If employers hear this enough, then maybe they will start to smarten up
Or they'll just reach for the next resume in the 100s they've received because so many are desperate for work, and the next guy needs the job more so he bends over and takes it.
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.
This is an awful test, because the people you want to hire (those that would not divulge their passwords) are going to be extremely offended at such a question, and likely would not believe you when you said it was just a test.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, they don't. Many municipalities have "local dollars" to encourage people to spend money at local merchants. The US government isn't cracking down on those.
Oh wait, you're talking about the "freedom" people who want to use gold and silver coins. Like the "Liberty Dollar" people. Except what you're going to ignore, or claim I'm wrong on, is that these people were specifically using these currencies to evade taxes, while also cheating the people who used them, by selling them for higher than the actual value of the metal in the coin, and buying them for less than the value of the coin. THAT'S why they were busted, not because they were using alternative currency.
Fuck you. You have no idea what I just said there. I realize that the prices have to go up as supply goes down. However, I'm rallying against the artificial price increases due to speculation. And yes, that is what's causing a lot of the price hikes. If oil producers sold their futures directly to people who were actually going to refine the petroleum, or make other, actual products with it, rather than hoping to sell it before the contract comes to term for a profit, prices would be much more stable.
Speculation can make the price drop just as easily as rise.
Doesn't mean it actually happens. Most of the oil speculators would rather have a tanker sit idle for months than sell at a loss.
Speculation does benefit you, it adds nothing to the price on average, you just don't understand it.
No, it doesn't. It doesn't benefit me, and it adds quite a bit. You obviously don't want to admit that adding a bunch of useless middlemen to the equation marks up the price.
I have no problem with FUTURES CONTRACTS, which is the actual device which does what you claim. However, those futures contracts should NOT go to speculators. They should be agreements between the oil producers and the refineries.
Are you fucking retarded? You do not see how adding a whole bunch of worthless middlemen, who do nothing but purchase contracts with the idea of selling them for a higher price later will add to the price? Seriously, pull your fucking head out of your ass.
Speculator #1 buys oil from the producer for $100. He then attempts to sell the oil, and he's going to do so for a profit. Meaning that the next person has to pay a markup over the $100 that the producer was charging. And if the next person to buy is another speculator, then they're going to want to sell for a profit too, adding even more markup.
WRONG. We would still be selling a pittance, even after "increasing production". What part of "The US has only 2% of the world's oil reserves" do you not understand? And odds are, many of the oil rich nations would cut back on production.
Yes, I know globally consumption went up. However, we can't do shit about global consumption, unless you're willing to ban the export of oil to the rest of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple fact of the matter is, however, if a company wants this crap they really aren't worth working for.
And the other simple fact of the matter is, after a year or so of unemployment, your definition of "companies worth working for" usually changes.
You say that like they care.
If employers hear this enough, then maybe they will start to smarten up
Or they'll just reach for the next resume in the 100s they've received because so many are desperate for work, and the next guy needs the job more so he bends over and takes it.
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.
This is an awful test, because the people you want to hire (those that would not divulge their passwords) are going to be extremely offended at such a question, and likely would not believe you when you said it was just a test.
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".
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.
Quite frankly, I don't think I would believe a company that said they were asking for such things as a security test.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You're assuming a level of thought and foresight that most HR drones, and most companies, don't have.
Not every job is for that of a systems administrator?
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.
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.
No, they don't. Many municipalities have "local dollars" to encourage people to spend money at local merchants. The US government isn't cracking down on those.
Oh wait, you're talking about the "freedom" people who want to use gold and silver coins. Like the "Liberty Dollar" people. Except what you're going to ignore, or claim I'm wrong on, is that these people were specifically using these currencies to evade taxes, while also cheating the people who used them, by selling them for higher than the actual value of the metal in the coin, and buying them for less than the value of the coin. THAT'S why they were busted, not because they were using alternative currency.
Fuck you. You have no idea what I just said there. I realize that the prices have to go up as supply goes down. However, I'm rallying against the artificial price increases due to speculation. And yes, that is what's causing a lot of the price hikes. If oil producers sold their futures directly to people who were actually going to refine the petroleum, or make other, actual products with it, rather than hoping to sell it before the contract comes to term for a profit, prices would be much more stable.
Speculation can make the price drop just as easily as rise.
Doesn't mean it actually happens. Most of the oil speculators would rather have a tanker sit idle for months than sell at a loss.
Speculation does benefit you, it adds nothing to the price on average, you just don't understand it.
No, it doesn't. It doesn't benefit me, and it adds quite a bit. You obviously don't want to admit that adding a bunch of useless middlemen to the equation marks up the price.
I have no problem with FUTURES CONTRACTS, which is the actual device which does what you claim. However, those futures contracts should NOT go to speculators. They should be agreements between the oil producers and the refineries.
Are you fucking retarded? You do not see how adding a whole bunch of worthless middlemen, who do nothing but purchase contracts with the idea of selling them for a higher price later will add to the price? Seriously, pull your fucking head out of your ass.
Speculator #1 buys oil from the producer for $100. He then attempts to sell the oil, and he's going to do so for a profit. Meaning that the next person has to pay a markup over the $100 that the producer was charging. And if the next person to buy is another speculator, then they're going to want to sell for a profit too, adding even more markup.
The cost of storage is built into the price speculators pay... why do you think it isn't?
Because they don't actually have to pay it.
WRONG. We would still be selling a pittance, even after "increasing production". What part of "The US has only 2% of the world's oil reserves" do you not understand? And odds are, many of the oil rich nations would cut back on production.
Do YOU not see this?
And before you even write it, U.S. production is low now and may be a small part of the world market. But that's where the "increase" part comes in.
Yes, I am correct. Because even increasing US production, it's not going to be enough to affect world prices.
Get the picture?
Yes. You're an idiot.
Yes, I know globally consumption went up. However, we can't do shit about global consumption, unless you're willing to ban the export of oil to the rest of the world.
Actually, they don't. But nice try.