A mother who says her middle-school daughter was forced to let school officials browse the 13-year-old girl’s private Facebook page is speaking out against the practice because, she says, "other parents are scared to talk about it."

Pam Broviak, who lives in the Chicago suburb of Geneva, Ill., says her daughter was traumatized when the principal of Geneva Middle School South forced the child to log in to her Facebook account, then rummaged through the girl's private information.

"What a violation of my daughter's privacy this whole episode was," Broviak said. The incident took "a huge toll on my daughter, who ended up crying through most of the rest of the day and therefore missed most of her classes. She was embarrassed and very upset."

There have been several descriptions lately of Facebook prying by schools – and one lawsuit was filed recently by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of an anonymous plaintiff against a school district that allegedly demanded a student’s social media passwords. But Broviak may be the first parent to go public with concerns about what she sees as serious violations of student privacy.

---

In a conversation with msnbc.com, Broviak said she confronted school officials about the incident involving her daughter soon after it occurred last fall and was told that they routinely investigate student issues by asking kids to log into their social networking pages -- or cellphones -- in the presence of administrators. And she said her daughter and other students told her they are frequently called into the principal’s office and told that they can’t leave until they surrender their passwords or unlock their phones and allow school officials to browse their personal information.

"(Students) let them see the accounts because otherwise, they are not allowed to leave the room. And that is just wrong," she said.

Kent Mutchler, superintendent of Geneva schools, said in an interview with msnbc.com that he couldn't comment on Broviak’s daughter because privacy rules prevent him from publicly discussing an individual student’s situation. But he said Broviak's description of district policy is inaccurate.

"We would never demand someone's password. When you have someone's password, you open yourself up to other issues," Mutchler said. "But if we have a disruptive situation, a school (official) will ask to see the page, and if the student refuses, we call the parents."

But principals only request access to students' social media pages under extreme circumstances, Mutchler said.

"There are different levels of concern. If there is a drug trafficking suspicion, we'll get the police involved. If it's something like cyberbullying, we'll say, 'This has been reported to us,' and ask to see the page," he said.

Often, students volunteer before they are even asked, he said.

"We ask, 'Is there something you want to show us?' that sort of thing. And they volunteer," he said. 

Such incidents are very rare among district middle schools, he said, contradicting Broviak's assertion that the inspections are commonplace. 

"It happens a half-dozen to a dozen times per year," he said.

Broviak's public complaint comes at a time when schools, employers and lawmakers around the country are wrestling with sticky privacy issues surrounding social networks. The state Legislature in Illinois is considering legislation that would make it illegal for employers to demand access to workers’ or applicants’ private social media information. That law is silent on the issue of schools and social media snooping, but federal legislation introduced last month by Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., would extend the protections to students, too.

Submit your questions about social media and privacy, then join our Google+ Hangout Friday at 4 p.m. ET.

Broviak said she didn't think school officials should ever look at a child's personal social media page or cellphone without first contacting parents.

"It's just wrong for them to do this, but parents are afraid to talk about it, because they are worried, 'Are they going to target my kid?'" she said.

Additionally, she said, looking at a kids' social media page violates an entire family's privacy, even if school officials don’t intend to look at posts involving other family members.

"The whole family is exposed in this," she said. "Some families communicate through Facebook. What if her aunt was going through a divorce or had an illness? And now there's these anonymous people reading through this information."

When the first incident occurred in the fall, Broviak said she didn't know what to do -- and initially chose to let it drop for fear that complaining might make things worse for her daughter. But she said reports from her daughter that other kids have been treated the same way and a recent spate of news stories surrounding the issue pushed her to speak up. Three weeks ago she published a detailed accounting of events on her personal blog, and this week agreed to be interviewed by msnbc.com.

"It's really important for people to talk about this and know what's going on," she said. "And I'm really glad that the state Legislature and Congress are considering laws to deal with this."

Her daughter, meanwhile, has learned an important but sad lesson through this experience, Broviak said.

"It's taught her to use better judgment with adults," she said. "Basically, what (they) showed her was you can’t trust anyone. Her trust in and the respect of the adults at her school has been shattered to the point that she is struggling to look beyond this abuse and allow for the education process to occur."

*Follow Bob Sullivan on Facebook.
*Follow Bob Sullivan on Twitter. 

 

If you think privacy settings on your Facebook and Twitter accounts guarantee future employers or schools can't see your private posts, guess again.

Employers and colleges find the treasure-trove of personal information hiding behind password-protected accounts and privacy walls just too tempting, and some are demanding full access from job applicants and student athletes.

In Maryland, job seekers applying to the state's Department of Corrections have been asked during interviews to log into their accounts and let an interviewer watch while the potential employee clicks through wall posts, friends, photos and anything else that might be found behind the privacy wall.

---

Previously, applicants were asked to surrender their user name and password, but a complaint from the ACLU stopped that practice last year. While submitting to a Facebook review is voluntary, virtually all applicants agree to it out of a desire to score well in the interview, according Maryland ACLU legislative director Melissa Coretz Goemann.

Student-athletes in colleges around the country also are finding out they can no longer maintain privacy in Facebook communications because schools are requiring them to "friend" a coach or compliance officer, giving that person access to their “friends-only” posts. Schools are also turning to social media monitoring companies with names like UDilligence and Varsity Monitor for software packages that automate the task. The programs offer a "reputation scoreboard" to coaches and send "threat level" warnings about individual athletes to compliance officers.

A recent revision in the handbook at the University of North Carolina is typical:

"Each team must identify at least one coach or administrator who is responsible for having access to and regularly monitoring the content of team members’ social networking sites and postings,” it reads. "The athletics department also reserves the right to have other staff members monitor athletes’ posts."

All this scrutiny is too much for Bradley Shear, a Washington D.C.-lawyer who says both schools and employers are violating the First Amendment with demands for access to otherwise private social media content.

"I can't believe some people think it's OK to do this,” he said. “Maybe it's OK if you live in a totalitarian regime, but we still have a Constitution to protect us. It's not a far leap from reading people's Facebook posts to reading their email. ... As a society, where are we going to draw the line?"

Aside from the free speech concerns, Shear also thinks colleges take on unnecessary liability when they aggressively monitor student posts.

"What if the University of Virginia had been monitoring accounts in the Yeardley Love case and missed signals that something was going to happen?” he said, referring to a notorious campus murder. “What about the liability the school might have?"

Shear has gotten the attention of Maryland state legislators, who have proposed two separate bills aimed at banning social media access by schools and potential employers. The ACLU is aggressively supporting the bills.

"This is an invasion of privacy. People have so much personal information on their pages now. A person can treat it almost like a diary," said Goemann, the Maryland ACLU legislative director. "And (interviewers and schools) are also invading other people's privacy. They get access to that individual’s posts and all their friends. There is a lot of private information there."

Maryland's Department of Corrections policy first came to light last year, when corrections officer Robert Collins complained to the ACLU that he was forced to surrender his Facebook user name and password during an interview. The state agency suspended the policy for 45 days, and eventually settled on the “shoulder-surfing” substitute.

"My fellow officers and I should not have to allow the government to view our personal Facebook posts  and those of our friends just to keep our jobs," Collins said to the ACLU at the time.

Agency spokesman Rick Binetti confirmed the new policy, but wouldn't comment on it or the proposed law which may ban it.

It's easy to see why an agency that hires prison guards would want to sneak a peek at potential employees’ private online lives. Goemann said that prisons are trying to avoid hiring guards with potential gang ties -- the agency told the ACLU it had reviewed 2,689 applicants via social media, and denied employment to seven because of items found on their pages.

"All seven of these individuals' social media applications contained pictures of them showing verified gang signs (signs commonly known to law enforcement which are utilized by gangs)," the Department of Corrections told the ACLU  in response to questions it asked about the program. It stressed the voluntary nature of social media inspection, noting that five of the 80 employees hired in the last three hiring cycles didn't provide access.

For student athletes, though, the access isn't voluntary. No access, no sports.

"They're saying to students if you want to play, you have to friend a coach. That's very troubling," said Shear, the D.C. lawyer.  "A good analogy for this, in the offline world, would it be acceptable for schools to require athletes to bug their off-campus apartments? Does a school have a right to know who all your friends are?"

There have been many high-profile embarrassing moments born of the toxic combination of student-athletes and Twitter. North Carolina defensive lineman Marvin Austin tweeted about expensive purchases on his account two years ago, then became subject of an NCAA investigation about improper conduct with a player agent. The incident led, in part, to the school's aforementioned aggressive social media policy.

So it’s not surprising that many schools want to keep a careful eye on what students are posting online.

But avoiding an uncomfortable moment is not a good enough reason to squash free speech, Spear says. Plenty of settled case law in the U.S. sides with students' rights to express themselves publicly, he said, including numerous cases involving student newspapers.  Public displays of protest are also protected: A landmark 1969 Supreme Court decisions known as Tinker vs. the Des Moines School District said school officials couldn't prevent students from wearing armbands protesting the Vietnam War as long as they weren't inciting violence.

Colleges have legitimate concerns about the things students post on social media accounts, but they should "deal with that issue the way they deal with everything else. They should educate," Shear said.

"Schools are in the business of educating, not spying," he added. "We don't hire private investigators to follow students wherever they go. If students say stupid things online, they should educate them ... not engage in prior restraint."

Goemann also noted that the rush to social media monitoring raises an often overlooked legal concern: It's against Facebook's Terms of Service.

"You will not share your password ... let anyone else access your account or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account," the site says in its policies. 

Frederic Wolens, a Facebook spokesman, wouldn't comment on the Maryland legislative proposals, but he said many of these school and employer policies appear to violate the site's terms.

"Under our terms, only the holder of the email address and password is considered the Facebook account owner. We also prohibit anyone from soliciting the login information or accessing an account belonging to someone else," he said in a statement to msnbc.com. Wolens said Facebook has yet to take a position on collegiate social media monitoring.

Social media monitoring on colleges, while spreading quickly among athletic departments, seems to be limited to athletes at the moment. There's nothing stopping schools from applying the same policies to other students, however.  And Shear says he's heard from college applicants that interviewers have requested Facebook or Twitter login information during in-person screenings.

The practice seems less common among employers, but scattered incidents are gaining attention from state lawmakers. The blog Tecca.com last year showed what it said was an image of an application for a clerical job with a North Carolina police department that included the following question:

"Do you have any web page accounts such as Facebook, Myspace, etc.?  If so, list your username and password." 

And the state of Illinois has followed Maryland's lead and is considering similar legislation to ban social media password demands by employers. 

But Shear says a patchwork of state laws isn't good enough when the stakes are this high.

"We need a federal law dealing with this," he said. "After 9/11, we have a culture where some people think it's OK for the government to be this involved in our lives, that it's OK to turn everything over to the government. But it's not. We still have privacy rights in this country, and we still have a Constitution."

*Follow Bob Sullivan on Facebook     
*Follow Bob Sullivan on Twitter.  

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. -- The mystery man whose tryst with Tyler Clementi is at the center of a privacy invasion trial prepared to testify as early as Thursday against the former Rutgers student accused of using a webcam to spy on them in a dorm room.

He was one of the last people to see Clementi, 18, who committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge on Sept. 22, 2010, just days after learning his Rutgers University roommate Dharun Ravi, now 20, covertly saw them kissing and encouraged others to look too.

---

Ravi is not charged in Clementi's suicide, which was widely portrayed as a tragic example of bullying and the toll it too often takes on gay teenagers.

Ravi is charged with 15 counts of invasion of privacy, witness and evidence tampering and bias intimidation, which is a hate crime. If convicted, he faces the possibility of 10 years in prison.

The man known only M.B., who is not a Rutgers student, visited Clementi in the dorm room he shared with Ravi on two evenings in the week before the suicide, the last being Sept. 21.

The man's identity has been closely guarded because he is considered a victim himself. Efforts to protect M.B.'s identity were requested by his lawyer, Richard Pompelio.

He said in court papers that M.B., who apparently met Clementi online, has an "overwhelming" fear that release of his identity will lead to a "total invasion" of his privacy.

Thus far, the judge has agreed to place tight restrictions on the disclosure of his identity, ordering that M.B.'s name and date of birth be given only to Ravi, his attorney and his attorney's investigator, who are bound not to disclose these details to anyone else.

It was not clear the extent to which his identity will continue to be shielded once he takes the witness stand in the trial in Middlesex County, N.J., court.

Students who lived in the same college dorm and have been called as witnesses in the trial described M.B. as about 30 years old and "sketchy."

One student witness got a laugh from the jury when she described him as "not obscenely old"; another said his age -- not that he was a man -- made his liaison with their dorm-mate "scandalous."

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

More content from msnbc.com and NBC News

• Conservative firebrand Andrew Breitbart dies at 43
• Man who jammed cell phones: 'People are extremely loud'
• 'It hurts, it hurts,' tornado victim said

 

You already have an "insurance score." You have an "Employment Credit Score."  There's even a "MedFICO," which attempts to predict whether you’ll actually pay your doctor’s bills.  Now that a "Facebook score" has been invented,  I expect a "Grocery Habits score" and a "Music Taste" score to arrive any time now.

These scores probably hurt you more than help you, and in ways that are kept secret from you.  To borrow a phrase from today's big pop-culture story, American businesses are suffering from "Score-sanity."  And you are suffering the consequences.

In case you missed it, researchers at three U.S. colleges say they've figured out a way to predict future job success by scoring applicants' Facebook profile pages. This wasn't a mere exercise in finding embarrassing college photos. The profs created five categories that map to character traits which often lead to success at work: Conscientiousness, emotional stability, agreeableness, extraversion and openness. Then, people were boiled down to a "personality score," which may as well be called a Facebook score.  Surprise! The score did a decent job of mapping to employee reviews six months later.

---

Donald Kluemper, a management professor at Northern Illinois University, said he doesn’t want human resources departments to begin using Facebook scores, which have so far been tested on only 56 people. But as my colleague Eve Tahmincioglu said so well, "It may be hard to put the Facebook personality cat back in the hiring bag."

We already know that U.S.-based hiring managers routinely browse Facebook while screening applicants (something that is illegal in Germany). A scoring system that automates that process, and promises to take human error out of it, will be just too tempting. 

 

Today is not the day to debate the wisdom of the “Moneyball-ization” of America, the wisdom of our newfound romance with everything and anything that fits into a database.  My main concern with Facebook scores -- as it is with insurance scores -- is the lack of transparency. Odds are that you pay more for your auto insurance than you should if your credit score is low. How much more? No one knows, because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that auto insurance companies don't have to tell you. Insurers have decided that credit scores are a good predictor of future insurance claims, and punish drivers based on that.  But they don't have to tell them what the low-score penalty is.

Soon, some workers will face mysterious troubles getting past the first round of interviews, and have no idea why.  The cause could be an embarrassing photo in a social media profile. But based on this new research, it could that they don't discuss classic literature often enough in their timeline, or they don't have 700 friends. 

Study after study shows that while Americans claim to care about privacy, they don't.  Fewer than 10 percent change their behavior in an attempt to preserve their privacy; another  third essentially believe: "I have nothing to hide so why should I care?" 

Your Facebook score is the answer.

Professor Daniel Solove of George Washington University, who studies the intersection of privacy and policy, has found that most young Facebook users aren't worried about the things they post online because they have a naive faith that it won't hurt them later in life.  They believe no hiring manager would hold some random Tweet against them. They are wrong.  An HR department facing a stack of 100 resumes for one job would love a numerical tool that could automatically whittle the pile to five or six.  HR departments already do some of this whittling based on credit reports.

When young people tell me they have nothing to hide, I often ask them about their music  tastes. Most use iTunes, and increasingly use subscription services like Spotify. These firms know everything about their music tastes.  It is a very small leap to imagine these companies selling this data to employment background firms, which might then find a correlation between the bands that subjects listen to and their likelihood they'll habitually be late to work. Suddenly, a private allegiance to Megadeth could become a debilitating problem for an innocent worker who would have no idea why the rejection letters won't stop.

"No fair," folks often reply.

"But quite legal," I respond. Due to a quirk in the law (thanks to a very embarrassing Supreme Court nomination proceeding for Robert Bork), video rental records cannot be shared and sold in this manner. Thank God, otherwise Netflix would have done this long ago.  But music, social media posts, blog comments -- all these things are fair game to be sold, shared, jammed into a spreadsheet, and used to raise your health insurance rates or block you from a promotion.  Bought a lot of ice cream in 2008-2013? Watch those health insurance rates rise in 2020.

Maybe that's a good thing. To be fair, some people with higher credit scores do pay less for auto insurance because of this system. We can bicker about the wisdom of data mining and correlations. But we can't bicker about this: None of this is transparent.  No laws are in place to make sure this is fair.  No one has debated the wisdom of allowing social network activity to influence employment prospects (while other societies have decided against it). And most important, no one has made the rules clear for consumers.

There is a model for this. In the credit world, when consumers are denied a loan because of a low credit score, they are entitled to receive a "notice of adverse action." They are also entitled to see a copy of the credit report used in the decision.  Now is the time to think about regulations to ensure such consumer rights in this even-expanding world of "Score-sanity."  If someone's job prospects are hurt by the number of Tweets they publish on the New York Yankees, they should know. They should be entitled to a copy of their "Facebook Score" and the report that goes with it. 

I know companies which create such reports view them as proprietary, as the secret sauce they sell, and they fear that if consumers learn how the system works, they'll try to game the system. Tough. We’re talking about lives and livelihoods here. 

Correction: An initial version of this report said HR departments use credit scores when considering applicants. They use credit reports without a credit score.

*Follow Bob Sullivan on Facebook     
*Follow Bob Sullivan on Twitter. 

 

The Federal Aviation Administration is preparing new rules that could make it easier for law enforcement agencies to use drone aircraft in the U.S., raising concerns about privacy at a time when the aircraft are already conducting surveillance missions in some parts of the country.

The American Civil Liberties Union released a report Thursday demanding better protections against a surveillance society, “in which our every move is monitored, tracked, recorded and scrutinized by the authorities.”

“Our privacy laws are not strong enough to ensure that the new technology will be used responsibly and consistently with democratic values,” warns the ACLU report, "Protecting Privacy From Aerial Surveillance: Recommendations for Government Use of Drone Aircraft."

---

The report follows a weekend story by the Los Angeles Times that detailed how the unmanned aircraft are being used in domestic law enforcement cases, and not just along the country’s borders to track illegal immigrants and drug smugglers as was originally authorized by Congress in 2005.

 

The Times said a North Dakota county sheriff asked federal authorities to employ a drone for surveillance in a standoff with three men on a farm June 23, resulting in the first known arrest of U.S. citizens involving the spy planes in a domestic case.

Since then, the Times said, two unarmed Predators based at Grand Forks Air Force Base have flown at least two dozen surveillance flights for local police. The Times reported the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration have also used drones in domestic investigations.

Next month, the FAA is expected to issue proposed rules that the ACLU warns could expand their use by domestic law enforcement agencies.

The FAA declined comment for this story but in a recent fact sheet acknowledged the growing interest by law enforcement in unmanned aircraft.

“The FAA is working with urban police departments in major metropolitan areas and national public safety organizations on test programs involving unmanned aircraft,” the FAA statement said. “The goal is to help identify the challenges that UAS (umanned aircraft systems) will bring into this environment and what type of operations law enforcement can safely perform.”

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has supported expanding the use of domestic drones along the border with Mexico. In October, the Sheriff's Department in Montgomery County, north of Houston, bought a $300,000 ShadowHawk drone from Vanguard Defense industries using federal homeland security grant funds.

“It's an exciting piece of equipment for us," Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel of the sheriff's office told the Houston Chronicle at the time. "We envision a lot of its uses primarily in the realm of public safety -- looking at recovery of lost individuals and being able to utilize it for fire issues."

McDaniel said the aircraft would not be used to track suspects’ vehicles but may provide surveillance for officers serving warrants.

M. Ryan Calo, director for privacy and robotics at the Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society, says widespread use of drones domestically seems inevitable, particularly since they are an efficient and cost-effective alternative to helicopter and airplanes.

“Drones are capable of finding or following a specific person,” he writes in a recent article in the Stanford Law Review. “They can fly patterns in search of suspicious activities or hover over a location in wait. Some are as small as birds or insects, others as big as blimps. In addition to high-resolution cameras and microphones, drones can be equipped with thermal imaging and the capacity to intercept wireless communications.”

In addition to privacy concerns, Calo said, drones also raise safety and security issues, particularly because they can crash and their guidance systems can be hacked. He cited the case of the CIA drone recently lost in Iran. The Christian Science Monitor on Thursday reported a claim by an Iranian engineer that the Iranians were able to exploit a navigational weakness in the drone’s technology to make it land in Iran.

Catherine Crump, the ACLU report’s co-author and staff attorney with the Speech, Privacy & Technology Project, said the organization isn’t against the use of all domestic drones but rather wants to make privacy a central issue as the technology becomes more available.

"We have a clear opportunity to get ahead of the game,” she said.

Some of the ACLU’s recommendations include not deploying drones unless there is certainty that they will collect evidence of a specific crime. If a drone will intrude on reasonable privacy expectations, a warrant should be required, the ACLU said. The report also calls for restrictions on retaining images of identifiable people, as well as an open process for developing policies on how drones will be used.

“Historically, the fact that manned helicopters and airplanes are expensive has imposed a natural limit on aerial surveillance. But the prospect of cheap, flying video surveillance cameras will likely open the floodgates,” said Jay Stanley, the report’s other co-author and senior policy analyst with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy & Technology Project.

More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

• Village defiant as government creates new narrative
• Death sentences, executions take 'historic drop'
• Feds: Arizona sheriff violates Latinos' civil rights
• Revealed: Why court cleared Amanda Knox

• Boy defies dad's rules to attend firefighter's wake