U.S. companies asking job applicants for Facebook passwords?

[rumborak]

Orbert's made the most cromulent point to date.  It's the crappy applicants that'll fork it over.  The sharp ones will tell you what to go do to yourself.

No. It's the ones who need the job the most desperately. And that's the danger, that it becomes a source for extortion. "Well, if you don't surrender your private information to us, you won't get the job!".

People are getting up in arms about information they make readily available to the public.  Here's an idea.  Don't post videos of you swilling Jack Daniels and molesting the neighbor's cat on the internet. 

This thing isn't about public Facebook accounts. It's the non-public ones, the ones that are set to only share info with your friends. Asking for the passwrod is like asking for your apartment keys.

rumborak

[lordxizor]

I read earlier that Facebook is denouncing this and is threatening to sue employers who require passwords to accounts.

https://www.cnn.com/2012/03/23/tech/social-media/facebook-employers/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

[ehra]

Here's the statement they made:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-and-privacy/protecting-your-passwords-and-your-privacy/326598317390057

In recent months, we’ve seen a distressing increase in reports of employers or others seeking to gain inappropriate access to people’s Facebook profiles or private information.  This practice undermines the privacy expectations and the security of both the user and the user’s friends.  It also potentially exposes the employer who seeks this access to unanticipated legal liability.

 

The most alarming of these practices is the reported incidences of employers asking prospective or actual employees to reveal their passwords.  If you are a Facebook user, you should never have to share your password, let anyone access your account, or do anything that might jeopardize the security of your account or violate the privacy of your friends.  We have worked really hard at Facebook to give you the tools to control who sees your information.

 

As a user, you shouldn’t be forced to share your private information and communications just to get a job.  And as the friend of a user, you shouldn’t have to worry that your private information or communications will be revealed to someone you don’t know and didn’t intend to share with just because that user is looking for a job.  That’s why we’ve made it a violation of Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities to share or solicit a Facebook password.

 

We don’t think employers should be asking prospective employees to provide their passwords because we don’t think it’s the right thing to do.  But it also may cause problems for the employers that they are not anticipating.  For example, if an employer sees on Facebook that someone is a member of a protected group (e.g. over a certain age, etc.) that employer may open themselves up to claims of discrimination if they don’t hire that person.

 

Employers also may not have the proper policies and training for reviewers to handle private information.  If they don’t—and actually, even if they do--the employer may assume liability for the protection of the information they have seen or for knowing what responsibilities may arise based on different types of information (e.g. if the information suggests the commission of a crime).

 

Facebook takes your privacy seriously.  We’ll take action to protect the privacy and security of our users, whether by engaging policymakers or, where appropriate, by initiating legal action, including by shutting down applications that abuse their privileges.

 

While we will continue to do our part, it is important that everyone on Facebook understands they have a right to keep their password to themselves, and we will do our best to protect that right.

 

-- Erin Egan, Chief Privacy Officer, Policy

[snapple]

Bullshit. They sell my information to advertisers.

[Orbert]

Thanks for the props, but you might be missing the point.

People aren't up in arms about "information they make readily available to the public".  The employers doesn't just want to see your stuff, they want your password.  Not the same thing at all.  Uncle Sam asks me every year to disclose all kinds of information about my bank accounts so he can tax my ass, but that's not the same as asking for my online banking password.

With your password, they can change your profile information, post things as you, add or delete friends, anything, including changing your password.  They most certainly do not have the right to do that.

[El Barto]

As I understood Orbert's post, and intended to reply to it, it's a bad move from the company's perspective.  "There will be highly qualified applicants who simply refuse to do it."  And there will be crappy applicants, be they desperate or just week, who will gladly hand it over.  I suspect that what you'll find is that the more educated and/or sharp a person is, the more unwilling to divulge information that they deem unnecessary for the purposes of a job.  For one thing, they're smart enough to know better, and for another, they're more likely to be able to get another job.  Crappy applicants don't have the luxury of being able to shop around for an employer.

This thing isn't about public Facebook accounts. It's the non-public ones, the ones that are set to only share info with your friends. Asking for the passwrod is like asking for your apartment keys.

rumborak

If it's a non-public one, then how would the employer even know about it?  I'm not into facebook, so I'm not sure how all of this works.

[ehra]

Private accounts will still show up in a search, you just can't look at it beyond the name, profile picture, and maybe a few other bits of personal info.

[Scheavo]

As I understood Orbert's post, and intended to reply to it, it's a bad move from the company's perspective.  "There will be highly qualified applicants who simply refuse to do it."  And there will be crappy applicants, be they desperate or just week, who will gladly hand it over.  I suspect that what you'll find is that the more educated and/or sharp a person is, the more unwilling to divulge information that they deem unnecessary for the purposes of a job.  For one thing, they're smart enough to know better, and for another, they're more likely to be able to get another job.  Crappy applicants don't have the luxury of being able to shop around for an employer.

If the world works like it should, ya. But it doesn't, and highly qualified applicants can't get jobs for various reasons - including, as has been discussed, being unemployed. So ya, I can see a smart, intelligent person being desperate enough to fork over a Facebook password cause they have bills to pay.

[PowerSlave]

You're under the assumption that just having the account and using is enough? Then why do they want the password? Or, am I misunderstanding your statement?

I don't see why them wanting more information disqualifies the information they already have.

My point is that they want the password so that they can look at private conversations that you might be having and aren't available to any random person that wants to look at your channel.

[Fiery Winds]

Private accounts will still show up in a search, you just can't look at it beyond the name, profile picture, and maybe a few other bits of personal info.

You can prevent your profile from being searchable.

If it's a non-public one, then how would the employer even know about it?  I'm not into facebook, so I'm not sure how all of this works.

They don't have to know for sure, they just ask.  Chances are good the applicant has a profile. 

[Odysseus]

I have a facebook account but not in my own name - it's in a daft name that I made up solely for for the purposes of FB.  I saw this shit coming.  Companies have been looking at FB for a while now.Plus, I get to add people I want and not have to deal with people I spoke to once trying to pal up on the internet.  At least update your security settings and make your profile pic something that ain't a mugshot of yourself... 

[Scheavo]

https://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-25/lawmakers-call-for-investigation-of-facebook-password-requests

Two U.S. senators will ask the Justice Department to investigate whether employers who require job applicants to hand over confidential passwords to Facebook and other social networking sites are violating federal law, the lawmakers said today.
...
In a letter to EEOC chairman Jacqueline Berrien, the lawmakers requested an investigation into whether the practice “may be used to unlawfully discriminate against otherwise qualified applicants.”
 

[PowerSlave]

https://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-25/lawmakers-call-for-investigation-of-facebook-password-requests

Two U.S. senators will ask the Justice Department to investigate whether employers who require job applicants to hand over confidential passwords to Facebook and other social networking sites are violating federal law, the lawmakers said today.
...
In a letter to EEOC chairman Jacqueline Berrien, the lawmakers requested an investigation into whether the practice “may be used to unlawfully discriminate against otherwise qualified applicants.”
 

I just seen this story and came here to post about it. You beat me to it.

[Chino]

People are getting up in arms about information they make readily available to the public.  Here's an idea.  Don't post videos of you swilling Jack Daniels and molesting the neighbor's cat on the internet. 

This thing isn't about public Facebook accounts. It's the non-public ones, the ones that are set to only share info with your friends. Asking for the passwrod is like asking for your apartment keys.

rumborak

Not to mention your private message history... Not public, and certainly not something I want a future employer to look at.

[kirksnosehair]

Bullshit. They sell my information to advertisers.

But those advertisers have ZERO access to your private messages. 

[Chino]

If I was in an interview and was asked for my password, I'd ask the guy for his phone. I'd politely say that if he is entitled to my private life for the sake of hiring a good employee,  I'm entitled to his private life in order to make sure I am not going to be working for a dishonest crook.

[Scheavo]

If I was in an interview and was asked for my password, I'd ask the guy for his phone. I'd politely say that if he is entitled to my private life for the sake of hiring a good employee,  I'm entitled to his private life in order to make sure I am not going to be working for a dishonest crook.

Then he'll pass you over for one of the numerous other candidates. You'd maybe make a point, but it wouldn't do you any good.

[Chino]

If I was in an interview and was asked for my password, I'd ask the guy for his phone. I'd politely say that if he is entitled to my private life for the sake of hiring a good employee,  I'm entitled to his private life in order to make sure I am not going to be working for a dishonest crook.

Then he'll pass you over for one of the numerous other candidates. You'd maybe make a point, but it wouldn't do you any good.

I wouldn't be excepting the job anyway. I'm not working for someone that needs that shit.

[Orbert]

And once again, it's easy to say that if you're not in that position.  If you've been unemployed for six months, have house and/or car payments to make, and the only interview you can get includes some dickhead asking for your Facebook password, you might feel differently.

[El Barto]

Everybody here knows I'm somewhat of a hard-ass where privacy is concerned.  My inclination is to side with the applicant insofar as handing over personal information goes.  Yet we long ago got to a point where prospective employers can gather tons of information, far more than what they'd glean from your facebook account, and up until now nobody cared.  Would the people here complaining about the Facebook thing object to that employer pulling your criminal background?  How bout that all too common drug test?  A credit check to see if you're responsible?  Driving history? What if they hire a private investigator to look into you?  How bout medical background for insurance purposes?  I suspect that there are 5 different companies who do nothing but outsourced comprehensive background checks on applicants that will be much more revealing than the pictures of you groping some duck-faced twat at the local Bennigans. 

And the kicker is that all of those are things we'd expect to be private, and it's information that we voluntarily throw out into the public domain that people are getting riled up about.

[chknptpie]

So this is a bit off topic.. but how can companies run credit checks on employees and applicants? What does my credit score have to do with how I will perform job duties? ... especially if I'm not in the banking industry!

[kirksnosehair]

So this is a bit off topic.. but how can companies run credit checks on employees and applicants? What does my credit score have to do with how I will perform job duties? ... especially if I'm not in the banking industry!

This is fairly standard these days.  You provide a Social Security number and Date of Birth when you fill out an application.  With that information I can find out almost anything I want about you that is part of the public record and your credit history is part of the public record.

[orcus116]

Everybody here knows I'm somewhat of a hard-ass where privacy is concerned.  My inclination is to side with the applicant insofar as handing over personal information goes.  Yet we long ago got to a point where prospective employers can gather tons of information, far more than what they'd glean from your facebook account, and up until now nobody cared.  Would the people here complaining about the Facebook thing object to that employer pulling your criminal background?  How bout that all too common drug test?  A credit check to see if you're responsible?  Driving history? What if they hire a private investigator to look into you?  How bout medical background for insurance purposes?  I suspect that there are 5 different companies who do nothing but outsourced comprehensive background checks on applicants that will be much more revealing than the pictures of you groping some duck-faced twat at the local Bennigans. 

And the kicker is that all of those are things we'd expect to be private, and it's information that we voluntarily throw out into the public domain that people are getting riled up about.

I think it's more the handing over of the actual password, that personal access which someone might use for multiple sites and purposes, that is bothering people. It's not what people will discover but the fact that you've allowed someone else free access whenever they feel like it.

[slycordinator]

And the kicker is that all of those are things we'd expect to be private, and it's information that we voluntarily throw out into the public domain that people are getting riled up about.

Most of the information you've talked about is legally public record, without anyone "throwing" any information to the public.

[Scheavo]

And the kicker is that all of those are things we'd expect to be private, and it's information that we voluntarily throw out into the public domain that people are getting riled up about.

Most of the information you've talked about is legally public record, without anyone "throwing" any information to the public.

I doubt women think about that when they a few things at Target, and then get targeted coupons for being pregnant.

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

Everybody here knows I'm somewhat of a hard-ass where privacy is concerned.  My inclination is to side with the applicant insofar as handing over personal information goes.  Yet we long ago got to a point where prospective employers can gather tons of information, far more than what they'd glean from your facebook account, and up until now nobody cared.  Would the people here complaining about the Facebook thing object to that employer pulling your criminal background?  How bout that all too common drug test?  A credit check to see if you're responsible?  Driving history? What if they hire a private investigator to look into you?  How bout medical background for insurance purposes?  I suspect that there are 5 different companies who do nothing but outsourced comprehensive background checks on applicants that will be much more revealing than the pictures of you groping some duck-faced twat at the local Bennigans. 

And the kicker is that all of those are things we'd expect to be private, and it's information that we voluntarily throw out into the public domain that people are getting riled up about.

See, in all these cases the employer doesn't have the power to actually use your things. There is no way in hell I'd let anyone glance through my private messages. And with the password, they can do whatever they want with you. He might check your credit, but will he ask for all of your information so he can buy stuff on your card? Of course not.

[El Barto]

Yeah, but I'd look at it differently.  A facebook account is something I have immediate control over.  My criminal records, my credit records, my medical records, my drug use history, etc. are all things that I can't change or prohibit from using against me.  I can delete my facebook account (can't I?).  I can set up a different one that reflects positively on me.  I can not post pictures of me streaking at the company Christmas party.  I'd much rather give up access to something I control than something I can't.

As for the password, change it to alaksdjfahsdlkfjh and give that to the employer.  If you hand him over the password to other sensitive sites then you're a dope.

[yeshaberto]

*looks for barto's facebook and types in  alaksdjfahsdlkfjh as password*

[TempusVox]

As Barto had mentioned there are a number if things that an employer can check before deciding to hire someone.. Several among them are:

•Driving records
•Vehicle registration
•Credit records
•Criminal records
•Social Security #
•Education records
•Court records
•Workers' compensation
•Bankruptcy
•Character references
•Neighbor interviews
•Medical records
•Property ownership
•Military records
•State licensing records
•Drug test records
•Past employers
•Personal references
•Incarceration records
•Sex offender lists

Many states have different variations on these, but all are quite common. There are a lot of reasosn for these checks. First and foremost, an employer wants to make the best decision for his company, and needs to protect it's livelihood and the livelihood and interests of its employees and stakeholders.  There are a ton of bonafide reasons why you would check these things.

•Negligent hiring lawsuits are on the rise. If an employee's actions hurt someone, the employer may be liable. The threat of liability gives employers reason to be cautious in checking an applicant's past. A bad decision can wreak havoc on a company's budget and reputation as well as ruin the career of the hiring official. Employers no longer feel secure in relying on their instinct as a basis to hire.
•Child abuse and child abductions in the news in recent years have resulted in new laws in almost every state that require criminal background checks for anyone who works with children. The move to protect children through criminal background checks now includes volunteers who serve as coaches for youth sports activities and scout troop leaders.
• Terrorism has resulted in heightened security and identity-verification strategies by employers.
•Corporate executives, officers, and directors now face a degree of scrutiny in both professional and private life unknown before the Enron debacle and other corporate scandals of 2002.

A lot of the information gleened about your past is protected and limited under the FCRA. Things like the following cannot be used to make hiring decisions:
•Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest, from date of entry, after seven years.
•Paid tax liens after seven years.
•Accounts placed for collection after seven years.
•Any other negative information (except criminal convictions) after seven years.
• Bankruptices beyond ten years.

Interestingly enough, if the potential job your applying for pays beyond 75,000 per year, even the above referenced things can be considered.

However...ALL of these things are monitored and goverened by the EEOC, and they have specific guidelines about what can or cannot be considered not only through the selection/hiring process but job assignments, pay, discipline and discharge, and a host of other areas where your protected information may be used against you, so employers do have to be very careful. Basically an employer cannot use race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), or national origin, or on an individual with a disability or class of individuals with disabilities, if the polices or practices at issue are not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business, in the course of making hiring decsions or decsions that effect someones employment. The laws enforced by EEOC also prohibit an employer from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative impact on applicants or employees age 40 or older, if the policies or practices at issue are not based on a reasonable factor other than age.

As for the Facebook issue, if I were still practicing law, I would advise ALL of my clients to steer VERY clear of this. There is a whole HOST of information that can be gathered from a Facebook page (marital status is one of several that comes to mind very quickly) that could be used against you, and having access to that information plcaes a company in a very slippery slope when it comes to making hiring decisions. I actually think all of this is a way to close the gap on those websites and companies that allow online trashing of corporate reputations. I think employers will try to force Facebook to police disparagimng remarks about companies, or force Facebook to and other sites to prohibit this, and they'll do it through legislation eventually.

[slycordinator]

And the kicker is that all of those are things we'd expect to be private, and it's information that we voluntarily throw out into the public domain that people are getting riled up about.

Most of the information you've talked about is legally public record, without anyone "throwing" any information to the public.

I doubt women think about that when they a few things at Target, and then get targeted coupons for being pregnant.

And I doubt that the legality of something is based on a pregnant woman's lack of understanding of the subject.

[snapple]

Bullshit. They sell my information to advertisers.

But those advertisers have ZERO access to your private messages.

But they're still selling my information to advertisers.

[rumborak]

And once again, it's easy to say that if you're not in that position.  If you've been unemployed for six months, have house and/or car payments to make, and the only interview you can get includes some dickhead asking for your Facebook password, you might feel differently.

And that's exactly what happened to one who was asked. He was forced to either shell out his private life, or walk away from a job he desperately needed. He was so desperate he handed them the password.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

And the kicker is that all of those are things we'd expect to be private, and it's information that we voluntarily throw out into the public domain that people are getting riled up about.

Most of the information you've talked about is legally public record, without anyone "throwing" any information to the public.

I doubt women think about that when they a few things at Target, and then get targeted coupons for being pregnant.

And I doubt that the legality of something is based on a pregnant woman's lack of understanding of the subject.

When it comes to contracts, and coming to agreements on them, it certainly can. Just becuase you sign a contract, doesn't make everything within the contract necessarily legal, and binding to you. And when it comes to giving up private information, that especially needs to be a conscious decision. Some teenager got sent pregnancy coupons from Target because she bought certain vitamins, which made her Dad suspicious, and instead of the teenager getting to decide on her own when to tell her own dad she's pregnant, Target brought it up because of unknowingly given "public information."

[slycordinator]

When it comes to contracts, and coming to agreements on them, it certainly can. Just becuase you sign a contract, doesn't make everything within the contract necessarily legal, and binding to you.

There's no contract involved at all in most of the examples you used. I doubt I have to have a contract with you to look up things about you that are public record.

But in the case of information that does involve a contract, the contract specifies what information the company uses and how they use it. Sure, the existence of a contract doesn't mean all its contents are valid, but saying that a contract could possibly contain invalid components doesn't mean it does and it certainly doesn't mean that all these companies are doing illegal stuff.

And when it comes to giving up private information, that especially needs to be a conscious decision. Some teenager got sent pregnancy coupons from Target because she bought certain vitamins, which made her Dad suspicious, and instead of the teenager getting to decide on her own when to tell her own dad she's pregnant, Target brought it up because of unknowingly given "public information."

Target didn't use public information, unless you're suggesting that Target determined the things she bought at Target by scouring public databases. They used information that was available to them by virtue of her doing business with them.

[Scheavo]

When it comes to contracts, and coming to agreements on them, it certainly can. Just becuase you sign a contract, doesn't make everything within the contract necessarily legal, and binding to you.

There's no contract involved at all in most of the examples you used. I doubt I have to have a contract with you to look up things about you that are public record.

But in the case of information that does involve a contract, the contract specifies what information the company uses and how they use it. Sure, the existence of a contract doesn't mean all its contents are valid, but saying that a contract could possibly contain invalid components doesn't mean it does and it certainly doesn't mean that all these companies are doing illegal stuff.

You seem to be confused about my position.

And what becomes public record? The data collected on you, by private companies, through your actions, which you either agree to, most likely unknowingly, or through public information. It's often sold to other parties, thus becoming "public."