Employers requesting Facebook passwords

by **moonbeam** Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:37 pm

There have been several recent articles in the U.S. regarding this new trend of being asked for social media passwords. It started off with employers asking if prospective new hires had a Facebook account. Then they wanted to actually see their pages, or even be "friended". Now, however, it seems that companies are kicking it up a notch and actually asking for the password to an interviewee's account as part of the interviewing or pre-hire process!

I am very disturbed by this. I don't put anything on my Facebook that I'd be concerned about. I never list my employer. I don't trash talk them. I don't post anything my mother (who is on my page) would be embarrassed to see. That said, I still don't believe that it's within the bounds of propriety for an interviewer to ask me to provide them personal information like this. I would refuse on principle alone and declare the interview over. My time away from work is none of their business as long as it doesn't affect my job performance.

I do understand that the reason they ask is to get a glimpse of a potential new employee's "true" personality, rather than what may be shown in the interview. Asking for a person's password is taking it a step too far, though.

Here are links to a few articles you can read. Does this happen in the UK as well? How would you handle it?

Would you give potential employers your Facebook password?

Job seekers asked to give Facebook passwords

Teacher’s aide says she was suspended for not giving employer Facebook password

by Shirina Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:38 pm

This practice needs to be made illegal as soon as possible. Allowing access to a Facebook page gives employers access to information they shouldn't be asking for in the first place such as marital status, religious membership, or political affiliation. It's not just a question of whether you have a lewd photo of your wife or husband on there, it's a matter of having access to information that might influence whether a person is hired or not. If the interviewer is religious, he might not hire an atheist. If the interviewer is a liberal, he might not hire a conservative. There was one lady who wouldn't even hand out candy to the children of Obama supporters on Halloween, so it is extremely likely that people will find themselves not hired based on private information. A woman discussing how she is trying to become pregnant might not get hired because the employer doesn't want to deal with maternity leave ... or if a candidate is facing an operation a few months down the road, he might not be hired.

In fact, in some cases, a person can lose their chance based on what OTHER people say. And you don't have control over what others on your friends list might post to your wall. Even a joke, a prank, or a lie can be perceived by the employer as truth.

The bottom line is that interviewers are human, and humans aren't very good at remaining neutral. If an applicant has a political rant on his page, the interviewer may feel strongly enough against it to refuse to hire. Would a pro-lifer hire a pro-choicer? Would a staunch Biblical literalist hire a gay rights activist? Would a Cleveland Browns fan hire a Pittsburgh Steelers fan? Some people put their lives onto Facebook, and we have the right to do that. We also should have the right to refuse access to strangers. There is no telling what they might do with the information ... or how often they access it. I wonder if one can delete the employer as a friend and change the password once a person is hired ...

by oftenwrong Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:05 pm

Employers requesting Facebook passwords

What are they going to do if you give them gobbledegook?

They're then in the position of the faithful retainer who says to his master, "My Liege, the key which you gave me to the Queen's chastity belt doesn't fit!"

by Guest Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:12 am

Moonbeam,

I’m aware of persons who investigate possible inappropriate contact (including violations of child molestation/sexual assault laws) between adult employees and children. These persons use Facebook, twitter, and anything else available during their investigations. They don’t care about inconveniencing adult employees; they care about ensuring the safety of children.

by **moonbeam** Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:12 am

I presume that they log on in front of you, so they would know immediately if you gave them gobbledegook. Even if not the case, once they found out you had done so, I'm sure they would cease to be interested in hiring you because now you're a liar!

by Shirina Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:26 am

they care about ensuring the safety of children.

You can justify anything with that excuse.

Conclusively, the appeal to emotion fallacy presents a perspective intended to be superior to reason. Appeals to emotion are intended to draw visceral feelings from the acquirer of the information. And in turn, the acquirer of the information is intended to be convinced that the statements that were presented in the fallacious argument are true; solely on the basis that the statements may induce emotional stimulation such as fear, pity and joy. Though these emotions may be provoked by an appeal to emotion fallacy, substantial proof of the argument is not offered, and the argument's premises remain invalid.[2][3][4]
[edit]
Examples
"For the children"
Reductio ad Hitlerum

LINK

by Guest Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:45 am

Shirina wrote:

they care about ensuring the safety of children.

That’s not an excuse. That’s truth.

The remainder of your post deals with logical fallacies. Your adjective (italicized) is appropriate, as it is absolutely logical to expect that those who seek to molest and sexually assault children would be disproportionately represented among employees of agencies wherein there is regular, ready access to children. Accordingly, it is absolutely logical to expect such employers to be exceptionally vigilant in seeking out and separating from employment any child sexual predators who have managed to slip in.

Perhaps you do not know personally adults that were sexually molested and/or assaulted as children. I do.

The oldest is more than half a century old. It has taken this individual most of this individual’s adult life to come to terms with this individual’s childhood experience. I’m avoiding pronouns to remain gender neutral. This fifty plus year old person is the best off of the lot, still struggling emotionally, but coming to greater peace. I’m honored to have been a positive factor in this ongoing process.

I know another person that has committed atrocious acts within this person’s entire adult life of chronic addiction, which, it was told to me, has been a direct consequence of being sexually molested and assaulted for half of this person’s childhood. At about forty-eight, this person still struggles with chronic addiction, and another generation has been severely and negatively affected by this person’s travails.

Now on to the illogicality (I so wish that illogicity was a word). It defies logic for a “grown-****d adult to seek out and stalk children for sexual purposes. That depraved, consuming illogicality demands almost illogical vigilance if those charged with keeping children secure from their predations are to be even partially successful.

If and since these depraved predators often boast of their deeds on social networks, it is not only logical for guardians of children to monitor their accounts; it would be illogical and almost immoral to not do so.

by Shirina Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:40 am

Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Please explain to me, Rock, why you believe the UDHC should be imposed upon the whole world, even through force of arms, while simultaneously advocating that the same UDHR be cast aside for our own citizens?

by Guest Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:10 am

Shirina wrote:
Please explain to me, Rock, why you believe the UDHC should be imposed upon the whole world, even through force of arms, while simultaneously advocating that the same UDHR be cast aside for our own citizens?

I cannot explain adv0cating that which I do not advocate. I advocate the following, which I’ll explain upon request.

UDHR Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

UDHR Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

UDHR Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Copyright © United Nations 2012. Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Each child is entitled to each of these UDHR-identified unalienable human rights. Adults responsible for ensuring these unalienable unto all children need to focus upon their otherwise extremely vulnerable children in an atmosphere in which sexual predators roam relatively free. In my opinion, rights to (a) security of person, (b) freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman and/or degrading treatment, and (c) equal protection under the law, should not be disparaged in favor of keeping communications over public lines, airwaves, and wherever it is that these networks exist “out there” as private as conversations within one’s own house.

by Blamhappy Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:37 am

It's pretty straight forward, this one.

We are all entitled to privacy and we should never be asked for passwords for access to anything private. If child abuse is the issue (why just child abuse? Why not all crime?), then a CRB check or similar will suffice.

by Guest Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:25 pm

I brought up child molestation and sexual assault. Those who predate upon children tend to seek employment in venues in which children, their intended victims, are easily and readily accessible. Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Boys and Girls Clubs, youth ministries (Penn State’s ex-coach), day care centers, YMCA’s, schools, recreation centers, etc., all must be extraordinarily vigilant in safeguarding the children under their care from predators who might have slipped in in spite of extremely tight screening. Persons charged with rooting out depraved predators of children in such agencies use every avenue available, including scrutinizing social media, to detect these predators and separate them from employment with these agencies.

That’s the real world in which we live.

by trevorw2539 Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:37 pm

Blamhappy wrote:It's pretty straight forward, this one.

We are all entitled to privacy and we should never be asked for passwords for access to anything private. If child abuse is the issue (why just child abuse? Why not all crime?), then a CRB check or similar will suffice.

Why do we not accept that the world is not perfect, people are not perfect. There will always be crime, perversion, wars etc. We can only do so much to prevent such things without becoming a Big Brother society. If we are asked to hand over Facebook details, why should we not ask diners who have been eating and drinking, pub customers etc, to take a mandatory breathalyzer test before driving to prevent the deaths due to drink driving. I could go on.

We have, as Blamhappy notes, the CRB. Sarah's Law is continuing to be rolled out, and commonsense is another factor. There is a line between the freedom of the individual and the Big Brother society. And gradually we are being drawn to the Big brother society.

by Guest Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:07 pm

Trevor,

Hopefully this is a “what if” scenario in your personal reality. Your daughter or son daily attends a particular school in which an employee is suspected of engraining in sexual predation against children. What would you have school personnel authorities, the persons charged with ensuing that all employees’ are of such character that your children are safe, do in such a scenario?

by Shirina Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:49 pm

Rock,

For a time, I taught history to 7th graders in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I can assure you that the background checks I submitted to were quite thorough; they took months to complete. That was for the job itself. To get a teaching license requires even more background checks.

That's good enough.

In any court case involving negligence, there is a phrase that is brought up continuously: "Reasonable precaution." Note the word "reasonable." This phrase is what prevents every single parent from being arrested for negligent homicide every time a child dies in their care. We cannot protect children from everything, and this ridiculous media-spawned paranoia over child molesters just has to stop. Playgrounds are deserted and the sounds of laughing children no longer fill residential streets. This insidiousness even managed to crawl into my own head; I remember thinking as I walked through a high school hallway as an adult, "I hope no one thinks I'm some sort of ... oh wait, I'm being paranoid." I really thought that! And I realized how I had been suckered by this stupidity and stopped thinking foolish thoughts.

You are NOT going to catch child molesters this way, Rock. Someone who really is molesting children and has their predations all over Facebook is not going to hand over their passwords. They would rather not get the job than get caught and go to jail. Even more to the point, all you need is an email account to start a Facebook page. Real child molesters are going to have one page for their "public self," the account where they "friend" their actual friends, neighbors, family members, co-workers, etc. And they'll have a "secret" account where they "friend" all the children they are stalking. Barring this, a child molester would simply claim they don't have an account on Facebook at all. How would an employer know any different? Especially if the child molester has a common name or doesn't register under his real one to make searching him impossible.

This kind of garbage is like a fishing net that catches dolphins but not a single lobster. The only people who get caught up in nets like these are honest people who, because of having nothing to hide, volunteer information that ends up forcing them to surrender their right to privacy for the sake of their jobs. At that point, all of their personal information becomes fodder for the gossips, and there are a trillion and one ways in which personal, even intimate, information can be used against a co-worker or subordinate. For crying out loud, Rock, we even refrain from posting personal information here on this forum - or any forum - because we all know it can leave us vulnerable. All it takes is one unscrupulous person or someone careless with other people's passwords to land an innocent person in all kinds of hot water - from identity theft to being the object of ridicule and office bullying.

And how many child molesters will be prevented from being hired? Zero ... because the real child molesters will either have a secret account that no one knows about or will simply claim not to have an account at all. Have you ever seen a movie called The Truman Show? If you haven't, you should see it.

As for your UDHR articles, they don't apply. Those articles exist to justify having laws that make violating those rights illegal and oftentimes criminal. They are NOT meant to justify using one article of the UDHR to nullify another article of the UDHR, and that is what you are saying should happen (even though I know you'll deny it).

by **moonbeam** Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:58 pm

I was going to say what Shirina did. She just beat me.

Molesters will probably not leave proof on their Facebook pages. It will be on their home PCs instead. And the criminal background check should be plenty, as far as I'm concerned.

I still can see no legitimate need for an employer to require me to provide him with a key to my personal life, even though I have nothing to hide.

by oftenwrong Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:25 pm

For some Employers, it's likely to be a newer version of the same old Control Games.

by **Phil Hornby** Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:36 pm

On those occasions ( less regular nowadays!) when I am talking to anxious employers, I recommend that they reconsider their often-favoured approach with the words : 'influencing' , 'moulding' or 'channeling' in mind. There is plenty of well-trodden theory about management control , the use of social control, and insidious control, but the concepts increasingly seem so crude . It's amazing what a change of a key word can do.... Smile

by trevorw2539 Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:49 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:Trevor,

Hopefully this is a “what if” scenario in your personal reality. Your daughter or son daily attends a particular school in which an employee is suspected of engraining in sexual predation against children. What would you have school personnel authorities, the persons charged with ensuing that all employees’ are of such character that your children are safe, do in such a scenario?

There are already CRB checks. We have to have them for certain things we undertake. In any case there is no possibility of preventing such instances occuring. If the school suspects an employee is engaged in such behaviour it would surely take action. For all employees to pry into ones personal life would be intolerable, just for the sake of knowing the type of person you are.

Big Brother looms just on the horizon. God help the future generations.

by Guest Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:17 pm

Trevor,

What is CRB? Do CRB checks ocur prior to or after employment?

by **Ivan** Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:23 pm

Criminal Records Bureau. Usually prior to employment.

by trevorw2539 Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:31 pm

Ivan wrote:Criminal Records Bureau. Usually prior to employment.

Thanks Ivan.

Church members who undertake work with children, the old and the vulnerable have to have these CRB checks. Rightly so.

by astra Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:38 pm

When some fool of a manager asks for yer password, answer -

#1 I dinnae heve a pootur sur! Shocked

#2 I do not have a facebook account! Crying or Very sad

#3 You show me yours, and I'll show you mine! :affraid:

#4 Stuff yer job! I came here for work, not to be a labrat!! Evil or Very Mad

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:21 am

trevorw2539 wrote:
Ivan wrote:
Criminal Records Bureau. Usually prior to employment.
Thanks Ivan.

Church members who undertake work with children, the old and the vulnerable have to have these CRB checks. Rightly so.

Church volunteers as well as YMCA, Boys Clubs and Girls Clubs, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts volunteers must undergo criminal background checks in most US states.

There’s no national (federal level) agency as I’m supposing by the comments CRB to be in the UK. In the states which ran criminal background checks on me, the state agencies’ data banks are hooked up with a federal database that goes by an acronym that escapes me at the moment.

I do support intrusions into social networks to protect children. I believe that agencies that serve children have a duty to not only have each employee be thoroughly screened prior to employment, but to also maintain vigilant oversight of all employees by any means available to the best of their abilities to do so. I believe that persons who accept employment in child serving agencies voluntarily give up their rights to expectation of privacy in social networking by and upon accepting such employment.

In regards to employment in non-child serving agencies and companies, I see no reason that those employees ought to give up their rights to expectation of privacy by and upon accepting employment. If one loads boxes into tractor trailers or fills out documents to secure financing for houses, one retains the right to expectation of privacy in one’s social networking. This is my opinion and my belief, o course.

There is a principle called compelling interest or something like that. An employer’s desire to know the personality, social habits, and other such stuff about potential and current employees is not a compelling interest. An employer’s obligation to ensure children’s safety is an extremely compelling interest. My opinion and my belief.

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:51 am

trevorw2539 wrote:
If the school suspects an employee is engaged in such behaviour it would surely take action. For all employees to pry into ones personal life would be intolerable, just for the sake of knowing the type of person you are.

Precisely the differentiation that should guide policies and perhaps laws. School districts, and other child-serving agencies, are acting with a compelling interest, a responsibility to protect your children and my children. Other employers have no such “sacred duty” and thus need to be restrained from nosiness for nosiness’ sake.

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:09 am

moonbeam wrote:
Molesters will probably not leave proof on their Facebook pages. It will be on their home PCs instead.

It would seem that molesters would not leave evidence on social network accounts, but it appears that in reality child molesters actually do exactly that, and quite often.

Not only that: One must possess at least an earned bachelor’s degree to be a full time public school teacher. One incident that came to light involved a long time public school teacher that left a school desktop PC (not the teacher’s personal PC), located in that teacher’s classroom, open to a child pornography website during the school day, a few minutes before students were due to return to the classroom.

It appears that a fatal case of dumb infects child molesters, no matter how much “ed-ji-mi-cay-shun” they might have.

moonbeam wrote:
And the criminal background check should be plenty, as far as I'm concerned.

Too many slip through to depend on criminal background checks to keep our children safe.

by **moonbeam** Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:24 am

Some good points Rock. But I still believe in being innocent until there's an honest reason to suspect otherwise.

What you are talking about is just the opposite.

by Shirina Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:33 am

People aren't going to put up with it. You said they should use "every means available" ... does that mean tapping your phones? Hiring some kid to stand outside your window and watch your behavior? I mean, where does it end?

If you want quality people dealing with our children, then this amount of prying is simply unacceptable. The only people you'll attract to a job that requires you to give up all of your privacy are politicians. Perhaps we can have senators teaching our kids when they retire. Everyone else will tell the employer to take a long walk off a short pier and depart.

Like I said before, this kind of prying is against the UDHR. There is no counter-argument. There is no rebuttal. There are no "buts." Some things simply are, and thousands of forum posts won't change that.

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:32 am

Shirina wrote:
People aren't going to put up with it.

I have, every time I’ve accepted employment in a child-serving agency.

Shirina wrote:

You said they should use "every means available" ... does that mean tapping your phones? Hiring some kid to stand outside your window and watch your behavior? I mean, where does it end?

That’s exactly what I said. When it comes to protecting children, those who are so charged should use every means available to discharge their responsibilities so that no child is harmed physically, emotionally, psychologically, or mentally. That’s a sacred charge.

Shirina wrote:
If you want quality people dealing with our children, then this amount of prying is simply unacceptable.

I personally know quality people who daily serve our children who put up with and actually welcome “this amount of prying.” As one told me in a casual but intense moment during a discussion of just this subject, “I ain’t got nothing to hide!”

Shirina wrote:
The only people you'll attract to a job that requires you to give up all of your privacy are politicians.

He’s a high school principal. He’s not much of politician; if he were, given his excellence, he might be a district superintendent by now.

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:34 am

moonbeam wrote:
Some good points Rock. But I still believe in being innocent until there's an honest reason to suspect otherwise.

What you are talking about is just the opposite.

“Innocent until proven guilty” is a principle of criminal law recognized, to the best of my knowledge, in the UK, US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and most likely the Bahamas and a few other ex-UK colonies. This requirement stems from the principle exposited in the Declaration of Independence, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I suspect other documents, that man possesses the unalienable human right to life and liberty.

Criminal courts have the power to sentence convicted persons to incarceration and death, depending on the crime; thus, a higher degree of caution is called for in criminal proceedings. One caution is the ubiquitous evidence test “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”, often with “to a moral certainty”, or words to that effect, appended. Another is the aforementioned “innocent until proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) guilty.”

The proceedings to which I’m implicitly referencing are not criminal court proceedings involving criminal laws and their accompanying limiting principles such as innocent until proven guilty and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. These are not even civil court proceedings involving civil laws, such as the ones in which I was once knee-deep as a child protective services investigator, with their accompanying preponderance of the evidence principle.

These are administrative non-judiciary proceedings, in which the “penalties” are limited to loss of employment. Various civil codes call for such proceedings when a child-serving employer suspects that an employee might be engaged in behavior which puts children at risk, If a person is found “guilty” in such a non-judiciary administrative proceeding, or hearing, the “penalty”, as stated above, is lose of employment, termination, or in other words, “you’re fired.”

The terminated person may face criminal or civil judiciary proceedings, but this type of action is done when the person is no longer employed by the child-serving agency. In some jurisdictions, the termination may also be accompanied by the person being prohibited from seeking future employment in that agency or in other designated child-serving agencies.

In actuality, although I used the word “guilty”, no legal determination of guilt (or innocence) is reached in these non-judicial administrative hearings. “Ineligible for employment”, or words similar, is what I remember hearing. So “innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t apply at all. Perhaps “eligible until determined ineligible” might apply.

Reiterating an earlier point, the line of demarcation in regards to social network monitoring is whether the employer is or is not a child-serving agency. If not, then there’s no excuse for nosiness foe nosiness’ sake.

by Blamhappy Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:58 am

Not that I've read the whole of every post (lazy), but I think I get the gist and I understand where Rock is coming from: the CRB check, and similar, won't filter out all dodgy people. They only work for people who already have a history and who have been caught.

But, aren't there pitfalls with other checks?

- A Facebook check (obtain log-in, snoop around the whole profile) will only filter out people who conduct their dodgy behaviour on Facebook....

- What next? Emails! That will only filter out people who do their dodgy dealings via emails...

- What else is there? Internet surfing history! Get the potential staff member to bring his/her PC or laptop into work. Better still, go to their house because he/she might not declare the computer they use for the dodgy stuff...

But what if this person has wiped his/her computer?...

If we wanted to exhaust every avenue for filtering out the child abusers, it would get ridiculous. I think employers need to be satisfied with a standard criminal background check.

Having said that, maybe when I'm a parent I'll feel differently! If I'm thinking logically, though, I'd like to know statistics with regards to how many caught child abusers did dodgy stuff on Facebook and via other forms of media. If it turned out that a Facebook snoop was a brilliant way of catching them out, then maybe I'd change my mind!

My overall feeling right now is that we mustn't let the few criminals spoil liberties for the rest of us. That means that they're winning, doesn't it?

by oftenwrong Fri Apr 06, 2012 12:16 pm

"we mustn't let the few criminals spoil liberties for the rest of us. That means that they're winning, doesn't it?"

An argument that applies in equal measure to Terrorists, who have indelibly changed MANY of the ways we live our lives now, as compared with 1950.

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:54 pm

Blamhappy wrote:
Not that I've read the whole of every post (lazy), but I think I get the gist and I understand where Rock is coming from: the CRB check, and similar, won't filter out all dodgy people. They only work for people who already have a history and who have been caught.

But, aren't there pitfalls with other checks?

Yes. There are definite pitfalls. There is also the fact that “dodgy people” slip through even criminal background checks that are as meticulous as those I’ve experienced. Those two facts, existing simultaneously, create a dilemma that I believe cannot be resolved by edict. In my opinion, there must be a balancing of the two opposing compelling interests; the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy in one’s personal affairs, including one’s personal communications with others, and the inescapable obligation of child-serving agencies to protect the children entrusted to their care.

A bit off topic: I like your term “dodgy people.” May I have your permission to use it?

Blamhappy wrote:
- A Facebook check (obtain log-in, snoop around the whole profile) will only filter out people who conduct their dodgy behaviour on Facebook....

- What next? Emails! That will only filter out people who do their dodgy dealings via emails...

- What else is there? Internet surfing history! Get the potential staff member to bring his/her PC or laptop into work. Better still, go to their house because he/she might not declare the computer they use for the dodgy stuff...

But what if this person has wiped his/her computer?...

All factual points.

Have you ever seen the program called something like “stupid criminals?” Why would a child pornography aficionado pull up a child pornography website on a school desktop PC assigned to him in his classroom during school hours and then leave the trash up and viewable while he went to lunch, classroom unlocked?

I don’t know if his social networking was monitored after that, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the genius hadn’t chronicled his escapades right there for everyone to see.

That’s a rhetorical question, by the way.

Blamhappy wrote:
If we wanted to exhaust every avenue for filtering out the child abusers, it would get ridiculous. I think employers need to be satisfied with a standard criminal background check.

I disagree insofar as child-serving agencies are concerned. This type of employer should never be satisfied as long as child sexual predators remain on the prowl, going to and fro throughout the land, seeking whom they may devour (thank you, William Tyndale).

Blamhappy wrote:
Having said that, maybe when I'm a parent I'll feel differently!

I’ve been a parent for awhile. Actually, since all of my nieces and nephews are also my children…

Parenthood has changed my views on many things.

Blamhappy wrote:
If I'm thinking logically, though, I'd like to know statistics with regards to how many caught child abusers did dodgy stuff on Facebook and via other forms of media. If it turned out that a Facebook snoop was a brilliant way of catching them out, then maybe I'd change my mind!

That would be an interesting number. The only problem with this type of statistic is that one is counting only those who’ve been caught. I once read the summary of a study which found that prison inmates’ average IQs were several points lower than average. The researchers concluded that this statistic was misleading since they surveyed only the available, i.e., incarcerated, criminals.

Blamhappy wrote:
My overall feeling right now is that we mustn't let the few criminals spoil liberties for the rest of us. That means that they're winning, doesn't it?

Children should also enjoy certain liberties within their environments. Compulsory education laws require parents to either hone school their children or send their children to public or private schools. I know that far more than ninety percent of parents choose the latter option. For households wherein both parents work, the first option is not an option.

Since in reality children are required by law to be in schools a significant portion of their lives, schools should be required by law to ensure a safe environment for those who by law are required to be there.

by Shirina Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:26 pm

You know, to hell with it. At least some European countries actually understand the meaning of "liberty" and aren't making so many exceptions as to make liberty a myth. Germany, if I remember, actually passed a law making it illegal for employers to pry into people's social media. Some other countries are gearing up to do the same.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the fact that these employers don't even have a criteria ... they go into people's accounts without actually looking for anything in particular. They just want to see what you've been doing ... which means ANYTHING can be used against you. This isn't about child molesting, Rock. They aren't prying to make sure you aren't a child molester, and if that was the ONLY thing they were trying to prevent, then at least they couldn't legally refuse to hire you, or fire you, for unrelated things. But no ... that's not how it works.

In America, in relation to search warrants, there is the old saying that you cannot look for elephants in a breadbox. What that means is that a search warrant is issued to look for very specific things. If it is not on the search warrant, than nothing else found on the property is admissible in court. It also means you can't look for things in places where you wouldn't expect to find them. If you're looking for a stolen diesel-powered electric generator, snooping around in desk drawers is a violation of the warrant.

But this Facebook prying offers NONE of those protections. There are no legal definitions of what can be searched for and what cannot. There are no boundaries that are legally protected. They can get into your account under the auspices of ensuring you are safe, then turn around and fire you for having a religious or political view contrary to the boss's ... and that is especially dangerous in "right to work" states.

But screw all of that because it doesn't matter. Tap the phones. Plant spies outside of your window. Hire people to follow every footstep you make. In fact, why not start a new government agency that does nothing all day but spy on and monitor anyone who deals with children? We could hire tens of thousands of people whose job it is to make sure you don't cross the line. No pictures of yourself at parties. No jokes, gags, pranks, or anything that might be seen as inappropriate. No political posts, no religious posts ... no opinions on anything at all because someone might not like it. Aw, hell, why not just arrest everyone applying to work with children straight away because only molesters would want to have a job like that.

And while we're on the subject, let's wrap up the kids in bubble-wrap, chain them in their closet, and then put them in a bubble that keeps out all possible bacteria. Let's make sure not one single hair on their heads is ever disturbed.

I'm all for it! In fact, when I log out here, I'm going to march myself down to the local police station and admit I might be a child molester because I once worked with children. Maybe I molested one and don't even remember it ... you know, repressed memories and such. I'm going to invite a spy to live with me as a roommate. Why bother hanging outside my window. May as well invite him right into my home and get it over with. Hell, he can even sleep in my effing bed, for all I care. At least then he'll know I'm not doing anything sexually inappropriate!

I give up. I just flat out give up. The attitude in this country stinks to high heaven. Rock isn't the only one who thinks this kind of spying is perfectly fine - and not just because of the children, but because they think it'll help employers decide who the best hiring candidate is!

I'd rather live in a country like Britain. At least all of their cameras are on the street and not in my social media, my internet posts, my emails, or wherever else Americans want them. I am losing my love for this nation by the bucketful every single day. It's something that has been building for quite some time, and I just don't know how much longer I can stomach being here. All this backward, primitive, superstitious, paranoid fear-mongering is stifling to the heart, soul, and mind.

I just want out.

Sorry for the rant, but, seriously ... but, as Ivan might say, I'm "losing the plot" by leaps and bounds.

If you want to live under corporate fascism, Rock, be my guest. I'll have no part of it. At all.

by oftenwrong Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:28 pm

Such attitudes stem from the simple fact that what might be called "The Boss class" are actually afraid of their employees. They are as alien to each other as Dogs and Cats.

Having the degree of Power inherent in offering paid employment, they make maximum use of it "in case" there should be a real threat from a prospective employee.

Sad, really.

by Shirina Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:41 pm

Having the degree of Power inherent in offering paid employment, they make maximum use of it "in case" there should be a real threat from a prospective employee.

That's really what it's all about ... power. It simply grants the management aristocracy more power over the work-a-day peasants. Now they don't have to wait for you to make a mistake on the job. They can just crawl into your Facebook account and get rid of you that way. Do you want to unionize? Do you want a raise? Do you think working conditions are unsafe? Do you rock the boat even a little? If you do, you best remember your place, peasant, because now the aristocracy has your whole life at their fingertips. Hell, they can even POST things for your friends and family to see. Has anyone ever considered that? They could really muck about with your life.

But some people are willing to give up liberty for safety, and most of us here should know what Benjamin Franklin said about people so willing to do that.

by Blamhappy Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:49 pm

"Dodgy people" - good term! Haha!

by **astradt1** Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:50 pm

What a shame this thread about employers wanting Facebook passwords, from their employees, has been hijacked and then dragged along a totally false blind ally... Shocked

Many employers want to be able to see what their employees get up to in their time off, what they may be saying about the comapny and more importantly the bosses......

If an employee is often out getting drunk and making a fool of themselves and then posting it on facebook they could bring the company a bad name...

Remember the nurse who was at first suspected of being involved in the deaths of patients in a northern hospital...the press published picture of here from her facebook page showing her drunk and having a high time...this of course had nothing to do with the crime she was accused of but that didn't stop the talk of how a nurse could behave that way....

I know of at least two nurses who were disciplined for comments they made about their managers on facebook......

This is sort of information the employers are interested in....But then again having the feeling that it is about protecting children is a more comforting idea to some than the likely truth...... Embarassed

by oftenwrong Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:20 pm

The only consideration should be whether an employee's conduct in their own time presents a problem for their worktime activity. In the opinion of most folk, "Life" is what begins when you clock off.

by Guest Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:48 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
The only consideration should be whether an employee's conduct in their own time presents a problem for their worktime activity.

Exactly.

oftenwrong wrote:
In the opinion of most folk, "Life" is what begins when you clock off.

My life begins every morning when I wake up from my normally off-the-chain dreams.

by **moonbeam** Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:18 pm

astradt1 wrote:Many employers want to be able to see what their employees get up to in their time off, what they may be saying about the comapny and more importantly the bosses......

It's really none of their business as long as it doesn't affect their work.

astradt1 wrote:If an employee is often out getting drunk and making a fool of themselves and then posting it on facebook they could bring the company a bad name...

True, if they list their employer on their page. Regardless, I think it just makes the person look immature and irresponsible.

astradt1 wrote:I know of at least two nurses who were disciplined for comments they made about their managers on facebook......

I think this is wrong. It's one thing to discipline when something occurs at work. But to get in trouble for expressing your opinions OFF the clock? It's too much.

My exception to that is when someone calls in 'sick' and then posts pictures of themselves doing other things that show their sickness to be false. Same goes for people claiming they're disabled when they're clearly not, based on Facebook posts. However, in neither of those situations are people being asked for passwords so that they can be purposefully be shown as liars.

by Sponsored content