Slashdot Mirror


Employer Facebook Password Requests Suspended

Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that Maryland's Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services has suspended a roughly year-old practice of asking prospective employees to voluntarily divulge their user names and passwords to social media Web sites such as Facebook. In a statement, the department said requests for user names and passwords had been voluntary, and had not been taken into account when evaluating job applicants. Nonetheless, 'in light of these concerns raised by the ACLU and because this is a newly emerging area in the law, the department has suspended the process of asking for social media information for 45 days to review the procedure and to make sure it is being used consistently and appropriately.'" We covered this story back when the ACLU took the case.

209 comments

  1. Sure! by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll give them my password! But I was taught to change my password if I accidentally show it to someone, so I guess I should go change it now, too!

    1. Re:Sure! by ganjadude · · Score: 2, Funny

      no one will ever get my password see? ***** Thats all that happens when you type your password in give it a try?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:Sure! by somersault · · Score: 0

      You can go uda=!CUsPe6ethu!uyE4Pu8a6@q3husWena6UxeFRa5rU67e my uda=!CUsPe6ethu!uyE4Pu8a6@q3husWena6UxeFRa5rU67e-ing uda=!CUsPe6ethu!uyE4Pu8a6@q3husWena6UxeFRa5rU67e!

      Haha, does that look funny to you?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:Sure! by An+Anonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

      hunter2

    4. Re:Sure! by An+Anonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      doesnt look like stars to me

    5. Re:Sure! by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      That's because it's your password, all I see is stars. See: hunter2 hunter2 hunterfucking2

    6. Re:Sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It kind of stops being funny when you hear it a few hundred times. Kind of like SPARTAAA or Chuck Norris jokes.

    7. Re:Sure! by lostmongoose · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except Chuck Norris jokes were never funny. They were that other thing...what was it, again...ah...stupid, that's it.

    8. Re:Sure! by lennier1 · · Score: 2

      Good thing we still have Bruce Schneier jokes. ;)

    9. Re:Sure! by wickedskaman · · Score: 1

      oh cool!

      --
      Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
    10. Re:Sure! by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Except Chuck Norris jokes were never funny.

      Not true. Chuck Norris himself find them funny -- disagreeing with him could ... aw, fuck it ... they are stupid.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    11. Re:Sure! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Lol, I tried to continue the joke, but unfortunately your password turned to *'s has too many junk characters...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    12. Re:Sure! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I never understood, why Chuck Norris? Bruce Lee, sure, Steven Seagal maybe, but Chuck Norris?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    13. Re:Sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the stupidest password I've ever heard of in my life. The kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage!

  2. Why need the password by kthreadd · · Score: 1

    The information is out there publicly anyway.

    1. Re:Why need the password by SirGeek · · Score: 2

      Not if the person has their account set to private (only their friends can see stuff).

    2. Re:Why need the password by Surt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only friends and advertisers that facebook sell you to. Remember, at facebook, your information is the product.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:Why need the password by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

      That's true. Might as well make it wikifacebook, edit your friends wall, upload embarrassing photo, revert status.
      Would this really be any less secure or private than facebook?

    4. Re:Why need the password by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook does not sell your information to advertisers. The ads simply use information contained in Facebook. It is not given, nor transmitted, to the advertiser.

    5. Re:Why need the password by Surt · · Score: 2

      Yes, in fact, they do sell your information to advertisers.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    6. Re:Why need the password by Surt · · Score: 1

      I didn't say any of that. Try a little reading comprehension.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    7. Re:Why need the password by jschmitz · · Score: 1

      They DO sell your information to advertisers - that is what the business is based on.

    8. Re:Why need the password by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      The one thing I don't fully understand, though, is why Zuckerberg is constantly trying to erode people's privacy and get all the information public, then - wouldn't the information he has on people be worth more if it's on friends-only profiles ?

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    9. Re:Why need the password by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a lot you /. nerds don't fully understand. About Facebook, about the world.

    10. Re:Why need the password by Seumas · · Score: 1

      It is? I'm pretty sure your private messages on Facebook are not publicly readable, unless there's some major security bug.

    11. Re:Why need the password by Seumas · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with making all of your information directly accessible and readable by your employer?

    12. Re:Why need the password by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Personally, the even worse part to me is what other people can post about you and it automatically is linked to your name. You could really ruin someone with good photoshop skills and a vendetta.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  3. Flashlight under a rock by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    Lesson: governments and corps never give up power unless forced to.

    If they had their way, each citizen would be assigned a "minder" in addition to electronic ankle bracelets and GPS.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:Flashlight under a rock by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You say "they" as if the people who run the government are an entirely different species than everyone else. In the USA, "they" derive their power from the consent (albeit a rather apathetic consent) of the people "they" govern.

      It is unfortunate, but a lot of the worst abuses of the rights and freedoms that Americans are supposed to have are widely supported by the people themselves. Try telling someone that the War on Drugs may not be constitutional, or that too many people are in jail, or that prison sentences are too long, or that the police have too much power, or that there are just too many laws, and see the sort of reaction that you will get; with the exception of my libertarian friends (I am not a libertarian), I am almost exclusively met with expressions shock when I make any such statements. The concept of a society in which our freedoms are not curtailed further with each passing year seems to make people uncomfortable; that is why the government gets away with it.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Flashlight under a rock by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      War on drugs? Done - many, many times. To many people in jail, most of them for the wrong reasons? Done. Prison sentences to long? Disagree with you - I believe serious offenders are slapped on the wrist to many times because the prisons are overburdened with petty offenders and drug offenders. Police to much power? Done, over and over again. To many laws? MOST CERTAINLY!!! We are basically in agreement - therefore, I know that you are a dangerous whacko. We should both report to the nearest re-education center I guess. Or, at least report ourselves to Napolitano.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:Flashlight under a rock by MrMarket · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is this was not some big brother conspiracy. This policy was inspired by pure laziness -- a cheap way to do a background check. Instead of doing the work to interview, friends, colleagues, and employers to ensure the applicant has no gang affiliations, they used FB as a pre-screener for applicants.

    4. Re:Flashlight under a rock by icebraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

    5. Re:Flashlight under a rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn the difference between "to" and "too" dammit!

    6. Re:Flashlight under a rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh.. they aren't? Oh sure, they share our penchant for psychoses, albeit to a much greater degree. But those shoes! Those sunglasses! Shirley, you don't think they are genetically related to the common man?

      P.S.: This is the last time I'll address you as "Shirley". From now on, you are simply "UHI://Bmpx22r$".

    7. Re:Flashlight under a rock by SilentStaid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You say "they" as if the people who run the government are an entirely different species than everyone else. In the USA, "they" derive their power from the consent (albeit a rather apathetic consent) of the people "they" govern.

      I apologize in advance for being that guy that invokes Godwin's Law, but I think that the same result of governance-through-apathy could be shown to be a major part of most antagonists of human rights.

      I just wanted to point this out in the defense of other Americans like the OP, to show that it's nothing the Americans have done differently or worse - in fact I might argue that it's human nature. It doesn't detract from your point at all, I completely agree with you - but it's unrealistic at this point in history to be surprised by the apathy of the majority of any group of peoples.

    8. Re:Flashlight under a rock by Surt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Democracy is the worst possible political system. Except for all the others."

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    9. Re:Flashlight under a rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You neglected to attribute that quote to Winston Churchill.

    10. Re:Flashlight under a rock by ZeroEdge · · Score: 1

      apathy of the majority of any group of peoples.

      Apathy Party? now there's a group I can get excited about.

    11. Re:Flashlight under a rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comment originally made by Winston Churchill. Probably truer now than then.

    12. Re:Flashlight under a rock by Kjella · · Score: 1

      In Winston Churchill's defense he also said:

      "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." -- Winston Churchill

      It's not very hard to find flaws with democracy. The trouble is finding something that has less flaws. Most people act in their own interest, and if not then in the interest of their friends, family or some other group they belong to - I don't necessarily mean organized groups but that pot smokers have an obvious self-interest in legalizing pot. Very often when people protect others it's to protect themselves, they actually hate your free speech but they'll protect it to save their own free speech. The moment it's a right they don't care about, they don't mind taking it from everybody else. Very few genuinely act in the best interest of other people, particularly if it would make themselves worse off than before. So either you need everyone to defend their own interests - directly or representative, leading to some form of democracy - or to find one or more of these exceptional people and create a rule where some decide for everyone.

      And even if you could, the second part is what would give them the power and authority to execute their rule? If you say "consent of the governed" you are back at democracy, which we just assumed will not realize their own good. This is ruling against the consent of the governed either by heritage, divine right, military might or something like that. And this is what it comes down to, even if you know what's best for the people the oppression you would have to commit to go through with it is a greater harm than the good you would do. It doesn't matter that you're "right", taking away their freedom to choose is a greater violation than letting them make the wrong choices.

      All that being said, not all democracies are equal. Not all elections are free and fair, not all countries have a free press, free political association, free speech and real political choice. All else is pointless if the government does as the government wills almost regardless of what the voters said. Being a democracy in name doesn't mean it is in practice, even old East Germany called itself Deutsche Demokratische Republik. Democracy, suuure. So even in a "democratic" country it could take a revolution to have true democracy.

      And even a true democracy is of course to guarantee that the majority won't just trample all the civil rights and abuse the minorities. There you have to simply hope that all the minorities can find common ground and have basic civil rights laws passed, perhaps in a constitution but even those are subject to change. It's not really possible or desirable to create laws that are immutable, after all "the people" are those living right now not long dead founding fathers. Ultimately what laws should be valid now is our choice, not theirs.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    13. Re:Flashlight under a rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me? I don't really care.

    14. Re:Flashlight under a rock by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

      Not sure what country you're from, but the US is not a democracy--it is a representative republic.

      Democracy is four wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    15. Re:Flashlight under a rock by gorzek · · Score: 1

      Yup. Representative government isn't about being the "best," it's about legitimacy. It ensures that people get the government they want, for better or for worse, rather than having it rammed down their throats with no consent. In the end, a democracy is only as good as its voters make it. Voters being idiots isn't a fault of democracy but of the system that produced such voters.

    16. Re:Flashlight under a rock by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Lesson:Never give government more power than it barely needs to function. Stop voting with (D) or (R) who use Government to usurp the power of the people for their own greedy desires.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    17. Re:Flashlight under a rock by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

      Well and I'm sure they just don't want to be embarrassed by all the glowing reviews of what a great place the correctional facilities/DMV is to work!

      The only problem with your argument is your or anyone's drug use DOES affect me. If you go out and get stoned (or drunk) and run over my kid, that affects me. And there's no way I want to see you running around naked and crazy after you drop some PCP! ;-)

      But I agree that people do give up their freedoms. For instance, letting the police seize large sums of money on just their assertion that the money was from drug sales.

      And the only reason they are asking for their social network logins is because they're obviously concerned about whistle-blowing because it's such a shit place to work. I would think long and hard about working for anywhere that asked that type of question.

      It's also another good reason to not use your real name when you don't have to and never link accounts such as using your FB login to another site.

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    18. Re:Flashlight under a rock by A.+Situs · · Score: 2

      "Democracy replaces the corruption of a few with the incompetence of the many." -- I don't remember who said it.

    19. Re:Flashlight under a rock by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The U.S. is a Representative Democracy -- a type of democracy -- and a Republic -- a nation whose leader is not a hereditary monarch. These are two orthogonal properties of nations.

      We are not a Direct Democracy, which is what people saying "the U.S. isn't a Democracy" usually mean. But we are assuredly a Democracy. And the same comments, issued by Winston Churchill (who was in part describing his own country, which is a Representative Democracy as well), apply.

      A Representative Democracy is four wolves and a sheep voting on who is going to decide what's for dinner. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    20. Re:Flashlight under a rock by spikedvodka · · Score: 1

      Apathy Party! Just remember, No Vote is a Vote for us!

      --
      I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
    21. Re:Flashlight under a rock by chuckymonkey · · Score: 1

      Unless the sheep happens to be a minority that we persecuted 100 years ago, or has a shit ton of money to lobby the shepherd for "special protection".

      --
      "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
    22. Re:Flashlight under a rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and that consent is highly manipulated by corporations who influence "they" that govern, so really... it's "consensual" in the same sense as "manipulated to think you agree" to something.

    23. Re:Flashlight under a rock by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      And each time they tout paedophilia, terrorism or piracy as a reason for more power hit them.

    24. Re:Flashlight under a rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let's start off by granting your premise that the War on Drugs is unconstitutional.

      Do you have the fortitude to tell someone that seeing their son hit by a stray bullet is the cost of your constitutional rights, moreover, that your right not to be stopped by police at random is more important than the lives of their sons and daughters?

      So often people paint the proponents of the War on Drugs as stupid, mindless sheep who go along with whatever the powers that be decide to do. But I've seen just the opposite - these are the people who are actually paying attention to the things going on in their community. They've seen the change in their neighborhood when drug dealers move in. They have known someone (sometimes many someones) killed as a result of their involvement with drugs. And possibly, like me, they've seen someone completely uninvolved get mortally injured by gang wars.

      Our freedoms are being curtailed by gangs and drugs much moreso than by the government. Granted, I don't relish the thought of increased government power, but we can at least control the degree of intrusion in a democracy. Criminals don't give us that limiting mechanism.

    25. Re:Flashlight under a rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem with your argument is your or anyone's drug use DOES affect me. If you go out and get stoned (or drunk) and run over my kid, that affects me. And there's no way I want to see you running around naked and crazy after you drop some PCP! ;-)

      Perhaps if we just made it a crime to run over children or operate a vehicle under the influence instead... Then some of us could stay home smoking and watching cartoons like responsible adults. But I don't want to see any one running around crazy and naked full of PCP either.

    26. Re:Flashlight under a rock by Celestialwolf · · Score: 1

      *A Republic

  4. A better policy.... by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here is how I would implement a policy like that. I would ask, all applicants for their facebook username and password up front.

    Then, everyone who gave it to me, would get a polite letter informing them that they did not get the job because they so easily violated the TOS of facebook, with whom they had a standing agreement before they applied with us. Thus, there is no way that we could trust them with access credentials on our system.

    You failed the test, you are the weakest link, goodbye.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    1. Re:A better policy.... by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Oh how I wish I had a mod point to give to this post. That is a perfect response.

    2. Re:A better policy.... by Aeros · · Score: 1

      Same here..nice!

    3. Re:A better policy.... by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Informative

      You would be co-conspirators. Don't forget to punish yourself!

      Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities:
      3.5:You will not solicit login information or access an account belonging to someone else.
      3.12:You will not facilitate or encourage any violations of this Statement.

    4. Re:A better policy.... by praxis · · Score: 2

      Where did TheCarp state that he had agreed to those terms?

    5. Re:A better policy.... by Ambiguous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those clauses only apply if you are a facebook user. Anyone who is not a facebook user is more than welcome to solicit all the login information they want. Just make sure your hiring board are all non-facebookers. Heck, make sure your entire company is non-facebookers. If the response to the facebook login info request is anything but "the requested information does not exist" then the potential hire is a no-go. It's a self-reinforcing process!

      --
      Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
    6. Re:A better policy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that "solicit login" would imply that you're using facebook services to get the logins. As someone who hasn't been to the site they can't agree to terms they've never seen.

    7. Re:A better policy.... by cob666 · · Score: 1

      You would be co-conspirators. Don't forget to punish yourself!

      Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities: 3.5:You will not solicit login information or access an account belonging to someone else. 3.12:You will not facilitate or encourage any violations of this Statement.

      That's absurd, if the boss never agreed to the Facebook TOS then he has in no way shape or form violated that agreement.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    8. Re:A better policy.... by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here is how I would implement a policy like that. I would ask, all applicants for their facebook username and password up front.

      Then, everyone who gave it to me, would get a polite letter informing them that they did not get the job because they so easily violated the TOS of facebook, with whom they had a standing agreement before they applied with us. Thus, there is no way that we could trust them with access credentials on our system.

      You failed the test, you are the weakest link, goodbye.

      And anyone who passed the test, by refusing to divulge such information, should immediately turn down any job offer you give them.
      No one with a brain would work for a company that dicks them around with "tests" like that.
      They get enough of those mind games from their girlfriends.

    9. Re:A better policy.... by screwzloos · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the exact same thing. Asking for an arbitrary username and password combination (like facebook) on a job application would sort those who at least mildly understand data security from those who are completely clueless. How could someone be trusted with corporate credentials if they don't protect their own?

      I certainly wouldn't hire someone who filled those fields in, and would shred their application immediately to protect myself. Of course, one of their accounts (or entire identities) would get compromised anyways and I would probably get sued for it because that's the world we live in. Oh well. /pessimist

    10. Re:A better policy.... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      You also know too little about computer security to be trusted with important information our organization stores on a computer.

    11. Re:A better policy.... by UninformedCoward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Aha ha ha. Oh, gosh that's funny. That's really funny. Do you write your own material? Do you? Because that is so fresh. You are the weakest link goodbye. You know, I've never heard anyone make that joke before. Mmm. You're the first. I've never heard anyone reference, reference that outside the program before. Because that's what she says on the show right? Isn't it? You are the weakest link goodbye. And yet, you have taken that and used it out of context, to insult me in this everyday situation. God what a clever, smart girl you must be, to come up with a joke like that all by yourself. Mmm, that's so fresh too. Any titanic jokes you want to throw at me while we're hitting these at the height of their popularity? Hmm? Cause... I'm here. God you're SO funny."

    12. Re:A better policy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that would lead to your company being composed of antisocial shut-ins. Just find the ugly nerd without a Facebook account and let him do that part of the hiring instead.

    13. Re:A better policy.... by Korin43 · · Score: 2, Funny

      They get enough of those mind games from their girlfriends.

      Sorry, as a Slashdotter, I have no experience with that. Could you repeat your post in the form of a car analogy?

    14. Re:A better policy.... by Tanktalus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know how when there's a problem with your car, any part of it, that engine light comes on? And then you can't figure out what the hell is really wrong, because all you got is the engine light? And then you start second guessing every little noise or bump, in your rush to get it to a garage to get it resolved, only to find out three hours later and $500, that a screw was loose?

      That's a mind game.

    15. Re:A better policy.... by LMacG · · Score: 1

      Wow, flamebait mod for a Stewie quote. Mod isn't a Family Guy fan, I guess.

      --
      Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
    16. Re:A better policy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would be co-conspirators. Don't forget to punish yourself!

      Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities:
      3.5:You will not solicit login information or access an account belonging to someone else.
      3.12:You will not facilitate or encourage any violations of this Statement.

      That's absurd, if the boss never agreed to the Facebook TOS then he has in no way shape or form violated that agreement.

      Its not absurd at all. The boss MUST agree to the Facebook TOS to access your account. Yet by using your login info he has already violated the TOS.

      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

    17. Re:A better policy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well to be honest, Family Guy is even less funny than xkdc.

    18. Re:A better policy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would be co-conspirators. Don't forget to punish yourself!

      Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities:
      3.5:You will not solicit login information or access an account belonging to someone else.
      3.12:You will not facilitate or encourage any violations of this Statement.

      but i do not have a facebook account, so i have never agreed to those terms, so i should be fine, right?

    19. Re:A better policy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could it not also qualify as tortious interference on the part of the hypothetical employer? Especially since the employer demonstrates having read the Facebook agreement.

      If so, it would not matter if the employer did not agree to the agreement because he or she wrongfully and intentionally caused the employee to violate the contract.

    20. Re:A better policy.... by Surt · · Score: 1

      How did the boss get the job without turning over his facebook username and password?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    21. Re:A better policy.... by natehoy · · Score: 2

      So the people who understand security will refuse to fill out the application and leave in disgust at their perception that you are a clueless idiot who knows nothing about security, and the people who fill out the applications and apply are all proving to you that they are clueless idiots who know nothing about security (or they fill out false credentials proving that they are liars).

      You'll never get any applicants you want to hire, unless someone writes PISS OFF in both the username and password fields, and then they'll be an attitude problem for you.

      A very useful tool if, for example, you actually have to publish a job opening publicly but you really want to hire your nephew. "There were no qualified external applicants, so Jimmy gets the job! Yay for inbreeding!"

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    22. Re:A better policy.... by thsths · · Score: 1

      > No one with a brain would work for a company that dicks them around with "tests" like that.

      I used to think this myself. But a lot of companies do it, and some of them quite purposefully. My response would be to get quite hostile in the interview, but that may not be the clever thing to do.

      Instead you should ask yourself what would do to the company over the long run. The effect may be less than you think (a lot of people are very desperate to get a job!). Anyway, you should make a rational decision about it. It may be a good reason to decline the offer, but you should sleep over it.

    23. Re:A better policy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly!

      I don't divulge passwords to anyone, and if they said it's a condition of employment I would tell them "thanks for not wasting my time with a full interview then, I'll be leaving now."

    24. Re:A better policy.... by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      It's a very, very weak contract. The employer in this case has not explicitly agreed to anything. It's very likely a court would find it non-binding if you didn't actually have a Facebook account since there would be next to no consideration on Facebook's part.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    25. Re:A better policy.... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Yah but you are missing one important fact.... if I am hiring, they would have to deal with me, so having a normal attitude and personal temperament is actually not really a plus. Overall, I think the guy who writes "piss off" or "decline" in there, and insists on coming in to tell me why its a bad idea and why they wont work for me because of it.... well shit, that guy is the perfect fit, I might offer him the job on the spot.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    26. Re:A better policy.... by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      You know how when there's a problem with your car, any part of it, that engine light comes on? And then you can't figure out what the hell is really wrong, because all you got is the engine light? And then you start second guessing every little noise or bump, in your rush to get it to a garage to get it resolved, only to find out three hours later and $500, that a screw was loose?

      No, because I know how to diagnose a check engine light ;). Do yourself a favor and pick up one of these, and you won't have that problem anymore. Or, if you have a smartphone, you can usually get a cheap OBD-II bluetooth adapter to read this stuff on your phone directly. It takes a lot of the guess work out of trying to figure out whats wrong.

    27. Re:A better policy.... by Korin43 · · Score: 1

      I always just go to Autozone. They have the fancy computers and will tell you why the light is on for free.

    28. Re:A better policy.... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You know how when there's a problem with your car, any part of it, that engine light comes on? And then you can't figure out what the hell is really wrong, because all you got is the engine light? And then you start second guessing every little noise or bump, in your rush to get it to a garage to get it resolved, only to find out three hours later and $500, that a screw was loose?

      No, because I know how to diagnose a check engine light ;). Do yourself a favor and pick up one of these, and you won't have that problem anymore. Or, if you have a smartphone, you can usually get a cheap OBD-II bluetooth adapter to read this stuff on your phone directly. It takes a lot of the guess work out of trying to figure out whats wrong.

      Good luck finding a vehicle that:
        - Uses standard codes
        - Lets you access the codes in a standard way
        - Throws up the proper codes when a condition arises

      The codes are as much of a well-intentioned, honestly-implemented, well-tested standard as .docx . And I don't even hate Microsoft.

    29. Re:A better policy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that would lead to your company being composed of antisocial shut-ins.

      (Shrug) Fine. That worked for Bill Gates, it'll work for me.

    30. Re:A better policy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reinforcing the girlfriend to car analogy, it'd be like the girl just wanted some attention and...
      Oh, a screw was loose.

      I see what you did there.

    31. Re:A better policy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if the boss has agreed to it, personally, has the company?

    32. Re:A better policy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. All the antisocial shut-ins are on facebook, letting their fake friends know about their last bowel movement and how much they liked the last episode of America's Fattest Home Talented Racing Buildings Video Show. I have not and will not ever have a facebook account. I use vocalisation to engage in dialogue with my actual friends.

    33. Re:A better policy.... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      That happened to my Dad. He spent $800 replacing various parts he knew he needed to eventually replace. The check engine light didn't go away. He took it into the shop, they ran the diagnostics, and it turned out to be a blown resistor inside a $35 component.

      Later he gave me his car. When the check engine came on, I took it down to the shop. They replaced the battery, ignition switch and vacuum hose. My Dad paid the $900 since these were "pre-existing conditions" that he should have fixed. I think I finally got all the bugs out of this car. Haven't had any major problems since then.

    34. Re:A better policy.... by garwain · · Score: 1

      Gee, whe I get that Check Engine light, I'll drive the car regularly, just paying a little more attention to see if something noticable is wrong (I'll turn the radio down a few notches). Then, when I go for an oil change, I'll have the mechanic put the tester on my car to get the diagnostic information, have him reset it, and wait to see if it's a reoccuring problem before blowing $500 on a loose screw. (hey, I get charged $15 for the diagnostic. that's cheaper than what I charge my clients to tell them their HDD is dead)

    35. Re:A better policy.... by infinitelink · · Score: 1

      It's a noble ideal, but the downside is that you may have a bunch of other people telling the world all about you through "games" like "answer a question about so and so", "link our game to the family/relations tree gam to add more subjects", et cetera, and you won't even know about it. The dynamics in play on Facebook are such that non-participants are punished, and they are profiled anyways: having a FB proflie therefore permits some modicum of control or ability to edit what's being collected on you--in my case I care less for making face as for keeping the bridges open to correct inaccuracies (though frankly as disconnected as I am to a lot of people who know me because of a very tough work schedule and hard life, and a family spread-out across the country, I'm surprised any would presume to answer questions in "games" about me at all). If any of you, by the way, are recalling certain descriptions of systems created to induce people to spy on each other happily and without mal intent, from a certain famous work of literature at that, good wit.

      I have a policy myself of replying to practically nothing, except long-disconnected friends and acquaintances trying to re-establish contact, but all else I keep replying "use my e-mail address or call me". I feel you on the point about shut-ins and antisocials being the haunts of FB, though, and of want to engage people for real rather than simply virtually--perhaps I'd even "friend" you on FB if you had an account. ; )

      --
      Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
    36. Re:A better policy.... by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      It's called OBD-II. All cars in the US built in 1996 and later are required to support OBD-II. Europe has similar laws in place (see EOBD).

    37. Re:A better policy.... by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      That works too. I prefer to know for myself though, in case some jackass is just trying to sell me shit I don't need. Honda makes it so you don't actually need a special tool to diagnose a Check Engine Light (CEL), although you still can if you want to. Basically, all you do is short a special plug with a piece of wire, and the CEL flashes a specific code, telling you what exactly tripped it. I've diagnosed a CEL that way and it works really well. I had an issue with my EGR system that it successfully identified for me....cleaned out the EGR valve and return lines and things were back to normal.

  5. Oh, it was Voluntary! by JohnMurtari · · Score: 2

    I just love to hear that disclosure was voluntary when you were interviewing for a job! Sure, it's voluntary, don't tell us and you don't get the job. I'm not sure about private companies making that "voluntary" request -- but certainly not a government agency.

    1. Re:Oh, it was Voluntary! by Cthefuture · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's "voluntary" like wearing 37 pieces of flair.

      --
      The ratio of people to cake is too big
    2. Re:Oh, it was Voluntary! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is voluntary in that it will not count against you; however, the information contained within another person's account may be considered positively for them, and thus they will be more competitive. Welcome to the standard deception of the people who invent these policies; notice that instead of saying, "OK, bad policy, we are rescinding it," they said, "OK, we'll stop to make sure that the information is only being used appropriately!" Everything about their response is meant to divert attention away from the fact that the policy itself is a problem.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:Oh, it was Voluntary! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just love to hear that disclosure was voluntary when you were interviewing for a job! Sure, it's voluntary, don't tell us and you don't get the job.

      I'm not sure about private companies making that "voluntary" request -- but certainly not a government agency.

      Well, paying income tax is "voluntary". Of course if you don't "voluntarily" pay up then armed men will kidnap you and lock you in a cage...

    4. Re:Oh, it was Voluntary! by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      I would be more inclined to give the login and password to my online banking account, than to my facebook account, but of these fall under the category of things that will be disclosed under torture or immediate threat of death. Then again, I won't ever be desperate enough to be applying for a job anywhere mentioned in TFA.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    5. Re:Oh, it was Voluntary! by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      It's like how taxes are voluntary: You have the option of going to jail instead.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    6. Re:Oh, it was Voluntary! by ConcealedCarryDrew · · Score: 1

      Love it! Great Post.

    7. Re:Oh, it was Voluntary! by Voulnet · · Score: 1

      Hahaha! You don't want to be doing the bare minimum now, would ya?

    8. Re:Oh, it was Voluntary! by ls671 · · Score: 1

      > that will be disclosed under torture or immediate threat of death

      You are a potential traitor to our great country. Therefore, you constitute a high risk threat and you should be terminated immediately.

      -Chuck Norris.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    9. Re:Oh, it was Voluntary! by QuantumRiff · · Score: 2

      I think giving your employer your passwords is a brilliant idea..

      Well you see your honor, I am not the only one that could have done that.. I had to surrender my account information to my employer, the state, in order to be employed. Any state employee could have accessed that information.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
  6. Here's what I'd say by Konster · · Score: 2

    Here's what I'd say:

    User name: Fuck
    Password: You

    1. Re:Here's what I'd say by sakdoctor · · Score: 2

      Or simply that you don't have any of those types of account?

    2. Re:Here's what I'd say by EricWright · · Score: 1

      Most people refuse to believe that I don't have a FB account ... LinkedIn is the only "social" media account I have, and that is for business purposes only.

    3. Re:Here's what I'd say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also a potential problem if you do have an account, claim that you don't, and they'll come across your profile on the site.

      On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd like to be employed by someone who doesn't believe my honest statement that I don't have an account. Or one that cares whether I do.

    4. Re:Here's what I'd say by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      Here's what I'd say

      The thing is, it's very easy for educated Slashdotters with lots of job options to formulate a response like this. Very different story if you've been unemployed for a long while, benefits are running out and you've got mouths at home to feed - In that scenario it's pretty tough to flip off a prospective employer with whom you've gotten as far as an interview...

    5. Re:Here's what I'd say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a member. Good thing the people tagging my real name in their social pictures can't yet cause an index entry under Google and Bing. Yet. I'm worried about the loophole we DO have right now: "hey, let's register under this guy's name and post crap."

      Moreover, FB someday letting us "[Domain?] park our identity" so others get a statement that my name is unavailable and "not a member". That would mean we're really just opting into some database and raise more flags for an employer than if they were to believe we're just too busy to be a member of FB. Plus it fails to disambiguate who is opting out when the name is "John Smith.". For security reasons, I still would not sign up to "opt out" like that regardless of whatever worldwide passport-strength security they offer to lock my data. They'd pick fingerprints, pictures, retina scans and DNA at "best" (ugh!) and at worst the foolishly insecure SS# or national ID number outside the US.

      Employers can google me and go to facebook and not find a page with my name. You're that lucky if your name is unique. End of story.

    6. Re:Here's what I'd say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LinkedIn is worse than Facebook. Fear the social media site that says its actually useful and not just a plaything.

  7. Nice Excuse by jimmerz28 · · Score: 0

    It's a "newly emerging area in the law" so clearly we shouldn't use good judgement, proceed cautiously, consider ramifications or think.

    1. Re:Nice Excuse by Surt · · Score: 1

      Thinking is for the ruling class, peasant. Do what you're told.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:Nice Excuse by maxume · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The people doing this were bureaucrats in a department of a small state. If they are the ruling class, so is half of everybody else.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Nice Excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google, is that you?

  8. Bullshit statement (do they think we're stupid?) by Manip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wait, so "requests had been voluntary, and had not been taken into account when evaluating job applicants." If that statement is true then asking for the information serves absolutely no purpose at all. Seriously, was their only purpose to invade their employees privacy and put them in a potentially conflicting situation?!

    If their statement is true then this raises even more serious questions about what this information was used for. If it was a lie then we need to ask why they feel they need to lie about this program (hint: it is illegal either way).

  9. ...being used consistently and appropriately... by eggsurplus · · Score: 1

    I'll make it easy. It's never appropriate to ask and expect a username and password from anyone. It doesn't take 45 days to figure that out. OK, maybe in the government it might. Better make the review process 180 days instead and create a committee dedicated to this issue.

  10. Why? by Gunkerty+Jeb · · Score: 1

    What legitimate reason could an organization have for needing this information? As in, they say: "Would you voluntarily give us your Facebook username and password?" I say (because I am a man, not a sheep): "Why?"

    1. Re:Why? by space_jake · · Score: 1

      TFA says to scan their facebook accounts for gang affiliation.

  11. Not a problem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like I remember posting last time. Give them a facebook site to see. Gee, all my friends are 'meric luvin' God fearin' types who.... are all guards working for the department of corrections. 50 guards with a need for 50 friends have mutual aquaintences. Give them a site like to look at. Game them! Your private life is your business, not theirs. They can look at all of the pictures of your prison guard friends.

    1. Re:Not a problem! by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Better to show them a site that implies your family and friends are powerful people who they fear.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  12. Yeah, right by emt377 · · Score: 2

    They could have my user names and logins, but not my passwords or any other credentials. Just asking would pretty much make at least me turn around and walk out, likely rather annoyed at having wasted my time on such losers. Why don't they ask for my address book and business card files while at it? Can I have theirs?

  13. Re:Bullshit statement (do they think we're stupid? by royallthefourth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    do they think we're stupid?

    They don't think you are stupid. They think the people they're hiring are stupid and have a passion for yielding/wielding command as part of a hierarchy with no regard to the consequences of their actions.

    Considering they're hiring prison guards, that's a fair assumption.

  14. Re:Bullshit statement (do they think we're stupid? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    Oh, it is standard deception. No, they will not take into consideration whether or not you disclosed your username and password, but they will allow the information that such access would grant them to count for you in the interview. You were not rejected for failing to provide the username and password; you were rejected because someone you are competing with for the job did and they saw positive things in his profile.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  15. Appropriately? by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · · Score: 1

    I am reasonably certain that what would be done in this case is to check everything you have ever done on Facebook. Also, all of those people should expect their security questions to have been changed just in case the passwords are changed someday.

    Also, keeping the people working on this from fraping random people must be really hard, but they do it, right? Right?

    I didn't think so either.

  16. I wish I could tell you by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 4, Funny

    Andy Dufresne unfriended the Sisters and they let him be, but I can't.

    1. Re:I wish I could tell you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh I wish I was a commenter and had mod points to give you. A+ on your blending of "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" and Facebook terminology.

  17. Re:Bullshit statement (do they think we're stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Lets face it, They say it has no bearing on the process but we all know it is BS.

    Heck, 20 years ago I worked for Pinkerton. The hiring process had a list of "Optional" questions. Things like

    What church do you attend?
    Do you believe in the second coming of Christ?
    Are you gay?
    Are you the type of person to drop the hanky?
    etc, etc

    They make sure to state that it did not effect the hiring process, however, those that did not answer the questions were let go within 30 days of being hired. For me, I was asked to work 2 back to back 12 hour shifts, then dismissed for a dirty uniform.

    Lets face it, if they have the information they will use it!

  18. Now time for resignations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoever even considered this "practice" should be asked for their resignation or be fired. The whole thing is so blatantly a violation of rights that anybody who didn't realize that should not be working for the state.

  19. that sounds familiar by v1 · · Score: 2

    the department said requests for user names and passwords had been voluntary, and had not been taken into account when evaluating job applicants. Nonetheless, 'in light of these concerns raised by the ACLU and because this is a newly emerging area in the law, the department has suspended the process of asking for social media information for 45 days to review the procedure and to make sure it is being used consistently and appropriately.'"

    "We're only asking about your religious preference because y'know, we're just *curious*. It has NOTHING to do with whether or not were going to hire you, really. So that's OK, right?"

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:that sounds familiar by Tanks*Guns · · Score: 1

      Eerily familiar actually, when I became a civilian in Germany after my US Army stint there, while asking for my German version of the social security card, I was innocently asked for my religion. Naively I said Catholic (have become a fundamentalist Atheist since) l didn't think much of it until I received my first paycheck.
      Bam! Church Tax.
      Getting that removed, to my dismay, required me to sign a fairly Papal-looking document stating I was never to ask for the church to marry me, bury me, baptize my children and/or receive any and all services from the church.
      I did, and have not burned in a shower of fire and brimstone yet.

  20. Why expose yourself? by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Things like this are all the more reason to never use your real name on social networking sites, ever .

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Why expose yourself? by Itesh · · Score: 2

      "Things like this are all the more reason to never use social networking sites, ever."
      Fixed that for you ;)

    2. Re:Why expose yourself? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      But... what about all the hot chicks from high school that are trying to get in touch with me now?

      No, I don't have a Facebook page... which is exactly what anyone should answer when asked for their Facebook info.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:Why expose yourself? by DrMaurer · · Score: 1

      Why are you here? There are journals and user names and "friend"s...

      --
      Dan
    4. Re:Why expose yourself? by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Why? Because somebody might find something I do objectionable? I'm all for privacy in those parts of my life that I *choose* to keep private, but I'm not going to encourage a society where everybody keeps a squeaky clean image in public all while hiding anything that could offend somebody. I'm not a deliberately abrasive person, but I'm also not going to let fear of what somebody else might think of me dictate how I present myself.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    5. Re:Why expose yourself? by kheldan · · Score: 1

      See, I'm with you on that up to a point; I too don't really give a damn what people think of me or the way I live my life, but at the same time I'm not willing to have the majority of my life be a matter of public record; even celebrities manage to keep part of their lives private. The point where you lose me is when you don't get a job or get fired from your job because nosy employers go poking into your social networking pages and find something that they don't like. Even if you're careful about who you allow into your online presence you still have nosy employers that ask for access, and then get nasty with you when you tell them it's private. In this day and age many people call someone like me paranoid and give me strange looks, but from my perspective people are not being smart and not thinking ahead at who might be out there reading up on what they've put out for public viewing.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    6. Re:Why expose yourself? by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      My point there is that it's something *they* don't like. If they aren't going to hire me over something petty, then I consider it a bullet safely dodged and people I do not want to work with. That said, I absolutely would not give employers access to to that sort of information - them asking for it makes them exactly the kind of nosey employers you describe, and again not somebody I want to work with.

      --
      +1 Disagree
  21. Re:Bullshit statement (do they think we're stupid? by pandrijeczko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To be honest, I don't think it deserves such deep analysis.

    It probably started off simply being "a good idea" dreamt up by some clueless middle manager to exert some power over potential minions but, as usual for 21st Century Management Trainees, he/she didn't even stop to consider the ramifications of such a decision when it came to privacy etc.

    I bet if you go to them in 45 days time and ask them what they're decision is on the matter, you'll get a "What Facebook password issue?" response - this is because middle managers, being bereft of backbones, are incapable of just saying "Yep, I fucked up, it was a crap idea and sorry for causing such hassle."

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  22. Employer - Employee in title by sugarmotor · · Score: 1

    "Employer Facebook Password Requests Suspended" should be "Employee Facebook Password Requests Suspended", no?

    S

    --
    http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
    1. Re:Employer - Employee in title by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Actually, it should be "Government Agency Job Applicant Facebook Password Requests Suspended." Although that is a little long for a headline, it would have stopped posters on /. talking about this case as if it had something to do with corporations invading their employees privacy (not to say that they don't). The thought process behind this sort of idiocy is completely different when it involves government agencies than when it involves companies. It is not that companies don't do just as stupid of things, it is just that this sort of stupidity runs into pushback much faster in the private sector...and once it has been exposed for the stupidity it is, it very rapidly disappears from the private sector (that sometimes requires one or two court orders). In the public sector, this sort of idiocy will pop up again and again, even after courts have ruled against it.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Employer - Employee in title by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

      So it wasn't the employees asking for their employers facebook credentials? This changes everything!

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
    3. Re:Employer - Employee in title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect it's a human behavior, not a government behavior or a corporation behavior. Anyone with delusions of authority can easily fall into this behavior (and they probably do so all the time, be they in public or private workplaces).

  23. Total Bullshit by dcollins · · Score: 1

    Total bullshit from top to bottom. That's all I've got to say.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  24. How voluntary can this really be? by wealthychef · · Score: 1

    Here I am, in an interview, trying to impress you with my willingness to be a team player, and you ask me for my username and password. There is definitely pressure there to comply. If it's not being taken into account when evaluating employees, why is it asked? That just reeks of falsehood.

    --
    Currently hooked on AMP
  25. A little love for the ACLU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anybody (American) who cares about these kinds of issues should send a thank you in the form of a few dollars to the ACLU. When the government tries pulling this kind of bullshit, they're the ones who have your back.

    1. Re:A little love for the ACLU? by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      If the ACLU supported the Second Amendment, I'd be a big fan.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    2. Re:A little love for the ACLU? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      If the ACLU supported the Second Amendment, I'd be a big fan.

      I agree in that I wish they supported it, but I'm a big fan anyway. Yes their official stance on the 2nd Amendment is, frankly, absurd and contrary to many court rulings, but the important thing to me is that 1) they do great work supporting all of our other rights and 2) they don't work against 2nd amendment rights.

      In fact in the past they've been perfectly willing to work with the NRA to defeat a piece of legislation which the NRA objected to on 2nd Amendment grounds, and the ACLU objected to on other grounds.

      So I'm willing to forgive them only fighting for most of our rights, as long as they aren't getting in the way of organizations fighting for the rest of them. They about fighting for the civil liberties they believe in, not fighting against the ones they don't. I'm okay with that, just like I'm okay with someone donating to one charity, but not others.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  26. Re:Bullshit statement (do they think we're stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, I have to ask: "drop the hanky"? What the hell does that mean?

    I'm trying to come up with some interpretation of that, and I suspect that my imagination is far, far dirtier than the actual meaning.

  27. Curious by ChasmCoder · · Score: 1

    I find it interesting that this post ever had to exist in the first place. What, would possess anyone to even consider requesting that information in the first place? Those comments about being a security test, I could see that to an extent. I think, that a wise would be employee, should reverse the questions and in the spirit of openness and trust request the facebook login username and password of the individual requesting theirs. Alas, then they would both be in violation of the TOS and since this post is about "...Facebook Password Requests Suspended..." that it is a a moot point anyhow, I suppose.

    1. Re:Curious by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I thought using someone else's account was "terrorism".

      Also, even if you handed over your user/pass, if you said you didn't want them logging on and they did, wouldn't that be a criminal hacking charge?

      Someone recently got 5 years of prison for using the user/pass for his wife's email account that she had on a post-it next to the computer.

    2. Re:Curious by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I do that every time I get pulled over by the police... "Sure, officer... let me see YOUR license and registration first!"

      I'll be getting out of jail next month...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:Curious by ChasmCoder · · Score: 1

      If you did you'd be within your rights :)

    4. Re:Curious by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      They do wear it on their chest and shirt sleeve, literally.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    5. Re:Curious by fotbr · · Score: 1

      Around here, any identifying number is, as often as not, taped over, so you do have to ask. Which pretty much guarantees that life is going to get worse for you in the future since now that officer and his buddies know that you're someone who's likely to complain.

  28. While you're at it by Khopesh · · Score: 1

    While you're at it, we'll need a key to your home. At your discretion, we'd also like a full copy of your personal diary for our records.

    Okay, great. Now strip for the camera and bend over. This will only take a minute or two.

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
    1. Re:While you're at it by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      What's really scary here is that an employer with one of the worst possible jobs to offer, in possibly THE worst workplace environment there is, gets enough applicants that the are in a position to pick and choose who to hire, let alone put arbitrary qualifications on them.
       

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  29. That's Why Everyone Needs 20 Facebook Pages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just be sure to use "handles" for all of them so that a search for your real name doesn't turn any of your others up. You got one for the employer, one for the parents, one for your kids to look you up on, one to give Ghadafi's thugs before they smash your other knee into pulp with that rock, etc.

  30. Soviet tactics by Teun · · Score: 2
    Is it that the Soviet Empire has been forgotten by the masses without education?

    Because in The Day this type of behaviour was according to US politicians only expected from communist dictatorships.

    This type of behaviour includes the ban on Unionisation in Wisconsin, 30 years ago US diplomats, politicians and the free press would have had a field day blasting such policies.
    Would Barack Obama today be the same man he was during his presidential campaign he'd be drawing blood among the officials responsible for those infractions against general human rights.
    Or just imagine how Ronald Reagan would have responded...

    The bottom line is: the USofA does not have any useful privacy legislation.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    1. Re:Soviet tactics by operagost · · Score: 0

      This type of behaviour includes the ban on Unionisation in Wisconsin, 30 years ago US diplomats, politicians and the free press would have had a field day blasting such policies.

      Not only is there no ban on unionization, there is not even a ban on private unionization. The issue is with unions of public workers having collective bargaining for pension benefits. Collective bargaining would still be in place for wages, working conditions, etc.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:Soviet tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because in The Day this type of behaviour was according to US politicians only expected from communist dictatorships.

      30 years ago US diplomats, politicians and the free press would have had a field day blasting such policies.

      Yes but most people realised the irony of them saying that while still dealing with institutional racism and sexism on a daily basis.

      And please don't insult me by pretending that's an issue from the past - if it's not because you're a woman, it's not because you're black, it's not because you're 'oriental', it's not because you're a 'hippy'/rep/dem/lib/, it's not because you're the wrong kind of christian, then it's because you're Arab, muslim, pro civil rights (read 'paranoid survivalist'), atheist or PC (or Mac :p) - the prejudice just needs to stop completely for anything to be solved. It's not even logically sound, yet I constantly hear whispered judgements, based on loose associations with unpopular things, from otherwise extremely intelligent people - especially on /.

      Get over the fear, regain your dignity and have some respect for yourself by putting a little bit of thought into how you form your opinions on people. (not aimed at the parent, but at every single sodding person that exists - all of us can get better at this).

    3. Re:Soviet tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or just imagine how Ronald Reagan would have responded...

      The bottom line is: the USofA does not have any useful privacy legislation.

      It was Ronald Reagan who oversaw the change in employment regulations that discarded the idea that you innocent until proven guilty of drug abuse.

      It was Ronald Reagan who oversaw the change in employment laws that discarded the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty of being an illegal alien.

      It was Ronald Reagan who oversaw the amendment to the Communications Act of 1934 that made it no longer legal for people to monitor any broadcast communications they wanted to subject the the restriction that non-public information had to remain private.

      Oh yes, Ronald Reagan would never allow anyone to erode our freedoms!

    4. Re:Soviet tactics by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >It was Ronald Reagan who oversaw the change in employment regulations that discarded the idea that you innocent until proven guilty of drug abuse.

      You misspelled Richard Nixon.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    5. Re:Soviet tactics by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >Is it that the Soviet Empire has been forgotten by the masses without education?

      During the Cold War, real information about the Soviet Union was actively suppressed from Americans, and fully replaced with whatever propaganda was convenient.
      Most Americans who grew up in that period don't really know much about it. I had to go well out of my way to learn about the Vietnam War (while it was happening, it was never mentioned one single time in school), and did the same to learn anything meaningful about Russia.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    6. Re:Soviet tactics by pnuema · · Score: 2
      Incorrect. Wages only. And what about those unions friendly to Walker? Police and fire? Exempt. This is about punishing political opponents, and if you can't see that, you're an idiot.

      The voters of WI got what they asked for. Sounds like you're a teabagger, and should be happy about this. You guys won. Go ahead, be happy. But don't lie. You know what this is really about.

    7. Re:Soviet tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the same Ronald Reagan who ratted out his colleagues to the house unamerican activities commission or fired a bunch of striking air traffic controllers? Yeah, I'm sure this would break him up.

    8. Re:Soviet tactics by operagost · · Score: 1

      This is hilarious. Not only did I get a "troll" mod for simply stating what I believed to be the facts, you got modded INFORMATIVE for making a personal attack on me for absolutely no reason. One mistake doesn't entitle you to childish insults. I don't know why people want to live in a fantasy word. The truth is the truth. By the way, you should calm down before you have a stroke or something.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    9. Re:Soviet tactics by pnuema · · Score: 1
      "Innocent mistakes" like that are well known Fox tactics. I'm so used to hearing them, that whenever I hear someone claiming facts not in evidence, I assume it was because they were deliberately misinformed - as a result of watching Fox - and therefore, an idiot.

      I was modded informative because I actually informed, which was exactly the opposite of what you did. Getting to insult you in the process was just added sugar.

  31. Internet privacy? by WeeBit · · Score: 1

    There is no privacy online. The Internet is our biggest postcard. Treat it as such.

    Online Security never really has been secure for all. There are many levels of risk. Social risk is just one of the many.

  32. Re:Bullshit statement (do they think we're stupid? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 0

    Considering they're hiring prison guards, that's a fair assumption.

    They're hiring people to guard society's most violent people (murders, rapists, child molesters, etc). You don't want 'nice friendly chaps' doing that kind of work. I want the friendly people the state hires to work at the DMV or other places where dealing with the state sucks. I want prison guards to be able to control the prison population, which isn't done by saying please and thank you.

  33. In other news. by GottMitUns · · Score: 1

    The U.S. Attorney's office in Baltimore confirmed that there have been arrests in a federal investigation into police corruption. Vicki LeDuc with the U.S. Attorney said she can only confirm that there have been arrests of city police officers and it involves a corruption investigation. She declined to say more.

  34. Re:Bullshit statement (do they think we're stupid? by uncanny · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because half of the guards at the place i worked were either IN the military, or retired military. Quite a few were going to college part time, myself included. Even though i hated the job, the only reason i stayed as long as i did were my co-workers. If you think all prison guards are just power hungry police-squad drop-outs you show your ignorance very well.
    But hey, lets just let all those child molesters, murderers, thieves etc, out and see how safe you feel.

  35. Re:Bullshit statement (do they think we're stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was wondering the same thing... It's not on urbandictionary

  36. Said the Anonymous Coward... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As if I can't create two facebook accounts, and give them the sock puppet of my own choosing. ...and if I didn't use Facebook, wouldn't the account I give be a sock puppet anyway?

  37. Fizzle by wiedzmin · · Score: 2

    I don't have a Facebook account. No, really, I don't. Now what? I don't get hired? Sounds like a lawsuit to me.

    --
    Bow before me, for I am root.
  38. Re:Bullshit statement (do they think we're stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Drop the hanky is a game where women drop a hanky and men pick it up. Baiscally a seduction game.

    BTW the first time I was asked the question the only thing I could think of was drop the soap, so I said no.

  39. Re:Bullshit statement (do they think we're stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strange, I made the original post and I did not know what it meant.

  40. Stupid stupid stupid stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to America.

    Bend over.

  41. Another good reason by jschmitz · · Score: 1

    not to have a Facebook acct - what bull$%^#$%#

  42. Re:Bullshit statement (do they think we're stupid? by dcollins · · Score: 1

    The point is, they think we're too weak to do anything about it.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  43. Re:Bullshit statement (do they think we're stupid? by Surt · · Score: 1
    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  44. Terms Of Service? by Eggbloke · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure sharing your password/account is against facebook's terms of service?
    Who would agree to give someone their password anyway?

    --
    I care not for your karma and your mod points.
    1. Re:Terms Of Service? by mla_anderson · · Score: 1

      Snippits from the TOS: Safety: 5. You will not solicit login information or access an account belonging to someone else. ... 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.

      --
      Sig is on vacation
  45. They ought not to be allowed to ask at all. by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    Entirely aside from the direct attack on privacy that asking for social networking login info represents, this policy is an insidious way of 'un-levelling' the playing field in favour of ass-kissing suck-ups who would sell their souls for job advancement. Those who co-operate are likely to get preferential treatment come review time, while those who protect their privacy, (and by extension ours as well), are likely to be discriminated against in subtle or not-so-subtle ways. Such prying into individuals' personal lives on the part of ANY employer should be made illegal, with stiff penalties for first offences and even more onerous ones for repeat offences.

    45-day review of the policy? Get stuffed, you bastards! You don't own ANY part of me beyond working hours, and my private life is none of your fucking business!

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:They ought not to be allowed to ask at all. by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

      "In a statement, the department said requests for user names and passwords had been voluntary, and had not been taken into account when evaluating job applicants."

      cough*bullshit*cough

      A 45-day review is not a win...it's a stalling tactic! Making sure it more consistently asked in the interview or other process across the board is NOT acceptable.

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
  46. Sure, work accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give them the accounts you use for work related activities. Then again, the employer could require setting up a work related account for the employee anyway. It's part of the business suit or uniform of the networked government employee, after all. Does your government employer really want to see how you dressed up as a gay Hitler with a touch of pink last Halloween, or that you're into the group thing and wife swapping with the reservations for the relevant hotels for the next holiday season?

  47. Re:Bullshit statement (do they think we're stupid? by jahudabudy · · Score: 2

    But hey, lets just let all those child molesters, murderers, thieves etc, out and see how safe you feel.

    You mean drug users, right? Cause the number of arrests for drug abuse has risen dramatically, while all other crime has dropped (in some cases just as dramatically) in the last 15-20 years. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=kftp&tid=3

    --
    ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
  48. They key to this is by re_organeyes · · Score: 0

    Don't have a facebook, twitter or any other social networking account. What can they ask you for then?

  49. Re:Bullshit statement (do they think we're stupid? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    If they can't show the information wasn't used when provided, they've opened themselves up to serious legal liability.

    Facebook profiles have entries for birthdays (and hence age) and religion, just to consider two potentially protected categories off the top of my head (age is only protected if it's 40-65). Facebook accounts are encouraged to have photos, which will normally show race.

    This means that, if you applied for a job there that you were qualified for, provided your username and password as requested, and have anything halfway specific in the religion field or a birthday showing an age between 40 and 65 inclusive, or a photo showing your race, or other information showing you're in a protected category, and they hired somebody besides you, you may have a case of illegal discrimination under Federal employment law.

    It may be that the state government can handle all of these claims, but the fact that they may have to should factor into some people's annual evaluations.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  50. Re:Bullshit statement (do they think we're stupid? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They're hiring people to guard society's most violent people (murders, rapists, child molesters, etc). You don't want 'nice friendly chaps' doing that kind of work.

    They're hiring people to guard people who have either fucked up, either big time, like murder, or small time, like shoplifting. Either way, most of those people are going to get out eventually, and whether or not they fuck up again depends partly on how they are treated during their time in prison. Do they learn job skills that expand their economic opportunities? Do they learn the social and behavior skills to get along?

    Prison guards are part of the process of rehabilitation. In a sane society, the job would pay six figures and require an advanced degree in criminology (plus extensive martial arts training).

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  51. Re:Bullshit statement (do they think we're stupid? by ls671 · · Score: 2

    Thanks for the link, very instructive !

    Previous posters that mentioned having something dirtier in mind while trying to figure out what the expression means probably imagined dropping something like this :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Hankey,_the_Christmas_Poo

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  52. Re:Bullshit statement (do they think we're stupid? by uncanny · · Score: 1

    I meant what I said and "do you mean" is a rude statement. The place I worked at mostly incarcerated sex offenders, so yeah, I felt good about keeping them in there.

  53. Too cheap/lazy for a clearence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What they really want is to have the corrections officers officially cleared, but they're too cheap or lazy to do it, so they just say give us your password or you won't get the job.

  54. Learn English before you try to teach it by GillyGuthrie · · Score: 1

    Learn the difference between "to" and "too" dammit!

    I'm tired of grammatically incompetent know-it-alls. You have two errors in your "correction." You need a comma before "dammit." Also, "damn it" is the correct way to damn somebody. Good lord the internets is full of tards.

    1. Re:Learn English before you try to teach it by igreaterthanu · · Score: 1

      I'm tired of grammatically incompetent know-it-alls. You have two errors in your "correction." You need a comma before "the internets." Also, "the internets are full of tards" is the correct way to state that. Good lord, the internets are full of tards.

      --
      I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
    2. Re:Learn English before you try to teach it by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      HEYY are, you too proof reading the internests again?

  55. Ah, bureaucracy. by Killer+Eye · · Score: 1

    What the hell...45 days to "review" a "procedure"? Pure bureaucracy. We need just one reasonable person to spend 10 seconds using a Sharpie to cross out this step in the "procedure" so life can go on.

    --
    "Microsoft killed my company, I hold a personal grudge. I don't use Microsoft products and neither should you."-JWZ
  56. hell no by shentino · · Score: 1

    Private passwords?

    Hello?

    No, you do not share your username and password with your boss, and your boss has no ****ing business even asking for it in the first place!

    This sort of invasion of one's privacy is completely unacceptable. And any boss that asks for this stuff, let alone makes it a condition of employment, is either an oppressive snoop looking to play brain cop, totally clueless about technology and/or personal boundaries, or both.

    This is the sort of information we hold a deathgrip on unless a warrant or subpoena pries it from our cold dead hands. There is no fucking WAY a boss in the private sector has any business even thinking about this.

    Stand your ground, and if your boss tells you to take a hike after you refuse to cough it up, then move on and be glad you dodged a bullet.

    1. Re:hell no by rgviza · · Score: 1

      This is what I was thinking. What's next, bank account logins so they can see what your spending patterns are?

      You can tell a lot about a person by how, where, and when they spend money. This is important too right?

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
  57. I learned my lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last year I was pressured to quit my job over Facebook. Well, not Facebook per se, but because of serious privacy concerns. I had been there over a year and didn't think of the repercussions of friending coworkers. One day as soon as I got to work I had an unscheduled meeting, in which my Facebook actions were discussed. This took me by surprise, because I rarely post anything and never anything work-related. I was then told that they forced a coworker to login to their Facebook account so they could read private messages that I wrote. Please note: PRIVATE messages, not wall posts or comments. The content wasn't anything of importance. What was important was that it was a huge violation of privacy. The messages were written on my time and from my equipment. What's next, demanding to see employee's phones to see who they're calling/txting?

    I was told that I was not being fired, and I told them that while I'm not a lawyer and have no idea if their actions were legal, their actions were totally unethical. Then walked out.

    I do understand why employers want to keep tabs on their employees, but spying on them is not the way to do it. If my boss is concerned about my social life via networking sites, all my company has to do is ask me. I am more comfortable with the thought that management is not afraid to confront me immediately, rather than going behind my back. I found out later that what I wrote had been sent 5 months earlier. I would never give up passwords to any sites I'm on for any reason. However, even if I did, I'm sure they'd be shocked that the only dirt they'd find on me is that I like hockey.

  58. Facebook ... Security ... by Kittenman · · Score: 1

    Same old same old ....

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
  59. consistently and appropriately? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only consistent and appropriate use by government officials of my personal passwords is: none at all.

  60. Other information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps you'd like a look in my medicine cabinet too?

    Boxers or briefs?

    Maybe just my bank card and PIN?

  61. Monsters are to be killed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    kill the Monsters!

    BHO ... the heighest USA Oligarch in existance.

    What a waiste ... BHO (in the press) tells Gadafi to "Cool it!" In private tellaphone communication BHO tells Gadafi "Kill the Protersters! Dammit!"

    Why? Gadafi's Libya is THE cornerstone of the Bush-Obama Terror Network.

    Your US tax dollars are being uses to kill the protesters!

    Hillary-Billy Clinton ... what a waiste of protoplasm ... should have been dead years ago!

    -308

  62. NOT taken into account when evaluating applicants? by D4C5CE · · Score: 1

    had not been taken into account when evaluating job applicants

    But they should have: No-one deciding to breach the terms of a security-relevant agreement (with the social networking provider in the instant case) for personal gain should work at a correctional facility.
    Only candidates declining this outrageous request should have deemed eligible for the job, as all others may be expected to become just as oblivious to provisions of the laws and contracts governing their high-risk employment.

  63. Re:NOT taken into account when evaluating applican by rgviza · · Score: 1

    > No-one deciding to breach the terms of a security-relevant agreement (with the social networking provider in the instant case) for personal gain should work at a correctional facility.

    Neither should people that ask you to breach the terms of a security-relevant agreement.

    --
    Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
  64. NOT taken into account when evaluating applicants? by D4C5CE · · Score: 1

    > No-one deciding to breach the terms of a security-relevant agreement (with the social networking provider in the instant case) for personal gain should work at a correctional facility.

    Neither should people that ask you to breach the terms of a security-relevant agreement.

    Of course not, but if they did, the interviewer's defense (credibility aside) might be that it was just a test of the applicant's ethics and integrity.
    Having demonstrated their neglect for either, in front of the recruiting officers, those consenting to that demand should never be given such jobs (what if otherwise an inmate ever similarly offered them a "bonus" to their wage later on?), even if the request had been made in bad faith, i.e. to actually access applicant's personal information.
    Goes without saying that those asking the question, and everyone in command responsibility for them, should be fired all the same (and possibly indicted where applicable).

  65. Re:Bullshit statement (do they think we're stupid? by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

    Rude? Possibly, but less rude than flat out accusing you of making false claims (either intentionally or unintentionally) in order to exaggerate your own perceived worth to society. You were trying to imply that you served as some sort of protector for society by locking away the big scary men. I pointed out most of those you locked away weren't a threat. So now you retort that they were in fact sex offenders (OMG, think of the children!). Sorry, also not protecting society. The vast majority of sex offenders are not repeat offenders (less than most other crimes) and most actual sexual assaults come from friends and family. Since I don't personally know anyone in prison for sexual assault, my chances of being assaulted if they were all let out of prison would increase by almost nothing.

    Do these people deserve to be in prison? For the sake of argument, we'll assume a perfect justice system and say yes. Is a prison guard serving a useful function? Yes. But the idea that you and the chip on your shoulder retort "You can't criticize us b/c without us you would be raped and killed in your sleep!" is simply an offensive, dishonest statement. And one that doesn't directly address the assertion that prison guards are stupider than the general population; indirectly, it certainly seems to support it.

    --
    ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
  66. Re:Bullshit statement (do they think we're stupid? by sznupi · · Score: 1

    Personal analogy time?

    Alright... 1) one of primary school bullies (close to the bottom of their pack though... simply because he was nearly most stupid) 2) an extended family member following generally the least demanding routes of educational system, rejected by police recruitment process 3) an educator of sorts at local prison, rehabilitation mostly via paper models group last time I checked, overall a nice guy and leading such classes with kids in the open.
    2 out of 3...

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter