Slashdot Mirror
Facebook: Legal Action Against Employers Asking For Your Password
An anonymous reader writes "Facebook today weighed in on the issue of employers asking current and prospective employees for their Facebook passwords. The company noted that doing so undermines the privacy expectations and the security of both the user and the user's friends, as well as potentially exposes the employer to legal liability. The company is looking to draft new laws as well as take legal action against employers who do this."
A least one U.S. Senator agrees with them.
it would be fun. Help me facebook.
...employers will just ask potential employees to accept their HR staff's friend request, as the article yesterday stated. But one could easily get around that by making sure the HR staff is in a Facebook list that has no access to a user's wall/timeline and other info. Still, seems like the employer wouldn't like that and they would find some way to get the employee to let HR in. :(
My Daily photo website.
...but when it comes to businesses, I guess that goes out the window.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
facebook is making laws?!
wtf
Ohhhhhh really thats not good but the USA is a plutocracy...
Has a single company that has done this been identified by name? Every article I've seen does NOT mention any name, making it sound more anecdotal than factual.
Wait, what? Facebook interceding to protect the privacy of its users?
We're going to need to wear our long underwear to that flying pig cookout in Hell.
I find myself curious as to what these (current or prospective) employers do with candidates who, assuming they meet all other criteria for the job, don't have social media accounts? That's one I haven't seen addressed in the various articles that have discussed this topic in recent weeks.
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
Don't join fucking FacePlace
"At least one US senator agrees."
So put another way, only one US senator agrees. The rest have been well-paid to support anything desired by anyone carrying the title "employer".
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
You can't have my password no more.....
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Make part of the Facebook login process to enter your your race, age, marital status, or other things that it is illegal for employers to ask you about in an interview. If they ask you to log in for them, you can claim that that is a form of asking you that information and is not allowed.
If you have a good lawyer, you can probably sue them already. In most facebook accounts, people provide a lot of information that it is illegal for the employer to ask about - age, gender, race, sexuality. Employers can't ask these questions, and similarly, they can't ask questions that they know will reveal that information. We don't really need a new law, just a smart lawyer
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Seems Bullshit really, current laws such as your basic rights cover this don't they?
In Europe your company will end up in the cleaners if you do something like this (except in the UK where they ask your religion, your sexual preference, your race etc - Northern Ireland "positive discrimination" employment laws and also can require blood drug tests for software jobs! No I am not joking, they CAN and DO do this, tracking employee race, religon, sexual preference is the LAW for companies with 5 or more employees in Northern Ireland. Talk about backwards!).
If they are prepared to hand out personal passwords at work, they are probably not going to give a second thought handing their work password to colleagues.
My content is posted publicly, but many of my friends don't do the same.
So for me to give out my password to a prospective employee would only gain them the ability to spy on people who aren't even applying for the job!
So if you want my password, get a warrant. And if you can't get a warrant because you're not law enforcement, who the hell are you to be asking in the first place?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Since the current laws about unauthorized network/computer access are vague enough to include doing something against any website's terms of service couldn't FB just put it their TOS? Then setup a bounty or whistle blower reporting system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Right after you give me the root password to the company's servers!
Seems like a fair trade to me...
it should be legislated that at any time someone declares social media to be the wave of the future, a round of eye rolling and fart-noise making should commence immediately.
this is a company that spies on you for the US government, sells your data to anyone who wants it, and is totally content to insist it has full legal rights over all of your content, indefinitely, with or without your consent.
close your facebook account and consider checking out some meat-space human interaction tools like meetup.com. there arent any buttons to indicate the position of your thumbs, and when you like something you just tell someone "hi, i enjoy this." Best of all, no asshole corporation pretending theyre doing you a favour by scouring your personal life for hints of product placement opportunities or subversive anti-government opinions. As a bonus, your employer will have the freeedom to hire you based on their objective opinion of your job skills and critical thinking ability, not your farmville or mafiawars score and picture of that drunken bender at grizzlebees where you wore the fried onion like a head-crab from Half-Life.
Good people go to bed earlier.
How much of an asshole do you have to be to ask your employee for a password of a personal service they're using? If I didn't know better I'd say it's impossible to be so far high on that scale.
I'd just use this as a screening question for potential employees.
If you willingly give me your login credentials I should just assume you're a moron and not hire you.
And it will always be my answer. Whether or not I use facebook is no one's business. Not my family. Not my friends. Not my co-workers or employers. "Please wear this delightful necklace with a GPS and a camera to take pictures of whatever is around you at any given time. BTW, it's a condition of employment." There's just something dark and sinister about that. How any employer could think this is a great idea when they know damned well they wouldn't be willing to share that information with their employees is looking upon their employees as a "lesser being" and certainly not equal as idealized by the US constitution. If this is not a "discriminatory act" it most definitely leads to discriminatory behavior.
There is already a list of things an employer cannot ask an employee for. I think it's time to make a law which issues a WHITE LIST of things employers can ask for rather than using the black list system we have today. The potential for this to become an ever-growing problem is too great.
Up until now I thought it was just an urban legend. "Like any company would smear itself with mud by doing something so vile and contemptible." And now it turns out, this actually happened!? o_O
As a Finn, I hope this is one of those macabre policies of corporations running rampant and unchecked, confined to the USA. At least in Finland (and I think most of the EU) this shit just wouldn't stand legal ground.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Not ever. Of any kind. And fully expect to never get or need one. It's possible that I'm wrong though and may eventually need to use one but I imagine I'd just use it a a portal to all the other non social media things I'd need to access. There's nothing I want to share with the world, no one I need to friend, I don't play console or computer games. 95% of my non work email is junk. I don't IM outside of work. I don't tweet. I've never had a blog. And where I've felt compelled to comment to some article or such online, those logins use aliases that in no way mimic my name or any personal information about me. I don't do online banking I don't pay bills online. I've never had a debit card or an ATM card.
So my point is, if I tell them all of this then what? They won't hire me BECAUSE I have NO privacy for them to invade?
Willing to give up their rights, for a few bucks :)
Mr Franklin was right...
Right. That is the fix. A new law. Lets make a new law for every issue that crops up and see how long the judicial system lasts.
its called theft of an access device by duress(by the interviewer) .. ie the access device belongs to facebook not the user who merely has permission to use the username and password to access the facebook service.
The user both by contract and by law is NOT allowed to use the access device to allow a 3rd party to gain access and this includes interviewers. thats additionally receiving stolen property and theft of service doesn't matter whether a hacker induces you to share willingly or an interviewer is twisting your arm by dangling a job offer(duress).
purloined access devices in a criminal court case are especially loved by prosecutors(easy rim shot felonies!!) and are no joke to defendants.(I also see conspiracy charges in the wings if you willingly help the interviewer gain access..)
dont believe moi?? the laws are already there and in print and have been used in precisely this scenario in separate cases.
waiting for an inventive federal prosecutor :
anon
Silly employers. I'm sure Facebook would be happy to sell you the prospect's information, for the right price. Just ask!
The only exception should be people who need government security clearances, and even then it should be the government who gets access, not the employer.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Why does the DMCA not apply? Why are these companies all not in violation of the the DMCA.
The users contents is private and password protected. The users content is copyright protected work of the user and their friends.
***ANY*** attempt to violate the users password protection would seem to me to be a violation of DMCA. Does not ANY method to break DRM include intimidation of the key holder ?
A college senior graduating from a teaching credential program applied for a job in a school system. The school system saw her MySpace page which had a picture of her obviously at a part with a red Solo cup in hand. She wasn't underage as the picture was current. She was just smiling, having a good time. They withdrew their job offer. AFAIK, no action was taken by the applicant (I'd sue).
I asked a client who is an attorney but practices a different, specialized type of law. While it's OK for some places like Home Depot to require a drug test prior to employment, that still happens farther down the interview chain. I don't want some person in the store driving a forklift when they're intoxicated or impaired.
I can't see asking for FB or MySpace or any of the other social media site access as acceptable. LinkEdIn, as much as I hate them and how they work, is different. I don't think you'll see party pictures or any of my LOLcat pictures on a LinkEdIn profile. Just doing a Google search of myself shows my name in various news group posts even though I post with no-archive. While it's almost impossible to exclude 'the stuff on the Internet' from an employer's background search, omitting stuff like what's in your FB (I'm gay, jewish and my politics are none of your business) cross the line.
I wonder what would happen if the first thing they saw is "Thanks for logging access to my FB page. I now own your house and the assets of your company. Have a great day. And good luck finding a new job."
I dunno, didn't we already have an article years ago about how those higher up the hierarchy tend to be more sociopathic? Well, here's the original link: Is Your Boss A Psychopath?
But anyway, if you have to ask "how much of an asshole does someone have to be to do X?" I think you'll find that there are big enough assholes to do just about anything. Especially in positions that involve money, power, or both. In fact it seems like even the drive to end up in a position with enough power to no longer have to give a damn about the peons around, is disproportionately higher in... exactly those who are sick and tired of having to fake giving a damn about those peons around them.
But at any rate, let's just say that goatse was a lightweight, compared to the kind of huge assholes you see in upper management ;)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Facebook could help their users by creating a second password.
If you enter your second password (mainly because you are being asked for it against your better judgement), Facebook displays a UI that only lists your public posts in your timeline, and only shows a subset of friends that you have pre-selected.
You can maintain anything you want in Facebook, and you can give an employer your password (though that still isn't right), and rest assured that you still look clean to your employer. The employer is none the wiser because the password you provide gets them access to your account.
I would immediately reject someone who was willing to show me their FB account after I asked them to. That means they would also probably be easily enticed into revealing our corporate secrets to an outsider.
Did I miss something?
I know we've all heard about regulatory capture by corporations and lobbyists, but has it gotten so blatant that businesses don't even try to hide it nowadays?
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
We should honor the position of Facebook in this arena, our stalwart champions of privacy and advocates of those personal information would exploited by a party in a position of power.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
I don't, and most of the people who I know don't.
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
how widespread is this practice in america? im in england and asking an employee for a facebook password seems outrageous. It's akin to asking for an email password.
Hi all,
Current US and specifically California law already covers this... its called theft of an access device by duress, ie you do NOT own the username and password, facebook allows you to use the credentials they are permitting you to use to gain access to their service.
Allowing a 3rd party to gain access is called theft of service and is specifically against US law. If you give up the access device willingly then you may be charged with conspiracy to commit theft of service, the interviewer making the request may additionally be charged with ID theft.
ALL of these laws have been used in individual cases I DO find it fascinating the the original case brought to light was a correctional officer interviewer inducing interviewees to commit several felony violations of federal computer crime law.
and looking to record the scum bagfwho made this request? www.looxcie.com has just the right device to capture his/her request for youtube posterity and fame...
anon
If employers keep acting this way, then facebook users will be more prone to disabling their accounts. If people start disabling their accounts, facebook loses money. Bottom line.
"I must reasonably assume this is a test of my suceptibility to 'social engineering' that would make me a severe security risk, thus I must decline, as I would of course do in any situation where this company's confidential information would be at similar risk."
Seriously, if you are desperate for said job and have to have it. Give them the account information then a day/week/month later just change it. Reset any privacy settings etc. It really sucks that you would have to do it, and honestly I would only give it up if I was desperate for a job (otherwise I'd just go find another company who doesn't think it's okay to treat there employee's like shit). An employer asking for that information obviously isn't going to be worth working for, by doing this they are saying "we don't give a fuck about employee's". Some of you might be jaded and respond to this by saying "all companies don't care for there employees" however, maybe by luck, most companies I've worked for understood that without (quality) employees they would be fucked.
WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
Has a single company that has done this been identified by name? Every article I've seen does NOT mention any name, making it sound more anecdotal than factual.
maryland department of corrections was screening guards this way. Looking for gang signs. West Coooast! *does the twisted finger thing* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/22/aclu-facebook-password_n_1372242.html.
And such guards are sworn law enforcement officers that must agree to background checks and investigations. Investigations that involve contacting and interviewing friends, family, acquaintances, colleagues, etc. Not only those individuals provided by the prospective employee but those secondary contacts (friends of friends so to speak) that interviewees mention as also knowing the prospective employee.
I'm afraid the Maryland DOC case is a poor example of invasion of privacy.
The truth is that regular employers that have a clue already know that logging into a candidate's facebook account is illegal. It is against the law to ask a candidate's age and certain other personal information. Information that is visible in facebook. Regular employers already know they are setting themselves up to be sued if they do so. Are there aberrations, of course, but there is no widespread trend and there will not be. Even with existing laws on the books.
Just set your password to "ACLU".
If I ran an HR department, then I'd use that as a social engineering test. Any prospective hire who gives up an FB password is dismissed. Those are the ones who would hand out company root passwords over the phone to the "CEO...I swear".
Overbearing employers are nothing new; this is just HR prying into applicants lives with 'on the internet' appended. Whether it's drug tests, credit checks, IQ exams or 3-day multi-person interviews, some companies will push the boundaries and the people will have to push back, sometimes with politics and laws.
Imagine if an employer said they want to inspect your home and interview your family. If the job involves a top secret clearance maybe that's OK but not for 99% of jobs. And here's my point: nobody would agree to having their home inspected and HR wouldn't even think to ask. It's only because social networking is new that anyone even wonders if might be reasonable.
Since the beginning of the web (I started developing websites around the beginning of 95) I have been ever careful of what I put out... The key is to make it look "real", but not enough to make you look bad.
I've filtered myself too, as I'm sure most of Slashdot has, but we should really focus on fighting for everyones rights. No matter how well we may protect ourselves we all have to live with societies attitudes. As technical folk we have the best chance of setting the norms for life on the internet.
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
How is Facebook supposed to sell this information if companies can demand it for free from new hires?
it would be fun. Help me facebook.
Humor aside, if that is your goal you do not need help from facebook nor a new law. Existing laws will do quite nicely. For example it is illegal to ask a job candidate their age and a prospective employer can get sued for doing so. Logging into a facebook account exposes a prospective employer to much such prohibited information.
It is possible (and very easy) for a company to install key loggers and monitoring software on their own company computers. Once employees steal time from their employer and update their Facebook page the employer now has the password. When the employer does use the password they check it through a proxy service like Tor. Easy, untraceable, and quiet.
When there is something that the employer doesn't like on the Facebook page the employee will face eventual job termination. Their performance reviews will be poor, the monitoring logs will be used to show misuse of company computers and time, and any complaints by customers will be fully utilized. The content of the Facebook posting will never be referenced and the person will be terminated for valid reasons. After being fired any unemployment benefits will be contested (yes, the ex-employee usually wins regardless), and then appealed (50-50 chance).
Certainly this is not how it is done at any company that I manage.
I'm afraid the Maryland DOC case is a poor example of invasion of privacy.
yes and no. actually, mostly no. The MD case was so egregious because applicants had to log in during the interview and the foolio giving the interview would peruse his shizznit. if the info is passed on to third party background mofos, then this is less demeaning because your potential boss or coworkers isn't snickering at your personal junk. sounds like invasion of privacy to me.
Prison guards are not much different from regular mall guards - they are not law enforcement officers working for a government agency.
I would give such an employer a little surprise to make them think twice next time. :-)
Sure I will just have a fake facebook. Pick of me on my user icon just like my real one. Give them the password and as soon as they log in have a very large zoomed in pic of the bloody ass in GOATSE as my post.
With white text caption saying you violated my rights I figured I would violate yours. Enjoy your lunch hour ... come on guys. Be creative
http://saveie6.com/
I'm being kind of sarcastic here, but why don't these information seeking employers just write a Facebook app where the user blindly agrees to share all of his/her information with the author? Problem solved.
Boss: Well, you seem like you're just what we're looking for. You're hired.
Ms. Applicant: Great! When can I start?
Boss: (chuckling) Whoa, Nellie, we just need to get through a few things first! Here's a list of things you must relinquish to this office by closing tonight. (hands over list)
Ms. Applicant: My diary?
Boss: Mmm, the one with the unicorns and rainbows on the cover. I spotted it through my binocs on your bookshelf last night from the parking lot outside your apartment.
Ms. Applicant: Ah, perfectly acceptable and law-abiding. (reads on, nods) My underwear drawer, of course.
Boss: We need to know if there's leather in there. I'm sure you understand that we can't have any of THAT going on in the office.
Ms. Applicant: No, that's absolutely fine. Do you need my list of family and friends in its entirety, as well?
Boss: That's on the list... here. (points) We'll need to call each and every one of them and apply our potential-employee questionnaire to them. I can't divulge that to you; I'm sure you understand.
Ms. Applicant: Of course, of course.
Boss: Your complacency and blindness to our ridiculous rules is very appreciated, sweetie. I'm sure that by this time next week, you'll be our best burger-flipper we've ever had!
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
If an employer demands this kind of access, we should all show up at their HQ with pitchforks and lighted torches, boycots and strikes. This wouldn't have been tolerated for a second 80 years ago. If, back then, an employer wanted to read your personal diary, you'd laugh in their face and the (back then free, non-corporate) press would have had a field day, if you were even unlucky enough to be what would have been (rightly) considered a 'wage-slave'. But this was before popular organization was crushed by corporations by relentless and massive anti-union, anti-organization propaganda campaingns in all forms of (corporate owned) media. Yeah, let facebook of all people handle it for us. We all know they're a champion of personal freedom and privacy. Nothing to do with the NSA whatsoever.
Step 1: Threaten to sue any company that demands access to a user's Facebook account
Step 2: Write an app that allows users to grant temporary account access to a prospective employer. Sprinkle in a few BS "safeguards" to make users feel better about letting recruiters rifle through their life
Step 3: Charge the companies through the nose for access
No underpants required.
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
Who asks for that type of information? Tell them they can have it, but it is the same password to all of your financial information and that they will be liable if there is any breach in information. Seriously though, there is no way someone could get a password out of me, to me that is akin to asking my PIN number to my DEBIT card.
Surely many of your potential new hires also have accounts on youporn, adultfriendfinder.com, et. al.
I mean, if you're going to make giving up personal privacy a condition of employment, why not go full bore with it?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I don't use it at all. Never have I had a login for it. I can tell them I am not a user and there is nothing on there that I have posted.
Granted, no employer should ever ask you for a username and password for anything, ever. But this makes it even easier to respond.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I see a new functionality coming up — employer app limited access sign-in or throw away one-time logins for employers.
o_O
Prison guards are not much different from regular mall guards - they are not law enforcement officers working for a government agency.
Maryland Department of Corrections doesn't sound like a government agency to you?
A sworn law enforcement officer, or perhaps more accurately a sworn peace officer, covers a wide array of jobs. This includes corrections officers.
Your opinion reminds me of college. Nearly every quarter there was a story in the school paper about some student who got arrested after telling campus police that he didn't have to listen to them, that they were just rent-a-cops, etc. In truth they were sworn peace officers with the jurisdiction and authority of state police, it was a public university.
Did you some brain damage in your life? I can't, for the love of god, understand what the fuck you are saying.
How would you prove you didn't have a Facebook, Twitter or other social media account?
God, I hate HR people.
You Insensitive clod
Employers just don't have reasonable right to ask for this kind of thing...if they want to know what I post they can just look at my Wall, they don't need the password.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
I'm sure Facebook is doing this in their own self interest. If employers made this a trend people would begin deleting their Facebook pages. Still......, it is amazing to see Facebook use its influence to help user anonymity and not the other way around.
One of the great moments in TV history:
Lou Grant: What religion are you?
Mary Richards: Mr. Grant, I don't quite know how to say this, but you're not allowed to ask that when someone's applying for a job. It's against the law.
Lou Grant [lifts phone receiver]: Wanna call a cop?
Mary Richards: No.
Lou Grant: Good. Would you think I was violating your civil rights if I asked if you're married?
Mary Richards: Presbyterian.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
. . . Facebook would allow something other than real names.
Of course, only a fool would use their real name in such an application.
Unless you connect via proxy, your name and address are readily available
via your ISP to anyone with a badge, cash, or leverage.
Considering you're basically GIVING away your life's secrets to anyone
with access to the data, only a fool would use such an application at all.
The day someone hacks the FB databases and discloses just how MUCH
data they're keeping on folks will be quite an eye opening day for sure.
Better to be a hipster Googler than a technophobe. They still may think your lying.
Can anyone name an employer other than the MD Dept of Corrections that has done this? I've been following the links and that is the only one named. There are multiple references to a 'rising trend' and such but no real evidence of any such thing. The closest I got was employers using a Facebook app with applicants to monitor their jobs history (Sears) but the article did not say this was mandatory, just described it as a recruiting tool.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
oh tempora oh mores!
Asking somebody for a password is not far from kicking their door in and checking out their underwear drawer. The 4th amendment has been weakened, but if the founding fathers had had computers they would not have been too big on George III or anyone else demanding passwords. To be sure, current case law only applies to the government, not private entities who are not acting on behalf of the government, but the entire purpose of existing laws protecting privacy--including whole sh*tloads of questions you can't ask in a job interview--and of constitutional protections is, well, to protect privacy. For example, it is illegal to ask job applicants if they have any tattoos even though at one time people with tattoos were something like 88 times more likely to steal. Nor can you ask about marital status. And on and on and on.
The only reason employers can ask for passwords is that the law has not yet caught up with technology.
Personally, I think you ought to be willing to go on food stamps before giving some assh*le personnel dept. your passwords. But that's just me.
If he coughs up the password, definitely do not hire him.
Here's a crib sheet, which is not a literal translation but enough to help you understand.
foolio: HR Drone
shizznit: all of their pictures, friends
background mofos: background investigators
your personal junk: all your stuff. (Or, "your junk", if you're foolish enough to post pictures of such things. Ew.)
I realize you're criticizing his writing and choice of words, but it seemed pretty clear to me. :)
Ok, don't sign. That's fine.
Here is the door. Good luck to you, sir. Your paycheck that will include today's work will be sent on XYZ date.
Oh, did you think a severance was something you are entitled to? I see your line of reasoning a lot of slashdot. The time to negotiate is not when you are being laid off/fired. Consider yourself lucky for getting anything above and beyond a pink slip.
Turn it down and try to negotiate at your own risk.
I thought it was written somewhere in the T&C and the AUP that it was against the rules to share your password with anyone or even to allow direct access to your profile.
They could have their AUP/TOS very clearly state:
With the exception of [authorized programs etc], only the named account holder is permitted to login.
They can be further augmented to permit unlimited damages, waive the usual rights to counsel and representation, and consensus that violation causes irreparable damages --which is true. People demanding passwords cause lack of trust in facebook and directly hurt their most precious sales asset -- the user. The damages are indisputable.
It then becomes a very clearcut case of unauthorized access, wire fraud, likely fraud across state lines (which they can trivially handle by running authentication servers in a different state than the reverse geolookup on the ip address).
You throw some copyrighted material up behind a valid password and they've circumvented the DMCA in addition to the CFAA.
Throw up a bit of public javascript with a copyright, register it with the library of congress, issue a limited-use license that requires being an authenticated account holder. Instant $10,000 USD in damages --minimum. But since the courts count every copy in a computer (that's why you *NEED* a EULA/license to install software, because the courts count both the hard drive, backup, and memory as a copy in our fucked up world). So let's see...copied and ran in RAM. Copied into hard drive cache. Possibly copied into cache or web proxy. $20-$30k in undeniable damages.
Now let's really monetize this shit--You offer a $5,000 bounty for anyone who delivers proof that holds up in court that an employer has broke these laws.
For extra credit, extend AUP to indicate that since corporations cannot be appropriately punished through mere punititve damages, that they agree to a world-wide royalty free non-exclusive unlimited license to all of intellectual property is just compensation for their damage.
Facebook will either succeed in protecting their primary asset -- or they'll make a fortune that's actually worth their stock estimates.
Of course.... for just $50,000 you could make an "employer" account ...
Prison guards are not much different from regular mall guards - they are not law enforcement officers working for a government agency.
You are too stupid to be on the internet without adult supervision. Please eat a bullet.
Irony is this coming from the guys who want us to type in our GMail passwords...
Ridiculous!
Thank you Senator Blumenthal and Facebook for standing up to this uncouth breach of privacy. This should already be illegal under existing laws but if employers aren't getting the message than lets nail them to the Facebook wall.
Might I suggest that everyone who has had their employer or prospective employer demand this make a posting to their blog, to their Facebook wall and elsewhere with the company's name. A little market persuasion will go a long ways. Hit them in the pocket book, on their corporate bottom line.
The Maryland DOC is a great example of invasion of privacy. An actual background check is mostly invasive to the applicant only. A facebook login is invasive to every single one of their facebook friends.
I use facebook to store all passwords from all the servers for all the previous employers I've had.
I think it would be illegal for me to share my FB password as my employer would have passwords to all their competitors.
No state requires severance pay (in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement or contract saying otherwise.. which covers something like 20% of the workers)
The WARN act requires 60 days notice in the event of a qualifying layoff/plant closure (more than 50 people within a given distance, etc.) and some companies will give pay in lieu of notice (since the penalty for not giving notice is just the pay you would have received).
California is somewhat unique in that vacation time is accrued and like salary, so must be cashed out on termination.
Grow a pair of balls and tell your boss to go fuck himself if he asks for something unreasonable. Seriously, this generation needs to be spoon fed and have their asses wiped and is going to walk right into the police state the baby boomers are looking to drop on our heads.
Liberty.
Sure, I'll give 'em my password - it's **********
And when my employer creates my facebook profile (did not have one), am I allowed to ask them for the password?
> Or wait, are you one of these special snowflakes who don't have a Facebook account?
85% of the planet doesn't have a Facebook account. Even the US is only around 50%. And that includes all the people who have multiple accounts to play Farmville with, or keep snoopy employers out of their private lives. The real number is probably below 50%. You can check their statistics at http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-statistics/?interval=last-week#chart-intervals
> Because if you're not one of those weird kinds of socially fucked up morons,
> there's really no reason not to have a Facebook account that has to do
> with either privacy, family or employment.
Shut up Mr. Zuckerberg.
Ever heard of Cardinal Richelieu? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu There's a quote that's variously attributed to either him or one of his henchmen. It goes like so...
"Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him."
All it takes is for one sarcastic remark or inside joke to be misinterpreted, and you can end up being refused admission to university, turned down for a job, fired from work, or arrested. It's not worth the risk.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Then your employer will create one for you. Not giving you the password.
Why doesn't Facebook simply sell the information directly to employers? It would minimize litigation and maximize revenue. In the end it is what FB is in the business for.
Irony aside, IMHO FB keeping records indefinitely will result in serious ethical issues. Stuff FB hasn't though of until now will emerge. Practices that will cause discomfort-to say the least- to FB account holders. I'm watching on the side line, eager to express sarcasm. My only hope is damages to humans will be reversible.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
"idonthavefacebook", "whatifisaidno", "whydoyouneedtoknow", or some variant thereof.
How the fuck all is this modded as Off Topic?
I don;t have a FB acct either... and I have NEVER seen this question answered in more than an off the cuff "they'll think your lying and/or antisocial" manner.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Am I the only person who is wondering why FaceBook feels that it is within their rights to draft a new law? Or did I misunderstand TFS?
Facebook is a taxpayer. Why can't they ask their representatives to draft legislation on a particular topic? Just like you and I.
I realize there is a lot of abuse in the current system but I think that is a different topic. If we were to cleanup the system and make it fair once again, perhaps only let voters donate to political parties and candidates, shouldn't any taxpayer be able to approach their legislators asking for legislation on a topic? Regardless of whether that taxpayer is a corporation, union, organization (Sierra Club, etc) or a person? Again, donating money is one thing but suggesting legislation is something else.
It has to start somewhere.
Imagine how quickly this would be resolved if suddenly Facebook required users to submit login and passwords for their work accounts, including government employees.
It sure distracts from the privacy issues FB creates in the first place.
And it gives the impression that FB cares about, and will take steps to, protect your privacy.
Couldn't create better advertising for FB if you tried.
Interviewer: And finally, could you give me your facebook and twitter usernames and passwords please. Correct response: Ah, a trick question to see if I'm security aware. Of course I won't give you my passwords - if I was happy to give out my passwords to anyone who asked for them you would never recruit me because you wouldn't be able to trust me with a password for your corporate computer systems.
But you can always refuse, depending on your job ( with some jobs that require high enough clearances, you don't get the privilege of privacy if you want the job ).
Of course if you refuse they can later find another reason to make you go away..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The hollow emptiness in social media numbers - most accounts are fake or empty
He and his assistant discovered that only 30% published anything on G+ and only 6% were "outright spammers." But the largest group he classed as,
Mr Kelly pointed to a study by two journalists at Popular Mechanics that only 25% of their Twitter followers were real, and 49% were fake or spam.
And this is a widespread problem:
The rise in fake users is directly related to corporate marketing campaigns that aim for large numbers of followers, 'likes,' and to show high levels of online engagement.
This has given rise to a growing services sector where it's easy to buy "friends" and "followers," by the thousands, and 'likes" by the tens of thousands, for a low fee. This can jumpstart a marketing campaign if it makes it onto a top trending list. Buying such services will also help contractors meet performance goals set by clients and trigger payments. It can be a lucrative arbitrage.
The result however, is considerable inflation in the numbers of users of all the major social networks and platforms.
Social media is a scam, same as SEO. Get over it. Facebook has less than 250 million active users, and they are a really low-quality demographic - people who have nothing better to do than bolster their low self-esteem by accumulating "friends" on facebook, and spammers.
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
It's all a scam. So, why not produce some proof - audited numbers - to show that this isn't the case? Because you can't - all social media numbers are bogus - Facebook, Twitter, Google+ - you can buy as many followers as you can afford.
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
Facebook could sort this out really fast by allowing you to have two passwords, one of which shows a vanilla marshmallow profile (certain keywords in posts cause them to become invisible perhaps) and the other password is your real one. Problemo solvio.
I nearly actually applied for a job with a company that was trying to get social networking credentials from it's candidates including passwords for cloud storage.
... do not give them out let alone do not write them down.
It was really just to take them down in the interview. Which would have been a delight. I would explain that I would flatly refuse to hand over the credentials (they literaly had a piece of paper that you would write the details all down on) and because of this they should hire me, and they should not hire any candidate. This is because as a IT professional I walk the talk on security, privacy and confidentiality.
Ironically this was for a IT job with a certain level of security clearance, but they still had zero justification for invading anyone's private life.
I would say, sure I'd give you access but:
1. I cannot hand over any credentials where it would explicitly violate the ToS for the service in question.
2. I cannot hand over credentials where a credit card is linked to the service, as it would violate the T&Cs for having a credit card and make me liable for any fraud.
3. I will not hand over credentials for a system that would create a security risk for the service , should those credentials be improperly protected.
4. Friends of mine are music producers and have sent me their copyrighted works, the employer listening to or retrieving these from my account would be copyright violation and furthermore a leaked work could be devastating.
5. I have my own copyrighted work, it's a bit shitty TBH but the principal in #4 applies.
6. They are not going to look at my private family photos.
7. They don't need to snoop on the private conversations I have with my Wife, the babysitter, my mistress, my old flame from high school, my therapist, my AA sponsor, my CIA handler and the drug dealer(s) I haven't paid.
8. Writing down passwords on paper is rule one of passwords
9. I would insist the company would seek written permission from anyone who's shared information with me on these services, as the company does not have a right to invade their privacy.
10. Doing this would expose a company to an epic legal shitstorm if it all went wrong, see 1, 2, 4, 9
Or else I'd make them sign something that they are explicitly liable for any fraud or legal consequences as a result of any mishandling of my credentials I provide. Assuming all criteria above are met.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Who in their right might would ask an employee for their facebook account and password, or any username and password?
It must be some Human Resources @asshole or @itch who thinks they are smarter than the system.
Whoever the company or companies that are doing this should be blocked from doing business with--- Give me the list of those jerks.
I will make sure they never get business.
Promise!
what will they want later?
If they are acting like this now, what will they be like later?
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
... if it's made illegal to get into people's FB accounts, most companies are going to go with the flow. I'm a hiring manager where I work, and subject to all sorts of laws regarding what you can and can't do in terms of hiring. For most of these things, sure, you could get around them. But we are really averse to getting sued over this kind of thing, so we stick to the letter of the law, as do most companies. Yes, there are exceptions. But the fact is that making employer Facebook snooping illegal would cause an immediate and very sharp drop in the amount of employer Facebook snooping. Which is a good thing.
Good luck with that. The company will argue that you gave up that information "voluntarily". After all, they didn't ask you how old you were, etc. So I'm not sure how fertile that ground really is.
If you are hiring for a job that requires a clearance, you can ask if the person is a US citizen. Otherwise, you can only ask if the person is legally entitled to work in the US (i.e, is either a citizen or green-card holder). The example you put out regarding hiring foreign nationals is sort of right, sort of wrong. To get someone here on an H-1B work visa, you have to show that you haven't been able to find someone who is a citizen... or green-card holder.
But the bottom line is that for 90+% of all jobs, you can't ask if someone is a citizen.
Not to pick specifically on the parent, but more generally on all the posts that are suggesting that the solution to the problem of employers demanding our FB passwords is to come up with a smart ass way to refuse. The fact of the matter is that unless Congress passes a law prohibiting this practice, your choices are going to be 1) provide the password, or 2) not get hired. There is no snappy answer in the world that's going to get some company to say, "oh, gee, I was going to force you to do the same thing that all of my other 50 million applicants have done, but because of the power of your pure logic, I guess I'll back down".
I suggest we don't discard the 800-lb gorilla, Facebook, that is willing to fight against this wrong with us simply because it is acting solely for it's own interest. Facebook may be the one ally we need to stop this insanity.
If you want to wait years and years for the perfect white knight to fight this battle with you then you have all but lost the war. Wait too long and this insane practice will become "industry standard".
She will have a tough time given that there is currently no law barring her employer from asking for access to her Facebook account,
No explicit law perhaps. However, this would be a technical violation of computer misuse laws, as well as a causing a breach of contract in the T&Cs between facebook and the account owner (facebook could legitimately sue for tortuous interference in contract) , not to mention a violation of the implied assumption of privacy of the facebook user's friends.
Well Facebook only breaches your privacy when a company pays for the service. They have no desire to give that info out for free.
Why tag this "funny"? Wouldn't "insightful" be more accurate?
I am salaried ('exempt"); my job often requires MUCH more than 40 hr/week of my time -even though accounting for e.g. Paid Time Off and seniority are based on assumed 40 hour weeks. I often surf the web while -for example- waiting for a test run to complete. The only 'wrong' in this context is when the damed corporate netnanny prevents access to legitimate technical websites.
I do need to keep this job, however. It will be awkward to get another when I consider the only legitimate response to a potential employer's drug-test requirement is "Certainly! However I will first need to see results of similar tests from the members of the board of directors, top management, my supervisor and yourself. These results should be for tests made within the past ten days."