Slashdot Mirror
Senators Ask Feds To Probe Facebook Log-in Requests
thomst writes "Cnet's Michelle Meyers reports that democratic senators Richard Blumenthal and Charles Schumer have asked the Justice Department to investigate what they call a 'new disturbing trend' of prospective employers demanding job applicants to turn over user names and passwords for their social networks. 'Employers have no right to ask job applicants for their house keys or to read their diaries — why should they be able to ask them for their Facebook passwords and gain unwarranted access to a trove of private information about what we like, what messages we send to people, or who we are friends with?' asked Schumer. Last Friday, in response to complaints from employees, Facebook published a post expressing its opposition to the practice, which it said undermines both the security and the privacy of the user and the user's friends. Erin Egan, the company's chief privacy officer for policy, offered that employers who demand password information for prospective employees might just end up getting sued."
Posted from my employee's account
AccountKiller
Pah! So what happens to people like me with no social network? The can't ask me to send something I don't have.
Whereas, I am legitimately not on any social network. I wonder if they could prove otherwise for people who are.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
anybody that is dumb enough to give out their facebook password would be a huge security risk for the company. They don't get hired but we sure have fun with their accounts.
stuff like this opens employers to disability & discrimination issues. So they should even be asking for them or looking at your page any ways.
If you don't want to hand over that information, then don't. If employers hear this enough, then maybe they will start to smarten up. If the only people they can hire are the ones stupid enough to give up their Facebook passwords, they probably won't be getting any great employees. That said, there's a lot of people who will probably feel they have no other choice. Just like employers often require drug tests, references, and personality tests. You could always tell them you don't have an account. Being in a technology related field, I think it would be an interesting test of somebody's security/privacy mentality to ask them for their password, with no intention to use it, but those who refuse to give the password are probably the ones you want to hire.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Do not have a Facebook account. If you are denied a job over that, it is probably not the sort of place you want to be working.
Palm trees and 8
Oh, and yes... I know they can search for you if you use your real name and have a public profile. That to me seems silly. If I were on a social network it would be under an alias and would be private so they couldn't search for me.
Yes, I know- technically aliases arn't allowed... but facebook would have no better way of knowing my real name was not Billy Bob Beerhouse then Slashdot would that my real name isn't Oswald McWeany.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Facebook, who cares. I used it for 6 months, net effect slight negative (lots of wasted time, nothing productive happened because of FB) so I deleted it some years back. I'm not so worried about HR floozies asking for my facebook account. I do worry about clueful supervisor asking for my /. account login and/or name. That could be awkward. "Looking for senior sysadmin, /. UID below 100K preferred, no eight digit UID noobs or goatse posters please"
I think the real concern is FB is/was/will sell, at some expense, full access to anyones account for HR purposes, and they're pissed off that some HR floozies are sneaking around to backdoor their profitable little sales channel. If I tell Ms H R Floozie my password and she logs in as me, how is FB supposed to send HR a $250 bill for social network consultative services, Ms Floozie has already seen all my furry pics and fan status for the NORML page, so she's not about to pay FB to learn the same thing...
FBs only hope is to sell full access to not just my account, but full access to all my friend's accounts... I can give Ms HR Floozie my complete login info, but not me friend's info. Although I suppose asking applicants to ask their FB friends for their login info is the next logical step against that.
One possible hope for FB is to stock the hell out of FB with all kinds of protected stuff, like orientation (thats protected, isn't it?) and race and especially religion, and then crucify people (err, HR I mean) in the courts if they fail to hire someone who is a christian/jew/black on their uncensored page. They can sell access to a carefully censored for legal purposes portal for HR to use that somehow magically removes all references to Jehovah and the flying spaghetti monster.
Speaking of the FSM, his G+ page is better than I expected.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
A lot of my co-workers are friends on Facebook, and I've received requests from them to be friends. I politely declined, explaining that I like to keep a strict line between my work & my private life. If I was applying for a job and they did not want to respect my desire for some form of privacy, I'd probably just throw out the application. If it was during an interview, I'd probably tell them "Thanks, but no thanks" and walk out.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I think this is where the actual rights of an employee, are never really understood by said people. There are probably many other examples where companies have violated laws regarding their workforce, because of what I perceive to simply be insecurities on the part of the company.
In short - companies get scared that their name will be tainted from the inside, and so they are willing to go above (or below) the law to try and "protect" their image. So it's good to see that lawmakers are standing up and taking note. Now, just to educate those who don't read tech sites :)
HR presumably just assumes that you are either telling the truth, and must be a radical isolationist living in a mountain cabin amidst heaps of antigovernment screeds and bomb-making apparatus, or lying because your real facebook profile is nothing but pictures of you doing things that would Reflect Poorly On the Reputation Of The Company. Circular file.
Anybody who feels comfortable demanding extremely intrusive access to personal information will likely not even think twice about assuming that anybody who isn't as transparent as the norm probably has something to hide.
You are on slashdot.
You can friend people, have a journal, post articles and discuss crap.
You are on a social network.
Background checks that will include posting on public forums, likely even ones which used aliases. Thanks to third party tracking cookies many are already able to match up people with their 'anonymous', eventually someone will monetize it by allowing searches through decades of posting.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
I'm hearing a lot about this, but I have yet to actually find someone who will confirm that they've been asked to hand over their account information. While I agree that employers should not be asking for this information, I suspect that a lot of this noise is just noise.
I want to see people name names. List the companies that are asking for usernames and passwords.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Pah! So what happens to people like me with no social network? The can't ask me to send something I don't have.
Asking for your facebook password is the modern equivalent of asking that you turn over your "Little Black Book" or your Dayrunner (Remember those?) to the company. This goes far beyond what an upstanding company would do, but is not illegal. This is one of those areas where there is no law because you shouldn't have to legislate common sense. Unfortunately, it looks like we are going to have to make a law because common sense seems to have gone extinct.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
This is a public service announcement with some food for thought regarding Facebook and similar sites.
Do not post anything on these sites that you do not want the world to know!
1. User agreements. Almost all of these sites retain ownership to what you post. They can re-sell or re-publish the material later, like Twitter, and there is no guarantee that your privacy settings will be intact.
2. Follow the money. Search engine advertising is falling because it is not targeted, but social networks are easily targeted for advertising. Your data will be sold, and if it's anonymized, there's no guarantee that the anonymization will be done so completely that it won't be easy to correlate your anonymized data to your public profiles.
3. It's easy to get to your data. If your friends let in someone who's crazy, that data will be public.
4. Security is not guaranteed. These sites can get hacked and their data published, a la Wikileaks. Even if the data isn't public, it will be for sale to people including the security firms that your future employers will want.
5. People are stupid. They think it's funny, and they re-share your stunts and exploits, and then there's the picture of you naked beer bonging on your supervisor's desk.
Think defensively and don't trust large corporations like Google and Facebook with your data.
Seriously? Just because you're antisocial and do not care about being on a social network because of your tinfoil hat does not mean the rest have to follow suit.
No matter what social network I'm on, it is reasonable to expect a semblance of privacy, especially if any information I share is for consumption only within my friends in that network.
While I'm unsearchable on Facebook, most of my friends on Facebook are from college and there's a certain degree of immaturity in our interaction. However, that is in no way representative of any of us in real life, and judging how we interact with our close friends from college is just silly.
So yes, you can have your tinfoil hat and not be a part of any social network. You can also hide yourself. But that defeats the purpose -- the idea is to interact and be *social* with others that you meet.
But that in no way should affect my expectation of privacy. What I share publicly is one thing, but forcing me to share what I share with a close circle of friends is plain wrong. And I will fight tooth and nail to keep my privacy.
This is a lose/lose situation on both sides:
I just do not get it
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
Ah but I am guessing your resume doesn't list "/. UID Nadaka (224565)" as a contact method.
It could, but most people do not do that.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
And the first thing your IT Dept. is going to the tell them is "Never share your passwords with anyone".
Right.
I am not on slashdot.
Oswald McWeany is on slashdot. Oswald McWeany is just a random name taken from combining two names on a children's TV show with a "Mc" thrown in for fun. Good luck connecting my real name to Oswald.
Even my e-mail account that created the Oswald McWeany account uses a different made-up-name.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Unfortunately, whether this practice is 'legal' or 'illegal' is only going to be of limited interest for anybody who doesn't have sufficient skills, and the right kind, to make it a seller's market for their services. There are occasional exceptions, when somebody screws up and is a bit too overt about what they think of cripples, or where they like their women, or what they think of uppity darkies at work; but the overwhelming majority of the time, when somebody doesn't shove their foot in their mouth and start chewing like a moron on the record, it isn't exactly hard to apply whatever hiring criteria you want and then provide a perfectly legal justification.
Assuming that this is in fact illegal(or at least against Facebook ToS and in Facebook's interest to get their lawsuit on), only an idiot would persist in having a demand for Facebook credentials as part of their on-the-record hiring practices. However, there are ever. so. many. voluntary. ways. of determining whether or not somebody is the sort of 'team player who is a good fit with our company culture'. I'm sure that hiring minions will reliably employ them(not, of course, because management pressured them in any way, should somebody discover this, oh no, of course not.)
So long as it's a buyer's market for you(and the numbers aren't getting any rosier) state protection isn't 100% useless; but it is far less helpful than one would like.
If you give a prospective employer your password, you're proving that you can't be trusted. Mike Loukides said it well.
You can be fired in most jurisdictions for lying on a resume, if it's proven, so I'd be carefull with that.
Facebooks Terms of Use prevent you from providing your password to another. "You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account."
Anyone using Facebook agrees with this the same as they do any other EULA or agreement. Any potential employer who requests your password is asking you to break the legal agreement that you have with Facebook before you can work for them.
http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms?ref=pf
How about a probe in to how companies use people's credit reports for hiring decisions?
How is that OK but looking at people's facebook page NOT?
I have to return some videotapes...
I don't know about other countries, but in the US, employers may not ask about the following.
Race
Color
Sex
Religion
National origin
Birthplace
Age
Disability
Marital/family status
Let the person asking the question know that by asking for the Facebook information, they are using a back door approach to gather information they are not entitled to ask and that you object to giving that information.
Any reasonable employer would not want that legal liability.
As long as I get access to their twitter account, facebook account, linkedin account, the facebook account of the interviewer and their corporate servers first.
I mean, after all... I have to know that I am working for an honest company.
I'd say that if they make their request in writing, and I sign it in the presence of a witness and of course get to keep a copy, I'll agree.
It'd be fun to see them break out in a cold sweat.
But let's say they agree. After all is signed, then I say "You do realize that my profile likely contains at least one piece of protected information that would be illegal for you to ask me to share, don't you?"
Heh...
99.9% of the people who don't have facebook are anti-social nuts?
DNA -- National Dyslexic Association
But it is still you on the social network, even if you aren't using your name. If an employer asked for your social network information and you don't tell them about Slashdot, then they would be correct to assume you had lied to them.
I love my sig.
Expect a bill to be introduced by Republicans that allows employers full access to employee's personal account info if at anyway related to the employment.
Also companies are increasingly utilising social networks for marketing and PR and will use employees as a "PR" echo chamber to evangelise the employer and or it's products.
Expect this to be made legal....and the justification is the old terrorism mantra...."If you have nothing to hide, then what's the problem...?"
What we seem to be missing is that we have 2 senators defining digital data in the same terms as personal possessions and papers. Using THIS argument as a starting point, I can see a good opening for the EFF and ACLU to step in and require like protections on Digital data from Government search and seizure.
The Constitution protects your possessions and papers from unreasonable search and seizure, however, megaupload and a dozen other events have shown that Law enforcement sees Digital data as something "else"
Based on this, we know at least 2 Senators making the argument that they are the same. Digital Data should be protected at the same standard as a person's papers. Warrants required for any search. It is time we de-romanticize the digital world.
Seriously? Just because you're antisocial and do not care about being on a social network because of your tinfoil hat does not mean the rest have to follow suit.
---------------
I've found aluminium blocks the rays better.
If you are unsearchable then you don't exist. Thus nothing to hand them.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Does the same apply for religion, sexuality, etc?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Anybody who feels comfortable demanding extremely intrusive access to personal information will likely not even think twice about assuming that anybody who isn't as transparent as the norm probably has something to hide.
Anybody who feels comfortable providing extremely intrusive access to personal information will likely not even think twice about providing strangers access to company confidential data, and should not be hired.
I have yet to see a single recruiting firm or employer called out on doing this.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
What will happen will be similar to what happened to me when I was job hunting a couple years back:
The HR person will narrow their eyes once they get the answer that you don't have a FB account and ask, "If you are a so called IT person who is applying for something better than flipping burgers, then why are you not keeping up with modern day technology? Why should we hire a fossil, when any middle school kid can understand the concept of a social network, which you have demonstrated that you have failed to do so?"
I ended up creating dummy accounts on FB/MySpace/Twitter/LinkedIn just so I wouldn't have to deal with that crap. When asked if they could friend/follow the account, I just granted that.
Pah! So what happens to people like me with no social network? The can't ask me to send something I don't have.
Whereas, I am legitimately not on any social network. I wonder if they could prove otherwise for people who are.
Potential Employer: "Er, so you are saying you're not part of any social network online whatsoever?"
You: "Yes, that is correct."
(Potential Employer quietly checks the box next to "Does not play well with others", and upon conclusion of the interview, places your resume in the "don't bother" pile)
Think they really need to "prove" anything at all? Companies that stoop to this level of valuation of a potential employee obviously have their priorities screwed up, so don't be shocked if this kind of crap actually goes on.
Social networks performing social engineering on society. Gotta love watching the brainwashing of the masses.
Most job seekers see themselves as recipients and have a slave mentality of being grateful for any job at all. In my experience, this is like walking alone in a dark alley with RAPE ME written on your back in 1,024 point lipstick. You need to make your job choice a mutual decision, or they're going to treat you like a disposable employee.
Think about it this way. You don't receive a job, you agree to take one. You should be choosy. If you're broke and unemployed, take a job on a temporary basis. Don't stop looking. The people who hate their jobs perceive that they have no options. That perception probably started the minute they assumed that they had to take any job they were offered.
What this means related to employers probing your Facebook account is that you should reject any employer that does anything you find questionable. Be choosy and find a better employer. They will have you sign an NDA and an agreement about maintaining the company image outside the firm and leave it up to you to implement.
I may be anti-social, but I am not a nut and my reasons to avoid the plague of social networking are that
a) I don't want to waste tons of time and
b) I don't want to give _them_ all my data.
c) What is the point? Having thousands of "friends" to cover up I am anti-social?
Fortunately, I am pretty sure that here such a demand by an employer would be illegal (possibly criminal) anyways. They can have a social networking policy though, that limits what you can post about them. And you are not allowed to bad-mouth your employer in public anyways.
Side note: This is exactly why pseudonymous accounts are needed.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Nor do people do that for Facebook. I'm not sure what your point is.
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
You're on Slashdot though... Wait, that's not legitimate, sorry.
One thing I know, and that is that I am ignorant...
What's wrong with being an anti-social nut? I thought that was a prereq of being a good systems administrator.
I know this is a joke, but this is the type of B.S. conclusion that H.R. folks are now TRAINED to jump to. There are tons of these.
The one that has been making me angry lately is: "the person sent their resume in PDF so we will throw it away since they must not know Office and thus be computer illiterate." It's the exact OPPOSITE of what you want as the person probably used PDF to be friendly to cross platforms. I had a recruiting officer give me a lecture about this while I was job hunting. I don't even own a copy of Microsoft Office.
I think H.R. procedure is akin to voodoo right now.
People always ask me why I act like such a douche on Slashdot. Now I know why; could you please stop using my name?
-- Sincerely, Oswald McWeany
But an H.R. drone isn't going to know what slashdot is.
To H.R. drone, not knowing what something is means it is not important. Therefore you're at the same outcome.
I do not have a Facebook profile or the like. If I was asked for login credentials, I would simply say no you can not have them, state that I would not want to work for a company that believed this was a legitimate request and walk out.
Whether you have a profile somewhere or not, the request for credentials tells you everything you need to know about a place.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
What a useless social network this is.
You can be fired in most jurisdictions for lying on a resume, if it's proven, so I'd be carefull with that.
I wouldn't put "I am not on a social network" on my resume.
I'd be surprised if many people listed the social networks to which they belong/didn't belong on their resume.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Really? What law prevents them from doing that? I was under the impression that, at least in the US, employers can ask prospective employees almost whatever information they damn well please. The only exceptions I'm aware of is stuff that could then be used to illegally discriminate against you, such as your religion and race. Unless something in your house or in your diary exposes you as a member of a protected class, then why couldn't a prospective employer insist on seeing them? It's not as though you are obligated to consent.
Fortunately this past week has seen many groups and legislators in Canada confirming that asking for Facebook passwords is illegal here. It's an invasion of privacy, what would be in American terms an "unwarranted search and seizure" by someone who not only has no warrant, but isn't even law enforcement.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
That's silly. You should have explained to them that you don't need to belong to a social network to understand the concepts. And if they can't understand that, you should grab the nearest large object and bash their head in until they do. And then tell them they are too stupid to work for and spit on them as you leave.
Seriously, though. Any HR person who can't understand that using and understanding are different things will just cause you endless trouble if you were to be an employee. It's best to turn those jobs down.
Just because you're antisocial and do not care about being on a social network because of your tinfoil hat does not mean the rest have to follow suit.
Why exactly do you assume he's antisocial? Why do you assume he's wearing a tinfoil hat? What if someone doesn't care about social networks, like me? I just don't find them useful.
I know it can sometimes be difficult to comprehend that different people have different preferences and needs, but come on.
Honestly, although slashdot has some features of social networks I've never considered it a social network. News aggregator/blog... there are several things I would call it ahead of "social network".
Even though it has those capabilities- I've never used it as a social network- I've not used the friend/foe/journal/personal blog sections.
I will sometimes search using google. That doesn't mean I'm part of Google+.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I do well in interviews. Always have, and probably always will. It's the smile, the handshake and my unwillingness to bullshit.
Some businesses just want to tell you how great they are. Some people just want to tell you how great they are; how they've climbed the ladder - "You too could be a fat manager on 50k if you turn yourself into a lying slob like me!" No, not me, you're mistaken.
Other businesses just stick to the questions, one after another after another. These are the hardest. They don't care that I'm not planning to be here in five years, and can't understand me not wanting to answer the question. ("I need a job to pay the bills", was an actual answer that landed me one job. Ask me that question again after I've worked for you for a month).
The best interviews are always friendly chats.
My point? Interviews are a two-way process. They want to know about me and, this is the part some don't understand, I want to know about them.
What was your turnover last year? And the year before? (are you going to be around next year?)
Why did this vacancy become available? Why did the other person leave? (is this a shit job? Are they willing to bullshit me?)
What are the staff turnover rates? (is this whole place shit?)
Can I have your Facebook password? (never been asked, but if they want mine...)
Ask questions. Ask why. Ask it five times. And remember that bullshit stinks. It may take a while to reach your nose but it stinks all the same. Everyone knows the smell.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Have you looked for a job recently? HR = silly.
Go ahead and flame, but it's an entire profession of people who are 95% incompetent.
That's silly. You should have explained to them that you don't need to belong to a social network to understand the concepts. And if they can't understand that, you should grab the nearest large object and bash their head in until they do.
Code Monkey not say it... out loud. Code Monkey not crazy... just proud.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
I'd probably have two. One "family friendly" for... well, you know, family. And one for friends who neither family nor employer should encounter.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They do not want your boss getting this info for free, when they can sell it to your (prospective) employer instead.
Really easy for you to say when you have not been on unemployment for over a year, your wife is about ready to leave you, your house is in foreclosure, repo guys are going to come take your car away, and the collection agencies you around the clock demanding you pay them back and harassing your family members.
In such a scenario is unfortunately, very typical in this economy for those who got laid off at the absolute worst time.
What are you going to do? So no sir Mr. potential boss. You can kiss my ass. My wife will gladly accept this, and my kids really didn't need to be fed anyway etc.
You will do it and not only will you bend over, but you will be happy with no lube and have a big smile on your face. Anything is better than not working right?
Employers are taking advantage of people in a bad situation and it is disgusting. I know I am an evil socialist for dare saying the government get involved, but this is where it is a good case to do so. This is not 1999 anymore where employers compete with you if have any reasonable talent. Today, they do not care and can under pay, overwork, and make unreasonable demands because their competitors are doing it and why not?
http://saveie6.com/
Let Facebook deal with the problem in the only way these idiots are going to learn, through a Lawsuit from Facebook for interfering with their business since that's esentially what they are doing. Facebook also has the right to remove all listings/postings by that company and employees for the TOS violation. Combine that with a nice juicy lawsuit, even if FB doesn't win and the CEO's/Boards will get the message quick time.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
99.9% of the people who don't have facebook accounts consider their privacy private and want to keep it that way, and that's something some employers don't really want.
Nonconformists are not really wanted in some environments. They don't bend to peer pressure easily and hence are hard to control.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why are you closing the bathroom door? What are you hiding...?
Really? I'm genuinely curious: where'd the "Weany" come from? Seems like a strange character name, even for children's TV?
I see this a lot, and it is really just silly. If they don't want to hire black people, they won't hire a black dude that came in for an interview and just say he wasn't what they were looking for. Same for a disabled guy or a woman (or man depending on the place). Only long-term illness and religious affiliation are protected statuses, well and sexual orientation in places that too is protected, that would be opened up looking at your profile and really that would probably become evident during your probation. They'd just let you go at the end of that because you 'weren't working out' for things of that nature.
Looking at your facebook profile hasn't really opened any new avenues for discrimination that would get the company in trouble.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
I'm pretty sure this is illegal. At least in any civilised country. Like here in Europe.
"Facebook have no right to ask job applicants for their house keys or to read their diaries — why should they be able to ask them for their email account passwords [as part of the Find Friends feature] and gain unwarranted access to a trove of private information about what we like, what messages we send to people, or who we are friends with?"
And this is a practice to which Facebook is opposed and over which Facebook is willing to take legal action? Hmm. Sounds like *checks his Facebook account's Find Friends page* Google, Microsoft (Windows Live Hotmail), Yahoo, AOL, Comcast, Skype, SBC, and Verizon now have grounds to take legal action against Facebook, by Facebook's own reasoning.
I agree with the FB position. I do work with youth at Church. Several of them are my friends on FB, although these days more of my friends are professional colleagues. Their parents know that. My privacy is set somewhat tighter than the default, to minimize their exposure to others.
While I am not silly enough to put anything that matters on FB, some of the kids have said things that, while actually not very serious, they might not want other people to see. The difficulty with letting third parties use my account is that most of what's there isn't my postings, but postings of my friends. And they might well not want my potential employer to see them.
I don't know what kind of suit FB has in mind, but if I were going to make up a case I'd make it up based on compromising the privacy of minors without the consent of their parents.
Think they really need to "prove" anything at all? Companies that stoop to this level of valuation of a potential employee obviously have their priorities screwed up, so don't be shocked if this kind of crap actually goes on.
No, I suppose they don't need to "prove" anything. That kind of company I probably wouldn't want to be part of anyway though.
For the record, I have moved around a bit in my career, and have never been asked about social networks in any interview.
As a disclaimer- I am an introvert- but I am able to fake otherwise in a social/business setting- and I am legitimately a friendly person and get along well with everyone. I've just never liked throwing my real name out in person online. I take part in all sorts of online forums and discussions- but only via a different fake name on each one so I can't be linked (without effort). I don't use my real name anywhere online.
So I'm not a misanthropist- I'm just an introvert. Not being on facebook doesn't mean I'm anti-social or unfriendly- just concerned about privacy. I only want people to be able to find me- if I want them to find me.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
"If you are a so called IT person who is applying for something better than flipping burgers, then why are you not keeping up with modern day technology? Why should we hire a fossil, when any middle school kid can understand the concept of a social network, which you have demonstrated that you have failed to do so?" My retort to such insulting questions: "If you knew anything about IT you'd be asking questions related to my experience and suitability for the position. You know nothing about me, yet have made a snap judgment about me based on my answer to a question you don't even understand and basically called me incompetent. I have decided that you are not a suitable company for me to work for and my feedback to the recruiter who put us together will not be favorable. Interview terminated." (exit stage left)
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
A quick Google search turned up this article. It gives the names of two people who were asked for passwords, one by a prospective employer (he refused and withdrew his application) and one by an employer he was returning to (he gave his info because he felt he had to). For the second of those, it names the employer: the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. Evidently they stopped asking for passwords after complaints by the ACLU.
Except that one of facebook's main usages is to reconnect or keep in touch with people you don't see everyday (old schoolmates, family from far away, etc...), using an alias keeps the people you'd like to find you from doing so.
Maybe you'd find them... but if both of you are using an alias, you'd never find each other.
I was anti-social before social was in.
I know that the scales are tipped towards the employer by every measurement we have right now, but a job interview is supposed to be a *two way* process. If something is done that makes you uncomfortable, the way it works in a perfect world is that you don't accept a job or go any further even if the company is interested in you.
In my most recent search, I had an interview like that. Of course I was in a position where I could wait for another opportunity and I know some people aren't.
this is blatant harassment, worthy of a lawsuit, if not criminal charges. they couldn't ask you to undress during the interview... why this?
That would depend on family. I wouldn't want my employer seeing some of the things my family posts.
So- you probably need three:
"Sanitary" account where you have the Pope, the police chief, and your mother's bingo club friends. - work can see this.
"Family" account where you talk with the family- but may receive comments that would make the pope/work blush.
"Friends" account where you don't have to censor yourself- but also don't have your mum discussing the anus-boil you had to see the doctor for when you were 7.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Does the same apply for religion, sexuality, etc?
Yes. Why wouldn't it?
-g
Isn't handing over your login credentials a violation of Facebook's ToS? And if so, isn't requiring that prospective employees do so in essence forcing them to violate contractual terms? And isn't THAT illegal somehow? IANAL, and I'm genuinely curious.
the new (and correct) reply is: I don't accept the TOS of the current social networks and so I'll pass until their TOS is acceptable to me.
there. all you need to get a graceful 'out'. and its true, too. 100% true for many of us.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Another twist: H.R. personnel think they are "computer savvy" because the can use Word. If you can compile something in gcc you're automatically over-qualified for any job.
HR has been brainwashed to look for reasons, infact any reason not to hire someone.
They are obsessed with liabilities and getting shit upon by hiring the wrong person.
Also HR has been empowered by the economy to do this. Since 2009 they can simply state whatever the requirements are and they still get 100 resumes. So why not? HR gets a pat on the back and assume this is the norm and I bet some of these women even find it gratifying with the power to be b*tches.
I am the one who made the obvious links here on slashdot that you look unprofessional by using LibreOffice and sending PDFs to HR. I was not trying to start a flame war or be all pro MS fanboy-ism, but just stating how business sees the world without the geek glasses.
If the economy recovers to normal HR will then be more hard pressed to find people with the right capabilities to do a job, rather than looking for flaws and preventing managers from talking to the biggest sets of people.
It is a terrible time to be an employee or job applicant indeed.
http://saveie6.com/
Expect a bill to be introduced by Republicans that allows employers full access to employee's personal account info if at anyway related to the employment.
Really? Just Republicans? Our current Democrat POTUS has invaded our privacy just as much as Bush did. I don't trust any of those f_ckers in D.C. to do the right thing.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Another fuckwad with no real friends that believes that those who focus on real relationships and not hoarding thousands of "friends" that you will never see are the ones with the problems.
lol
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Looks like I've misspelled it. Nonetheless the show is Oswald.
Low budget Noggin cartoon. Weenie is a hot-dog dog. My favourite episode is "Big Banana Day". Oswald grows a giant banana and goes around town offering everyone a piece of his big banana.
It's hard to believe that the writers didn't know what they were doing when they wrote that.
Fred Savage is the voice behind Oswald.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Again, more applicable in a better job environment, but I am with you.
Pseudonymous accounts are needed if you have some long-standing use for them, for example here on /. For example, I post a lot in areas where we would have a potential problem with customers if they would recognize me. With a pseudonym, this is not an issue.
I have notices the inflation of AC postings though. Related to this? I also noticed that you posted as A.C.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
This is really going on?
Maybe it's because I used to work in IT Security, but if any prospective employer had asked me for my credentials to anything, I'd have had a good laugh and then told them to go fuck themselves with a forklift because they apparently not only don't understand the first thing about security, but they're also a bunch of psychopathic assholes who I wouldn't be working for if they paid me twice what I'm asking.
Next thing, they are asking for a blowjob.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
FYI, the comment wasn't directed at you, Billy. Indeed I have seen belief this by multiple persons (and not just when it comes to OO.o and Libre, either).
Actually, we pretty much agree...
If you think the word 'compile' is not that smelly bunch of trash in the neighbor's yard you are automatically over-qualified for any job.
I only recall reading about one anecdotal example of this actually happening, and IIRC, the employer backed down when it was exposed in the press.
TFA doesn't provide any actual examples of where it actually happened.
My cheapish all-in-one printer can scan things and produce PDFs, so a PDF might be hand written and then scanned - it doesn't necessarily have to have involved a computer at all. That said, the reason that a lot of places require CVs in Word format is that they are going to run them through context-insensitive keyword matching to pair you with potential positions. These places are generally worth avoiding.
If you really want to mess with them, recall that Word documents support OLE. You can therefore embed a PDF in a Word document. It will then be stored as a PDF bytestream and as an image (in case they don't have a PDF application). It will look correct when they open it in Word, but none of their other tools will be able to extract text from it.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You can not, however, send messages to a specific person, nor can you restrict access to anything you post in your journal. I'd say this means that Slashdot is more of a public forum than a social network.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I agree, it's against my Internet Religion to belong to any cheesy social network such as Facebook. Facebook, it's the new AOL, rife with noobiesauce tardsmacks. I couldn't care less what people are doing.
Second, what kind of monster employer would dream of having the balls to ask for such a thing? It had better be for working for the President, guarding precious national secrets that could result in the loss of massive life. If this is just the whims of some power mad boss with delusions of grandeur, one should leap over the desk at the job interview and throttle the bastard with his own shoes. When the judge asks what the Sam Hell you were thinking, just reply "I was compelled" and show the request for such nonsense. Then wait as the judge gets through throttling same said arrogant boss with his own shoes himself before you ask for a dismissal.
Take the Red Pill.
They'll find your FB account when they realize you tried to be clever by misspelling your last name.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Yeah, I've got 5 separate names on Facebook that I can choose from. I had been putting up a new name every week or so, but at some point they added a restriction on the number of times you can change your name, and removed all but the last 5 aliases ... none of which are my real name. That was on there, but they removed it. So, I couldn't comply with their policy now even if I wanted to (which I don't, I'd rather not have a Facebook account than be searchable).
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
What do you call Slashdot? Posting comments, journals, Friends, Foes, Fans and Freaks all sound pretty social to me.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
so it works as intended
I want to mod you +1 informative. However I'm replying because I think this topic is too important. I want to saythat another correct response IMHO is that "It is very unprofessional to ask somebody's personal credentials". I don't talk about my job outside of the place, and by the same token my co-workers do not get access to my personal life. Never mix business with pleasure, is Rule One.
C|N>K
Your projection onto society of your obsession has inflated your idea of how many people use FB or other networks.
How about a public list of those companies who have asked for access to FB, Myspace or any other private information.
The sad part is that the companies that are doing this are probably the very same companies where you would have to pull the hiring committee chair's teeth out with a pair of rusty pliers to get them to call your references. Most places I've worked hire almost solely based off a resume pre-screen and interview glad-handing. The only time a reference ever got tapped was when someone on the hiring committee knew them. (Which is what makes linkedin so useful, choosing references so there is a chance of a personal connection with someone at that company.)
Someone had to do it.
Putting an OLE object into a Word file will also bloat the file to be so big that no applicant tracking system would accept it, so you're still out of a job.
Does narcissism count as a hobby? --Shawn Latimer
Anybody who feels comfortable demanding extremely intrusive access to personal information will likely not even think twice about assuming that anybody who isn't as transparent as the norm probably has something to hide.
Anybody who feels comfortable providing extremely intrusive access to personal information will likely not even think twice about providing strangers access to company confidential data, and should not be hired.
Anybody who feels uncomfortable providing extremely intrusive access to personal information, but dumb will likely not even think twice about spamming the fuck out of Facebook with a shit load of useless sock puppet profiles that lead nowhere.
Ironic thing, one interview I stated something similar (mainly about keeping personal life and work life separated)... the answer I received was mind-blowing:
"You might think you are a professional 8/5, but you are an employee 24/7, and what affects you personally can affect our business."
Anybody who feels comfortable demanding extremely intrusive access to personal information will likely not even think twice about assuming that anybody who isn't as transparent as the norm probably has something to hide.
Anybody who feels comfortable providing extremely intrusive access to personal information will likely not even think twice about providing strangers access to company confidential data, and should not be hired.
Anybody who feels uncomfortable providing extremely intrusive access to personal information, but dumb will likely not even think twice about spamming the fuck out of Facebook with a shit load of useless sock puppet profiles that lead nowhere.
Anybody who feels comfortable demanding extremely intrusive access to personal information will likely not even think twice about the possibility that Facebook profiles have zero integrity, and are easily spoofed at will.
Last I checked (which was, admittedly, a while ago), salescritters were asked about their "book of business," e.g., who they can poach and bring to the interviewing company, as a standard part of the interview. This isn't that different except that now your "rolodex" includes pictures of your drunk friends puking on themselves.
Does narcissism count as a hobby? --Shawn Latimer
I'm just amazed that this isn't illegal in many ways. Tortious interference for requiring you to break your agreement with Facebook, fraud for impersonating you when they login, whatever crime hacking is considered for accessing Facebook in a way not approved by them, etcetc.
I mean, if someone blackmailed you into giving them your passwords to work email accounts and other servers, the company having their stuff accessed without permission would obviously have a case. What about the login credentials Kevin Mitnick got using social engineering? How is this different?
Actually, it is illegal in Canada, and given the similarity between clause 8 of the Charter of Rights and the American Constitution's clause on "search and seizure", it should be illegal in the US as well.
The difference is that in Canada, companies and people asked the government and legislators for an interpretation to confirm that it's illegal.
In the US, companies went ahead without legal advice and are waiting to be sued so the courts can clarify their position -- in 5-10 years, and after a few million has been spent on a class action law suit.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
To be fair, they also scan them to extract all the data they need to populate your recruitment file, saving them the time on data entry. This includes job history, education, etc. OO.org will save in Word format, but I don't trust that it's going to appear exactly the way I expect. So I usually submit the PDF and make it clear that a Word version is available. Although, often, they specifically ask for Word format.
c) What is the point? Having thousands of "friends" to cover up I am anti-social?
Er... actually that would be exactly the reason. Part of being social for most people is about bullshit and appearances. You sound like you'd be the sort of employee who would properly do his job most of the time, and not be so concerned with "looking like a hard worker". Depending on what you're employer (or who's hiring) wants, you may or may not fit into that work environment, but if they're looking for facebook stuff it's likely you wouldn't.
Well, the Republican side of the aisle does not appear to have weighed in, but Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut (who is a Democrat) is drafting legislation that would make it illegal.
Democrats generally invade private rights in order to make things "safer" and Republicans generally invade rights to ensure "profitability." Neither, generally, are good reasons.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
sounds like google + circles
I don't know about other countries, but in the US, employers may not ask about the following.
Race
Color
Sex
Religion
National origin
Birthplace
Age
Disability
I'd love to see someone run for president without anyone asking these things.
Who is asking for passwords? Why are theses company's not published? Where is the proof? I didn't see one company listed who asks for this information.
Jack of all trades,master of none
Well, Sex and Color/Race are kind of obvious as soon as they see you in the interview (for most people). So are some kinds of disabilities, Marital status (wedding ring), and age can be estimated by looking at a person. I'm not sure if there's any law about asking. What the law does say is that you can't discriminate on those things when deciding whether or not to hire someone. Therefore, most employers won't "ask" about those things because, well, why ask unless you are using them as a way to discriminate.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Oops, didn't meant to snip off that last one.
Last time somebody said that to me, I aske them "So why am I not being paid for 24/7?" It was the end of that discussion.
C|N>K
I'm not in the market for a job (I'm a freelancer), but if I were, I have plenty of other ways for prospective employers to find information on me outiside of Facebook.
The first (and only) thing I'd say to an HR person asking for my login/pass is this: "I use Facebook to connect only with family and friends (I really do). I do not "friend" people that I do not know in real life. Should you hire me and we become friends, I'll gladly "friend" you. Until then, if you would like to seach for my online activities, both professional and hobbies, you can search using my real name. I make no attempt to hide it. Oh, and by the way, here is my LinkedIn username too, if you would like to start your search there."
Sorry, but that's as far as anybody'll get with me. I don't understand why people just don't stand up and say "NO" to crap like this. If the answer is "But I really need the job", guess what? If hired, you'll be miserable and soon be looking for another job, guaranteed. Companies like that don't treat their employees well.
"Sure it can affect you business. But it doesn't. The reason why it doesn't is called "professionalism"
C|N>K
Boss: Son, what are those icons in your browser?
Employee: Thats ScriptBlock, Adblock Plus and Ghostery, sir.
Boss: Where'd you get them?
Employee: From Mozilla, sir.
Boss: What is that you've got written on wallpaper?
Employee: "Information Wants to be Free", sir.
Boss: You have "Information Wants to be Free" on your desktop wallpaper and you have ScriptBlock, Adblock Plus and Ghostery running in your browser. What's that supposed to be, some kind of sick joke?
Employee: No, sir.
Boss: You'd better get your head and your ass wired together, or HR will take a giant shit on you.
Employee: Yes, sir.
Boss: Now answer my question or you'll be standing tall before the man.
Employee: I think I was trying to suggest something about the duality of privacy, sir.
Boss: The what?
Employee: The duality of privacy. The Moglen thing, sir.
Boss: Whose side are you on, son?
Employee: Our side, sir.
Boss: Don't you love your company?
Employee: Yes, sir.
Boss: Then how about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?
Employee: Yes, sir.
Boss: Son, all I've ever asked of my employees is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God. We are here to help the users, because inside every user there is a Facebook account trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until this privacy craze blows over.
Employee: Aye-aye, sir.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Wouldn't work.
If they can find the "fake" you, they can find the real one. Google and Facebook aren't the only entities that have the capacity to become really, really good at finding your web presence. If they won't, another will.
Check your premises.
Not everyone has the leisure to turn down a potential job. Not only because their career hangs on it.
In my country, you instantly lose any kind of support if you dare to turn down a "reasonable" job offer. And the boundaries of what's considered reasonable have been pushed to their limits. Recently, they started discussing aloud whether it's reasonable to push female unemployed into prostitution, just to give you an idea what's considered reasonable...
In short, refusing to give up your privacy and hence not getting a job could well be constructed as "refusing to work" and hence the loss of any support you might get.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yeah, in fact most people have their religion, political affitiation, etc in their profiles, so shouldnt it be illegal for employeers to log in and view that?
Mod parent up! Cue in Pink Floyd's Dogs for dramatic effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
It's not codified as law for all classes but for many it is. It also varies by state.
Another good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission
(just wanted to provide some info about it, I'm not going to get into the why/why not stuff)
PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
Does the same apply for religion, sexuality, etc?
Laws are pretty clear on what you can and cannot ask prior to hiring. You also can't ask a prospect if they're married, you can't ask a young women who is wearing a wedding band if she hopes to have children some day, etc.
There's probably no law against asking for a Facebook password, but I really question whether it actually happened that way. Maybe someone was asked for their Facebook id and misunderstood the question, but password? Either way, may response would be "That's not relevant to this job." If the employer doesn't like that answer I would never want to work there anyway
As some others have pointed out, this is great in principle, but harder to deal with when you've been jobless for a long time and are worried about how you're going to eat for the next month.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
What happens when they decide that people they can't find on social networks must either be lying, or must have something to hide?
Honestly, I am so fucking tired of all these facebook "hipster" posts that basically say, "I'm too cool to be on social media!" If you don't have Facebook, this doesn't affect you, so stop telling everyone you don't have Facebook. No one thinks you're cool because of it.
Can you see an interview running like this?
HR: Now hand over your FB credentials. ... but ... I sue you! ... but ... you just said...
You: Do you want me to violate a contract I have with a third party?
HR: Thank you for your time. If you really wanted the job, you would kill your firstborn if we say so. NEXT!
You: But
HR: Really? Over what? What did I say? I can't remember anything, and I most certainly never said anything about you doing anything illegal.
You: But
HR: I did? Did anyone in here hear something? (*general headshaking*) Now, I didn't either.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
At least in any civilised country. Like [the countries] here in Europe.
Except that one of facebook's main usages is to reconnect or keep in touch with people you don't see everyday (old schoolmates, family from far away, etc...), using an alias keeps the people you'd like to find you from doing so.
Maybe you'd find them... but if both of you are using an alias, you'd never find each other.
Your right, but more and more people are now forced to not use their real name.
One example is that one of my friends is now a secondary school teacher, his students are forever looking for him on facebook but just seeing who he is connected to (people like me) could potentially scare one of his students parents. I know you could say that nobody should be able to gain access without his consent but he is worried that they could make up a name of someone he worked with previously or something and try and use this in order to get him to accept a friend request.
I dont read
Fortunately, I am pretty sure that here such a demand by an employer would be illegal (possibly criminal) anyways.
One would hope, but there are a lot of assholes who think that stopping this practice would hurt "job creators", and somehow infringe on their "Freedom" to control your life. The same people who think that an employer has any kind of right to know that you are on birth control, and for what reason.
This is a disturbing trend that many employers feel like they own their employees like slaves because they happen to cut them a paycheck. That isn't how it works. Employment is a mutually beneficial contractual arrangement between two parties, the employer and the employee.
It should be be terminable by either party at any time for nearly any reason. You should have no more obligations than simply performing the work required of you for the designated amount of money for the pre-determined amount of time. Peer pressure, fear, manipulation, bullying should not be used by the employer to gain anymore control over employees.
Which is perfectly reasonable. What would getting a complete strangers opinion on another complete stranger accomplish, especially when the former was chosen by the latter?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
That should be worth a consideration. If they'll cooperate with "Give me your Facebook login", what do they think happens when someone (perhaps a business rival) says "Give me your Noseycorp login".
Not every job is for that of a systems administrator?
You're assuming a level of thought and foresight that most HR drones, and most companies, don't have.
Since 2009 they can simply state whatever the requirements are and they still get 100 resumes. So why not?
Regardless of the job description they will still get hundreds of applications anyway. If you have ever worked for a small company that doesn't have an actual HR department and you have to sort through applications and resumes for a position you wish to interview for then you realize VERY quickly that the overwhelming majority of applications you get for a position have little to no real qualifications for the position anyway.
There are literally entire armies of unemployed people just blindly sending their resume to anything that is even remotely related to their skillsets. You might as well be ultra-specific.
Yeah, I'm not a big social network fan, but I admit that G+'s circles is a really nice way to segregate your feed easily. I fooled around with it when it launched before I remembered that I don't really give much of a shit what most other people do all fucking day and stopped coming back.
I don't know about common sense, but common decency is certainly dieing.
No, it's still you. You can try to justify things based on "It's not my real name!" but you're still the one writing comments, friending people, and responding to messages.
You're still social networking, whether you like it or not.
That's because most of you believe that workers should actually be treated like people. And you recognize that people actually have to work to provide for themselves, so "job creators" actually have a lot of power over their employees.
I don't know how it is in Canada, but here, the Constitution doesn't apply to companies. And many Ron Paul types believe it shouldn't even apply to the states.
Nobody does. We're talking about companies, during the interview, or even during the application process, demanding that you hand over your logins, or log in to Facebook right in front of them so they can poke around.
It's best to turn those jobs down.
The problem is, it's pretty easy to say that now, when one doesn't need a job. But long term unemployment can really change what one is willing to accept from an HR department.
a) I don't want to waste tons of time
k, so what are you doing here?
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
You might not want to be a part of that company now, but a year or so of unemployment tends to change many people's opinion.
Sadly this IS the type of reasoning I would expect from a company stupid enough to waste time investigating their employees facebook profiles. "If they're not on facebook, they must be bad at dealing with people! Or they have some whacko conspiracy theory about how their privacy is going to be invaded if they sign up! Or they are a ticking time bomb waiting to shoot up the office! Or they're lying to us already!"
Looking for a job is one of the worst jobs out there. Degrading, no pay, and completely arbitrary. "Hmm... they're qualified for this job, and would probably do it very well, but I don't like the font on this resume. I prefer comic sans. Plus, my buddy is applying for the same posting... [toss]"
The practice of demanding people's Facebook login is creepy and slimy enough that people WANT to slap them down for it. Those people migfht likely end up on the jury in a discrimination lawsuit.
We won't be hired (or will be let go) for being demonstrably anti-social (aka untrackable).
Almost 10 years ago I applied to a job and attached both a PDF AND Word versions of my resume and cover letter. My supervisor later said that attention to detail was one of the factors in deciding to hire me.
It helped that they're a small company without a dedicated HR department and applications were screened by real people from start to finish...
No, I do not believe they have any right whatsoever to ask. And while someone might have the right to tell them to fuck off, long term unemployment might make it difficult or impossible to exercise that right.
If they're referring to the Maryland DoC case, then yes, the guy was actually asked for the password. The interviewer was going through his profile and his messages, looking for signs of "gang affiliation".
A.C. because I recognize nothing I post on Slashdot is of merit to tie an identity to.
The reason I don't do A.C is because I find AC comments (since they start out score 0) tend to get buried and often not read.
I suspect if you post a comment you intend it to be read. Understood- if you want to remain truuuuly anonymous- the best thing to do is not create an account because then people could potentially put the pieces together to possibly figure out who you really are.
Any account that ties a name to a number of comments will leave clues behind that could eventually trace someone back to your real account if they're really determined. Look at the Lulzsec guy in Chicago how he was caught from lots of little comments he made.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Oh, I'm sure they knew what they were doing with the big banana reference. The best cartoons are the ones with "adult" jokes that the kids would miss completely. That way, it's fun for the whole family.
You are not the only one that doesn't believe "Big Banana Day" is an innocent mistake. Of course, Muno from Yo Gaba Gaba also can't be a mistake.
I guess you missed the point of my post. Whether or not you are searchable or not should have no bearing whatsoever on them being able to demand access to your *private* social network.
I keep seeing this red herring on searchability that detracts from the problem -- it doesn't matter even if they know that I have a profile. It is none of their business and certainly not within their purview to ask for access to my profile. It's the principle of the thing that offends me.
Whether or not you are on a social network or if you are searchable is completely irrelevant to the argument.
What happens when they decide that people they can't find on social networks must either be lying, or must have something to hide?
Honestly, I am so fucking tired of all these facebook "hipster" posts that basically say, "I'm too cool to be on social media!" If you don't have Facebook, this doesn't affect you, so stop telling everyone you don't have Facebook. No one thinks you're cool because of it.
Please! I wasn't on FB before it was cool to not be on FB. Instead, I'm on a different social networking site. You probably haven't heard of it.
Except you can't give your employer the password to just one of your circles, can you? You'd still need multiple accounts to thwart "intentional" security breaches.
Companies do open themselves up to serious liability by asking for this. It is expected that people will put their marital status, and parental status on their Facebook page. These are questions that employers are not allowed to even insinuate that they want to know. The Facebook account is also likely to indicate a person's nationality, sexual preference and religion.
Knowing this kind of information during the hiring process has little to no value, but does create liability.
No, fuck you. This "you don't have to work there" is NOT AN ANSWER. I don't give a fuck about some shitbag employer's need to "screen" candidates. This should be straight up illegal, end of story. I am so fucking sick and tired of hearing this bullshit that employers should be able to do whatever they want to their employees.
Any reasonable employer would not want that legal liability.
And would thus decline to hire you.
Would you use a false name in the phone book too?
The whole login credentials request hullabaloo sounds like a red herring / internet myth to me. Who in his right mind would make such a request and who in his right mind would comply? So the whole story has an distinct odour of BS around it.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I'm not sure about Canada, but the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution (the unreasonable search and seizure clause) only applies to the government. Perhaps Canada's fundamental rules apply differently, but when it's a corporate entity doing something like this, it comes down to contract and employment law. These rules are usually much less definite, especially if you're in a "right to work" state. However, we do recognize that there are some items that an employer is never allowed to use to judge a prospective employee. This is probably not one of them yet, but a good lawyer in our civil court system could probably overcome that hurdle.
I thought slashdot was an anti-social network.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
with this argument, it should be illegal for employers, when you tell them this stuff?
no, its only illegal to base the decision on this facts.
You are aware that /. is a social network, right?
Part of the problem is that the applications for most jobs have all these fields listed to fill out and a little note on it that if you don't completely fill out the application you may be disqualified from employment. It's a sneaky little way for them to get around the law.
The software HR departments use to filter resumes based on keywords usually only recognizes Word format. Often it is little more than a set of VBA macros.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
"If you are a so called IT person who is applying for something better than flipping burgers, then why are you not keeping up with modern day technology? Why should we hire a fossil, when any middle school kid can understand the concept of a social network, which you have demonstrated that you have failed to do so?"
How does a decision not to use a social network indicate that you fail to understand the concept? It doesn't. And even if it did, what does failing to understand the concept of something that USES IT technology have to do with your understanding of IT technology? Nothing.
Middle School kids can also access porn on the internet. If I don't access porn on the internet, does that mean that I don't understand the concept and am not fit for a job in IT? Does the hiring manager insist on a list of my favorite porn sites, and if I say "I don't partake of internet porn" than I am not a goo job candidate?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
As an FYI, I would turn down any managerial position that pays 50k in general. If you are a manger you should be making at least 100k, or you are not actually the manager.
It's actually not difficult for facebook to know that you're using a pseudonym. Even if you don't accept, many family members will probably at least send you friend requests. If you accept any, many of them will also try to indicate your familial relationship --you can choose not to confirm it, but it's still telling. Many of your friends will address you by your real name. Even worse, people you're not connected to but have known in the past might label your pictures with your real name, regardless of whether or not you're f/b friends.
Each of these might be weak proof on its own, but add enough of them together --particularly tagged photos-- and you soon have a lot of circumstantial evidence indicating that Billy Bob Beerhouse is actually Osawald McWeany.
I signed up with a pseudonym, and by now every one of the examples I've mentioned above has happened, some frequently. F/b would have to be intentionally ignorant by this point *not* to know what my real name is. While pseudonyms are officially against f/b policy, I think they tend to let it slide as long as you're generating enough data/revenue.
My answer was something along the lines of:
"I am quite familiar with facebook and how it works. I understand how people use it, and I understand its business model. However I believe facebook encourages people to put too much information online, and this creates too much opportunity for both personal and professional liability."
"In fact, the fact that you are requesting access to any facebook account I might have during this interview process demonstrates just how concerned the company is about this sort of liability. I think my decision to refrain from participating in facebook reflects sound judgement."
--
The one place it doesn't really work is these days everyone wants their company to have a twitter feed and facebook page to "connect with customers" or and "promote the brand" and other marketing nonsense. But its on a computer so it gets lumped onto the IT lap, in part. So if you come in to a small company looking to maintain their servers, manage their webhosting agreements, do some web site programming... then its sort of expected you'll be able to help manage their google, facebook, myspace, twitter, yelp, and whatever other online presence they have as well. Hopefully the company is large enough to have someone dedicated to marketing with the prerequisite middle-school computer savvy to do that crap... but if not...then it might be part of your job.
So far I've managed to avoid having to create accounts for that sort of crap, but its been close a few times. Its not a job I want to do.
What country is that? That's quite shocking.
Potential Employer: "Er, so you are saying you're not part of any social network online whatsoever?"
You: "Yes, that is correct."
(Potential Employer quietly checks the box next to "Does not play well with others", and upon conclusion of the interview, places your resume in the "don't bother" pile)
So let me get this straight, if you eschew nameless, faceless, random contacts on the internet, and instead choose to have deep, meaningful relationships with your friends and family, now all of a sudden you "don't play well with others"?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Asking turnover rates and reasons for openings is no more semi-rude/audacious then them asking you about previous job durations and reasons for leaving.
You are expected to ask some tough questions of them. All interviews are two way streets. If they expect different you are on notice to take the job as a short term bridge job at most.
Even if you are too desperate to walk on the interview, you should recognize the 'this job sucks' signs so you can keep looking even if you get the shit job (and also know to not put forth any real effort for the time you will be there).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
No, but I'm unlisted.
That's no near the same thing though. A phone book doesn't also say "here's the phone number to their best friend, mother, and father" without knowing all their names before hand. A phone book also doesn't say "Here is who John is friends with".
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
Some companies only want "yes-men" (yes people).
Often the big box retail companies.
The personality test for big box stores can be failed. Yes, fail a personality test. And it isn't even weeding out those that are too extreme, etc. Many such tests have only one right answer for each question! (the one that means you are a happy outgoing sycophant who is very sociable and will never question anything!) Everything else is wrong. Too many wrongs and you are discarded without even being seen, the hiring manager has no knowledge or access to your app. Borderline "wrong" people are only considered if no "perfect/nearly perfect" people otherwise qualify.
They have a Green (good), Yellow (hire only if no green available and Red (do not hire under any circumstances, application discarded and person banned from being considered on a reapplication for 6 months or for life - a throw away person).
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
One thing about Facebook that turns me off from joining are how it turns its members into bible-pounder types who go around trying to convert everybody to "the faith" and villifying non-believers as having "anti social personality issues". It's reminiscent of a scientology-like cult. Facebook works for you... that's great. I and my acquaintances, former co-workers, etc, know how to use real email. It works for us.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Only if you're a complete idiot. If you make names up at random, you should be fine.
That's if you truly desire to stay anonymous, though.
I'm aiming this at those going "Oh my god, do any companies really do this?" Yes, yes they do. it's just the next step in things companies request that has nothing to do with employability. We've already rolled over and allowed them to do things like credit checks and other stuff that is really none of their business. If you can't see this for what it is, then I can only assume you're one of the folks whose rolled over, or have your head in the sand.
I can only hope this opens a can of worms and the invasive nature of employment in general gets a good looking at.
Next up can be applications for an apartment. (I actually had to give info like my height, weight, and eye color as part of the application process. Almost felt like I was applying for a police line up and not an apartment.)
companies do.. even going so far as to use their facebook page URL in advertisements and on product packaging RATHER THAN THEIR OWN DOMAIN NAME (which makes no sense to me at all).. and among the 100s millions of sheep on facebook, i'm sure that there are some that do include their facebook URL on their resume
Mark Zuckerberg: all your data belong to *us*, not them.
You'd still need multiple accounts to thwart "intentional" security breaches.
Any security breaches, actually. If somewhere, in some database, there is a relation between Test123 and NotTest456 then posts of both accounts can be joined, resulting in a breach.
However the only (non-(IP tracking) way) is that someone who knows your both nicknames chooses to publish this information. If you never let it be known then it's very hard to suspect a link. For example, my login on /. is used only here and nowhere else; same applies to every blog or a web site that I ever register. Perhaps TLA could analyze my writing style, but there are too many posts on the Internet. IP tracking and a rubber hose would be an easier way if they are that desperate.
> Why would FB want to engage in litigation with potential customers?
> You aren't FB's customer. You are its goods. Companies who buy ads are the customers.
The thing that makes Facebook valuable is that it has a huge amount of info about people's likes/dislikes/preferences/interests/hobbies/etc/etc, which can be data-mined to target ads very specifically. For instance a publisher of gay novels will want their ads targetted at gay men, Playboy would want their ads targetted at heterosexual men.
Now let's suppose demanding Facebook logins from potential employees becomes standard practice.
1) Homosexual men who fear discrimination will list themselves as heterosexual on their Facebook profiles. Now Playboy ads will go to homosexual men who are not the target audience, and gay publishers won't know who to send their ads to. They will no longer be willing to pay top dollar for those ads.
2) Even worse, the thought of potential employers etc reading their every posting might scare some people into staying away from Facebook altogether.
Both of these items will hurt Facebook's bottom line. As a (soon to be) public corporation, that's all that Facebook cares about, profit. You better believe Facebook will do everything in its power to stop this.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Really? you're so arrogant that you refer to .doc(x) as 'proper format' and expect other people to shell out substantial sums for software they don't otherwise need?
If you can't support more than one file viewer simultaneously, you should probably question whether you should be providing IT support. You should definitely not be parading your incompetence and calling it a sound reason. That's a lazy reason used to disguse doing a shoddy job because you know that there isn't enough momentum anywhere to make you change.
My name was given as a reference a few times, and I received a few calls. However I worked for a Big Company at that time, and their HR clearly told me to say nothing at all.
There is simply no upside. The Big Company does not benefit from providing references. However there is a possibility, however minute and unlikely, that someone will file a lawsuit. The applicant may do so because I told the hiring manager that the applicant is not so good; or the hiring manager may do so because I said that the applicant is pretty good (and he wasn't, for them.)
Since people change, there is no way for me to know how accurate my reference would be. The best I can hope for is no harm. Given that, HR took Pascal's Wager and issued a company-wide edict forbidding giving any references. Instead we should forward the call to HR, and HR in turn would only confirm that Mr. X worked for company Y from this date to that date.
What are you going to do?
If I were to be in such a position I'd create an account (under an alias) and then I'd post a few pictures of kittehs, puppies and other nice things. Ideally I'd customize the account to match expectations of the employer.
Employers are taking advantage of people in a bad situation and it is disgusting.
Yes. And I'd take advantage of the employer right back. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. GIGO.
"If you are a so called IT person who is applying for something better than flipping burgers, then why are you not keeping up with modern day technology? Why should we hire a fossil, when any middle school kid can understand the concept of a social network, which you have demonstrated that you have failed to do so?"
I would answer like this:
As a highly experienced IT person, I know far more about this technology than any middle school kid does. The sandbox called "Facebook" is not good enough for my needs. If you have a few hours I can tell you in detail why this is so. Top notch professionals, like myself, have no use of a social network that caters to everyone and their dog. We fly much higher. If you'd like an analogy, I don't eat at Burger King. I dine at Atelier Crenn.
I'm sure the HR person wouldn't dare to continue down this road; but if she does, I'd tell her a few gory details than she can't possibly comprehend.
But this is all pure theory; I'm doing some consulting, but my area of expertise is in such a great demand that no HR would even dare to put up a roadblock. If the company contacts me it means that they tried to build the thing already and they failed miserably - and the deadline is approaching fast. (Even considering that I know people who are far more knowledgeable than I am in some of these designs.)
Well since its a violation of Facebook's terms of service, entering their network in violation of the term of service can be and has been considered computer trespass in the United States
You would think that after all of the phone hacking scandals, HR would pull their heads out of their asses.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
You can be fired in most jurisdictions for lying on a resume, if it's proven, so I'd be carefull with that.
In Germany, you can't be fired for lying about things that the employer shouldn't have been asking. For example, if a female is asked in a job interview whether she is pregnant, instead of saying "I don't want to answer this" (no job), or saying "you shouldn't be asking this" (no job), she can just say "no" and get the job.
So let me get this straight, if you eschew nameless, faceless, random contacts on the internet, and instead choose to have deep, meaningful relationships with your friends and family, now all of a sudden you "don't play well with others"?
HR: Yes, because I said so. Next question?
Personally, I haven't dealt with HR since 1995, I think. All the jobs since then were taken bypassing the front door, by employers actively seeking to hire me, for one reason or another. As I'm getting older the chance of getting through the front door is probably at zero already - but the chance is getting better and better that my thick Rolodex has a few cards of Important People who are in need of my skills and who know me personally.
That's weird, reading they're trying to ban this practice just now. Isn't eavesdropping on private communication already illegal in the US? I'm pretty sure that would be against the law in EU countries.. not to mention FB terms and conditions.
It's not that, it's the act of posting for the sole reason of letting everyone know you don't have a Facebook account.
In the end, it only makes you look bad.
Outstanding point. This gives you a great response to the original request for password:
Noseycorp HR: "We'd like your FB logon and password."
You: "Ahhhhh! I get it! You're just testing me to see if I will violate my agreement with FB to honor the FB 'terms of service.' You want to see if I can be trusted to keep Noseycorp secrets secure. Well, let me assure you, I'm good at keeping a confidence, and I ALWAYS honor my business agreements."
Noseycorp HR: "No, we really want to know..."
You: "Come on, I've passed your little test! Let's move on - shall we..."
Are you aware of how careful businesses are nowadays to not even go near something that might result in a lawsuit? (Obviously not.) If they're big enough to have an "HR department," they probably have lawyers and a liability policy that has told them in no uncertain terms what questions they can't ask for fear of a lawsuit. My point is that if Facebook started making noise about these employers violating their ToS, and threatening to take some sort of action therefor, the lawyers and insurers would very quickly bar their clients from asking these sorts of questions if they wanted to continue to be their clients.
Problem solved, without any overreaching new laws or congressional inquiries needed.
Liberty in your lifetime
Facebook reminds me of many old sayings, like "don't walk near the lava", or "stay away from the gators", or "here there be dragons". Best bet is to avoid it.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
My God, you Americans really have a fucked up country. Just in case you weren't aware. I'm surprised there's anyone left who could be described as genuinely happy.
I remember when Linux was good... too...
The best approach in an interview is to give the potential employer something to work with, rather than just a flat-out denial:
------
Potential Employer: "Er, so you are saying you're not part of any social network online whatsoever?"
You: "Well not exactly. I am a member of several tech sites and forums, helping people with problems and discussing various issues."
PE: "But what if you want to communicate with friends/family?"
You: "Email, the phone, etc. I have a Dropbox account where I share all my photos in the Photos gallery it provides. I don't use Facebook because I don't trust it as I'm concerned as to what might happen if my private data is leaked my accident or otherwise."
(Potential Employer considers this to be a different but thoughtful approach to remaining social and the interview progresses as normal...)
I remember when Linux was good... too...
Does the Charter also apply to private entities? The Constitution only applies to the Federal Government's actions, private entities are largely free to do whatever they want as long as there isn't a specific law against it around here.
Yours sounds a little better.
Why would anyone say yes to this request? It is like giving up your right to do X. If everybody collectively said: "No I refuse to do this", it doesn't sound unreasonable that employers would back off. Would employers get aggressive and start firing _everybody and anybody_who refuses to give their login credentials or start some sort of campaign to get people to give their login credentials? Not likely. Sounds to me like some people need to grow a spine. Employers know this is wrong. Spread the word around.
Society use your Sciences
Again, more applicable in a better job environment, but I am with you.
WHAT? The IT unemployment rate is right around 1%.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Worse is the billions of requests to join all the different games or silly groups that people use. I like my friends and all, but I can't figure out why they play Farmville (Farmtown?) and such.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
This is a good idea but probably impractical. Your work colleagues will soon notice you have no family in your friends list. Worse they may even be Facebook friends with some of your family or friends whom you have friended on your personal account, and see you comment from that.
Overall this practice seems borderline illegal given than (I'm guessing) the Facebook terms and services forbid you from sharing your password.
Perhaps I have simply worked for sane employers, but it's difficult to conceive why any of them would want this access. The best I can come up with is they want to control what you say about them (best left to your common sense) or research your personality before hiring (clearly crossing the line of invasion of privacy).
Translation: We do not want you to give your password to your employer so he can get information for free that we wanted to sell him.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Keep in mind that HR will most certainly not phrase its answers as directly as I put them in the example. They won't ask for your credentials. They will ask whether you frequent social networking sites (not really a question they "cannot" ask), and then steer you towards voluntarily offering yourself to hand over your credentials because you notice that they want to have a peek at it, and since you want that job you will go out of your way to please them.
HR departments at big companies actually get training in this kind of asking without asking. They know that you want that job and they know that you'll bend over backwards trying to anticipate what they actually want from you. If you don't, they'll just keep going through applicants until they find one that does. Not only do they get a perfectly spineless specimen that way, they also get someone who is able to anticipate what is wanted from him without even being asked for it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Of course I cannot find any examples now but the urban legend where it was actually put into action. Which it was fortunately not (yet) due to the outcry. It's one of the few occasions where it's fortunate that your neo-conservative party draws a good part of its voters from a conservative-clerical background.
It's actually been in discussion in a few countries, mostly central Europe (Germany, Austria, Poland and IIRC France). None of them put it into action as far as I know. Mostly for the reason I gave above, mind you. They certainly wouldn't have second thoughts about pressing unemployed into prostitution if it was not for their voters considering it "immoral". Which is kinda rich, considering they don't consider it immoral to be open to bribery and corruption, it seems.
The point is, though, that the limits of "acceptable work conditions" have been pushed to and past the limits in some countries. In Germany, you can be forced into taking so called "1 Euro Jobs", where your employer pays 1 Euro an hour for your work and you get "compensated" for the rest of your unemployment money from the state. Essentially this means you get the same unemployment money you got for NOT working while your employer gets a pretty much free worker. You may safely assume that those 1 Euro Jobs are not really jobs that would even exist if they'd have to pay minimum wage.
Modern slavery, essentially. And if history told us one thing, then that slavery (and cheap work force) has always been the stop block for innovation. If I have cheap manual labour, why bother inventing a machine to replace the human? The only reason we now have robots building our cars is that humans simply became too expensive, if that hadn't been the case, robotics would still be a cute hobby for techies with too much spare time.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This goes far beyond what an upstanding company would do, but is not illegal. This is one of those areas where there is no law because you shouldn't have to legislate common sense.
I'm not so sure that this is true. There are a lot of things that a company is not allowed to ask a prospective candidate. Age/sexual preference/marital status/kids/(legal) drug use/etc just for starters. Those are things that could all easily be found in most people's social networking profiles.
From what I see, any company that engages in this kind of activity opens itself up to enormous risk of lawsuits. If they gain access to someone's facebook profile and then choose not to hire them, the prospective employee can point to information in their facebook profile that the employer should not have access to as the basis of a lawsuit. IMHO, the entire thing is a minor issue as it will sort itself out pretty quickly.
I don't know what environment you work in that someone being a "complete stranger" equates to their opinion being worthless.
Someone had to do it.
This is why you don't choose people from places like where you worked to list as references.
Someone had to do it.
It's an interesting point. It seems to me however that the real problem is their lack of choice, and compelling them to work for abusive people is not the solution to that. They need more choices. I don't have a quick answer about how to provide that.
Are you European?
If so you are about ready to get hit with your own deep recession due to Greece and Italy.
In such a situation it is horrible, but people would do and yourself included if you are in that horrible state. It is not our fucked up country but simple economics. Very low demand and a high competition gives strength to the employer to be picky.
http://saveie6.com/
Google Docs has a Word format download option. So... shell out $0?
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
Wrong guess - Australian actually. It's noted that we've weathered the economic crisis pretty well actually, in that it barely affected us (some were affected of course, it's not like we were isolated, but it's hardly as prevalent as it was elsewhere). On top of that I work for the Government in a position that basically can't be lost unless I look at porn or something on the net, since it's a very important and well-funded department and layoffs are basically non-existent. Not that I'm gloating, but I sometimes forget how bad things have gotten for others.
I remember when Linux was good... too...
One question before we make this a federal case for some congressmen to get cheap publicity, how often has this happened? Are going on a couple of anecdotes about over zealous recruiters or is this now in the HR manual of cliches along with "Where do you see yourself in five years?"
There's two ways to solve this:
1. Try to make abusive people less abusive through laws.
2. Try to give employees more options about where they work.
I am not sure the first will ever work because people always get around rules. The second works.
Australia today is similiar to the US back in the 1990s. Low prices for homes, great economy, low value jobs compensate more with less competition from outsiders etc.
I worked for state governments as well as my ex. We were fine when the crisis hit at first but with no tax revenue we got axed and destitute and never fully recovered. We got divorced as a result with each other blaming the other for spending and not making enough money etc.
It can happen anywhere and if the bond crisis is bad for Australian banks your country will go through something similiar to due to simple economics. Its a pita but life..
http://saveie6.com/
People need more choices in employers. The best way is less regulation so there are more businesses and it is easier to get hired. Better education helps as well.
One where people are aware of the concept of sock puppets?
Nice work of rephrasing something in a way that makes it look different than what was meant, BTW.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.