http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15465
Here's the form: http://www.bozeman.net/bozeman/humanResource/ … MASTER.pdf
Here's the form: http://www.bozeman.net/bozeman/humanResource/ … MASTER.pdf
that's terrible.
yay bozeman!
that's...weird...
Weird doesn't seem even close to the right word.
There's a poll on the site linked in the dailytech article:
http://montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.a … =menu227_3
There's a poll on the site linked in the dailytech article:
http://montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.a … =menu227_3
I’m for it - important for City to judge applicant’s character 1%
I’m against it - it’s an invasion of privacy 98%
I don’t care 1%
they reversed this shit.
I heard about this. Obvious 4th amendment violation. They'll get sued... and lose.
i don't think it's a 4th amendment violation. they have no duty to provide people with jobs. as long as the comply with eeo laws, they're fine.
You can't deny a person a job because they refuse to allow you to violate their right to personal privacy outside of the office. just like you can't fire someone for exercising their first amendment rights outside of the office. Of course there are exceptions to this... but remember when coke fired an employee for publicly stating they liked pepsi?
It's a terrible violation of a persons personal rights and an absolute form of discrimination.
There's no way this would hold up in court.
It's a terrible violation of a persons personal rights and an absolute form of discrimination.
There's no way this would hold up in court.
it's not a form of discrimination recognized by eeo laws.
when filling out a job application, you are necessarily and voluntarily disclosing personal information.
if asking for website credentials is discriminatory, perhaps asking a question like "what are your three poorest traits?" is also discriminatory.
eeo laws even allow for someone to be hired based on race, religion, or gender, if it is relevant to job performance.
i think that a person's social reputation is relevant for a public job. that's how a court would uphold it.
when filling out a job application, you are necessarily and voluntarily disclosing personal information.
if asking for website credentials is discriminatory, perhaps asking a question like "what are your three poorest traits?" is also discriminatory.
eeo laws even allow for someone to be hired based on race, religion, or gender, if it is relevant to job performance.
i think that a person's social reputation is relevant for a public job. that's how a court would uphold it.
The linked article mentioned: "City officials say no applicants elected to refuse to turn over social networking information and end their application process." So it seems clear that the applicants (to reiterate: those who applied) did not really have an issue with disclosing their privacy on social sites, at least not more than the opportunity to get a job.
I don't disagree that organization's position is that they need to determine the applicant's social reputation, that much is clear in the application. I also don't disagree that there was no specific case of discrimination. The problem is that it necessitates the disclosure of credentials for accounts that contain both public and private information.
I'm glad that as a requirement to investing, brokers don't require my password to my bank account. I'm also glad jobs don't do a background check by necessitating that I give my credentials of my mobile phone account, to rummage through my call logs.
In the two above hypothetical situations I am arguing that there is no need to have a purpose for the necessity by the broker or the job, because the issue is that it violates privacy, not whether the end is relevant to the court.
If it were to happen to me and I was an applicant who refused to put that information down and brought things up in court I would argue foremost that there are other methods of achieving a qualifying perspective of the applicants social reputation. Methods that do not require private disclosure, and then I would cite the State Constitution.
I think that's plenty of legal theater. Lastly here's a letter about the reversal of the requirement:
I don't disagree that organization's position is that they need to determine the applicant's social reputation, that much is clear in the application. I also don't disagree that there was no specific case of discrimination. The problem is that it necessitates the disclosure of credentials for accounts that contain both public and private information.
I'm glad that as a requirement to investing, brokers don't require my password to my bank account. I'm also glad jobs don't do a background check by necessitating that I give my credentials of my mobile phone account, to rummage through my call logs.
In the two above hypothetical situations I am arguing that there is no need to have a purpose for the necessity by the broker or the job, because the issue is that it violates privacy, not whether the end is relevant to the court.
If it were to happen to me and I was an applicant who refused to put that information down and brought things up in court I would argue foremost that there are other methods of achieving a qualifying perspective of the applicants social reputation. Methods that do not require private disclosure, and then I would cite the State Constitution.
Montana Constitution
AS ADOPTED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION MARCH 22, 1972
AND AS RATIFIED BY THE PEOPLE, JUNE 6, 1972, REFERENDUM NO. 68
Section 10. Right of privacy. The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.
I think that's plenty of legal theater. Lastly here's a letter about the reversal of the requirement:
www.bozeman.net/bozeman/upcoming%20events/Background%20Check%20Press%20Release%20June%2019%202009.pdf
> In the two above hypothetical situations I am arguing that there is no need to have a purpose for the necessity by the broker or the job, because the issue is that it violates privacy, not whether the end is relevant to the court.
so you're saying that it's illegal for a broker to require that one provides a bank account password in order to begin business with the broker? i assure you that the broker can require anything he or she wishes, regardless of "violations of privacy." if the broker wishes, he or she can (legally) deny you services if you fail to provide every single tax return and bank statement you've ever received.
> If it were to happen to me and I was an applicant who refused to put that information down and brought things up in court I would argue foremost that there are other methods of achieving a qualifying perspective of the applicants social reputation.
but these other methods likely "violate privacy" in some other respects as well.
> Methods that do not require private disclosure, and then I would cite the State Constitution. I think that's plenty of legal theater.
i don't think that clause in the montana constitution applies in the purported manner. i believe it protects citizens' privacy from arbitrary state actions. when you willingly cross the divide from private citizen to potential public servant, you may have to forfeit some privacy to obtain the job, yet you still maintain your rights. i believe every member of the cabinet that has gone through confirmation hearings has experienced this first-hand. in the application process, you may volunteer information in order to help yourself get the job. however, at any point, the state may not use state authority to violate your privacy.
so you're saying that it's illegal for a broker to require that one provides a bank account password in order to begin business with the broker? i assure you that the broker can require anything he or she wishes, regardless of "violations of privacy." if the broker wishes, he or she can (legally) deny you services if you fail to provide every single tax return and bank statement you've ever received.
> If it were to happen to me and I was an applicant who refused to put that information down and brought things up in court I would argue foremost that there are other methods of achieving a qualifying perspective of the applicants social reputation.
but these other methods likely "violate privacy" in some other respects as well.
> Methods that do not require private disclosure, and then I would cite the State Constitution. I think that's plenty of legal theater.
i don't think that clause in the montana constitution applies in the purported manner. i believe it protects citizens' privacy from arbitrary state actions. when you willingly cross the divide from private citizen to potential public servant, you may have to forfeit some privacy to obtain the job, yet you still maintain your rights. i believe every member of the cabinet that has gone through confirmation hearings has experienced this first-hand. in the application process, you may volunteer information in order to help yourself get the job. however, at any point, the state may not use state authority to violate your privacy.
> so you're saying that it's illegal for a broker to require that one provides a bank account password in order to begin business with the broker? i assure you that the broker can require anything he or she wishes, regardless of "violations of privacy." if the broker wishes, he or she can (legally) deny you services if you fail to provide every single tax return and bank statement you've ever received.
I'm not saying that it is illegal, I'm just happy services, jobs, and people that require me to forfeit my privacy (in ways similar to the topic of this thread) don't exist at every turn in society.
> but these other methods likely "violate privacy" in some other respects as well.
Why can't they have full access to the applicant's public profiles by other means?
I am premature with the State Constitution argument. I'm not sure how it relates to organizations and agreements between people as a means of defense of rights, or the exact protections.
I'm not saying that it is illegal, I'm just happy services, jobs, and people that require me to forfeit my privacy (in ways similar to the topic of this thread) don't exist at every turn in society.
> but these other methods likely "violate privacy" in some other respects as well.
Why can't they have full access to the applicant's public profiles by other means?
I am premature with the State Constitution argument. I'm not sure how it relates to organizations and agreements between people as a means of defense of rights, or the exact protections.
Well here's another legal cess pool.
You can't legally ask someones sexual orientation in an interview. But, that may appear on those sites. Thus a problem with the implicit request.
I mean seriously... there is no chance their legal department reviewed this before HR went ahead with it.
You can't legally ask someones sexual orientation in an interview. But, that may appear on those sites. Thus a problem with the implicit request.
I mean seriously... there is no chance their legal department reviewed this before HR went ahead with it.
I think it's odd they ask for *passwords*, why would they need passwords? They can just view your public profile?
It would be like asking for your email password or PIN code ...
It would be like asking for your email password or PIN code ...
This was the result of an idiot being given the opportunity to do something stupid. Which is surprising for a city / state / federal worker. Usually they are kept from being able to do ANYTHING at all to prevent this sort of thing.
I love it when ttfers debate! :D
I like it when nny debates. He and I have usually the same thing to say, so I feel like I'm also debating without having to do anything.
dp> I'm not saying that it is illegal, I'm just happy services, jobs, and people that require me to forfeit my privacy (in ways similar to the topic of this thread) don't exist at every turn in society.
me too.
dp> Why can't they have full access to the applicant's public profiles by other means?
good question. the hiring committee should be able to observe an applicant's public reputation just as easily as any other member of the public. :)
nny> You can't legally ask someones sexual orientation in an interview.
i think someone hiring may ask that question if it is relevant. for example, if planned parenthood were hiring a staff member to help female patients directly, they may require a heterosexual female for the position. i'm not certain of this, but it seems likely based on the case law i've seen in the past.
nny> Which is surprising for a city / state / federal worker.
we're a tiny town with a poor city government. it didn't surprise me. :)
me too.
dp> Why can't they have full access to the applicant's public profiles by other means?
good question. the hiring committee should be able to observe an applicant's public reputation just as easily as any other member of the public. :)
nny> You can't legally ask someones sexual orientation in an interview.
i think someone hiring may ask that question if it is relevant. for example, if planned parenthood were hiring a staff member to help female patients directly, they may require a heterosexual female for the position. i'm not certain of this, but it seems likely based on the case law i've seen in the past.
nny> Which is surprising for a city / state / federal worker.
we're a tiny town with a poor city government. it didn't surprise me. :)
blatant deescalation? :-o
what was deescalated?
aren't they going to just create profiles on social networking sites and require applicants to add that profile as a friend so they can view the applicants profile?
i thought i heard that was an option they were going to pursue.
anyways, if the company wants to check out your social networking profiles and the like thats fine and dandy but when it comes to denying or giving a person a job based on what they see on those sites should all depend on what job the person is applying for. if the job is a very public oriented one and there are pictures and statements about being passed out drunk and what not, the company should be able to deny the person the job.
i thought i heard that was an option they were going to pursue.
anyways, if the company wants to check out your social networking profiles and the like thats fine and dandy but when it comes to denying or giving a person a job based on what they see on those sites should all depend on what job the person is applying for. if the job is a very public oriented one and there are pictures and statements about being passed out drunk and what not, the company should be able to deny the person the job.