Slashdot Mirror
Employer Demands Facebook Login From Job Applicants
Hugh Pickens writes writes "Alex Madrigal reports in the Atlantic that the ACLU has taken up the case of Maryland corrections officer Robert Collins, who was required to provide his Facebook login and password to the Maryland Division of Corrections during a recertification interview so the interviewer could log on to his account and read not only his postings, but those of his family and friends too. 'We live in a time when national security is the highest priority, but it must be delicately balanced with personal privacy,' says Collins. 'My fellow officers and I should not have to allow the government to view our personal Facebook posts and those of our friends, just to keep our jobs.' The ACLU of Maryland has sent a letter to Public Safety Secretary Gary Maynard (PDF) concerning the Division of Correction's blanket requirement that applicants for employment with the division, as well as current employees undergoing recertification, provide the government with their social media account usernames and personal passwords for use in employee background checks. After three weeks the ACLU has received no response."
and it's not just because I don't have any friends
One full of HOORAH, LOVE THE GOVERNMENT! and liking AMERICA: WE'LL PUT A BOOT IN YER ASS, but without many friends attached. And then you'll have your other (perhaps similar) Facebook page, but with your real friends and activities. That's not misleading, they wanted your Facebook login. They got it. No biggie.
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
Disclaimer: I am an avid non-facebook user. I refuse to support what I consider a complete waste of time and computing resources.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
A lot of people have the opinion that the ACLU is only about shutting down the speech of Christians/Whites/Men/*insert majority group here.* I think this case proves that not to be the case, and demonstrates the good that the ACLU actually does: Protecting personal privacy, freedom of expression, etc. This is a very important case, one that could potentially set a very bad precedent. It's good that there's at least one somewhat powerful organization on the side of personal privacy in this case. I hope groups like the EFF get involved as well.
"We live in a time when national security is the highest priority, but it must be delicately balanced with personal privacy"
Calling it a delicate balance is a sleazy way of excusing any violations by suggesting that it's such a difficult fine line that nobody could be expected to do the right thing, all the time. There is no delicate balance. Personal privacy and liberty must always trump security, for without privacy and liberty, there's nothing worth securing. There's no point in protecting a bank vault that has already been looted of everything.
Also. A corrections officer in a prison. Hardly in a position to be trading secrets with Iran or Osama.
...before they help themselves to the accounts of their peons.
Cue the "no such thing as privacy! glorious free market! employer rights 100% teh awesome! john galt ROX!" posts in three... two... one...
just as long as they dont as for my Slashdot credentials...... this is where i rant things they wouldnt like....
i think this is f%^ked.
its security vs convenience .... (their convenience or mine) The more secure, the less convenient..... it can be very secure and very private....
security vs privacy is BS pushed on the people by the patriot act...
If you're actually prepared to sue, I'd say refuse to provide the login, and let them terminate you. Then go after them for wrongful dismissal.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
If I were the employee, I'd use Facebook's activation feature to temporarily remove my account from the system. "What account? Facebook? Don't have one."
A friend of mine just told me that after he clicked on a link to look at a bit of hardware we are thinking of purchasing, his facebook page showed an ad for the same product. They are already watching everything you do. They'd beam ads into your brain with gamma radiation if they thought it would work. People think Facebook is private, and they are wrong, of course, but intrusions like this into a perceived private space are becoming more and more unconscionable. Slashdot lets the "good" users opt out of ads. When will FB do this? Personally I don't care because I can't stand the forced-socialization websites, with or without ads. (Facebook's pet races are rigged, by the way, lousy stink hole that it is.)
I would offer to exchange the key to my account with a key to his house front door or his email account. He can accept the exchange or reject it. When the shoe is placed on the other foot, the view of the request changes perspective. Whatever excuse he uses to not provide them to you, you use the same. If he does exchange keys, have fun.
The truth shall set you free!
Myself I'm an elitist bastard who only takes jobs at very liberal companies, but through the contemporary global society this corporate/bureucratic culture of general hostility is bound to make its mark on the lives of us free dwellers as well. Not to say I didn't care for the people suffering this in the first degree, but they've got their own choices to make. It would be best for the common good, though, if these environments would go largely disregarded.
I was the real korpiq until I woke up clowned.
Facebook is a huge waste of time anyways. I'd guess that blocking it increases drone productivity...
I think there are plenty of arguments against the necessity of background checks/drug tests, etc as employment conditions, but I don't understand why facebook should get a pass, when they might otherwise have authorization to crawl up your ass for the background check.
From http://www.facebook.com/terms.php
Statement of Rights and Responsibilities
This Statement of Rights and Responsibilities ("Statement") derives from the Facebook Principles, and governs our relationship with users and others who interact with Facebook. By using or accessing Facebook, you agree to this Statement.
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.
So they wanted him to break the Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities ?
Just saying it like it are.
Corrections officers work in prisons, so not just background checks into past criminal activity, but openness to future criminal activity (including corruption) matter a lot. This should have been handled with a detailed questionnaire and battery of psychological tests, and collecting reliable intelligence on every single officer during the entire time they are working in a prison.
If you have nothing to hide this surely shouldn't be a problem.
war is peace
invasion of privacy is for privacy
If they are douchy enough to ask for that crap.. you should probably move on.. srsly..
Good. If you're pathetic enough to have a Facebook account I wouldn't want you working in my prisons. I look forward to your third-grade reading level responses.
Terms and Conditions, 4.8: "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."
So to keep your job, you have to break the law?
And am I the only one hearing Judas Priest in my head now? :-)
I got that it was satire and I'm a stewped PHB!
The only people who believe that are Conservative Republicans .... the ones that think that Regan was greatest president evar!
n/t
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Facebook should publicly tell all job applicants "please cancel your Facebook account before applying for any job that requests the password, or we will cancel it for you if we find out you shared your password.
At the very least, they should reset the password and warn the user not to give it out again or the account will be canceled.
Sharing your password is typically a violation of the terms of service.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
and I thought my boss was bad when he made me friend him before he would hire me!
I don't get it. Simply say "Sorry, I don't use Facebook" and you done. What's the problem here? Move along, nothing to see here...
Facebook should notify all employers and background-check companies that they explicitly do NOT have permission to access a third-party's Facebook account even if they are using a login, on the assumption that the use of the login was coerced. Let them know that exceptions will only be made if the account owner AND the agency desiring access both certify under penalty of perjury that no consideration - including nothing related to getting or keeping a job or promotion - was offered in exchange for the access.
Once they do that, any employer or agency who does it will get an individual warning and if they do it again Facebook will press charges for criminal unauthorized access of a computer.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I was actually thinking it's a false dillema, starting with the premise that "national security is the highest priority." Sure as hell isn't for me. I just want a functioning public transit system, power, running water, and law and order in my community. Funny how our state got slammed with record levels of snow, and the National Guard couldn't help out...because they're deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Funny how funding for social spending has dried up and all the teenagers in my community are now running around shooting each other (and innocent bystanders) because they have no education, no job, no future. The only people that seem concerned about national security are the people paid to do so or the people who otherwise benefit from such efforts and its rhetoric.
Please help metamoderate.
"Hello Mr. AC. We are currently processing your application and are unable to verify your facebook credentials. Are you sure the password you gave us is correct? That password is, 'star star star star, star star star.' It does not seem to be working."
1. this obviously isnt gonna fly at all
2. there is privacy functions
3. obviously this isnt legal any more so than requesting to see my mail that comes to my post office or my nearby street box
4. even so its called a fake profile -- takes 10minutes to create , make a personal one that has your porn name or your rockstar name / psuedoname
and then have a professional real page with no friends , no messages , no activity, no apps ect..
we really shouldnt have to do this - i wonder how they'd feel if i requested the same from them to determine if i want to be employed by them
find out if they are selling national secrets , or corporate , who they've cut a deal with or did a favor for , not to mention that awesome office party that someone xerox'd their backside during and some mysterious stains were found and.. is that the ceo drunk as a skunk booty dancing with the vp of marketings secretary.. uh-oh.....
"Snoop on them , as they Snoop on to us" lord nikon-Hackers (early mid 90's)
Oh! I'd put in my resignation!!! I understand that employers are going to push the limits to see who will do what to keep or get a job because they have such a wide variety to choose from now a days, but there is a line that you just don't cross and this is it. I've been told by others of things like this happening to them too... where I live!! This is not an isolated issue, it's everywhere. Be careful of the information you give out. Before going to an 'interview' write down the basic info that is generally asked at an interview. Anything asked of you or about you that isn't on your list and you feel is an intrusive question, tell your interviewer that you don't' feel comfortable giving out that info at this point because nobody else has asked you that question and after some research about why this would be asked of you, you'll get back with the interviewer with the answer or the reason why you won't answer that question. I can't say this will not get you or get you the job. But, if I were an interviewer, I would look for someone who has brains to think for themselves or outside of the box and not just blindly do as told without question or suggestion as to how to do it better, faster or easier.
Anyone have a different opinion?
I can only imagine how many of them would be in Gitmo or prison for treason, domestic terrorism or "other".
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
Lets not forget this Gem.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
I personally think this whole thing is just outrageously stupid. If nothing else, the employee should be fired for giving their credentials away freely. Of course, the government doesn't think this way--"we want your credentials to sites so we can see what you're posting!" rather than "if you give up your privacy freely, what other credentials might you give up?" What a strange world we live in...
Although, I guess that's one way to get a job at HBGary. Oh, you give up credentials to any account just because someone asks? You're hired!
He who has no
You want to investigate what I've put on Facebook, and for that you need my login and password. Putting aside for the moment the gross invasion of privacy, what makes you so magically trustworthy that you will never lose or accidentally reveal the password, and that you will never ever make any changes (eg, plant incriminating evidence, or simply embarrass me) on my Facebook page. Next you'll tell me you need the login to my bank account to check my credit score. The policy is clearly the product of a hysterical, over-reaching bureaucrat with too little real work to do.
I live in the good ol' People's Republic of Maryland, and this is pretty textbook state government behavior. The level of expertise and quality of the average state employee, especially in regard to IT, is so low that I'm willing to bet the interviewer referred to "the Facebooks", has never seen or used Facebook, and asked for login info as a matter of course.
A few examples: one of the higher echelon managers in charge of purchasing in the IT security division of the state courts has no background in IT whatsoever, but has final say regarding things like what mail server to use; the Comptroller's office, during an overhaul of its tax management software, had to include training classes on the use of mice, as there were a significant number of employees who were using the one attached to their computer as a paperweight, if at all; some courts in Maryland are still using Windows 3.11, and a plan to digitize court documents has repeatedly been scuttled, in both cases because a particular judge (a different one in each case) didn't want to learn how to use new software.
That someone in the DoC decided that the words "Facebook" and "security" were somehow related in a way that was relevant to the duties of a prison guard is not all that surprising, and that there wasn't an immediate hue and cry from anyone else in state government is pretty much par for the course. Chances are nobody who could shed light on the matter works for the state.
It should be pointed out that, to the best of my knowledge (somebody correct me if I'm mistaken, please), even a TS/SCI clearance does not require the interviewer to have the password of your Facebook account. But some dopey grandmother from Dundalk believes that a person who plays Mafia Wars is not suitable to babysit car thieves for a subpar salary.
I understand this man's plight. As a Florida Corrections Officer, we can be investigated and/or FIRED for posts made on our facebooks... and not simply security issues, but there is currently an employee on administrative leave because he posted on facebook that he "had a bad day" and earlier that day he had a use of force on an unruly inmate. I understand the department has a responsibility to keep tabs on it's employees, but someone has to draw the line.
it didn't take anything at all to predict this - it was too bloody obvious and reasoning was sound too.
You can't handle the truth.
While I agree with everything being said for most jobs this job is one of the exceptions.
Prison guards, Cops, Judges, CIA spooks etc should expect no privacy.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
2 years ago I thought about leaving my job, In preparation I created a facebook page using my real name, with two artificial friends. I posted several "updates" with pictures: "Standing in a small group" at my old university refectory, a photograph at a church bake sale(I am agnostic, but those grey hairs make a proper cake), and a few from my mountain climbing days. If I motivate myself to still leave, I will spend a half hour and make another update.
I refuse all friend requests. Even my spouses.
My Manager returned from a 5 day management course recently. One 1/2 hour lecture was on Social Media.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
There are a number of people with accounts with variations of my real name, several of whom appear to be grade A sleazebags. As a result, I created a Facebook account in my full name with accurate details, turned everything off and left it empty - purely to deal with this possible situation.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Why don't they comply by setting up another FB account, with no friends and no posts and simply give that to the employer?
..and I sure as hell wouldn't hire anyone who complied.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
just way for the list of passwords to leak out and then we will a even bigger mess.
The solution to this privacy overreach is trivial, if one thinks about it with a proper sense of perverseness.
Collins and the ACLU should simply go to whatever different (federal or state) court might have some jurisdiction, present the situation that Collins has been placed in, and ask for a court order to the following effect: That Collins is required to make available personal information; that this personal information will be available to personnel of Maryland Corrections; that this presents an undeterminable security risk to Collins' privacy; and therefore, prior to Collins having to release any such account or password, Maryland Corrections should _first_ document all personnel that will have any access to this information if Collins provides it, and provide Collins with all social networking accounts and passwords for those persons, so that Collins can determine whether his private information will be at risk if available to those persons.
Now, this argument might put the ACLU in a rather inconsistent position, but think about the inconsistent position of Maryland Corrections claiming that they should _not_ be required to provide Collins with this information. Chuckle...
Time to reread the corpea of both Maryland law and Goedel, Escher, Bach.
"We live in a time when national security is the highest priority..."
No, it isn't the highest priority. There have been times when it was. When the British army invaded Washington in 1812. it was. When the Nazis had conquered Europe and were getting ready to do the same to the US, it was. When the USSR built 10,000 atomic bombs and talked about conquering the world, it was.
But not now. No foreign power is an immediate threat. Not even close. Terrorism is down to the nuisance level, well below floods, hurricanes, blizzards, and drunk driving as a problem. Street crime is down. Most of the Mafia has been crushed. Nobody is talking about a revolution, except maybe the Tea Party crowd. There is no big national security problem right now. It's time to lighten up, and take a hard look at Homeland Security's budget.
The big problems right now are economic and internal, not foreign threats.
Just thought I let you know before you waste your time filling out the complaint form.
When you hit SEND, it will say it's only for the people of Maryland.
So if your not from Maryland, don't waste your time, the ACLU form will just dump your work.
Which brings up a whole new box of crap. Why can't people from one state bitch to asshole officials in another state, when their actions effect everyone!
Fuck this fucking police state shit. Motherfuckers better figure out which side of the fucking US Constitution they are on, you either uphold your fucking oath, or you are a domestic terrorist!
So many posts here are about not using facebook, not having facebook ect... This isn't an option for everyone. A huge portion of my friends use facebook with ages that range from pre-pubescent family members to senior citizens. I have friends around the world with whom I'd have minimal communication if not for facebook. Facebook allows me to keep touch with my friends and acquaintances abroad and at home in a single place that they will check often (too often). I deprive myself socially by not having an account. I don't care for it, but so many people I know use it I have no option. I just avoid saying or posting anything anything remotely incriminating.
Who are the HR people and Lawyers that think these things up? This is a state agency right? Shouldn't we be able to, as taxpayers, demand the identity of whoever thinks up these foolish decisions that cost the state in litigation costs? I'd like to know so I can either vote them out of office, or not vote for then if they decide to run for office.
Tell me your Facebook username and password.
But I don't have a Facebook account.
You're fired (or not hired)!!
"4. You will not use your personal profile for your own commercial gain (such as selling your status update to an advertiser)."
Because Mark wants to sell my personal info for profit, and doesn't want competition?
My status update might be "Just got off the plane in New York". Presumably I can sell that information outside of Facebook and this rule #4 is only restricting me from handing a link to my Facebook profile to an advertiser.
Alternate interpretation of rule #4 would be that if you accept the Facebook Principles then "All your personal information are belong to Facebook".
What if you facebook pages says you are part of some religion that the employer may not like?
Color me unimpressed. Correctional officers make their living guarding over people who live in cages. They are charged with depriving dozens of people of their liberty and privacy. Accounts of correctional officers abusing their privileges for personal profit --or just gratification-- are commonplace. It's human nature for correctional officers to fall prey to their power; as a result these people need to have a very serious level of power-checks and reviews in place.
"We must secure liberty and privacy above anything else!" Except well, you know... for prisoners. I have little sympathy for securing the facebook login info for someone who spends his days watching over caged people who are forced to shit and piss in front of their cell mates.
Saying you don't have a FB account isn't too smart if your really do. All they have to do is check and if you do have one, then you've been caught in a lie. Not good for a job applicant or recertification. A better approach would be to give them your facebook account but not the correct password. Then if they actually tried to get on your facebook account you can say that you simply changed your password. If you really want to be honest, give them the real password and then go change it. Or, better yet, take your FB page off-line until after hired.
Why just facebook? Why not linkedln or myspace?
If you aren't smart enough to give the correct answer, which is "I don't have a Facebook account" because you actually think that Facebook is a "communication tool" then you probably deserve to be fired.
This isn't just a Facebook story...it's a problem that someone thought it was OK to share ANY user name and password to ANY service. This is something you just don't do, and people who fail to realize that need to be educated! In addition to all the other things that could be hosed, your password and E-mail address could be changed by the person logging in, to the point where you're unlikely to regain access to your account no matter how much you beg the administrators.
"Microsoft killed my company, I hold a personal grudge. I don't use Microsoft products and neither should you."-JWZ
I'm not much into facebook, but I'd be shocked if the average facebook user's profile contained none of the following information, all of which a potential employer is not allowed to ask for: race, gender, religion, marital status, age, disabilities, ethnic background, country of origin, sexual preferences or age.
Seems like an obvious attempt to discriminate against older Ugandan lesbian muslim divorced mother of two women with one leg.
This sounds like a test. I mean if an applicant was willing to give out their facebook password for a job, it's be clear that they were bribeable and shouldn't be guarding prisoners.
I also have many friends all over the world, from many different age ranges. I have lived in two countries and travelled quite a bit, and am or was active not only in the Free Software world, but on other communities with much less technical affitions.
And your points hold also for me. And for most /. readers, I'd venture. I joined Facebook out of curiosity in 2005. Decided not to log in again in 2007. In 2009, I almost missed my high school's 15 year post-graduation gathering, as it was completely organized over Facebook (but I am still in contact with two or three classmates). My girlfriend (who lives 7000Km away and is about to come to my country, yay!) and her family, as well as my family and most of my friends, use Facebook as well.
Yet, I don't. And I think I have persuaded a couple of my friends not to use Facebook, or to reduce their exposure, the share of personal information they upload.
Some people will think I'm nuts... But they did so anyway when I told them I didn't want to use Adobe Flash, or MS Windows, or whatnot. Maybe I was born to be statistical noise far off the median, but it just comes natural after some time
People have been tolerating piss tests to get/keep jobs for years, and the inevitable result is that employers reach out for more.
The thing to do is apply for jobs when you have one (ideally), and refuse piss tests when asked. If enough people start turning down jobs for that reason, it will go away.
But America will have to grow some balls, first.
expandfairuse.org
Maybe if the animals hadn't committed crimes in the first place and been sentenced to prison...
So what would I do if they asked for my information??
There is no -1 Disagree.
The only appropriate response should of course be to refer them to the reply given in Arkell v. Pressdram.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
The problem is that some guy way back when had little sympathy for securing the rights of prisoners. Now you have little sympathy for securing the rights of the people who guard prisoners. Who's next? Every time you point at some group and demand they have less privacy, realize you're almost certainly part of some group someone else is pointing at.
This is the kind of threat that security is supposed to protect us from!
No.
I will not provide you with the means to spy on my personal life. If you'll penalize me for being honest, I'll lie. I don't have a FB account. If I knew it was coming, I'd make myself unsearchable and temporarily defriend and coworkers and say that I do not have a facebook account.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Mail censorship is nothing new, but then again this isn't exactly the Manhattan Project.
For those that haven't read "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!", here's his account of mail censorship:
http://tinyurl.com/6yyrzr8
If they can demand your Facebook login, why not your personal e-mail accounts? After all, who knows what seditious material you might be sending and receiving there?
And why not an anal examination of all of the hard drives in your household's personal computers? The RIAA does that on the most flimsy of pretenses.
Really, where does it end?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I personally don't use Facebook because it's unknown where the direction of the company is going to go, and they seem to be very aggressive about their use of the data. Don't trust them. It's that simple.
I know many people that do. Of those people, I know plenty that had bad experiences, and plenty that had good ones too. I personally wouldn't judge somebody on a Facebook account, because the use cases are all over the map.
That's what good interview skills are all about. Christ, if they can't do a good read on the person they have DIRECT and IMMEDIATE access to, perhaps it's time to get some education, instead of falling back on shitty things like asking for the keys to people's personal lives.
To me, this shit is all self-correcting. Anybody that makes a mess of their lives on Facebook will probably only get to work in the fucked up places where that shit doesn't matter. Fine by me. Employers who turn to the Internet in abusive ways to get advantage over their employees are not worth working for either.
People tend to sort themselves out over time. No worries here.
The best thing is to just manage your life, and your employment opportunities and think things over before you do them. Shutting some doors that you never, ever plan to walk through isn't too big of a deal. Not sure? Then be conservative about it, until you are. Most of it is all that simple.
Blogging because I can...
troll
I don't know what the law is in the US. But in Belgium, the interviewer is forbidden to ask personal questions, actually you can lie about personnal matter, sexual preferences, having or not a facebook account. The interviewer is not entitled to ask such questions and if he fired you when discovering you lied... He is getting in deep trouble for violating privacy laws.
Would you consider employer request to Facebook to be in a similar category as employer demanding to read ones mail or listen in on phone calls?
Kathy Godin â" Award-Winning Mortgage Loan Officer & Publisher of related website. Serves North Carolina
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 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.
So unless they have probable cause to believe (and on an individual employee basis) that this gentleman has broken the law and evidence of that violation will be found on his facebook, and they a warrant signed by a judge, I think the corrections department is in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
'Nuf said.
Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to misquote them.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I guess we have to whip out that classic post-9-11 meme again, except this time without the irony: "If this is what we've come to, then the terrorists have already won."
On a more practical level, I'd suggest that people wishing to be hired or recertified close down their Social Media accounts. When asked to provide access to their Facebook account (or whatever), they can answer with complete honesty that they don't have such a thing. After the interview has been conducted, and after a suitable period of time, they simply open a new account.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I'm sorry you see it that way. If this were an opinion's forge, maybe then would I login and make comments again.
Instead, only a small fraction of the population is visiting here, and those very few individuals have a nasty habit of having the same ideas and opinions as everyone else surviving here. Many tend to ridiculing any other worldview but their own little narrow conclusions and concepts.
My karma is Excellent and maxed out. It's not about the occational moderation abuse, which do happen when people disagree and moderate instead of discussing. /. is off my bookmarks and I refuse to login, thanks to the mindless sceptical people who have no depth or width in their perceptions and would just like to have their worldviews and opinions confirmed by like-minded people. Ie., the spiritual and grounded people are far and between, and often refuse to post here for the same reason.
However,
I'm currently just using /. as a termometer on the limits of society's development, and /. defines a clear frontier border and limitation of scientific understanding.
Actual discussion, where people boldly put out what they believe in and experience themselves, and are able to modify their worldview and opinions, is so far an utopic myth on the internet.
Long time /. reader and user.
I wish :/
We live in a time when national security is the highest priority
Uh, no? Where do you get that from? National security is no more or less important than at any other time in history. There have always been nations who hate your guts, there have always been people armed with the latest in destructive technologies, there have always been people getting killed violently.
Scientifically speaking, apply logic 101. If your assumption is incorrect, your conclusion is worse than false, it is meaningless.
We really, really need to teach kids logic 101. Maybe then when they grow up, this nonsense by which national policies are determined by unsubstantiated claims will finally end.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Facebook is granting you access to their network. They could easily set up their TOS to prohibit delegation without prior permission from Facebook.
If they did that then if you delegated access the person using that access would be unlawfully accessing FACEBOOK's systems and Facebook could charge them with criminal computer access.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
How freakin' hypocritical. Facebook has no qualms about soliciting the passwords that you use for other sites. I bet this password restriction is an attempt at keeping other sites from importing your Facebook data, not about "security" as they claim.
Ahem. The British army didn't invade Washington in 1812. It was in 1814, during the "War of 1812". HTH. However, you are remarkable in my experience for even remembering that it happened at all :)
In every single other aspect of your post, you are as right as a right thing wearing an "I'm right" t-shirt at a "We are Right" rally.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
It is possible to see this in a positive light - even people involved in the day-to-day implementation of authoritarianism are capable of understanding violations of privacy when they themselves are the target.
No facebook at the job, is what they are now able to do, block the sites, etc.... but for them to go so far as to say if you work here, you are belong to us, sounds way to close to big brother bending you over.
Why the hell did slashdot archive the topic concerning Facebook will share personal contact info w/ advertisers posted on 03/01/2011?? Fuck Facebook. The market is wide open for an anti-facebÂook with regards to respecting privacy of its users - to the point of encrypted server anonymizerÂs, and not asking for your personal ID, that makes it harder, not easier, for governmentÂs, and the plutocrats who control governmentÂs, to spy on your narcissistÂic @sses. Keep the web 2.0 and the Internet upon which it depends, open and free, as opposed to facebook's gated community, profit-motÂive-driven approach where everyones privacy rights are intentionaÂlly eviscerateÂd and offered to the clutches of corporate interests for a small fee. Also, wake up and protest loud and clear when measures such as net neutrality are under effective attack by corporatisÂm and their zombie nation supporters (ie teabagging morons).