The only way that would possibly end well is if we somehow move past a society in which money, and therefore a job, is required for procuring food, shelter, clothing, medicine, etc. If we go too far on the automation side, and make huge chunks of the workforce obsolete, but still require them to have money so they can get food, then we've got a huge problem.
They would be bound by the TOS when they attempt to log in as you. And since they are not you, they do not have permission to do so, hence they are in violation of the TOS.
If your work demands your password, and you want to comply with Facebook's TOS, you have the option of not having a Facebook.
Fuck that idea. Fuck it right in it's ear. My work should have no bearing whatsoever on whether I can have a Facebook, or anything else I do in my private life. That's like saying my work should be able to tell me if I can have a Mini Cooper or not.
I've always found that to be extremely stupid, because as we've seen, private entities can take away your rights just as easily as any government. The main difference being that we have influence on our government, and can change who makes it up.
I'm sorry, but your scenario is completely and utterly ignoring the fact that employers have far, far more power than the employees in these situations. There is not an equal balance of power.
And, since it is a requirement to survive, I believe that EVERYONE has the right to work. And that right trumps whatever entitlement you feel you have regarding controlling the political beliefs of your employees.
No, not really. Because in that situation, you have far, far more power than I do, and as such, you would be seen as forcing your beliefs and lifestyles on me. That should not be acceptable.
While that is very good advice, that's not really what's being talked about here. They're talking about the private information on the account, like your private messages and such.
Yes, it has happened. And even if it's just one or two isolated incidents, I'd far rather have this practice nipped in the bud now, rather than wait until it's commonplace and it'll be much harder to get rid of.
If the choice is between that, or starving under the overpass because I can't afford food or rent, then quite possibly, yes.
Protections like these are NOT in existence for those of us that can say no, and have another job offer by the end of the day. They're for those of us who don't have any power, those that are desperate, whom business would completely bend over and take advantage of. Those people have a right to work too.
The problem with any of these solutions is it still reinforces the idea that they should be able to ask for this information. They shouldn't be able to think about asking for it in the first place.
I'd much rather have businesses get the idea that this sort of behavior is completely unacceptable BEFORE it starts to become a widespread practice. After it's a common thing, it'd be much harder to get rid of.
Technically, it is illegal only to use the information received from answering those questions when considering whether or not to hire someone. However, I believe you would be incredibly hard pressed to prove that the knowledge was not in the back of your mind when making the decision, and you would not ask those questions in the first place unless you wanted to use that information.
Worst case scenario, you don't get a job offer at a place that you probably wouldn't want to work at anyway.
When you've been unemployed for a while, and want to continue eating and having a roof over your head, the list of "Places You Probably Wouldn't Want to Work At Anyway" tends to get pretty damn small.
I think, especially in this day an age, you would be extremely hard pressed to argue that employers don't have an incredible power of force behind them, especially over someone who is desperate for a job.
The computer systems the employers would try to access would usually be in a different state. Unless Facebook has somehow gotten datacenters in all 50 states.
Slashdot Mirror
The only way that would possibly end well is if we somehow move past a society in which money, and therefore a job, is required for procuring food, shelter, clothing, medicine, etc. If we go too far on the automation side, and make huge chunks of the workforce obsolete, but still require them to have money so they can get food, then we've got a huge problem.
They would be bound by the TOS when they attempt to log in as you. And since they are not you, they do not have permission to do so, hence they are in violation of the TOS.
If your work demands your password, and you want to comply with Facebook's TOS, you have the option of not having a Facebook.
Fuck that idea. Fuck it right in it's ear. My work should have no bearing whatsoever on whether I can have a Facebook, or anything else I do in my private life. That's like saying my work should be able to tell me if I can have a Mini Cooper or not.
I'm 65% sure the parent post was sarcasm.
No, but I think he's bringing up the unfortunate reality that not everyone has the resources available to do so.
Banks are not part of the government.
I've always found that to be extremely stupid, because as we've seen, private entities can take away your rights just as easily as any government. The main difference being that we have influence on our government, and can change who makes it up.
I'm sorry, but your scenario is completely and utterly ignoring the fact that employers have far, far more power than the employees in these situations. There is not an equal balance of power.
And, since it is a requirement to survive, I believe that EVERYONE has the right to work. And that right trumps whatever entitlement you feel you have regarding controlling the political beliefs of your employees.
No, not really. Because in that situation, you have far, far more power than I do, and as such, you would be seen as forcing your beliefs and lifestyles on me. That should not be acceptable.
While that is very good advice, that's not really what's being talked about here. They're talking about the private information on the account, like your private messages and such.
No, because that just reinforces the idea that a company has the right to demand such information.
I fail to see your point. The private sector has no business doing this either.
Yes, it has happened. And even if it's just one or two isolated incidents, I'd far rather have this practice nipped in the bud now, rather than wait until it's commonplace and it'll be much harder to get rid of.
If the choice is between that, or starving under the overpass because I can't afford food or rent, then quite possibly, yes.
Protections like these are NOT in existence for those of us that can say no, and have another job offer by the end of the day. They're for those of us who don't have any power, those that are desperate, whom business would completely bend over and take advantage of. Those people have a right to work too.
Even if you do, what are they going to do? Not hire you? Oh noes!!!
To someone who's desperate for a job, this would actually be a big deal.
The problem with any of these solutions is it still reinforces the idea that they should be able to ask for this information. They shouldn't be able to think about asking for it in the first place.
The throw-away account IS NOT AN ANSWER. Giving them a throw-away account only reinforces the idea that they have a right to this information.
I'd much rather have businesses get the idea that this sort of behavior is completely unacceptable BEFORE it starts to become a widespread practice. After it's a common thing, it'd be much harder to get rid of.
Technically, it is illegal only to use the information received from answering those questions when considering whether or not to hire someone. However, I believe you would be incredibly hard pressed to prove that the knowledge was not in the back of your mind when making the decision, and you would not ask those questions in the first place unless you wanted to use that information.
Worst case scenario, you don't get a job offer at a place that you probably wouldn't want to work at anyway.
When you've been unemployed for a while, and want to continue eating and having a roof over your head, the list of "Places You Probably Wouldn't Want to Work At Anyway" tends to get pretty damn small.
Why the hell you have to create a specific law for this issue?
Because business will keep doing it until we explicitly tell them to stop.
Don't people have basic privacy rights in the US?
No, not really.
I think, especially in this day an age, you would be extremely hard pressed to argue that employers don't have an incredible power of force behind them, especially over someone who is desperate for a job.
But in order for the employer to actually use the information, they have to contact a server which is in another state.
They only need to know the account number. They need to know absolutely nothing about how the account is used.
The computer systems the employers would try to access would usually be in a different state. Unless Facebook has somehow gotten datacenters in all 50 states.
Just because something is powerful doesn't mean it can't look good.