It truly is a Facebook world: 1st Amendment Issues

[pink freud]

Red Tape - Govt. agencies, colleges demand applicants' Facebook 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.

Student-athletes in colleges around the country also are finding out they can no longer maintain privacy in Facebook communications because schools are requiring them to "friend" a coach or compliance officer, giving that person access to their “friends-only” posts.

All the obvious issues aside, what does this mean for people like me who don't have, have never have, and probably will never have a Facebook account (or any other social media accounts, really). Before a job interview I would actually have to create a Facebook account?

It's a strange world, and not in a nifty surreal way.

[Ill-Gotten James]

WTF! Come on, really! How does what you post on facebook, or twitter, affect your ability to perform your job?

[HighGain510]

Originally Posted by Ill-Gotten James

WTF! Come on, really! How does what you post on facebook, or twitter, affect your ability to perform your job?

Well when they see idiots posting about getting drunk daily or getting high/doing other illegal things, I'd say it has a pretty good correlation to how well you do your job. I don't agree with them forcing you to give them access to it, but I see why they would want to see it. Plus you would be amazed at some of the absolutely stupid shit people are willing to essentially "publicly" post on Facebook.

[khournos]

Well i have to disagree with you here, HighGain.

I know quite some people who are drunk more nights of the week than not and some who blaze up every second night, most of them do their jobs just as well as anybody else.

On the other side I know sober people who .... up every task you give to them.

So it really depends.

[HighGain510]

Bottom line is that folks have been doing this for a while, it's not new by any means. If you disagree, go for a different job or don't compete in their sports program. Also the title is misleading, they can't legally force you to give them a password to any private account. Having them check it with you in the room or making you add a coach is quite different. I would also think they might be judging you by the company you keep, so if you have a bunch of friends who do stupid shit and post about it on Facebook, that's another liability on you. Again, there is no breach of your first amendment rights really, you don't HAVE TO give them access if you are vehemently against it.

[vampiregenocide]

Why not give them access to your email too? Or your texts? Hey, let them listen in on your phone calls too, after all who needs privacy!

[ST3MOCON]

This is beyond ridiculous. I guess they will be doing this till there are laws against it. Worlds changing so we have to change with it. Looks like the colleges/employers found a way to exploit an opportunity to look into people private life. I say private life in the sense that it is for you and friends to see on the social network. Yes it is still private information even if it is on the Internet, it's just a new concept of privacy. things will change over time. There are cracks in the fairly new form of communication.

[HighGain510]

Originally Posted by vampiregenocide

Why not give them access to your email too? Or your texts? Hey, let them listen in on your phone calls too, after all who needs privacy!

That's not the same thing and you know it. Again, you don't HAVE to do anything, that's part of your rights. Just as they also have the right to refuse to hire you or let you on the team if you don't want to follow their required policies for admittance. Honestly, how much stuff do you post on Facebook that you REALLY wouldn't want an employer seeing (I've seen the kind of things you post sometimes, Mr. Wildish... )? If your answer is "well, a LOT of stuff..." then chances are pretty good there is a deeper issue there than not getting the job. I think the reason more and more organizations are looking into stuff like Facebook is that people DO post so much information on there that they really shouldn't post publicly. Bottom line, if it's something you don't want ANYONE who isn't a friend of yours to see, it might not be the best idea to post about it on Facebook.

Also something to note - it's not like EVERY company is doing it (and sure, you could say "it's only a matter of time, it's a slippery slope etc. etc." but that's a cop-out) and the ones mentioned specifically are government-related or college-related. In the former, certain positions require higher levels of background checks and I guess if you want to be a prison guard they want to make sure you're not doing anything odd. In the case of the latter, I'm sure their motivation is probably trying to watch for partying/underage drinking. I'll say it again, not that I agree it's right or okay for them to ask, but I do see WHY they're doing it.

[Grand Moff Tim]

This isn't really different than any other instance of a company being able to access what you otherwise consider private under the terms of the User Agreement. Go ahead, read through your Gmail or Xboxlive user agreement to see if everything you do is 100% private. It isn't unconstitutional, because you don't have to sign the user agreement, and if you don't, they don't have to give you access to their product. Prospective students or employees don't have to friend a coach or let a coworker go through their facebook page, just like the colleges and DoC don't have to accept or hire them. Simple as.

It's a bit like when people who sign up for a forum account and then get banned for using offensive language cry foul because they have freedom of speech. Not the second you agreed to the terms, Buddy.

EDIT because HighGain is a ninja.

[HighGain510]

Originally Posted by Grand Moff Tim

This isn't really different than any other instance of a company being able to access what you otherwise consider private under the terms of the User Agreement. Go ahead, read through your Gmail or Xboxlive user agreement to see if everything you do is 100% private. It isn't unconstitutional, because you don't have to sign the user agreement, and if you don't, they don't have to give you access to their product. Prospective students or employees don't have to friend a coach or let a coworker go through their facebook page, just like the colleges and DoC don't have to accept or hire them. Simple as.

It's a bit like when people who sign up for a forum account and then get banned for using offensive language cry foul because they have freedom of speech. Not the second you agreed to the terms, Buddy.

EDIT because HighGain is a ninja.

Well at least someone else gets it!

[MFB]

My social life should only be brought up in the workplace when it starte interfering with the quality of my work/attendance to work. What I do on my own time is just tbat: my. own. time.

[Choop]

Originally Posted by Grand Moff Tim

This isn't really different than any other instance of a company being able to access what you otherwise consider private under the terms of the User Agreement. Go ahead, read through your Gmail or Xboxlive user agreement to see if everything you do is 100% private. It isn't unconstitutional, because you don't have to sign the user agreement, and if you don't, they don't have to give you access to their product. Prospective students or employees don't have to friend a coach or let a coworker go through their facebook page, just like the colleges and DoC don't have to accept or hire them. Simple as.

It's a bit like when people who sign up for a forum account and then get banned for using offensive language cry foul because they have freedom of speech. Not the second you agreed to the terms, Buddy.

EDIT because HighGain is a ninja.

Except getting a job or securing a place on a sports team isn't the same as applying for a service, or using a product. Facebook has more personal info on it usually about you as a person than just your buying habits or whatever. IMO it seems unnecessarily intrusive. This is information about your daily life outside work or the sports team that is under scrutiny, not what you say on a message board, which really doesn't have a bearing on your livelihood. I mean, if you don't want to use Steam or XBL due to privacy issues, whatever, that's just a luxury anyway. Don't want to allow someone to view your private info on facebook? Guesssss you aren't likely to land that job (or what have you).

I could see someone complaining about their job or their boss (or coach (almost typed "couch")), or even just joking or posting something sarcastic and getting into trouble over it when it shouldn't matter if they do their job well.

I'm really not sure how this could be advocated. Yes it could help nail people who are unproductive at work or on the sports team, but really, I think performance should speak for itself. There shouldn't be a circlejerk facebook spying party to decide whether or not you deserve what you do.

[BIG ND SWEATY]

Originally Posted by Ill-Gotten James

WTF! Come on, really! How does what you post on facebook, or twitter, affect your ability to perform your job?

well i ....ed my friend out of getting a job at mens warehouse by making his status update "stretchin butts and bustin nuts", they said they wanted someone more mature

[Explorer]

I cannot imagine ever opening a private account in front of a potential employer. I'd ask for this in writing.

I can understand something posted publicly and its affect on a sports team, but if one is keeping something private ("Hey, Mom, the doctor says my cancer is probably in remission!"), then that invasion could cause an an employer to be wrongly prejudiced against a potential employee.

I hope someone with standing will bring a case regarding this.

[Grand Moff Tim]

Originally Posted by Choop

Except getting a job or securing a place on a sports team isn't the same as applying for a service, or using a product. Facebook has more personal info on it usually about you as a person than just your buying habits or whatever. IMO it seems unnecessarily intrusive. I mean, this is information about your daily life outside work or the sports team that is under scrutiny, not what you say on a message board, which really doesn't have a bearing on your livelihood. I mean, if you don't want to use Steam or XBL due to privacy issues, whatever, that's just a luxury anyway. Don't want to allow someone to view your private info on facebook? Guesssss you aren't likely to land that job (or what have you).

I could see someone complaining about their job or their boss (or coach (almost typed "couch")), or even just joking or posting something sarcastic and getting into trouble over it when it shouldn't matter if they do their job well.

I'm really not sure how this could be advocated. Yes it could help nail people who are unproductive at work or on the sports team, but really, I think performance should speak for itself. There shouldn't be a circlejerk facebook spying party to decide whether or not you deserve what you do.

Oh, I'm not really advocating it. I think it'd be pretty shitty of a company to want me to do that. I just don't think it's unconstitutional. I've gone through far more intense and invasive interview processes and background checks than just having to show someone my facebook (polygraphs are fun!), but I knew what I was up against going in. If any part of the interview process involved sharing something I didn't feel the employer had the right to know, I wouldn't have gone for the job.

[troyguitar]

Facebook is a giant waste of time anyway, who ....ing cares?

[Choop]

Originally Posted by Grand Moff Tim

Oh, I'm not really advocating it. I think it'd be pretty shitty of a company to want me to do that. I just don't think it's unconstitutional. I've gone through far more intense and invasive interview processes and background checks than just having to show someone my facebook (polygraphs are fun!), but I knew what I was up against going in. If any part of the interview process involved sharing something I didn't feel the employer had the right to know, I wouldn't have gone for the job.

Understood! Sorry, I didn't want to sound malicious. I can't really say it's unconstitutional either...only because people have the choice not to take the job or play the game, or w/e. I'm not sure where the line is..maybe if it were more commonplace.

[Explorer]

I know from interviews we run with potential candidates that one cannot ask questions which require revealing age, sexual orientation, children, marital status and so on. It's just plain illegal in my area.

Other states may differ, but using that legal principle of job interviews being only about the job, and not about the candidate's personal life, I can see a judge ruling this as too invasive.

Further, since laws regarding keeping one's medical history private are federal in nature, any forced exposure of such information certainly runs afoul of federal statute. I'm fairly certain that if a candidate showed that he was required to reveal he was being treated with AZT, for example, no federal judge would rule that an interviewer had more right to that information than a medical facility to which a patient is being transferred.

In other words, if a doctor must secure permission from the patient to share information with a hospital, and if there are severe federal penalties for breach of that confidentiality, an employer who coerces revelations of such information will be breaking those laws. Coercing a candidate to open private correspondence is a potential breach.

And, if one will only be considered for employment if one potentially reveals one's medical information, that is considered coercion by most courts. It's not just that one should walk away from such jobs, it's that they have no right to ask you to reveal it.

Anyway, as I said, this will be interesting when the first real court case is introduced by someone with standing.

[vampiregenocide]

Originally Posted by HighGain510

That's not the same thing and you know it. Again, you don't HAVE to do anything, that's part of your rights. Just as they also have the right to refuse to hire you or let you on the team if you don't want to follow their required policies for admittance. Honestly, how much stuff do you post on Facebook that you REALLY wouldn't want an employer seeing (I've seen the kind of things you post sometimes, Mr. Wildish... )? If your answer is "well, a LOT of stuff..." then chances are pretty good there is a deeper issue there than not getting the job. I think the reason more and more organizations are looking into stuff like Facebook is that people DO post so much information on there that they really shouldn't post publicly. Bottom line, if it's something you don't want ANYONE who isn't a friend of yours to see, it might not be the best idea to post about it on Facebook.

Also something to note - it's not like EVERY company is doing it (and sure, you could say "it's only a matter of time, it's a slippery slope etc. etc." but that's a cop-out) and the ones mentioned specifically are government-related or college-related. In the former, certain positions require higher levels of background checks and I guess if you want to be a prison guard they want to make sure you're not doing anything odd. In the case of the latter, I'm sure their motivation is probably trying to watch for partying/underage drinking. I'll say it again, not that I agree it's right or okay for them to ask, but I do see WHY they're doing it.

If you're having trouble finding a job and suddenly ones comes up but you have to show them your Facebook, then you don't have much choice.

I don't act professional on Facebook or on here for that matter (to an extent, I still have manners and whatnot) but these are SOCIAL networking sites. THey are for SOCIALISING, and people's social lives should be kept separate from their work. If they have an issue that can interfere with their work so be it, if it's very relevant then I understand you might want to get a better idea of the person who wants the job, like in the prison guard job you mentioned that's quite a high-responsibility position so I'd expect a thorough check, but generally it's not their business. I know people check up applicants in the UK so I made my Facebook private. It's for socialising, and I keep that separate from work.

I kinda agree with what you're saying, and I see why they would do it, I just think it's way too invasive and sure you have a right to turn it down, but we all know what finding a job is like nowadays and that may not always be an option. Social networking is for socialising, and is kept outside of work. As far as I'm aware, that's always been the case. You don't socialise on the job, you're there to work. People who don't get fired. Social networking websites haven't changed that, and if someone is the sort of person where they do let social life get in the way of work, then you shouldn't need to check Facebook to find that out. Just ask for a reference.


Also my first post was a little tongue-in-cheek.

[Selvmord]

i wouldnt admit to having either. and certainly wouldnt put my real name on either of the 2 if i was looking for a job or going to a school who gave a shit about it.

[Xaios]

A couple weeks ago, a friend of mine's Facebook account was hacked by someone from Anonymous, and they plastered his wall with their propaganda. Said friend is employed in a job where ties to a group such as Anonymous are grounds for firing, and a coworker of his saw said propaganda on his wall and reported it to their supervisor. My friend didn't lose his job, but he had to convince both his employer and the police (yes, he had to be interrogated by the police over this because of his employment) that he wasn't affiliated with Anonymous in any way.

Just thought I'd share.

[HighGain510]

Originally Posted by Xaios

A couple weeks ago, a friend of mine's Facebook account was hacked by someone from Anonymous, and they plastered his wall with their propaganda. Said friend is employed in a job where ties to a group such as Anonymous are grounds for firing, and a coworker of his saw said propaganda on his wall and reported it to their supervisor. My friend didn't lose his job, but he had to convince both his employer and the police (yes, he had to be interrogated by the police over this because of his employment) that he wasn't affiliated with Anonymous in any way.

Just thought I'd share.

Contacting facebook and requesting that they share the logs with both/either his employer and/or the police should have shown that the IP(s) they accessed his account from when the changes were made were not his. I'd assume they hacked his password to gain access, there would have been some evidence of that as well, they don't just magically guess your password on the first try.

[Xaios]

Originally Posted by HighGain510

Contacting facebook and requesting that they share the logs with both/either his employer and/or the police should have shown that the IP(s) they accessed his account from when the changes were made were not his. I'd assume they hacked his password to gain access, there would have been some evidence of that as well, they don't just magically guess your password on the first try.

Guessing wouldn't have anything to do with it if he accessed Facebook on a computer that was infected with a keylogger. Also, the courts have recently ruled that an IP address is not a person, which means that, while you can't say definitively that an IP address is a specific person, you can neither say definitely that an IP isn't a person. Additionally, if he had been the kind of person who would plaster Anonymous propoganda across his profile, he would know how to use a proxy server to access his Facebook account from a remote IP address.

All this to say that the modern realities of electronic law essentially make it impossible to prove that he did or didn't do it, at least not without getting a warrant to search his electronic devices and making the process incredibly complicated. That's why the police had to interview him and establish his character as a person IN person.

[leftyguitarjoe]

Originally Posted by HighGain510

Well when they see idiots posting about getting drunk daily or getting high/doing other illegal things, I'd say it has a pretty good correlation to how well you do your job.

I get drunk and high all the time and I'm awesome at my job.

I just dont post it on facebook because I'm not retarded.

[HighGain510]

Originally Posted by Xaios

Guessing wouldn't have anything to do with it if he accessed Facebook on a computer that was infected with a keylogger. Also, the courts have recently ruled that an IP address is not a person, which means that, while you can't say definitively that an IP address is a specific person, you can neither say definitely that an IP isn't a person. Additionally, if he had been the kind of person who would plaster Anonymous propoganda across his profile, he would know how to use a proxy server to access his Facebook account from a remote IP address.

All this to say that the modern realities of electronic law essentially make it impossible to prove that he did or didn't do it, at least not without getting a warrant to search his electronic devices and making the process incredibly complicated. That's why the police had to interview him and establish his character as a person IN person.

A) Never log in to Facebook from a computer that is not your own. Common sense, that's like cyber security 101. If that was his excuse, I have zero sympathy. Get a smart phone if you NEED to access it on the go.

B) If your own computer got infected with a keylogger, you either downloaded something yourself that you shouldn't have (dumb) or you were browsing somewhere you shouldn't have been browsing (also dumb).

C) Sure you can't say the IP is a specific person logging in, but if they saw the updates were made from somewhere WAY far away from where he was, he'd have a better chance at explaining that it wasn't him. Unless of course your buddy IS a member of Anonymous and he used a proxy to fake hack his own page and then claim innocence, but if that were the case he's an idiot. I'd find it hard to believe they would think he would turn his own public Facebook page into an Anonymous propaganda page and then claim it wasn't him, most folks in Anonymous don't seem like idiots as far as I can tell, if their targets are as large as they typically are they wouldn't use their OWN Facebook page as one of them. Logical explanation.

D) That IP ruling must be recent, there was a case in the past year or so where some dude got busted for his kid downloading a shitload of stuff onto the shared family computer. Guy got busted, not his kid, as it is his house and the ISP is registered under him. You should tell him about that case.

E) You're telling me they considered getting a judgement of character by some cops as a more definite way to prove he didn't do it than a forensic examination of his electronic devices? Yeah, that makes sense. If it's something that serious I don't really buy that.

Originally Posted by leftyguitarjoe

I get drunk and high all the time and I'm awesome at my job.

I just dont post it on facebook because I'm not retarded.

Congrats for being smart enough not to post about it on Facebook. You did, however, just post about it here and this is just as (if not moreso) public a place as Facebook, so your employer could just as easily find that information here if they have any idea you post here... I'm assuming you don't work at a job where you have access to a computer and log into this forum from there right? If you do, well... what you just did above was not very smart.

Also chances are pretty good if you're getting high all the time, you're not going to pass for the kinds of jobs that either a) require a drug test before you can proceed with the hiring process or b) have a "random drug test" policy in place (or if they do have one in place where you work that's not very smart on your part for continuing to consume illegal drugs, no judgement, just not the brightest thing to chance losing your job over).