Should Employers Be Allowed to Ask for Your Facebook Login?
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
As the corrections officer in question points out in the video, this is very dangerous ground. When you ask for someone's Facebook account as a condition of employment you are getting access to a tremendous amount of information about that person. Very likely including information such as marital status, religion, sexual orientation and the existence of children - all things which, as a matter of law, prospective employers are not allowed to ask employees in the hiring process.
If you're not allowed to ask it directly, you shouldn't be allowed to ask it indirectly either.
Actually, it is much worse than that. They are getting access to information about all the person's friends, including some very private information.
I might trust my friends with ages, photos, and school locations of my children, but I shouldn't have to worry about whether that same information is being given to some creepy bureaucrat working in a department of corrections office.
And to be clear, I'm not at all talking about the risk faced by a job applicant. I'm talking about the risk incurred by a friend of the person.
I say yes, they should be allowed, and you should be allowed to refuse, and they should be allowed to not hire, and you should be allowed to find a better place to work and breath a sigh of relief since you just dodged a bullet.
"You shouldn't put information into Facebook if you are afraid of that information getting out." I don't.
But people (including you, by your response) do not fully understand the risks they are taking.
More importantly, if I don't want to have someone as my Facebook friend, I have that choice. But I don't have a choice about what policies might be in place at employers my Facebook friends might consider. If you think it through, you begin to see why we have laws related to protecting privacy.
This is within the people's ability to control. Just say no. You can do this as a person. Say no. Explain why. Mock them too.
You're naive if you think the "market" will correct itself such that these types of invasions of privacy are eliminated. When we're talking about people's livelihood you can't expect them to act in such a way that maximizes their rights. They act in a way that maximizes their livelihood, potentially giving up rights that they otherwise would not have. Government is the only thing able to keep employers from having that power.
How about your online banking login information?
Where do you draw the line? Is there any aspect of your private life that they should not be able to ask about and refuse to hire if you do not provide access?
You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers,
your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything
else that might jeopardize the security of your account.
I think a good solution to this situation is to in turn request the screener/interviewer's credentials. After all, it's no big deal right?
The only person that has my Facebook login info is my wife, and she's also the only person that has my email login info. I don't care if you're the Pope, you're not getting access to any information that gives you the keys to the kingdom.
On the other hand, in the private sector, I don't see how this is any of our business. Should employer be "allowed" to "ask" for Facebook logins? You mean, should employers be "disallowed" from asking? Of course not. And candidates should say "no" if they don't want to give the login up. Employment in the US is at will, and outside of race, nationality, religion, gender, &c, hiring is totally at the discretion of the company.
†(at least, one that doesn't require clearance)
Additional nitpick: Employment statuses are generally determined at the state level.
You're naive if you think the "market" will correct itself such that these types of invasions of privacy are eliminated. When we're talking about people's livelihood you can't expect them to act in such a way that maximizes their rights. They act in a way that maximizes their livelihood, potentially giving up rights that they otherwise would not have. Government is the only thing able to keep employers from having that power.
Where do we draw the line between a real or virtual invasion of privacy?
No, they should not be allowed to just do it. But should they be allowed to ask if they can search your house and private things (which is indeed comparable to requesting to be friended)? I say, yes, they should be allowed to ask, and all intelligent people that value their privacy should be allowed to say no, laugh, mock, walk out of the interview, and then post their feelings about that company on their Facebook page, or on HN, or reddit, or their personal blog so that others may be warned from wasting time applying at such a place.
And those people will be putting their friends' privacy at risk, not just their own.
When one decides he wants to publish some information privately he should decide:
1. Whenever he trusts the delivery and storage mediums (on all layers) not to leak and/or tamper with this information, and deliver it in time.
2. Whenever he trusts the recepients to handle this information properly.
3. What are the risks in event the leakage happens (even if all parties are highly trusted), and what measures should be taken in such case.
This is not paranoid thinking (although it sounds so), it's security ABC.
I say "they" should be allowed to ask anything at all. Marriage, religion, sexual preferences, political party, etc etc etc.
And when they do ask questions that are none of their business, people should have the good sense to refuse to answer, and if they pursue it at all, stand up and walk out and go to another job that respects them as humans.
The problem is not with the law or the companies, it is with the people who put up with abuse and condone and encourage it and refuse to push back to say "No, I am not going to answer that and frankly you are an ass for asking because it is none of your damn business." Because of the internet, everyone with a bad experience can blog about it and warn others which companies to avoid. The result here is that MORE people will have accurate information about which companies are staffed by assholes who can't mind their own business, and these companies can starve for want of talented responsible workers. And that's a good thing.
Right now we have ridiculous laws like restaurants are not allowed to discriminate by color of skin. I am not white myself. I would LOVE to know which restaurants are staffed by racists and bigots that don't want me to eat there, because then I would know not to give them my business, and I would know to preach word of that far and wide, and keep an eye on who does eat there and have nothing to do with those folks either. That would be great. As it is we have all these people with latent hidden racism. It's there, but it's not in the open, so I can't see it. Sometimes it sneaks up on me from behind. That's not good. Let it be in the open instead.
... That alone isn't going to derail the Facebook juggernaut, but it might slow down people's engagement on the site as they realize maybe a private, unknown email account is a better way of sending sensitive messages.
That isn't going to happen either. It's like saying that because people are aware that smoking is a cause of cancer they'll only smoke half a cigarette.
"An employer may not compel an applicant for any access to private information that may indirectly lead to a violation of existing Equal Opportunity Employment laws."
Ideally this law would amount to:
"Paying someone to do a job does not make them your fucking lifetime slave asshole."
Do you background checks the GOOD old-fashioned way, and get some actual results. Or, waste your time in someone's facebook account they set up specifically for you to check for this job interview.
Of course it violates the Facebook terms of service. Handing over your password already broke that.