Govt. agencies, colleges demand applicants' Facebook passwords

[trumad]

If you think privacy settings on your Facebook and Twitter accounts guarantee future employers or schools can't see your private posts, guess again.

Employers and colleges find the treasure-trove of personal information hiding behind password-protected accounts and privacy walls just too tempting, and some are demanding full access from job applicants and student athletes.

In Maryland, job seekers applying to the state's Department of Corrections have been asked during interviews to log into their accounts and let an interviewer watch while the potential employee clicks through wall posts, friends, photos and anything else that might be found behind the privacy wall.
Previously, applicants were asked to surrender their user name and password, but a complaint from the ACLU stopped that practice last year. While submitting to a Facebook review is voluntary, virtually all applicants agree to it out of a desire to score well in the interview, according Maryland ACLU legislative director Melissa Coretz Goemann.
http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/06/10585353-govt-agencies-colleges-demand-applicants-facebook-passwords

[hobbit709]

1. I would say NOYFB and walk out.

[RKP5637]

2. F them, who with any sense wants to be involved with outfits like that. That, is just the

tip of the iceberg indicative of an invasive authoritarian outfit. These applicants will be under 7x24 hr surveillance if accepted and draconian rules and way of life. Any accepting of this are mindless lame lambs bred as cogs in the system.

[hamsterjill]

18. I think I would have to do the same thing.

I'd have to be pretty hungry to give up my right to privacy.

And I've seen in some of the posts below that, yes, there are people out there who are so in need of a job that they would think differently. I can understand a desperate person doing whatever he/she has to do in order to get a job.

But the rest of us still need to remember that THIS is wrong and we need to stand up against it happening.

[Selatius]

3. Quite a lot of people would surrender their privacy for a paycheck.

We've been reduced to this. Americans struggled, bled, and died for freedoms only to give it up to score well on an interview. Hell, we'll gladly surrender it all in the name of security. We're a nation of whipped people. We worship wealth and power at the expense of our own dignity.

[RKP5637]

5. Very well said!!! We are a nation of whipped people. Forced into surrender in the

name of a nebulous democracy, and told how great it is ...

[gratuitous]

8. A paycheck? Heck, we'll do it for a Groupon

And, while this produces some initial ill feelings or even outrage, soon enough it will merit nothing more than a shrug, a muttered "Whaddyagunnado" and "Here's my password, pry away."

I remember back in the 1970s a train crashed because a couple of the railroad workers were stoned. So the solution was drug testing: You don't wan't people operating big, heavy trains while impaired, do you? Well, of course not. Okay, good, because we have a little list here of other jobs people shouldn't be doing if they're drunk or stoned or high: Airline pilots, cab drivers, bus operators. Oh yeah; that makes sense. Now you can't get a crummy sales clerk job at Wal-Mart or phone jockey with a call center without peeing in a bottle first.

We're on our way to a point where "privacy" becomes just another one of those quaint old notions we can no longer afford. In the name of "security" or "efficiency" or something else that sounds convincing enough.

[marmar]

4. ........

[Nye Bevan]

6. So create two accounts. One for colleges/employers, and one for fun (nt)

[GeorgeGist]

7. KandR

[MineralMan]

9. Demanding passwords is bullshit, and shouldn't be allowed.

Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2012, 11:19 AM - Edit history (1)

A better approach is to insist that an applicant friend an HR person or admissions person, who can then see the public part of FB that is available to friends.

The deal is that you post on a semi-public place, so you should use some good sense in what you post there. Anyone who is your friend today may not be your friend tomorrow, and may take stuff away from your FB status and post it somewhere else, to your detriment.

If you've posted some shit on your FB page that you wouldn't want anyone to see, then you've made a critical error in judgment. At some point, it's likely that someone will see it at some point, when one of your "friends" shares it outside of your FB page.

In the end, this is not a civil rights or privacy issue. It's a common-sense issue about stupidity. If a person posts stupid, offensive shit on their FB page, it demonstrates bad judgment, and I wouldn't want that person working for me. I'd much rather know before hiring. I wouldn't ask for passwords, though, but I'd insist on having friend-level access. Don't friend me if you don't care about working for me. It's pretty simple. Mutual trust is kind of the idea, I guess.

[trumad]

11. Uhhh---OK---

what if you're an atheist and you discuss your views on FB...

What if your employer is a fundy who hate atheists?

It's a slippery slope...

Wow--- can't believe you side with the employer with this shit...uh---never mind---yes I can.

[MineralMan]

22. If my atheism is an issue for an employer,

then it will be an issue with that employer at some point, anyhow. I would never work for a fundie who hated atheists, anyhow. I don't do that now, and have turned down web content contracts with such people, just as I don't do political writing for Republicans.

Every job is a contract between an employer and an employee. Both have a right to understand each other.

[trumad]

31. Not if I did not tell him...

because it's none of his business.

[MineralMan]

32. OK. And he's never going to find out, either?

"So, Trumad, where do you go to church? Now I go to the First Church of God Hates Everyone but Our Church."

See, the thing is that I just blandly say that I'm not a religious person to people like that. If they continue to bug me, which most of them will, I just walk away when there's a pause in the action. Bottom line is that I'd rather not be employed by someone who is a Bible-banger. So, getting that stuff out up front is best. If nobody cares that I don't believe, then everything goes fine. If they care a lot, it's not going to go well anyhow.

I'm about being up-front with stuff that causes problems. That way, I don't get so involved and have to figure it out later.

You want to work for a guy who hates atheists? Be my guest. I don't want that job.

[LanternWaste]

12. And who then is the objective judge of what is or is not stupid, offensive stuff?

"f a person posts stupid, offensive shit on their FB page..."

And who then is the objective and unbiased judge of what is or is not stupid, offensive stuff?

Posting praise for Pres. Obama-- offensive or not if the boss is an (R)? Posting an anti-choice placard with a dead baby on it? Offensive or not?

You seem to be under the most erroneous impression that all people maintain the same value system, and look at all things with the precise same perspective. Maybe you didn't know this, but different people see different things different ways... regardless of "mutual trust"

[trumad]

16. Perfectly said..

Give them an inch they'll take a mile.

I simply can't believe that any Progressive on this forum would be OK with employers doing this shit.

[MineralMan]

24. Whomever is looking at the information, actually.

No employer is required to hire anyone who is inappropriate in that employer's estimation. By the same token, no employee is required to work for an employer where there is a difference that would poison the relationship.

If an employer requests friend access to your facebook page as a condition of employment, you can say no. I draw the line at passwords. That should be illegal to demand.

[trumad]

25. And if you say no you don't get the job.

right?

[MineralMan]

27. I can't answer that question. There's no specific

job in question. Possibly you are correct. Why would you say no? I'd say, sure, go ahead, because I know there's nothing there that would cause me to lose any job. But, there are many, many reasons one might not get a particular job. Would you want to work for such an employer? I've turned down jobs for less.

I'm a self-employed guy, and have been since 1974. I turn down jobs all the time. There are a number of types of businesses I won't work for, and a number of types of people I won't work for. I'd estimate that I turn down about a third of the jobs that come to me. It's not that I couldn't use the work, because I could. It's just that I won't do that work. Among the people I routinely refuse to work for are: Pornography businesses, Republican political organizations or candidates, Quack alternative medical outfits, ambulance-chasing lawyers, scam artists of any kind, and others. I also check BBB ratings for any business seeking my services, and do a local search for judgments and other court actions involving potential clients. I recently rescued my favorite web designer from a potential client who has several judgments against him for non-payment of contractors. But, if one of my potential clients wants to look at my FB page, I'll friend them and let them look all they want.

While I could use the work, I'm not willing to compromise some principals to do that work.

I work alone, but with a web designer and SEO expert. I don't hire people. If I did, I'd apply some of the same standards to potential employees, and others, as well.

It's just how I do business.

[trumad]

28. No---you would not get the job...

because there's 100 other sheep behind you who would allow their rights to be violated.

[MineralMan]

30. Me? I've already said I'd be glad to let them access my

FB site with friend status. They can't have any of my passwords, though. Now, if they use that status to post crap on my FB page, then they're outa there.

[liberalhistorian]

34. I have absolutely nothing to hide on my FB page.

I don't do political stuff on there, I keep it to typical bland vanilla stuff and good wishes/ jokes with friends and pics of kids and animals and cute sayings-of-the-week, etc., etc., you get the pic. Still, I would never give access to a potential employer or any other "authority" figure. Because it's absolutely none of their fucking business whatsoever what I do, think or say ON MY OWN PAGE ON MY OWN FUCKING TIME. And it has nothing to do with what kind of job I would do, period. Judging what is "offensive" is often purely subjective. Hell, what I list as my favorite books, movies and music might be "offensive" to them, but tough shit 'cause guess what? It has NOTHING TO DO WITH working a job. PERIOD.

Doesn't it bother you that employers have become more and more intrusive of our personal lives and opinions over the past decade or so, to the point where shit that has nothing to do with what kind of job we'd do and our personal opinions and lives are considered as important as the usual job stuff? If YOU want to give up your freedoms to have a job, go for it. But don't demand that the rest of us follow along with it. It's bullshit.

[MineralMan]

35. I'm not looking for a job. As I said, I'm self-employed since 1974.

Nor am I telling you what to do. You can make your own choices. I'm just telling you what my choices would be. I can demand nothing of you or anyone else. You are perfectly free to do as you wish with any decision in your life. So am I.

I do not work at a typical job, because I find that doing that means that I give up more freedoms than I am willing to exchange for money. You are misunderstanding my position. I work when and where I wish, and for whom I wish, and at the hours I wish. I don't have a job, because I insist on that degree of freedom in my life. You may settle for less freedom, but that does not mean that I have to.

[Zalatix]

15. Mutual trust, my ass

You don't show them your Facebook posts.

Business owners that demand this should be shut down, fined and barred from ever opening another business again.

[MineralMan]

26. OK. You don't have to show employers anything.

Your choice, really.

I know I'd have no reason not to give them friend access to my FB page. Nothing on there but family stuff and a few friends, anyhow. I don't post anything serious on FB. It's too public for that.

I'd be happy to give them my DU screen name, too. They'd be welcome to browse all 40,000 posts if that's what blows their dress up. If they don't think I should hold my political postions, then I'd rather not work for them anyhow. But there's nothing I'd be ashamed for an employer to see. Nor do I mind if people who see MineralMan on DU want to look at other aspects of my life. My RL identity is right down there in my signature line.

All of that keeps me posting in a rational way. I know that anyone can look at what I post at any time. I lead an open life, because I'm not doing anything I'm ashamed of.

[Zalatix]

37. Why don't they let you see their private gambling habits or their personal credit ratings?

Many a worker has been put out of a job because a business owner embezzled his own money or couldn't manage his company's finances.

Look at how many companies George W Bush ran into the ground? Or Mitt Romney?

[MineralMan]

40. For $25 you can get a pretty decent background check

on anyone. The employer is going to do one on you, so why not do one on the employer? There are many other ways to check out a business, too. The Better Business Bureau, googling for reviews and complaints about the business, just plain searching for the business owner on Google. You can search court records in the county where the business is located for judgments, etc, too.

Why would you not do that?

[Zalatix]

41. Would that have dug up Dubya or Rmoney's habits?

[MineralMan]

42. Why? Were you thinking about applying for a job with them?

You're changing the subject.

[Zalatix]

44. NOT changing the subject. If I applied for a job with KBToys while they were in business,

I would have liked to know what a shitnozzle RMoney was so I could avoid being caught working there when he drove the company out of business.

[MineralMan]

45. OK. Then it would have been easy to investigate Romney and Bain.

The Internet has tons of information on both. All free. The same applies to almost all major businesses. You can find the information you need easily.

What's working for Caterpillar like? See here:

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Caterpillar-Reviews-E137.htm

glassdoor.com has employee reviews for any corporation you care to name.


That's my point. Anyone going to work for someone needs to check out the company before hiring on. Who wouldn't do that? Even small businesses can be checked out easily.

Potential Employees? That's not so easy, really. It's a lot easier to find out about companies than individuals.

[Zalatix]

46. That'll expose a company owner's gambling habits? Really?

I mentioned that earlier.

[MineralMan]

47. I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the relevance, really...

Please excuse me. Wasn't this thread about employers wanting access to potential employees Facebook pages? Where did the gambling habits of CEOs come into the thread?

[Zalatix]

48. Because if employers want to pry into WORKERS' private lives

then workers should have a right to pry into EMPLOYERS' private lives.

In fact, I would be in favor of a law barring people from STARTING businesses who have a habit of failing and doing mass layoffs. They can blacklist workers from having jobs, so let's blacklist them from opening businesses at all.

Yeah yeah, it'll hurt the economy. So does the mass culling of workers by prying into their private lives. This Facebook and credit check crap are all ways of enforcing conformity upon the populace: be good little drones IN YOUR PRIVATE LIFE or you won't get a job. Hell with that. Let's put the employers' skin in the game.

[MineralMan]

49. You do have that right.

As I said earlier, just spend a few bucks on a background check. There are a bunch of places that do that. The employer pays for background checks on applicants. You want one? Buy one and find out about the employer.

You can do it if you like.

[ladjf]

10. This sounds like a joke. But, unfortunately, it is not. Who would be dumb enough to fork

over their passwords to institutions like that?

[benld74]

13. We have told our kids, what you put out there, IS what people think you are,

so use the brains God gave you, and THINK before you do it.
Because once its out there, it is ALWAYS out there.

[Zalatix]

14. I have no Facebook account. What then?

[snooper2]

17. You're half-way to the point of being hired

because the employer would know you don't waste time on websites designed for tweens LOL...

[Zalatix]

19. My response to "Why don't you have a Facebook account?"

I don't have time to talk about it; I have just enough time to do it.

[snooper2]

20. That's perfect., I may have to borrow that :)

[Zalatix]

21. I actually did interview applicants before I quit the working world. It's like having Game.

They fall for the Alpha game quite easily. Show them presence and a Type A face without going overboard and it rarely fails. They want to feel that you've got the winning attitude.

If you have a FB account and they know about it but you have nothing on it, say that you don't discuss work details on FB. Confidentiality, and all that. Turn it into a "you can trust me" thing.

[frylock]

23. how about i give you my password for kissmyassbook instead?

fts

[Arkana]

29. Isn't this a blatant Fourth Amendment violation?

[MineralMan]

33. Only if it is the government that wants your passwords.

The constitutional protections, like the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments only apply to things the government does. A private company that wants to interfere with your privacy has broad abilities to do so, except when specific laws prohibit it. At this time, there's no law against them for demanding social media passwords. Your protection is to refuse to provide such passwords. You're free to do that, and they're free to consider that in their hiring decisions.

Is that a good thing? No. Will there be laws prohibiting it? Probably, and soon. But for now, they can demand, but they cannot force you to comply, any more than you can force them to hire you.

[chrisa]

38. No

You can refuse to give this information at an interview (and should). You would just not get the job. The state isn't forcing you to give this information out.

[chrisa]

36. I personally would never give this information out at an interview.

It would also be a red flag for me to not consider that job.

[riderinthestorm]

39. Why wouldn't the first words in response be: "I don't have a Facebook account"?

Honestly, I'd just deny I had a FB account. Its the same with religiously oriented interview questions as another example - there are ways around that.

Its a clear fishing expedition into one's privacy. Just deflect (lie?). If they are going to be so blatant about privacy fishing, I have no compunctions about lying in response.

(full disclaimer: I'm an EMPLOYER and I'd never ask those questions but warn those who are interviewing to NEVER answer something so wrong as this).

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

43. I have two accounts. One intended to get around bullshit like this.

The account with my real name is practically inactive and clean as a whistle, but if a prospective employer wants to find me, they can and no big whoop.