Last word on Bozeman privacy fiasco

The City of Bozeman privacy fiasco is over. Last week -- after a media storm that brought a sledgehammer of bad publicity down on the city -- Bozeman suspended its policy of asking job candidates for Web usernames and passwords on its background check form. At its regular meeting Monday, the city commission formally terminated the policy.

In an editorial on Thursday, the Bozeman Daily Chronicle praised the city for admitting its mistake and correcting it. "The policy was a bad one, no doubt about it," the newspaper wrote. "We get it, and our elected officials get it. Now let's move on. Certainly, there are more important issues facing this community."

I hang on that last sentence every time I read the editorial. More important issues facing the Bozeman area? Sure:

• A block of downtown remains in ruins after a gas explosion in March. No one's sure who to blame. Many downtown property owners were underinsured. People are criticizing the gas company's response. A handful of people lost their homes. Bozeman's downtown may never recover.
• Some residents are concerned about the appearance of gravel pits in the county, which have been used to support the area's -- until recently -- booming growth. The pits degrade property values and require relatively little government oversight.
• The city bought a historical mansion for millions of dollars and is spending more money to restore it, citing some vague plan for renting it out for private and public events.
• The local housing market is crashing and, along with it, the local construction industry. The bubble-burst is revealing just how hollow the area's economy has been during the recent boom times.

Surely there are crime, agricultural, environmental, wildlife and outlying community issues too, though I don't know enough to mention them.

The fact that only two residents came to the city commission meeting to speak about the privacy fiasco might also be an indicator of how (un)important the issue was to the city. Oh, and only one of those speakers stayed on topic, according to the Chronicle's report.

What happened? Thousands of people railed against the policy from Wednesday night through Monday, yet only two people came out to speak?

It's possible the issue was overhyped. But I don't think you can put too much hype on an illegal policy enacted by taxpayer-funded city employees. Actions like that need to be exposed to the cold air of public opinion, enough cold air that the actions shrivel, turn brown and die.

No, hype was not the problem. The problem was that this was really only an issue for the people who use computers and social networking regularly. This was a Web issue. Regular citizens, who might not spend as much time online as the rest of us, weren't as concerned. "Well, I don't use those sites, so what do I care?" one of these people might say.

And it does seem like a small matter, especially to the offline crowd, until you realize that small violations of our rights like this can lead to larger violations later. The social networking password thing stayed on that city form for several years before someone found it invasive enough to mention it to the local news media. If the anonymous tipster had decided not to send that e-mail, the policy would still be in effect today.

And when the city can get away with putting an illegal policy on one form -- moreover, a policy that most people don't even know is illegal -- then what will stop them from doing it again, from finding another way to invade citizens' privacy?

Sure, this particular policy was enacted by people who were ignorant of the big picture, people unaware of how that particular column on a city form violated law and abstracter principles that a lot of people think are vital to privacy and liberty.

Sure, the city form was probably written by people who thought they were doing the best thing for the community. I can understand. After all, they must have reasoned, people can be very different online than in person, and it would be good to get a glimpse of that online life to make sure the candidate is not secretly a mass murdering, gay-hating child molester who happens to post items depicting those lifestyle choices to their Facebook profile.

What's that you say? That sort of information is mostly password-protected? Well, let's just ask for the passwords. If they really want the job, they'll give up the information, right? Otherwise, they must have something to hide, and that's not the kind of person we want working for Bozeman anyhow.

Privacy and rights violations start innocently enough, but once you get away with something, you often try to get away with it again, or get away with something worse. That kind of escalation can be dangerous, especially when it happens in government.

The city now says that the password field on the background check form was not required. Yet the form doesn't say which fields are optional and which ones are required. It makes no distinction. By that logic, all forms on the field are optional, and by extension, the whole form is optional.

But of course, it's not really optional, is it? Law requires that public employees go through a background check, so we must work our logic backward. If the check is required, then the form is required; and since no field on the form is indicated to be optional, then all fields must be required. Hence, the city was requiring people to give up their online passwords.

Even without the laws requiring background checks, the form would still be required, at least in the mind of the applicant. If a potential employer gives you a form to fill out and you don't, that makes a statement, doesn't it? In fact, withholding information during a job interview process casts doubt on the applicant and decreases his chances for getting the job.

So Bozeman job applicants, probably desperate for a job in these harder than normal times, filled out whatever forms the city put in front of them, thinking it better to comply than to be eliminated from consideration. That seems like extortion to me, and it seems like something we can't just move on from.

In fact, I would ask the local media and the City of Bozeman itself to begin an in-depth review of every city document to ensure that the city isn't asking inappropriate questions on any other forms. This situation has shown us that without public oversight, either by concerned citizens or the media or the blogosphere, governments will step over the line, purposefully or not. We need to watch out. Let's start now.

Related posts:

1. Aggregated media coverage of Bozeman privacy fiasco
2. Late afternoon Bozeman fiasco update
3. E-mails to City of Bozeman about privacy fiasco not yet available to the public
4. Bozeman backtracks on privacy matters
5. Not quite done with Bozeman yet