We tend to forget that Web-based e-mail is relatively new, emerging just 10 years ago as a popular form of communication. Then the inevitable happened: It began implicating people, for crimes small and large, from politicians to CEOs, who apparently thought once they sent a Hotmail message its trail would vanish into the thin air of cyberspace. Most of us are more careful now when using the scandal-prone Internet on company time, but as more networking options surface, a rulebook for using them hasn’t.
Flathead County recently hired a private eye to investigate, among other things, whether the planning office and members of the Lakeside Neighborhood Planning Committee were intentionally exchanging sensitive information on a private online Yahoo! group. Critics allege this is a blatant Internet scandal and have even asked for the planning director’s firing. Everyone involved now acknowledges that these Web-based groups should be open to the public. But were the county’s planners intentionally acting deviously in order to ram through, of all things, a neighborhood plan? I doubt it.
Down the road, in Bozeman, an even more peculiar Internet scandal has unfolded. Allegedly, someone in that city was requiring job applicants to disclose e-mail and bank account information and access to their personal social networking sites. That, contrary to the Flathead’s, is a case of too much information. After all, those pictures of the debauchery that was St. Patrick’s Day in Butte are for the viewing pleasure of your personal Facebook “friends” only – not for those screening for a municipal position, nor the general public that would be paying your salary. So Bozeman did the only reasonable thing; it also hired a detective to investigate itself.
We can agree that public information swapped on public computers should be public, and the opposite is true for private information. But there is still no true consensus on what happens when that line is blurred.
While the case is often made that hosting a personal Web site is a form of free speech, in the sordid history of the Internet, several workers – public and private – have been asked to shut down their personal, albeit public, blogs when their employers deem them offensive. Should social-networking pages, where you choose who can view them, be treated the same way? And should government entities be able to screen yours before hiring you? I would argue no, but I also understand why government officials want to protect themselves from future embarrassment or litigation.
Flathead County is now being sued in part because its planners’ Yahoo! group wasn’t public, but there doesn’t appear to be a smoking gun since the department disclosed the online information and apologized. I have to wonder what, exactly, these two sleuths in these two towns are investigating. Maybe, they’re confiscating hard drives, or using aliases online to lure public officials into another Internet scandal.
In the Flathead, anyway, it won’t really matter if the investigator finds anything. Most of the vocal critics in Yahoo!-gate are longtime critics. That’s not to lessen their broader argument, but the lawsuit against the county and subsequent investigation is really about a years-long dispute over property rights. The Internet, like in so many cases, is just an accomplice.
Moving forward, expect government officials in the Flathead and Bozeman to become even more paranoid about using the Internet. Attorneys for each will have to give their opinions on what is acceptable use – even if those opinions will matter little since the line between public and private use keeps changing.
Let’s just hope that the new Kalispell city manager doesn’t use Twitter.