Facebook and employment interviews (page 3)

Thursday, March 15, 2012

</form>

Alexis Madrigal - Alexis Madrigal is a senior editor at The Atlantic. He's the author of Powering the Dream: The History and Promise of Green Technology.
More

«Previous Madrigal | Next Madrigal »

Should Employers Be Allowed to Ask for Your Facebook Login?

By Alexis Madrigal

Feb 19 2011, 10:54 AM ET 145

Update 2/22, 5:11pm: The Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services has suspended the practice of asking for Facebook login information for 45 days, according to an email they sent to The Atlantic. See our full story on the development.

The American Civil Liberties Union has taken up the cause of a Maryland man who was forced to cough up his Facebook password during a job interview with the Department of Corrections in that state.

According to an ACLU letter sent to the Maryland Department of Corrections, the organization requires that new applicants and those applying for recertifications give the government "their social media account usernames and personal passwords for use in employee background checks."

The ACLU calls this policy "a frightening and illegal invasion of privacy" and I can't say that I disagree. Keep in mind that this isn't looking at what you've posted to a public Twitter account; the government agency here could look through private Facebook messages, which seems a lot like reading through your mail, paper or digital.

While it's not surprising that some employers might want to snoop in your social media life, it strikes me as a remarkable misapprehension of what Facebook is to think that it should be wholly open for background investigations. Legally, things are probably more complex, but it seems commonsensical that carte blanche access to your communications should be off-limits.

The case also shows a downside to Facebook's scale. It stands to reason that the bigger they get, the more that employers and others concerned with the age-old enterprise of covering their asses will feel the need to know what their employees are up to on the service. That alone isn't going to derail the Facebook juggernaut, but it might slow down people's engagement on the site as they realize maybe a private, unknown e-mail account is a better way of sending sensitive messages.

Here's the Maryland man, Officer Robert Collins, describing what happened in his specific case:

Share Share Email Email Print Print Presented by

More at The Atlantic

Paper Con Man Ravages the Internet No, the Internet Is Not a Giant Xerox Machine A Sign of the Times: Encyclopaedia Britannica to End Its Print Run Encyclopaedia Britannica to End Its Print Run How the Tractor Explains the American Middle Class Crisis A Short History of Working and Spending The Problem With Polls About Whether Obama Is a Muslim

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you're not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.

Disqus

Like
Dislike
- 11 people liked this.

Showing 145 comments

Sort by Subscribe by email Subscribe by RSS Real-time updating is paused. (Resume)

Morgan Sheridan 1 year ago
No. I do not think they have that right and it is over-reaching to ask for passwords to private accounts. They don't have a right to know whether I like playing Vampire Wars or whether I snicker at some friend's tasteless joke or whether I follow the XYZ political groups or what food recipes I share in my notes. Isn't their business.
IF in the course of employment, the employer deems it necessary to the job for someone to have a facebook account that they use which represents the employer AND is required to be used during working hours - 8-5 - ONLY THEN should the employer be entitled to require a password for that particular account.
Its bad enough that simply in order to work for someone, we have to forfeit our constitutional rights for things like arbitration (which over 95% of the time favors the employer since the employer hires the arbitration judge/hearing officer). Work and home are separate domains. My employer hires my skills, they are not hiring my soul.
129 people liked this.
saraeanderson 1 year ago in reply to Morgan Sheridan
It's a fantastic back door to discrimination. All sorts of things that they can't ask about in interviews will be on display.
79 people liked this.
RubeSuckerman 1 year ago in reply to Morgan Sheridan
I once had a boss who cracked my personal email account and thought it was OK to troll through several years worth of my correspondence. I found out when a colleague forwarded me one of my emails back to me (he had been sharing select messages with peers in an effort to make me look bad, which backfired badly). I reported him to the DA's office and the FBI, as well as the IRS and the state tax authorities (he had put his wife in charge of finance instead of a CPA which is a red flag for an embezzler).
He was a real piece of work, and out of all of the people I've dealt with, the most unpleasant, unethical manager I have encountered.
Good for this guy for going to court. Asking for someone's login for personal information is complete BS and is a recipe for abuse. Such information should only be provided to law enforcement, and then only under a court order.
67 people liked this.
alexismadrigal 1 year ago in reply to RubeSuckerman
That's some conniving. Thanks for sharing the story.
Carolfb 1 year ago
Welcome to the brave new world of non-unionized, no rights workers. Sure a major focus of collective bargaining is economics -- the negotiation of wages, benefits, etc. But just as important to most unionized employees (me, for example) is the ability of the union to speak to these "employer practice" questions. Good luck Officer Collins. I fear this is just the beginning of the new age of "if you don't want me to have access to your whole life, go work somewhere else."
83 people liked this.
Dave Andrews 1 year ago in reply to Carolfb
We don't need unions for stuff like this. The ACLU is effectively serving the role necessary here.
26 people liked this.
Carolfb 1 year ago in reply to Dave Andrews
Right. So employees should have to go to court and sue each time this type issue comes up. I thought conservatives opposed such litigation. Some to think of it, I thought they opposed the ACLU. So we get rid of unions, cause folks can sue, represented by the ACLU. Then we take away access to the courts for such cases . . .
54 people liked this.
InfinityBall 1 year ago in reply to Carolfb
So... you learned something today?
5 people liked this.
derekdj 1 year ago in reply to Carolfb
NO, conservatives understand history ALL too well, individuals suing companies is a lose, lose proposition for individuals. They know that in order to sue a large corporate it would bankrupt the individual before the case even gets to trial. Just think an average 1 million dollar law suit would rack up to 300 thousand dollars in legal fees (that's just on the plaintiff's side). Conservatives understand all too well how corporations exploited workers for since the dawn of the industrial revolution, until the birth of trade unions.
IanVL 1 year ago in reply to Carolfb
Why are you assuming that someone who thinks that this isn't a union issue is a "conservative opposed to such litigation?" This is not the 1950's when labor and left-of-center politics were synonymous. I'm sure that there are plenty of conservatives in any case who don't agree with this type of invasion of privacy.
While unions have been instrumental in changing workers rights, plenty of worker-protection issues have been successfully resolved in non-unionized industries and a variety of labor laws continue to be effective in the absence of unions. Those who will inevitably hold non-union jobs have a right to their personal privacy as well, which means it is an issue that should be settled definitively by law, and not on a case-by-case basis in negotiations between a union and employer. If individuals such as officer Collins are successful, this will serve as a deterrent for other employers -- both in unionized and non-unionized industries -- to engage in this behavior and it won't be necessary for every employee in the country to sue their boss.
17 people liked this.
JonF311 1 year ago in reply to Carolfb
One successful lawsuit should put a stop to this everywhere.
7 people liked this.
Soullite 1 year ago in reply to JonF311
That isn't how the law actually works... jurisdictions matter. Even a Supreme Court ruling takes years and countless lawsuits before every jurisdiction acknowledges that, yes, the rules apply to them too.
4 people liked this.
JonF311 1 year ago in reply to Soullite
Yes, I realize that. But a successful lawsuit tends to "encourager les autres" to avoid the behavior that produced the lawsuit-- especially when the behavior is something utterly irrelevant to making a profit in the first place. Hence the thicket of PC regulations HR departments tend to force on most workplaces today. They may well never get sued for having a hostile workplace for women, blacks, etc-- or they well win such suits. But they'd just as soon never have to deal with any of it.
2 people liked this.
Michael Lomenzo 1 year ago in reply to Soullite
Except the laws that this act violates are constitutional, therefore it is a federal matter.
Robert Decker 1 year ago in reply to Dave Andrews
Yes, until the right-wingers dress someone like a pimp and prostitute, walk into an ACLU office and ask misleading questions, and then post the secretly-taped video on FockSchnews in an attempt to make the ACLU look bad. No wait, they did that with ACORN and Planned Parenthood. They wouldn't try it again, would they????
14 people liked this.
Robert Decker 1 year ago in reply to Dave Andrews
Yeah, until some right-winger comes up with the bright idea of having a pimp and a prostitute walk into an ACLU office, ask misleading questions in an attempt to make the ACLU look bad, and then post the secretly-taped video on FakeSchnews. Wait, they already tried that with ACORN and Planned Parenthood. They wouldn't try it again, now would they??????
Hangmn 1 year ago in reply to Robert Decker
Hey Robert if acorn and planned parenthood weren't engaging in illegal and certainly questionable activity..there wouldn't be a story REGARDLESS of the outlet..would there?
5 people liked this.
saveeveryone 1 year ago in reply to Hangmn
You're behind the times, ACORN was cleared of all charges (not that these findings got any publicity).
The tapes were edited to make it look like they were doing something illegal.
4 people liked this.
Ike Pigott 1 year ago in reply to Carolfb
Right now, the only part of the union movement gaining any ground is in the public sector.
In the case listed above, we're looking at a public sector employer wanting to do something very onerous.
Are we seeing such gains in public-sector unions because governments -- as a whole -- are fairly aggressive about such crap? You know, because they are monopolies of a sort, and can't be driven back by competitors?
CarolFB -- you've inadvertently made a stunning argument for smaller government and privatization. We don't need more unions... we need fewer government jobs where there is no other recourse.
10 people liked this.
Daniel Keys Moran 1 year ago in reply to Ike Pigott
There's a downside to working for private industry, and there's a downside to working for the government. To observe that this is the case hardly qualifies as a "stunning argument," unless you've already reached your conclusions and are looking to push in a given direction regardless of the facts ...
9 people liked this.
Ike Pigott 1 year ago in reply to Daniel Keys Moran
Like, say, Carol above me?
8 people liked this.
marik77 1 year ago in reply to Ike Pigott
Privatization means lower salaries and fewer benefits for most workers, another step down on the economic ladder for the American middle class.
19 people liked this.
Ike Pigott 1 year ago in reply to marik77
I disagree, Marik.
Privatization means more wealth for the taxpayers, who don't over-pay for services, and don't get stuck with ever-spiraling pension funds for a specialized lobby that uses bloc-voting to snare permanent raises.
But if you want to look at it solely from the perspective of the government employee, it likely means they will have more choice of employers - thereby making things like "Mandatory Facebook Snooping" too ridiculous to entertain.
Marik -- let me pose the question this way: Do you believe that Public sector workers should enjoy greater job security and less instability in their pension/retirement/benefits than private sector workers? Because in the private sector, there is competition to keep those in check. Government jobs are not subject to those competitive pressures that would equalize the pain.
(Do you really think those working outside of government really care that government employees are just now "feeling the pain" that everyone else has been living for 30 months?)
10 people liked this.
marik77 1 year ago in reply to Ike Pigott
It is possible that both of us are right, depending on whether you're talking about the long or the short term. In education, teachers without unions make less money and have fewer benefits than teachers with unions in general. This is easily illustrated by contrasting public and private school salaries/benefits, although very good private schools, in order to compete with the public schools, do pay competitive salaries and benefits. Removing the public school teachers unions will drive down teachers' salaries and benefits in public schools. When private schools no longer have to match the salaries/benefits of the public schools, they too will pay less and give fewer benefits (except to administrators).
Privatization means that the public pays for the dividends of stockholders and the profits of private companies, both unnecessary expenses for the public. It also means that private companies who do business with the government will cozy up to the appropriate officials and no-bid contracts will result, as well as outright fraud and corruption.
I believe that people who work for private companies should enjoy more job security and less instability than they currently have. You apparently do not. You chalk all that up to "competition." I think you're oversimplifying. A lot of the situation with private employees is that their productivity gains are taken for upper management and stockholders, so the employees are left with little or no gain due to productivity.
In short, I think you present an incomplete picture of the world of private employment.
34 people liked this.
Sue Basko 1 year ago in reply to Ike Pigott
This is not correct. Every real life example I have seen of privatization of government services leads to much lower quality of goods and services at much higher prices. Also, the workers are usually put on part time schedules where they are given much lower pay and no benefits whatsoever. Also, in many cases, the recipient of the services pays significantly more once the service is privatized. Privatization of government services in reality is a very very bad thing - except of the rip-off artists who are well-connected politically and get the contracts.
31 people liked this.
Josh Jasper 1 year ago in reply to Ike Pigott
Privatization means more wealth for the taxpayers, who don't over-pay for services, and don't get stuck with ever-spiraling pension funds for a specialized lobby that uses bloc-voting to snare permanent raises.
Right, this is why privatizing the energy industry in CA was so awesome that when I was living there, I got better services, and my rates went down.
No, wait, that's the opposite of what happened.
22 people liked this.
Ike Pigott 1 year ago in reply to Josh Jasper
John, you confuse privatization with deregulation.
1 person liked this.
davestaab 1 year ago in reply to Ike Pigott
Both are born from the same ideology and both have been disastrous.
It's about checks and balances to corporate (collective) power. You claim financial savings to the taxpayer. Not when it's an apples to apples comparison. Add on corporate profit and you get higher costs to the taxpayer almost every time. More typically you get inferior goods or services.
The answer to the excesses of unions is in the hands of Congress and state governments.
7 people liked this.
JonF311 1 year ago in reply to Ike Pigott
Re: Privatization means more wealth for the taxpayers, who don't over-pay for services
In theory, but in practice privatization can easily result in even higher cost services through the "magic" of crony capitalism. I saw this in Florida under Jeb Bush. Govermment sycophants get rich gorging at the public trough through govermment contracts. It's an ugly problem that has been noted since the time of the Roman Empire. It's part of the reason 19th century reformers insitituted a professional civil service.
13 people liked this.
stefanstackhouse 1 year ago in reply to Carolfb
Employees in this situation don't need a union - they need just laws, effectively enforced, that protect them. Having one's human rights and dignity protected shouldn't be contingent upon whether or not one happens to belong to a union.
8 people liked this.
Josh Jasper 1 year ago in reply to stefanstackhouse
Employees in this situation don't need a union - they need just laws, effectively enforced, that protect them.
You mean those pesky regulations that Republicans are doing away with while killing off unions?
21 people liked this.
chuddery85 1 year ago in reply to stefanstackhouse
That all sounds well and good as some abstract philosophy, but who's actually going to ensure those laws get enforced? This is one of the main reasons you have a union; to ensure that employer's are following the rules as they should and protecting worker's from management overreach.
11 people liked this.
Josh Jasper 1 year ago in reply to chuddery85
Also - it's in a company's interests to fire anyone who engages in collective action. Unions can afford lawyers, and the ACLU can't take every wage-and-hour case that comes along. Privat individuals can't, and corporations that union bust count on that when engaging in practices that a union would stand up to.
The anti-labor line parroted elsewhere is that unions are bad because they increase the cost of labor. The thing that gets left unspoken is who they're bad for. (hint, it's not the ground level emplyees, or even middle management)
16 people liked this.
Indycarl 1 year ago in reply to chuddery85
I thought that's what the department of labor was for?
JonF311 1 year ago
The American Civil Liberties Union has taken up the cause of a Maryland man who was forced to cough up his Facebook password during a job interview with the Department of Corrections in that state.
Why would they need your login and password? Can't they just go to your Facebook page and see what there is to see (maybe with a requirement that you approve the HR person as a Friend, at least temporarily)? Asking for personal passwords is outrageous. What next-- the PIN to your debit card?
46 people liked this.
gwern0 1 year ago in reply to JonF311
> Why would they need your login and password? Can't they just go to your Facebook page and see what there is to see (maybe with a requirement that you approve the HR person as a Friend, at least temporarily)?
If it was public, of course they need no such password. But then, if it was public, there's not much of an issue - you made it public, what did you think that meant?
If it's private and you're *forced* to friend them so they can see everything, that's not much better. If we were discussing email accounts, you are suggesting the equivalent of 'send them a POP/IMAP dump of your account'. Same thing - in both cases they have read-only access to your private stuff.
8 people liked this.
JonF311 1 year ago in reply to gwern0
After thinking about this further I can see a big reason why the courts will not (probably) allow this, and why no employer should risk doing it. Most people include their marital status in their Facebook profile, and many people include their religious affiliation or lack thereof. It's illegal for employers to ask about those in the hiring process, and to discriminate on those grounds at any time. Also, many people include their political leanings in their profile, and while there's no outright law on that, it's defiitely an iffy area which any sensible HR professonal knows better than to inquire about (assuming we're not talking about an exlicitly partisan job). Employers who check Facebook should beware of lawsuits alleging "I was not hired because I'm married" or "I did not get the job because I am Mormon."
By the way, if they have your login and password they have moret han read only access to your Facebook page. They can do anything there you can. That's another minefield of lawsuits waiting to erupt.
28 people liked this.
Sue Basko 1 year ago in reply to gwern0
If they have the password, they can see things that they cannot see by being allowed on as a friend -- such as the personal messages (like email) on the facebook. They can also see items on your friends' pages that the friends have specified that you be able to see -- but that they have not approved for your potential employer to see. In fact, the potential employer is invading the privacy not just of the job applicant, but of all the friends -- and in many cases, the friends of friends. This is extremely invasive and could never be warranted.
16 people liked this.
TwinkleStar2 1 year ago in reply to gwern0
I think most of you miss the point completely. It is not okay for any government agency to ask, demand, or otherwise even desire a password, or even ask to be added as a "Friend." That is a slippery slope we have been sliding down for many years. It is people like gwerno who are willing to give the government an inch today that has resulted in the erosion of freedom in this country the past 100 years. An inch a day equals a mile a year. Think about it.
4 people liked this.
oscarnyc 1 year ago in reply to TwinkleStar2
agree with your overall sentiment, but in what math does an inch a day equal a mile a year? at an inch a day, you'd need 173yrs to go a mile.
6 people liked this.
therantguy 1 year ago
wow...I can't imagine asking for that with a straight face...do you want keys to my apartment? my phone bill? access to my computer to copy the hard drive?...there are so many things wrong with this, I don't even know where to start.
62 people liked this.
Reow 1 year ago in reply to therantguy
I agree. In any case, it's illegal, as it doesn't just breach your privacy, it breaches the privacy of those in contact with you - whose permission the employer has not sought. If you give your employer your login credentials, you are open to a breach of privacy suit from your friends and family.
20 people liked this.
Joy Underwood 1 year ago in reply to therantguy
Next thing they'll start asking for DNA, blood and dental samples, maybe even your first born child... *shrugs* I wouldn't put it past any government agency. Heck, I just spent 3 days just trying to get my Texas drivers license transferred to a Mississippi drivers license. Because the MHP in Jackson seemed to ask for every kind of document that I had no way of getting, and wouldn't take any proof of residency that I provided, including something from the IRS!
Note to anyone who moves to Central Mississippi from another state, don't go to the Highway Patrol office in Jackson. They'll have you going through so much red tape, you'll think your joining the military instead of getting a drivers license. lol Go to the one in Brookhaven instead. They're MUCH friendlier and easier to deal with there!
(Sorry to throw in that drivers license part, I know it was a little off topic, but it's still a complaint about how anal the government tries to be about things.)
Lila 1 year ago
This is the same as forcing you to bring in your private diary and all your friends' diaries, too. Since my name is a common one and my FB settings are very private, I would simply tell them I don't have a FB account, then challenge them to figure out which one is mine.
28 people liked this.
Darryl Jonckheere 1 year ago
It is incredible to think there are established institutions out there like the Department of Corrections who feel such blatant invasion of personal privacy is perfectly acceptable under the guise of employee screening and security. To grant employer, or potential employer, login access to one's personal Facebook account, or any other social media platform for that matter, utterly defies logic. This goes far beyond the ethical boundaries of what one would consider an appropriately conducted or fair interview process.
18 people liked this.
Patty Terrill 1 year ago
WTH do they need the PASSWORD for? If they need to know what you are posting or have posted then you may CHOOSE to friend them and let them see for themselves what you have put public. Otherwise it's none of their business. Personally, I don't put anything out there I don't want the world to know anyway. If your boss fears you may be sharing company secrets he doesn't need your account password to fire you. If they want or need you to have a FB acouunt THEN, and ONLY THEN, they should have full access to all content. If this is upheld, I'll just make a dummy account for an prospective employer to peruse anyway.
17 people liked this.
davestaab 1 year ago in reply to Patty Terrill
I guess that's what people do in Iran and other such places.
3 people liked this.
Jesse Livermore 1 year ago
I think that's between the employer and the employee, I don't think that there should be a law for it but personally I would object just like it is none of the employers business what I do in my free time. As employer I wouldn't care what the employee does in his and her free time. They can sniff coke, smoke weed, drink beer, read at home all day, go on bike rides all the want, jet around the Nation on weekends, etc. It wouldn't be my business as long as they are capable of doing their jobs.
8 people liked this.
JonF311 1 year ago in reply to Jesse Livermore
As others have pointed out this impacts people who have nothing to do with the employment situation. That's why there should be a law banning this idiocy. It's not like you can't conduct a thorough background check without having someone's Facebook credentials. Employers have been doing it for years, not to mention security clearance background checks somehow functioned effectively without Facebook.
2 people liked this.
JohnnyR0tten 1 year ago
Providing your login information for Facebook to another is a violation of Facebook's terms of service. As is asking for another's login information.
26 people liked this.
InfinityBall 1 year ago in reply to JohnnyR0tten
So they can go after the department of corrections under the same theory that convicted the suicide-causing mother?
5 people liked this.
Christy 1 year ago
While you're at it, would you like my mail and email too? Here are my diaries and love letters. Would you like a psychic connection to my thoughts as well?
11 people liked this.
Kendrick Disch 1 year ago
I have nothing to hide, but I'd rather be unemployed and homeless than give access to my accounts during a job interview!
14 people liked this.
Brad Jobs 1 year ago
There is no valid reason or whatever for employers to ask for your personal Facebook login. It is out of their jurisdiction and whatever you do with your Facebook account is beyond their responsibility and reach. That is trespassing of your personal account.
5 people liked this.
Jack M. Boardman 1 year ago
Easy answer: HELL NO!
6 people liked this.
Liz Church 1 year ago
That would be an offence in the UK under section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998.
8 people liked this.
Zach Dexter 1 year ago
The Dept. of Corrections doesn't care about privacy? Shocking.
Nobody "forced" this man to do anything. He could have said no and passed on the job. I'm sure there are plenty of equally qualified people out there who would gladly strip naked and do jumping jacks if that's what it took to get a job offer.
Honestly I don't see how this is any more invasive than a piss test, and most people seem to be perfectly fine with those.
1 person liked this.
JonF311 1 year ago in reply to Zach Dexter
Actually there are lots of things wrong with this. I pointed out the legal issues involving marital status and religion, which are protected categories. Someone above noted that Facebook itself requires members not to share passwords or ask for others' passwords.
20 people liked this.
budgetbites 1 year ago in reply to JonF311
Just chipping in to your argument. Facebook recently made an update to the variety of answers for your relationship status to allow for civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other options.
4 people liked this.
JonF311 1 year ago in reply to budgetbites
I'm glad they did that. It's awkward to call myself single, when I am in a relationship, but the sort for which marriage is not a possibility in most states. I don't care if anyone knows that-- closets are for clothes. My employer regularly wins GLAAD awards for their enlightened policies, treating relationships like mine as fully equivalent to marriage insofar as they legally can.
6 people liked this.
Janet Aldrich 1 year ago in reply to JonF311
Not to mention age ...
Publius Ceasar 1 year ago in reply to Zach Dexter
You may be fine with a piss-test, but most people find them an egregious violation of privacy - regardless of whether they use any banned substances recreationally. I personally have refused every time I've been asked and I haven't smoked pot in 30 years.
15 people liked this.
vufindr 1 year ago in reply to Zach Dexter
For one my FB account doesn't put a person's life at risk if I'm driving a delivery truck & spent the weekend in a drug induced coma. Second, my FB account gives the names & personal comments of my friends. Three if this is okay with you please post all the passwords for accounts along with bank information & your social security number. Employers ask for your social security number. So, you shouldn't find my request invasive.
1 person liked this.
vufindr 1 year ago in reply to Zach Dexter
For one my FB account doesn't put a person's life at risk if I'm driving a delivery truck & spent the weekend in a drug induced coma. Second, my FB account gives the names & personal comments of my friends. Three if this is okay with you please post all the passwords for accounts along with bank information & your social security number. Employers ask for your social security number. So, you shouldn't find my request invasive.
3 people liked this.
n45 1 year ago in reply to Zach Dexter
Zach,not everyone has that option. He like most have bills to pay. Just walking away is not a VIABLE OPTION!! A "piss test" is very different. They can't go ob a fishing expedition nor use something there to disqualify an job seeker. Facebook accounts are like Twitter private the Labor Relations board just won a case where a person complained(on a social site) and was fired because of her remarks. The Free Speach in the constitution allows for just such!
1 person liked this.
madanthony 1 year ago in reply to n45
The Free Speach in the constitution allows for just such!
Umm, no it doesn't. It states that the government can't regulate your speech (or umm, "speach"). It doesn't say that a private employer can't make a hiring or firing decision based on that speech
1 person liked this.
Josh Jasper 1 year ago in reply to madanthony
Actually, in most states, you can't get fired for religious speech or political speech outside of the office. But you're correct that that's not a constitutional matter, just one based on correct case law.
1 person liked this.
govols 1 year ago in reply to Zach Dexter
I, for one, look forward for workers racing to the bottom in an attempt to find jobs.
5 people liked this.
Lalo Telling 1 year ago
As if we needed another reason to either quit Facebook, or never join...
16 people liked this.
BBadger 1 year ago
Originally, I laughed at this because it's another reason to not have a Facebook account, but then it got me thinking that a policy like this could also extend to them requesting personal email login/passwords or something of that nature, which would be absolutely unacceptable for me. In such a case I'd merely suggest that the employer provide me with an email account that I'll use strictly for business use, but there's no counterpart to Facebook accounts.
Perhaps the policy may end up that, much like a business email address, if you're going to access your Facebook/personal email/etc. using company resources, they may have some jurisdiction over it. In such a situation, with that kind of privacy invasion, I'd ensure those services remain separated anyway--policy or not.
5 people liked this.
JonF311 1 year ago in reply to BBadger
Where I work we are strictly required to keep home and office email 100% separate. No using the business email account for personal use and no using home email account for work purposes. In fact, we are not even allowed to access home email from the office, and likewise there's a no Facebook at the office policy. Which is just common sense, altough some people, the sort who have to stayed linked in 24/7, whine about it.
4 people liked this.
RubeSuckerman 1 year ago
I once had a boss who cracked my personal email account and thought it was OK to troll through several years worth of my correspondence. I found out when a colleague forwarded me one of my emails back to me (he had been sharing select messages with peers in an effort to make me look bad, which backfired badly). I reported him to the DA's office and the FBI, though they did not pursue it further.
1 person liked this.
ministerial 1 year ago in reply to RubeSuckerman
Did you document reporting it?
If so, consider a lawsuit. I'm no great litigious society fan, but that's exactly where lawsuits work best: deterring future elective boss douchebaggery.
7 people liked this.
Dimitri Sokolov 1 year ago
No they don't have a right. You wouldn't want to work there anyway if they are this big-brotherish. It is none of their business.
2 people liked this.
ministerial 1 year ago
Said it before, grows more true by the day:
Post no more than a picture on Facebook.
As part of the picture, overlay: "here's my phone number,here's my email, old friends. Do not send friend requests, etc. Contact me directly please."
Don't respond to Facebook emails. Don't friend anyone. Don't play dumb little farm games.
Post that picture with the embedded caption and be DONE with Facebook.
Lie about/leave blank everything except your name, age [either plus or minus one year], and where you went to school.
Do much more than that and I promise you'll regret it in future days.
10 people liked this.
JonF311 1 year ago in reply to ministerial
I don't post my age on Facebook, or rather I should say I do not post my birth date. Why give ID thieves a free tidbit?
I also would never post my phone# on any website.
That said, I'm not paranoid about anything I do put on Facebook, just quite careful. My standard is, Would I be embarrassed if this showed up on my boss's desk? Was posted in the hall at church? So I have a very G-rated Facebook page. Generally I also avoid political postings (at most I will "like" things others post), and I wish others would do the same courtesy-- I really do not like fuming at my very conservative niece or a couple of friends who are enthralled by Sarah Palin and gush about her regularly. Oh, and I do not friend current coworkers, even ones I like. I see them daily so no need for social media.
So nothing at all to regret in the future.
davestaab 1 year ago in reply to JonF311
Other than your complacency
JonF311 1 year ago in reply to davestaab
I could killed later this morning when I go to the grocery store, in several different ways, Doesn't mean I'm going to stay home. What you call "complacency" I call lack of paranoia. Add a dose of common sense and prudence (like wearing a seatbelt when driving, or not posting stupid, embarrassing things on Facebook) and life can be lived without quaking in fear over everything one does.
3 people liked this.
davestaab 1 year ago in reply to ministerial
Ok, explain your promise, oh holder of great secrets
ministerial 1 year ago in reply to davestaab
Perhaps 'promise' was poor phrasing.
How about: 'I will bet $5000 at 1:1 that any given young person will regret plastering her life all over Facebook some day" ?*
That's a money maker in the aggregate.
Ex pro poker player speaking.
Better?
*Tough to quantify for a RL bet obviously, but as a hypothetical it's pretty useful. She'll know regret when she feels it.
Janet Aldrich 1 year ago in reply to ministerial
Then I'll regret it. Privacy is an illusion and anyone who believes otherwise is too naive to be let out on their own.
I choose to share what I share. Anyone who wants to know what I think or believe can find it online, whether FB or Twitter or LinkedIn or my blogs or website. I'm not hiding!
I would refuse to give up passwords (as in the case of this article) because it puts them in the position to not only violate shared confidences of friends, but because they have then essentially hacked my accounts with my permission. Not happening.
3 people liked this.
Brenda Griffin 1 year ago
This idea is disturbing on so many levels. I have high level privacy settings on my FB account - I chose to restrict most things to my friends only. If 1 of my friends were to go through this process of a FB employment 'background check', my privacy, along with all their other Fb friends has also been violated...and we'll never know. (And my life is not at all that interesting.)
As for slowing down engagement on FB? I already see it happening in my feed with the advent of 'sponsored ads'. My friends are posting less frequently, as am I. And my feed is now filled with business fan pages - a bit boring - yet I totally understand. Who wants to have every post tracked for advertising?
Yes, going back to private email and the telephone works too.
At the end of the day, we all need to realize FB owns our data. It is not really our digital asset. Truly a reason for all to pause and be more mindful of how we use it...and totally aware of how others abuse it.
3 people liked this.
InfinityBall 1 year ago
Good for this guy and the ACLU. Smack these guys down.
9 people liked this.
derekdj 1 year ago
I don't understand why they need a person's password? Visiting the user's page is enough to reveal their profile. Also, why don't they just ask for the user's bank account passwords and while they're at it why not their IRS records and Social Security?
Are these people off their rockers? The corrections administration can't even sort out their current employees, you know the ones who have criminal records, warrants for arrest and court filings for child support. So what are they going to do with Facebook passwords?
Paul Undernet 1 year ago
Unless the job involves a security clearance, HELL NO.
1 person liked this.
LesterBallard 1 year ago
Should have told them "sure, my password is fuckuasshole.
14 people liked this.
MrWardCleaver 1 year ago in reply to LesterBallard
hey, no i have to change my password!
1 person liked this.
Sue Basko 1 year ago
This man is SO SMART and so impressive. I think he should run for some public office. I am so impressed by his intelligence and convincing speech.
it is totally absurd for any prospective employer or employer to be able to invade the privacy not only of the job applicant, but also of all of that person's "friends" on Facebook. He had already worked for this employer, so he wanted to return. Otherwise, my thought is that no self-respecting, decent person would want to work for such an invasive employer.
2 people liked this.
TheDocMontalban 1 year ago
Weak excuse, trying to uncover "illicit" behavior with prospective officers. As if they'd list their likes "bribes, coercing perps into granting sexual favors, drug dealing." With comments on their wall..."hey, so my cut of that shakedown should be 50%, when does the next shipment come in?" So stupid on so many levels. Kill these people with fire.
1 person liked this.
mabraham 1 year ago
This is insane.
The most baffling is that I am quite sure those who instituted the policy genuinely believe they aren't doing anything wrong. Makes me think of nurse Ratchet in "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest".
1 person liked this.
MikeA 1 year ago
i dont even think employers should look for an employee on Facebook it's intrusive.
1 person liked this.
Trashman01 1 year ago
These people sound like a bunch of communists. No wonder they have to take jobs in a prison system.
davestaab 1 year ago in reply to Trashman01
There's always at least one idiot...
5 people liked this.
James Eastwood 1 year ago
Should employers be allowed to ask for your e-mail login? Recordings of your phone conversations? To install cameras in your house?
No. Discussion over.
1 person liked this.
shsinger 1 year ago
Welcome to the new police state. Employers already can read your emails and listen in on your telephone conversations at work. But this new attempted invasion of privacy is way out of line and I would kiss off any potential employer that even asked for my user name and password. What's the next step, to get permission to tap your home phone, and plant listening devices in your house and car? Employers are feeling emboldened because the job market is so lousy and they're in the driver's seat. Well, I'd rather be homeless than put up with an employer that has no respect for my privacy and my civil rights.
Sarah Zhang 1 year ago
My boss once asked for my facebook password not to stalk me (at least I don't think!) but to use my account to check out profiles for other interviewees who were in my school network. (Back when networks still mattered on Facebook.) I was always aware this kind of thing went on but surprised at how unabashed the behavior was.
Didn't give him my password but still went back to my Facebook profile and scrutinized it a little more carefully.
Chris Procter 1 year ago
This would certainly be illegal in the UK as an employer is not allowed to ask age, marrital status, religion, sexuality, sick record, political affiliation or disabilities and Facebook or other social media could potentially reveal all these allowing a potential employer to discriminate on any of these grounds, what's wrong with a crimal records check where necessary?
3 people liked this.
davestaab 1 year ago in reply to Chris Procter
Nazi control freaks can't stand unknown variables and have never given a damn about privacy rights, liberty, or justice.
They spell that word "justus"
May the purveyors of such perversion have their collective ass fried in court.
an0id 1 year ago
What if i create a fake account? or I just refuse to admit that i use facebook? (character into question there perhaps) but whoes to say I cant say for certain that I trust my employeer? Once i join the organization do i get access to the facebook accounts of my coroporations owner or CEO? what about its share holders, im just as concerend (as my employeer) that investments and participation made into this corporation are not coming from of a questionable nature or someone of moral question. I cant be affiliated with people like that, it could ruin my digital reputation...
3 people liked this.
Cyberquill 1 year ago
Asking for login information is ridiculous. Instead, the employer could simply demand to become Facebook friends with the prospective employee for a limited time until the background check is complete.
davestaab 1 year ago in reply to Cyberquill
So the methodology is the problem? Screw the brownshirts
1 person liked this.
James Eastwood 1 year ago
About a year after Facebook had been rolled out beyond the Ivy League, the President of the small Christian liberal arts college I briefly attended asked the president of Student Government for her Facebook password. The administration had heard about a Facebook group criticizing them and wanted to find out who was in the group. When the student refused to let the administration invade her privacy, they threatened her (either with legal action or with withholding her degree, I can't remember). SGA signed a petition protesting the administration's actions, and at their next meeting the president of the college appeared to assure them that he didn't even know what Facebook was, much less was he actively trying to stalk students on it.
1 person liked this.
LBellinger 1 year ago
They don't need my password on FB. If they want to know what I'm about in my social media they can send a friend request. I NEVER post anything on FB that I am ashamed of or would be afraid to let the whole world see. But giving up my password makes me vulnerable to OTHERS who could post... whatever!
3 people liked this.
Meagan Turner 1 year ago
Your personal life outside of work is no one's business...period....Big Brother is watching
2 people liked this.
Juaquin_Murrieta 1 year ago
Sure. Fine. If an employer asked these questions (unless I was thinking about leaving anyway), they'd be greeted with, "Sorry, don't have a facebook account."
Actually I do now, but the minute it's a problem, suddenly I don't.
Sue Basko 1 year ago
It just dawned on me -- it is a federal crime for the job applicant to give the employer his log in name or password -- because this violates the terms of service. And don't you recall that teen-suicide case where the friend's mother was charged with a federal crime for violating the terms of service on myspace -- because she created a fake account? Oh, so this employer requires the applicant to violate federal law?
Mike Moss 1 year ago
Remember Dave Andrews. The accepted norm becomes the enforceable standard. Many people would go ahead and give it up. And accept their place on the plantation. Just to "get a job". Then the abusers could point to them and say, "They did it and it was no big deal. What do you have to hide?"
Steven Fourro 1 year ago
I know work is hard to find and there are bills to pay but I would starve FIRST. I suffer from GOMS (grumpy old man syndrome) so I'd probably be QUITE offensive about telling them just where they could shove their job with detailed instructions on how to fold it so it's ALL points before they do! Seriously? What the frack is wrong with our society that this is even a QUESTION? GRRR! Now I feel like slapping someone.
3 people liked this.
Courtney Hunt 1 year ago
The City of Bozeman, Montana tried to implement a similar policy in the summer of 2009. The policy lasted less than 24 hours because of the national backlash they received. Here's a link to one of the stories about it, on Mashable. com: http://mashable.com/2009/09/03....
Last fall I wrote a white paper on the subject of "social screening," which relates to this post. It's called, "Social Screening: Candidates - and Employers - Beware." It can be accessed via http://tiny.cc/SocialScreening.... I wrote a follow-up blog post entitled, "Social Screening: The Expanded Discussion," which can be accessed via http://tiny.cc/SocialScreening....
Finding the right approach to social media policies is critically important, and many organizations are guilty of overreaching. A couple of weeks ago, for example, the NLRB settled its "Facebook case" with an employer (AMR), and one of key terms of the settlement was that the employer agreed to revise its "overbroad" policy. I wrote about this case both when the complaint was filed and after it was settled. Here are links to each piece: http://tiny.cc/SMinOrgsNLRBpos... and http://tiny.cc/SMinOrgsNLRBset....
This week I'll be publishing a post on social media policies that addresses the issue in a more holistic way. This is an important issue that requires a thoughtful, balanced approach.
Courtney Hunt
Founder, Social Media in Organizations (SMinOrgs) Community
3 people liked this.
alexismadrigal 1 year ago in reply to Courtney Hunt
Thanks for this Courtney! (Feel free to get in touch, too, with future posts.)
Courtney Hunt 1 year ago in reply to alexismadrigal
Thanks, Alexis. I just posted another comment with a link to a blog post I wrote earlier today. I plan to send you my social media policy post as well.
DecentDiscourse 1 year ago
This is more of a demand than a request no matter how it's phrased because of the result if you don't comply. I wrote to Facebook (good luck with that one, eh?) about this to ask if they could help out. One suggestion I had was to allow creation of a second password which would load up a modified version of your account where you pick and choose what's seen there. Another suggestion: Modify the Terms of Service to either ban the use of someone else's credentials for employment related purposes or allow it for $600 per minute. The last suggestion I had was to create a one-way opt-in to a two factor authentication of some sort where perhaps after login a short phrase is presented for you to read and your voiceprint match authenticates you with your password.
Titus-Armand 1 year ago
From FB's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities:
4. Registration and Account Security:
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.
5 people liked this.
The Weblady 1 year ago in reply to Titus-Armand
Agreed!
Bob Etherton 1 year ago
Asking for this is an abuse and invasion of privacy. What if the employer wins the law suit? A union contract would stop this action. Years ago, prospective employees were required to take a polygraph test by the employers in the freight industry. The examiner asked some personal questions about the prospects family and personal relationships and various other questions. If you protested the type of questions it was noted and sent to the employer which labeled you as uncooperative. The Teamsters Union stopped this invasion of privacy in the union contract and no law suit was required.
Many states have an "at will" law meaning they need no reason to fire an employee and they don't have to give the employee an explanation why. Not so with union membership.
Dave Harrison 1 year ago
Sure they can ask. They can also be sued for invading your privacy. You can also post a blog on your website and talk about their fascist business practices. You can also tweet it out and humiliate the Governor who oversees the Department of Corrections and even the White House which created something unconstitutional called the Council of Governors. Isn't America great? Look at all the stuff you can do.
http://tradewithdave.com/?p=54...
Dave Harrison
tradewithdave.com
Connie2 1 year ago
No!!! This is going to far.
Oh on the other hand maybe they will give us their credit card information , their personal phone number along with the cell number.
MulletReeve 1 year ago
They can ASK for whatever they want. If it's a precondition for employment, I'm not interested in working with them.
1 person liked this.
ArrowSmith 1 year ago
It makes sense. You don't want a prison guard to be blackmailed by something they posted on a FB or twitter.
Josh Jasper 1 year ago in reply to ArrowSmith
Or at a bar, or in bed with someone they picked up at the bar, or in passing at the coffee shop.
Hey, perhaps you should just keep them in prison.
2 people liked this.
The Weblady 1 year ago
FB Terms of Service - Item 4, Registration and Account Security, #8 states, "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." They need to read FB TOS. Period. FB is OPTIONAL and it is PRIVATE. No one should have to do that for a job. That's what background checks are for. They don't need to scrutinize your friends, family and associates, and content on your FB to give you a job!
And can you see it now... with FB and Twitter helping out so much with the latest going on in Egypt, what's next.. the government making FB mandatory? Like branding people?
Michael Lomenzo 1 year ago
That is the same thing as search without probable cause. There is no reason for ANY employer to have YOUR social media login information. That is just a gross misuse of power.
2 people liked this.
CCofNZ 1 year ago
My feelings on this and any work-related thing can be summed up in the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... (work safe)
ViSuvius 1 year ago
I have worked in Human Resources for 5 years, the ONLY instance where they should ask for this kind on info is if he is already an employee and has been login on using the company's computers when he should not be (and even then it's iffy)_. In addition, something that many people do not know, it is ILLEGAL to ask an applicant for their social security number on an application. The ONLY time an employer has the right to ask you for your social security number is AFTER YOU ARE HIRED.
Applicants should NEVER, under any circumstances, put their social security number on an application or on their resumes.
3 people liked this.
Indycarl 1 year ago in reply to ViSuvius
Very true, and they can only E-verify your social security number after hiring you, and within 3 days of doing so.
1 person liked this.
Courtney Hunt 1 year ago
This story has generated a mini media firestorm in the past week. I have been sharing my thoughts on various articles and blog posts, and I finally decided to write my own reflection as well. Here's a link to it: http://tiny.cc/4hkbu. One underreported "fact" I learned in doing a little additional research is that a representative from Maryland's DPSCS says they do not have a policy that requires job candidates to provide login information, so the case may not be as clear-cut as it seems. It will be interesting to see how this case finally gets resolved...
Courtney Hunt
Founder, Social Media in Organizations (SMinOrgs) Community
Brandon Lee Davis 1 year ago
Yeah and Mr. President. Since we absolutely know nothing about how you really are. Let's require you give us your password to all your accounts to find out what kind of person you really are.
1 person liked this.
Indycarl 1 year ago
Absolutely and rediculously off base. I have conducted hundreds of interviews and it never occured to me to snoop in a candidates social networking site. I think it's nutty enough that the law permits and employer's think credit scores have anything to do with the hiring process. Afterall, its proven to be so useful in identifying so many high flying credit scores that continually make headlines for corruption and finally to prison. Let's not forget about all the high flying credit scores whose stellar character got us into this economic mess and should also be in prison. Lol. What a joke, and just an excuse for narcissistic people to feel secure in their tiny minds. Its kind of like believing having a camera system will prevent all crime. Nope, people just cover up or take out the cameras. P.S. For those who are posturing for Unions, liberals and conservatives on this issue: Get a resemblance of life beyond your tiny box. This is a citizen issue. It's called, none of their nosey a---(bleep) business.
JCM357 1 year ago
No, The Political correctness has become insane, the Government, Refused to ask the Illegal alien, pretending to Be the president,which neither of his parents are U.S. citizens, required by statute, they need to be, to be president!!!!
And this is a violation of Fourth Amendment rights;
The Right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall NOT be violated, and NO Warrants shall issue but upon Probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You are presumed to be INNOCENT, until proven GUILTY!!
You are applying for a JOB, NOT defending YOURSELF from criminal prosecution!!!
It is time for the Citizens to prosecute, ALL those that Violate OUR GOD given RIGHTS, which are merely affirmed by the Constitution, NOT granted by the constitution, or any governmental servant!!!
Daniel Schultz 10 months ago in reply to JCM357
You don't get out much do you ;)
Daniel Schultz 1 year ago
"We're also going to need the keys to your house and a night alone with your wife"
2 people liked this.
Courtney Hunt 1 year ago
As I indicated in my earlier comments, I've written a related post called "Social Media Policies: Necessary but not Sufficient." It can be accessed via http://tiny.cc/SMinOrgsPolicyP....
norahedward 1 month ago
Very well said, your blog says it all about that particular topic..*"-
electrical contractors in toronto
Peter Sales 1 week ago
The latest generation of kids
are now so egocentric?
Webmaster of keurig
b60 special edition
Peter Sales 1 week ago
What is the cost of taking
fossil fuel to our planet?
Webmaster of kitchen aid stand mixer attachments
Peter Sales 1 week ago
Having a professional letter
of recommendation is crucial to getting hired again.
Webmaster of beltronics vector
Peter Sales 1 week ago
Of course, that's what politics
is -- figuring out who gets what and who pays for it.
Webmaster of cookery appliances
Peter Sales 1 week ago
So lets, for arguement admit
g.w., even Anthropogenic Global Warming. Now what.
Webmaster of canon eos rebel t3
Peter Sales 1 week ago
This is a very good post. I
managed to understand it all for some reason. Keep up the good work.
Webmaster of racing suits pro
Peter Sales 1 week ago
Big Freeze: Earth Could Plunge
into Sudden Ice Age.
Webmaster of rumbocopster
Peter Sales 1 week ago
Without food, people perish. That's why it needs to be a priority.
Webmaster of my real weight loss
Fred Fast 1 week ago
Do we really know what is our daily alcohol intake should be?
Webmaster of Panasonic yd250
Fred Fast 1 week ago
Do we really know what is our
daily alcohol intake should be?
Webmaster of Panasonic yd250
Barrie Bould 6 days ago
I have to have another coffee
right now.
Webmaster of cuisinart
griddler gr-4n
Barrie Bould 6 days ago
Why is it all the telcos are
getting meaner?
Webmaster of polar rs100