Posted on 04/02/2012 5:27:43 AM PDT by rawhide
A teacher's aide was suspended after she refused to let the school district she worked access her Facebook profile. Officials at the Frank Squires Elementary School in Cassopolis, Michigan insisted they check Kimberly Hester's account last year after she posted a picture of a co-worker wearing pants around the ankles and a pair of shoes. The woman is trying to take legal action against the school now that she has been put on unpaid leave.
She told WSBT-TV: 'I did nothing wrong. And I would not, still to this day, let them in my Facebook. And I don't think it's OK for an employer to ask you.' She went on to say: 'I have the right to privacy.' A parent who Facebook friends with Hester alerted the school about the picture.
That is when Robert Colby, superintendent of the Lewis Cass Intermediate School District, asked Hester to see her personal page on the social-networking site. Ms Hester said of the encounter: 'He asked me three times if he could view my Facebook and I repeatedly said I was not OK with that.' The district put her on paid administrative leave after she refused to provide Mr Colby access to her account. The school later suspended her and stopped paying her.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I suspect you’re right, but at least it’s no longer available publicly when that procedure is used. Otherwise, it remains to be accessed, even though “de-activated”.
I’m not sure what your comment has to do with this situation. FB is a semi-public to public site; your diary is not. What is your point?
Would not have helped in this case: "A parent who Facebook friends with Hester alerted the school about the picture".
Facebooking under a fake name is no good if one of your "friends" rats out your fake name and sends a printout of objectionable contents to your employer.
Proxies are fairly meaningless these days. Once they were widely used, lots of effort was put into defeating them.
I use the old playground rule, “Don’t take anything to school you would regret if it was damaged, destroyed or stolen.”
A friend was an avid magazine reader and tried the experiment of subscribing using false names. He also made it a point to record what false name he used for which magazine. It was illuminating.
Not only did he start to receive copious spam addressed to particular fakes, but he also got phone calls directed to them, and what really disturbed him, government inquiries.
On the Internet is far worse than that. There is an astounding amount of dossier collection and data mining going on in both private business and government. And, as the old intelligence rule goes:
“Nobody wants to know anything about you for *your* benefit.”
Or not knowing the rules to Rock, Paper, Scisors, Lizard, Spock :p
Guilty, guilty, guilty.
Your desire to make someone else’s private correspondence public doesn’t make it so. You don’t have the right to access someone’s email account, even if they cc some of their emails to everyone they know.
People overly boogieman data mining. It’s just data, that’s mostly available elsewhere anyway. All the efforts to “clean” your machine just inconvenience you, anybody really curious about your internet habits can still find them from you ISP, the various DNS, and the places you visit. Meanwhile most of the data mining is just trying not to send salsa ads to white people in Minnesota.
A diary is a document that is traditionally kept private and only available to the writer.
Facebook is, by definition, a public forum. You may control your “public”, as in perhaps only family and friends can view your postings, but the whole point of FB is to make your musings and photos available to your audience.
Whole different animal, with different goals and different effects.
The fact that this is even a story makes my point. Had the woman stuck a photo of her coworker in her diary, we would have been blissfully unaware of the whole thing. As would have her employer.
Good comment.......I have a dummy that's only used to allow me to comment on newspaper articles without having to create a new account on the particular site.
She has the right to decide who she shares her private messages with. I just had a private phone conversation with several of my family members. That doesn’t give you the right to tap my phone. Sometimes I send private emails to a list of people. That doesn’t give you the right to access my email account. You have no right to access someone’s Facebook account without their consent. Just because they agree to let some people view their messages and photos does not give you the right to view what they choose not to show you. If I show my diary to all of my sisters, that doesn’t give you the right to view it without my permission. if your goal with Facebook is to open up every aspect of your life to the general public, that’s your right. It doesn’t mean that everyone else must do the same.
Well, yes and no. More than a decade ago, data mining software was developed for police use that effectively plotted the life of criminal suspects. It included where they offended, how they offended, who they associated with, their m.o. file, who they were related to, and the list went on and on.
Soon it transcended the ability of normal LEOs to see relationships and make connections, even if they had the same information in front of them. But when the second Iraq war came about, the light dawned that this software could be adapted and improved for use against complicated terrorist networks.
But with real money and expertise behind it, this software went through generational improvements, eventually migrating back to the US not for routine use against criminals, but for an ever expanding surveillance of ordinary citizens.
The need for increasing levels of data to input finally started to reach into the persistent problem of “information overload”, like a librarian. Even to what is written in the Internet.
There are now at least a half a dozen major public information security systems in use. The NSA is even opening a brand new facility in Utah just to handle and sort the immense data flow, and looking for increasingly subtle hints of what people may do in the future.
No, this has to be fought head-on just she is doing. Otherwise it becomes a “crime” or “fireable offense” to “provide a secondary page for purposes of avoiding the mandatory-disclosure act” or somesuch.
Thanks cripplecreek.
BB- did you read what I wrote?
Yes.
Did you read what I wrote?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.