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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday April 1, 2012 @04:04AM from the keep-your-hands-off-my-friends-list dept.

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."

112 of 407 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The battle now begins. by sethstorm · 2012-04-01 04:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
1. Re:The battle now begins. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 04:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:The battle now begins. by Khyber · 2012-04-01 04:20 · Score: 2
  
  I would think it only permissible in the case of a clear conflict of interest.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
3. Re:The battle now begins. by fast+turtle · 2012-04-01 04:40 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
4. Re:The battle now begins. by Stormthirst · 2012-04-01 04:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "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.
5. Re:The battle now begins. by EdIII · 2012-04-01 04:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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....
6. Re:The battle now begins. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 04:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
7. Re:The battle now begins. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 05:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
8. Re:The battle now begins. by lightknight · 2012-04-01 05:10 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  I am John Hurt.
9. Re:The battle now begins. by jbolden · 2012-04-01 05:20 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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...
10. Re:The battle now begins. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 05:49 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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?
11. Re:The battle now begins. by kenh · 2012-04-01 05:51 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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?
  
  --
  Ken
12. Re:The battle now begins. by EdIII · 2012-04-01 05:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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".
13. Re:The battle now begins. by _KiTA_ · 2012-04-01 05:57 · Score: 2
  
  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.
14. Re:The battle now begins. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 06:08 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Uncle Stalin gets it 11/10.
15. Re:The battle now begins. by rtfa-troll · 2012-04-01 06:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  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.
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
16. Re:The battle now begins. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 06:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
17. Re:The battle now begins. by EdIII · 2012-04-01 06:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
18. Re:The battle now begins. by EdIII · 2012-04-01 06:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
19. Re:The battle now begins. by jklovanc · 2012-04-01 06:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
20. Re:The battle now begins. by sconeu · 2012-04-01 06:38 · Score: 2
  
  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)?
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
21. Re:The battle now begins. by Cylix · 2012-04-01 06:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Funny and true, Ron Jeremy still has a valid teacher's license. However, I think his current job pays a bit better.
  
  --
  "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
22. Re:The battle now begins. by allo · 2012-04-01 07:00 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
23. Re:The battle now begins. by fremsley471 · 2012-04-01 07:03 · Score: 2
  
  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?
24. Re:The battle now begins. by AthanasiusKircher · 2012-04-01 07:30 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
25. Re:The battle now begins. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 07:36 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
26. Re:The battle now begins. by CBravo · 2012-04-01 08:25 · Score: 2
  
  Block its IP addresses.
  
  --
  nosig today
27. Re:The battle now begins. by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-04-01 08:57 · Score: 2
  
  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....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
28. Re:The battle now begins. by jon787 · 2012-04-01 08:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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."
  
  --
  X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
29. Re:The battle now begins. by 7-Vodka · 2012-04-01 09:13 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Liberty.
30. Re:The battle now begins. by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-04-01 09:19 · Score: 2
  
  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.
31. Re:The battle now begins. by History's+Coming+To · 2012-04-01 10:07 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
32. Re:The battle now begins. by blerg · 2012-04-01 10:40 · Score: 2
  
  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!
33. Re:The battle now begins. by tqk · 2012-04-01 10:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
34. Re:The battle now begins. by tqk · 2012-04-01 11:04 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
35. Re:The battle now begins. by Darinbob · 2012-04-01 13:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "We require as a condition of employment to hand over the keys to your diary that you keep under your pillow. "
36. Re:The battle now begins. by im_thatoneguy · 2012-04-01 15:44 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
37. Re:The battle now begins. by kenh · 2012-04-01 15:58 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Ken
38. Re:The battle now begins. by wvmarle · 2012-04-01 19:17 · Score: 2
  
  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.
39. Re:The battle now begins. by geminidomino · 2012-04-01 19:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
40. Re:The battle now begins. by geminidomino · 2012-04-01 19:56 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  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.
41. Re:The battle now begins. by Stides · 2012-04-02 02:40 · Score: 2
  
  You just set it to require you approve anything tagging you. Bug has been gone for a long time now.
42. Re:The battle now begins. by BlueUnderwear · 2012-04-02 03:07 · Score: 2
  
  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)
  
  --
  Say no to software patents.
Excellent by msobkow · 2012-04-01 04:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
1. Re:Excellent by Fjandr · 2012-04-01 05:39 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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).
2. Re:Excellent by budgenator · 2012-04-01 07:35 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
3. Re:Excellent by JoelKatz · 2012-04-01 13:03 · Score: 2
  
  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.
4. Re:Excellent by tqk · 2012-04-01 14:26 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
5. Re:Excellent by JoelKatz · 2012-04-01 15:24 · Score: 2
  
  The user can't authorize the district to access Facebook's computers. Only Facebook can do that.
Too bad.. by daffy951 · 2012-04-01 04:08 · Score: 2

..it doesn't seem to be just another april fools joke :/
1. Re:Too bad.. by froggymana · 2012-04-01 04:55 · Score: 3
  
  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.
  
  --
  "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
She did the right thing. by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-04-01 04:08 · Score: 2

Now we can have this out in court.
This just might be the end of this by pijokela · 2012-04-01 04:10 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:This just might be the end of this by Mr+Z · 2012-04-01 04:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Program Intellivision!
2. Re:This just might be the end of this by Sancho · 2012-04-01 04:50 · Score: 2
  
  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.
3. Re:This just might be the end of this by GmExtremacy · 2012-04-01 05:29 · Score: 2
  
  That's because sexuality is pure evil and teachers have no rights. Can't let those children be corrupted by evil, now can we?
4. Re:This just might be the end of this by Mr+Z · 2012-04-01 05:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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?
  
  --
  Program Intellivision!
5. Re:This just might be the end of this by Mr+Z · 2012-04-01 06:04 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Program Intellivision!
Another reason not to "friend" everyone you know. by houstonbofh · 2012-04-01 04:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by mfwitten · 2012-04-01 04:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?
1. Re:Obsession and Acquiescence by vlm · 2012-04-01 04:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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!
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
2. Re:Obsession and Acquiescence by jbolden · 2012-04-01 05:28 · Score: 2
  
  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.
3. Re:Obsession and Acquiescence by Nyder · 2012-04-01 06:16 · Score: 2
  
  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?
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
Notify facebook and contact an attorney by Eravnrekaree · 2012-04-01 04:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Notify facebook and contact an attorney by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 04:18 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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.
2. Re:Notify facebook and contact an attorney by gstrickler · 2012-04-01 04:21 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
3. Re:Notify facebook and contact an attorney by Eravnrekaree · 2012-04-01 04:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
4. Re:Notify facebook and contact an attorney by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 04:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's called a run-on sentence composed of multiple comma-splices, and it's incorrect. Learn about it.
5. Re:Notify facebook and contact an attorney by gstrickler · 2012-04-01 06:37 · Score: 2
  
  FB ToS limits you to one account per person. They generally don't enforce it, but that is what the ToS say.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:Fuck you Slashdot by Travelsonic · 2012-04-01 04:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

--
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Because it was in michigan.... by Lumpy · 2012-04-01 04:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
1. Re:Because it was in michigan.... by HornWumpus · 2012-04-01 04:28 · Score: 2
  
  She's an aid. 10 years will be 30,000.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
2. Re:Because it was in michigan.... by Stormthirst · 2012-04-01 04:35 · Score: 2
  
  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)
3. Re:Because it was in michigan.... by Kneo24 · 2012-04-01 04:41 · Score: 2
  
  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.
4. Re:Because it was in michigan.... by Beelzebud · 2012-04-01 04:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
5. Re:Because it was in michigan.... by olsmeister · 2012-04-01 05:18 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
6. Re:Because it was in michigan.... by tnk1 · 2012-04-01 05:30 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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:I bet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-01 04:22 · Score: 2

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? by Joe_Dragon · 2012-04-01 04:26 · Score: 2

what about the IT rule of not giving out passwords? acquiescence to "authority" what about breaking IT / security rules?
Re:Don't use Facebook. by Soporific · 2012-04-01 04:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

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. by VMaN · 2012-04-01 04:29 · Score: 2

Powerful powerful reasoning there.
Please tell me more.
Just to understand the other side... by voss · 2012-04-01 04:29 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
1. Re:Just to understand the other side... by hazem · 2012-04-01 04:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
2. Re:Just to understand the other side... by Jedi+Alec · 2012-04-01 04:43 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  
  People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
3. Re:Just to understand the other side... by Omestes · 2012-04-01 05:00 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
4. Re:Just to understand the other side... by digitig · 2012-04-01 07:21 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
5. Re:Just to understand the other side... by deanklear · 2012-04-01 09:51 · Score: 2
  
  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:Another reason not to "friend" everyone you kno by DJRumpy · 2012-04-01 04:29 · Score: 2

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. by mfnickster · 2012-04-01 04:33 · Score: 3, Funny

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!

--
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
"At Will" Employment by Ronin+Developer · 2012-04-01 04:34 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:"At Will" Employment by GmExtremacy · 2012-04-01 04:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
Not quite by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2012-04-01 04:34 · Score: 5, Informative

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:Fuck you Slashdot by Dahamma · 2012-04-01 04:45 · Score: 2

The only thing more annoying than /. April Fool's articles is people complaining about them. Especially on real stories...
Constitutional Argument? by kidphoton · 2012-04-01 04:50 · Score: 2

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?
Re:Why is Facebook suddenly concerned about Privac by Overzeetop · 2012-04-01 05:02 · Score: 2

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.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:Don't use Facebook. by Teun · 2012-04-01 05:04 · Score: 2

I never understood the reason people took a FB account, thanks for the explanation!
Now I see even less reason :)

--
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I would donate to her legal defense by TheGratefulNet · 2012-04-01 05:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
My personal answer by sethstorm · 2012-04-01 05:14 · Score: 2

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.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
1. Re:My personal answer by TheGratefulNet · 2012-04-01 05:38 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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!
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Battle over before it begins. by Oligonicella · 2012-04-01 05:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Battle over before it begins. by KahabutDieDrake · 2012-04-01 09:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
I know you're a troll, but... by Overzeetop · 2012-04-01 05:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
WRONG! by billybob_jcv · 2012-04-01 05:39 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
IF IT"S ON FACEBOOK IT"S NOT PRIVATE! by nicoleb_x · 2012-04-01 06:04 · Score: 2

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.
Tortious interference by jkbull · 2012-04-01 06:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

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:Bzzzt, they asked "administration access". by RadioTV · 2012-04-01 06:56 · Score: 2

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

--
I have great faith in fools - self confidence my friends call it. - Edgar Allan Poe
Re:Pop Quiz by repapetilto · 2012-04-01 07:18 · Score: 3, Informative

I heard Spazmania belongs to an online sex cult.
The password by Databass · 2012-04-01 12:14 · Score: 2

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.
Obligatory Comic... by Jason+Levine · 2012-04-01 12:28 · Score: 2

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

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:Pop Quiz by russotto · 2012-04-01 13:15 · Score: 2

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:Just give 'em / reply with ... by Jiro · 2012-04-01 15:10 · Score: 2

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.
Re:Isn't that what "at will" employment is about? by JoelKatz · 2012-04-01 15:36 · Score: 2

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.