PDA

View Full Version : On the same lines of be careful what you say online



Brian Ashton
06-20-2009, 11:11 PM
The government of Boseman Montana had to retract a policy they apparently have had for a few years. That was, to demand as a condition of acceptance, people who were offered a job had to disclose their on line activities complete with user names and passwords. How far they went in snooping will never be known. They've backed off of the policy as a result of massive public pressure but are refusing to destroy all the records they've collected over the years. I suspect this sort of employment filtering technique will only spread.

Can only imagine what would happen if their database gets hacked and that sort of stuff is harvested.

Mike Henderson
06-20-2009, 11:26 PM
To a very large degree, you don't need someone's ID and password to find quite a bit about that person online. And, yes, employers have been Goggling prospective employees for a long time now. So you should be careful about what you say online.

Mike

Mark Norman
06-20-2009, 11:29 PM
I could see why yer worried Brian, been here two years and this is yer second post? you got way to much out there on the web dontcha?;)nbl

On a serious note, I agree for them to ask for any password is ludricous!

Brian Ashton
06-21-2009, 12:19 AM
I could see why yer worried Brian, been here two years and this is yer second post? you got way to much out there on the web dontcha?;)nbl

On a serious note, I agree for them to ask for any password is ludricous!

I'm the last on the food chain in my house... I reserved my place on the computer 2 years ago and a vacancy has only just popped up. Oh my garsh I have only 4 minutes left before I'm kicked off... better type fast. :D

Brian Ashton
06-21-2009, 12:21 AM
To a very large degree, you don't need someone's ID and password to find quite a bit about that person online. And, yes, employers have been Goggling prospective employees for a long time now. So you should be careful about what you say online.

Mike

I've tried that a couple times and absolutely nothing comes up for me. I'm feeling a bit rejected as a result. I think I need counseling over it. :D

Mark Norman
06-21-2009, 12:27 AM
I'm the last on the food chain in my house... I reserved my place on the computer 2 years ago and a vacancy has only just popped up. Oh my garsh I have only 4 minutes left before I'm kicked off... better type fast. :D


See ya this time next year Brian;) lol lol:D

Mark Norman
06-21-2009, 12:32 AM
I didn't even know I had a website;)

http://www.mark-norman.com/

Ken Fitzgerald
06-21-2009, 12:33 AM
I'm the last on the food chain in my house... I reserved my place on the computer 2 years ago and a vacancy has only just popped up. Oh my garsh I have only 4 minutes left before I'm kicked off... better type fast. :D

I understand that problem...but I found a temporary solution. I sent the LOML to visit her Mom for a month. I am King of my household and I get online anytime I want. I do hope, however, she doesn't see this post!

Ken Fitzgerald
06-21-2009, 12:53 AM
We celebrated our 40th anniversary this past Christmas Eve in Christchurch, NZ. I may tease a little about her but I nearly lost her to a rare form of cancer 17 years ago. I'd be a lost soul without her....and yes...it's kinda nice to sleep on the couch and use the Sleep Timer on the TV.:D

Randal Stevenson
06-21-2009, 1:07 AM
The government of Boseman Montana had to retract a policy they apparently have had for a few years. That was, to demand as a condition of acceptance, people who were offered a job had to disclose their on line activities complete with user names and passwords. How far they went in snooping will never be known. They've backed off of the policy as a result of massive public pressure but are refusing to destroy all the records they've collected over the years. I suspect this sort of employment filtering technique will only spread.

Can only imagine what would happen if their database gets hacked and that sort of stuff is harvested.

I am guessing they wanted to find and tax the person responsible for all the enlargement/drug ads, and their Nigerian connections.:D

Brian Ashton
06-21-2009, 1:27 AM
We celebrated our 40th anniversary this past Christmas Eve in Christchurch, NZ. I may tease a little about her but I nearly lost her to a rare form of cancer 17 years ago. I'd be a lost soul without her....and yes...it's kinda nice to sleep on the couch and use the Sleep Timer on the TV.:D

Oops, sorry I think I have ruined the continuity of what you have said. I deleted my post thinking I was getting a bit carried away... and then found you had already responded. I agree I'd be a wreck of a human being without my wife. But when our better halves are away isn't the couch so convenient. Saves having to make the bed, one less thing to clean up for when she gets home :D

Mitchell Andrus
06-21-2009, 8:41 AM
I've tried that a couple times and absolutely nothing comes up for me.


You don't exist. Re-boot
.

John Schreiber
06-21-2009, 9:58 AM
I'll bet the main response has been that Bozeman looses out on a huge number of otherwise qualified workers.

I just found their background check form on-line <http://www.bozeman.net/bozeman/humanResource/forms/Background_Check_Form_Interview_MASTER.pdf>. It not only asks an applicant to give their passwords for "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." It also requires you to hold them harmless from any misuse of the data and it requires you to waive the rights provided by the Montana Constitution which gives you the right to see your hiring records.

Why don't they also require keys to your house and permission to come and go there at any time?

Regardless of their Internet policy, I'd never work for the city of Bozeman.

Brian Ashton
06-21-2009, 10:11 AM
You don't exist. Re-boot
.

Tried that lots but the wifes getting sick of kicking me up the backside...

Scott Shepherd
06-21-2009, 10:43 AM
I'll bet the main response has been that Bozeman looses out on a huge number of otherwise qualified workers.

I just found their background check form on-line <http://www.bozeman.net/bozeman/humanResource/forms/Background_Check_Form_Interview_MASTER.pdf>. It not only asks an applicant to give their passwords for "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." It also requires you to hold them harmless from any misuse of the data and it requires you to waive the rights provided by the Montana Constitution which gives you the right to see your hiring records.

Why don't they also require keys to your house and permission to come and go there at any time?

Regardless of their Internet policy, I'd never work for the city of Bozeman.

That's exactly the type of thing I was talking about on the earlier thread. Like I said on that thread, it's reality and it's happening now and that shows it's happening. You can ignore that it's happening or take precautions so you don't put yourself in a position where what you say or do online harms you. Either way, you have a choice, just trying to make sure you have an educated choice, which, I believe, is the most important point of all.

Brad Wood
06-21-2009, 10:58 AM
I'm having troubling believing this went on for years. I'm pretty sure this is an invasion of privacy and something groups such as the ACLU would have a field day with. This is no different than asking someone if they are married, or if they are planning on having children during the hiring process

My wife just got her security clearance for a government job she got late last year, they didn't ask anything along these lines.

I'm surprised they don't has for access to safe deposit boxes.

My company looks at places like facebook and myspace to see what potential employees are up to - to see if they advertise themselves to the world as derelicts or whatever. I work for a financial institution so the character of the employee is important... but we sure don't require their login information.

Brian Ashton
06-21-2009, 12:07 PM
I'm having troubling believing this went on for years. I'm pretty sure this is an invasion of privacy and something groups such as the ACLU would have a field day with. This is no different than asking someone if they are married, or if they are planning on having children during the hiring process

My wife just got her security clearance for a government job she got late last year, they didn't ask anything along these lines.

I'm surprised they don't has for access to safe deposit boxes.

My company looks at places like facebook and myspace to see what potential employees are up to - to see if they advertise themselves to the world as derelicts or whatever. I work for a financial institution so the character of the employee is important... but we sure don't require their login information.

This is one of many links outlining the story. http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2009/06/19/news/10socialnetworking.txt

David Epperson
06-21-2009, 12:08 PM
TITLE 18 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18.html) > PART I (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I.html) > CHAPTER 13 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_13.html) > 241 241. Conspiracy against rights


If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.



US Code
TITLE 18 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18.html) > PART I (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I.html) > CHAPTER 13 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_13.html) >
242. Deprivation of rights under color of law


Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

It's also federally illegal.

Greg Peterson
06-21-2009, 12:45 PM
It's also federally illegal.

Sorry David, but you are wrong. There is no right to privacy in the US Constitution.

Supreme court justice Antone Scalia doesn't believe in a right to privacy, at the very least in regards to online activity.

"Discussions of privacy rights in the digital era should distinguish between such confidential data as medical records and information that might be personal but is easy to find out, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Wednesday. "Considering every fact about someone's life private is "extraordinary," he said, noting that data such as addresses have long been discernible, even if technology has made them easier to find. "Every single datum about my life is private? That's silly," Scalia [said].

Scalia was none to please when Joel Reidenberg, Fordham law professor assigned fifteen students in his Information Privacy Law class the task of building dossier on Scalia. This is not an unusual assignment. He does this every year with his students. But this year rather than have the students gather information on him, he instructed them to gather all the information on the internet that was free and publicly available on Scalia.

We do not have a consitutional right to privacy. The word doesn't even exist in the constitution. And for the constructionists out, like Scalia, if a right isn't enumerated it doesn't exist.

David Epperson
06-21-2009, 1:14 PM
Sorry David, but you are wrong. There is no right to privacy in the US Constitution.

Supreme court justice Antone Scalia doesn't believe in a right to privacy, at the very least in regards to online activity.

"Discussions of privacy rights in the digital era should distinguish between such confidential data as medical records and information that might be personal but is easy to find out, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Wednesday. "Considering every fact about someone's life private is "extraordinary," he said, noting that data such as addresses have long been discernible, even if technology has made them easier to find. "Every single datum about my life is private? That's silly," Scalia [said].

Scalia was none to please when Joel Reidenberg, Fordham law professor assigned fifteen students in his Information Privacy Law class the task of building dossier on Scalia. This is not an unusual assignment. He does this every year with his students. But this year rather than have the students gather information on him, he instructed them to gather all the information on the internet that was free and publicly available on Scalia.

We do not have a consitutional right to privacy. The word doesn't even exist in the constitution. And for the constructionists out, like Scalia, if a right isn't enumerated it doesn't exist.

No offense, but it would not be the first time that a SCOTUS Justice had been mistaken or just downright wrong.
Per the 4th and 9th Amendments


Amendment IV


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment IX


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


There is a right to keep personal information personal.

Mark Norman
06-21-2009, 1:24 PM
It's also federally illegal.


I would't be so sure about that David, I just did a little poking around with a google search.



The Right to Privacy

The right to privacy plays a unique role in American law and society. Privacy, although not explicitly protected by the Constitution, is considered a core value by most Americans. It has also taken on multifarious meanings so that it no longer conveys one coherent concept. Privacy rights, guaranteeing an individual's right to a private life, find their authority in the Constitution, state constitutions, federal and state statutes, and tort law judicial decisions


Taken from:
http://www.publaw.com/privacy.html

Greg Peterson
06-21-2009, 1:38 PM
No offense, but it would not be the first time that a SCOTUS Justice had been mistaken or just downright wrong.
Per the 4th and 9th Amendments

There is a right to keep personal information personal.

Neither amendment explicitly states a right to privacy. the fourth gets close but that's about it. "against unreasonable searches and seizures" is not a right to privacy. One mans unreasonable is another mans "I have nothing to hide".

And as far as the majority on the SCOTUS is concerned, being staunch constructionists, since the constitution does not explicitly enumerate a right to privacy, that right does not exist. If the framers wanted us to have a right to privacy they would have stated it. They didn't and we can't go back and divine their intent. At least as far as Scalia is concerned. And his contemporaries on the bench share that opinion.

Rod Upfold
06-21-2009, 3:07 PM
As I told my daughter once you submit something online its there forever been stored somewhere in the world - it could bite you in the ass some day.

Be careful what you put online.

Greg Peterson
06-21-2009, 3:38 PM
Especially Facebook. Once you put any data or content on there it becomes the property of Facebook. Some very interesting folks with even more interesting ties to spooky agency's setup Facebook. A generation is busy putting their personal life on line and it will be interesting what becomes of the information ten, twenty or more years from now.

The right to privacy does not exist. So long as one agrees with the definition of 'reasonable', then yes one does have a degree privacy. But 'reasonable' is a moving target at best, and the top of a slippery slop at worse.

Mitchell Andrus
06-21-2009, 4:36 PM
It not only asks an applicant to give their passwords for "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."

...just wondering if this is all an effort to avoid mis-identifying someone and firing them for someone elses's 'net activities - in the event they have the same name.

Same name, Gotta happen once in a while, right?

Frank Hagan
06-21-2009, 4:55 PM
Interesting ... nearly every social networking site has as part of their terms that you must keep your password private and not share it.

It wouldn't happen that way in California due to the employment discrimination lawsuits, but Montana may not have as many protections.

The law hasn't caught up to the digital age yet. Phone conversations and postal mail are protected against unreasonable search and seizure, but private chat and email have no such protections.

Ken Fitzgerald
06-21-2009, 5:29 PM
...just wondering if this is all an effort to avoid mis-identifying someone and firing them for someone elses's 'net activities - in the event they have the same name.

Same name, Gotta happen once in a while, right?

It'll only happen to me ONCE and then I'm going to retire a RICH man!

Greg Peterson
06-21-2009, 8:35 PM
Phone conversations and postal mail are protected against unreasonable search and seizure, but private chat and email have no such protections.

No, the governments been listening to any and all telephone conversations they want to for some time now.

As for mail, on December 20th, 2006 president Bush signed a postal reform bill into law. He later issued a signing statement declaring his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions, which was in direct conflict with part of the new law. The new law explicitly reinforced protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval.

As to what constitutes an emergency is anyone's guess.

As George Carlin said, if they can take away a right, then it was never a right in the first place, it was a privilege. And we have fewer and fewer rights these days.

What's next, employers will require us to submit a ghost of our personal computer hard drives?

Mark Norman
06-21-2009, 11:36 PM
What's next, employers will require us to submit a ghost of our personal computer hard drives?


Yep, That, a cup of urin as well as three drops of blood.:eek:

Brian Ashton
06-21-2009, 11:40 PM
No, the governments been listening to any and all telephone conversations they want to for some time now.

As for mail, on December 20th, 2006 president Bush signed a postal reform bill into law. He later issued a signing statement declaring his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions, which was in direct conflict with part of the new law. The new law explicitly reinforced protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval.

As to what constitutes an emergency is anyone's guess.

As George Carlin said, if they can take away a right, then it was never a right in the first place, it was a privilege. And we have fewer and fewer rights these days.

What's next, employers will require us to submit a ghost of our personal computer hard drives?

I subscribe to the belief that we have only two rights: The right to be as stupid as we want and the right to be as deliberately ignorant (obtuse) as we want; anything else is a privilege. You can't make a person think intelligently and or be aware if they don't want no matter how hard you try. You simply can't take that away from someone. Everything else can be taken away at the whim of pretty much anyone else without much in the way of consequences. The right to life, right to a healthy meal, the right to an education, life, liberty, happiness... All are taken away from hundreds of millions on a daily basis in what are suppose to be "civilized" countries. They are called rights but they really are ideals that, hopefully, most strive to but can and are often taken away very easily.

I think if people looked at things that way, they be more inclined to fight harder for what is truly important.

Now I'll get off my philosophical soap box.

Mark Norman
06-22-2009, 12:49 AM
I subscribe to the belief that we have only two rights: The right to be as stupid as we want and the right to be as deliberately ignorant (obtuse) as we want; anything else is a privilege. You can't make a person think intelligently and or be aware if they don't want no matter how hard you try. You simply can't take that away from someone. Everything else can be taken away at the whim of pretty much anyone else without much in the way of consequences. The right to life, right to a healthy meal, the right to an education, life, liberty, happiness... All are taken away from hundreds of millions on a daily basis in what are suppose to be "civilized" countries. They are called rights but they really are ideals that, hopefully, most strive to but can and are often taken away very easily.

I think if people looked at things that way, they be more inclined to fight harder for what is truly important.

Now I'll get off my philosophical soap box.


Well said Brian!
A perspective to keep ones eyes open.

The truth is the truth no matter how much it hurts. Many have died so we could have the privileges we take as 'rights'.

Brad Wood
06-22-2009, 11:37 AM
I agree that once you put something out on the internet about yourself, your expectation of privacy departed with that click of the mouse.
Listening to phone calls or accessing bank account records, email accounts, or other similar acts, require a signed warrant from a judge (at least they are supposed to).
Where exactly does the city think they have the right to access personal conversations that people have just because they took place on the internet?
In myspace the only thing you get by using your credentials is access to private conversations you have had. (other than the ability to make changes to the account of course). Using a job as the dangling carrot to allow access to such conversations is over the top.

Greg Peterson
06-22-2009, 1:23 PM
Well said Brian!
A perspective to keep ones eyes open.

The truth is the truth no matter how much it hurts. Many have died so we could have the privileges we take as 'rights'.

Our eyes are open and we are watching the slow erosion of our rights. The folks that say they have nothing to hide are simply enabling the 'privilege creep'. We allow these rights to be converted into privileges without so much as a whimper, because "I have nothing to hide."

Some may argue that an employer has a right to know as much about a perspective hire as possible. This has always been the case and I don't have think anyone could disagree. But having access to all of your online accounts and correspondences is not reasonable. Why not get the bank statements, credit card purchase history, family medical history while they're at it.

Just smacks of big brother. Big time.

Chris Kennedy
06-22-2009, 2:31 PM
Especially Facebook. Once you put any data or content on there it becomes the property of Facebook. Some very interesting folks with even more interesting ties to spooky agency's setup Facebook. A generation is busy putting their personal life on line and it will be interesting what becomes of the information ten, twenty or more years from now.

The right to privacy does not exist. So long as one agrees with the definition of 'reasonable', then yes one does have a degree privacy. But 'reasonable' is a moving target at best, and the top of a slippery slop at worse.

While the Constitution may never explicitly state that there is a right to privacy, we still do have such certain privacy rights under federal law. Check out FERPA for example.

Cheers,

Chris

Greg Peterson
06-22-2009, 5:58 PM
While the Constitution may never explicitly state that there is a right to privacy, we still do have such certain privacy rights under federal law. Check out FERPA for example.

Cheers,

Chris

FERPA covers student records held by schools that receive federal funding.

I'm not aware of any law higher than the constitution the guarantees a right to privacy. There are laws designed to protect persons privacy in very specific circumstances, such as FERPA.

And a simple matter of a signing statement can undo any law. Who needs a line item veto when all you have to do is sign a statement stating you disagree with this law you just signed, therefore it will not be enforce?

The postal reform bill was created explicitly to strengthen the privacy of postal mail. After it was signed into law a signing statement was release declaring that the law did not apply to the government.

It's little wonder that an employer would feel entitled to personal information that traditionally would not have been requested.

Frank Hagan
06-22-2009, 11:35 PM
One of the problems here is that I can't respond to the specifics previously mentioned without making this into a political argument.

My point is that the same activity using new technology is often not protected by the same law until it "catches up" through court cases or clarifications by the legislature. This is what "common law" is all about. Social networks on the internet will come under the purview of the 4th Amendment only if a court or legislature feels there's a reasonable expectation of privacy for the participants. The example often given is that putting a camera in a bathroom is an unreasonable search because there's a reasonable expectation that the bathroom is private. Either probable cause or a warrant is required. But, someone leaving a bag of dope on their front seat, in full view, doesn't have an expectation of privacy.

Here's some specifics on telephone calls and mail:

This site (http://www.1800420laws.com/CM/Custom/Custom21.asp) says


"TELEPHONE CALLS on hard wire, cell phones, and in telephone booths are protected [from unreasonable search and seizure, ie. 4th Amendment], unless one party agrees to police taps or listening in, but cordless phone conversations do not have expectation of privacy because they can be heard by neighbors with the same frequency."


And about mail:



MAIL: Deliveries by private mail carriers (FedEx, LIPS, DHL) are not protected by the 4th Amendment. Private carriers can search packages and envelopes without a warrant or probable cause. Domestic U. S. Mail is protected by the 4th Amendment and cannot be searched without a warrant, except in an emergency.


Email is an evolving situation, and there is a federal law protecting email privacy rights (in fact, there's a case now regarding the government's right to force an ISP to preserve evidence while it obtains a warrant, and whether that forcing applies to future email conversations ... see This Link (http://blog.cdt.org/2009/06/10/email-privacy-rights-electronic-search-and-seizure-before-court/) for a recap of it.)

The problem for the City of Bozeman is that it is the government. A private employer may have the right to make prospective employees reveal their on-line activities, but I think the City is on really thin ice with this one. I hope the public outcry will shame them into jettisonning the stupid policy.

Greg Peterson
06-23-2009, 12:06 PM
We know laws exist protecting the privacy of land lines. We also know that the telecos gave the federal government unlimited access to their networks sans any court order. And the telecos have been given prosecutorial immunity on any violations of existing privacy laws they 'may' have engaged in. We don't know if this activity is still occurring, but it is best to assume it is. Once an entity attains authority it is unlikely to voluntarily surrender that authority.

As for US postal service mail, the law that was designed to strengthen and reinforce the privacy of our US postal service mail was severly undermined by a signing statement claiming executive privilege allowed this privacy to be breeched uder emergency conditions. What is an emergency condition? A hurricane, an embassy bombing overseas, a hijacked airliner or passenger cruise ship, a annonymous email/phone threat?

Technology exists that allows police agencies to listen in on conversations in your home from afar. They can park on the public street outside your home and listen to any conversations taking place. The clairty isn't stellar but they can monitor what is being said.

Few government agences have the right to gain administrative access to an prospective employees online accounts. Agencies where a national security clearance rating is required may have a legitimate case.

If an employer wants to find out what kind of person they may be hiring there exist traditional methods that have served us well. Personality and aptitude tests to name just a couple. If the applicant wants to provide locations of any Internet activity the employer can view it in the same manner as any other member of the public.

Even though the Internet is not as annonymous as we frequently think it is, there are aspects of the online experience that allow us to expand or otherwise exagerate aspects of our personality that otherwise would not have an outlet and likely would not manifest itself in a manner that would be counter productive in the work place.

When it comes to matters of privacy there can be no compromise. I have nothing to hide, yet I have everything to hide. I should be in control of what I allow others to know about me. It's a matter of personal autonomy. And currently our personal autonomy is being surrendered to be used against us.

So for Bozeman, or any other municapilty, I would suggest they are over stepping the boundaries. Perhaps a dosier of the city leaders needs to be compiled, following the professor Joel Reidenberg's model. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.