Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Employer Demands Facebook Login From Job Applicants

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the poking-and-prodding dept.

Facebook 434

Hugh Pickens writes writes "Alex Madrigal reports in the Atlantic that the ACLU has taken up the case of Maryland corrections officer Robert Collins, who was required to provide his Facebook login and password to the Maryland Division of Corrections during a recertification interview so the interviewer could log on to his account and read not only his postings, but those of his family and friends too. 'We live in a time when national security is the highest priority, but it must be delicately balanced with personal privacy,' says Collins. 'My fellow officers and I should not have to allow the government to view our personal Facebook posts and those of our friends, just to keep our jobs.' The ACLU of Maryland has sent a letter to Public Safety Secretary Gary Maynard (PDF) concerning the Division of Correction's blanket requirement that applicants for employment with the division, as well as current employees undergoing recertification, provide the government with their social media account usernames and personal passwords for use in employee background checks. After three weeks the ACLU has received no response."

cancel ×

434 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Facebook? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254598)

More like Fuckbook.

This is why I don't use facebook (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254600)

and it's not just because I don't have any friends

Re:This is why I don't use facebook (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254872)

Facebook is a fad that will die soon, like all others. Some new "cyber-candy to lull the ignorant masses" will be along soon enough. Then all of you kids who use "The Facebook" can splatter the pedantic, mindless minutia that is your life all over this new thing.

Re:This is why I don't use facebook (-1, Troll)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254988)

I use Facebook to determine the intelligence level of the person I'm dealing with.

If you have a Facebook account, you've already failed my job interview. You can't be trusted to make intelligent decisions with data, so you don't need to work at this organization.

So I ask for a Facebook login, but I never look, the only correct answer is 'i don't have one'

Re:This is why I don't use facebook (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35255016)

I think it's plainly obvious that you're not actually responsible for hiring anyone.

Re:This is why I don't use facebook (5, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255034)

If you're going to take nothing more than the fact that I use a particular communication tool as a reason to write me off as irresponsible, I feel fully justified in declaring you as a pompous, superior, neo-luddite based on nothing more than that single Slashdot post.

Some of my data doesn't need to be private; I'd be as happy to write "Does anyone want to go to the pub tonight?" in giant red letters on the side of a building as I am to place it on Facebook, if that happened to be the most convenient way to get the message to a large group of my friends. Some of my data does need to be private; that data doesn't go on Facebook at all.

So, have two accounts? (3, Funny)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254614)

One full of HOORAH, LOVE THE GOVERNMENT! and liking AMERICA: WE'LL PUT A BOOT IN YER ASS, but without many friends attached. And then you'll have your other (perhaps similar) Facebook page, but with your real friends and activities. That's not misleading, they wanted your Facebook login. They got it. No biggie.

Re:So, have two accounts? (1)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254686)

That's why we should have a government should be accountable to us. Not to completely destroy it.

Re:So, have two accounts? (1, Insightful)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254782)

nah, just do what i do: don't have a fucking facebook account = problem solved

Re:So, have two accounts? (1)

TwilightXaos (860408) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254938)

How are you to prove to your employer/big brother that you don't have one?

Re:So, have two accounts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254788)

I was thinking: what if you (like me) don't have a Facebook or Twitter account (sue me, I'm not big on social media). Then what? "We insist that you have one, so make one or we will make one for you, and then we insist that in your off hours, that you use it and put all of your private personal information in it so that we can read it and do character assassinations on you!" But your idea: the guards have a 'Facebook, we luv 'merica' page, with all the other guards as friends page'. Every guard is a God fearin' 'merica luvin type, with other guards as friends, who are also all God fearin' 'merica luvin types. They want something to read, so give them something to read. Actually I could do that myself. Set up about 10 Facebook accounts, get some random faces off the 'net, set up accounts with those pictures but with anonymous names. People want to check your background by looking at Facebook and insist you have an account: give them one. Sure you are gaming the system. They are too. Quite frankly, your personal background is none of their damn business. If they want to see who your friends are: introduce them to Randall Stephens, second cousin to Harvey the Rabbit, the silent silent partner.

Re:So, have two accounts? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254878)

If you're going to lie, why not just say you don't have an account at all?

Either way, once you start weaving a web of lies, you're committed. If they find out you were lying, it would look pretty bad.

The only real solution is to get this lousy policy repealed.

Re:So, have two accounts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254982)

The only real solution is to get this lousy policy repealed.

Or move to a country that actually has personal freedom and liberty instead of living in one that loudly touts what it in the process of crushing.

Why the password? (2)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254620)

Even if I thought sharing your facebook login with your employer was reasonable (which I don't), why would they need your password? So they could post crap on your account?

Disclaimer: I am an avid non-facebook user. I refuse to support what I consider a complete waste of time and computing resources.

Re:Why the password? (4, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254694)

I refuse to support what I consider a complete waste of time and computing resources.

So can I have your /. account? I'd like to drop 200,000 or so from my UID. Impress the ladies, you know?

Re:Why the password? (3, Informative)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254754)

/. is only a 90% waste of time. That's an acceptable level for me.

Re:Why the password? (3, Funny)

LynXmaN (4317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254774)

I refuse to support what I consider a complete waste of time and computing resources.

So can I have your /. account? I'd like to drop 200,000 or so from my UID. Impress the ladies, you know?

Six digits is impressive? Kids this days...

Re:Why the password? (3, Funny)

shogun (657) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254870)

my.lawn->get_off(you);

Re:Why the password? (2)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254940)

Yeah, yeah...you too...

Re:Why the password? (2)

Grayraven (95321) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254834)

Impress the ladies, you know?

Good luck with that...

Re:Why the password? (1)

clump (60191) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254950)

Look at my ID, whipper-snapper. I have it to point to for all the success I have in life.

Re:Why the password? (1)

Ilsundal (3288) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255010)

Haha. Back in my day ...

Re:Why the password? (4, Funny)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255032)

You know what happened last time /. got into a user ID waving competition? http://slashdot.org/~palpatine [slashdot.org] (#94) turned up and made us all look silly.

Re:Why the password? (1)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254706)

Even if I thought sharing your facebook login with your employer was reasonable (which I don't), why would they need your password? So they could post crap on your account?

I think it's so they can access the private parts of your Facebook account. Stuff that only friends can see for instance.

Re:Why the password? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254826)

I refuse to support what I consider a complete waste of time and computing resources.

I assume this means you don't play computer games?

Re:Why the password? (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254840)

As another way of looking at "why the password"? They already own the airwaves. They own the wires that everything is transmitted over. They own the investment conglomerate which owns the company which owns Facebook. They own the databases.

Maybe the application was just a way of putting it right in front of the guard's face: "this is how simple your password is, dumbass."

His password was probably "pencil".

I have to applaud the ACLU... (4, Insightful)

Cjstone (1144829) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254626)

A lot of people have the opinion that the ACLU is only about shutting down the speech of Christians/Whites/Men/*insert majority group here.* I think this case proves that not to be the case, and demonstrates the good that the ACLU actually does: Protecting personal privacy, freedom of expression, etc. This is a very important case, one that could potentially set a very bad precedent. It's good that there's at least one somewhat powerful organization on the side of personal privacy in this case. I hope groups like the EFF get involved as well.

Re:I have to applaud the ACLU... (5, Interesting)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254698)

A lot of people have the opinion that the ACLU is only about shutting down the speech of Christians/Whites/Men/*insert majority group here.* I think this case proves that not to be the case

Why exactly? They can still be anti-majority and still support things that are otherwise good. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think the ACLU goes after majority groups, but they certainly go after somethings that clearly they shouldn't be, but thats the double edge sword of an organization like the ACLU, their viewpoint of civil liberties is different than mine. So when they are for something I agree with, I support them and make others aware of their fight, and when they are going off on some wildly retarded tangent like they so regularly do, I make sure people understand why I think its silly or wrong.

The same for the EFF, though I must admit the EFF is generally more aligned with my own opinions so its rarer that I disagree with the EFF but it certainly has happened.

One of the things all Americans (I don't want to speak for other countries though its certainly the same in some others) need to remember is that we all don't have to agree on everything. The only thing we all REALLY need to agree with is that its okay for others to have a differing opinion, and its okay for them to do things we don't really agree with as long as they aren't really bothering or harming anyone else. And that is just about where everyone fails, myself included. Its not always easy to accept someone else's opinion, viewpoint or way of doing things.

Re:I have to applaud the ACLU... (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254730)

You sir, are obviously a communist. If McCarthy were alive today, you would be on a no-fly list so fast...

Re:I have to applaud the ACLU... (4, Insightful)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254924)

A lot of people have the opinion that the ACLU is only about shutting down the speech of Christians/Whites/Men/*insert majority group here.

A lot of people also voluntarily subject themselves to media outlets that flood them with propaganda that tells them that ACLU, liberals, democrats, and muslims all do hate and undermine Christians, Whites, men, and American values.

A lot of people are clueless, lied to, misinformed, confused or just outright ignorant. Their views frequently don't match reality, but that doesn't stop politicians from catering to their whims.

As an example of how out of touch with reality some people are, in 2009, a Pew Research Poll that was conducted in order to study perceived media bias actually found that 14% of people though that Fox News was mostly liberal. How could someone even come up with such a conclusion? Are these people so far to the right that even Fox looks liberal to them? Have they just never seen it? Or maybe they believe Fox's own propaganda that all news media is liberal, and assume it means them too.

However, back to the main point, the ACLU is about protecting people's rights and isn't taking religious sides. They have also defended free speech of Christians when that speech was challenged as being too hostile toward muslims or gays. The ACLU has even sided with those who protested against the ACLU!

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/ [aclufights...stians.com]

And sure, a lot of people don't acknowledge this or care, but a lot of people also suffer from confirmation bias [wikipedia.org]

Balance? (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254628)

"We live in a time when national security is the highest priority, but it must be delicately balanced with personal privacy"

Calling it a delicate balance is a sleazy way of excusing any violations by suggesting that it's such a difficult fine line that nobody could be expected to do the right thing, all the time. There is no delicate balance. Personal privacy and liberty must always trump security, for without privacy and liberty, there's nothing worth securing. There's no point in protecting a bank vault that has already been looted of everything.

Also. A corrections officer in a prison. Hardly in a position to be trading secrets with Iran or Osama.

Re:Balance? (3, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254720)

This isn't a case of "delicate balance." It's a sickening abuse.

He's a corrections officer, not some top-level CIA gumshoe!

False dillema (5, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254912)

I was actually thinking it's a false dillema [wikimedia.org] , starting with the premise that "national security is the highest priority." Sure as hell isn't for me. I just want a functioning public transit system, power, running water, and law and order in my community. Funny how our state got slammed with record levels of snow, and the National Guard couldn't help out...because they're deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Funny how funding for social spending has dried up and all the teenagers in my community are now running around shooting each other (and innocent bystanders) because they have no education, no job, no future. The only people that seem concerned about national security are the people paid to do so or the people who otherwise benefit from such efforts and its rhetoric.

Re:Balance? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254914)

It's worse than that, it isn't very likely that there is a direct tradeoff between privacy and security, so the very notion that they somehow need to be balanced is off the tracks.

Re:Balance? (0)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254996)

There are too many civil servants who are happy to take tax payer money with out understanding that taking such money comes with strings attached. Many families sacrifice to pay their taxes, and do so willingly. Paying someone in corrections often means not paying for food for families who need it or schools that might provide an education so fewer people will need to be on the dole.

I don't know if asking for a face book login is right or wrong. I know civil servants are often have much less privacy than a privately employed person, which is the way it should be. We certainly don't want to to encourage people to think that government money is easy money. We want to encourage people to go out and start businesses in which their personal privacy, and what they do with their personal money, is basically afforded the maximum protection. Everyone else has to trade privacy for some other benefit.

Re:Balance? (2)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255052)

I don't know if asking for a face book login is right or wrong.

Well then allow me to enlighten you: it's wrong.

Everyone else has to trade privacy for some other benefit.

No, no they don't, and, no, no they shouldn't.

People like you are the reason this country is fucked.

Re:Balance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35255004)

you do realize that quote is from the victim, right? It wasn't used to defend the govt actions, it was used to defend AGAINST them. Read more closely next time.

Re:Balance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35255048)

Personal privacy and liberty must always trump security, for without privacy and liberty, there's nothing worth securing.

I'd like to agree with this in principle, but it's demonstrably false, as blanket statements usually are.

We have established conditions under which your privacy can (and should) be 'violated'. They're supposed to be made under strict conditions, where law enforcement makes an appropriate request with evidence of wrong-doing, a judge signs off on a warrant and you conduct a search within the boundaries of the approved warrant.

Or for instance, some hiring situations involve voluntary background checks as a precondition for employment. These checks can be all kinds of things you wouldn't normally be able to do because the applicant agrees to have them performed.

This particular case, I'd guess, is the second type. That said, whether or not it's appropriate (or even sane) is questionable at best, and I hope the ACLU can push all the right buttons on this one.

Other countries at least wait until the uprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254630)

...before they help themselves to the accounts of their peons.

Privacy is so 20th century. (3, Interesting)

meepzorb (61992) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254636)

Cue the "no such thing as privacy! glorious free market! employer rights 100% teh awesome! john galt ROX!" posts in three... two... one...

Re:Privacy is so 20th century. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254768)

I suspect the John Galt types might point out that a major part of this drive to drug/background check employees comes not from the free market, but from the regulations that imposed all kinds of healthcare and workers comp liabilities on businesses off all sizes. And those businesses have to pay for liability insurance and now they are starting to require these sorts of things. Many small business men are scared to employ someone walking through the door because you can't just employ people at will and give them a chance without having to crawl up their ass. Government regs make an employee an instant potential liability and that really hampers the small guy when the large guys hr dept may be able to more readily bare that burden.

You might experienced this if you came anywhere near to actually employing a person.

Re:Privacy is so 20th century. (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254904)

Here's an idea: why don't we actually ask the dissenters what they think instead of putting words in their mouths and creating false dichotomies.

Re:Privacy is so 20th century. (-1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254956)

There should be employer's rights and they should be able to ask for logins from job applicants. However, such a thing would result in less and less people wanting to work there and eventually such a company would do bankrupt if not for government intervention. However, this is a case of the government once again fucking up the free market because of overusing jails for victimless "crimes". Jails and correction officers should be reserved for crimes that harm someone and that if they were let out they would harm others. Jail is not and should not be a "time out" place. Rather, those who commit lesser crimes and harm others should be forced to pay financial restitution to the victim.

Re:Privacy is so 20th century. (1)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255022)

Why should employers be able to get the password to people's non-work related accounts [like Yahoo, Facebook, etc]?

Re:Privacy is so 20th century. (2)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255092)

They shouldn't. However, they have every (and should have every) -right- to ask. That doesn't mean that it is a good idea and that employers should do it, but they should still have the right to ask, just like you have every right to work for them or not to work for them. They shouldn't have the right to sniff your password, or anything, but they should be perfectly in the clear to ask for it. Of course, you are perfectly able to refuse the request and refuse to work for that employer. With enough like minded people, it is possible to drive that business to the ground (barring government intervention). When the government fucks with the free market by increasing regulations, the people with less money always lose because they are powerless to navigate the court systems as well as a company, even when they have won a case, they still usually come out behind financially, emotionally and time wise. Also, regulation changes the natural balance of a fully free economy to one side or the other. This results in one side having more and the other side having less power which results in more legislation constantly shifting the balance while harming everyone in the process.

Just because something is a right, doesn't mean that it is always wise to exercise it.

Re:Privacy is so 20th century. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35255056)

However, such a thing would result in less and less people wanting to work there and eventually such a company would do bankrupt if not for government intervention.

Heh ... you "free market" types are such tools. At least it's fun to watch you justify your own demise :D

just as long as (0)

russ1337 (938915) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254644)

just as long as they dont as for my Slashdot credentials...... this is where i rant things they wouldnt like....

i think this is f%^ked.

its security vs convenience .... (their convenience or mine) The more secure, the less convenient..... it can be very secure and very private....

security vs privacy is BS pushed on the people by the patriot act...

Refuse (5, Interesting)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254648)

If you're actually prepared to sue, I'd say refuse to provide the login, and let them terminate you. Then go after them for wrongful dismissal.

Re:Refuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254866)

Wouldn't work. Here's how it would play out instead:

1) Employee refuses to give up Facebook login.
2) Employer offers employee a different way of meeting the background check requirements, one that is not objectively objectionable anymore.

Then, two things could happen:

3a) Employee accepts.
4a) Employee does not get fired.
5a) Employee has no grounds for suing employer over earlier attempt.

Or:

3b) Employee refuses.
4b) Employee gets fired.
5b) Employee sues employer, but employer points out that employee was only fired after refusing a reasonable check, so the whole "can they demand your facebook login and/or fire you if you don't provide it" issue would not be handled in court.

Re:Refuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35255006)

The headline says "applicants". How can they terminate someone that hasn't been hired yet?

Re:Refuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35255028)

I think I'd refuse on the grounds that it violates the user agreement to give out your password. If you think so little of binding contractual agreements as to violate the one you made with Facebook, then why would your employer expect you to honor one with them? If them want me to friend them, I could do that... If they want to look at my friend list, I don't mind. But I'm not going to do break my trust with anyone (even Facebook) on their request. If they really need that info, they'll have you physically sign a paper release to send to Facebook, with your email and account info (but not your password), saying that it's OK for Facebook to send them a dump of your account activity. Anything less is unauthorized use of your account.

Deactivate the account? (1)

SnoopJeDi (859765) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254650)

If I were the employee, I'd use Facebook's activation feature to temporarily remove my account from the system. "What account? Facebook? Don't have one."

Re:Deactivate the account? (2, Insightful)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254712)

If I were the employee, I'd use Facebook's activation feature to temporarily remove my account from the system. "What account? Facebook? Don't have one."

Well, you'd be out of a job if your employer finds a cached copy of your Facebook page in Google, for instance. Would you want to risk that?

Re:Deactivate the account? (1)

SnoopJeDi (859765) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254772)

On what grounds? I wouldn't say "never had one." If they find it in Google cache, it means I didn't care enough about the privacy of that information to alter my settings to prevent that. TFA doesn't suggest all employees must do this, only those up for hire or recert.

Re:Deactivate the account? (1)

defaria (741527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254850)

First off, if my employer was snooping on me to this extent I wouldn't want to be fucking working for them in the first place! Secondly all you need to say is "That's not me".

context sensitive ads (0, Flamebait)

Dr. Tom (23206) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254654)

A friend of mine just told me that after he clicked on a link to look at a bit of hardware we are thinking of purchasing, his facebook page showed an ad for the same product. They are already watching everything you do. They'd beam ads into your brain with gamma radiation if they thought it would work. People think Facebook is private, and they are wrong, of course, but intrusions like this into a perceived private space are becoming more and more unconscionable. Slashdot lets the "good" users opt out of ads. When will FB do this? Personally I don't care because I can't stand the forced-socialization websites, with or without ads. (Facebook's pet races are rigged, by the way, lousy stink hole that it is.)

Re:context sensitive ads (1)

maxwells_deamon (221474) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254928)

this is very easy to test as long as you do not worry about your employer seeing your posts. I think advertisers also look at your cookies as well.

Do some searches for rare but sane stuff you are not interested in. Say Coin Collecting or Sewing. In a couple of weeks you will generally start seeing lots of strange ads for those things. They also do demographics. I see ads based on what they think my age is.

Key exchange (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254658)

I would offer to exchange the key to my account with a key to his house front door or his email account. He can accept the exchange or reject it. When the shoe is placed on the other foot, the view of the request changes perspective. Whatever excuse he uses to not provide them to you, you use the same. If he does exchange keys, have fun.

simply disgusting. (1)

korpique (807933) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254668)

Myself I'm an elitist bastard who only takes jobs at very liberal companies, but through the contemporary global society this corporate/bureucratic culture of general hostility is bound to make its mark on the lives of us free dwellers as well. Not to say I didn't care for the people suffering this in the first degree, but they've got their own choices to make. It would be best for the common good, though, if these environments would go largely disregarded.

Re:simply disgusting. (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254828)

So, you think that the world would be better off if nobody worked as a prison guard? Which is not the same as if the world did not need any prison guards.

Re:simply disgusting. (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255070)

send the violent criminal to an island and whip the non-violent one and you would not need prison nor guard

Re:simply disgusting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35255086)

Nope. The world would be much worse if nobody worked as a prison guard. Therefore the authorities would be forced to change their policy, or overthrown by somebody who would.

Why don't they just block Facebook access? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254678)

Facebook is a huge waste of time anyways. I'd guess that blocking it increases drone productivity...

Re:Why don't they just block Facebook access? (1, Redundant)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254724)

Facebook is a huge waste of time anyways. I'd guess that blocking it increases drone productivity...

MOD parent up. That's the most sensible post I've read all day! There's no reason I can think of that corrections officers need to be using Facebook at work.

Re:Why don't they just block Facebook access? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254948)

What makes you think they're allowed to use facebook at work?

The whole point of this is to invade their *private* lives.

Re:Why don't they just block Facebook access? (0)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254966)

And there's no reason that anybody should be smoking, talking, or eating snacks at work either, right? I mean, workers ARE slaves, just with small monetary compensation, right?

Re:Why don't they just block Facebook access? (2)

lordandmaker (960504) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254786)

I think you've missed the point. They want access to his facebook account in order that they can have a look at the sorts of things he says and people he hangs out with, not in order that they can keep tabs on whether he's using it at work or not.

If blocking facebook is the only way you can keep your employees actually doing their work of a day, you've got way bigger problems with your management than you're going to solve with a web filter, anyway.

Re:Why don't they just block Facebook access? (1)

ppanon (16583) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254932)

Given that it's the correctional services, they're probably more worried about the employee making some kind of wildly inappropriate comment or posting an embarrassing work-related picture that then becomes public due to an offended "friend" of the employee and causes bad PR. For example, any comments or pictures that could be interpreted as prisoner abuse. Even matter-of-fact observations regarding the apparently all-too-frequent in-prison rapes. There are legal liability issues involved that are more serious than in your average corporation.
That said, I think it would be better if the USA decriminalized drug possession and taxed the hell out of it. That would reduce the prison population, remove a major source of income from organized crime, and make it easier to treat addicts and hardcore criminals appropriately.

Background checks (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254680)

I think there are plenty of arguments against the necessity of background checks/drug tests, etc as employment conditions, but I don't understand why facebook should get a pass, when they might otherwise have authorization to crawl up your ass for the background check.

Facebook TOS says you may not share password (5, Interesting)

a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254688)

From http://www.facebook.com/terms.php [facebook.com]

Statement of Rights and Responsibilities

This Statement of Rights and Responsibilities ("Statement") derives from the Facebook Principles, and governs our relationship with users and others who interact with Facebook. By using or accessing Facebook, you agree to this Statement.

...

You will not share your password,
  (or in the case of developers, your secret key),
let anyone else access your account,
or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.

So they wanted him to break the Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities ?

Re:Facebook TOS says you may not share password (0)

PenquinCoder (1431871) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254738)

Mod up. By openly breaching the ToS and sharing your password... you run the risk of losing said Facebook account. But hey, its for security so its all good.

Re:Facebook TOS says you may not share password (5, Insightful)

thsths (31372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254780)

TOS may not be the main problem. I would think that this is also a federal crime "Intentionally accessing a computer without authorization to obtain: ...
Information from any protected computer if the conduct involves an interstate or foreign communication" and "Knowingly and with the intent to defraud, trafficking in a password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

It is about time that the FBI starts to investigate, and clears up this nest of computer crime! :-)

Re:Facebook TOS says you may not share password (3, Interesting)

darkonc (47285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254868)

So, giving out his Facebook password, by violating facebook's terms of service, would make his (and the facility's) access of the facebook a federal crime (by some legal theories and decisions).

Break a crime as part of a job interview? For a job as a prison guard -- and end up in jail with his former charges??? hell no... better to sue for wrongful dismissal!

Re:Facebook TOS says you may not share password (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254900)

The smart thing for an employer to do would be to ask, then not hire anyone who gives the password. Or send them for special training about never sharing passwords. An employee who gives out passwords is a major security threat.

Re:Facebook TOS says you may not share password (2)

kasperd (592156) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254962)

I'd say if it was a person who was going to be working with computers as part of his job, it would be ok to ask that question. Only let people who refuse the request have the job, because anybody who accepts is obviously too careless with his credentials, and having him as an employee would be a security risk.

meaning (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254704)

Corrections officers work in prisons, so not just background checks into past criminal activity, but openness to future criminal activity (including corruption) matter a lot. This should have been handled with a detailed questionnaire and battery of psychological tests, and collecting reliable intelligence on every single officer during the entire time they are working in a prison.

Innocent have no problem (3, Funny)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254708)

If you have nothing to hide this surely shouldn't be a problem.

Re:Innocent have no problem (1)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254740)

/s?

You do know the logical error in that statement right? Privacy = concealment, regardless of it being for good, or bad reasons, necessary or un-necessary. Therefore, if you have something to hide, which is anybody who believes in or uses privacy, you can't have nothing to hide. P ^ ~P = F no matter what bullshit you try to throw into the syste,.

Of course it's satire! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254770)

I got that it was satire and I'm a stewped PHB!

The only people who believe that are Conservative Republicans .... the ones that think that Regan was greatest president evar!

Re:Innocent have no problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254848)

Please post photographs of your penis. Why don't you want to? Is your penis a terrorist weapon? If you're not a terrorist, why are you so reluctant to show us your penis to prove it?

Re:Innocent have no problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254964)

B=========D~~~~~~~~

There you go. (It's an action shot.)

and so it starts (1)

Asaf.Zamir (1053470) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254714)

war is peace
invasion of privacy is for privacy

You dont need *that* job that bad.. (2)

SuperCharlie (1068072) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254728)

If they are douchy enough to ask for that crap.. you should probably move on.. srsly..

Good. Social media users are twits (0, Troll)

comrade1 (748430) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254736)

Good. If you're pathetic enough to have a Facebook account I wouldn't want you working in my prisons. I look forward to your third-grade reading level responses.

Re:Good. Social media users are twits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254764)

hopefully this is a troll

Re:Good. Social media users are twits (1)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254802)

Either this is a well played tongue-in-cheek statement, or you're retarded.

Breaking the Law (1, Insightful)

thsths (31372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254746)

Terms and Conditions, 4.8: "You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account."

So to keep your job, you have to break the law?

And am I the only one hearing Judas Priest in my head now? :-)

Re:Breaking the Law (2)

nilloc (678273) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254858)

I am not saying he should turn over his password, is the term and conditions of social website the law?

Re:Breaking the Law (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254874)

Facebook terms if service isn't 'the law', don't confuse the two.

The most Facebook could do is to yank your account, there would be no legal ramifications.

That's not to say the employer isn't an asshat for asking, but there is no 'law' involved in this.

Re:Breaking the Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254944)

Facebook only authorize access to their web services under their terms and conditions. If you breach the terms your access is unauthorized and a federal offence. You probably think this is a reductio ab adsurdum. So did Terry Childs before a simple dispute with his employer turned into a jail sentence.

Re:Breaking the Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254898)

As much as Facebook would have you believe otherwise, breaking their terms of service, is not the same as breaking the law.

So Facebook is a condition of employment there? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254814)

n/t

Facebook should publicly threaten to cancel them (2)

davidwr (791652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254830)

Facebook should publicly tell all job applicants "please cancel your Facebook account before applying for any job that requests the password, or we will cancel it for you if we find out you shared your password.

At the very least, they should reset the password and warn the user not to give it out again or the account will be canceled.

Sharing your password is typically a violation of the terms of service.

Even better, Facebook should file charges (2)

davidwr (791652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254864)

Facebook should notify all employers and background-check companies that they explicitly do NOT have permission to access a third-party's Facebook account even if they are using a login, on the assumption that the use of the login was coerced. Let them know that exceptions will only be made if the account owner AND the agency desiring access both certify under penalty of perjury that no consideration - including nothing related to getting or keeping a job or promotion - was offered in exchange for the access.

Once they do that, any employer or agency who does it will get an individual warning and if they do it again Facebook will press charges for criminal unauthorized access of a computer.

and I thought my boss was bad (2)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254832)

and I thought my boss was bad when he made me friend him before he would hire me!

Don't have an account (1)

defaria (741527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254846)

I don't get it. Simply say "Sorry, I don't use Facebook" and you done. What's the problem here? Move along, nothing to see here...

Re:Don't have an account (1)

maxwells_deamon (221474) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255068)

Don't friend people at work with your existing account

My password is ******** (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254920)

"Hello Mr. AC. We are currently processing your application and are unable to verify your facebook credentials. Are you sure the password you gave us is correct? That password is, 'star star star star, star star star.' It does not seem to be working."

say whaatt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254946)

1. this obviously isnt gonna fly at all
2. there is privacy functions
3. obviously this isnt legal any more so than requesting to see my mail that comes to my post office or my nearby street box
4. even so its called a fake profile -- takes 10minutes to create , make a personal one that has your porn name or your rockstar name / psuedoname
      and then have a professional real page with no friends , no messages , no activity, no apps ect..
we really shouldnt have to do this - i wonder how they'd feel if i requested the same from them to determine if i want to be employed by them
find out if they are selling national secrets , or corporate , who they've cut a deal with or did a favor for , not to mention that awesome office party that someone xerox'd their backside during and some mysterious stains were found and.. is that the ceo drunk as a skunk booty dancing with the vp of marketings secretary.. uh-oh.....

"Snoop on them , as they Snoop on to us" lord nikon-Hackers (early mid 90's)

Crossing the line? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254974)

Oh! I'd put in my resignation!!! I understand that employers are going to push the limits to see who will do what to keep or get a job because they have such a wide variety to choose from now a days, but there is a line that you just don't cross and this is it. I've been told by others of things like this happening to them too... where I live!! This is not an isolated issue, it's everywhere. Be careful of the information you give out. Before going to an 'interview' write down the basic info that is generally asked at an interview. Anything asked of you or about you that isn't on your list and you feel is an intrusive question, tell your interviewer that you don't' feel comfortable giving out that info at this point because nobody else has asked you that question and after some research about why this would be asked of you, you'll get back with the interviewer with the answer or the reason why you won't answer that question. I can't say this will not get you or get you the job. But, if I were an interviewer, I would look for someone who has brains to think for themselves or outside of the box and not just blindly do as told without question or suggestion as to how to do it better, faster or easier.

Anyone have a different opinion?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?