exactly

What would be next -- submission of your internet surfing history? I've clicked on some pretty manky sites just out of curiosity. A visit to Stormfront doesn't mean I'm a neo-Nazi. How about they require us to bring in our angsty journals from high school? That would cast light on your character, wouldn't it? How about HR gets to come to our homes and look through the drawers of our nightstands?

The truth of it is, yes they would judge you on your blog posts, and if you refuse to surrender your privacy this way it is assumed you have 'something to hide'.

You're right! Wow! I didn't think about that. They shouldn't be able to get those answers, in any shape orf form. So peering into someone's facebook should be "technically" illegal already .

That's what I thought until I read the Huffington Post article about this issue, where people reported being turned away from jobs for refusing to turn over passwords or access social media accounts during a job interview.

Now, a potential employer is not allowed to ask your age (should be kind of apparent anyway) or your religion and marital status, so why should they have access to private material? It's sad that it takes a law to stop this kind of intrusion, but it seems that some people ARE slavish or desperate enough to turn over this material in order to get a job in this market.

@mike p. Thanks for the laugh! :)

Why in heaven's name would you want to read a potential employee's Facebook?

No reason.

It could give potential insight into the character and integrity of an employee. For example, if in every single photo the applicant posted of themselves on Facebook, they had an alcoholic beverage in hand, a joint hanging out of their mouths, and were surrounded by under-age females, that's probably going to be someone that you don't want to hire and invest the time and money in training.

If only Obama was upfront and honest with us about his prior drug abuse, would he be President today?

Not sure its an issue anymore, Bush got elected with a reputation for binging on cocaine. :)

Right now, the problem is, there's a huge amount of pressure on a job applicant that chooses to be "uncooperative" in the interview process, which is why some of the other question restrictions were placed. Not sure if its needed here, particularly if someone ties potential liability back to the interviewer asking for access, and then denying an applicant. Heck, this is cynical, but you could probably list yourself as Gay before you go on the interview, the minute the HR person sees that on FB, they almost have to hire you or risk being sued.

Could is key. You could hire that very same guy that doesn't have a FB account. There are also people, some on this site like Bernard F., that think you should have to turn over other documents, like tax returns and bank statements. I think it crosses the personal privacy line. I guess I would not be against an employer being able to ask, as long as the potential employee was able to refuse.

@Greg Huegerich -

Actually, sexual orientation is not one of the federally protected classes from employment, or any other form of discrimination. The current protected classes are:

Race - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964

Color - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964

Religion - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964

National origin - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964

Age (40 and over) - Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

Gender - Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964; also applies to
Familial status (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)

Disability status - Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Veteran status - Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974

Genetic information - Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

@Greg -

Very true. That's why Hoffa is so torn on this issue. I can see the logic on both sides here. In answering the Patch poll on this issue, Hoffa chose - 'depends on the job.'

And at least W Bush was upfront and honest about his personal demons. That says a lot about character and integrity, which one would hope our President would have. We didn't learn about Obama's until only after the election and his book was published. That was deceitful, deceptive, and dishonest - no character, no integrity.

@JRH, if it came down to that I would shut down my account. I think too many people make these social media groups too big a part of their lives.

As far as employers, they have eyes all over the place. Some even scan obituaries when an employee takes time off for a funeral.

not necessarily NO reason - trade secrets, insider info, heck even HR news can be leaked by employees. as well as behavior unbecoming of a representative of a prestigious company.

I believe strongly in privacy, but also liberty - you are free to post whatever you want, but you must be prepared to pay the consequences for posting drunken, promiscuous pictures and inflammatory statements...

People have been fired for making disparaging comments about their employer on Facebook. And they didn't even have a password to the employee's account.

The whole point of asking for a password or requesting that an interviewee access a social media page is because the material was posted privately as 'friends only'. You're not showing it to the world.

I do mind being patted down at the airport, but the consequence of not doing that is that planes might explode and fall out of the sky with me on them. Heaven forbid I might be sold a sandwich by someone who posts party pictures privately on Facebook! There's a bit of a difference.

Not necessarily. If a friend has their FB privacy set to "world", then any comment you make is no longer restricted to "friends only". If you are "tagged" by a friend who has their page set to "world", then it is no longer "friends only". If you use any apps, and you accept the terms, your page is now accessible by whoever sponsored that app. Also that someone who sold you that sandwich might have spit on it and then posted the "funny" video for the world to see.

I'm not in agreement that any employer should have a password to any account you have, whether it be social media or your bank account. But for me, if it came down to having to decide whether to give a social media password to get or keep a job, I would close the social media account. I can live without the account, I can't live without a job.

@mau - the point is that you shouldn't have to make that choice. Employers should not be able to ask for a job applicant's passwords for social media or be asked to log in so a potential employer can watch over their shoulder. It's an invasion of privacy. Period.

@$$andNonsense -

Nice name calling on your part - I see that all that time spent on the Daily Kos has really started to pay dividends for you!

Hoffa doesn't need to weasel anything. The issue raised by this article comes down to a matter of perspective.

Hoffa believes this issue to be more of a generational disconnect than anything else.

Conventional wisdom dictates that if you don't want the world knowing about it, then don't post it on the world wide web. Pretty simple, right? Those adherent to this traditional view and golden rule will never recognize the existence of online privacy rights, no matter how good software encryption and web security becomes.

Meanwhile, on the opposite end of the spectrum, you have those born into an online culture, who couldn't imagine a world without such a standard of an expectancy of privacy in online communications, even though such an expectancy flies in the face of the traditional conventional wisdom.

15 years ago, would you have trusted internet protocols and security enough to conduct your banking online? And yet today, most of us take this for granted, without giving much thought as to whether such information will remain absolutely private, right? As the proliferation and use of the internet continues to expand into the functions of our daily modern lives, so will the expectancy of online privacy rights.

Each current position is firmly supported with logical arguments.

The outrageous examples of 'random searches' that you cite, or any of the other examples mentioned in the comments to this poll, are different in that there has ALWAYS been a reasonable expectation of privacy in those venues.

However, the same cannot be said of the internet - in fact, the historical reality points to the contrary.

Personally, while Hoffa recognizes the logic in the arguments posed by both sides, he disagrees with having to divulge passwords. However, in some jobs, I also don't see it as being wrong to ask to see an applicant's social media profiles. And if your profiles are public, then certainly reviewing such profiles and even basing a decision upon such a review has to be considered fair game.

Really, this isn't much different than when the liberals were hollowing about the searchable 'verify the recall' database being available online - despite the FACT that recall petitions are a matter of public record.

@ JRH -- Conventional wisdom for my generation was 'never put it on paper'. Period. However, we do put things on paper, and there IS an expectation of privacy with certain things on paper or in the cyber-world. That would include diaries, letters, financial records, etc. A friends-locked blog is the equivalent of private letters. It's different with public entries, because the whole world can see them.

Expecting access to private material on the part of potential employers is intrusive. Asking for a password it even more intrusive. It's almost as intrusive as asking for passwords to bank accounts.

What is the "Daily Kos"? Something you and Saul came up with? Posting at all times of the normal working day makes one wonder if you have a job or are just scamming off your employer, the taxpayer on unemployment, or mom and dad's basement.

http://www.dailykos.com/

@$$andNonsense -

Again with the personal insults - you just don't let up, do you?

As Hoffa has stated numerous times before, his job as an independent contractor has him in front of a computer for upwards of 12 hours or more a day. As Hoffa is his own boss, he can do whatever he pleases whenever he pleases. And Patch is Hoffa's break-time relaxation / fun.

Hoffa has never scammed off of anyone, and he resents such an accusation!

Hoffa only hopes that one day, you would actually learn to appreciate your double-wide, instead of constantly being jealous and envious of Hoffa.

In today's world that is like saying "I'm never going outside. I'm staying indoors and won't go out because it's too dangerous out there." Sure, a case could be said about that and the same for Facebook. But using common sense is always a good approach too. For example, even though I use Facebook, I would never tell anyone on Facebook when I will be going on vacation but rather share a bunch of pictures after I get back. It's the same with real life. Just saying.

I don't have a Facebook either, but I do have several other blogs under pseudonyms. I consider what I post on them to be my own business and none of anyone I don't choose to share it with. Of course, it's just good sense never to badmouth your employer or anyone else in a public post. I have seen people doing that, as if they think they won't be caught out.

Debi:

I don't think that there's anything at all wrong with an employer looking at an employee's Facebook page. Whatever is posted on the internets should be fair game for an employer to access, just as it is for any other member of the online community.

As for asking for passwords so that the 'private' portions of the site can be accessed, I would say might just be going a couple of steps too far.

More than a couple steps too far, since a password allows anyone using it to alter the content of the account. All kinds of complications can ensue.

That certainly is a fair point, Randy. The password holder can also change the password and lock the owner out of their own page...

Yes indeed they can. You have to wonder what genius in HR thought this concept up and why.

Well, it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of age, but everyone knows it happens. you just can't prove that's the reason you didn't get a job. The real issue is that employers feel so powerful that they can try to pull this nonsense. There shouldn't have to be a law to make people do the right thing.

And why stop at social media? Shouldn't your employer have the password to your bank account so they can spot if you're embezzling? How about PhotoBucket or other photo archives? Your employer might want to delete any picture showing you engaged in a private activity that reflects poorly on the business.