Job interview? Fork over Facebook Password

[banquetbear]

Others here appear to have understood my posts. If you want clarification on a point, feel free to ask.

...they've understood them: and told you that you are wrong.

 

[triforcharity]

Yes, they might. They might also object to your appearance, your voice, the bumper stickers on your car, the cut of your jib...

Very true. However, my circumcision or lack thereof is NONE of their business.

Any place where you have to hide who you are to get the job is sure not a place I'd want to work. I guess I've been lucky.

Excellent point. I might be willing to accept a friend request, but I doubt it.

It's none of their business. If they want information from me, they can ask.

 

[Ryokan]

Because Facebook isn't going to object to my personal feelings, nor does it much care that I post political statements on my Facebook.

A perspective employer might.

You don't need someone's password to see what they have posted on Facebook. The only thing you need a password for is either to change something or see private correspondence.

 

[Ryokan]

Yes, they might. They might also object to your appearance, your voice, the bumper stickers on your car, the cut of your jib...

Any place where you have to hide who you are to get the job is sure not a place I'd want to work. I guess I've been lucky.

Not giving someone access to your Facebook is not 'hiding who you are', any less than not giving someone access to your postal mail or e-mail is hiding who you are.

By your definition, we're all hiding who we are and should be disqualified to work anywhere.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Source?

I worked for mall-wart for about six months once when I was stuck between jobs and had to pay the bills. I had to fill out a psych questionaire. I always ace those, because I have an IQ higher than a houseplant. I had a bit of trouble with the honesty questionairre though. I answered one of the questions wrong, and ended up in an office explaining my answer. I said I wouldn't tell management if I thought a fellow employee was smoking pot on his or her own time on a day they weren't scheduled. (the question specified 'not at work, not high at work') I needed the job, so I said I'd misread the question and checked the wrong box. I wish I hadn't needed the job so badly, since that should have been a sign. One of the least rewarding and most emotionally fatiguing jobs I've ever worked.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

BS; unless your employer is the government, the government still doesn't get access to any of those things just because an employer tries to.

But what if the practice becomes popular and all major employers do it, and then they share the information with each other? What can you do if refusing to cough up your personal information means you can't get a job anywhere?

The usual definition of 'Totalitarian State' requires a political party or military junta, but it could just as well be a 'private' organization. Imagine if a bunch of big business owners managed to shrink government to the point of having no effective control over their actions. Powerful corporations would then be able to set whatever terms they liked, and you can bet that would include having much tighter control over their workers lives. Even if that doesn't meet a narrow definition of 'Totalitarian State', if the result is the same then there is no difference as far as the people are concerned.

In fact this 'Corporate Totalitarianism' has occurred in the past, and it will happen again if we let it. A corporation is by nature a totalitarian organization itself, and the people who head it the equivalent of a repressive regime. It is is inevitable that they will seek to eliminate opposition, control their workers, and manipulate their customers. Don't be fooled into thinking that only the government is capable of intruding into people's private lives and restricting their freedoms!

Tony is absolutely right in saying that the "free market" could be a backdoor way to get around the Constitution and effectively create a totalitarian state. The only question is who might be behind it - the politicians, or the corporations? Or are they one and the same?

 

[Gilmar]

Maybe already mentioned, but letting them log onto your FB page also lets them see the info that your friends post, which is even more not their business.

 

[gumboot]

When selling it often pays to give at your expense in hopes of gaining much more, as presumedly would be the case if you got this job.

No, that's really dumb. Really, really dumb.

 

[gumboot]

I completely understand that your prospective employer could do bad things once they have your password. But so could someone at Facebook! Why trust the people at one company over the other?

If you were applying for a job at Facebook would this not be a problem?

Aside from, as already pointed out, you being one of millions of users to facebook, of no particular interest, in contrast with your employer, to whom you are of very particular interest...

There's also the fact that Facebook has a vested interest in not screwing about with your personal data, because their business is Facebook, and if words gets out they're screwing with people's accounts, they will rapidly lose customers (see the issues with privacy, and how quickly Facebook moves to address them).

By contrast, your prospective employer has zero interest in maintaining the integrity of your Facebook page.

 

[Rasmus]

If you were applying for a job at Facebook would this not be a problem?

Yes, it would be.

And I might well decide to clean up my account before applying; renaming it, and possibly even creating a fake account for them to find and see.

But I would still not outright tell them the password during a job interview. I might not even show them the page - I would discuss how I use facebook, of course - because that would indeed be relevant for that one company. (I would still not tell them everything, and not reveal every last detail, either.)

 

[Toke]

Absolutely, you can and should refuse to share your password. It's a real shame that some job applicants are apparently desperate enough to do just about anything.

Maybe that is the whole point, to sort out the "not desperate enough" ones. The kind of people how would object to other abuse from the company.

I have not experienced question that went beyond need to know.
E.g. handing over my passport to have it returned with a visa sticker, banking information so they knew how to pay me, scans of assorted certificates, etc.

 

[Rasmus]

Maybe that is the whole point, to sort out the "not desperate enough" ones. The kind of people how would object to other abuse from the company.

Not according to the article.

Apparentzly, they belive someone who is stupid enough to have gang affiliations in his facebook account would show a recruiter his real account...

I have not experienced question that went beyond need to know.
E.g. handing over my passport to have it returned with a visa sticker, banking information so they knew how to pay me, scans of assorted certificates, etc.

This.

I know not everybody has as much of a choice - but I wouldn't allow an employer to tap into my private messages or locked social media sites. there is a reason they are locked, after all. Likewise, I am not letting them put up microphones in my apartment.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

I assuming here that you could always walk away from the interview if you didn't want to share some requested information:

"Name, please?"
"I'm not giving you my name! That's coercion! I don't have to stand for this!"

"Hi! My name is Bob. Thank you for calling our tech support line! Oh, by the by, since we're sharing and I already told you, a complete stranger, my first name, here's my bank account login and password, residential address and a correspondence between me and my ex. 'Twas a nasty divorce, she kept the dog. I have no secrets, so why should I keep this information from you, as if I was hiding something dirty, embarrassing, or, god forbid, private. No siree, nothing to hide here. Wouldn't have this job otherwise."

 

[3point14]

No fundamental difference. Here you're trying to sell your services to a prospective employer. When selling it often pays to give at your expense in hopes of gaining much more, as presumedly would be the case if you got this job.

No.

One is a transaction.

The other is a job interview.

If you can't tell the difference, then you'd have immense difficulties getting through both shopping trips and job interviews without a terrible faux pas.

 

[Ladewig]

True.

A little extra work to fake a Facebook account with a few fake friends.
Give them that and you'll be richly rewarded with nothing to worry about.

I better get started right away.

Hobbies:

being happy in my work,
turning in coworkers who steal material or resources,
shopping for professional looking clothes to wear at work,​

 

[3point14]

No, I don't think Facebook is bad. I'm trying to understand why others here think that some other company who may be their employer might be any less trustworthy with their "private" information than Facebook.

But, in this hypothetical situation, they're not my employer, are they? They are a company who say they have a position.

They might not even have a position. Perhaps they're just using the interviewing process to gather facebook ids and passwords.

 

[Travis]

I completely understand that your prospective employer could do bad things once they have your password. But so could someone at Facebook! Why trust the people at one company over the other?

If you were applying for a job at Facebook would this not be a problem?

Hmmm, let's compare the two:

Facebook
To them you are only one of 700 million users.
They are in the business of facilitating secure communication between users.
They stand to lose business if this security is breached.

Your Job
To them you are only one of a dozen employees.
They are in the business of processing forms from an auto parts factory.
They lose no business if the boss sends crude messages to your wife pretending to be you.

 

[Pulvinar]

Aside from, as already pointed out, you being one of millions of users to facebook, of no particular interest, in contrast with your employer, to whom you are of very particular interest...

There's also the fact that Facebook has a vested interest in not screwing about with your personal data, because their business is Facebook, and if words gets out they're screwing with people's accounts, they will rapidly lose customers (see the issues with privacy, and how quickly Facebook moves to address them).

By contrast, your prospective employer has zero interest in maintaining the integrity of your Facebook page.

That's probably the best argument against it. Though it's ironic how people don't mind someone at Facebook seeing their page because those people remain faceless.

 

[TragicMonkey]

That's probably the best argument against it. Though it's ironic how people don't mind someone at Facebook seeing their page because those people remain faceless.

Most people have different expectations of privacy depending on the occupation of the other parties involved. A Facebook employee does Facebook work, one would expect them to have access to one's Facebook data. Just as I would expect my doctor to have access to my medical records, my accountant to have access to my financial data, my roommate to have access to my house, and my first grade teacher to know all about the stories I wrote about "Poopsie the Dog". I would, however, become very wroth were I to learn that my accountant had gained access to my medical records, my doctor knew about Poopsie, and to come home to find my first grade teacher on my sofa, eating my distinctive Milano cookies.

Ceding privacy in one area of one's life to one set of people does not mean one can be expected to cede privacy in that same area to a different set of people.

 

[Babbylonian]

That's probably the best argument against it. Though it's ironic how people don't mind someone at Facebook seeing their page because those people remain faceless.

There's nothing ironic about it. Why would I care, for example, if you knew that I'd once stolen a Kit-Kat bar from a convenience store? Even if I gave you my real name, unless you singled me out for stalking/harassment you'd have no real use for that information that could harm me. If, however, I give that information to my employer, s/he could decide that I'm untrustworthy which could have a negative impact on my career.