Trimmer Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 (edited) Thanks Trimmer for clarifying! Compel....NOPE....Don't compel me to do anything...I then do the opposite! If I decide to OFFER it...then so be it.... But don't make it a prerequisite for offering me the job. Am I making sense? Yes, and I feel just the way you do. I don't consider your diary the same as publishing on FB or the internet. First of all, two questions: (1) Do you acknowledge that I've granted that anything I "publish" to which the public has access - in print or on the internet (including FB) - is fair game for an employer to access and consider? (2) Do you understand that my specific problem relates to an employer compelling me to turn over login passwords - which I have agreed not to do under FB and other sites' terms of service - and allowing them to log in to my account interface as me? (An action which may be contrary to cyber-crime laws....) Isn't an employer's screening supposed to 'go w the territory'. Employer get's to choose. Ok, so go with the flow... employer's choice, then, huh? No boundaries... If candidate doesn't agree: Brush the dust off your feet, and go to the next interview. OK, then why don't you consider your diary to be fair game? I'm interviewing you for a job. I want to come over to your house; please hand over your key and let me look around. Oh, and your car keys too - I want to look through your glove compartment. And let me interview family members - no, you don't get to choose; give me a list of all family members out to first cousins and I will choose who I want to talk to. Oh, include your Email login password, too. After all, once you've sent an Email, you don't have control over it any more, so we'll consider that "publishing" and we want to see it all. Employer's choice. If you don't agree, brush off the dust and walk to the next interview. The question I am asking is: where do you draw the line? It's fair to say that all of these are "different" scenarios, that a diary and my glove compartment are "different" from non-public, secured Facebook content, and that's different from your Email inbox, but the point is, they are all intrusive things at varying points on a spectrum, all behind "locked" gates to which I have varying expectations of privacy. The question is, how far down that spectrum do we allow an employer to compel an employee to unlock the gates and allow the employer to browse? Perhaps viewing your FB, is a means for the employer to get further depth into one's character - i.e. public service, law enforcement, intelligence, security positions? You've just unilaterally narrowed the discussion considerably. Thus far, we've been discussing general employment practices. I have been through certain of the types of investigations you are talking about here, and I have different opinions of those, but that is a narrow exception. The current discussion is about general (i.e. not security-specific) employment hiring practices. Edited June 1, 2012 by Trimmer Link to post Share on other sites
UpwardForward Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Um, If I don't consider your diary fair game, why would I consider my diary fair game. As I mentioned before, I don't consider your personal 'diary' the same as published internet activity - on internet sights. Should one seek a job that your potential employer would like to view your internet activity, I would think you have an option to allow it - or go to the next interview. Link to post Share on other sites
Art_Critic Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 There are security controls where you can easily remove your page from the search engine and make it so only friends of friends or just friends can find you. This is especially easy if you have a really common first and last name. Yes.. but the search isn't the only way to find a FB page and using the email addy isn't what I''m talking about.. Trust me.. I have yet to not find one.. You can start by finding friends that may know them... you would be surprised how many people leave their friends lists open.. even though you may have yours closed up. I'm not going to sit here and give all the details on how to find a FB page but you can find them... Link to post Share on other sites
Art_Critic Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I generally agree with all Art's points, except in one area, I draw a fine distinction: It's probably just a semantic point, but because something is against a Facebook policy does not inherently make it against the law. Now, separately there are some cyber-crime laws that make it illegal to access someone else's computer account, etc., which may be applicable in this case, but those are separate things. It may be "A and B" but it's not "A therefore B". Breaking a FB "terms of service" policy (or a LoveShack one, for that matter) doesn't automatically mean you have broken the law. I wondered if my bad choice or words was going to throw a red flag on the play... By against the law I meant that you are contractually obligated by FB policy to not let anyone know your password and if you do give it out you are opening yourself up for being civilly prosecuted by FB. that is what I really meant.. Good Catch Trimmer... Link to post Share on other sites
Art_Critic Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 So yes, he will most likely be able to "find" your page, but how much of the content he can access is up to you in your settings. That is true.. however.. if someone posts on other peoples walls that don;t have their security settings set tightly then I can generally find those posts Link to post Share on other sites
UpwardForward Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 That is true.. however.. if someone posts on other peoples walls that don;t have their security settings set tightly then I can generally find those posts Do you actually do this when you are hiring? Link to post Share on other sites
Art_Critic Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Do you actually do this when you are hiring? Yes.. for most positions but not all. But we would never ask for FB logins/pw's and certainly would never cross the line in legality in the interview process. Link to post Share on other sites
gaius Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I think it's more about the act of seeing if you will bend over for the company, rather than being important to check out facebook for ideas about your character. These days everyone should make a milquetoast facebook page with your real name, and keep all your personal stuff on a fake named page. I don't even let other people post on my milquetoast wall. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Art_Critic Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I think it's more about the act of seeing if you will bend over for the company, rather than being important to check out facebook for ideas about your character. It is.. it's also about just making sure you are hiring the right person.. hiring the wrong person does nothing but waste money and time so we use every available option to make sure the person is hired.. We also will not hire someone without a personality test profile that matches what we are looking for in a particular position. Most of our employees have between 25-30 years of tenor. We have grown this past 1.5 years and have put on 4 positions, so those 4 are the newest of all the people there.. and all have FB profiles.. Link to post Share on other sites
imani Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Why would anyone give their employers their facebook page or facebook password is beyond me. They can ask but you aren't obligated to give them anything. That's crazy. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
gaius Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 It is.. it's also about just making sure you are hiring the right person.. hiring the wrong person does nothing but waste money and time so we use every available option to make sure the person is hired.. That's true. Didn't mean to suggest that's what you were doing, you seem to be a entirely respectable boss. Ever have anyone pass all the tests and still turn out to be an awful employee? Link to post Share on other sites
Art_Critic Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 That's true. Didn't mean to suggest that's what you were doing, you seem to be a entirely respectable boss. Ever have anyone pass all the tests and still turn out to be an awful employee? One.... All the tests and profiling doesn't figure into if the person is just lazy and wants to live off their rich parents, and he was mid 30's.. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Author Almond_Joy Posted June 2, 2012 Author Share Posted June 2, 2012 We also will not hire someone without a personality test profile that matches what we are looking for in a particular position. I guess if I go off on a tangent in a thread that I started, it can't really be considered thread-jacking, can it? Just had to mention that I wish more employers would use personality testing. My Meyer's Briggs profile is a spot-on match with my personality and what I want to do. From what I've seen it's pretty accurate for other people too. Link to post Share on other sites
Trimmer Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) That is true.. however.. if someone posts on other peoples walls that don;t have their security settings set tightly then I can generally find those posts Agreed, and for as militant as I am that an employer should not be allowed to compel an applicant to provide login name and password as a condition of employment, I am completely OK with what you are talking about doing above. What someone puts on the web in a public way is fair game for public viewing. What is protected behind a password is private and only due process of law should be enough to compel someone to reveal it. Um, If I don't consider your diary fair game, why would I consider my diary fair game. I don't expect you would - that's why I used that example; I was trying to find some common ground with you, a place where we can both agree the line has been crossed. So, like me, you do believe some things are sufficiently private that an employer should not be allowed to compel an employee to hand over the keys, then. My question is: where should that threshold be? On an imaginary spectrum from a personal diary, to an unpublished manuscript, to a manuscript I've sent to my publisher, to a book I published.... At one end of the spectrum, we recoil in horror at an employer "needing to read my diary" but we consider it obvious that an employer would look at something like a book that's been published. Somewhere between those extremes, there must be a dividing line? (For calculus geeks, this is the "mean value theorem", right?) For computer stuff, it seems that a clear "do not cross" line exists at data within password protected accounts. I agree with you in that I expect an employer to look at anything 'published' (i.e. public), but I draw the line at data that is password protected. Where else does it make any sense at all - or could it be any more clearly defined - to draw a dividing line? As I mentioned before, I don't consider your personal 'diary' the same as published internet activity - on internet sights. Should one seek a job that your potential employer would like to view your internet activity, I would think you have an option to allow it - or go to the next interview. I don't know if we just have a disagreement over our terminology, but the terminology you are using is not very precise. Specifically, "published internet activity" and "view your internet activity." I'm trying to be very careful to say that I am perfectly fine with an employer looking at anything that is published (as in "public" whichs you'll note shares the same word root as "publish") and available to view on the internet. But where I draw the line is in an employer compelling an applicant to turn over a password and allow the employer to log in as the applicant. Can you answer directly: are you saying you think an employer should be allowed to make turning over passwords to personal accounts a condition of employment? And as far as the phrase "view your internet activity" - that's really imprecise terminology when used to talk about password protected content on Facebook. Do you consider a picture that I post in a password protected way, and then allow only a few of my Friends to access it, to be "internet activity" that an employer should be entitled to view, if the only way they can do it is to log in with my credentials, under my identity? Let me propose another question to probe the boundaries: what if an employer asks for your personal Email account login and password? Email is "internet activity" - are you OK with an employer saying that they need to "view your internet activity", so therefore you have to turn over your personal Email login and password to consider you for employment? Edited June 2, 2012 by Trimmer 2 Link to post Share on other sites
MuscleCarFan Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Why would anyone give their employers their facebook page or facebook password is beyond me. They can ask but you aren't obligated to give them anything. That's crazy. I very much agree with this. I frankly find it rather ridiculous that employers want employee or potential-employee Facebook log-in information. I would walk out of an interview of I was asked this sort of ridiculous question. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
d'Arthez Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 The problem with the internet is that boundaries between private and public have massively faded. And this works for both the employer and employee. Lots of employers save valuable data such as reports etc and other vital information on the internet (and a local server). Think of emails, shared documents, confirmation receipts of payments, staff evaluation reports, financial reports, etc.. No one in their right mind would argue that employers should be compelled to consider these documents as being held in the public domain, even though the public can often access them due to poor safety measures (often you don't even need to hack; you just need to know what the document you need is called, and you are in). Releasing such info, despite it being easily accessible, is considered illegal after all. At the same time, the same space is being used to promote the business, advertise services, etc.. No one is going to argue that the use of the internet for such purposes is private communication. It is a private business reaching out in public to obtain contracts, and participate in the economy. It even gets trickier if the have a response mechanism in place (eg. Twitter or FaceBook). Are complaints in the public domain or are they in the private domain? And what about positive reviews? You can't separate public and private only on the basis of the content that is posted. Something similar applies to prospective employees. Some of the stuff a prospective employee posts can definitely be relevant to the business and its decision to hire an employee. However, not all communications are relevant to such decisions (like a message on the dietary preferences of cats). What is relevant differs from job to job. If the position is for an English teacher, language skills are more important than say political involvement with the Dems / GOP. If the position is for a cab driver, court records on DUI are relevant to one's ability to drive a car, but perfect formal English is not a requirement. Complete access to one's private life is assuming that all is relevant. No, it is not. Giving employers blanket access to such communication is as as much of an infringement of the rights of the individual, as it would be for a consumer to demand to know what the exact profit margin is on a specific service, or which airline the company uses for travel. These things can be reasonably considered to be relevant to consumers as well, but thankfully no one in their right mind would argue that businesses have to provide full disclosure to consumers on such matters, as it is in the best interest of the business not to disclose. It is hilarious and tragic that people are free to say what they want to say, but that the extent of the consequences for whatever they say and do is treated with as much suspicion as it is in the US. Freedom of speech, ultimately is about the exchange of ideas, of not being forced into a straitjacket in which one is paranoid about offending the powers that be, as such expressions would threaten one's livelihood. You'll end up with a highly impoverished communication and exchange of ideas between people. Ultimately, I don't even see businesses profiting from such practices. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
UpwardForward Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Agreed, and for as militant as I am that an employer should not be allowed to compel an applicant to provide login name and password as a condition of employment, I am completely OK with what you are talking about doing above. What someone puts on the web in a public way is fair game for public viewing. What is protected behind a password is private and only due process of law should be enough to compel someone to reveal it. I don't expect you would - that's why I used that example; I was trying to find some common ground with you, a place where we can both agree the line has been crossed. So, like me, you do believe some things are sufficiently private that an employer should not be allowed to compel an employee to hand over the keys, then. My question is: where should that threshold be? On an imaginary spectrum from a personal diary, to an unpublished manuscript, to a manuscript I've sent to my publisher, to a book I published.... At one end of the spectrum, we recoil in horror at an employer "needing to read my diary" but we consider it obvious that an employer would look at something like a book that's been published. Somewhere between those extremes, there must be a dividing line? (For calculus geeks, this is the "mean value theorem", right?) For computer stuff, it seems that a clear "do not cross" line exists at data within password protected accounts. I agree with you in that I expect an employer to look at anything 'published' (i.e. public), but I draw the line at data that is password protected. Where else does it make any sense at all - or could it be any more clearly defined - to draw a dividing line? I don't know if we just have a disagreement over our terminology, but the terminology you are using is not very precise. Specifically, "published internet activity" and "view your internet activity." I'm trying to be very careful to say that I am perfectly fine with an employer looking at anything that is published (as in "public" whichs you'll note shares the same word root as "publish") and available to view on the internet. But where I draw the line is in an employer compelling an applicant to turn over a password and allow the employer to log in as the applicant. Can you answer directly: are you saying you think an employer should be allowed to make turning over passwords to personal accounts a condition of employment? And as far as the phrase "view your internet activity" - that's really imprecise terminology when used to talk about password protected content on Facebook. Do you consider a picture that I post in a password protected way, and then allow only a few of my Friends to access it, to be "internet activity" that an employer should be entitled to view, if the only way they can do it is to log in with my credentials, under my identity? Let me propose another question to probe the boundaries: what if an employer asks for your personal Email account login and password? Email is "internet activity" - are you OK with an employer saying that they need to "view your internet activity", so therefore you have to turn over your personal Email login and password to consider you for employment? Trimmer, I consider activity on internet sites i.e. Facebook, as 'publishing'. No matter how few friends you meant to see it. Link to post Share on other sites
piggyoink Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 If someone asked for it, i'd give it to them and then change it right away - lol Link to post Share on other sites
gaius Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 One.... All the tests and profiling doesn't figure into if the person is just lazy and wants to live off their rich parents, and he was mid 30's.. Very true. Before this thread I didn't think facebook was important to check out as an employer but now I think differently. You would have avoided hiring this guy. Alexander Kinyua, Maryland Man Who Allegedly Ate Kujoe Agyei-Kodie, First Ranted On Facebook Link to post Share on other sites
Trimmer Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Trimmer, I consider activity on internet sites i.e. Facebook, as 'publishing'. No matter how few friends you meant to see it. So are you OK with your employer requiring you to provide your Google login and password so they can log in as you to view your YouTube history, your Gmail archives, your search history, and other "internet activity" in which you have engaged on Google's site? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
UpwardForward Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 So are you OK with your employer requiring you to provide your Google login and password so they can log in as you to view your YouTube history, your Gmail archives, your search history, and other "internet activity" in which you have engaged on Google's site? Speaking just for myself Trimmer - Anyone viewing my internet activity, would be gluttons for punishment. ha I have used my Facebook account to just mention my businesses, and with No 'friend' activity, pictures or messages. My personal email has thousands of saved messages, many responded to and forwarded to others. Mostly the general emails people share. I don't say anything on there that I don't mean - (So have at it). I mostly post on political sites and LS. They would learn my far right political views and that I'm a Pack rat, etc. Probably an interviewer wouldn't learn anything from my internet activity - that they wouldn't find out - just by asking me .. Mostly boring internet activity on my part. oh .. and eBay eBay eBay .. ha Link to post Share on other sites
UpwardForward Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 So Trimmer, what I'm trying to say is: It's not up to me. You're the one who has to make the decision whether or not to surrender your top secret internet stuff to the interviewer (if asked) - or if you wish to pass on that Secret Service position... If you wish to withhold all your info: Go for the Presidency instead. Link to post Share on other sites
pink_sugar Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 We also will not hire someone without a personality test profile that matches what we are looking for in a particular position. I've always hated those long tests. You spend 45 minutes of your time just to be automatically declined in some of them. I think it's an unfair way to weed out candidates that might actually be a good fit for the job. You don't really know until you actually meet and talk to them. Link to post Share on other sites
Follower Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 I've always hated those long tests. You spend 45 minutes of your time just to be automatically declined in some of them. I think it's an unfair way to weed out candidates that might actually be a good fit for the job. You don't really know until you actually meet and talk to them. You know what, iv been turned down by more than a few of them, everytime i have sent and angry email explaining how discriminatory it is and how the buisness would be far worse off than me, and you know what almost all bar 1 company who shall remain unammed for its awsome chickeness has turned round and either offered me the job w/out interview or taken me to an interview and offered the job... Part of me thinks its just another level of testing apposed to a weeding tool. Life doesnt hand oppertunities to people, you have to go out there and grab them with both hands and if you really want/need a job, show the employer your willing to go any length to get and work it, they will hire you i promise. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Engadget Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 I don't think it's all that widespread, but it's stupid either way. Employers seem to want slaves nowadays. Life doesnt hand oppertunities to people, you have to go out there and grab them with both hands and if you really want/need a job, show the employer your willing to go any length to get and work it, they will hire you i promise. Haha, no. You can bust your ass and still not get it, trust me. Or you can bust your ass and get laid off, like I did. Then get another job for a company that overextended themselves, and face another layoff. It's not as black and white as you're making it sound. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts