Discussion on:

Can an employer ask for your Facebook login and password?

No, you should not comply. Do they also want to look at your text messages and see a log of your phone calls? I'd report this immediately and make a big stink about it. If you have to, couch it under age-discrimination concerns, or some other protected class.

In the U.S. there are several questions that are illegal for employers to ask, such as age, marital status, etc. It would seem this would fall under requiring the potential employee to indirectly disclose this information.

Those laws preventing employers from asking personal questions such as age or marital status were enacted when US employees still had rights.

I certainly would hope that the courts would stand with employees if anyone ever challenged the legality of employers extorting passwords in this manner.

With a few holdouts in smaller areas (i.e. county and small city) the courts are lost. Big business in cooperation with big government have effective control over just about every court that is of any worth/concern when it comes to setting precedence. Sure there are city and county courts where the judges still rule based on constitutionally correct law but the appellate courts and the state and federal level courts are beholden to globalization and embracing of UN laws. Just look at the egregious rulings these traitors in black robes have handed down in the last few years:

1) Frag the 4th Amendment: Court rules it???s OK to search without a warrant; Court rules it???s OK to take the phone of a driver (trick, car, whatever) and take all data off it the police would like to;
2) Forget Due Process: Court rules President has constitutional authority to assassinate UYS citizens
3) And on and on and on???

Presidential Directives (which are also without any constitutional merit), Unconstitutional Legislation and other acts of Tyranny :

PDD 51 ??? Executive order that creates a council of (presidentially appointed) governor???s that would represent all states governor during times of crisis (crisis being determined by the president)

NDAA 2021 ??? Authorizes the indefinite detention of legal US Citizens without reason or due process. This is a favorite amongst dictators who like to suppress political free speech

Establishment of US NORTHCOM - End to Posse Comitatus ??? In order to enact a Police State the Federal Government would need to place military personal on US Soil and enable them with police powers, something forbidden by
the Posse Comitatus Act. This shot another major hole in the fabric of our constitution. God help us if the military men and women willingly agree to engage the US citizenry as the enemy.

The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 ??? Includes text that makes changes to the Insurrection Act that makes it easier for any future president (that means current president since this was from 2007) to use the military to restore order without consent of a state???s governors. The text authorizes the president to use military force to restore order and enforce the laws of the US when there is some catastrophe or other serious public health emergency or other condition in any state that the president determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of said state are incapable of maintaining public control or {this is the biggie ) ???to SUPRESS in any state any insurrection, domestic violence , unlawful combination or conspiracy. It is the ???Other condition??? phrase that is the kicker because it lets the president make the call when something has occurred that needs military intervention. That???s way tooo much power in the hands of any one person, even a president.

As with most acts of treason that the crooks in DC engage in, the inclusion of this text in the John Warner Defense Act was done at the last minute so that no debate could be held and no one could really keep it from being thrown in with the rest of the bill. That???s treason! It won???t be long before making statements like this will get you arrested. Don???t think so? They already have passed a bill making it illegal to protest on or near government grounds.

You basically said everything I was going to say, except I was going to make it short by saying "We live in a police state now".
Of course with the Patriot Act and all the other constitutional busting acts, you and I are now in the FBI database and will be labeled as agitators, rebels, or subversives. I'm a retired disabled vet and only wish I could do more for my country to bring back the true constitutional obeying government.

We live in a police state when the government thinks it can tell me who I hire or allow on my PRIVATE property, be it a business or rental property.

I am a landlord and I ignore unconstitutional laws and rent to decent, CHRISTIAN, married couples. Sexual Deviants and those worshiping false gods are NOT allowed on my property

...definitely off limits for a government agency to ask for or require.

The questions that are off limits in a hiring interview are illegal because they are discriminatory - not because they are an invasion of privacy like this.

My simple answer would be: No. If they want to conduct a background check - such as in the case of a sensitive position - that is their prerogative, but they don't have any rights whatsoever to any personal account information other than my SSN so they can verify I am a legal US citizen.

"definitely off limits for a government agency to ask for or require." I see you have never had a non-military government job screenin for a secret or above clearence..

and it's certainly open to legal challenge.
Asking someone for their Facebook login and PW eliminates the need for an employer to ask any and all of the forbidden questions about sexual identity, pregnancy plans, chronic illness, etc., since the answers to those questions are provided along with your password.
BTW -- I was asked for my FB pw by a prospective employer today. That's what drew my attention to this thread. fyi, link to Tech Republic list of illegal questions;
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10things/steer-clear-of-these-10-illegal-job-interview-questions/229

With access to social media comes the knowledge of protected information otherwise illegal to ask.

If you OWN a private business you have the RIGHT to hire anyone you want without a commie government telling you what to do.

You have a right to ask any questions you want to ask.

ALL restrictions aimed an private business or private property are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and backed by laws upheld by judges who can't read too well!

Asking someone to disclose their password contrary to the terms of a legally binding instrument prohibiting said disclosure, constitues a conspiracy under the law. If one coerces the conspiracy as a condition of employment, then thats another law broken.

A contract between you and facebook (Terms of service agreement) is not a break the law kind of thing. Breaking a contract and breaking the law are two completely seperate things. Nice try though.

Of course, there is a small logic issue here:

If you did give a potential employer your login credentials, would you leave incriminating photos on there???

Say your friend sent you a "poke" with "Hey dude I just smoked some great crack. You should try it". It isn't your post, you might ignore that loser whenever he's talking about his drug habit but still the fact that it is on your wall links you to that type of activity.

Or it could be something that isn't a problem for you but happens to be for your employer: pics of you using a competitors product, pics of you with your different raced girlfriend, pics of you drinking (and your employer happens to be a religious nut that is against it), 10 pics of you affectionately hugging 10 different women, etc.

In short you have no idea what someone might find offensive and if it has nothing to do with your abilities to do you work it isn't any of their business.

Do the plan on tapping my phone lines? Should I forward all my email to them? What about my postal mail? Should I bring them a list of books I'm reading?

I would actually just respond back with it is against Facebook's legal terms of usage to provide my username/password or let anyone other than myself access my Facebook page:

Section 4 Para 8 "You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account."

They can have their legal people fight it out with Facebook's legal team. Talk about a huge red flag. Maybe if I was desperate, would I still take a job there, but I'd immediately begin looking for a new one.

If the applicants to Maryland CF can potentially expect to find their FB accounts suspended due to term violations?

"Do the plan on tapping my phone lines? Should I forward all my email to them? What about my postal mail? Should I bring them a list of books I'm reading?"

No big surprise here, with TSA goons strip searching babies, how long would it be before someone wants your Facebook usename/password, e-mail... everything...

This nonsense can only happen because most people are truly ignorant of their rights. And too many of those who do have an idea that this is wrong are too intimidated to say "no". This wouldn't happen in a country where people were properly educated.

People who have been without a job for months, whose unemployment checks have run out, whose utilities could be shut off at any moment, have only their educations to blame. *facepalm*

If unemployment were at 3% they would not be able to get away with this. But they know people who need a job will have no problem in giving them that information if they say we will not consider you if you don't provide that information. It is the same with many of the Patriot Act provisions. People will have no problem in allowing these intrusions if they are frightened enough.

Not the first time this has happened. McCarthy Era; ("Are you now or have you ever been involved in a movement supported by the Communist Party like Civil Rights?")

Except that this time, it's being conducted by those the McCarthy folks sought to uncover and expel. And it's exactly why they sought to do so. Welcome to the world the ME generation created, one in which Big Brother is them and their children.

Not so. It is being conducted by the same reactionary, undemocratic, anti-free speech, people who were at the front of the McCarthyite Bandwagon. They don't want to hear to voice of anyone who disagrees with their convention. Yes they are the Me generation but you obviously did not live through that period like I did or you would know that the Me generation was composed of the corporate capitalists who believed that "Greed is good", who invented junk bonds, who are responsible for Enron and the 2008 collapse, whose speculations have driven the cost of oil to heights having nothing to do with production, and who are exemplified by Bernie Madoff. These are the people who desire to quash free speech because it points out the truth. Your statement strikes close to home because of a local battle we are having, where corporation is trying to impose its will on the community through its control of the media and the use of double speak.

...for the reasons I stated above. Yes, the economic climate makes this choice harder, but it's still a choice, and it exists mainly because most people don't know better.

That's a choice? While I do not wish to denigrate the job that corrections officers are doing around the country, at its best is is a very, very tough, dangerous, nasty job. To apply for such a position you have to be either very dedicated or very desparate. When you are that desparate the if a prospective employer asks you to stand one leg and scream like a chicken, the you wil begin brach-braching.

If faced with that choice, I could rob or partake in some other criminal activity. Or I could always prostitute myself in other ways. It's just another choice. And if people decide that they're willing to give up their rights, then that will be the standard in society.

Another good reason why I don't use Facebook, MySpace, Google+ etc. No account, no problems.

The legal implications of this are just mind boggling. I guess I'll leave it up to the courts to decide. What's next??? Will they want your banking passwords so they can check up on what stores you buy at?

nt

No Facebook, Twitter, My Space, not even a Linked In.

I've shunned social networking sites. I refuse to get a Facebook account, won't sign up for the fledgling MySpace, don't have a Twitter account, and avoid all other social networking sites, other than G+. Even then, I'm quite careful about what I post to G+.

What I do in my private time, away from work, is of no consequence to my employer, so long as I show up and do the job I'm being paid to do the way I'm told to do it. Period. If they want to pay me 24/7, then and only then can they tell me what I can or cannot do while I'm away from work. But then, nothing that I do away from work has any negative effects on my employer (some of us do still have a moral code -- know right from wrong -- that we live our lives by).

In jobs requiring DoD clearence, not only are the things in your private life of concern to the employer, but you are encouraged to inform on your fellow employees if they are doing things the DoD decides will make them a security risk. But even they would not go so far as to make YOU reveal your Facebook login and password. (They would hack in and find out for themselves.)

How do they even know if you HAVE a Facebook (or whatever) account?

If you are really concerned. Set up a second account. Lock it down. If asked show them that one and say you hardly ever use it.. which will be the complete truth.

Last I checked, wasn't it a TOS violation for one person to have two facebook accounts?

Yep, Section 4 item #2 "You will not create more than one personal profile."

And? Who cares about a TOS violation? This is a violation of one's constitutional rights which is something I am far more concerned about than the TOS. This whole issue is ridiculous and the people that say "well I don't have any of those accounts" are totally missing the point here. It is my right to have an account which I use not only for my business but also for promoting charity events, of which I am involved with upwards of 5 at any given time. I am a female professional business owner and I also happen to ride a motorcycle, most of my friends on my list also ride, some are old school bikers with long hair and beards and to an outside person might look a little seedy. When in fact I know of many of my long haired tattooed friends that don't do drugs, don't drink, (as is the case with me as well) they are born again Christians, and I also used to know some people who were clean cut with no tattoos who had severe addiction problems. But based on the looks any possible future employee would look at the clean cut people and deem them acceptable and vice versa. It's profiling of the 100th type. Why should a person modify their personal life to suit a small minded employer? Since I work for myself I have had some people check my facebook page out (which I learned after the fact) and seen that I rode and had mostly all friends that rode and I suspected that is why I didn't sign them on as clients. Quite frankly I don't need nor want that type of person as a client. But I can be a little choosier than someone looking for a job. This is the most insulting and ridiculous thing to start coming up now truly it is. If someone told me to sit down during the interview process and made me log into my PERSONAL account I would look at them like they had 3 heads and walk out.

While all of your points are valid, consider the applicant who desperately needs a job and decides to use the "unconstitutional" argument. There's someone in line right behind him/her. The TOS argument is less likely to be met with... "NEXT!"

If you provide the username and password to your employer, you have given them the permission required to view your private area. I find it funny on here the concept of "Rights" is a little skewed. It would be a violation of your rights if they HACKED into your account or if they installed a keylogger on your computer to capture your login credentials and access your account that way. THEN and ONLY THEN would you have a case to say your constiutional rights have been vilated. You might want to read up a little on the Wiretap Act.

For your reference: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-119

.edited.

That is specifically NOT allowed, and is clearly stated in the Facebook Terms of Service, or whatever it is that you have to read, and agree to when signing up to Facebook. I don't know about the other sites, but would expect that the same or similar provision applies.

Too many scary stories of 1D10T "friends" posting something stupid on your account and the prospective employer finds it.

I just tell them that I only have so many hours in the day, I prefer to communicate by email, text, or phone, and I don't want to load up already meager hours with more methods of communication. If they tell me the job requires it, I suggest to them that they set up a company account for me after they hire me - and they can cancel the account when I leave the company, too.

requires a personal Facebook account for business purposes. That's just ridiculous.

I understand that there was a big push a couple of years ago to tie social networking into the applications being developed for the DoD. I don't know if that is still being pushed or not.

If the courts affirm their rights to your facebook account then next they will start back going for your e-mail. Are you going to stop using that?

If you do not and it is clearly asked for they can and will likely find a reason not to hire you. Your challenge would be to prove it.

Then again, would you want to work for a company that asked this?

If they are going to look at my accounts to see if I am a worthy employee, then I should have the same rights to see if they are a worthy manager(s).