I got to wondering if hiring agencies look at your ISP's logs concerning your internet use.  If so, it might tip your hand if they saw visits to this site (without an anonymizing method).  I know they look at your credit card purchase history, but what about internet use?  Does anyone know anything about this?

Stealth,

I believe beech_trees is correct. When you apply to such agencies, your security questionaire actually contains a release form for your credit record, which you need to sign. The agency then supplies this form to a credit bureau (I assume). For internet usage, there would either have to be a form specifically for that, or as beech trees said, a warrant or subpoena.

Of-course, it's not that great of a stretch, I would assume, for an agency like NSA to just go ahead and tap your line without asking anyone's permission. I suspect they've done it before.

Quote:


I'm sorry, I don't get it.  What is the significance of $47.45?  Please explain, as you've got my curiosity up.

I was just curious as to whether or not agencies like the NSA and CIA would go back through personal internet logs or not.  I knew that they went through credit card histories, but I didn't know it was supposed to be for determining debt.  I know of someone that applied to U.S. Customs, and he had made a purchase of a dildo at a porno shop a few years prior to his application.  He purchased it for his girlfriend, but the recruiters questioned him at length about it.  It's kind of funny, but I wouldn't have wanted to be in his shoes.

If anyone knows for sure whether or not internet logs are reviewed by hiring agencies (with or without a release) please post here.  Thanks for the foregoing feedback.

Stealth,

It would take an extraordinary lapse in judgement and security for someone in the know to admit here that their agency surreptitiously snoops IP logs of their prospective hires. It also would be unverifiable.

Since the passing of the truly heinous Patriot Act law enforcement agencies have broad powers that are now more than ever in conflict with the US Constitution. Believe me, if they want to do it, nothing is stopping them.

I'm fairly certain Doug has a large warning on his website about just such a possibility.

BT, False + ,et al

Do you really think that LE agencies have the manpower to be checking on ones internet usage. Microsoft may download your usage figures everyday. But that is because they have unlimited resources. 

I agree with Mr. Williams and will add this comment. Most agencies cannot afford to do a THOROUGH background investigation because of manpower and time constraints. That is why they put so much effort into the psuedo-science of polygraphy. Hey if the poly says the candidate is not worthy, so be it. That saves money for them and sends many good honest guys down the road.

I also wonder how many computer geniuses would actually want to work in LE? they make more money working for Microsoft




Fred F.

Mr. Williams is quite correct. Paranoia does run rampant within this thread.  Point # 1:  The Bureau has a difficult time monitoring the communications of known targets, e.g., organized crime figures, suspected terrorists, etc.  The notion that they can (or even want/attempt to) successfully (whatever that is) monitor the communications and financial transactions of tens of thousands of  "non-suspect" individuals (e.g., applicants)  is pure nonsense.  Point #2:  The origins of the paranoia that exists in this thread and on occasion surfaces elsewhere may not be purely coincidental and happenstance.  The polygraph community when confronted with the glaring weaknesses and shortcomings of polygraphy has several choices before it: (a) discuss, confront, and/or debate the substantive issues---almost never happens (do you really think the APA has the nerve and any intention of debating Mr. Maschke in a public forum???) (b) ignore the antipolygraph assertions and hope they will go away (frequently done), (c) make anonymous and personal attacks while ignoring the substance of the debate, and (d) provide anonymous disinformation (intentionally done, not just misinformation) designed to have potential polygraph examinees doubt their own common sense about what is right, fair, and in their own best interest.  There are legitimate reasons for anonymity.  That having been said, as a reader, be careful, even suspect, and question possible motivations for anonymous posts.  And, yes, that applies to this one as well...

Just thought I'd add my two cents here, based upon a little research.

Many ISP's such as Earthlink say they simply don't keep detailed logs of what their users do (who visits what web site, who downloads what file, etc.) in the first place.  They're more interested in what external surfers do while visiting any of their own servers.

That's not to say they couldn't keep such customer records, but many seem to have policies requiring warrants before they'll do it -- keeping logs on customer surfing habits otherwise tends to provoke backlashes.  The best recommendation is what Dave said: check with your ISP regarding their policy.

It's always possible that an agency could tap Internet traffic directly (e.g. at backbone routers).  However, since the intelligence take would involve tremendous amounts of traffic looking for a very few packets, and since looking at the traffic going through exclusively domestic routers would raise serious 4th Amendment questions (unavoidably so if they confronted a job applicant with the intercepted information), I would bet it would be considered more trouble than it would be worth.

Of course, if you publicly post information (say on Usenet) about yourself, then I would think it would be open season.  But you never know: Robert Hannson reportedly posted porn stories in newsgroups using his real name for years without drawing any suspicion to himself. 

Agencies seem to have enough trouble making the time for traditional background investigations and tasking computers and their operators to look for serious targets without also piecing together whether a job applicant visited a web site about polygraphy.  It's a big Internet.

Skeptic