Reasonable Security or 1st Amendment Violation?

[Reid Cornwell]

The city government in Bozeman, Montana, isn't content to cyberstalk its potential employees—they're now asking applicants for their login information for any social networking sites. The city government in Bozeman, Montana, isn't content to cyberstalk its potential employees, they're now asking applicants for their login information for any social networking sites.
Read the complete article

[Marla Coffey]

Reid, I had trouble with your link, but found this one.

I can't imagine these city officials allowing employees to share their work passwords with their facebook friends, but they want unlimited rights not only to see, but to have editing power, over employee's social networks.

The amazing thing to me is that according to the city attorney nobody has ever withdrawn their name from consideration for employment because of this. I can only assume that people who want to protect their own privacy just leave the form blank or omit the passwords, but I wonder if the city would try to dismiss employees for "falsifying" their application if they later found the employee to have an undisclosed twitter account. Any attorneys in our group have thoughts on this? Could this possibly stand up in court?

Marla

[Marla Coffey]

Good news, Dr. Sunshine,

My friend Allison found a follow-up to this situation at

http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=10558291

This was actually a few months ago, and it was resolved because of pressure put on the city by people around the world who learned about it through...here it comes...social networking sites like Twitter.

But what I still don't get is how the city thought this could possibly be a good idea.

This paragraph is copied from the newer article (but you should still read the whole thing!):

"Please 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.," the City form states. There are then three lines where applicants can list the Web sites, their user names and log-in information and their passwords. (I added the bold font).

They weren't asking for much, were they?

[Curtis J Neeley Jr., MFA]

It reveals that anyone can ask anything they believe will be answered.  This would be an invasion of privacy and violation of the agreements not to give out passwords.  Anyone can ask you to violate an agreement you made and you may either violate it and answer the question or refuse and cite the agreement you already made.

Google Inc claims spending hundreds of thousands against me in US Court fighting to keep nude photos I did accessible to minors using my name in image searches.

Neeley v NameMedia Inc et al, (5:09-cv-05151) Free mirror to docket 289

Neeley v NameMedia Inc et al, (5:12-cv-05074) Free complete mirror.

I may be ignored all the way to the Supreme Court AGAIN!  The laws being ignored are clear.

47 USC §151 Requires FCC regulation of interstate and international WIRE OR RADIO communications.

47 USC §153 ¶59 Clearly describes "the Internet" as wire communications since 1934.

47 USC §230(c)(1) Violates the constitution in scores of ways and created a liability free Internet in the United States and allows Google Inc et al to re-communicate porn found by wire liability free.