Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chicago Sun-Times)   Illinois employers will no longer be able to deny employment based on those pictures of you dressed in blackface, wearing a thong, giving a Nazi salute. You did remember to set your Facebook privacy settings, right?   (blogs.suntimes.com) divider line 41
    More: PSA, Nazi salute, Facebook, Illinois, Illinois Institute of Technology  
•       •       •

1710 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Aug 2012 at 10:15 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



41 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-02 08:40:33 PM  
Actually yes, they can deny employment based on what you have on Facebook. They just can't demand your password or that you show your profile to them.

I'm perfectly fine with this. If you're dumb enough to not lock down your Facebook from outside eyes (or dumb enough to friend co-workers/your boss), then you deserve to lose those opportunities based on what you put on there.

If you have it locked down so no prying eyes can see it, more power to you.
 
2012-08-02 08:56:00 PM  
I hope that picture of me taken when I was drunk of me wearing fishnet stockings and a thong never surfaces to ruin me
 
2012-08-02 09:15:34 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com

/hates Illinois Nazis.
 
2012-08-02 09:22:20 PM  

cman: I hope that picture of me taken when I was drunk of me wearing fishnet stockings and a thong never surfaces to ruin me


I hope that picture of me wearing fishnet stockings and a thong while NOT being drunk never surface to ruin me.
 
2012-08-02 10:42:38 PM  
GOOD
 
2012-08-02 11:04:07 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Actually yes, they can deny employment based on what you have on Facebook. They just can't demand your password or that you show your profile to them.

I'm perfectly fine with this. If you're dumb enough to not lock down your Facebook from outside eyes (or dumb enough to friend co-workers/your boss), then you deserve to lose those opportunities based on what you put on there.

If you have it locked down so no prying eyes can see it, more power to you.


Yeah, they can't make it a condition of employment, but they can choose to hire the person who did give the access and was slightly less qualified, instead of the slightly more qualified person who didn't.
 
2012-08-02 11:05:46 PM  
Did someone say thong?

www.trendyink.net
 
2012-08-02 11:08:06 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Actually yes, they can deny employment based on what you have on Facebook. They just can't demand your password or that you show your profile to them.

I'm perfectly fine with this. If you're dumb enough to not lock down your Facebook from outside eyes (or dumb enough to friend co-workers/your boss), then you deserve to lose those opportunities based on what you put on there.

If you have it locked down so no prying eyes can see it, more power to you.


Until you're a CxO or close, nothing in your Facebook/twitter/... should have any relevance to your employment.

Ya know what should have relevance to your employment?
 
2012-08-02 11:11:06 PM  
How would not having a Facebook account affect potential employment? Would an employer even buy that in today's world?

/Serious question
 
2012-08-02 11:14:41 PM  
how hard is it to have your profile pic to somethin you like say a mech or harly or a friken baby pic. that way only people you give a fark about will be on your friends list and employers will never find out if its actully your profile and just say " me no have facbook" when asked problem solved.
 
2012-08-02 11:16:53 PM  

RoyBatty: Until you're a CxO or close, nothing in your Facebook/twitter/... should have any relevance to your employment.

Ya know what should have relevance to your employment?


You're right, except companies want to maintain a good image, and if you're going to hurt (or already hurting) that image, then they have every right to not hire or fire you. Asking for passwords, or forcing them sign in is wrong (thus the law), but if you're dumb enough to leave your shiat open to the public, and that company doesn't like what you're showing the public, then so long and good luck.

8.mshcdn.com

You have a right to say whatever you want, but that doesn't make it free of consequences
 
2012-08-02 11:17:24 PM  
You did remember to set your Facebook privacy settings, right?

Who can farking tell since Facebook changes them so goddamn often.
 
2012-08-02 11:24:13 PM  
Is this where the HR people will try to justify their existence by stating it's completely ration to pass on a potential hire because he or she was in a picture six years ago and someone in the far background had a beer?
 
2012-08-02 11:24:13 PM  
A Republican and a Democrat combine to act on behalf of personal freedom, and produce a perfectly sane law.

wtf
 
2012-08-02 11:24:35 PM  
Why would I wear blackface?
 
2012-08-02 11:27:19 PM  

scottydoesntknow: You have a right to say whatever you want, but that doesn't make it free of consequences


Exactly. Now hand over your passwords so I can judge you for it.
 
2012-08-02 11:35:38 PM  

FutureWars: How would not having a Facebook account affect potential employment? Would an employer even buy that in today's world?

/Serious question


They'd better. I flat out refuse to join that stupid ass website. Twitter would require a gun to the head also.
 
2012-08-03 12:01:10 AM  

scottydoesntknow: You're right, except companies want to maintain a good image, and if you're going to hurt (or already hurting) that image, then they have every right to not hire or fire you.


Yes, well I disagree with that. There are already a plethora of questions they cannot ask or judge you on: sex, religion, age, marital status, race, veteran status, etc. Most of these questions are trivially answerable with a peek at a Facebook page or even by a google.

We should not let employers a) get around asking these questions by checking facebook instead, or b) expand their bullshiat searches through irrelevant internet searching and background tracing.

UNLESS: unless the prospective employee is a CxO or certain high level managers, or leaders, or others answerable to the shareholders or with legal responsibilities. And all of that tracing should be done by an independent third party that does not reveal behavioral information not relevant to performance of the job.
 
2012-08-03 12:08:08 AM  
Oh, they'll still do it, they just won't list it as an official policy during the hiring process..It will be the reason said person wasn't hired (applicant is an idiot on FB, old fart applying for tech job), but to throw the regulatory agencies off the scent, the company will say something nebulous like "poor fit with company" as the reason for not hiring.
 
2012-08-03 12:22:24 AM  
Just tell them you don't have a facebook page
 
2012-08-03 12:58:21 AM  
Too big to fail.
 
2012-08-03 01:14:23 AM  
resources3.news.com.au
STILL ELIGIBLE FOR EMPLOYMENT
 
2012-08-03 01:35:46 AM  
I don't use social networking sites. I'm wondering if it's getting to the point where THAT will be seen as a "red flag" for potential employers.

Like not having a bank account or credit history.
 
2012-08-03 01:43:10 AM  
Good. I think it should be a federal law and not a state law. Unless you need to pass a security clearance for employment or are one of the executive officers of the company, what you do on your private should remain private. Then again, this sort of thing does weed out the stupid ones. I mean really. What you post online, no matter how "private" you make it, can be found and accessed.
 
2012-08-03 01:52:06 AM  

sendtodave: I don't use social networking sites. I'm wondering if it's getting to the point where THAT will be seen as a "red flag" for potential employers.

Like not having a bank account or credit history.


Link

The fact that Holmes is not online perplexed denizens of the Internet throughout the day, invoking some to message people with similar names, create fake Facebook profiles and even write articles pondering why Holmes, who is 24 years old, presented no presence online.

Mashable editor in chief Lance Ulanoff can't "get over what an online ghost Holmes appears to be." Slate staff writer Will Oremus posits that either Holmes really doesn't have a digital footprint, or his name is so common that search results have been buried beneath Friday's news.

"It's certainly unusual. Data suggests that 95 to 98 percent of people Holmes' age are on social media," Dr. Megan A. Moreno, of University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, told CBS News. As for that other 5- to 2 percent, Moreno, who has no connection to the case, highlighted a link between extreme Internet use - or lack of use - and depression.

A study titled "A U-shaped association between intensity of Internet use and adolescent health," published by the journal Pediatrics, attempted to draw a correlation between mental health and intensity of Internet use. The theory being that poor mental health may result in either heavy use of the Internet or little to none.
 
2012-08-03 02:08:39 AM  

RoyBatty: sendtodave: I don't use social networking sites. I'm wondering if it's getting to the point where THAT will be seen as a "red flag" for potential employers.

Like not having a bank account or credit history.

Link

The fact that Holmes is not online perplexed denizens of the Internet throughout the day, invoking some to message people with similar names, create fake Facebook profiles and even write articles pondering why Holmes, who is 24 years old, presented no presence online.

Mashable editor in chief Lance Ulanoff can't "get over what an online ghost Holmes appears to be." Slate staff writer Will Oremus posits that either Holmes really doesn't have a digital footprint, or his name is so common that search results have been buried beneath Friday's news.

"It's certainly unusual. Data suggests that 95 to 98 percent of people Holmes' age are on social media," Dr. Megan A. Moreno, of University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, told CBS News. As for that other 5- to 2 percent, Moreno, who has no connection to the case, highlighted a link between extreme Internet use - or lack of use - and depression.

A study titled "A U-shaped association between intensity of Internet use and adolescent health," published by the journal Pediatrics, attempted to draw a correlation between mental health and intensity of Internet use. The theory being that poor mental health may result in either heavy use of the Internet or little to none.


Oh, Jesus Christ.
 
2012-08-03 03:17:20 AM  
My name is that of a porn star. Try that.
 
2012-08-03 03:44:02 AM  

sendtodave: RoyBatty: sendtodave: I don't use social networking sites. I'm wondering if it's getting to the point where THAT will be seen as a "red flag" for potential employers.

Like not having a bank account or credit history.

Link

The fact that Holmes is not online perplexed denizens of the Internet throughout the day, invoking some to message people with similar names, create fake Facebook profiles and even write articles pondering why Holmes, who is 24 years old, presented no presence online.

Mashable editor in chief Lance Ulanoff can't "get over what an online ghost Holmes appears to be." Slate staff writer Will Oremus posits that either Holmes really doesn't have a digital footprint, or his name is so common that search results have been buried beneath Friday's news.

"It's certainly unusual. Data suggests that 95 to 98 percent of people Holmes' age are on social media," Dr. Megan A. Moreno, of University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, told CBS News. As for that other 5- to 2 percent, Moreno, who has no connection to the case, highlighted a link between extreme Internet use - or lack of use - and depression.

A study titled "A U-shaped association between intensity of Internet use and adolescent health," published by the journal Pediatrics, attempted to draw a correlation between mental health and intensity of Internet use. The theory being that poor mental health may result in either heavy use of the Internet or little to none.

Oh, Jesus Christ.


Seconded. Not to mention, how on earth can they tell for certain that he didn't use the internet much? Have these morons never used a pseudonym online? Holmes might have been hanging out at gun shopping sites, LOTR forums, Hello Kitty fanclubs, or Fark. He just would have had to make sure his real name wasn't attached.

People have all kinds of reasons for not being on public social networking sites. For me it's because I'm the sole result when someone searches my name online. I'd rather have people find the stuff I've written professionally than have to comb through yards of FB garbage. Other people might just prefer to stay private, be avoiding an unpleasant person from the past, or a number of other reasons. Very few of these reasons are along the lines of "I'm planning to shoot up a movie theater and don't want Channel 6 looking at photos of my gun collection."

/wonders how Lance Ulanoff would like it if someone came over to his house and started rummaging through his closets.
 
2012-08-03 06:42:57 AM  
Oh, I get it. If you don`t want facebook to get all your details and sell them on to marketing firms and for there to be a record of every activity you do permanently kept on a corporation server somewhere then you have mental problems.
 
2012-08-03 07:53:31 AM  

RoyBatty: scottydoesntknow: Actually yes, they can deny employment based on what you have on Facebook. They just can't demand your password or that you show your profile to them.

I'm perfectly fine with this. If you're dumb enough to not lock down your Facebook from outside eyes (or dumb enough to friend co-workers/your boss), then you deserve to lose those opportunities based on what you put on there.

If you have it locked down so no prying eyes can see it, more power to you.

Until you're a CxO or close, nothing in your Facebook/twitter/... should have any relevance to your employment.

Ya know what should have relevance to your employment?


Your behavior and if you will be a liability to the company?
 
2012-08-03 08:20:36 AM  
In an interview:

"What's that? You want to see my Facebook page, something which has personal information regarding my politics, religious views, and sexual orientation? Allow me to introduce you to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which you are about to be in violation of."

They won't ever ask to see your Facebook again.
 
2012-08-03 08:45:46 AM  

Zeno-25: In an interview:

"What's that? You want to see my Facebook page, something which has personal information regarding my politics, religious views, and sexual orientation? Allow me to introduce you to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which you are about to be in violation of."

They won't ever ask to see your Facebook again.


I agree.
However, the result of that job interview would most likely be the nebulous "Unfortunately, Zeno-25 was determined to be a bad fit for this position..."
 
2012-08-03 08:46:05 AM  
FTFA: This isn't just about, say, photos that maybe seemed amusing but would be potentially embarrassing in a job interview. Once employers sneak past the privacy wall, they can learn stuff they could not legally ask for in a job interview, such as an applicant's religion, medical data, disabilities or age.

This is why, as swell as it is that states are lining up to ban this, I'd still like to see it in federal court. As far as I'm concerned, it's like asking for a key to my house -- which I presume no employer who wants to keep their legal budget in line would do. It's incredible to me the lengths that supposedly respectable people will go to indulge in what they surely must know is reprehensible conduct -- ironically, in the apparent intent of judging others for the same.

Of course, there'd need to be a test case. Which means someone's got to be courageous enough to tell a current or prospective employer to piss up a rope when this is demanded of them.
 
2012-08-03 08:56:06 AM  

FutureWars: How would not having a Facebook account affect potential employment? Would an employer even buy that in today's world?

/Serious question


They'd better, if they don't want ME to take them to court.
 
2012-08-03 09:03:36 AM  

Zeno-25: In an interview:

"What's that? You want to see my Facebook page, something which has personal information regarding my politics, religious views, and sexual orientation? Allow me to introduce you to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which you are about to be in violation of."

They won't ever ask to see your Facebook again.


You also won't get hired.

Not for refusing to disclose federally protected information, but for being a giant farking shiat stained asshole without even moderate social skills.

You don't have to Internet tough guy lawyer it. You can just say 'no, but thank you for asking' Or tell them you don't have one.

Making sure your profile is locked, and that it doesn't have pics of you, is a good idea.
 
2012-08-03 09:05:59 AM  

Pumpernickel bread: Oh, they'll still do it, they just won't list it as an official policy during the hiring process..It will be the reason said person wasn't hired (applicant is an idiot on FB, old fart applying for tech job), but to throw the regulatory agencies off the scent, the company will say something nebulous like "poor fit with company" as the reason for not hiring.


It's unclear to me exactly what you mean. Asking the same thing in different ways, even nebulous ways, is still a violation of law, if it effects the same result. That's why I'd like to see this go to court: While the intent is hard to press, the effect can be shown, and the effect is already known to violate existing provisions of law. It would only take a single test case to obviate all these laws nationwide, and clarify that employers may NOT ask for access to employees' private, away-from-work spaces, real or virtual, if it could result in the employer obtaining information they could not legally ask for.
 
2012-08-03 09:10:44 AM  

SpaceyCat: Good. I think it should be a federal law and not a state law. Unless you need to pass a security clearance for employment or are one of the executive officers of the company, what you do on your private should remain private. Then again, this sort of thing does weed out the stupid ones. I mean really. What you post online, no matter how "private" you make it, can be found and accessed.


That's what I'd like to see. Let the national law clarify that what the employer may obtain legally, without invasion, is fair play. That way, if there is a test case, they can say, "Let the record show that plaintiff is not very bright. And looks ridiculous in a thong, as evidenced by this GIS exhibit." What I care about is the actual privacy of those who take advantage of their right to it.
 
2012-08-03 09:18:59 AM  

Zeno-25: In an interview:

"What's that? You want to see my Facebook page, something which has personal information regarding my politics, religious views, and sexual orientation? Allow me to introduce you to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which you are about to be in violation of."

They won't ever ask to see your Facebook again.


I found this out with my own bosses, though it helps to be a bit nebulous about it, so they're unsure. That forces them to imagine what's going on, and as your grampa who listened to radio dramas can tell you, your imagination is much scarier than anything anyone can actually say to you. I told my bosses that I'd "been advised" about certain things, and would set restrictions based on that. For example, when my first cheque was short, I told them I'd "been advised" not to return to work until they made up the difference. That could mean anything from, "I read some crap online about stuff like this," to, "My lawyer is looking over my shoulder as I write this, and taking down the timestamp from the BCC I'm sending him." Since they knew they'd already broken the law, they were not in a position to challenge me. And never have. Another trick I've pulled at times I'm in a dispute with an employer is to tell them that my phone is inoperable, and how to contact me by email instead. This forces them to conduct business with me exclusively in writing, until the conflict is resolved. And again, unless they're willing to pay for an immediate remedy themselves, they're in no position to complain about it.
 
2012-08-03 09:24:16 AM  
If you're dumb enough to not lock down your Facebook from outside eyes (or dumb enough to friend co-workers/your boss) to have a Facebook account in the first place, then you deserve to lose those opportunities based on what you put on there.

FIFY
 
2012-08-03 02:40:51 PM  
La Shawn Ford for president. I'd be proud to have the first black president come from my home state.
 
2012-08-04 04:38:12 PM  
Why would you want to work for a company that cares about this stuff?

Everything is backwards.
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report