In Bozeman, Giving Up Privacy For a Chance at a Paycheck

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Hi!wmvp! http://xrjvyooe.com vwxtr cwhfg

Aboutbcpjx of CT 5:17AM July 21, 2009

My response would be to turn the paper around to them and say "you first, starting with your human resources databases".
Who in their right mind would agree to such a thing? And even if you were that desperate it is trivial to set up a fake account full of fake things like posts about how much you love to work and help people. :P

Not that desperate of OH 12:32PM June 21, 2009

Tactics such as these raise serious questions about the *existing* staff of the employers. Hiring is a mix of different features and has as much art involved as statistical predictability.
If the HR department requires this much information about a prospective employee, how did the employer ever make it this far? Does the employer have *any* intuitive sense at all? Or is this a sign of no ability to make a decision?
Quantity of information does not make quality of employee. Too much information often clouds the decision process or masks the lack of one.
I'd seriously question the stability and environment of any potential employer using these tactics and if there was any way possible, move on.
Sad to say a municipality using these tactics most likely suffers from crippling bureaucracy.

Ted of IA 1:39AM June 21, 2009

I am grateful for all of the attention that this matter is getting as I believe it will prompt employers and prospective employees to think and talk about these important issues.
From the employee's perspective, it will be essential to prepare for these kinds of requests and to understand one's rights, as well as the implications of agreeing to these kinds of requests made by prospective employers. As but one example, complying with requests such as these can cause oneself to be in violation of its agreements with the social networking sites. For example, a relevant portion of Facebook's terms provides: "You will not share your password, let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account." http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf
This, of course, is just one example of the possible problems with a prospective employee's compliance with this request.
Employers too, should take heed. A horrible economy and tough employment market does not necessarily give employer's carte blanche to engage in such practices. Employers must understand what data they can and cannot collect (as well as the means through which it can be collected) and be aware of the ramifications of their proposed collection practices.

Jacqueline Klosek of NY 10:45AM June 20, 2009

It looks as if they have seen the error of their ways.
http://www.bozeman.net/bozeman/upcoming%20events/PressRelease.aspx
I can't believe they thought for even a moment that this is OK. More reason than ever to donate to the ACLU.

TJM of CA 6:30PM June 19, 2009

Just tell Bozeman you don't have a web presence. When they go to fire you, then it becomes actionable and you can let the court decide. Sorry to sound frivolous, but this can't be allowed.
If they want to not hire you based on a Google search, then that's another thing.

Big John of FL 5:45PM June 19, 2009

Muser muses that "none of these practices are illegal," and challenges us to fix that. But I'll argue that demanding passwords to private accounts *is* already illegal, because it may provide access to information that it is not legal for an employer to ask: age, marital status, and ethnic background, for example. Many people have their birth dates in their social networking profiles, but keep that information private. A prospective employer armed with login information will see it.
Apart from that, I suspect they will lose in court if their requirement is challenged, just as they would if they demanded to search one's house and one's private papers. Worse, if you allow them to search your house, they can only see what you have... but if you give them the passwords to your accounts, they can masquerade as you and commit fraud. I'm quite surprised they're willing to put themselves in the position of being open to accusations that they did so.
I can certainly see the ACLU and the EFF backing someone on a challenge to this requirement.

Barry Leiba of NY 4:36PM June 19, 2009

(including public-entity corporations like say, city governments) or they control you. "But none of these practices are illegal", you say. Yeah, that's the point. Either YOU, through YOUR elections, get politicians perpetually in office who pass laws to protect YOU, and "activist" judges to interpret them for YOU, or you don't.
Always remember this rule in politics: Liberals favor individuals, conservatives favor corporations. It really is that simple.

Muser of NM 3:35PM June 19, 2009