Should We Outlaw Employers From Asking For Social Networking Logins?
from the this-is-not-a-good-trend dept
In 2009, we wrote about the city of Bozeman, Montana asking job applicants for all of their passwords to social networking sites, so that the city could look more closely to see if they had "high moral character." Public outrage over that plan resulted in the city dropping the requirement. Last year, we noted that some places in Maryland were doing the same, leading to a lawsuit. However, the Boston Globe is now reporting that more and more jobseekers are being asked for their social network logins, as a simplified "background check" by employers. It's a newspaper trend piece, so in typically maddening fashion it makes no effort to indicate how widespread this really is -- but the fact that it's not a big story any time an employer does this certainly suggests that it's becoming at least somewhat more standard.Still, does that mean we should pass a law? Senator Richard Blumenthal -- who has long been in favor of laws against all kinds of internet companies -- is apparently working on exactly that kind of legislation. Somehow, I doubt it's an accident that the Boston Globe trend piece came out at about the same time as Blumenthal's plans were discussed. Frankly, I still think that it's pretty sketchy and questionable for companies to ask for logins, but is it so bad that we need a law? Is there at least some sort of data on how widespread this practice is?
In the meantime, for those interviewing for jobs who do get asked for such things, it seems only proper to respond as the first individual profiled in the original article does—by walking away:
Bassett, a New York City statistician, had just finished answering a few character questions when the interviewer turned to her computer to search for his Facebook page. But she couldn't see his private profile. She turned back and asked him to hand over his login information.I would still guess this isn't quite as common as the article tries to suggest, but either way I'm curious if people feel this practice is so egregious that it needs a new federal law?
Bassett refused and withdrew his application, saying he didn't want to work for a company that would seek such personal information.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: interviews, jobs, logins, privacy, richard blumenthal, social media
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Response to interviewer
That being said, the part that gets me is how people don't really think things through when they decide to hand over their login. Assuming there's nothing in your private profile that disqualifies you, will handing over the login guarantee a job? If not, what assurances do you have that the info will be treated confidentially? And what about people that reuse an id and password across multiple systems?
While I'm not fully in agreement with a law is necessary, I'm also concerned about potential predatory actions on the part of employers. Like Mike, I think more information is needed here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to interviewer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to interviewer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to interviewer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Already against Facebook's TOS to do this..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already against Facebook's TOS to do this..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already against Facebook's TOS to do this..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Already against Facebook's TOS to do this..
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57324779-281/doj-lying-on-match.com-needs-to-be-a-crime/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Already against Facebook's TOS to do this..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Already against Facebook's TOS to do this..
If you want more than an opinion, you'll have to look at the relevant court cases. For example the Lori Drew case decided that making ToS violations equal to CFAA violations would effectively let a contract determine criminal behavior, which the Judge found unacceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already against Facebook's TOS to do this..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already against Facebook's TOS to do this..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or why not just set yourself up so that you don't show up in a facebook search, and when they ask say that you don't have one? Is that so unbelievable in this day and age? I have friends that are extremely net savvy, they just don't want a facebook, or deleted theirs ages ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absolutely not!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absolutely not!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I have my marital status, my religion, my age, or DoB listed on my Facebook page, and I give my login to an HR person screening me, could it be argued that because they not have access to that information prior to employment, they in effect "asked" for it, which is a violation of discrimination laws as it relates to employment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 8:25am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
insane and asinine interview requirement
Now do you think it would be reasonable for an employer to demand to review original copies of hand-written PRIVATE letters between you and your spouse, your family, your friends, etc. which may include very personal conversations that may include discussions of a medical nature, sexually intimate nature, heated debates on controversial topics, and a whole host of other PRIVATE discussions that are quite frankly NONE OF THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS.
The libertarian in me hesitates to call for any law (federal or state) to limit what employers can do with their business, but THIS horse squeeze that these businesses who interview like this creates true HARM to others (either give up your privacy or not get hired) that such behavior is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE, for which a civil law must be made to punish businesses who are insane and asinine enough to ask for my Facebook credentials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: insane and asinine interview requirement
That would, by the way, cover friend requests as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: insane and asinine interview requirement
What I have marked public is what I am comfortable with having the world see. If the HR rep goes through the list of public posts and is still not satisfied, I will walk out of that room. Anything in there I have marked private...is well, private and none of the company's god-damn business. I like to argue and discuss religion. What if I hand over my login credentials, and the HR rep is a fundamentalist? They then get offended by seeing my chat history, the discussions and viewpoints I take. I would never discuss religion while on the clock, and certainly not with higher-ups. But now, what I have discussed in private, away from the company, has now cost me a job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: insane and asinine interview requirement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recall that they needed to pass laws to keep employers from discriminating on the basis of sex, age, race, creed, disability, etc. If not to stop it, to at least remind employers that sort of thing is not acceptable behavior.
We have an insanely lopsided situation, where people who need to eat would with great trepidation cough up the profile if the option is more job searching and hungry or homeless family. So yes.
Asking for a party's profile access is like asking them for their email password - see what you've been saying or doing with their friends. I doubt many would argue that as being anything but impermissibly invasive.
Asking for social network login is akin to that, especially for those who keep their personal social networks small, tight, and limited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Could they do this selectively as a kind of proxy for that? E.g., only ask for their acct. password if they look jewish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, they passed a law about that. Still not sure if they needed to though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Oh yeah, according to your private Facebook posts about your divorce, we see you're not a 'family man' so we can't hire you."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Exactly what I would do. You show me yours, I'll show you mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inevitable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are breaking the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They are breaking the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Negative, Ghostrider. The pattern is full.
Asking me for social networking passwords? Haz dey gone mad?
No, thankyouverymuch. Me and my marbles would pack up and go work somewhere else. No law necessary, federal or otherwise.
Cheers,
Steph
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Negative, Ghostrider. The pattern is full.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Employers abusing current events
I know it's not easy to say no, but that's exactly what people need to do. I don't care what my employer things of my blog, Google+ or Twitter account but my Facebook is locked down to just my close friends and family, because it's my private life.
That said, I don't think it needs to be a law. As the Internet continues to grow people will become more and more savvy about their online identity. Your username and password is potentially more important than your social security number these days. Just because someone works in HR doesn't mean they wouldn't abuse the access granted to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Employers abusing current events
I don't understand this idea that because something is 'hard' (like saying no) or because you really need a job, there needs to be a law protecting you.
Total nonsense. You need to protect yourself. Period.
If you really want the job, then you are making a judgement call that your private stuff is a decent trade for employment. And many people might make that decision happily. In that case, good for them.
I would tell them, 'sorry, can't do that.' And if they didn't hire me because of it, then that's fine - I don't want to work there anyway. No one owes me a job on my own terms.
I'm not saying companies that pull this crap are scummy - they obviously are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Clear Message
Secondly, I am horrified that they even consider this. I have lived in conditions where every portion of my life, housing, social interaction, and similar was directly tied to my job. It was hell. I want to be able to go have a quiet drink with friends without wondering that if someone takes a picture of me at the wrong time am I going to get fired tomorrow. Life and Work are separate things, and never the twain should meet. If they expect us to keep our private relationships outside of the company, ie no dating of co-workers, it is only reasonable for us to expect them to keep their public investigations out of our lives.
On a personal note, any employer that asks for that information should punched in the nose and told to go filecheck themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Clear Message
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, 25 comments and no one has said the obvious yet....
"Sorry, I don't have a Facebook account."
I mean.....seriously, people, is this the new, "kid with father in car accident, father's killed, kid needs operation, and doc says, 'I can't operate on him, he's my son'" test?
People amaze me sometimes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow, 25 comments and no one has said the obvious yet....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow, 25 comments and no one has said the obvious yet....
Because I don't. So what does that mean? Will they think I'm lying? Will they think I'm anti-social because I don't have a social networking account, and therefore use *that* as a basis for a hiring decision?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow, 25 comments and no one has said the obvious yet....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow, 25 comments and no one has said the obvious yet....
"I'm sorry but I can't do that as it would constitute a breach of contract."
Polite, direct, honest (even if you don't have an FB account, the employer may be skeptical) and demonstrates that you are savvy about business law. If you actually still want the job, it should offset any damage to refusing the request, and if you don't it sets up for:
"I really did enjoy our discussion, but I can see that you don't offer the kind of atmosphere I'm looking for."
Again, polite and direct. Provides no reason for them to complain about you to other companies and ends the interview with a very clear of view of where they went wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow, 25 comments and no one has said the obvious yet....
"Sorry, I don't have a Facebook account."
This implies that you still want to by hired by the company, even after they've asked such questions. If so, saying you don't have a FB account when you actually do would be lying, and such lying could be easily detected by the employer. At that point, you've done damage to your reputation by showing you aren't trustworthy.
Just be honest: tell the employer that you FB account and login information is none of their goddamn business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow, 25 comments and no one has said the obvious yet....
You gotta really own a lie if you're going to stick with it. And if you're not easily searchable, then no, I don't think a company is going to really find it anyway. That would require management/HR to be smart enough for such things.
Also, just because a company is a complete and total tool, doesn't mean you can't benefit from working there for some time and getting money/XP there. It doesn't mean you're going to retire there, but sometimes, you need a symbiotic relationship with an employer for a while to get what you need to get to the good employer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's absurd.
"Just walk away?" That's not always an option for some people, given the current state of affairs and so some don't have a choice but to hand over that information because "they need a job." Passing a law banning this practice prevents the scenario from becoming an issue in the first place.
Now you could argue that a social network is akin to a public display of your activity. But that's only in the case where you don't take reasonable steps to make your life private. It's much harder to argue the same if you go to a bar and get in a fight, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's absurd.
Agreed although it doesn't need to be a new law; as suggested above, existing employment law could be extended to include this provision.
The main purpose of employment law (as I see it) is to try to create a level playing field between the (in this case, potential) employer and employee and reduce the risk of the employee giving up rights 'because he/she needs the money'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's absurd.
Why not? No seriously, why not?
There's no way you can honestly show me how someone going in for an interview HAS to take the job if they are offered it.
It may suck if they don't. It may make their life harder, having to look for a new one. But this idea that it's "not an option" is bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No data on me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think legislation will solve anything, but I definitely do think the privacy invasion needs to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even more reason NOT to agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a story here in Michigan where a health-nazi company owner actually fired people who failed random nicotine tests even though they never smoked on company property. Unfortunately, it was legal under existing Michigan laws.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=650390
More than once, when I felt an employer was overreaching into my non-work life, I had to remind them that they only rented my skills and services for 40 hours a week, they did not own me and what I do on my own time is none of their damn business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boy those interviews are getting tougher
Did I get the job?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "walk away" argument is just standard authoritarian boilerplate. It assumes there is a free market in jobs, which is demonstrably false. We're talking about people's livelihoods, even financial survival here, not some geek boardgame. Employers pay for an employees time and skill. It's really all they do. If they are incompetent in assessing either of those parameters without prying into personal files, they have no right to manage anything.
This issue is just the latest in creeping intrusion into personal privacy. Credit ratings, random drug tests, background checks for non-sensitive jobs -- all helped pave the way for further assaults on the right to privacy. It doesn't matter whether the intrusion comes from government or business entities. A law now, before this latest assault becomes standard practice, is essential.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only way to fight this kind of nonsense is... to fight it! If a company can't keep employees due to their asshattery, then they will either change police or disappear leaving room for rational companies to fill that market share.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It makes that part of the interview pretty easy.
"Now we need your FB and Twitter passwords so we can do a background check."
"Sorry, no password to give. I don't have any social media accounts."
You can always re-sign up after you land a job somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public -private
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I couldn't do it if I wanted to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dual Personality
Anybody want the password?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes! YES! Thrice YES!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As far as my feelings about the whole social networking scene go, as I always say, human vanity and stupidity know no bounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plausible Deniability
I'm not sure how (or if) you would do this with an FB app (as opposed to changes to FB itself). But it seems plausible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Love a law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only if HR & the boss gives me theirs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blue Thunder to base, too garbled, too garbled (shshshshs)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately Maybe Yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Employers do it anyway
But it does not give them the right, reason or ability to demand you had over all your privacy just because they said to.
I'd politely tell them: "My FB account is now past history. You are, too. Good bye."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is SO wrong!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The difference between looking at a public Facebook profile and asking for login information, is the same as the difference between looking at the kind of car I drove to the interview and asking for the keys so they can search the glove compartment. One is acceptable, if probably unnecessary; the other is an invasion of my private space.
That said, we don't actually have a LAW against companies demanding to inspect your glove compartment...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It isn't just your privacy at risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a really really bad idea
I won't even bother with an example because there's just so many hilarious ways this could go wrong; I'm sure that whatever I put here, something worse would come up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
would you be upset if they wanted you to log into your bank account, so they could make sure you didn't purchase anything they disagreed with????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
""Facebook today weighed in on the issue of employers asking current and prospective employees for their Facebook passwords. The company noted that doing so undermines the privacy expectations and the security of both the user and the user's friends"
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/03/23/1623255/facebook-legal-action-against-employers-a sking-for-your-password
It's one thing for users to agree to give up their password to potential employers, but that user's friends might have valid privacy expectations from that user. A user giving up his password could undermine the privacy expectations of various friends who send private messages to the user in a way that this user's friends never agreed to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need a public shaming web site for these scumbags
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
my opinion
Some other things or examples of potential legal arguements.
Say i work for eli lilly and someone posts information confidential to a new drug. Oops shareholder lawsuit.
Say a employee has a habit of getting fired and defaming the company online in publc on facebook. Oops should have known that.
Say a truck driver is ranting and raving about how drunk he was last night and gets into an accident the next morning. Oops could have avoided that lawsuit.
The lists of legal problems goes on and on some of whcih involve real. Regulaory law already, if you want privacy stay off social networks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legit with a Twist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]