Help
What's to stop HR (if you get the job) from posting something disparaging about the company on FB themselves if they have your username and password? Might be their way of getting rid of employees.....
Yep - I am cynical. I'd change my password and contact FB letting them know that certain prospective employers are asking that question.
Give up your privacy or no job for you
#52
Posted 21 March 2012 - 04:59 AM
Sol seaker, on 20 March 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:
Fianccetto, on 20 March 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:
Mr F has applied to/ done various jobs where he had to sign to have background checks run on us; someone visiting our neighbours and family, or befriending them on facebook (he doesn't really bother much with facebook). The problem I have with handing over my password (or him handing over his) isn't that it is an invasion of our privacy, but that it is an invasion of our friends' privacy. Not that anyone I know says disparaging things about their employers on fb, or talks about breaking the law or anything that puts people in danger, it just shows a lack of decency and a disrespect for confidentiality. What kind of integrity does a person have if they hand over their password?
The facebook rules say that you can't do this.
So this is showing you have no integrity in a number of ways.
So then how do they trust me with secret information about the job when I will hand over all my friend's secret information so easily? How will they trust me conforming to their rules when I break facebooks rules that I have agreed to??
I have nothing to hide on my facebook account because I have nothing there.
Still, I wouldn't want to work for a company who devalued it's employees so much that it would do that. If a company thought so little of my personal privacy it would ask for a password, then how intrusive would they be into me in the future?
No, I wouldn't want to work for such a company.
It says a lot about that company too. They're not terribly ethical and show little regard for their employees.
Still, I know some have to do it to eat.
I think I'd just delete my account before I'd hand over personal info like that.
That was my line of thought. I do have private conversations on fb. They are mostly innocuous, but some touch on private things ...Like what to do if an expensive private employee is being uncommunicative and making too many decisions without consulting us, and what to do if an elderly friend/relative is talking of suicide...Someone else (not on my fb friend list) has chatted about being terminally ill. There is a whole lot of other stuff I can't even mention here! Not something for public consumption, none of that is on my facebook wall. In a tight spot, in the dead of night, fb private messaging is where some of us turn for some extra help, or just for a chat and to get to understand one another a bit better. I would never share that information in a work situation, I would never intentionally break a friend's confidence full stop, even for a job. But then again, I'm probably not the type of person who would apply for that kind of job.
#53
Posted 21 March 2012 - 05:18 AM
4wheelin_fool, on 20 March 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:
The problem with the article is that it doesnt mention the name of the company or the person that asked for the information, so technically it could be considered hearsay, or fiction. If an employer does do that, they should be exposed. Until they name the specific company, it is only unfounded gossip.
I also feel a bit suspicious about the article... as far as I have been able to find, there is only that one article. Although it has been published all over the web, it is the same article, by the same person. I would expect more independent investigation and journalism for such a shocking allegation.
However, ther are some specifics in the article. Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, the "City of Bozeman" (presumed to be Montana, but never stated), McLean County, Illinois sherrif's department, "Spotsylvania County" (state?).
#54
Posted 21 March 2012 - 06:03 AM
People, people, people...
Instead of the usual whipping this into a froth of hypothetical red herrings; why not have fun with it.
First, I'd ask for their password...since we're sharing and all.
Then, I'd ask the Interviewer if they have a corporate IT Security Policy in place, and if so, what that policy had to say about sharing network access with people unaffiliated with the company? This company does have security practices in place, doesn't it? They would expect me to follow these practices, right?
If told that my future employment depended on me giving out passwords, I'd ask if their continued employment depended on their following of existing IT security and other similar corporate policies.
There could be an unlimited number of ways to throw this back at them, and politely demonstrate how out-of-line they are for requesting such a thing...or demonstrate that you really do know how to use safe computer practices already.
Then, after I'd had my fun with this patently illegal activity, and since I don't have a FB or Twit account to share anyway, I'd come up with a make-believe username and password based on pick-something-randomly-from-the-dictionary. When they failed to gain access, I'd suggest maybe their firewall was blocking them from playing around on FB or Twit during work hours (like mine
), or maybe blocking them from violating the FB TOU by improperly accessing someone else's account. Must be the cookies....
Of course, I'd have my cell-phone in my pocket recording this conversation...
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have any problems finding an attorney if denied employment.
Instead of the usual whipping this into a froth of hypothetical red herrings; why not have fun with it.
Quote
What would you do?
First, I'd ask for their password...since we're sharing and all.
Then, I'd ask the Interviewer if they have a corporate IT Security Policy in place, and if so, what that policy had to say about sharing network access with people unaffiliated with the company? This company does have security practices in place, doesn't it? They would expect me to follow these practices, right?
If told that my future employment depended on me giving out passwords, I'd ask if their continued employment depended on their following of existing IT security and other similar corporate policies.
There could be an unlimited number of ways to throw this back at them, and politely demonstrate how out-of-line they are for requesting such a thing...or demonstrate that you really do know how to use safe computer practices already.
Then, after I'd had my fun with this patently illegal activity, and since I don't have a FB or Twit account to share anyway, I'd come up with a make-believe username and password based on pick-something-randomly-from-the-dictionary. When they failed to gain access, I'd suggest maybe their firewall was blocking them from playing around on FB or Twit during work hours (like mine
), or maybe blocking them from violating the FB TOU by improperly accessing someone else's account. Must be the cookies.... Of course, I'd have my cell-phone in my pocket recording this conversation...
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have any problems finding an attorney if denied employment.
#55
Posted 21 March 2012 - 07:33 AM
BlueDeuce, on 20 March 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:
MisterEFQ, on 20 March 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:
Planet, on 20 March 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:
I already think FB is an invasion of privacy, all by itself.
Hardly.
Try deleting everything you've posted in FB.
Try deleting everything I **publicly** posted on facebook???
#56
Posted 21 March 2012 - 08:05 AM
They can ask for it and not hire you if you refuse. You can sue but you won't win yet. If you work in a security field now-a-days there is a good possibility that a employer will ask for you to log in to your account and they'll look for specific info. They have backed down from actually asking for passwords any more. This has been going on for a few years and it is only now a big deal because someone posted the article on a bigger news site that gets a lot of viewers.
Ever since people started leaking sensitive info on the net about companies they work for, those companies are now being held accountable for their employees actions while on the job.
It's rather simple. If you are offended by this, just don't work for those companies. But in a tight job market, you better be willing to walk away from some high compensation employers becuase you're offended someone might want to see the real you.
Ethics? I question what you fear will be found out.
Ever since people started leaking sensitive info on the net about companies they work for, those companies are now being held accountable for their employees actions while on the job.
It's rather simple. If you are offended by this, just don't work for those companies. But in a tight job market, you better be willing to walk away from some high compensation employers becuase you're offended someone might want to see the real you.
Ethics? I question what you fear will be found out.
#57
Posted 21 March 2012 - 08:19 AM
A & J Tooling, on 21 March 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:
Ethics? I question what you fear will be found out.
Asks the person who advocates beating up a girls father for the way she dresses and acts.
#58
Posted 21 March 2012 - 08:39 AM
A & J Tooling, on 21 March 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:
Ethics? I question what you fear will be found out.
It's not about fearing anything would be found out, it's not even about privacy. It's about being asked to be dishonest. I suppose you just learn to delete anything and everything, never use the pm options and make your account completely public, so everyone knows that it might just as well be!
#59
Posted 21 March 2012 - 08:55 AM
Too bad we can't get past the FB focus when the real issue is employers demanding access to any private off-duty communications. What you do on duty and on their computers is their business and can, should be and is monitored. What you do on your time and your computer is none of their business.
#60
Posted 21 March 2012 - 09:05 AM
TheAlabamaRambler, on 21 March 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:
Too bad we can't get past the FB focus when the real issue is employers demanding access to any private off-duty communications. What you do on duty and on their computers is their business and can, should be and is monitored. What you do on your time and your computer is none of their business.
This seems to happen in any converstaion you mention FB and Twitter. 3% actual discussion of the issue and 90% posts about how silly social media is an how "I'd never use something that would take over my brain and force me step on puppies against my will".
I might have that last part wrong.
#61
Posted 21 March 2012 - 09:49 AM
This article made the papers today. I'm surprised that the media would jump on this without finding out if it's true first.
We have a few in IT whos job is to go on social sites and see what's being said about the company. Some employees have been called in when they said something ( I have no clue how they find you ) that borders or crosses confidentiality clauses, or Non-disclosure agreements.
I only post on a few geocaching sites (sad huh?
).
What happens at an interview when I say I'm not on facebook, twitter, or any other "social" site, just a few talking about geocaching?
Do they just assume that everyone's on these and I don't get the job for fibbing?
Where would it end?
What if you belonged to "Firearms Forever" and they have a strong anti-gun stance, or "Cigar Guys" and have a no-smoking policy?
We have a few in IT whos job is to go on social sites and see what's being said about the company. Some employees have been called in when they said something ( I have no clue how they find you ) that borders or crosses confidentiality clauses, or Non-disclosure agreements.
I only post on a few geocaching sites (sad huh?
).What happens at an interview when I say I'm not on facebook, twitter, or any other "social" site, just a few talking about geocaching?
Do they just assume that everyone's on these and I don't get the job for fibbing?
Where would it end?
What if you belonged to "Firearms Forever" and they have a strong anti-gun stance, or "Cigar Guys" and have a no-smoking policy?
#62
Posted 21 March 2012 - 10:21 AM
GOF and Bacall, on 21 March 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:
A & J Tooling, on 21 March 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:
Ethics? I question what you fear will be found out.
Asks the person who advocates beating up a girls father for the way she dresses and acts.
Where did I say beat up? Don't put words in my finger tips!
#63
Posted 21 March 2012 - 10:23 AM
Fianccetto, on 21 March 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:
A & J Tooling, on 21 March 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:
Ethics? I question what you fear will be found out.
It's not about fearing anything would be found out, it's not even about privacy. It's about being asked to be dishonest. I suppose you just learn to delete anything and everything, never use the pm options and make your account completely public, so everyone knows that it might just as well be!
Dishonest? Where? Just an FYI, I just had to escort a couple of new hires around where I work. One from here, one from Texas. I asked about if they were asked about their accounts (both being young, I knew they had FB or twitter accounts). The guy didn't know anything about the story or history and wasn't asked when hired. The female, stated that when she was in college, their little group (Soriety) required this from all members joining said group. She also stated that she expected this when hired but they didn't require it. She also said that if you were in sports, you had to friend your coach so he/she could keep an eye on you.
This post has been edited by A & J Tooling: 21 March 2012 - 10:28 AM
#64
Posted 21 March 2012 - 10:39 AM
A & J Tooling, on 21 March 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:
Fianccetto, on 21 March 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:
A & J Tooling, on 21 March 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:
Ethics? I question what you fear will be found out.
It's not about fearing anything would be found out, it's not even about privacy. It's about being asked to be dishonest. I suppose you just learn to delete anything and everything, never use the pm options and make your account completely public, so everyone knows that it might just as well be!
Dishonest? Where?
As has already been said, when we join facebook, we agree to the terms and conditions, one of which is to never share they password. To let someone have the password and read everything would be like me letting one of my potential employers look through my friends' handbags or briefcases and phones. That's not the actions of an honest person.
#65
Posted 21 March 2012 - 10:42 AM
Fianccetto, on 21 March 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:
A & J Tooling, on 21 March 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:
Fianccetto, on 21 March 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:
A & J Tooling, on 21 March 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:
Ethics? I question what you fear will be found out.
It's not about fearing anything would be found out, it's not even about privacy. It's about being asked to be dishonest. I suppose you just learn to delete anything and everything, never use the pm options and make your account completely public, so everyone knows that it might just as well be!
Dishonest? Where?
As has already been said, when we join facebook, we agree to the terms and conditions, one of which is to never share they password. To let someone have the password and read everything would be like me letting one of my potential employers look through my friends' handbags or briefcases and phones. That's not the actions of an honest person.
I think you are confusing honesty with something else.
#66
Posted 21 March 2012 - 10:43 AM
MisterEFQ, on 21 March 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:
Fianccetto, on 21 March 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:
A & J Tooling, on 21 March 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:
Fianccetto, on 21 March 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:
A & J Tooling, on 21 March 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:
Ethics? I question what you fear will be found out.
It's not about fearing anything would be found out, it's not even about privacy. It's about being asked to be dishonest. I suppose you just learn to delete anything and everything, never use the pm options and make your account completely public, so everyone knows that it might just as well be!
Dishonest? Where?
As has already been said, when we join facebook, we agree to the terms and conditions, one of which is to never share they password. To let someone have the password and read everything would be like me letting one of my potential employers look through my friends' handbags or briefcases and phones. That's not the actions of an honest person.
I think you are confusing honesty with something else.
OK. Integrity then. i guess i didn't get the job anyway. Next!
#67
Posted 21 March 2012 - 11:00 AM
A & J Tooling, on 21 March 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:
GOF and Bacall, on 21 March 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:
A & J Tooling, on 21 March 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:
Ethics? I question what you fear will be found out.
Asks the person who advocates beating up a girls father for the way she dresses and acts.
Where did I say beat up? Don't put words in my finger tips!
Sure. Here are your words:
A & J Tooling, on 20 March 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:
knowschad, on 20 March 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:
A & J Tooling, on 20 March 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:
Then go have some wall-to-wall counseling with her dad.
Wall-to-wall counseling?
Bounce him off the walls a few times. It's like a forced wake up call. To get his attention.
You can play coy and nod and wink, but I think we all know exactly what you meant.
#68
Posted 21 March 2012 - 11:23 AM
Castle Mischief, on 21 March 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:
A & J Tooling, on 21 March 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:
GOF and Bacall, on 21 March 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:
A & J Tooling, on 21 March 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:
Ethics? I question what you fear will be found out.
Asks the person who advocates beating up a girls father for the way she dresses and acts.
Where did I say beat up? Don't put words in my finger tips!
Sure. Here are your words:
A & J Tooling, on 20 March 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:
knowschad, on 20 March 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:
A & J Tooling, on 20 March 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:
Then go have some wall-to-wall counseling with her dad.
Wall-to-wall counseling?
Bounce him off the walls a few times. It's like a forced wake up call. To get his attention.
You can play coy and nod and wink, but I think we all know exactly what you meant.
No where on there did I ever say I would hurt anyone. Don't assume to know what I typed. I am innocent.
Anyho, welcome to the new world. Be careful what you post on that thar internet thingy. It will come back to haunt you in some way, shape or form.
#69
Posted 21 March 2012 - 12:18 PM
A & J Tooling, on 21 March 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:
GOF and Bacall, on 21 March 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:
A & J Tooling, on 21 March 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:
Ethics? I question what you fear will be found out.
Asks the person who advocates beating up a girls father for the way she dresses and acts.
Where did I say beat up? Don't put words in my finger tips!
Of COURSE you didn't!!
#70
Posted 21 March 2012 - 12:39 PM
Its clear he meant rent a bounce house, and play with the other dad in it.
Gosh.
Gosh.
#71
Posted 21 March 2012 - 12:59 PM
Didn't even bother to read past the OP. Does it pass the Snopes test?
I'm too not giving a durn to go look. I bet it doesn't pass.
I'm too not giving a durn to go look. I bet it doesn't pass.
#72
Posted 21 March 2012 - 01:00 PM
Snoogans, on 21 March 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:
Didn't even bother to read past the OP. Does it pass the Snopes test?
I'm too not giving a durn to go look. I bet it doesn't pass.
I'm too not giving a durn to go look. I bet it doesn't pass.
Oh well, you're no fun.
#73
Posted 21 March 2012 - 01:28 PM
Snoogans, on 21 March 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:
Didn't even bother to read past the OP. Does it pass the Snopes test?
I'm too not giving a durn to go look. I bet it doesn't pass.
I'm too not giving a durn to go look. I bet it doesn't pass.
Too new for Snopes, but I'm betting that it will end up there eventually. EVERYTHING I was able to find was a copy of one single article. No corroborating or independant reports that I was able to find. Smells like fish.
#74
Posted 21 March 2012 - 03:37 PM
knowschad, on 21 March 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:
Snoogans, on 21 March 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:
Didn't even bother to read past the OP. Does it pass the Snopes test?
I'm too not giving a durn to go look. I bet it doesn't pass.
I'm too not giving a durn to go look. I bet it doesn't pass.
Too new for Snopes, but I'm betting that it will end up there eventually. EVERYTHING I was able to find was a copy of one single article. No corroborating or independant reports that I was able to find. Smells like fish.
It's on the internet, of course it's true! Geez, y'all act like just anybody can post on the internet.
#75
Posted 22 March 2012 - 03:12 AM
MisterEFQ, on 21 March 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:
Its clear he meant rent a bounce house, and play with the other dad in it.
Gosh.
Gosh.
Male bonding. That's right.
#76
Posted 22 March 2012 - 05:19 AM
Perhaps employers could simply ask how many facebook friends someone has for a gauge for antisocial behavior according to this article:
http://news.yahoo.co...--abc-news.html
Quote
For the average narcissist, Facebook is tool that may promote anti-social behavior.
Facebook "offers a gateway for hundreds of shallow relationships and emotionally detached communication," according to study by Western Illinois University professor Christopher Carpenter.
The study was published this month in Personality and Individual Differences, the official journal of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences.
In the study, Carpenter defined narcissism as "a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration and an exaggerated sense of self-importance," according to a press release from the university.
Using a Narcissistic Personality Inventory, Carpenter and his students surveyed 292 people - most of whom were college students - to measure "self-promoting" Facebook behavior, such as people posting status updates, their photos, updating profile information; as well as "anti-social behaviors," including seeking social support more than providing it, getting angry when others do not comment on status updates and retaliating against negative comments.
People who score higher on the inventory promoted themselves more on Facebook - by tagging themselves and updating their newsfeeds more frequently, and by having more friends on Facebook, according to a report in the Guardian newspaper.
The study concluded that grandiose exhibitionism correlated with anti-social behavior on Facebook. Self-esteem was negatively related to self-promotion and anti-social behaviors on the site.
"In general, the 'dark side' of Facebook requires more research in order to better understand Facebook's socially beneficial and harmful aspects in order to enhance the former and curtail the latter," Carpenter said.
Social media sites, particularly Facebook and Twitter, have long been criticized for being vehicles for meaningless relationships, and have recently been mentioned in connection with making bullying easier and more pervasive.
Facebook "offers a gateway for hundreds of shallow relationships and emotionally detached communication," according to study by Western Illinois University professor Christopher Carpenter.
The study was published this month in Personality and Individual Differences, the official journal of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences.
In the study, Carpenter defined narcissism as "a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration and an exaggerated sense of self-importance," according to a press release from the university.
Using a Narcissistic Personality Inventory, Carpenter and his students surveyed 292 people - most of whom were college students - to measure "self-promoting" Facebook behavior, such as people posting status updates, their photos, updating profile information; as well as "anti-social behaviors," including seeking social support more than providing it, getting angry when others do not comment on status updates and retaliating against negative comments.
People who score higher on the inventory promoted themselves more on Facebook - by tagging themselves and updating their newsfeeds more frequently, and by having more friends on Facebook, according to a report in the Guardian newspaper.
The study concluded that grandiose exhibitionism correlated with anti-social behavior on Facebook. Self-esteem was negatively related to self-promotion and anti-social behaviors on the site.
"In general, the 'dark side' of Facebook requires more research in order to better understand Facebook's socially beneficial and harmful aspects in order to enhance the former and curtail the latter," Carpenter said.
Social media sites, particularly Facebook and Twitter, have long been criticized for being vehicles for meaningless relationships, and have recently been mentioned in connection with making bullying easier and more pervasive.
http://news.yahoo.co...--abc-news.html
#77
Posted 22 March 2012 - 05:42 AM
4wheelin_fool, on 22 March 2012 - 05:19 AM, said:
Perhaps employers could simply ask how many facebook friends someone has for a gauge for antisocial behavior according to this article:
http://news.yahoo.co...--abc-news.html
Quote
For the average narcissist, Facebook is tool that may promote anti-social behavior.
Facebook "offers a gateway for hundreds of shallow relationships and emotionally detached communication," according to study by Western Illinois University professor Christopher Carpenter.
The study was published this month in Personality and Individual Differences, the official journal of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences.
In the study, Carpenter defined narcissism as "a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration and an exaggerated sense of self-importance," according to a press release from the university.
Using a Narcissistic Personality Inventory, Carpenter and his students surveyed 292 people - most of whom were college students - to measure "self-promoting" Facebook behavior, such as people posting status updates, their photos, updating profile information; as well as "anti-social behaviors," including seeking social support more than providing it, getting angry when others do not comment on status updates and retaliating against negative comments.
People who score higher on the inventory promoted themselves more on Facebook - by tagging themselves and updating their newsfeeds more frequently, and by having more friends on Facebook, according to a report in the Guardian newspaper.
The study concluded that grandiose exhibitionism correlated with anti-social behavior on Facebook. Self-esteem was negatively related to self-promotion and anti-social behaviors on the site.
"In general, the 'dark side' of Facebook requires more research in order to better understand Facebook's socially beneficial and harmful aspects in order to enhance the former and curtail the latter," Carpenter said.
Social media sites, particularly Facebook and Twitter, have long been criticized for being vehicles for meaningless relationships, and have recently been mentioned in connection with making bullying easier and more pervasive.
Facebook "offers a gateway for hundreds of shallow relationships and emotionally detached communication," according to study by Western Illinois University professor Christopher Carpenter.
The study was published this month in Personality and Individual Differences, the official journal of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences.
In the study, Carpenter defined narcissism as "a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration and an exaggerated sense of self-importance," according to a press release from the university.
Using a Narcissistic Personality Inventory, Carpenter and his students surveyed 292 people - most of whom were college students - to measure "self-promoting" Facebook behavior, such as people posting status updates, their photos, updating profile information; as well as "anti-social behaviors," including seeking social support more than providing it, getting angry when others do not comment on status updates and retaliating against negative comments.
People who score higher on the inventory promoted themselves more on Facebook - by tagging themselves and updating their newsfeeds more frequently, and by having more friends on Facebook, according to a report in the Guardian newspaper.
The study concluded that grandiose exhibitionism correlated with anti-social behavior on Facebook. Self-esteem was negatively related to self-promotion and anti-social behaviors on the site.
"In general, the 'dark side' of Facebook requires more research in order to better understand Facebook's socially beneficial and harmful aspects in order to enhance the former and curtail the latter," Carpenter said.
Social media sites, particularly Facebook and Twitter, have long been criticized for being vehicles for meaningless relationships, and have recently been mentioned in connection with making bullying easier and more pervasive.
http://news.yahoo.co...--abc-news.html
LIKE! That's good stuff... you should post it on your Facebook page!
#78
Posted 22 March 2012 - 06:34 AM
A & J Tooling, on 22 March 2012 - 03:12 AM, said:
MisterEFQ, on 21 March 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:
Its clear he meant rent a bounce house, and play with the other dad in it.
Gosh.
Gosh.
Male bonding. That's right.
Oooohh. See I didn't think you were into that.
This post has been edited by Castle Mischief: 22 March 2012 - 06:35 AM
#79
Posted 22 March 2012 - 07:05 AM
Castle Mischief, on 22 March 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:
A & J Tooling, on 22 March 2012 - 03:12 AM, said:
MisterEFQ, on 21 March 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:
Its clear he meant rent a bounce house, and play with the other dad in it.
Gosh.
Gosh.
Male bonding. That's right.
Oooohh. See I didn't think you were into that.
Don't ask, don't tell. I shaved my head and showered with men for 21 years. I know how to male bond.
#80
Posted 22 March 2012 - 08:26 AM
Here's a thought that should stir the pot a bit.
Let's say you don't have a facebook account. Or twitter. Or you do, but there's just nothing on there except for some posts with friends and the usual cityville or farm thing nonsense. But then as a requirement, and after seeing you are married (from your W-4 form if nothing else) they now require you to provide your spouse's and/or children's facebook account information.
Where does it stop?
As I said, I have no problem with government agencies that have employees in high security jobs, and those people in jobs who have the lives of others in their control from being investigated. By those agencies. On their own.
But where does it end with corporations?
And if no one thinks they will want to look at your spouse or children, think again. It's just a matter of time before someone thinks of it.
oops.
Let's say you don't have a facebook account. Or twitter. Or you do, but there's just nothing on there except for some posts with friends and the usual cityville or farm thing nonsense. But then as a requirement, and after seeing you are married (from your W-4 form if nothing else) they now require you to provide your spouse's and/or children's facebook account information.
Where does it stop?
As I said, I have no problem with government agencies that have employees in high security jobs, and those people in jobs who have the lives of others in their control from being investigated. By those agencies. On their own.
But where does it end with corporations?
And if no one thinks they will want to look at your spouse or children, think again. It's just a matter of time before someone thinks of it.
oops.
#81
Posted 22 March 2012 - 08:33 AM
As far as privacy in general, it amazes me that there are people out there who will willingly give up their privacy, in the vain hope that "the government" will protect them. Or that a corporation will take care of them.
This was brought to mind after watching a commercial for auto insurance. I think it was Progressive, but it could have been another insurer. Anyway one of their policy plans involves placing a sort of "bug" on your vehicle OBD II data port. This device (a dongle? not sure if that's the correct term) records how you drive, then you upload the data to the insurance company and they give you a "safe driver" discount. The device might even be hard wired into your car, I'm not sure and they were very vague about it.
But what happens? Let's say you are tooling along, forget yourself and go over the speed limit. And get into an accident. Now your actions were recorded. And are available to the insurance company, which will, as a matter of course, make them available through subpoena or court discovery processes.
Now I do know that certain cars record anywhere from the last 5 to 30 seconds of activity in the on-board computer. And that data can be downloaded and analyzed. Has such things as throttle position, speed, brake use and so on. So if you are involved in a collision, and the car is totalled the data can be obtained.
Of course the solution in a less serious accident is to just leave the car running at idle for 5 minutes or so. Then the only thing in the short term memory is the car idling. But is the other data really lost or is it in there somewhere?
This was brought to mind after watching a commercial for auto insurance. I think it was Progressive, but it could have been another insurer. Anyway one of their policy plans involves placing a sort of "bug" on your vehicle OBD II data port. This device (a dongle? not sure if that's the correct term) records how you drive, then you upload the data to the insurance company and they give you a "safe driver" discount. The device might even be hard wired into your car, I'm not sure and they were very vague about it.
But what happens? Let's say you are tooling along, forget yourself and go over the speed limit. And get into an accident. Now your actions were recorded. And are available to the insurance company, which will, as a matter of course, make them available through subpoena or court discovery processes.
Now I do know that certain cars record anywhere from the last 5 to 30 seconds of activity in the on-board computer. And that data can be downloaded and analyzed. Has such things as throttle position, speed, brake use and so on. So if you are involved in a collision, and the car is totalled the data can be obtained.
Of course the solution in a less serious accident is to just leave the car running at idle for 5 minutes or so. Then the only thing in the short term memory is the car idling. But is the other data really lost or is it in there somewhere?
#82
Posted 22 March 2012 - 08:42 AM
I'm totally going to get that, I didn't know they had that.
I wonder how much that will save me.
I wonder how much that will save me.
#83
Posted 22 March 2012 - 09:49 AM
knowschad, on 21 March 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:
Snoogans, on 21 March 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:
Didn't even bother to read past the OP. Does it pass the Snopes test?
I'm too not giving a durn to go look. I bet it doesn't pass.
I'm too not giving a durn to go look. I bet it doesn't pass.
Too new for Snopes, but I'm betting that it will end up there eventually. EVERYTHING I was able to find was a copy of one single article. No corroborating or independant reports that I was able to find. Smells like fish.
A slightly different spin on the same topic. Nothing about providing passwords as a per-requisite for employment, but some examples of "controlling the message".
Quote
(Company) sells software that can archive messages, house a library of prewritten content and allow compliance officers to oversee postings.
#84
Posted 22 March 2012 - 12:50 PM
A & J Tooling, on 22 March 2012 - 07:05 AM, said:
Castle Mischief, on 22 March 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:
A & J Tooling, on 22 March 2012 - 03:12 AM, said:
MisterEFQ, on 21 March 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:
Its clear he meant rent a bounce house, and play with the other dad in it.
Gosh.
Gosh.
Male bonding. That's right.
Oooohh. See I didn't think you were into that.
Don't ask, don't tell. I shaved my head and showered with men for 21 years. I know how to male bond.
*snap* You go, girl! *snap*
#85
Posted 22 March 2012 - 01:43 PM
Has anyone had first or second-hand experience of an employer asking for access whether that be through "friending" or password access?
And please don't provide I got it from a friend-of-a-friend anecdotal details.
And please don't provide I got it from a friend-of-a-friend anecdotal details.
#86
Posted 22 March 2012 - 01:51 PM
BlueDeuce, on 22 March 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:
Has anyone had first or second-hand experience of an employer asking for access whether that be through "friending" or password access?
And please don't provide I got it from a friend-of-a-friend anecdotal details.
And please don't provide I got it from a friend-of-a-friend anecdotal details.
One of my immediate relatives received a request to accept a "friend" request from the boss - as did all of her immediate co-workers. She doesn't even have a PC - so was funny enough for her to tell me about it.
#87
Posted 22 March 2012 - 01:56 PM
StarBrand, on 22 March 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:
BlueDeuce, on 22 March 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:
Has anyone had first or second-hand experience of an employer asking for access whether that be through "friending" or password access?
And please don't provide I got it from a friend-of-a-friend anecdotal details.
And please don't provide I got it from a friend-of-a-friend anecdotal details.
One of my immediate relatives received a request to accept a "friend" request from the boss - as did all of her immediate co-workers. She doesn't even have a PC - so was funny enough for her to tell me about it.
So it wasn't a facebook friending request. So how did that happen, an interoffice email? Any corporate involvement?
#88
Posted 22 March 2012 - 01:59 PM
BlueDeuce, on 22 March 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:
Has anyone had first or second-hand experience of an employer asking for access whether that be through "friending" or password access?
And please don't provide I got it from a friend-of-a-friend anecdotal details.
And please don't provide I got it from a friend-of-a-friend anecdotal details.
I hear your sceptisim and share it to a degree... I don't think that it's a widespread issue so far but I do believe the reports that it has happened, as supported by this letter from the ACLU trying to get the Maryland Department of Corrections to stop doing it.
Quote
Dear ACLU Supporter,
Remember Officer Robert Collins? Last year, the ACLU of Maryland represented a man who had to turn over his private Facebook password during an interview with the Department of Corrections. Officer Collins was being recertified after taking a leave of absence when his mother died.
The ACLU told the Department of Corrections that the privacy rights of Officer Collins and his friends on Facebook were violated. After a huge public outcry, the DOC revised its policy, but it didn't go far enough. We need you to tell your Delegates to support the social media privacy bill.
Now, job candidates have to sign a form saying that they understand it is "voluntary" for them to provide access to their social media accounts during interviews. The DOC said job candidates would log on to their social media accounts and review the sites along with interviewers, instead of giving DOC their login and password information. Would that make you feel better?
That's why the ACLU is championing passage of a bill to prohibit employers from asking for personal user names and passwords or other means of accessing a private account.
Remember Officer Robert Collins? Last year, the ACLU of Maryland represented a man who had to turn over his private Facebook password during an interview with the Department of Corrections. Officer Collins was being recertified after taking a leave of absence when his mother died.
The ACLU told the Department of Corrections that the privacy rights of Officer Collins and his friends on Facebook were violated. After a huge public outcry, the DOC revised its policy, but it didn't go far enough. We need you to tell your Delegates to support the social media privacy bill.
Now, job candidates have to sign a form saying that they understand it is "voluntary" for them to provide access to their social media accounts during interviews. The DOC said job candidates would log on to their social media accounts and review the sites along with interviewers, instead of giving DOC their login and password information. Would that make you feel better?
That's why the ACLU is championing passage of a bill to prohibit employers from asking for personal user names and passwords or other means of accessing a private account.
#89
Posted 22 March 2012 - 02:34 PM
BlueDeuce, on 22 March 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:
Has anyone had first or second-hand experience of an employer asking for access whether that be through "friending" or password access?
And please don't provide I got it from a friend-of-a-friend anecdotal details.
And please don't provide I got it from a friend-of-a-friend anecdotal details.
Yes. Two weeks ago.
#90
Posted 22 March 2012 - 02:36 PM
This was being discussed on the radio today. Jersey's got some politico already trying to make it illegal for a company to ask for any info about your social networking online.
#91
Posted 22 March 2012 - 02:40 PM
JBnW, on 22 March 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:
BlueDeuce, on 22 March 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:
Has anyone had first or second-hand experience of an employer asking for access whether that be through "friending" or password access?
And please don't provide I got it from a friend-of-a-friend anecdotal details.
And please don't provide I got it from a friend-of-a-friend anecdotal details.
Yes. Two weeks ago.
Send me the details please.
#92
Posted 23 March 2012 - 04:39 AM
BlueDeuce, on 22 March 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:
JBnW, on 22 March 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:
BlueDeuce, on 22 March 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:
Has anyone had first or second-hand experience of an employer asking for access whether that be through "friending" or password access?
And please don't provide I got it from a friend-of-a-friend anecdotal details.
And please don't provide I got it from a friend-of-a-friend anecdotal details.
Yes. Two weeks ago.
Send me the details please.
I was asked for my FB page name by a non-supervisory higher-up so that they could "friend me". I told them that I don't have a FB page.
#93
Posted 23 March 2012 - 04:55 AM
JBnW, on 23 March 2012 - 04:39 AM, said:
BlueDeuce, on 22 March 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:
JBnW, on 22 March 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:
BlueDeuce, on 22 March 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:
Has anyone had first or second-hand experience of an employer asking for access whether that be through "friending" or password access?
And please don't provide I got it from a friend-of-a-friend anecdotal details.
And please don't provide I got it from a friend-of-a-friend anecdotal details.
Yes. Two weeks ago.
Send me the details please.
I was asked for my FB page name by a non-supervisory higher-up so that they could "friend me". I told them that I don't have a FB page.
I don't have anyone from work on my Snoogans FB profile.
I have a professional FB page that I use for work on my Company's FB network. I use it to make announcements and give brief safety messages and security alerts.
#94
Posted 24 March 2012 - 02:47 PM
My beef is that there are laws in place that prevent employers (potential or current) from asking certain questions.
Gaining access to a facebook account would probably provide answers to these questions and geive employers an illegal reason to deny employment.
Some examples are
Medical issues
Sexual orientation
Family status
Political affiliation
Racial affiliation
Religious affiliation
And so much more.
A potential employer can use any excuse they want but NOTHING gives them the right to read your diary. And, back door access to an online blogging site IS asking to read your diary.
If it's not public information then the have no right to ask. IMHO
Gaining access to a facebook account would probably provide answers to these questions and geive employers an illegal reason to deny employment.
Some examples are
Medical issues
Sexual orientation
Family status
Political affiliation
Racial affiliation
Religious affiliation
And so much more.
A potential employer can use any excuse they want but NOTHING gives them the right to read your diary. And, back door access to an online blogging site IS asking to read your diary.
If it's not public information then the have no right to ask. IMHO
This post has been edited by bittsen: 24 March 2012 - 06:26 PM
#95
Posted 24 March 2012 - 05:23 PM
bittsen, on 24 March 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:
My beef is that there are laws in place that prevent employers (potential or current) from being asked certain questions.
Gaining access to a facebook account would probably provide answers to these questions and geive employers an illegal reason to deny employment.
Some examples are
Medical issues
Sexual orientation
Family status
Political affiliation
Racial affiliation
Religious affiliation
And so much more.
A potential employer can use any excuse they want but NOTHING gives them the right to read your diary. And, back door access to an online blogging site IS asking to read your diary.
If it's not public information then the have no right to ask. IMHO
Gaining access to a facebook account would probably provide answers to these questions and geive employers an illegal reason to deny employment.
Some examples are
Medical issues
Sexual orientation
Family status
Political affiliation
Racial affiliation
Religious affiliation
And so much more.
A potential employer can use any excuse they want but NOTHING gives them the right to read your diary. And, back door access to an online blogging site IS asking to read your diary.
If it's not public information then the have no right to ask. IMHO
I think you likely meant to say there are laws in place that prevent potential employers from asking certain questions. We can ask those potential employers pretty much anything we want.
#97
Posted 24 March 2012 - 07:51 PM
Interesting. Facebook says they'll sue companies that force people to go against the FB terms of service... IE, giving up their passwords.
http://www.cnn.com/2...yers/index.html
Quote
Facebook has weighed in on a practice by some businesses asking employees or job applicants for their passwords to the popular social-media site.
In a nutshell? Facebook says don't do it unless you want to get sued.
In a nutshell? Facebook says don't do it unless you want to get sued.
http://www.cnn.com/2...yers/index.html
#98
Posted 24 March 2012 - 08:16 PM
Ed_M, on 24 March 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:
Interesting. Facebook says they'll sue companies that force people to go against the FB terms of service... IE, giving up their passwords.
http://www.cnn.com/2...yers/index.html
Quote
Facebook has weighed in on a practice by some businesses asking employees or job applicants for their passwords to the popular social-media site.
In a nutshell? Facebook says don't do it unless you want to get sued.
In a nutshell? Facebook says don't do it unless you want to get sued.
http://www.cnn.com/2...yers/index.html
That's good to know.
Facebook has WAY deeper pockets than any company out there.
#99
Posted 24 March 2012 - 08:26 PM
Anyone who uses their real name on the internet, be it Facebook or anything else is a fool. I have 5 Facebook accounts none of which contain any reference to my real name. Should an employer wish to have my Facebook account password I would simply reply that I do not have one. They can scour the internet all they like, they will not find me.
Our company has the policy of no social media access, without special permission, from company computers. This is not to protect the company from slander etc, it is because I came accross an employee who had written as their status on Facebook "I can't believe that I have spent the whole day on Facebook and have done no work". From that time on I blocked access to all social media. You want access to it, you have to write me an email explaining how it will benefit the company.
Anyone want to "friend" Ida Down, or Ian Knightley feel free.
Our company has the policy of no social media access, without special permission, from company computers. This is not to protect the company from slander etc, it is because I came accross an employee who had written as their status on Facebook "I can't believe that I have spent the whole day on Facebook and have done no work". From that time on I blocked access to all social media. You want access to it, you have to write me an email explaining how it will benefit the company.
Anyone want to "friend" Ida Down, or Ian Knightley feel free.
#100
Posted 24 March 2012 - 08:34 PM
bittsen, on 24 March 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:
Ed_M, on 24 March 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:
Interesting. Facebook says they'll sue companies that force people to go against the FB terms of service... IE, giving up their passwords.
http://www.cnn.com/2...yers/index.html
Quote
Facebook has weighed in on a practice by some businesses asking employees or job applicants for their passwords to the popular social-media site.
In a nutshell? Facebook says don't do it unless you want to get sued.
In a nutshell? Facebook says don't do it unless you want to get sued.
http://www.cnn.com/2...yers/index.html
That's good to know.
Facebook has WAY deeper pockets than any company out there.
Facebook also require you to use your real name and be over a certain age to sign up for an account. I would like to see them follow up on that.
Prove that my real name is not Ida Down and that I was not born on the 19 December 1970.
