Bozeman, MT Drops Password Info Requirement 163
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, maybe it will work for Windows!!!
\\server\sharepoint
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you need to step away from that Microsoft OS and either go outside, run a different OS, or just get on the internet. The backslash is one example of Microsoft's way of doing everything ass-backwards. Everyone else uses a forward slash.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. If I were a taxpayer in Bozeman, I think I'd still be pretty worried about potential liability issues. The mere fact that the policy was withdrawn doesn't entirely address that. From the summary, it sounds as if the person who instituted the policy in the first place thinks they went a little too far. I would want them to realize and internalize the understanding that what they did was not an error of degree, but of kind. Otherwise, they'll just make the same mistake again in some othe
Re: (Score:2)
>What else can we start worldwide backlashes against? They seem to fucking work.
May I suggest a worldwide backlash against mandatory health insurance?
... would require all Americans to obtain health insurance
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/20/1844214 [slashdot.org]
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.
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:It is illegal (Lori Drew) (Score:1, Interesting)
According to the Lori Drew precedent, violating the ToS of a site is no different than hacking into that site. That makes it a conspiracy to violate the federal anti-hacking laws. Facebook and the other sites involved would be well within their rights not only to sue the city, but to have whoever came up with that policy arrested on federal hacking charges.
Re: (Score:2)
"Your analysis of the checks and balances system is a good one."
Not quite. You see, the executive may be the enforcers, but they don't control the purse strings. That's congress.
So you have congress controlling the money, the executive with the power of enforcement, and you have the judiciary with the....um...er...power to say in a really stern voice "You can't do that."
Of the three branches, it's the Judiciary that is the weakest. If both the congress and the executive want to do something, they will regar
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the only fault with the system as it is.
The Executive branch appoints the Justices (who can do it better? probably nobody). However, they can be selected to push an agenda.
Take, for example, the Patriot Act. Everyone knows that it's unconstitutional, and yet it persists. I wouldn't be surprised if the Judges were getting some sort of kickback for taking the positions they take.
This renders the Judiciary branch both weak and without a punch that's thrown, because it's the puppet branch.
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
People keep saying this in this thread. But the judiciary system can also issue writs, which are quite powerful enforcement tools. Injunctions and writs of mandamus, for example, are two writs that can be aimed directly at an executive branchketeer to force compliance.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a movement at my high school to have the lunch lady replaced by Pamela Anderson. I think we were being more realistic
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".
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)
Maybe 85min was covered other things.
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.
Re: (Score:1)
> Interesting that they declare the passwords they've already received to be the "property of the city."
If only there were some way of changing your password...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It bodes perfectly. Anyone is free to change their password at any time, which would render their precious pieces of paper worthless...actually, it turns them into a huge liability...because they have to protect those documents in perpetuity (or destroy them) in case any user has not changed a password.
Anyway, even if I was sheeple enough to provide correct passwords, they would be changed the second I was at the con of a trusted terminal.
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 . . ."
Re: (Score:1)
"See the lovely lakes . . . "
You forgot the wonderful telephone system.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
. . . 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 . . ."
"Don't forget to say 'What up?' to the moose . . ."
There, fixed that for ya.
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)
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 ;-))
Re: (Score:2)
Or just write "none" where it asks for accounts. I don't have any accounts on social networking or other sites. Hell, I don't even have a Slashdot account. You can all testify to that, right?
How about this... (Score:2)
I don't use "Not Q. Real" for name on employment applications. I don't use my real name online. Completely different people, any similarity is a coincidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Too sissy. STAND UP TO JERKS/BULLIES!
1. I not want to give that information as a condition of employment.
2. I don't want them to even think it's ok to ask for such things.
Re: (Score:2)
The passwords are only slightly more of an issue that the usernames - even without the passwords, they have stipped these potenial employees of their ability to anonymously post their opinions.
You might be able to change your password at the drop of a hat, but how do you migrate your online persona from one id to another without shedding anyone you want to retain as a social link, without bringing along the corporate snoops you where moving to avoid.
Re: (Score:2)
hunter2
Doesn't work for me, probably because it's my password. Can you guys see it?
Re: (Score:2)
1. Fill out form, including password.
2. Send it in
3. Change password
Sheesh.
Or you could stop shaving your pussy, tell them "None of your goddamn business", and use all means at your disposal to refuse and oppose such a request. If the people in power don't get opposed, then they will just continue to ask for more.
You would think Americans, from a country borne of revolution, would be less inclined to just say "YES" to everything an elected official (or worse a non-elected career bureaucrat) dreams up.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the thing - they are employed as part of a civil contract, accountable for their actions - TO The people they are contracted with!
They work for us, not the other way around.
As citizens we've gotten complacent, and allowed the thinking to shift, such that we now consider "Government" as our leaders/bosses/Masters. I, for one, object to such a world view. Anytime I hear of a Government office trying to pull a stunt like this, I'm not surprised, but I'm also not apathetic, or passive.
None of us should b
Re: (Score:2)
You make a good point. However, I find that pad thai is tastier than bricks :)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Now however they know your personal details, and your opinion. No need to get your facebook account info, they already have all the info they were after :)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot Effect (Score:1)
Government only hires the worst of society (Score:1)
A reaction taken from the article;
"Note to self, don't apply in Bozeman for a city job," one person wrote.
which is scary, because everyone knows that there will likely be at least one candidate who decides to apply for a job with the public service, which means the public service is going to get the cream of the intellectually dull and the morally bankrupt. They claim (as many other employers do) that it is important to hire based on a person's moral character. If these managers were not liars and hypocrites then they would insist that people prove that they are marijuana user
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 (
Re: (Score:2)
No, I have a very clear idea of what they are supposed to do where I am and what they actually do, but it appears you have a very different definition of HR if they do all of that described above.
Where I am payroll and superannuation is handled by people more competant in that role (accounts), discipling and reviews are handled by management (if HR do it that is a sign of weak or incompetant management so get out now), workplace health and safety is handled by those appo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What a fantastic editing job (Score:1)
Certainly, no one can mistakenly attribute that thought to Kukulski instead of the submitter!
A simple "mcmoodle further contributes:...." would be too much effort though.
Re: (Score:1)
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!" Certainly, no one can mistakenly attribute that thought to Kukulski instead of the submitter! A simple "mcmoodle further contributes:...." would be too much effort though.
You know, it originally was formatted that way. It said "The article continues:" and that part was axed. Editors!
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever catch your kid in the cookie jar? Or maybe smoking behind the school? Surprisingly, their reaction is pretty much the same -- "Sorry, didn't know it was bad...won't do it again, promise!"
Same thing here. Oh, and incidentally, something that hasn't been raised yet for some unknown reason, is this:
How many of the top-level or already-employed people had their credentials listed on some form in some filing cabinet? Do you think the mayor had their social life vetted?
Highly doubtful.
So if this IS the c
Re: (Score:2)
Everytime I visit, I can't wait to get back to the south.
Yeeehaw! Time spent away from my beloved bible belt and NASCAR states sure do rile up mah blood!
So much so that it seems I furget to use paragaphs! Of course all them silly things like riten proper is just for them edumicated northern folkes anyways. 'Real Americans' know what I means!
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 on
Bozeman? (Score:2)
suddenoutbreakofwarpdrive
Public yet personal (Score:2)
Are they still asking for a list of each applicant's personal websites? It seems to me there is no legitimate reason to force disclosure of such information. It's one thing if a background check produces a list of an applicant's public websites on its own, but to force disclosure of an applicant's websites as part of a job application still strikes me as very much an unwarranted intrusion into the applicant's personal affairs.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Reality is 9/10th of the law.
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
Re:Myths and History (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the FBI has maintained that obtaining a person's passwords without their consent is a crime.
Re: (Score:1)
Because the FBI has maintained that obtaining a person's passwords without their consent is a crime.
You are using the credibility and authority of the FBI as a case for privacy rights. I suppose they are more credible than the NSA.
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: (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: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.
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].
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for reposting that link.
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..... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
The people who thought up this scheme are obviously stupid. How do people get into Management?
I thought stupidity was a prerequisite?
-Mike
Re: (Score:2)
People get into management by being less intelligent and able than their boss...Who likes competition?
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Records are records, but information that could be used to harm an individual in any way must be defended. The risk for that is just too great.
I don't mind if any employer wanted my Slashdot user name just to see what I post here (well, they'd have good time hunting some of the boring comments I've posted as AC). What I post is publicly available information. If they wanted my password, I'd be a little bit worried if they would suddenly start spamming corporate propaganda under my name - that would be a lit
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this could provide any of the people that submitted with a perfect scapegoat*. Anyone could say "well, the guys down at the city have my password too, it could be someone there that sent the bomb threat that conveniently emptied the very building in which they work."
* Don't try it, it just might not work out so easily.
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:2)
Most forums state comments posted are solely the property of the poster. A user is given an account, which is their property, albeit granted under whatever TOS the forum uses. A password protects this account (property).
My house is protected by a key - those who have the key have (usually) have permission to enter, right?
Bozeman, MT had no authority to demand a password. Even with the difference between "real property" and other forms of property, the password and housekey serve the same purpose: to protect
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.
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)
Pretty far outside, since far as I know the nearest silo is over 100 miles away!
Re: (Score:1)
If you have nothing to hide...
Maybe if you posted with your name and address and some way of validating who you are instead of Trolling with an AC moniker then people will take you more seriously.
If you have nothing to hide... (Score:2)
... said Anonymous Coward.
For bunnies sakes...
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)