Job Applicants Asked for Facebook Passwords

[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.

 

[Yokai]

One step towards making the internet a decent place to visit.

Except the issue here is that your employer suddenly has the ability to log into your Facebook account, not that they're trying to see if your behavior is different on the internet. That allows for all sorts of invasions of privacy that they have no business in, as well as the ability to impersonate you on Facebook if they feel the need to, which is obviously fraud.

Besides, public pages on Facebook, where everyone uses their real names, usually with most of their personal information a click away, are often just as nasty and unpleasant as the rest of internet. It's not so much anonymity that is a factor so much as just distance and the knowledge that basically no one's going to get up from their desk and hunt you down based on a comment you made on the internet, no matter how much of a dick you are.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

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 don't have a argument, but if you really believe what you say then do this for me.

On this forum I want you to post every site you have a membership to (like the escapist and twitter and facebook), the user name for those sites and passwords.

If you don't then all I can say is your a hypocrite who can preach it but not live it. I mean from how you sound privacy isn't a issue for you right?

 

[DanDeFool]

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."

How much you want to bet this guy turns out to be a closet homosexual like Ted Haggard? Everybody has something they'd at least rather not broadcast to the universe, if not something they go out of their way to conceal.

Ultimately, if this becomes common practice, it's going to mean one thing for sure. People who don't use social networking sites will either rule the fucking universe, or be shipped off to a big fat leper colony.

Think about it. If all employers start asking to get an inside look at your social networking accounts, and they run into candidates that just don't have them, will that be an automatic pass, or an automatic condemnation?

Will we get to the point where everybody, everywhere will essentially be forced to publish every single detail of their entire lives to the Internet for everyone to see, no matter how sordid, because if you don't you'll automatically be perceived as a suspicious and untrustworthy regardless of your actual conduct?

Or, will we get to the point that everyone who made the mistake of having even a single piece of derogatory information visible on their social networks will be perceived as MORE untrustworthy than those who didn't feel like sharing? In the latter case you don't know anything about them for sure, but in the former you have actual PROOF that they're a fuck-up!

Granted, both of these are slippery slope arguments, but this whole situation makes me wonder if we ought not start weighing our options on social networks more seriously.

 

[Atmos Duality]

By their logic, they should be allowed unlimited access to my computer, cell phone, and mail on the off chance I might be doing something illegal or otherwise questionable.
And I have to take them at their word that this information will not be compromised or abused in any fashion.

Fuck. That.

Fortunately, I don't have Myspace, Facebook, Twitter or any other public social profile account, and since the rest of my accounts are anonymous screen names, I could (and would) very easily lie if they ever demanded the passwords to those. They would have no way of knowing what I have, or don't have there; nor do they need to know for the purposes of employment.

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

On the other hand, what's legal and what's done are often two entirely different things, and if enough people just roll over for this and fill in the blanks without question, it could eventually become a common, or at least tolerated, practice.

This definitely smacks of the illegal, but I can believe that it'll become more common if we let it.

My proof? People aren't allowed to use your Social Security Number for ANYTHING. Nobody should be identifying you by that number unless they are the Social Security administration, so nobody is allowed to ask for it... not your job, not your landlord, not your medical personel... but it's convenient, so they all do. And you don't want to cause a fuss, so you give it to them.

You know, I could almost get behind the username bit. I do support the company's right to inspect the public image of who they hire, and if you have your drunk-out-of-your-mind photos on your profile for everyone to see, then your public face might not match up with what the company is willing to be associated with. On the other hand, it's none of their business what I do behind closed doors, and if they can't see it without my password then it is none of their business.

Oh, and if I didn't already have a Facebook I hadn't touched in years with nothing interesting on it, I'd be making a new one now. Constructing a boring vanilla profile that won't set off red flags for them isn't exactly hard to do, and if they're foolish enough to think you're giving them your real information... well, then suddenly covering your tracks gets easier.

 

[Risingblade]

Time to make a fake facebook account

 

[mooncalf]

These are not real people; people who think that everyone else in the world is or should be essentially just like them, and that whatever that is, is normal. WRONG.

I do not feel obliged to engage in a happy-clappy brain-meld of total honesty with others, otherwise I might have to point out every douche thing they do and feel counterproductive doing so, especially where their reactions are less enlightened than their attitude towards looking through my stuff.

Go away you voyeurist perverts.

*EDIT* And all that is irrelevant if it turns out this is just some kind of trick to seperate the stupids from the applicants.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

On the other hand, what's legal and what's done are often two entirely different things, and if enough people just roll over for this and fill in the blanks without question, it could eventually become a common, or at least tolerated, practice. 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."

Something to bear in mind the next time you're annoyed about having to deal with online privacy settings - and when you're thinking about just how much personal information you want to put out there for the world to see.

I'm sorry, what? Facebook as a private messaging client built into it. In other words, a functional substitute to email at times. Is this guy also proposing that you hand over your email account for 'inspection'?

It's hilarious that he's trying to claim that the only people who keep secrets are pedophiles. That's the sort of bullshit that I'd expect from an adaptation of 1984, on some tongue-in-cheek propaganda poster: "REMEMBER, CITIZENS: ONLY CRIMINALS AND PEDOPHILES NEED PRIVACY. ARE YOU A PEDOPHILE?"

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.

Wait, what? How is that a legitimate excuse? The only way you could possibly justify that is if you were simultaneously demanding records of your phone conversations, your mail, email, etc. In other words: Facebook is one of the last places that people talk about doing illegal things.

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

How? Explain to me how rifling through someone's Facebook account can "save lives." Unless the applicant is the worst serial killer in history and uploads pictures of his victims and restricts them to a specific circle of 'Friends,' it isn't going to reveal anything earthshattering.

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.

Where are people dying here? Jesus, you talk about it like this process has revealed applicants as mass-murderers who recorded their killings on Facebook.

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

Here's a litmus test for the relevance of any evidence you plan to use:

Step 1: Ask yourself whether it was posted in the 'Daily Mail.'

Step 2: If the answer in Step 1 was 'Yes,' find another piece of evidence.

Many of the groups taking part in the London Riots used social networking sites to plan where to go smash up next. Not sure on the deaths/injuries/monetary damage caused on that one, but I imagine monetary damage was pretty large, if nothing else.

Yeah. Because I'm sure that they brought their laptops along and made groups for it. As opposed to, say, shouting to each other, calling people with phones, etc. You know, things infinitely easier than Facebook when you're in the midst of a riot.

 

[DirgeNovak]

I sincerely hope it's illegal and they need to take out that question from the form soon. There's an easy way to counter it though. Give the password up and change it as soon as you're hired. It's a lot harder for employers to fire you for "changing your facebook password" than it is to not hire you in the first place because you refused to give it/gave a fake one.

 

[DoctorFrankenStein]

I hope everyone who reads this application crumples it up and walks out of the station and they won't be able to hire anyone until this gross over-reach is removed. It's bad enough to spy on what your employees do on their off hours, demanding access to their accounts is just too much.
Even declaring something as innocent as being a pagan or an atheist is enough to turn off a potential employer. No one needs to know if someone likes kinky sex or getting drunk in in their free time.
People HAVE to have privacy, because the average human being will judge someone harshly on the smallest of things they don't agree with. The police have too much power as it is.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

Completely illegal.

need to be sued

 

[MaxwellEdison]

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.

This, this, a thousand times this. Please don't tell me anyone's going along with this shit.