View Full Version : Question re background investigation for LEO position
DavidRSA
10-21-2011, 4:13 PM
Quick question: do all agencies require that the person undergoing a background investigation give the investigator his or her facebook (or other social network) and email usernames and passwords?
The only info I can find relating to this question is from the POST Background Investigation manual where it states:
"The proliferation of social networking sites (e.g., MySpace, Facebook, Twitter), may provide additional insights regarding candidates. Background investigators and others involved in the selection process may also find benefit in checking these sites and, where necessary, directing candidates to “unlock” their individual pages."
From this it doesn't appear that it is an automatic requirement to give one's username and password. I take this to mean that at most, under certain circumstances, the candidate must make their pages visible ie not limit them to certain people. This is different from giving up one's login credentials which I believe is much more intrusive. And there is no mention of giving up one's email logins.
I have been eagerly trying to get into law enforcement and am quite OK with listing all my contacts, my personal history in great detail, credit reports, etc. But for me this is would be a step too far.
Is giving up one's facebook and email logins a typical requirement these days?
CaptMike
10-21-2011, 4:33 PM
yes, most departments require it. If you are not wiling to open up your accounts, then the news reported that California created a whole bunch of new jobs. You should apply for one of those jobs. As a peace officer, I am expected to keep my on duty life and off duty life unsullied. I should not be afraid of anything I have done on or off duty. My department even requires this process for promotions as well. If you are not comfortable, apply to a non LEO organization.
DavidRSA
10-21-2011, 5:09 PM
yes, most departments require it. If you are not wiling to open up your accounts, then the news reported that California created a whole bunch of new jobs. You should apply for one of those jobs. As a peace officer, I am expected to keep my on duty life and off duty life unsullied. I should not be afraid of anything I have done on or off duty. My department even requires this process for promotions as well. If you are not comfortable, apply to a non LEO organization.
Its not a matter of being afraid off anything done off duty or - as I would call it - anything done in my private life. I have nothing to be ashamed of in my facebook or emails, but I do want to have some semblance of a private life. And the people I communicate with via email or facebook would also not like to have their private thoughts looked at by an investigator especially without their knowledge.
But what you said is food for thought, for sure. I have to ask myself, how much do I value my own privacy (and that of my wife, parents sister, etc) and ability to have communications with friends and family without it being monitored by the government agency I work for or want to work for. Is giving up one's basic right to privacy for an LEO job or a promotion worth it?
Right now - and my thoughts are still swirling about on this - my answer is trending towards a "no".
CaptMike
10-21-2011, 5:28 PM
being a LEO requires a lot of sacrifice. You no longer have a "private life", you are "off duty" but can be ordered back on duty with a simple phone call. If I refuse to report when ordered, I can loose my career. I've missed holiday parties, family get togethers, birthday parties, worked may a weekend and I don't get paid an enormouse salary for all those missed family events. Opening up our social networking accounts is just another sacrifice that we must make to let the public know that we are maintaining our lives the way they expect us too. I know several deputies that were discharged due to some of their activities on facebook. That's just the way it is. Good luck.
Spyder
10-21-2011, 5:46 PM
If keeping your facebook private and blocked so people on your friends list can't see it is worth not getting a career, there are PLENTY of other people who will gladly take your spot.
DavidRSA
10-21-2011, 6:00 PM
If keeping your facebook private and blocked so people on your friends list can't see it is worth not getting a career, there are PLENTY of other people who will gladly take your spot.
I am not talking about blocking. I am talking about giving up my login credentials. To me my privacy and that of the friends and family I communicate are very important to me. I am prepared for the hard and dangerous work and unusual hours and being away from family. It is giving up my privacy on an ongoing basis that is not good for me.
But you and LtMike are absolutely right. It is all a matter of choice. Lots of other guys will be there to take my spot. And i just made mine. I just emailed by B.I. to withdraw from the process. No point in wasting his time and mine.
I guess I'll have to use my patent law license to find work..
triplestack3
10-21-2011, 6:03 PM
I am in the recruitment process right now. I ditched all my facebook/myspace stuff a while back, so it's not an issue.
Our PD just asks the applicant to "friend" the background investigator and not block them. They do it right there are the BI's office.
I personally think it is a little much to have to give up user info to get the job. Does that mean that until that officer leaves that agency their employer can check their accounts at will?
Why don't we ask people for their online banking info while we are at it? That way we can examine their spending down to the last dime. Also later on we can examine their accounts at will. No search warrant or court order needed. Ask for them to bring all their mail for the last 6 months to the office to read? We could always just make them send all their mail to the PD to be read prior to giving to the officer. Make them record all personal phonecalls made off duty? Make sure that conversation with the wife doesn't get "embarrassing for the department." Hand over their cell phone to be forensically examined? Who knows they could have said something bad about their current employer to a friend via a text that was deleted.
You really need to read POST's "Recruiting and Retention: Best Practices" before you get up on your high horses. This kind of stuff is what is turning away good candidates.
Besides look at what gets us bad press. Very little of it is facebook or other social media stuff.
Maybe its just me and what crap our managers have pulled on and off duty that makes me think it is bad to start opening up a recruit's off duty life more than their manager's. Maybe I have seen too many people get promoted after having torrid affiars. Some in their offices while on duty. It just strikes me as hypocritical to have chief (or other hiring person) to demand full access to an applicant's life when they might be banging their mistress on lunch breaks and hiding it from their wife.
oddjob
10-21-2011, 7:21 PM
Give up passwords?? No...
Log on in the Background Investigators Office so he can look at Facebook & etc? Yes
Its that simple.
dskell
10-21-2011, 7:24 PM
When I went through backgrounds with a department in southern CA, the investigator had me sit down at a computer, log into my facebook account and then stand up so he could check everything out.
I was more than willing. haha.
Watchur6
10-21-2011, 8:20 PM
I had no idea they asked for your e-mail account password, seems weird to me. If that is the way it is going then I will not look to get into another department. I have nothing to hide, I just don't agree with that at all. Facebook, twitter, I understand but no you cannot go through my personal e-mails and nor can my employer without going through the proper channels.
Databyter
10-21-2011, 8:37 PM
Quick question: do all agencies require that the person undergoing a background investigation give the investigator his or her facebook (or other social network) and email usernames and passwords?
The only info I can find relating to this question is from the POST Background Investigation manual where it states:
"The proliferation of social networking sites (e.g., MySpace, Facebook, Twitter), may provide additional insights regarding candidates. Background investigators and others involved in the selection process may also find benefit in checking these sites and, where necessary, directing candidates to “unlock” their individual pages."
From this it doesn't appear that it is an automatic requirement to give one's username and password. I take this to mean that at most, under certain circumstances, the candidate must make their pages visible ie not limit them to certain people. This is different from giving up one's login credentials which I believe is much more intrusive. And there is no mention of giving up one's email logins.
I have been eagerly trying to get into law enforcement and am quite OK with listing all my contacts, my personal history in great detail, credit reports, etc. But for me this is would be a step too far.
Is giving up one's facebook and email logins a typical requirement these days?
You don't need to give up passwords or logins.
Just "friend" the agency investigating, or the agent investigating and they can see what a "friend" would see, which is virtually everything.
Then you can unfriend them after the checks.
SoCalDep
10-21-2011, 8:38 PM
The amount of trouble cops can/have gotten into with social media is serious. Like getting brought up by the defense in court serious. I'm not on any of it, and haven't been. It's not worth it.
Watchur6
10-21-2011, 9:36 PM
^^copy that
cacop
10-21-2011, 10:21 PM
The amount of trouble cops can/have gotten into with social media is serious. Like getting brought up by the defense in court serious. I'm not on any of it, and haven't been. It's not worth it.
It's all about what you say on it. If you are showing pics of you latest vacation on it or talking about how the rain cancelled your plans for a bike ride you will be okay.
Talking about being a "human waste collector" or some other silliness will get your pee-pee in a ringer.
Also even posting here or other forums could get you in trouble too. It all depends on how much info you put out and how much someone wants to get you.
Patrick Aherne
10-21-2011, 10:41 PM
You really need to read POST's "Recruiting and Retention: Best Practices" before you get up on your high horses. This kind of stuff is what is turning away good candidates.
Besides look at what gets us bad press. Very little of it is facebook or other social media stuff.
You realize you are posting this on Calguns, which had a very nasty facebook misadventure for a cop with a NorCal department. I disagree, vehemently, with your opinion. Applicants don't have to submit to anything. They also don't have to get the job.
I am aware of FB and Myspace issues cropping up in background that ruled out candidates.
negolien
10-22-2011, 1:19 AM
Only if we're lucky... I would love to see LEO bashing trolls get denied when their 1st amendment speech turned to diariah is uncovered. Live your life like someones always watching is my motto.
You realize you are posting this on Calguns, which had a very nasty facebook misadventure for a cop with a NorCal department. I disagree, vehemently, with your opinion. Applicants don't have to submit to anything. They also don't have to get the job.
I am aware of FB and Myspace issues cropping up in background that ruled out candidates.
Maybe I wasn't clear or maybe you didn't get my point.
People have gotten in trouble for their Facebook postings at my work.
People haven't gotten in trouble for banging the local cop groupie while they are married.
Do you even see how potential applicants might be turned off by an agency that gets on its high horse about Facebook but refuses to do anything but promote people who cheat on their sposes?
Do you get the frustration they must feel when after opening everything in their life including giving up passwords to a stranger vs. "friending" them on Facebook and then seeing people promote after screwing subordinates?
Do you see how they might see their department as hypocritical when it comes to "keeping their personal life unsullied" when there are two standards?
If you are going to get up on your high horse and start pointing fingers you better make sure none are going to be pointed back at you.
They want to see who you are talking with. I know of candidates whom were dq'd for being friends with parolees. If you don't have any questionable stuff, friend the BI. The best advice is to delete it though. This is a job unlike any other, and you have to make some sacrifices. If it feels like it's not fair, it's not. But it's a price you pay. A defense attorney will look into your background as intensively as any BI.
DavidRSA
10-22-2011, 10:12 AM
You don't need to give up passwords or logins.
Just "friend" the agency investigating, or the agent investigating and they can see what a "friend" would see, which is virtually everything.
Then you can unfriend them after the checks.
Actually thats not what happened to me yesterday. There was a form on departmental letterhead which I was given to fill in while I was waiting for my BI. On this form you had put in your username and password for facebook, twittter, and all your personal email accounts. At the end of my interview I asked my BI how long he needed them and he said at least until the end of the investigation, maybe a year, and possibly even after that. And I was not to change the passwords.
I would have had no problem if he looked at my fb and emails right there and then, or I had to friend him on fb. But to have unfettered access to all my fb and emails for an unknown length of time I thought was too much to ask.
(Its an interesting topic. On the one hand, I clearly don't like the idea and choose not to continue with my own application process. On the other hand, it can be seen as just another tool to keep bad guys out of the law enforcement profession).
SVT-40
10-22-2011, 10:31 AM
Really it's a easy choice. Just how bad do you want the job???
When I did backgrounds (back before all the social media stuff) If I had a applicant who seemed unwilling to open up their life for inspection it only made me look even harder at them.
So if you really want the job any intrusion should not even be an issue. That is unless you have something to hide???
What are you going to do when your BG investigator shows up unannounced at your house and wants to search around, including looking in your closets, drawers, papers Ect. ???
Are you going to deny him? If so look for another line of work because you will fail the background.
BigDogatPlay
10-22-2011, 10:50 AM
Actually thats not what happened to me yesterday. There was a form on departmental letterhead which I was given to fill in while I was waiting for my BI. On this form you had put in your username and password for facebook, twittter, and all your personal email accounts. At the end of my interview I asked my BI how long he needed them and he said at least until the end of the investigation, maybe a year, and possibly even after that. And I was not to change the passwords.
That is an awfully deep dive, and puts the agency in the position to actively monitor a person's private e-mail for, potentially, the life of their career. That makes my neck hairs twitch a little.
FWIW... if I was still active I wouldn't be on social media such as FB. Opens up way too many doors that could be exploited by someone less than totally scrupulous. Just ask a certain detective at East Palo Alto PD how well it worked for him.
Tacit Blue
10-22-2011, 1:55 PM
To the OP,
Delete your facebook and social networking sites. Or change your last name associated to the account so it's not searchable, your choice.... Or comply with the B.I's request. I'm sick of facebook, they share your information with companies geared towards selling you products, I.E everytime you click or search something on google. It uses my cookies and pops up a ad banner.
I know plenty of police officers who have facebook, they all add each other as friends. Really bad idea in my opinion, at least one officer I know used his baby picture. So when somebody searched him they'd think it was the wrong person lol! pretty smart.
In the end facebook makes a B.I jobs alot easier, you have a virtual ' Venn diagram' of that persons social life and activities. Facebook offers a small reward for social networking, with a HUGE Vulnerability of your personal privacy being exploited.
G-forceJunkie
10-22-2011, 2:51 PM
David: I agree with you, that is just taking it too far. I would have no problem with them "looking around" while you were there or friending them. But giving up access to personal emails, thats too much. What about emails between your Doctors or Attornys, conversations that have more protections than normal?
hitman13
10-22-2011, 3:52 PM
My BI never asked about FB, email, what it. I'm sure they cruised it, but never asked for it to be unlocked. Granted, this is in AZ.......
http://www.policeone.com/policeone/data/police-limit-20111015.jpg
SVT-40
10-22-2011, 3:58 PM
David: I agree with you, that is just taking it too far. I would have no problem with them "looking around" while you were there or friending them. But giving up access to personal emails, thats too much. What about emails between your Doctors or Attornys, conversations that have more protections than normal?
You give up any and all privacy rights while in a background. In fact you sign waivers allowing access to every part of your life.
As far as emails between the applicant and his attorney. If they existed, I would certainly want to see them. I could not think of a better place to determine if an applicant had "issues" which might preclude him from a job in law enforcement..
Doctors too, because determining if a applicant has any preexisting medical problems which would impact upon his job performance would be vital.
It's real simple. If you really want the job you will do whatever the agency requests. Otherwise move on, as there are plenty of guys willing to do anything to get hired.
You give up any and all privacy rights while in a background. In fact you sign waivers allowing access to every part of your life.
As far as emails between the applicant and his attorney. If they existed, I would certainly want to see them. I could not think of a better place to determine if an applicant had "issues" which might preclude him from a job in law enforcement..
Doctors too, because determining if a applicant has any preexisting medical problems which would impact upon his job performance would be vital.
It's real simple. If you really want the job you will do whatever the agency requests. Otherwise move on, as there are plenty of guys willing to do anything to get hired.
Not around here. We have been prepetually short for the last two years. Part of the problem is that we have only been looking at academy grads and laterals. Although entry level isn't doing us much good when they do try that. We have a 10% success rate with academy grads and laterals and a 4% sucess rate with entry level.
The big problem is the politics of my town. Next up is that if you are willing to look 30-40 minutes up the road you can get paid the same to 30% more for less work.
Anyone who cares about recruiting and retention really needs to read this.
http://lib.post.ca.gov/Publications/RecruitmentBestPrac.pdf
It is very eye opening. I think even with the current hiring issues a lot of it is still valid.
SVT-40
10-22-2011, 10:35 PM
Not around here. We have been prepetually short for the last two years. Part of the problem is that we have only been looking at academy grads and laterals. Although entry level isn't doing us much good when they do try that. We have a 10% success rate with academy grads and laterals and a 4% sucess rate with entry level.
The big problem is the politics of my town. Next up is that if you are willing to look 30-40 minutes up the road you can get paid the same to 30% more for less work.
Anyone who cares about recruiting and retention really needs to read this.
http://lib.post.ca.gov/Publications/RecruitmentBestPrac.pdf
It is very eye opening. I think even with the current hiring issues a lot of it is still valid.
Yeah except that study was published in 2006, with most of the data predating the release. That was before the economic downturn and cutbacks. Big change now with most agencies not hiring, or only minimal hiring.
Maybe your agency should do some good advertising. Because if they did I'm sure they would have plenty of applications.
Patrick Aherne
10-22-2011, 11:57 PM
Maybe I wasn't clear or maybe you didn't get my point.
People have gotten in trouble for their Facebook postings at my work.
People haven't gotten in trouble for banging the local cop groupie while they are married.
Do you even see how potential applicants might be turned off by an agency that gets on its high horse about Facebook but refuses to do anything but promote people who cheat on their sposes?
Do you get the frustration they must feel when after opening everything in their life including giving up passwords to a stranger vs. "friending" them on Facebook and then seeing people promote after screwing subordinates?
Do you see how they might see their department as hypocritical when it comes to "keeping their personal life unsullied" when there are two standards?
If you are going to get up on your high horse and start pointing fingers you better make sure none are going to be pointed back at you.
You are confusing two separate issues. One, your agency has people who fornicate with other folks not their spouses. I don't know how long you've been a cop, but this is a widespread and common occurence in our society. I am willing to bet it is happening in your DA's office, the public defenders, county parks and the sewer department, etc. This has nothing to do with background investigations and social media.
Social media, to a lesser extent, and posting on internet forums like I am doing now, can bring unwanted attention to departments. It is important to know about a candidate's online life. Have they friended a bunch of neo-nazis or Hell's Angels? That might be something an employing agency wants to know.
There is a reason we go through 300-400 applicatns to get 1-2 hireable folks. The process is long, arduous and arguably very unfair.
Falconis
10-23-2011, 12:13 AM
Yeah except that study was published in 2006, with most of the data predating the release. That was before the economic downturn and cutbacks. Big change now with most agencies not hiring, or only minimal hiring.
Maybe your agency should do some good advertising. Because if they did I'm sure they would have plenty of applications.
Number of applicants are never the problem. It's the quality. Even in this day and age I have acquaintances of friends that keep asking me questions regarding their chances of employment. It's not the one or 2 questions, but the persistence of their questions after I have said no chance in hell, but you can call our backgrounds and ask anyways response. Point is, they keep asking me if I am the guy that can change policy. That should be clue #1 of their intelligence level.
But bottom line is the more qualified candidates go to where they get the most pay for the most part. It slowly trickles down after that factor.
Spyder
10-23-2011, 7:25 AM
You are confusing two separate issues. One, your agency has people who fornicate with other folks not their spouses. I don't know how long you've been a cop, but this is a widespread and common occurence in our society. I am willing to bet it is happening in your DA's office, the public defenders, county parks and the sewer department, etc. This has nothing to do with background investigations and social media.
So because it's widespread makes it acceptable?
My opinion is this: If you're going to lie to your wife/husband and cheat on them, the person that you swore to take care of and made a huge promise to, you can't be trusted. If you're going to tell that big of a lie to your significant other, what's to stop you from lying to your employer, or to a jury/judge/DA/Defense attorney? Cheating on spouses should most definitely have to do with background investigations, because it has to do with honesty and integrity.
If honesty and integrity have nothing to do with being a cop, I guess I'm in the wrong profession.
Falconis
10-23-2011, 9:40 AM
As to the cheating thing, multiple things usually have to align before a complaint can go forward. Like getting both parties to give an accurate statement. One can be compelled, getting the other to say anything is hard.
SVT-40
10-23-2011, 10:52 AM
Don't be hate'n on the badge bunnies....;)
ckim34
10-23-2011, 4:01 PM
Don't be hate'n on the badge bunnies....;)
LOL
but back on point, to the OP if you are that concerned this isnt the line of work for you.
Bobby Ricigliano
10-23-2011, 5:29 PM
Luckily, Facebook and Myspace didn't exist when I first got on. I think I had internet but it was AOL on a 33.6K dial-up line. SWEET!
Falconis
10-23-2011, 5:33 PM
Luckily, Facebook and Myspace didn't exist when I first got on. I think I had internet but it was AOL on a 33.6K dial-up line. SWEET!
mid to late 90's huh?
Patrick Aherne
10-24-2011, 9:58 AM
So because it's widespread makes it acceptable?
My opinion is this: If you're going to lie to your wife/husband and cheat on them, the person that you swore to take care of and made a huge promise to, you can't be trusted. If you're going to tell that big of a lie to your significant other, what's to stop you from lying to your employer, or to a jury/judge/DA/Defense attorney? Cheating on spouses should most definitely have to do with background investigations, because it has to do with honesty and integrity.
If honesty and integrity have nothing to do with being a cop, I guess I'm in the wrong profession.
I did not say that infidelity was ok. Don't twist what I wrote. I was pointing out that the problems with the command staff at that individual agency doesn't mean we shouldn't look at Facebook and other social media. They are two separate issues.
You took what I wrote and ran with it. Yes, infidelity is a good indicator of someone's character and should be evaluated during background.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.