Employers asking for Facebook passwords· Page 4

rabidgopher04
Member

13 years ago

Facebook speaks out against this
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/23/tech/social-media/facebook-employers/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

I'm glad Facebook has the balls to stand up to this on users' behalf. It's in their best interest in order to keep people continuing to use their site.

Amazing Bacon Delivery Service! Never be without good bacon again.

Wade
Veteran Member

13 years ago

#32

I'm glad Facebook has the balls to stand up to this on users' behalf. It's in their best interest in order to keep people continuing to use their site.

Originally Posted by: rabidgopher04

Not that Facebook has a lot of credibility in being the "good guy" -- after all, their entire business model is built on disclosing details about people without asking first.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

13 years ago

#33

Not that Facebook has a lot of credibility in being the "good guy" -- after all, their entire business model is built on disclosing details about people without asking first.

Originally Posted by: Wade

Oh my fucking God! If you don't fucking want people to see the shit, DON'T FUCKING PUT IT ON THE INTERNET! And holy fuck, there is a privacy setting you can control the shit too!

Why the fuck can't people do shit for themselves? Everyone needs others to wipe their ass for them?

What's next? Gonna bitch about the brakes in cars not automatically compressing when approaching a Yellow light or Stop sign?

BE FUCKING ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR OWN SHIT!

Mark Zuckerberg for President and Larry Page for Vice President!!!
The ticket Zuckerberg/Page!!! VOTE THIS NOVEMBER!

Formo
Veteran Member

13 years ago

#34

I gotta say, Wade.. Zero's right on the money. Facebook actually DOES 'ask for permission' before disclosing information.. It's the user agreement.

Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!

Porforis
Veteran Member

13 years ago

#35

'us' taxpayers are the reason the banks failed. we wanted bigger homes that we knew we couldn't afford & then we couldn't pay for them. WE ARE GREEDY beyond friggin belief, we push the envelope, rack up huge credit card bills, live paycheck to paycheck, have to have the best of everything without actually working for it, & then when the shit hits the fan, we blame everyone else. especially the gov't. blame bill clinton all you want for the housing nightmare but dammit people - know your limitations, stick to a damn budget, & take responsibility for yourselves!!

to any employers out there, back the fuck off my facebook page & get a life. that's private, includes any & all children i have, whether i'm married or not, etc...all of which are illegal to ask about in an interview.

Originally Posted by: 4PackGirl

Amen. I'm appauled that our company doesn't let people work from home... Until two of our employees had cars break down and couldn't afford repairs. People with 4G data plans and smartphones, one who smoked substantially and another who liked buying gadgets on a regular basis and lives with his parents. Both decided to start their employment here knowing they lived a long ways away from work, both decided that they'd rather have stuff than plan for a rainy day, both eventually lost out but the company was there to pick them up. I would also point out that at least one of these two is not known for staying on task even with supervision.

In the meantime, those of us that are financially responsible and only spend what we can afford while taking a reasonable degree of precaution get to drive into work every day. I feel as though this is an excellent parallel to the expectations in this country nowadays. You are entitled to whatever you can manage to buy, and if misfortune strikes it is your company's fault for not paying enough, the government's fault for not helping you out, and rich people's faults for not sharing their money.

Porforis
Veteran Member

13 years ago

#36

Directly on the subject though, if this were to become common practice I wonder if people would preemptively set up dummy accounts to paint a flattering picture of themselves for future exploitation. Might be worth the time investment to make yourself look like Mister/Misses responsible.

Dexter_Sinister
Registered

13 years ago

#37

So you're one of those people that doesnt give a shit about giving up our right to privacy, and all that other jazz just because ur not doing anything wrong?

come on man

Originally Posted by: gbguy20

If someone is representing my company, I don't want an addict, a racist, a child abuser or a freako conspiracy theorist meeting my customers and making people think I agree with that.

If I have a company, I should have a right to have my company represented in a manner consistent with my values. I should have a choice on what kind of people represent me.

It may be their jobs but the company is my life. I should have a right to protect my life.

If their lives and personal activities NEVER intruded on the hours that they are paid for, I wouldn't care what they do. But it always does. Nobody spend 100% of the time they are paid to be at work, doing work. The do personal stuff all the time and they have personal conversation. If they are bringing personal stuff to work, I should have a right to determine if that personal stuff they bring to work is going to harm my business.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

Porforis
Veteran Member

13 years ago

#38

I agree that you have the right to run your business like that Dexter, but I don't agree with it... And I'm fairly hardassed when it comes to people being responsible and good employees. I understand that all it takes is one incident to lose you business, but you don't keep employees happy and attract as many candidates with this level of screening. Drug screenings? Absolutely. Credit check? Sure, why not. Sift through their facebook profile? Meh...

rabidgopher04
Member

13 years ago

#39

What's next? Gonna bitch about the brakes in cars not automatically compressing when approaching a Yellow light or Stop sign?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

That's actually a good idea. Then people wouldn't have to look up from their phones as often while they text. [palm]

Amazing Bacon Delivery Service! Never be without good bacon again.

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member

13 years ago

#40

Originally Posted by: Porforis

This is against the Facebook Terms of Service and, if discovered, would result in deletion of all accounts created by that person.

And Dexter, how far do you think it is ethical to take such a train of thought? Should you have the right to demand email passwords? Bank account information? Wedding certificates? Access to the snail mail box? Cameras in your employees' homes? Taps on their phones? Where do you draw the line?

If you are worried about their bringing Facebook to work, block access at your place of business. It's easy enough to do. As far as I am concerned, blocking access to a website is the functional equivalent of banning cell phones at work. Demanding Facebook passwords, on the other hand, is the equivalent of demanding the right to monitor an employee's voicemails or view their text messages or contact list. Not acceptable.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

dfosterf (12m) : Mackelvie

dfosterf (14m) : Michael Macelvie- NFL teams know how to draft- Why don"t they?

dfosterf (16m) : Youtube

Zero2Cool (5h) : Packers were not selected for the 2025 Hall of Fame game.

dfosterf (7h) : PFOW Out of our division would be a good thing imo

Zero2Cool (8h) : Jameson Williams is done at 24 years old? What? He's a WR, not QB. I'm missing something here haha

wpr (9h) : Tomorrow is almost here.

packerfanoutwest (9h) : would you want him if Pack needed a back up qb?

packerfanoutwest (9h) : JW is done......stick a fork in him

Zero2Cool (11h) : You should. He goes to AFC that helps Packers.

packerfanoutwest (22h) : don't care

Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Lions shopping Jameson Williams?

packerfanoutwest (22-Apr) : Packers General Manager Brian Gutekunst says Green Bay’s roster can win, even without adding anyone in the draft.

Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : It's a poor design. New site has SignalR like our gameday chat

wpr (22-Apr) : Ah today's Shout was very quick to post.

wpr (22-Apr) : now 3

Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Who? What?

beast (22-Apr) : What is he supposed to say? He doesn't want players currently on the team?

Martha Careful (21-Apr) : meh

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : It's so awesome.

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : new site fan shout post fast

wpr (21-Apr) : Slow posting in Fan shout.

wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!

dfosterf (21-Apr) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am

wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days

beast (18-Apr) : 6 days

wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep

dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire

dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.

dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission

dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"

dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that

dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

25 - 27

Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

22 - 24