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."
Cue the "no such thing as privacy! glorious free market! employer rights 100% teh awesome! john galt ROX!" posts in three... two... one...
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
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.
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
Why exactly? They can still be anti-majority and still support things that are otherwise good. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I don't think the ACLU goes after majority groups, but they certainly go after somethings that clearly they shouldn't be, but thats the double edge sword of an organization like the ACLU, their viewpoint of civil liberties is different than mine. So when they are for something I agree with, I support them and make others aware of their fight, and when they are going off on some wildly retarded tangent like they so regularly do, I make sure people understand why I think its silly or wrong.
The same for the EFF, though I must admit the EFF is generally more aligned with my own opinions so its rarer that I disagree with the EFF but it certainly has happened.
One of the things all Americans (I don't want to speak for other countries though its certainly the same in some others) need to remember is that we all don't have to agree on everything. The only thing we all REALLY need to agree with is that its okay for others to have a differing opinion, and its okay for them to do things we don't really agree with as long as they aren't really bothering or harming anyone else. And that is just about where everyone fails, myself included. Its not always easy to accept someone else's opinion, viewpoint or way of doing things.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
It's really strange to talk about abuse and rights violations, and the prison guards are on the *receiving* end.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
So I ask for a Facebook login, but I never look, the only correct answer is 'i don't have one'
But what if the answer is "I made a load of them, all with my correct name, and abandoned each leaving it empty"?
That's what I did a couple of years ago, as I have an unusual (and fairly memorable) name. It gives me deniability if some sleaze bag (or another person with the same unusual name) associates a facebook stinkbomb with that name. Mind you, I'd probably just say I don't have a facebook account, anyway, as I've forgotten the passwords and throwaway email addresses that were used to create those accounts. But I suppose facebook still counts them among their $hugenumber of users.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
I see Facebook more like a Geocities 2.0
Except a lot of people who had a website on Geocities also had a minimum of technical knowledge.
>> I refuse to support what I consider a complete waste of time and computing resources.
> So can I have your /. account?
While I recognize that you were just making a joke, I do think we belittle ourselves more than we deserve.
This is a forge in which deeply rational insights on public policy are formed. While we bicker and have strong and often emotionally influenced opinions, this is also one of the most analytical and empirical debate forums I know of. I have had my poorly formed opinions corrected, and seen many others post responses conceding an opponent's valid point.
Far from useless, I see these forums as among the best examples of the promise social networking holds for advancing society. On these pages are formed perspectives baptized in the fires of passion both for one's view and for truth. That the latter, truth, holds such sway here is what sets us above many and makes this meeting place worthy of respect.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
"magg", apparently: http://slashdot.org/~magg/
I worry slightly I spent the time to find that out.
I don't have a clue what you're trying to say. You don't even begin to explain why you made this silly little dummy account on the back of 'thinking of leaving a job'. I can't think of one single thing that you achieved. Well done you, I suppose.
But that's not why I am writing this reply. No, I reply because I do not think you understand what the word 'spouses' actually means, and it made me smile. I suspect you missed a small but important apostrophe.