Montana City Asks Job Applicants For Facebook Passwords

HELENA, Mont. — A flood of criticism has prompted a Montana city to drop its request that government job applicants turn over their user names and passwords to Internet social networking and Web groups.

The city of Bozeman abruptly suspended the practice Friday, saying it "appears to have exceeded that which is acceptable to our community."

"We appreciate the concern many citizens have expressed regarding this practice and apologize for the negative impact this issue is having on the City of Bozeman," City Manager Chris A. Kukulski said in a release.

Since KBZK-TV of Bozeman reported on the policy Wednesday, Web forums have been abuzz over the issue. The American Civil Liberties Union of Montana immediately questioned the legality of the policy.

"I liken it to them saying they want to look at your love letters and your family photos," said Amy Cannata of the Montana ACLU. "I think this policy certainly crosses the privacy line."

The city initially argued that it only used the information to verify application information. People who refused to provide the information wouldn't be penalized, the city said.

An excerpt from the city application form said, "Please list any and all current personal or business Web sites, web pages or memberships on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc."

Rep. Brady Wiseman, a Bozeman Democrat, led the state's fight against the Patriot Act when the Legislature issued a harsh critique of the federal act, arguing it trampled civil liberties and put the government into a position of snooping on citizens.

Wiseman said Bozeman had gone too far.

"Asking for passwords is over the line," Wiseman said. "I think that this notion opens up a whole new line of debate on privacy."

The ACLU has not found another government body that asks for such information, Cannata said.

"It's one thing, and I think totally reasonable, if someone has a public profile to go check it out," she said.

But private groups and profile could reveal information employers could not legally base hiring decisions on, such as a person's religion, she added.

Comments

[LonF]

Sometimes WTF? is a perfectly appropriate comment.

[Terypat]

I am sure they saw alot of "N/A" on those applications. The nerve!!!!!!!!

[akuma river]

...Isn't it illegal to even ask about personal information such as social networking sites, let asking for their freaking passwords? It's like asking for a dosier on someone's life.

[VirginiaMom]

Wow -- talk about Big Brother watching over you!

[Travis bdboy]

Holy Krap....what are these people thinking?....how does "stick your job up you @ss sound?

[Trittydi]

This would've made a good lawsuit.
*

[Hopalongpoppyseed]

And early mentor taught me to use NOYDB (None of your da**d business) when facing intrusive questions. Surely, it has lost me a few jobs, but what the heck, I feel self respect.

[Chaimirija]

Never mind that "Professional" means keeping your private life PRIVATE

[Hopalongpoppyseed]

You mean the workplace is not Oprah-land?

[JoeCrownOnTheRocks]

Wow, that is some crazy $#!^.

[sandistorms]

Didn't the Obama White House questionnaire request similar information about internet usernames?

[SouthernYankeeBelle]

I voted for Obama, but asking someone for the personal password is over the line. I don't think that local, state, or national government has that right. Now I can see them monitoring their computers at work after all that is on company time. I don't know what has gone wrong in this country. The Bush administration monitoring our calls and god knows what else and the Obama administration seems to follow up with the same thing. I hope this stops.

[zakwouldhave]

southernybelle. What does this have to do with Obama!?

[Solja]

Employers asking for any kind of credit check should be banned from this as well. What does your credit rating have to do with working for a company? It would seem to me that if you have bad credit, you need a job to pay your bills. This is a way to keep poor & minority people out of the company since they have more problems than those in a better financial situation, especially blacks & hispanics. Apparently, when you are poor, you are more likely to steal from a company. Forget that the Fed. prisons are full of wealthy, middle-aged white men who robbed their companies blind. Their credit was pretty good.

I was registering with Robert Half International and came across this "Permission to do a credit check" and another one to do a criminal background check. I ended the process after I was told that I "must" complete the credit check permission form. I told them that I'm not comfortable with giving out my SS# unless I'm hired, and I'm not comfortable with having random checks on my credit report with no guarantee of a job. I don't fill out a bunch of credit applications for that very reason. Throwing around your SS# is how people get their identity stolen.

Only felonies should have to be reported because misdemeanors mostly don't carry jail time.

[Solja]

And that goes for the Fed. government too for clearances. The Fed. shouldn't be in your credit, but if you want a security clearance, you have to have good credit, or at least, pay off ALL of your bills.

I know a veteran that started working at a government office as a help desk person. He was deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom, came back and found a job in the gov't. He actually was escorted out of his office, like a criminal, because his credit wasn't cleared up by the time they finished his clearance. He lost the job, because he owed on a old car that was stolen while out of the country. This is why a person's credit needs to be out of the job market.

[AmericanReflections]

Good for you, Solja. I couldn't agree more. Since my Social Security card is quite old (and I don't know what the new ones look like) it says right on the bottom of my card, "Not to be used for identification," and yet I am constantly being asked for my SS number.

[RogerHWerner]

A person's credit rating has a great deal to do with what they may do at work. An acceptable rating shows a level of personal resposnibility and organization while a poor one may demonstrate lack of both. A job typically requires personal reliability, ability to stay organize, responsibility. For someone with a 10 page resume and 25 years of experience a credit check might be unnecessary but for a low level job in banking involving someone with only minimal experience, a credit check is merely one additional means to determine the quality of a person's character. I oppose use of credit checks for job applications owing to privacy issues just as I oppose random drug testing and lie detector testing. Privacy is an important issue for me but I do understand why these tools are used and unfortunately, in some narrow instances, they may be justified. I wouldn't permit a credit check or submit to random drug testing or a lie detector testing but then I am in a position to do this.

[fcsakes]

I'm wondering what kind of credit rating all those liars and thieves at the "banks that are too big to fail" have? Let's see, you're rich so you must be a high-quality person.

What a load of crap.

[IntelligenceIsBliss]

I bet Bernie Madoff's credit was perfect. So was Stanford's.

[Knowledgeseeker]

they can keep their jobs.

[MadCroation]

I used to live there. This doesn't surprise me at all. Remember it's a red state.

[Forest]

I thought Bozeman was about art, motorcycles and Zen. What happened?

[youvegot2bekidding]

Pirsig blew out of town.

[Hopalongpoppyseed]

Now it's all gumption traps.

[jcwtts1]

I don't know why people are freaked. I know multiple people who have had similar, though not exact, experiences. For example, I know someone who made it through three rounds of interviews and in the final one was asked for every screen name he had used, and for access to both his Facebook and Myspace pages. Both pages had been set to private. They did a google search, while he sat there using each screen name he gave them and his posts on HP, TPM and politico came up. They turned the laptop around and allowed him to imput his password for both sites and then they looked through them.

The truth of the matter is that the ACLU will lose this, the internet is not private space it is public space and while you may try and protect your pages, the fact of the matter is everyone knows they aren't private. It is like having a conversation at a baseball game. People will overhear you. What I tell my students, what I tell my colleagues, is don't write anything you don't stand behind, don't put pics of yourself doing anything you wouldn't want your boss to see on any social networking site. Wait until google gets a facial recognition program and your boss can do a google search of your face to see if your picture is anywhere. Sci fi now but real in less than 10 years. Believe it.

J

[Birdman]

Now exactly what possible PURPPOSE could an employer have to be this interusive???? Personally I would stop right there tell the intviewer that information was private and if it was a condition of employment I will see you later .. No employer that engages in this tyype of invasive intrustion into a persons private life deserves to have me as an employee. The more that people stand up to this type of invasion the less you will see employers engage in it. But the very fact that you know several people that this has happened too in my opinion it is a sorry state we have come too. Next thing you know they will put a moniotoring device on your phone, laptop and any other potential communication device. I do not see where this is fine at all. What I do at home is my business whihc I do have a my space page but I hav enot been on it in 6 montsh nor did I ever use it much too as you say PUBLIC. But here we are on Huffington post public as you say but I do nto kwno you form Adam nor do you know me nor should MY EMPLOYER.

[AngelaQuattrano]

So you think it's perfectly reasonable for them to ask you for your google and yahoo userid and password so they can look through your email, see what kind of sites you post on, like this one?

[BlackbirdHighway]

"the internet is not private space it is public space "

Uh, no. If it was public, then they wouldn't need your password to access it , would they?

[elcerritan]

Bingo.

jcwtts1's argument is like saying your financial information isn't private if you use an ATM machine on the street or like saying you have no expectation of privacy in your own home just because you invite others to visit. People certainly DO have an "expectation of privacy" on social networking sites if they only allow their "Friends" (i.e., people they CHOOSE) to have access to the information.

[zakwouldhave]

jewtts1. What are you talking about? The ACLU will not lose this. And how is this like having a conversation at at baseball game? You say that this is all about sci fi but really stuff like this was happening in 1930-1945. In Germany. Does that ring a bell?

[jukesgrrl]

Chain stores that ask, at checkout, for your zip code are doing it to track where their customers reside. If they have many customers from a particular zip where they do not have a store, they might build a store closer to your house. If you don't choose to provide this information, there are very few stores that would MAKE you do it. In fact, it's fine to refuse because if they realize customers don't want to cooperate, maybe they'll stop (that's exactly what happened with supermarket clubs that asked for SS#s). But to stomp out of a store just because they ask you a question you think is too personal is silly unless they refuse to serve you without it. And if a clerk tells you your transaction can't be completed without it, tell him or her to fill in the blank with the store's zipcode.