I spotted this on Techdirt ...
The city of Bozeman, Montana is getting serious about digging up potential dirt on its future employees. As part of the application form, you have to sign a waiver allowing city officials to probe into: "background, references, character, past employment, education, credit history, criminal or police records." Okay, nothing particularly unusual there.But the the form goes on to require you to: "list any and all, current personal or business websites, 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.,"
Oh and did we forget to mention? Also all your login details and passwords. Hmmmmm.
- Isn't it almost always government agencies who leave the unencrypted laptop on the bus with all the details anyone would need to pull off a full-scale identity theft on you?
- Would you be happy to provide all that access to, say ... your mother?
- Now that web users are so interconnected through social networking sites, wouldn't there be a problem in terms of the privacy of all of my contacts? People link with me on Linkedin on the strict understanding that I'm not going to provide their details to anyone else without their explicit permission.
This is a very thin line and I'm not sure where it should be drawn. In Singapore, where there are state-monitored CCTV cameras everywhere, there is little or no crime and the line taken is, "I have nothing to fear because I have nothing to hide." But what if the good Burghers of Bozeman started noticing a trend toward hiring only devout followers of a certain Belief? We might note that the Mayor and the Aldermen [or whatever] were staunch followers of this Belief and appeared to be populating the City Hall with like-minded folk. Would that be okay? Or how about if we noticed that blue-eyed, blonde, caucasian people of a certain minimum height were the only ethnic group ever hired by City Hall? [I love the line in Willy deVille's Southern Politician: "Cos his brother, the sheriff, is head of the Klan ... "]
The reason this kind of thing is not a good idea is that it is simply too open to the operation of unconscious bias. We've all seen the surveys about facial hair, heavyset candidates and Grace Kelly look-alikes. We are human; present us with too little information and we will make bad choices. Present us with too much information, or information that is inappropriate to our decision-making process, and I wonder what kind of choices we'll make?
RSS Readers may need to click through to the post
UPDATE: Mr Murph informs us that the rocket scientists at Bozeman have now backed down on this stipulation; but not before we got a bunch of very thought-provoking and hilarious comments – treat yourself to a little read below.


20 comments:
Interesting. I wouldn't comply for the very reasons you stated above. Hope this finds you well. Planning another Italy holiday any time soon? I still remember the one you posted about a year or so ago.
Hi Lisa and thanks for the comment. God memory! And yes, we booked to return to the same spot - before we finished our holiday last year. Heaven on a shoestring, hanging off the side of a mountain.
Great post, Rowan. I think you've covered the issues nicely. We can only hope that the person in Bozeman and the people that approved this procedure are reading all the coverage and thinking, "Wow. Maybe that wasn't such a hot idea."
Thank you Mr B, we can but hope.
As many at the article itself pointed out, sharing your password is TOS violation for most social networking sites. Beyond the privacy of my personal contacts, though, I feel I have the right to protect my own privacy. I purposely set my profiles so they could not be viewed by people who are not friends, and further broke down who could see what on my profiles. I did this for a reason. I am responsible for how I present myself outwardly--to employers, to acquaintances--but the closer I am to someone, I feel like the more I should be able to be myself. If I have to fear that I can't even be myself and act in a way I see fitting from the comfort of my own home, in a private setting where only a handful of people see what I'm doing and no one else will see what I'm doing, then I fail to see why it should be the concern of my employer. And until I commit a fireable public indiscretion, you have no right to go digging around in my personal life looking for something to hold against me.
Personally, I wouldn't trust any employer who wanted this information. Not only do they not trust me, but they could easily use the information found for blackmail or to use against me as a threat. Not to mention they could make unauthorized changes to my profile. I can only assume that someone who would put so little faith in their employees can not be trusted themselves.
Katie - Well said! (Holds lighter in the air, yelling "More! More!")
I have commented along these lines before... someone will sue.
Actually amazing that no-one in the HR world thoughr to speak to a lawyer before asking for this but....
http://www.appscout.com/2009/06/bozeman_mt_ditches_username_pa.php
Now that didn't take too long dod it?
Kevin - sounds like a bit of a "Shucks, ya caught us, still it was worth a try" climbdown ... I'm sure the good citizens of Bozeman must sleep soundly in their beds at night knowing that their elected leaders have such a firm grasp on what's acceptable in the reality-based community.
You might as well submit to a search of your home and car and a forensic examination of your home computer system, and of course a DNA profile analysis.
I sort of heard about this story in the ether, but no details. Thanks for posting. Great to see that such an overreaching policy was squashed via pressure.
Great way to attract the best and the brightest from Gen Y and younger, wasn't it?
My blog is fairly benign, but I still prefer to remain anonymous to most. If I was requested to tell a potential employer about my "website" I would probably not. I might still go ahead with the application process if I thought I was right for the job, but would have it hanging over my head that I did not disclose my little labor of love. Potential firing offense for not being fully compliant with the application process, I suppose. Fug em.
But, I guess, once they read it, they would love it like the rest of the world, eh?
Keep up the good work Rowan! E.
Amateurs! They forgot the following:
- A copy of every key you own, labelled to indicate what it opens
- A copy of every key everyone in your family owns, labelled to indicate what it opens
- Your mobile phone
- A DNA sample from all your sexual partners, ever
- A video of all your sexual activities, ever
- Detailed notes on your sexual fantasies, differentiating between those that you would enact given the chance and those that even you consider too obscene to enact
- A notarised copy of your voting history
- A list of all the people about whom you have ever said: "I could kill that bastard!"
- Details of your religious beliefs
- Details (dates, times, circumstances) of every time you have ever exclaimed "God damn it!" or "Jesus Christ!"
- A list of every publication you have ever read
- A list of every country you have ever visited
- The names, dates of birth, social security numbers and contact details of all your friends
- The names, dates of birth, social security numbers and contact details of all your enemies
RobJ - Personally, I don't think it's too much to allow them to download chunks of your brain down into their server farm. I have a head full of useless knowledge, handing that over would be the least that I could do!
Eclecticity - When authoring application forms for employers, I always suggest that they include the phrase "We reserve the right to shoot you out of the building with a giant catapult" in the truth/complicance section. For some reason, they always take it out. No imagination these people. Fug, as you say, em.
The Great Nobby - I can see why they call you "Great" Mr Nobby. Stunning!
Have these people ever heard of the Constitution? The Bill of Rights? The Declaration of Independence? The basic rights that our founding fathers had in mind...
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom of speech. Freedom of assembly.
The first amendment of the constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now perhaps this is not a "law", but it appears to infringe on first amendment rights of free speech and free assembly. The government is basically saying that they will decide who they will hire based on what people say/post on a website or who their "friends" are on a website. Hello... unconsititutional!
Apparently common sense is no longer common.
At least they backed down, but it would be interesting to know what they will do with the information they already collected. If I were an applicant that gave that info and didn't get the job, I would be calling my attorney.
Anonymous - We meet again! I agree, "Common sense" has got to be one of the biggest misnomers ever. Apparently in backing down, they trotted out the usual "sex offenders" red herring, although I would have thought that the register of sex offenders would probably have been a more informative place to look ...
The requirement was not unconstitutional, because as you point out, the amendment pertains only to Congress making a law. This is neither about Congress or laws. It's a job application.
If there was discrimination based on things such as religious belief or sexual orientation going on, then yes that would be a violation of labor laws, but not the Constitution.
I believe the official word is that no one was turned away because of the information provided, if that puts your mind a little more at ease.
Newsy just today ran a video about the requirement and the backlash, including Facebook's response when they heard about the violation of their TOS. I imagine it was a bad day at the office when the government got a call from Facebook telling them they were out of line. =P
Daniel - as you say, constitution, schmonstitution, the real problem here is being given out to by The Zuckerberg! Once again, one has to ask – what were they thinking?
You know, they forgot to ask onecrucial question of their would-be employees:
"Errr -Do you like us? *hopeful smile*"
Your Royal Frostiness - I think a lot of employers are forgetting to ask that question these days. As an employer, you can ram all kinds of unpleasantness down people's throats - just don't expect to command their loyalty or even all of their attention if that's how you behave. Employees have become quite skilled at smiling from the teeth out and agreeing to swallow just about anything - until the second they don't have to any more, in which case they RUN out of the building, leaving that employer with all kinds of transitional difficulties. Basic human decencies may cost a few more bucks, but they pay off in the end.
If there was discrimination based on things such as religious belief or sexual orientation going on, then yes that would be a violation of labor laws, but not the Constitution.
Post a Comment