Job Applicants Asked for Facebook Passwords

[Iron Mal]

It does matter why. That's extremely important. If you can't explain why something is a human right, then you can't defend it, nor can I argue against it. It's a meaningless term.

"I believe that colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is a grammatically correct sentence. But it has no meaning. It's just there. Unless you can explain what makes a human right a human right, then it's at the same level as "I believe that colorless green ideas sleep furiously".

There's a difference between an arguement that is self-evident and doesn't need defending or explanation because of that (the arguement for not violating human rights, if you have any semblence of compassion or humanity then you'd realise these are basic things that are a given essential for everyone regardless of context) and random nonsense that just happens to make grammatical sense (your gibberish).

Some things simply cannot be argued against, some things don't need defending and some things are self-evident.

You're trying to approach this with pure logic (I do it myself sometimes) but it needs to be remembered that not everything can be explained logically and not everything really needs to be (in fact, assuming that everything must have a logical explanation is a logical fallacy in itself), something being illogical doesn't nessercarily make it wrong (even more so when you start entering topics like morallity and ethics which don't really have conclusive or definitive answers to questions).

As such no matter how hard to try to argue 'well why do we have human rights anyway?' you're wrong and I won't discuss the matter further.

If you can come up with a good reason why mass violation of a human right is justified then I'll engage the topic again, until then, I leave you to the many other people who seem to openly disagree with you (some of who can explain the reasoning and technicalities of human rights better than I can).

 

[Iron Mal]

Enlighten me then as to why it is exactly that just being allowed to view your account isn't enough and that they vitally require access to your personal online account?

Because you can limit external access? Doesn't seem that difficult.

Considering some of the stupid things people have lost their jobs over in the past can you really argue that's a bad thing?

I'm fairly certain that most jobs aren't allowed to discriminate against you for things that you do in your personal time away from the company and out of uniform.

For example, do you think it would be fair for Walmart, for example, to fire me for telling offensive jokes at a stand-up routine in a nearby club? (some of you may realise I'm referring to an actual case that happened, although the man in question actually worked for the police)

If they don't feel that seeing how I act and talk in person is enough to judge my worth as a human being and an employee then that's their problem and they'll just have to learn to deal with it.

They may not like that they can't look into every nook and cranny of my personal life but who said we had to please them?

There is still no justifiable reason to do that and as a few other people have said, I'm fairly certain that them trying is actually illegal.

 

[Something Amyss]

Considering some of the stupid things people have lost their jobs over in the past can you really argue that's a bad thing?

Woah woah woah. Way to shift the goalpost there, buddy.

I didn't say it was good or bad, I merely responded to the whole "why do they need to do this?" question. I'm sorry that you didn't like the response, but don't try and change the point.

I'm fairly certain that most jobs aren't allowed to discriminate against you for things that you do in your personal time away from the company and out of uniform.

You're wrong, at least with regards to the States. all but two states are at-will employment states; part of that is that terminations have held up for things you do on your offtime, even something as innocuous as a photograph on a website.

Hell, you just referenced people losing their jobs for stupid shit. Surely you must be aware of this.

For example, do you think it would be fair for Walmart, for example, to fire me for telling offensive jokes at a stand-up routine in a nearby club? (some of you may realise I'm referring to an actual case that happened, although the man in question actually worked for the police)

Fair? No. Legal? Yes. You just did that goalpost shift thing again, from what is "allowed" to what is "fair."

If they don't feel that seeing how I act and talk in person is enough to judge my worth as a human being and an employee then that's their problem and they'll just have to learn to deal with it.

Not according to the law, sorry. They can just fire your ass instead.

They may not like that they can't look into every nook and cranny of my personal life but who said we had to please them?

By nature, if you're applying to a job you're trying to please them.

There is still no justifiable reason to do that and as a few other people have said, I'm fairly certain that them trying is actually illegal.

There is no reason you like. There's a difference.

 

[jpoon]

Hah, fuck that company! Can't think of many other places id rather NOT work at. Dipshits so quick to relinquish their god given rights. Fuck nosy companies like that, I'd just falsify any information like that, like I give a crap.

 

[Sansha]

Yeah that's the point where I throw the application in the trash and look elsewhere. Not interested.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

They're crazy asking for such personal details. Then again, employers sometimes do such things. I had one vacation job employer, a cleaning company, demand I hand in a copy of a bank pay card. I didn't have any at the time, and wasn't planning on getting one just for them. I downplayed the issue and was hired.

They nagged me that I should get one for them anyway, and explained they needed it to ensure the bank number I provided was correct and they weren't paying someone else. Hang on, that's my responsibility. If I provide a wrong number, I have to go get the money back, not the employer.

In the end they refused to pay me for months of work and I had to threaten to take them to court over it. They paid so much later than agreed that I got a 50% bonus over the entire amount.

The big problem? They promoted one of their cleaners to foreman, and then from foreman to manager, so you have in fact got a dumb idiot with no training running an entire branch of the business. Notices of legality and being reasonable just never occur to that kind of manager.

So it's the police department that have done this? The applicants that refuse haven't really got too much choice then

Well, it's easy to get around. Either shut down your facebook in advance, or deny having one and then run to shut it down, get hired, and then put it back up.

I have two different accounts as I am an atheist who works in a catholic hospital.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Stop spreading Facebook before it ruins everyone's lives.

Next thing you'll know they'll demand you sign up to tons of "social sites" and other bullshit services you don't want just to get a fucking job.

Oh wait.

Captcha: ffeeet cannot

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I'll rate privacy as important until we get over the idea that fucking is more important than fraud.

All the time we've got journos bugging D list celebs to find out if they're having sex or taking drugs, when there's a fuckload more interesting and important people they could be harrassing to find out how much they're fucking over the bank system or taxpayer, then we need privacy.

When they start doing some genuine investigative journalism and we as a society, stop judging sex as more of a reason to destroy someone than stealing money, then we can lessen the rules on privacy.

Still amazes me that a brilliant economist and genuinely moral person who had nothing but the betterment of his country in mind when he ran for office, but, liked the odd spanking session, would get thrown out immediately, but when open fraud is exposed, it seems to just be accepted as part of the job, so long as he's a good ol' god fearing christian and a family man.

I should state, that the only reason any sexual 'deviancy' is any problem to people in positions of power, is because if the press get hold of it, it'll be used to destroy them, when it just doesn't really matter. If you're Minister for Marriage and family values and you're having an affair, it's relevant, sure, but otherwise it just shouldn't matter.

I'm going to link it again, but I think 'Black Mirror' really looks deeply into the idea of privacy in the modern day, and how it can really affect vitally important things.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/black-mirror/4od


(As ever, just try to fullscreen it immediately or face the soulsucking, mindnumbing and spoiler showing idiocy of the youtube comments section, if you have to click thru to the main site.)

 

[Cyberjester]

And that whole "privacy is for pedo's" is total crap. In a world where you can be fired for a single picture of you drinking an apple daiquairi at a wedding, there are many reasons for privacy.

And that's the crux of the matter. Both why they want the password and why people want privacy.

Because without it you end up in a 1984 world. Yes, taking out all privacy would greatly reduce the amount of crimes committed, both virtual and physical, but it also eliminates.. Well, this is where it gets complicated. If you acknowledge other human beings as being worth something, then creating Big Brother isn't really cool. That whole "rights" thing. I do argue that encryption and such should be banned, too many people get away compared to the amount of people it saves. But eh. Problematic topic

 

[Cyberjester]

stuff

Mind dumbing that down? I can't figure out what you're arguing against, for, or even about.

 

[Olrod]

My password? Sure, it's the same as your own so it'll be easy for you to remember. Which reminds me, I'd better change my password so I don't get hacked.

 

[joe-h2o]

What possibility of misuse is there? Serious question. It's not falsifying information...it's just what you've done.

Godwin's Law!

Yeah, I get that a lot. Thing is, this isn't 'Everyone in the whole world should know what you're doing all the time'. This is, law enforcement should have more access to 'private' information in order to better...well...enforce the law. So yes, it would be important for law enforcement to know if I'm trying to make a fertilizer bomb, but not wholly important for the world to know.

Edit: Still have yet to explain why privacy is an 'inalienable human right', though. And no, it does not go without saying. Nothing goes without saying.

Right, so this is in NC, so falls under the Constitution of the US. The police asking you to give up your private login details is already covered - firstly by the 4th amendment (they specifically *cannot* just root around in your secured possessions without a warrant, be that your locked house, your locked car, or your password-protected files/emails/accounts), and secondly by the 5th amendment - you have the right to protect yourself from self-incrinination, so *even if you have nothing to hide* you are not obligated to hand over your car keys or your password, or answer any of their questions if the police ask (other than identifying who you are).

So, if you want to argue that privacy is not an inalienable right, then you're going to have to argue that two parts of the Bill of Rights should be crossed off. (and that's something that congress does with the war on terror/patriot act/national defence authorisation act, but that's another can of worms entirely).

In other words, the police asking to look at your private stuff is a violation of the 4th and potentially 5th amendment - if you have something to hide - but that's a secondary point, whether you have something to hide or not, the law protects you equally. That's just how the US Constitution works; you have rights, and the police can't simply end run around them for the sake of "transparency" and "to better enforce the law" - they have procedures for enforcing the law and must follow them.

Edit: spelin', I do it gud!

 

[LilithSlave]

Privacy is for pedos

Are we moving towards the dystopia I've read about in all my sci-fi novels?

 

[BlackWidower]

So, has anyone sued them? It seems to me that a password should be one of those things they can't ask you about on a job application. It's discrimination. They can't ask what your religion or political affiliation is, why can they ask for your password!?

 

[BlackWidower]

I can think of many reasons why transparency is a good thing. (The primary reason being that it would save lives).

Anyone care to put forth an argument that's pro-privacy? And no, 'Privacy is a human right' is not a good argument. You have to explain why it's worth letting people die over.

Because it wouldn't save lives. There is no way people will die because because part of my facebook profile is hidden.

Anywho, it would help stop things like this for one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019409/Joshua-Davies-16-dared-Facebook-friends-murder-Rebecca-Aylward.html

That kid would have killed that girl with or without social networking. If his entire profile was open to the public it would have just made him more cautious. He didn't kill her because of social networking. He killed her in spite of it. All social networking did was allow him to brag about it. Which subsequently was what helped the police catch him.

There is no one who has died because social networks were kept private. No one! To claim otherwise is just ridiculous.

 

[Britisheagle]

Surely this would be a breach of privacy and people could refuse to share that info. Shocking..

 

[SenseOfTumour]

stuff

Mind dumbing that down? I can't figure out what you're arguing against, for, or even about.

In short, things had slightly shifted to privacy in general, and I was saying that if the press want freedom of speech, and want the right to pull some of the shit they've been doing recently, they need to prove they're doing it for good journalistic reasons. Basically, we need more exposing of corruption, and less 'look, tits' and 'guy on reality show fucked someone' 4 page exclusive! I do think part of the problem is we've just got too many newspapers and too many 24 hour news channels and not enough important stuff happens to fill them, so celeb BS is the order of the day.

Also that we need privacy, because a simple fact can be twisted and exaggerated to crazy levels in order to fit a newspaper or TV station's bosses agenda.

You only need to look at how the papers are treating Hugh Grant at present because he's speaking out against phone hacking etc. Hugh Grant's not important, he's not news, and yet he'll get more criticism than the entire banking crisis and the protests combined, because he's famous n fucked someone.

As for this 'facebook' murder, I firmly believe 100 years ago, he'd have been picking off prostitutes and the homeless until he got caught.

As for putting your passwords into a job application, screw that, unless they're willing to give me their credit card details and pin number, after all, trust goes both ways, and I'm sure, like them, I'm not going to do anything BAD with them.