Job Applicants Asked for Facebook Passwords

[Giest4life]

Really? Is it really that hard to figure out why employers would want your social network access while determining if they want to employ you?

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?

There isn't really a reason for that, being able to look at your Facebook or Myspace I understand (it gives your employer a bit of insight into the individual they're possably going to have working for them) but this reasoning doesn't really extend towards allowing them to actually log into your account.

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.

Don't want any part in this argument save for the last bit, "why it's worth letting people die over." The sanctity of human life is a moral prejudice in of itself. A prejudice that has pervaded Western civilization because the Christian god insisted it be so.

Just thought you should know.

 

[Knight Templar]

Thats messed up.

I'm not letting you read my mail either.

 

[Formica Archonis]

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."

Well, News of the World deputy editor Paul McMullen is a fucking tool.

Also rather biased, given that he and his cohorts are up to their necks in a hacking scandal, one that has since expanded to encompass government systems. Paul McMullan saying only pedophiles need privacy is like a cat burglar saying the only time people lock their front doors is when they're molesting children.

More info on the quote, and some context on the man who said it. I'd love some source on the quote on gleefully chasing Princess Di's car.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/privacy-is-for-paedos-the-world-according-to-paul-20111130-1o5un.html

 

[Marter]

I'm hoping this was a secret way to weed out idiots from getting the job. Put down your information, and the employers know that you're not smart enough to get hired.

I hope.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

I saw this on Reddit earlier. In fact, that's the same image that the Redditor used. In fact, the source of the... source is the original thread from Reddit.

http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/mtenb/wife_came_across_this_on_a_job_application/

OT: I think it's stupid.

 

[badgersprite]

Really? Is it really that hard to figure out why employers would want your social network access while determining if they want to employ you?

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?

There isn't really a reason for that, being able to look at your Facebook or Myspace I understand (it gives your employer a bit of insight into the individual they're possably going to have working for them) but this reasoning doesn't really extend towards allowing them to actually log into your account.

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.

Okay, so I guess you'd be perfectly comfortable posting your name, home address, phone number, username and password for Facebook or The Escapist or any other site you use here on this forum for everyone to see. After all, shouldn't we be entitled to know that you're not an axe murderer or not doing anything illegal and be allowed to look into all of your information so we can report it to the police if you are? After all, you have no right to say otherwise. You have no right to hide your information from us, do you?

Post your bank account details and all your personal information here on this forum so we can check that there's nothing suspicious in your history. We should be able to check and see if you have any suspicious income. Or, maybe if you're unwilling to tell it to strangers, then why don't you actively give all of your details like this to the police so they can monitor you and make sure you haven't broken any laws, be it by accident or on purpose? They should be able to investigate all your transactions so that they can investigate anything that looks suspicious and trace all your income and expenditures to confirm whether it is or not.

We don't know that you're not a murderer or committing crimes, so, according to you, you should have to be completely transparent about everything you do, at least to the police, so that they can 'keep people safe' and enforce any and all laws at all times, including laws that you may not even be aware you have broken. We should assume you are guilty and treat you like a criminal until our own investigation proves otherwise.

Hey, if it makes you feel safer.

I've also noticed that you claim privacy isn't a right, or that it has no basis to be a right. Okay. So, never mind the fact that an absence of privacy can put people in danger. Never mind that people can be exposed to violence or even murdered if certain information is revealed.

What about things like honour killings? Should the private lives of all Muslim women be exposed, despite the fact that it may put them at risk for being murdered if they have been raped or had a relationship? Should gay or transgender people not be allowed to conceal their sexuality despite the risk of discrimination and violence that may arise if they're outed? Should we have no control at all over what complete strangers are allowed to know about us? Should I advertise every time I'm about to go away on holiday to the world so that potential burglars know my home will be empty and free to be invaded?

Would you feel comfortable if I escorted you into a bathroom in your own home every time you needed to shower or use the toilet so I could ensure you weren't taking drugs? After all, you have no right to privacy, but I have a right to ensure the law is being obeyed and enforced, according to you. There's no reason why I shouldn't treat you like a criminal or a guilty person, because I have no way of knowing that you aren't, so no privacy for you.

Do you see how ridiculous this is starting to sound now?

I don't know. Maybe you'd feel comfortable in that sort of world where people's right to personal security, personal safety, bodily integrity and autonomy is completely sacrificed because it might possibly prevent some crime somewhere if someone is stupid enough to blab about it on Facebook, but, last time I checked, we live in (or were supposed to live in) free, liberal-democratic societies that would rather let ten guilty men go free than allow the government and police to perpetuate injustice against one innocent, be it by imprisoning them or by subjecting them to unnecessary interference in their lives. Those are the kind of values that Western society are meant to embody and embrace, and it breaks my heart every time I see people undermining centuries of development in the areas of jurisprudence, ethics and political philosophy. It's as if you think those values that people worked so hard for, and fought and died for over centuries, to earn those rights and protections from autocrats, corrupt governments, and tyranny are completely meaningless.

That's more than a little sad, to be honest.

 

[robert01]

Wouldn't them be logging into you Facebook account be considered fraud of some kind? These people need to fuck off with "WE NEEDZ THE PASSWURDS FUR UR FACEBOOK" shit. If i saw that on any application in Canada I would walk out with it, and fucking file a complaint with the human rights commission. And what if you are like me and do not have a social networking site and put N/A or something like that there are they going to believe me?
"HUR HUR EVERYONE HAZ A FACEBOOK PAGE?"
Bullshit. Too bad for you Americans.

 

[DugMachine]

Dear Kopikatsu,

Since you believe so much in complete transparency of private life, please post the following so we may confirm you're doing nothing illegal:

Name
Date of Birth
Mother's Maiden Name
Home Address
Home/Work/Cellphone Number
Social Security Number
Bank Account Number
Online Banking Password
Bank PIN
Credit Card number, with the three digit code in the back
All e-mail Addresses and corresponding passwords
Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, and any other social networking website username and passwords

Sincerely,
A Very Concerned Citizen

Don't even bother. Somebody already asked him for his information and he completely dodged the question and nobody seemed to take notice. Let this die, just another youth in his "Everything must be backed with hard logic," phase.

 

[JonnWood]

This. Kopikatsu is a fool. I find it ironic that his arguments are based on hard core assumptions of fair use of power. Is he fucking stoned? When in HUMAN HISTORY has that ever happened?

It has happened, but he's assuming that it is absolutely impossible that this information would be misused, and saying privacy is not a right, when it is.

 

[Grant Hobba]

And that's why my facebook account is completely locked to people who are not my friends.

Also, I would refuse to give this information. I'm sorry but there's simply no reason for you to be able to access my account. Sure you can look at it, I don't have anything to hide, but there's absolutely no logical reason for you to have my password.

It's kinda the reason I've never bothered with any social network site
(that and the fact I blame social networking sites for the death of social networking)

I see what you did there.

 

[Dr. Crawver]

This seems entirely legit, after all, all my employers have asked for my pin numbers

 

[FarleShadow]

This seems entirely legit, after all, all my employers have asked for my pin numbers

I'm not sure why, but I feel the need to say that: 'pin numbers you have stolen are not YOUR pin numbers!'

 

[JonnWood]

Not sure why people keep taking what I said as 'EVERYONE MUST KNOW WHAT EVERYONE IS DOING 24/7'. I'm just talking law enforcement. But isn't it kind of sad that you don't think humans can function as a society without deception and lies? It could very well be the other way around. There are so many secrets and lies floating about that people will jump on any tidbit of perceived truth.

You keep Strawmanning everyone. The argument is not that you're saying "everyone should know what everyone else is doing all the time". They are arguing that people have a right to keep secrets, even from authority figures, unless there is some sort of check or balance intended to ensure that authority is not going to to be abused. It's why the police need to talk to the judge before getting a phone tap.

Imagine if a cop could order a phone tap on his own house at will. Imagine he was an abusive husband, and wanted to know if his wife was leaving him, so he got a tap on her cell phone. Imagine he's a racist and he doesn't trust those black people down the street. You might argue that people aren't going to do so (one of those self-evident claims you hate so much), but when even a newspaper is willing to illegally violate the privacy of a ton of people, then the possibility of abuse by unrestricted authority is very real.

 

[JonnWood]

Don't even bother. Somebody already asked him for his information and he completely dodged the question and nobody seemed to take notice. Let this die, just another youth in his "Everything must be backed with hard logic," phase.

Strictly speaking, he didn't dodge it. He just sincerely believes only the police should have unrestricted access to job applicants' social networking profiles.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Solution, lie.

"No I'm not a part of any social networking sites. Not my thing."

 

[Astoria]

Providing your password is a direct violation of the Facebook Terms of Service. Item 4, point 8: You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.

Thus, the police force is asking for a person to break the terms of a previously agreed to contract. This is illegal to do, and as such cannot be used to discriminate against the person during the hiring process if they refuse to do so. Anybody who refuses to do so and subsequently does not get hired has a case against the North Carolina police department in question, and should sue.

Yeah this is what makes it illegal, not any actual laws about it. It's been said many times that technology is advancing too quick for laws to keep up. It's sad really that Facebook has to look after it's users because laws can't.

 

[chadachada123]

Really? Is it really that hard to figure out why employers would want your social network access while determining if they want to employ you?

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?

There isn't really a reason for that, being able to look at your Facebook or Myspace I understand (it gives your employer a bit of insight into the individual they're possably going to have working for them) but this reasoning doesn't really extend towards allowing them to actually log into your account.

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.

I can only answer at this point (tired, etc) with the same question but asking about freedom of speech, or freedom of assembly. Why is letting people assemble freely worth letting people die over? Essentially every possible freedom that a person could give as a basic human right has inadvertently caused the death of an innocent person, and I see no logical reason to class privacy differently.

When this privacy can save your very reputation and ability to function in life (say that privacy was not guaranteed, and it was let in the air that you have a pony fetish or something), it's argued that this personal freedom is worth the cost of some people using this freedom for evil.

Besides, very few people (and certainly no criminal with an ounce of intelligence) would discuss crimes committed over the internet, or additionally over a phone line. To do so is beyond idiotic, and I would think that most murderers, etc are smarter than this (keyword: most).

Finally, in the situations you described, it's almost certain that the victims in question are already dead, and what YOU'RE suggesting privacy is worth shredding over is the ability to catch the criminals, not the ability to save lives. I'll find a source if you'd like, but most murderers are not serial killers that kill on multiple occasions.

 

[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.

You know what, forget all the other arguments. People have a reasonable expectation to not be exploited by other people. This means government and law enforcement as well. And if you take into account the estimated 52 million people that were killed by their own government in the 20th century, it's reasonable to assume that people who record information in the name of harmless checking aren't going to have your best interests at heart. Both the Stalinist and Nazi regimes did this exact thing with their Census data. It's also reasonable to assume that the majority of people who are keeping secrets don't have someone locked in their basement, or are murderers or child molesters. The problem with having your private information potentially in circulation is then you give people who would hurt or exploit you the tools they need to do that more effectively.

 

[MaxPhantom]

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"

Not sure this has been said yet, but as far as I am aware they all come from The International Bill of Human Rights, which consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The idea to make them tangible laws were brought about after the second world war, because a lot of people lost what can be considered their human rights. Its a way of saying every person is entitled to have these freedoms by law. No government, individual or group can take them away. They are important because they are meant to transcend local laws, and be world wide.