How much is it reasonable for a an employer to know about a potential employee?

@Irishk,

Quote:

Some of my favorite Facebook stories are about people who do stupid (or even criminal) things and then get caught because they bragged about it on facebook. I think I saw one or two such tales on Edgar's "Humor & Oddities" thread

One idiot used his FB page to boast about his large CP collection and having truecrypt installed to protect his collection.

Well when the FBI did track him down and serve him with a search warrant it was found that he indeed had a large CP collection but he did not have truecrypt installed.

One need to wonder about the thinking of some people.

0 Replies

You know I always have a mental picture of some late fifty years old woman in front of a senate committee over being appointed to the Supreme Court and having someone drag out a video taken on spring break thirty plus years before where the judge had taken part in a girls gone wild video.

This coming generation is going to be the first to find that actions of their or even opinions that had been record on the net can and will come back to bit them on the rear end a lifetime later.

0 Replies

@Irishk,

I think that what this Marine has done is not only stupid, but damaging to the military. And he's choosing to use Facebook to do it.

Quote:

Marine sergeant faces discipline for Facebook critique of Obama
By Marty Graham
Mar 22, 2012

SAN DIEGO (Reuters) - The Marine Corps has initiated disciplinary action against a Marine sergeant for comments he posted on his "Armed Forces Tea Party" Facebook page criticizing President Barack Obama, a spokesman said on Thursday.

Sergeant Gary Stein, 26, a weather forecaster assigned to Camp Pendleton near San Diego, cast the Marines' reaction to his comments as an infringement on his freedom of speech and defended his right to express personal political opinions when he is off-duty and out of uniform.

"There is not a document in this world that trumps the United States Constitution," the San Diego Union-Tribune quoted him as saying.

But Army veteran Rick Rogers, host of the San Diego military talk radio show "Front & Center," said Stein appeared to be instigating a confrontation with the Marines "to get notoriety." Stein previously ran afoul of the military over comments on his Armed Forces Tea Party page in 2010.

Defense Department rules allow military personnel to express political opinions so long as they are not doing so as representatives of the armed services.

"He had to know there's a good chance the Marine Corps would kick him out," Rogers told Reuters, explaining that associating the name of his Facebook page with the Armed Forces essentially put Stein in the position of speaking publicly while in uniform. "I believe in freedom of speech, but when you join the military, you give up some of your rights," Rogers added. "There's a firewall between the military and civilian politics -- you don't criticize the government while you're in uniform."

Stein told the newspaper the Marines accused him of making statements about the president "that are prejudicial to good order and discipline," in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and were taking steps to discharge him from the corps. Major Michael Armistead, a spokesman for the Marine Corps Recruiting Depot in San Diego, said the corps had begun administrative action against Stein after a preliminary inquiry into allegations that he "posted political statements about the president of the United States on his Facebook web page titled 'Armed Forces Tea Party.'"

Armistead declined to comment further. Stein also has a separate Facebook page for a real estate business in the Southern California town of Temecula, where he lives. He did not immediately return phone calls to Reuters seeking comment. But he told the Union-Tribune that he got in trouble for a comment he posted while debating punishment faced by NATO and military personnel over burning copies of the Koran in Afghanistan last month.

The comment in question has since been removed, and Stein said he could not remember it precisely. But he paraphrased himself as stating: "I say screw Obama. I will not follow orders given by him to me." He said he later clarified online that he meant he would not follow "unlawful orders" from the president. Stein enlisted in the Marines nine years ago at age 18, and deployed once to Iraq, according to the newspaper. The American Civil Liberties Union in San Diego went to bat for Stein in 2010, according to its website, sending a letter to his commanding officer at Camp Pendleton saying that the ACLU "strongly supports the First Amendment rights of service members to discuss and critique the government's policies and conduct."

News accounts at the time said Stein was rebuked by the military for criticizing Obama's national healthcare plan through his Facebook site.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/22/us-marine-facebook-idUSBRE82L1BG20120322

You cannot be a Marine and post on Facebook saying that you will not obey the orders of the Commander-In-Chief. The military is being lenient with him--they could charge him with the far more serious crime of advocating mutiny.

Quote:

Marine Still Outspoken Despite Facing Dismissal
By JULIE WATSON Associated Press
SAN DIEGO March 23, 2012

A Marine facing dismissal for running a Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party that criticizes the Obama administration is still speaking out but has been getting little support from military law experts and free speech advocates who say he may have crossed the line.

Sgt. Gary Stein planned to speak at a tea party meeting in San Diego County later Thursday, a day after the Marine Corps notified him that it is moving to dismiss him for violating the Pentagon's policy barring troops from engaging in political activities.

The military has had a policy since the Civil War limiting the free speech of service members, including criticizing the commander in chief.

David Loy, of the American Civil Liberties Union in San Diego County, said he has not followed Stein's case closely, but that based on what he has seen in the media he thinks there may be a legitimate concern on the part of the Corps about Stein appearing to be speaking as a member of the armed forces because of his Facebook page's name.

"The military has a very strong interest and appropriately so to remaining neutral," he said. "The last thing we want is our military taking side on political issues."

Former Navy officer David Glazier, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, agreed.

"He's really rubbing the government's nose in it," he said. "It's really hard to have sympathy for him."

Stein said he is not swayed. He said he received hundreds of emails from service members and the public in support of him.

"They're entitled to their opinions but I still think this is a freedom of speech issue," Stein said. "I'm standing up for the Constitution."

Stein, a nine-year member of the Corps, said he started the page to encourage fellow service members to exercise their free speech rights.

The Marine Corps said in a statement that it decided to take administrative action after Stein declared on Facebook that he would not follow unlawful orders from Obama. He later criticized the comments of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

According to Pentagon directives, military personnel in uniform cannot sponsor a political club; participate in any TV or radio program or group discussion that advocates for or against a political party, candidate or cause; or speak at any event promoting a political movement. Commissioned officers also may not use contemptuous words against senior officials, including the defense secretary or the president.

Stein said his statement about Obama was part of an online debate about NATO allowing U.S. troops to be tried for the Quran burnings in Afghanistan. In that context, he said, he was stating that he would not follow orders from the president if those orders included detaining U.S. citizens, disarming them or doing anything else that he believes would violate their constitutional rights.

Stein said in addition to being discharged, he would have his rank reduced to lance corporal if he is proven to be in violation. He said he was removed from his job at the Marine Corps Recruiting Depot in San Diego on Wednesday and given a desk job with no access to computers.

Stein was first cautioned by his superiors at Camp Pendleton in 2010, after he launched his Facebook page and criticized Obama's health care overhaul. Stein volunteered to take down the page while he reviewed the rules at the request of his superiors.

He said he determined he was not in violation and relaunched the page. Stein said he now plans to fight the charges. He had applied to extend his service, which was set to expire in a few months.

Former military prosecutor Lisa Windsor said since the Civil War, military members have been testing those limits and gotten in trouble. Now those cases can go global because of the Internet.

"I think they've been very lenient with him so far," Windsor said.

Stein said he will not wear his uniform when he speaks to tea party supporters but he likely will mention his case.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/marine-outspoken-facing-dismissal-15983349

In this particular case, I think the military has a perfect right to use what he posts on Facebook to take disciplinary action against him. He is violating the military code of conduct.

1 Reply

The privacy laws here are very strict. You couldn't get away with asking this kind of info. In the military however, at least here, this would be employment suicide. My step son was warned when he signed up to either disband his page, or to take down anything that could potentially be embarrassing to him or the Navy. I'm sure this guy knew the rules. He's an idiot.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

In this particular case, I think the military has a perfect right to use what he posts on Facebook to take disciplinary action against him. He is violating the military code of conduct.

Well well Firefly light up the sky rockets as we agree on something.

0 Replies

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/23/BUON1NPI3U.DTL

Facebook warns against giving passwords to employers
Benny Evangelista

Facebook warns against giving passwords to employers 03.23.12
MF Global exec says Corzine ordered $200M transfer 03.23.12
Calif. settlement will fund car charging network 03.23.12
Facebook takes steps to address privacy concerns 03.23.12
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(03-23) 17:53 PDT -- Facebook warned today that it would take legal action against companies that ask job applicants for passwords to the social network, saying such a request violates its terms of service.

Facebook Chief Privacy Officer Erin Egan issued the warning in the wake of a published report that companies and governmental agencies were increasingly asking job applicants for access to their accounts as part of a pre-employment screening process.

"Facebook takes your privacy seriously," Egan wrote in a statement posted on Facebook. "We'll take action to protect the privacy and security of our users, whether by engaging policymakers or, where appropriate, by initiating legal action, including by shutting down applications that abuse their privileges."

The Menlo Park company, which has often found itself on the receiving end of criticism by privacy rights advocates, was hailed for taking a strong stand against an action that the American Civil Liberties Union called "an invasion of privacy."

It's unclear what legal course Facebook could pursue if it took an offending company to court. Facebook might be able to claim an employer was trying to push a member into a breach of contract, said Chris Conley of the ACLU of Northern California.

But Facebook could also cut off a company's page on the social network, which could do more damage for the offending brand's marketing efforts.

"Facebook did not have to do this, but they've done the right thing here," said Pam Dixon, founder of the World Privacy Forum of San Diego. "If Facebook had stood by and said nothing, it would have done nothing to slow the adoption of this practice."

This week, a story by the Associated Press detailed instances of job applicants who were asked to fork over their Facebook user names and passwords to let an employer check on their background.

Although it's become common practice for employers to check publicly available information found on social networks, gaining a user name and password provides access to private messages and other details that are not publicly available, including data about that person's network of friends.

Facebook has long warned users not to share passwords with anyone. Egan's note reiterated the company's terms of service, which prohibit sharing or soliciting a password.

"If you are a Facebook user, you should never have to share your password, let anyone access your account or do anything that might jeopardize the security of your account or violate the privacy of your friends," Egan wrote. "We don't think employers should be asking prospective employees to provide their passwords because we don't think it's the right thing to do."

Egan said Facebook has seen "distressing increase" in such reports in recent months, but the company did not elaborate. Several digital rights organizations contacted for this story said they did not know how widespread the practice has become.

But Dixon said in the past three years, her public interest research organization has fielded a steady stream of complaints from applicants who were asked to submit their social media passwords.

"We'll actually call employers and attempt to intercede for the job candidates," but anonymously so the applicant might still have a chance to land the job, Dixon said. "It's a big, big problem. It's intrusive and unnecessary and over-reaching."

Asking for a password is like an employer going to an applicant's mail box and reading their personal letters, she said. And it could create a bigger legal headache for the employer because it exposes them to private information that could be grounds for a discrimination lawsuit, such as race, age or health.

"If they see something that caused them to change their hiring decision, they have to furnish the job applicant the Fair Credit Reporting Act notice of that and all the reasons," she said.

Applicants should turn down such a request even if it means losing the job, said Dixon, who has authored books on job searching.

If the employer shows it's such a "disrespectful company" during the hiring process, "it usually doesn't get better after you've accepted the job," she said.

Benny Evangelista is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. [email protected]

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/23/BUON1NPI3U.DTL#ixzz1pzczFl53

0 Replies

http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/senator-promises-bill-to-block-invasive-employer-facebook-checks/

Senator Richard Blumenthal has vowed to put a stop to privacy-invading Facebook checks by employers with a piece of forthcoming legislation.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) announced this week that he plans to submit a bill that would make it illegal for employers to require job applicants to turn over the social network login credentials. Blumenthal’s legislation plan comes as Facebook warns that employers could face legal action if they request job candidates’ username and password as part of the interview process.

“I am very deeply troubled by the practices that seem to be spreading voraciously around the country,” Blumenthal told Politco. He added that employers already have “a lot of ways to find out information” about job candidates.

Blumenthal says that his bill, once finished, will include some exceptions, like for federal and local law enforcement agencies, and government agencies that handle national security issues. He did indicate that private companies that receive government contracts would be regulated under the legislation.

The controversy over employers requesting Facebook and other social media login credentials stems from an Associated Press article, published earlier this week, which showed that some employers have begun requiring that candidates turn over these passwords as part of a background check.

Companies have long used applicants’ social media presence as part of their vetting process, but most have limited to what can be found through publicly available posts, which does not include most Facebook activity, which is usually private. As Facebook Chief Privacy Officer Erin Egan noted today, this practice does not just violate the “privacy expectations and security” of the job applicant, but also that of everyone with whom the applicant is friends on the social network.

“We don’t think employers should be asking prospective employees to provide their passwords because we don’t think it’s right the thing to do,” writes Egan. ”But it also may cause problems for the employers that they are not anticipating. For example, if an employer sees on Facebook that someone is a member of a protected group (e.g. over a certain age, etc.) that employer may open themselves up to claims of discrimination if they don’t hire that person.”

Egan adds that Facebook will “take action to protect the privacy and security of our users, whether by engaging policymakers or, where appropriate, by initiating legal action, including by shutting down applications that abuse their privileges.”

So far, Facebook has not commented on whether it would support Blumenthal’s legislation, or work with the senator to help draft the bill. We have requested comment on the matter, and will update this space if/when we receive a response.

Sen. Blumenthal says that the legislation, while still a work-in-progress, will be submitted to Congress “soon.”

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Thank you for those 2 updates, Bill.

Interesting, Senator Richard Blumenthal's planned legislation.
It will be interesting to see how much support he receives.

1 Reply

@msolga,

Msolga there is a lot of heat and it seems to be increasing over this issue and thanks you for beginning this thread.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-03-25/facebook-password-probe/53766330/1

Senators ask feds to probe requests for Facebook passwords
Updated 2h 57m ago Comments SEATTLE (AP) – Two U.S. senators are asking Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate whether employers asking for Facebook passwords during job interviews are violating federal law, their offices announced Sunday.

By Jae C. Hong and Steven Savoia, AP file
Troubled by reports of the practice of employers asking for Facebook passwords during job interviews, Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, left, and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said they are calling for a federal probe.
EnlargeCloseBy Jae C. Hong and Steven Savoia, AP file
Troubled by reports of the practice of employers asking for Facebook passwords during job interviews, Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, left, and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said they are calling for a federal probe.
Ads by GoogleFIU Online MBA

$10k Scholarships Available.

Complete in 18 Months - No GMAT

www.FIU.edu/promos
New Q's For Senator Pryor

His in-laws skip out on $2M in Tax.

Retire Senator Pryor

www.retirepryor.com
Santorum for President?

Would you support Rick Santorum

for president? Vote in poll.

www.newsmax.com/surveys
Troubled by reports of the practice, Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said they are calling on the Department of Justice and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to launch investigations. The senators are sending letters to the heads of the agencies.

The Associated Press reported last week that some private and public agencies around the country are asking job seekers for their social media credentials. The practice has alarmed privacy advocates, but the legality of it remains murky.

BLOG: Facebook: Password requests 'undermine' privacy
On Friday, Facebook warned employers not to ask job applicants for their passwords to the site so they can poke around on their profiles. The company threatened legal action against applications that violate its long-standing policy against sharing passwords.

A Facebook executive cautioned that if an employer discovers that a job applicant is a member of a protected group, the employer may be vulnerable to claims of discrimination if it doesn't hire that person.

Personal information such as gender, race, religion and age are often displayed on a Facebook profile — all details that are protected by federal employment law.

"We don't think employers should be asking prospective employees to provide their passwords because we don't think it's the right thing to do. While we do not have any immediate plans to take legal action against any specific employers, we look forward to engaging with policy makers and other stakeholders, to help better safeguard the privacy of our users," Facebook said in a statement.

Not sharing passwords is a basic tenet of online conduct. Aside from the privacy concerns, Facebook considers the practice a security risk.

"In an age where more and more of our personal information — and our private social interactions — are online, it is vital that all individuals be allowed to determine for themselves what personal information they want to make public and protect personal information from their would-be employers. This is especially important during the job-seeking process, when all the power is on one side of the fence," Schumer said in a statement.

Specifically, the senators want to know if this practice violates the Stored Communications Act or the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Those two acts, respectively, prohibit intentional access to electronic information without authorization and intentional access to a computer without authorization to obtain information.

The senators also want to know whether two court cases relating to supervisors asking current employees for social media credentials could be applied to job applicants.

"I think it's going to take some years for courts to decide whether Americans in the digital age have the same privacy rights" as previous generations, American Civil Liberties Union attorney Catherine Crump said in a previous interview with the AP.

The senators also said they are drafting a bill to fill in any gaps that current laws don't cover.

Maryland and Illinois are considering bills that would bar public agencies for asking for this information.

In California, Democratic Sen. Leland Yee introduced a bill that would prohibit employers from asking current employees or job applicants for their social media user names or passwords. That state measure also would bar employers from requiring access to employees' and applicants' social media content, to prevent employers from requiring logins or printouts of that content for their review.

0 Replies

It's all getting to be a bit much, isn't it?

"Liking" your boss's political foe on Facebook can cost you your job?

This is taking surveillance of employees' private activities, in their private lives, to rather extraordinary lengths, surely?

Quote:

You could be fired for 'liking' a Facebook page
James Manning
May 10, 2012 - 10:40AM/the AGE

Never mind what you write about on Facebook, simply clicking the 'like' button could cost you your job.

Six workers in the US were fired for 'liking' the Facebook page of their boss's political opponent after a federal judge ruled that clicking the 'like' button is not constitutionally protected speech.

Unlike in the US, the right to free speech is not enshrined in the Australian constitution, and people here have already lost their jobs because of comments made on social networks.

Last year roads worker Alec Armstrong was sacked after commenting on Facebook that the council had too many office staff and not enough workers. Jane Morgan was fired from her job at a construction management company in Sydney in 2009 after she wrote a message on a friend's Facebook wall saying the company "sucks".

"People don't go to the pub and talk to a few mates anymore, they get on a computer and talk to 10 million people, so they need to be that much more careful," says Robin Young, a partner at the Sydney-based law firm Holman Webb.

Mr Young believes that coming out against the company in the public domain can be reasonable grounds for dismissal.

"If a person who was a senior lobbyist for a politician was found to be supporting the opposition, then some people wouldn't be surprised that that person may be sacked from that role."...<cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/you-could-be-fired-for-liking-a-facebook-page-20120509-1ybvp.html

0 Replies

Isn't it awesome how we all give up our private lives for the sake of the almighty dollar?

I thought it was bad enough when I had to take a drug test when I was driving nothing more dangerous than a database. Sheesh.

0 Replies

How much is it reasonable for a an employer to know about a potential employee?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know