City Requires Job Applicants To Hand Over All Online Usernames And Passwords

from the privacy,-much? dept

Slashdot points us to the incredible story that the city of Bozeman, Montana, as part of its hiring screening process requires applicants to not just list out what social networks and online sites they are "members" of, but to provide full login info, including passwords to all of those sites. What's even more incredible, is how the city defends it:

"So, we have positions ranging from fire and police, which require people of high integrity for those positions, all the way down to the lifeguards and the folks that work in city hall here. So we do those types of investigations to make sure the people that we hire have the highest moral character and are a good fit for the City,"

Apparently, having "the highest moral character" doesn't include knowing better than to violate prospective employees' privacy -- and the privacy of people they communicate with via social networks. When the newspaper reporter writing the story asked why the city didn't just create, say, a page on Facebook and ask applicants to "friend" it in order to see their profile, the city attorney seemed surprised that this was even possible, noting that he would explore that option.

Filed Under: bozeman, job applicants, privacy, social networks

MySpace: That Great Club Everyone Used To Go To

from the what-will-open-in-its-space? dept

With the news that MySpace is laying off a big chunk of staff and trying to refocus and start to win back some buzz from Facebook and Twitter, our own Derek Kerton made a useful observation that social networks appear to be similar to nightclubs: "Launch, get hot, go bust in 2-3 years, and then another sets up in the same place." Indeed. How quickly people forget. In the 90s, you could argue that GeoCities and SixDegrees were the "social networks" everyone used. And then there was Friendster which begat MySpace which begat Facebook which begat Twitter.

So, the question is... is this inevitable? Should we consider social networks the equivalent of a hip night club with a clear and inherent half-life of "coolness" before it certainly goes bust only to be replaced by something else? If so, what are the signs of trouble? When big media takes over? When Hollywood stars sign up? When your parents sign up? If not, what's the difference? Who can break the cycle?

Filed Under: night clubs, social networks
Companies: facebook, myspace, twitter

Texas Politicians Want To Make It A Felony To Create Intimidating Fake Online Profiles

from the if-you-intimidate,-please-be-real dept

The latest in a long line of questionable "cyberbullying" legislation has shown up in Texas, where the legislature has approved a bill that would make it a felony to create a fake social networking profile with intent to "harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten" anyone. Of course, that seems rather broad. Oddly, the article doesn't mention the Lori Drew case (Update: actually, it does mention Lori Drew at the bottom... but says this law wouldn't apply, because it only applies to fake profiles of "real people"), though, it does mention the Tony La Russa/Twitter legal battle, even though it's difficult to think any court would rule a parody profile as being with intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten. Of course, even if the bill is signed into law, Eric Goldman notes that it would likely have trouble surviving much of a challenge, pointing out the oddity of singling out "social networking sites" and (more importantly) the fact that any such law would likely ban all sorts of protected free speech. Still, "anti-cyberbullying" laws are all the rage these days, and politicians want to make sure they can tell constituents that they're out there "protecting the children," so expect to see plenty more of this type of legislation.

Filed Under: bullying, cyberbullying, fake profiles, profiles, regulations, social networks, texas

Apparently If You Work For The AP, You're Not Allowed To Criticize Newspaper Management

from the keep-quiet,-peon dept

Want yet another example of the Associated Press' out-of-date approach to things (as if there weren't enough already)? The organization apparently officially reprimanded a reporter, Richard Richtmyer, who made an offhand comment on his Facebook page, mildly criticizing the management of McClatchy, a large newspaper chain (and, of course, an AP member). On the whole, the comment (about trouble at McClatchy) was pretty benign:

It seems like the ones who orchestrated the whole mess should be losing their jobs or getting pushed into smaller quarters. But they aren't.

Apparently that was enough to get an official reprimand letter put on file (though, the union is now protesting this). However, it shows the way the AP still views the journalism business, where actually expressing some sort of opinion is somehow seen as an offense. In this case, it wasn't even in his capacity as a reporter, which makes the whole thing even sillier. I'm going to trust someone who is free to tell me their opinion over someone who has to pretend he has no opinion, any day.

Filed Under: criticism, richard richtmyer, social networks
Companies: associated press, facebook, mcclatchy

Yes, Your Parole Officer Can Use Facebook Too

from the stupid-criminal-series dept

It seems there's never a shortage of folks trying to get listed in the new feature about stupid criminals giving themselves away. We just had the bank robber who bragged about his escapades on MySpace, and now we have a story about a girl (under the legal drinking age) awaiting trial for vehicular homicide for driving drunk and killing a motorcyclist. Apparently, as a part of her bail while waiting for trial, she was not to drink alcohol or spend time with people drinking alcohol. So, now she's in a bit of trouble after authorities found photos of her drinking alcohol with college friends on Facebook. Apparently, she never thought anyone would notice. The judge, however, is now forcing her to wear a special ankle bracelet that senses alcohol in perspiration. Either way, once again, it's nice to see that for all the moral panic talk about the "harm" done by social networks, some law enforcement folks are using it to actually catch criminals.

Filed Under: criminals, social networks

Criticizing Social Networks Leads To Wacked Out Hyperbole

from the news-at-11 dept

There are plenty of reasons to criticize certain aspects of social networking services such as Facebook and Twitter, and it's no surprise at all that there's something of a growing backlash against some of the sites. But, what's amazing is the level of hyperbole that has come with criticism of both Facebook and Twitter over the past few months, most of it either flat-out wrong or, at the very least, uninformed:

• First, there was the totally ridiculous claim that Facebook would give you cancer. Of course, that's just what the press release said. The actual research said no such thing.
• Then there were the researchers who claimed that Facebook made girls depressed, but seemed unaware of the difference between correlation and causation.
• Then there was the claim that the only people who used Twitter were losers who had no self-identity (this from a clinical psychologist) or massively insecure (from a cognitive neuroscientist). There was no reasoning behind those claims. They just didn't like Twitter. The same thing, of course, could be said about email. Or the telephone. Or the telegraph. Or letters. How dare people wish to communicate with others! Insecure bastards!
• Next up was the pharmacology professor who claimed that Twitter and Facebook help infantilize our brains. Based on what evidence? Nothing more than a hunch and some incorrect assumptions. I'd argue that making stuff up is more likely to infantilize our brains than communicating with others.
• Then there was the study that got tons of press about how students who used Facebook got worse grades than those who didn't. The problem there? Bad research methodology. Some more comprehensive research showed the original findings were total bunk.
• And, now, the very latest, found via Mathew Ingram is some guy (who's name we won't even bother mentioning because he's simply trying to gain publicity to sell books on how to get noticed) claiming that Twitter causes brain damage. He had put out a press release claiming this (he's not a doctor or a scientist or anything -- just a "social media expert" who obviously shouldn't be hired for help with Twitter), but then pulled it down when someone who had a relative with brain damage complained. But he stuck by his complaints, none of which make much sense:

  Twitter is little more than a slick microblog service, really nothing more than Facebook's status update feature, which I happen to think is better designed.

  Er... no one said it was anything more than that. But it is actually quite different from Facebook's status update, mainly in the openness of Twitter. But that's fine. So he doesn't like it. Why does that mean it causes brain damage?

  I don't want to follow Domino's pizza on Twitter. Sometimes I just want the pizza, you know?

  I don't want to follow Domino's Pizza on Twitter either. So, you know what? I don't.

  And I think Twitter teaches younger users the wrong values -- namely, that WHAT you say matters far less than how many "followers" you have.

  Really? Then someone is using Twitter incorrectly. I never look at how many followers anyone has and I don't really care. All that matters to me in figuring out who I follow is if they have something interesting to say. In my experience, Twitter is exactly the opposite of what this guy claims. Perhaps his issue about numbers of users displays more about his own fears than Twitter.

  And it is making us dumber: news anchors airing dumb, abbreviated opinions of 15-year-olds. Who cares?

  Ah, yes, anecdotal stupidity. Well, it's just as easy to flip that around. Twitter is allowing those who never had a voice before to get heard. Will it be misused or used badly? Sure, at times. But does that condemn the whole system? No more than the fact that some folks use the telephone to say stupid things to one another means the telephone makes us stupid.

  Also, most of what I read on Twitter is social posturing, self-promotion, and nonsense -- a whole community of people trying to boost their "follower count" without building real relationships with friends or customers or anyone else.

  The problem seems to be this guy doesn't follow interesting people and doesn't seem to recognize the little button that makes it easy to unfollow anyone you dislike. Most of what I read on Twitter is insightful, interesting, relevant and fascinating. But that's because I try to follow insightful, interesting, relevant and fascinating people on Twitter. This guy should try that.

On the whole, though, it does seem a bit odd, looking at how incredibly hyperbolic and unsupported all of these claims are. Based on them, I could easily retort that "Criticizing Twitter And Facebook Makes You Stupid." But who would make widespread generalizations based on a few hand-picked pieces of data anyway?

Filed Under: criticism, hyperbole, social networks
Companies: facebook, twitter

More Troubling Proposed Anti-Social Networking Laws: CA Wants Photo Removal Law

from the get-over-it dept

It's amazing what sort of laws politicians will come up with when they overreact to something that new technology allows, without bothering to understand the issue. It appears some California state politicians are upset about the fact that people are uploading photos and videos to social networking sites, and those photos may reveal something the subject of the photo wouldn't like. So, they want to require any site that allows uploads of images or videos to be required to take down that content on request of a subject in that content. Yes, even if the photo or video were taken in public.

In looking over text of the bill (warning: pdf), it looks like the original idea was worse: that social networking sites would be required to prevent anyone from copying an image off of a website. It looks like someone explained to the bill's sponsor how that's impossible. However, even though the bill claims that it's aimed at photos of people who had an expectation of privacy, that doesn't appear to be anywhere in the actual text. Instead, sites would be required to take down content on the request of anyone in the image. Sites would also be responsible for verifying that the takedown request came from the person actually in the photo, though there's no mechanism to determine how. It's also not clear how to deal with photos that involve multiple people.

But, honestly, what's most unclear... is why such a law is needed in the first place? It seems like a major hassle for no good reason whatsoever -- especially in an era where taking photos and sharing them has become the norm for many people.

Filed Under: california, first amendment, photos, social networks

Can Employers Fire Workers For What's Said In A Private Online Group?

from the privacy-questions dept

The Wall Street Journal has an article exploring an interesting lawsuit in New Jersey, concerning privacy of employee comments in a private forum outside of work. In this case, some workers at a restaurant had set up a private MySpace group where they discussed work, including patrons of the restaurant and their supervisors. It's the typical sort of thing that people always joke about -- in the past, to each other in person, and these days online. The whole thing was private, and a way of joking around/letting off steam -- but, of course, one employee showed a supervisor, who initially laughed it off. However, the news spread up the chain of command, and the employee, who initially revealed the group, was forced to hand over her login to the group, which was used by the restaurant's managers, who then fired the creators of the group. The fired employees claim that the info was accessed illegally, violating wiretapping laws. That may be a difficult claim to substantiate, and could raise questions about what constitutes illegal access to such info (after all, the only reason supervisors found out in the first place was because one employee voluntarily shared the info). Still, it does seem like quite an overreaction to fire the workers because of this group.

Filed Under: conversation, privacy, social networks

End Of An Era: Yahoo Finally Killing Off Geocities

from the bye-bye dept

Just last night, I got into a conversation with someone about the rise and fall of various social networking sites. The key point was that they all seem to come and go -- and we were noting how MySpace and Facebook were following that trend. I brought up that it was the same thing that had happened in the past with SixDegrees and Friendster as well... when the guy I was talking to pointed out that I shouldn't forget GeoCities. In many ways, GeoCities was the original social network. It's where I got my very first website way back in 1996 or so (when the company was still called Beverly Hills Internet, and the service was GeoPages, not GeoCities). I learned HTML in order to figure out how to set up and manage my site on GeoPages (now long gone, of course). In 1999, Yahoo bought GeoCities for a bit less than $3 billion -- and, as big companies are known to do with hot startups -- did pretty much nothing with it (other than quickly laying off most of the employees and pissing off users).

I actually knew the site was still operating, because just a month or so ago, I came across the GeoCities site of a friend of mine who had first convinced me to use GeoCities -- and his page was still up, looking pretty much the same as it did in 1996. However, Yahoo has now announced that it will be shutting down GeoCities as part of its ongoing effort to consolidate and concentrate. Still, as Rich Skrenta points out, it's rather ridiculous to just shut down a property that gets 11 million unique visitors per month. Rich is offering to simply take over the site for Yahoo, promising to give them back 50% of any revenue. I wonder if others would want the same. Could you imagine a bidding war for GeoCities in 2009?

Filed Under: geocities, social networks
Companies: yahoo

Political Candidate Drops Out Of Race Due To Racy Facebook Photos

from the that-was-quick dept

It really was just three years ago when we were saying we couldn't wait for the MySpace generation to run for office, knowing that the skeletons in their closets wouldn't actually be in their closets at all, but would have been posted online for all to see. While we actually expected that it would lead to a point where people pretty much brushed off and ignored such "youthful indiscretions," we certainly have't reached that point yet. A guy running for office in British Columbia, Canada, has dropped out of the election after images of him groping a woman's breast (that first appeared on his Facebook page) came to light. It's not clear when the photos in question were taken, but expect to see political candidates and their online presence scrutinized in more and more detail in future elections...

Filed Under: campaigns, canada, politics, social networks
Companies: facebook