# It truly is a Facebook world: 1st Amendment Issues



## pink freud (Mar 8, 2012)

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 (Mar 8, 2012)

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


----------



## HighGain510 (Mar 8, 2012)

Ill-Gotten James said:


> 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 (Mar 8, 2012)

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 fuck up every task you give to them.

So it really depends.


----------



## HighGain510 (Mar 8, 2012)

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 (Mar 8, 2012)

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 (Mar 8, 2012)

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 (Mar 8, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> 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 (Mar 8, 2012)

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 (Mar 8, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> 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 (Mar 8, 2012)

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 (Mar 8, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> 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 (Mar 8, 2012)

Ill-Gotten James said:


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



well i fucked 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 (Mar 8, 2012)

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 (Mar 8, 2012)

Choop said:


> 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 (Mar 8, 2012)

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


----------



## Choop (Mar 8, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> 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 (Mar 9, 2012)

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 (Mar 9, 2012)

HighGain510 said:


> 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 (Mar 9, 2012)

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 (Mar 9, 2012)

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 (Mar 9, 2012)

Xaios said:


> 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 (Mar 9, 2012)

HighGain510 said:


> 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 (Mar 9, 2012)

HighGain510 said:


> 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 (Mar 9, 2012)

Xaios said:


> 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.



leftyguitarjoe said:


> 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).


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Mar 9, 2012)

HighGain510 said:


> 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).



We only drug test in the event of an accident involving a forklift. I'm the boss so I dont drive forklifts anymore.


----------



## Xaios (Mar 9, 2012)

HighGain510 said:


> 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.



Oh, I agree. However, you'll find that 90% of the people on this earth will do it anyway, so it's hard to blame him for not using "best practices" when most other people don't either. It's not an excuse, but it is a reason.



HighGain510 said:


> 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).



Again, agreed, but only to a point. After all, a moderator on this forum got a virus once from this very site. It's not necessarily the site itself, but the a lot of the time it's fly-by-night ads that are hitting you with viruses. I've also gotten a virus from a trusted website that I had been visiting for YEARS without issue. The rules of that game are not set in stone.



HighGain510 said:


> 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.



I think you're missing the point. The point is that it's almost impossible to be certain from an electronics forensic perspective because there are so many "what if's" involved. Not without getting an agency like the FBI or a major cybercrimes unit involved. It also bears mentioning also that those agencies generally won't get involved unless they already know beyond the shadow of a doubt that you're doing something illegal. What my friend was being accused of, while being a serious matter to his employer, was technically not against the law.



HighGain510 said:


> 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.



It is relatively recent in the grand scheme of things, I believe the ruling in this specific case I have in mind was made in May 2011.



HighGain510 said:


> 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.



As a matter of fact, yes, they did. The fact that he still has his job is proof enough of that. While I can't state here what his job is, I can tell you with absolute certainty that his employer (knowing who it is) takes security in all forms very seriously.

Also, because you really seem to be looking too far into this, I simply posted a cautionary tale telling you of what DID happen to a friend of mine. Examining the wonderful world of what might have happened after the fact doesn't really help anyone, because my account succinctly describes exactly what DID happen.


----------



## Origin (Mar 9, 2012)

If you don't believe in an absolute, inalienable right to privacy in your personal life outside of work, unless the person in question has a criminal record or other noted offenses in their history, or there is overwhelming cause to believe they are directly defrauding the company or posing a risk to their employer or co-workers, I can't honestly say you believe in a free country. I guess these employers don't. This is just distressing and pathetic. Stay the FUCK out of my bedroom, and I'll stay out of yours. How is that difficult to comprehend?

Getting around it could maybe be done by giving them a dummy account with your real name then making one with a stupid last name or something for your real friends and stuff. Long as you don't outwardly have a profile picture blatantly displaying you for them to stumble on at least.


----------



## ilyti (Mar 9, 2012)

pink freud said:


> 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?



Then if they ask you if you have a social networking account, and you say no, they'll look at you like you're either a friendless loner (who wants to hire one of those?)... or think that you're lying. Then they say "Thanks, maybe we'll call you." Then they'll look up your name online and see if you really _do _have a Facebook page. They discover that you don't, then just decide not to hire you simply because they _can't_ easily do a background check, and figure you have something to hide. Or they think you're "not a team player," and therefore useless to their business. Either way it's wrong and screwed up.


----------



## pink freud (Mar 9, 2012)

ilyti said:


> Then if they ask you if you have a social networking account, and you say no, they'll look at you like you're either a friendless loner (who wants to hire one of those?)... or think that you're lying. Then they say "Thanks, maybe we'll call you." Then they'll look up your name online and see if you really _do _have a Facebook page. They discover that you don't, then just decide not to hire you simply because they _can't_ easily do a background check, and figure you have something to hide. Or they think you're "not a team player," and therefore useless to their business. Either way it's wrong and screwed up.



I already have a job that required a background check, but I work for a fairly large company. Do smaller companies skimp that much on what they consider a requirement?


----------



## Explorer (Mar 10, 2012)

ilyti said:


> Then if they ask you if you have a social networking account, and you say no, they'll look at you like you're either a friendless loner (who wants to hire one of those?)... or think that you're lying. Then they say "Thanks, maybe we'll call you." Then they'll look up your name online and see if you really _do _have a Facebook page. They discover that you don't, then just decide not to hire you simply because they _can't_ easily do a background check, and figure you have something to hide. Or they think you're "not a team player," and therefore useless to their business. Either way it's wrong and screwed up.



Something we've noted at work is an overestimation by the younger crowd of how important social media is. 

I believe that, in discussion with our management team, perhaps 10 percent use social media, and that is mostly to keep in touch with family. 

We worry more about what someone has accomplished before, or what they seem capable of in the future. The fact that someone has had goals in their life in real life, instead of online, doesn't make us conclude that they're friendless losers.

Incidentally, one coworker who is one of several Ironman competitors just in my own office always has the same response when asked if he caught a movie: "I'd rather be out doing stuff than watch someone pretend to do stuff." 

In the face of the vacation photos he brings back, and what he's accomplished, it's hard for me to imagine a workplace branding him a friendless loser. However, if that's the way your company hires, they're probably missing out on some great candidates who are too busy to worry about updating an online status.

----

And, regarding the diligence of smaller companies, normally any company which bothers having an HR department will do what is required, will verify claims of degrees, past employment, etc. All that work takes time, and it's important to get the best candidate, as each hire can cost a company some thousands of dollars before a job offer is made.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Mar 11, 2012)

Xaios said:


> Again, agreed, but only to a point. After all, a moderator on this forum got a virus once from this very site. It's not necessarily the site itself, but the a lot of the time it's fly-by-night ads that are hitting you with viruses. I've also gotten a virus from a trusted website that I had been visiting for YEARS without issue. The rules of that game are not set in stone.


The rules could be set in stone by a simple matter of not using a broken OS. There is NO other OS available today than Windows that allows arbitrary execution of code without some kind of manual user intervention.


> Hey, are you absolutely sure you want to run this code? It might fuck your computer up...


And an acceptable level of computer security is a BASIC thing to learn. Really, there's no excuse for having a computer, and not knowing the basic don'ts for it. Without the aforementioned *BUILT-IN* brokenness, there are no do's in computer security, just don'ts.


----------



## oremus91 (Mar 19, 2012)

The Atomic Ass said:


> There is NO other OS available today than Windows that allows arbitrary execution of code without some kind of manual user intervention.



I'm going to call bullshit right there. *All* software has bugs and if those bugs lead to memory such as buffer overflows or they are in services directly tied to a shell with escalated privileges you can do whatever the hell you want. I realize that you meant to say that Microsoft Windows includes these things by default but all of the common OS's are useful when approached with pragmatism as opposed to fanboyism. In reality all you have to do is become a desirable enough target to become truly vulnerable.


----------



## Bigsby (Mar 19, 2012)

i hate facebook being 17 and having teenage friends my wall consists of how bad life sucks when they're parents don't buy them a car and how drake is the best musician ever


----------



## Deadnightshade (Mar 19, 2012)

HighGain510 said:


> 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.




I had the impression that entering both in incognito (or similar) mode plus using the safe fb site (https ) would be enough


----------



## oremus91 (Mar 19, 2012)

Deadnightshade said:


> I had the impression that entering both in incognito (or similar) mode plus using the safe fb site (https ) would be enough



HTTPS does encrypt traffic but there are a few reasons why this isn't sufficient at work. 

1. They know the IP address and domain you are talking to so they know you are slacking off in the first place.

2. If they are monitoring your screen in any way encryption doesn't help because you are the end point what receives the content.

3. HTTPS aids in securing your connection from point to point but at the end you want to be able to read your wall so it must be decrypted to enable you to do so. At that point where the traffic goes through decryption software on your machine can intercept the data as it is pushed up the network stack into applications.

As for incognito mode that doesn't store traffic related information on your machine but it doesn't make you or the service or traffic you are interacting with any more anonymous.

Unless of course you were being sarcastic and I didn't pick up on it.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Mar 19, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> 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.



Maybe that's why corporations are considered people. 

It's like a new totalitarian state, except this time it's not where you live, because living somewhere costs money. 

Regardless of the ethical or logical concerns, I don't think any free service should require a lawyer's analysis before signing up. Can't blame Mark though, his main goal is simply to make those patronizing Winklevoss twins feel stupid. Or was that movie just a little misleading? 

Okay seriously though, I watched that short NBC documentary on Mark and they cited some of those leaked emails from the lawsuit, one of which Zuckerberg said something like "I can't believe people are willing to give up their information so easily. Stupid fucks".

It's clear he doesn't care about privacy. Get over it or delete your Facebook. Personally I find the single ladies and free teleconferencing ads convenient.


----------



## beneharris (Mar 20, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> Facebook is a giant waste of time anyway, who fucking cares?





i can see why companies would do this. i don't think i would ever personally consent to it, as i don't think its necessary, but you have to look at it from their point of view as well. 

with as public as that crap is, what if somebody did something that really hurt the company's image? its not just that one person's job on the line, there are other people depending on their company's reputation, and that could easily be shot by one guy being a douche. 

"oh i hate working at *insert crappy job*, they treat us like slaves." 
"my boss raped me today" - well all know that isn't literal, but what about somebody older?

those are stupid examples, but just imagine where that could get a company, especially a small one.


----------



## Necris (Mar 20, 2012)

AntoneBigsby said:


> i hate facebook being 17 and having teenage friends my wall consists of how bad life sucks when they're parents don't buy them a car and how drake is the best musician ever


Might I suggest acquiring better friends?


----------



## Domkid118 (Mar 20, 2012)

I personally hate how the world revolves around Facebook, Its nothing but a place for Keyboard warriors to chat shit, people to judge by only looking at photos, if i didn't have to use it for my band i would of deleted it long ago, Its also weird how its most people default as soon as they log onto a computer to go straight to FB i also do it without realising sometimes,


----------



## kung_fu (Mar 20, 2012)

My younger sister started going to community college, and she pretty much had to start a facebok account so the teacher could assign homework through it. It wasn't an official school policy though, just a teacher who didn't wan't to go through the official channels when assigning work apparently so he could change his mind at any time. Back in my day, the teacher just put small print at the bottom of the course outline (something like: the professor reserves the right to change the dates, subject matter, and weighting of any tests/prjects/assignments at any time, no big deal )


----------



## Explorer (Mar 21, 2012)

Domkid118 said:


> I personally hate how the world revolves around Facebook.



Does it really? I must have missed the memo, because I've never used it. Hopefully I'm not missing too much by being out and active in the world.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Mar 21, 2012)

^^ I am a teen, and i only go on Facebook to talk to my girlfriend when she can't talk on the phone and has too much to say to text. Other than that i really don't use it.


----------



## Powermetalbass (Mar 26, 2012)

HighGain510 said:


> they can't legally force you to give them a password to any private account.



No they can't force you, but they don't have to hire you either. Regardless of the protections offered in any government there are a 1000 ways around it. For instance

You: Hi, I'm here for the inteview!
Employer: Great, I need your username and password for facebook before we get started
You: No!
(interview continues)

A few days later you don't get the job. Someone else does. You can try to sue or charge or whatever, but not gonna do you any good. if it did go to court, they can just say you wern't what they were looking for, you had a bad attitude, or some other general BS.

My point being, it sucks, but there isn't much you can do about it. Either stick to your belief in privacy privilages and be gainfully underemployed or suck it up to get a job.


----------



## tacotiklah (Mar 26, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Does it really? I must have missed the memo, because I've never used it. Hopefully I'm not missing too much by being out and active in the world.



I'm on facebook a lot, and I'm still out and active in the world. On days where I'm too exhausted from school and the gym kicking my ass, it helps me stay social. I also use it as an invaluable tool to network with other musicians outside of this forum and get genuine feed back on things like mixes, gear advice and the like. 

Not to mention it just feels good to share funny pics/memes with my friends/acquaintances and have a good laugh.

Given who I am/what I'm about, it is absolutely necessary that I tell any prospective employer no if they ask for this information. I have some pics of my process of transitioning posted there for friends and family members to gain an idea of what I'm going through and my entire profile is set to friends only privacy. I don't want strange, creepy people I don't know going through my profile/pics and I certainly don't want my facebook account to out me to an employer (which would make a prime target for discrimination) before I'm ready to say something, if at all.


----------



## ddtonfire (Mar 26, 2012)

Domkid118 said:


> Its nothing but a place for Keyboard warriors to chat shit, people to judge by only looking at photos, if i didn't have to use it for my band i would of deleted it long ago



Haha that sounds like SS.org sometimes.


J/k


----------



## flint757 (Mar 27, 2012)

HighGain510 said:


> 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.



Facebook has also advocated that if employers try and get users personal information that they will personally sue that company because of stuff like this.


----------



## Andromalia (Mar 28, 2012)

All of this is nothing new. Before Facebook, companie wanted to have your home phone and mobile number. Yeah, to phone you while you're not actually working and not paid.
I have worked for 25 years now, companies will do what they can get away with. Period.


----------



## caskettheclown (Mar 29, 2012)

I can kind of understand if they want to "be friends" with you on a site to make sure you aren't slandering the company name but they aren't getting access to my profiles or whats on my cell phones/laptops and things of that nature.


----------



## AxeHappy (Mar 30, 2012)

Andromalia said:


> All of this is nothing new. Before Facebook, companie wanted to have your home phone and mobile number. Yeah, to phone you while you're not actually working and not paid.
> I have worked for 25 years now, companies will do what they can get away with. Period.



So shouldn't we as employees/people do our utmost to make sure they can't get away with much? 

Instead of saying, "Meh...it's your right to refuse this invasion of privacy and it's their right not to hire you," shouldn't we be stopping the invasion of privacy? 

Or insert whatever bullshit corporations happen to be up to at the time.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 30, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> So shouldn't we as employees/people do our utmost to make sure they can't get away with much?
> 
> Instead of saying, "Meh...it's your right to refuse this invasion of privacy and it's their right not to hire you," shouldn't we be stopping the invasion of privacy?
> 
> Or insert whatever bullshit corporations happen to be up to at the time.



I'm on the fence about these issues. I don't think the government has a right to force people to hire others like our system in the US is somewhat set up today, but at the same time there is more supply than demand in the work force so without it you just have to submit to the corporate will or be jobless...


----------



## Underworld (Apr 2, 2012)

beneharris said:


> "oh i hate working at *insert crappy job*, they treat us like slaves."
> "my boss raped me today" - well all know that isn't literal, but what about somebody older?
> 
> those are stupid examples, but just imagine where that could get a company, especially a small one.


 
Not that stupid. I have been told by someone from my professionnal association that a fellow lawyer (I'm a lawyer too) posted on her facebook that her ex employer (an other lawyer) is somewhat of an asshole. It is deontologicaly prohibited for a lawyer to call an other lawyer an asshole or anything like that. The professionnal association sued her for ethical misconduct upon her faceboook declaration and she was declared guilty, facebook as a proof .


(Well, take that with a grain of salt, my professionnal association thinks that my Metal T-shirts are a misconduct towards our profession)


----------



## Treeunit212 (Apr 2, 2012)

This one hits close to home.

Teacher&#8217;s aide fired for refusing to share Facebook access with employer


----------



## flint757 (Apr 3, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> This one hits close to home.
> 
> Teachers aide fired for refusing to share Facebook access with employer



Sounds like she'll be fine. Chances are she'll win, but she might find it hard to get hired. People who do what she did get treated like whistle blowers a lot of the time (permanent unemployment). I think that's the only reason that people shouldn't be so quick to sue especially since there is talk of making her a martyr. Good luck getting a job at a school after that...


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Apr 3, 2012)

My work life is NOT my personal life. I would turn down any job that asked me to do that without question. If you are not employing me because of my ability, then don't bother.


----------



## BlindingLight7 (Apr 3, 2012)

HighGain510 said:


> 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.


Not to mention people that are on facebook more than they are on the job...


----------



## flint757 (Apr 3, 2012)

BlindingLight7 said:


> Not to mention people that are on facebook more than they are on the job...



Thinking about it all jobs typically monitor peoples computer use (it least everywhere I've worked). So instead of asking for it they could just watch them at work basically and get the same info with none of the hassle since they did it on a work computer.


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Apr 3, 2012)

Am I being too sweeping in saying this is just, plainly and simply, an invasion of privacy?


----------



## flint757 (Apr 3, 2012)

CrushingAnvil said:


> Am I being to sweeping in saying this is just, plainly and simply, an invasion of privacy?



I would say yes, but it is a "public domain" so maybe not. With facebook's new "timeline" feature privacy is out the window. I think they should be able to see as much as you make public (through privacy settings) and that is it, but if you're dumb enough to use it at work well then if they confront you good luck with that...


----------



## Dan_Vacant (Apr 6, 2012)

I'm sure if a employer looked at my conversations with my dad on Facebook he would never talk to me again....and would probly try and get me sent to a institute for crazy people. If the employer actually LOGS INTO your account it is invasions of privacy it isn't different then him going through your mail or reading your text but if he goes on my page NOT logged into my account I really don't care.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Apr 9, 2012)

oremus91 said:


> I'm going to call bullshit right there. *All* software has bugs and if those bugs lead to memory such as buffer overflows or they are in services directly tied to a shell with escalated privileges you can do whatever the hell you want. I realize that you meant to say that Microsoft Windows includes these things by default but all of the common OS's are useful when approached with pragmatism as opposed to fanboyism. In reality all you have to do is become a desirable enough target to become truly vulnerable.


Starting a web browser via a root shell would fall under my definition of user intervention, and the only purpose I can conceive of needing to do so would be software testing, which should be done on machines with no critical information.

I understand that bugs exist, but a distributed community tends to jump on these things acceptably quickly for my experience and level of comfort. Microsoft places themselves at a distinct disadvantage (and their users, as well), by having so many of their bugs inherent to the design of the underlying system.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 9, 2012)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Starting a web browser via a root shell would fall under my definition of user intervention, and the only purpose I can conceive of needing to do so would be software testing, which should be done on machines with no critical information.
> 
> I understand that bugs exist, but a distributed community tends to jump on these things acceptably quickly for my experience and level of comfort. Microsoft places themselves at a distinct disadvantage (and their users, as well), by having so many of their bugs inherent to the design of the underlying system.



Here is where MS has an advantage over apple though. Mac is positioned like playstation was awhile back (invincible). So on the user end a MS user is actually safer than an apple user IMO. I self protect my computer people who use Mac's do not and when the shit rolls down hill most apple users are too inexperienced to fix the problem. (obviously not all, but it is a simpler setup and therefore attracts an inherently less computer savvy audience).


----------



## Treeunit212 (Apr 15, 2012)

South Park is an amazing show, in that it tends to really sum up my feelings on issues better than I ever could.

This is basically the sub-conscious realization I made in Middle School that got me through and made me realize who I was.

I did it, Grandma. I finally stood up for myself. I got really mean and I beat the snot out of Dr. Oz. I cant lie; it felt kind of good at first. Since then, all I have is kind of this dark empty feeling. Then I realized, thats how you must feel all the time. Poor ole Grandma. Ive been getting a lot of advice on how to deal with you: stand up to you, tell on you; but I kind of realize theres just people like you out there all over the place. When youre a kid, things seem like theyre going to last forever. But theyre not. Life changes and you wont always be around. Some day youre going to die; someday pretty soon. And when youre lying in that hospital bed with tubes up your nose and that little pan under your butt to pee in, Ill come visit you. Ill come just to show you that Im still alive and Im still happy and youll die being nothing but you. Goodnight, Grandma! - Butters


----------



## bob123 (Apr 16, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> This one hits close to home.
> 
> Teacher&#8217;s aide fired for refusing to share Facebook access with employer




You should really read that whole article lol...


"During April 2011, Hester had posted a picture of a co-worker as a humorous joke. According to Hester, the photo showed the *co-worker with her pants around her ankles*...."

Im ASSuming another teacher...

"The photo came to the attention of Lewis Cass Intermediate School District superintendent Robert Colby after a* parent of a student at the school viewed the photo* and complained to the school district...."

yeah...


This one isn't so bad, really. Id like to see the context of the other ones as well before getting up in arms.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Apr 16, 2012)

I dont really care, I dont have anything to hide. Usually the type of people that are stupid enough to post pictures of themselves getting shit faced all the time and consuming loads of copious amounts of drugs are retarded anyways, so no loss.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 16, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> I dont really care, I dont have anything to hide. Usually the type of people that are stupid enough to post pictures of themselves getting shit faced all the time and consuming loads of copious amounts of drugs are retarded anyways, so no loss.



Ya when did it become okay for that to be so public 

That being said I've had pictures taken of me at a party. Blacking out is unpleasant when you get the photo's/vid's the next day


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Apr 16, 2012)

So dont get so shitfaced man!


----------



## flint757 (Apr 16, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> So dont get so shitfaced man!



Ya that only happens like twice a year. Last time was at a bachelors party and the next was a family reunion (redneck style )...


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Apr 16, 2012)

I havent got black out drunk since I was like 14


----------



## Treeunit212 (Apr 16, 2012)

bob123 said:


> You should really read that whole article lol...
> 
> 
> "During April 2011, Hester had posted a picture of a co-worker as a humorous joke. According to Hester, the photo showed the *co-worker with her pants around her ankles*...."
> ...



I did read it. When I said it hit close to home, I meant quite literally in that it happened miles from where my dad grew up and my grandmother lived until she passed last year.

Hopefully the outcome of this case will shed some light on the court's stance on this relatively new privacy issue, at least in my state.


----------

