Patriot Act Bypasses Facebook Privacy 562
Geoffreyerffoeg writes "An article from the National Association of Colleges and Employers contains yet another horror story about a prospective hire's Facebook being checked — with a different twist. The interviewee had enabled privacy on his profile, '[b]ut, during the interview, something he was not prepared for happened. The interviewer began asking specific questions about the content on his Facebook.com listing and the situation became very awkward and uncomfortable. The son had thought only those he allowed to access his profile would be able to do so. But, the interviewer explained that as a state agency, recruiters accessed his Facebook account under the auspices of the Patriot Act.' How can a 'state agency' use the Patriot Act to subpoena a Facebook profile?"
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, I'm sure it's okay (Score:5, Insightful)
Comon Sense Tips For Today's Youth (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Never use your real name on the Net.
2. Never disclose any information under your profile especially if you violated rule 1.
3. Never violate rule 1 or rule 2.
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]You're forgetting something (Score:4, Insightful)
There was not even reasonable cause -- much less probable cause -- of terrorism. Or any crime.
abuse od power (Score:5, Insightful)
Lessons learned: (Score:4, Insightful)
slashcircle (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what's wrong with slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If the job... (Score:4, Insightful)
-Peter
Subpoena? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shit, they probably didn't use the "PATRIOT act". My money is on the probability that they simply SAID the words "PATRIOT act" and facebook folded up like an origami swan.
Tacky (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You're forgetting something (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If the job... (Score:5, Insightful)
If he is the subject of a national security investigation then what are they doing revealing it during an interview? If, however he is not then what the hell are they doing using the Patriot act for that? In theory (yes theory) that should be illegal although it would come as not surprise to me to see them abusing it.
In either case, if the story is true, this raises really troubling issues. Does that mean any applicant to the DMV will have "The Patriot Act" invoked, what about private-sector jobs?
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean it as a joke, but I'm sure that Slashdot hands over
information to when required by the PATRIOT Act.
So much for the Anonymous Coward
Re:If the job... (Score:5, Insightful)
And at a state agency? Either it's something like what you're speculating and the interviewer was lying or joking or this whole sketchy story is just bogus. I'm guessing the latter.
An asnwer is simple, the consequenses are not (Score:3, Insightful)
Some stuff from the hiring end of things (Score:3, Insightful)
What this article tells me is that the paranoia of some employers has reached a new level of ape-shit. The fact that more time was spent during the interview discussing facets of his Facebook profile instead of interviewing him for the internship he applied for is a bit appalling. Imagine some future ramifications of agencies being able to plug Facebook; homosexuals being screened before the interview process even takes place, racial profiling, any of those things that employers simply are not supposed to do. While I agree that people need to be careful about what they put out online, it does strike me as a big no-no that we have employers actively seeking out the personal lives of prospective employees before they've had a chance to see what the employee has to offer to the company.
Re:Comon Sense Tips For Today's Youth (Score:3, Insightful)
Today's (non-geek, non-Slashdot reading) teens are either stupid or too busy getting stoned/laid.
What's needed is movie where this blissful fog that the teens are living in is used against them. This would have to be released on YouTube or something because Hollywood would dumb it down for the 50+ crowd.
website warnings... (Score:1, Insightful)
if, for example, I was to put a box here [ ] and say to verify that you are older than 18 you have to check that box or you can not read the rest of this comment. anyone who read past the box (cause I know you can't check it off) has now broken my comment reading agreement (patent pending, patent pending, patent pending). have you broken a law, no, none i'm aware off. have you broken my agreement, yes, completely, i'm shocked at your disregard for the agreement. agreements are often just that, agreements - if you don't agree, than you can probably still go ahead and do it. and 90% of website owners are not going to try to fight the gov't in court over an internal unenforcable policy. If you put info on the internet, your a fool if you expect it to be private unless YOU own the box and the site it's on.
Re:Oh, I'm sure it's okay (Score:3, Insightful)
Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Know why the government won't give you a security clearance if you have bad credit or unsavory habits? Because it makes you vulnerable to blackmail. If their screening process doesn't identify people that have made themselves extortable ("'lose' your keys this weekend or I tell your dad about that 'experimental weekend' you posted about on MySpace") then they wouldn't be doing their jobs.
In short, if you must keep secrets about yourself, don't publish them online and still expect to get the sort of jobs that frown on them. This isn't rocket science.
Re:If the job... (Score:4, Insightful)
Govmt: "AOL, this is the department of sanitation. Can we see Joe Smith's password-protected website?"
AOL: "Woh, I dunno. That sounds kinda private"
Govmt: "Nah nah, it's okay. He said it was all right."
AOL: "Oh, in that case, here you go!"
what is facebook? (Score:0, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a Little Advice ... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Warning karma killing rant coming ... damn whipper snappers.)
Patriot Act or not, marked private or not -- saying something on Facebook, MySpace, or their ilk is akin to a billboard in the middle of the town square. Kids today think that they can post ellicit, embarressing, or immature activities on the Internet, mark the information as private, and, magically, no one they don't want to know will ever find out. Learn some discretion, and keep matters to yourself.
In short, quite your whining and develop some common sense.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
No (Score:5, Insightful)
What really disturbs me though is how the article just glazes over the fact that Patriot Act was being used to investigate an intern for a government job. They just go on about how you should be careful what information you put out there. That's not the issue. Here we have a situation where information is on a public service but is kept private and it has been obtained through the Patriot Act for purposes clearly not realted to a terrorism investigation.
Re:An asnwer is simple, the consequenses are not (Score:3, Insightful)
What was the excuse for the renewal of the Patriot Act in March of this year? Do members of congress need longer than four and a half years to read it?
Re:If the job... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, I'm sure it's okay (Score:2, Insightful)
Obviously not or he wouldn't be putting his profile on Facebook for all those with an alumni or current college e-mail address to see.
I'm *very* pro-privacy but you don't have *any* when you choose to show a large group of people your private life.
Re:If the job... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you want my ID? PATRIOT ACT.
Why do I have to spend night in jail? PATRIOT ACT.
Why do I have to undergo full anal search? PATRIOT ACT.
Why are you keeping me in Guantanamo for 4 years without right to a lawyer? PATRIOT ACT.
Why did you kick my kitty and took $10 from my wallet? PATRIOT ACT.
And if you're going to question it and disagree, they will invoke the PATRIOT ACT and lock you up in Guantanamo. Under charges of anti-american activity (undermining authority of the PATRIOT ACT) which is terrorism.
Re:Subpoena? (Score:3, Insightful)
It what I would have done. I think the interviewer should get a bonus for making an effort.
The part that really bugs me is that the kid got the job due to:
"Fortunately the son had previous working relationships with a few members in the office and knew a staff member there. He was offered and accepted the internship."
Isn't it good to know the state's hiring policy is still based on who's-your-daddy?
Re:Comon Sense Tips For Today's Youth (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, I'm sure it's okay (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a private web server up - it's technically part of the internet. If you come in on an IP address I havn't approved you get bounced to the please go away page. Are you telling me that if the govt wants to, they have every right to come in & check the data on the server just 'because it's connected to the internet.'?
As for your statement that "they simply accessed what he put up for the world to see" - declaring it private is an act which explicitly states that he did not "put it up for the world to see"
I agree that if this is an actual occurance, then the use of the PATRIOT ACT for things as trivial as a job interview are a fullfillment of the worst fears people had about it at the time it was originally passed.
fairy tales (Score:5, Insightful)
right. if anyone speculating about this had bothered to RTFA, this is a 'true story' given as an example, w/o any real details whatsoever, as part of an 'article' on why you should be careful what you post about yourself online.
IOW, the whole thing is about as 'true' as the true stories they told you at school about the kids who put fireworks in their pocket / took acid and thought they could fly, depending on what level of education you were at.
Re:Oh, I'm sure it's okay (Score:2, Insightful)
It is not that simple. You can certainly keep all of the information you control off the Internet if you choose to.
But...there are people who take your photo at parties with their cameras, and (one would assume) people you used to date who may be posting things about you, and stupid relatives who share way too much about the family on the Internet because they aren't as diligent about online privacy. Does it come down to modifying your own behavior and curtailing your own freedom to prevent any behavior of yours which might possibly be observed, recorded, and later interpreted (or misinterpreted) as unseemly by someone you are trying to leave with a positive impression?
You can do the best you can, and it may well not be good enough. You may be surprised someday.
Employers: a little sanity would be nice. (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, really. Seeking employment isn't like running for office.
(sigh) Pearls before swine.
--Rob
Darwin (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because we can doesn't mean we should...
Why would anyone put things on the internet (at any security level) that could prevent them from getting a job? Sounds Darwinian to me, if you're too dumb to protect your private life, you're probably related to the person taking home a laptop with 25,000 social security numbers on it, so good riddance!
It all comes down to this (Score:2, Insightful)
2. Joining a Facebook group like The Drunker I Am The Smilier I Get and posting an album of pics to it, probably isn't a swift move unless you want to work as a public drunk.
3. Taking revealing pics of yourself always sounds good, until your grandma or prospective employer sees them. Ewww.
4. The more you drink, the less sound your judgement becomes. Never post anything while drunk. Ever.
5. Don't break up with a vindictive ex-bf/gf, as they will post those pics they promised never to post.
missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
To create an analogy:
If he had a public profile, it would have been like the employer sent out a PI to follow him to the grocery store every time he purchased groceries. Groceries are in no way connected to work, but hey, he could be building a bomb out of household cleaning products. It's creepy, but is most likely within the realm of the law --- and there's nothing anyone can do to prevent this sort of thing.
If his profile was private, it would have been like the detective following him into the grocery store, recording exactly what he purchased, taking down the number of the credit card he used to pay, and following him home to see how he used each item he purchased, and then following him on a date with his girlfriend. Whoa there! That's a definite unwarranted invasion of privacy!
The line has to be drawn between what goes on in the business world, and in the personal world. Even if you're perfectly legit, certain personal information on your profile could affect the hiring decision for the wrong reasons. In the job application process, I don't specify my religion, political affiliations, sexual orientation, musical tastes, etc. because none of these things have anything to do with my ability to work. However, on facebook, I provide all of this information voluntarily to the people I consider to be my "friends" so that I can form new relationships and network with others. From a logical standpoint, there is no reason why I should not share this information, as it has absolutely no bearing on my ability to do my job.
However, it is a well-known fact that subliminal subconscious biases occur in virtually all people. Perhaps if the employer noticed that I listed Greatful Dead and Phish as my favorite bands, he would subconsciously draw the correlation that I could be a stoner, and am thus less worthy to be hired. Logically speaking, itis a completely ludicrious assumption to base a hiring decision bsaed upon musical tastes, but the fact is that we make these sort of snap-judgements every day without realizing it, and such a judgement might be the impetus to choose between two equally-qualified applicants.
I guess what it boils down to is that these sort of invasions of privacy give employers access to completely extraneous information, that although innocuous, will unfairly affect that person's chances of being hired.
Re:"I have a rule of thumb here," (Score:5, Insightful)
He can be smug now, but his next job interview could still go something like this...
"So, Mr. Rogers, I see here that in September of 1988 you wrote a $200 cheque to a women's health clinic that no member of your family had ever visited before. That's about the same time your teenage daughter broke off her relationship with the Tanner boy who used to live down the street from you, or at least she stopped calling him every night, isn't it? The CEO is strongly pro-life and things like this concern him greatly. Anything you want to tell us about that incident?"
Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's a Little Advice ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm assuming the facebook servers are on private property and as such this would represent a search/siezure without either probable or just cause and without a search warrant regardless. The BFD is that this sort of thing is supposed to be protected against by law.
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:4, Insightful)
The myspace craziness should have been tempered with common sense. Kids posting personal information about themselves, and then people wonder why pedophiles toll the myspace boards. This is just another example of college kids being completely stupid! This really has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. Everyhting you post online may, and can, be viewed by anyone @ anytime. Privacy on the internet is only an illusion.
Re:If the job... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tacky (Score:3, Insightful)
Me: Is everyone here that stupid, or is it just you?
(I'm not the only one being interviewed... they have to pass muster before I'll work for them.)
Meanwhile back in the Fatherland (Score:4, Insightful)
your certificates of racial purity appear to be in order.. and you have served in the Reichswehr during the war, Herr
Gefreiter. You're almost 2 meters and 10 centimeters tall, you have blue eyes and blonde hair and you have won multiple
contests both military and private in marksmanship. I'm sure a carreer awaits you in the Schutzstaffet but there is a
matter which still has us
"Herr Standartenfuehrer, I go to a club where we listen and dance to music but I can assure you this has nothing to do
with my dedication to our Fuehrer and the Reich."
"Oh? But I am afraid it does, Herr Klein, I'm afraid it does. You listen to American music! You listen to music created
by jews and enacted by blacks, isn't that so?? You seem to like that kind of music, eh? We had you followed! We saw you
dance with a Fraulein and above all, did you know that Fraulein is also half jewish??! We followed you then to your appartment
where you sneaked in with your "Fraulein" and had sex with her. Our investigator listened at your door and made a personal
of what perversions you were living out with that "woman". You had sex with a half-jew and outside of marriage at that and
believe me you're going to hear from the Staatsanwaltschaft (state prosecutor) for this."
"What, Himmel Herrgott! You had me followed??! You spied on me??" You spied on me sex-life??!?
"Quit acting so surprised Herr Klein. The SS lives up to high standards and we are legally bound by order of the
Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler himself and by various laws enacted by the Reichstag to investigate the backgrounds
of all our applicants. You Herr Klein are certainly not the kind of person we're looking for. If you want to make an issue
of it, be my guest. If you want, you can use my phone to call the Gestapo.
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the issue is the use of the patriot act by a state agency to access his profile, which he had set as private. This really seems like one of those stories where the patriot act was at least apparently misused. Personally, if it was the military, or a major defense contractor, or a position anywhere near the president I could understand, but it does seem a bit excessive for a state agency to use it. While I do not feel that information posted online is private in any way, the patriot act really doesn't seem like it should have anything to do with him trying to get an internship.
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:2, Insightful)
I know, everyone is stupid, but you...hear it all before
I also suppose you don't rent or lease places - ever! After all, you don't want to deal with a third party that posses a thread to your privacy, now would you?
Re:All your trolls are belong to U.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can run, but you can't hide.
Re:Oh, I'm sure it's okay (Score:3, Insightful)
Guy: I have lot of things to hide from you and from the rest of the world. All of it quite legal. That is why we have laws protecting us from nosy police without warrants.
I really, really hate the assumption that innocent people have nothing to hide. It is wrong and manipulative.
Re:The solution is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All your trolls are belong to U.S. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, I'm sure it's okay (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahh, spoken like a person who's never had a real encounter with our "justice" system. Technically you're right but what the laws say aren't always how things work, just like how the cops couldn't even get their story straight about the grandparent's supposed method of assaulting them.
Since he's not a minority if he sues the police will harass him. No one is innocent of everything, with laws how they are nowadays you're probably violating a few waking up in the morning. Since he's not a minority the newspapers/tv stations/etc. will ignore whatever the police do to him and they will eventually find something he's really guilty of to charge him with, probably multiple somethings. He might win the case against them but it would be in exchange for his life of freedom.
Faced with that choice would you sue? Or would you write it off as a loss you couldn't do anything about and never trust law enforcement again as long as you live? Most people chose the latter. You may think you wouldn't now, but when you come face to face with that future you'll find that it's not so easy to take the idealistic path because of how reality works.
Re:When private is not private. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. If the attempt to bar access to the data was made and the user circumvented the access controls. If the user is not authorized to access the computer system then he should not be doing so. What is authorized access varies from state to state, in my state it is defined like this:
The standard B&M analogy to your example of a password being available would be that a shopkeeper locked up for the night and accidentally dropped the key to the store on the front mat. Is it legal to enter the store just because there is a key to it lying on the mat? How about if there is a crappy lock on the door, or if the shopkeeper neglects to lock the door? Just because the security is not up to standards does not give you the right to trespass.
However, in this case it appears that Facebook has the legal right to do whatever it likes with the data. The user agreed to those terms when he signed up, if he does not agree to the terms he is free not to use the service.
Re:All your trolls are belong to U.S. (Score:2, Insightful)
How DO you blackmail someone with PUBLIC data? (Score:3, Insightful)
How _do_ you blackmail someone with info they've made _public_? No, seriously. Let's say I were to write on my home page, Facebook profile, MySpace, etc, "I'm gay and into BDSM". I'm not into either, but let's assume that for example sake. How _would_ you go about blackmailing me with something that's that public? How would a blackmailing dialogue go?
"'lose' your keys this weekend or I tell your dad about that 'experimental weekend' you posted about on MySpace"
"Heh. Dude, have you met my parents? Even if I hadn't already told them, they're the kind that put TALKER in STALKER. They google me weekly and tells all their friends, relatives, and strangers on the street about it. Heck, dad not only 'accidentally' openned and read my mail when I lived with them, he used to take the train to come over and 'accidentally' open my mail when I moved to another town. So, trust me, any information you may find, dad already _knows_. And mom already emailed all her friends about it."
How do you go from there?
"I'm gonna tell your boss about it!"
"Dude, I hope you do realize that (A) it's public information, and (B) they do a background check when they hire you here, and dig up exactly this kind of stuff? Trust me, they googled for my name already. They know."
What next?
"I'm gonna publish it in a newspaper!"
"As opposed to it already being published on several sites indexed by Google? You do realize that anyone interested in me is more likely to find it via Google than in that newspaper, right? So knock yourself out."
I mean, seriously, how does one go about using _public_ information to blackmail someone? Exactly which part of "public" is so confusing? Is it the "pub" or the "lic"? How can you threaten someone with publishing something they've already published themselves?
So as I was saying, it seems to me like the whole "blackmail" excuse is just a crap excuse to continue to be a bigotted prick. The same bigotted pricks who 100 years ago would just say, "eew, you're an abhomination in the eyes of God! I'll never hire you," now discovered that they can be hit with a nasty discrimination lawsuit for that. And rightfully so. Enter the golden age of using some crap illogical excuse instead. Like the "blackmail" one.
Re:All your trolls are belong to U.S. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not true.
It's a bad idea to have a bad net presence when you go get a job. However, a good presence will count towards you (e.g. being helpful, and knowledgeable on technical forums such as the LKML and other FOSS mailing lists is all good when your prospective employer does some googling, assuming your prospective employer doesn't have a fundamental problem with ideas like FOSS).
Re:All your trolls are belong to U.S. (Score:1, Insightful)
Right up until you are declared an Enemy Combatant...
Re:Remember when 'Papers Please' meant Nazi offici (Score:3, Insightful)
Last time I checked, the government didn't need to ask you for your papers. They just look up the information They want in their databases. You won't get caught on an airplane without your papers. You simply won't get past the checkout counter. Hell, you're lucky you can still get on a bus without being screened. Once you get your shiny new national ID smart card, you'll probably have to swipe it for any kind of long distance travel. I bet They'll find a way to tie it into you bank account too, as a convenience, so that you can use it to buy goods, instead of having to carry around all that heavy, awkward, anonymous cash.
Re:Yeah, but what a stupid angle I took (Score:3, Insightful)
You misquoted old Ben. His actual words say it much better.
Truer words have never been spoken.
By the way, this use of the Patriot Act goes directly against the original intent, which was to be strictly anti-terrorism. American citizens should be exempt unless evidence obtained by other means directly ties them to a terrorist or terrorist organization.
Don't be sheeple, folks.