Colleges and Employers Now Requiring Applicants' Facebook Passwords

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6
 

CapitalistPig:

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.

I know. And I agree with you. I just disagreed with the random assumption on the persons work history.

So.......How bout that Darkness 2 eh? Pretty swanky methinks.

CapitalistPig:

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.

EDIT
Heh, I read what you said, and I'm wondering, whats to argue about then?

CapitalistPig:

Scars Unseen:

CapitalistPig:

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.

Six years active duty Air Force, still in the Reserve. Still think this is wrong. In the military, you have to agree to certain limitations on your rights for national security reasons. But that's the only valid reason I see. By demanding unlimited access to your private life, these companies are, in essence, limiting your right to free speech. It's called a chilling effect, and while I'm not certain of the legal ramifications of that in regard to a corporation, I do know that it is wrong.

Scars Unseen:

Six years active duty Air Force, still in the Reserve. Still think this is wrong. In the military, you have to agree to certain limitations on your rights for national security reasons. But that's the only valid reason I see. By demanding unlimited access to your private life, these companies are, in essence, limiting your right to free speech. It's called a chilling effect, and while I'm not certain of the legal ramifications of that in regard to a corporation, I do know that it is wrong.

Its funny how when facebook started it was all about "gettin out there and sharing info." Now that, that is deemed a damning process everyone is real quick to claim its their personal information locked in a vault for only the privileged to see.

Define private life? Because to me anything you put on the internet is up for grabs. That's the way I was raised, not as a notion but as a defense mechanism. To assume that anything on the internet is private is in itself to misunderstand the purpose of the internet. Anything you allow a friend to see is virtually public information as Facebook now owns that information, as per the user end agreement (read that right?) This rears its ugly head in cellphones too, where verizon and AT&T allow the police to access phone records with a warrent without your permission. This is part of a user end agreement that you sign when contracting with these companies. Much the same way a company may want to see your public facebook records before contracting with you. You can always say no and a company can politely never call you again.

As the article stated, which most people ignore, the whole grab your username and password nonsense got shot down within days of the practice. Because anyone with half a brain wouldn't hand over that information, I.E an impossible impasse between employees and employers. However, If a friend can see it, that means a friend can post it on the internet where ever they want, therefore virtual public knowledge. I understand this is not a courageous idea but as technology weaves ever more into our lives we must come to terms with what is private and what is not. That is to protect ourselves from this nonsensical legislation.

And this doesn't violate free speech. It is a violation of privacy, but have fun fighting it in court. I'm sure that's a blast as you will be suing facebook not the company that wants to see your facebook page. You are welcome to say anything you want, but if you put it down on a permanent record for all of the foreseeable future for potentially everyone involved in your life to see, don't be so surprised when people start taking an interest in it, whether it is negative or positive.

Therefore, filter yourself so others don't have to do it for you.

my country doesn't care about fleshy human things, and even them don't ask for this crap!!! is USA the new 3rd-world now?

"Loads of my friends live a while away, so I can't meet up with them all the time. I have conversations with some of these people through texts, but my contract only allows 3000 a month so for everyone."

who the hell needs 3k messages in a month?!?!?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

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