<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: City of Bozeman, MT Stops Requiring Applicants&#8217; to Hand Over Social Media Names and Passwords</title>
	<atom:link href="http://legalgeekery.com/2009/06/21/bozeman-suspends-social-media-password-disclosure/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://legalgeekery.com/2009/06/21/bozeman-suspends-social-media-password-disclosure/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 13:17:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Laura Bergus</title>
		<link>http://legalgeekery.com/2009/06/21/bozeman-suspends-social-media-password-disclosure/comment-page-1/#comment-2556</link>
		<dc:creator>Laura Bergus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:39:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://legalgeekery.com/?p=1779#comment-2556</guid>
		<description>@Daniel, I&#039;ve only had Con Law I, so I&#039;m sure Josh is more on point.

But for what it&#039;s worth: the Bozeman City Atty. said: &lt;blockquote&gt;One thing that&#039;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&#039;t use those.&lt;/blockquote&gt; in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=10551414#poll84472&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;. I think you&#039;re right, the state entity would be more concerned with the *state* constitution. &lt;a href=&quot;http://leg.mt.gov/css/Laws%20and%20Constitution/Current%20Constitution.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Article II, Sections 4-7&lt;/a&gt; of Montana&#039;s constitution prohibit discrimination on the basis of &quot;race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political or religious ideas,&quot; all things that are often readily apparent in someone&#039;s Facebook profile, for instance. Collecting identifiable information on these factors can certainly be a liability for a state entity if a spurned applicant believes such employment discrimination occurred.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Daniel, I&#8217;ve only had Con Law I, so I&#8217;m sure Josh is more on point.</p>
<p>But for what it&#8217;s worth: the Bozeman City Atty. said:<br />
<blockquote>One thing that&#8217;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&#8217;t use those.</p></blockquote>
<p> in <a href="http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=10551414#poll84472" rel="nofollow">this article</a>. I think you&#8217;re right, the state entity would be more concerned with the *state* constitution. <a href="http://leg.mt.gov/css/Laws%20and%20Constitution/Current%20Constitution.asp" rel="nofollow">Article II, Sections 4-7</a> of Montana&#8217;s constitution prohibit discrimination on the basis of &#8220;race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political or religious ideas,&#8221; all things that are often readily apparent in someone&#8217;s Facebook profile, for instance. Collecting identifiable information on these factors can certainly be a liability for a state entity if a spurned applicant believes such employment discrimination occurred.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joshua Auriemma</title>
		<link>http://legalgeekery.com/2009/06/21/bozeman-suspends-social-media-password-disclosure/comment-page-1/#comment-2555</link>
		<dc:creator>Joshua Auriemma</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:13:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://legalgeekery.com/?p=1779#comment-2555</guid>
		<description>@Daniel, I won&#039;t represent that I&#039;m exceptional at Con Law, but assuming that there is a zone of privacy granted through penumbras or whatever privacy theory you want to adopt, isn&#039;t implied preemption applicable?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Daniel, I won&#8217;t represent that I&#8217;m exceptional at Con Law, but assuming that there is a zone of privacy granted through penumbras or whatever privacy theory you want to adopt, isn&#8217;t implied preemption applicable?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel</title>
		<link>http://legalgeekery.com/2009/06/21/bozeman-suspends-social-media-password-disclosure/comment-page-1/#comment-2553</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:13:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://legalgeekery.com/?p=1779#comment-2553</guid>
		<description>Not sure what Constitutionally protected stuff you&#039;re talking about. Most of the Bill of Rights (which is probably the bit you&#039;re referring to) is restricting what Congress can or can&#039;t do, not so much city governments. There are laws protecting our privacy, but not in the Constitution.

However, the requirement was definitely breaking Facebook&#039;s Terms of Service (specifically 4.6, which states: &quot;You will not share your password, let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.&quot;)

In fact, according to Newsy.com&#039;s video about the issue, Facebook has stated they would be contacting the city about the breach of policy. What a day when Facebook tells the government what it can&#039;t do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not sure what Constitutionally protected stuff you&#8217;re talking about. Most of the Bill of Rights (which is probably the bit you&#8217;re referring to) is restricting what Congress can or can&#8217;t do, not so much city governments. There are laws protecting our privacy, but not in the Constitution.</p>
<p>However, the requirement was definitely breaking Facebook&#8217;s Terms of Service (specifically 4.6, which states: &#8220;You will not share your password, let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.&#8221;)</p>
<p>In fact, according to Newsy.com&#8217;s video about the issue, Facebook has stated they would be contacting the city about the breach of policy. What a day when Facebook tells the government what it can&#8217;t do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

