UPDATED City of Bozeman asks for online passwords for job applicant background checks

This entry is part 1 of 18 in the series Bozeman Privacy Fiasco

A story from local CBS affil­i­ate KBZK is gen­er­at­ing a lit­tle ire this morn­ing. It seems a con­cerned and anony­mous e-mailer pointed out to the news sta­tion that the City of Bozeman, on its crim­i­nal back­ground search con­sent form, asks appli­cants to list their per­sonal and busi­ness Web sites, Web pages and any mem­ber­ships to online social groups or chat rooms. This includes pro­vid­ing the city with user­names and pass­words, pre­sum­ably so city employ­ees can log in and check to make sure you’re morally acceptable.

The story aired at 10 p.m. It may have aired at 5:30 p.m. too, but I wasn’t watch­ing the new then. The point it, it’s spread­ing a bit on Twitter this morn­ing and it was linked on Boing Boing last night.

UPDATE: Slashdot, Read/Write Web, and sev­eral other sites have picked up on the story too. There’s some lively com­men­tary on all sites con­cerned, to say the least.

I went back to the KBZK site and watched the “uncut” ver­sion of the inter­view a reporter did with city attor­ney Greg Sullivan. I tran­scribed most of what Sullivan had to say. It’s pasted below.

Sullivan: “The city does that for sev­eral rea­sons. The pri­mary rea­son is hat all the posi­tions that the city hires and all the employ­ees that we have, we view their work for the city as a pub­lic trust to uphold the public’s trust in what we do every day.

“So we have posi­tions rang­ing from fire and police, which require peo­ple of high integrity to have those posi­tions, all the way down to life­guards and the folks that work at city hall here. So we do those types of inves­ti­ga­tions to make sure that the peo­ple that we have have the high­est moral char­ac­ter and are a good fit for the city.”

At this point, Sullivan points out that there are city employ­ees who were hired before the city began ask­ing for social net­work­ing infor­ma­tion on its crim­i­nal back­ground check waiver. From what he under­stands, he said, the city began ask­ing for that infor­ma­tion three or four years ago, “as soon as those social net­work­ing sites became popular.”

The reporter reads the state constitution’s right to pri­vacy clause and asks Sullivan to respond.

“The right of pri­vacy applies to every sin­gle per­son in their daily lives in regard to state action in Montana. It’s one of the most impor­tant rights that we as indi­vid­u­als have. The city takes uphold­ing those pri­vacy rights incred­i­bly seriously.

“So what we’re look­ing at here is a bal­ance to that right to pri­vacy with the needs that the city has to ensure that the employ­ees that are brought on and that work for the city have the high level of integrity and will pro­tect that pub­lic trust.

“What we’re doing is, essen­tially, we’re bal­anc­ing the individual’s right of pri­vacy with the need for the city to ensure that we have the best employ­ees we can. In ensur­ing the pri­vacy, we do that by the, back­ground checks are one tool that we use, along with ref­er­ence checks, the appli­ca­tion itself, and some other things.

“That tool that we use [social net­work checks] only occurs when a pro­vi­sional job offer is made. So we don’t do those inves­ti­ga­tions on the social net­work­ing sites at the begin­ning of the process, but only once we’ve gone through the entire inter­view process. We get to a point where they’re one of the final can­di­dates, and we make a pro­vi­sional job offer. Then we do that back­ground check.

“The other impor­tant thing here is that prior to doing that actual inves­ti­ga­tion, we make sure that that per­son knows that we’re about to do that. And then they know­ingly will con­sent to us doing search.”

The reporter notes that the anony­mous e-mail that brought this to the station’s atten­tion was no so much con­cerned about giv­ing the city the addresses of social net­work­ing pro­files. Instead, that per­son was more con­cerned about giv­ing the city the user­names and pass­words. Sullivan responds:

“In order for us to get access to the cho­sen candidate’s infor­ma­tion, we need to be able to view their page. And so that’s the way we’ve cho­sen to go about doing it. As far as we know, there’s no other way to get into their spe­cific Facebook page.

“One thing that’s impor­tant, too, is that once we ask for that pass­word and we do the review, that pass­word is pro­tected. We don’t share that pass­word with any­body. We keep it in a secure per­son­nel file. And it never goes any­where beyond that. So it’s kept pri­vate. We ensure that in this bal­anc­ing of the pub­lic trust with our employ­ees and the person’s pri­vacy inter­est, we make sure that every step of the way we’re cog­nizant of pro­tect­ing the privacy.

“One thing that’s impor­tant for peo­ple to under­stand about what we look for is that none of the things that the fed­eral con­sti­tu­tion or the state con­sti­tu­tion lists as pro­tected things, we don’t use those, we won’t gather infor­ma­tion based on the person’s race, their age, their mar­i­tal sta­tus, things like that. We don’t use those in our hir­ing deci­sions. What we’re look­ing for are very spe­cific things that go toward that person’s char­ac­ter and their abil­ity to uphold the pub­lic trust. It’s impor­tant for the pub­lic to under­stand, we’re look­ing for very spe­cific infor­ma­tion, not putting out this broad brush stroke of try­ing to find out all sorts of infor­ma­tion about this per­son that we’re not able to use or shouldn’t use in the hir­ing process.”

Sullivan said that he had not heard of any employee get­ting that far into the appli­ca­tion and inter­view process and then reject­ing the pro­vi­sional job offer because the city asked for his or her passwords.

He also said the city uses its inves­ti­ga­tions into a person’s social net­work­ing sites as “a source of char­ac­ter judge­ment” and he went on to look at only one exam­ple, police offi­cer candidates:

“If a can­di­date is show­ing things in their past that were evi­dence of crim­i­nal behav­ior that would raise flags with us about whether that police offi­cer would be a good can­di­date to pro­tect the City of Bozeman.”

“We’ve designed this pro­gram to make sure that we pro­tect people’s pri­vacy, that they have knowl­edge that we’re doing these types of searches, and that we bal­ance that with this pub­lic trust.”

On a semi-legal note here, I’d like to point out that MySpace and Facebook, just to name two, expressly for­bid you from reveal­ing your pass­word to any third party in their terms of ser­vice. By turn­ing over this infor­ma­tion, you’re vio­lat­ing those sites’ TOS, and your account could be suspended.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Diigo
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Posterous
  • LinkedIn
  • Ping.fm
  • Tumblr
This entry was posted in Ethics, Social Networking and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • noneofyourbusiness
    edit: The City: "We hire only the very best liars."
  • noneofyourbusiness
    I think asking for your home door key and going through your drawers should also be part of the process. And maybe calling up all your ex's. They should install camera's in "some" bars too, just in case you show up.
  • Kiwi
    I work for the City of Bozeman for a couple years and though it is a minor point, Sullivan is full of b.s. when he claims the city has done this for years. They have not. This is quite recent. I wanted to cry when I found out they started this practice. This is a major invasion of privacy and has NOTHING to do with finding upstanding employees. That's what the criminal background check and interview are supposed to accomplish. Everything you need to know about that person can be gathered from that process (as it also includes contacting references and former employers). And if you can't find a good employee from that process, then something is terribly wrong with your interview process.
  • I had to remove the Poll Daddy poll from the bottom of the post. It wasn't working. Hopefully it works here. [polldaddy 1717117 http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/1717117/ polldaddy]
  • Nik
    They keep my password in a "secure" file? Really?! The only secure place I want my social networking password is in my noggin. This is totally crossing the line. I applied for a City postion and it was the longest application process I've ever been through--and I didn't even get to the "give me your social networking address and password" phase . . . this is really not OK.
  • I'm actually kind of dumbstruck by the city's policy. Why couldn't they simply require you to add them as a friend, and then look at your profile the same way that everyone else sees it?
blog comments powered by Disqus