mcmoodle writes "Bozeman, Montana has decided that they don't want applicant personal information after all, citing a worldwide backlash on the issue:
'"Effective at noon today the city of Bozeman permanently ceased the practice of requesting that candidates selected for positions under a provisional job offer to provide their usernames or passwords for candidates' internet sites," said Chris Kukulski, Bozeman City Manager. ... Kukulski says after a 90 minute staff meeting held earlier today, officials decided asking applicants to provide their passwords to sites such as Facebook or MySpace, "exceeded that which is acceptable to our community." Kukulski apologized for the negative impact the issue has generated from news organizations and blogs around the world.' I didn't have any doubt this would be immediately squashed. Now I'm just curious as to how many personal accounts they actually went through!"
I thought you were proposing some new installation art. Big, fluffy backslashes shrewdly placed next to global landmarks to signify the growing dominance of technology over world culture.
In a system like ours, each branch of government has a specific role to play. The legislature crafts and passes laws. The judiciary determines whether the laws are valid. And the executive branch takes actions prescribed by the laws.
But only the executive branch has the power to actually do anything about the laws. It is almost a travesty how much power this puts into one single branch of government. Where we expect checks and balances, there is only unbalance in favor of the executive branch.
FTFA: The city will continue using the internet as part of background checks to judge the character of applicants, and although the city will stop asking for passwords Kukulski says the passwords already given by previous applicants will remain the confidential property of the city.
It doesn't matter if searching online is legal or not. In fact, it may be illegal to consider anonymous online sources as actionable information. As long as the executive branch says it is going to do something, there are no laws that can truly restrict it.
Your analysis of the checks and balances system is a good one.
Few companies are willing to stand up to abusive governments, especially when it's expensive to do so (lawyer fees, etc). Also, there are ways around the no-password thing (electronic surveillance is already here), and in general, passwords are not required when you play your trump card (we'll send the suits if you don't comply).
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The purpose of central government is regulation; because that is where power can be utilized in a non-biased fashion.
Some would say that "bias is human" and such, but anyone can contrive an excuse to do something or not to do something. Placing the actions of the government (in this case, the hiring process) just to filter out applicants who say... have a fetish of any sort would have a hard time knowing whether or not their rejection was for that reason.
It's not "wrong" for Bozeman to do what it's doing, but is it doing so with the appropriate regulations? Are things truly non-biased there, or does the system there need further tweaking? Those things should be brought to light, because a broken system only benefits a select few. Any executive decision needs the balance of proper legality.
Maybe it isn't illegal for them to have required that information, but I would consider it wrong to be required to hand over enough information for them to control the account. I like the fire metaphor of government, some is needed and quite beneficial, too much and it's destructive. Letting some possibly unaccountable power have that kind of access and control is too much. I'm surprised that it was a Montana city that did this, last I heard, there was a simmering anti-government sentiment there, I know
"As long as the executive branch says it is going to do something, there are no laws that can truly restrict it."
The executive branch is subject to the same laws you and I are, at least in theory.
I always thought the legislature could overturn and/or make new law. That's pretty powerful stuff - and as long as they stay within the confine s of the constitution, the judiciary can't do much about it. The judiciary CAN strike it down if it's unconstitutional.
The executive is supposed to take care of *running t
Interesting that they declare the passwords they've already received to be the "property of the city."
Bodes not well, that's for sure-- and it shows that the city still doesn't "get it." They likely just know that a lot of people got very upset, and figured they'd back away from something they just don't grasp...
The reality is that most of the elected representatives and employed professionals were largely unaware of what was going on. This is just the typical act of a power mad 'perve' someone who lies to pry into other people's lives, get a sexual kick out of having that level of control over other peoples lives.
It would be really interesting to find out who put in that clause and thought it was suitable and who else knew about it.
shows that the city still doesn't "get it." They likely just know that a lot of people got very upset, and figured they'd back away from something they just don't grasp...
Kukulski says after a 90 minute staff meeting held earlier today, officials decided asking applicants to provide their passwords to sites such as Facebook or MySpace, "exceeded that which is acceptable to our community." Kukulski apologized for the negative impact the issue has generated from news organizations and blogs around the world.' I didn't have any doubt this would be immediately squashed. Now I'm just curious as to how many personal accounts they actually went through!"
Yeah, I would say they don't fucking get it. It took them 90 minutes to decide it was a bad idea apparently and that the backlash was not worth it. 90 minutes. 1 1/2 HOURS. If they understood it at all, the implications of what they were doing, the violations of people's privacy and freedoms, it would *not* have taken anywhere near 90 minutes. I can imagine it was mostly about how they could spin it a different way and still get the information.
You can see it was just marketing PR with their half-assed insincere apology about it being unacceptable to the community.
Now their curious about how many accounts they actually got. Translation: "We had to stop doing it because of the whiners, but at least we got to find out how many people would put up with our shit".
Looking back at history, people put up with feudalism for centuries and embraced fascism by the millions. It isn't real surprising that some bureaucrats think they need control over what the minions they hire think (a big part of the problem is that they think they have minions).
Or do the same without the hassle of changing your password by just lying. It's not like they'll subpoena records just to see if your password actually changed (and if it did, why did you fail to notify them?)
Did they state in the form that you had to notify them of password changes ?
I they didn't, they couldn't hold anything against you. Password changes are a standard procedure in most secured systems so they couldn't assume that you add any wrong intentions...
Let's hear it for management. Whilst much of "management" is honest (and necessary) work, the scope for idiocy is greater than anywhere else. And that's because much of management involves the wielding of power and authority. Challenging a management decision is never seen as an exercise in objective criticism, but always as a power struggle, and treated as such.
Whenever a management decisions will be visible to those who are not subject to the decision-maker's authority, "management" is often seen to drastically scale back the scope of what it first mandated as necessary, instated as "policy", and enforced. The downside is that climbdowns are rarely the result of a realization of "Oops... what we did was really stupid, so lets not do it anymore", but mostly "Oops... we're getting bad publicity on this one... time to do some managerial damage control". Stupidity remains unchallenged (unless it can be used by a manager to discredit a rival).
This example is also a salutary lesson for those who thought that Dilbert stories are all based in an imaginary world. As Scott Adams said: many of his examples come from real-life occurrences that he either witnessed himself or were emailed to him.
... citing a worldwide backlash... ceased the practice of requesting that candidates selected for positions under a provisional job offer to provide their usernames or passwords for candidates' internet sites
The common sense question would be why hasn't the city Manager and his accomplices been fired without severance because of this severe incompetence and lack of judgment. Reacting to a reaction is the worse kind of Management. These people should show some Leadership and resign from their positions without asking for severance pay or Letters of Reference.
about this, and decided I would leave a comment. A small-print note on the page said that registration was required to leave a comment. However, there was no login or register link anywwhere that I found on the page. So I filled out a comment anyway, and I got a popup window asking for my information. I filled out my information, and clicked submit, and... nothing.
My comment did not appear on the page, so I tried again to see if there was some kind of link to login, and I got some strange dropdown asking
At the core it really comes down to wanting an excuse to justify spending half the day on the net looking at facebook etc. Also HR is very much seasonal work where there is really nothing to do most of the time but you need enough people to cover the busy periods, so we end up with riduculous scope creep with busy work invented so that HR people can justify their existence when things are not busy. In the places where they have facebook details they are probably spending a lot of time looking at current e
If my office, HR not only handles hiring and firing, but also payroll, workers compensation, benefits administration, discipline issues, coordinating annual and periodic reviews, reviewing and recording time off requests, dealing with employee complaints (e.g., too much perfume, bad body odor, breakroom behavior), facilitating employee-manager conflict resolution, revising and communicating company policy, investigating allegations of innapropriate behavior (
In most of the places I have worked, Human Resources is stocked via lateral transfer from other areas. They're the deadwood that can't be easily be fired, but must be moved out for the good of the department. I'm entirely unsurprised that some HR drone came up with this idea. Unfortunately, they're still the first people job applicants usually encounter.
I was privileged to work for years with a really good HR guy. While he was in charge, no strikes, no industrial action, low staff turnover, and the quiet word in our community (this being politically incorrect years ago) was that gay people would never be subject to embarrassing questions if they applied for jobs. When he retired to grow fruit and win all the golf club trophies till they asked him to stop, he was replaced by a typical corporate drone who within six months had managed to lose two expensive w
At least the Bozeman city officials had some idea about "how them internets work". When their bad judgement was pointed out to them, they took the right path instead of digging in their heels and making complete asses [centos.org] of themselves
It would have been one thing had they just requested applicants list all of their social networking sites. And even listed their usernames with each site so that they would know who they were on those sites since most people don't use their real names as their logins. Clearly my real name is not yoshi_mon.
It still would have been a very invasive and ethically dubious practice but not too surprising for a 'red state'.
But to then ask for peoples passwords? That is where the whole thing gets surreal. Why the hell do you need access to the accounts? I've yet to see any real explanation for that part of this nonsense. Not that there really could be a good explanation for it but I'd really like to see what kind of twisted rational was given.
Actually, it's more like "Well, even the FBI, which not the most "privacy conscious" of organizations, thinks that accessing someone's personal accounts without their permission (or a warrant, or special PATRIOT act permission) is a crime."
While Bozeman's government's actions aren't kosher, can we really defend against it? Records are records, and if they decide that they absolutely must have it for such and such, it's not something you can completely prevent
This is nothing but the typical "if you don't have anything to hide, then you should be OK giving up your information" defense, slightly rephrased. Please read Daniel Solove's excellent evisceration of this argument here in PDF [familyrights.us], and stop accepting the blanket "interests of national security" line without questioning on a case-by-case basis if it is reasonable.
Someone needs to create a privacy argument checklist for/. like the "why your spam solution won't work" checklist.
I've found that when managers are ignorant about technology they often pretend that they understand. Chris Kukulski, Bozeman City Manager [bozeman.net], seems to be one of those. Yet he says, "Integrity, leadership, service, and teamwork are the core values of our organization..."
Although he has stopped asking for passwords, there is no evidence that he actually understands, because the story says this: "... although the city will stop asking for passwords Kukulski says the passwords already given by previous applican
Didn't you know? The ability to lie convincingly and effectively is the most important criteria for any job in this "service" economy we have built. You won't see it on any job listing, but the way the interview process works practically guarantees it.
I've found that when managers are ignorant about technology they often pretend that they understand.
I'm giving up mod points to voice my agreement with you. Anyone else remember Tuttle, Oklahoma [wikipedia.org]? I don't expect managers, even IT managers, to know everything [tuttletimes.com], but it would be nice if they admitted they made mistakes [theregister.co.uk] rather than acting like jerks [centos.org].
It's completely unenforceable. People can just claim they have no Slashdot account (for example) and therefore not have to give their passwords away. Why anybody would be stupid enough to randomly give every potential employer their passwords is beyond reason. I could understand setting up temporary proxy accounts that would be used to, for example, say good things about the company in anticipation of a job interview.
The people who thought up this scheme are obviously stupid. How do people get into Manageme
Why anybody would be stupid enough to randomly give every potential employer their passwords is beyond reason.
1. Give employer passwords 2. Have an alibi while some friend posts kiddieporn/whatever to one of the pages from an open wireless AP. 3. Sue them because nobody else had the account data so it must be them. 4. Profit.
Don't start down the "acceptance" road already - this "hacking into job-applicants' email" malarkey was always unacceptable and should never have happened and should never happen again and any law purporting to support it must be removed, as should any politician who votes for it.
It's not time to fall-back to the "this is okay so long as it's not enforced" argument which justifies stunts like this.
Exactly. If you ignore it because it's unenforceable, then what happens when 5 years down the road they figure out some way to _actually_ enforce it.
You'll complain, but your complaint will be meaningless, because "It's been that way for 5 years, and you're only just complaining now? If this was a problem, you would have brought it up before now. Obviously you're not as concerned as you say you are. We'll go ahead as planned."
Personal security is a myth that rose from the ashes of wishful security.
Passwords are passwords: designed to distinguish those who have the rights from those who don't. If you grant anyone else the right to modify your personal website (except of course those who maintain it under your supervision), you shouldn't be a politician.
Oh, and any information that gets into a buerocratic machine is public from a security point of view. Take my word for it. [google.hu]
First, this is not a cabinet position. This is fucking Bozeman, Montana, which no one had heard of until they pulled this stunt.
Second, who watches the watchers?
Third, define "nothing to hide"? As a simple example, I don't think my body is horrible, though it could certainly be better. That doesn't mean I want to be strip-searched to get on the bus to go to work.
It's not about whether you have anything "suspicious" worth hiding. It's about whether you have anything you'd consider private. There's a reason privacy is part of the universal declaration of human rights.
Wow, worldwide backlashes. (Score:5, Insightful)
What else can we start worldwide backlashes against? They seem to fucking work.
Re:Wow, worldwide backlashes. (Score:4, Funny)
I thought you were proposing some new installation art. Big, fluffy backslashes shrewdly placed next to global landmarks to signify the growing dominance of technology over world culture.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, maybe it will work for Windows!!!
\\server\sharepoint
We are the Law (Score:4, Interesting)
In a system like ours, each branch of government has a specific role to play. The legislature crafts and passes laws. The judiciary determines whether the laws are valid. And the executive branch takes actions prescribed by the laws.
But only the executive branch has the power to actually do anything about the laws. It is almost a travesty how much power this puts into one single branch of government. Where we expect checks and balances, there is only unbalance in favor of the executive branch.
FTFA:
The city will continue using the internet as part of background checks to judge the character of applicants, and although the city will stop asking for passwords Kukulski says the passwords already given by previous applicants will remain the confidential property of the city.
It doesn't matter if searching online is legal or not. In fact, it may be illegal to consider anonymous online sources as actionable information. As long as the executive branch says it is going to do something, there are no laws that can truly restrict it.
Re:We are the Law (Score:4, Interesting)
Your analysis of the checks and balances system is a good one.
Few companies are willing to stand up to abusive governments, especially when it's expensive to do so (lawyer fees, etc). Also, there are ways around the no-password thing (electronic surveillance is already here), and in general, passwords are not required when you play your trump card (we'll send the suits if you don't comply).
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The purpose of central government is regulation; because that is where power can be utilized in a non-biased fashion.
Some would say that "bias is human" and such, but anyone can contrive an excuse to do something or not to do something. Placing the actions of the government (in this case, the hiring process) just to filter out applicants who say... have a fetish of any sort would have a hard time knowing whether or not their rejection was for that reason.
It's not "wrong" for Bozeman to do what it's doing, but is it doing so with the appropriate regulations? Are things truly non-biased there, or does the system there need further tweaking? Those things should be brought to light, because a broken system only benefits a select few. Any executive decision needs the balance of proper legality.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it isn't illegal for them to have required that information, but I would consider it wrong to be required to hand over enough information for them to control the account. I like the fire metaphor of government, some is needed and quite beneficial, too much and it's destructive. Letting some possibly unaccountable power have that kind of access and control is too much. I'm surprised that it was a Montana city that did this, last I heard, there was a simmering anti-government sentiment there, I know
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"As long as the executive branch says it is going to do something, there are no laws that can truly restrict it."
The executive branch is subject to the same laws you and I are, at least in theory.
I always thought the legislature could overturn and/or make new law. That's pretty powerful stuff - and as long as they stay within the confine s of the constitution, the judiciary can't do much about it. The judiciary CAN strike it down if it's unconstitutional.
The executive is supposed to take care of *running t
Fascinating... (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting that they declare the passwords they've already received to be the "property of the city."
Bodes not well, that's for sure-- and it shows that the city still doesn't "get it." They likely just know that a lot of people got very upset, and figured they'd back away from something they just don't grasp...
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is that most of the elected representatives and employed professionals were largely unaware of what was going on. This is just the typical act of a power mad 'perve' someone who lies to pry into other people's lives, get a sexual kick out of having that level of control over other peoples lives.
It would be really interesting to find out who put in that clause and thought it was suitable and who else knew about it.
Re:Fascinating... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, I would say they don't fucking get it. It took them 90 minutes to decide it was a bad idea apparently and that the backlash was not worth it. 90 minutes. 1 1/2 HOURS. If they understood it at all, the implications of what they were doing, the violations of people's privacy and freedoms, it would *not* have taken anywhere near 90 minutes. I can imagine it was mostly about how they could spin it a different way and still get the information.
You can see it was just marketing PR with their half-assed insincere apology about it being unacceptable to the community.
Now their curious about how many accounts they actually got. Translation: "We had to stop doing it because of the whiners, but at least we got to find out how many people would put up with our shit".
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Looking back at history, people put up with feudalism for centuries and embraced fascism by the millions. It isn't real surprising that some bureaucrats think they need control over what the minions they hire think (a big part of the problem is that they think they have minions).
Re: (Score:2)
Now their curious about how many accounts they actually got.
Actually, that was the submitter's comment, not the City Manager's comment.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly does the TOS for Myspace/Facebook et al have to say about this? Isn't sharing your password a no-no?
The Lori Drew case showed that violating a website TOS is worth jail time, so I wonder what trouble the city has earned itself.
Was this just a puplicity stunt . . . ? (Score:3, Funny)
. . . well, the world now knows that there is a place called Bozeman, Montana.
"Come visit Bozeman this summer for vactation . . ."
"See the lovely lakes . . . "
"Please leave your passwords at the door . . ."
"What out for the moose . . ."
Unprintable charecters (Score:2)
I gave them all my passwords, but each had at least one character that was unprintable, unpronounceable and ambiguous when written down.
Change Password (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Fill out form, including password.
2. Send it in
3. Change password
Sheesh.
Re:Change Password (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Did they state in the form that you had to notify them of password changes ?
I they didn't, they couldn't hold anything against you. Password changes are a standard procedure in most secured systems so they couldn't assume that you add any wrong intentions...
This whole story sounds plain silly anyway ;-))
Yet another real-life Dilbert moment ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Whenever a management decisions will be visible to those who are not subject to the decision-maker's authority, "management" is often seen to drastically scale back the scope of what it first mandated as necessary, instated as "policy", and enforced. The downside is that climbdowns are rarely the result of a realization of "Oops ... what we did was really stupid, so lets not do it anymore", but mostly "Oops ... we're getting bad publicity on this one ... time to do some managerial damage control". Stupidity remains unchallenged (unless it can be used by a manager to discredit a rival).
This example is also a salutary lesson for those who thought that Dilbert stories are all based in an imaginary world. As Scott Adams said: many of his examples come from real-life occurrences that he either witnessed himself or were emailed to him.
What leaders are getting fired? (Score:3, Insightful)
... citing a worldwide backlash... ceased the practice of requesting that candidates selected for positions under a provisional job offer to provide their usernames or passwords for candidates' internet sites
The common sense question would be why hasn't the city Manager and his accomplices been fired without severance because of this severe incompetence and lack of judgment. Reacting to a reaction is the worse kind of Management. These people should show some Leadership and resign from their positions without asking for severance pay or Letters of Reference.
I read the local news article (Score:2)
My comment did not appear on the page, so I tried again to see if there was some kind of link to login, and I got some strange dropdown asking
That was fast (Score:3, Insightful)
90 minutes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously people, pull your fingers out.
Then again, it could have been a 1 minute vote and then 89 minutes of pin-the-blame on whoever's not there.
It's the usual HR rubbish (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If my office, HR not only handles hiring and firing, but also payroll, workers compensation, benefits administration, discipline issues, coordinating annual and periodic reviews, reviewing and recording time off requests, dealing with employee complaints (e.g., too much perfume, bad body odor, breakroom behavior), facilitating employee-manager conflict resolution, revising and communicating company policy, investigating allegations of innapropriate behavior (
Not surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
In most of the places I have worked, Human Resources is stocked via lateral transfer from other areas. They're the deadwood that can't be easily be fired, but must be moved out for the good of the department. I'm entirely unsurprised that some HR drone came up with this idea. Unfortunately, they're still the first people job applicants usually encounter.
True, yet good HR should be a priority (Score:3, Interesting)
We've come a long way (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole password part... (Score:4, Interesting)
It would have been one thing had they just requested applicants list all of their social networking sites. And even listed their usernames with each site so that they would know who they were on those sites since most people don't use their real names as their logins. Clearly my real name is not yoshi_mon.
It still would have been a very invasive and ethically dubious practice but not too surprising for a 'red state'.
But to then ask for peoples passwords? That is where the whole thing gets surreal. Why the hell do you need access to the accounts? I've yet to see any real explanation for that part of this nonsense. Not that there really could be a good explanation for it but I'd really like to see what kind of twisted rational was given.
Bozeman? (Score:2)
suddenoutbreakofwarpdrive
Re:Myths and History (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the FBI has maintained that obtaining a person's passwords without their consent is a crime.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you implying that a person's passwords to their personal accounts on websites are subject to public information requirements?
Because the FBI has maintained that obtaining a person's passwords without their consent is a crime.
Consent is the requirement.
Re:Myths and History (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it's more like "Well, even the FBI, which not the most "privacy conscious" of organizations, thinks that accessing someone's personal accounts without their permission (or a warrant, or special PATRIOT act permission) is a crime."
Heh.
Parent
Re:Myths and History (Score:4, Insightful)
While Bozeman's government's actions aren't kosher, can we really defend against it? Records are records, and if they decide that they absolutely must have it for such and such, it's not something you can completely prevent
This is nothing but the typical "if you don't have anything to hide, then you should be OK giving up your information" defense, slightly rephrased. Please read Daniel Solove's excellent evisceration of this argument here in PDF [familyrights.us], and stop accepting the blanket "interests of national security" line without questioning on a case-by-case basis if it is reasonable.
Someone needs to create a privacy argument checklist for /. like the "why your spam solution won't work" checklist.
Parent
The ignorant are often dishonest. (Score:3, Informative)
Although he has stopped asking for passwords, there is no evidence that he actually understands, because the story says this: "... although the city will stop asking for passwords Kukulski says the passwords already given by previous applican
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Didn't you know? The ability to lie convincingly and effectively is the most important criteria for any job in this "service" economy we have built. You won't see it on any job listing, but the way the interview process works practically guarantees it.
ignorant often dishonest: remember Tuttle, OK? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm giving up mod points to voice my agreement with you. Anyone else remember Tuttle, Oklahoma [wikipedia.org]? I don't expect managers, even IT managers, to know everything [tuttletimes.com], but it would be nice if they admitted they made mistakes [theregister.co.uk] rather than acting like jerks [centos.org].
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's completely unenforceable. People can just claim they have no Slashdot account (for example) and therefore not have to give their passwords away. Why anybody would be stupid enough to randomly give every potential employer their passwords is beyond reason. I could understand setting up temporary proxy accounts that would be used to, for example, say good things about the company in anticipation of a job interview.
The people who thought up this scheme are obviously stupid. How do people get into Manageme
Re: (Score:2)
1. Give employer passwords
2. Have an alibi while some friend posts kiddieporn/whatever to one of the pages from an open wireless AP.
3. Sue them because nobody else had the account data so it must be them.
4. Profit.
Re: (Score:2)
It's completely unenforceable
Don't start down the "acceptance" road already - this "hacking into job-applicants' email" malarkey was always unacceptable and should never have happened and should never happen again and any law purporting to support it must be removed, as should any politician who votes for it.
It's not time to fall-back to the "this is okay so long as it's not enforced" argument which justifies stunts like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. If you ignore it because it's unenforceable, then what happens when 5 years down the road they figure out some way to _actually_ enforce it.
You'll complain, but your complaint will be meaningless, because "It's been that way for 5 years, and you're only just complaining now? If this was a problem, you would have brought it up before now. Obviously you're not as concerned as you say you are. We'll go ahead as planned."
Re:Myths and History (Score:4, Funny)
The people who thought up this scheme are obviously stupid. How do people get into Management?
I would think the statement answers the question..... :-)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Personal security is a myth that rose from the ashes of wishful security.
Passwords are passwords: designed to distinguish those who have the rights from those who don't. If you grant anyone else the right to modify your personal website (except of course those who maintain it under your supervision), you shouldn't be a politician.
Oh, and any information that gets into a buerocratic machine is public from a security point of view. Take my word for it. [google.hu]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Reality is 9/10th of the law.
perception is reality
therefore
perception is 9/10 of the law
Re:Myths and History (Score:4, Funny)
Laws are meant to be broken. - Ref some Wall Street lawyer
Parent
Re:If you have nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
First, this is not a cabinet position. This is fucking Bozeman, Montana, which no one had heard of until they pulled this stunt.
Second, who watches the watchers?
Third, define "nothing to hide"? As a simple example, I don't think my body is horrible, though it could certainly be better. That doesn't mean I want to be strip-searched to get on the bus to go to work.
It's not about whether you have anything "suspicious" worth hiding. It's about whether you have anything you'd consider private. There's a reason privacy is part of the universal declaration of human rights.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In Star Trek: First Contact, Zefram Cochrane launched the Phoenix from a missile silo just outside Bozeman, Montana. But yeah, that's about it.
Re: (Score:2)
you really need to bring out what you mean to be truly taken as inciteful.
Such an insightful typo....
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, it was. But Vulcans don't give up theirs passwords.
So they were evicted with GUNS!!!!
Re: (Score:2)