One Guess Who Wants To Give Your Boss Your Facebook Password

[Playinghardball]

How’s the “small government” rhetoric working out for ya?

[Scuba]

1. What facebook password?

[hobbit709]

2. If someone asks me for mine my response will be "You want that answer in 1 word or 2?"

[hifiguy]

3. I am not now nor will I ever be on Facebook.

That is all.

[TBF]

48. Love it. nt

[tavalon]

53. You're a smart guy

I thought I never would, too. But the bastards sucked me in. It's amazing how many people I've reconnected with and how many people I've realized I don't want in my life anymore.

[BlueIris]

59. Same. FB is for suckers. nt

[WeekendWarrior]

105. Facebook is for Smart Business People Who

embrace social media to get the word out about their products or services.

Facebook is also for people who want to engage in conversation and debate—much like Democratic Underground. In fact, the only difference between Facebook and DU is format. DU requires membership. DU shows ads. DU has trolls who say things like "FB is for suckers."

The level of discourse on Facebook is no less compelling than the level of discourse here. I've seen a lot of boneheads in both forums and I've seen a lot of very smart, savvy people.

Facebook is for people who realize that there isn't only one forum for communication and the exchange of ideas. You may not like Facebook—assuming you've ever been there—but that doesn't mean that those of us who use and enjoy the site are suckers.

Thank you for participating.

[Katashi_itto]

4. There is a good thing about Employeres looking :)

How facebook snooping by prospective employers can come back to bite them on the butt.

"...I got her out of the room as quickly as possible. The next few interviews were a blur, I was shaken. And then it happened again. This time, I found myself talking to a young man fresh out of University about a development position. After allowing me to surf his Facebook, he asked me how I felt about parenting. As a parent, it was easy to say I liked the idea. Then he dropped the bombshell.

His partner was expecting, and shortly after being hired he would be taking six months of parental leave as required by Ontario law. I told him that he should not have discussed this matter with me. “Oh normally I wouldn’t, but since you’re looking through my Facebook, you know that already. Now of course, you would never refuse to hire someone because they plan to exercise their legal right to parental leave, would you?”

What could I say? I guess we have another hire whether he’s qualified or not. Here’s the bottom line: My ability to select the best candidates for our positions has been irreparably compromised by looking into their private lives. I’ve been “tainted” by knowledge of their sexual orientation, illnesses, religion, political affiliations, and other factors that expose us to anti-discrimination legislation. We can't even claim that the employee improperly disclosed these matters to us, as we are the ones initiating the investigation of their private doings."

[GeorgeGist]

29. You're talking about Canada.

They're a bit saner.

[Katashi_itto]

33. True but the principle is the same. It could be the basis for discrimiantion suits here.

[leftyohiolib]

66. any lawsuit stemming from this kind of action will end up with a 5-4 decision against you

another reason not to sit out this election. THE KINGS OF SCOTUS WILL NOT TOLERATE THE BUZZINGS OF GNATS

[Katashi_itto]

97. All the more reason to keep this in front of SCOTUS.

[leveymg]

5. Fuck Facebook.

And fuck the selfish dweeb Zuckerberg who invented it as a means to harvest and resell personal information from everyone who uses it.

[klook]

31. +1

Everybody using Facebook should ask themselves, "How does Facebook make money?"

Mostly through advertising, as it turns out -- but what makes the advertising so profitable? It's Facebook's ability to deliver targeted advertising based on the data they've collected about users.

Obviously, many users think this is just peachy. I'm not one of them, so I'm staying off of Facebook.

For further info:
Facebook strips 'privacy' from new 'data use' policy explainer

One little tidbit from this piece: "When you or others who can see your content and information use an application, your content and information is shared with the application." No thanks.

[caraher]

36. Or as one person put it...

If Facebook is free, Facebook is not the product, YOU are!

[bart95]

78. i will never understand how anyone could not see through that nt

[IDemo]

6. No need for a new bill - it's already illegal

I've posted this information several times already, but let's summarize:

1) Facebook user agreements and other online agreements are called "clickwrap agreements" and are legal contracts.
http://www.internetlibrary.com/publications/cwahe_art.cfm

2) The Facebook terms of service specifically prohibit the user from giving out their password. You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.
http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms?_fb_noscript=1 (see line 8 under "Safety&quot

3) Any attempt by any third party to coerce a password out of a user constitutes wrongful or "tortious" interference and is grounds for legal action.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/wrongful-or-tortious-interference-with-contracts.html

[tinrobot]

11. Not to mention Facbook contains legally protected personal information

An employer can't legally ask your age, marital status, sexual orientation, religion, etc...

Facebook can contain some or all of that information. So, if an employer doesn't hire you, is it because you weren't skilled enough or that they discovered something they shouldn't have discovered by peeking at your Facebook account. The latter can be the basis for a nice fat lawsuit.

[groundloop]

25. "Illegal" and "Violates terms of service" are 2 different things

If you violate the Facebook terms of service you have broken a contract and may be removed from Facebook. That is not "Law".

Further, while I think it's pure bullshit for an employer to ask a potential employee for access to their Facebook page, there would be a huge burden of proof to show in court that you weren't hired because of this. The employer would only need to say that in their opinion Candidate X was more qualified than Candidate Y.

[IDemo]

32. Not illegal under criminal law

But coercing someone else to break their terms of service is clearly interfering with a contract and grounds for civil action under "tort law".

This is about the actions of a third party to cause one of two parties to a contract to violate that contract. Why is that such an incredibly difficult concept for many here to wrap their minds around?

[happyslug]

68. But what is the economic harm TO FACEBOOK, if the employer requires the password?

In Civil Litigation, the issue is ECONOMIC HARM, what harm did the Plaintiff (Facebook) incur do to the breach of the Contract? In the case what harm did FACEBOOK suffer because an Employer demanded and received an Employee's password?

Speculative damages are NOT permitted, it must be a real provable damage. How does an Employee telling his Employee his Facebook Password HARMS Facebook? Notice the fact that the Employee lost his job is NOT A FACTOR. That is something between the Employee and the Employer NOT Facebook.

A second factor, is that the contract is between the Employee and Facebook NOT the Employee's Employer, thus the CONTRACT BREACH is being done by the EMPLOYEE not the EMPLOYER. Facebook has no cause of action against the Employer, but does have a cause of action against the Employee (it is the EMPLOYEE who breached the Contract NOT the Employer, who NEVER signed or otherwise agreed to the terms of the Contract).

Thus those clauses permit Facebook to sue the Employee for giving out the Employee's password, but do NOT give anyone any right to prevent an Employer from demanding that password.

[phleshdef]

103. Employees are likely to stop using Facebook altogether.

If merely having a facebook account opens users up to such bullshit, then it harms the incentive for those users to continue having accounts at all, which ultimately leads to users leaving Facebook.

[happyslug]

73. Actually a Contract is the LAW, but only between the parties to the Contract

Such Contracts are NOT the law against third parties, as is the EMPLOYER who demands the Pass word from the Employee. Thus the only litigation these words permit is between Facebook and the Employee, the Employer is NOT a party to the Contract AND not subject to the terms of the Contract.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

39. ok, then, FaceBook...Sue some repukes.

I would love that.

[happyslug]

70. How, Employers did NOT agree to those terms, the Employee did.

Thus the only cause of action Facebook has by the terms of its Contract is to sue the EMPLOYEE for giving out the EMPLOYEE's Password. The Employer NEVER agreed to those terms and thus not a party to the Contract and thus can NOT be sued for violating the terms of the Contract.

[IDemo]

79. Please see post #6

Whether or not the employer agreed to the Facebook TOS is not the issue here, obviously they did not. The legal issue is the attempt by a third party (the employer in this case) to convince either party of a contract to violate the terms of that contract. The legal term for that is "tortious interference". The plaintiff in this case is the job applicant, not Facebook, although FB has also called this practice potentially damaging to their security. If an interview were ended by a refusal to yield the password and no job offer comes, there exists excellent reason to pursue a civil case.

What is Wrongful or Tortious Interference with Contracts?

Wrongful or Tortious Interference with Contracts occurs where a person causes a party to commit a breach of contract, or where the person has disrupted the ability of a party to perform their obligations under a contract. It is also known as “tortious interference with contract rights” or “intentional interference with contractual relations”. The person causing the interference (the “tortfeasor”) is usually a third party who is not included in the contract.

[Doremus]

49. All it takes is Facebook to change their TOS.

Companies do it everyday and there's nothing you can do about it, other than stop using the site. Which probably would be a good idea anyway.

Website TOS are written to protect the site, not the user. Their beach, their waves.

[happyslug]

76. Why, it means nothing now

See my other posts on this subject

[bart95]

80. 'other than stop using their site'

but they already have your info

[happyslug]

75. Who agreed to those terms? Hint, the EMPLOYER NEVER DID.

Contract terms are the law BUT ONLY BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT. Thus these terms were agreed to by the Employee and Facebook and binding between them, BUT NOT THE EMPLOYER. In simple terms Facebook by these terms can SUE the Employee for violating the Contract, but can NOT sue the Employer who NEVER agreed to these terms. No cause of action is produced by these terms, between Facebook or the Employee against the Employer who demands the password.

Meaningless legalese design to give the impression that people on Facebook have rights, when they do not.

[IDemo]

82. See #6 and #79

You've missed the most basic point I have been trying to make - when a third party, who is not a signee to a contract, makes an attempt to cause either of the parties of that contract to breach its terms, they are guilty of "wrongful, or tortious interference". It's entirely irrelevant whether the third party agrees to the terms of that contract.

[happyslug]

84. But that is a very narrow exception THAT DOES NOT APPLY HERE

To do the tort of "wrongful, or tortious interference" with a Contract, the party has to show HOW their were harmed AND that what the non-party would be liable if the harm was directy done by them. Try saying you can NOT show your photo ID to someone, for you have a contract that forbids you showing it. You get laugh out of court even if you have such contract.

"Wrongful, or tortious interference" comes up in cases where someone agrees to work for another person for a time period and then that person is injured by a third party, someone agrees to buy something, but a third party steals it, etc, notice is those cases an actual TORT is done by a third party that prevents the contract from being completed. Thus an ACTUAL TORT or other WRONGFUL act has had to occur that would be actionable independent of the contract.

When an employer asks an Employee for a password, how is that a TORT or OTHER WRONGFUL ACT? Yes, the contract between the Employee and Facebook says the Employee can NOT give out the Pass Word, but giving out the pass word is a contract breach NOT A TORT or other Wrongful Act by and in itself. Thus the above narrow exception does NOT come into play. No ACTUAL TORT or other WRONGFUL ACT is being done when an Employer asks an Employee for their password. Thus merely demanding an Employee's password is NOT a "Tort or other wrongful actions" and as such NOT ACTIONABLE.

[IDemo]

85. When the result of a refusal to yield a password is elimination from the hiring process,

I would take that to satisfy an "economic damages" requirement for a tort case. In any event, invasion of privacy is itself cause for a tort case as well.

[happyslug]

86. Not with the At-Will Doctrine

How is refusing to hire someone a "Tort or other Wrongful Act"? You are missing the point, the "Tortuous or Wrongful act" has to be something THAT IS AN TORT or WRONGFUL Act by and in itself.

NOT being hired is NOT a "Tort or other Wrongful Act" (Unless the refusal to hire violation the Civil Rights Act or other law, none of which applies to this situation). Violation of a term of a Contract is NOT a "Tort or other Wrongful Act" UNLESS the act complained is a "Tort or other Wrongful Act" independent of the terms of the contract.

If I park my car in your parking space, not only you but the person who contracted with you to give you the parking space can sue me for my act is interfering with your contract AND I have it is illegal for me to park in a space owned by someone else. Thus my parking my car in the parking space a "Tort or other Wrongful Act".

If I injured an employee, so he or she can NOT work for an employer he or she had agreed to work for, that is a "Tort or other Wrongful Act" that the Employer can sue me and recover for.

If I steal a car that prevents the seller from getting the car to the buyer, I am liable to the buyer for my tort of stealing the car and preventing them from driving it.

The above are examples of "Tort or other Wrongful Act", notice all of them required some act that people could sue for in tort INDEPENDENT of the Contract.

If I build a wall on my property that blocks someone's view, a view they "Contracted" for when they purchased their home, that is NOT a tort or other wrongful act, even through my building the wall prevents the buyer from getting what he contracted for when he purchased the his property.

When I close a road, that has NEVER been opened to the public (and NOT subject to any easements) that prevents someone from getting to his property that he had purchased, again NO "Tort or other Wrongful Act" for I have the right to exclude anyone from my property, even if it denies access to another person to his property.

If a police officer stops a truck and performs an safety inspection of that truck, and the truck driver can NOT do his contract for it requires him to do it in a set time (and the person who is to received what is on the truck suffers a huge loss do to the truck being late). Neither the Truck driver the shipper or the buyer can sue the Police forr "Tort or other Wrongful Act" that interferes with the terms of the contract, for what the Police were doing was perfectly legal.

Notice is the last three cases what caused the breach of a term of the Contract was legal and thus can NOT be a "Tort or other Wrongful Act" and thus NOT grounds to sue anyone for any violation of the Contract.

The problem with using the concept of "Tort or other Wrongful Act" is the act MUST be a "Tort or other Wrongful Act", NOT something people can do legally. Can I ask for your password? The answer is Yes, it is legal for me to ask for your password. If the employee breaks the contract with Facebook and gives the employer his Facebook password, that is a breach of the terms of the contract, but independent of the Contract is is perfectly legal to do. Thus it is a breach of a term of the contract but is NOT a "Tort or other Wrongful Act".

[happyslug]

91. But requesting the password is NOT ILLEGAL.

That is the key, since ASKING for a pass word is NOT ILLEGAL, it can NOT be WRONGFUL. Since asking for the password is NOT WRONGFUL by itself, that mere fact that a contract forbids giving out the password is NOT enforceable against a third party (i.e the employer).

The Tort we are talking about ONLY EXIST IF THE ACTION IS WRONGFUL OR A TORT. Ignore the language of the Contract, if the Employer asks for a Password of a potential employee, how is that wrongful? You can NOT make something wrongful for a third party by a contract that that third party is NOT a party to. The Act must be wrongful by itself, independent of the Contract. That is NOT the case here so no cause of action.

[IDemo]

92. Please provide a source for "The Act must be wrongful by itself, independent of the Contract"

Because I have yet to see even a hint of that concept on any of the sites I've read.

In order to prove a case of tortious interference with contract, a plaintiff must be able to demonstrate all of the following things are true:

- the plaintiff had a contract with another person or business,
- the defendant knew about the contract,
- the defendant deliberately acted in a way that would cause a breach of contract,
- the breach of contract occurred, and
- the plaintiff suffered damages as a result.

A defendant in a tortious interference with contracts case may be held liable for causing a breach of contract between the plaintiff and the other contracting party in a number of different ways. For instance, the defendant may have encouraged, threatened, or coerced one of the parties to the contract into breaching. The defendant may also have interfered by making it impossible for one of the parties to meet its obligations under the contract with the intent that being unable to hold up its end of the bargain would force one of the parties to breach the contract.

In addition, the plaintiff in a tortious interference with contract case must show that the defendant acted intentionally. The plaintiff does not, however, have to prove that the defendant acted out of malice or spite. For a tortious breach of contract case, the plaintiff only has to show that the defendant knew that there was a contract and that his behavior was likely to cause a breach of that contract.

And, "You can NOT make something wrongful for a third party by a contract that that third party is NOT a party to." Really? So, Dave convincing Larry to provide proprietary business info to Dave, despite Larry having signed a non-disclosure agreement with his employer or business partner, doesn't present a tortious interference by Dave? Because he didn't sign the contract, and all he did was ask, right?

[slampoet]

7. Don't you love the "But I'm not a Jew, Why should I care?" people?

[Brickbat]

9. I find it really odd. "Not on Facebook, not an issue! Problem solved! La-la!"

[sharp_stick]

13. You think?

How about your email and DU postings?

Facebook is just a program, not really that different from DU or the stuff you happen to post on a blog site or responses to funny captions on icanhascheezburger.

[Brickbat]

16. That was my point.

I was describing what I saw when people think the problem will never affect them because they're not on Facebook.

[sharp_stick]

17. Sorry I whiffed that pretty badly

more sleep must be needed on my part.

[Brickbat]

20. Hee, no biggie.

[The Straight Story]

28. Like folks who want to ban abortions or smoking in bars and some folks just shrug

It was never (to me, but some here still refuse to actually try and grasp that because some key words throw them into convulsions) about smoking or abortion (or weed to add another).

It has always been about the principals behind them. Either you support those principals, or your don't.

Your body, your choice, freedom to be an adult and make informed decisions and not have them made by the government.

If you can't support that, than why bother to support keeping abortion legal?

[Skittles]

46. OMG I HEAR YOU

the people who say, "If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to be afraid of" apparently have never heard of the Holocaust

[tavalon]

54. Ain't that the truth!

[bart95]

69. last i checked, facebook is not a religion or ethnicity

sure, i oppose laws like this

but when i was a kid, there shouldnt have been unsafe strangers either, but i avoided talking to them until they fixed that

sometimes, you have to adapt to the world that is, until it gets fixed

[slampoet]

89. You're using a child as a human sheild for an Employer?

That is shameful.

[bart95]

90. i had it backwards

when i said 'sure, i oppose laws like this'

meant support

and if you re-read my post in that context, you'll see that it fits

[barbtries]

10. censorship

of the people.

good gawd i hate republicans.

[saras]

12. I'll happily create a Facebook account for an employer...

...where I record my race, religion, sexual orientation and practices, political leanings, and EVERTHING ELSE THAT IT IS ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO LOOK AT OR CONSIDER IN EMPLOYMENT - on the front page.

[1monster]

27. So, a perspective employer demands my facebook password, I give it to him/her

and ask when I start work?

I'll have to remember that.

In the meantime, my current employer announced that they are working on a facebook policy for those employed by them. What options do the employees have there?

[slampoet]

34. I worked for a major electronic company that simply asked you don't list them as an employer.

And that you don't talk about the company or give advice about the products.

THAT, seemed very reasonable to me.

[tammywammy]

52. Similar to where I work

You shouldn't list who you work for or really discuss it at all. Then again, I work for a defense contractor, so I'd assume it's some kind of trick if they started asking me for passwords. And no, I would not hand them over.

[Union Scribe]

60. and make the password "mybossisanosyasshole" Lol nt.

[bart95]

72. good luck proving it

they ran this seminar out in the open, and nothing happened to them

Immigration attorneys from Cohen & Grigsby explains how they assist employers in running classified ads with the goal of NOT finding any qualified applicants, and the steps they go through to disqualify even the most qualified Americans in order to secure green cards for H-1b workers.

[jeff47]

94. Not anywhere close to the same issue.

The law protects against discrimination against certain classes. Which is why HR will make sure interviewers don't ask certain questions.

Asking for your Facebook login is just like asking all those forbidden questions.

[bart95]

96. 'The law protects against discrimination against certain classes'

and it has become crystal clear to me over the last decade, that I am not one of them, as the post you answered demonstrates

[jeff47]

99. Oh the horrors of being a white male.

All these colored folk and women keeping us down.

[bart95]

100. 'he was harassed, and faced racial taunts and even death threats. '

from the article below

what makes them think they can get away with it? very simple - attitudes like yours. they know that people who mention such treatment will be mocked by members of a party 'for equal justice for working people' solely on the basis of skin color. you cant deny it, you just did it

"This lawsuit is similar to one filed against another major Indian firm, Infosy.

In that suit, former employee Jay Palmer alleged that the firm committed visa fraud. Palmer charged that when he refused to participate in the alleged fraud, he was harassed, and faced racial taunts and even death threats. "

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9225847/_Massive_visa_fraud_alleged_in_lawsuit_against_Indian_firm

[jeff47]

101. How many thousand cases of discrimination do I need to post

before you realize we do have it better than those protected classes?


Oh, and how does visa abuse applies to employers asking for Facebook passwords?

[bart95]

102. your '2 wrongs make a right' justification is noted

Last edited Thu Apr 5, 2012, 10:45 AM - Edit history (1)

and i dont know what else i can say

there are people who believe in justice, and those who dont

you clearly are the latter

and you seem to be making the case that a white male would only support the party out of altruism, that all white males are part of a privilaged (minority or majority) at the top, who really have no need for representation, as they are all already self-sufficient in excess privilage

that would put you in direct opposition to 'Occupy Wall Street' (which i am not directly part of), who seem to think it's just the 1 percent that fit that description - all of the white males in this country put together would add up to more than one percent, and therefore, there would be many white males who are 'part of the 99 percent'

it's not the first time i've come across this attitude, it certainly wasnt the attitude of Henry Wallace, a great Democrat, who's wealth made him part of the 1 percent, but his heart was in the 100 percent. he would also have been the first to tell you that you couldnt assume someone had it made by their skin color

[jeff47]

106. Please highlight where I said it was right.

Oh, wait. I didn't. You just wanted to call me names.

Just so you know the laws against discrimination don't actually specify which races and sexes are protected. They say making the decision based on race or sex, no matter what race or sex, is illegal. That's why the guy you highlighted gets to sue despite being a white male.

So what's your pity party got to do with employers asking for Facebook logins?

[davidthegnome]

14. Not the least bit surprising

I'm curious as to how many democrats voted against it though. I'd like to write them a letter.

[onlyadream]

15. This is ridiculous

What's keeping one from creating a bogus Facebook account?
Also, why should your potential boss see your personal info? Why not give them your banking info as well, or your journal... Just ridiculous. Anything for the business.

[tblue37]

50. Many employers check your credit history and credit rating and

refuse to hire those with past or present credit problems. That's sort of like checkign yoru banking info.

[SemperEadem]

62. They don't ask to see the credit history of your friends and family

nor do they ask to look through their banking info. That is the huge difference.

They feel entitled to become privvy to information that is not fit for them to know about people completely unrelated to the job in question.

Freedom of association is still a right in this country last time I checked. Who is in one's circle of family or friends is none of the employer's business because that has absolutely nothing to do with the job.

[tblue37]

88. Well, I don't think they should have a right to check your credit history, *either*, even

though that doesn't include info about friends or family.

[jeff47]

95. Sure, create a bogus one that indicates you're part of every protected class...

that you can think of.

If you're not hired, you'll still get a nice payday. And one employer will learn that trolling Facebook is a really bad idea.

[NYC_SKP]

18. Next they'll want our porn site passwords...

And I'm not OK with that, either.

Not my FB, not my ATM, not my iTunes, not my porn sites or Amazon or eBay.

Fuck them. No passwords at all.

[Fearless]

19. How about your DU password too?

Wouldn't want any of 'dem subversive types workin' for you right?

[October]

93. Exactly. Plenty of smugness from those who don't use FB. Wait till it spills over to DU, etc.

/nt

[quispquake]

21. With the job situation the way it is...

I totally expected this, and got rid of my 'real name' Facebook account, and now use an alias...It's funny how my family thought I was being EXTREMELY paranoid...

[LynneSin]

22. And what was the real bill they were voting against?

Because honestly, I can almost guarantee it wasn't a bill whose soul purpose was to force people to give their facebook passwords to their bosses but instead some convoluted bill filled with these little bombshell amendments from both parties that the soul purpose was to create threads like this and use as confusing campaign rhetoric.

Back in 2002, the guy who ran against Joe Biden for senate used one of those tricks - talked about how Biden 'voted against helping seniors with something that seniors would have liked'. What they didn't mention that this was one of those lil bombshells planted very deeply in an massive spending bill created by Bush that was cutting billions of dollars against all sorts of groups like Head Start and Education. But the GOP planted that lil amendment in there because they knew the Dems would never support Bush's budget but wanted to have that as campaign fodder against the democrats. Had Biden supported the bill millons of people would have been hurt just to support some random minor thing that really would have benefited just the GOP during campaign times.

So honestly, it's a nice post but it's meaningless.

Just saying.

[Romulox]

23. Oh, it's AOK for your employer to demand, urine, blood, hair...but my FACEBOOK?

The outrage!

[sudopod]

38. Not sure if contrary or just trolling. nt

[Lex]

41. Maybe you'll be ok with them getting your checking account PIN and

come by your mail box and open your mail?

[CrispyQ]

43. I'm not ok with those things either.

In the name of the War on Drugs, we got on this slippery slope & here we are a few decades later & the slope is getting steeper! What will they ask of us next?

If the mandate stands, what will they force us to purchase next?

Corporate persons (& their human minions) are solidly at the top of the personhood hierarchy!


on edit: And if we aren't vigilant, a clump of cells will top women on the personhood hierarchy.

[Politicalboi]

51. Yup

Started with drug tests. Better live your life on the clock 24/7 according to your job, but only get paid for 8 hours a day.
Glad to see in the 21st Century we have upgraded discrimination. Are we loving our Freedom yet?

[CrispyQ]

64. "...live your life on the clock 24/7 according to your job, but only get paid for 8 hours a day."

That's what they want! Then they can start chipping away at that "paid for 8 hours a day" part.

[JoeyT]

61. Absolutely.

You have no ownership or right to your body, but heaven forbid anyone want to find out about that picture of your aunt you "liked".

Pretty much everyone that wasn't an idiot drug warrior was predicting this kind of shit back when most employers started drug testing, and everyone thought they were being hysterical.

If you view every single policy through the lens of "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.", you can be right about what the future holds about 90% of the time.

Some places also search employee cars at random, but I doubt that story would gain much traction on the internet. House searches or scanning for keywords are next. ETA: Scanning for keywords typed or read on your home computer, I mean.

[SemperEadem]

63. because it's not the urine, blood or hair of your family or friends

it's yours, whereas your password opens up the lives of your friends and family who are on FB to their scrutiny--and that is none of their business.

That is the outrage. Do you want your boy's potential employer looking through your information, which has nothing to do with the job your boy is being employed to do? You're not applying for the job, but they want the right to your information.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

24. Big Brother Republicans

does this get controlled by the Ministry of Peace or Ministry of Love? They want to control our gonads and now our passwords.

[Tikki]

26. I'm sure this has already been said; If someone is a government employee..

Like a repug politician...Well, they need to give the tax payers their personal passwords so
we can read all their posts...for public interest and education and all.


Tikki

[Arugula Latte]

30. That's the Republican idea of "Freedom"

[Serve The Servants]

40. Republicans are all about freedom.

Freedom for businesses, not people.

[bart95]

74. BOTH parties push it with job market dillution

because in a good job market, employers that did that would get fewer good employees

[eyewall]

35. Privacy was one of the most important rights all Americans were guaranteed.

I miss it.

Too many people don't even know what they've lost.

[bart95]

77. if you value your privacy, dont publish it on the internet

for the whole world to see

[freshwest]

37. Of course GOPhers are okay with that! Gotta keep up The War On Terra!

Where have you been for the last 12 years, anyway?



Oh, and go buy some duct tape and

[Viking12]

67. Please don't smear Gophers by that obscene association

[freshwest]

83. But that's a chipmunk, isn't it? My apologies to all furry folks.

Just give me another insulting term for them, and we'll all be cool...

[Major Hogwash]

42. So, did the 2 Republicans in the House of Representatives from Idaho vote against that bill?

Oh, yeah, with the same knee-jerk reaction those 2 GOP tea party dickheads use to always vote against the American people.

[Jamaal510]

44. I wonder how this would apply to folks who haven't jumped on the FB bandwagon.

Would employers simply refuse to hire anybody without a FB account?

[AsahinaKimi]

45. I no longer have facebook.

I do have twitter, but only because I don't have to post personal information. Facebook said they would make sure everyone's privacy would be protected, then had some kind of glitch were everyone's private info got exposed to everyone else. They simply apologized and went on.. like nothing happened.

I don't want a phone call in the middle of the night by some stalker.. who happened to get off on my photos.. nor do I want them knocking on my door.

[joshcryer]

47. This is why when people say Ron Paul is "anti-surveillance state" I laugh.

It's double speak. He's actually for the most corrupt corporate surveillance state possible.

[limpyhobbler]

57. yep

Private corporations and bosses can be a threat to personal liberty and privacy just like any government can. Right-wing "libertarians" have a tendency to just ignore that.

[joshcryer]

58. Not just that, but they champion it!

I actually ran into a guy who decided "copyright" was enforceable under Libertarian means by ... building a breaucracy whereby the chain of copying was intact! I tried to explain to them how it also applied to patents and it went over their head! "Libertarians" are not libertarian by any means! True libertarians are socialists!

Sorry for the exclamation points, glad someone agreed with me.

[Gore1FL]

55. Here is the right answer:

"You can't fool me! Obviously anyone willing to provide someone else a personal password is not someone you or anyone would want working for them. I can be trusted with data security and will never divulge a password, no matter how many times someone asks, or how persuasive they will be. You can count on me to follow IT's security policies."

[Lizzie Poppet]

56. Love it!

Absolutely perfect response!

[Recursion]

65. As a reminder: it has been and remains a violation of Facebook's TOU to share your password

I'm a sysadmin and password sharing is an absolute security nightmare. Don't do it.

[Jumping John]

71. If your Congressman is a rethug, You should call and ask why he does not want you to have his FB PW

[belcffub]

81. where's the link to the actual bill

or what ever they were voting on... Read a couple of articles and other then stating the every house republican votes against it ( which isn't totally true... one votes for it) none of the articles link to the piece of legislation they were voting on...


As much I like that statement I don't pass things on without verifying the source first... call me crazy...

[joshcryer]

98. Here is the actual bill:

http://www.democraticleader.gov/pdf/HR3309MTR.pdf

Here's the roll call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll137.xml

Jones was the only Republican to vote for it. Two Democrats voted against it.

[belcffub]

104. thank you

[Spike89]

87. Password way beyond access to FB page

Something doesn't seem right here. It is one thing to accept a "friend" on Facebook (allow them to view your page) and a very, very different thing to give someone your password (allow them to post as you, change settings, etc.)

In fact, for many people, you don't even need to friend them to see their profile, browse their friends, and essentially see what they do on the site. Other people of course keep their settings tightly controlled and all you see if you're not a "friend" is basically an invitation to request friendship.

Why any employer would want, ask for, much demand a password is beyond me. They actually would get no new info (compared to being a friend) and would only gain the ability to assume my identity.