In Defense of Bozeman

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I agree with your defense of Bozeman in part. Yes, I'm sure it was a well-intentioned mistake. It would make the process much easier. However, it's still something that I would never agree to and would never want to see the light of day.
Why? Because it's privacy invasion of the most intimate kind. Oddly, despite this being the "World Wide" Web, we still have very sensitive information on it, including financial records and love letters.
Not to mention it directly violates many sites' Terms of Service, including that of Facebook, which, according to Newsy.com, last week reported it would be in touch with the city about the violation.

Daniel of MO 3:16PM June 24, 2009

I just don't get why a well meaning person would ask for a password. If you've ever been given a password or PIN for anything you know that you're not supposed to give it out.
I could get why they'd ask for a user name: they want to be able to look you up online by your alias(es). Whether or not they should ask for it at least I can understand why they'd ask. (If you're not also making what you post under an alias private then you have to assume they might run up on it anyway.)
But you're never supposed to give out passwords, period. End of story. Even someone who's not Internet or computer savvy should know this. Protecting your password is basic stuff.
If I were asked to provide my user name and password for anything in relation to a job search I'd assume it was some sort of scam.

RP of GA 3:02PM June 24, 2009

Count me among those who viewed Bozeman's background check efforts as going too far. I understand the city's desire to provide the most protection possible, but background checks are too often perceived as the be-all and end-all of the protective bubble with which we want to surround our children and other vulnerable populations and assets. You can't let your guard down just because someone passed a background check. Someone's illegal activities may have yet to be uncovered. The background check may be state-only, missing convictions in other states. It may have been conducted using a private database with limited scope. The background check may be name-only and the subject used an alias. We must do the best we can while recognizing that there is only so much we can do. In the end, we must still be vigilant in protecting our children, etc., and let common sense guide how much trust we are willing to grant those entrusted with their care. Ultimately, trampling on society's privacy and confidentiality expectations to check someone's background won't provide more protection than a watchful eye and a parent's "sixth sense."

southcityej of CA 12:17PM June 24, 2009

Although this is an evolving area of law, the City needed to tread very carefully in this area since it obviously involved privacy rights in hiring. Common sense should have dictated this was a sensitive area.
First and foremost, they were opening themselves up to discrimination claims if the social network site revealed an applicant’s membership in a protected group, such as race, nationality, ethnicity, religious afflation, marital status, physical condition, etc. This is especially an issue when asking for this information in the application stage where there can be an inference that such factors were used illegally to screen out candidates on the basis of their membership in a protected class. In other words, there would be no protection if someone in the City decided to simply toss the application of anyone that was in a protected group, or even engaged in legal private conduct the hiring manager did not happen to like, including political activities.
Even assuming that a review of such sites may be relevant to the job, it is best done later in the hiring process after a conditional job offer, so applicants can be assured they were considered fairly, before the City goes looking at private sites. The City needed to formulate clear and objective policies and procedures to ensure they were looking for factors that were non-discriminatory and a valid predictors of job performance.
There are a number of other issues as well to consider. For an examination of some of the reasons the use of social network site can be dangerous, see the following article: http://www.esrcheck.com/articles/Caution-Using-Search-Engines-MySpace-or-Facebook-for-Hiring-Decisions-May-Be-Hazardous-to-Your-Business.php

Les Rosen of CA 12:13AM June 24, 2009

There is a reason people don't let everybody see everything they do on their social networking sites, they want to maintain privacy. This practice was and is ridiculousD.

Palooza of CO 3:29PM June 23, 2009

I am not sure that Bozeman needs to be defended or their actions explained.
The idea flew in the face of privacy and general good hiring practices. They should have known better. If I am keeping something private (leaving the illegal aspect out of the discussion) then I have a expectation of privacy. In this case, I have areas of the internet that I keep private and only allow those that I wish to share my inforamtion and access. When I do make something public it is on my own terms. The issue here is that Bozeman was asking for a ID/password which in general means that I am keeping certain aspects of my life from those I don't want to share it. The privacy is dead argument is poor in nature. If privacy is dead please post your ID and Password to your social networking sites.
From a basic hiring practice, looking at sites to determine if a person is qualified is unethical and may fall to being illegal. You can do background checks and drug test but what if you discover that the person belongs to a religious group or political group you disagree with.
Privacy is fundamental right that many don't realize what they give up. I have the right not to be judged by people who don't know me based on limited information.

JZ of MT 2:07PM June 23, 2009