Employers requesting FB passwords - FB conversation

S.B. posted this: Curious why our own representative Doc Hastings voted against an amendment that would have provided employees some protection against employers who require employees to turn over Facebook passwords to them? 

House Republicans Vote Against Facebook Privacy www.addictinginfo.org

In a continued effort to work against the American people, House Republicans blocked a measure 236-184 (that's every single voting House Republican) that would have allowed the Federal Communications Committee to prevent employers from asking for and obtaining Facebook passwords from workers.

Top of Form

R.B.: He, too, likes to fire people?

S.B.: Well, we know that corporations are people too, my friend.

Apparently, creepy, voyeuristic people who like to read your private messages and find out who your friends are and what they're doing. 

S.B.: and while you or I might get tossed in jail for hacking our way into someone else's account -- if your a corporation, it's perfectly fine to use the threat of a job to strong-arm people into giving up not only THEIR privacy, but the privacy of their friends and family. 

R.B.: Its okay so long as its not government.

B.E.: I don't understand why this isn't clear cut. If an employer cannot ask me about marital status, age etc, why would I be required to give said employer access to something that clearly indicates not only age, marital status and affiliations... (all things that cannot, under current law, prevent me from getting a job I'm qualified for) but also has information regarding my habits, hobbies and child? Also, isn't it against facebook policy to give your account over to anyone? Doesn't that violate their terms of service therefore opening me up to potential account deletment (yes, I said deletment).

R.B.: Facebook has actually stated they intend to sue any prospective employer who keeps on demanding applicants sign over their accounts to HR

 http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/03/facebook-says-it-may-sue-employers-who-demand-job-applicants-passwords.ars

Me: The Constitution enumerates the right to free association, which of course includes facebook activities, but also includes employer/employee associations. The terms for those activities are set forth by private parties. They can be assented to or not, according to their choice.

Sometimes these terms might be onerous or burdensome. I would pass on any prospective employer who wanted my passwords, which I am free to do, just as the employer is also free to ask.

The worst thing that could happen is government intervention ("Congress shall make no law..."), which grants them even more power to pry into peoples' affairs. That's a more egregious situation: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57324779-281/doj-lying-on-match.com-needs-to-be-a-crime/ 

R.B.: ‎"Look my friend, corporations are people, too" (Mitt 2012), so let's just 'friend' them and be done with it.

T.C.: ‎@Rich, you are only free to turn down the employer if you do not need the job. If you need the job, then this is coercion. I don't know that a new law is required to protect against this (there are already anti-discrimination laws, anti-coercion laws, etc), but to say that someone can simply turn down a request they don't like is naive.

Me: T.C., there is no need to condescend. You don't know me, but you seem to think you can call me names. I ask that you refrain from making judgments about me.

An employer/employee relationship is voluntary. Simply because someone "needs" a job does not change anything. No one has suggested that alternatives must be pleasant ones.

S.B.: Rich -- I know T.C. well enough to suspect he wasn't being condescending. There's a difference between calling someone a name, and pointing out that something they've said is naive. What you said is, frankly, naive. That doesn't mean that YOU are -- but the statement, I think, is.

Me: I'm sure he is a fine man. The fact that you agree with his assessment makes it no less uncivil.

T.C.: ‎@Rich, as Scott said, I called your statement naive, not you - and I do stand by it. I don't know you and do not mean to be condescending. However, it is very easy for those of us who are fortunate enough to have choices to forget that our situation does not apply to everyone else. Where you see a choice between pursuing a job or not, a less fortunate applicant could see a choice between eating and starving, a job and loosing their house / car / apartment / etc. Those are not choices that - fortunately - many of us have to make. In fact, these are not choices at all but survival decisions (as food and shelter are basic survival requirements and are what is at stake). For those who are faced with these consequences if they do not get the job, there is no choice but to acquiesce to the request. To not do so goes beyond a merely unpleasant consequence. For some, this is equivalent to saying "no" to the person holding a loaded gun to your face and asking for your wallet. Yes, it is, technically, a choice that you make when you productive your wallet, but it is certainly not an action freely taken.

P.H.: The only reason any company would want to access a FB/Twitter account is to get a sense of one's character before they hire them (and in some cases, while they are an employee). I suspect anyone in that position would simply shut down their account so no password would be necessary. That is what FB is really concerned about. It has nothing to do with privacy, as we all know they are selling the results of some pretty powerful analytics on the back end of their application.

S.W.: Hmmm....I think that I will give my employer the pw to my FB the same day I give them the key to my mailbox.

D.E.W.: I'd say, "sure! Would you also also like my login info for my banking, credit cards, ebay, porno sites?" and then tell em to kiss my ass!

R.R.: Is there any problem for which the intervention of the Federal Government is not the solution? At first glance this looks like a knee jerk reaction with both parties trying to get in front of an issue that is barely understood or quantified. If this practice were rampant I might be more accepting of the argument that it rises to the level of "coercion" but in the absence of that how about we let employees (without whom employers cannot survive) vote with their feet and their clear and loud response to the recent media coverage? We don't have to run to nanna Sam every time somebody flirts with a stupid idea.

P.H.: R.R., I read about a year ago that between 45-55% of employers were accessing mainly Twitter and FB accounts of their employees based on some studies that were conducted at that time ( I was actually pretty shocked by it, but it was reported to be used as a tool to profile employees or potential new hires). The recommendation was to watch what you wrote because (whether one likes it or not) there is no such thing as privacy when it comes to what you post on a social network site. I think it's okay that people are asking the question as to whether there should be some controls or regulations about the practice, because as indicated by some of the thoughtful responses above (e.g., Brandi, Terrence, and others) this is actually a fairly complex issue.


Me: It's a choice between surrendering your password and starving? Really? Oh Great Government! Come Ye and save us!