Apply to Work for City of Bozeman: Social Networking & Passwords

  • Thread starter Thread starter dlgoff
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The City of Bozeman, Montana, faced significant backlash for its policy requiring job applicants to provide passwords to personal social media accounts. This practice raised serious privacy concerns and was deemed potentially illegal, as it infringed on applicants' rights to confidentiality. Following public outcry and scrutiny from organizations like the ACLU, the city quickly repealed the policy, highlighting the importance of protecting personal information in the hiring process.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of privacy laws related to employment
  • Familiarity with social media platforms and their privacy settings
  • Knowledge of the implications of sharing personal information online
  • Awareness of the role of organizations like the ACLU in advocating for civil rights
NEXT STEPS
  • Research state-specific employment privacy laws, particularly in Montana
  • Explore best practices for employers regarding applicant privacy and data protection
  • Learn about the legal ramifications of requiring social media passwords during hiring
  • Investigate the role of civil rights organizations in shaping employment policies
USEFUL FOR

Human resources professionals, legal advisors, job applicants concerned about privacy, and anyone interested in the intersection of employment practices and personal rights.

  • #31
negitron said:
Those are not the same thing. At all. Not even close.

At this point, I should point out that I do think it was a stupid idea, certainly not effective in any real sense and I'm glad they changed their minds. However, I still contend that it was neither illegal nor meriting of a lawsuit (don't get me started on tort law reform).
There is no law against asking for passwords at this time, so no, it's not illegal. I think a lawsuit is needed to make a ruling on the legality though.

Surely finding the user name and reading posts is sufficient, anything else is an invasion of privacy and could be horrible abused.

Do we give over our bank account information so they can check on purchases and donations? Maybe I want to work for Ford, but they discover I bought a Toyota?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
On what grounds would you file such a lawsuit?
 
  • #33
negitron said:
On what grounds would you file such a lawsuit?
If that was to me, I'm not a lawyer, but under the current right to privacy laws I'm sure it would be a lawsuit that would be considered. My boss couldn't even ask me why I was going out on disability. I was going out on full pay for 8 weeks, and I was not required to tell him the reason. That was between me and human resources. Only my case manager can know. It's that private and sensitive. I'm only required to tell him I have been approved to go out on full pay and will be back on such date. He can't ask me anything.
 
  • #34
Evo said:
Surely finding the user name and reading posts is sufficient, anything else is an invasion of privacy and could be horrible abused.
That was their reasoning, they can ask you your name and check criminal and credit records. Their logic was that a username is something like an alias and you are required to give 'other names' in an application. The password was because details on things liked linkedin are only available when logged on.

Technicaly it would have been better to have you make the HR dept a contact/friend and I'm sure that sort of thing will be added to professional
networking sites in the future. This was just unfortunate that a small town admin peon became the test case.

Would it have been acceptable as part of a background check for a security clearance for instance?
 
  • #35
negitron said:
Those are not the same thing. At all. Not even close.

At this point, I should point out that I do think it was a stupid idea, certainly not effective in any real sense and I'm glad they changed their minds. However, I still contend that it was neither illegal nor meriting of a lawsuit (don't get me started on tort law reform).
To give someone a key to your home or a password for an account is to give them permission to access these things as they see fit. Due to your right to privacy no one can require these things unless they have a legal and legitimate reason to have access (ie, your landlord having a key to your apartment, a police officer with a warrant or probable cause). You might say that an employer is only making a request and that if you refuse then they do not have to give you a job. This is called coercion. Not even a law enforcement officer is allowed to coerce a person into giving up their right to privacy. It is illegal.


Evo said:
There is no law against asking for passwords at this time, so no, it's not illegal. I think a lawsuit is needed to make a ruling on the legality though.

Surely finding the user name and reading posts is sufficient, anything else is an invasion of privacy and could be horrible abused.

Do we give over our bank account information so they can check on purchases and donations? Maybe I want to work for Ford, but they discover I bought a Toyota?

Again, lack of a specific law means nothing. If it mattered then the courts would not be able to decide in your favour because they only have the power to enforce and interpret existing law. If lack of a specific law means that it is not illegal then the only remedy is legislation to enact a law, the courts couldn't help you.


Edit: When I worked at the college NO ONE was allowed to ask me for my logon information even though it was for a network privately owned by my employers. They still had admin privledges that allowed them to access my account anyway but they could not at all ask for my password. The only instance was when IT set up or reset my account at which point I would be asked to change my password immediately.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Evo said:
If that was to me, I'm not a lawyer, but under the current right to privacy laws I'm sure it would be a lawsuit that would be considered.

No one was forced to provide the information, nor was it obtained without the applicant's permission, so privacy isn't an issue here. As I noted previously, the applicant was free to decline to provide it and the city was free to decline to hire them.
 
  • #37
negitron said:
No one was forced to provide the information, nor was it obtained without the applicant's permission, so privacy isn't an issue here. As I noted previously, the applicant was free to decline to provide it and the city was free to decline to hire them.

How about naked driver's license photos? Privacy isn't an issue, you give your permission and you are free not to supply them - and are free not to drive.
 
  • #38
TheStatutoryApe said:
You might say that an employer is only making a request and that if you refuse then they do not have to give you a job. This is called coercion.

No, it is not. Coercion only occurs when a person is forced to involuntarily perform an action, such as provide information. No such condition exists here.
 
  • #39
negitron said:
No one was forced to provide the information, nor was it obtained without the applicant's permission, so privacy isn't an issue here. As I noted previously, the applicant was free to decline to provide it and the city was free to decline to hire them.
If it's proved that the applicant provided the information under duress, or was led to believe that they were legally required to divulge such information...big lawsuit.
 
  • #40
negitron said:
No, it is not. Coercion only occurs when a person is forced to involuntarily perform an action, such as provide information. No such condition exists here.
"You want a job? Well then we need access to your private accounts or we won't hire you." If someone requests information which they have no right to request as a basis for hire that is called coercion.
 
  • #41
Evo said:
If it's proved that the applicant provided the information under duress, or was led to believe that they were legally required to divulge such information...big lawsuit.

Do we have some evidence that this was the case?
 
  • #42
negitron said:
Do we have some evidence that this was the case?
That will be yet to be seen if anyone dares to file suit in such a small town.
 
  • #43
negitron said:
No one was forced to provide the information, nor was it obtained without the applicant's permission, so privacy isn't an issue here. As I noted previously, the applicant was free to decline to provide it and the city was free to decline to hire them.

Either you give up the job that you enjoy and are well-suited for, or you have no right to privacy? Forcing people to make that choice is coercion.
 
  • #44
negitron said:
Uh, no. Don't put words in my mouth; if you don't understand my point, just ask me to explain it to you.

Kindly explain why this:

You have a right not to provide this information and they have a right not to hire you. Simple.

does not apply to overwork or sexual abuse if the waiver states that they will occur.
 
  • #45
Evo said:
My boss couldn't even ask me why I was going out on disability. I was going out on full pay for 8 weeks, and I was not required to tell him the reason. That was between me and human resources. Only my case manager can know. It's that private and sensitive. I'm only required to tell him I have been approved to go out on full pay and will be back on such date. He can't ask me anything.

I hope whatever it is it's not too serious and you're feeling better.

To my mind, the interesting question has to do with the terms of service of these services. I'm sure Facebook is typical when they say, "6. You will not share your password, let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account." So, effectively, they are asking prospective employers to violate the terms of their accounts with these social networking sites.

Carried one notch further, that would argue that since the only way an applicant could be considered would be not to have such accounts, they are effectively banning participation on such sites. That surely has interesting legal implications.
 
  • #46
Well the fact that the ACLU was getting involved within a week suggests that there's probably the smell of a lawsuit there.
 
  • #47
Vanadium 50 said:
I hope whatever it is it's not too serious and you're feeling better.
Thanks, just a routine elective operation, and I am recovering from the surgery.
 
  • #48
Just give them the information.

Username : Alfi
Password : **************

How would they know if you made a slight error?
 
  • #49
I have never been stingy with my passwords, giving them to total strangers who never even asked for them. As you may recall, this turned out to be a good thing when that Nigerian princess put $20,000,000 into my checking account. However, I will not give out my PF password for it is too precious.
 
  • #50
Well I'm glad I'm not applying for a job there. After they see this thread, ... no job for me. :frown:
 

Similar threads

How to make your ideas reach people?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Can You Thrive Without Facebook or Other Social Networks?
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
Social network for user-generated data
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Implicit Web Based Social Networks on Web Forums
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Praise My feedback, one month and half experience in PF so far
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Courses Help me to determine the better course
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Sticky
Announcement Easy ways you can support Physics Forums
  • · Replies 97 ·
4
Replies
97
Views
50K
Undergrad Has anyone read "Willful Ignorance" by Herbert Weisberg?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Music Listening to Corelli's Christmas Music for the Holidays
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Fixing Strange WIFI Problem: ADSL Connection & WIFI Antenna Box Explained
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K