Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that a government job† should demand a Facebook login, because I generally feel like they (a) should be held to a higher standard, (b) involve the people's relationship with the government, which is inherently adversarial, and (c) have an outsize impact on the standards and practices used in the private sector --- so "if it's ok at the DoC, it must be OK at Bank of America".

On the other hand, in the private sector, I don't see how this is any of our business. Should employer be "allowed" to "ask" for Facebook logins? You mean, should employers be "disallowed" from asking? Of course not. And candidates should say "no" if they don't want to give the login up. Employment in the US is at will, and outside of race, nationality, religion, gender, &c, hiring is totally at the discretion of the company.

†(at least, one that doesn't require clearance)

View on HN

No, they should not be allowed to even ask. The problem is that when some people are allowed to give up certain rights for a potential advantage in hiring, then it becomes the de facto standard that everyone has to give up that right in order to have a chance. In most industries the employer holds all the card, so that everyone will just go along with it because they feel they must in order to be considered.

You're naive if you think the "market" will correct itself such that these types of invasions of privacy are eliminated. When we're talking about people's livelihood you can't expect them to act in such a way that maximizes their rights. They act in a way that maximizes their livelihood, potentially giving up rights that they otherwise would not have. Government is the only thing able to keep employers from having that power.

So, given a hypothetical scenario in which two equally qualified candidates are in consideration for a job, do you also think one candidate shouldn't be allowed to offer their Facebook login to the employer to settle any concerns they might have?

My gut reaction is to say no they should not. However, if hypothetically there were some question that came up that could only be resolved by checking their facebook account, then I think it can be allowed in that instance. The difference is there being (some equivalent of) "probable cause" to even question something that could be resolved through such a check.

Of course it's our business, the difference between fringe cases and common procedure is whether we're willing to put up with the practice. And don't pretend that the prospective employer has no power over the applicant.

Additional nitpick: Employment statuses are generally determined at the state level.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that the people should generally be more prescriptive about what's allowed and not allowed for consideration during job interviews? Like, discrimination against protected classes isn't enough? We should have many more rules about what interviewers should ask?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com