|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
NYC_Gal 2.0
Joined: 10 Dec 2010
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
On second thought, I didn't realize that it was technically illegal to give the password over. I'd just tell them that I'd be happy to log in with them there, then let them poke around. They just couldn't have my password. I have changed my stance on that, but still, they're free to poke around with me there.
I don't see how it's being bent over. I wouldn't want some idiot who posts drunken photos, racist remarks, or the like to work for me. Once something goes online, it's out there forever. This weeds out the undesirables. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dave Chance
Joined: 30 May 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NYC_Gal 2.0 wrote: |
| radcon wrote: |
| NYC_Gal 2.0 wrote: |
It really does depend on the job. I don't see how hard it is to make a fake facebook profile before starting the job search. Be prepared. Sheesh.
I knew about this years ago. My profile is clean. Do I like this policy? Of course not. That doesn't mean that there aren't workarounds. If your resumes use the same email, change your resume or change your facebook login email. Is that so difficult? A second account isn't that hard to make. |
And then when that company digs through your fake facebook account and feels that there isnt much activity and they realize that this was a dummy account, they definitely wont give you the job for being a sneaky liar. |
Clearly you never had parents who read your diary. I had a "dummy diary" that I wrote in once a week and kept under my mattress, and kept the real one hidden in the rafters of my treehouse. |
Your future kid won't have much of a shot at pullin' over anything on you...kinda feel sorry for him/her in a way, in advance |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
I'm very open about Facebook sharing, and really have noting to hide, but there is no bloody way I'd let a prospective employer have my password.
I'd walk out as soon as they'd mention it. |
This is where I stand on everything that is public on Facebook. If an employer wanted access to my wall, photos, etc., I'd be okay with that. At the same time, I wouldn't be okay sharing my login information, as that might well result in their viewing my personal correspondence (messages), which is absolutely none of their business. Are they going to ask for my email password too? There's a legitimate reason for an employer to want to see publicly available material on Facebook (so they know you don't generally make an ass of yourself in public forums), but it's ridiculous for them to ask for access to everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radcon
Joined: 23 May 2011
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
The real question though is where would it stop. Also it violates federal law as the company and the person being interviewed are knowingly breaking Facebooks terms of service, which breaks federal law laid out in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Job candidates who share their Facebook password with prospective employers are violating the Facebook Terms of Service and employers who use such passwords to gain unauthorized access are also violating the Terms of Service. In the United States, these actions may constitute criminal offenses under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act [see 18 USC � 1030(a)(2)(C)] and are punishable by fines and up to 1 year in prison. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act also mandates the forfeiture of property "used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of any violation."
. |
"employers who use such passwords to gain unauthorized access..." Giving them your password so they can look at your account...how is that unauthorized? |
Because consent was obtained through economic duress.
I think there's definitely an argument, because the job applicant knows that refusal to comply with the request will likely mean losing the opportunity to land the job. |
Definitely an argument....but then again there are other jobs out there (as the defense would likely point out)
And as pointed out plenty of jobs require extensive background checks. If you are working for police or a security company there are some pretty stringent requirements in certain places/countries
And let's steer away from the hysteria here (not in your post but certain other posters) and focus. The guy who sparked this controversy was working as a prison guard...it's not like he was flipping burgers at MacDonald's.
THOSE are the type of jobs where you are likely to be asked for your FB info..it's just another form of background security check. If anyone has a link to say teachers being forced to do that then they might have an argument.
Until then I see no problem. People working in the police services and correction services SHOULD undergo rigorous security checks. Where's the argument against that? |
There's some support for your theory that security personnel should be subject to more rigorous (read: intrusive) background checks. For example, the EPPA, which regulates and broadly prohibits polygraph tests in employment, has exemptions for security personnel. Normally, under Federal law and jurisdiction, prospective employees may not be subjected to polygraph tests, but prospective security personnel are treated differently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luckylady
Joined: 30 Jan 2012
Location: u.s. of occupied territories
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
claiming this has anything at all to do with security is absurd. Security checks have been done for years, long before FB ever came along and continue to be done with or without an applicant's knowledge. most applications ask one to sign permission for these to be done, and it may or may not be done before the applicant is hired, sometimes after.
it's quite clearly an invasion into people's private lives, wanting to see what they do on their personal time and if that jives with whatever plastic image the compay is seeking to portray itself as.
seriously, if you were in a position where you wanted to hire people that for whatever reason, needed to have proper security clearance, is FB the place you would start? (maybe in this day and age it is) then can you hold people accountable for whoever might show up as a "friend" on their profile?
also anyone who knew they had something to hide would set up a dummy profile, which would only raise suspicions, considering how easy it would be to do.
then what, because you have more than one profile and didn't provide all the information to your prospective employer?
I think it's safe to say that anyone who has a profile on FB might expect their bosses or similar individuals to attempt to look them up; however, there is a distinct difference in someone cruising FB looking for someone and demanding log on and pwd information at a job interview.
it's just so wrong in so many ways. who thinks up this crap anyway? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| luckylady wrote: |
| claiming this has anything at all to do with security is absurd. Security checks have been done for years, long before FB ever came along and continue to be done with or without an applicant's knowledge. |
So we should just continue with old style security checks and not bother taking advantage of any new technology?
Because that is where your logic is leading. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| luckylady wrote: |
| claiming this has anything at all to do with security is absurd. Security checks have been done for years, long before FB ever came along and continue to be done with or without an applicant's knowledge. |
So we should just continue with old style security checks and not bother taking advantage of any new technology?
Because that is where your logic is leading. |
Nonesense.
While they are at it...why not ask for your password to your email account...to your bank account...for the keys to your house...etc?
They can use all kinds of new technology for security checks.
They are two totally separate issues.
One is security checks.
The other is invasion of personal privacy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| luckylady wrote: |
| claiming this has anything at all to do with security is absurd. Security checks have been done for years, long before FB ever came along and continue to be done with or without an applicant's knowledge. |
So we should just continue with old style security checks and not bother taking advantage of any new technology?
Because that is where your logic is leading. |
Nonesense.
While they are at it...why not ask for your password to your email account...to your bank account...for the keys to your house...etc?
They can use all kinds of new technology for security checks.
They are two totally separate issues.
One is security checks.
The other is invasion of personal privacy. |
I'd suggest that FB is not an appropriate place for stuff you want kept as "personal privacy". It's a 'social site' and not a personal blog/e-mail account.
Actually that goes for most social sites and the Web in general.
And once again as I said before...I support these type of checks for security personnel not your average Joe Q Public.
The guy in the story was a prison guard not a Wal-Mart employee for crying out loud. Given that prisons are breeding grounds for gangs I think it's appropriate to check employees there for gang affiliations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| luckylady wrote: |
| claiming this has anything at all to do with security is absurd. Security checks have been done for years, long before FB ever came along and continue to be done with or without an applicant's knowledge. |
So we should just continue with old style security checks and not bother taking advantage of any new technology?
Because that is where your logic is leading. |
Nonesense.
While they are at it...why not ask for your password to your email account...to your bank account...for the keys to your house...etc?
They can use all kinds of new technology for security checks.
They are two totally separate issues.
One is security checks.
The other is invasion of personal privacy. |
I'd suggest that FB is not an appropriate place for stuff you want kept as "personal privacy". It's a 'social site' and not a personal blog/e-mail account.
Actually that goes for most social sites and the Web in general.
And once again as I said before...I support these type of checks for security personnel not your average Joe Q Public.
The guy in the story was a prison guard not a Wal-Mart employee for crying out loud. Given that prisons are breeding grounds for gangs I think it's appropriate to check employees there for gang affiliations. |
Facebook has a private message function that is almost exactly like email. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Facebook has a private message function that is almost exactly like email. |
And groups that can be extremely limited in scope and essentially private. I am a member of a group that only includes close friends, which serves as a place for us to have group conversations amongst ourselves. That does not constitute a public forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| luckylady wrote: |
| claiming this has anything at all to do with security is absurd. Security checks have been done for years, long before FB ever came along and continue to be done with or without an applicant's knowledge. |
So we should just continue with old style security checks and not bother taking advantage of any new technology?
Because that is where your logic is leading. |
Nonesense.
While they are at it...why not ask for your password to your email account...to your bank account...for the keys to your house...etc?
They can use all kinds of new technology for security checks.
They are two totally separate issues.
One is security checks.
The other is invasion of personal privacy. |
I'd suggest that FB is not an appropriate place for stuff you want kept as "personal privacy". It's a 'social site' and not a personal blog/e-mail account.
Actually that goes for most social sites and the Web in general.
And once again as I said before...I support these type of checks for security personnel not your average Joe Q Public.
The guy in the story was a prison guard not a Wal-Mart employee for crying out loud. Given that prisons are breeding grounds for gangs I think it's appropriate to check employees there for gang affiliations. |
TUM is right, anyone's reasonable expectation of privacy in facebook is lower than in one's house, even than while in one's car while on the street.
And FYI your reasonable expectation of privacy with regards to your bank account is extremely low as well. Is a bank account more analagous to a Facebook account or your house?
| Quote: |
The checks are not confidential communications, but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions. All of the documents obtained, including financial statements and deposit slips, contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business. The lack of any legitimate expectation of privacy concerning the information kept in bank records was assumed by Congress in enacting the Bank Secrecy Act, the expressed purpose of which is to require records to be maintained because they "have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, and regulatory investigations and proceedings." 12 U.S.C. � 1829b(a)(1). Cf. Couch v. United States, supra at 409 U. S. 335.
The depositor takes the risk, in revealing his affairs to another, that the information will be conveyed by that person to the Government. United States v. White, 401 U. S. 745, 401 U. S. 751-752 (1971). This Court has held repeatedly that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed. Id. at 401 U. S. 752; Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. at 385 U. S. 302; Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427 (1963). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brickabrack
Joined: 17 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Facebook has a private message function that is almost exactly like email. |
And groups that can be extremely limited in scope and essentially private. I am a member of a group that only includes close friends, which serves as a place for us to have group conversations amongst ourselves. That does not constitute a public forum. |
Then why wouldn't you just use email?
I don't care what people use.
But, I don't think sacrificing my privacy for convenience/a fun time
is very smart.
I guess it all depends how much into the system you want to be involved. The sad thing is that 99% are ignorant as to how far into it they are.
| Quote: |
| I'd suggest that FB is not an appropriate place for stuff you want kept as "personal privacy". |
I wouldn't just suggest it. But, earlier you were saying having a 'dummy' account is private. I don't know if that's right either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| brickabrack wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Facebook has a private message function that is almost exactly like email. |
And groups that can be extremely limited in scope and essentially private. I am a member of a group that only includes close friends, which serves as a place for us to have group conversations amongst ourselves. That does not constitute a public forum. |
Then why wouldn't you just use email?
I don't care what people use.
But, I don't think sacrificing my privacy for convenience/a fun time
is very smart.
I guess it all depends how much into the system you want to be involved. The sad thing is that 99% are ignorant as to how far into it they are. |
Facebook provides a much better format for group discussions than does email, as it is much easier to follow a dialogue. Assuming it's a closed, locked group and you use your privacy settings properly, it is no less private than email. IMO, Facebook's supposed lack of privacy is way overblown. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Clearly the way to handle this is to get them to request your Password in writing with a signature and a company letterhead on the form. THEN promptly inform them of facebook's TOS and relevant law. Then inform them that if you are not hired you will take that to mean that it was because you refused to violate federal law and will have a lawsuit pending, one which given its nature, will likely make the press.
Hopefully management will appreciate your hardball style and fast-track you for promotion.
On a related note, this is only a problem because idiots out there continue to take photos of people who are drunk (I personally hate people who constantly take photos) and then compound the problem by posting and tagging people. Sudden brainstorm- That's idiotic! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
