Why Making Facebook Private Won't Protect You

itwbennett writes "Facebook's privacy settings, such as they are, don't hold up in the face of prospective employers who demand to see applicants' profiles. In an MSNBC report, Bob Sullivan found that 'in Maryland, job seekers applying to the state's Department of Corrections have been asked during interviews to log into their accounts and let an interviewer watch while the potential employee clicks through wall posts, friends, photos and anything else that might be found behind the privacy wall. ... Meanwhile, on the other side of the barbed wire fence, coaches and administrators are forcing student athletes to 'friend' them in order to monitor their activity of social sites."

Comments

An easy solution

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Never register there, period.

Re:An easy solution

[PARENA]

Better solution if you do use Facebook: laugh at the people demanding to see what you're up to and walk away.

Re:An easy solution

[L4t3r4lu5]

Simple until a prospective employer asks you to log in.

"I don't have an account." = Liar. Don't hire him.
"I don't have an account." = Something to hide. Don't hire him.
"I don't have an account." = Antisocial, won't work well with others. Don't hire him.

"I don't have an account." = Has a brain, probably won't follow my instructions unquestioningly and take the blame for fuck ups silently. Don't hire him.

The only winning move is not to play, and by that I mean walking out of interviews. Yes, easier said than done if you don't have a job, but hey... "They tree of liberty..." etc.

Re:An easy solution

[ZeroSumHappiness]

If it's a checkbox requirement, that won't help. "Don't have an account." "Right. Refused to log into Facebook. And now Google+, please."

I'm not usually one for regulation, but this seems like an easy one. Employers must not require employees, contractors or applicants to interact with the company through any social networking service with their personal accounts. Employers must not require employees, contractors or applicants to utilize any social networking service with their personal accounts. Employers may require employees to interact with the company and use a company-provided account on a social networking service as part of their regular job. This could easily fit into a fair employment act.

(I look forward to holes being poked in my prospective law.)

Re:An easy solution

[Joce640k]

Which leads to the next question: What do those same employers do if you say "I'm not on Facebook"?

Re:An easy solution

[masternerdguy]

This. I no longer feel sorry for the privacy violations of facebook users.

Re:An easy solution

[billcopc]

Yes. Walk out of interviews. People have this fucked up notion that getting a job is some fantastic gift from heaven. No. Employers need you more than you need them. Even fucking Wal-Mart. No people = no profits.

If your employer can't respect your privacy, they won't respect you at all. Being treated like shit is not worth the $40k salary.

Re:An easy solution

[AGMW]

How about maintain two FB profiles, one for friends and one 'work safe' one with work colleagues on it. I know several of my friends kids maintain two profiles, one for friends and one for Mum & Dad and it works a treat!

Of course, you could just ask them to login too, and you can skim through their page(s) whilst they do the same to yours! As others have said, simply tell them you're not on FB (or any of the others) but you are willing to start one up if it is a requirement.

... and my personal favourite, ask them to send you a friend request and you'll consider their application!

Re:An easy solution

[MoonBuggy]

While I couldn't agree with you more, and wouldn't in a million years be willing to work for an organisation who would do something like that, it's still worth remembering that "choice" for many people boils down to "Give us your password or enjoy another six months of unemployment.". The issue is certainly exacerbated by the fact that plenty of people will roll over in any case, but the coercive element is what really keeps things like this going. That and the moronic managers who actually feel they have something to gain by this kind of thing, anyway.

The question, of course, is what to do about it? That's where I'm stuck - it is a problem in itself, and an outright ban would solve it (assuming one feels that doing so is within the government's rights), but it would do nothing about the mentality that led here in the first place.

Re:An easy solution

[TheRaven64]

On the other hand, someone who assumes that everyone has a Facebook account is probably not someone I'd want to work for. Someone who delegates something as important as communication to a third party with no incentive (financial or otherwise) to act in their interests is probably not someone who is going to make good business decisions. They're likely to pick supplies based on what the salesman says or what everyone else is using rather than actually analysing what is the best tool for the job, for example.

Re:An easy solution

[MoonBuggy]

Practically that'll probably work (although it's by no means guaranteed), but it shows tacit approval of this invasive idiocy when the real response should make clear that what they are doing is wrong. Of course, that does assume the ability to walk away from a job opportunity without excessive repercussions...

Re:An easy solution

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

There are certainly excellent reasons to never touch Zuckerburg's kool-aid; but that isn't really the core of the problem here:

Facebook is one stop shopping for the petty snoop; but the problem(in this context, there are other contexts, with their own problems) is the number of petty snoops who, de facto, have enough power over you to force you to use your own credentials to defeat whatever trivial privacy barriers get in their way. Facebook makes it dangerously simple; but the fact that HR flacks or educational admin types have, and shamelessly exercise, the ability to demand access is a more fundamentally problematic thing...

Re:An easy solution

[Brian Feldman]

Whooooooooooooa, you think social networks have no incentive to act in the interests of their users? What the hell do you think they're for? Have you ever BEEN on a social network?

Re:An easy solution

[darjen]

Sign up on Facebook, add some friends, then simply don't post anything. No comments or status updates. Check occasionally if someone tags you in a picture and remove it if they do.

If you have been unemployed for 6 months and you really need the job, walking out may not be the best possible option.

Re:An easy solution

[gorzek]

Except an employer doesn't need you. They just need someone. If it's a highly competitive position, they aren't going to give a shit if you walk out--they've got 100 other candidates to pick from, and only a handful might pull the same "I'm not sharing my Facebook info" routine.

Re:An easy solution

[SpzToid]

If you were to ask for a citation, then I'm too lazy to comply (because we're talking about Facebook after all) but I do believe the Facebook Corporation Terms of Service (TOS) forbid this sort of activity. Your suggestion makes a lot of sense from your own personal perspective, but the Facebook Corporation doesn't care. The Facebook Corporation cares much more about the quality of the DATA for which the Facebook Corporation can (very profitably) charge advertisers.

Re:An easy solution

[gorzek]

You're either a liar, a paranoid lunatic, or socially crippled. Either way, they don't want you.

Re:An easy solution

[l3v1]

FB would probably be glad, 1.5-2x "increase" in users :)

Re:An easy solution

[Guppy06]

Employers must not require employees, contractors or applicants to interact with the company through any social networking service with their personal accounts.

That's adorable.

Now, what if the employer has a "moral objection" to that? After all, employees can always go find another employer if they don't like it, right?

This is one bill that will never be seen outside of committee.

Re:An easy solution

[Sique]

The users of Facebook are the advertisers, who get a look at the large database collections. Of course Facebook caters to their needs.

The ones with the profiles on Facebook are the suppliers of information to be sold to the users.

Re:An easy solution

[DrgnDancer]

Of course, that does assume the ability to walk away from a job opportunity without excessive repercussions...

Therein lies the problem, of course. My first reaction on seeing this was "Right, I'm not taking that job... I'm not even finishing the interview." Then I thought back to a few periods in my life where my ability to live without outside support had been put into serious question by lack of employment; and realized that while I may say that now, there have been times and may be times again where I needed the job. It's easy to be choosey from the relative comfort of a pretty good paying job. I have enough savings now that I'd be fine for several months at least in the event of job loss, so I don't see me being that desperate any time soon. But let's face it. Life's sometimes a bitch. Anything could happen.

That said, I've held a security clearance, and known people with even higher security ratings; and even the Feds don't go demanding to see your Facebook profile. This shit is ridiculous.

Re:An easy solution

[l3v1]

So, that means I shouldn't have a job. But I do. You shouldn't always take all the crap that's thrown at you.

Re:An easy solution

[pla]

How about maintain two FB profiles, one for friends and one 'work safe' one with work colleagues on it.

Better solution - Maintain a fake 2nd page covered in information about how much you support various federally protected classes to which you may (or may not) actually belong.

Then watch them squirm when they try to come up with any plausible reason to give the job to the boss' young white Christian nephew rather than to a reasonably qualified older gay Muslim African-American (whether in the "Samuel Jackson" or the "Dave Matthews" sense of the term).

Asking for access to personal material opens a whole can of legal issues that most employers don't want, and it surprises me any would actively seek to subject themselves to such accusations. Hell, my own current employer actually has a policy banning managers from searching the intarwebs for job applicants, just to avoid these issues.

Re:An easy solution

[Ethanol-fueled]

I know people who have had their unemployment extended three times. They say that there's no incentive to find work flipping burgers or working retail only to make less than what their unemployment pays them, and I agree wholeheartedly.

Before I found my job I was unemployed for 9 months(though I was going to school), but I could be choosy in picking the jobs I was offered. When one that was willing to pay me what I wanted opened up, bam, I was back in action.

Re:An easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

They have only an incentive to SEEM like they act in the interests of their users. Their real incentive is to act in the interest of the folks paying them for the information.

Re:An easy solution

[gorzek]

Well, I was just viewing it from the perspective of your typical HR dunce. :) "What do you mean, you don't have a Facebook account? Is something wrong with you??"

Re:An easy solution

[glop]

Indeed, that's why we need to sue them for discrimination and any other statute that applies.
We just need one high profile case that just settles and their lawyers will be advising all employers to stay clear from Facebook.
And Facebook could help: they could update their terms of service to make it a violation of their terms of service to allow people to look at your Facebook page since it invades the privacy of the other users that trusted you.

Facebook (or Google) has a role here. They can organize the defense of their users. If they don't, I expect people will have a bland Facebook page and do all their fun interaction on some other website that allows nicknames and doesn't let you search by public names...

Re:An easy solution

[duguk]

Facebook has said its users should only have one account per physical human being, and if it catches people using two accounts it will delete one of them.

They'll delete him? That's murder!

Re:An easy solution

[jimbolauski]

If it's a checkbox requirement, that won't help. "Don't have an account." "Right. Refused to log into Facebook. And now Google+, please."

I'm not usually one for regulation, but this seems like an easy one. Employers must not require employees, contractors or applicants to interact with the company through any social networking service with their personal accounts. Employers must not require employees, contractors or applicants to utilize any social networking service with their personal accounts. Employers may require employees to interact with the company and use a company-provided account on a social networking service as part of their regular job. This could easily fit into a fair employment act.

(I look forward to holes being poked in my prospective law.)

An employer can ask to pull your credit, interview your friends and family, interview neighbors, give you a polygraph, administer a drug test, to make sure you are not at risk to be put in a compromising position, we even demand that our politicians submit their tax documents to us. This has been going on for a long time with little push back, now when an employer wants to see who your friends are to make sure you don't have gang affiliations before you become a corrections officer, this is over the top. If you have a problem with your employer looking at that refuse, you are voluntarily giving that information to them. The only question I wonder about is would an employer have the grounds to deny unemployment if you refused?

Re:An easy solution

[gorzek]

I don't think what you are talking about falls under any kind of anti-discrimination law. Privacy law, perhaps. But the US is notoriously lax about protecting people's privacy in just about any context, with the big bold exception of health information.

I do think employers should be forbidden from examining what you do off the clock, unless they have what you would legally call a "demonstrable need" for such information. Say, for instance, you are a TV news anchor--therefore a recognizable, public individual. What people see you doing during your off time would obviously reflect on your employer.

But Joe Programmer? Nobody knows who the fuck he is, so if he gets shitfaced on the weekends and pics are put on Facebook, does that really reflect on his employer at all? You'd be hard-pressed to make that case.

Re:An easy solution

[DrgnDancer]

No, employers need an employee more than you need them. If you're the only applicant, that certainly gives you an advantage. The chances that you're the only applicant are slim though, and much slimmer for a menial job that anyone can do like Walmart checker. For a highly skilled programmer or senior network/system/database admin position it might be said that the employer needs "you"; for a security guard or cashier's job the employers needs a body. If your body walks out, the next one will probably do just as well. What the article talks is some bullshit, and something should be done, but telling a guy with a mortgage and two kids to just "walk out" on a position when he's unemployed is bullshit too.

These days I'm lucky enough to be in the pool of people with skills and experience sufficient that employers want "me", not just someone; but I've been in the position of guy who needs a job and needs it now. It's not a fun place to be.

Re:An easy solution

[gorzek]

So... if you are the AC who made the post I originally replied to, your point doesn't hold up. The employer won't care that you walked out. You'll be out of a job, they'll easily have someone else fill the position.

Re:An easy solution

[Apothem]

This. A million times this. The fact that employers get away with this and the Feds can't really shows that there is something seriously wrong. Coporations can invade us day and night blatantly, but if you're a federal agency you might need to jump through some hoops first. Since when are corporations allowed to go above the law?

Re:An easy solution

[jones_supa]

Never register there, period.

But then you don't get any of the benefits of Facebook either. Occasionally there might be some useful information about events, the school you are in, etc. stuff which you might not hear elsewhere. FB is handy for contacting people too. It's maybe optimal to be in the wagon at least with a simple account.

Re:An easy solution

[darjen]

what if they do a search for you and find your second profile? they could accuse you of hiding things from them and you will still end up not getting hired.

Re:An easy solution

[Nursie]

Second solution - Say "no way, I'm not letting you in to my facebook, mail or other accounts, you have no right and no cause", and then walk away, because you don't want to work there anywhere.

Re:An easy solution

[Oligonicella]

I had one prospective employer ask if I had a FB account. "No. That's just too first grade for me."

Interesting reaction. He really wanted to ask something, but he kind of shut down in three of four steps and went on to something else.

No, I didn't take that job anyway. Other reasons. You can always out-wit the PHBs.

Re:An easy solution

[LiENUS]

That said, I've held a security clearance, and known people with even higher security ratings; and even the Feds don't go demanding to see your Facebook profile. This shit is ridiculous.

Haha that seems a bit naive. Just because they don't demand you show them your profile doesn't mean they don't have Facebook show them your profile. I use to work at a prison and the Lt Col over me would tell me stories of when he use to do security clearance checks. Most of the people he interviewed didn't even know he was interviewing them.

Re:An easy solution

[billcopc]

I don't know, even in the somewhat crowded field of I.T., we have trouble finding good people for our team. If you're applying at a giant megacorp, I could see how the numbers could work against you. I had a big government job over a decade ago, hated it, and have stuck with small gigs ever since. The money is just as good, and I don't have to put up with bureaucrats and unions and all that other deadweight that comes with critically bloated businesses.

Re:An easy solution

[Sancho]

An employer can ask to pull your credit, interview your friends and family, interview neighbors, give you a polygraph, administer a drug test, to make sure you are not at risk to be put in a compromising position

Hmm. http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/eppa.htm disagrees.

I think we'll eventually see restrictions on pulling credit reports and asking for service credentials for most employers. It will become a fairly big issue in the future, as credit scores plummet due to the mismanagement of the economy (for the credit reports) and as social media becomes even more commonplace.

Re:An easy solution

[JasterBobaMereel]

Facebook is a commodity to the users (Advertisers) because people share information on it...

If employers regularly demand this then people will either,
        stop using Facebook (bad for Facebook)
        be very careful what information they put on facebook (Bad for Facebook)

Perhaps Facebook should be fighting this ?

Re:An easy solution

[gl4ss]

but it does give them access to your health information, to your sexual information, to your marriage status, to your religion.. look, in most cases it's illegal for the potential employer to sniff around the facebook profile even if it was public(no shitting! but guess how many do that? actually applies to most western countries).

walking out of the interview wouldn't be good though, saying that you wont access it would be the right thing and to continue the interview as usual - and THEN sue them when you're denied the job - if possible get the reason for dismissal in audio or even better in writing.

Re:An easy solution

[DrgnDancer]

Well, I'm pretty sure that they can't get a warrant to search my account, and I *know* that it's illegal for them to hack it. I must therefore theorize that since they didn't get me to log in for them, they didn't look at anything that wasn't public. Clearance background checks are quite thorough, but they don't break laws or obtain warrants to conduct them. They don't need to, if you don't provide what they need to complete the investigation you don't get the clearance.

Re:An easy solution

[whargoul]

Your response, "Sorry Mr. Employer, that's not me. There's several Joe Schmoes on FaceBook."
Just keep your profile private and your pic unidentifiable.
Problem solved.

Re:An easy solution

[TheGratefulNet]

best strategy is not to play.

there is nothing on FB that you need. stop thinking that it helps you. it will only hurt you in the long-run.

see it now or pay for your ignorance later. your choice.

Re:An easy solution

[bickerdyke]

well then it's up to them to proove that it's my profile and not that of my namesake. OTOH, you know when you're applying somewhere and keep a low profile with your real profiles during that time.

Re:An easy solution

[gorzek]

Well, I guess it depends on who is vetting the candidates. If someone in HR is doing this screening, then your resume may not ever make it to someone technical who can see that you're a good candidate for the position. HR just throws you in the trash since you wouldn't cooperate and open up your Facebook details.

And it's not like the development department is typically going to be setting HR's recruitment policies.

Re:An easy solution

[coffeeyesplease]

It's a dammed if you and dammed if you don't sort of thing. The same Bob Sullivan for MSNBC or someone at Fox would happily report about a prison guard being Facebook's best friend in some inmate and how we're all in danger because of it. It's all find and dandy until the next media storm or PR disaster when it comes to any public service departments.

Re:An easy solution

[gorzek]

They aren't forbidden to know that information, they just aren't allowed to not hire you as a result of it (was that enough negatives for you?).

It is not illegal to deny you a job just because you wouldn't share your Facebook info, though. There is just no law about that, as far as I know. There are things they definitely can't ask, but social networking info isn't one of them.

Re:An easy solution

[rogueippacket]

Pretty much this. If you're stuck doing the song and dance for HR to get a job, it's your choice how to respond - we've all had to play that game to get past the front-door at some point in our lives.
But if this is coming from your future manager, and they insist that you show them your Facebook account, you should ask some serious questions about whether you want to work there or not. Any manager worth their salt will assess your "fit" for the team by simply having a coffee with you - only the inept or lazy will try to distill it down to the contents of your Facebook account, and this is likely the first in a long barrage of crap if you do take the job.

Re:An easy solution

[tsa]

Exactly. I wouldn't want to work for people like that.

Re:An easy solution

[nitehawk214]

I had one prospective employer ask if I had a FB account. "No. That's just too first grade for me."

Interesting reaction. He really wanted to ask something, but he kind of shut down in three of four steps and went on to something else.

No, I didn't take that job anyway. Other reasons. You can always out-wit the PHBs.

But did/do you have one?

I suppose I would answer with a question "Why do you want to know?" (Yeah I know this pisses a lot of interviewers off. I am not one of them, however, I want people to answer my interview questions with another question, it shows they are thinking.)

If they just wanted to use Facebook as an example for some scenario, I would answer differently than if someone someone wanted to mention their batshit insane policy.

Regardless if I have x or y social media account, I will respectfully and efficiently terminate any interview where social media contact is an issue. Regardless of the legality or ethics of snooping personal info, I just don't see myself working at a place where that level of pervasiveness is required. As an interviewee I actually ask about personnel policies. Most people do not even know about them until they read the employee handbook (well after they have accepted their offer and started work).

This is related to companies with the "we own anything you think about while you work here" policy. I worked at a place that got acquired and decided to change the agreement to including a "no side work" policy, and you cannot work in the "same industry within 100 miles any city we have an office (by the way we have an office within 100 miles of every city in your country)" policy. I just flatly refused to sign the new agreement, and informed my coworkers to do the same. The company allowed us to add a grandfather clause on this. And even then they tried suing a group of my friends that left for a competitor.

I lost track of where I was going with this, except that... "Fuck any company that tries to implement an overreaching employee policy. Especially if it is legal."

Re:An easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

How about maintain two FB profiles, one for friends and one 'work safe' one with work colleagues on it.

If maintaining TWO facebook profiles is the answer, it must be a damn stupid question.

Re:An easy solution

[realityimpaired]

Considering that the interview was for work in a prison, perhaps there's another reason?

If I were hiring people to be peace officers, and asked them to show me their Facebook profile during an interview, I would not hire anybody who accepted and let me look at the profile. If they don't understand that it's wrong to search without probable cause to suspect wrongdoing, then I don't want them in that job.

Then again, the fact that I think like that would probably disqualify me from being in a position where I'm making that kind of hiring decision....

Re:An easy solution

[MitchDev]

No, the best solution is to live life free of this kind of tyranny and stand up to it when it rears it's ugly head. Why are people so STUPID they say shit like "Just don;t use Facebook, it's noting useful"? Fucking ignorant, just because you don't like or want it doesn't mean no one else does. Besides, the bigger factor is it's none of an employers business what you do off the clock...

Re:An easy solution

[Minupla]

There is something between a warrent and hacking. It's called "asking". If facebook recieves a request for information from a fedreal agency, they can choose to comply (I doubt there's anything in the contract you have with them that prohibits it) of their own free will. No warrent required.

The feds might even say "Please".

Min

Re:An easy solution

[mapkinase]

Where are unions on this?

Re:An easy solution

[gorzek]

You are correct. But, again, proving discrimination is very difficult, and in fact it's just about impossible for a plaintiff to win unless there exists somewhere in writing (or on a recording) that you didn't hire so-and-so specifically because of their race/religion/sex/etc. And most people won't even bother to sue because of that.

Re:An easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Recently at work, I needed to create a facebook app.
"Okay then, I'll just register a new facebook account as my work identity and get on that".

No go. Facebook only allows one account per human. In order to work on something for company A, I'd need to use the same profile as that which I've used for work with company B, which is the same profile my mother-in-law posts to all day complaining about the fact that she no longer receives enough from government hand-outs to "make a profit" (her words).

I would prefer to keep these roles separate.

Re:An easy solution

[geekmux]

Whooooooooooooa, you think social networks have no incentive to act in the interests of their users? What the hell do you think they're for? Have you ever BEEN on a social network?

Oh please, go ahead and entertain us with the "value add" of Farcebooks privacy policy that changes with the wind...oh please enlighten me as to how that nightmare somehow provides USERS with incentives.

Facebook does not exist for YOU or anyone else. It exists as any other business exists. To make money, usually at the cost of you or your privacy, which it changes said policy on a whim whenever it smells enough profit behind a few mouse clicks.

Re:An easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that the interview was for work in a prison, perhaps there's another reason?

If I were hiring people to be peace officers, and asked them to show me their Facebook profile during an interview, I would not hire anybody who accepted and let me look at the profile. If they don't understand that it's wrong to search without probable cause to suspect wrongdoing, then I don't want them in that job.

Then again, the fact that I think like that would probably disqualify me from being in a position where I'm making that kind of hiring decision....

So you'd fire a bunch of highly competent and nice people because they fell to detect some test that might not even make sense unless you realize it's there? If you FORCE me to show you my facebook profile, then I'll ask walk away from the interview. If you ask though, I might not mind (but I will certainly question you about).

The reason you're disqualified from working in HR is not that you think differently, it's that you try so hard to hire 'the best' that you'll end up firing the best and hiring the second best.

Re:An easy solution

[Technician]

This makes Facebook as dangerous for some as an employer owned internal blog. Be very careful of what you post on either forever.

They are not kidding when the employer's TOS includes phrases that include "up to termination" Meet moderation with God power to end your employment. You never will want to be moderated by them.

My FB page has very few posts and all posts are made with the risk carefully evaluated.

This abuse is why my Slashdot account is using a nickname. A forum for one of my hobbies uses another nickname.

Re:An easy solution

[nitehawk214]

Except an employer doesn't need you. They just need someone. If it's a highly competitive position, they aren't going to give a shit if you walk out--they've got 100 other candidates to pick from, and only a handful might pull the same "I'm not sharing my Facebook info" routine.

If it is the case for you where any schmuck off the street can do your job (and would be willing)... you are in the wrong line of work.

Re:An easy solution

[kamelkev]

> and even the Feds don't go demanding to see your Facebook profile.

That's probably because they don't need your permission in order to look at your profile. My understanding is that background checks by the FBI include a review of your online profiles - they just do it through a back channel that isn't public.

I recently interviewed a sysadmin who had no privacy settings on his facebook page. I found this a little troubling because I find innate privacy concerns to be a key attribute of a good sysadmin. When I asked him about this he commented on how routine follow up background checks as part of his current position (which was for a branch of the government) had made those privacy settings a farce to him. They can see the data anyway, so the only person he was fooling was himself.

Re:An easy solution

[cayenne8]

So...what happens when you tell them you do not have a Facebook or other social website account?

I mean, I don't have one, I have no need for one...and I value my privacy.

Kind of hard to prove a negative, eh?

Re:An easy solution

[thsths]

Why?

Interviews are a two way street. This is one of the best signs imaginable that this is not a company you want to work for...

Re:An easy solution

[Technician]

I have an account, but it is not very active.. = win. Few posts show you don't waste the day addicted to social media.

I post some of my community volunteer projects.

Re:An easy solution

[ftobin]

Good point about the legal issues that can arise for employers. Some people have their birth year listed on Facebook. Asking for access to their Facebook account could divulge this information and would, in effect, be the equivalent of asking someone's age, which is strictly prohibited.

Re:An easy solution

[ArsenneLupin]

So...what happens when you tell them you do not have a Facebook or other social website account?

What if they already searched for you on Facebook, found your account, saw your photos (and as soon as you walked into the room: yes, it's you on these photos).

So now you not only need to remove any compromising photos before going to an interview, but any photo showing your face.

But you can still try to convince them you did have one until yesterday, but then removed it because it was forcing you to use timeline or whatever silly excuse...

Re:An easy solution

[zzsmirkzz]

That said, I've held a security clearance, and known people with even higher security ratings; and even the Feds don't go demanding to see your Facebook profile. This shit is ridiculous.

Not to mention all of the information the hiring manager can get that they are legally not allowed to ask - like your martial status, whether you have kids, your religion or political views. This is why I would refuse, and I would tell them so, basically, it's illegal and I would report it immediately.

Re:An easy solution

[Dhalka226]

But isn't there a saying that goes something like "Never attribute to cleverness what can more easily be explained by anything other than cleverness"?

There might be some perversion of the original, but the original was from Napoleon: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

In the case of the peace officer thing, I actually think the OP has it wrong. Searching without probable cause isn't just wrong, it's illegal, and as such of course he is correct that he wouldn't want people in the job who would do so. However that's not what the situation was; the situation was somebody asking for access. It's no different to the real-life equivalent of a police officer asking if he can search your car. "No" is a perfectly acceptable answer, but it doesn't necessarily mean "yes" is wrong and it doesn't mean that it's wrong to conduct the search if given explicit permission to do so.

Re:An easy solution

[gorzek]

Fortunately, I am not that kind of schmuck. ;) But many people are, and realistically, most people always will be.

Re:An easy solution

[Dishevel]

Above the law?
You may like it or not but there is no such law.
People should move back a bit and remember you do not have a right to work for me.
The government is currently in the US trying to change that and the California government has so far done a good job of trying to make it a right but really it is not.

Now I know you want to scream at me and let me know that it is a right.
Really though it is not. If I had spent 5 years doing 100 hour weeks to build a business I would rather burn it down than put some fucking "club rat" or "thug" where a customer can ever see them. It just is not worth the risk to me. You can go get a job at a club or working with real thugs. Your rights end where they threaten mine.
Mostly I would never check Facebook profile. Mostly I can tell what type of person someone interviewing is. If I have a question though where I feel that a Facebook check would make me feel better about hiring you .... I just wont fucking hire you.

Re:An easy solution

[BMOC]

Or...

"I don't have an account." = worked in a classified environment and likely wanted to reduce exposure to data mining. Smart guy, avoids giving away information for free. Hire him/her.

There's quite a few people who are like this, moreso than might be expected considering where the DoD budget is going these days.

Re:An easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Then watch them squirm when they try to come up with any plausible reason to give the job to the boss' young white Christian nephew rather than to a reasonably qualified older gay Muslim African-American (whether in the "Samuel Jackson" or the "Dave Matthews" sense of the term).

Have you ever even been on an interview that didn't land you a job? No? Congratulations, you must be somehow superlative.

In the real world though, the one not ruled by your fantasies of induced social awkwardness, an unseccessful interview goes like this:

Hiring Manager: Hello, welcome to the interview. I will now badger you with questions.
(Hiring Manager makes superficial judgements in own mind, but does not reveal them. The harshness of the interview is determined by these unrevealed judgements)
Applicant: I will answer them as best I can.
> (Hiring Manager launches into a prying interrogation)
> (Applicant supplies answers with compliance ...or not)
> (Hiring Manager has determined that he or she simply does not like the applicant, but it might not in any way be tether to the nature or quality of the interview)
> (Hiring Manager finalizes decision, unbeknownst to applicant. The applicant is never actually informed of any decision)
> (Hiring Manager graciously brings the interview to a close)
Hiring Manager: Well it was great meeting you, we have a few other candidates that we still have to interview, but I'm sure we'll be in touch.
> (Hiring Manager supplies Draconian Overlord with interview results)
> (Draconian Overlord consults with Mount Olympus, and then hands down a decision completely out of touch with reality. Applicant still didn't get the job.)
> (Applicant never hears from that company again. The interview was unsuccessful)

And that's it. You'll never find out what actually happened in the hiring manager's mind. And even if you have deep pockets to hire a lawyer, and compell them to answer, it would simply be bullshit, albiet it well-conceived bullshit, composed in legalese. But really if you had deep pockets for a lawyer, why would you be applying for such a job anyway?

Re:An easy solution

[ArsenneLupin]

Facebook only allows one account per human

Correction: Facebook only allows one account per e-mail address. And I do hope that your work e-mail is different from your private e-mail. And that if you work for 2 masters at once, that you've got a different work e-mail for each of them.

Re:An easy solution

[Rogerborg]

Any easy solution. Never register there, period.

It almost sounds as though Failbook membership is being considered as mandatory. Are they rejecting applications who simply say "Facebook, what's that?"

Re:An easy solution

[networkBoy]

I've had one interview where they asked me for access to my private profile.
I politely asked why, since I have my profile set to private for a reason (it's for family communication only really).
Their response was that they wanted to see if I had posted anything negative about my former employer. I said, no that would be silly, it was prohibited by the NDA. They let it drop at that.
-nB

Re:An easy solution

[ArsenneLupin]

Employers need you more than you need them.

True enough. But for any job-seeker with enough spine to say no, there are hundreds lined up before the door who'll gladly pick up that bar of soap...

Re:An easy solution

[Pf0tzenpfritz]

Yes. And two bodies. One for work and one with a spine.

Re:An easy solution

[networkBoy]

Regardless if I have x or y social media account, I will respectfully and efficiently terminate any interview where social media contact is an issue

It is an issue, but one that does not need your potential employer to have access. They are within their rights to require that you not post company information. To that end they can regulate your social media. In my case that's through an NDA. Since my account is private, they have to take my word for it, but they seem to have the attitude of "if it's private then he won't be telling the world anyway, only his friends".
-nB

Re:An easy solution

[happylight]

How about "I only use FB on my home computer during my free time. I have the password saved on there so I don't have it with me."?

It's non-confrontational and doesn't make you look like a hermit.

Re:An easy solution

[networkBoy]

Wow...
Not very nice people there.
When we decline someone we actually give them a list of specific things that they were deficient in when compared to our requirements for the position. We have had multiple people thank us, and one of them came back a year later with two 100 level classes under his belt specific in the area he was deficient in asking for a new interview. We didn't interview him, just hired him (hey you show that kind of initiative then I can find *something* you can do while you learn the rest).
-nB

Re:An easy solution

[JosKarith]

Or, you can ask them if they are aware of the current court action being taken by the ACLU against a school that demanded the same of one of its pupils and explain that you could not be in all conscience party to exposing the employer to a similar liability. You may not get the job but you will impress on anyone but the stupidest that this kind of intrusion is unwarranted and egregious and may well (hopefully) be declared illegal.

Re:An easy solution

[Aryden]

Has nothing to do with the topic. A prisoner is... a prisoner. Their rights are suspended in the aspect of rights to privacy.

Re:An easy solution

[cayenne8]

Err...but I do NOT have any accounts on Facebook or other social websites....that's the point.

I really don't have one.

They can search high and low and they won't find me on one...that's the point I was making.

What if they don't believe it either?

Or...am "I" the only one left in the world now, that isn't on FB ?

Re:An easy solution

[LateArthurDent]

Really though it is not. If I had spent 5 years doing 100 hour weeks to build a business I would rather burn it down than put some fucking "club rat" or "thug" where a customer can ever see them. It just is not worth the risk to me. You can go get a job at a club or working with real thugs. Your rights end where they threaten mine.

I agree with you. I think that as the employer, you have the right to ask whatever questions you want.

That said, I also think the potential employees need to grow a spine and stop answering to unacceptable demands. You may think that how people live their lives outside work affects you, but there are plenty of people who can keep that aspect of their lives completely separate from their professional life. So when asked about their personal life, the answer for anything you do not wish to discuss is simply, "I'd rather not discuss that. These are my qualifications."

The answer to, "I'd like to see your facebook profile" is, "and I'd like to be billionaire and not have to go hunting for jobs. We can't all have what we want. I'd also like to not work for someone who would wish to invade my privacy in this way, and that's a goal I can actually achieve. Thanks for your time, but I'm not interested in the job."

Obviously, easier said then done if you need to pay the bills and feed the family, but there are tons of people who are not in a situation where they desperately need a job RIGHT NOW, and these people have no excuse to submit to unreasonable demands. You don't have to hire them, but they don't have to agree to work for you.

Re:An easy solution

[cayenne8]

People should move back a bit and remember you do not have a right to work for me....

Really though it is not. If I had spent 5 years doing 100 hour weeks to build a business I would rather burn it down than put some fucking "club rat" or "thug" where a customer can ever see them. It just is not worth the risk to me. You can go get a job at a club or working with real thugs. Your rights end where they threaten mine.

Trouble is...you're starting to now have to deal with the entitlement generation, they don't understand that it isn't their right to have everything they want, and that they deserve everything to go their way, and that life (or maybe the US) owes them a good if not more than comfortable living.

I'm against the FB questions myself...but hey, if an employer wants to us these methods to screen people, well, it is my choice to not work for that employer.

On the other hand...I just don't bother having a FB account, and have worked fairly hard (not obsessively) to keep my internet footprint small, ever since I got on in about '92-'93 sometime....

Re:An easy solution

[datavirtue]

Maybe that is why so many people use cat and chicken heads for profile photos.

Re:An easy solution

[TheLink]

Depends. Say you're lying and your facebook profile with your photo turns up in a Google search?

Re:An easy solution

[Maximum Prophet]

This xkcd about this would be something like the boss opens the FB account, finds pictures of himself with wildlife. He lets you have the job.

Re:An easy solution

[cdrguru]

Why would they want to hire someone with "medical issues" that would drive up their insurance cost?

Re:An easy solution

[cayenne8]

When we decline someone we actually give them a list of specific things that they were deficient in when compared to our requirements for the position.

That IS very nice of you.....but, VERY unusual.

Most interviews...they just never call you back at all if you didn't get the job.

Re:An easy solution

[cdrguru]

Face it, your employer is going to know all about that stuff after six months on the job anyway.

If you have problems with people knowing who you are as a person - things like sexual orientation, marital status, etc. - you aren't going to fit in anywhere except maybe as a WalMart drone.

And in the US, unlike a lot of Western European countries, they can fire you after six months once they figure out that you are being a secretive asshole that behaves like a jerk to fellow employees.

Re:An easy solution

[networkBoy]

The non cynical golden rule should always apply.
Treat others as you would like to be treated.
I really think that's all you need in life, and if everyone did that then only the psychopaths would go to war.

I would appreciate feedback if I was looked over for a job, or a promotion for that matter, I assume others would like the same from me. (not that I'm in a position to promote people, a Kingmaker I am not.)

Re:An easy solution

[cayenne8]

Where are unions on this?

I believe most states are "right to work" states...unions would not be part of the equation at all.

Re:An easy solution

[Mitchell314]

But you're also compromising the privacy of your friends' pages (without their permission), so it *is* a bit different. Your car doesn't have portals to all of your friends cars.

Re:An easy solution

[HeckRuler]

you're starting to now have to deal with the entitlement generation,

Bullshit. Life is better for the next generation. That's progress right? There are setbacks, and dips, recessions and even depressions, but making life better for our kids is the primary goal of a lot of parents out there and why they get up in the morning.
NEWSFLASH! Baby boomers were the "entitlement" generation when they were kids. "Back in my day we ate leather and LIKED IT you dang whippersnappers" was what their parents said because they grew up during THE DEPRESSION and their kids had no idea how good they have it. Hell, they're still the entitlement generation because they think they're entitled to a social security check past 65. (Because they really are entitled to it.)
The entire sentiment is one giant "back in my day..." rant. Get over yourself old man, the next generation will always expect things to be better, because things ARE better. Hopefully at least.

Re:An easy solution

[cayenne8]

I do think employers should be forbidden from examining what you do off the clock...

Well, while that would be nice..that just isn't the case.

I just saw on a 60 minutes rerun..about a company, that gave all it's employees one year from notification...to stop smoking cigarettes, or be fired.

At the end of one year...if you still smoked...even at home away from the office on your own time, and they found out about it...you were fired.

I believe they actually tested employees' hair samples or whatever for nicotine, and if you were "+"...you were fired.

I've heard people have been fired for drinking the wrong beer after work....so, yes, you can in most states, be fired for legal activities you do outside of work.

Re:An easy solution

[TBerben]

I could not agree more! No corporation should ever have less trouble invading our privacy than the government. The obvious solution is to grant the government more snooping privileges. Now where was that sarcasm mark on the keyboard?

Re:An easy solution

[cayenne8]

but it does give them access to your health information, to your sexual information, to your marriage status, to your religion.. look, in most cases it's illegal for the potential employer to sniff around the facebook profile even if it was public(no shitting! but guess how many do that? actually applies to most western countries).

Actually..I believe the only things they can be accused of discriminating against are: race, sex, religion, or national origin.

As another poster wrote...it isn't against the law even to ask you about these topics...it is just that they can't use them to not give you a job, but just asking questis about these isn't illegal.

Health and marriage questions...those are fair game, and as far as I know...they could use them not to hire you.

Even with all that...they never have to write down or give you a reason why they don't hire you..so, how would you prove otherwise, unless they told you, I'm not hiring you because you are an Indian, homosexual, transvestite devil worshiper....?

Re:An easy solution

[gorzek]

I'm well aware of that, that's why I said "employers should be forbidden", acknowledging that they currently aren't.

Re:An easy solution

[networkBoy]

Sadly that is not the case.
I don't need the games.
I don't need the albums.
I do need the connectivity to my family, half a world away. FB satisfies that need, in a rather unique way.
We use FB to schedule meeting times on Skype when we will be available.
"I'll be at my computer with Skype and the webcam from 1730 to 1815 GMT on 08 MAR 2012".
now anyone who is on my FB friends list and has skype can ring in , see the (grandkids|cousin|neice/nephew).
We've had a party line going with 5 different households. The cousins all were hollering and laughing and carrying on while parents and grandparents just sat and watched and enjoyed it.
FB is what makes that all simple to schedule across multiple people with vastly different levels of technical experience.
-nB

Re:An easy solution

[ironjaw33]

> and even the Feds don't go demanding to see your Facebook profile.

That's probably because they don't need your permission in order to look at your profile. My understanding is that background checks by the FBI include a review of your online profiles - they just do it through a back channel that isn't public.

I've heard this from someone else who sought a job in law enforcement. I'm really skeptical though. In the case of this other individual, the interviewers brought up a topic that the interviewee believed could only have been obtained from viewing his private profile. However, I'm willing to guess that the interviewers obtained this information through other means than a Facebook backdoor and used it to scare the interviewee into becoming submissive and feeling powerless.

Re:An easy solution

[spire3661]

Asking someone's age in an interview IS NOT strictly prohibited by law. It is a very nasty attack vector for a lawsuit of age discrimination, if pursued. It opens a big 'possible' liability hole, nothing more.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

Any employer who even thinks of trying this shit should be sued into the ground. There is absolutely no "freedom" here, just the added tyranny of companies using the fact that you require a job in order to support yourself to get you to bend to their will.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

If I were hiring people to be peace officers, and asked them to show me their Facebook profile during an interview, I would not hire anybody who accepted and let me look at the profile. If they don't understand that it's wrong to search without probable cause to suspect wrongdoing, then I don't want them in that job.

But, like someone above pointed out, they might think they don't have a choice, due to needing the job. You can get all high and mighty with the "you shouldn't ever be in a position where you need a job", or the, "You can always turn it down!", but the fact of the matter is, neither of these things are really true. Especially in today's economy.

Re:An easy solution

[cayenne8]

I think you misunderstand my definition of entitlement generation.

It has nothing to do with a generation working to have its kids have a better life, or anything like that.

That sentiment is common...HOWEVER, past generations, even though they had it a bit easier than the previous ones..didn't expect to not have to work to attain success. They didn't expect things to be given to them just because they were good and well...just plain existed.

We've had a generation or two of kids growing up, in an environment somewhat free of competition (everyone gets a trophy because you tried), and worry about Bobby/Suzie's self esteem. We've had soccer moms and dads, running kids everywhere about town for organized games, and activies...rather than have kids somehow make their own fun playing outdoors, entertaining themselves, rather than having parents run and helicopter around them every waking moment...or, alternatively, plant them in front of the TV with an XBOX and a bag of potato chips.

The past generations, have been shielded largely from the concept of winners and losers....and they all expect (or feel entitled) to always get that 'trophy', just because they showed up to the contest.

Re:An easy solution

[QRDeNameland]

That's exactly the issue I bring up to people when they dismiss privacy issues such as this. Even if you don't post "drunk photos", there are a number of things like health issues that you might consider innocent information in most contexts, that could be used against you in other contexts like when applying for a job.

Re:An easy solution

[dougmc]

If I were hiring people to be peace officers, and asked them to show me their Facebook profile during an interview, I would not hire anybody who accepted and let me look at the profile. If they don't understand that it's wrong to search without probable cause to suspect wrongdoing, then I don't want them in that job.

Cops certainly do have to know the rules regarding searches, but they also know how to trick people into consenting to searches when needed.

And to be fair, asking to look at your Facebook profile during a job interview is very different situation from from having a cop stop you and trying to get you to let him search your car.

Then again, the fact that I think like that would probably disqualify me from being in a position where I'm making that kind of hiring decision....

Probably.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

I think that as the employer, you have the right to ask whatever questions you want.

I don't. And I think such thinking is leading down the path to where your employer has absolute control over your life. And no, not everyone is in the position where they can "just quit", especially when doing so means going to work for some other asshole who has the same ideas.

The idea that employers should be able to do all this shit just because they're the ones with the money needs to die a terrible, terrible death.

That said, I also think the potential employees need to grow a spine and stop answering to unacceptable demands.

While that would be great, the fact of the matter is, not everyone is in a position to do so. Most people place a lot of value on the ability to eat and pay rent.

The answer to, "I'd like to see your facebook profile" is, "and I'd like to be billionaire and not have to go hunting for jobs. We can't all have what we want. I'd also like to not work for someone who would wish to invade my privacy in this way, and that's a goal I can actually achieve. Thanks for your time, but I'm not interested in the job."

And then the unemployment office comes calling, and wonders why you've blown the 3rd interview you've had in the past 2 weeks.

Re:An easy solution

[wompa164]

You sound really fun to work for. Good luck with your 100 hour weeks.

Re:An easy solution

[happyhamster]

You should take yet another step back and recall that you do not have a right to run a business either. You might have delusions that it's a right, but it's not. The very existence of your "business" depends on the society, through the government, setting up the legal framework to run businesses, maintaining law and order, maintaining monetary system, educating workforce etc. With all that infrastructure in place, the society, through government, lets you run a business as long as it's beneficial to society. For example, most businesses employ people, which is beneficial to society, so they are allowed to function. Business owner is allowed to keep some of the profits from the business as incentive.

The bottom line is that your "business" is not really yours, but a product of society. If you want to run a business, you better play nice with society and make sure you treat your employees as equals and not some underclass slaves, or you may not be allowed to use the society's infrastructure to run your shenanigans.

Re:An easy solution

[dougmc]

Kind of hard to prove a negative, eh?

Yes, but it's sometimes easy to disprove a positive.

If you tell the truth, that's fine. (Unless they don't believe you, then all they have to do is not hire you -- they don't have to prove anything.)

But if you lie, and they find it later ... you might get fired.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

you're starting to now have to deal with the entitlement generation

How is it "entitlement" to actually believe that employees have rights too? Or is it back to the whole, "That person has more money, therefore they're better than you" argument?

they don't understand that it isn't their right to have everything they want

And yet, here you are arguing that it is the employer's right to have everything they want. Double Standard much?

but hey, if an employer wants to us these methods to screen people, well, it is my choice to not work for that employer.

Not everyone even has the courtesy of an illusion of choice. For many it's either take this job, or starve.

Re:An easy solution

[dougmc]

How about maintain two FB profiles, one for friends and one 'work safe' one with work colleagues on it.

Better solution - Maintain a fake 2nd page covered in information about how much you support various federally protected classes to which you may (or may not) actually belong.

Even better solution -- assume that anything you put on Facebook will be visible to somebody if they want to see it badly enough, so don't put anything on there that you wouldn't let people see.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

I'm sorry, but I do not believe the ends justify the means on this one.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

Quite frankly, this should be completely illegal. I don't care if they're "asking" for it; at the end of the day, they're still interested in data that would normally require a warrant to get.

Not only should it be illegal for the feds to "ask" in this way, it should be doubly illegal for a business to comply with such requests without a warrant.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

Wow. I think I would like to work there.

Although, it is kinda sad to say that such practices might expose your company legally.

Re:An easy solution

[ftobin]

Thanks for the clarification for others. When interviewing others, I was specifically instructed by HR to avoid asking about age (circumspectly as well), due to the liability exposure.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

It really, really pisses me off that most of the people here don't remember that, and somehow think that being unemployed is some kind of vacation.

Re:An easy solution

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, I would not refuse, however, as I was logging in I would tell them that if they did not hire me, I would now be in a position to sue them for discrimination based on them essentially asking for information they are not allowed to request (that of course would be if I had a FB account).
Your post is why companies doing this is setting themselves up for discrimination lawsuits.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

Neither would I. But I also enjoy eating, and being able to pay rent.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

They're not allowed to make that decision.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

People have this fucked up notion that getting a job is some fantastic gift from heaven.

Part of that is the whole, "I need a job to be able to eat and pay rent" thing.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

I don't think what you are talking about falls under any kind of anti-discrimination law.

There could easily be a bunch of information on my profile that does fall under it. Such as any health disorders, my religious beliefs (or lack thereof), my age, etc.

Re:An easy solution

[Attila Dimedici]

There is no need for an outright ban. As others have pointed out, the answers to questions that an interviewer is legally not allowed to ask (how old are you, are you married, what is your religion, among others) are pretty much front and center on most people's FB profile. So, the answer is to start to log on and as you are entering your information, mention that the applicants they do not hire will have the basis for a discrimination lawsuit.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

I find it incredibly hard to believe that someone who knows that information wouldn't have it weigh in on his decision, even a little bit. The fact they know means that it had some part in the decision.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

As another poster wrote...it isn't against the law even to ask you about these topics...it is just that they can't use them to not give you a job, but just asking questis about these isn't illegal.

I find it almost impossible to believe that someone asking this question isn't going to use the information gathered from it, even if it's your refusal to answer, in their decision. The idea that it's ok to ask is a stupid one.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

There is absolutely no fucking way that anyone who is in favor of "freedom" or "liberty" can be for this. Do not give me any shit about "you don't have to work for that company", because that is completely irrelevant. This is tyranny by those with power, plain and simple, and everyone who is halfway sane should be against it.

Re:An easy solution

[gorzek]

This is true, but it's not that employers aren't allowed to know about it, they just aren't allowed to directly ask. I have no idea if, legally, asking to access your Facebook profile amounts to the same thing. I suspect this has not been tested in court.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

Not everyone works in IT?

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

How's the weather up there on your high horse, asshole?

While it's nice to say that, there are still many, many people in those lines of work. And hell, even those who are in lines of work where they aren't easily replaceable are having hard times finding jobs in this economy.

So you keep up with those "feel-good" platitudes that try to shove the problem under the rug, while making yourself feel superior to everyone else. Someday you'll find you're just as vulnerable as the rest of us.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

Someone who delegates something as important as communication to a third party with no incentive (financial or otherwise) to act in their interests

Quite frankly, unless you only speak to people face to face, you do this all the fucking time.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

I would change that to say that employers may not ask for any information that is not 100% directly applicable to the work they will be doing. And no, interacting with customers is NOT good enough to be this invasive.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

After all, employees can always go find another employer if they don't like it, right?

Really? They can? Well lets go tell that to the millions of unemployed! Apparently they didn't realize that.

Re:An easy solution

[Translation Error]

I would rather burn it down than put some fucking "club rat" or "thug" where a customer can ever see them. It just is not worth the risk to me.

If you can't tell a person's a "club rat" or "thug" without searching their Facebook pages, then what difference does it make if they are? Your concern should be their performance and comportment on the job. If those are good enough that you aren't thinking "thug", then whatever they may do on their free time shouldn't matter.

Re:An easy solution

[networkBoy]

I suppose, but by not being dicks, most people in-turn are not dicks back.
Only once have we had a 'dick' issue. We had a tech faking his data and not actually testing.
We caught him red handed and he was dressed down for it.
We caught him a second time and were going to dismiss him, but he played the race card.
Since he was on a time limited contract we simply assigned him make work and paid out the remainder of his time taking his results the same way my mailserver takes bad addressed e-mail: :blackhole:
Never before and not since have we had an issue like that, even when we've had to dismiss people. Never have we had a "you didn't hire me because I'm (black|gay|female|catholic|muslim|tranny|hermaphroditic|married|single mom|whatever the fuck else people use as an excuse)". We don't generally accept excuses, we expect results, on-time. In exchange we treat people largely like adults (except the SW devs, they're all kindergarteners with PHD's... or cats... can't really pin that one down).
-nB

Re:An easy solution

[Cederic]

cayenne8 said
So...what happens when you tell them you do not have a Facebook or other social website account?

I mean, I don't have one, I have no need for one...and I value my privacy.

So who the fuck is cayenne8 if it isn't you, and why is he posting your thoughts on this social website?

Of course, it's going to be a bloody long interview if I have to log into every social website I've got an account on.

Re:An easy solution

[ashtophoenix]

Did you get the job?

Re:An easy solution

[forkfail]

So - a good friend of mine, a really high end coder, is a drummer in a gigging metal band. Another is both a really good sys admin and also the lead guitarist in a thrash metal band.

These two both venture into the dens of iniquity and villainy to play their (paying) gigs. And their facebook profiles reflect it.

It would be your loss to not hire these two for this fact, which you would only know about if you went and dug around on their facebooks. They keep the two parts of their professional lives completely seperate.

Re:An easy solution

[Cederic]

"What? Hmm. Which twisted shit is impersonating me? Could you email the details of that account, I'll contact Facebook and ask them to remove it"

Re:An easy solution

[forkfail]

How about maintain two FB profiles, one for friends and one 'work safe' one with work colleagues on it.

Really wouldn't work. You have to assume that the hiring HR has already gone and searched out your profile(s).

Re:An easy solution

[Cederic]

This week I begged for redundancy because I need at least a month off - ideally three.

Sadly the cunts made 250 other people redundant instead. And I'm still playing chicken with cars on the walk home due to stress.

Trust me, unemployment _is_ vacation.

Re:An easy solution

[Cederic]

About a month ago I deleted (not suspended, deleted) Facebook

If only..

Re:An easy solution

[Darinbob]

There's another issue perhaps. Many employers are looking for any reason to reject someone (and then complain that they can't find anyone qualified). They want team players and putting up any roadblock makes you not a team player. Not having an FB account already sets you apart as not a team player. Being older than average means you're not a team player. Maybe this is their way of secretly putting in age discrimination without being obvious about it? Ok, maybe it doens't filter out that many old people, but filtering out one or two is enough to make the remainder feel uncomfortable.

Re:An easy solution

[Cederic]

An employer can ask to pull your credit, interview your friends and family, interview neighbors, give you a polygraph, administer a drug test

Credit history, I accept because I work in the Finance industry.
Friends/family, employers don't get access to. If they did find out who they are and contact them, my friends/family would immediately ring me and I'd be raising a formal grievance at work.
Neighbours, they don't get told who they are. Again, my neighbours would talk to me about it..
Polygraph, the answer is 'no'. Always. No.
Drug test, the answer is 'no'. Always. No.

I was out of work for a few months around 4-5 years ago, applied for a job, they said they would need to drug test me. I told them they were out of order and withdrew from the interview.

It's not that I take drugs - I do, mostly caffeine but occasionally alcohol - but a simple principle: It's none of their fucking business.

So I wont join any organisation with those policies, and I'll get sacked (and sue for constructive dismissal) any employer that introduces them while I work there.

Re:An easy solution

[El Rey]

Yes, and you are fine as long as you aren't doing any unlawful discrimination. Last time I checked there was no law against discriminating against "club rats" or "thugs" or people who give you a bad feeling. So you have the right but it is not absolute (eg. not hire women because of their gender).

OTOH, a lot of people would consider it "wrong" if you wanted to come and search their house or subject them to a body cavity search as part of a job interview, legal or not. That something is not illegal doesn't mean it is automatically ethical. Society must find the balance.

Re:An easy solution

[cayenne8]

Not having an FB account already sets you apart as not a team player. Being older than average means you're not a team player.

Are you inferring that I'm old because I don't have a FB account?

As for team player...well, I think my past work has more than shown that...so, experience does count a lot. Actually....it counts a LOT out there from what I've seen.

Yes, I'm getting a bit older, but I certainly haven't seen it as a disadvantage, in fact...it has been quite an advantage when looking for new contract gigs. I've had to help interview, and we've had a hard time finding experience people, as that we want to hire skills....not pay to train for them.

Re:An easy solution

[cayenne8]

How is it "entitlement" to actually believe that employees have rights too?

Well, of course they have rights...once they are actually hired. But, they don't have an inherent right to BE hired at any one job or pay scale, that is merited by experience, and lets face it...often, it take people skills. People skills and bullshit can get you further than just pure skills some times. Fair? Maybe not, but it is fact of life.

I'm saying the entitlement generation isn't cognizant or they are at least shocked when the facts of life in the real world hit them.

And yet, here you are arguing that it is the employer's right to have everything they want. Double Standard much?

Well, it is the "Golden Rule"....he who has the most gold, makes the rules. Fair? No...see my reply above....in most areas of life, this is a fact of life. Learn it, and use it to your advantage rather than do nothing but sit and bitch about it. Life isn't fair, it never has been. Earlier generations knew this a bit better coming out into the world, than current generations....the world is cruel, you have to fight for your part of it.

Not everyone even has the courtesy of an illusion of choice. For many it's either take this job, or starve.

Gotta call bullshit on this one. There ARE jobs out there, I know...I've interviiewed and had a hard time finding qualified people. There are jobs to be had, providing YOU are skilled, have worked to be skilled, or can con your way in basically, and once you get in, you bust your ass to learn and perform.

You might have to:

1. Be very willing to move to where the jobs are, they might not be in your current preferred area. But move to another part of the country, and you can get a job. This is a fact of life in the current state of the US.

2. Be flexible...you might not get your first choice, or the pay level you want...see rule #1 if you are hungry enough for work and pay rate you want.

But again, there are jobs out there,but you have to want to work to get them...you also have to be qualified for them...if you're really not, then suck it up, take something lesser..and study and work to get skilled at what you want. Sometimes you have to to take 2x steps back, and make one back forward in the new direction.

Why are you feeling you are 'entitled' to a certain job in a certain area? Just because you WANT it? It just doesn't work that way....fame and fortune are generally not handed to you....pay your dues, struggle.....win.

It is up to YOU to do things...life, your neighbors your country really owe you nothing. It is up to YOU to do what it takes to succeed. If you fail, you have to pick yourself up, and do whatever it takes to try again to succeed.

Re:An easy solution

[cayenne8]

Why shouldn't someone 'give you any shit about you don't have to work for that company'?

Why not go out and start your own company/business?

I'm not saying I agree with said policy, I think it sucks...but it is a privately owned company, and they can make their own rules. What give you, an outsider with no skin in that company's game...to tell them how to operate?

Again, I think it is a horrible rule...but they are free to do it, it isn't illegal....and no one is holding a gun to anyone's head to go work there.

Re:An easy solution

[scot4875]

That sentiment is common...HOWEVER, past generations, even though they had it a bit easier than the previous ones..didn't expect to not have to work to attain success.

If you truly believe that all the kids currently coming out of high school and college don't think they have to work for success, then you really can't see past your own bullshit. Sure, there are some; there might even be a slightly higher percentage of "gimme everything now" attitudes now than there were when you were a kid. But you have no data to support your hypothesis, so it has no merit.

And on top of that, when you were young (I'm going to guess that it was a while ago), it was possible to enter the workforce immediately after graduation from high school and get a decent job. THAT IS NO LONGER THE CASE. And you can bet your ass that if someone spends an extra 4 years in school and racks up tens of thousands of dollars in student loans just so they can get their resume past HR, they're going to be a little bit disillusioned if the only jobs they manage to get are barely enough to pay rent and interest on their education related loans.

The really funny thing is that I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that you're one of those types that thinks everyone should just "go get a better job" to solve their financial problems. Then when these people go get training to get a better job and can't find one, you turn around and tell them they shouldn't have taken on debt to get that training and they should have just ... what? Saved all the money they didn't have for 10 years so that they could then go back to school and pay for it (mostly) up-front, then be too old to be employable once they finish?

Your warm recollection of how it was in your early 20s is no longer reality. It would be nice if you could recognize that. Unfortunately, we're probably not going to see much change in this area until people with your attitude just die off.

--Jeremy

Re:An easy solution

[cayenne8]

I find it almost impossible to believe that someone asking this question isn't going to use the information gathered from it, even if it's your refusal to answer, in their decision. The idea that it's ok to ask is a stupid one.

The thing is...it is VERY difficult to prove this was the reason they didn't hire you.

There is no such thing as having to fill out a "why you did or did not hire someone" form after each interview. Heck, after the interview, there is no compelling reason for the company to even contact the interviewee to say they didn't hire them, much less tell them why they did not hire them.

Re:An easy solution

[readin]

I think you're attitude is the truly dangerous one. With or without government support, running a business is a basic freedom. The government benefits you mention such as roads, education, and methods of exchange would exist with or without the government. It might good to have the government to provide them, but providing those benefits does not give the government the right to take away a person's most basic right to provide sustenance to himself and his family on his own.

The only thing you mention that requires the government is the maintenance of law and order - and that only because by definition the government is what provides law and order. Government is, by definition, the wielder of force. Government operates by violence - that is the role of government - to use violence so that the rest of society doesn't have to or is not allowed to.

When the government becomes the regulator of relations between people, whether it be husband and wife, parent and child, or employer and employee, then the threat of violence is being introduced. In a free society that would be limited to preventing the use of violence between those parties.

It sounds like you believe a business owners decisions about hiring and firing should be guided by threat of violence. That's the opposite of freedom.

Re:An easy solution

[Jane Q. Public]

"Better solution - Maintain a fake 2nd page covered in information about how much you support various federally protected classes to which you may (or may not) actually belong."

Depends on how the Supreme Court rules this year on "Affirmative Action". The very concept of "federally protected classes" might just disappear. As well it should: you cannot eliminate discrimination by way of embedding discrimination by default into the law. That only serves to perpetuate it.

Re:An easy solution

[Cito]

That's what I do I have 4 facebook accounts, 1 for family, 1 for work, and 2 random leftovers for comment/trolling/anonymous comments/etc on other pages never have just 1 account... it's idiocy. I've had 4 for 3 years now and never had problem

Re:An easy solution

[EvilBudMan]

--That said, I've held a security clearance, and known people with even higher security ratings; and even the Feds don't go demanding to see your Facebook profile. This shit is ridiculous.--

They probably do many things without asking. I know that you have to take a lie detector test. Those are accurate right? They may even run your credit. They could get more information there than anywhere probably. For certain clearances they would interview all of your known associates. The Feds probably don't care so much about Facebook as some state.

I've changed my mind, it isn't worth the time of whomever is doing the security check.

Re:An easy solution

[EvilBudMan]

Uh no. What's on the internet stays there forever. Don't put stuff on it that is private. Simple.

Re:An easy solution

[nitehawk214]

Regardless if I have x or y social media account, I will respectfully and efficiently terminate any interview where social media contact is an issue

It is an issue, but one that does not need your potential employer to have access. They are within their rights to require that you not post company information. To that end they can regulate your social media. In my case that's through an NDA. Since my account is private, they have to take my word for it, but they seem to have the attitude of "if it's private then he won't be telling the world anyway, only his friends".
-nB

Well, since you can just tell your friends proprietary information, does this mean you must record every interaction with any other human being or recording device and submit it to the company? No? Then you cant have access to my social media account either.

Re:An easy solution

[__Paul__]

.but it is a privately owned company, and they can make their own rules.

No, they can't. They can make rules about what goes on within their premises, but any sane country should be putting in force strict regulations, with heavy penalties, that say private companies have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER over the actions of their staff in their private lives. This is ethics, pure and simple.

Re:An easy solution

[Asmodae]

I'm not sure what this has to do with the original premise. Where do you draw the line? Does an employer have the right to inspect your wallet? To inspect your car? Your house? Interview friends and family members? All as preconditions to hire you? Invading your facebook account basically amounts to all of the above.

Re:An easy solution

[dannys42]

My solution to the problem is just to make it symmetric. For any question the employer asks he must voluntarily provide his own answer. So if you want my credit score and background check, fine, but I should get the same for my (would be) boss, HR manager, and CEO.

Re:An easy solution

[failedlogic]

Good for you. I'd do the same.

Question remains, did you get further along in the interview process afterwards such as another interview or an offer?

Re:An easy solution

[quintin3265]

Things happen... to some people. The strange thing about stuff happening is that it always seems to happen to the same people.

I am very fortunate to have a job right now, and I want to keep it that way. But I also realize that it's possible that, at some point in the future, I could be laid off without any employment in sight. That's why I have enough money available to live, if necessary, on a shoestring budget for three years without outside support. It wouldn't be a fun time of life, and I wouldn't be able to go to the movies or take vacations, but I would survive and make the best of the little things in life. Most importantly, I will never, under any circumstances, end up as a leech off my parents, living in their basement.

On the other hand, there are some people who spend most of the money they earn. It's funny how you see people who are very poor but still manage to go out to the bars downtown and buy overpriced drinks.

Today's world is so abundant that most people can make it on any salary, provided that they live frugally and manage their finances. There are few cases where one would be so desperate to get a job that allowing facebook profiling is necessary.

And finally, to get around this issue, you can simply do what I do: don't act stupidly. If you don't go out and get trashed, you won't end up with embarrassing drunk pictures on facebook. What a concept!

Re:An easy solution

[TheRaven64]

Not at all. My email and IM go via a server hosted by a company that has a financial reason to act in my interests: I pay them a monthly fee. I connect to this server using a connection provided by my ISP, which has a financial reason to act in my interests: I pay them a monthly fee.

Re:An easy solution

[HeckRuler]

The real test is being wiser than the previous generation when we're old geezers.
Unfortunately, then when our kids get to be geezers, they'll never have come into contact with the "back in my day" fallacy and they'll probably fall for it all over again.

Re:An easy solution

[anyGould]

They are within their rights to require that you not post company information. To that end they can regulate your social media.

No, they're within their rights to sue/fire you if you get caught posting company information. They do not have the right to require any sort of surveillance towards that end. Once I'm off the clock, what I do is none of their business.

Re:An easy solution

[Shotgun]

Posting to undo moderation. This mental beggary is definitely not informative.

Re:An easy solution

[anyGould]

Actually, I would not refuse, however, as I was logging in I would tell them that if they did not hire me, I would now be in a position to sue them for discrimination based on them essentially asking for information they are not allowed to request (that of course would be if I had a FB account). Your post is why companies doing this is setting themselves up for discrimination lawsuits.

Of course, the fun part is proving that they did ask.

Re:An easy solution

[John Hasler]

> Or...am "I" the only one left in the world now, that isn't on FB ?

No.

Re:An easy solution

[Shotgun]

You have rights. You have the right to start your own damn company if you don't like the one you're working for. You have the right to refuse the work for jerks. You have the right to not work and all.

You don't have other rights. You don't have the right to determine what I will pay to get some work done. You don't have the right to have me work for you. You do not have the right to make self defeating choices and then have me bail you out when things go badly for you. You do not have the right to make me pay for your upkeep when you decide to not work at all. You do not have the right to make me your slave.

Re:An easy solution

[John Hasler]

Then the interviewer learned a lot about you.

Re:An easy solution

[Shotgun]

And you are a disgusting troll that wants to steal the work of someone else. Not giving you a job is not being a bully, you wimpering leach. If he has the ability to pay someone to perform a function, then it is his perogative to pay whomsoever he damn well pleases. He most certainly has the right to do with his property as he chooses. You are an awful person, and you will always be insignificant.

Re:An easy solution

[anyGould]

Why would they want to hire someone with "medical issues" that would drive up their insurance cost?

Better question - why is the employer getting their medical coverage from a place that isn't doing group rates? (i.e. assuming that x% of people will have some sort of issue).

Re:An easy solution

[Shotgun]

But if what we have really belongs to "society", aren't we already slaves. If I can't own anything without your consent, then, fuck it all, I'm going to sit back and live off the government dole.

Re:An easy solution

[John Hasler]

He has a "right" to inspect whatever you choose to permit him to inspect. Employers know that if they asked to see interviewee's wallets they'd get indignant, angry refusals. If Facebook profiles are equally sacred why don't requests for them produce similar reactions?

Re:An easy solution

[Attila Dimedici]

The nice thing about discrimination lawsuits is that most of the times the burden of proof is on the company...especially since you can get a list of everybody who interviewed for every position that the company has filled in the last x number of years and see how many of them are willing to testify that the company did the same thing to them.

Re:An easy solution

[John Hasler]

Not only should it be illegal for the feds to "ask" in this way, it should be doubly illegal for a business to comply with such requests without a warrant.

If the company is contractually obligated to keep information you provide to them confidential (this excludes Facebook et al., of course) it is breach of contract for them to answer such questions. It doesn't matter whether they disclose to the Feds or your brother-in-law.

Re:An easy solution

[izomiac]

They don't need to prove anything to not hire you. They're more likely to assume you're lying or that you're non-conformist/anti-social, none of which bode well for your application.

Re:An easy solution

[John Hasler]

Bullshit. "Right to work laws", execrable as they are, do not bar unions. They merely attempt to make it illegal to refuse someone a job becasue he is not a union member.

Re:An easy solution

[Dishevel]

I see that you are a bit angry.
Despite your "fuck you" assertion that the "shit" I spewed forth was to justify the employers behavior. I do not see how you can truly believe that I can pour years of my life into an enterprise and if it ever starts making me money I am now bound to watch it get destroyed by any piece of shit that happens to come by and ask for a job.
Also i can clearly see that you "don't give a fuck" about what someone else has done. Never did I say that having your own business makes you a better person. Neither does it mean that I am an awful person or that I should hire you to watch my business fail. If I am not confident that I can entrust my companies reputation with you then I will not hire you. Period.
I do have a right to what I have earned. You one the other hand despite what your professors teaching you Bumblebee mating rituals and their relationship to the ever present whiteman racism told you. You do not have a right to what I have earned.

 

Re:An easy solution

[Dishevel]

Most people that start businesses work a crapload of hours for a long period of time to get their businesses off the ground and start making them profitable.
This is why many never try.

Re:An easy solution

[Dishevel]

Wow. I really wish I had the time to point out how wrong headed you are here.
It is a very basic human right to make things or provide services that people find useful and to charge for it.
Government spends a lot of effort making it difficult but we still got on.
I am really sorry that the education you have received so far has robbed you of the ability to see this incredibly basic right.

Re:An easy solution

[Dishevel]

Like I said. I am fairly sure I would know. And if I had reservations I (as stated) would most likely not ask the question and just not hire the person in the first place.
If I was unsure of the person but they had a really good sob story and I felt the tugging need to help them out I might then need to investigate to try to feel better about hiring them so I could give them a job. My guess is though that this would be an exceedingly rare event.

Re:An easy solution

[Dishevel]

I like metal.
I do not think you know what a club rat is.
Your small scenario has nothing to do with how I judge people.
Let me tell you though If your friend came in for an interview and called me dude I would think that he has no ability to edit himself for different situations.
Even though I myself might use the term dude in a social setting. Judgement is judgement. I hope though you are not trying to tell me that attempting to judge a persons moral character before letting them become a part of my business is wrong.

Re:An easy solution

[Dishevel]

If it is an interview how am I to know if you will or will not do a good job for me?
I have to make a judgement. I know you liberal OWS types think that judging is evil, but it is not.
I have to make good judgement calls about the people I bring into my company. If I do not then my family suffers so do the families of those I may already employ. I have a what I believe is a moral responsibility to those people to do what I can to keep their employment stable and growing. Those that are doing a great job for the company do not want to see me hire fuckwads and hope they work out either.
You can go have a life. You just can not have one that includes me giving you my money. I wish you had not posted anonymously. I would really like to know and I am sure many other employers would like to know who you are.
You do not have the ability to disagree civilly. You do not feel the need to discuss. You think that I owe you a job just because you want it?
I am not showing up at your house and demanding that you answer my questions then drag you out and put you to work skinning live alligators.
Prospects come to me. To convince me that not only do they have the ability to do the job but the self control not to fly off the handle when something does not go their way and to then go screaming through the office "FUCK YOU". To work well with the employees I already have, and to grow with the company.
I am not being a dick here. Really though it makes me sad that people believe like you do. You are not alone. You will find many who will pat you on the back and congratulate you for cussing at me.
I fear that your many will win. That starting a business and making it work will become a thing of the past. That the pride that one feels when making their own way in life and doing it well will become unknown and even evil. Good luck with your society.

Re:An easy solution

[Renraku]

Hypothetical situation: I am hiring you for a sensitive position. Let's just say my company makes widgets that I really don't want Spacely's Sprockets to be able to make them too. My business has secrets. Since if you went down the hall, broke through a secure door, beat my security guards to death, and cracked the safe, you would have access to those secrets I'd rather Spacely not get ahold of, I am requiring you not to post my company information.

To get compliance out of you, I need all the logins of your personal accounts (social media, email, video games, etc) and I need you to consent to this monitoring software on your home electronics devices. I also need a background check, drug test, lie detector test, and to know how you fuck your wife at night. Company secrets, and all that. Is this acceptable?

You see, there's a certain limit that has to be reached. I cannot infringe upon the rights of your company to keep its secrets secret, you cannot infringe upon my right to privacy and right to free speech. No matter how important you think your company is, you just can't do this.

Re:An easy solution

[toddestan]

Facebook pretty clearly states that "You will not create more than one personal profile" right in their terms of use.

Re:An easy solution

[Apothem]

So...what happens when you tell them you do not have a Facebook or other social website account?

What if they already searched for you on Facebook, found your account, saw your photos (and as soon as you walked into the room: yes, it's you on these photos).

This is under the assumption you even use your real name for anything you do on FB. I know on my profile, I dont use any REAL identifiable information. Just a bunch of 4chan meme's. On hindsight however, I am beginning to think that would be worse than just telling them I don't have one.

Re:An easy solution

[ArsenneLupin]

... yet nobody cares if you create more than one.

Re:An easy solution

[happyhamster]

Pretty lame ad hominem there. You have nothing of substance to say, so you have to resort to “arguments” about “wrong headedness”. Sad.

Again, it’s a fact that “running a business” is not a basic human right. It simply goes against the delusional pro-business ideology you have been brain-washed into, but it is your problem. Yes, you can try “making things”, but without the essential government services I mentioned, you will get nowhere. Your business will be robbed, cheated, it will be hard to find qualified employees, few customers... you will close in a week.

Ignoring another lame ad hominem, my education is OK as I can see benefits of regulated private enterprise as well as the place of government in a society. You, on the other hand, have been brain-washed into worshiping “business” as some absolute, while seeing the government as evil. It’s not justified by logic. “Business” is but one human activity, one much less important than surviving, feeding and taking care of your family, and fulfilling yourself as a person. It’s a means to better society, not some holy grail in itself.

Re:An easy solution

[chrismcb]

Since when are corporations

Since when is a state government a corporation? Or for that matter coaches and administrators?

Re:An easy solution

[chrismcb]

If they don't understand that it's wrong to search without probable cause to suspect wrongdoing, then I don't want them in that job.

If you ask to perform a search, and the person allows you, you don't need probably cause.

Re:An easy solution

[chrismcb]

I found this a little troubling because I find innate privacy concerns to be a key attribute of a good sysadmin.

Why? I must hide something to be a good sysadmin? My FB is public. I don't have any private data there, so why should I make it private?

Re:An easy solution

[Patchw0rk F0g]

How about just not posting stupid shit on your facebook page? If you're an idiot that routinely gets blasted on Tuesday nights and ends up on-stage at the local strip club in a meth-induced black-out, I'm not sure you're management material. Oh, and re-posting every single iteration of "This is what my [blank] thinks I do for a living" cartoons is another great method of showcasing your inherent superiority.

Then again, it is Darwinian, isn't it?

Re:An easy solution

[andcal]

I have heard of people doing this, too. But that raises some theoretical questions:
Say I have 2 FB accounts: 1 for Friends and 1 for Authority.
First, my my parents may wonder why my cousin isn't on my friends list. So I could add my cousin (who is also a good friend of mine) to both lists, but then they would have to remember which one of my accounts is for friends and which one is for authority, so they don't tag the authority account on pics of our wild debauchery. That would be putting a burden on them.
I guess as long as your real life is cleanly divided into work and play, it might not be too hard, but if it does, anyone on both lists would have to remember not to post expletive-laced wall postings to the wrong account (assuming they agreed to care about this).

Re:An easy solution

[Dishevel]

Pretty lame ad hominem there. You have nothing of substance to say, so you have to resort to “arguments” about “wrong headedness”. Sad.

Again, it’s a fact that “running a business” is not a basic human right.

Yes. It is.

It simply goes against the delusional pro-business ideology you have been brain-washed into, but it is your problem. Yes, you can try “making things”, but without the essential government services I mentioned, you will get nowhere.

It is funny that people were specializing and trading before government. I am sure that they just did not realize that it was impossible.

Your business will be robbed, cheated, it will be hard to find qualified employees, few customers... you will close in a week.

According to you people do not have a right to life. As they will just be murdered and run over by drunk drivers.

Ignoring another lame ad hominem, my education is OK as I can see benefits of regulated private enterprise as well as the place of government in a society. You, on the other hand, have been brain-washed into worshiping “business” as some absolute, while seeing the government as evil. It’s not justified by logic. “Business” is but one human activity, one much less important than surviving, feeding and taking care of your family, and fulfilling yourself as a person. It’s a means to better society, not some holy grail in itself.

Wow. I had not realized that I had set up running a business as a "holy grail". Wait, I did not. See what you did there is called a "Strawman argument". When a person such as you comes into contact with fact that makes you question your world view it makes you uncomfortable. This is natural. Some people come through their discomfort a better person, changed. Others, fight and rail against that which dared to make the feel that way. When in the course of arguing they find that they can not win they then add statements to those they argue against that can be easily shot down. Once added they shoot it down and feel as if they won.
Now they are comfortable again and happy. Enjoy your bliss.

Re:An easy solution

[Stellian]

Maintain a fake 2nd page covered in information about how much you support various federally protected classes to which you may (or may not) actually belong.

Ha ha, I can see it now: a nice profile pic with one guy kissing some other guy's neck, while he smiles lasciviously to the camera. We are both wearing punk leather outfits, steel pentagrams, inverted crosses etc. Headlines from my wall:
- Gay adoption: the time has come
- I'm thinking of a sex change operation, but I heard the reconstructed vag looks kinda fake. Thoughts ?
- Is Satan the real enemy ? 2000 years of judeo-christian lies
- Homoerotic Calendar 2012. Check these cuties out !

The whole interview recorded on my phone. "So you want to look at my Facebook profile ? Well... I guess I have nothing to hide...". Kaboom ! Make sure you answer all question flawlessly, and deliver an otherwise perfect interview. Wait for your rejection, then send the recording and printed Facebook profile to a good lawyer and watch the ensuing hilarity. Optional: settle out of court for a gazillion bucks.

Re:An easy solution

[cayenne8]

So who the fuck is cayenne8 if it isn't you, and why is he posting your thoughts on this social website?

Hmm...I think that is a stretch calling this a 'social' website.

:)

But seriously, yeah, I guess technically it is...I've always thought of it more as a simple forum for posting thoughts, etc....not in the social website by todays standards. I was thinking of /. in terms of old school internet....didn't really consider thinking of it as a social one.

Re:An easy solution

[cayenne8]

In my early 20's I was in college....working summers to pay for a chunk of it....my parents paid the rest (I was lucky...never took out a student loan).

After that..I spent years bartending, waiting tables, selling clothes...etc....for a LONG time, before I got my foot in the door so to speak, and got a real job.

so, no, I didn't expect a job with anything to do with my degree (biochemistry) right out of school.

I guess people's parents don't save for their kids college these days, hence all the huge school loans?

Re:An easy solution

[cayenne8]

No, they can't. They can make rules about what goes on within their premises, but any sane country should be putting in force strict regulations, with heavy penalties, that say private companies have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER over the actions of their staff in their private lives. This is ethics, pure and simple.

Can you name any 'sane' countries with any such laws in place presently?

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

I do not see how you can truly believe that I can pour years of my life into an enterprise and if it ever starts making me money I am now bound to watch it get destroyed by any piece of shit that happens to come by and ask for a job.

And I don't see how you can use shit like this to justify your hiring practices.

Never did I say that having your own business makes you a better person.

Your actions clearly have.

I do have a right to what I have earned.

Nobody said otherwise. You however, do not have a right to these shitty, discriminatory hiring practices.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

I'm sorry, but no. He does not have the right to demand someone give them their facebook in any step of the application process. He simply should not be able to do it at all. Judge the candidate on their technical merit, not on what they like to do on their off time.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

I'm sorry, but no. You are claiming that the employers have more rights than I do. That is simply not true.

An employer has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to even ask for someone's facebook login. Period. You saying anything else is you saying that employers should be entitled to run our lives outside of work.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

No, he does not, I'm sorry. Because even just that request of asking to see is a violation of my rights, as it implies that he will not hire me if I don't. And because of that, the ability to refuse has been greatly diminished.

Essentially you're saying that someone has the "right" to say no, but employers can get around this. That makes the right completely worthless.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

I'm saying the entitlement generation isn't cognizant or they are at least shocked when the facts of life in the real world hit them.

And I'm saying you're completely wrong. The Entitlement Generation is that of the business owners who think they are entitled to walk all over everyone else, simply because they "own a business". They feel they are entitled to control how their employees behave outside of work. Tell me how that's not entitlement?

Gotta call bullshit on this one. There ARE jobs out there, I know...I've interviiewed and had a hard time finding qualified people. There are jobs to be had, providing YOU are skilled, have worked to be skilled, or can con your way in basically, and once you get in, you bust your ass to learn and perform.

I'm sorry, but the numbers prove you wrong. While there might be jobs in YOUR SECTOR, there are generally not enough jobs for the people looking for them. Honestly, if you were right, why would we constantly be hearing about the unemployment rate and the economy?

Why are you feeling you are 'entitled' to a certain job in a certain area?

I never said I did. I said I was entitled to a fair interview, where the company wasn't going to force me to do shit like give up my Facebook password.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

I suppose, but by not being dicks, most people in-turn are not dicks back.

That is something that a lot of people miss today.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

Spoken like someone who's never been unemployed for a length of time.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

Quite frankly, I believe this is a huge problem.

Re:An easy solution

[s73v3r]

Why shouldn't someone 'give you any shit about you don't have to work for that company'?

Because that's not a fucking answer; that's just trying to sweep the shit under the rug.

Why not go out and start your own company/business?

That's not a fucking answer either.

What give you, an outsider with no skin in that company's game...to tell them how to operate?

Honestly, what gives them any right to do any of that shit?

Again, I think it is a horrible rule...but they are free to do it, it isn't illegal....and no one is holding a gun to anyone's head to go work there.

And I think you're completely wrong. It should be completely fucking illegal. And given the fact that one does have to have a job in order to live in this country, while they may not physically be holding a gun to someone's head, they might as well be.

This bullshit about "you don't have to work there!" does nothing but open the door for excusing all kinds of shitty behaviors.

Re:An easy solution

[madhi19]

They might search for mine but I never gave Facebook my real name! I barely use it anyway.

Re:An easy solution

[madhi19]

Not to mention you might not remember half your passwords! loll

Re:An easy solution

[madhi19]

From the same era "Donnez moi deux lignes de l'écriture d'un homme et je le ferai pendre..." loosly translated. "Give me two lines by anybody and I have him hang!"

Re:An easy solution

[Dishevel]

People must discriminate between choices. It is only when the discrimination is only to gender, race or religion that it becomes illegal.
Also you have no idea what my hiring practices are. And you have no idea what my actions have been. So you are again just spewing shit out of your pie hole hoping to look good in you ignorance.

Re:An easy solution

[Cederic]

I refuse to believe it's possible to be unemployed for a length of time except by choice.

Anybody can start their own business.
Almost anybody can work at McDonalds.
Almost anybody can move to another town, region, country.
Almost anybody can do charity work. It might not pay but it's work.

Note that doesn't mean anybody can work. It's certainly possible to be prevented from working due to illness, disability or because you're dead. That's not unemployment.

Re:An easy solution

[networkBoy]

I've been happily employed by them since.
-nB

Re:An easy solution

[LiENUS]

When I applied for clearance they told me anyone who refused they would just get a warrant for. But I was also told by those people there's no way they would refuse with or without a warrant.

Re:An easy solution

[Walkingshark]

Tuition is much higher now.

Re:An easy solution

[Walkingshark]

You're under the delusion that there is a difference between a 'government' and 'the people.'

Government is an emergent property of a system of two or more people. Just like people are an emergent property of the correct configuration of organic molecules.

Re:An easy solution

[dave87656]

I just tell them I don't use FB, I use google+.

Re:An easy solution

[dave87656]

Since when are corporations allowed to go above the law?

Since corporations started supporting political parties.

Re:An easy solution

[Qzukk]

proof by contradiction

That's DISproving it. Not the same thing. If you tell me there are no black swans, I can produce a black swan and DISprove your statement by contradiction. If you tell me there are no invisible pink unicorns, to PROVE it we'd have to locate every single organism, get them to line up, and catalog every last one of them to ensure that none of them are invisible pink unicorns.

EOE

[Xacid]

Think a prospective employer could do this without knowing an applicant's age, race, sexual orientation, marriage status, and so on? Doubtful.

Re:EOE

[SJHillman]

They're allowed to know those things, they're just not allowed to base any decisions or treatment on them.

Re:EOE

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Not to worry, citizen, our house counsel is on call during HR's operating hours in order to provide a nebulous-but-entirely-legal justification for any hiring and firing decisions we may wish to make.

Re:EOE

[neyla]

They are allowed *knowing* them. But they are not allowed making hiring-decisions based on them. This puts them in an awkward position if they actively seek access to this information (say by asking).

The purpose of an interview is to figure out if a person should be hired or not. Why ask about something on an interview if the answer is *not* going to have influence on your decision ? The assumption is going to be that they asked because they *did* care about the answer. (that's the most straightforward reason for asking, afterall).

They can claim they where just trying to be social, chit-chat to ease tensions, and that the answer as such didn't matter. But there's any number of *non*-protected topics you can chit-chat about. So why pick a sensitive topic ? That seems at a minimum terribly unprofessional.

That all said, the only sensible answer to such a request is to refuse. Clearly and loudly. "That is completely unreasonable, I am not going to comply with that." A job is important, but it's not worth accepting unlimited bullshit.

Re:EOE

[Enry]

That's incorrect. You are allowed to know, but not ask.

If someone volunteers that they're married and has kids, I can know that, but I can't ask their marital status or home life.

I have seen people put that information on their resumes.

Re:EOE

[ledow]

My no-win, no-fee lawyer and EU courts will cost you a lot more than your house counsel will ever save you if you try to pull that trick on me.

Re:EOE

[Dhalka226]

Pretty unlikely. There is a lot of factors that go into a decision about whether or not to extend somebody a job offer. Even if you found some kind of quantifiable way to show you were "more qualified," they'll simply cite other factors that have no method of quantification. How are you going to convincingly argue against "we felt Joe would be a better fit in our company culture?" Especially when you're standing in a courtroom lambasting the company at the time?

Maybe you would win, but being that sure of it is simple folly. Employment cases are not easy to win.

Re:EOE

[stoolpigeon]

Often in the US it is illegal to ask about topics that can't be used as a basis of making the decision. Of course many employers ignore this.

Re:EOE

[ledow]

Who said you have to win? Note my post. In the case of such employment law, the way to go is fee-less on the plaintiffs end and very costly on the other, no matter who wins. And worst would *not* be a loss where you paid both side (i.e. you were forced to pay for your own stupidity in bringing the case) - only a loss that you had to "pay" your no-win, no-fee lawyer, because it might not be possible to prove you DON'T have a case.

But before it ever got that far, you'd have cost them more than any in-house counsel they have, and made them change their employment practice purely because such a ridiculous question on an interview is NOT viewed in a good light by employment law.

Re:EOE

[networkBoy]

I put it on my resume, and in fact am ok with it being used in the decision.
Hmm he has a wife and kids, likely stable, not looking to move, great hire him.
or
Hmm he has a wife and kids, not likely to want to travel to creation and back for this job, nor willing to work deathmarch hours, maybe we should get someone else.

Either way I think the decision would match my preference.
-nB

Re:EOE

[SJHillman]

They can't outright ask about these topics as the original poster, but they're not prohibited from knowing them through indirect means as the original poster implied.

Re:EOE

[Enry]

That's making assumptions that may not be true. My brother is married, has two kids and likes travelling. Those are discussions that are better held via the application (travel required), phone screen, or interview process.

Re:EOE

[smurfsurf]

They are allowed to ask about them. They are just not allowed to base any decisions or treatment on them.

Common Sense

[Ethanol-fueled]

Another reminder of why one shouldn't social network at all. Some may say that an employer or coach may force you to get a facebook profile, but it's much easier to fight it, let it slip through the cracks, or even comply when you get to start from a clean slate.

Re:Common Sense

[kj_kabaje]

Perhaps "old school" social networking is the way to go?  I find that there's a big differences between friends and "friends".

Re:Common Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Friends don't let friends post in <tt>.

Re:Common Sense

[gorzek]

There's only a difference if you allow there to be. I only friend people that I actually know on some level--I know them in real life, or I've interacted with them substantially online. I don't approve requests from people I don't know at all, or just barely know. Some people make it a game, seeing if they can collect over 1000 friends or whatever. Just because they do it doesn't mean you have to. I have about 150 and that's not likely to fluctuate much.

Re:Common Sense

[gorzek]

I'm not "close" to all of them but for each and every one I could tell you exactly how I know them, for how long, and at least a few things I know about them.

I went down the list and I'd say I'm "close" to 52 of them, and "very close" to about a dozen.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Between cell phone location and call logs, and Facebook, Americans now volunteer for a kind of self-surveillance the former USSR only dreamt of having on its citizens!

Re:Wow

[SJHillman]

Sad but true. I have a feeling if Stalin era USSR citizens had a Facebook equivalent, they would be much smarter than modern Americans about what they put on it. Comrade.

Re:Wow

[captainpanic]

In Soviet Russia, Facebook posts on you!

Belgium!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm happy to live in a country where such practices are illegal.

Re:Belgium!

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch your language, you stupid turlingdrome!

Re:Belgium!

[DigiShaman]

Not that I doubt you completely (ok, so a little), but please site where and to what capacity these practices are, in fact, illegal in Belgium? Were laws created specifically to address the abuse of social networking? I really want to know.

Re:Belgium!

[Myopic]

No, farther West than that. Well actually I'm originally from a Russian colony, so let's just go ahead and say yes!

Re:Belgium!

[John Hasler]

Everything not compulsory is forbidden. Everything not forbidden is compulslory. Doing things without permission is a crime. Basic European law. It's the coming thing in the USA as well. California is leading the way.

Decline

[Nerdfest]

We all seem very determined to turn our countries into fascist states don't we? This sort of intrusion into people's private lives shouldn't be tolerated, but the public outcry is negligible.

Re:Decline

[kj_kabaje]

Turning? Where do you live that isn't fascist already (in the classical sense)?  Business and government do seem rather cozy pretty much where you go.

Re:Decline

[fermion]

Do you live in a right to work state? It is the same thing. People are not allowed to create a closed club. They have to let in anyone. The employer has the right to tell the workers what they can and can't do in the club. The government tells the private club what they can and can't do with the money. The government tells they club they must provide welfare to those who chose not to join the club.

The job creators are the aristocracy, and their needs must be paramount. If they need bribes to hire workers they need anyway, give it to them. if they need military to put down worker rebellions, give it to them. If they need to let children of employees die to keep up personal lifestyles that is too important a right to infringe upon by passing laws that insure that kids have basic health care, as the cost of a fraction of a percent of loss of income is too much.

Yes, in happy land the few laws would be enforced to make sure that rights of individual would be protected from the megalomaniacs, but all too often that is not the case. Those who serve the megalomaniacs are too afraid to lose their job, and will not pass laws to keep the maniacal villains in check, or even utter simply words that what the villain said was wrong.

Ideally such laws would not be necessary. Ideally the job market, like any other market, would be of low friction so that employees and employers could find each other in a way that supply and demand was matched, instead of the often adversarial situation that exists now. Unfortunately, the market are broken, again primarily due to the desires of the megalomaniacs, who value personal power more than values and efficient markets.

I would say the employee has no choice bu to engage in rebellious tactics, maybe like the scarlet pimpernel. Fortunately technology means that one does not have to an aristocrat to defend oneself. Create a second facebook profile.

Re:Decline

[Myopic]

Yeah... actually this isn't at all what fascism looks like.

Re:Decline

[Fallingcow]

A close relationship between business and government is the defining property of a fascist state?

Re:Decline

[Zeromous]

Yes, as a matter of fact it is quite indicitive. At least in a top down sense:

In communism, the state owns the corporations (ALL OF THEM) (Gazsprom? More like OURProm)
In socialism, the state might own some corporations where losses and gains can be effectively "socialized" (Think like Canadian crown corporations, for Fanny Mae)
In fascism, the corporation owns the state.

Obviously I am oversimplifying to make my point.

Re:Decline

[Fallingcow]

On what are you basing this? AFAI am aware corporations did not hold political power in fascist states to any greater or lesser degree than in most other (non-communist) states.

I suspect you may be confusing corporatism with plutocracy/plutarchy or "corporatocracy".

Re:Decline

[Zeromous]

I'm basing this on the idea of the core tenants of fascism, when of course, money being the primary driver of politics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

Consider theory vs practice. Either way you do make good points but I am not confusing it with Plutocracy which is another thing altogether, where government is by rich individuals and not necessarily corporations.

Re:Decline

[lxs]

I didn't know fascism was for rent.What's the parking situation like?

Re:Decline

[Zeromous]

It's always been this way, if I may borrow a quote from the progenitor himself and another astute slashdotter:

>"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." -Benito Mussolini

>"What we currently have is corporations acting as arms of the government, and government acting as an arm of corporations, to the point where they aren't very distinguishable." -Observation by slashdot reader

Re:Decline

[Zeromous]

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." -Benito Mussolini

Priorities

[In hydraulis]

What matters most to you? Weigh it up. Right to personal privacy off-the-clock vs need for immediate employment under debasing conditions.

Then excuse yourself, grab your jacket and leave the building.

Re:Priorities

[Guppy06]

And hope you don't get kicked off unemployment? The rent doesn't pay itself, you know.

Distress password?

[Anonymous Coward]

It shouldn't be hard to allow users to add a distress password that would make Facebook appear logged in but would hide anything that would not be visible to outsiders.

Re:Distress password?

[Requiem18th]

- "Please, log in to your facebook profile here."
- "Please, log in to your facebook profile with your distress password here."

Re:Distress password?

[L4t3r4lu5]

It shouldn't be hard to allow users to add a distress password that would make Facebook appear logged in but would hide anything that would not be visible to outsiders.

A protection against coerced Facebook access?!

I don't want to be part of a society where that is necessary.

Re:Distress password?

[simtel]

This only works when the profile actually has public information. If _everything_ is private (as it is on mine) and nothing is visible on the 'distress' page, then this would be a clear red-flag that you're not showing the right thing.

Re:Distress password?

[toddestan]

Interesting idea, but it would probably end up like Truecrypt's hidden volumes where the next thing they'll say after you give them the password is "Okay, now what's the real password?".

I have never had a fb account, ever

[gelfling]

And likely never will. I suspect that's so far out of normal that they simply won't believe me. So I'll create an account that's simply never used. Maybe they won't believe that either. Who knows.

No worries

[Jawnn]

I have a FB account, but it's virtually unused, and of very little utility to a prospective employer. Nevertheless, any employer who demanded to make such an invasion of privacy would be one I would cross off my list in that same instant.

Re:No worries

[Riskable]

There's employers out there that would view a never-updated or rarely-updated Facebook account as anti-social behavior and a troublesome trait. It's sad, scary, and true.

Re:No worries

[TheGratefulNet]

anti-social?

tell me again, I seem to have forgotton: when was it a requirement that you be 'social' at work?

I've run into so many bastards at various jobs, 'social' is not one word I'd use to describe any of them. but then, they got their jobs done and met the numbers. what else do you want for your paycheck? you want us to be 'friends'? that's not part of the job and never was.

well, he knows C and java and can design hardware. oh, but he's not social enough! lets not hire him.

sigh. if there are jobs like that, I don't want to know about them.

Re:No worries

[thesandtiger]

Nobody was saying you have to be "friends" with your workmates - "social" doesn't just mean good at making friends, it refers to a number of soft skills that are useful for work.

In many workplaces there are these things called "teams." Teams are often comprised of members, referred to as "people." People, you see, are human beings (or corporations or Mitt Romney, but we're only talking about human people here) and most human beings do not function in the same way that a robot does, and frequently have interactions throughout the day that are called "social" or that rely on being able to work well with other people using things called "social skills."

Some people are better at handling the myriad and sundry issues that can come up when multiple people work together, and as such, the teams they are on tend to not get bogged down with interpersonal conflicts that arise from poor social skills. Poor social skills, you see, can often come about because an individual is "anti-social" and does not spend much time developing those skills.

By trying to understand ahead of time who might be anti-social or not a good fit with their team, many prospective employers can avoid making a disastrous hiring decision that will wind up harming their organization because they brought in someone who wrecks teams.

Further, teams comprised of members who are capable of working well with a diverse group of people without much friction will often be much easier to manage when one team member leaves and a new person or people needs to be brought in, will have fewer issues to sort out when their team-members interact with members of other teams within the larger organization, and so on.

Finally, in any job - no matter WHAT field it is in - that involves two or more people working together - there will arise differences of opinion as to how things should be done. When this inevitable thing happens, people with better social skills will probably be able to work together to solve the problem than two people who are completely anti-social sperglords.

To give you an example of how a person with poor social skills might screw up your team of programmers:

Let's say you have someone who is fair at C, Java and can design hardware, but he's an absolute dickhole any time it comes to a disagreement on how a thing should be done. It cost your company a lot of money to hire this guy, and it cost them a lot to train him up to understand your particular processes and organization, and it would cost them a lot to fire this guy, and it would cost them a lot to hire a replacement, and it would cost them a lot to have to deal with the myriad problems him being a dickhole would cause to the rest of the team (like some members potentially quitting rather than working with him, or productivity going into the toilet as a result, or HR having to get involved, or anything else).

So, a hiring manager has some choices to make during the hiring process if they want to avoid the above hideously expensive scenario: Do I hire the person who is good at C, Java and can design hardware, but kind of comes off as a hermit/poorly socialized and who might be difficult to work with, or do I hire the person who is good at C, Java, can design hardware, AND who seems like they'll be able to work with our team and handle working with other people in the organization who might have different interpersonal styles?

The only exception to this that I can see would be cases where you have workers who are literally interchangeable and have absolutely no possible say in how the work is accomplished - people who are, truly, replacing robots in a process that requires no communication and allows no latitude in how things are performed. Even assembly line work doesn't qualify - many times line workers can have a friendly rivalry between individuals or teams that can lead to increased productivity; conversely, one individual line worker who is a dickhole to others can cause a decrease in production. The only scenario I can think of here would inv

Shocking...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The moral of the story(as always) would appear to be that purely rules-based protections(even when they aren't fundamentally flawed by design, as facebook's certainly are) are essentially useless in the face of a real power imbalance.

Facebook is a bit novel in that it produces such a very juicy target for lifestyle police, and one that is fairly persistent; but it isn't as though there is any conceivable privacy policy/enforcement mechanism that could protect you from somebody who has the real world power to make you defeat it for them.

You know how you can tell a boss is an asshole?

[evilRhino]

They ask you to log in to your Facebook account before they even know you. If this happened to me, I would refuse and then politely excuse myself.

Re:You know how you can tell a boss is an asshole?

[Tim C]

Yeah, I'd end the interview at that point. No-one is going to be willing to pay me enough for me to accept that level of intrusion into my personal life.

Re:You know how you can tell a boss is an asshole?

[evilRhino]

I'm sure they might have a reason, but nevertheless I'll agree. It shouldn't matter how well someone knows you. This is unacceptable behavior.

Just lie

[Zilog]

Requiring future employees Facebook profiles access is just dumb.

Job seekers just have to make one more profile (preferably when registering the first time), a fake, neutral profile (name.firstname instead of firstname.name, etc.). I bet one day you 'll find specialized services for maintening fake/neutral profiles. Facial recognition should not be a trouble with "adequates" shooped profile pictures.

Might as well follow us around...

[germany-runt]

I mean hey...if they want to see our "private" facebook page, they might as well pay a private investigator to follow us around and see what we are up to in case we forget to post something to facebook. I'm sure there were a few "shady" things I've done that an employer would love to know but outside of the 8-4 they don't have much of a right to know what I'm up to. Maybe I'm wrong but I guess there should be an certain expectation of privacy. Then again, if they really want to see my facebook profile they will see how boring my life is and how I only post pictures of my dog.

Re:Might as well follow us around...

[nurb432]

Some places do hire a PI during the hiring process, but those jobs are rare and often involve security clearances.

That said, id still walk if they asked to look at any of my *private* accounts.

Re:Might as well follow us around...

[cmh31909]

Yeah, and don't forget email.....wonder why no brilliant HR person has demanded to have a candidate's email password so they can snoop there as well.

How bold (and ignorant) of them

[AttillaTheNun]

Are they also asking to log into my bank accounts so they can monitor my financial status and transaction history?

Re:How bold (and ignorant) of them

[MitchDev]

That's next once big business buys congress into making this acceptable...

Re:How bold (and ignorant) of them

[GameboyRMH]

No need, they can run credit checks.

Re:How bold (and ignorant) of them

[TheVision]

Financial firms have been doing this for years. It's called NYSE Rule 407. If you have pre-existing accounts, your employer is to receive duplicate account statements or you must close your accounts. New accounts must either be in-house or with an approved broker.

Re:How bold (and ignorant) of them

[Opportunist]

Only logical, since paying you in scrip has been outlawed it's only fair that we may see whether you spend your money on our products or whether you're a dissenter and fuel the evil competition.

Just wait and see...

Re:How bold (and ignorant) of them

[Opportunist]

That's a very special case and designed to make insider trade harder. Where else would something like this apply?

Another reason to not use facebook ...

[DiSKiLLeR]

I used to use facebook since the early days.

But then I deleted it. My google+, facebook, all gone.

Got sick of the privacy issues, having my personal information being sold for money (while I get NO benefit from it), and now THIS ....

Re:Another reason to not use facebook ...

[Tim C]

No, it's a reason not to seek employment with arseholes.

Imagine if the story were 10 years ago, about employers wanting access to your personal email account or ICQ chat history. Would your advice still be not to use it?

Re:Another reason to not use facebook ...

[Opportunist]

My advice would be the same I give now: Lie to that asshat. Someone who wants to invade my privacy deserves nothing but a lie.

easy, set up a dead end friend list

[alen]

facebook lets you group friends and assign permissions to those groups as to what they can see. just group the boss and your teachers into a dead end group, set it up in the permissions not to allow them to see anything or the very bare minimum and that's all

Re:easy, set up a dead end friend list

[hrieke]

Problem is that the teachers & bosses might have other friends on your friends list, in which case a simple slip up on a mutual friend's posting can defeat your privacy settings. Then it asks the question, what's going on and why haven't we seen more postings from you?

Re:easy, set up a dead end friend list

[galego]

That might work for 3 weeks or so until FB automatically resets permissions to default-world-viewable and you have to manually fix them again.

Re:easy, set up a dead end friend list

[gl4ss]

that doesn't help if the employer asks to use _your_ login to check out your account.

which is a ridiculously big privacy violation from any angle. and this is the second story about it happening in two days.

Potential Employeer?

[nurb432]

Not if they are making those sorts of demands of me. Same goes for any other "activity". If they are demanding i give up my privacy to make them happy, I'm gone.

Re:Potential Employeer?

[Jakester2K]

Not that this hasn't already been posted a dozen times, but:

"We felt another candidate would be a better fit with our company/culture/team. Good luck in your future endeavors."

You're welcome to join the current mostly-agreed-upon reality any time....

Re:Potential Employeer?

[Travelsonic]

By reality, you mean the reality where a quote rightfully is only applicable to some but not all situations? Oh the irony. Your post doesn't debunk anything, it does make it clear that that is a very likely outcome, but get off your high horse for Christ's sake

Re:Potential Employeer?

[nosferatu1001]

Balance of probabilities in a civil case. Why did they endeavour to find out someting they are not allowed to base the hiring decision on, unless they wre plannig on using the information as a part of the hriing decision?

Thats all you need. In fact in the EU the balance was against you, the employer, from the instant you asked to see their personal information that you *knew* could contain restricted information - you would have to havea damn sight more than "culture" as an excuse.

Re:Which would you give up first?

[billcopc]

If "every company" is doing it, then every company deserves to fail. Their ex-employees should take their skills and experience and start a new company of their own, minus the bullshit. If you've worked your way into a situation where you can't afford to leave an abusive job, to find or create a better one, that should be your first goal. Save up enough so you can have a few months of freedom. It's better to make a small sacrifice now, than live miserably for the next 10-15 years or until the company really shits down your throat by laying you off.

It stopped being your private life

[Linegod]

It stopped being your private life when you posted it to the Internet.

Re:It stopped being your private life

[ledow]

Better yet, you wrote all your emails and sent them online. They're all now public property, by your reckoning. Please post the contents of every email you've ever sent or received for everyone to laugh at.

Just because it's online, just because it exists, does not mean that ANYONE but a court has the right to demand you show it to them (and even then, the laws against self-incrimination hinder even the courts).

Re:It stopped being your private life

[dotar]

A common sentiment, and yet, is this a philosophy we want perpetuated?

Fighting gang infiltration

[Anonymous Coward]

This (perhaps naive) effort is an attempt to prevent gang agents from infiltrating the department. Local gangs are actively recruiting relatives and acquaintances without criminal histories to work as correctional officers. Many of those job applicants are barely literate and do not realize that their Facebook pages are a give away of their gang connections. They simply give up that information. Apparently, the next step would be full lifestyle checks akin to what fed agencies do. Much more expensive but also effective. Disclaimer: I do work for MD DPSCS.

Re:Fighting gang infiltration

[bickerdyke]

I wish I had modpoints....

OTOH, you have to be pretty dumb to create a FB profile that would indicate you're member (or affiliated) with a criminal organisation.

Re:Fighting gang infiltration

[gl4ss]

I wish I had modpoints....

OTOH, you have to be pretty dumb to create a FB profile that would indicate you're member (or affiliated) with a criminal organisation.

probably a funny thing, but you hanging around with tattooed hispanos couldn't be used as a legal reason to not hire you - if you had a criminal record about gang activity that's another thing though..

The only winning move ....

[Miser]

.... is not to play.

Seriously. Lots of my friends want me to join facebook but I staunchly refuse.

Call me old fashioned (at 35) but I consider Facebook and social networking a fad.

Maybe it doesn't help that I still check my mail with (al)pine. :)

-Miser

Luxuries

[Anonymous Coward]

Better solution if you do use Facebook: laugh at the people demanding to see what you're up to and walk away.

It must be wonderful to have the luxury of never having a hard time getting a job.

Re:Luxuries

[MisterMidi]

I've never heard of this happening in my country, but if it would happen to me, I'd mumble something about "looking up my password", take out my phone and press record, then ask him to repeat what he just asked. Then I would laugh and thank him for the job and the salary raise he's about to give me, replay the conversation, and explain that if he won't, he'll be hearing from the authorities. That's right, I'll blackmail his sorry ass and make sure he'll never makes that mistake again. This kind of stuff is forbidden, there are high fines for it and I think I may even be entitled to compensation.

Re:Luxuries

[MisterMidi]

Well obviously it is, but I'd have a recording and he won't :)

Re:Luxuries

[Bengie]

^ This

I've been lucky and immediately found a job out of college where their average worker has worked here over 10 years, but I have to assume it is pure luck on my part.

No one should be *required* to answer questions not related to the job position.

Re:Luxuries

[s73v3r]

You must work in a country where they actually believe employees are people, and have rights. As in, not the US.

Re:Luxuries

[MisterMidi]

Yes, I live in the EU, in The Netherlands to be precise. We (still) have pretty strong privacy laws here. The blackmail part was obviously not serious - who would want to work for such an employer. The report to authorities part is. I don't think there are many employers here stupid enough to try it though. In principle, they can only ask about work related things, like your former employers, your health, plans of getting pregnant if you're a woman, high risc hobbies, etc. What you do in your own time is your own business and protected by law. On top of that, a lot of employers have committed themselves to a code of conduct, which goes even further, like not giving negative references, requiring consent before contacting former employers, destroying resumes after 4 weeks etc.

I've an even better solution

[Weezul]

You should remind them that accessing another user's account is a violation of facebook's terms of service, even if that user gives them permission, which potentially makes it a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. 1030), i.e. a felony.

In addition, there are various other questions that employers cannot ask during interviews because doing so violates federal equal employment opportunity legislation, meaning that accessing a user's facebook account opens them up to lawsuits.

There is however one valid legal use for asking users for their facebook accounts, namely screening out employees who'll create a security risk by being especially vulnerable to social engineering. If an employee will have access to sensitive user or employee account information, then you might reasonable ask them for their facebook account password. If they provide it, you politely tell them they have failed the interview, thank them for their time, and send them home early. If they refuse, then you tell them they answered that question correctly and continue with the interview.

Re:I've an even better solution

[__aaltlg1547]

Tell the that's the same as asking to know your age, religion and national origin and you intend to file a claim with the EEOC.

Re:I've an even better solution

[Jiro]

According to TFA (and even the summary) they are asking the employee to log into their own account and watch, not to give up their password. In fact, they specifically did it, according to the article, after complaints from the ACLU about giving up their password.

Obviously the whole point of t\doing it this way is being done to get around the whole terms of service question.

Re:I've an even better solution

[GlobalEcho]

You should remind them that accessing another user's account is a violation of facebook's terms of service, ... i.e. a felony....

In addition, there are various other questions that employers cannot ask during interviews because doing so violates federal equal employment opportunity legislation

It is probably not a violation of the TOS for a job candidate to allow someone to look over his or her shoulder while logging in and surfing. However your point about Equal Opportunity Employment is very interesting.

Re:I've an even better solution

[TheRedSeven]

This is a common misconception about EEOC regulation. There is no such thing as a "question that employers cannot ask during interviews." (Erm, I guess you are not allowed to ask about disabilities...so one exception.) An interviewer can ask whatever they want. Seriously.

The only catch is that if they ask something about your race, sex, religion, or national origin, they can't use your answer as a reason to hire/not hire you. So there's really no point in asking the question. But it's not illegal--of itself--to ask the question. It's just pointless and stupid (and risks alienating an otherwise good job candidate, and possibly opening yourself to litigation if the candidate thinks his/her answer was the basis for not getting the job).

Since I'm going to get a "Citation Needed" tag, here you go: http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/outside-voices-careers/2011/01/10/is-that-interview-question-legal

Re:I've an even better solution

[ArsenneLupin]

According to TFA (and even the summary) they are asking the employee to log into their own account and watch, not to give up their password.

log into their own account... on a computer provided by the company, which could have a keystroke logger on it?

Or did they ask you to bring a laptop to the interview beforehand?

Re:I've an even better solution

[ArsenneLupin]

Especially since stuff such as ads or upcoming events showing along any page while logged in could give away protected information...

Re:I've an even better solution

[s73v3r]

I honestly cannot see how that is any better.

Re:I've an even better solution

[s73v3r]

Honestly, that whole thing is completely retarded. The ONLY reason someone would ask that in an interview would be so they could use your answer as a reason to hire/not hire.

Re:I've an even better solution

[Cederic]

I honestly cannot see how that is any better.

Ethically, morally and probably legally, it isn't.

What it does however do is avoid breaking the facebook terms of service, as the individual is not giving out their logon credentials, merely logging onto facebook while in the presence of others.

Re:I've an even better solution

[sociocapitalist]

Tell the that's the same as asking to know your age, religion and national origin and you intend to file a claim with the EEOC.

Yep, that'll get you the job for sure!

Re:I've an even better solution

[qimugtua]

Then when you decline a candidate because of lack of experience, they slam you with an age-discrimination lawsuit which you'll eventually have to settle to your detriment. My last hiring committee appointed someone otherwise unrelated to the process to do the internet search to see if the applicants had published anything concerning. Only this person was "contaminated" by information otherwise unrelated to the qualities specifically sought for the position, and this person steered clear of any other facet of the application process. This process could, I think and fear, clear employers of the EEOC concerns.

Re:I've an even better solution

[TheRedSeven]

Or because they're trying to make small talk:

So, are you new to the area? Oh! Do you have kids? The schools in that section of town are great!

Or because they're trying to ask a question to get at a legal-to-consider issue, but framing it poorly.

Are you a US citizen? (when what they should be asking is, "Do you have the legal right to work in this country?"

There's a bunch of reasons--most of them having to do with ignorance--that might bring up a question that has little or no bearing on your ability to do the job.

Re:I've an even better solution

[anyGould]

+1 Citation

On a practical note, the HR training I was given for interviews flatly said "don't ask, ever - not for small talk, not from curiousity, not AT ALL. Once they're hired then you can make small talk and ask. But not before then.".

Re:I've an even better solution

[s73v3r]

Nope. If it's in an interview, the only purpose is to gather information. Doing it over small talk is just a less formal way of doing so.

Re:I've an even better solution

[TheRedSeven]

"How are you doing today?" Courtesy and/or small talk that has nothing to do with gathering (relevant) information.

Deny that you're a member

[mshenrick]

Say you're not on Facebook. Hide yourself from search, or deactivate your account temporarily

Toggle

[Rinisari]

Could you deactivate it before the interview, then reactivate it later? Change your password to a random string from http://strongpasswordgenerator.com/ so that you can't know it and then reset your password later. Do this for everything they'd want to look at.

Thoughts?

Re:Toggle

[PsyberS]

Change your password to a random string from http://strongpasswordgenerator.com/ so that you can't know it and then reset your password later.

Actually, all of my passwords are randomly generated strings that I dont know. Thats what a password manager is for.

So when asked, I can simply state (honestly) that I dont know my login password and do not have my key with me to sign into Lastpass (2-factor auth).

Re:Toggle

[Bengie]

Best excuse/reason yet.

Sorry, I use LastPass with 2-factor. I left my fob at home and I won't use an un-trusted machine to log into my account.

Re:Toggle

[toddestan]

I'm not sure what this would accomplish. I mean, what are you going to tell them? If you tell them that you don't have a Facebook account they could call you out on it if they had searched for and found the profile beforehand. If you tell them you don't know your password they won't believe you. If you tell them you don't know your password off the top of your head because you use a password manager or something they'll just tell you to bring it in later (if they are truly interested in hiring you) and then what? If you are just going to refuse then what's the point of playing games with your account? At best you could tell them that you had recently decided to leave Facebook and deleted your account. They might believe that, but if you reactivate the account shortly thereafter they could call you out on it.

Society demands dishonesty, and since...

[couchslug]

...enemies don't deserve honesty, you should lie, cheat, evade, obfuscate and bullshit as expedient.

I enjoy deceiving people who piss me off. They deserve it.

e-voting bad

[sckeener]

And this is why e-voting should be killed off. FB is something that is neutral. Employers and employees don't have any issues talking about why they want or don't want to reveal profiles. Overseeing someone's e-voting is taboo at the moment because for decades that hasn't been an option. Give it a generation and we'll have Tuesday Church Services where everyone who goes to your church is expected to attend for a voting party, where the computers are not hidden behind curtains and your neighbors can look over your shoulder. We'll have some straglers who claim they can't go to their Church event because their boss wants them to do the same. They'll tell their boss that their Church requires them to be there and since bosses don't want to run afowl of the 1st amendment, they'll let them go saying 'bring a print out to work.' When in reality they go home where their spouse watches over their shoulder instead and then as they doctor up a screen shot so their boss doesn't know they voted.

Re:e-voting bad

[TheGratefulNet]

church? what's that?

glad I live in an area of the country (and world) where no one expects you to 'attend church'.

Says who?

[StoryTyme]

If anyone buckles to this or can't think of an excuse as simple as "I'm not on facebook." is a fool. More importantly, that site is nothing but mouth breathers.

SFM , SFE , real Three accounts needed

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Almost all the savvy kids have been creating *two* on line avatars, one personal and one SFM. Safe for Mom. Now may be they will use SFM as SFE (Safe for Employers) or they will create yet another separate avatar for SFE. Looks like the only thing easier than creating on line avatars is creating corporations. "Corporations are people my friend". Now "Avatars are your friend my corporations".

Turn the tables

[iB1]

If you're asked in an interview to provide your FaceBook login details, then ask everyone on the interviewing panel to do the same. And then go through their profile bit by bit, querying all photos and status updates. They'd soon change their ways.

But seriously, is this getting to be the normal thing to do in the USA? I've never heard of anything like this in the UK. It sounds horrendous.

Re:Turn the tables

[BVis]

Land of the free, home of the brave. (If you're an employer, that is.)

Employees have no rights in this country beyond the right to quit their job. They don't even need to give you a reason when they fire your ass and security frogmarches you to the door.

Re:Turn the tables

[ledow]

Yeah, UK here too.

My response would be: Afraid not.
Simple as that.

If you then *don't* give me the position, I'll have an investigation initiated ANYWAY into unfair hiring practices (whether or not I actually wanted it or thought I had a chance).

The case might fall on its face because of lack of evidence after a year or two but it will cost you TONS on re-doing your procedures, proving compliance, fighting the case, the media, etc. and it won't be ME suing you, it'll be a no-win, no-fee lawyer and/or the Department for Work and Pensions.

If you were applying for, say, MI5 or GCHQ - maybe, possibly, still doubtful, but only because I'd expect them to ALREADY have that information. I'd actually half-expect them to just say at random "What about this post on The Reg where you talk about Turing..." or something completely random in that case.

Every other job that's not actually related to the military / national security? Go fish, my friend. I won't lie to you and say I haven't got an account, or tell you I forgot the password, I would just flat-out refuse. And I'd kick up one HELL of a fuss whatever happened. Even if I got the job, I'd make it clear that continuing to ask candidates that question is liable to cause them a lot of problems.

I'd no more accept this as a request in an interview as "Please drop your trousers so we can see if you've got an STD or you're Jewish".

Note to any of my future employers: Try it. Please.

Re:Turn the tables

[iB1]

If you did try and do them for some sort of discrimination, I expect that they'd settle out of court anyways. Hey, that could be a nice little earner!

Here's a crazy idea

[mordejai]

How about saying NO?

What would you do if a potential employer wants to see you naked?
What if he wants the keys to your house?

Well, same principle.

Re:Here's a crazy idea

[MitchDev]

Yep, your unemployment benefits have run out and their no other jobs you've had any luck finding. More like this should be completely illegal. The Constitution should extend to businesses as well...

Re:Here's a crazy idea

[kikito]

What if they ask for sex then? How much is your dignity worth?

Re:Here's a crazy idea

[Cederic]

What would you do if a potential employer wants to see you naked?

Get intrigued and explore the motivations. Lets face it, it's more interesting than normal interview questions.

Re:Here's a crazy idea

[galego]

This line of logic assumes that showing FB pages contain a bunch of embarrassing and undignified content/activities ...

Cant really come up with an argument there ... Great point! ;-)

Many, many reasons

[anti-pop-frustration]

Why Making Facebook Private Won't Protect You?

- Because posting something you consider private on facebook (aka publishing it on the Internet) is stupid and careless
- Because facebook employees have unrestricted access to your account
- Because it will be hard if not impossible to *actually* remove your information from their servers and backups
- Because facebook contracts moderating content to outsourcing firms and everything you post there risks being reviewed by an under-vetted, unfulfilled person on a dollar an hour in an internet café in Marrakech.

This is for all you "If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?" and "You're one in a million, nobody cares about your insignificant neck-beard life" apologists: Don't you see why it is bad that all that private information is aggregated and under the control of a single entity?
Even if it is done with reasonable safeguards and the best of intentions, which is definitely not the case with facebook, the simple fact that all this information exists online, tied to your real name, means that the potential for abuse is immense. And this is time it's not even facebook doing the abusing and profiteering, it's just an external third party.

And when you've been unemployed for a substantial amount of time and you are desperate for a job, who has more power over you than a potential employer?

Give up your privacy, pledge allegiance to your employer. Don't you love the neofeudalist world we live in?

Re:Many, many reasons

[Requiem18th]

We have talked about enough "If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" so let me comment on "You're one in a million, nobody cares about your insignificant neck-beard life"

Firstly, it contains the tacit admission from the speaker that nobody cares about his/her own life either. What is really bothersome is that this isn't just a recognition of one's insignificance, but a commitment to it. The speakers not only admits that he isn't standing up for anything or doing anything important with his/her life, but that he/she never will at any point against the authorities, against powerful or influential people in any way. And they want you to make the same commitment.

Re:Many, many reasons

[AtomicJake]

This! Where are my mod point when I need them?

Re:Many, many reasons

[EvilBudMan]

Right, the internet has been like an eternal post card right from the start. Don't even think about posting private stuff. If you want to keep it private, don't put it up there.

Re:Many, many reasons

[Zeromous]

or simply lie all the time.

Re:I (honestly) do not have a Facebook account

[TheGratefulNet]

yeah, I'm in my 50's and I'd have zero problem telling any employer that "I don't do FB" and they'd look at my grey beard and understand.

but if you're 20's age, I bet they'll not believe you. hell, I wouldn't believe a 20something if they said they didn't have an FB acct.

Re:They better make sure they have good lawyer

[gorzek]

While I am not old enough to be discriminated against by age (yet), having known people who were let go due to age, it turns out that age discrimination is notoriously difficult to prove and prosecute. It almost never works. So, you know, good luck. "Rejected for not having a Facebook account" is not a straight line to "Rejected for being too old," so that would make it much, much harder. Hard enough that it won't be worth anyone's time to pursue.

Police state

[MitchDev]

Coaches and School admins have NO business butting into or forcing "Friend" status on student athletes. What the FUCK is wrong with this country? The founding fathers could power the world cleanly and permanently if we hooked up dynamos to the their corpses these days...

Re:I (honestly) do not have a Facebook account

[LQ]

Just Linked In. Do I not get a job?

(Seems that if you are over 30 and have a Facebook account, it calls into question your maturity anyway, no need to actually look at your profile.)

I have extended family members who only communicate via FB. There are photos of great nephews etc that I wouldn't otherwise see. So it's be in or be antisocial. Mind you, I wonder if a prospective employer could find my nephew's wife's wittering any less interesting than I do?

Wearing clothes will not protect you

[kikito]

Some potential employers might demand you to take them off, and then make them a lap-dance.

Come on!

Re:WTF

[MitchDev]

Let me guess, your reports cards always said "Doesn't play well with others"?

Facebook and Employer Etiquette

[rogueippacket]

From an employer perspective, I will never "pre-screen" a candidate by their Facebook profile - sure, I could discover your age, gender, nationality, and social activities by doing so, but these are all things I can guess from your application by comparing it to the position you applied for (and any others), the manner in which you applied, the other candidates who applied, and the contents of your resume/cover letter. Besides, none of these things will affect how employable you are before the interview. The contents of your resume, will.
Once inside the interview, I will never ask a potential candidate to show me their profile or "friend" me on Facebook to give me access to their personal data. Instead, I will simply have a conversation with you - ask you what you do outside of work to relax, what's important to you on a personal level, and how you cope with certain work environments. No Facebook profile or resume can convey this, but it is the most critical portion of the entire process.
Every candidate is different, but the thing that most forget is that once you get to the interview, the employer already knows you can do the job - you're just there so they can assess whether you're a good fit for the team. If you keep that in mind, you will ace every interview you go to. You may even start to ask yourself if the job is a good fit for you - a question which will eventually land you your dream job.
Disclaimer - I regularly recruit for one of Canada's Top 100 Employers.

Re:Facebook and Employer Etiquette

[Cederic]

once you get to the interview, the employer already knows you can do the job

Hmm. No.

Once you get to the interview, the employer already knows that you know how to write a CV that matches the job description. They know a bit more than that about you, they may even have done some pre-interview testing on you.

They're fucking insane if they assume out of hand that you can actually do the job.

Re:Which would you give up first?

[GameboyRMH]

Ugh I interviewed at a company that said a drug test could be requested as part of the interview process - for a sysadmin position mind you - and I decided I'd go through with the interview but I'd just walk out if they demanded a urine sample. Was totally clean but it's too degrading and invasive to ask that of a person.

They didn't call me for a second round of interviews, but I'm glad because the place was full of stodgy old conservative types and 75% of the interview questions were about dealing with BS office politics.

Ask Questions of your own first

[galego]

I know this is /. and everything typically has to be boolean/polar, but how about some more processing before rendering a knee-jerk yes|no and running to the high ground of your position ...

Ask the interviewer "Can you tell me what reason you need to see a personal account of mine such as Facebook?" If you're on track to a high-profile position, support of one or one where security is paramount, they may have a reason. I mean ... I know no politicians or folks in the public sector have done inappropriate things such as maintained inappropriate relationships or done shady business using just such accounts, but hey ... it just might happen someday, right!?!?!? So ... they may have a good reason to ask from their side. Some jobs do require background checks. This could be filed under that. That doesn't mean you have to give it to them. It just means that they have a [potentially valid] justification for it. If it's a wal-mart greeter position, I go report them to corporate and/or file a lawsuit. If it's part of the foreign service officer application process with the state department.

Ask/point out that you are uncomfortable with exposing friends/families information (as well as your own). Again, a security/background check may trump that anyway (if it's a condition of the job). While it's a policy, the human in front of you may actually consider that point.

Ask "How do I know what I show you will be kept confidential?" ... "Is any of this recorded digitally?" ... "May I ask how this factors into your selection process?" ... maybe even without being argumentative.

Maybe even ask them ... "Don't you wish you could forget all the inane* conversations/posts/etc. that you've seen doing this?"

Then ... if you don't get the job, ask "Can you tell me why I didn't get the position". If you feel it was related to one of your (or your friends') inane posts on facebook and/or it's discriminatory (e.g. they didn't hire you because they saw photos of you with blond hair on your facebook timeline and they don't like people who dye their hair) ... go for your lawyer ... or move on to a different job interview.

*Because yes, there is a whole heck of a lot of inane stuff on Facebook.

Re:Ask Questions of your own first

[RenHoek]

"How do you expect to find an employee that will keep the companies data private when you're not hiring people who give you their password and won't even keep their own stuff private?"

Re:Ask Questions of your own first

[galego]

The specific case from the article wasn't asking them for their password, but that's another good question angle.

Re:Terms of Service??

[bickerdyke]

Because it is of no relevance?

Incitement to break some TOS is not quite as bad as incitement to an actual crime would be. If the potential employer isn't on FB either, there is no way that TOS could be used against him.

The worst thing that could happen is FB blocking your account for giving in to the password demand. But if you do so, you've already lost your account anyway.

and from the HR drone POV it would look like you're valuing some random third party TOS over a potential job.

Re:I (honestly) do not have a Facebook account

[Pope]

(Seems that if you are over 30 and have a Facebook account, it calls into question your maturity anyway, no need to actually look at your profile.)

That's a pretty fucking stupid thing to say.

Prisons no longer do this, I think?

[danbuter]

I could have sworn I'd seen an article about this a month or two ago (maybe not here). If my memory is correct, a judge told the prisons they couldn't do this anymore, so they had to stop.

Re:The ONLY way to "win"? Don't PLAY! apk

[GameboyRMH]

Do I think that's 'right'?? No. In fact, I think it's a WEE bit 'sick' but that's what *love* (for lack of a better expression here, because I do NOT consider being possessive to such an extent, love) does to people @ times.

A poor broken woman at my office thinks that love is actually just another name for possession because her asshole ex-husband was like this. It's pretty sad.

Re:I (honestly) do not have a Facebook account

[GameboyRMH]

Does that include 20-something Slashdotters?

I don't have a Facebook account. Believe me? :-P

Decoy?

[TrailerTrash]

if you think this is a real possibility in your line of work, there's always the classic teenager move - the decoy account. The decoy account using your real name gets very bland, vanilla posts with bland, vanilla pictures, just active enough to make it look real (Mary Sue now LIKE'S the United Way and Habitat for Humanity). The other account with a fake name has those ones of you with the stack of red solo cups on your head while you're passed out and the sharpie drawings all over your face. The employers get free access to your decoy account, which not coincidentally, links to your parents' accounts and other decoy accounts.

Solution

[headhot]

2 accounts. one for bosses, one for making fun of bosses.

What If You Tell Them You Don't Have One?

[assertation]

Some people don't,
Some deleted theirs,
Some are under aliases, with all of the privacy settings locked down such that searching under their real or fake name will yield no results.

So, what does a potential employer do if the applicant claims s/he doesn't have such a page and searching on his/her real name produces no results?

The motivation behind this Orwellian move in the first place is discretion. They don't want employees who will embarrass the org.

As far as they should be concerned such people will deliver on that.

Illegally Intrusive Question

[QuincyDurant]

The only reason this happens is that Facebook is a comparatively new thing, and it takes a while for issues likes these to work their way through the courts. Employers are nuts to ask for the irrelevant personal information that almost any Facebook account contains.

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/03/02/checking-out-job-applicants-on-facebook-better-ask-a-lawyer/

Re:They better make sure they have good lawyer

[chandani]

You better got a good layer if it comes to light.

Are we talking about a productive chicken, or someone who's good in bed?

Non Story

[EvilBudMan]

If you RTFA then it talks about the Maryland Department of Corrections. To work in a prison, you get background checked. In this case I don't think their demands are unreasonable but if it were @ McDonald's flipping burgers, then it would be none of their business but a guard or a cop, come on?

Re:Non Story

[EvilBudMan]

--So no prison guard or cop has the right to any sort of privacy?--

Not that sort for obvious reasons. If they are post crazy stuff to FB you don't want that. I guess you give up some rights to be in the military. It's simple there is no privacy if you go around bragging about stuff you want to keep private. I don't understand the student athlete thing except they usually become future cops if they don't make it big, but anyhow you can say no by either not being a prison guard or not having a FB. I never hear of an institution of learning that requires this. Maybe that would be a school to avoid.

Let's say you had a gun license (which you probably don't). I mean one that allows you to sell guns. We'll you have just allowed the ATF to search your home any time but your a gun dealer. I think doing that for sports is unreasonable but I also think checking someone out that has to have a high degree of responsibility is not unreasonable. Everybody shouldn't know the results of the background check which with law enforcement, I don't believe they do. Especially a guard.

Yes, definitely not a Facebook privacy problem

[doston]

This is a fascist corporation problem, of which Facebook is merely one of millions. If I worked for a communist institution for 8-12 hours per day, you'd probably call me a communist. So I guess we're all fascists, since even though we have the power to stop corporate tyranny, we allow them to continue operating the same lousy way. Although I'm not a genuis, like some of you seem to be, I've thought a lot about this and I think it can only be resolved with serious campaign finance reform...like go medieval on campaign/political contributions by corporations/business. If they continue to insist corporations are people, then we'd have to go medieval on the Supreme Court. What I know is that corporations have been getting the upper hand on actual people for years and it's about time they were knocked back a few hundred steps.

Re:Yes, definitely not a Facebook privacy problem

[Johann Lau]

Well said.

Privacy?

[Murdoch5]

If you wanted to get into social networking in the first place then wasn't the intent to let people see, know and read what your doing? We seem to always hear how there isn't enough privacy on Facebook or MySpace or Google+ but in the end why did you make a networking profile is you want to keep your life private. Once you put data on the Internet it's available for anyone who wants it. Sure you can claim people don't have the right to view it but then why did you put it up in the first place? The bottom line is if you care about the privacy of your actions / data then don't post it online.

Re:Privacy?

[Johann Lau]

Once you put data on the Internet it's available for anyone who has the proper credentials

There, all fixed now.

Re:Privacy?

[Murdoch5]

HA okay I accept that fix! Has or can get the credentials ( Hackers )

Re:Privacy?

[Johann Lau]

Sure, or being a fed or a facebook/google server farm guy, there's plenty of ways. My point was, the internet does have legitimate private uses. It starts with the "save as draft" option in any blogging app :P And I say never give that up, don't be that jaded/spineless. If an employer is that nosy, then that's the problem, not having posted stuff privately that you wouldn't want them to see. So don't just walk out of the interview, punch them in the face. Live, for once. Haha.

"They're wrong! You're right!" -- Bill Hicks

Re:Privacy?

[Murdoch5]

I do understand what you mean, my main point is that WAY to many people, even people I know don't see the big deal of putting large amounts of personal data online. They think by changing a simple button to private that it will make them completely invisible online. Once you put data online and post it then it's available to people who want it. If you didn't want people to read it then you shouldn't of posted it.

Re:I won't hire someone who has a Facebook account

[Johann Lau]

Fair points. On the other hand, soulless, spineless "top-level professionals" are going to be hanged sooner rather than later.

Plan accordingly.

(not bothering with that AC shit because I'm not the one with something to hide)

Re:Question

[Johann Lau]

It ends either in insurgence, or annihilation of even the ability to even see anything wrong with being a slave.

Re:I (honestly) do not have a Facebook account

[poena.dare]

Epicly stupid.

Grandparents love to keep up with grandchildren, for one.

Legislation moving through Maryland state house...

[lythander]

2 bits, written poorly and so problematic on that basis, but with the right idea at their heart:

1) To protect students from having to provide their personal login info for social networks to coaches or administrators. This is in response to NC State (or is it UNC?) requiring exactly that, after the NCAA faulted them for NOT doing it after some NCAA student-booster violation of some sort. Nothing illegal mind you, but they broke NCAA rules.

2) To protect employees (or prospective ones) from having to turn over these credentials.

I say they're poorly written because they are too specific, and somewhat inaccurate, in their technical prohibitions. The university system testified that they were problematic because they would potentially prohibit US from requiring students use antivirus programs or other security measures when on our networks. We hope they're fixing that bit.

Agreed.

[Brain-Fu]

The right to work is mis-envisioned. Most people who think they have a right to work don't realize that it translates to a requirement to employ liabilities and lose one's business. The bigger issue, though, is that most people see the having of a job as the only means by which they can subsist, and so they consider it an extension of the right to life.

We are entering an era of such technological ascendency that very few people must actually work in order to provide for the subsistence of the entire population. Capitalistic values do not work well in such an economic landscape. The fact that civilized governments pay landowners to NOT grow food, in an effort to protect a market, while children go to bed hungry within their own borders, demonstrates the absurdities of this disparity.

Of course...people who can't find jobs are not content to just die. They absolutely will turn to crime instead, where they will either:

a) take your wealth from you by stealing it, to your detriment, or
b) receive free food and clothing, paid by your tax dollars, in jail.

We will be providing for their subsistence one way or the other. It would be better, however, if humans could maintain a more enlightened means of solving the distribution problem.

Re:Agreed.

[TheLink]

Many humans seem to be quite happy keeping their pets well-fed and happy. Big difference I see is pets don't get to vote and lose a lot of freedoms, often reproductive freedoms too.

Would those same humans be as happy keeping those pets around if their pets can vote and have the same freedoms as the humans minus the responsibilities?

Not saying society should keep some humans as pets, but even if resources are enough to go around today, if the "pets" with freedoms and no responsibilities keep reproducing, you can end up with many problems. One way to mitigate this is forced education of all children from a young age. Brainwash them early so that most of them will at least want to be useful and helpful, and be well educated. So even if their parents are useless parasites, their children might not be.

Re:Agreed.

[HeckRuler]

people who can't find jobs are not content to just die. They absolutely will turn to crime instead

Wow. Sociological absolutes. Yeah, sure, that seems perfectly reasonable. ~
But no, you're seeing the world in black and white. Automation and economics of scale doesn't mean that everyone effected is out of work, but that some are out of work, some get other work, and the labor market as a whole gets a little more crowded. In towns that were entirely fueled by manufacturing, sure, there are a lot of people out of work. Life sucks for them, and A PORTION of them indeed turn to crime as an alternative income. But the supervisor of a production line can drop down to supervising a McDonalds. And the graduating student who was hoping for a job in manufacturing will have to go get something else. Anything else.

Entire classes of people can be pushed down without going on the dole. The middle class can turn into the low class without being criminals or being put in jail.

Re:Agreed.

[s73v3r]

The bigger issue, though, is that most people see the having of a job as the only means by which they can subsist, and so they consider it an extension of the right to life.

Probably because that's true. If most of the people did not have a job, and decided to go on assistance, there would be nowhere near enough to cover it all. So yes, having a job is required to exist.

Re:Agreed.

[scot4875]

Entire classes of people can be pushed down without going on the dole. The middle class can turn into the low class without being criminals or being put in jail.

Umm, hooray?

--Jeremy

Re:Agreed.

[Loopy]

> Of course...people who can't find jobs are not content to just die. They absolutely will turn to crime instead, where they will either:
>
> a) take your wealth from you by stealing it, to your detriment, or
> b) receive free food and clothing, paid by your tax dollars, in jail.

(B) is redundant in your example, albeit hard to explain to certain sectors of the public.

A novel defense (challenge)

[HikingStick]

In the United States, employers are barred from asking about certain things during interviews (e.g., marital and familial status). Besides the generic privacy argument, perhaps someone will think of refusing to cooperate because it would expose aspects of the applicant's life that the potential employer may not consider. Perhaps HR teams will get wind of this, as well, and start telling their hiring managers to cease and desist before they end up as first-named-defendant on a lawsuit challenging the practice.

Facebook is not beneficial overall

[fyngyrz]

Sure, you decided that it wasn't worth the cost which is fine, but don't act as if there's no benefit whatsoever.

Look, if you fatally shoot yourself in the face there's almost always a benefit to the flower shop, but that doesn't make the overall experience even close to "a good thing." There's a difference between "no benefit whatsoever" and "overall not of benefit" that is not resolved by small compensations, especially when those compensations could be had in other ways.

Facebook is there to mine your presence and your postings and your contact's postings for profitable information which it then sells to corporations and gives away to the government, all without any reasonable oversight on the part of the Facebook member.

But wait, there's more: They encourage third party targeting of your personal life by linking other people's images and postings to you without your consent, they store your stuff after you thought you deleted it and they make it available to others, they actually sell their database of stuff (including yours) to corporations (just like Twitter, I should point out)...

On top of all that, they have extremely odious terms of service, terms that toss the idea of rehabilitation aside and promote the existence of an unrecoverable, unredeemable, unemployable, untouchable low class. Pee on a bush, or streak, or do any one of a number of not particularly troublesome things and end up on that magical, won't-save-the-children sexual offenders list? Not only can you not live near a playground, get a decent job, or ever vote again... even Facebook deems you unworthy. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad and misguided. Not to mention based on entirely wrongheaded ideas.

Facebook is not a good thing. Popular? Sure. That's because people just aren't very well informed (a good number of them don't even have the mental capacity to understand the issues), and because even people who could understand if they were clear on what is going on are just very poorly educated and not well versed in critical thinking.

And then there's these last couple of generations amazing propensity to share until conventional social boundaries are inverted... I'm talking about the kind of behaviors that lead to a clutch of teenagers walking down the street or sitting at a table in a restaurant, all with their cellphones pressed to their ears or fingering out a text, all the while ignoring the people right at their elbows. That is truly bizarre behavior. Facebook encourages it, and that's clearly a bad thing.

Me, I have no Facebook account; I turn off my phone when I have a guest, or am a guest; I don't talk or "share" when listening to music or perusing a film; and I don't respond to being told something by immediately turning around and spewing out some similar experience (that's just part of being a good listener, but I have noticed that particular misbehavior is very prevalent in the younger generations right now... it may be related to the whole social media thing. When someone tells you about X, the good listener listens, enquiring about that incident of X, rather than trying to riposte with their own experience of X-prime.)

Popularity does not equal goodness. Slavery was popular. The Nazis were popular. The drug war was popular (not so much these days, but look at the harm that's been done in its name already... lots more to come before society kills prohibition V2, I'm afraid.) Religion is popular. And hey... Facebook is popular, too.

You Use Your Real Name?

[sudon't]

Back when the internet was young, and I saw that everyone was using pseudos, I thought, "Why shouldn't I use my real name online?" Let's just say I learned why not. I do not use my real name on Facebook, just as I don't on /., or anywhere else. My friends know who I am, just as I know who they are, so pseudos work fine. When an employer, or any other nosy stranger wants to see my Facebook page, they're not going to find it. "I" don't have one. Of course, they will see some slightly embarrassing comments I made in the '90s....

Blame the password

[CAPSLOCK2000]

Besides all the privacy issues there is another reason to refuse: security.

I try to avoid typing passwords on any computer that I do not fully control. There is a real chance that the computer is infected with some kind of spyware. For my own systems I use two-factor authentication in the rare cases that I truly need remote access from somebody else's computer.
Unfortunately that is not possible with Facebook. While my Facebook account/password by itself is of little value, it could be used in a social engineering attack. Besides that it would break my habit of not typing passwords on other peoples computer.

Any job that I would apply for would (should) appreciate this position.

What's good for the goose...

[chicago_scott]

I'll allow a perceptive employer to see my Facebook page if they'll let me see the company financial books. That way we can both know there's no funny business going on.

Otherwise we can both agree to trust each other and get some work done.

Where are prisons located? Exactly.

[afabbro]

Most prisons are built as public-works projects in remote communities where your other choices are making minimum wage at McDonald's or the gas station. Prisons can get away with this because the local workforce is often desperate for a good-paying job.

Two Accounts

[sociocapitalist]

One with your real name and bullshit minimum information that you don't care if anyone sees.

The second with a fake name (fuck you facebook) and your real life, as much as you don't care gets shown though it'll be more difficult to tie it back to you if you bullshit the essentials.

Anyone who puts anything on facebook has to assume it's private. Facebook doesn't give a shit for anyone's privacy.

... But what if you don't HAVE a Facebook account?

[linuxrunner]

I legitimately no longer have a facebook account. I did. But deleted it well over a year ago. I hated that my friends were no longer my real friends. No need to get together and chat when everyone already knew everything.

Getting invited to events from across the country due to some idiot with just a blanket invite? Yeah, some friends they are...

Old college buddies saying: "I can't wait to catch up again!", and then never messaging me back. Making me realize why we lost touch in the first place. ...

So my question, after that rant, is... What if you don't have an account? You tell the employer that you don't have one. Of course they won't believe you as EVERYONE (/italics) has an account. Will they accuse you of lying? Is there any way for me to prove myself? Being self-employed, I really don't give a rats ass in the end, but this is going to affect someone somewhere as folks leave Facebook for Google+ or the multitude of other all-encompassing sites fighting for your attention.

Its a test

[allo]

smart persons will refuse, so they pick only the refusing ones as future employees.

Re:Its a test

[Skapare]

Except you are wrong. They pick the dump ones.

how is this a facebook issue?

[notnAP]

"Facebook's privacy settings, such as they are, don't hold up in the face of prospective employers who demand to see applicants' profiles."
"My home computer's security settings, protecting the personal diary I keep, don't hold up in the face of prospective employers who demand to see my private writings."
"My front door's lock, behind which I keep lots of private stuff, doesn't hold up in the face of prospective employers who demand that I give them access to my home, follow me around for a while while I lounge and generally do private stuff."
"My pants zipper doesn't hold up in the face of prospective employers who demand that I give them drop trou and display my junk because the guy who wants to hire me is afraid if I sleep with his secretary, she may see that someone else's penis is bigger than his."

Where is the security problem and failure here, really? Is facebook to blame when you give someone else your password?

I don't have a Facebook account

[Skapare]

So what does that say about my prospects of getting hired by a dumb employer? Oh wait!

Re:... But what if you don't HAVE a Facebook accou

[Skapare]

I NEVER had one ... nyah, nyah, nyah!

Re:Which is just one of the many reasons

[Skapare]

Imagine what kind of trouble people would be in on Facebook if they were friended by Anonymous Coward.

Kind of like drug testing

[pikester]

I had one job offer that would have required me to take a drug test in order to take the job. While I knew that I would pass, I felt that it was something that I would never do for a job. I told the company that if my word that I don't do drugs was not good enough for them, then there was no point in hiring me. I walked away from the whole thing. Honestly, if you don't like the requirements to get the job, don't take the job.

The Sting

[Skapare]

Maybe I should create a Facebook page ... and fill it up with stories about how I filed lawsuits against numerous businesses that refused to hire me, and won millions in awards.

Re:I won't hire someone who has a Facebook account

[bugs2squash]

Back in the real world, where normal well-adjusted people actually want to use social media for social purposes, and don't attempt to "drop off the grid" by refusing phone lines, or physical addresses and don't have multiple passports like Jason Bourne or wear tinfoil terrorist masks. I would propose the following...

We'd like to see your facebook page...

OK, let's do that at the end of the interview when we've both decided that we want to work together, as one final thing I'll log in for you and let you see the asinine things my friends occasionally say, but that I don't endorse if you promise that if there's nothing to seriously question my morality, the jobs mine

Re:Terms of Service??

[dwye]

Why is no one raising the issue that demanding users hand over passwords violate Facebook's Terms of Service [facebook.com]?:

Because they are not asking that? They ask that you log into your page, not that they do it. I assume that the idea is to see if you put the wrong sort of info out there which is one Facebook privacy change away from being visible to your or their worst enemy.

Seriously, get your worries right.

Mod parent up.

[John Hasler]

n/t

Athletes? Really?

[xenobyte]

Didn't think athletes could read or write? ;)

Okay, seriously... Why would they be particularly interested in athletes? Wouldn't regular students also write 'interesting' stuff on social media?

I mean... take Columbine... The jocks probably just wrote about cheerleaders and keg parties, while the Trenchcoat Mafia just might have written something more serious and interesting...

There's also the reverse issue... What if you were monitoring things and FAILED to spot a student planning to shoot everybody... Is the school now responsible?