Slashdot Log In
Patriot Act Bypasses Facebook Privacy
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Tue Jul 11, 2006 02:34 PM
from the if-you-don't-want-it-published dept.
from the if-you-don't-want-it-published dept.
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?"
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Facebook On The Block 250 comments
conq writes "BusinessWeek reports that Facebook has turned down an offer for $750 million and is looking for 2 billion dollars. The article speculates that one possible suitor would be Viacom. From the article: 'A Facebook deal would help Viacom founder and Executive Chairman Sumner Redstone fend off a growing challenge from News Corp. The media conglomerate run by Rupert Murdoch has poured enormous resources into the Internet during the last year. It acquired social-networking pioneer MySpace.com last year for $580 million.'"
[+]
Backslash: Kent State's Facebook Ban for Athletes 248 comments
Most commenting readers scoffed at Kent State University's new policy (noted on Slashdot yesterday) forbidding athletes from using profiles on Facebook. The arguments offered (legal, moral, and practical) mostly berated the school for limiting their students to no good end, but some thought-provoking comments exposed at least some complexities which make the issue less clear-cut than a straightforward case either of censorship or contractual freedom. Read on for a sampling of the comments which typified the conversation.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Yeah, but what a stupid angle I took (Score:5, Funny)
What kind of crappy 'Ask Slashdot' is this? They just do it.
It's times like these (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, that was sarcasm.
Re:It's times like these (Score:4, Funny)
No, no, NO.
He needs an exlamation mark!!!!
Parent
Oh, I'm sure it's okay (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, I'm sure it's okay (Score:5, Funny)
I knew my roommate was into the furry scene (modified stuffed animals, lavicious fox desktop background, funcon attendance, furrymuck player...), but when I altavista'd (pre-google) our shared phone number, I found his personal ad on a diaper fetish site...
There are some things you just don't want to know about the guy you share a kitchen with.
Parent
Re:Oh, I'm sure it's okay (Score:5, Interesting)
Guy: "You can't come in without a search warrant."
Police: "Why not? If you're innocent, you have nothing to hide!""
No one ever includes the last line of this dialogue. Do I have to do everything?
Guy: That's right, I have nothing to hide, so quit wasting my time, your time, my tax dollars and fuck off unless you have a warrant.
Parent
Re:Oh, I'm sure it's okay (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Oh, I'm sure it's okay (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, it was that bad. During the arrest, I asked "what am I being arrested for", they said
So, I said to the arresting officer
The final charges were assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest. Now mind you, I am 6'5" and very much had an athletic build of 225 lbs, brown belt in Judo, so if I had "resisted" arrest, I would have seriously injured me, or them or both. In addition, it seems that resisting a false arrest is completely legal, and as the police officers described it, they were arresting me when the so-called assault occured, not before.
Then, realizing their mistake, they said I threw a (can/bottle/cup) of beer on them. Notice that there are THREE answers given, which doesn't look good. Cup of beer is not assault, can and bottle might be, but the cops said there was a Keg at the party. The lying bastards couldn't get their story straight. I had cup, can and bottle at a kegger
The jury elected a foreman, and on the first vote found me "not guilty". And people wonder why I hate cops.
The funniest thing, was during the selection of the jury, one of the prospective jurors was asked why they couldn't sit on the jury. She said she had dealings with one of the arresting officers and said "He's an asshole". Truly hillarious. All the other jurors heard it too. Priceless.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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]Re:Comon Sense Tips For Today's Youth (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Comon Sense Tips For Today's Youth (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Comon Sense Tips For Today's Youth (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Comon Sense Tips For Today's Youth (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
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)
Re:abuse od power (Score:5, Funny)
It's right there in the name: Patriot Act.
If you badmouth the Patriot Act, you're a traitor. It's right there in the name!
Parent
Lessons learned: (Score:4, Insightful)
slashcircle (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what's wrong with slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is what's wrong with slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
Somebody's mother told somebody a story ("but it's TRUE" whines TFA) about something somebody might have said somewhere.
Third-hand (at best) information, with no actual, you know, FACTS or anything.
Parent
"yet another" (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Errr... (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps a more useful way of investigating this question would be to ask whether there's a single verifiable fact that could be found regarding this story of an unnamed student, an unnamed interviewer and an unnamed agency?
Tacky (Score:5, 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.
Pretty simple really (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummmm, like this:
State Agency: Facebook, under powers of the patriot act, we request that you give us access to your site. Failure to do so will be considered obstruction of justice and people will go to jail.
Facebook: No prob
Seriously, who in their right mind is going to stand up and be the test case for government powers this day and age, especially over something this stupid. Even if you win you will be labeled a terrorist sympathizer, unpatriotic, and have mounds of legal and financial problems. Not just the company, you personally.
And I'm sure there will be some responses of "vigilance is the price of liberty" and "we must stand up against this" and all that jazz, but YOU aren't putting your life, reputation, livelihood, and (if applicable) supported family on the line. Whining that other people don't do so for you is just cowardly in the extreme.
if-you-don't-want-it-published dept.
Boy is the the truth. Think people. Have an interview coming up? Why not delete the pictures you posted online of yourself doing bong hits? Don't blame facebook or even the patriot act for what is clearly your own stupidity. Why trust the access control mechanisms of facebook when most of corporate America cannot control access to financial data and the government cannot control access to classified information. What makes you think that tomorrow facebook will not say "screw private controls, we are opening up the whole thing for the world"? What are you going to do, demand your money back?
Finkployd
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.
The solution is... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, that's right, our other poster boy of bad legislation, the DMCA, to the rescue! See, bypassing the lock constitutes circumventing an access control...
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!
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.
Quote of an article of an article (Score:5, Interesting)
I've found three other copies of this story, all with the same generic NACE Spotlight Online reference.
The article is of an unnamed individual interviewing at an unnamed company located in an unnamed town. It references a well known career site, but with no context about where this article was located or when it was published.
Hear that sound? That's the sound of an URBAN LEGEND!
Re:If the job... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:fairy tales (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:If the job... (Score:5, Funny)
The rest of the story is that he had his kidneys stolen the next day, but luckily Bill Gates sent him $300k for forwarding email.
Parent
Re:If the job... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:If the job... (Score:4, Insightful)
-Peter
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:If the job... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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?
Parent
Re:If the job... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Only probably? (Score:4, Informative)
So what would said paranoid individuals do, when confronted with a blocked personal site? Ignore it? Yeah, right. I don't agree with what they look for - it seems questionable as to whether it has any relevance to whether the individual can be trusted - but it's blindingly obvious they'd investigate obviously hidden data.
For "confidential" clearances, the rules are different. There, a fingerprint check with the FBI and a routine background check seems to be sufficient. That can take a week or two, but it's nothing like as extreme.
Parent
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.
Parent
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
Parent
All your trolls are belong to U.S. (Score:5, Funny)
And without knowing why, the rest of us will get a warm fuzzy feeling in our bellies and we will laugh in a Nelson voice, Ha-ha! and then wonder why we did it.
Parent
Re:All your trolls are belong to U.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can run, but you can't hide.
Parent
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?"
Parent