[S-99]

Employers, colleges, and government agencies asking for facebook usernames and password for job seekers.

If you think privacy settings on your Facebook and Twitter accounts guarantee future employers or schools can't see your private posts, guess again.

Employers and colleges find the treasure-trove of personal information hiding behind password-protected accounts and privacy walls just too tempting, and some are demanding full access from job applicants and student athletes.

In Maryland, job seekers applying to the state's Department of Corrections have been asked during interviews to log into their accounts and let an interviewer watch while the potential employee clicks through wall posts, friends, photos and anything else that might be found behind the privacy wall.
Previously, applicants were asked to surrender their user name and password, but a complaint from the ACLU stopped that practice last year. While submitting to a Facebook review is voluntary, virtually all applicants agree to it out of a desire to score well in the interview, according Maryland ACLU legislative director Melissa Coretz Goemann.

I had a facebook and myspace account. All of which had the privacy settings on. I couldn't help but notice perhaps employers for the 15 jobs i turned in applications to get hired for something oriented towards my associates degree never called me back. Not a single one. I can't help but think potential employers didn't like the fact i had a private account they didn't get to see after i read the article. I was never asked if i had a facebook account, but employers do check these things online to look for people who are desirable to interview. In other words, "this person has private fb account. done here, next applicant".

I felt compelled to clean out all of my accounts leave the privacy settings on, and cancel my memberships. I have no particular use for social networking. It made it easier for my friends to talk to me online, that's about it, there's IM and email now to fill the void.

If things continue this way, i would say i'd rather get denied jobs for not having any social networking accounts than denied because i had the privacy settings on because employers don't know how to use the art of human dialogue let alone standard background checks. How lazy, it must ****ing suck to not want to find out about humans the old fashioned way (the joke here is that this laziness is socially retarded ).

What was on my facebook account at least? A lot of stuff that only my friends would understand (nonsensical humor, screwed up observations about life, my stress, and word of the day like kneeballupperkick). People that can't make heads or tails of me don't get to see it; so i made private accounts. Now time to wait for that period of time to pass when facebook and myspace actually get rid of the account.

[Mars]

I think your problem was probably more along the lines of almost no one being able to get education-related jobs right now, especially only with an associates degree. This is a breach of privacy for sure, however, I just doubt it's very widespread.

[S-99]

That's definitely the other detail. As of right now, any job i can get i'll be happy (even if i'm a gas pump attendant).

After reading this though; it just got me thinking is all. I mean it's been known for years that employers check social networking accounts (the ones that are viewable at least). And i and many others can deal with that (i don't agree with the practice, but it's not evil). After reading this though, i couldn't think of a reason of why i would even need social networking regardless whether this username-password fork over practice becomes more wide spread or not.

Either way, username-password fork over is vile, disgusting, and illegal. Maybe the constitution will be further ignored for this problem to evolve into email and IM username-password fork overs.

[Ghostavo]

So if you don't have a facebook account either you are denied a job too?

I mean, how do you prove you don't have one and aren't just hiding it?

[karajorma]

Get two accounts. Make sure the public one is full of people praising you for being a wonderful human being.

[S-99]

I mean, how do you prove you don't have one and aren't just hiding it?

Well, there's making accounts with false information that can be considered hidden (privacy settings either on or off, a lot of people do this just for the facebook games). In reality just the accounts with real information and privacy settings activated appear to qualify.

I would say if your name doesnt pop up in a search in facebook that either there's a fake account somewhere, or no account at all. In which, the employer would probably just move on to the next candidate since looking for a fake account would be a waste of time (or amazingly the employer would actually call up the person who doesn't have an account to learn more about them to see if they're right for the job). After that, it's up to the employer for believing the job candidate with something called faith if truly no facebook account. It's not implausible for people to not have social networking accounts (but, there's a lot of people out there i'm sure who may not think of this like employers). And, it's not hard to see if someones name pops up or not in a search in facebook.

Luckily, having a social networking account isn't a national mandate for american citizens.

[MP-Ryan]

*sigh*

North American government privacy organizations AND courts have repeatedly said that employers cannot force people to disclose private online communications, nor can Facebook be used as grounds to dismiss or not to hire people (exception would be where it showed criminal activity and a clean record is a condition of employment).

In short:  refuse to provide the information, and promptly contact a lawyer.  The prospective employer is legally 100% in the wrong here and cannot use it as a reason not to hire or to fire, and if they do, and you can prove that on a balance of probabilities, they're going to be forking over some money - even in places without a litigation culture the likes of that in the US.

And civil lawyers love cases like these - they're a slam dunk.

[S-99]

There's also too many employers who will try to get away with **** like this. Many are unknowing. But, even getting down to a job application asking for political affiliation is going to far since it's **** being asked about that doesn't matter job wise.

A sure slam dunk for lawyers i'm sure Not many people will think of this. However if i am asked for this information i will say i don't have a facebook account, but can i have their username and password.

Lol, i screwed with the name changer on facebook. I got away with matt crapiton, john el ****ton kept being detected as a fake name when i was turning my account into a false empty shell of nothingness.

Wierd side effect from deleting ones facebook account.
My girlfriend was there when i deleted my account. She freaked out the next day when she saw all of my past messages said that they were from matt crapiton (of course i couldn't delete messages i send to people's inboxes).

[Mikes]

*sigh*

North American government privacy organizations AND courts have repeatedly said that employers cannot force people to disclose private online communications, nor can Facebook be used as grounds to dismiss or not to hire people (exception would be where it showed criminal activity and a clean record is a condition of employment).

In short:  refuse to provide the information, and promptly contact a lawyer.  The prospective employer is legally 100% in the wrong here and cannot use it as a reason not to hire or to fire, and if they do, and you can prove that on a balance of probabilities, they're going to be forking over some money - even in places without a litigation culture the likes of that in the US.

And civil lawyers love cases like these - they're a slam dunk.

How do you proove they verbally asked you for your password during an interview? lol.

[pecenipicek]

There's also too many employers who will try to get away with **** like this. Many are unknowing. But, even getting down to a job application asking for political affiliation is going to far since it's **** being asked about that doesn't matter job wise.

A sure slam dunk for lawyers i'm sure Not many people will think of this. However if i am asked for this information i will say i don't have a facebook account, but can i have their username and password.

Lol, i screwed with the name changer on facebook. I got away with matt crapiton, john el ****ton kept being detected as a fake name when i was turning my account into a false empty shell of nothingness.

thanks to the wonderful joys of facebook name changer not catching ****, i've been using one of my nicknames as my "real name" for 4 years now at least.

first i used my real name. then some ****wits from elementary thought it'd be hilarious to do the whole "threaten somebody over FB" bull****tery. the rest is history.

[MP-Ryan]

How do you proove they verbally asked you for your password during an interview? lol.

You don't have to.  Just refuse to give it.  If they fail to hire you (or try to fire you, in the event you're being asked after you're working there), they can be dragged into court on your statements alone.  In the case of government organizations, there will be HR records.  For private industry, they have more to lose due to bad publicity and a parallel investigation by a privacy commissioner or equivalent.

[deathfun]

How do you proove they verbally asked you for your password during an interview? lol.

Recording your interview

thanks to the wonderful joys of facebook name changer not catching ****, i've been using one of my nicknames as my "real name" for 4 years now at least.

I've been using my alias as my middle name for quite sometime now
Nobody seems to have cared

[Stealth]

How do you proove they verbally asked you for your password during an interview? lol.

Recording your interview

Unfortunately in many states you have to inform the other party first that you're recording the interview/phone-call/etc.  Otherwise if you try to take them to court using a recording that you acquired illegally, you'll be the one that gets counter-sued.

[Klaustrophobia]

here's my take.  i see three possible cases for the company. 

1) they genuinely don't know that it's illegal to ask for that info.  in this case, a simple "you're not allowed to ask me that" will probably have them falling all over themselves apologizing and trying to avoid getting sued.

2) they know, but are trying to see how many applicants don't.  if you give it to them great, but they'll back down the second you say something.

3) they know, and don't give a flying **** about your rights.  will try to push you for it, and if you want to fight back you may well have to escalate to court.  consider this is probably not a place you want to work anyway.

[WeatherOp]

How do you proove they verbally asked you for your password during an interview? lol.

You don't have to.  Just refuse to give it.  If they fail to hire you (or try to fire you, in the event you're being asked after you're working there), they can be dragged into court on your statements alone.  In the case of government organizations, there will be HR records.  For private industry, they have more to lose due to bad publicity and a parallel investigation by a privacy commissioner or equivalent.

That will work once, then they will smarten up.  After the first lawsuit on a company, the others just won't hire you unless you provide it out of free will.  The company won't tell you they want it. Then you could never prove the exact reason they didn't hire you.

[jr2]

(mostly OT ramble here, feel free to skip)

Heh, I had a company offer me a full-time job with benefits (wrote out the schedule I'd have and everything)... I had told them I was in the Reserves, so I had drill once a month and two weeks a year.  No problem.  My two-week Annual Training was coming up, and they had some paperwork to do for the position anyways (it was with ARC) so I was just supposed to call them when I got back.

Well, driving a van of reservists back from Norfolk, I get a call.  Ok, speakerphone, what's up?  ARC wanted to know how I was doing, yada yada, I was like, well, just dandy, on the way back up from my two weeks... no problem, call us Monday.  Call them Monday, they ask me to come down and fill out the rest of the paper work.

Great, I do that, and come to find out, I'm applying for a part-time position with no benefits... what?? - Oh dear, the position got filled while you were gone... oook, definitely not what you said, but I need a job, so smile and nod...

Come to find out, when I was going in for mando shots, one of the nurses said that they heard that they didn't want to give me the position because there was already another reservist at the house where I'd be working, and they didn't want to bother with covering two weekends... I'm thinking, well, isn't that what the part-time blokes (like, unfortunately, me at this point) are for??  I wasn't even sure if it's actually legal - there's a law called USERAA, you can't discriminate against members of the reserves but they did offer me a job, just not the one they originally stated, and, of course, try proving any of this, haha..) 

Anyway, pay was $9 an hour, and another job called me up wanting to hire me at $9 an hour (front desk at a hotel doing basically nothing unless there are check-ins), so, I went with that one instead, and just didn't show up for training at ARC.  Not to mention, ARC had given an acquaintance of mine from church a hard time when he was employed with them... so, probably better to steer clear.  Got a nice letter saying that since I didn't show for training, they assumed that meant I wanted to resign my position... but please return my photo ID... ok... took out my photo ID, looked at it.  On the back, it said, "If found, please place in any postal drop... return postage guaranteed."  Found the nearest drop and tossed it in.

[Aardwolf]

How can you distinguish between "discrimination against someone who is in the reserves" and "discrimination against someone who won't be able to work 80-52"?

[jr2]

Come to find out, when I was going in for mando shots, one of the nurses said that they heard that they didn't want to give me the position because there was already another reservist at the house where I'd be working, and they didn't want to bother with covering two weekends...

[Aardwolf]

Still, pretty much by definition all reservists are also people who are unable to work 80-52, correct? So I guess what I'm asking is this: is the anti-discrimination law about prejudice against reservists, or is it about compensating reservists for lack of fitness for a job?

[jr2]

Hmm, what's 80-52?  I Googled it and got nothing.  A reservist can work as much as anyone else, except on their drill weekend (they require two days, sometimes three or one day depending on the weekend, and they know well in advance which day and how many days they will need) and except on their Annual Training, which is two weeks, and they know when that is scheduled well in advance, too.

Now, if a reservist gets activated, the employer must have a position for them available (by law) when they return from deployment... my unit doesn't really deploy much, though (they did once in 2003-2004, I got in 2008 and finished active duty training and joined my reserve unit in 2009).  They still have notice when they are being activated, however, (unless it was some sort of emergency).