Senators chime in on employers’ Facebook snooping

The row over employers’ demanding the Facebook logins of staff has widened further, with two US senators asking whether such demands would break federal laws. Senators Chuck Schumer and Richard Blumenthal have asked the Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to launch a federal investigation into …

[Captain Save-a-ho]

Definitely a ULP

With so many protections against discrimination in the hiring process, there's no way demanding logins to social networking sites should be considered legal. Unfortunately, I don't believe any of the major US employment laws really cover this case, so it's definitely murky water. For minorities, I definitely would pursue a violation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but that's still not a clear legal argument.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Definitely a ULP

The Civil Rights Act was never a remedy, it was a stalling tactic inflicted on those who had already seen a century of prevarication and "Slavery by Another Name". Plaintiff in Federal Court for a decade or more is not a popular hobby and never was.

The clear legal argument is that eventually the oppressed fight back no matter how many times you reinvent a different flavor of oppression.

[Anonymous Coward]

only

Because if they don't stop this now they may have to disclose their Facebook pages come the next election.

[ratfox]

Great

Not only this is violating the privacy of the prospective employee, it is also violating the privacy of everybody who ever sent them a private message...

[Anonymous Coward]

"And then the interviewer wanted my login to see my PRIVATES!"

Har har.

[Christoph]

Not really the greatest IT security

We want to employ people who will hand over their passwords to anyone who asks

[SoaG]

Re: Not really the greatest IT security

It'd be funny if in the end it turned out they never used the PW and it was just a ploy to weed out the gullible and the stupid.

Funny but unlikely, we are talking about HR drones after all.

Speaking of gullible and stupid...

[jon 68]

HRoFH

Human resources official from hell??

No way.. they ask, i tell no thank you, i'm no longer interested in working for your company.

[Robert E A Harvey]

Re: HRoFH

>Human resources official from hell??

Bit tautological, that.

I only know of one type.

[tempemeaty]

Time to call the modern Corp Executives what they are...

American Heritage Dictionary:

ty·ran·ni·cal

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary

(tĭ-răn'ĭ-kəl, tī-) pronunciation also ty·ran·nic (-răn'ĭk)

adj.

1. Of or relating to a tyrant or tyranny: a tyrannical government.

2. Characteristic of a tyrant or tyranny; despotic and oppressive: a tyrannical supervisor.

tyrannically ty·ran'ni·cal·ly adv.

tyrannicalness ty·ran'ni·cal·ness n.

[Mussie (Ed)]

CH

The can pry my pass word from my cold dead hands

[skeptical i]

"Facebook? Nope, ain't no gots one. Don't play with dollies anymore either."

Add a cheap genital reference ("Wantin' my log, are ye now?") if the interview is going south anyway.

A colleague mentioned this last night and I didn't believe her ("Did they ask for bank account passwords too? Can't be hiring people who are broke and likely to embezzle"). I'm afraid we're doomed, d'ya hear? DOOMED!

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternate headline:

Politicians try to cash into what seems popular; but they are a little too late, as normal.

[Hoagiebot]

These two politicians may be "cashing into what seems popular" at the moment as you put it, but I'm actually pretty glad that there are two U.S. Senators looking into this issue. It's about time that I hear about members of Congress doing something that is actually in my best interest for a change. In fact, I may have to write to Sen. Chuck Schumer and Sen. Richard Blumenthal a letter of support to thank them for their efforts, if for nothing else then to help remind them that this cause is popular so that they keep on pursuing it.

[Tom 13]

If little Shmuckie Schumer is involved,

it ISN'T in your best interests, no matter how good it may sound on the surface.

[Spud2go]

Who's asking?

More specifics please - which companies/corps are asking? I want to know who to avoid.

[Paw Bokenfohr]

Re: Who's asking?

Read the linked article, that tells you.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=628&sid=2793651

Only US agencies / companies, from what I see, but its a US article of course.

[Winkypop]

3 way fail

1. You have FB and you provide your log-in = FAIL (too stupid)

2. You have FB and you don't provide your log-in = FAIL (too stubborn)

3. You don't have FB = FAIL (too shifty)

(from the panel's POV)

[Ian 62]

Hire me...

I dont have a stalkerbook/facecloth account, therefore my productivity at work will be vastly higher than anyone who does... The Register? Oh, that.. er.. well.. just during coffee breaks you understand.

[Great Bu]

It takes two

All that this ends up doing is the same as happened with e-mail and, to some extent, mobile 'phones - you just have two accounts, one personal FB and one 'safe' work or proffessional account that you hand out to whoever asks for it. No link between the two should exist, thus hiding your penchant for 'art' photos with naked donkeys (or whatever....).

[JimmyPage]

You miss the point.

Quite aside from Facebooks T&Cs mandating you don't open more than one personal account, what would the point be ? The entire raison d'etre of Facebook, is to connect people. As soon as an account has more than 3 or 4 connections, it's not going to be rocket science to work out who that person is - no matter what they called themselves. This isn't webmail, where you can knock up an ancillary email to hide yourself.

And if you aren't going to connect to people, why bother with facebook anyway ?

[Oninoshiko]

Re: It takes two

You keep your donkey clothed?

[Dave 126]

Mini-poll

Out of curiosity, do people here feel there are any jobs in which Facebook-checking is justifiable?

(I'm thinking about jobs that have traditionally had very intrusive selection processes, as possible examples)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Mini-poll

I was going to say MP, but since they are all as shifty as the next, it would be a waste of time

[Alister]

Re: Mini-poll

Nope.

If I had a FB account I can't see any reason why any employer should expect be granted access to my login details, they would be welcome to view the public profile, but why should any employer require your personal login.

As mentioned elsewhere some high security employers may require a vetting process - access to your bank statements etc, but even then, they wouldn't ask for your online banking password, would they?

I cannot see why any employer anywhere would think they have any rights to any personal login credentials, to anything. Would you give your employer your google mail account details, or your ebay account details?

[Ashton Black]

UK clearance.

To gain security clearance to a fairly high level the responsible org in the UK asks applicants for the last 6 months of bank statements, as well as investigations into background, family, friends and so on. I didn't have paper copies so I had to log into my online bank account and let them view it. If they'd have asked for my FB account or login for them, I would have. (They didn't, but this was a couple of years ago)

But to ask at a job interview BEFORE getting security cleared? Nope, none of their business.

[g e]

I notice the question they didn't ask was

Whether or not they could actually request the login information at all in the first place.

So apparently they're OK with that as long as they info accessed isn't used for discriminatory purposes, etc..

Perverse.

[Field Marshal Von Krakenfart]

Re: I notice the question they didn't ask was

Perverse, definitely, but sadly that is the way right wing 'merkin-land has gone, and potentiality the way it leadership may go, for example he who cannot be googled once said: -

"I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts" - USA Today: Rick Santorum Interview , Apr 23, 2003.

When you constantly this sort of shit for 10 or 12 years some people will start to believe it, therefore it becomes possible to invade people's privacy as long as you don't do it invade their privacy. Joseph Goebbels would be proud of them.

[Robert Carnegie]

Maybe they just want the account name

and are too stupid to understand the difference between that and "password".

But, wanting your Facebook account name is still pretty creepy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

Funny how the "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" crowd have suddenly fallen silent now it's dawned on them that they've been advocating this sort of privacy invasion for so long.

[jellypappa]

dont be a sheep!

Some people are so gullable, TELL your interviewer that " I don't have a Facebook/Twitter account.

and if you do have one make sure its not in your name, use a Psudo name like " mucky duck"

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't break any law - yet

If you're dumb enough to be on Farcebook you don't deserve a job.