Skip to main content

Move over big brother, and lets give a big giant hand to the corporate eye in the sky!

"Employers and colleges find the treasure-trove of personal information hiding behind password-protected accounts and privacy walls just too tempting, and some are demanding full access from job applicants and student athletes."
Yep, you read right. They are DEMANDING FULL ACCESS FROM JOB APPLICANTS AND STUDENT ATHLETES!

Uh? Right to privacy? That went out the window when you decided to try and get employed.

But don't worry, I am sure I will see lots of comments [again] who will tell us all, that we should just get used to it.

Well fuck that incredibly bad idea!

I say NO.

NO you cannot have access to my online accounts.
NO you cannot install a camera in my bedroom or bathroom or pov.
NO you cannot have my phone records or personal bank account numbers.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care for Facebook at all. But I am sure that FB are not the only accounts they are looking for.

Give them an answer: NO, it's none of your business and I am writing the ACLU and the other pertinent organizations that deal with computer freedoms.

No one should have to be silenced to this degree, to get a job. And mark my words this will and probably already has had a chilling effect on speech by people who want to be employed.

I know that some people imagine that the only reason to use a pseudonym online is so that one can troll. Well I am sure that is true for some folks. But for many of us, it is a necessity to allow us to participate in online discourse, in places such as the DK, without being run out on a rail or fired, because our boss doesn't agree with our politics, our religion, our sexual orientation, or any other number of characteristics or lifestyle choices that should have NO Bearing on our qualifications for a fucking job.

"In Maryland, job seekers applying to the state's Department of Corrections have been asked during interviews to log into their accounts and let an interviewer watch while the potential employee clicks through wall posts, friends, photos and anything else that might be found behind the privacy wall."
Seriously, can you believe this shit? I am beyond shocked. What's next? Will the job seekers be forced to rifle through their own underwear drawers while an interviewer watches, to ensure they have no unservice-able skibbies?

This has gone to far. The powers that be, know they have us over a barrel. The younger generations have made it so that most communication that does not take place face to face, happens online somewhere. And the rest of us either participate in that capacity or find ourselves socially isolated.

And now the employers step in and say, AND WE WANT ACCESS TO YOUR MOST PRIVATE THOUGHTS.

The enablers say, "Don't put anything online you don't want broadcast!" which is the short skirt defense for privacy invaders everywhere.

So why have a password then? Why have virtual walls to protect confidential information at all?

Why lull the masses into a sense of semi-security if this was all part of an evil scheme to shame us and make us unhire-able?

"Previously, applicants were asked to surrender their user name and password, but a complaint from the ACLU stopped that practice last year. While submitting to a Facebook review is voluntary, virtually all applicants agree to it out of a desire to score well in the interview, according Maryland ACLU legislative director Melissa Coretz Goemann."
Yes, this is similar to the sexual harassment issue. The employer asks you for something that isn't exactly legal. But due to an innate imabalance of power that rests upon your desire or even desperation for a job, you will most likely comply in order to pay your bills.

That doesn't make it right or even legal, just expedient. You give up your adult privacy for a paycheck. See--it wasn't that hard!

Employers should know that even asking, makes them schmarmy and evil. But somehow, given the state of our own country and our collective lack of character, I doubt they give a flying shit about that. After all, they hold the purse strings and you best start dancing to their tune fool!

Schools are requiring student athletes to friend coaches or teachers--oh wow. So they can see what these kids are talking about. These are college kids btw. So lets train them early, for a life of Big Brother in your  home, spying on your every thought from your social media and computer.

"A recent revision in the handbook at the University of North Carolina is typical:"Each team must identify at least one coach or administrator who is responsible for having access to and regularly monitoring the content of team members’ social networking sites and postings,” it reads. "The athletics department also reserves the right to have other staff members monitor athletes’ posts.""
But you know--"Get Used to it!" that is what the enablers say, the people who will flip over belly up and do the submissive dance! Yes Please! May I have another! that is their motto!

But thankfully, there are others like me who find this reprehensible:

"This is an invasion of privacy. People have so much personal information on their pages now. A person can treat it almost like a diary," said Goemann, the Maryland ACLU legislative director. "And (interviewers and schools) are also invading other people's privacy. They get access to that individual’s posts and all their friends. There is a lot of private information there."

I have an innate right to a separate, independent adult life. When I go out to look for a job, I am not selling anything more than my services in the context of that job, perhaps my expert skill as well. But I am not selling them my soul, nor my privacy, nor my personal sovereignty as an independent American citizen.

I will not to comply.

And people who do, are setting the rest of us up, setting dangerous legal precedents that will undermine our freedoms.

There is a line. This is a line and we should not allow these abusive, spying, controlling companies to cross that line.

Ever.

The story goes on to say that we need federal laws to protect citizen's online privacy from nosy employers. Yes we do.

You can read the whole story here:

http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/...

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (344+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, oortdust, bakeneko, ask, koseighty, SoCaliana, nyc175, Rogneid, Esjaydee, snoopydawg, paradox, Losty, Statusquomustgo, Ree Zen, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, Curt Matlock, ricklewsive, Cassandra Waites, buddabelly, millwood, happy camper, Sharoney, TexasTwister, second gen, Senor Unoball, emal, xylonjay, Focusmarker, SallyCat, angelajean, Sychotic1, Russgirl, Catte Nappe, FloridaSNMOM, MJ via Chicago, sleipner, WheninRome, Carol in San Antonio, nofear, Lovo, skyounkin, gloriana, Clytemnestra, spacecadet1, sfbob, kevinpdx, azrefugee, Mr Robert, Proud Mom and Grandma, Doug Goodenough, GeorgeXVIII, Raggedy Ann, Broke And Unemployed, Brooke In Seattle, cognocenza, Eric K, sodalis, dwahzon, revsue, kestrel9000, kevin k, GoGoGoEverton, commonmass, MikePhoenix, AnnieR, mrsgoo, HCKAD, doroma, Siri, tin woodswoman, Dave in Northridge, 88kathy, elengul, My Spin, DeminNewJ, MKinTN, Crazy like a fox, KVoimakas, Lightbulb, oysterface, asterkitty, Geenius at Wrok, ichibon, MKSinSA, Marjmar, Mislead, One bite at a time, Gemina13, Lujane, trueblueliberal, Nulwee, Clues, jadt65, bloomer 101, soarbird, chimpy, fumie, flatford39, imokyrok, coquiero, Odysseus, GrannyOPhilly, not2plato, Question Authority, Habitat Vic, Spirit Dancer, micwazoo, nupstateny, lastlegslaststand, reginahny, Evolutionary, Gowrie Gal, RfrancisR, Deep Harm, vacantlook, bronte17, SneakySnu, kml, jennyp, dksbook, this just in, DruidQueen, No one gets out alive, humanunit, nellgwen, jfromga, MA Mom, defluxion10, yawnimawke, KatHart, Shadowmage36, little lion, tapestry, bluestatedem84, mattc129, GreyHawk, vgranucci, maf1029, sostos, life is making tacos, tonyahky, Ian S, BlueInARedState, Melanie in IA, mkfarkus, hyperstation, Catesby, bartcopfan, Jake Williams, multilee, Shelley99, hlsmlane, JonBarleycorn, tarheelblue, Steveningen, Texdude50, NoMoreLies, Yohannon, targetdemographic, blueoasis, sebastianguy99, TracieLynn, JanetT in MD, Lusty, Shahryar, Lost Left Coaster, Ohkwai, CAPitBull, m00finsan, happymisanthropy, Alice Venturi, BobTheHappyDinosaur, politik, GrogInOhio, tikkun, Tonedevil, Bulldawg, leftywright, sockpuppet, arendt, manneckdesign, PBen, Wino, EthrDemon, ubertar, oldmanriver, frostieb, blueoregon, coolbreeze, fallina7, divedeeper, wasatch, devis1, gerrilea, brentut5, Involuntary Exile, QDMacaw, rogerdaddy, mconvente, nokkonwud, ozsea1, parsonsbeach, anodnhajo, Steve In DC, marleycat, eru, The Pollster, Horsefeathers, camlbacker, Lopez99, smrichmond, helpImdrowning, AdamSelene, technomage, trumpeter, anyname, Preston S, Idgie Threadgoode, mofembot, SadieSue, IreGyre, Williston Barrett, dnamj, Dvalkure, sb, Spaghetti Western, zerelda, M Sullivan, Teknocore, Youffraita, AmericanAnt, sd4david, DRo, vidanto, dsb, out of left field, gatorcog, auroreden, venger, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, CoolOnion, chimene, buckstop, Lefty Coaster, myrealname, jhawklefty, Executive Odor, twigg, Anne was here, journeyman, eXtina, aerie star, greengemini, cocinero, Son of a Cat, Princess Vespa, non acquiescer, highacidity, Cofcos, susans, EvieCZ, karmsy, Liberal Of Limeyland, doingbusinessas, cynndara, literatelib, Unitary Moonbat, cybersaur, eztempo, petulans, drawingporno, nomandates, dear occupant, grrr, alnep, skybluewater, BigOkie, jamess, Trotskyrepublican, JClarkPDX, shortgirl, Fiona West, grannysally, Debs2, Port City Moon, Meteor Blades, nerve, Sagebrush Bob, carolanne, One Little Victory, WiseFerret, notrouble, roadbear, joeschmeaux, radical simplicity, magicsister, Moderation, Rhysling, joanil, roses, jessical, LABobsterofAnaheim, Debby, prgsvmama26, TexDem, shopkeeper, JVolvo, Michael James, Chaddiwicker, zedaker, emmasnacker, wader, pgm 01, Simplify, Kitsap River, ipaman, bnasley, McMeier, angel d, AbominableAllStars, madhaus, ER Doc, Sister Havana, Angie in WA State, Dazy, Caipirinha, LouP, rl en france, Tinfoil Hat, molunkusmol, coppercelt, Bob Friend, agincour, relentless, MrJayTee, yaque, bwintx, CitizenOfEarth, donaurora, Marihilda, NancyK, martini, collardgreens, LostBuckeye
  •  While I agree with the diary and Greenmother... (16+ / 0-)

    I think it's really silly to put something online and believe that it's absolutely private.

    •  As we loose land lines and face to face (40+ / 0-)

      contact, this private info will be put online more and more. This will also rise with the increase in child-and adolescent users and even geriatric users. All three demographics are going to be lacking the understanding about the permanent problem created by what they thought were temporary and hidden posts.

      So as a society how are we going to deal with this?

      Pronounce a life sentence on these people, and make them suffer for the remainder of their days?

      Or are we going to use a more proactive and hopefully equitable approach to personal-private information online?

      When a person's life is revealed to that degree without their permission, people online give them the same treatment as celebrities. Only these regular users caught up in this, do not have the resources that a celebrity does, no coping skills at all and certainly not the money to even begin to effectively hole up and disappear for a time.

      Then you are dealing with the JOB.

      Are you saying that a spicy momma like me doesn't deserve to be employed because I am spicy? Because I am outspoken?

      What other aspects of my life should I tone down [just in case]?

      Should I start buying a lot of beige? Skip the red shoes? Give up the lip stick? Perhaps dye my hair a mousier shade and loose the F-bombs?

      Why not just unhook the machine while you are at it! Kill me now and get it over with.

      Wow, this sounds an awful lot like the hidden edicts against women and behavior during the 2nd and 3rd wave.

      You see what I am getting at?

      It's cool as long as it's not happening to you. But the way this is set up, it will be your turn some day, some how.

      This is unbelievably bad. And this sort of abuse should not be condoned or ignored, but should be squelched as soon as legally possible.

      •  Facebook is evil (11+ / 0-)

        I'm tired of explaining to friends why I don't use the damned thing, but this sort of crap is exactly what Facebook was designed for.

        If you value your privacy, don't use Facebook. It's pretty simple.

        We already have death panels. They're called insurance companies.

        by aztecraingod on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 12:29:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agree (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vidanto, greengemini, Caipirinha

          As abuses of all sorts from Facebook itself, from companies that collect info on Facebook or buy it from them, and from companies that want to judge our personal lives increase, I think there will be a move away from the "the world needs to know everything about me!" attitude that Facebook is trying to foster.

          I have a Facebook account in my real name that doesn't get used. I could show it to someone, but there is nothing there to see. I have no desire to use Facebook for anything. I consider it a colossal waste of time to hang out on that site.

          •  I use it only as a contact point (4+ / 0-)

            I do not use it for public comments or photos. I refuse to let the database know what I like. If someone needs to find me, it's there for messaging purposes.

            But I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with that too.

            •  Slippery slope (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ytownohio, GreenMother

              Those messages live forever.

              Lots of people are going to get bit right in the butt by their private FB messages.  Can you imagine the potential for blackmail!

              This is why FB is valued at $100 billion:  They know everything about everyone who uses it.  They know your preferences, your friends, where you go (if you use it on your smartphone)... it's way beyond what most people comprehend.  If FB were weaponized, it would be a weapon of mass destruction.  The owner of Facebook's data is as powerful as anyone on the planet, almost like a God in his/her omniscience.

              That's why I don't use it.

              I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes. - Walt Whitman

              by CharlieHipHop on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 08:37:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  I have four friends on Facebook (0+ / 0-)

          my children and partner. I like to see what they post, but I never post anything on my page.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 08:13:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And you think that their views are not important (0+ / 0-)

            Your children or your partner could be into something that is vaguely against company policy.

            Of course you will never know, that the boss hates green crayons and feeding fuzzy duckies at the pond.

            Or perhaps he doesn't like the church you go to.

            Or who you voted for.

            Maybe he doesn't like that ugly sweater you wore for Xmas.

            Who knows.

            You won't.

            •  GM - that wasn't my point (0+ / 0-)

              My point is that I am a private person and don't want the world, or my employer, to know what I do in my private life. If other people feel the same the answer is to not be on Facebook or to have a very minimalist presence like I do.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 08:00:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I applaud your attempt to protect yourself (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib

                But what we are looking at here is a slippery slope.

                As others and myself have pointed out:

                1. We run the risk of allowing future employers to discriminate against us on the basis of illegal issues, but they skirt the issue because they are not forced to ask the questions that would highlight their true agendas. This is a huge backdoor to discriminatory hiring practices that normally violate our labor laws.

                2. In the future, having a minimalist account or no account could just as much a red flag, as my diary here.

                3. What future sanctions will this inspire in the future against job hunters and employees?

                4. How will this affect public discussions about politics or any important issues of the day? I say Chilling Effect.

        •  ayup (0+ / 0-)
          ...this sort of crap is exactly what Facebook was designed for.
          Well, not originally, but certainly the minute it got some funding the whole, "Hey, look at how much data we can collect from people!" thing was definitely a big part of what made it attractive from an investment standpoint.

          I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes. - Walt Whitman

          by CharlieHipHop on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 08:40:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Everything is going online (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril, literatelib

        After all, they're planning to kill the Post Office and telephone companies are planning to cut landline service to many areas.  Anyone who doesn't communicate online will be living in the stone-age, unable to communicate with distant family or friends, unable to pay bills or their taxes, or register for services.

        The federal government acts very concerned about hackers stealing information from corporations; not so regarding the abuses of corporations taking personal information by trick, force or intimidation. Rather, the federal government is an accomplice, buying the information corporations accumulate on you and me.

      •  Here's a geriatric viewpoint (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Richard Cranium

        A friend mentioned to me once a few years ago that Facebook had told her when I rated a certain movie.

        I went ballistic. Who told them they could do that? I had been in Facebook and laboriously turned off everything I could find like that - they had not made it easy, but I was sure I had found everything. Were they just going to keep adding new things without my knowing? Why would I want them telling my friends everything I'm doing?

        It turned out it wasn't in Facebook, it was buried somewhere in Yahoo that I had to turn it off. It was on by default. I don't know when it started. How many other things like this are on by default? How many places would you have to go to turn everything off? If you could find them all, and if they would let you, that is.

        I'm still freaked out about this. I don't rate movies anymore. I don't click on any "recommend" buttons. I don't log into Facebook or Google or Yahoo or anything except to get my email and then I log out immediately. I've got anti-tracking add-ons in my browser and I keep deleting cookies and resetting my IP address. I feel like there's someone looking over my shoulder the whole time that I'm on the internet, spying on me. I hate it.

        I tried to post a comment in a blog last week at the New York Times and found the only way I could do it was by logging into Facebook. Fuck that. I wrote to them objecting, but they never responded.

        I'm creeped out big time, let me tell you. I'm not going to be spending my declining years in any social networks. I don't think many people my age will be. We were raised with a much stronger sense of privacy and circumspection, and possibly paranoia.

        We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

        by denise b on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 11:47:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I believe your attitude is silly (37+ / 0-)

      We live in an increasingly digital age where people who use to send photos, now post them online.  People who use to talk on the phone, now IM.  Instead of sending love letters, people message on Faecbook.

      Why should the advent of technology come with a total loss of privacy which will ultimately result in a loss of self? If you want privacy just skip the digital age? Why can't my social networking be private?  The only thing preventing it from being so is the attitudes of people.  If we can change people attitudes, make them aware, than we can change laws to protect privacy.  

    •  But people don't understand this (23+ / 0-)

      Americans, by and large, believe that what is private remains private.  The vast majority of people on Facebook and other social sites may be willing to part with some of their identity but still believe that anything hidden behind a password is their personal property.
      Thanks to our government having handed unprecedented privilege to corporate interests that is expectation is erroneous.  What business wants, business gets.  In my mind it is every bit as unAmerican to pry into a person's private life as it is to attach a tracking device to their shoes but the new reality is that no one will stop them.
      This is a country that voted for bush.....twice; they have no idea what they're giving up and it's a fight that has yet to rise to the top of the priority heap.  Just too many other assaults on individual liberty taking place.

    •  That's not what this is about, though (15+ / 0-)

      Nobody expects FB or Twitter or what have you to be completely private.

      We do expect that it is private enough not to be used against us in a job interview.  Just as we don't expect our homes to be completely secure but neither would we accept a job interview that involved going into our bedrooms or rifling through our personal letters.

      In the sea, Biscayne, there prinks
      The young emerald evening star,
      Good light for drunkards, poets, widows,
      And ladies soon to be married.

      by looty on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:58:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're correct but... (9+ / 0-)

      ... where is the line drawn here? What I perceive as completely innocent and harmless might now disqualify me for a job? What if I rec this diary on my FB page and a prospective employer is a raging Rush fan?

      Sure, posting yourself smoking a big fat doobie would be pretty stupid. But there are more sinister ways that your online information could be used. That is the purpose of passwords and privacy settings. As more and more things get done online in this ever-changing world, we simply cannot say "Oh well, nothing is private on the internet" and walk away.

      I entered my credit card number at Amazon the other day. Shall I assume it's not 'private'?

      No, no... this needs to stop. Period.

      "What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler

      by bhlogger on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 11:37:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I find this all laughable (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, CharlieHipHop, denise b

      Maybe I'm just an old geek.

      But I saw this coming 20 years ago, and I'm not a futurist.  As such, I have been very careful in establishing my online persona and histories.

      Unless I want you to know (or trust you with) my real world identity, there's not a person on the planet who can track my online activities to my doorstep, unless they have access to server logs and can really trace through several layers.  Yeah, the NSA could do it.  Would they bother?  No.

       A potential employer?  Hey, I don't spend much time online.  Nothing to see here.  I'm clean.

      I set it up that way long ago.  There's a big firewall, many layers thick, between my online persona and my real world identity.

      We're resigned to our collective fate because we've been conditioned to believe that this is as good as it gets.

      by Richard Cranium on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 06:15:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  THis is good, in terms of reducing your personal (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Richard Cranium, Reepicheep, NancyK

        risk.  I respect your foresight and the ability that went into setting up your layers of protection.  

        Still, it's hardly an adequate answer to concerns in this diary.  It's not realistic that most people, even if competent in many areas, will be competent enough in computer technology to create firewalls it would take the NSA to get through.

        So if we're going to have a realtively democratic and humane society, we have to set up ground rules to protect ordinary people.  The protection will not be complete.  ONly computer techies are going to be (almost) completely safe online, as only martial arts experts are (almost) completely safe wandering certain urban areas in the middle of the night.  But we should have reasonable protection, such that people can generally have privacy in the on-line realm.  Then we have to deal with the violations as they come up , and keep them to a minimum, without kidding ourselves that violations of privacy will ever completely disappear.

        "Every part of you belongs to you." -- from a story of Virginia under the Personhood law. Read it here.

        by Fiona West on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 08:27:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  we have a name for government watch, Big Brother. (7+ / 0-)

    what name is there for Big Business that does the same thing, watch us?

    "There are many truths of which the full meaning cannot be realized until personal experience has brought it home." John Stuart Mill

    by kuvasz on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 08:19:21 AM PST

  •  Bingo: (67+ / 0-)
    I have an innate right to a separate, independent adult life. When I go out to look for a job, I am not selling anything more than my services in the context of that job, perhaps my expert skill as well. But I am not selling them my soul, nor my privacy, nor my personal sovereignty as an independent American citizen.

    "A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself." - Joseph Pulitzer

    by CFAmick on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 08:20:14 AM PST

  •  i heard somewhere that it is actually illegal (5+ / 0-)

    to give a false name on the internet. something about terrorist activity. i give my real name, but I know better than to post something that some might find objectionable.
    I have slipped a few times though. some of my jokes were not in good taste.

    of course that is the problem we end up censoring ourselves and we end up screwing up. All for information that no one has the right to have or force another to give up

    I heard the obama administration does this.

  •  Everywhere I've worked, the employer has (13+ / 0-)

    checked either overtly or covertly.  Way back to the CompuServe days.  They're control freaks.

    And, of course, all your office emails are belong to them!

  •  Not only the internet (55+ / 0-)

    a friend of mine told me she applied for a job, and on the employment application was the question:  Mother's maiden name.

    When she asked why they wanted this 'sacred' information, since mother's maiden name is the protection on her bank account and other identity theft protections, they replied the needed the information because of new anti-immigration hiring laws.

    My friend said, "No.  You have my social security number.  That's all you need."

    She walked out- not wanting to work there anymore.

    Growing old is inevitable...Growing up is purely optional

    by grannycarol on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 08:25:34 AM PST

  •  Huh? (19+ / 0-)

    How could they prove that you even have a Facebook account? I don't.

    Or how could they prove you don't have more than one?

    "Given the fact of servitude, the feudal relationship is the only tolerable one." (George Orwell)

    by sagesource on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 08:28:53 AM PST

  •  Financial aid scholarships (22+ / 0-)

    can be affected by online postings of prospective applicants.  This is different from your point of the diary...but just a notice to all to really think about what you  'put out there'.

    I've urged all my sons to set all their social network profiles at the highest privacy settings available, especially the photo tagging applications.

    I have two accounts- one that my friends and family can access and one that is very generic. I never use a personal photo on my facebook profile either.

    We do need legislation to protect our personal stuff. What is next? Requiring all records of our texting and call records?

    YES WE DID! November 4th, 2008

    by Esjaydee on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 08:41:17 AM PST

    •  I won't post photos of my family online (20+ / 0-)

      I was horrified that FB started using facial recognition technology.

      That is just screwed up!

      I feel like I have entered the planet controlled by IT in A Wrinkle in Time. A massive disembodied brain that enforces homogenous behavior by threats and coercion.

      That is where we are heading.

      Better try your best to look like your neighbor.

      Sticking out is bad!

      We cut things off that stick out or up.

      •  facebook owns your information (16+ / 0-)

        Hope you realize that, they have for a while.

        The solution is not to use stupid services that violate your rights.  iphones, gmail, facebook, all fall into this category.

        And here is the thing, you don't need them.  there are plenty of products and services that work better.  They just aren't the "trendy" one to use.

        It's easy to stay below the radar as long as you don't go flying off to jump into whatever the next cool thing is at the moment.

        If you must communicate online and do stuff there are newsgroups, IRC, and all sorts of stuff that does not require this invasion of privacy.  The people on there are actually smart, unlike the nitwits on facebook.  You can cover your tracks with VPN and other proxy services that prevent you from being tracked and even encrypt your information for you.

        But the fact is, you didn't care.  You signed onto a phone contract where the maker and carrier (AT&T and apple) legally demanded access to your location information to use for companies.  You created a social account on facebook that told you they legally owned what you put there and who's privacy has always been pretty much no workable.  All to what, do what the cool kids were doing and post pictures?

        Oh well, and then outrage, outrage!  When those things start to do their purpose, which is monitize you, the product.

        I hang out on tons of tech and IT forums due to my job.  Nobody there really bothers with social media because the entire thing is cosmically stupid.  I love our security seminars where we audit and break into things to prove the point simply by mapping their social media presence.  But they'll never take it down, because chatting on facebook is more important than identity theft to them.

        "Foolproof systems don't take into account the ingenuity of fools."

        by overclocking on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 08:54:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The waves of condescension for normal people (21+ / 0-)

          They're overwhelming. You must work in IT.

          We can chart our future clearly and wisely only when we know the path which has led to the present.

          by progdog on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 09:43:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  recced... (7+ / 0-)

            even though overclocking is mostly right on the facts, you are spot on with your observation.

            The contempt for the technically less adept - while understandable in a few select cases - far too often clouds IT people's vision of the general picture.  Even in the job - why do you think the world is so full of bad user interface design?

            (and, yes, I'm doing IT myself, and I have no Facebook account either).

            •  Precisely (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              GreenMother, NancyK

              If you only communicate with others via methods that require a high level of technical knowledge, you're limiting the people you can communicate with to those who share a similar level of technical knowledge. That may work for you if you're a truly stereotypical geek (and by truly stereotypical, I mean being on the autism spectrum and having a much easier time communicating with fellow autistics than with neurotypicals) but it's not going to work for most people.

              For most people, the technology involved in communication is a means to an end, not an end in itself. They're consumers of the technology, not producers of it. It's possible to carry the DIY ethic to absurd ends. It's silly to say "that restaurant refuses to serve you? Just start your own restaurant that will serve you!" It's silly because it ignores the fact that eating at a restaurant is something completely different from operating a restaurant. The producer and consumer roles are simply not interchangeable.

              That's not to say that those using a medium should be able to use it without knowing a single thing about it, any more than someone driving a car should not be expected to know that an engine needs gas and oil and that the purpose of the brakes is to stop the wheels from turning. But that's a far cry from expecting anyone who drives to know how to rebuild their engine.

              Banksters are harmful for the same reason neutrinos are harmless: neither are inclined to share what they've got (wealth and energy, respectively)

              by ebohlman on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 12:06:43 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, why (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NancyK

            would I hang out on FB and talk to family and friends when I could be hanging out on BBSs, talking to veritable geniuses? Silly me!

            Twenty years from now, you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. Throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. --Mark Twain

            by Debby on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 08:56:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Done with Facebook for that reason (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis, sebastianguy99, sockpuppet

          I can't trust them with my privacy, I can't trust other companies, so I don't share info on FB anymore  

        •  Is it still 1995? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kyril, mamamedusa, Debby, ipsos

          Newsgroups and IRC?  Do you still use a pager as well?  

          Am I supposed to ask my siblings to share pictures of my nieces and nephews on a newsgroup.  Were the participants of Arab Spring supposed to post to a newsgroup instead of Twitter?

          I could go back 30 years and send everything snail mail, but I was beginning to lose touch with my family without being on FB.  I like having a social life and my family doesn't spend time breaking into things in security seminars.  They may be cosmically stupid, but what can I do....

          "Truth and love must prevail over lies and hate." Václav Havel

          by Vega on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 02:12:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I understand but (5+ / 0-)

            I don't use FB.

            I don't care for their nonPrivacy policies that they change like some people change their underwear.

            I don't post pictures of my family online.

            Facial recognition software used in this context is abhorrent to me as an American.

            It presupposes that I need to be identified or that anyone does.

            You nail people on big mistakes that threaten life or limb or some significant amount of money.

            You don't catalog their pictures online like a Terrorist just because they are there.

            You don't know it yet, but we are about to loose the ability to find redemption in a social context forever.

            Because anything perceived as a misstep, any unpopular utterance, whether in context or not, will be nailed to our heads for all time.

            Throw Rotten Tomatoes here--any time you want. I posted this or that 20 years ago on a BBS. I posted this or that on a blog 10 years ago.

            Ruin my life for all time. Bully me, fire me, don't hire me, ostracize me.

            Or it could be you.

            Or your child, or spouse, or neighbor.

            Tell me how that solves anything?

            How does that make the world better? What does that accomplish other than putting us throat first at the mercy of amoral corporations and bosses with bad leadership qualities.?

            Then make us choose:

            Do we interact in this new medium?
            or do we forgo the whole thing and live a life apart?

            •  So much good (0+ / 0-)

              in your comment.  I am so careful as to what I post on FB (almost nothing so far) or what I "like" (ditto).  My privacy is set very restrictively.  But this goes far beyond FB, as you said.

              Why should my every search on Google be recorded with personally identifying information?  Sure, it has helped catch a few criminals, but is it worth the scary implications?  If we end up in Santorum world (odd visual there), will those people who searched "birth control" be publicized/ostracized?

              We can basically shut ourselves off from the world or leave privacy behind.  Does it really have to be this way?

              "Truth and love must prevail over lies and hate." Václav Havel

              by Vega on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 03:29:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I'm hoping for (0+ / 0-)

            a comeback of the Pony Express, personally.

            Twenty years from now, you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. Throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. --Mark Twain

            by Debby on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 08:58:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  First, go to your Facebook and change your (9+ / 0-)

        securityyour security setting to have secure browsing. It's easy to do. Your browser will henceforth always say https://Facebook...

        I can never find my own Facebook on google. Ever.

        Next in your settings require that you be notified if someone tries to tag you in a picture. And that you can disallow them tagging you. I get a notice whenever someone tries to tag me in a photo or video and I can choose whether they can tag me. That, also is easy to set up.

        Spend some time in your account setting and security settings. It's worth it.

        I need your help for the NN booth for People-Powered Public Television (ppptv.org). Please help me out with your vote! CLICK HERE

        by mdmslle on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:26:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  YES. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greengemini

        All my teenage friends think it's so great that FB auto-tags (something about saving 5 seconds you'd have to spend tagging them.)

        But they don't realize that gives FB (and any company that looks at it) unforeseen power over you.

        We cut things off that stick out or up.

        16 years old, proud progressive, Phillies phan.

        by vidanto on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 02:24:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's like you have to be your own detective /nt (4+ / 0-)
    •  But What about their Friends posting Pictures? (5+ / 0-)

      My daughter doesn't post pictures of herself online, nor does she use her real name on any of her social media accounts. She only has a Facebook account so she access other people's pages since all of her school clubs, events and even many teachers use Facebook pages for communication.

      Other people have posted pictures on Facebook tagged with her name. As far as we know they are only pictures revolving around her sports team and school club activities. However it is quite possible, especially when she goes away to college next year that somebody is going to covertly snap unflattering pictures of her and post them on line. The truth is in today's world young people have very little control over what ends up on line tagged with their name. Untagging in time consuming and often not possible.

      •  see my comment about tagging. Go to yours (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sockpuppet, kyril, vidanto, Debby

        Settings where you can set it up to be notified if someone tries to tag you in a photo or video. You'll get an email and a link and even be able to approve the tag or not. I did this because I'm picky about where I'm tagged. I get notices and 99% of the time, I don't allow my name to be tagged in a photo.

        Go to your account settings and security settings. You'd be amazed what you can control.

        I need your help for the NN booth for People-Powered Public Television (ppptv.org). Please help me out with your vote! CLICK HERE

        by mdmslle on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:31:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks I'll tell her to check out (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kyril, vidanto, mdmslle

          I don't have a Facebook account myself, so I don't know much about how it works. I know just enough to know that I don't want to use it.

        •  But what about face-recognition software? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kyril, vidanto, greengemini

          I'm an IT tech, and I have no FB account, no gmail account, not even Twitter.  I could easily do these things, because I'm technically proficient.  

          But I saw these privacy issues looming years ago with the advent of these social-networking avenues.  And now it's all coming home to roost.   Even Google can now track your every move using their search engine, even if only by IP address (which in my case, for networking purposes, is static, meaning that I can always be found at the same place online).  

          "All your data belongs to US", is what is happening now.  Data is a major Currency in the Realm.  So data-mining is a "gold" standard.

          I also dodge extended-family photo-taking at family events because one of the family will inevitably post it online on their FB page, with my name and face tagged.  If I don't have a FB account, I can't control how my image is used, or is searchable.  The family just has to accept my position on this.

          My household home network requires that every machine online must log onto a privacy VPN before accessing Google or any other site.   This is to prevent our IP address from being tracked, which is happening pervasively to all of us, as I write this.

          I recommend going here to educate yourself about online privacy issues:  http://www.cotse.net/...

          This is an important issue you've raised in this diary, GreenMother.  I understand your outrage and concern.

          •  I wish I were more tech-savvy (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sockpuppet, kyril

            I am older. It is difficult for me to get around online whenever anything changes. And now this?

            I am not skilled in code. I want to protect myself, but do not know how, other than just disengaging.

            That sucks!

            •  I know. "Older" clients of mine (4+ / 0-)

              all face a similar handicap, so to speak.  So I secure their machines for them, to the best extent I can without making them uncomfortable using their systems.

              I make sure their IE and Firefox, etc. settings are to max security privacy.  I make sure their firewalls are active and sufficiently "tight".   I make sure they use a NAT router as a hardware firewall between their machines and their IP provider modem.  (Some modems these days come with the NAT router in it.)

              And I also educate them.   Warn them about the hazards they may likely face, and how to stay safe.

              There are many user-friendly apps available to help protect online privacy.   Just be careful, even then, because some advertising at large on the Net are also a privacy trap (scam)!

              Kos PM me if you would like more info.  I'd be happy to help.   :)

      •  I really object to schools and athletics requiring (5+ / 0-)

        facebook for organizations.  Luckily my son finished high school before this became an issue, but I don't think it's right for them to require that you commoditize your identity to participate in sports or school.

        I wish I had some idea of what to do to stop that.  

      •  I think you can disable people tagging you (0+ / 0-)

        16 years old, proud progressive, Phillies phan.

        by vidanto on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 02:34:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  What's the world come to? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril

      We have to censor ourselves on the places we're supposed to be ourselves?

      16 years old, proud progressive, Phillies phan.

      by vidanto on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 02:23:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  if you're stupid enough to use social media (14+ / 0-)

    By which I mean facebook and twitter mostly with a side dose of linkedin, all your information is public already.  You are the product.  And anybody who wants that information has it.

    You gave it up.  You put your life out there.  You sold it all for free to the entire world for them to make a profit off it and all you got was the ability to pretend you mattered.  Well guess what.  It was stupid then and it's stupid now.  All that's happening is that companies are being a bit more open about it.

    It's simple, you have a facebook, you have no privacy.

    If you must create a dummy account and only use it for jobs.  Oh well, that's how most people that aren't daft about IT security go about it.  And they don't use it for social items at all.

    If you're running around with an iphone that let's apple and all the app devs track you and your contacts, and put your life on facebook which is a tool to sell information to marketers and legally owns your contacts, you lose the right to scream and holler over privacy issues.  You gave that up long ago.

    "Foolproof systems don't take into account the ingenuity of fools."

    by overclocking on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 08:42:18 AM PST

    •  If you're not paying the freight... (12+ / 0-)

      you're the product.

      Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

      by ricklewsive on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 08:49:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So you are one of the bellyup people? (6+ / 0-)

        Its all good then?

        You are okay with this?

        Got your white flag all clean and starched?

        •  haha, nope (8+ / 0-)

          I just don't use those services because I'm not an idiot. I don't have a facebook and I don't tweet.  I have access to dummy accounts we use for security audits.

          Don't use it, there are other options.  You agreed to use those death traps.

          This is honestly about as silly as chain smoking for years and then having a fit about cancer.

          "Foolproof systems don't take into account the ingenuity of fools."

          by overclocking on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 08:57:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Not at all, GM (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis, sockpuppet, Vega

          I share your outrage at the arrogance of authority that thinks they can demand anything and everything of people while treating them as commodities. My personal belief is such inquiries should appropriately be answered with "none of your fucking business." If only people could do so and still be employed.

          I would favor legislation making inquiries into people's private lives a no-no. We've seen far too much of this "the rules are whatever we decide they are" bullshit. But I also believe people need to realize once they put information on FB or any number of other sites, it's no longer private. FB considers that information their inventory, and the sale of that information their stock and trade. It is the only thing that gives their businesses value. They will never honor people's right to privacy on their sites.

          That last thing is really a separate issue from the one you raised but this seemed like a good place to make the point.

          Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

          by ricklewsive on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:28:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. What I don't think most people understan (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Vega

        is if you're not paying a subscription for the service, (and maybe even if you are) then you--your eyeballs, buying patterns, personal information, etc, etc, are the product that they're selling.  Even here on Kos.  I don't have any figures, but I'm sure our content produces lots of ad revenue for Kos.  Always keep this in mind, even on sites where you are glad to participate.  We are the content providers!

        •  Seeing an ad is not the same (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dr Stankus, Vega

          as asking them into your home to spy on you.

          Once there was a story about a Walmart in Tulsa, that has a lipstick kiosk that had cameras in it, that trasmitted in realtime, how people looked at the product, handled it, what colors were most handled.

          Customers were PISSED!

          and they should have been.

          You want to buy a product, but not at the price of your soul or freedom.

          I didn't consent to this.

    •  Be that as it may, it wasn't marketed in that (25+ / 0-)

      Fashion. And You are here too at Daily Kos. This is visible from the regular intertubz. So I guess you making comments on these stories makes you just as dumb as the rest of us.

      And why not scream and holler about privacy issues? What is the pay off for you personally, if we don't?

      So every time we make a technological advancement, we should just ignore it and pretend nothing has changed?

      Is that possible?

      Many people find it difficult to network for jobs without linkdin, or FB.

      Military families with loved ones deployed use these to stay connected in a way that wasn't possible without a satellite phone.

      So we should give up all the good, just because some people are wanting to pervert this technology to their own ends?

      And you think that if some refuse to use this, that it will stop this invasion of privacy?

      How long before they start requiring us to have social network accounts?

      Think it can't happen?

      Think again.

      Fight now
      or later

      either way.

      •  Think you are right there. (6+ / 0-)

        When i make comments I use a facebook login in a few sites.
        I dont have a facebook page but i doubt that that matters.

        They will get everything out of us one way or another. And it is wrong

      •  KOS didn't make you sign away your data (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Carol in San Antonio

        That's not part of this site.  And if I cared I could VPN in and all they'd see was that I was in the UK.

        And there are plenty of options that do what FB does but don't make you sign a contract to hand over your data.

        YOU are to blame here.  YOU chose to do all of this when you didn't have to.  YOU wanted the shiny and trendy thing and now that the time has come to pay the devil his due you are upset.

        Me, IRC, newsgroups, usenet, bbs services, I can communicate and contact people all I want without the risk and without signing forms to legal entities like facebook.

        So nope, I'm not worried.

        And the technology always was for this.  You hoped on the bandwagon and are now refusing to up hold your end of the bargain as the product.

        "Foolproof systems don't take into account the ingenuity of fools."

        by overclocking on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 09:01:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  If you're stupid enough to fly in planes (8+ / 0-)

      you run the risk of dying in an airplane crash.

      Therefore, the FAA is pointless.

      In the sea, Biscayne, there prinks
      The young emerald evening star,
      Good light for drunkards, poets, widows,
      And ladies soon to be married.

      by looty on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:37:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Different Levels of Use (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ubertar, sockpuppet, kyril

      I don't use twitter or facebook, although I have a facebook account, mainly to threaten my son to behave online.  But I do have a linkedin account that only has my contact information on it.  To me, that's no more hazardous than being listed in the phone book was.  Just having an account, by itself, is not hazardous.  But anything you put on a social media account, including comments and diaries here, you should regard as subject to scrutiny.

    •  catch 22 (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, frostieb, maf1029, kyril

      Not having that presence suggests you are anti-social at this point.  

      and I wait for them to interrupt my drinking from this broken cup

      by le sequoit on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:40:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes and when will they figure out that the (4+ / 0-)

        "anti-social" ones are the ones least easily herded and come to round us up?  I have very low social affiliation needs and don't do much providing on-line content to others.  But I often think about when that will come back to bite me in the ass.  But, alas, I am getting old now, and don't worry much about those things anymore.

    •  I wouldn't use the word "stupid" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greengemini

      but there's a basic idea that I agree with here.

      (I do not agree with employers asking about anything except my resume, but that being said...)

      Those who use FB, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. were never forced to do so.  It was a choice.  Nobody forces you to IM instead of picking up a land-line and calling somebody - or inviting them over for a cup of coffee.  Nobody forced you to give up your land-line and rely solely on your big-brother monitored iPhone.  Nobody forces you to "check-in" around town or around the country, essentially telling people where you are at all times (a lovely open invitation for people to go to your house and rob you blind, IMHO).  People do those things by choice.  "So-and-so has checked in to the airport - going on a cruise, yay me!" is often just done to brag about going on a cruise.  Not in any way, shape or form required or necessary to do so.

      We've all seen and heard about cyber-bullying, blackmail, outing, infidelity, family feuds, compromising pictures, surreptitious videos and photos being posted without the subject's knowledge, etc, etc, etc.  I didn't need a law degree or an IT background to check myself and say, hmmmmm, all that sharing?  Yeah, maybe not such a great idea.  The mainstream news (as lame as it can be) was enough to convince me that erring on the side of caution and being attentive to what others post about me was probably the best idea.  I know I'm getting away from the main point about the employers wanting access to something that is none of their dammed business, but at the same time, if you choose to put it out there, you need to live with the fact that the internet is not private and that it never forgets.

      When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. - Linkin Park

      by mystery2me on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 11:31:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Until you network to find a job (0+ / 0-)

        And then what?

        •  If you are networking to find a job (0+ / 0-)

          you do not need to post a million tidbits, pictures, videos, etc., about your personal life.  You can absolutely do that and stick to content and exchanges that are relevant to your career.

          And delete once you're employed.

          I'm just debating the sentiment that FB and smartphones and over-sharing online are "the norm" that no one can live without.  They are all optional.  If a person feels that those things are absolutely unavoidable and necessary to live daily life, perhaps it is time to unplug after all...

          When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. - Linkin Park

          by mystery2me on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 12:32:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Landlines are being phased out (0+ / 0-)

        See: http://www.wsws.org/...

        And they're trying to shut down the Postal Service.

        Soon, it will be online or nothing.

        •  Use them until that day comes, (0+ / 0-)

          I suppose, and then figure out which alternative is the least 'Big Brother'ish.

          You can use a cell phone without using a smart phone (so far) and there still isn't anyone holding a gun to anybody's head forcing them to use FB and post private content there...

          When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. - Linkin Park

          by mystery2me on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 12:36:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  No they didn't give it up (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Debby

      People were misled into believing that many of these things offered privacy...hence Facebook's "privacy" settings.  Only later, do they here..."oops"...a security hole there...and "oops"...we forgot to tell you we've been sharing your data...and "oops"...we've sold the business to an organization with different ideas.  Most of these people had no idea how the internet really works much less could foresee the abuses that were coming. And, in the end, if no laws are passed to protect us, it won't matter much, because personal details will be routinely available and we won't even get to select what's available.  Cameras the size of bugs, recorders attached to vehicles, and all manner of passive documentation will forever end "privacy."

    •  Was close to rec'ing (0+ / 0-)

      but even the foolishness of social networking (about which I wholeheartedly concur with your post) doesn't excuse the employer demanding access to it. Or hacking it. If they can't find it by a normal Google search then they have no right to it.

  •  We need a lot (14+ / 0-)

    of laws to limit employers' intrusions into the privacy of Americans.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 08:53:40 AM PST

  •  The answer is "No" (8+ / 0-)

    "I don't have a Facebook account."

    •  Only if that is the truth. (8+ / 0-)

      Lying to a prospective employer when you are applying for a job is the worst thing you can do.  If, after we employ someone, we find out they lied to us when applying for the job, they're gone.

      If you do have a private account, a better answer is "yes, I have one, but it's very private and personal and I only allow family and very close friends to see it, so I'd prefer not to share with prospective employers."  Then the prospective employer can decide if it's worth losing an otherwise very good employee simply because of that.  

      •  except you don't control it (5+ / 0-)

        facebook does.  You're account is just another product in their portfolio.  And it's very easy to get to regardless of privacy settings.  We can also add that and get a social network map off of that.

        Typically all I need to know is that you have one of three things.  A linkedin, facebook, or a twitter.  Of these a linkedin is dangerous, but the least.  But odds are you've networked the same people on all your accounts.  Odds are you've connected these accounts with things like online forums, sites like say KOS, and all sorts of other things.  A simple advanced search will pull all of this and give me access to your entire history there.

        That's leaving out the fact that I can get your facebook associations as well.  Track down all those people for information about you on their sites as well.  I can pull those peoples interests and see what interests you share with them and get a greater map of you.

        From there I'll probably by now have your history of where you grew up.  High school names and all.  First pets name, mothers maiden name, honeymoon location.  You'd be surprised what your friends and family have on you.

        So right now I have what I wanted in a under a few hours.

        The only reason this is possible is because you actively went around and agreed to all of this, legally, and put it up there.  I haven't broken any laws.  And there are other social media items (like four square) and with your phone I can probably even track your activity, though this is getting legally dubious once it gets to phone tracking.... but your apps and apple does do this and the information is very easy to get.

        All we need to know is if you have an account.  And someone is probably going to check before you're even called for an interview.

        The catch is, you plug your information into these databases.  So before you do, ask yourself, "Do I want to give this information to everyone in the world and let facebook have legal control over it" because that's what you are doing.

        facebook just managed to sucker in enough people to create a large and easy enough database that it was worth while for people to start mapping things.

        "Foolproof systems don't take into account the ingenuity of fools."

        by overclocking on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 09:27:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  wait... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coffeetalk, sockpuppet, maf1029, Debby

          so you're telling me that ANYBODY can see that hilarious cat video I just posted on my facebook wall?

          AWESOME!!!

        •  Absolutely true. (7+ / 0-)

          especially the part about the employer checking anyway.

          Frankly, for any job that matters, we will do an internet search on the applicants we are looking at seriously.  We have discovered out right lies to us by using the internet -- a simple Google search of the name --  to check.  

          •  Is that a big corporation? (0+ / 0-)

            or a small business?

            •  Small business. n/t (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Deep Harm, VClib
              •  I work on the international scale and we are bruta (0+ / 0-)

                We socially map everyone, it's standard.  Granted, not all malicious, but if you don't want to have it done, don't put it out there!

                "Foolproof systems don't take into account the ingenuity of fools."

                by overclocking on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 05:46:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Because legislation to keep people from (0+ / 0-)

                  using your personal life against you would be wrong. People who are stupid enough to share that information somewhere on the internet should be monitored.

                  We can chart our future clearly and wisely only when we know the path which has led to the present.

                  by progdog on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:08:31 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Stupid Stupid Stupide (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    progdog

                    There's that word again.

                    I think about the Blog Carnivales for Rape and Molestation Survivors.

                    We shouldn't hire them.

                    I think about people who make online communities because they have special needs children and talk about how to raise them and how to cope--]

                    Don't want to hire them.

                    What about those people in PA and NY state fighting fracking, going online and using that to get the word out?
                    Brave? NOPE Stupid! Lets fire their asses ASAP.

                    How about people who go online and talk about Jungian Symbolism--WEIRDOS and Stupid, lets not hire those nuts!

                    Activists of any kind? That's code for trouble maker.

                    Basically if you are online sharing anything more than cookie recipes--you are stupid and you should not be hired and should be ostracized and ridiculed.

                    Good to know.

                    Sign me up for the Tomato Throwing Contest.

                    I get to be the target.

                    Thanks for having my back guys. Thanks for supporting freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, freedom of information, for supporting intellectual freedoms!

                    Stupid Stupid Stupid.

                    According to this line of thought--All the good conversations are had by stupid people.

                    Imagine that.

                    •  Apparently my sarcasm failed to transmit (0+ / 0-)

                      along with this comment. I am extremely miffed at people like overclocking who work in the industry, know how bad it is, know how things could be fixed, and who have the attitude "you should have known better".

                      We can chart our future clearly and wisely only when we know the path which has led to the present.

                      by progdog on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 09:54:23 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

      •  I wouldn't work for that comapny. (10+ / 0-)

        I'd tell them I don't have a FB, close my Twitter and say I never had one. If they wat to fire me for that, I'd rather continue to be broke and unemployed. Every time we accept this corporate overreach they control more of our lives.

        "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

        by Broke And Unemployed on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 09:33:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's entirely your decision. (5+ / 0-)

          I can tell you frankly that, as an employer, it is far worse from our perspective for a prospective employee to lie to us than for that prospective employee to have an embarrassing photo on FaceBook.  

          •  Actually the employer makes the choice for us. (21+ / 0-)

            Most people just comply when employers make demands like this. It's extortion, pure and simple. Do what we say, or else be broke for the rest of your life. Most people don't choose "or else". I'm lucky that I'm finding ways to get along, but most have kids to feed and don't have a "choice". That's the problem. These corporations and "small" businesses have taken advantage of us for too long.

            It's wrong for employers to ask for this kind of private info.That's the point here. Enough!

            "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

            by Broke And Unemployed on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 09:45:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  An employer is not telling you (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Senor Unoball, sockpuppet, VClib

              "be broke the rest of your life."  The employer might be  simply saying that a particular job means, for example, that you must enact in social settings with clients, so the employer has an interest in seeing how you act in social settings.  If you don't want to provide that information, that may mean you don't get this particular job.  It doesn't mean "broke for life."  

              In some instances, if the prospective employee has a strong enough resume and credentials, an employer may decide to go ahead and make the offer anyway.

              •  What did they do before Facebook? (14+ / 0-)

                I'll bet that it didn't involve demanding copies of one's personal correspondence for the last five years...which is no different from demanding access to a person's Facebook account.  Both involve private communications with friends and family.  That has no bearing on one's ability to communication "professionally" because no one communicates the same with family as they do with employers and clients.

                So, whatever method they used before Facebook came along, they should just keep using it.

              •  if he wants to know how I act (5+ / 0-)

                he should put me in a situation to see it.

                Assessment centers etc.

                You are just happytalking an otherwise unacceptable practice.  Stay out of people's private lives.

                And I also agree to the guy suggesting this Facebook intrusion to be against the AUP. I'd even go farther and suggest it is probably a computer crime - since the employer who takes over his applicant's ID is now browsing facebook and seeing private data of third parties (the applicant's fb-friends) using fraudulent credentials.

                •  You don't dictate the terms of a job offer (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib

                  An employer is free to offer whatever terms he wants.  If he wants more information than you want to give, you are free to seek employment elsewhere.  Personally, we would never ask for a password.  But in some instances, seeing what you've posted on sites like FB might be fair game.  That can be done without asking for passwords.

                  And I'd hardly call anything on Facebook "private.  I've you've got only 50 friends, you've given something to 50 different people, none of whom are under any obligation to keep what you have shared "private." Any of those 50 are free to repost what you posted or shout to the world exactly what you've said.  They can pass along whatever you've posted to 1000 of their closest friends.   You cannot possibly have any reasonable expectation that what you post on Facebook will remain private.  

                  •  Whatever terms he wants? BS! (0+ / 0-)

                    An employer cannot make my employment contingent on my sucking his dick every Thursday morning after coffee break.  He does that, he's guilty of sexual harassment and he might go to jail.

                    Gross invasions of privacy should likewise be illegal as terms of employment.

                    We all know the law doesn't much protect us right now, that's the point!  Do you really believe this is RIGHT?

              •  A spoonful of sugar makes the bullshit go down (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Liberal Of Limeyland

                If clientele need to contact me online, I am sure we could set up something that is semiprivate for just me and them.

                I have a life. It's not for sale.

                End of story.

              •  Yes, broke for life (5+ / 0-)

                HR people go to seminars and want to bring back new ideas to justify their existence.  This will be common practice for most employers soon, if it isn't already.  I'm guessing eventually you won't be able to work at McDonald's or Taco Bell - after all most of their employees are in "social settings".

                And yes, if the prospect has strong enough credentials, they might still be hired, but shouldn't people with normal resumes and credentials be employable?  

                "Truth and love must prevail over lies and hate." Václav Havel

                by Vega on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 02:33:35 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  How dismally unimaginative of them. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Caipirinha

                I'm not going to act the same on a weekend away with my girlfriends as I would at a client dinner. Or a conference away. No one is trusted to be an adult anymore apparently.

                Twenty years from now, you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. Throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. --Mark Twain

                by Debby on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 09:13:29 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  huh? (4+ / 0-)

            you get lied at all the time.

            In fact, if you ask certain questions, you are basically out there asking to be lied to.

            If you want to hear less lies, stop asking questions people should'nt have to answer.

            •  There's a concept of "materiality" (3+ / 0-)

              if the lie is about a subject that we, the employer, consider "material," and you lie, and we find out you lied, you're fired.

              If I ask a question that a prospective employer does not want to answer, I can deal with "I don't fee comfortable answering that."  A lie is not acceptable.

              •  lol (3+ / 0-)

                You: "Do you plan to have children"
                Female Applicant "Not in the next five years".

                The point is to lie to you! What else should she say?

                You are not entitled to that information because the basic assumption is you will discriminate based on the answer.

                You to prospective employee: "are you gay?". Applicant: No, of course not.  Case closed.

                Big organizations are, by definition, amoral. Society holds amorality to be evil. Thus, big organizations are inherently evil.

                They want to be lied to, they are lied to all the time, everybody lies to them. And in the rare case someone tells them the truth, they promptly punish this behavior, usually harshly, thus ensuring that everybody else keeps lying.

                Oh, and your "we will fire you" schtick doesn't hold, either. You spend a hefty five figure sum and a sizable chunk of your own time to recruit some engineer, the dept he works with spends close to half a year of him not doing much useful to get him up to speed in a handful of urgent projects - and then HR Drone Coffeetalk comes to the dept head and says "Sorry, we have to fire that guy. he has a Facebook account."

                Yeah. Good luck with that.

                •  Your complete lack of knowledge is evident (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib, Huginn and Muninn

                  In the first 2 lines of your post.  No employer with half a brain asks those kinds of questions (plans to have children or sexual orientation) because they are against federal law, and are morally wrong because the purpose for such questions is discriminatory.  

                  We -- along with any employer with any knowledge whatsoever of employment laws -- only ask those questions that we are legally entitled to ask.  And we expect honest answers.  We play by the rules, and we expect prospective employees to do the same.  Prospective employees who have no problem with lying to us about anything material are not the people we want working here.

                  Your description of how we hire and fire people is about as accurate as your description of the questions we ask.  Ditto your assumptions of my function (I'm not HR).  Ditto your assumptions about when we would, or would not, fire someone.  

                  Big organizations are, by definition, amoral. Society holds amorality to be evil. Thus, big organizations are inherently evil.

                  They want to be lied to, they are lied to all the time, everybody lies to them. And in the rare case someone tells them the truth, they promptly punish this behavior, usually harshly, thus ensuring that everybody else keeps lying.

                  I can tell you one thing:  I would never hire someone who had your attitude toward his or her employer. If you are employed by someone else, I have sympathy for your employer.    
                  •  And yet women are still (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cris0000, kyril, Liberal Of Limeyland

                    having to fight in lawsuits because of discrimination due to pregnancy.

                    Hmmmmm.

                    Retraining is expensive.
                    Finding a good fit is time consuming and an imperfect process.
                    Meanwhile your backlog grows.

                    Sounds costly and inconvenient.

                    •  Any employer knows that (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Chaoslillith, VClib

                      having employees whom you cannot trust is far more detrimental in the long run and outweighs costs like finding another employee and retraining.  That is especially true in a law firm like mine.  I have to trust that people who work here are honest and will not lie to cover up mistakes or unpleasant things, and if I discover that a person lied about something material to get a job, that trust is gone.  And honesty is paramount.  If my secretary is supposed to send out something on Tuesday and just forgets and sends it out Wednesday, that's a problem.  It  becomes a far bigger problem if she lies about it to me, and says, sure I sent it out Tuesday.  We cannot have people working here who are not honest.  

                      I'm a woman, by the way, as are a number of my partners. We are very attuned to not discriminating.  No one is suggesting that employers be allowed to ask things that are against the law.  

                      But we absolutely have fired people for not being honest.  And we will again if it happens. Not only because it makes moral sense, but also because it makes business sense.  

                      •  since when do corporations think in the long run? (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        kyril, Vega, Debby

                        Save for a few privately held companies, we all are under the evil spell of shareholder value, quarterly reports and yearly earning targets.

                        "In the long run" is the time when the CEO has got his bonus and his package.

                        It doesn't matter at all.

                        •  My business plans long term. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          VClib

                          You apparently have a very low opinion of the company you work for.  That's a shame -- if I were you, and they really are as bad as you say, I would leave.  Not all business operates that way.  

                      •  Too bad we can't have employers we can trust (4+ / 0-)

                        I can count one time that happened. Just once.

                        The assumption you imply in all your posts is that I and other would be employees are innately untrustworthy.

                        That we are all out to steal your pens, use your computers to view porn, and skim off the till.

                        I wouldn't want to work for someone who sees me in such a light, as a precondition to my ability to maintain a pulse.

                        Working for people who hold you in such low esteem is it's own personal hell. They are always stuck on the what ifs, and never looking at the here and now.

                        That sort of mentality leads to myopic micromanagers. That certainly doesn't lead to innovation, creativity, high production or a quality product.

                        You are your own worst enemy when you operate under those terms. That collective, inherent suspicion leads your kind to create the sort of abusive atmospheres that encourage employees to stick it to company, to get  that entity back for all the petty BS loaded onto them from day one.

                        Those are the wages of depriving humans of their dignity.

                        Learn that lesson and you might just go somewhere in this world, worth talking about.

                        •  Nope. It means that I will do what's called (3+ / 0-)

                          "due diligence" on prospective employees.  That's absolutely necessary to protect our business.  If we hired somebody who then did bad things, the business is much worse off if we didn't do the due diligence before the hire than if we did.  If we hire someone in a management position over a diverse workforce who turns out to be racist and discriminates, we're much worse off if the racism was something would could have uncovered with due diligence (like a Facebook page filled with racist rants), because then the argument is that we should have known about the racism before we put the person in that position managing a diverse group of workers, and we should not have put him in that position.

                          And, by doing some due diligence -- checking out what they tell us, for example -- we are able to catch some people being dishonest, and are able to weed them out before they are hired.  That's good for the business, too.  Doing due diligence -- checking out what they tell you, finding out as much as you can about a prospective employee -- is not a statement that all people are inherently untrustworthy.  It's a necessary step to protect the business from the few people who are.  

                          The amount of due diligence varies in direct proportion to the sensitivity and responsibility of the job.  The less sensitivity and responsibility, the less due diligence.  

                          •  You got more excuses than you have anuses (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Liberal Of Limeyland

                            Digging to this degree into a person's off time private issues isn't due diligence.

                            Its selling out.

                            Be honest.

                            If your gut instincts are so bad when looking for new prospects, that you have to be entirely beholding to the internet to form an impression, then I would question why anyone put you in charge of hiring to begin with.

                            This whole thing also reeks of pure intellectual laziness and perhaps a lack of talent in that aspect of the field.

                          •  misstating what I said does not advance the (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VClib

                            discussion.  I never said we rely entirely on the internet.  And you are deliberately misstating what I said. I said we use the internet, among other things, as a resource.  You, of course, knew that and instead chose to misstate what I said and add a personal insult based on your misstatement of my post.  All of which means there is no point in trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone who does not use intellectual honesty in reply.

                          •  It appears that these interviewers are (0+ / 0-)

                            entirely relying on the internet.

                            If this makes or breaks the interview.

                            But then again, without knowing what they are looking for, and in the absence of any serious legal boundaries, it doesn't matter.

                            Like you, I am going to opt for the worse case scenario, since  that seems to make the most sense at this time, during this particular era of Corporate Over-reach into Private Lives.

                            Ponzi Schemes, Ripping off Veterans, claiming religious exemptions to practice sexism, and to cut costs on insurance coverage, discriminating against pregnant women, and then bemoaning the prevalence of the mythical welfare queen, parties that make fun of the newly foreclosed upon, leaflets cast upon protesters extolling the virtues of evisceration of the common worker, placing all the tax burdens on the poor and blue collar while yucking it up in a gated community--yadda yadda yadda.

                            If you ever wonder what the origin of unions are--wonder no more.

                            This conversation, this diary is the perfect example.

                            Expect a new labor movement due to this and other abuses.

                            And it is an abuse. No amount of corporate lipstick is going to cover the stench of that pig.

                          •  I'm really, really tempted to HR this. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VClib, Huginn and Muninn

                            ...Coffeetalk has been nothing but civil in this thread, and your attacks are both unwarranted and ridiculous.  

                  •  lol2 (7+ / 0-)
                    No employer with half a brain asks those kinds of questions because they (...) are morally wrong because the purpose for such questions is discriminatory.  
                    Now you directly lied to me, sleek and effortlessly, basically reenforcing my point.

                    Employers try to skirt the law all the time. They don't care much about morals, and if they think they can get away with it, about laws.

                    I have heard the strategies they use to weed out "undesirable" candidates without being caught, both from friends in HR and in one case even directly from the decision maker.

                    I can tell you one thing:  I would never hire someone who had your attitude toward his or her employer.
                    That illustrates nicely how important anonymity and privacy are. Which kinda gets us back to the diary's point.

                    As for my employer - I've worked for the place for more than 10 years, and I've seen it all. They lie to themselves, their employees, they lie, cheat and, on occasion, steal from their customers, they run a Worldcom-type tax racket which keeps accumulating year over year and is bound to collapse at some point, they constantly induce their employees to lie in standard business processes (without, of course, clearly saying so) etc. I could go on, I could fill whole diaries with just the most egregious stuff.  

                    In one case that affected me personally I (a simple engineer) basically blocked a multi-million project because in my opinion is was flat out illegal and I refused to work on it unless they would get someone from Legal to have a look at it. Reportedly some VP level guy fumed how a simple tech dared to behave that way, but since his project was competing with other projects for engineering resources there was not much he could do. Finally Marketing set up a meeting with the most junior lawyer in Legal they could find (a woman fresh out of law school). That person squirmed around, obviously noticing that she was in the hot seat now. In the end she opined that the plan was probably violating several criminal laws, but "there were not enough court cases to be really sure".  (welcome to the internet)

                    Marketing then brilliantly deduced from that that the plan was "possibly lawful", and thus forced my dept to continue the engineering. Some 600 grand and half a year of my time spent later they got our detailed cost estimate and that sunk it for good.

                    And that's just your vanilla Fortune 500 company. I really doubt we are, all in all, better or worse than the rest.

                    Corporations are inherently amoral.  People behave morally, corporations can't. Combine that with the pure greed of the of shareholder value maxim, and you have just the right deadly mix.

                    •  Good example of exactly what I'm talking about. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      VClib
                      Finally Marketing set up a meeting with the most junior lawyer in Legal they could find (a woman fresh out of law school). That person squirmed around, obviously noticing that she was in the hot seat now. In the end she opined that the plan was probably violating several criminal laws, but "there were not enough court cases to be really sure".  (welcome to the internet)
                      If I'm reading this correctly, your company's internal lawyer was giving the company (of which you were a part) legal advice.  That is considered privileged information (look up "attorney-client privilege") and you may have waived that by posting what was said on a public board.  That's the company's privilege, not yours, so you may have done something that affects the company's rights, if it ever becomes an issue.

                      I use this just as an example of why employers have a legitimate interest in what employees do on the internet.  If you had posted the same thing on Facebook (where you identity is more readily available) that may be an issue for your employer.

              •  Whatever (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cris0000, kyril, Vega

                If you ask me about something that is protected by law--something I shouldn't have to share to get hired or to avoid being fired

                I think lying about that, at that point becomes a tactical decision rather than a moral burden.

        •  Or better yet (3+ / 0-)

          BE THAT TEST CASE!

          That is when you write your local ACLU chapter and file a complaint. That is when you try to find a lawyer and look for other support systems like the Electronic Freedom Foundation.

      •  There is nothing wrong with lying about things (6+ / 0-)

        that the employer doesn't deserve to know.  Anyways, the Net is so unreliable, that an employer can never prove something one way or another.  If they accuse me of some account being mine, I'd just say some troll set it up to bother me.  Can't be proven one way or another.

        So the best answer still is "I don't do Facebook".

        Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

        by Miggles on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:38:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Employers only have a say during (34+ / 0-)

    the hours for which they pay us.  They do not control our off-duty hours, our home life, our leisure activities and hobbies.  They do not control how we spend the money we earn because it ceases to be their money when they pay us.

    Why can employers not understand this?

    As for students - they are still US citizens and are guaranteed the rights of privacy and speech.

    Why can educational institutes not understand this?

    All knowledge is worth having.

    by Noddy on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 09:01:44 AM PST

    •  Sometimes employers do have a say (4+ / 0-)

      For a period of time I worked for an agency that provided substance abuse treatment services, including to clients who were referred by their probation or parole officers. It was pretty clearly understood that we weren't supposed to be out drinking in certain public places, getting arrested for DUI, having personal relationships with prison inmates, etc. And I can't see how they could have been faulted for that expectation.

      from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

      by Catte Nappe on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 09:20:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What certain public places? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, sockpuppet, kyril, greengemini

        could you not drink? Or what categories of places if the exact answer would be invasive of your privacy?

        I work in substance abuse research. I get it that a treatment center can't have addicts on the payroll. But drinking in public generally is not a crime, nor is it a mental health problem unless one is in recovery.

        Just because you're not a drummer doesn't mean that you don't have to keep time. -- T. Monk

        by susanala on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:38:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Kinds of places (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          susanala, kyril

          The sorts of dance halls and happy hour places where one might not be surprised to bump into one's clients' friends and relations -(which if you think about it could encompass a significant portion of some communities' night life. )We also didn't go places that were physically close to the treatment center, where we might easily be seen entering or leaving.

          from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

          by Catte Nappe on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 11:47:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ah. Thanks. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kyril

            I live in a big enough city that only proximity to the treatment center is likely to present an issue. So I hadn't thought of the other possibilities.

            Just because you're not a drummer doesn't mean that you don't have to keep time. -- T. Monk

            by susanala on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 02:27:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  But, it's not a right (7+ / 0-)

        for them to spy on people day and night on the odd chance that someone might be doing such things...which is what monitoring a Facebook account equates to.  Checking police records, however, is SOP.

        On the other hand, many private companies, including credit reporting companies, are now monitoring the internet and providing that information to businesses and the government, even though the potential for mistaken identities is ENORMOUS.

        For example, if you (or someone with a similar name) signs up for a web domain, some credit reporting firms are reporting that along with your financial history.

      •  I get not having a personal relationship (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GreenMother, blueoasis, sockpuppet, kyril

        with your clients (or co-workers, for that matter), but why not with prison inmates who weren't your clients?  You could have a sibling in prison, or a spouse, or a cousin or a best friend...that makes no sense to have a blanket ban on not having a relationship with a prison inmate.

        As for drinking, what, you couldn't have a glass of wine with your dinner at an upscale restaurant?  That's not right, either.

        Police records are not the same as monitoring or controlling your social networks, hobbies, politics, or details of your personal life and your friends.

        All knowledge is worth having.

        by Noddy on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:53:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Inmate relationships (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kyril

          Had an employee had a family member incarcerated I'm sure that would have been understood and accepted,with cautionary guidance. One former colleague got into a pen-pal relationship with an inmate and they got kind of serious about each other and he was pressuring her to do favors for some of his friends under her authority.

          On drinking: I often had a glass of wine with my meal at a restaurant, but as an example I'd not go to happy hour at the fern bar aroudn the corner from the bus stop that many of our clients used in coming for meetings.

          from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

          by Catte Nappe on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 12:03:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Ever heard of the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MrJersey, sockpuppet, kyril, VClib

      Actually students lack the full rights and force of the First Amendment. Case in point is the SCOTUS case ofMorse v. Frederick.

      In Morse, an Alaska h.s. student was suspended for offi-school behavior. In short:

      In 2002, high school principal Deborah Morse suspended 18-year-old Joseph Frederick after he displayed a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" across the street from the school during the 2002 Olympic Torch Relay. Frederick sued, claiming his constitutional rights to free speech were violated. His suit was dismissed by the federal district court, but on appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that Frederick's speech rights were violated.

      Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that the school officials did not violate the First Amendment. To do so, he made three legal determinations: first, that "school speech" doctrine should apply because Frederick's speech occurred "at a school event"; second, that the speech was "reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use"; and third, that a principal may legally restrict that speech—based on the three existing First Amendment school speech precedents, other Constitutional jurisprudence relating to schools, and a school's "important—indeed, perhaps compelling interest" in deterring drug use by students.

      One scholar noted that "by its plain language, Morse's holding is narrow in that it expressly applies only to student speech promoting illegal drug use". She adds, however, that courts could nonetheless apply it to other student speech that, like speech encouraging illegal drug use, similarly undermines schools' educational missions or threatens students' safety. "Further, Morse arguably permits viewpoint discrimination of purely political speech whenever that speech mentions illegal drugs - a result seemingly at odds with the First Amendment."

    •  Not true. Let me give you an example. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sockpuppet, VClib

      Suppose I work in a restaurant.  Suppose I go home every night and post how terrible the food in that restaurant is.  You know what? My employer -- if he finds out -- is going to fire me for that.  And rightly so.  Whether I'm right or wrong about terrible food, I have no business airing that kind of thing about my employer out in public.  (If I don't like the food, I should either air that in the business or keep quiet).  It's no different than if the employer found out I was going to parties and telling everyone I knew not to eat there because the food was terrible.  Employees certainly have a "right" to do or say things, when off-duty, that the employer thinks are harmful to the business. But if they do that, they don't have a "right" to keep their job.  

      Those are things done by an employee on off-duty hours.  But any employer would have every right to fire an employee for doing that.  

      •  I disagree. (9+ / 0-)

        Just because we now have faster means of communication doesn't mean we have less rights to freedom of speech.  Although I'm betting that anyone that dissatisfied with their job that they'd bad mouth it far and wide reflects that attitude during work hours, and so would probably be fired for poor performance.  An employer wouldn't have to delve into their personal off-duty lives.

        All knowledge is worth having.

        by Noddy on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:45:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Two points where I think you are wrong. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sockpuppet, VClib

          1.  Freedom of speech is a restriction on government, not a private employer.  ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.")  No one has "free speech" rights with respect to a private employer. The one exception might be in states that protect an employee from discrimination based on political beliefs -- then an employee can't be fired for expressing political beliefs outside of the job.  But those states are a small minority, I think.  Even in those states, that would not in any way shield an employee who says bad things about his/her employer.

          2. I can tell you that I do know of one particular instance where an employee DID repeatedly bad mouth the employer on Facebook, very very similar to what I described above. I didn't just pull that example out of the air.   And the employee was a "don't make any waves" type employee in an entry level job, who likely would kept the job for a while if he would not have done that.  Nevertheless because he did repeatedly bad mouth the business on Facebook (even after being warned that it was not appropriate) he was let go.  So no, you can't assume that a person who bad mouths a business on his own time is going to be a bad employee.  It doesn't always work that way.  What you CAN assume is that bad mouthing the business -- saying (through a medium that reaches a lot of people) that the restaurant you work for serves bad food, or the mechanic you work for is lazy, or that the dry cleaner you work for repeatedly screws up clothes -- is likely to get you fired, because it's detrimental to the business.  

        •  Freedom of speech is only protect against govt (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kyril, VClib

          A private employer, or any other private entity, can can you for whatever reason they want if you are an at-will employee, so long as it doesn't violate EEOC or ADA regulations (or equivalent anti-discrimination statutes). And it's always been that way.  If your boss wanted to, he or she could fire you because they didn't like your shirt.

      •  I disagree and agree at the same time. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        The employee has every right to say that they think the food is terrible.

        ...However, the employer also has the right to fire that employee if it comes out that they're badmouthing the restaurant online.  I wouldn't employ someone who was actively undermining me and costing me business if I found out about it.

        ...Frankly, if you're dumb enough to do something like that, publicly, on an account that's easily googled or which your employer knows about, you deserve it -- I don't want to employ anyone that stupid, either.

  •  Some understanding would be helpful. (10+ / 0-)

    You have some rights with respect to government intrusion into your privacy.  Of course, this is not government intrusion -- it is a employer asking for personal information with respect to considering you for a job.

    You do not have a "right" to a particular job. In most private sector jobs, that is entirely up to the employer.  The employer can decide not to hire you because the employer didn't like the shirt you wore to the interview.  You do have some limited rights with respect to job interviews, that are spelled out in federal (or state) law:  you cannot be discriminated against based on race, gender, age, and certain other limited things.  And as a result, legally the employer cannot ask questions that would touch on those areas.

    However, discrimination against a job applicant because he/she does stupid things after work is perfectly legal and -- depending on the job -- should be expected.  In fact, in some jobs, the employees are the representative of the company, and all those things you think are nobody's business are of significant concern to the employer.  I'm a partner in a law firm -- i.e., an employer -- and I guarantee you that we would not hire as, say, a receptionist a person who came in with a purple hair in a  Mohawk and very visible face piercings.   Our receptionist is the first impression people have of our firm and it is within our rights to decide what impression we want people to have.  Likewise, our lawyers -- even our young lawyers -- are expected, as part of the job, to engage in social settings with clients and prospective clients.  If a person demonstrates a lack of ability to behave they way we want to see them behave in social settings (and, even worse, broadcasts that lack of behavior to others), yes, we absolutely will consider that.  No question.  We have summer interns - and social parties -- for that reason.  For jobs where the employee is, when he/she is away from the office, a representative of the business, that kind of thing matters.  If we can get more information about a person in those areas, we will.

    The bottom line is that, for some jobs, an employer does have an interest in what you do outside of the workplace and the employer does have an interest in what image of yourself you project to the world.  You have every right to refuse to provide that kind of information. Every right.  But you don't have a "right" to the job if the employer asks for information and you either refuse to give it or give false or misleading information.  

    And it's not just  "big corporations" that do this.  Local small business owners do this -- in fact, in some instances, they'd have even more of an incentive, because they are trying to maintain a presence or reputation in the local community, and their employees will either help or hinder what they are trying to build.  

    •  Then we have to start pushing back. (5+ / 0-)

      Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.

      "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

      by Broke And Unemployed on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 09:35:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just wrong. Here's why. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sockpuppet, Chaoslillith, Christin, VClib

        As an employer, I have both a moral interest and a legal interest in knowing some things about prospective employees that do not come out on job applications and during job interviews.  I will give you the most stark example I can think of.

        We're a small business.  Let's say I'm looking for someone to operate in a managerial role supervising 8 employees, four of whom are African American.  Let's say I get two applicants, both of whom look very good on paper, and both of who give very good interviews.  But then I go on Facebook and see that Applicant 1 has repeated racist rants, using the "n word" and has all sorts of things about his views against African Americans, racist rants about intellect, work ethic, the kinds of horrible racist stereotypes that we all, unfortunately, have seen.  

        That's absolutely -- absolutely -- something I want to know.  And I think it's the "right thing" for me to know that.  As a moral matter, I do not want a racist supervising a group of other employees.  As a legal matter, if I hire this person, I've greatly increased the chances that my business will be the subject of a lawsuit for racial discrimination somewhere down the line.  

        •  There are, I think, better ways (4+ / 0-)

          of getting that information.  Like maybe asking?  

          Then again I work somewhere where we don't assume everyone we meet is a duplicitous secretly-racist liar, so maybe I don't understand the legal profession very well.

          In the sea, Biscayne, there prinks
          The young emerald evening star,
          Good light for drunkards, poets, widows,
          And ladies soon to be married.

          by looty on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:34:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Really? How many people applying for a job are (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sockpuppet, Chaoslillith, VClib

            going to say, "Yep, I'm a racist"?  

            And if I don't at least look into someone's background, and if you are one of the African Americans later discriminated against by this guy, I GUARANTEE your lawyer will find this stuff.  You are going to sue the business and allege that the fact that he was a blatant racist was out there for the business to see if only the business would have looked a little harder.  I GUARANTEE your lawyer is going to claim that the  business "should have known" he was a racist when they hired him.  After all, the business has a duty to see that  people it hires don't discriminate.  

            That's why I said that, for the employer, it's not just a moral issue -- I don't want bad people supervising our other employees -- it's a legal issue.  I have an obligation to our other employees to make sure that I'm not having them work under someone who, for whatever reason, is not fit to be their supervisor.  

            •  I would say two things (8+ / 0-)

              First, obviously, you don't ask "Are you a racist."  You explain the job to them and ask if there's any reason they feel they wouldn't be able to do it.  You listen to their answers, and judge them based on their interview and the documents they have provided.  

              So, as someone who has hired people on multiple occassions, I think there are a few problems with your approach.

              First, it's just wrong to invade people's private non-work-related life.  Full stop.  It's wrong to demand that someone surrender their privacy in order to earn a paycheck. You can make up whatever justification you please, but don't kid yourself.  

              Second, you can point to the case of the "closet racist" as something that's clear-cut, but there are many many more cases in which you may find out information that is less clear cut.  

              It is rife for abuse.  People (not you, I hope) will use it not to hire employees whose sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, they don't share.  People will use it to identify "antisocial tendencies" or to make sure they only hire employees with the same tastes or interests as themselves.  

              And there will be NO recourse for the interviewee because they won't be able to prove that the content their FB page was why they weren't hired.

              Finally, I would think about what kind of environment you are creating by demanding your workforce surrender their privacy to you in order to work there.  That's certainly not somewhere I'd chose to work. You are probably going to scare off more smart, creative people than the supposed "closet racist" you'll catch in the first place.  

              In the sea, Biscayne, there prinks
              The young emerald evening star,
              Good light for drunkards, poets, widows,
              And ladies soon to be married.

              by looty on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:56:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, we don't ask people to (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sockpuppet, VClib

                "surrender their privacy."

                But we do, at the very least, do internet searches, before we even ask the person. You can pick up whether someone has a FB account, and often a lot more information, that way.   And perhaps, for sensitive jobs or higher level jobs, we'd want to see what they've posted on social network sites.  We'd never ask for passwords.  

                We're just going to have to agree to disagree.  

                •  Honestly I don't have a problem (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mattc129, maf1029, Debby

                  with looking people up on the Internet.  I see that as public information, just like calling someone's references or checking to see if the articles they claim to have published were actually published.  

                  It's the getting passwords and looking at their private Facebook page that I object to.

                  In the sea, Biscayne, there prinks
                  The young emerald evening star,
                  Good light for drunkards, poets, widows,
                  And ladies soon to be married.

                  by looty on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 11:16:48 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  two different things (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    VClib

                    getting passwords and looking at their Facebook page are two different things.

                    An employer can ask to see what's on your Facebook page without getting your password.  And I don't think I would use the word "private" to describe a Facebook page.  Facebook is not private.  Anything that you put out to someone else is not private, unless that someone else has some obligation not to share it.  Facebook gives your friends the easy ability to share whatever is on your Facebook page, so no, it's not "private."  It may have a limited initial audience, but that audience has no obligation to keep what you say private.  

                    •  The story was very clear (0+ / 0-)

                      Perhaps you need to go back and review the story that I linked to.

                      •  You should read it. It involves what I said. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        VClib

                        Viewing a potential employee's Facebook account without having the potential employee surrender passwords:  

                        "In Maryland, job seekers applying to the state's Department of Corrections have been asked during interviews to log into their accounts and let an interviewer watch while the potential employee clicks through wall posts, friends, photos and anything else that might be found behind the privacy wall."
                        That means showing the potential employer what's on your Facebook page, not surrendering passwords.  Like I said, you have no expectation of privacy in what you post on Facebook unless you have confidentiality agreements with all of your friends that they will not repost, or tell anybody, what you've posted.  
                        •  Or anything else found behind a privacy wall (0+ / 0-)

                          Yea, that doesn't bother you at all.

                          Simply shameful.

                          Think of me when you are eating crow sometime in the near future.

                          I am sure they have a keylogger picked out for you and other potential employees at home.

                        •  no expectation of privacy (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          greengemini, looty

                          perhaps... But.. I do have the expectation that the information contained in my posts will only be seen by those allowed access unless and ONLY unless one of them decides to forward the information. The expectation is that it depends upon those individuals just as it would if I used any other method (in person conversation, phone conversation (not while at work!), etc) for the sharing of such information.

                          Keep in mind facebook allows one to post messages visible only to individual people or a very small number of people. It isn't always about messages sent to ones whole list of friends and acquaintances.

                          For instance, what about facebook messages between (and only between) spouses? From what was said above those would be just as fair game as any other message!

                          That means showing the potential employer what's on your Facebook page, not surrendering passwords.  Like I said, you have no expectation of privacy in what you post on Facebook unless you have confidentiality agreements with all of your friends that they will not repost, or tell anybody, what you've posted.  
                          •  NonCompliance (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Broke And Unemployed

                            If I were in the market for a job and this came up, I would be a test case.

                            I would challenge this.

                            To me this is another aspect of the Whistleblower abuses. But this is pre-emptive.

                            Nope.

                            Not putting up with this. Even if it became law, I would fight this on principle alone.

                          •  posting on facebook is like (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VClib

                            Making an announcement at a party of 200 (if you have 200 friends).  You don't do that and later claim you meant the announcement to be "private."

                          •  Short skirt defense (0+ / 0-)

                            Sorry not cutting it.

                            When I announce criminal activity, then have at it. But til then it's just another version of the Itty Bitty Shitty Committee trying to make me and everyone else toe a line so they can see what else they can steal.

                          •  I agree completely (0+ / 0-)

                            with your characterization of Facebook.  Everyone should treat their page as if their mother is reading it.  (And for many of us, she is...)

                            That said, nothing about that gives a prospective employer the right to crash your dinner party, either.

                            In the sea, Biscayne, there prinks
                            The young emerald evening star,
                            Good light for drunkards, poets, widows,
                            And ladies soon to be married.

                            by looty on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 05:55:20 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  what if you send a private message (0+ / 0-)

                            or limit the people who can see your message to handful of close friends? Then it is more like making an announcement at a private dinner party with a table full of people. Would it be ok to require the sharing of said announcement as part of an interview process?

                            If ANY of the people you intended the message for are directly or indirectly responsible for the message winding up in the hands of a potential employer then that is acceptable. The expectation is not of privacy but is specifically that only those you select will have access to the message and the ability to forward that message to others. Once they forward that message to others, anything can happen and one has little recourse.

                            If they don't pass it on, you shouldn't be forced to show it to an employer. The idea that an employer forcing you to log into and show messages between yourself and friends on your facebook account is acceptable because it is likely that your friends would have revealed the information anyway is ludicrous.

                            posting on facebook is like
                            Making an announcement at a party of 200 (if you have 200 friends).  You don't do that and later claim you meant the announcement to be "private."
        •  That's fine (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chase, kyril, aerie star

          And workers have a moral obligation to expose unsatisfactory employers, making public any information discovered in the process.

          and I wait for them to interrupt my drinking from this broken cup

          by le sequoit on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 11:04:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Just say no to Paternalistic Bullshit (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Broke And Unemployed, kyril, Debby

          Whatever

          If I have a clean arrest record

          then it's none of your goddamn business.

          •  Absolutely your right to do that. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            And if the employer wants information that is legal for him to ask and that you don't want to give, then it is your right to say, no I won't give you that information.  You have that right.

            Just understand that you don't also have the right to that particular job.

            I completely agree that people who feel as strongly as you do should seek employment either with like-minded employers, or in positions where employers do not feel it necessary to make the inquiries you object to.  

            •  Once many years ago (7+ / 0-)

              I had to file a grievance regarding sexual harassment.

              It followed me like Mary's Little Lamb, wherever I went.

              Not because I had done anything wrong.

              But because it marked me as NOT A TEAM PLAYER.

              Had I rolled over with my legs in the air, this conversation would not be happening.

              At that point all future supervisors knew that I was a dangerous element, simply because I had a spine.

              Wow.

              Not admirable.
              Not Strong

              Not Moral or ethical.

              But dangerous
              not a team player,
              suspicious.

              This whole story/situation reminds me of that.

              •  And the employers have every right to (0+ / 0-)

                know that information because it provides information they might find useful in evaluating you as a future employee.  You are a troublemaker.  

                But. That. Right. Is. What. Is. Wrong.

                Lets say Facebook had better privacy, where your friends couldn't forward your information.  Or say you only used newsgroups with VPNs as a commenter here suggested.  In any event, your potential employer could request to see your now secure Facebook pages or newsgroup postings or search your car or your house or your snail mail or home computer.  There would be justification for these things and you could always refuse - God knows what you could be hiding that would cause them to justly reject you.  You could have kidnapped children in your basement or child porn on your home computer or you have been mailing anonymous snail mail letters trashing that company.  But at what point should be the balance of power between the employer's needs and the potential employee's rights?    

                What we are asking for is not what current law allows.  We know it allows a lot by the employer.  What we are asking for is to change current law to create new forbidden questions and requests by the employer.    

                "Truth and love must prevail over lies and hate." Václav Havel

                by Vega on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 03:06:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  My reply to that is: (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Broke And Unemployed, Vega

                  If you honestly believe that I have committed a felony, if I have bodies in my basement or a dead cat shrine to my ex--then you should just call the cops.

                  Otherwise I would advise that the pondering STFU.

                  Because they got nothing.

                  I have a right to face an accuser. And if they ruin my life without proving anything the right to countersue for the abuse.

                  They are taking that right away.

                  They are replacing it with a permanent implied threat.

                  No thanks.

        •  I can understand where you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kyril

          are coming from. However, to this point we have a drawn lines as to what is ok and what isn't ok in this regard. I think they should carry over into the electronic world. For instance, observing someone at a company social event is fine, observing them at a public bar is ok, even hiring someone to observe them in a public location while pretending to be a friend or acquaintance is acceptable but kind of sleazy imho. However, reading personal mail, listening to personal phone messages and observing them in their home interacting with their closest and most trusted friends is not. Of course it would help you to make a better hiring decision, but I think very few people would agree that you should be allowed those things.

          It is about finding a reasonable balance between the employers need for information and the employees need for privacy.

          In the digital world, to me it should be ok for an employer to observe a public profile, to friend the person and expect to be friended back (noting of course that the individual will likely show you only things that they are generally comfortable with many people seeing) or even to hire a peer of the person in question to act as an acquaintance. An individual needs to make sure that overly personal things are shared only with people they can truly trust; people who won't betray that trust. However, they should have the option and know that the only way that information would become public is if those they trusted turn out not to be worthy of that trust.

          What this diary talks about goes beyond that. It requires individuals to show everything that they send and receive from everyone, even their most trusted friends. Of course this would be helpful to the company in hiring, but it certainly doesn't seem close to a reasonable balance between that good and individual privacy. Nor does it seem to parallel the pre-internet sense of privacy which seems to me a reasonable guide to the privacy we should allow in the post internet world.  

      •  Yep, and there is nothing wrong with lying to (7+ / 0-)

        the employer about this.  It is not illegal to lie about this.  In fact, it may be illegal for employers to request this.  Most services have Terms of Use stating that it is forbidden to divulge passwords, grant access to third parties, etc.

        Also, why would an employer even hire someone who so readily gave up a username and password during a simple interview?  That wouldn't exactly give me a warm fuzzy that said employee would protect the company's proprietary data and intellectual property.

        Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

        by Miggles on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:46:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I can see limited cases where that applies. (4+ / 0-)

      For example, I can see how, for example, public schools might want to ensure that none of their teachers are engaged in things like child pornography, etc.

      But does that give them the right to monitor all teachers' e-mails, and then punish them for, say, criticizing the superintendent's policies?

      Similarly, I can understand how looking at a credit report might be reasonable for jobs where the possibility of embezzlement or fraud are real. But that shouldn't be the case for, say, a big box store.

      I see it this way: the presumption of privacy should always prevail, unless it can be shown that the costs of maintaining that privacy outweigh the benefits, and then it should be limited only to the minimum extent those costs dictate.

      We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

      by Samer on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:31:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Once you open that door a crack (6+ / 0-)

        you can never close it.  

        Sure we all have a compelling interest in preventing child pornographers from working in schools.  But (a) there are other ways to find this out; and (b) you are essentially treating everyone with the same level of suspicion reserved for child molesters.

        In the sea, Biscayne, there prinks
        The young emerald evening star,
        Good light for drunkards, poets, widows,
        And ladies soon to be married.

        by looty on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:35:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's sort of what I was getting at (0+ / 0-)

          When I said that the right of privacy "should be limited only to the minimum extent those costs dictate."

          For the moment let me give you an analogy here: I see the right of privacy as deserving of strict scrutiny. Basically, under that standard it could only be abridged if:

          (1) There is a compelling interest;
          (2) The ability to abridge would have to be narrowly tailored (e.g., no dragnets).
          (3) It would have to be the least restrictive means of achieving said goal. IOW, if "there are other ways," as you said, for achieving a goal that don't require any abridgment of the right to privacy, then no abridgment should be allowed, period.

          We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

          by Samer on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 11:17:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  who didn't see this coming? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Russgirl, MrJersey, keirdubois

    rec list? really?

  •  another reason to opt out of the corporate (8+ / 0-)

    marketplace.

    Please remember to Witness Revolution. It means so much to them that we pay attention.

    by UnaSpenser on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 09:25:03 AM PST

  •  I knew there was a reason I refused to get (7+ / 0-)

    caught up in all that social media stuff.  No facebook, et.al. for me.  Pat on the back, Raggedy Ann!

    love the fetus, hate the child

    by Raggedy Ann on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 09:27:56 AM PST

  •  What social network accounts? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    redstatewoes

    I don't have any and this is why. Since before Facebook when it was myspace and friendster, the idea of putting myself, my info, my pics online just never appealed to me.

     I always have a couple of junk accounts with fake names, joke pics, no real friends...started with junk email accounts I no longer know the passwords to and cant even access anymore. These are just so I can look at other profiles if I have a reason to.

  •  I;m tired of these corporate overreaches. (6+ / 0-)

    Enough is enough. They want to control every aspect of our personal lives. They want to exclude everyone who is not part of a certain cultural elite. They want to exclude everyone who has ever had financial difficulty (credit checks) or, god forbid, has an opinion (social media checks like this one.)

    BTW, this may be "legal", but isn't it against facebook policy? Don't they have a rule that says "don't reveal your password to anyone?

    Enough! I'm done letting them control my life. Authoritatians say it's the reason why I'm still broke and (under)employed, but I don't care. I'm done selling my soul for a meager paycheck.

    Corporate overreaches like this make me want to jump in the car, listen to some Rage Against the Machine and yell "f*** you I won't do what you tell me!"

    "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

    by Broke And Unemployed on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 09:40:09 AM PST

    •  At the same time (6+ / 0-)

      corporations insist on keeping THEIR information private by stamping it "trade secrets" and the government hides ITS information behind "national security" claims.

      But, for the rest of us, no privacy is allowed.  We're all criminals until proven "innocent" by "courts" that  with no due process rights.

    •  Most people I know closed their Facebook accounts (4+ / 0-)

      when Facebook's own privacy policies started to change and people began to see the we were putting our private information into the hands of a college kid with no real sense of ethical responsibility.  Your privacy rights on Facebook are whatever Facebook wakes up that week and decides what they are.  If Facebook decided to give that information to employers tomorrow, they can do that.

      And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

      by MrJersey on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:39:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly agree that it is against the policy of (3+ / 0-)

      pretty much every site out there.  Any company that is using usernames/passwords that they obtained from applicants could probably be successfully prosecuted under various cybercrime, anti-hacking, and identity theft statutes.

      Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

      by Miggles on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:49:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Facebook (0+ / 0-)
      BTW, this may be "legal", but isn't it against facebook policy? Don't they have a rule that says "don't reveal your password to anyone?
      It is Facebook policy to insist you give them your real name, birthdate, location, gender, etc.

      If is Facebook policy to insist that you send them a copy of your drivers license and/or passport if someone challenges the authenticity of your "name."

      It is Facebook policy to then track and record all your movements, including articles your read on remote websites, comments you post on remote websites, and the sites you visit on the web.

      It is Facebook policy to sell all the data they collect about you and your network to whomever is willing to pay.

      Short answer: stay off of Facebook if you care one iota about your privacy.

  •  Make a fake account for job apps (3+ / 0-)

    load it up with all the corporate sheeple worship you know they'll eat up.

    NOW SHOWING
    Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
    Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

    by The Dead Man on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 09:41:30 AM PST

  •  I don't have a problem with a search on public (7+ / 0-)

    information. But asking to see the information that's private is like expecting to enter someone's home and poke around in the bedroom and the cabinets and the refrigerator.

    It's not OK. Do we really need a law against this? Are people really this problematic?

    The people who are going to want this to stop more than anyone are the guys at Facebook... because otherwise everyone is going to stop using it.

    Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

    by elfling on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 09:43:25 AM PST

  •  I think we can differentiate between the last (0+ / 0-)

    scenario you put forth and the earlier hypotheticals....the earlier are probably extra-legal and a massive invasion of personal privacy. The last isn't really....anyone can do research on what you're allowing the general public to view on your social media sites.

    Today, strive to be the person you want to be.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 09:46:43 AM PST

  •  A few points - from a legal perspective (9+ / 0-)

    First off, when I was in law school, I took a seminar regarding privacy rights related to employment - and it looks like the law is, and virtually always has been, that you have virtually no right to privacy with regard to your employer, with the exception of health information protected by HIPAA and arrests not leading to conviction, which is a separate carve-out.  If you access your personal email on a work computer, boom, they can access it.  One case, I believe, even permitted an employer to secretly put a tracking device on a company car that an employee was expressly permitted to use for personal business when off-duty.

    As an attorney, I know that in, for example, a personal injury case, it is standard to subpoena plaintiff's social networking accounts, ostensibly for the purpose of checking the veracity of their claims/injuries.

    Do I think all of this is good? No. But it's rampant and standard, and leaves us with something to think about.

    Also, in the employment context, a lot of businesses operate under the assumption that what you do in your personal life is, ostensibly, a representation of yourself, and thus your employer, so they have an interest in what you post, etc. And the courts will likely uphold this, as your constitutional rights are only protected as against the government, not a private-sector employer, much as I wish it weren't this way.  The court's answer is "oh well, go find another job," or "look someplace else for a loan."

    •  There won't be a judicial remedy for this (8+ / 0-)

      only a legislative one.  The key is to hit the social networking sites, make them uphold privacy standards.  I agree you aren't going to get far going after employers.  I'm lucky to have an employer who treats its employees like adults; its one of the reasons I'm reluncant to search for a new job even know I'm underpaid.  

    •  That's (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Harm

      why it's smart to opt out of their system.

      •  But there's more (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Vega, VClib

        Let's say you sue me, claiming you hurt yourself on my property, and couldn't work for 6 months, etc., because your leg was hurt.  I am entitled to discovery - documents, depositions, written interrogatories, etc., including your email, social networking, phone records, even text messages. Anything not protected by attorney client privilege and relevant to my defense - i.e. looking through your texts, emails, bank records, facebook, to determine if you were really in such a condition that you could not work and thus were entitled to damages.

        So you will need to opt out of more than just facebook, and do more than avoid the corporate sector.   That's all I am saying.

        •  The suit and the counter suit (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Vega

          would be the equivalent of Probable cause. It shows that there is a direct, need to review this information in order to prove one way or the other, that the plaintiff or the defendant is in the right. Damages and Awards, dispensed as per the findings.

          What employers are asking for is basically a Fishing Expedition.

          If they are looking for specific items, we are not at liberty to know. Or it may be like Porn--they will know it when they see it.

          Either way, there is no call, no pressing reason for such a search. Only the notion that you might have done something that runs counter to the personal policies of some higher up somewhere, to be determined upon the search.

          •  I understand (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Chaoslillith, VClib

            However,

            Employers are not required to meet any such standard, particularly in a situation where you aren't yet an employee.  They're not required to hire you, so they can put all kinds of conditions on your hiring.

            I am generally a very pro-worker person and think worker protections are not stringent enough. That said, I have seen in my relatively brief career reasons why employers want to do a thorough background check on employees, either current or potential.

            Case in point, at a non-profit organization I worked for, where I focused on labor/employment law, two male employees were sending around to coworkers (on private email accounts, I believe) very degrading emails about their female supervisor, including pornographic images with captions about their boss.  A coworker who received an email brought it to the attention of HR, and we handled it. But still, this stuff was done on private email.  Should this just have been permitted?

            Also - I think of the example of my wife, who is involved in public relations for another non-profit.  She deals directly with the media on a regular basis, and part of her job is developing contacts.  So, as a result, as virtually all of these people are on social networking sites, she is friends with them on facebook, twitter, etc.  At the very least, her profile has to make clear that she is not expressing the point of view of her organization, but on top of that, she has to be relatively careful (it's really not much of an issue, but still) about what she posts, because even in her private life, she "represents the organization."

            I get people's points about what we do when we're off the clock being our business, but many of us don't have a job where we really clock in or clock out.  I have a work blackberry (separate from my personal phone) and will sometimes get a work-related email at 11pm while I'm at the bar.  It's part of my job. So the clear line between work and non-work is blurred.

          •  One more point (0+ / 0-)

            In a suit, the discovery standard isn't probable cause - that's a criminal standard for a search warrant.  Here, it's just a very low relevance standard - meaning is there a possibility that it will lead to probative evidence.

            Trust me, all large-scale litigation (particularly between companies, where there is an absolute ton of documents, emails, etc.) involves a fishing expedition at some level, with the other side fighting back by making silly objections or burying the first party in so many documents they don't know what to do with themselves.  Not sure if you can tell, but I find much of the legal system very silly and more about gamesmanship (particularly on the civil side - the problems of the criminal side have more to do with discrimination, access to justice, and other serious issues) than who is actually right or wrong.

            •  Funny I feel the same way about employment (0+ / 0-)

              the problems of the criminal side have more to do with discrimination, access to justice, and other serious issues) than who is actually right or wrong.

              Because we just don't know what they are looking for.

              Mission Creep.

              And whose Mission? Determined by which creep?

    •  not quite the same (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greengemini
      First off, when I was in law school, I took a seminar regarding privacy rights related to employment - and it looks like the law is, and virtually always has been, that you have virtually no right to privacy with regard to your employer, with the exception of health information protected by HIPAA and arrests not leading to conviction, which is a separate carve-out.  If you access your personal email on a work computer, boom, they can access it.  One case, I believe, even permitted an employer to secretly put a tracking device on a company car that an employee was expressly permitted to use for personal business when off-duty.
      This diary isn't about things they gain access to from your use at work during or even after work hours. It is about them gaining access to information that you intentionally limit to a certain subset of people (without obtaining the information from a member of that subset, which I think is sleazy but perhaps acceptable).

      This isn't the equivalent of listening in on work calls or watching you in public at a bar. This is the equivalent of listening in on your personal calls at home and observing small gatherings in your home without your consent (until after the fact when you are under the gun) or the consent of anyone present!

       

      As an attorney, I know that in, for example, a personal injury case, it is standard to subpoena plaintiff's social networking accounts, ostensibly for the purpose of checking the veracity of their claims/injuries.
      This could be reasonable if done with some sort of checks and balances. Presumably only information pertaining to the case in question would be used and for only one specific purpose. That is quite different than a prospective employer gaining the information to use in a hiring decision.
      Also, in the employment context, a lot of businesses operate under the assumption that what you do in your personal life is, ostensibly, a representation of yourself, and thus your employer, so they have an interest in what you post, etc. And the courts will likely uphold this, as your constitutional rights are only protected as against the government, not a private-sector employer, much as I wish it weren't this way.  The court's answer is "oh well, go find another job," or "look someplace else for a loan."
      I would desire a world in which employers have no control over what you do outside of work. But, barring that this seems to be mainly about things posted on a public forum or blog especially using ones real identity. That is quite different from things sent to trusted friends and family on a facebook account.
  •  It's so 1984 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MrJersey, mkor7, blueoasis

    In a very 21st Century kind of way.

  •  Hide yourself from the world (5+ / 0-)

    Live in a constant state of paranoia, make sure you don't cross any lines, don't let any photos get out. Employers will only hire you if you look like a paragon of virtue on paper - if you're not good enough at keeping up this charade for the rest of your life, then expect to be fired and unemployed.

    We can chart our future clearly and wisely only when we know the path which has led to the present.

    by progdog on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 09:51:38 AM PST

  •  A few years ago, I came out of retirement and (5+ / 0-)

    filled in for a professor who'd had to resign because of illness.  One of my tasks was to help 'train' his permanent replacement.  My understanding is that she was fired after a couple of semesters because of things the school became aware of, things easily visible on a social website.

    So the practice is not new. :-(

  •  As there are professional resume writers, soon (11+ / 0-)

    there will be professional social network account administrators.  They will keep your friends at the right number, no less than 1600 for an executive position.  They will keep your postings at the correct number and content to get you hired.

    Job creation.

    A long time ago I saw a skype screen.  You stick your head in the cutout.  The screen shows a well dressed, hair combed person at their desk.

    . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

    by 88kathy on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 09:53:08 AM PST

  •  What's next , demanding your browser history? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, Vega, kyril

    If this practice continues unchecked and remains legal, there probably is nothing that a prospective employer can't ask you, including access to your computer's history.

  •  I would like to see every interview recorded. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Samer, kyril, NoMoreLies

    That way when I work with a real dip shit, I could call up the interview and fire the idiot who hired them.  /s

    Its a joke.  Kind of.  

    . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

    by 88kathy on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 09:55:34 AM PST

  •  Been going on a while (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ozsea1, kyril

    It's why I tell my teenage boys to be very careful online as they may run into trouble in their '20's.

    Hard to prove discrimination but a few lawsuits will eventually come out of this practice and the labor dept. will be forced to reckon the issue.

    Wisconsin, reclaiming its State motto: Forward!

    by One bite at a time on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:00:06 AM PST

  •  Always set up your online presence with a (7+ / 0-)

    alias. Pick the name you always wanted to have. And use that.

    I haven't used my real name online since 2001. Most people know me as my alias, even offline in real life. People learn my legal name on a need-to-know basis. Amd theres zero stuff attached to that name online. It helps that I'm in entertainment industry so it was natural for me to use a name other than my legal name. But as it turns out, I'm glad I did.

    Never too late to start.

    I need your help for the NN booth for People-Powered Public Television (ppptv.org). Please help me out with your vote! CLICK HERE

    by mdmslle on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:03:04 AM PST

  •  Use a simple question in response to their (7+ / 0-)

    request:

    Is (name of person who will have access) bonded & insured? I need a copy of his/her bond for security reasons.

    or...

    I need the names of everyone who will have access to my personal info along with their ss#s in order to do a backround check for security reasons. After all, there's so much Identity theft going on these days, I'd be foolish to give out any personal info, wouldn't I?  

    Nature created the human race, but humans created racism.

    by GrannyOPhilly on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:11:14 AM PST

  •  Sigh... that could've actually helped some... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, ozsea1

    with that hit piece Sports Illustrated published a few days ago about our basketball program.

    Instead, we had legions of fans on the sports message boards for UCLA freak out over a player's tweets, thinking he meant all sorts of nefarious stuff, until someone pointed out he was simply quoting a lyrics from a Kanye West song.  (rolls eyes)

    But no, this resulted in a freakout on the board every couple days, which resulted in negative speculation that the player wanted to transfer out of UCLA, which was totally not true.  Unfortunately, it became enough of a distraction that the player eventually had to issue a statement clarifying what his tweet meant, because so many middle-aged white guys who don't listen to rap music were freaking out and making phone calls to the athletic department and calling for our coach's firing, using the tweet as yet another example of a program "out of control".

    Sheesh.


    But here was a case where someone's tweets DID end up mattering in a big way, and caused a distraction to himself and his teammates and coaches.

  •  what cracks me up (6+ / 0-)

    is how so many on the right are so damned worried about the 2nd amendment, and they've been led to believe that the government is going to take their guns.  All the while, we see more and more of our other rights taken away all with little or no resistance.

    Russ Feingold warned us when they first pushed through the Patriot Act, and he was totally right.  And the bullshit answer of "you better just get used to it", is what they've been led to think.  But tell them that they're coming for their guns, and you'd see a totally different attitude.

    Here's what I find so damn ridiculous about people fighting for the 2nd amendment and letting the rest just be ignored.  First off, if you don't have a right to privacy, and you no longer have the right to assemble (yes, they are working on that one too), then what good are the guns?  I mean think about it.  Originally is was to allow for a well regulated militia.  Well guess what?  If you can't assemble, and you can no longer meet in private, then how the hell are you going to form a militia?  And seriously, do people really think that in this day and age, with jets, tanks, and drones, that we could possibly overthrow our military?  

    Wake up!!!

  •  and I will continue (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, eXtina

    to refuse to sign up for Facebook or Google and I'm not looking for a job.  What did people think would happen when they started "letting it all hang out" on the world wide web?

    My social security, medicare and military retirement are EARNED benefits. The checks Paris Hilton and the Waltons receive while sitting around the pool are entitlements. Don't let the Republicans confuse you.

    by regis on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:17:44 AM PST

  •  Keep a decoy if necessary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miggles, eXtina

    Put just enough stuff on it to look real.

    Update it every now and then.

    The Fail will continue until actual torches and pitchforks are set in motion. - Pangolin@kunstler.com

    by No one gets out alive on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:19:06 AM PST

  •  It's been clear for a while (5+ / 0-)

    that the advances in online and communications technology would lead to this.   Privacy freaks  were immediately skeptical of my space, facebook and other time wasters.   Unfortunately, to access the coolness and conveniences of smartphones,  you pay through the nose to get one along with the data to run it and simultaneously compromise your privacy.  No thanks.  As long as possible I will have a phone that is only a phone and a computer free of social networking.  Not sure how long I can hold out once smart phones are dirt cheap- just plain phones will probably go extinct.  I know the bastards really want to get into my accounts.

  •  My daughter learned the hard way about (5+ / 0-)

    privacy on the internet.  In the era of MySpace and the beginings of Facebook, my daughter had a MySpace and Facebook account while going to college.  I had warned her many times that other people could see what was on her pages and told her to make sure she put out only what she would like the world to see.  Luckily she listened to me.  She went to an Improv Club and while waiting outside to get in they asked some people for their names.  She gave them her name and while watching the show all of a sudden she saw herself on a screen, her pictures, her background, her school, her hobbies, her current relationship status and much, much more.  She was shocked, stunned, by the amount of information that was available about her on the internet and her social media accounts.  The very next day she took down her MySpace account and everything else is now protected under password, what she did learn however is that what you don't want other people to know you do not put on the internet.  

    The first thing lost in war is truth.

    by KatHart on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:21:58 AM PST

  •  You'd think the Paulbots would be all over this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Harm

    Where's Rand Paul on this issue?

    Like his other teabaggin' brethren, he's too busy peeking and poking inside the little women's bodies to bother peeking and poking inside the corporate masters' voyeuristic domination inclinations.  


    One may live without bread, but not without roses.
    ~Jean Richepin
    Bread & Roses

    by bronte17 on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:23:04 AM PST

  •  It should be illegal for them to ask (7+ / 0-)

    for Facebook page access. It's illegal for them to ask if a woman is pregnant or planning to be, and that same information could be on her Facebook page.

    What's next? Demands like, "We want copies of every letter and email you've ever written"? Because that's the function Facebook serves for many people.

    No one should ever give into that demand.  But, if these organizations can get enough people to give in, they can simply tell courts, it's accepted practice.

  •  The Return Of "Henry Ford's We own you 24/7" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, Broke And Unemployed

    Work-place Rule and if "we" don't like what you say&do  24/7/365+Leap-year you're fired.

  •  Where are the links? (0+ / 0-)

    I see quotes in the diary, but no links.

  •  Dear potential employer or educator, (6+ / 0-)

    To give you access to my account on these sites would be a violation of that site's terms of service. I am effectively prevented from doing so by contractual obligation.

    You wouldn't want a student/employee who ignored contractual obligations, would you?

    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

    by Robobagpiper on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 10:49:56 AM PST

  •  Questions employers cannot ask: (10+ / 0-)
    Federal and state laws prohibit prospective employers from asking certain questions that are not related to the job they are hiring for. Questions should be job-related and not used to find out personal information.

    In a nutshell, employers should not be asking about your race, gender, religion, marital status, age, disabilities, ethnic background, country of origin, sexual preferences or age.

    But, of course, most of that information is available (directly or implied) through content posted on Facebook pages.

    Employers who demand access are using Facebook as an end run around employment laws.

    Just say "No."

  •  figures (0+ / 0-)

    good thing i don't have one.

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 11:06:03 AM PST

  •  Don't facebook under your name... (6+ / 0-)

    Don't tweet under your name, don't blog under your name  and NEVER do either on any work computer who likely have keystroke logging programming - even laptops and such you can bring home.  

    However there is usually a trap set first where they make you think that social networking "experience" would be a plus for the job you're applying for so you give up that you have a blog with 10,000 readers or twitter account followed by thousands etc and then they turn around and demand passwords etc.  

    Employers feel they can demand this because of the current job market - if you're unwilling to give up the information the next person in line will not be.  

    •  rAmen (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ozsea1, IreGyre, raincrow
      Employers feel they can demand this because of the current job market - if you're unwilling to give up the information the next person in line will not be.  

      Occupy- Your Mind. - No better friend, no worse enemy. -8.75, -6.21 Bring the Troops Home Yesterday

      by Thousandwatts on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 11:29:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I guess I shall remember that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raincrow

        When I go shopping.

        •  The unemployment situation makes it more than an (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Broke And Unemployed

          "employers'" market; it makes desperate people who have families to feed willing to submit to all sorts of delightful intrusions and humiliations to get work.
          The bar is always being lowered since there is always someone a little hungrier willing to do what one's "principles" wouldn't allow one to do.
          Being completely, desperately, broke certainly rounds off the edges of one's principles rather soundly, to say the least.

          Occupy- Your Mind. - No better friend, no worse enemy. -8.75, -6.21 Bring the Troops Home Yesterday

          by Thousandwatts on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 03:45:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  It's quite rare to have a job where this stuff is (0+ / 0-)

      a requirement. If it's the case, you usually set up a separate account that you only use for business-related stuff.

  •  i agree with everything in your diary but this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    keirdubois, sockpuppet

    statement:

    The enablers say, "Don't put anything online you don't want broadcast!" which is the short skirt defense for privacy invaders everywhere.
    [bolding mine]

    for those of us who use that phrase, WE use it because we learned a very long time ago that anything you say may very well come back to haunt you.

    the only sure way to make sure things you don't want public is not to say or write them in a public venue - even if that venue is supposedly password protected.

    using a computer at work can open up an employee to being "watched" remotely via another computer owned by the company.

    the real meaning of the phrase you quote is that people should be aware that if someone digs hard enough, what you say and do is likely to be made available and/or public.

    your choice of calling those of us who learned this at a very early age "enablers" is downright offensive.

    but, learn at your own peril...the hard way!

    •  So you are for a life sentence (0+ / 0-)

      for words that someone out there can disagree with, find to be in poor taste etc.,

      Usually we reserve those sentences for murderers.

      Draconian--It's the new black!

      •  duh... huh? i really don't understand (0+ / 0-)

        what you are attempting to say here.

        you have totally missed my point, btw.

        MY point is that if you are going to open your mouth and say something, be ACCOUNTABLE for those words!  don't assume that anything that you utter (or write) is private, because it isn't.

        •  Being accountable is important (0+ / 0-)

          But you have not determined a time limit.

          What words are harmful? The ones you don't like or the words that actually involve hate speech?

          Should I get a life sentence for saying something YOU personally don't like?

          Should I be unhireable for ever because of that?

          And when it's your turn, will you change your mind?

  •  I hope the vet doesn't want access (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow

    'Cause my cats are on Facebook, but I'm not!

    America is a COUNTRY, not a CORPORATION. She doesn't need a CEO. Vote Obama.

    by manneckdesign on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 11:15:03 AM PST

  •  Simply tell them you don't have a FB account (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, sockpuppet

    I don't use my real name for my FB account. My friends and family know it's me, which is all that matters. No one else needs to be snooping around in my business.

    So, if you have these social media accounts, delete them. Then rejoin using an online handle and just tell these schmucks you don't have an account, so sorry.

    "What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler

    by bhlogger on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 11:25:24 AM PST

  •  So why is DKOS wrapped up with FB and Twittter? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ozsea1

    If these things are part of the problem....

    knuckle-dragging Neanderthals

    by Deadicated Marxist on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 11:47:18 AM PST

  •  Today's teens are two steps ahead already (8+ / 0-)

    Long before the potential employers demanded facebook passwords, concerned parents did. And the teens reacted the way teens would. They created SFM (Safe for Mom) profiles and handles and accounts.

    So these smart kids would tell Kooch or Danny boy, "you are welcome to trawl through my facebook page all you want".

  •  Ideas (4+ / 0-)

    Some ideas to protect yourself:

    1. Only use LinkedIn for professional things, and don't add anyone to your network there that you don't personally know

    2. Stay off FaceBook.  If you do use Facebook, use a nom de plume.

    3. Use startpage instead of Google or Bing https://startpage.com/

    4. There are virtual spaces/networks that encourage privacy such as Second Life.  In fact it is against their TOS to reveal private info to outside parties (we need more of this!).  http://wiki.secondlife.com/...

    5. Use Firefox and clear cookies after every session.

    6. If a potential employer asks for your page, show them your LinkedIn public page.  Anything else is off limits.

  •  My boss admitted (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vega, Broke And Unemployed

    he looked up my profile online before hiring me. Eh, WYSIWYG. I'm not going to lie or be someone I'm not because my boss is a nosy fuck. On the other hand, if bosses are demanding access to your information - information that is not readily available - I imagine The Hunger Games will not be far behind.

    Strange but not a stranger.

    by jnww on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 12:24:39 PM PST

  •  This is no different from asking your religion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreenMother

    since you can put your religious preference on your facebook page.

    Every bit as illegal.

  •  Two Words: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sockpuppet

    Self Employment.

    Been at it since back when America was still free, just couldn't let  the Corporate morass infect my soul.

    NO matter how tough things get scratching out business,  I am so glad not to have to submit to the Pee Cup Of Degradation that passes for Employment nowadays

  •  Where would this all end? - Phones? PCs? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sockpuppet

    The original diary talks about potential employers asking job applicants to show them private sections of their Facebook account.  How is that different than asking job applicants to give up their smart phone for inspection of sites visited, apps downloaded and calls and texts made and received?  Would the applicant next need to go to their home and give the interviewer access to their PC or tablet to see what is on there?  Should they next request the cable bill to see what PPV shows were accessed?  

    The applicant could always decline, if they don't want the job.  And the employer has a perfect right to ask for whatever they want to reduce any chance of future problems.  You'll never know why you didn't get the job.  Maybe they found out on your phone that you go to synagogue and not a church.  It doesn't matter if it was a legal reason or not - the end result is the same.  

    I would have said something about the potential employer asking for credit records and health records, but of course they already check those.  (Don't get treated for an STD under your real name - for that matter, don't use health care at all (especially for expensive things like cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.) if you ever might need another job.)    

    Wait until employers realize they can start checking your relatives (hmmm - a brother has a gambling problem, and look what that sister posted on FB) and your ancestors (hmmm - two ancestors had colon cancer).  Actually, they probably already do check relatives.

    "Truth and love must prevail over lies and hate." Václav Havel

    by Vega on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 01:36:03 PM PST

  •  Facebook and me (2+ / 0-)

    I don't use social media like facebook because of a stalker ex-husband. I also google myself frequently to make sure I'm not turning up on anyone else's sites, and legal or not I don't use real information online, even to sign up for email accounts and such. My life and my families lives come first, and if any entity wanted to take me to court for falsifying that, I'll gladly explain my reasons to a judge and take my chances. There's only a handful of people I don't know in real life who know my real name, and those are friendships I've developed over years.
    If an employer wanted to discriminate against me because I don't partake in social media and thus can't show them any I'd likely take them to court. My personal life isn't any of their business, and my protection of my privacy is my right.

    "Madness! Total and complete madness! This never would've happened if the humans hadn't started fighting one another!" Londo Mollari

    by FloridaSNMOM on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 01:41:15 PM PST

  •  First they have to find me (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreenMother, sockpuppet

    All of my email addresses and social media pages are aliases. I use different email addresses for different business functions, political functions, personal communications, etc. I've had an FBI dossier since 1976 and have always assumed I was completely see-through to the spooks, but why make it easy for my employer? It's none of their fucking business. Let them prove that I have a FB page.

    This needs to go to court IMMEDIATELY and/or states and Congress should step in. Employers aren't entitled to read my mail and see which books I check out of the library, ergo they certainly are not entitled to what's behind my online website firewalls. It's long past time to draw some very specific lines in the sand.

  •  This is insane (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreenMother

    Back in the day did companies ask to see every single letter you'd ever sent, every phone call you'd ever made?

    No!

    And it should be the same way today - your Facebook stuff is PRIVATE for a REASON.

    16 years old, proud progressive, Phillies phan.

    by vidanto on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 01:55:48 PM PST

  •  wait, what? home private accounts vs work (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow

    i can understand wanting full access to any and all work email accounts and any Fb and tweet accounts set up to handle work

    BUT private personal accounts?

    seriously?

    and anyone who uses their private email accounts and Fb etc accounts for business stuff is being stupid to begin with

  •  It's bad enough for students (0+ / 0-)

    Colleges, of course, look at your social media to see if you've said anything unbecoming of a student in their university.

    But they don't go through every single little private thing you've EVER DONE (again - in private) like these guys are doing now.

    Whatever happened to privacy? And don't give me any BS like "oh you gave it up when you signed up."

    16 years old, proud progressive, Phillies phan.

    by vidanto on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 01:57:06 PM PST

  •  I'm an employer located in... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    icebergslim

    MD and PA and believe me I don't need your password to find out all I need to know about you online. My advice to anyone looking for a job is the same as I give my 24 year old twin boys. Don't put anything on FB or anywhere online that you don't want a current or prospective employer to see.

  •  Have two Facebook pages (0+ / 0-)

    One for your private life and one for people snooping on you.

    We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

    by denise b on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 02:05:28 PM PST

  •  That violates the Terms of Service at many (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina

    web based sites/services.  You're explicitly told not to share your passwords with anyone...

    •  one example did not involve sharing passwords (0+ / 0-)

      from the diary:

      "In Maryland, job seekers applying to the state's Department of Corrections have been asked during interviews to log into their accounts and let an interviewer watch while the potential employee clicks through wall posts, friends, photos and anything else that might be found behind the privacy wall."
  •  Now I feel even better about ignoring Facebook (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans take care of big money, for big money takes care of them ~ Will Rogers

    by Lefty Coaster on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 02:45:33 PM PST

  •  This is not new. It is already happening. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sockpuppet

    Be forewarned, potential employers already are scouring through individual's personal social network accounts.  And for anyone in law enforcement it is becoming mandatory and here is why.

    My husband is an IT Audit Manager, he is a computer "columbo" and testifies for various companies.  One of his trials the case was a slam dunk, but one of the arresting poilce officers who had a high profile part in this case also had a facebook account.  In this facebook account he wrote disparaging racist, sexist remarks and applauded the behavior of the character that Denzel Washington played in "Training Day".  Well the defense got into his facebook account (and this can easily be done without subpoena) and while on the stand had him contradict everything he wrote and felt on his facebook account, only to throw it back in his face.

    Thus, this case was lost.  Thus, this officer fired.

    Social Networks, including Daily Kos, are not difficult to crack to find identity of individuals.  Social Media is a blessing and a curse, ask rush limbaugh, patricia heaton right now.  Be careful of what you put out there, especially for potential employers.

    Is this right?  No.  But that is how it is going.

    And my husband uses this media at a very bare minimum.  Does not twitter, facebook is for family and folks he KNOWS only, no pictures/videos, etc.  Uses encrypted email only.

    •  Rush Limbaugh's case is not indicative of this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sockpuppet

      Issue.

      He purposefully says the most hateful shit he can think of about people in a manner to inflame them and then broadcasts this over the airwaves with the intent of reaching the most people he can.

      He might be on the fringe, but he is still on the edges of the forth estate and has been for a long time. Before there was even regular internet access.

      Many people who use blogs or facebook or even the KOS are looking to connect with people they know or to connect with a like minded community for discussion.

      So their goals aren't nearly so lofty.

      Rush wants to be famous.

      Me writing here right now--I just want to connect with some people. I have no desire for fame, only for community.

      And if you have privacy settings on on FB--then you you have shown that your intent was to limit those you reach even more so.

      Rush doesn't broadcast to only Republicans. He is reaching consciously for bigger and bigger audiences. People online may not have that in mind at all, even though the medium blurs that a bit with it's reach.

      There is a difference.

  •  Which is why I don't have them! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sockpuppet

    online accounts, (or employers for that matter).

    Years ago I was a 'consultant' on site and was requested to give my SS# BY FAX to the client for an ID card and was instantly branded a troublemaker when I refused. I did not last.

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 03:16:04 PM PST

  •  Privacy settings on FB: (0+ / 0-)

    Defnintely set them to "Friends only". I received a lot of harassment from a few guys when I worked at a loading dock, because a friend who is gay moved in with us. It turns out these guys were always combing my Facebook page because it was public, along with my girlfriend's  and my friends' pages looking for dirt.

    They tried so hard to make me quit and made my life miserable at work because I was one of those damn lib'ruls.  But I stuck it out for another year until I found my current job as a math tutor. Moral of the story: Privacy settings matter.

    This is a little off-topic, but privacy settings were mentioned in another thread in this diary, so this is my $.02

    "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

    by Broke And Unemployed on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 04:14:11 PM PST

  •  Oh, it's astonishing, what they'll (0+ / 0-)

    try to get away with, when they think they can. When they're given permission by the system to be abusive, they will be. They'll snoop. They'll grope. And more.

    Something Barbara Ehrenreich warned about, I think it was in  her book "Bait and Switched"--about vanishing professional employment and what that means for our economy--was job qualifications becoming amorphous: "You have to fit in around here," instead of, "You have to be able to do x, y, and z."

    So, if I don't "fit in around here," it means...? I'm too, oh, brown? Old? Fat? LBGT? Whatever.

    Thanks for the diary.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 04:24:04 PM PST

    •  Not a good fit = thinks for self (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      karmsy

      Sure there is something to be said about trying to get along and making an effort.

      But that should never be premised on the notion that the sign of that attempt must be proven by selling your private life to the highest bidder.

  •  Corporations have rights the rest of us don't have (0+ / 0-)
    it is a necessity to allow us to participate in online discourse, in places such as the DK, without being run out on a rail or fired, because our boss doesn't agree with our politics, our religion, our sexual orientation, or any other number of characteristics or lifestyle choices that should have NO Bearing on our qualifications for a fucking job.
    That's the point. Corporations don't want us to participate in online discourse they don't approve of.

    The Federal and state governments are supposed to be guarantors of our rights. Not the rights of anyone who can afford to buy a major party politician.

    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." John F. Kennedy

    The powers that be are doing their best to make peaceful revolution that might reduce what they can consume out of the public trough impossible. Was JFK right about the second part with respect to America?

    I don't know, but if I were one of the 0.0001% (US billionaires), I'd be liquidating non-portable assets and househunting overseas. The most common cause of death for the wealthy during the fall of an empire is not knowing when to bug out.

    Peak Oil is NOW! Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

    by alizard on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 04:50:49 PM PST

  •  The passcodes carry liability, right? (0+ / 0-)

    If a company gets your passcodes don't they then become an accomplice to anything on your page and thus if crap shows up they are just as likely to have put it there as the employee?

    These swords are double edged.

    I do understand the need to keep employees off the social bullshit when they should be working. But then a lot of companies market themselves via the same social media.

    I would never want an employees login data as I would want to keep myself isolated from the potential stink. If it stinks so bad I get a whiff then I could see a third party being used under strict protections to examine whatever was under the login, but damned if I want the keys myself.

  •  I understand the diarist's feelings (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slothlax

    HOWEVER, do this test:

    Would you post your credit card number or your social security number on your FB or Google+ account? Let's say you went through all the settings and no one is allowed to view either one of your accounts on there. Would you post your most sensitive financial information on them? Why not?

    THEN WHY IN GOD'S NAME WOULD YOU EXPECT YOUR INNERMOST RANT OR DIARY TO BE PRIVATE???

    I've been online since before the internet (bbs's) and I am still totally fucking amazed about what people put online and expect to be private.

    Yes, we SHOULD fight this shit. But you are being blind and silly and stupid if you put stuff up on online accounts and expect employers and other interested parties to not want to get at it. And they want to get at it for (to them) good reason: they want to protect their reputations. If you are a blabby mouth and speak ill of all past employers then they want to know that so that they can refrain from hiring you. Can't fault them there. I'm not faulting the diary either but there has to be some common sense somewhere...a single FB hoax could put a small business out of business and a single bad hair day (ranted up) could keep you out of law school. This is totally new law and should be treated as such. We need to find our way carefully.

    Meanwhile...don't be stupid. Only very rarely are employers after people with different political views. What they really want to know is that you won't badmouth them.

    •  They have every right to do their own research (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slothlax

      legally and if they find stuff about you that troubles them, not much you can do about that unless it violates fair employment laws (and you can prove it). But they do not have a right to your account info, you don't have to provide it, and  not provide it shouldn't be lawful grounds for not being hired (with the exception of jobs that clearly warrant it, e.g. NSA, security firms, etc.).

      The moral is that if you post stuff online that you don't want associated with you, use a really good UID and password and don't give it to anyone. And if you expect to apply for the sorts of jobs where being asked for such info is legit, don't post anything online that you don't want associated with you OR use a really good UID and password and lie to your prospective employers and be prepared to deal with the consequences if you're found out.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 06:40:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's a shame that you support this unfortunate (0+ / 0-)

      Paradigm.

      Why should anyone care about a rant or a diary? Really?

      Think about all the good that has come from people talking about the FORBIDDEN SUBJECTS online.

      People have found community and support where before there was none, for very very serious issues.

      Right now Flush is facing a backlash of Women and Men against his attack on Ms Fluke.

      20 years ago, that would not have happened, because the slowness of snail mail and the expense of long distance phone lines would have been prohibitive.

      So only the people who heard him directly on the show, and only those who talked to someone who heard him directly might get whiff. Maybe a week later a story in some obscure paper but by then it would be over.

      But now it is instant and there is replay. But thing is, Employers want to use those qualities to silence public discourse that harms their bottom line.

      Fracking protesters, OWs, Boycotters, people who file complaints about quality of products or services online. The excuse is to control their image by watching the speech of employees.

      That's excuse. But the intent is to imply forever after, the threat for all workers everywhere to watch their mouth.

      Better act like a church lady.

      Regardless of your beliefs or lifestyle.

      Don't let us catch you at it, or you are going down.

      This is the kind BS inflicted on Public School Teachers as a "Morality Clause". I have objected to those for years and this is nothing different.

      Companies have no right to anticipate wrong doing, nor to treat you as a Pre-Criminal. They have no right to check private settings and should have no right to search beyond Arrest Records, References and Past Jobs on your resume. Period.

      People, esp Adults are entitled to a real life. Their creativity should not be squelched. And it is dangerous to do that, which we will learn one day, when this well and truly gets out of hand.

      The Plutocracy is going to create a mass social pressure cooker.

      I think what shocks me are the number of people who not only go along with it, but are chomping at the bit to enforce it.

      Why? Why would anyone want to do that? How is this going to help civilized society? What will this do other than breed resentment and hatred and force it to come out in ways that no one wants to see?

      This is nothing but corporate humiliation. A petty attack on regular people who have done nothing to deserve this attack on their dignity nor their freedoms.  This is just a show of force, not only to see if they can get away with it, but to see if you will let them.

      People here have been quick to say, that anyone who shares something sensitive online must be stupid. Maybe. Now define sensitive, and define stupid concretely. I want to see how people agree with that and then lets see where the holes are.

      Because there will be holes.

      It is as if people have forgotten just how important debates, and arguments, and story telling are not only from an individual psychological viewpoint, but culturally as well.

      It's sad and maddening simultaneously.

      Corporations have said, We are going to suck all the color out of life and society as a control measure, and a significant number of people seem to be for that without considering the long term ramifications.

      It's not just the content of speech that is important. It's the freedom to make it that is important.

      It's the freedom to exchange ideas.

      To me, this is a book ban in your head. Only it's thoughts not books.

  •  Sure, not problem, here's my account info... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slothlax

    On one condition, though: give me your account info, too. After all, I need to make sure that you're someone I want to work for and with. Fair, no? No, you're not willing to give that to me? Then I'm afraid that I can't give you mine. I won't get the job if I don't? Ok, no problem, and I'm sure you won't mind if I report this to my state's and the federal depts of labor, attorney general's office, the ACLU, my friends, and every blog I belong to, ok?

    First they come for your pee...

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 06:33:52 PM PST

  •  shrug (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    earicicle, slothlax

    There is no privacy when posting on the tubes, period.
    And that's not a secret.
    And anyone who thinks that you can put your whole life out there, all your views, your your whole diary that used to be under your bed? On paper that only you could see?
    And it's protected and safe and only gets to be seen by who you want  it to see?
    LOL.
    That's all I got -  just wow.
    And if privacy is important to you?
    Don't post on the free nets.
    Nothing is free. Ever.

    Sheeeesh. Like this is so shocking.

    You are not an Environmentalist if you support the brutal, cruel, inhuman life and slaughter of animals in Factory Farms which produce 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.

    by Christin on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 06:38:41 PM PST

    •  Hey, stranger! (0+ / 0-)

      I've missed you!

      Hope you're doing well. I'm finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, I think. It's been fun focusing my energy these past few days on taking Rush down. Wheeeeeee!

      How are you? Sending you all my love...

      {{{{{{{{{{{Christin}}}}}}}}}}}
      xoxo,
      ear

      Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.

      by earicicle on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 07:07:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  But it could be free (0+ / 0-)

      The question is, why are you against that freedom?

      What makes this other paradigm so attractive?

  •  I have been worried about my step (0+ / 0-)

    daughter she got straight a's in high school and college, editor of school paper, and has sales job at dental company while sending resumes out for a better job.

    But the things she says on her FB account, a big company would not hire her.

    Like on a bad day at work, she will write I hate working. My life is only happy when I am at home...

    She talks about how she loves to drink, etc.

    She's a good kid but doesn't hold back on a stressful day.

    I don't think kids today have learned to keep anything private.

    •  They're kids, (0+ / 0-)

      that's we have laws to protect them that don't apply to adults. I really think that these things should not last forever, especially for younger people. They're still trying to find their way with what the believe and they should be allowed the space to change and grow.

  •  I've said this before (0+ / 0-)

    and I'll say it again.

    I won't work for any company that demands access to any non-work related website. There's nothing there that would cause them not to hire me or that I wouldn't want them to know. It's just the principle of the thing.

    I've yet to be asked but I already have a response: "With all due respect, I will not provide this information to you. If that removes me from consideration for this position, I see no further reason for me to be here. Good day."

    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix -6.0 -5.33

    by Cali Techie on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 09:45:22 PM PST

  •  Going out for a job interview? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slothlax

    Delete your Facebook account (this takes 2 minutes and is easily reversible). When asked for your Facebook info, truthfully answer: "I don't have a Facebook." Once you know the result of the application, restore your account.

    Problem solved.

  •  I understand where they are coming from (0+ / 0-)

    The quote about student athletes made some sense. People often post their employers and schools on these sites. Athletes are (and should be) especially proud of their status and tend to advertise it all they can. Sure there are "privacy" settings, but I can only imagine how many "friends" come and go from a college student's Facebook, not to mention, say, the quarterback on the football team. And athletic departments are under pressure to "control" their athletes. Just look at the Syracuse basketball program. A handful of positive recreational drug results, from over the last ten years, and now they are all over ESPN. I can understand why a place like the University of North Carolina wants to monitor what their athletes are putting out on social media.

    I absolutely don't think showing your Facebook page in a job interview is appropriate at all. Like I mentioned, though, people put where they work in prominent positions on their page. I understand the desire of employers to protect their businesses' or organizations' reputations.  And any sort of background check today would be justification. I'm sure as this evolves there will be lawsuits and legislation that alters the landscape. But until those ground rules are established, I not only expect (certain) employers to monitor their employees' social media accounts, I would too

    "What we really expect out of the Democrats is for them to treat us as they would liked to have been treated." --John Boehner

    by slothlax on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 02:46:31 AM PST

  •  A Facebook type of website (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Oh Mary Oh

    that has privacy will put facebook out of business.

  •  I've said it before and I will say it again. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    animal mother

    As someone who has been finding people jobs for the past ten years, this practice is as uncommon as you winning the Powerball.

    This is much ado about three incidents.

    Support Girls High School Basketball. Those girls work hard, reward them by showing up.

    by mim5677 on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 04:37:15 AM PST

    •  Thank you. (0+ / 0-)

      And the whole "don't use facebook" knee-jerk is so over the top. The detractors just end up sounding like Luddites. Don't use social networking if it's not your thing, but advocating against this new medium of communication is just backwards and ill-informed.

    •  That would be very cool if you are right (0+ / 0-)

      And I hope you are.

      •  I promise you, I am. (0+ / 0-)

        I've been filling out applications for the past ten years and talking to people about interviews and not once has anyone ever been asked to hand over a Facebook account.  Not once.

        This is uneeded panic.

        Support Girls High School Basketball. Those girls work hard, reward them by showing up.

        by mim5677 on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 08:21:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I will praise your name forever (0+ / 0-)

          If you turn out to be right.

          Seriously, because this does scare the crap out of me.

          I worked for a long time dealing with discrimination, and harassment issues.  I have seen the dark underbelly of American Culture with regard to those issues.

          The thought that someone could bypass 40 years of civil rights works and taking us back to the bad old days is just scary beyond belief.

          •  It is a bit scary (0+ / 0-)

            but if you think about it, no company wants to monitor a persons facebook account.  The likelihood that they could scan someone's profile for 5 minutes and find anything of value is pretty slim and once any amount of effort is put in to figuring out the degree of success a company would have in weeding people out they will discover it is pretty useless.  

            Support Girls High School Basketball. Those girls work hard, reward them by showing up.

            by mim5677 on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 11:20:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  If I had a kid in high school... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Oh Mary Oh

    I would have them create two facebook pages.

    The fun one with the name that isn't their real name.  

    Then the decoy one.  The one with their real name with only very limited and safe information, knowing 10 years from now it might pay off.

    I don't think you can say to a 16 year old, don't use facebook.    But you can try to explain the dark side.

    " With religion you can't get just a little pregnant"

    by EarTo44 on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 04:51:39 AM PST

  •  When you participate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Oh Mary Oh

    in social networks, when you sign up for these things you are basically giving over your personal info to the control of FB or Google or whoever...in exchange for getting a free account they get ownership of whatever you put up.

    As for employers demanding access to what FB won't let them see without your permission, the problem is that this country has become hostile to unions and worker's rights in general...unfortunately you are never going to have any bargaining power against employers as an individual, you only get that by organizing. Most Americans seem think it's perfectly fine for employers to demand a sample of your bodily fluids in order to be considered for employment, so asking to see your online records hardly seems like something new, other than the fact of the technology being new...

    "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

    by Alice in Florida on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 06:02:44 AM PST

    •  Which Is why I posted earlier (0+ / 0-)

      This will be in part what will start a new labor movement.

      I find it odd that the people and entities that are so vehemently anti-labor and anti-union, often put into place the kind of circumstances and rules that are petty and abusive--that will drive their own employees to create a union.

      They create a self fulfilling prophecy.

  •  Easy solution (0+ / 0-)

    I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

    I am an electrical engineer, run a reasonably high traffic server, and build autopilots and drones for a living. If you have technical questions, ask away and I will try to give a cogent answer.

    by spiritplumber on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 10:10:19 PM PST

Meteor Blades, skybluewater, Sharoney, Caipirinha, chase, Renee, Thumb, Angie in WA State, Alfred E Newman, DeminNewJ, coral, Odysseus, melo, dalemac, teacherken, Adam B, Geenius at Wrok, Gooserock, madmsf, BigOkie, hyperstation, oysterface, xynz, gecko, SallyCat, Bob Friend, Walt starr, regis, Delilah, bronte17, 88kathy, susans, TracieLynn, Dazy, cyberKosFan, fugwb, brillig, whenwego, Ian S, ask, CoolOnion, highacidity, KMc, Minerva, mkfarkus, chimpy, roses, Clues, jalbert, nupstateny, Cedwyn, dksbook, wader, revsue, SneakySnu, manneckdesign, RLF, danthrax, sockpuppet, TexDem, CitizenOfEarth, young voter, gerrilea, Bulldawg, dwahzon, Chirons apprentice, Steven Payne, defluxion10, Tillie630, grrr, MagentaMN, alizard, One bite at a time, frostieb, bwintx, blonde moment, zerelda, Curt Matlock, Kitsap River, lonespark, Emmy, vacantlook, jhawklefty, eztempo, azrefugee, sebastianguy99, oortdust, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, Ohkwai, libnewsie, joanneleon, bloomer 101, Tinfoil Hat, NoMoreLies, ichibon, JanetT in MD, chimene, PBen, vgranucci, Alice Venturi, Simplify, Brooke In Seattle, YucatanMan, madmommy, eru, SaraBeth, McMeier, LABobsterofAnaheim, GreyHawk, skyounkin, Ice Blue, Eric K, jane123, LieparDestin, brentut5, Savvy813, sodalis, coolbreeze, Balachan, Rogneid, Hannibal, Team Slacker, Sister Havana, Doug Goodenough, martini, Shirl In Idaho, esquimaux, tarheelblue, tommymet, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, cybersaur, Clytemnestra, BlueInARedState, Russgirl, tonyahky, rl en france, Dvalkure, Catesby, Esjaydee, Son of a Cat, blueoasis, oldmanriver, MJ via Chicago, twigg, gatorcog, SadieSue, JVolvo, Sagebrush Bob, happy camper, Preston S, ER Doc, Unitary Moonbat, hlsmlane, anninla, AmBushed, NancyK, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, fiddlingnero, Texdude50, blueoregon, zedaker, kurious, bstotts, bartcopfan, ipsos, kml, ammasdarling, pgm 01, out of left field, Cali Techie, asilomar, Habitat Vic, camlbacker, Deadicated Marxist, AdamSelene, Debs2, devis1, gloriana, aravir, karmsy, Wino, Cofcos, Dave in Northridge, burlydee, sfbob, bnasley, HCKAD, second gen, Moderation, jhop7, journeyman, fallina7, madgranny, TexasTwister, trueblueliberal, MKinTN, cynndara, rogerdaddy, mconvente, Clio2, Port City Moon, Shahryar, MikePhoenix, modulegirl, Youffraita, Involuntary Exile, NewDealer, smrichmond, Akonitum, jakebob, jamess, Lujane, Cassandra Waites, MrJayTee, alnep, brasilaaron, mofembot, Gemina13, Horsefeathers, Soldier Boy, petulans, mattc129, venger, nokkonwud, MarkVA71, Executive Odor, magicsister, angelino, GrannyOPhilly, shortgirl, statsone, humanunit, Fiddlegirl, Bule Betawi, arendt, spacecadet1, greengemini, nchristine, Donkey Hotey, Mislead, notrouble, shopkeeper, mkor7, CamillesDad1, prgsvmama26, MKSinSA, Lopez99, kevinpdx, Shelley99, Keith Pickering, histOries Marko, IreGyre, Question Authority, sfarkash, augustin, jfromga, angel d, Nannyberry, porchdog1961, commonmass, Broke And Unemployed, stegro, roadbear, little lion, Johnnythebandit, politik, eb23, Proud Mom and Grandma, luvsathoroughbred, angelajean, Focusmarker, LouP, Anne was here, divedeeper, slice, Vega, bluestatedem84, not2plato, targetdemographic, ozsea1, sostos, donaurora, anyname, xylonjay, m00finsan, Teknocore, asterkitty, imokyrok, kevin k, SoCaliana, page394, molunkusmol, boomerchick, mrsgoo, marleycat, Lusty, grannysally, Jasonhouse, DruidQueen, slooterdam, KVoimakas, RfrancisR, Idgie Threadgoode, yaque, Marihilda, waiting for lefty, bakeneko, imlpdx, jham710, jadt65, DRo, aerie star, drawingporno, No one gets out alive, Christian Democrat, Sister Inspired Revolver of Freedom, auroreden, anodnhajo, Williston Barrett, Siri, nellgwen, joanil, AnnieR, FloridaSNMOM, Trotskyrepublican, Evolutionary, joeschmeaux, This old man, Mr Robert, nerve, AspenFern, Spirit Dancer, reginahny, the Don, radical simplicity, doroma, ricklewsive, sexgenderbody, micwazoo, Noddy, wasatch, Marjmar, mumtaznepal, maf1029, deconite, Robynhood too, lastlegslaststand, One Little Victory, pandaman, Sue B, Captain Chaos, GoGoGoEverton, non acquiescer, koseighty, Chaddiwicker, nomandates, Illinois IRV, countwebb, Eric Twocents, AmericanAnt, Setsuna Mudo, Donna Nobis Possum, life is making tacos, parsonsbeach, Ree Zen, Jeff Murdoch, Crazy Lace, QDMacaw, helpImdrowning, LaraJones, FourthOfJulyAsburyPark, Grandson named me Papa

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site