I'm usually on the side of 'government, get out of my life', but this practice is unusually unfair and far too useful for the companies to think there will continue to be the option of 'work somewhere else'.
Companies wouldn't dream of searching my car or house before hiring me. How they ever got the idea that they should be able to require my passwords is beyond me.
Social media would not have been the last step, either. Email passwords would have been next. And then searching personal computers, especially cellphones and laptops.
And once they were drunk with that power, what else would they require? "Permission" to tap your phones? That sounds ridiculous right now, but a year ago it would have been ridiculous for a company to ask for your personal passwords. And now we're having to enact laws against it.
I hope other states are quick to follow on this... Or that the federal government gets their heads out of their asses and passes it nation-wide. Wasn't that the whole point of the bill of rights? To protect freedom, nation-wide?
It is a big deal, but no so big that we are on a slippery slope. There are many things that could happen to combat it.
Employees or prospective employees agree to give up said passwords only if hiring manager/company gives them their social media account passwords. I.E - If I have nothing to hide, you have nothing to hide. You know employer an employee can never be to sure who they are working for ...
An entire side industry might spring up entirely geared toward managing and tracking who sees what on your social networks or, social networks might respond by letting you set up two logins - one for safe log in that only you know and one for compromised login that you give to an employer when they compromise you.
I hope that long before the states need to pass more laws like this that employees or prospective employees would publicly avoid business/government agencies asking for social media logins. "I really wanted that great job at Great Company, but it has asked me for my social media logins and stated that it would hold the things I did as a teenager against me."
The public perception that it is wrong to ask an employee/prospective employee is very strong and the more negative marketing associated to an employer gets around that will not only keep other employees away but it will chip away the confidence existing employees have that they work for a good employer.
Headline actually understates it. It sounds like the real deal was less microtargeted than the headline implies: according to the article, they banned "requiring or requesting employees or job applicants to disclose electronic passwords, such as for social media sites."
Good of them to do that and nip this practice in the bud before it has a chance to become widespread.
After having just pee'd in cup last week for a pre-employment screen, I do hope that someday governments will also ban senseless and stupid drug testing for jobs that don't actually require 24/7 sobriety (eg software engineering).
"ban senseless and stupid drug testing for jobs that don't actually require 24/7 sobriety (eg software engineering)."
It should be my right as an employer to hire anyone that I wish (just like it is your right as an employee to not accept a position or quit).
You say it has no effect, but you can't tell me it has no effect on productivity, I just won't believe it (I've known too many pot heads in my life). Also, if my company required my employees to be on-call with customer support, I don't want someone under the influence of anything handling these sorts of emergencies.
If you ban drug testing, employers will just hire people who they think are drug users less often and you won't really be able to prove it.
When I moved to the US I was absolutely blown away at how common this practise is. A friend applying for a common office job had to do it- I had assumed it would only be for people handling live firearms and the like. Little did I know...
It was the US government that created the drug testing for jobs, when they passed laws requiring it for a variety of government jobs. This had a secondary effect of requiring it for private employers working with government, and then it grew from there.
I did it once, many years ago, and then adopted a policy of refusing it (even though I don't use drugs or even alcohol.)
The armchair lawyer in me would love to see someone attempt to take one of these companies to court for tortious interference with a contract - as in the one that every single Facebook user has with Facebook where they agree to not share their password.
We may not like where that line of thinking leads. Should Facebook be able to stop you from installing AdBlock or privacy tools as well? What if they say you can't join Google+?
Another potential vector is a discrimination lawsuit.
Considering how careful most companies are to avoid any interview questions that would possibly open them up to this sort of thing, I'm kind of shocked the same organizations are silly enough to ask for a Facebook password in the first place.
Ask for password -> log into applicant's Facebook account -> Facebook account clearly identifies the subject as an openly gay Muslim -> applicant is denied job.
Because of discrimination? Maybe, maybe not, but prying into the applicant's Facebook account certainly opens the door to it being a reasonable possibility, just the same as asking them what their race/religion/sexual orientation is in an interview would.
Beyond the one fuzzy source that has been repeated my numerous media outlets, is there any evidence that this is actually going on? Any blogs where people are ranting about a specific company doing this?
It seems like a lot of people are up in arms about something that may not actually be a problem.
Do we even have the names of companies that have done it or is it just one or two and the rest is just urban whispers making it sound like everyone does it?
I have, and will continue, to check people out on social networks using publicly available info but I wouldn't ask for account access any more than I would ask if I could go around to their house and read their mail. I will repeat though, information that they have placed in the public domain is fair game.
So how might this affect, for example, the practice of performing credit checks on prospective employees? A credit check can also reveal a lot about someone. How do we determine where the limits are?
Integrity is standing on principle, even when you don't like the outcome. Thus integrity requires me to point out that in this case, Maryland is violating people's rights.
While I think employers should not ask for these passwords, and don't have a "right" to, I also have the right-- freedom of association-- to not give them the password, and not work for companies that would even ask.
Maryland is interfering with these rights. Maryland is violating freedom of association by dictating what terms people might choose to associate under. I doubt the Maryland constitution gives them the power to do that, and certainly many interpretations of the Bill of Rights have claimed that they restrict state's lawmaking ability.
I don't know what employers might reasonably want this information. Possibly an employer might wish to conduct a background check for a highly security intensive position, and this check might involve access to some website (lets assume it is not Facebook) that the applicant feels perfectly comfortable with them seeing. Further, this access could be conducted with the employee present, with the employee changing the password immediately before giving the access and then changing it again immediately after, resulting in no ongoing access. I don't know what situation someone might find it reasonable to do this-- I can't know.
But neither can the government of Maryland. The problem with these kinds of laws is that they always have unintended consequences, and at the end of the day, any violation of peoples rights-- even with "good intentions" (though I bet this law exempts the state of Maryland itself) -- will result in less optimal outcomes.
For instance, consider the situation where this law is challenged and then upheld. That would establish a precedent that says the state can interfere with freedom of association, and such precedent might be used to undermine freedom of association in areas where we do care about preserving it. This has happened many times in the past-- for instance the "interstate commerce clause", which doesn't actually grant broad powers, but very narrow ones, has been rewritten via precedent to give the federal government essentially unlimited power, even where no commerce between states occurs.
I expect to be down voted for expressing this unpopular opinion. But hopefully Hacker News is the kind of place where making an argument -- even if most people disagree with it-- is respected. (and I'm curious to find out, having recently seen instances of it going both ways.)
Employers usually have significant power advantages over those they employ, and they may abuse that power. In particular, discrimination for reasons of race, religion, sexuality, ethnicity, etc. is pernicious and has been a demonstrated historical problem in lots of different places all over the world. With access to a person's Facebook, a prospective employer most likely has all the information they need to act on their own prejudices.
For background checks, frankly I believe a licensed, disinterested third party should perform them where they are necessary.
(I downvoted you because I strongly disagreed with you. Freedom of association is a poor defense for permitting discrimination, particularly where employment is concerned, IMO.)
Are you married? Have any children? Expecting a child? What is your sexual orientation? Democrat or Republican? Do you have communist leanings perhaps? Have you ever had cancer? Any other health problems? ...and so on.
States enact laws preventing employers from asking these questions for very good reasons. Most of this information can easily be obtained by accessing a persons Facebook account.
Your argument presents several hypotheticals. I would not trust a potential employer to do any of them. Not because they are evil, but because are charged with protecting the company from unwanted employees. And the definition of unwanted in that situation varies wildly from one to another.
It's good that you have integrity. People should stand up to such nonsense. But if you have a red flag on Facebook and everywhere you apply asks for your password, then you are SOL.
I also have the right-- freedom of association-- to not give them the password, and not work for companies that would even ask.
That right also, sadly, depends on how much choice you have in the first place. What about those in less fortunate positions, the cleaners of the world if you will, who need a job, and need it now?
Surely in such cases, an individual's perceived rights disappear as their desperation to pay the rent increases?
By that logic nearly the vast majority of laws (e.g. minimum wage laws, discrimination laws, etc.) would have to be struck down. This would lead to an outcome that lots of people wouldn't like, and hence lots of people are willing to give the government some limited power for the greater good.
This law actually does not exempt the state of Maryland. This whole fiasco was brought up in Maryland when someone applied for a State job (I believe at a prison) and his interviewer asked for his facebook password. The man contacted the ACLU after his interview.
And now I have my answer. By standing on principle, and arguing for that principle, I've been down voted to negative one. When I responded, at length, with an explanation to someone who raised a vague disagreement, that was down voted as well.
Yet the people who have disagreed with me have not made arguments, mostly just drive by comments. Mostly assertion and characterization. And one person even admitted he was down voting me simply because he disagreed.
Hacker News is not a place where intelligent discussion can take place, and thus its a waste of time to participate here.
I'm tired of getting responses that aren't insightful disagreements, but vague unsupported assertions of partisanship. I'm tired of personal attacks when I make arguments and the fact that it seems most participants on HN are 20 something and very uneducated about the world. (which means you can't' refer to things that should be well known--like the fact that Apple got a license from Xerox for the inventions such as the mouse et al.)
Hacker News is a waste of time, and its getting blocked in my /etc/hosts file for now.
[+] [-] wccrawford|14 years ago|reply
Companies wouldn't dream of searching my car or house before hiring me. How they ever got the idea that they should be able to require my passwords is beyond me.
Social media would not have been the last step, either. Email passwords would have been next. And then searching personal computers, especially cellphones and laptops.
And once they were drunk with that power, what else would they require? "Permission" to tap your phones? That sounds ridiculous right now, but a year ago it would have been ridiculous for a company to ask for your personal passwords. And now we're having to enact laws against it.
I hope other states are quick to follow on this... Or that the federal government gets their heads out of their asses and passes it nation-wide. Wasn't that the whole point of the bill of rights? To protect freedom, nation-wide?
[+] [-] hippee-lee|14 years ago|reply
Employees or prospective employees agree to give up said passwords only if hiring manager/company gives them their social media account passwords. I.E - If I have nothing to hide, you have nothing to hide. You know employer an employee can never be to sure who they are working for ...
An entire side industry might spring up entirely geared toward managing and tracking who sees what on your social networks or, social networks might respond by letting you set up two logins - one for safe log in that only you know and one for compromised login that you give to an employer when they compromise you.
I hope that long before the states need to pass more laws like this that employees or prospective employees would publicly avoid business/government agencies asking for social media logins. "I really wanted that great job at Great Company, but it has asked me for my social media logins and stated that it would hold the things I did as a teenager against me."
The public perception that it is wrong to ask an employee/prospective employee is very strong and the more negative marketing associated to an employer gets around that will not only keep other employees away but it will chip away the confidence existing employees have that they work for a good employer.
[+] [-] glimcat|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanp2k2|14 years ago|reply
Cali, you're up next (I hope!)
[+] [-] angdis|14 years ago|reply
After having just pee'd in cup last week for a pre-employment screen, I do hope that someday governments will also ban senseless and stupid drug testing for jobs that don't actually require 24/7 sobriety (eg software engineering).
[+] [-] paulhauggis|14 years ago|reply
It should be my right as an employer to hire anyone that I wish (just like it is your right as an employee to not accept a position or quit).
You say it has no effect, but you can't tell me it has no effect on productivity, I just won't believe it (I've known too many pot heads in my life). Also, if my company required my employees to be on-call with customer support, I don't want someone under the influence of anything handling these sorts of emergencies.
If you ban drug testing, employers will just hire people who they think are drug users less often and you won't really be able to prove it.
[+] [-] untog|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tocomment|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nirvana|14 years ago|reply
I did it once, many years ago, and then adopted a policy of refusing it (even though I don't use drugs or even alcohol.)
[+] [-] Karunamon|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wmf|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] georgemcbay|14 years ago|reply
Considering how careful most companies are to avoid any interview questions that would possibly open them up to this sort of thing, I'm kind of shocked the same organizations are silly enough to ask for a Facebook password in the first place.
Ask for password -> log into applicant's Facebook account -> Facebook account clearly identifies the subject as an openly gay Muslim -> applicant is denied job.
Because of discrimination? Maybe, maybe not, but prying into the applicant's Facebook account certainly opens the door to it being a reasonable possibility, just the same as asking them what their race/religion/sexual orientation is in an interview would.
[+] [-] RobertKohr|14 years ago|reply
It seems like a lot of people are up in arms about something that may not actually be a problem.
[+] [-] meiji|14 years ago|reply
I have, and will continue, to check people out on social networks using publicly available info but I wouldn't ask for account access any more than I would ask if I could go around to their house and read their mail. I will repeat though, information that they have placed in the public domain is fair game.
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] noarchy|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulhauggis|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bishnu|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulhauggis|14 years ago|reply
It's a strange world we live in...
[+] [-] loverobots|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nirvana|14 years ago|reply
While I think employers should not ask for these passwords, and don't have a "right" to, I also have the right-- freedom of association-- to not give them the password, and not work for companies that would even ask.
Maryland is interfering with these rights. Maryland is violating freedom of association by dictating what terms people might choose to associate under. I doubt the Maryland constitution gives them the power to do that, and certainly many interpretations of the Bill of Rights have claimed that they restrict state's lawmaking ability.
I don't know what employers might reasonably want this information. Possibly an employer might wish to conduct a background check for a highly security intensive position, and this check might involve access to some website (lets assume it is not Facebook) that the applicant feels perfectly comfortable with them seeing. Further, this access could be conducted with the employee present, with the employee changing the password immediately before giving the access and then changing it again immediately after, resulting in no ongoing access. I don't know what situation someone might find it reasonable to do this-- I can't know.
But neither can the government of Maryland. The problem with these kinds of laws is that they always have unintended consequences, and at the end of the day, any violation of peoples rights-- even with "good intentions" (though I bet this law exempts the state of Maryland itself) -- will result in less optimal outcomes.
For instance, consider the situation where this law is challenged and then upheld. That would establish a precedent that says the state can interfere with freedom of association, and such precedent might be used to undermine freedom of association in areas where we do care about preserving it. This has happened many times in the past-- for instance the "interstate commerce clause", which doesn't actually grant broad powers, but very narrow ones, has been rewritten via precedent to give the federal government essentially unlimited power, even where no commerce between states occurs.
I expect to be down voted for expressing this unpopular opinion. But hopefully Hacker News is the kind of place where making an argument -- even if most people disagree with it-- is respected. (and I'm curious to find out, having recently seen instances of it going both ways.)
[+] [-] barrkel|14 years ago|reply
For background checks, frankly I believe a licensed, disinterested third party should perform them where they are necessary.
(I downvoted you because I strongly disagreed with you. Freedom of association is a poor defense for permitting discrimination, particularly where employment is concerned, IMO.)
[+] [-] binarymax|14 years ago|reply
States enact laws preventing employers from asking these questions for very good reasons. Most of this information can easily be obtained by accessing a persons Facebook account.
Your argument presents several hypotheticals. I would not trust a potential employer to do any of them. Not because they are evil, but because are charged with protecting the company from unwanted employees. And the definition of unwanted in that situation varies wildly from one to another.
It's good that you have integrity. People should stand up to such nonsense. But if you have a red flag on Facebook and everywhere you apply asks for your password, then you are SOL.
[+] [-] mootothemax|14 years ago|reply
That right also, sadly, depends on how much choice you have in the first place. What about those in less fortunate positions, the cleaners of the world if you will, who need a job, and need it now?
Surely in such cases, an individual's perceived rights disappear as their desperation to pay the rent increases?
[+] [-] rmc|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beedogs|14 years ago|reply
What if these companies asked to inspect your home before making you an offer?
What if they were asking for your medical records?
Should a company be able to do whatever it wants to current or prospective employees? My lone alternative is to "work someplace else"? Really?
[+] [-] lps41|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nirvana|14 years ago|reply
Yet the people who have disagreed with me have not made arguments, mostly just drive by comments. Mostly assertion and characterization. And one person even admitted he was down voting me simply because he disagreed.
Hacker News is not a place where intelligent discussion can take place, and thus its a waste of time to participate here.
I'm tired of getting responses that aren't insightful disagreements, but vague unsupported assertions of partisanship. I'm tired of personal attacks when I make arguments and the fact that it seems most participants on HN are 20 something and very uneducated about the world. (which means you can't' refer to things that should be well known--like the fact that Apple got a license from Xerox for the inventions such as the mouse et al.)
Hacker News is a waste of time, and its getting blocked in my /etc/hosts file for now.