Facebook means you don’t get a backstage

The video above, in which a parent reads a letter his daughter had posted on Facebook, criticizes her, and then shoots her laptop nine times, reinforces my previous statement that while public information on the internet is not private, private information is not necessarily private, either. The video has gone viral, receiving over 18 million views in the past five days, with over 92% of the people who submitted an opinion about it “liking” it. Among my Facebook friends, many of whom are parents themselves, it has received an overwhelmingly positive response, with comments that indicate they would like their own children to receive this sort of treatment.

Apparently, the birth of a child is enough to make us forget what it is like to be a teenager.

The friend who posted the video on Facebook, for example, had some rocky times with his own parents and even had the nerve to occasionally complain to his friends about them. The main difference between him and Hannah, the unseen daughter in the video, is that he shared his complaints in person while she displayed them for her friends on Facebook. Hannah, like many who grow up with these things, was aware of Facebook’s privacy settings and had hidden the post from her parents. Unfortunately for her, she probably also told Facebook to keep her signed in so that her father was able to view her full page when updating her computer.

Although I haven’t seen any responses from Hannah (her computer has been destroyed, after all), I fear the ramifications of losing the comfort of a backstage due to technology. How would my friend’s teenage years have been different if he couldn’t complain about his parents to me without them finding out? How would his life be different now if he could never come home and complain about his boss or go out with his friends and complain about his wife or children? Venting about minor problems likely prevents major explosions, but those who like this father’s tactics don’t seem to understand that that’s what Hannah was doing. I’ve read articles speculating that in the future drunken pictures won’t be a reason not to hire somebody (or elect them president) because we will be desensitized to people’s backstage activities. We’re clearly not there yet.

Read Full Post »

Bozeman, MT: “Sir, I’m going to need to see your backstage.”

There have been a number of times that I’ve discussed the ways in which public information on the internet is not private.  If you make photos or information about yourself publicly available, you have to recognize that others might take it into consideration when forming an opinion of you.  Now, however, the city of Bozeman, MT wants to know what private information you have, too.  As noted by Ars Technica, the city’s background check waiver form includes the following request:

“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 form reads. But Bozeman isn’t simply interested in finding out where to look for potentially embarrassing personal details; the city wants full disclosure, since the form demands username and password information for each. City employees will apparently be able to dig through any information applicants have put online, regardless of whether it’s accessible to the public.

Applicants need not worry about their potentially sensitive private information, though, because the city won’t look at “protected” things:

A local news station spoke to Bozeman’s attorney and asked about the potential for problems of this sort. The city’s answer? Trust us! “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,” said attorney Greg Sullivan.

An examination of private information like this is ridiculous and the recent media attention will hopefully end Bozeman’s use of this practice.  If not, your next employer may want to come to your house and take a look through your belongings before deciding whether or not you should be hired.  Who doesn’t love Big Brother?

Update: Bozeman rescinded this policy on Friday, June 20, stating:

The extent of our request for a candidate’s password, user name, or other internet information appears to have exceeded that which is acceptable to our community.  We appreciate the concern many citizens have expressed regarding this practice and apologize for the negative impact this issue is having on the City of Bozeman.

Read Full Post »

More on internet privacy

Shamus at Scatterplot has posted another reminder that information on the internet is not private.  This time, Justice Scalia is involved:

I’ve enjoyed reading about Fordham university law professor, Joel Reidenberg’s recent class assignment. Basically, Justice Scalia recently scoffed at privacy protections on the internet. So Reidenberg had has class gather a bunch of information about Scalia and send the 15-page dossier to Scalia himself. “Among its contents are Nino’s home address, his home phone number, [his home value], the movies he likes, his food preferences, his wife’s personal e-mail address, and photos of his lovely grandchildren.” Scalia flipped out. Others have thought through this exchange better than I, and Reidenberg has responded to Scalia. Odd that Scalia thinks privacy protections are “silly” and yet loses it when someone accesses public data about him.

Meanwhile, information on the internet took another victim when a teenager crashed his Audi S4 while driving with friends.  The driver and passengers escaped with minor injuries, and one of them went home and posted video leading up to the crash, in which the driver hit speeds of at least 155 mph, on YouTube:

Authorities and rescue workers arrived on scene to find that the teens survived with minor injuries and the driver was cited for imprudent speed, but when Dane County Sheriff’s Office found a video of the incident on YouTube, they were none-to-pleased. Rather than just trashing his S4 and walking away from a high-speed wreck with his life, the teen now faces possible reckless endangerment charges via the District Attorney’s Office because he had passengers in the car.

Via: Jalopnik

Read Full Post »