Seems smart to me. We really don't wish to replicate the mistakes of the Clinton administration, do we? Doesn't Obama have the right to know what skeletons might lurk in the closets of appointees? Knowing doesn't mean that he'll not appoint them, but it might help to know what the issues might be as a result of appointments???? NO??? Forewarned is forearmed? No????

Does this mean he will not reinforce our rights to use the internet in whatever way is legal? No! Does this mean that he'll wish to take this tool away from himself and future administrations? I doubt it!

I think that his centrism is beginning to alarm many of his more progressive supporters and this internet vetting is another example of his well-founded caution. We just need to stay on top of it and be ready to write and complain when it crosses lines! So far, so good!

I wouldn't get in simply on the basis of what I have posted here, let alone some of the other less "reputable" sites. Neither would most of the posters here at Salon, so keep that in mind whilst you "support" this nonsense.

Obama is being over cautious here, and it's no one's business what one posts on the web, especially using a handle.

If someone has the audacity to think they can determine the destiney of 300+ people, there should be no secrets at all.

As an independent, I shouldn't be surprised that Salon is packed with apologists for Obama, but I still was surprised to see how few contrarians posted here to protest this background search.

Is this background check like all the others in the business and public sectors? I'm not a lawyer, but as a corporate middle manager I have some familiarity with this and point out the following. Assessments of who and what you are TODAY (e.g., personality tests, skill assessments and the like) are certainly pretty fair game. When it comes to your past, only GENERAL terms are acceptable, did you ever commit a crime, etc., and of course anything turned up on accepted background checks (criminal record mostly). I can't think of anything specific about one's past that is included in these checks, anything like "list all online aliases you've ever used." That does seem very close to saying "list every party you ever attended where you got drunk and possibly did or said something that we wouldn't have approved of." That seems to be stepping WAY over the bounds.

As far as the internet being free of privacy guarantees, is anyone ever going to connect the blog-type comments I've made under my aliases with me? No. Is that the expectation I and most people have when they make these posts? Clearly. Hence, not public in any meaningful sense of that word I can see. Could they uncover my identity if circumstances warranted some sort of FBI search? Sure, but then posting is no more or less public than having surveillance video of someone buying a porn DVD in a store with cash. They don't have your name, address, or any information about you and they are never going to know who it was that bought that DVD unless after the fact that video and the person's identity became legally relevant to a criminal investigation. And, guess what, that's by design. You don't have to share your identity in this nation to accomplish routine transactions of living like buying a jug of milk or posting on the internet.

I voted for Obama, but man, this unquestioned support for him is becoming a tad over the top. I think (hope?) Obama's idea is that we all get ENGAGED in public affairs again, not that we rubber-stamp his every whim. In that light, this move of his probably (hopefully?) reflects his inexperience rather than some nefarious aim.

I think that public servants have privacy rights.

Agreed, but the Internet isn't private, isn't "anonymous," and any perception that it is, unfortunately, is an illusion. And while the great majority of people don't have the skill, or frankly the time or inclination, to connect all the electronic dots through a person's online handle(s) to their ISP to their real-world identity, the state of "gotcha" politics today has unfortunately created a ready market for this sometimes embarrassing stuff. It makes sense to me that people interviewing for sensitive jobs would be asked for information about their online activity- internet use is just too embedded in citizens' lives.

I strongly suspect that anyone transitioning a McCain presidency would request the same data from its candidates (unless they don't use the internet either). I feel anyone who suggests otherwise is naive.

...it's that there are a lot of folks (like myself) who have been online a long time and they haven't exactly kept a frickin' minute-by-minute journal of their every post and handle. Come _on_, can anyone really recall every single newsgroup and site they've ever written something on? And as I said before, suppose your ISP is no longer in business and you don't remember what your handle was there? Suppose you posted on AOL once or twice using their free hours ages ago and haven't thought of those posts since? Sure, Obama has to be careful. But I'm seeing a lot of margin-for-trouble with this given the nature of just innocent online posting.

I'm amazed by the apologists for this nonsense.

It's a violation of privacy, pure and simple. And it's a violation of the role of any employer into the private lives of employees.

Ah well, it's up to people to stand up for their rights. An employer, even if it's Uncle Sam, does NOT have the right to ask me about my private communications.

I would leave that blank.

Or better yet, fill it in with references to past boyfriends who posted nasty pictures in anger on some idiotic blog.

Unbelievable to see people defend this.

The Internet is not private. The things that you say are seen by an even wider circle of human beings than the things you might mutter under you breath while standing around in public. Trolls and those who live for flame wars have used this anonimity to attack, ridicule, and humiliate other human beings. Look at the current MySpace trial-a suicide compelled by nothing by anonymous comments.

I haven't been 100% thrilled with some of the moves Obama has made so far, but I think this is a smart move (and fairly standard, especially if you work in an industry that is business-saavy.) If nothing else, it sends the clear message that you are responsible for what you say online, and that transparency is of utmost importance in a thriving democracy.