Maryland D.O C. : Is This For A Background Check, Or 4th Amendment Violation?

Strolling through one of my Facebook accounts tonight while in chat I happened upon this piece of news.

Now, for those of you who do not have a Facebook account, I'll add a portion of this news here.

And no, I am not a Law Enforcement Officer, I follow many, and I mean many sources for my information.

On a daily basis.

The below picture is leading the story as well.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/850ea4ee71c8.jpg[/atsimg]

Quote from : Law Enforcement Today's "My Two Cents"

Law Enforcement Today's "MY TWO CENTS"
By Law Enforcement Today --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Maryland Division of Corrections has imposed a blanket requirement that applicants for employment with the Division, and all officers undergoing re-certification, provide the government with their social media account usernames and personal passwords for use in employee background checks.

This allows the DOC to access private messages, pictures and wall posts that are not intended for viewing by those who don’t have permission.

This gross violation of privacy is illegal under the Federal Stored Communications Act." ACLU-MD

Personally, I believe this violates many of those Officer's Constitutional Rights, in every way.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.

In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment's protections do not apply when the searched party lacks a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

The Supreme Court has also ruled that certain searches and seizures violated the Fourth Amendment even when a warrant was properly granted.

Read further.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution : Text

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It also borders upon a violation of their First Amendment Rights if you consider the implications.

Quote from : Wikipedia : First Amendment to the United States Constitution

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights.

The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress.

However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.

Read further.

Quote from : Wikipedia : First Amendment to the United States Constitution :Text

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Read further.

And as well as bordering on a violation of their Fifth Amendment Rights against self-incrimination.

This is insane.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure.

Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215.

For instance, grand juries and the phrase "due process" both trace their origin to the Magna Carta.

Read further.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution : Text

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It would be one thing if they asked if someone had a social media account and asked for the "User Name".

But they are asking for passwords as well and with that they could potentially block and shut down someone's account, not to mention searching for those person's ideas, while that is not necessarily the absolute worst of ideas, it is still a direct violation of the 4th Amendment Rights of individuals, no matter their employment, whether by a Federal Government agency, or a civilian organization.

But this also reminds me of this particular thread which I posted on the other day.

Dallas officer put on leave after Facebook post bragging about abuses

Go read that and come back to this thread if you will.

Now, I placed this in the Political Ideology forum area, because it goes across many political ideological boundaries.

And it is reminiscent of a few threads I did quite some time ago.

Philsophical Discussion : Freedom of Speech vs Treasonous Actions On ATS...

...and...

Philosophical Discussion : What If Next Time You Clicked "Post New Topic" Made You A Terrorist?

Personally, Maryland is trying to overstep their bounds of policy, procedure, and protocol.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bf5b920b22ea.jpg[/atsimg]

What do you say ATS'ers?

Well, I disagree. You don't have to apply to be a cop. Therefore, there is an implicit agreement to these requirements when applying for said position.
I don't like to pee in a cup, therefore I don't apply to jobs that require me to do so. I think the principle is the same here.

Please, convince me otherwise. I really hope you do, and I am open to it, but that's how I see it.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Its funny how LEOs cry and scream foul when its THEIR rights being trampled on.

The other 364 days of the year, they don't seem to put up much of a fuss when they're doing it to the rest of us.

reply to post by joechip


You are 100% correct.

No one had to apply, to be a Law Enforcement Officer, unless they want a job.

Now, how many corporations, ignore this is a Department of Corrections, ask you to give this information?

And on top of this force you to give your password?

As a means to search your background?

Now, I have no issue with a Law Enforcement organization, searching for your social networking information.

If it is part of a pre-employment background check.

Corporation's, Government, or private citizens can go search those without anything stopping them.

As a small business owner, I might consider doing just that, if I was hiring someone.

For a sensitive job position.

But this is pre-employment for a Federal job asking you to supply your social networking "user name".

Or e-mail in which you sign-up with it.

PLUS their passwords?

Horse puckey.

They might be able to ask for the e-mail address, even a user name, but not a password.

Still, it does scream as a violation of the protection of 1st Amendment Rights, no matter who did it.

Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

Its funny how LEOs cry and scream foul when its THEIR rights being trampled on.

The other 364 days of the year, they don't seem to put up much of a fuss when they're doing it to the rest of us.

I think you're mistaken.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3036b959455c.png[/atsimg]

Everyone screams when they're rights are trampled upon.

If they know their rights to begin with.

And just how many people being arrested truly know their Constitutional Rights?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/556b54d98101.gif[/atsimg]

Too many stupid people put themselves into the back of that Police car by ignorant actions.

Let alone behind bars in a prison.

I'm betting very, very few in fact do know those rights, usually relying, rather lazily upon lawyers.

Instead of actually knowing their rights and standing up for them and using common sense.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9989bf96b514.jpg[/atsimg]

Come on now, FortAnthem, you're going to have to convince me with much more than that.

Unconstitutional

If I understand correctly this is a violation of the fourth and could infringe on a persons ability to speak freely
by societal standards. Employment is not a substitute for reasonable cause which is the general benchmark set forth by the constitution.

They might be able to ask for the e-mail address, even a user name, but not a password. Still, it does scream as a violation of the protection of 1st Amendment Rights, no matter who did it.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


I'm sorry but so far, you have failed to convince me. Again, these protections against the invasion of privacy do not apply to someone who voluntarily agrees to them. As in applying for a job. I wish it were not so. I would like there to be the same sort of judicial activism that insured equality and fairness in housing or other aspects of "voluntary" interaction, but at present that is not how the law is interpreted. As I understand it, at least.

I don't like this policy, I should be clear on that. But I don't see how it is unconstitutional, given our present interpretation.

Originally posted by joechip

They might be able to ask for the e-mail address, even a user name, but not a password. Still, it does scream as a violation of the protection of 1st Amendment Rights, no matter who did it.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

I'm sorry but so far, you have failed to convince me. Again, these protections against the invasion of privacy do not apply to someone who voluntarily agrees to them. As in applying for a job. I wish it were not so. I would like there to be the same sort of judicial activism that insured equality and fairness in housing or other aspects of "voluntary" interaction, but at present that is not how the law is interpreted. As I understand it, at least.

I don't like this policy, I should be clear on that. But I don't see how it is unconstitutional, given our present interpretation.

Okay, fair enough, you're obviously not thinking about the implications of this on many levels.

So, I'll dig deeper, and see just how much it takes to convince you.

Because if there is not alreay a law covering this it will become a dangerous precedent for regular citizens.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution : Text

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Underlined by SKL

This law had originally to do with the pre-Revolutionary War, and during the Revolutionary War, wherein the soldiers of Britain, the "red coats", would search and seize property of farmers they felt were harboring "fugitives", and or as well defining said property as confiscated in order to feed, shelter, and or allow British soldiers to hold up within a British citizens homestead.

Now, the underlined parts, specifically address my thoughts, which I will expand upon here.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons.

We as citizens have the right to be secure in knowing our information, physical location, and family are secure.

And effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

Our effects are anything we deem our property, said information, if a password is surrendered, is our property.

And unreasonable search, would be anyone, no matter their station, searching through your information.

Without your permission.

This says this within all of this and is basically backed up with shall not be violated..

Quote from : Wikipedia : First Amendment to the United States Constitution :Text

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Underlined by SKL.

Now, obviously, the Maryland Department of Corrections, is not Congress.

Or abridging the freedom of speech.

If a Corrections Officer were to sue the Maryland D.O.C. Congress cannot pass a law if the Supreme Court rules against this man, the court would in essence be opening up a dangerous precedent, dealing with our citizens rights, as regular citizens, and or as well those of the people who do not get hired due to a policy of the Maryland D.O.C., a policy which cannot be enforced.

Or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

The right to peaceably assemble would be infringed upon by anyone being mandated by a job requiring someone surrender their password, not just the e-mail address and or user name, but a password, which is not a publishable document and or information.

Something which is made up by said person to protect their privacy from being infringed upon.

By everyone else in their household, town, city, state, and or country.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution : Text

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This is the the most sacrosanct law herein where anyone within a courtroom can deny and stand against.

The right to refuse to incriminate one's self.

You cannot force anyone to incriminate themselves.

As a part of a pre-employment background check someone cannot force you to make yourself a criminal.

No one is saying anyone has done something wrong, but if the laws are so feeble as to allow something like this detrimental policy of a pre-employment background check to be enforced, what is to stop everyone being forced to supply their passwords?

Just to get a job at McDonalds?

Or Taco Bell?

What about President Obama?

Did he have to surrender his password before swearing his oath of office?

Unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.

If you're indicted by a grand jury.

Last time I checked you have to have had a grand jury formed against you.

And they do not do that for a pre-employment background check.

Unless they found something through a regular background check without violating your rights.

Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

Last time I checked it was not a criminal case which was formed to get hired.

Without a criminal case of some sort a corporation has no right to ask for your password.

Even a court of law cannot force you to supply your password.

They can serve a search warrant to your I.S.P. or e-mail server corporation.

But they cannot force you to supply your password and or e-mail contents.

Without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use

Not without having gone through the due process of law.

Meaning they have checks and balances, we as citizens, pre-employed Department of Corrections too.

And you cannot take private property for public use.

A Law Enforcement agency would use this information for a public use.

To discriminate, to pre-screen, and or eliminate you from their hiring process.

While done in private it is a public usage of private information.

reply to post by joechip



Star and Flag

Yes.....Highly Unconstitutional. I am one of those that dont believe in the Police State,and one that is highly critical of Police officers. Even I can see the fine line in this one.

Without a criminal case of some sort a corporation has no right to ask for your password. Even a court of law cannot force you to supply your password. They can serve a search warrant to your I.S.P. or e-mail server corporation. But they cannot force you to supply your password and or e-mail contents.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


I believe you are mixing apples and oranges here.

The point you fail to address is that the interaction is VOLUNTARY. No one has forced these job applicants to supply passwords or e-mail contents. They do so as a job requirement, voluntarily. Address that, and go from there. I agree this is a heinous policy. There may be better legal approaches than the ones you've supplied. Or tell me why not.

reply to post by joechip


Heres a similar case,albeit private sector.

The National Labor Relations Board sued a Connecticut ambulance service last year, after it fired an emergency medical technician (EMT) who voiced opinions the company took issue with on Facebook. Her comments may have been negative, the NLRB argued, but they were protected speech under federal labor laws

Can Facebook Get You Fired? Not Any More

Free speech is free speech,and protected within federal labor laws.. I can see the lawsuits piling up on this one................

reply to post by sonnny1


Very interesting. I believe this represents a "landmark decision" if it holds. I still don't know if the voluntary nature of the OP's example would lead to the applicability of this decision to that case...I doubt it. I think this has been tested before and some states do not allow mandatory drug testing in the workplace...I'm beginning to think this is not so settled an issue.

In two cases involving U.S. Customs guards and railroad workers, the majority of the Court held that urine tests are searches, but that these particular employees could be tested without being suspected drug users on the grounds that their Fourth Amendment right to privacy was outweighed by the government's interest in maintaining a drug-free workplace. Although these decisions represent a ruling, it does not affect all government workers, and the fight over the constitutionality of testing is far from over.

www.lectlaw.com...

Perhaps your public service job applicants may have a federal case after all, OP, at least the ACLU would appear to think so.

reply to post by joechip


That word you used, which this agency, the Department of Correction for Marlyand, voluntary?

If it is a prerequisite, meaning a part of the job application, is completely false.

If you're supposed to supply it, whether voluntary, or mandatory, if it is written as a part of the application process, means it is sought out, through asking you to voluntarily supply information in which an organization has no right to have means they expect it as a part of the background check process, a password is a means to secure access.

So, as an example, Neighborhood Watch comes to a neighborhood, but as a requirement of being participating members you have to supply keys to your house, car, and the combination to your safe, and your Pin Number for your bank account.

Does this honestly make sense to you?

Again, asking for the e-mail addresses would be tolerable, although quite silly.

But the God-damned password too?

Sorry, no one has the right to ask you for a password, about the only acceptable place might be social netowrking sites where you want the organization to seek out your friends through e-mail associations, which is exactly what this dangerous precedent opens up for those job seekers and their future employers, which means they can not only access those accounts but through having passwords they can change settings, delete information, pictures, and or change who your friends are, a whole lot of other things they have no right to the acess of in the very beginning of this discussion.

If anyone told me I was expected, whether voluntary, or mandatory, to supply not only my e-mail address but the password?

I'd tell them to get bent.

If they denied me a job due to not supplying this I'd own that corporation and or state of federal agency.

That is a denial of employment based upon my standing for my 4th, 1st, and 5th Amendment Rights.

Not to mention discrimination based upon information I am expected to supply.

E-mail address?

Yes.

Password?

Not only no, but Hell, God-damned no.

I do not think you truly understand the implications.

Yes, a heinous policy of pre-employment, for a job where prisoners are guarded and or transferred from prison to prison, etc.

What if as a part of the pre-employment background check you were expected to give them to keys to your house?

So they could search your property.

The keys to your car.

Your bank account Pin Number?

I can understanding asking for the information, as in your address, what type of car, and the bank account number, but not the access which gives you the ability to secure it from other people, up to and including denial of access for theft and or robbery.

If it not a matter of what do these people have to hide either.

A human has the right to privacy to protect one's own property from theft, information is property even on a social networking website, protection of denial of service meaning the job could deny my access to my own social networking account, by changing the password after supplying it, and again this all goes back to the 4th Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure.

You cannot search for information upon a citizen without due process of law.

Meaning a search warrant which entitles said Law Enforcement agency to do so through a Court Order.

You cannot seize that same information without due process of law.

Meaning a search warrant which entitles said Law Enforcement agency to do so through a Court Order.

By demanding, whether through voluntary cooperation or not, someone supply their password this is meant as a mean to search, through access being allowed, and seize information, because you are seizing it simply by viewing it and or distributing it.

It might be on a publicly accessed website, which most websites are, but you sign-up knowing your information is protected with a certain degree of certainty, otherwise there would be no request for you to create a member/user name.

With a password.

Without a password, that information can be accessed by anyone, which means your information is not secure.

Again, I could understand asking for the e-mail address, or even them finding it by putting my name within their searchn engines and or through information database, but not asking for my password, because there is a degree of certainty of protection.

Simple enough answer to the question: As a taxpayer and a voter, I require such information to be publicly provided for anyone holding or attempting to hold such an elected (or one appointed and ultimately answers to an elected official) position or any position that is partially or fully paid by taxes.

Effectively, this would be every government job from POTUS to local road crew worker.

reply to post by joechip

Very interesting. I believe this represents a "landmark decision" if it holds. I still don't know if the voluntary nature of the OP's example would lead to the applicability of this decision to that case...I doubt it. I think this has been tested before and some states do not allow mandatory drug testing in the workplace...I'm beginning to think this is not so settled an issue.

You say tomatoe, I say tomotoe yet here is what you seem to be missing. Regardless of the illusion of 'voluntary' as in you have the right/choice to not apply to a job with such a 'mandatory' requirement is that, if it's in anyone's best interest to allow this kind of intrusion in the privacy and personal life of the individual.

Sadly when it comes to proving the constitutionality of some issues, it requires a whole lot of time and money and effort in hopes that yours is going to be one of the few complaints/cases the Supreme Court reviews, the ultimate arbirtor of what's constitutional or not.

Most people desperate for a job will in fact volunteer to do that mandatory thing the deminishes them and compromises them as a legal path to paying their bills through gainful employment.

Gainful employment that now in 8/10 cases can only be obtained through the State or large corporate style monopolies that have all kinds of voluntary/mandatory things you must submit to in order to get a legal paycheck.

Yet the truth is that list of voluntary/mandatory things crows as do the monopolies that are the very few places that people can turn to for legal employment and income.

They have leverage through those monopolies and they are abusing it.

Now here is the other side to the coin you may not consider, and that's why they want your passwords and facebook and social networking and email accounts, is it really because they want to ascertain your charachter or are they data mining these things for other more sinister purposes?

www.dailykos.com...:-The-HB-Gary-Email-That-Should-Concern-Us-All

Persona management software now being employed to effect the visual impact of arguments on message boards and social networking sites, by the Department of Defense and Military contractors sure could use this information to round out profiles and create false accounts.

So there are some real other dangers to giving government and corporate entities this kind of 'voluntary' information in their mandatory request.

"People are like chickens, you can pluck all their feathers and leave them naked and defenseless against the world and they will happily scamper about your feet for a few grains of seed to eat" Joseph Stalin

The Constitution in fact, might not envision everything that is coming into play in the modern day in regards to protecting the citizens from an out of control government. Nor is it a gaurantee that the Supreme Court first compromised by Lincoln when he issued an arrest warrant for the Cheif Justice who balked at Lincoln suspending the writ of habeus corpus, is still not compromised today.

Hiding behind the constitution in fundamental matters of right and wrong is just that.

Something is either wrong and represents a danger and a negative, or something is right and represents a positive and a good thing.

Those who need a Constitution or a Bible to figure that out, probably are part of the problem.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Simple enough answer to the question: As a taxpayer and a voter, I require such information to be publicly provided for anyone holding or attempting to hold such an elected (or one appointed and ultimately answers to an elected official) position or any position that is partially or fully paid by taxes.

Effectively, this would be every government job from POTUS to local road crew worker.

So, what your saying, is if this is required as a part of employment for this job, it should be for all Government jobs?

Well, not sure about Obama, but here in my local city, if a city employee sends an e-mail through Government issued e-mail addresses, it is considered open-access for the citizens, meaning it it public information, absolutely nothing to hide.

Now, that is a Government issued e-mail addres, not their private one.

If they e-mail themselves or another private citizen from a Government issued e-mail address?

It is fair game.

I have no issue with that.

Government issued?

Public information.

Privately secured through signing up?

As long as company business is not being carried out upon Government servers with a private e-mail and or social networking website it is still deemed as privately owned, and even then, with a pre-employment background check, again they can ask for the e-mail address and or social networking user name/member name, but NOT the password.

What do you think about the supplying of a private e-mail address and or password?

I understand everything else you were stating.

Oh, and I love your avatar, by the way.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Well, I do not know about you, but I would take this to the Supreme Court.

And I would make it a class action lawsuit as well.

Get the A.C.L.U. involved, Police Officer's union, you name it.

If I were applying for employment and a denial of employment was based upon denial of their access.

In other words, if I refused to give them my password, and they denied my employment.

Again, asking for the e-mail address, and or user name/member name is one thing.

Asking for the password is just stupid, ignorant, and out and out wrong.

I will do certain things to secure employment.

1) Fill out a job application - Check

2) Go to a job interview - Check

3) Submit to a drug screen and or regular drug screens- Check

4) Be on an employment probationary period - Check

5) Go through training whether paid or I have to get trained through school prior to employment. - Check

6) Supply my e-mail addresses if the job is a sensitive postion. - Check

I do not smoke, do not drink, do not smoke alternatively, have zero criminal record.

Even if I did any of those I still would not submit to giving access to the e-mail accounts.

Meaning my password is my own intellectual property which assures my access and denial of access to others of privately held information, and or the ability to change said information, and or delete said information, whereas the e-mail address and or social networking information might be data-mined, which assuredly it would be, the access and or denial of access is strictly owned by me as a private citizen, if it is a privately owned e-mail address and or social networking website.

Now, as I said to Ahabstar, if it was a Government issued e-mail address?

That Government entity owns it, and technically, so do the taxpaying citizens.

It would be on a Government owned, tax-payer owned, server which is fair game.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
Just glancing. I have had problems of my own pertaining to my Auction Thread and a Facebook/Twitter feed. I promptly shut them down. Not because I was afraid of being watched, but because I felt I was in violation of T&C not using my "real name".

Not only that but, I had befriended only one person. My real friend who has nothing to do with my opinions. He does not even like this kind of stuff. He never wants to even hear my stories. I sent the invite to him.

We live in a cage. If we have an opinion, we get tracked.

I think it does violate the first amendment right to publish anonymously. I have made no threat to any one ever, and I think they should have to get a court order to snoop on you. If in fact they have investigated me for some reason.

So you dig deep my friend.

See my blog for entire auction story.

back later.

reply to post by Janky Red

Unconstitutional

If I understand correctly this is a violation of the fourth and could infringe on a persons ability to speak freely
by societal standards. Employment is not a substitute for reasonable cause which is the general benchmark set forth by the constitution.

Thank you I think you hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately what we as citizens see as gross violations of our privacy the Supreme Court does not.

The key part of the thinking is this:

Because the information is NOT available to the general public it is NOT an invasion of your privacy. - Talk about TWISTED!

This is followed by the unequal application of the law: Some "pigs" are more equal than others"

When the Government acts in its capacity “as proprietor” and manager of its “internal operation,” ...it has a much freer hand than when it regulates as to citizens generally.

WHERE in the Constitution does it say the Constitution may be applied differently for different people??

The Supreme Court is SUPPOSED to protect the Constitution rights of the people but since FDR threatened to pack the Court in 1937 the Supreme Court made a U-turn and is more likely to support the rights of the government to ride roughshod over the people instead.

Here are the relevant parts of a recent Supreme Court decision that will be used to justify this invasion of our privacy first by the government and then by private companies:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION et al. v . NELSON et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

No. 09–530. Argued October 5, 2010—Decided January 19, 2011

...The Department of Commerce mandated that contract employees with long-term access to federal facilities complete a standard background check, typically the National Agency Check with Inquiries (NACI), by October 2007. NASA modified its contract with Cal Tech to reflect the new requirement, and JPL announced that employees who did not complete the NACI process in time would be denied access to JPL and face termination by Cal Tech.....


In two cases decided over 30 years ago, this Court referred broadly to a constitutional privacy “interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” Whalen v. Roe , 429 U. S. 589 ; Nixo n v. Administrator of General Services , 433 U. S. 425 . In Whalen, the Court upheld a New York law permitting the collection of names and addresses of persons prescribed dangerous drugs, finding that the statute’s “security provisions,” which protected against “public disclosure” of patient information, 462 U. S., at 600–601, were sufficient to protect a privacy interest “arguably . . . root[ed] in the Constitution,” id., at 605. In Nixon, the Court upheld a law requiring the former President to turn over his presidential papers and tape recordings for archival review and screening, concluding that the federal Act at issue, like the statute in Whalen , had protections against “undue dissemination of private materials.” 433 U. S, at 458. Since Nixon, the Court has said little else on the subject of a constitutional right to informational privacy. Pp. 8–10


Judicial review of the forms must take into account the context in which the Government’s challenged inquiries arise. When the Government acts in its capacity “as proprietor” and manager of its “internal operation,” Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy , 367 U. S. 886 , it has a much freer hand than when it regulates as to citizens generally. The questions respondents challenge are part of a standard background check of the sort used by millions of private employers. The Government has been conducting employment investigations since the Republic’s earliest days, and the President has had statutory authority to assess an applicant’s fitness for the civil service since 1871. Standard background investigations similar to those at issue became mandatory for federal civil-service candidates in 1953, and the investigations challenged here arose from a decision to extend that requirement to federal contract employees. This history shows that the Government has an interest in conducting basic background checks in order to ensure the security of its facilities and to employ a competent, reliable workforce to carry out the people’s business. The interest is not diminished by the fact that respondents are contract employees. There are no meaningful distinctions in the duties of NASA’s civil-service and contractor employees...

The challenged questions on SF–85 and Form 42 are reasonable, employment-related inquiries that further the Government’s interests in managing its internal operations. SF–85’s “treatment or counseling” question is a followup question to a reasonable inquiry about illegal-drug use. In context, the drug-treatment inquiry is also a reasonable, employment-related inquiry. The Government, recognizing that illegal-drug use is both a criminal and medical issue, seeks to separate out those drug users who are taking steps to address and overcome their problems. Thus, it uses responses to the drug-treatment question as a mitigating factor in its contractor credentialing decisions. The Court rejects the argument that the Government has a constitutional burden to demonstrate that its employment background questions are “necessary” or the least restrictive means of furthering its interests. So exacting a standard runs directly contrary to Whalen . See 429 U. S., at 596–597. Pp. 16–18.

... In addition to being reasonable in light of the Government interests at stake, SF–85 and Form 42 are also subject to substantial protections against disclosure to the public. Whalen and Nixon recognized that a “statutory or regulatory duty to avoid unwarranted disclosures” generally allays privacy concerns created by government “accumulation” of “personal information” for “public purposes.” Whalen , supra, at 605. Respondents attack only the Government’s collection of information, and here, as in Whalen and Nixon , the information collected is shielded by statute from unwarranted disclosure. The Privacy Act—which allows the Government to maintain only those records “relevant and necessary to accomplish” a purpose authorized by law, 5 U. S. C. §552a(e)(1); requires written consent before the Government may disclose an individual’s records, §552a(b); and imposes criminal liability for willful violations of its nondisclosure obligations, §552a(i)(1)—“evidence[s] a proper concern” for individual privacy. Whalen , supra , at 605; Nixon , supra , at 458–459. Respondents’ claim that the statutory exceptions to the Privacy Act’s disclosure bar, see §§552a(b)(1)–(12), leave its protections too porous to supply a meaningful check against unwarranted disclosures. But that argument rests on an incorrect reading of Whalen, Nixon, and the Privacy Act. Pp. 19–23.

Gainful employment that now in 8/10 cases can only be obtained through the State or large corporate style monopolies that have all kinds of voluntary/mandatory things you must submit to in order to get a legal paycheck. Yet the truth is that list of voluntary/mandatory things crows as do the monopolies that are the very few places that people can turn to for legal employment and income. They have leverage through those monopolies and they are abusing it.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I agree completely. Further reading has convinced me that this is not a settled matter of law. There are plenty of unfair and intrusive government policies that are disturbing and ARE settled matters of law, and I think I made the mistake of assuming this case was one of those.
As I stated before, I find this policy heinous. I hope its challenged at the highest level, and I do hope it's found unconstitutional.