Name, Rank, Serial Number

June 19, 2009 9:11 AM

"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. The City of Bozeman takes their job application process too far?
posted by hippybear (86 comments total)

It's a work of social civil engineering!
posted by JHarris at 9:13 AM on June 19, 2009 [4 favorites]

Wait, applicants are expected to list their usernames and passwords? WTF?
posted by Lobster Garden at 9:15 AM on June 19, 2009

The City of Bozeman takes their job application process too far?

Yes.
posted by azpenguin at 9:15 AM on June 19, 2009

Three lines? lol.
posted by jquinby at 9:17 AM on June 19, 2009 [16 favorites]

"You know, I can understand that concern. One thing that's important for folks to understand about what we look for is none of the things that the federal constitution lists as protected things, we don't use those. We're not putting out this broad brush stroke of trying to find out all kinds of information about the person that we're not able to use or shouldn't use in the hiring process," Sullivan said.

And what practice is in place to keep your current employees, with access to applications, from "trying to find out all kinds of information about the person that we're not able to use or shouldn't use in the hiring process."?
posted by Brocktoon at 9:19 AM on June 19, 2009

That's really weird. At first, I thought that it was just the usual bureaucratic misunderstanding of how technology works. The quotes from the city attorney are stunning.
posted by roll truck roll at 9:19 AM on June 19, 2009

Yeah. Fuck that noise, too.
posted by PuppyCat at 9:22 AM on June 19, 2009

Metafilter Avelwood ********
4chan Anonymous Anonymous

oops...
posted by Avelwood at 9:24 AM on June 19, 2009 [7 favorites]

The City takes privacy rights very seriously, but this request balances those rights with the City's need to ensure employees will protect the public trust, according to city attorney Greg Sullivan.

By showing us that you trust the City, we believe the citizens can trust you.

That, or they're looking to make a juicy Boseman gossip website, which could potentially spin off their own Real Employees of Bozeman (akin to The Real Housewives of all those places), which would elevate the status of the City in terms of people looking for the next "It" place.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:24 AM on June 19, 2009

What a bunch of Bozos Bozemans.

Bozemen?
posted by zippy at 9:25 AM on June 19, 2009

well that's one way to weed out anyone that's tech savy.
posted by fuzzypantalones at 9:25 AM on June 19, 2009 [9 favorites]

though come to think of it, it's sort of funny that this background check relies on the honor system, for the applicant to actually supply all the accounts. ie 'we're going to run this background check on you, but it's limited to the information you've given us.'
posted by fuzzypantalones at 9:30 AM on June 19, 2009 [5 favorites]

Gee, well, scratch Bozeman off the list.

Really, if it ever came down to actually applying, I can't imagine providing user names and passwords. Though it seems intrusive, I can see providing them with public-only social networking pages links.

The problem with Bozeman's approach is that once they do this, it can be argued that they assume some liability for the content of the websites, in a similar fashion that websites assume liability once they assume an editorial role. Of course there is nothing to stop someone from starting up a new site or personal page after becoming employed, that could be a serious embarrassment or liability for the City.

I'd say this is one where the city attorney has tried to protect the city, but has really increased its exposure to risk.
posted by Xoebe at 9:30 AM on June 19, 2009

Certain people's lists of Metafilter spouses aren't going to look too good. Except in Utah, obviously.
posted by Electric Dragon at 9:34 AM on June 19, 2009 [3 favorites]

ALSO, PLEASE TO PROVIDE US WITH A BANK ACCOUNT AND ROUTING NUMBER SO THAT WE MAY BEGIN THE TRANSFER OF THE SUM OF US$23,000,000 FROM MY FATHER'S MONIES FROM NIGERIA.
posted by nushustu at 9:34 AM on June 19, 2009 [33 favorites]

Usernames? Sure, no problem. You could probably google that anyway.

But, like, passwords? No. Fuck you. Also: Why???

'we're going to run this background check on you, but it's limited to the information you've given us.'

...plus all the crazy fake shit we've added to all your profiles.

Seriously, passwords?
posted by Sys Rq at 9:39 AM on June 19, 2009 [4 favorites]

though come to think of it, it's sort of funny that this background check relies on the honor system, for the applicant to actually supply all the accounts.

I somehow doubt that the people implementing this policy have thought it through, but the purpose of asking such questions is usually to shift responsibility to the interviewee and provide coverage of the interviewer's posterior. If it later turns out you were holding something out, they have proof that they were not negligent and you were actually trying to fool them. Many tax laws work on the same principle, especially when actual enforcement is impossible anyway.
posted by Dr Dracator at 9:40 AM on June 19, 2009

Oh and we also want copies of all your medical records, including but not limited to graphic photos of colonoscopies.
posted by Lobster Garden at 9:40 AM on June 19, 2009

Lots of comments on the article point out that it's a violation of most Terms of Service agreements to give your login and password to a third party. The City Attorney is maybe someone who's never actually read a ToS?

And who's going to make sure that the usernames and websites you've provided are actually yours? For instance, if I applied for a job there, I'd be tempted to tell them that my name on Metafilter is...
posted by rtha at 9:40 AM on June 19, 2009

All they really need to do is send all job applicants to a Facebook app.

Do you agree to allow The City of Bozeman to access your personal information and data?

Easy solution. Go for it, Montana.
posted by Spatch at 9:41 AM on June 19, 2009 [4 favorites]

The City takes privacy rights very seriously,

I am not sure city attorney Greg Sullivan knows what these words mean.

No one has ever removed his or her name from consideration for a job due to the request, Sullivan added.

And could Sullivan tell us how many people have decided that a job in the municipal parking garage authority is not worth letting bureucrats sift through their personal e-mail?
posted by ricochet biscuit at 9:41 AM on June 19, 2009 [3 favorites]

It sounds like the person who came up with this policy was one of those middle-aged bureaucratic types who doesn't really know anything about the Internet but who thinks they do because they've seen something on TV or in USA Today.
This person is probably an unpleasant controlling bastard (hence the policy in the first place, as well as the fact they thought this would actually fly) which also means that nobody else in the department dared question them.
posted by dunkadunc at 9:44 AM on June 19, 2009 [4 favorites]

> their user names and log-in information and their passwords

This is like a test, right? Like one of those clever/tricky job interview questions that place like Google use?

Like if you are stupid enough to give your username and password to anyone else, just because they ask for it, they immediately peg you as too stupid to be allowed to work for them.

So anyone who actually fills this out is automatically disqualified from the job search.

Right?
posted by flug at 9:45 AM on June 19, 2009 [9 favorites]

When I was in a position to interview candidates for jobs, I knew that I couldn't ask about their marital status, religion, ethnicity, and a whole slew of other things. So if someone applies for a job and includes the usernames and passwords to "Christian Singles" or whatever, aren't they immediately subject to a lawsuit?
posted by xingcat at 9:51 AM on June 19, 2009

I'm guessing the fifth largest city in Montana is going to feel Cheetos dust of the internet all over it sometime soon.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 9:59 AM on June 19, 2009 [4 favorites]

Hypercrit has a comprehensive collection of reactions to the story.
posted by plastic_animals at 10:00 AM on June 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

No one has ever removed his or her name from consideration for a job due to the request, Sullivan added.

Yeah, what are they gonna do-- get a job somewhere else? In this economy? BWAAHAHAHAHA
posted by Dr-Baa at 10:06 AM on June 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

And could Sullivan tell us how many people have decided that a job in the municipal parking garage authority is not worth letting bureucrats sift through their personal e-mail?

And the people who don't care about giving up their usernames and passwords probably don't use the internet much - at least not interactive use, meaning that the city is selecting for employees that are less clueful about the internet. Not a good strategy; it can easily lead to moronic policies like this, because no one gets it.

That said, I bet that at least some people who have given up their usernames and passwords felt like their privacy was being violated, but did it without protest because they really needed a job.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 10:07 AM on June 19, 2009

What a bullshit policy. I'd change my passwords the moment I got home from filling out the application.
posted by Maisie at 10:09 AM on June 19, 2009

“Shame on us if there was information out there available about a person who applied for a job who was a child molester or had some sort of information out there on the Internet that kind of showed those propensities and we didn’t look for it, we didn’t ask, and we hired that person,” Winn said. “In many ways we would have let the public down.”

Because child molesters and embezzlers usually list that shit under their interests on Facebook.
posted by fshgrl at 10:11 AM on June 19, 2009 [15 favorites]

He de­clined to dis­cuss the case more specif­i­cal­ly, cit­ing pri­va­cy con­cerns.

-Hypocritical hit!-
posted by Dr-Baa at 10:14 AM on June 19, 2009 [4 favorites]

What a bullshit policy. I'd change my passwords the moment I got home from filling out the application.

I think I'd probably just lie and say that I'm not a tech person.

*What? No, I hear my friends talk about MySpace...*
*Spacebook? Twitter? I dunno.*

These people don't seem to be on-the-job enough to find me anyhow...
posted by Avelwood at 10:17 AM on June 19, 2009 [2 favorites]

the internets are a series of tubes.......
posted by caddis at 10:19 AM on June 19, 2009

What a bullshit policy. I'd change my passwords the moment I got home from filling out the application.

If you're going to do that, you might as well just supply fake passwords on the application to begin with.
posted by lullaby at 10:23 AM on June 19, 2009

I don't understand how you could even have time to use Facebook or Twitter if you're one of the lucky few elite bad boys tirelessly working for the services of the unsleeping, all-excitement, action-packed orgy of lust, dreams, hope, and drama that is Bozeman, Montana.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:24 AM on June 19, 2009 [9 favorites]

What a bullshit policy. I'd change my passwords the moment I got home from filling out the application.

I think I'd probably just lie and say that I'm not a tech person.

*What? No, I hear my friends talk about MySpace...*
*Spacebook? Twitter? I dunno.*

These people don't seem to be on-the-job enough to find me anyhow...

Agreed, but to not open yourself up to being fired later because you lied on your application, you'd have to include information like your username and password at your online banking site. I wonder if an application would be better off not filling in anything in that section of the form.
posted by Maisie at 10:25 AM on June 19, 2009

If you're going to do that, you might as well just supply fake passwords on the application to begin with.

But then you're lying on your application.
posted by Maisie at 10:26 AM on June 19, 2009

What if your password was "juicyclit" or "asslicker" or suchlike?
posted by Meatbomb at 10:27 AM on June 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

I'm from Bozeman. This won't last long, believe me.

Bozeman is actually a little western-enclave of progressive people that also has a strong belief in privacy. It's a cultural college town that thrives on tourism, agriculture, and of course the University. There's pretty much an air of 'you don't bother me, I won't bother you', so I'm surprised the city attorney even tried this. You're talking about a town where the police report in the paper is usually

The indigenous residents have a VERY strong aversion to government intervention in their lives as a whole, so now that this little policy is out in the open I don't think it'll be long till it's abandoned. On multiple layers.

That's just my perception though.
posted by matty at 10:40 AM on June 19, 2009

Bozeman is actually a little western-enclave of progressive people that also has a strong belief in privacy

wait... what?
posted by Avelwood at 10:44 AM on June 19, 2009

My Password is a simple anagram of my biological mother's maiden name, converted into numerican code using an entropy coding algorithm. I know, it's a bit obvious, but I have nothing to hide.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:46 AM on June 19, 2009

What if your password was "juicyclit" or "asslicker" or suchlike?

They don't let Cortex assign passwords to new members anymore.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 10:46 AM on June 19, 2009 [8 favorites]

Back in the day (before most people thought about strong passwords), I was part of a team that ran a password cracker on work accounts to test their strength. Many, many of them were variations of "thisjobsucks" and "gofuckyourself".
posted by JoanArkham at 10:51 AM on June 19, 2009 [3 favorites]

Avelwood - what I mean is that you see all types of people in Bozeman getting along very well together... with maybe the exception of the Native Americans.

Granolas, artists, cowboys, college kids, outdoor adventurers, farmers, archeologists, professors, Ted Turner, celebrities that don't want to be bothered, you name it Bozeman has it. It's a pretty cool town if you don't mind the long winters.

The people have a palpable attitude of 'live and let live'.

Also... part of my last post got lobbed off. Meant to say that more often than not the police report is about an Elk downtown or a firecracker in a mailbox.
posted by matty at 10:54 AM on June 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

Avelwood - what I mean is that you see all types of people in Bozeman getting along very well together... with maybe the exception of the Native Americans.

I believe you. As a Californian, Montana is famous for the "leave me the fuck alone" vibe; I know. I was just contrasting what you said with the main story about providing user names and passwords on a job application. Have fun in Montana, I hope to join you there some day...
posted by Avelwood at 11:01 AM on June 19, 2009

Just don't tell your friends about us! Every time California has a major earthquake our land prices shoot through the roof.

And disclaimer - I now live in DC, but my folks are still in Bozeman. I make it there once or twice a year.
posted by matty at 11:04 AM on June 19, 2009

My Password is a simple anagram of my biological mother's maiden name, converted into numerican code using an entropy coding algorithm. I know, it's a bit obvious, but I have nothing to hide.

I use sort of the same method. It's "kitty" because I like kitties.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:06 AM on June 19, 2009 [18 favorites]

Your land prices will never be what ours are regularly...
US$1.5 million? for a bungalow?
posted by Avelwood at 11:10 AM on June 19, 2009

Hi, how do I change okbye's password? Love, Greg Sullivan
posted by okbye at 11:38 AM on June 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

"Certain people's lists of Metafilter spouses aren't going to look too good. Except in Utah, obviously."

Well, since all my Metafilter spouses seem to be male, I don't think it would look good in Utah at all, nossirree.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 11:42 AM on June 19, 2009

I think that you've got a city attorney with waaaaaaay too much time on his hands, who started worrying about the city hiring some child molester or murderer (such as, say, Kevin Ray Underwood) who'd hinted broadly on his blog about what he'd done/was about to do (or seemed to, in retrospect); noted that the local unemployment rate was such that you could ask job applicants to show up wearing a tutu and dogshit smeared in their hair, and still have people lining around the block; and thought, hey, why not?
posted by Halloween Jack at 11:44 AM on June 19, 2009

The City takes privacy rights very seriously, but this request balances those rights with the City's need to ensure employees will protect the public trust, according to city attorney Greg Sullivan.

This bit irritates me more than anything else. In government jobs people should never use "but we are taking this very seriously" in their defense. It contains an uppity assumption that if you would think this seriously (as professional like me), you would come to the same conclusion. It is the fastest way to paint yourself into corner and mark all of the previous statements as available targets for mockery. When people take the challenge and consider this seriously, they come to the conclusion that whoever seriously thought this, he wasn't able-brained. And instead of 'I' there is 'The City' that places all the people associated with decision into the same seriously not-getting-it pool. Way to lose the public trust.

Come on, whenever has taking something seriously has had any positive correlation to getting it right? (creationism, horoscopes, threat of WMD:s, airport security, computer security...) Mocking and taking it lightly are the next steps towards the reality based assessment, but sadly, once you have stated your seriousness, you are stuck in that position.
posted by Free word order! at 11:57 AM on June 19, 2009 [2 favorites]

Because child molesters and embezzlers usually list that shit under their interests on Facebook.

Oddly enough everyone who applied for a job in Bozeman did.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 11:59 AM on June 19, 2009

I'd be tempted to tell them that my name on Metafilter is...

..."Christ, what an asshole", definitely.
posted by clavicle at 12:14 PM on June 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

I'd have to change all my passwords to GregSullivan1s4RenownedSpermToilet.
posted by juiceCake at 12:30 PM on June 19, 2009

Great idea, Bozeman! What could possibly go wrong?
posted by Space Kitty at 12:50 PM on June 19, 2009

Now I want to apply for a job there just so I can give them some bullshit gmail account that I've created specifically for the purpose. I figure the messages will start normally enough, but when you start digging you find that contained within is a whole story about my time as a secret agent working for a government team fighting against demonic aliens or something.

The key to making this work would be to get all my friends involved sending messages from different IPs with forged received: and from: lines to indicate that the messages were originating from DHS and MI6 and the like. And I'd ensure that all the bits fit together so that as completely crazy and ridiculous as it seemed, nothing actually contradicted the fact that I did these things.

Just for the fun of sitting in an interview where questions about my background might come up.
posted by quin at 1:01 PM on June 19, 2009 [2 favorites]

There's a poll on the page about how people feel about it.

98% say "It's a violation of privacy rights". 1% dont care , and 1% approve. Now, it's an Internet Poll, and about as trustworthy as Bernie Madoff's tax return, but still, that's kind of hilarious.
posted by mephron at 1:15 PM on June 19, 2009

Bozemen?

MY BOZEMANS.
LET ME SHOW YOU THEM.
posted by jake at 1:23 PM on June 19, 2009 [2 favorites]

matty covered what I was going to say. I spent 4 years in Bozeman. This is one person's big fuckup and isn't representative of the town at all. It's a small town - you run into the same people over and over again. Privacy and good manners go hand in hand.
posted by desjardins at 1:31 PM on June 19, 2009

I DON'T WANT TO BE EXPOSED TO BOZEMANS.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 1:32 PM on June 19, 2009

...we also want copies of all your medical records, including but not limited to graphic photos of colonoscopies.

Oh my god, they've ALREADY accessed my SomethingAwful profile!
posted by rokusan at 1:42 PM on June 19, 2009

Me? I'm just sad that I missed the mefi spousal party. Now, I guess I just have to be the Other Woman...a lot.
posted by dejah420 at 2:44 PM on June 19, 2009

I have to practically provide DNA samples on background checks for job interviews, but I totally draw the line at passwords. Ain't no 2 year old going to start messing with my Bejeweled Blitz high scores.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 3:01 PM on June 19, 2009

we also want copies of all your medical records, including but not limited to graphic photos of colonoscopies

I get these at work fairly often. I really hate that.

And I'm not even in HR.
posted by dilettante at 3:25 PM on June 19, 2009

This is what sockpuppets are for, people.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 3:26 PM on June 19, 2009 [2 favorites]

Added to the ever growing list of places I never need to live or visit.
posted by blaneyphoto at 3:35 PM on June 19, 2009

If giving up user names and passwords was critical to me getting a seriously sought after position I would fill out the aps. and include three or four made up names and passwords. Go home and create the appropriate accounts with the new usernames and passwords. Then for good measure I would submit a fpp to my new metafilter account extolling the benefits of living, working and worshipping in Bozeman. And of course my undying support of the Bozeman branch of the John Birch society
posted by notreally at 4:00 PM on June 19, 2009 [2 favorites]

I'm guessing that if they do the right background check on you, they can come up with most, if not all, of your internet activities, buying habits, etc. Asking for the info and passwords is both bold, and really wrong. People should have some fucking privacy!
posted by Issithe at 4:40 PM on June 19, 2009

Instead of outright asking applicants, they could've just left applicants waiting in a room with a computer for an hour or so.
posted by ODiV at 5:11 PM on June 19, 2009 [7 favorites]

A friend from Bozeman says: "Sounds like the city of Bozeman, the city commission there is a nightmare as well."
posted by dunkadunc at 5:13 PM on June 19, 2009

Argh. How does the government manage to fuck it up every single time where technology is concerned?

Seriously. It's like no one in federal, state, or local government, in any office, has ever actually used a computer. It's painful.
posted by ixohoxi at 6:49 PM on June 19, 2009

this is not really that difficult folks, so many workarounds. yes, it is stupid request, but if you can not figure out how to bypass their idiocy you probably can not handle a job @ this point anyway.
posted by jcworth at 8:31 PM on June 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

And I thought getting a job was hard enough. I'd vastly prefer really crappy hours over waking up one day and seeing my Facebook status set to "You know, Bozeman is my kinda city..."

It's like no one in federal, state, or local government, in any office, has ever actually used a computer. It's painful.

ixohoxi, I completely agree with this. Be it the impending apocalypse that is violent video games, or some other sensationalist moral panic regarding technology, I cringe whenever I hear anyone in government make a comment to the effect that they have any idea about technology. I'll grant those who do know what they're talking about a break, obviously. But I think that's very few, seeing as at this moment I can't recall anyone in particular.
posted by Askiba at 9:27 PM on June 19, 2009

The people who come up with these sorts of policies are probably the same kinds of people who can be fooled into thinking that an applicant has a user account at a place like goatse.cx.
posted by bugmuncher at 9:44 PM on June 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

How does the government manage to fuck it up every single time where technology is concerned?

Idiotic policy, which according to news reports is now undone, although still to be evaluated, whatever that means. But please do be aware of the irony involved in typing this sort of comment on the Internet.
posted by raysmj at 11:29 PM on June 19, 2009

Anybody who actually provides their real accounts and passwords does not deserve a job working anywhere near a computer. That said, I'm pretty sure this is unconstitutional.

Why wouldn't you just create a bunch of fake accounts?
posted by tehloki at 3:27 AM on June 20, 2009

While Britain might be using 1984 as an instruction manual these days, this policy would be illegal under the Data Protection Act, and I'm pretty sure the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act too. If they actually used any of those passwords, they'd be up for prosecution under the Computer Misuse Act too.

Seriously - HTF is this not an illegal abuse of the hiring process in the US, placing candidates under duress to provide private and sensitive information that is not at all relevent to the job? Google and Yahoo, that's handing over private email accounts for fucks sake! Aren't they opening themselves up to a massive lawsuit to anyone who refuses to provide those details, and is then not hired?
posted by ArkhanJG at 4:53 AM on June 20, 2009

If you're going to do that, you might as well just supply fake passwords on the application to begin with.

PROTIP: Occasional transposition of adjacent characters together with an occasional ambiguous character ( 0OLl1 ) can result in both achieving the desired result of AND plausible deniability.
posted by mikelieman at 10:12 AM on June 20, 2009

Giving that information would require breaking quite a few Terms of Service Agreements. If I'm applying for a job, and you search and find my Facebook pages, with lots of 420 comments and the picture of me with a nice huge spliff, feel free to base your hiring decision accordingly. I'd no more give you my email password than my ATM pin. Dumb, dumb and dumberer.
posted by theora55 at 11:42 AM on June 20, 2009

"I'd say this is one where the city attorney has tried to protect the city, but has really increased its exposure to risk."

This is ridiculous. All you need is a standard background check, a credit check and some contract language with liability waivers and expectations of conduct in public as a public employee, etc., if you're worried about PR.

But it might be amusing to create some sock puppets for the purpose of getting past their absurd requirements, though I can't imagine working for people who think this is a good idea. And anyone who gives them their passwords is a damn fool, plus by going that far the city is just asking to get sued.
posted by krinklyfig at 1:44 PM on June 20, 2009

Welcome to McCarthyism for the 21st Century.

Is there any way this is not going to eventually end up before SCOTUS? I've got to admit that I'd find a legal battle in which freedom of speech and the right to privacy are both at issue riveting.
posted by Lolie at 3:31 PM on June 20, 2009

I told ya so!

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

They've dropped the password requirement...

The City of Bozeman has made a change in hiring policy, just two days and one worldwide reaction after we broke the story, Bozeman will no longer ask applicants for social networking user names and passwords.

"Effective at noon today the city of Bozeman permanently ceased the practice of requesting that candidates selected for positions under a provisional job offer to provide their usernames or passwords for candidates Internet sites," said Chris Kukulski, Bozeman City Manager.

Kukulski says that following a 90 minute staff meeting held on Friday morning, officials decided asking applicants to provide their passwords to sites such as Facebook or MySpace, "exceeded that which is acceptable to our community".

Kukulski also apologized for the negative impact the issue has generated from news organizations and blogs around the world. He added that the information was never required at the time of application.

"This was a question that was asked after you were conditionally offered the job." He said the city also is suspending the practice of viewing any password protected information.

The city will continue using the Internet as part of background checks to judge the character of applicants, and although the city will stop asking for passwords Kukulski says the passwords already given by previous applicants will remain the confidential property of the city.
posted by matty at 4:10 PM on June 20, 2009

"The city will continue using the Internet as part of background checks to judge the character of applicants, and although the city will stop asking for passwords Kukulski says the passwords already given by previous applicants will remain the confidential property of the city."

I guess until someone changes it, or decides to "reclaim" that property through the courts.
posted by krinklyfig at 4:58 PM on June 20, 2009

The city will continue using the Internet as part of background checks to judge the character of applicants, and although the city will stop asking for passwords Kukulski says the passwords already given by previous applicants will remain the confidential property of the city.

Somebody needs to talk to their attorney about ownership of confidential information, but then that guy showed that he probably is not the most competent attorney. Bozeman is a great town with a bunch of clueless morons in charge.
posted by caddis at 5:25 PM on June 20, 2009

This is scary, crazy, outrageous, dumb, almost unbelievable.
posted by blue shadows at 12:34 AM on June 21, 2009