Slashdot Mirror
Maryland Bans Employers From Asking For Facebook Passwords
Freddybear writes with news that yesterday Maryland passed a bill through both houses of the state legislature that would forbid employers from requiring job applicants or employees to provide access to social media accounts. The bill now awaits only the signature of governor Martin O'Malley. "The bill is the first of its kind in the country, and has shined a spotlight on the practice of employers demanding personal social media passwords from potential hires, [said Melissa Goemann of the ACLU]." Similar legislation is being developed in California, Illinois and Michigan, according to the Washington Post.
Just accept that friendly request from that HR lady as a condition of employment.
Just last night I saw an ad on craigslist where the employer wanted me to click on a emloyment site that used Facebook as a login and requirement. I figured it was a scam. But it did offer a new password that you could choose different from Facebook but you had to friend the site first ... and the employer can check to see if you have a pic drinking or do a grammar and spelling check on your casual entries etc.
http://saveie6.com/
I've never heard of an employer asking this before. Do they try to save money buy using it as an alternative background check or something? Asking for someone's password seems ridiculous.
The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
I hope they were smart enough to write this law fairly broadly. Employers should not be allowed to ask for passwords to any account, social media or otherwise. If they wrote it specifically for social media accounts, then they'll just have to write it all over again the next time some other type of account becomes the target of unscrupulous employers.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The surprising part about this news is that they actually had to pass a law making this practice illegal!
You would think this is such an obvious invasion of privacy that it would be covered by existing laws.
Still, if the great US of A is lecturing the world about "Internet Freedoms" while simultaneously perusing wikileaks for "terrorism", trying to pass laws like the SOPA, PIPA and shoving the ACTA down the throats of the rest of the world, I guess we shouldn't take anything for granted.
Ahh, where else but America... "The land of the free".
...there's no piss-test for Farmville addiction.
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
You'd be my first pick. Can't stand fadbook, it's like AOL for retards. AOL is like the web for retards. The web is like the Internet for retards. As for the Internet...Al Gore is a retard. It all makes sense now.
I've said it before and apparently I'll say it again. This is how the interview would go:
HR Person: "Please provide your login credentials for Facebook."
Interviewee: "I don't use Facebook."
HR Person: "Right. 'Refused to provide Facebook login credentials.'"
Result: Circular file.
I've said it before and apparently I'll say it again. This is how the interview would go:
HR Person: "Please provide your login credentials for Facebook." Interviewee: "I don't use Facebook." HR Person: "Right. 'Refused to provide Facebook login credentials.'"
Result: Circular file.
Not for me. Here's how it would go:
HR Person: "Please provide your login credentials for Facebook."
Me: Have a nice day (as I stand to leave)
HR Person: Where are you going?
Me: To interview with better companies.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
But I just can't help but think that any company who's core values are so completely fucked up that they request this, is someone who I just simply wouldn't want to work for in the first place?
I wish I was a neutron bomb, for once I could go off...
Which is it?
Neither and both. This is the final stage in the law-making process. It has passed through both houses of the state, which means that all the folks have agreed to it as it is. While the Govenor *could* veto it, even not signing it means it passes into law. While it is possible that this falls over through a veto, it is one of those one in a million chance things. So, effectively, you can say once both hosues agree, it has passed, but is still awaiting the formality of the boss' signature.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Focus your Facebook account on your off-hours hobby of DJ'ing for gay Jewish inter-racial couples retreats.
Then let them explain themselves if they don't hire you. They'd have to demonstrate how your off-hours activity did NOT influence their hiring process.
After they kind of implied that your off-hours hobbies WOULD influence their hiring decision.
It's a lose-lose for them. I don't see why any company with any intelligent HR person would even broach the subject of "social media" with applicants.
The Seattle police department had (as of last year) a similar requirement as part of their background check on applicants.
In that specific case I can see it being more reasonable. After all, they're already going to interview your friends and family and dig through your financial history.
They are not FORBIDDEN to ask but they will usually AVOID those questions because once they have that information they have to demonstrate that they did NOT refuse employment based upon it (should they not hire you and should you sue them).
The legal system being what it is ... it is just safer for them to not ask and therefore there is no way they could be using that information in their hiring decision.
Remember, HR is not there for YOU.
HR is there to protect the company from lawsuits that you can bring.
...when even Facebook is saying "hey guys, this seems like you're crossing a line with people's privacy".
> ...when even Facebook is saying "hey guys, this
> seems like you're crossing a line with people's privacy".
Mark Z doesn't give 2 hoots about your privacy. He only cares about Facebook's bottom line. Facebook's product is personal information about you, e.g. your "Likes", sexual orientation, political leaning, and other demographic data. If employer-access to your FB account becomes widespread, then...
1) people will either leave FB in droves, or refuse to join in the first place; bad for FB
2) many people that stay will "sanitize" all their FB info, to avoid getting fired/refused when employers look in. This will pollute FB's database. This is just as bad, if not worse than people quitting.
Follow the money. This isn't about your privacy, it's about FB's bottom line.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
First off, the hiring process is a two way street. You are just as much interviewing the employer as they are you. If you feel at any time during the hiring process that the employer does not suit you, then STOP! Walk away, this is not the employer you are looking for.
For an employer, hiring a new person is a high cost and high risk hassle that is to often delayed. So rather then do the process when the workload is still manageable, they only start looking when everyone is working an 80 hour week and tracking the backlog has switched from a project manager to an archaeologist. With all this, they then have the task of defining the role, explaining this to a recruiter, putting it out and deal with the deluge of applicants many of who have no hope whatsoever. You wouldn't believe what responds at times to a job ad. But the employer has to shift through it all in the hope of finding the one non-lying, non-insane, non-slacker, non-enemy making freak out there. A freak after all is someone who is not normal so a normal person in the hiring process is a freak. Trust me on this.
So, having just lost a month worth of productive work in total, there you are with all your hopes and dreams, interviewee #5347. STAND OUT!
An employer wants ONE thing and one thing only. One: make more money or to get laid with the new hire. An employer wants two things and two things only, 1: more money, 2: sex 3: no loss in productivity. Three things, an employer wants three things only.
To this end, the employer has a number of choices:
If you see malice in the above, that says a lot about you and a good employer would spot this and not hire you. If you never hired anyone or had to work with a new co-worker, you might not fully grasp just how much productivity is lost with not just the hire process but getting a new person up to speed. And (small) companies typically only hire once the workload has gotten to high already, so more work getting you up to speed will only make things worse. An employer wants to make sure that things afterwards will at least get better.
So how do you convince an Employer that HE/SHE/IT/THEY will BENEFIT from hiring you after the HUGE cost and hassle of hiring YOU? Simple, identify those costs and hassles and show how they can be minimized by you, or how they are not so bad after all.
Skills matter less then the capacity to acquire new ones quickly. Any new job will require new skills. Who cares you knew how to work with the systems of your old company, how quickly will you learn the systems at your new job? Emphasize NOT your experience with a system but how quickly you learned it. On your own. Self-study the new companies system shows they don't have to waste productivity teaching you.
Nobody likes a trouble-maker. Employers don't want strive among their employees, it costs productivity and they are hiring you to boost it. Don't boast about how buddy buddy you were with a small number of your ex-co-workers. Show you can get along with everyone and can just shrug off difficult co-workers without actually implying that you personally thought person X was difficult. Yes, that is bland. Bland is good, it has low risk.
Show how working for THEM benefits YOU. An employee who benefits is unlikely to leave. Make this benefit seem longer then the next paycheck.
SO, HOW DOES THIS ALL TIE INTO SOCIAL MEDIA?
Simple, an employer wants to know who you really are. Both of you are pretending during the interview. Simple dating advice is not to look at how the person interacts with you but with others. For women especially, want to avoid an abusive relationship? See how he deals with waiters and others in a subserviant role. That is how he will treat you once the honeymoon is
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
That's a narrow minded view. The company could be awesome and I'm not about to potentially ruin a career aspect with them because some lowly HR douche had an abortion of an idea. Hell if I walked out every time an interviewer asked me a question I disagree with I probably would never get past an interview stage. The problem is every so often someone comes in and makes a temporary dick move that may likely get reverted later and does not necessarily reflect the views of the entire company.
The company I have now made such a dick move hiring (or rather not hiring) university grads this year. They stuffed up the list of applicants and we accidentally interviewed the rejects. When they were all rejected word spread that we were screwing people around. Doesn't mean that we have any intention of fouling it up again next time.
Instead why not make your intentions known bluntly without screwing up potential opportunity? Just say "No, what I do in my private life between friends stays in my private life." It shows your position, strong character, and still leaves you the option to flip off the HR person with a big f-you if they insist on seeing it anyway.
Hell if I walked out every time an interviewer asked me a question I disagree with I probably would never get past an interview stage.
There's a world of difference between "a question I disagree with" and "hand over your password".
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.