been just what a Hitler would have wanted to justify WWIII.

As I said, pretty much everyone back then was nuts. Germany was just desperately trying to fit into the general insanity of the times. Germans are just too good at everything they try to do, hence Naziism; whole hog, all the way, to the logical extreme.

I'm not enjoying this century much, but I'm glad to see the back of that one.

Re:Pop Quiz

[repapetilto]

I heard Spazmania belongs to an online sex cult.

Re:Yes, /quite/

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

From your own given link: "in the absence of you voluntarily granting Lewis Cass ISD administration access to you[r] Facebook page, we will assume the worst and act accordingly.".

You're misreading. It doesn't say "administrative", it says "administration" -- which strongly implies that it's referring to a group of people, eg "[the] Lewis Cass ISD administration" who wants "access to you[r] Facebook page".

Nonsense

[glorybe]

The notion that teacher somehow reflects upon the school is absurd. If we allow that kind of reasoning think of what would flow from it. The bank fires tellers for being gay. After all the tellers personal life reflects upon the bank and some customers are offended by gays existing in business. Or John must be fired as an emergency room employee because he races motorcycles on his day off and racing motorcycles is not good social policy and it reflects upon the hospital. Or a cop can not be a swinger because sexually liberal people are a bad reflection on the police department. It is endless. It is a witch hunt and worse yet in court that school district will bleed tax dollars. If I were on a jury this teacher would walk away with 100 million bucks in the wink of an eye.

Re:Another reason not to "friend" everyone you kno

[budgenator]

The Lewis Cass Intermediate School District (ISD) is incorporated in the state of Michigan. ISDs function as regional service centers to provide special education, instructional services, and career technical education coordination for local school districts.

Lewis Cass ISD currently employs more than 175 persons. Its geographic coverage encompasses approximately 487 square miles and includes most of Cass County and small portions of Berrien, St. Joseph and Van Buren counties in lower southwest Michigan. Four local school districts: Cassopolis, Dowagiac, Edwardsburg, and Marcellus, as well as the county's private and parochial schools depend on the Lewis Cass ISD for the provision and coordination of general and specialized services.

Almost 8,000 students, enrolled in pre-kindergarten through 12th grades, represent the primary consumers that the ISD incorporates into its strategic

Re:Pop Quiz

[Belial6]

C. Call the police and let them handle it.

What country do you come from where it is the schools job to investigate rape cults?

The assumption in all this...

[JetScootr]

is that a person's opinion is somehow relevant to how they perform professionally. Just disagreeing with your employer is never just cause for firing the employee - the alternative is a cadre of 'yesmen' who cause stagnation through lack of new perspective and ideas. An employer who refuses to accept any kind of dissent is one who dooms his organization to mediocrity.

HEY SCHOOL!!!

[Fuzzums]

I might have a facebook account on which I might have posted something about you.
"we will assume the worst and act accordingly."
So what will you do now?

Re:I bet

[Gonoff]

The fact that your constitution is newer means that it is more likely to take into account things that have happened since the 18th century.

The fact that it was not put into place by infallible individuals long ago means that you might be able to change it significantly without someone having to do comparative textual analysis like theologians do on the Bible.

Will it cause you any trouble if it turns out that the people who played major parts in its creation were not perfect and had issues? I suspect not. I have seen some people squirm when they learn that some of their "founding fathers" kept slaves, had affairs, questionable business dealings and were not purer than the driven snow.

Various people in my country's history were extremely dodgy. That is history. I would like some better ones nowadays though.

Re:I bet

[Gonoff]

It doesn't seem to be working too well any more.

Re:Don't use Facebook.

[chrismcb]

What is it with you idiots who cannot grasp how unnecessary Facebook is ?

Are you all sheep ?

What is with you idiots who think this issue is about Facebook?

Give the password, then sue if accessed...

[neurocutie]

I think I would have given up the password "under duress". Then sued the school when the account is accessed, since it is a felony to access another's computer account (fraud). The Feds would also have grounds to go after the school officials.

Without giving up the password, if the account was not accessed, then there wouldn't be as strong grounds to sue...

The password

[Databass]

You want my password? Ok, it is kind of long, here it is. Be sure to type it exactly!

"I,LewisCassRepresentativeDoHerebyConfessThatI amInfringingPrivacyRightsAndDoPromiseToPayFullDamagesForThis."

Let me know when you have typed that in!
Beuaraucratic greed meets Beuaraucratic fear.

Re:The password

[Jiro]

It's a string of characters used as a password. It doesn't indicate assent to the statement made by that string of characters.

Obligatory Comic...

[Jason Levine]

I know XKCD is the standard comic-of-choice for Slashdot posts, but this Joy of Tech comic seems apropos:

http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/1669.html

Re:Pop Quiz

[russotto]

Without any evidence aside from the word of the accuser that Edna (and I do call her Edna) belongs to the rape cult, he shouldn't take any action against her. Of course, if the rape cult is an actual religion, Skinner as a public school principal can't fire her for membership anyway; funny how that works.

In this case, it's not a rape cult. It's not even anything illegal. Not baring the entirety of her private life to investigators may not be co-operative, but it does not give them license to assume "the worst".

When you hold a position of trust, especially over children, what you do in the rest of your life matters. And that's completely reasonable.

No, it isn't. There's a view of elementary school teachers as being totally strait-laced people who would never drink, curse, make off-color jokes, or (horror of horrors) fuck. The only people who should have ever believed that is their students (and then not for long after leaving elementary school); trying to force the teachers to actually live up to that view is unconscionable.

Re:Nothing ever forces you to join a union.

[DigiShaman]

Nothing prevents you from walking over to a RTW state either. Which reminds me. Guys and Gals. Please. When flocking to Texas for employment, please leave your political ideology behind that left your previous state in shambles. We don't want your infectious seagull management where you swoop in, shit all over everything, and then fly out leaving us natives to cleanup the mess.

Re:Just give 'em / reply with ...

[Jiro]

A) "The password didn't work. We're assuming you lied to us. You're fired."
B) "That sounds like a 'no'. You're fired."
C) See B.
D) See B.
E) See B.

The administration is not a computer program, a genie, or even a code of law. You can't work around them by obeying their literal words in a non-cooperative way; they'll just recognize that you're being non-cooperative and ignore the fact that you followed their literal words That's a very geekish way of thinking and it will utterly fail in the real world.

Isn't that what "at will" employment is about?

[mark-t]

Could somebody enlighten me as to what, exactly the employer did that was actually wrong?

I mean, I thought that the only things that you weren't allowed to fire an employee over are race, gender, age, sexual orientation, or religion. I don't think that not surrendering your facebook password fits into any of those.

So isn't this sort of what you can reasonably expect to happen when you have at-will employment?

Re:Isn't that what "at will" employment is about?

[JoelKatz]

You can't fire an employee for refusing to help you break the law. 18 USC 1030 makes it illegal for he district to access Facebook's computers without Facebook's permission or in excess of the authorization Facebook has granted them. Facebook has not granted them permission to access her account information through their computers, and she cannot grant such access because the computers aren't hers.

Re:Isn't that what "at will" employment is about?

[mark-t]

Uh.... say what?

Reread 18 USC 1030.

There is absolutely no part of it that prohibits a person who has legal and authorized access to a system from supplying their password to other people unless, by my understanding, it is being done to instigate fraud. Just like it's not illegal for me to give the PIN on my bank card to somebody else.... such an act, however, has the upshot of making me liable for funds that might go missing from my account, and presumably that penalty is sufficient for me to abstain from doing so.

You'd probably need one whopper of a good lawyer, and they would have to have a pretty crappy one, to manage to convince a judge that an employer was actually violating 18 USC 1030 with this particular request.

Until the laws prohibiting firing someone also extend to protecting an employee's personal privacy, I'm pretty sure that this sort of thing is actually entirely reasonable under the "at will" employment guidelines.

Not that I'm saying it's particularly fair for an employee, only that this sort of thing is to be expected when an employer can fire an employee for any reason that isn't explicitly illegal. It makes much more sense, IMO, to outline a concise list of general categories for reasons to fire an employee, and any reason for dismissal that does not fit one of those categories would be illegal. Such reasons could include shortage of work, inability to perform expected work, unprofessional or unethical behavior, violation of specific internal policies that the employee had acknowledged awareness of (presumably when they were hired), etc...

Re:Another reason not to "friend" everyone you kno

[houstonbofh]

If you don't have 5000 friends, it is easier to notice these connections...

Re:Pop Quiz

[tqk]

When you hold a position of trust, especially over children, what you do in the rest of your life matters. And that's completely reasonable.

Idiot. When they start molesting the kids under their charge, call me. Until then, idiot!

Re:Just give 'em / reply with ...

[tqk]

C) Sure, no problem with fairness and tit-for-tat. Just give me they keys and access to all your personnel files and corporate/company/business/entity email accounts and Facebook account(s), let me check out and do a background check, etc. on you and your personnel, make sure I might actually want to work for you, and then I'll let you access my Facebook account.

Obviously, not a "team player."

Re:Another reason not to "friend" everyone you kno

[thegarbz]

You seem to be under the impression that Facebook is an all or nothing system, that somehow friends are all magically part of your intimate social life.

Here's a thought, learn to actually use Facebook before passing off blanket comments. My workmates are on my Facebook. My boss is on my Facebook. They probably see about 1/10th of the content. They see WHAT I ALLOW THEM TO.

Just because you throw a sicky doesn't mean you need to tell them all that you were off getting smashed at some pub instead.

Why should you give them your main FB account?

[master_p]

One can have as many FB accounts as possible, so what's the problem? just create an FB account for using it with employers, throw in some fake content non representative of you but enough to make the empoyers like you and voila, problem solved.

Re:I bet

[Mariomario]

The current president is trying to end that 200 year document.

Re:Pop Quiz

[r_a_trip]

Worse than that. I've heard rumors that he wants to get it into the schooling system...

It all depends...

[hesaigo999ca]

If this facebook account was schoolname@facebook.com and she was taking care of it, then yes, give the passwords over, but if it is a personal site, then no, it is private, and she did the right thing.

Re:Another reason not to "friend" everyone you kno

[Saint Fnordius]

Still irrelevant. If a parent reported the TA, then the parent should provide the screen shot. It is poor thinking to believe that this is just cause for demanding the Facebook password. If said parent complained that the TA had that picture in a photo album in her home and showed it to guests, does the school district have a right to demand the keys to the TA's private residence to search for said photo album?

Re:Don't use Facebook.

[Shadowmist]

Pretty much everything but food and shelter is not absolutely necessary. Slashdot is equally unnecessary, so why would you post here if you believe what you say?

~S

So true. Electricity is a plus, but not really necessary.

It is a necessity on the gross scale. Our population is far past the point where we can keep it alive on the ox and plow level of technology.

make them scared to take it

[MooseTick]

Tell them you'd happily provide it but they should know it is also the same credentials for your online banking, gmail, credit cards, etc and by giving them that info they may be liable if you are a victim of identity theft in the future.

The short list

[StikyPad]

You can add this one to the short but growing list of employers demanding access to Facebook accounts.

Not to mention the long and still-growing list of reasons not to have a Facebook account.

Wtf?

[dezent]

What is wrong with our country?

Re:what about the IT rule of not giveing passwords

[AK Marc]

You give in or you go to jail, so says SF.

And then they blew it ...

[jotaeleemeese]

... by denying anonimity and pseudonyms that are no automatically identifiable with your account by third partoes.