Friends and business associates of the job applicant also have privacy expectations around content they intend to be viewable only by trusted individuals.
"You know, I can understand that concern. One thing that's important for folks to understand about what we look for is none of the things that the federal constitution lists as protected things, we don't use those. We're not putting out this broad brush stroke of trying to find out all kinds of information about the person that we're not able to use or shouldn't use in the hiring process," Sullivan said.
I think they get it just fine, they just don't care.
The tools of change are technological, not legal. Instead of trying to change the law, render it obsolete and utterly unenforcable, and "win" by fait accompli.
I feel a similar way about file sharing. I personally believe very strongly that the ability to send arbitrary files to arbitrary recipients unmolested is a right akin to free speech. But there is no point trying to "beat the system". The solution is to invent technology which renders the law an unenforcable joke.
It's a great time to be a programmer. The tools and opportunity to change the future course of events are right in front of us, to a degree far in excess of what your average non-billionaire voter (or lawyer) could ever enjoy.
We don't need more individual lawsuits. We need plausible deniability implemented in social networks, at a stroke rendering unreliable the whole practise of evaluating someone by their online activities. Sounds like a challenge to me!
But why not attack the problem from multiple points? Attack with both a legal and technological response.