Slashdot Mirror
Patriot Act Bypasses Facebook Privacy
Geoffreyerffoeg writes "An article from the National Association of Colleges and Employers contains yet another horror story about a prospective hire's Facebook being checked — with a different twist. The interviewee had enabled privacy on his profile, '[b]ut, during the interview, something he was not prepared for happened. The interviewer began asking specific questions about the content on his Facebook.com listing and the situation became very awkward and uncomfortable. The son had thought only those he allowed to access his profile would be able to do so. But, the interviewer explained that as a state agency, recruiters accessed his Facebook account under the auspices of the Patriot Act.' How can a 'state agency' use the Patriot Act to subpoena a Facebook profile?"
I'm glad a good number of the so-called sunset provisions were recently extended indefinitly. I'm sure a lot of terrorists are plotting the next 9-11 over Facebook.com.
Yes, that was sarcasm.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Perhaps a more useful way of investigating this question would be to ask whether there's a single verifiable fact that could be found regarding this story of an unnamed student, an unnamed interviewer and an unnamed agency?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Perhaps he doesn't want people he doesn't know having access to his information...
Perhaps he doesn't want his prospective employers (or people he doesn't know) seeing pictures of him drinking tequila and wearing a lampshade on his head.
There are perfectly good reasons to hide information. The "the innocent have nothing to hide" argument is a slippery slope I don't like going down. It's this kind of argument that can be used to do the following...
Police: "Open up. We want to make sure you're not doing anything illegal."
Guy: "You can't come in without a search warrant."
Police: "Why not? If you're innocent, you have nothing to hide!"
I was wondering when somebody would point that out.
Somebody's mother told somebody a story ("but it's TRUE" whines TFA) about something somebody might have said somewhere.
Third-hand (at best) information, with no actual, you know, FACTS or anything.
Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
That got me thinking Recently I saw a job posting on one of the major boards for a well known anon service, and at the end of the posting it said "security clearence required".
Now, unless they're doing some kind of business with the government, or spying on the people - why would they require a security clearence?
1. It doesn't say WHICH state agency, which after all makes a significant difference.
2. Nor is there any sort of sourcing, just some sort of vague (and short!) mumblings about some unidentified student and what he told his mother his interviewer told him.
3. The bulk of the article is even worse, posing "ethical" questions about whether employers should look at publicly available information about a candidate. The way I see it, if you go around posting pictures to the web of you mooning cop-cars from your last drunk drive across the country, you deserve what you get. There almost certainly isn't a real legal question, at any rate.
"Police: "Open up. We want to make sure you're not doing anything illegal."
Guy: "You can't come in without a search warrant."
Police: "Why not? If you're innocent, you have nothing to hide!""
No one ever includes the last line of this dialogue. Do I have to do everything?
Guy: That's right, I have nothing to hide, so quit wasting my time, your time, my tax dollars and fuck off unless you have a warrant.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
You missed the part where they bash down the door and arrest you for "interfering with an investigation", start wailing on you, then throw in "resisting arrest" for good measure.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
By posting Member Content to any part of the Web site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, perform, display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such information and content and to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such information and content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.
That is in the TOS for facebook. In short, anything you put on their is theirs, and they can do whatever they damn well feel like with it.
Finkployd
I looked at the link. It is on Louisiana State University - Shreveport. The article says it came from "NACE Spotlight Online", but NASE Spotlight Online had no reference to the article, and the reference on LSUS's site had no reference to a webpage or date of publication.
I've found three other copies of this story, all with the same generic NACE Spotlight Online reference.
The article is of an unnamed individual interviewing at an unnamed company located in an unnamed town. It references a well known career site, but with no context about where this article was located or when it was published.
Hear that sound? That's the sound of an URBAN LEGEND!
Been there, done that. Have the arrest record to prove it, though I was found "not guilty" in a court of law. My lawyer said, because I was white, I couldn't sue. Had I been a minority, I could have sued for false arrest.
... "Drunk in Public". Mind you, I was in a PRIVATE residence, and not intoxicated.
.. "I'm neither drunk, nor in public". And after that, I said NOTHING.
... yeah right a three fisted drinker!
Yes, it was that bad. During the arrest, I asked "what am I being arrested for", they said
So, I said to the arresting officer
The final charges were assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest. Now mind you, I am 6'5" and very much had an athletic build of 225 lbs, brown belt in Judo, so if I had "resisted" arrest, I would have seriously injured me, or them or both. In addition, it seems that resisting a false arrest is completely legal, and as the police officers described it, they were arresting me when the so-called assault occured, not before.
Then, realizing their mistake, they said I threw a (can/bottle/cup) of beer on them. Notice that there are THREE answers given, which doesn't look good. Cup of beer is not assault, can and bottle might be, but the cops said there was a Keg at the party. The lying bastards couldn't get their story straight. I had cup, can and bottle at a kegger
The jury elected a foreman, and on the first vote found me "not guilty". And people wonder why I hate cops.
The funniest thing, was during the selection of the jury, one of the prospective jurors was asked why they couldn't sit on the jury. She said she had dealings with one of the arresting officers and said "He's an asshole". Truly hillarious. All the other jurors heard it too. Priceless.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.