Bozeman, MT Drops Password Info Requirement 163
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the backlashed-into-submission dept.
from the backlashed-into-submission dept.
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!"
Wow, worldwide backlashes. (Score:5, Insightful)
What else can we start worldwide backlashes against? They seem to fucking work.
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...
Change Password (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Fill out form, including password.
2. Send it in
3. Change password
Sheesh.
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.
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.
Re:Change Password (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.
We've come a long way (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fascinating... (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).
But who lost their job at Bozeman (Score:1, Insightful)
I think the bigger question beyond the job application. I think this should spur an investigation into HR's and management's practice over at good old Bozeman. How many present employees at this place, have been forced to turn over passwords and other personal information and what was the scope information. Who else has been threatened with job loss, or loss of promotions and other intimidation. I would think if they treat prospects like this, then what about the poor souls already employed there.
When no one there saw the obvious in just how wrong that was, then you have to ask yourself. Just how persuasive is this mentality in the city structure as a whole, from top down?
Re:The ignorant are often dishonest. (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.
Re:We are the Law (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 the business* of the country. The president can Veto, sure, but congress can overrule that.
The executive cannot just "do whatever it wants" unless congress and the judiciary let it.