Job Applicants Asked for Facebook Passwords

[Togs]

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

The examples you mentioned show the possibility for misuse.
I would of thought that was obvious.

Godwin's Law!

Maybe, but the comparison was apt and necessary.

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.

So you would rather live in a totalitarian state? A dictatorship?
Does 1984 read like a utopia to you? If yes then Im going to have to dismiss you as a troll, either that or my next point is going ot be scarily accurate.

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.

And that is where you are wrong- not everything can be argued from logic and not everything should be, somethings are just beyond that.

That is no doubt going ot get you frothing at the mouth- I would have too a few years back, but its a wonder what a little age and experience can do.

Ultimately you just come across as an adolescent in "that phase"- the one where above average intelligence kids form controversial opinions and think themselves wise for it, decrying naysayers as ignorant or small minded, and having gone through it I know there is nothing I can say to make you change your mind so im going to walk away.
But I do hope you get through it soon, there's too many on this site.

 

[Iron Mal]

1. They also need to know if there is a chance you'll commit a crime in the future. Specifically a violent crime. Like that Doctor in the military who went crazy and started shooting everyone. Also, they'll redoubtably use it to 'keep tabs' on the employee. If you post something like 'Yeah, I let off the hook this time. I shouldn't have, but hey, he gave me $50.', then yeah, it's kind of their business to know that.

So you're opperating under the suspicion that everyone might be a potential threat so we have to check to make sure?

There are a few cases of people going on random killing sprees but I can guarentee you that letting employers and the police become 'Big Brother' in this fashion not only wouldn't have done anything to stop any of those cases but would be open to abuse and misuse in horrendous ways ('who watches the watchmen?' and so forth).

For all the potential thousands (maybe millions) of people who's privacy you'd be violating you might stop...maybe a handful of crimes? (if you're lucky)

As previously said, there's no reason for this.

As for the whole 'I love you' notes...that's assuming that anyone cares. Yeah, okay, it's nice, and you and your girlfriend care, but do anyone else actually care? The Police aren't going to be searching through your messages looking for your Great-Grandmother's recipe for Apple Pie.

You might not care but that's not to say that there's no way this power (and it is power you'd be giving people) could never be abused.

You have to account for the fact that the people you'd be giving oversight of your personal life may not have your best interests in mind when they look at the details of your life (in the worst case scenario, it could give someone who wants to do you harm more ammunition to do so).

2. I imagine it would feel like I'm a celebrity and/or politician. But again, I'm not saying the whole world needs to know, just law enforcement.

Even celebrities and politicians have a certain degree of privacy (not as much but they do get some) and I think if you had to live through even having that much lack of privacy that you'd definately be understanding why it's important.

3. FFFFFF. What makes it a human right? I keep asking this, but nobody is answering it. What makes something a human right? Why is that important? Who decides what is a human right?

It doesn't matter why, the point is that it is a human right and no amount of you asking why will change that.

So how about you stop complaining about this and try to answer the basic question of what makes this worth a violation of a human right?

 

[The Funslinger]

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.

Yes, the visual record I keep of my various dogging exploits would surely attract the wrath of an employer. D:

But yeah, the dude's kind of a dick taking a "nobody would think to try what I say on me!" stance.

 

[DEAD34345]

Many people lock their information so that only friends can view them, and they want to look into your private messages to make sure that you aren't participating in any illegal...whatevers.

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.

You know what, you're right. While we're at it, we should get rid of all those other "human rights" getting in the way of saving lives too. Everyone should just be enslaved and forced to do nothing but grow crops in a perfectly safe environment until they die. That way no-one would even be able to die of anything other than old age, it has no downsides! /sarcasm

No, privacy is a good thing because I like it, and other people like it too, for reasons that are their own (and reasons which I won't ask for, because I respect said privacy).

Maybe you don't care about your privacy (I doubt that's really true), but most people do care. Most people would be much happier living a life with some privacy, and that makes it worth letting people die over it.

 

[Zenn3k]

I really don't care who this employer is, but I know I certainly would not work for anyone who demanded my personal facebook information.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Woah slow down here.... We decided it was a human right. The privacy right is a natural, necessary logical extension of other human rights. We have a right to control our own bodies, we have a right to say what we wish, and we have a right to our own image (as an extension of these). The privacy right evolved out of these. If we can say what we wish to and represent ourselves how we want, as a right (subject to limitations of fraud etc.) we have a right to nondisclosure, or privacy as well. Without one we cannot functionally have the other. We cannot represent ourselves to the world in whatever way we choose if our representation can be shattered by an overreach. We would lose these other rights (even if only fractions of them) but for a right of disclosure.

Who is 'We'? What logical extension is there? Why are those three things human rights?

'Just because' is not a valid answer.

It doesn't matter why, the point is that it is a human right and no amount of you asking why will change that.

So how about you stop complaining about this and try to answer the basic question of what makes this worth a violation of a human right?

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".

Edit: Will have to pick this up on non-ZP day. The lag is awful.

 

[MammothBlade]

Glad I quit facebook while I still could. It's a police state snooping program. Sick.

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 don't believe in natural human rights, but those which are state-sanctioned as civil rights to all innocent individuals of a society. Do individuals usually deserve privacy? Is privacy a good thing for people to have? I believe the answer to both is yes, and depriving people of privacy is bad for their mental and social wellbeing. There should be a very very good reason to request to investigate someone's private details or investigate their possessions. Everyone has a few secrets, quirks, or personal opinions which they rightfully do not want everyone to know about, and that should be enshrined as a right. Or else we get authoritarian personalities who say "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear."

 

[Lunar Templar]

"Privacy is for pedos," he said. "Fundamentally, no one else needs it."

>.>

really ....

good luck getting anybody hired with that attitude jack ass

 

[The Funslinger]

"Privacy is for pedos," he said. "Fundamentally, no one else needs it."

That's such a gross oversimplification and outright lie I think I'd have punched the guy who said it on principle. And for insinuating that anyone who refuses to give them account details is a pedo.

Exactly. Everyone has some weird stuff. Maybe it's some odd porn (not necessarily CP. Something legal), or some crazy shit they did on holiday one time. Imagine how humiliating it would be for that to come out. Nobody would want to exercise their desires or act on them for fear of embarrassment and being shunned by their peers. All in all, the world would become a very prudish and depressing place to live.

As for the whole social networking thing: As has been stated above, employers have been known to fire over visual evidence of the most trivial things. Everyone has three sides to them in my opinion: The side they show their parents/authority figures in their life. The side they show their friends, and finally the side only they know about, when they're alone with themselves. Most likely there'd be at least something in everyone's lives that wouldn't be looked kindly upon for whatever reason, especially by someone like an employer who is bound to overreact. THAT is why privacy is a human right, and should therefore not be invalidated. Without privacy, we're in a society with highly restricted personal freedom.

 

[JoJo]

It may sound unlikely, but consider the words of former News of the World deputy editor Paul McMullen, who very likely summed up a widespread contemporary attitude toward privacy in his testimony at the Leveson Inquiry yesterday. "Privacy is for pedos," he said. "Fundamentally, no one else needs it."

Does anyone actually believe that? Privacy isn't about keeping secrets, it is a right, in and of itself. In regards to that statement, it's not illegal to be attracted to kids, it's only illegal to act on those attractions. So, pedophiles don't need to be secretive about that stuff, they only need to keep their noses clean. Freedom is such a pesky concept, I know.

Take into consideration that the person saying it rests his entire career into poking his nose into other people's business, so he'll say anything to excuse that, even though it's pretty clear that him and NoW were entirely in the wrong through-out the whole phone-hacking scandal and much of their larger business practise.

 

[Knivestgn]

Woah slow down here.... We decided it was a human right. The privacy right is a natural, necessary logical extension of other human rights. We have a right to control our own bodies, we have a right to say what we wish, and we have a right to our own image (as an extension of these). The privacy right evolved out of these. If we can say what we wish to and represent ourselves how we want, as a right (subject to limitations of fraud etc.) we have a right to nondisclosure, or privacy as well. Without one we cannot functionally have the other. We cannot represent ourselves to the world in whatever way we choose if our representation can be shattered by an overreach. We would lose these other rights (even if only fractions of them) but for a right of disclosure.

Who is 'We'? What logical extension is there? Why are those three things human rights?

'Just because' is not a valid answer.

It doesn't matter why, the point is that it is a human right and no amount of you asking why will change that.

So how about you stop complaining about this and try to answer the basic question of what makes this worth a violation of a human right?

It does matter why. That's extremely important. If you can't explain why it's 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".

Ok, I will assume you most be joking, or a sophist. I say we as in "society" because we have expressly listed them as such. We reserved them via a fancy piece of paper and based our rules upon it. We have even interpreted privacy as a right. Aside from the fact that for the purposes of law, and living in the modern world under its rules which has these as de facto rights.... (so to engage in the purely theoretical)

What do you mean by right? If you mean by what rubric do we assume that people should exercise any control over their bodies and what can go into, and out of it and what can interact with it. I would say simply by virtue of if not us then who? It seems to be a far more simple inference to assume we should merely because we control it natively than to remove any rights to control of personhood and place them in another artificially.

So then we arrive at a matter of nature and of occam's razor (the actual one not the one everyone likes to assume is it). It is far easier to allow those who natively control their personhood to do so then institute forced slavery or external control. Ergo we have the right to control our bodies in so far as physical circumstance allows, what goes into or out of them and what we willingly have interact with them again insofar as volition and circumstance allow. Applying this to society broadly we carve out exceptions for circumstance and necessity but only where strictly speaking necessary. And no, police investigation for the sake of police investigation is not necessity. We have limited when police investigate to bring an actual rational reason (evidence, danger, circumstance) for the sake of preserving those fundamental rights we are all born with (By virtue of native control, because left to our own completely removed from society we would at the very least have those rights).


If you are trying to engage in deconstruction of rights and assumptions for the sake of it, stop. Descartes and many who he influenced and who influenced him already did so. We know that objectively at a very fundamental level there are only subjective arbitrary assumptions (outside the base hypothesis). So we allow context, assumptions and preference to rule (as it is the only thing that can).

So then we are left with they are rights because we (society) say so. They are de facto enumerated rights, preserved. And therefore yes this application violates them (especially with regards to 5th amendment concerns). Or the argument from humanity (anthropic), we are natively in control of these facets and see no reason to remove it.


So the fact that for this discussion assuming the laws of our society as written apply makes you wrong in this instance. For concerns of ideals and theory you can continue your deconstructionism, there is likely a philosophy degree in your future if you do so, a field of study which is actually fairly fun.

 

[Zachery Gaskins]

It is a human right because humans are (on the grand scale) fallible, frail, irrational, and prone to making generalizations and having prejudicial beliefs that would infringe on others rights to identity, life, freedom, and pursuit of happiness.

Because we are self-aware enough to know that even in the process of collaborating to achieve common goals there will be the primal, paranoid desire to forsake others for one's own perceived personal safety.

Privacy laws exist to protect citizens from the misguided beliefs of the group - in essence, it recognizes while individuals may be smart, people are prone to lapses in good judgement and will differ on interpretations of the "social contract" - what I owe to the civilization/culture I enjoy in return for their security, social services, and protection from harm.

While police corruption has always been present as long as the concept's been around, technology has advanced to the point where corruption is easier and easier to hide.

I demand privacy because inevitably there will be an aspect of my behavior or personality that while not harming or infringing on a single other person's rights, will be treated as a personal affront to a person in power, and they abuse that power to assert their own opinions on me, which is a violation of my freedom.

In short, it is in recognition of that we live a flawed, imperfect, non-ideal existence that we cannot ever have laws that insist upon one that is ideal. In other words, if people weren't ignorant lazy fucks on average, things such as laws wouldn't even be necessary would they?

 

[neurohazzard]

To anyone who says they don't need privacy and have 'nothing to hide', I say "Okay, then install a 24/7 webcam in every room of your house including bathrooms". Yeah, turns out everyone has things they very rightly don't want others to see, without those things necessarily being wrong.

 

[B-Rye]

Inb4idon'twanttoliveonthisplanetanymore

This is pretty crazy, I hope this is illegal and the government puts a stop to it.

The government protecting privacy? HA!

Seriously though, you do bring up an interesting aspect. There would have to be enough exposure, a lawsuit, and potentially years worth of court time, appeal after appeal, the supreme court deciding whether or not to see the case, and then finally for the Supreme Court to give the final say.

From the police department's perspective they would probably justify this as trying to make sure the applicant will not be a security risk. However, I personally do think that this demand is overzealous.

We are different people based on the situation and environment we are in. Facebook is what it is: a social and casual environment. Probably not the best place to see how a person is professionally. The argument that is usually levied toward me at this point is that, as an employer, you want the best image for your business.

I would respond that if there is nothing public that gives an employer reason to deny employment, that should suffice. It should show that a person is tactful enough to not let personal business get in the way of professional business. If you get denied a job on account of certain photos or information that you have set as public, then you only have yourself to blame.

 

[TheDooD]

NC cops doing something extremely stupid...I would have NEVER known

 

[Baresark]

It may sound unlikely, but consider the words of former News of the World deputy editor Paul McMullen, who very likely summed up a widespread contemporary attitude toward privacy in his testimony at the Leveson Inquiry yesterday. "Privacy is for pedos," he said. "Fundamentally, no one else needs it."

Does anyone actually believe that? Privacy isn't about keeping secrets, it is a right, in and of itself. In regards to that statement, it's not illegal to be attracted to kids, it's only illegal to act on those attractions. So, pedophiles don't need to be secretive about that stuff, they only need to keep their noses clean. Freedom is such a pesky concept, I know.

Take into consideration that the person saying it rests his entire career into poking his nose into other people's business, so he'll say anything to excuse that, even though it's pretty clear that him and NoW were entirely in the wrong through-out the whole phone-hacking scandal and much of their larger business practise.

That is very true. It just strikes me as kind of... terrifying in the 1984 capacity, that anyone would perpetuate such an idea.

OT: I see there is a debate as to "why?" privacy is a human right. That is simple, people are born with it. They are born in such a manner that we cannot know what other people are doing unless we take away their right to those thoughts/actions/ideas. A right is something that is granted, not by government or man, but by the mere act of existence. You can say by god, or by the universe, but these things are the same thing in this capacity. If you look at other rights, then you see why this fits in with them. The right of self ownership. The right to seek happiness. The right to reap the benefits of your own hard work... just to name a few. Consider this along with things that are not rights. You do not have the right to kill your neighbor. You do not have the right to steal other peoples money. You do not have the right to declare something of someone else's as your own. You do not have the right to make decisions regarding other peoples lives. You do not have the right to know what other people are doing with their free time. You do not have the right to know what others are thinking. These things are not rights because you must take away another persons rights in order to obtain them.

The act of privacy is a right because you enjoy it without harming others. When privacy is taken from you, your ability to have thoughts and ideas separate from other people has been taken away from you by other people, so by definition, it must be a right to have it.

 

[Melon Hunter]

Woah slow down here.... We decided it was a human right. The privacy right is a natural, necessary logical extension of other human rights. We have a right to control our own bodies, we have a right to say what we wish, and we have a right to our own image (as an extension of these). The privacy right evolved out of these. If we can say what we wish to and represent ourselves how we want, as a right (subject to limitations of fraud etc.) we have a right to nondisclosure, or privacy as well. Without one we cannot functionally have the other. We cannot represent ourselves to the world in whatever way we choose if our representation can be shattered by an overreach. We would lose these other rights (even if only fractions of them) but for a right of disclosure.

Who is 'We'? What logical extension is there? Why are those three things human rights?

'Just because' is not a valid answer.

It doesn't matter why, the point is that it is a human right and no amount of you asking why will change that.

So how about you stop complaining about this and try to answer the basic question of what makes this worth a violation of a human right?

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".

Edit: Will have to pick this up on non-ZP day. The lag is awful.

Why is privacy a human right? Well:

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
(Link: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ )

That, right there, is Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is an inviolable and axiomatic part of international law, and no amount of whining about 'Just because isn't a valid argument' will change that. All democratic countries have signed and agreed that those thirty articles are the foundations of a fair life for every person, and these cannot be violated legally under any circumstances.

The bolded part is the most relevant part here. What you are arguing is that, in exchange for the extremely vague assumption that lives may be saved, a candidate for the police force must hand over full control of their Facebook or Myspace account to the police force, who may not even hire them afterwards. This is an arbitrary interference of privacy, as there is no guaranteed payoff for surrendering your profile details, which may be used against you by a malicious member of the police force for, you guessed it, 'attacks upon his honour and reputation', another violation of Article 12. Not only is this demand a violation of human rights, it is illegal. The Article clearly states that the law must protect citizens from these attacks, and this most definitely is an attack on privacy.

Summing up, the United Nations have declared these thirty articles human rights (here's the link again: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ ), and member nations have signed and agreed to enshrine these rights in law. That is what makes a human right a human right; international law. All other laws revolve around it. If you really want to argue that, then you may as well go after the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and any other documents that were drafted to guide the law of the land, as those are also based on the assumption that they are axiomatic; they don't need an explanation, because they were agreed to be the explanation as to why other laws may or may not be introduced.

 

[Baresark]

Consider it part of the background check. What you do in private reveals more about you as a person than anything you do in public.

What makes privacy a human right? Who decided that? What purpose does privacy serve? What benefits are there to privacy?

As I said, 'It's a human right, end all' is a piss poor argument.

Edit: Nothing is self-explanatory. 'Just because' is an even worse argument than 'It's a human right, end all' is.

It's not part of a background check though. You can't just make it up as you go along if you are not going to allow the privacy as a right argument. Also, look at my previous post for an explanation of what a right actually is.

You are confusing the issue. The argument that it will save lives is a red herring. It may save lives. No one is disputing that fact. The issue is that you cannot treat everyone like they are a pedophile or a murderer. Only people who have committed those crimes are allowed to be labeled as that, and those things are not decided lightly. The problem is that, invasion of privacy can also destroy lives.

As proof of what I say, look at what happened to Tyler Clementi. That not only resulted in his suicide, but adversely hurt everyone who knew him and was close to him. That is also a very real account of what invasion of privacy can do when it's taken as a big joke.