What possible use would they have for this information? Let me guess, this is now an extralegal means to enforce political rectitude.

I don't do facebook for precisely this reason.

The proper answer to this is the same as the answer to "piss in this cup":

"Fuck you."

This is why I work for myself. I'll never fire myself for my political opinions. I'll never fire myself because of my hobbies, or my postings.

I can filter my customers and choose only grown-ups who don't feel they need to control the lives of everyone they interact with like so many corporate HR departments do.

Now, now, be civil. When they ask you for your passwords, you say "no". And when they say "we can't hire you if you don't" you reply with "I can't work here if you do".

Of course, I don't Facebook, so that wouldn't apply to me. I don't like Facebook's terms of service.

The City of Bozeman, Montana tried to implement a similar policy in the summer of 2009. The policy last less than 24 hours because of the national backlash they received. Here's a link to one of the stories about it, on Mashable. com:http://mashable.com/2009/09/03/bozeman-montana/.

Last fall I wrote a white paper on the subject of "social screening," which relates to this post. It's called, "Social Screening: Employees - and Organizations - Beware." It can be accessed via http://tiny.cc/SocialScreeningPaper. I wrote a follow-up blog post entitled, "Social Screening: The Expanded Discussion," which can be accessed viahttp://tiny.cc/SocialScreeningFU.

Finding the right approach to social media policies is critically important, and many organizations are guilty of overreaching. A couple of weeks ago, for example, the NLRB settled its "Facebook case" with an employer (AMR), and one of key terms of the settlement was that the employer agreed to revise its "overbroad" policy. I wrote about this case both when the complaint was filed and after it was settled. Here are links to each piece: http://tiny.cc/SMinOrgsNLRBpost and http://tiny.cc/SMinOrgsNLRBsett.

This week I'll be publishing a post on social media policies that addresses the issue in a more holistic way. This is an important issue that requires a thoughtful, balanced approach.

Courtney Hunt
Founder, Social Media in Organizations (SMinOrgs) Community

What is next? Searching employee houses? Not that I am shocked that a Department of Corrections would have this attitude towards anyone.

While I am no fan of TSA this background checking by employers is because of lawsuits. Employers are trying to vet employees so that they don't get sued when an employee does something stupid. I worked with a volunteer group with a youth program. I had to undergo fingerprinting and FBI background check because of child abuse lawsuits. Much as I hate to admit, it is hard for me to blame them. If the American people don't like being subjected to this, then they need to stop suing employers for every idiocy committed by an employee. So, basically America it is your choice, privacy or expecting employers to protect you from every conceivable act of an employee.

How can this be legal? Your're even allowed to ask someone's marital status or age in a job interview.

Meant to write 'you're not even allowed.'

@NWGraying -

It's also a result of employers not being able to use reasonable interview questions to screen out whackos and losers.

So they resort to drug tests, credentialism, and google searches.

Hopefully law will emerge to make such an interview question illegal for an employer to ask. It seems like until there are laws to prevent it, employers might just keep such info on file in order to be able to terminate an employee on some trumped-up grounds that info posted on their Facebook profile created a conflict of interest with the company.

In the meantime, perhaps people should create a very straight-laced, plain vanilla Facebook user account to give as theirs if asked, complete with a unique name to thwart any attempts to find interesting tidbits among search results?

This might seem vaguely similar to how many people have personal email addresses that they segregate from work. It's an identity that you'd keep clear of any potentially job-threatening content.

Should they be allowed to ask?
Sure, should be able to ask anything in the interview, that you feel is relevant to the job. I also disagree with the concept of them not being allowed to ask your age or anything else.

Of course my laughing 'No' at them when they ask will be my appropriate response. Odds are I may walk out at that moment.

Now it is up to them. Do they consider that a part of hiring me or not. If they do their loss.

Is this something anyone should sue over. NO.

I think it should be the first question they ask so that you waste as little of your time as possible considering working for such dicks.

This smacks of expedience and laziness on the part of the department of corrections. Maybe they're expecting the applicant to have "friended" a gang member.

Somewhat related:

"Something quite different happens when you reveal details about your private life on Facebook.
"When you do so you are making a free choice. You can, fairly obviously, able to reveal as little or as much as you wish."
[...]
"Therapy asserts the value of the free and open expression of feelings. And feelings are private, intimate things.
"Therapy has even managed to convince people that it is essential to their mental and physical health to allow their private feelings hang out in public.
"If our culture valued decorum and propriety and modesty, then perhaps, young people would not respond to the siren song of Facebook and Twitter by revealing more about themselves than anyone really wants to know."

http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2011/02/private-parts.html

Well, what horse puckey.

Duck! Here I come with the consistency stick!

If you insist that you be able to ask any question you want when employing a plumber, selecting a roommate or selling a pistol, you need to insist that a corporation - a legal fiction, but an individual nonetheless, gets to ask them, too.

If I want only blue-skinned colloidal silver people to sell Goth makeup for me, don't try to tell me I have to have coal-black foreigners with pinkeye or anybody else. I'll game you. Then you'll get mad, and try to pile another regulation on me, never noticing you strangle yourself with laws and regulations.

Yes, you do. Unless you can show that you protect the public in a skill area they can't be expected to know, you shouldn't consider a regulation or law.

Face it: at the root of this is only politically-correct "equality". The correct response to a whiner is "Shut up", but serious $$$ can be made catering to these people.

It's crap. You DO realize "regulations" have caused the Department of Justice to offer jobs "without regard to mental acuity", and Nike has to allow shoe salesmen with no feet?

But back to privacy. What happens when the company asks, you don't have one, then they find out you do - that you opened your account the day after the interview?

See how useless that is? See how stupid the company is?

"ok here is my answer...two words and the first one you can decide..the second is OFF...any ideas?"
piss off, yes excellent choice...90% did choose fuck as the first word though, so sorry i cannot work here as you have just failed MY interview...good day "

Does seem outrageous, and as Courtney Hunt has
pointed out it is not the first time this has been tried.

Some groups can alway cite a "need" for curtailing existing. And all too often, government will go along. When I started as a programmer in the mid-Sixties, our payroll system assigned a company employee number - because it was illegal to use the SocSec number as ID: even the IRS back then had to get an annual exemption from Social Security. But by the time when the State of Massachsetts started using the SocSec number as driver-license number, citizens actually had to fight to get the option of having a different number.

And, John A - here's how the system will game you:

Savannah River Site, run by DOE contractors, uses UserIDs to avoid having PII (personally identifiable information) around.

Then, they GAVE a list of all employee SSNs to United Way!

Joe beat me to it: They can ask all they want. And I can say "no". If they tell me "we won't hire you unless you let us", my answer is going to be "I don't want to work for an organization that does that."

Do note, that in this particular case, the employer in question is a government agency.

Keep screening too hard and pretty soon no one will fit the qualifications. It would be like if a university decided to kick out everyone who had ever participated in underage drinking--there would be no one left to pay the tuition. That's why they target the people growing meth out of their dorm rooms, not the ones who sipped a beer at a party once. Companies should take a similar approach--if you can't find the dirt you're looking for on google, then it's probably not something you need to know.

On a similar note, it will be interesting to see the pictures/facebook histories/decades-old twitter updates that crop up during the presidential elections of say 2040. Either at some point we are going to have to accept that people are allowed to have a past, or our only elected officials are going to be boring, single-minded autotrons who never got invited to a party, like, ever.

I used Facebook to find Amy at a family reunion!

Neat stuff, that Internets!

That was funny. I have a couple sisters who could be in that picture.

I am not fully against granting access to my facebook. But I would have restrictions - First off what is it your looking for EXACTLY no just digging around. If you will not tell me - NO. Second who is doing the searching - The organization/company or third person. I would prefer 3rd person counseller or psychologist to do the evaluating with a signed release from me on ONLY the criteria told to me before hand in general terms of yes he is safe - No he will prove to be a liability.

I have nothing to hide but you do not get a free for all. Also I do not use facebook as my email service.

Know asking to see me mail account - NO - maybe if you asked nicely I might given you my contact list. But private emails go to help.

I used to work in law enforcement, and during the background phase they get into every portion of your life. This is part of being given the power over other individuals. They need to make sure you aren't a scumbag.
Other non-public safety jobs I could see where this might be excessive. However, if you want to work in public safety, this is part of the process. This guy is just a weenie.

"However, if you want to work in public safety, this is part of the process."

Well, then you'll be amused by this Mongolian Cluster_.

At Savannah River Site, my clearance years ago included a visit by an investigator, to do personal interviews with my references and with selected characters they researched from my records.

A couple of years ago, some mental defectives with the Federal government decided that the USACCESS card system was superior.

What do you have to have to get one of those? A driver's license and a Social Security card. The office takes your fingerprints while you get a new badge, but they don't compare them to the previous set!

If stupidity was a crime, they'd be doing life without parole.

"Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead." — Benjamin Franklin

Way back when -- mid to late '90s -- I had a small internet presence. I dropped it after it didn't help me get a job and my friends and family were barely on the net.

Fast forward -- my presence is now semi-pro -- volunteering on tech sites and posting here and some other rare locations. No FB, no twitter, no MySpace.

If someone asked for my userids and passwords to get a job -- it would be "Respectfully, you can kiss my A**!!!" not FU. And I don't care if it was a private or government job. What is in my private life is that -- private.

There is currently only one person, living, that has an inkling of my general passwords. That was because my account was hacked and I changed them since I last talked to her.

If you want privacy -- you don't put it down electronically -- you use paper. If you never want anyone to ever know -- it never goes anywhere but in your head.

Anyone in law enforcement is subject to a higher probability of blackmail. I see nothing wrong with this request. Especially since its not being forced on the applicant. He's asking for a job, after all.

This story has generated a mini media firestorm in the past week. I have been sharing my thoughts on various articles and blog posts, and I finally decided to write my own reflection as well. Here’s a link to it: http://tiny.cc/4hkbu). One underreported “fact” I learned in doing a little additional research is that a representative from Maryland’s DPSCS says they do not have a policy that requires job candidates to provide login information, so the case may not be as clear-cut as it seems. It will be interesting to see how this case finally gets resolved…

Courtney Hunt
Founder, Social Media in Organizations (SMinOrgs) Community

"Anyone in law enforcement is subject to a higher probability of blackmail. I see nothing wrong with this request. Especially since its not being forced on the applicant. He's asking for a job, after all."

Snake, people who have DoD security clearances are a lot more exposed to blackmail attempts than most people in law enforcement, but AFAIK the DoD isn't going around demanding anyone's Facebook password.

Other non-public safety jobs I could see where this might be excessive. However, if you want to work in public safety, this is part of the process.

This isn't just about the privacy of the person being interviewed, although that's important. His friends, relatives, and high-school classmates have *not* given permission for an interviewer to look at *private* messages they've sent to him, or at pictures of them and their kids that they've shared with privacy settings.

If they want you to friend them temporarily so that they can see what you've posted, that's one thing. (It's still sketchy, but at least understandable.) This goes way beyond that.

As someone posted on EvilHRLady's discussion of this issue, asking for passwords is like asking for your ATM PIN so they can check your credit. While they might have a valid reason for some of that information, they do *not* have a valid need for passwords or PINs to find it.

Finally, I haven't closely scrutinized Facebook's TOS lately, but for a lot of social media, e-mail, games, etc., part of the terms of service is agreeing to keep your password safe and not share your account with anyone. So, they may be asking you to do something you're already obligated not to.

Look, if you don't want the government regulating employers as to what they can do, and you don't want employees banding together for form unions, this is what you get. We can all expect to be our employer's bitches.