Colleges and Employers Now Requiring Applicants' Facebook Passwords

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

I'd just say no.

In any event, the degree of control I have over the personal information that I actually go give out is extremely strict. People only know what I want them to.

Jodah:
Seriously, what are they going to do? Refuse to hire you because you don't use Facebook? I'm no lawyer yet but I would hazard to guess that aside from a few specific tech jobs that would be filed under discriminatory hiring practices and lead to many a law suit.

Actually companies are doing this now. My mother-in-law was forced to leave her company (a dentist's office) today because she received enough negative points on her performance review for not being active enough and encouraging people to go to the dentist's office enough on her facebook. She handed in her two-weeks today and is filing for unemployment under a hostile working enviorment.

And what are they going to do when I tell them I don't have a Facebook? ^^ Are they going to suggest that I'm lying, think I must have something to hide or am just plain antisocial?

Employers who ask such things are not worth working for.

Akimoto:

Fr]anc[is:
Solution: don't use Facebook. Nobody gives a shit about what you just ate or the song lyrics you just posted anyway.

That was my initial reaction, but I found it harder and harder to keep in touch with my friends and church activities. Like most of the guys here and some smart ones on FB I only gave my name and email. Postings were kept to a minimum as well on FB.

In a way it's social engineering. Make something that people love for little reason, pander to their fantasy that some others out there follow their every move (Twitter), feeds their egos (FB 'Likes') and is easy to use based on tech that is derided as old and out of date (WhatsApp). Even now it is easier to contact people by calling than sms or email. We can't say no, but we can decide what goes out into the Internet.

Very soon I will have to change my 'analog' Sony Ericsson for a '3G' HTC just to know when we are meeting for a group project.

Wait, the Church is on Facebook...Dammit, now I can't even blaspheme on the interwebs. Is not where safe.

TestECull:

bahumat42:

TestECull:

Actually it's full of asshattery and condescending rudeness. The kind of people that genuinely would bring the second amendment to bear here are the people we don't want having weapons in the first place.

Don't pick on me ^^
Its a fair comeback, your nation does not seem to be able to shut up about the damn thing :P

It's a load of asshattery and condescending rudeness. You guys won't shut the goddamn fuck up about it and leave us to our own devices. There's three thousand miles of Atlantic Ocean seperating our nations, leave us the fuck alone about what we like and don't like already. It's not like we're over there trying to get your governments to lift their bans.

Because the bans are there for a reason. We recognize that there is no 'god given right to bear arms'

nuba km:

Irridium:
What if I don't have a facebook account?

that's what I am wondering, or does the employers head explode at the notion of not having a Facebook account.

You get fed to the ravenous tentacle monsters that all employers have under their workplace.

The Artificially Prolonged:

The_root_of_all_evil:
image

Dear US of A,

Get this. Soon.

Root.

PS. Otherwise, ditch Bookface or at least get another account.

I second this.

That is seriously messed up. If I went to an interview and my potential employers where demanding personal information like this I would not want to work for them and would say as much in the interview.

Yep. I'd just walk out. Not that they'd learn anything interesting from my stuff, I just don't feel like working for jackasses.

Tree man:

Because the bans are there for a reason. We recognize that there is no 'god given right to bear arms'

It's full of asshattery.

How about we come over there and try to take a huge, integral part of YOUR culture away because WE don't like it? You guys would be up in arms over it! How do you guys think we feel when you do the same shit?

Cut it the fuck out. We're thousands of miles away, leave us the fuck alone. You don't like 'em? Fine. You don't have 'em. We do like 'em, and we do have 'em. But don't spew forth an immense load of horseshit trying to get us to change our culture.

TestECull:

Tree man:

Because the bans are there for a reason. We recognize that there is no 'god given right to bear arms'

It's full of asshattery.

How about we come over there and try to take a huge, integral part of YOUR culture away because WE don't like it? You guys would be up in arms over it! How do you guys think we feel when you do the same shit?

Cut it the fuck out. We're thousands of miles away, leave us the fuck alone. You don't like 'em? Fine. You don't have 'em. We do like 'em, and we do have 'em. But don't spew forth an immense load of horseshit trying to get us to change our culture.

...Your culture is the watered down bi-product of our own and the cultures of the immigrants that visited and stayed in America, you do realize that right. Because America used to be part of the British Empire.

So really your entire culture and constitution is still trying to, in some pathetic way, get back at the British.

And asshattery, what are you twelve?

rayen020:

Jodah:
Seriously, what are they going to do? Refuse to hire you because you don't use Facebook? I'm no lawyer yet but I would hazard to guess that aside from a few specific tech jobs that would be filed under discriminatory hiring practices and lead to many a law suit.

Actually companies are doing this now. My mother-in-law was forced to leave her company (a dentist's office) today because she received enough negative points on her performance review for not being active enough and encouraging people to go to the dentist's office enough on her facebook. She handed in her two-weeks today and is filing for unemployment under a hostile working enviorment.

That's a little different. In all likelihood that was not the only thing that was marked against her. That was just the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Furthermore, if her company is forcing her to have a Facebook, against her own wishes, I would talk to a lawyer. If she had it beforehand and told them that she had it then she made a mistake. There are really only a few things a company can force you to do outside of work. You can't defame them in public via Facebook, for example, but they cannot force you to have Facebook in the first place.

Unless, of course, she is a salaried employee. Then all bets are off because the company can get away with a lot more then.

rayen020:

Jodah:
Seriously, what are they going to do? Refuse to hire you because you don't use Facebook? I'm no lawyer yet but I would hazard to guess that aside from a few specific tech jobs that would be filed under discriminatory hiring practices and lead to many a law suit.

Actually companies are doing this now. My mother-in-law was forced to leave her company (a dentist's office) today because she received enough negative points on her performance review for not being active enough and encouraging people to go to the dentist's office enough on her facebook. She handed in her two-weeks today and is filing for unemployment under a hostile working enviorment.

Wow that is completely actionable. I think she's better off away from the crackheads-in-charge who put that policy in place anyways, and I hope she ruins them in court.

Hookah:
Don't worry Americans, you can use your freedom to bear arms to prevent this, like your always banging on about.

hahah, as an American, I found that funny.

Fr]anc[is:
Solution: don't use Facebook. Nobody gives a shit about what you just ate or the song lyrics you just posted anyway.

You do realize that there are many beneficial uses of Facebook, correct? Such as allowing you to exchange photos with friends and family, disseminate information to massive groups, and create and organize events with several people all extremely easily. If you don't like it, fine, but the service is extremely useful for a wide variety of purposes.

On topic, this crosses so many fucking lines in my mind. I mean, if your employee shows up to work constantly, has their credentials, and performs their job at an acceptable level, you should have no need to find out information on their personal life. How does it change their performance if it is found out that they are an avid fan of House or like to go clubbing on weekends? I would really like to see whatever law that allows this challenged and soon.

The really stupid part here is anyone not saying "go fuck yourself with a rusty iron pipe" to that.

Tree man:

*snip*

Wait, the Church is on Facebook...Dammit, now I can't even blaspheme on the interwebs. Is not where safe.

Once upon a time there was even an app for Confessional. Yes nowhere is safe.

awmperry:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Day | Rotors |Rotor Shift| Jumper Settings | Validators |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 09 | III V IV | 26 15 01 | AX BG CZ DJ EO FL IV MU PQ RT | HXW QPH GIL LZO |

Then they read the message:

= APZA>PUBLIC = 1203090037 = 1o1 = 124 = CRW JVQ =

JNQPH FXVTI NXUIW XDCAQ UDVFA
IYEKE NHUPY SKIFN VTRTJ XZILO
WJIFT NRFPY ROWFT MYHHM NJRAZ
XKNAD FREYJ TFYVS PRNST YXGKO
ZYEKC WZPMJ MNZSZ MTWRD ZXZUV
PNFD=

On topic, though, I'm very careful with my privacy online. Not enough that I care about what they see my IP doing, but I don't leave my real name lying around online for people to find, or connect my online identity to me.

As for this sort of thing coming up in interviews...
that's why I don't have Facebook.

Cyberstalkers begone.

Jodah:
Step one: Use a fake name for Facebook
Step two: Write "I don't use Facebook" where it asks on your application
Step three: ???
Step four: Profit!

Seriously, what are they going to do? Refuse to hire you because you don't use Facebook? I'm no lawyer yet but I would hazard to guess that aside from a few specific tech jobs that would be filed under discriminatory hiring practices and lead to many a law suit.

well seeing how incredible retarded they are becoming:

they might want to know........ you better sit down for this one.
if YOU ............... ...................here it comes.
drink sometimes...........................OH BOY; OH BOY!
an alcoholic drink on your leisure time/vacation.
yeah, because it will be is illegal to do whatever the f*** you would like to do on vacation to relax.

image
land of the free.....

Tree man:

nuba km:

Irridium:
What if I don't have a facebook account?

that's what I am wondering, or does the employers head explode at the notion of not having a Facebook account.

You get fed to the ravenous tentacle monsters that all employers have under their workplace.

I've seen too much hentai.......

This is more or less why I don't use any of my real information when signing up for anything online.

Irridium:
What if I don't have a facebook account?

Then its the rubber gloves for you! Who knows maybe you'll have to give them unlimited access to your bank account so they can hold you financially hostage if you say something they don't like.

Spy_Guy:

What you meant by "QQ" is beyond me, though :P

Yeah, I revised the punctuation substitutions to better fit my purposes. (It occurs to me, actually, that I should add one for @. Oh well.)

XX = .
YY = ,
QQ = ?

Send me a PM, I'll send you the code sheet. :-)

Nerd power, as you say, FTW.

Dont have no facebook account. dont believe me? go hang yourself.

That's horrific, I have always been a firm believer that people should be able to keep their private and professional lives seperate if they want to, and I have without fail been pissed off at companies who fire employees over comments they make in social media (unless it was to do with the company, in which case they deserve it). Having full access to someones' Facebook account, not even mentioning the personal details, is like having someone listening in on every conversation that person has. Whats' more, I think it's a f***ing stupid idea to think that what people put on Facebook reflects in any way their conduct and professionalism in real life. Look, I don't need to spell this out, from what I've read you guys pretty much agree anyway.

All this said, just say you don't use Facebook. Problem solved. The f***ing pricks can have fun trying to sneak a camera into your house instead.

Thats why I use fake names for everything, it will be entertaining when people start using google+ though because thats tied to your email, and they would then want access to all your email as well!

A company is perfectly within it's rights to be wary about the "public face" of you as a representative of them available to whoever takes the time to look for you. However, your private business is your private business anything the general public can't see they shouldn't have the right to see nor the power to hire you over it. Otherwise they might as well ban you from "defaming" a company to your own partner in your own home because you complained about a bad day at work.

monkyvirus:
A company is perfectly within it's rights to be wary about the "public face" of you as a representative of them available to whoever takes the time to look for you. However, your private business is your private business anything the general public can't see they shouldn't have the right to see nor the power to hire you over it. Otherwise they might as well ban you from "defaming" a company to your own partner in your own home because you complained about a bad day at work.

They might have something to say about your spouse post.....If you post it. Just don't. It's pretty much that easy. Anyone who thinks anything they post on the internet isn't public they don't understand the nature of the internet. Anyone who thinks the stuff they post on the internet doesn't affect their job standing has never had a job worth keeping. It's so simple it's stupid.

CapitalistPig:

monkyvirus:
A company is perfectly within it's rights to be wary about the "public face" of you as a representative of them available to whoever takes the time to look for you. However, your private business is your private business anything the general public can't see they shouldn't have the right to see nor the power to hire you over it. Otherwise they might as well ban you from "defaming" a company to your own partner in your own home because you complained about a bad day at work.

They might have something to say about your spouse post.....If you post it. Just don't. It's pretty much that easy. Anyone who thinks anything they post on the internet isn't public they don't understand the nature of the internet. Anyone who thinks the stuff they post on the internet doesn't affect their job standing has never had a job worth keeping. It's so simple it's stupid.

Anyone who thinks that it's okay for others to have your password for anything has never had an account hijacked. Would you give a stranger your email password? Your bank logon? The keys to your house?

These companies haven't the right, and by demanding it, prove they aren't responsible enough an organization to be worth anyone's time.

I can't believe this is legal. It's bullshit. How different, in essence, would it be for them to say they have to send someone to your home, rummage through all your belongings, watch you interact with your friends and family, and by extension further violate THEIR (your family/friends) privacy.

This is ludicrous. I wouldn't want some person I don't know having access to anything I share with my friends when I am to believe only they have access to. Where are my rights as a third party? My privacy would be violated to.

What if the social networking service makes you agree to never share your login information with others because it lowers the security of the system? Which it does. The more people have access to any information, the more likely it is to get leaked in some fashion. Are these people data security experts? What if their device gets compromised. What if people steal the data from them?

That's just ridiculous.

This is just another in a long list of reasons to not have a Facebook account. Facebook is an absolute waste of time. The bottom line is that 99.99% of the people walking the face of this Earth don't have a life interesting enough to warrant a haiku nevermind an entire webpage. Beyond that though the garbage they do post on there probably doesn't get read by anyone more often than it does get read or looked at.

Facebook, Twitter, Google+ are all just things to make people feel more important and/or interesting than they actually are. That in and of it's self would be harmless. However, people are also stupid and freely post everything but high definition scans of their credit cards and wonder how things went wrong when bad things happen.

The bottom line is social media is a fucking plague on society as a whole. The scant benefits it offers are far out weighed by everything that's wrong with it. People have been robbed of their identity, burglarized, kidnapped, and even raped and murdered because of what they posted on Facebook. It's plainly obvious that as a society we lack both the common sense and the maturity to use any kind of social media.

Scars Unseen:

CapitalistPig:

monkyvirus:
A company is perfectly within it's rights to be wary about the "public face" of you as a representative of them available to whoever takes the time to look for you. However, your private business is your private business anything the general public can't see they shouldn't have the right to see nor the power to hire you over it. Otherwise they might as well ban you from "defaming" a company to your own partner in your own home because you complained about a bad day at work.

They might have something to say about your spouse post.....If you post it. Just don't. It's pretty much that easy. Anyone who thinks anything they post on the internet isn't public they don't understand the nature of the internet. Anyone who thinks the stuff they post on the internet doesn't affect their job standing has never had a job worth keeping. It's so simple it's stupid.

Anyone who thinks that it's okay for others to have your password for anything has never had an account hijacked. Would you give a stranger your email password? Your bank logon? The keys to your house?

These companies haven't the right, and by demanding it, prove they aren't responsible enough an organization to be worth anyone's time.

likely the response of someone who has never worked a job where they care about your background. Most Career jobs require these kinds of background checks now a days to ensure the company won't be discredited by inflammatory remarks or defamed due to insulting posts.

solve media: be careful....I think it applies.

EDIT
If you read the article you can't have their password as the ALCU so quickly stances. You are moderated by an interviewer to view your posts.

You know, when you post EVERYTHING you do on Facebook, you stop being able to bitch about your privacy. Telling everyone on Facebook you just bought coffee at Starbucks led them to make it easier to tell everyone by removing you from the equation.

However, asking for a password is illegal, and showing someone your email inbox will get you fired from a governmental job. You cannot ask for encrypted information you have no right to, and a password for a social networking site is personal information.
This should have been cracked down upon when it first showed up, as it is an invasion of privacy.

CapitalistPig:

likely the response of someone who has never worked a job where they care about your background. Most Career jobs require these kinds of background checks now a days to ensure the company won't be discredited by inflammatory remarks or defamed due to insulting posts.

solve media: be careful....I think it applies.

Likely the response of a corporate apologist dick who supports the government bugging your house with no warrant.

corporations don't pay you for your free time, they only own you when you have their uniform on and are billing them for hours. The military is tight on what you do in your personal life, but they require you to be willing to lay your life down. A corporation doesn't ask that, and neither does a school.

edit

If I used Facebook, I'd lie and say I didn't, probably because I wouldn't use my actual name on there. Like Daryl Zero said, " Give false information...always." I don't use Facebook for personal reasons, but it's not surprising that employers and schools are asking for this information.

LastGreatBlasphemer:
You know, when you post EVERYTHING you do on Facebook, you stop being able to bitch about your privacy. Telling everyone on Facebook you just bought coffee at Starbucks led them to make it easier to tell everyone by removing you from the equation.

However, asking for a password is illegal, and showing someone your email inbox will get you fired from a governmental job. You cannot ask for encrypted information you have no right to, and a password for a social networking site is personal information.
This should have been cracked down upon when it first showed up, as it is an invasion of privacy.

CapitalistPig:

likely the response of someone who has never worked a job where they care about your background. Most Career jobs require these kinds of background checks now a days to ensure the company won't be discredited by inflammatory remarks or defamed due to insulting posts.

solve media: be careful....I think it applies.

Likely the response of a corporate apologist dick who supports the government bugging your house with no warrant.

corporations don't pay you for your free time, they only own you when you have their uniform on and are billing them for hours. The military is tight on what you do in your personal life, but they require you to be willing to lay your life down. A corporation doesn't ask that, and neither does a school.

Well as a conservative, gun owning, tea partier I feel obligated to tell you, you are stereotyping without province. If you read any of my previous posts you would see I stand against this. Most likely it won't make it in court.
BUT, that doesn't discount the fact that facebook users are way too unfiltered and are entirely to blame for the outcome of this litigation discourse. If facebook users were even slightly more discretionary about what they post this would not be a problem.

EDIT
You very carefully ignore my last post EDIT which shows how the law has been diplomatic with this situation

CapitalistPig:

Well as a conservative, gun owning, tea partier I feel obligated to tell you, you are stereotyping without province. If you read any of my previous posts you would see I stand against this. Most likely it won't make it in court.
BUT, that doesn't discount the fact that facebook users are way too unfiltered and are entirely to blame for the outcome of this litigation discourse. If facebook users were even slightly more discretionary about what they post this would not be a problem.

EDIT
You very carefully ignore my last post EDIT which shows how the law has been diplomatic with this situation

I did fail to read your previous posts, I focused directly upon the blanket assumption that the person hadn't worked a job where they take your background and personal life into consideration. I attacked your own "stereotyping without province".
And no, I didn't see your edit before posting, because at the time of my post, there was no edit. So, when we say someone took much care to ignore it, remember that it's an edit, it wasn't up yet.
I also pointed out however that this is the user's fault. If people showed any form of discretion or intelligence when using the features of the site we wouldn't have this problem. It stems from the trend of people using the site posting every little thing they do, which brought upon software that simply did it for you.

(Has Escapist sold itself out or something? My Captcha is an ad for Little Caesars and requires me to enter it.)

LastGreatBlasphemer:

CapitalistPig:

Well as a conservative, gun owning, tea partier I feel obligated to tell you, you are stereotyping without province. If you read any of my previous posts you would see I stand against this. Most likely it won't make it in court.
BUT, that doesn't discount the fact that facebook users are way too unfiltered and are entirely to blame for the outcome of this litigation discourse. If facebook users were even slightly more discretionary about what they post this would not be a problem.

EDIT
You very carefully ignore my last post EDIT which shows how the law has been diplomatic with this situation

I did fail to read your previous posts, I focused directly upon the blanket assumption that the person hadn't worked a job where they take your background and personal life into consideration. I attacked your own "stereotyping without province".
And no, I didn't see your edit before posting, because at the time of my post, there was no edit. So, when we say someone took much care to ignore it, remember that it's an edit, it wasn't up yet.
I also pointed out however that this is the user's fault. If people showed any form of discretion or intelligence when using the features of the site we wouldn't have this problem. It stems from the trend of people using the site posting every little thing they do, which brought upon software that simply did it for you.

(Has Escapist sold itself out or something? My Captcha is an ad for Little Caesars and requires me to enter it.)

While that is insightful, it literally changes nothing of what I've said or the truth that it is. The users are responsible for their own problems. They wouldn't exist if we didn't create them. Its that simple.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here