“In the current state of the US economy it’s getting tougher and tougher to find a job. With an unemployment rate of 8.3 percent, according to the latest job numbers, saying yes to a job is a no brainer.
Now imagine in order to get the job you must disclose your Facebook password.
On Tuesday night, House Republicans stopped a measure that would have allowed the Federal Communications Commission to prevent employers from forcing potential employees to disclose their Facebook passwords.
Republicans who are against “big government,” have delivered a huge blow to the legislation that was presented by Democrats.
The purpose of the legislation was part of a bill to implement new restrictions on the FCC rules after a series of cases where employers have requested access to social media accounts.
“What this amendment does is it says you cannot demand as a condition of employment that somebody reveal a confidential password to their Facebook, to their Flickr, to their Twitter, whatever their account may be,” said Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D- Colo.).
According to a post by Facebook, the company has “seen a distressing increase in reports of employers or others seeking to gain inappropriate access to people’s Facebook profiles or private information.”
The social media giant added that the practice “undermines the privacy expectations and the security of both the user and users’ friends.”
According to WANE.com, Anthony Juliano has been keeping a close watch on the growing trend. Juliano, a social media expert said, “it’s really not new, but it’s getting people’s attention because it is controversial,” he said….”
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
I suppose if you don’t want to give out your facebook password you don’t have to apply for that job. Or you could just delete your facebook account. Then there’s no password to give out.
Exactly. Yes, asshat the GOP is against BIG GOVERNMENT.
That amendment is BIG GOVERNMNET telling employers what they can and cannot do in the employment process.
It’s none of BIG GUMMINT’s fraggin bidness what they ask. You can always say “no” or — GOD FORFEND! — stop posting drunken boob-shots on your Facebook page.
Choices! Imagine that.
______
Jake,
I think you need to understand the fundamental distinction between “big” government and government. It seems like you object to the latter.
As for the former, when there’s no GUMMINT, then it’s all BIG corporate GUMMINT, isn’t it?
I object to BIG GOVERNMENT.
Government should be limited in it power to regulate private property.
That’s what the Constitution says, and that’s the best way to run a country.
And if you like your Gummint big, keep it big in NYC or New York State, so people can move away from you. If your Big Gummint is in Washington, that choice is no longer available.
Constitutional federalist gov’t allows for States to be as bloates as they want to be, so you can choose to live there if you like.
__________
I only got one thing to say: Love it or leave it baby. That used to be a republican line! Your state is not your country. Are you or are you not a patriot!!!?? Well, that means loving your whole country, not just the silly rich white folks who are your neighbors. Capice?
Anyway, it’s senseless to go on. We don’t agree. Now, I must be getting back to my black helicopters.
Only a solipsistic douche liberal would make my comments about race.
What the fuck is wrong with you people? Just FYI, my next door neighbor is a retired one star Army General, now a counselor at a local firm.
He also happens to be blacker than your Messiah, asshole.
___________
Civility, Jake, civility! “Solipsistic douchebag”? That’s the definition of those constantly preaching the rights of “private property” over any other obligations or duty to others.
As for the neighbors comment, chill out, already. It wasn’t a race comment. Even your black general is “white” in the sense that he’s your neighbor. I.e., local vs. national! get it?!!! It’s like saying all the little “old” ladies on the bus. They’re not all old. Sheesh!!
Again, Spooky, you introduced a racial element.
You are a racist, and can’t see beyond the brainwashing you’ve no doubt been subject to your entire life.
Yeah, I see the general as a neighbor, and yes, he’s likely in the same income area as I am. What’s color got to do with it and why do you feel like you have to bring it into every argument? Booooring!
And guess what, the United States was constructed as a haven for individual property rights and freedom. You don’t like it? I’m sure France will take your racist ass.
________
There’s nothing wrong with a law that prevents employers from demanding password access to personal accounts as an employment condition. If employers started asking for credit card access, people would want their lawmakers to take action against that too. It’s a clear infringement.
The problem here is that this is not just a law to prevent employers demanding passwords as a condition of employment. This is a small amendment within a larger set of laws which are desiged to greatly expand the powers of the FCC in amorphous and unspecified ways – the exact recipe of big govt and the danger therein. They snuck in this amendment to make the law seem citizen-friendly, and now the media is framing it as if that’s the only issue in the law, and republicans are (you know, cause they’re evil) blocking it on purpose because they want our privacy infringed. Meanwhile, none of the articles describe any other aspects of the bill, only mention this as an amendment – why is that?
Employers have plenty of right to do a background check and drug test, millions of employers do it all over the country, and no one is going to change that. The comparison with that (made by someone else, not you) is a straw man. But again the problem is the larger context into which this amendment was snuck in.
Maybe we should also give companies who want to hire us access to our credit cards, to see what movies we go to, what restaurants we eat at and what department stores we prefer?
The Republicans… ugh, is there anything else to say.
Yeah, no background checks of potential employees, just hire whoever happens to show up first, or whoever the gov’t mandates.
Exactly. Maybe the FBI can stop doing background checks on their employees too, or banks, or securities firms.
What’s a couple more criminals on Wall Street, right Spooks?
But it sure would suck if the Dems had to give up whining about “crooks on Wall Street” wouldn’t it?
___________
Background checks and access to private information are not the same thing. There are very clear guidelines to what constitutes background checks.
But seriously, don’t you know how make distinctions?
What’s private about Facebook? It’s a fucking public vehicle, and as such can embarrass an employer, which is the total reason for the ask in the first place.
Can you reason intelligently, or am I going to have to put you in the Dope Box?
___________
You can always decline to give out your facebook password. If you are quality enough they may hire you anyway. Your credit rating is often reviewed, with your permission. Which you could withhold. We have ‘at will’ employment, for the most part. You can quit anytime, they can hire who they like so long as they are not discriminating on the basis of race, gender, religion, age… all those protected classes. Facebook status is not a protected class. Some think maybe it should be, but it is a voluntary condition so I think Gov’t should stay out of it.
It’s “public info”? That’s why they’re asking for your password? No, there’s the public and the private info. There’s the side of it which you see, which is not what others see. Simple distinctions, brother, simple distinctions!
To my mind, asking for your Facebook password, so they can see who your friends are, what you do on weekends, etc. is serious invasion of privacy. Yes, they hiring is “at will.” Then they should ask you to your face. Who are your friends? Who do you hang out with? Are they all bankers, social workers? traders?
FB is public, but not. So let’s be honest.
They are not going on Facebook to see who you hang out with (unless you are hanging out w. Crips or otherwise easily identified criminal elements), but rather to see if you make a practice of bad choices in public, which is what Facebook reveals and what most companies that give a schit about their reputation care about.
It’s no more invasive than checking your credit to see if you’re over your head.
_______
Yab,
So you think it’s cool if an interviewer asks you. Who are your 10 closest friends, where did they go to school and what are their favorite rock bands?
Jake, accessing someone’s profile from YOUR account, is very different from accessing their profile from WITHIN THEIR account.
Those arguing about whether the employer has a right to know who you hang out with, are missing the point. Of course an employer (or anyone for that matter) can check you out on social media, see what you say and do there, and whom you hang out with, etc. That happens all the time. But why should they be given your password and SIGN IN AS YOU, and conduct affairs within your account? That’s a form of identity theft.
Yeah, alright. And WHAT ELSE did the bill do?
Very salient point and question.
They ALL need to go out. Show ’em the door in November. All of ’em. Repukelicans and Demoncrats alike. They are all vermin at their best and minions of Satan at their worst.
They are not doing “Gods’ work”, if you will.
After they are all gone over the next couple cycles, we need to find a way to disconnect public office and the election process from ……………… MONEY!……yes…that filthy lucre which is the fertilizer used by Satan himself to take advantage of the propensity of the human race toward greed, lust and covetousness.
Like that will happen with 50% of the population now voting themselves paycheck through the machinations of their elected “public servants”.
You guys all have a nice day now, ya hear?
🙂
Only way you disconnect money from the election process is if you stop making money available through the auspices of your local Congresscritters.
ONLY WAY.
_______________
There’s a hitch in that approach.
Those spending the big bucks in the election (and lobbying) process use those bucks to make sure that the money flowing to them through Congress continues to flow.
I’ll add an observation: the budget plans I’ve seen that seek large cuts in Federal spending tend to make cuts that would be particularly ineffective at cutting the money flowing to the corporations and wealthy persons who spend heavily on lobbying and elections. The plans make the overwhelming majority of cuts from programs that provide benefits to individual citizens.
A further observation is that government spending isn’t the only honey attracting dollars to the election process. When Congress and the White House aren’t working on spending, they are working on laws and their implementation. Legislation that does things like extending the length of a copyright to life plus 70 years was provided enormous monetary benefit to Disney Corp. without the government providing the money.
Those spending the big bucks in the election (and lobbying) process use those bucks to make sure that the money flowing to them through Congress continues to flow.
Where’s the hitch? If you stop the flow, you stop the corruption… or at least you force it to more local levels so we don’t all have to suffer from it. Keep it in California, etc., where people can move out when they see the structure rotting through like the gas tank of an aging Impala.
_____________
If you stop the flow
Sorry. I thought you were being serious. I’ll move on.
There are no cuts in federal spending, except for defense. There are only reductions in the rate of increase. In Orwellian double-speak a reduction in the rate of increase is referred to as a cut.
Man, you shredded that straw man. Bravo.
I’m talking about budget plans that seek large cuts in Federal spending. They exist. One passed in the U.S. House today, in case you actually care about what you are writing about.
jake,it’s like this bro,i live amongst a lot of old people,that think that they are “somewhat” smart. but in reality,a lot of folks can reach their 60’70’80’s, and still dont get it. you can talk until your blue in the face. but you cant fix stupid. people,who have deeply ingrained belief’s, whether right or wrong,(or more like well misinformed),will always defend their bias,may it be wrong or right. some “want” more gubmnt.me,i can do without them. they are nothings who do more harm than good.
Obviously, there are always going to be people who do not value their freedom, or who believe ceding freedom is a fair trade off for mitigating risk.
What those people don’t realize is that by ceding freedom to corrupt incompetents, one actually is increasing one’s overall risk.
One only has to look at rotting California or my late great New York to see what happens when one decides to let solons guide our every decision.
Human nature is corruption, so we are best defended by a dispersion of power, and are most at risk when power is centralized. It’s a central tenet of our existance and history is replete with examples that prove it true.
____________
Fascists like Spukey and SnOtt are owned by the left.
I wouldn’t be surpised if either of them would turn in their relatives to CPS. Not one iota.
On a serious note, be prepared, have a passport on your person in addition to the 2nd amendment rights that must ultimately protect our 1st amendment rights (too, i.e. the silent majority who has endured much slander and privacy wrongs by the left).
Freedom is meaningless without responsibility and the duty to your fellow citizens. Freedom does not exist BEFORE the political entity. The condition of freedom, as a concretely defined set of rights is the STATE. Otherwise, it’s just war.
I recommend Plato, Hobbes, and Rousseau. Back to school!
Hobbes?? EXACTLY!
No wonder you’re a Jacobin asshat.
Try some Adam Smith, or better yet, John Locke!
Locke was a genius, in that he recognized that the only avenue to freedom was in the suppression of the State’s power.
We DO have a responsibility to our fellow citizens, and in no way is that made more viable by interference of a large, centralized, one-size-fits-all bureaucratic state.
You think Soviet Russia was taking CARE of people?
Back to the Dope Box!
________
How far out of your league? Did you hear that a coach said the Kentucky could beat a bad NBA team. Maybe on occasion! But never in a 7-game series. The shittiest NBA team would crush Kentucky, make no mistake (and no offense to Kentucky, which is running a fabulous team!). Just a matter of level of awareness is all.
That was a silly assertion. So silly even Jeff Van Gundy could refute it with ease.
_______
I didn’t hear Van Gundy’s comments. Saw it on a hoops blog.
I used to hate Van Gundy when he was the Knicks coach. But I’ve since come to appreciate him seeing the horrible decade they had under all the other asshats they hired. None more so than D’Antoni.
But Stan is not a winner. And I hope they don’t hire him in NY next season.
Plato did not believe in democracy. He though tyranny would arise and the elite should govern. You similarly misinterpret Hobbs and Rousseau. Perhaps you think the State should control people. I’m of the opinion that the most enlightened, intelligent and benevolent of leaders will screw things up.
So I think the State should remain silent on the question of whether a prospective employer can ask an applicant for their facebook password. The employer can ask, or not. The applicant can give it over, or not. The employer can hire as they see fit except as provided by non-discrimination statutes. Facebook may or may not be a good indicator of employment quality. People should be free to make their own mistakes.
I never said anything about democracy. These are complicated questions in Plato. But he wasn’t theorizing democracy, he was theorizing the condition of politics, which is justice. Not the same thing.
We were talking about the state and its limits. Democracy is one form of government.
Let’s not be overly simplistic.
Hat ass,
Smith (who directly ripped off Rousseau, by the way) does not theorize the polis. He theorizes the markets. And don’t get me started on Smith, cuz now you’re on my territory. He rolls over in his grave every time the republicans and people like you open your mouths. Seriously, you’re out of your league here.
Bwaaaahhh!
Yes, you might call me a racist again, if I twist your illogical nuts one more time.
lofl.
Imagine.
_____
Jake,
If you’re interested, you should look into what Adam Smith thought about Gold and the gold standard, since I know that that’s your hobby horse.
Anyway, toddles. Bon week-end! I’m off to cut off some heads!
Yes, maybe I’ll look into that, for you, Spooks.
Maybe we can have an erudite conversation about how Smith was a dead white guy or something “au courant” like that.
(eye roll)
____
Seriously, I know a few things about Smith. Look into his ambivalence regarding Gold. Basically, he saw wealth as a measure of production and labor, not as something that can be stored or exists intrinsically in one or another form. Half-way to Marx (who, by the way, was a serious reader of Smith).
Another thing: look into Smith’s views on the French physiocrats. He was going to dedicate Wealth of Nations to Quesnay, who was a prime mover of the revolution (not a Jacobin, though, I might add).
The world is a complex and surprising place for those with curiosity.
I give and I give and I give. And what do I get in return!
O Humanity!
Privacy is the issue of this thread. While I’m surprised to learn of the alleged R. vote, I can understand the intent.
Most of the tax-funded trash babies facilitated by the left need to have deterrents affecting their actions while “on the clock.”
Examples where such “social” access is denied can lead to awfully costly lawsuits, here are some off the bat: corporate espionage, careless info “shared” (creating contractually onerous and …YES… egregious outcomes), defamation and wrongful disclosure can escalate into a real nightmare for the employer.
Employees should not object to a balance in sharing when entering a “professional” role.