Colleges and Employers Now Requiring Applicants' Facebook Passwords

[Strazdas]

Dont have no facebook account. dont believe me? go hang yourself.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

That's horrific, I have always been a firm believer that people should be able to keep their private and professional lives seperate if they want to, and I have without fail been pissed off at companies who fire employees over comments they make in social media (unless it was to do with the company, in which case they deserve it). Having full access to someones' Facebook account, not even mentioning the personal details, is like having someone listening in on every conversation that person has. Whats' more, I think it's a f***ing stupid idea to think that what people put on Facebook reflects in any way their conduct and professionalism in real life. Look, I don't need to spell this out, from what I've read you guys pretty much agree anyway.

All this said, just say you don't use Facebook. Problem solved. The f***ing pricks can have fun trying to sneak a camera into your house instead.

 

[monkyvirus]

A company is perfectly within it's rights to be wary about the "public face" of you as a representative of them available to whoever takes the time to look for you. However, your private business is your private business anything the general public can't see they shouldn't have the right to see nor the power to hire you over it. Otherwise they might as well ban you from "defaming" a company to your own partner in your own home because you complained about a bad day at work.

 

[CapitalistPig]

A company is perfectly within it's rights to be wary about the "public face" of you as a representative of them available to whoever takes the time to look for you. However, your private business is your private business anything the general public can't see they shouldn't have the right to see nor the power to hire you over it. Otherwise they might as well ban you from "defaming" a company to your own partner in your own home because you complained about a bad day at work.

They might have something to say about your spouse post.....If you post it. Just don't. It's pretty much that easy. Anyone who thinks anything they post on the internet isn't public they don't understand the nature of the internet. Anyone who thinks the stuff they post on the internet doesn't affect their job standing has never had a job worth keeping. It's so simple it's stupid.

 

[Scars Unseen]

A company is perfectly within it's rights to be wary about the "public face" of you as a representative of them available to whoever takes the time to look for you. However, your private business is your private business anything the general public can't see they shouldn't have the right to see nor the power to hire you over it. Otherwise they might as well ban you from "defaming" a company to your own partner in your own home because you complained about a bad day at work.

They might have something to say about your spouse post.....If you post it. Just don't. It's pretty much that easy. Anyone who thinks anything they post on the internet isn't public they don't understand the nature of the internet. Anyone who thinks the stuff they post on the internet doesn't affect their job standing has never had a job worth keeping. It's so simple it's stupid.

Anyone who thinks that it's okay for others to have your password for anything has never had an account hijacked. Would you give a stranger your email password? Your bank logon? The keys to your house?

These companies haven't the right, and by demanding it, prove they aren't responsible enough an organization to be worth anyone's time.

 

[BoogieManFL]

I can't believe this is legal. It's bullshit. How different, in essence, would it be for them to say they have to send someone to your home, rummage through all your belongings, watch you interact with your friends and family, and by extension further violate THEIR (your family/friends) privacy.

This is ludicrous. I wouldn't want some person I don't know having access to anything I share with my friends when I am to believe only they have access to. Where are my rights as a third party? My privacy would be violated to.

What if the social networking service makes you agree to never share your login information with others because it lowers the security of the system? Which it does. The more people have access to any information, the more likely it is to get leaked in some fashion. Are these people data security experts? What if their device gets compromised. What if people steal the data from them?

That's just ridiculous.

 

[Xanthious]

This is just another in a long list of reasons to not have a Facebook account. Facebook is an absolute waste of time. The bottom line is that 99.99% of the people walking the face of this Earth don't have a life interesting enough to warrant a haiku nevermind an entire webpage. Beyond that though the garbage they do post on there probably doesn't get read by anyone more often than it does get read or looked at.

Facebook, Twitter, Google+ are all just things to make people feel more important and/or interesting than they actually are. That in and of it's self would be harmless. However, people are also stupid and freely post everything but high definition scans of their credit cards and wonder how things went wrong when bad things happen.

The bottom line is social media is a fucking plague on society as a whole. The scant benefits it offers are far out weighed by everything that's wrong with it. People have been robbed of their identity, burglarized, kidnapped, and even raped and murdered because of what they posted on Facebook. It's plainly obvious that as a society we lack both the common sense and the maturity to use any kind of social media.

 

[CapitalistPig]

A company is perfectly within it's rights to be wary about the "public face" of you as a representative of them available to whoever takes the time to look for you. However, your private business is your private business anything the general public can't see they shouldn't have the right to see nor the power to hire you over it. Otherwise they might as well ban you from "defaming" a company to your own partner in your own home because you complained about a bad day at work.

They might have something to say about your spouse post.....If you post it. Just don't. It's pretty much that easy. Anyone who thinks anything they post on the internet isn't public they don't understand the nature of the internet. Anyone who thinks the stuff they post on the internet doesn't affect their job standing has never had a job worth keeping. It's so simple it's stupid.

Anyone who thinks that it's okay for others to have your password for anything has never had an account hijacked. Would you give a stranger your email password? Your bank logon? The keys to your house?

These companies haven't the right, and by demanding it, prove they aren't responsible enough an organization to be worth anyone's time.

likely the response of someone who has never worked a job where they care about your background. Most Career jobs require these kinds of background checks now a days to ensure the company won't be discredited by inflammatory remarks or defamed due to insulting posts.

solve media: be careful....I think it applies.

EDIT
If you read the article you can't have their password as the ALCU so quickly stances. You are moderated by an interviewer to view your posts.

 

[applesandoranges]

edit

 

[BrionJames]

If I used Facebook, I'd lie and say I didn't, probably because I wouldn't use my actual name on there. Like Daryl Zero said, " Give false information...always." I don't use Facebook for personal reasons, but it's not surprising that employers and schools are asking for this information.

 

[CapitalistPig]

You know, when you post EVERYTHING you do on Facebook, you stop being able to ***** about your privacy. Telling everyone on Facebook you just bought coffee at Starbucks led them to make it easier to tell everyone by removing you from the equation.

However, asking for a password is illegal, and showing someone your email inbox will get you fired from a governmental job. You cannot ask for encrypted information you have no right to, and a password for a social networking site is personal information.
This should have been cracked down upon when it first showed up, as it is an invasion of privacy.

likely the response of someone who has never worked a job where they care about your background. Most Career jobs require these kinds of background checks now a days to ensure the company won't be discredited by inflammatory remarks or defamed due to insulting posts.

solve media: be careful....I think it applies.

Likely the response of a corporate apologist dick who supports the government bugging your house with no warrant.

corporations don't pay you for your free time, they only own you when you have their uniform on and are billing them for hours. The military is tight on what you do in your personal life, but they require you to be willing to lay your life down. A corporation doesn't ask that, and neither does a school.

Well as a conservative, gun owning, tea partier I feel obligated to tell you, you are stereotyping without province. If you read any of my previous posts you would see I stand against this. Most likely it won't make it in court.
BUT, that doesn't discount the fact that facebook users are way too unfiltered and are entirely to blame for the outcome of this litigation discourse. If facebook users were even slightly more discretionary about what they post this would not be a problem.

EDIT
You very carefully ignore my last post EDIT which shows how the law has been diplomatic with this situation

 

[CapitalistPig]

Well as a conservative, gun owning, tea partier I feel obligated to tell you, you are stereotyping without province. If you read any of my previous posts you would see I stand against this. Most likely it won't make it in court.
BUT, that doesn't discount the fact that facebook users are way too unfiltered and are entirely to blame for the outcome of this litigation discourse. If facebook users were even slightly more discretionary about what they post this would not be a problem.

EDIT
You very carefully ignore my last post EDIT which shows how the law has been diplomatic with this situation

I did fail to read your previous posts, I focused directly upon the blanket assumption that the person hadn't worked a job where they take your background and personal life into consideration. I attacked your own "stereotyping without province".
And no, I didn't see your edit before posting, because at the time of my post, there was no edit. So, when we say someone took much care to ignore it, remember that it's an edit, it wasn't up yet.
I also pointed out however that this is the user's fault. If people showed any form of discretion or intelligence when using the features of the site we wouldn't have this problem. It stems from the trend of people using the site posting every little thing they do, which brought upon software that simply did it for you.


(Has Escapist sold itself out or something? My Captcha is an ad for Little Caesars and requires me to enter it.)

While that is insightful, it literally changes nothing of what I've said or the truth that it is. The users are responsible for their own problems. They wouldn't exist if we didn't create them. Its that simple.

 

[CapitalistPig]

Well as a conservative, gun owning, tea partier I feel obligated to tell you, you are stereotyping without province. If you read any of my previous posts you would see I stand against this. Most likely it won't make it in court.
BUT, that doesn't discount the fact that facebook users are way too unfiltered and are entirely to blame for the outcome of this litigation discourse. If facebook users were even slightly more discretionary about what they post this would not be a problem.

EDIT
You very carefully ignore my last post EDIT which shows how the law has been diplomatic with this situation

I did fail to read your previous posts, I focused directly upon the blanket assumption that the person hadn't worked a job where they take your background and personal life into consideration. I attacked your own "stereotyping without province".
And no, I didn't see your edit before posting, because at the time of my post, there was no edit. So, when we say someone took much care to ignore it, remember that it's an edit, it wasn't up yet.
I also pointed out however that this is the user's fault. If people showed any form of discretion or intelligence when using the features of the site we wouldn't have this problem. It stems from the trend of people using the site posting every little thing they do, which brought upon software that simply did it for you.


(Has Escapist sold itself out or something? My Captcha is an ad for Little Caesars and requires me to enter it.)

While that is insightful, it literally changes nothing of what I've said or the truth that it is. The users are responsible for their own problems. They wouldn't exist if we didn't create them. Its that simple.

EDIT
Heh, I read what you said, and I'm wondering, whats to argue about then?

 

[Scars Unseen]

A company is perfectly within it's rights to be wary about the "public face" of you as a representative of them available to whoever takes the time to look for you. However, your private business is your private business anything the general public can't see they shouldn't have the right to see nor the power to hire you over it. Otherwise they might as well ban you from "defaming" a company to your own partner in your own home because you complained about a bad day at work.

They might have something to say about your spouse post.....If you post it. Just don't. It's pretty much that easy. Anyone who thinks anything they post on the internet isn't public they don't understand the nature of the internet. Anyone who thinks the stuff they post on the internet doesn't affect their job standing has never had a job worth keeping. It's so simple it's stupid.

Anyone who thinks that it's okay for others to have your password for anything has never had an account hijacked. Would you give a stranger your email password? Your bank logon? The keys to your house?

These companies haven't the right, and by demanding it, prove they aren't responsible enough an organization to be worth anyone's time.

likely the response of someone who has never worked a job where they care about your background. Most Career jobs require these kinds of background checks now a days to ensure the company won't be discredited by inflammatory remarks or defamed due to insulting posts.

solve media: be careful....I think it applies.

EDIT
If you read the article you can't have their password as the ALCU so quickly stances. You are moderated by an interviewer to view your posts.

Six years active duty Air Force, still in the Reserve. Still think this is wrong. In the military, you have to agree to certain limitations on your rights for national security reasons. But that's the only valid reason I see. By demanding unlimited access to your private life, these companies are, in essence, limiting your right to free speech. It's called a chilling effect, and while I'm not certain of the legal ramifications of that in regard to a corporation, I do know that it is wrong.

 

[CapitalistPig]

Six years active duty Air Force, still in the Reserve. Still think this is wrong. In the military, you have to agree to certain limitations on your rights for national security reasons. But that's the only valid reason I see. By demanding unlimited access to your private life, these companies are, in essence, limiting your right to free speech. It's called a chilling effect, and while I'm not certain of the legal ramifications of that in regard to a corporation, I do know that it is wrong.

Its funny how when facebook started it was all about "gettin out there and sharing info." Now that, that is deemed a damning process everyone is real quick to claim its their personal information locked in a vault for only the privileged to see.

Define private life? Because to me anything you put on the internet is up for grabs. That's the way I was raised, not as a notion but as a defense mechanism. To assume that anything on the internet is private is in itself to misunderstand the purpose of the internet. Anything you allow a friend to see is virtually public information as Facebook now owns that information, as per the user end agreement (read that right?) This rears its ugly head in cellphones too, where verizon and AT&T allow the police to access phone records with a warrent without your permission. This is part of a user end agreement that you sign when contracting with these companies. Much the same way a company may want to see your public facebook records before contracting with you. You can always say no and a company can politely never call you again.

As the article stated, which most people ignore, the whole grab your username and password nonsense got shot down within days of the practice. Because anyone with half a brain wouldn't hand over that information, I.E an impossible impasse between employees and employers. However, If a friend can see it, that means a friend can post it on the internet where ever they want, therefore virtual public knowledge. I understand this is not a courageous idea but as technology weaves ever more into our lives we must come to terms with what is private and what is not. That is to protect ourselves from this nonsensical legislation.

And this doesn't violate free speech. It is a violation of privacy, but have fun fighting it in court. I'm sure that's a blast as you will be suing facebook not the company that wants to see your facebook page. You are welcome to say anything you want, but if you put it down on a permanent record for all of the foreseeable future for potentially everyone involved in your life to see, don't be so surprised when people start taking an interest in it, whether it is negative or positive.

Therefore, filter yourself so others don't have to do it for you.