
I hereby resign - llambda
http://raganwald.posterous.com/i-hereby-resign
======
patio11
I think you would have been justified saying "This requirement is ethically
suspect, I will not be a party to it, and if the business requires otherwise
then our time together is at an end.", even if semi-coercively browsing folks'
Facebooks was demonstrably a wonderful idea for the business. That said, bully
for you, and if it takes more than thirty seconds to line up a new position in
this market I'm sure many of us would be willing to assist.

~~~
raganwald
I am not now, nor will I ever be, an employee of a company that compels a
Director of Development to follow HR edicts about hiring practices without
mutually respectful consultation.

~~~
mark_integerdsv
Oh, this is where the on-topic discussion is. I had to wade through a pretty
meaty Google flamewar to get here...

I have a question about this Facebook fiasco: what exactly does HR hope to
discover and how would they plan to use such intelligence?

The reason I ask is that here in South Africa, when applying to a position
(from my experience as a business intelligence consultant) I must release HR
to check both my credit history as well as submit to having my fingerprints
taken by an electronic device which connects to a governmental database and
checks my criminal record for any misconduct.

Are these checks common place in your part of the world?

Can you see anything that HR in South Africa might gain by snooping through
Facebook that wouldn't be outweighed by the information already available to
them?

~~~
nbm
Wow, I've never heard of anyone in South Africa with a non-government job
being asked to have their fingerprints taken. Admittedly, my background is
mostly tech startups, but even friends who worked at big-ish companies
(Didata, CS Holdings, &c.) have never mentioned it.

Credit history is a mostly used as a poor indication that you won't be tempted
to sell company or user private information. It might also be an indicator of
poor judgement or other bad traits, I guess. I think only one company ever
asked this of me, and they were certainly the most backward of those I
interviewed at.

Basically, companies are trying to avoid hiring bad people. Whether it's
because they've bought into the "it is impossible to fire anyone" story or
not, it is costly in terms of time and wasted effort and disruption. And,
generalising from an admittedly small sample size, I'd say they're not as good
or as introspective about how they hire as the few (admittedly really good) US
companies I'm familiar with.

~~~
lancewiggs
I, like anyone else wanting a work visa at the time, had to provide a clear
HIV certificate to South African immigration.

Once I had the permit I spent 10 months in KwaZulu-Natal - an area with 40%
HIV incidence, and at an employer with (anonymously tested) 20-25% incidence.

~~~
zaidmo
I'm in SA also. I thought that we are not legally obliged to disclose our HIV
status to employers

------
noonespecial
Its as simple as "There are certain questions you can't ask during job
interviews". Its been illegal to ask these questions for 20 years, and nearly
no one disputes this. A peak at the prospect's Facebook page answers _all of
them_. This should be the biggest no-brainer in HR history.

~~~
tzs
NOTE: I don't think employers should be allowed to ask for special access to a
candidate's Facebook page. I'm not arguing for Facebook access below, but
rather I'm arguing that I don't necessary think current law can be construed
to prevent it.

I'm not convinced that theory is correct. There's a difference between asking
a prohibited question, and acquiring the answer to a prohibited question
incidental to something else.

To give an obvious example, you can't ask about race and sex, but the employer
is going to find out that information at the face to face interviewer by
simply observing the candidate.

Or consider criminal background checks, which are allowed in some states. A
criminal background check might turn up information that makes a candidate's
sexual orientation, national origin, or religion apparent.

I don't think that an employer would find themselves in legal trouble for
doing a criminal background check that turned up that information, because
they weren't doing the background check to acquire the prohibited information.

As a practical matter, though, even if it is legal to look at Facebook, it is
a bad idea. Suppose you do not hire a candidate, and the candidate sues
claiming that you didn't hire them because of their marital status. During
discover, the plaintiff finds some emails between employees containing
disparaging remarks about people of his status.

If you have not looked at Facebook or otherwise snooped into their private
life, you will offer as part of your defense that you did not know their
marital status, and so could not possibly have discriminated on that basis.
Even if you do have some managers who dislike people of the plaintiff's
status, they could not have acted on that dislike in this case.

If you have snooped, then you no longer have that defense. You are in the much
less desirable position of having to argue that your people (who have been
caught disparaging people of plaintiff's status) did not use that information,
even though they did have access to it.

I can easily see this being the difference between a plaintiff win and a
defendant win.

~~~
fmoralesc
> To give an obvious example, you can't ask about race and sex, but the
> employer is going to find out that information at the face to face
> interviewer by simply observing the candidate.

Even on those cases, it is not obvious. A person that looks like a man might
consider himself a woman, for example. I'm currently working on the Chilean
Census, and, even though we are supposed to ask for the person's sex, we can't
make any judgment about it. If we enquire further than what the person says,
we are in for a lot of trouble.

~~~
Dylan16807
In the US gender isn't a protected class.

~~~
tallanvor
That's incorrect. Race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, familial
status, disability, veteran status, and genetic information are all considered
protected classes. In some states sexual orientation is also protected, but
unfortunately it is not at a federal level at this time.

~~~
DanBC
Thanks for that.

In England we have Sex, Sexual Preference, Race, Religion, Age, and
Disability.

There's a Rehabilitation of Offenders Act which covers what you're allowed to
do with people who have a criminal record.

~~~
JulianMorrison
And gender reassignment, too.

------
endianswap
Even though the content of the letter wasn't anything new (the same thing
we've been reading about frequently on HN and other tech sites in the last
couple of weeks) I found that it was well written (and chilling!) to the point
where if I needed to explain to someone why it is so bad for employers to
request Facebook access, this is the page I would send them to.

Great read, thanks for taking the time to write it :)

~~~
unimpressive
As the first person to upvote, I started writing this comment, then realized I
had nothing to say beyond "The best post I've read on the subject. That it's a
letter of resignation is a bonus.". You sir get a hat tip from me for writing
the comment I wanted to write but couldn't articulate.

Bravo.

------
jberryman
Sorry to be dense, but is this fiction or an actual open resignation letter? I
don't know anything about raganwald.

~~~
raganwald
Fictional. raganwald is too much of a slacker to be hired as a Director of
Software Development

~~~
DevX101
It wasn't quite clear to me. I know you write in metaphors sometimes, but it
was hard to tell if this was real or not.

~~~
Spoom
I liked the hint he dropped here:

"But today something went seriously wrong. I have been interviewing senior
hires for the crucial tech lead position on the Fizz Buzz team, and while
several walked out in a huff when I asked them to let me look at their
Facebook, one young lady smiled and said I could help myself."

------
dkrich
I have been reading about this and it not only seems like an absurd invasion
of privacy, but in violation of several federal employment laws. Being
somewhat familiar with employment law, I would be nervous to ask a prospective
employee ANYTHING that was not directly related to past work or the position
in question. Employment law is one of the most murky and sensitive areas of
the law, and I'm convinced that the only reason there aren't more lawsuits is
that most people simply don't know their rights.

Let me cite a specific example. I once sat in on a lecture by a former
attorney-turned successful media entrepreneur who owned a fairly successful
magazine. During a routine interview for an art director position, one of her
staff members who was conducting the interview noticed that the candidate was
wearing a Yarmulke. She said something to the effect of "During certain
seasonal spikes, we have a huge increase in workload that can extend into the
weekends. I see that you're Jewish, and I am too. Do you think working on
weekends is something you can do?"

The interview concluded, and they exchanged goodbyes. The interviewer
expressed interest but asked the candidate to send over some work samples, but
the samples never came. Instead, after a few weeks a letter arrived from the
candidate's attorney informing the magazine that they were being sued. They
settled out of court for nearly $50,000.

That seems pretty egregious and the woman was pretty naive to bring up such a
sensitive matter in an interview, but I don't see how it's any worse than
demanding to see somebody's protected Facebook account.

~~~
hessenwolf
This whole demanding to see somebody's facebook account thing - do they want
to read my old love letters too? The last letter from my dearly departed
Father? My online dating profile? What about my now unused university email
account?

------
ryanto
I have a stupid question. Has anyone ever been asked this in an interview? Or
knows anyone that has been asked/asked this question? I've been reading a lot
about this situation over the last month, but have never heard anyone say it
happened to them or someone they know. Just stories that seem like
rumors/gossip.

I do not know many people who are right out of college and interviewing (and
that's who I assume would be asked this sort of question), so maybe my network
is too small to have heard of it happening.

Also, I realize many people will sign NDAs about the interview process, I am
not looking for juicy details of when/where/how it happened. I'd just love to
know if people actually had this happen at one point in the last few years.

~~~
driverdan
People are actually willing to do an NDA for an interview? Why would anyone
want to work for a company like that?

~~~
ImprovedSilence
I interviewed for a medical device company a few years back, I signed an NDA
for it, they showed me some cool technology they were working on, I got to
take a tour around the place, and actually see what was being developed, how
their processes work, and how far along they are on certain things. How they
design, and fab up their products. Companies that make you sign NDA's are
really just protecting their back. How do they know I wasn't actually working
for some rival company, and just got their interview to see what was going on.
If that was the case, an NDA gives them a bit more leverage in court. If it
was just some random joe like myself, no big deal. Corporate espionage
probably does happen. (I say probably, as I can't say i've ever witnessed it
though.)

~~~
hef19898
We had a couple of engineers "working" for russian intelligence at our place
for years, and no this is NOT a joke!

Edit: They even got convicted for it, belief it or not.

------
burningion
This exact same process is what kept me from applying to ycombinator this
year. Asking for my Facebook url is the same considering everyone at
ycombinator has whatever access they need.

Raised $20k in two weeks on my own instead, for a much less percentage than
ycombinator would have.

~~~
emmett
You do know that anyone can already look up your Facebook page anyway right?

Y-Combinator isn't asking for you to give them access to log in as you on
Facebook, they're asking for a link to your _public_ page.

~~~
eternalban
Is it "public" knowledge that HN user eternalban is actually Mr. X in real
life?

Btw, if that is not age discrimination -- "your facebook coordinates, please"
-- I don't know what is .. /tongue/cheek

~~~
pizza
wouldn't tongue be in /cheek/?

~~~
eternalban
(just saw this). Man, I labored over that order of precedence and figured
(cheek (tongue (..) tongue) cheek) would map to /tongue/cheek /g

------
grandalf
I'm going to create my own employment law honeypot Facebook account today!

~~~
samstave
I am a gay fundie transgender black jewish pregnant woman with narcolepsy who
has beat cancer, here is my FB passwd.

~~~
mark_integerdsv
Are you insinuatIng that only black people can suffer from beat cancer?

As a white boy who has the funk, I take exception to that as I have lost a
friend to beat cancer and let me tell you: it ain't no joke.

Watching your homie lose his beat step by step is a terrible thing and it
leaves you with the worst feeling that maybe... just maybe, the rhythm really
is going to get you.

~~~
samstave
Gloria Estefan tried to raise awareness to beat cancer with that famous
charity song as well!

------
jbrichter
I find it infuriating that his argument against facebook spying isn't "this is
wrong", but "we will have to hire dead weight, and could be exposed to legal
liability." I of course don't mean to criticize the author personally; it's
just sad how far culture has slid that this is the go-to argument.

~~~
raganwald
Speaking as the author, this is not my go-to argument, nor do I suggest it be
anyone’s go-to argument. I assure you that in “real life,” I would never agree
to such an edict.

But it’s like this: I felt that this particular argument hasn’t received much
notice, and I thought people would find it interesting to think about.

~~~
jbrichter
Well, at least I'm not the only one who took your post literally. The argument
is interesting. I feel like the reason it's overlooked might be a realization
that once you have to make such an argument, all is lost, evil has won,
everything decent will come to an end, &c.

~~~
jaylevitt
Didn't all that already happen when we created Facebook accounts?

------
fleitz
I think a lawsuit of epic proportions would be the perfect thing to staunch
the tide of this kind of fascist invasion of privacy.

If someone gets $5 million for this it would stop it pretty quick.

------
blantonl
Can someone explain in reasonable terms, why an HR manager would would choose
to enact a policy that requires perspective employees to surrender their
Facebook activity as a condition of employment?

I am really trying to understand what logical motivation is directing this
latest craze. Was it a recent HR conference session that sold HR managers on
the idea? An article written in an HR trade journal that cited definitive
stats that sealed the argument?

~~~
Duff
The published examples that I have seen were teachers and prison guards.
Employers of these folks want evidence of fraternization with students and
inmate families, respectively.

------
meaydinli
I don't have a facebook account. I used to, but stopped using it about 4 years
ago. I am looking forward to the day someone asks me that question. I wonder
what their reaction is going to be. Possible scenarios:

\- They will believe me, drop the subject. \- They will ask to see my
twitter/linkedin/etc. account instead. \- They will think that I am lying and
stop the interview process, which is the most dangerous one.

~~~
vaksel
100% it'll be the later...it's expected that you have a facebook account..if
you don't they'll just think you are lying...and it must be REALLY bad for you
to lie about it...you are probably a drug user, or worse

~~~
jschuur
Then that's a sign that the company doesn't understand the kind of anti-
Facebook backlash that's come up in recent years. What else about the
realities of today's world might they not grasp?

Every job interview is just as much an opportunity for you to get to know a
prospective employer as vice versa.

------
jtchang
Do you know why small startups/companies don't have an HR person right off the
bat? It is because the damn concept is demeaning at the very least.

Who wants to be thought of as a "resource"? Above all else I feel like culture
fit is the #1 priority in hiring someone. And if a company's culture
encourages peeking into peoples' private lives that is disgraceful.

The modern corporation is a vestige of the 1900s where factory workers all had
to show up to a central location and toil for hours on end.

Is it possible to create a future where a "company" has thousands of employees
but still retain all the benefits of a small group? Already we see it
happening. Perhaps the 21st century will bring about this dynamic shift.

~~~
skybrian
The reason you'd want an HR person would be to keep the company from
accidentally doing illegal stuff like what happens in this story. Startups can
get away with it because they're small with few assets and their legal risks
around hiring are smallish compared to their many other risks. As companies
get larger, statistically rare events become more likely and at the same time
they have more to lose.

So I'd say no, it's not possible in a large company to get by without HR, but
there's still a lot of ways to improve the process.

~~~
potatolicious
I don't expect to ever be rid of HR, but can we as an industry at least
collectively stop pretending that HR is on the side of the employees? This is
a pervasive, explicit lie that's told by HR departments everywhere.

Sometimes I wonder how HR personnel sleep at night.

~~~
toyg
Oh, they sleep quite well: it's nice work, if you can get it.

The workload is incredibly low, and the hardest task is to find something new
to do this year at the Christmas party. Because of huge legal responsibilities
nobody will actually pay attention to, the salary is fairly good as well.
Since the policies you enact are all drawn in accordance with (and full
knowledge by) upper management, you can't be held _personally_ accountable of
anything anyway, so when/if shit hits the fan, the company will cover you with
all the power of their legal team.

The rest is all corporate doublespeak, not unlike what you'll experience in
any other managerial job. I bet you met at least one direct superior, in your
life, who told you he was on your side vs the company/upper management;
chances are that he was being as honest as any HR personnel will ever be.

------
chao-
I am not planning on being interviewed for a new job any time soon. Despite
that, when the whole "Facebook disclosure during interview/hire" topic broke,
I began preparing my short list of ways to act indignant/offended or to lay on
some thick sarcasm that gets across just how horrible they should feel for
even suggesting something of the sort.

This blows everything I had out of the water. Props for the creativity and
execution.

~~~
saryant
As someone about to graduate college and interviewing at a number of firms I'm
sort of hoping one of them asks for my Facebook password so I can laugh in
their face while I accept one of the other several offers I've received.

------
mhartl
_Now of course, you would never refuse to hire someone because they plan to
exercise their legal right to parental leave, would you?_

I'm sympathetic to the principal message of this post, but regarding the bit
about parental leave: Has it really come to this? If someone takes a job
intending to "exercise their legal right to parental leave" shortly after
joining, it's the _company_ that's the bad guy for wanting to stop it? To my
eye, such behavior identifies the employee a special interest parasite,
feeding at the public trough with a smug sense of entitlement.

It's effectively illegal to ask a job applicant, "Are you intending to take an
extended paid vacation shortly after starting?" That's not progress—it's
madness.

~~~
furyg3
I've thought about this a lot and I can't really come to any alternative
solutions.

Three months ago you found out you're pregnant. Finally! you'd been trying for
almost a year! Today you walk into work and find out the company is bankrupt,
clean out your desk.

What are you supposed to to? Not look for a job for 6-7 months? Tell every
prospective employer you're happy to start now, but in a few weeks you'll be
out on prolonged leave?

The only possible thing that they can do with that information is
discriminate.

~~~
mhartl
I suggest avoiding the word "discriminate"—its emotional overtones are too
strong. Here we're merely _differentiating_ between multiple candidates, and
doing our best to be fair. Enshrined in law is the notion that it's unfair not
to hire someone merely because she's planning to take maternity leave shortly
after starting. I admit that calling this "unfair" confounds my
intuition—forcing a company to subsidize a new mother strikes me as unfair,
and neglecting to disclose a pregnancy borders on fraud—but perhaps I can
trigger a sense of unfairness even without reference to the company's well-
being.

Suppose Alice and Barbara both apply for a job for which they are equally
qualified. Alice is newly pregnant, but (per the law) the prospective employer
isn't allowed to inquire about this. If the company hires Alice, the company
suffers— _and so does Barbara_. It's impossible to afford pregnant women
special treatment without harming women who aren't (and perhaps don't plan to
become) pregnant.

Life is full of choice and chance. When trying to legislate away the
consequences, expect bad side-effects.

~~~
ckpwong
What if Alice didn't know she was pregnant -- or wasn't even pregnant -- at
the time of the interview? The process of hiring can drag on for weeks and
months for many industries and companies.

The employer made what you've described as a coin flip choice and have to
stand by that decision. Life is never "fair" in the way you're defining
fairness in this case.

~~~
mhartl
It's the same basic situation, just not as severe. Alice undoubtedly has some
inkling that she may become pregnant, even if she thinks it unlikely. If
Barbara isn't pregnant or planning to become pregnant, and has taken steps to
prevent pregnancy, she is still a better hire than Alice, all things being
equal. In a competitive market for labor under complete freedom of contract, a
company could ask both Alice and Barbara about their plans to become a mother.
The employment contract could also include clauses contingent on pregnancy,
such as indemnifying the company against the lost productivity caused by
unexpected maternity leave. The details would be determined by the relative
bargaining power of the company and prospective employee. Those offended by
such practices could simply decline to apply to such companies.

In short, under freedom of contract, company policies with respect to
pregnancy would depend on free negotiations between buyers (employers) and
sellers (applicants). The solutions would likely vary widely, each tailored to
the needs of its particular industry. In effect, the _status quo_ consists of
a mandatory one-size-fits-all (or perhaps one-size-fits-none) solution that
has many more negative side-effects that its proponents are prepared to admit.
( _Exercise_ : Show that compulsory compensation for maternity leave
necessarily _increases_ unemployment and _lowers_ wages.) The idea that
current policies necessarily benefit women is naïve at best, evil at worst.

Incidentally, there's nothing necessarily wrong with governments subsidizing
procreation. But deciding whether and how to do so requires judgment and
wisdom—qualities not particularly evident in those currently in charge.

~~~
ckpwong
As someone who became mother due to the lack of active prevention of pregnancy
(call it a pleasant surprise), I am of course of a different opinion than
yours.

There is nothing stopping either Alice or Barbara from lying about their
procreation plans. Outside of abstinence, which cannot be proved or disproved
by anyone other than the female in question (and it is not even something she
has 100% control on -- unwanted sex do happen in this world), there is no
foolproof birth control method. As such, and without trampling on employees'
privacy, there's no point for an employer to inquiring about procreation plan.

I don't believe the clauses contingent on pregnancy is appropriate on
employment contracts neither. If maternity leave is such a big loss on
productivity that a company needs compensation for, one can argue either the
market should already have a product for it (e.g. some form of "maternity
insurance" provided to employers), or the government should subsidize the
employer.

In Canada, where @raganwald and I currently reside, employers are not legally
required to provide compensation for persons on maternity or parental leave.
(Maternity leave is for mothers giving birth only; parental leave can be split
between parents of either birth or adoption.) Instead, the government provides
partial compensation. It's up to the employer to decide whether to provide
additional compensation on top of government benefits. I don't know where you
are located nor your local laws regarding maternity leave. In your opinion,
would a policy similar to Canada's be suffice, or do you still want more
protection for the employers?

I suppose you are opposed to Arizona's new birth control pill bill HB2625
then? [tongue in cheek]

------
bconway
For anyone curious what this is in reference to, it's the news from a couple
weeks ago regarding potential employers asking for Facebook logins as a part
of interviews: [http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-03-20/job-
appli...](http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-03-20/job-applicants-
facebook/53665606/1)

------
ChuckMcM
Well played Raganwald, well played.

The Nixon resignation letter was a nice touch. Perhaps the most interesting of
times arises when firmly entrenched control structures are threatened. The
Facebook login fiasco, and it is a fiasco, is one such example.

------
johngalt
This post points more to the absurdly litigious nature of hiring/firing. It's
an interesting exploration of the matter. Approaching the problem of employee
privacy at an oblique angle. It won't scare any HR departments though. Most
have systems in place to create reasons for not hiring or firing. All that
you've guaranteed is that the HR person will be making all hiring decisions.

Fundamentally your best defense against discrimination is being too good to
ignore.

~~~
mikeash
That may be the best defense against discrimination, but many people are
discriminated against who simply aren't that good, yet are still good enough
to deserve to make some kind of living at some kind of job.

------
oskarth
Is this a common thing in US? I can't think of any good reason for an employer
to get access to a prospective employees account. Sounds like the equivalent
of asking to access a person's home to make sure it is well kept and that they
have good taste.

~~~
unimpressive
It's slowly becoming one. I suspect this will stop the moment someone sues.
Because I have total confidence that person will win.

EDIT:

Let me go ahead and put emphasis on "slowly".

As waterlesscloud points out, right now it's very uncommon.

The only reason it's on the agenda at all is because there's been headlines
about insane employers asking to see employees Facebook profiles.

~~~
revscat
What is infuriating is that there is no political will to put a legal stop to
this practice. I suspect that this means that as businesses learn how to
alleviate the OP's concerns that they will do it more and more as time goes
on, until it becomes the new normal.

Libertarianism being the dominant political philosophy of the moment such
encroachments seem inevitable.

~~~
orangecat
_Libertarianism being the dominant political philosophy of the moment_

I fail to understand how one could look at the events of the last decade and
determine that the major problems are that people have too much freedom and
government has too little power.

~~~
prodigal_erik
When unemployment skyrockets and employers may begin colluding to wield all
the indirect coercion they like, because threatening homelessness and possibly
starvation is somehow more ethical than threatening violence, that's a
libertarian policy towards non-state power.

~~~
orangecat
Interestingly, most of the employers that have been specifically identified as
demanding Facebook passwords are government agencies:
[http://courantblogs.com/investigative-reporting/claim-
check-...](http://courantblogs.com/investigative-reporting/claim-check-
employers-asking-for-facebook-passwords/)

------
postfuturist
I would never coerce anyone to look through their Facebook account (or email,
or personal photo album, or their journal, etc) under any circumstance,
especially a job interview where the candidate feels pressured to be obliging.
What a shameful act!

------
skybrian
This is great as a work of fiction that vividly gets across the issues. In
practice, I would expect companies that are legally on the ball to work around
it somehow. I'm not a lawyer or an HR person, but the obvious answer is to
outsource background checks to an outside firm that only includes legally
permissible information in a written report to the hiring committee. (Don't
they do that already for background checks?)

~~~
mjwalshe
yes if you "need" to vet people there are procedures (and quite expensive
ones) to do that. However 99% of companies don't "need" to vet any employees.

------
victoro
Interesting that people are so up in arms about having prospective employers
browse their facebook, but have no problem when asked if their employers can
peruse their blood, hair, or urine under the guise of a drug test. Private,
recreational drug use seems just as much nobody's business as private
recreational drinking or sexual promiscuity that could be uncovered by
facebook investigations...

------
cpeterso
Is there a list of companies that admit to or have been accused of asking for
Facebook passwords?

~~~
GFischer
Orangecat linked to an investigation on the subject:

[http://courantblogs.com/investigative-reporting/claim-
check-...](http://courantblogs.com/investigative-reporting/claim-check-
employers-asking-for-facebook-passwords/)

Original post:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3791357>

------
dabent
I wonder what the employer's response would be to "I don't have a Facebook
page?" Would I be required to get one in order to give them the password?

Also, it seems they would be selecting for people who were willing to trade
passwords for money in the interview. The decision to trade sensitive data has
already been made, it's now just a matter of negotiating price.

~~~
jakejake
They're response would probably depend on whether they already know you have a
Facebook account. But assuming you got away with it - if it's the type of
company that is asking for Facebook passwords, then it's type the company
that's likely to fire you later when they find out that you lied during the
interview.

I haven't had to experience this yet, but I would like to think I'd just
decline and say they are free to look at whatever public information is
available on my Facebook page.

~~~
dabent
I wouldn't lie about it, in fact I can't see ever consenting to such a thing
(giving out a password to any service to someone it doesn't belong to). But
there are actually people out there that don't have a FB account. I was
wondering how an employer would deal with that. Other people would probably
ghost their FB, give up the password or friend an overseer, but never use the
account again.

~~~
jakejake
If you don't use FB then I suppose the company would be satisfied since they
don't need to worry about what you post.

The whole thing is ridiculous. If they wanted to get dirt on most of us they'd
probably find more here in our hackernews accounts. If they're going to do
that we might as well give them our email password too so they can read all of
our private correspondences.

I could barely believe it when I read that this was happening and people were
putting up with it. I can't wait for some large company to get sued and shamed
over this.

------
phzbOx
I know I'll probably get down-voted but.. isn't it unfair to take a new job
and get away for 6 months for parenting purpose? And what about being
lesbian.. why would a company not hire a women because of that?

I don't know, I somewhat believe that once you put something on the web, be it
facebook or not, it's now public. Yeah, on my facebook I have pictures that
I'd rather not show to any employers but if they choose not to hire me for
_that_ , I'd rather not work at a place like this.

But, while writing this, I kind of realised that not everyone is in my
position.. and not everyone is as open minded to accept homosexuals.. so I
guess I understand what it's unethical.

~~~
T-hawk
> isn't it unfair to take a new job and get away for 6 months for parenting
> purpose?

There's a number of answers to that:

1) Biology is unfair. Birthing a child obviously takes much more effort and
time from the mother than the father. We have societally chosen to make up for
that a little bit by giving the mother a legally protected break from job
demands.

2) It should come out in the wash on the back end. When it's time for reviews
and raises, the new mother has three or six months less of productivity and
accomplishments, so it's natural and not discriminatory for her to receive
less reward here.

3) Maybe it IS unfair and that's why companies would seek to avoid hiring
likely-to-become-pregnant women if they were not legally barred from doing so.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle of all these, in different
situations. Some women can bear a child and not miss a beat in productivity at
a job. Some perhaps do use maternity leave as an excuse for a vacation.

~~~
orangecat
_We have societally chosen to make up for that a little bit by giving the
mother a legally protected break from job demands._

In which case we should collectively pay for it rather than dumping the burden
on her employer, especially since as you note that creates a disincentive to
hire any woman of childbearing age.

 _When it's time for reviews and raises, the new mother has three or six
months less of productivity and accomplishments, so it's natural and not
discriminatory for her to receive less reward here._

Her attorney might see things differently.

~~~
vidarh
> In which case we should collectively pay for it rather than dumping the
> burden on her employer,

And that's how it is in most of Europe, for example. But companies are still
known to try to avoid it because of the hassle of getting a replacement for
the duration of maternity leave.

------
tomelders
So he goes along with it right up to the point where it affects him? He's
outraged only when it makes his day worse?

Am I meant to applaud the protagonist in this this story? Because to me he
sounds like a scumbag.

People are espousing some pretty weird morals these days.

~~~
raganwald
Thanks, this was one of the ideas I was trying to get across, that by
shrugging and going along with stuff like this, we're condoning and supporting
it.

~~~
michaelochurch
Thank you so much for writing it.

What is your interpretation of _why_ this protagonist allowed unethical
activity to continue for so long? Just to keep his job? Or is there something
more to it?

I think people have accepted a certain fatalism about corporate scumbaggery:
corporate entities are complex and bound to have some unethical people within
them, so why fight it? Sure; it's true that unethical people will exist in any
sufficiently large set. I wouldn't quit a job at a 10,000-person company
because I found out that one employee was unethical. Let's fire him and get on
with our lives. But when scumbags are getting promoted in spite of, or even
because of, their ethical depravity, it's a really bad thing.

I think most Americans believe that "work" and "life" are separate and that
it's perfectly acceptable to be a scumbag at work because "everyone is like
that". People who wouldn't even think of shoplifting have no problem damaging
careers, teams, and entire companies for ridiculously short-sighted reasons.

I'd like to open a Work Court in which people can "sue" employers over the
low- and mid-grade scumbaggery of the sort that isn't worth a real lawsuit.
Instead of a suit taking years and burning up half the award in legal fees, it
can be settled in an afternoon. This Court has no authority to collect
judgments (if there are awards, they come from ad revenue) but it can censure,
and the effect of the censure is to bring public exposure to unethical
activity.

------
jasonmcalacanis
I read this an immediately thought 'this is an April 1st joke.'

Looks like it's science fiction :-)
<http://twitter.com/#!/raganwald/status/186940946015993856>

------
jakejake
Last year we were looking for a new office manager. One girl applies & we
found some public pictures she had posted on Facebook. One of them she was
kissing the ass of a statue of a clown. We hired her immediately.

------
poppysan
Not only does this give companies a glimpse on how invasion of privacy is
potentially bad for both parties, it also arms potential employees with a way
to fight against policies that invade your privacy. Well done.

------
BillPosters
Hang on a second, what if the interviewee doesn't have a Facebook account? Or
just lies and says they don't have one? Would the next question be "why not"
or "show us your email in-box"?

Don't tell me that not having a Facebook account now weighs against your
eligibility in an interview? That would be sad. What next? Everyone must have
a FB account by law?

And why didn't Braithwaite just not ask the candidates the FB question?

"Fired for refusing to invade interviewee privacy" is better than "resigns
after invading interviewee privacy".

Edit... so apparently it's all fiction. Time wasted.

------
wildmXranat
The whole trend of bending the rules and pushing what's acceptable is rather
frightening. Living in Ontario, Canada, I haven't heard of instances where any
friends of mine were compelled to open up their Facebook profile. Could it be
that it's just a matter of time ? It used to be that we worried about getting
three good job references and not having a clean social network slate. Not
having a FB account is looking pretty good to me, not that it didn't before.

------
vaksel
why do employers expect access to your facebook?

do they expect access to your email account? no...because that'd be invasion
of privacy...so why is facebook different?

you are free to snoop on the public facebook page(even though thats not 100%
ethical either, since you should be judging people for the way they perform at
work)...but in no way should you even think of asking about getting access to
private information

~~~
minsight
There are many employers who feel that they're entitled to your salary
history. Some see this as a sensible request, but it always struck me as a
spectacular invasion of privacy.

~~~
logic
They feel they're entitled to ask for your salary history, which is a subtle,
bur very real, distinction. (Much like some employers feel they're entitled to
rummage through your Facebook account, apparently.)

By the same token, you should feel entitled to tell them your prior salary
data is a personal matter, if you're uncomfortable sharing it during salary
negotiations.

------
dinkumthinkum
Anyone who actually does is this just scum. I want to invoke the obvious
references but in order to avoid Godwin's Law, I will simply say being the one
to actual "screen" the person's Facebook account is ... well I can't really
come up with an accurate description without invoking the Law, just please
infer for yourself. It violates just norms that it seems we should all have
about decency. It's one thing to search for a prospective hire's social
networking pages and if they have anything public, yes you use that against
them to your heart's content. But to actively invade their privacy like this
is just disgusting. Why not just ask for the cell phones and wallets so you
can rifle through them, make sure you read every text message. It's extremely
disgusting. It just crosses every line imaginable; I don't hyperbole is really
possible for this sort practice.

------
lizthegrey
This has been rubbing me the wrong way for the past day.

It appears to state a false set of premises - that minorities have the
bulletproof ability to threaten employers with being sued for discrimination
unless they are hired, regardless of qualification. The focus on this
ridiculous premise for rhetorical effect obscures the real danger of such
requirements - that non-visible minority status leads to vulnerability to
being discriminated against.

People in minorities are disempowered and denied equal consideration, not
demanding special rights to be hired even if unqualified. It's frankly
insulting to have an argument has been used completely seriously to argue
against the existence of anti-discrimination laws by Republicans and
Libertarians instead used for the purposes of satire.

------
brownbat
Exactly. Anti-discrimination is why this shouldn't happen.

Token vanity plug for when I said this (far less artfully) a few days ago:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3747875>

------
bakhy
"I was willing to go along with things and see how they panned out." - so much
for the sincerity of your supposed indignation. at the end, all that drove you
out is the fear of exposure of your own ass due to anti-discrimination laws.
and even now, after leaving, you do not have the nerve to directly express any
kind of stand regarding the invasion of privacy your COO requested you do.
from your ambivalent "style" it is just as easily possible to conclude that
you are "speaking out" against anti-discrimination laws. but, in the end, you
are saying absolutely _nothing_. pathetic.

------
hndude
Final sentence of the third-to-last paragraph: initiatng should be initiating

------
jurre
I wholeheartedly agree with your point and you make it very well, but I'm
afraid your preaching to the choir. I don't think anyone that finds this
article (either through hn or otherwise) disagrees with the fact that the
practice of scanning (potential) employees' personal facebook accounts is
wrong and that nothing good could come of it. How do we reach the people that
_do_ think it's a good idea?

------
bborud
If you have to resign in order to have this HR policy changed the company you
were working for was not worth working for anyway. I don't think it is right
to work for companies that disrespect their employees on such a fundamental
level. You did the right thing in resigning.

I am also somewhat surprised that you complied with the policy. Why would you
comply when you knew it was wrong?

------
Prophasi
Bone-headed HR move, _particularly_ in light of the prevailing laws but quite
apart from them, too. It's invasive and uncomfortable, and probably not a
place I'd feel welcome as an employee.

What it mostly reinforces to me, however, is just how terribly ignorant and
wishful laws like that are. If I build a business and bottom out my bank
account, kill myself with 100-hour weeks, and build my very life around making
the company work, you better believe I have the right to know if the person
I'm hiring plans to take off for 6 months right after being hired. And you
better believe that weighs against them in the hiring process. I didn't set up
the business as a facet of family planning services: I want to hire someone
who's willing to work hard to build my business in exchange for pay. If a
person knows they're going to take 6 months off immediately, then it's not
time to apply for a job, because you're not going to be working; apply for
something when you're ready to actually do it.

It continually amazes me how government largesse and layers of indirection
break people's natural intuitions and allow them to condone forcing a third
party to pay for their own life choices, in a vain attempt to mitigate the
unfortunate trade-offs that accompany our constrained mortal existence.

Transparency is not a bad thing. There are people out there who want a solid
job that pays well and fulfills their ambition while making good money; and
there are employers willing to offer those things in exchange for solid
performance, a reasonable salary, and reliability. Get out of our way with
this red tape garbage and let us find each other and do great things.

~~~
Prophasi
Downvoting was expected, as my post runs counter to the prevailing view on
social services and opposition to capitalism "red in tooth and claw," but some
commentary on why would be appreciated.

My original post was relevant and not too inflammatory, I don't think. If you
disagree with the substance of what I said, state your case instead of (or at
least in addition to) downvoting.

A reaction of moral indignation without discussion on a logical basis is at
the heart of virtually _everything_ wrong in modern US society. Break that, at
least here.

------
tsantero
Ethics aside, an employer asking for login access to your Facebook profile is
a violation of Facebook's TOS.

That being said, I don't care how difficult the job market is--if a potential
employer demonstrates that they have no regard for your personal privacy
during the interview process, you should thank them for their time, smile and
never look back.

------
phear
This is all incredibly ridiculous. How such a practice would become company
policy is beyond me. Facebook has said they'd terminate a company's facebook
page if it was found to be doing this. An interesting question though, would
they fire an employee for not friending or liking the company page?.. Just
ridiculous

------
gerryLowry
Really, Reginald, are you a fellow Ontarian?

That you might be living in Ontario was one of my surprises on first reading
<http://raganwald.posterous.com/i-hereby-resign> ... i would not normally read
you however i follow Martin Fowler and he wrote this today:
[https://twitter.com/#!/martinfowler/status/18715905169883545...](https://twitter.com/#!/martinfowler/status/187159051698835458)

Did you really resign as Director of Software Development over this issue? Or,
is that just you being a creative essayist? aside: when bloggers arrived, it
seems essayists became extinct.

One thing is certain ... i now see at least one use for an iPad.

Also, apparently i made an error in judgement on removing the fact that i've
been programming for 45+ years ... more if you let me count overtime. FWIW,
i'm still learning to program ... it's nice to glean from your article that i
might be better off to simply sue every prospect who fails to give me an
interview. unfortunately, i, up to seconds ago, assumed that i could file a
complaint with the Ontario Human Rights commission ... but as of a minute ago
at <http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/issues/age>, i learned:

"On June 30, 2008, the role of the Ontario Human Rights Commission changed.
The Commission will no longer accept complaints of discrimination."

The same page in the link above does tell me that i'm protected from age
discrimination. Hmmmm. Perhaps i could complain to Bashir al-Assad? Hmmmm,
again, i just noticed there's an Ass in al-Assad.

In November 2009, i began working for a company where i had four managers ...
but then let's not talk about "corporate transition" ... i'm tempted to name
that company here but then this comment could be in the internet-verse for
decades to centuries baring some galactic or man made calamity destroying
planet earth.

I probably should not mention my April 28th birthday because Jay Leno and the
late Saddam Hussein share my birth date ... imagine some HR Letterman fan
seeing my name coming up with Leno's in a Google-ish search!

Dear Reginald ... if you really did resign your position over such a
machiavellian HR policy, then you've dewservedly earned my utmost respect.

Regards, Gerry Lowry <https://www.gerrylowryprogrammer.com/>

~~~
dhimes
It's fiction.

------
paganel
I had to double-check it wasn't an April Fools' joke. And then I realized it
was for real, that this is a software company we're talking company,
presumably employing "educated" and "smart" people.

"Background checks", "Facebook stalking" etc etc, this is as close to living
in a totalitarian and dystopian world as we can get.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
It's actually fictional.

------
bpyne
Firstly, hats off to raganwald for another thought-provoking piece.

Whether or not the hypothetical interviewees in his letter could push the
legal claims they threatened, companies may very well shy away from this
violation of privacy simply to avoid the risk that they could be held liable
later.

------
orofino
This got me thinking, does a friend request from your boss constitute an
inquiry with possibly the same effects?

Personally, I try to avoid sending friend requests to subordinates, but it
wasn't necessarily for this reason.

------
cmsj
Who the hell actually is this guy? Google search results for his name appear
to be useless, misleading and contradictory because they're currently ruined
by the firehose of bloggernaut bullshit.

------
jacquesm
This would have packed a lot more punch if you _actually_ resigned.

------
JohnnyFlash
If someone viewed my Facebook profile, based on my lack of usage they could
only come to the conclusion I am a person with few friends and no interests.

Seems like a silly way to learn more about people.

------
roundfounder
amazing. as a manager and someone who spends his time trying to make sure my
actions and policies dont constrain our best people, this rings so true. Thank
you for your thoughts on this issue and I wholly agree with you that these
sorts of invasive practices will ultimately kill innovation and any real
identity in a workplace.

------
snappysucker
Did anyone in turn ask to look at your facebook profile? Shouldn't they know
who they are applying to work for?

------
jph
I'm a longtime admirer of your work, and good for you for standing up. I
deeply appreciate what you're doing.

------
JasonVV
I would think twice about hiring someone that makes their resignation letter
public like this. That being said, kudos for taking a stand (albeit only AFTER
invading peoples privacy by reading their facebook).

My guess is that you decided you wanted to leave when the COO forced you to do
this, but rather than quit then and there, you decided to teach her a lesson
as a parting gift... am I wrong? :)

------
delinka
Them: "I'll need to see your Facebook page."

Me: "OK, search Facebook for my name."

Them: "I'll need you to log in for me..."

Me: L.O.D. pause, walk out

------
kanze
This exact same process is what kept me from applying to ycombinator this
year. Asking for my Facebook url is the same considering everyone at
ycombinator has whatever access they need.

Raised $20k in two weeks on my own instead, for a much less percentage than
ycombinator would have <http://www.cloudromance.com>

------
BobertK
Orwell is laughing somewhere.

------
jakejake
Next thing you know they'll be asking for our 4chan passwords.

~~~
re_todd
You just made me shit my pants!

------
minsight
I was expecting to see far more feedback from incredulous Americans in "at-
will" states undergoing employment culture shock. It's nice to see that the
Canadian point of view translates so well.

~~~
wmf
At-will employment doesn't overrule anti-discrimination laws, does it?

~~~
minsight
I'd expect that employees working in "at-will" states would be less likely to
take a stand against their employers, even if the law were in their favour.

ps. I'd love to be wrong about this...

~~~
wmf
That's probably true in general, although if you _don't_ get hired due to
discrimination and then sue, usually you avoid the conflict by asking for a
cash settlement instead of a job.

------
Andre_Saveit
Very interesting! Thank you for a good point of view on this social media
topic. And as far as I know, even Y Combinator want's to check out your
facebook profile when you apply, right?

------
7plusminus2
Mad props to the guy!

------
michaelochurch
Holy shit. Except for a few details, I could have written that.

I recently had a job I was "promoted" into a pseudo-managerial role and
immediately asked to disparage people I actually really liked, in order to put
a "unified front" about our history and our people before new management. Told
it would be "insubordination" not to sign this "official version of events",
even though it was full of factual inaccuracies. I was shocked and disgusted.
(The company's engineers are great; this is a managerial ethics problem.)
Resigned on the spot. No two weeks' notice, just walked the fuck out.

Half my friends think I'm a hero for not selling my soul. Half think I'm an
idiot for firing myself to avoid harming others who were in someone's
crosshairs already. I don't think I'm either. Hero and idiot both imply a
choice. I had none. I am not going to do the wrong thing. Ever. Not for more
equity in a company whose executives are okay with this kind of shit, not to
keep a job. Just not fucking happening.

~~~
temphn
Just from the interwebs looks like you've had problems at two employers now
including Google:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3783114>

Maybe the problem is you, not the employer?

~~~
michaelochurch
I left Google voluntarily but, since you asked, I did blow the whistle on
unethical management practices, and I was chagrined when absolutely nothing
changed. That wasn't why I left. I left because I wanted to do functional
programming and that wasn't going to happen where I was. I don't mind using
C++ but I'd rather it not be my full-time job.

For my part, I don't like the creeping laxity of ethics that I've seen in
technology startups (including Google) for the past few years. I really think
that some of the slimiest actors are coming into our industry because they
think engineers are easier to take advantage of (since we just want to code
and a lot of us put our heads in the sand about office nastiness).

I'm glad that programmer salaries are finally starting to converge to what
we're worth, but a lot of the worst elements are coming into VC-istan because
of the money that's in it.

~~~
buckwild
Have you ever worked in the finance industry? Those guys will kill their own
family if it will get them a $5K raise.

I worked in the california mortgage industry before going to college. These
guys would convince families living paycheck to paycheck to buy/refinance
REALLY expensive homes. If they were on a 30 year fixed, we get them on an
option-arm. If they are on an option-arm, we get them on a 30-year fixed.

This is all typical finance stuff. But here comes the kicker--they would
actually outright LIE about interest rates and had a few shady notaries to
back them. They would say you have a 1% interest rate (for 30 years) when it
was really a 5 year option-arm and screw people. The worst part is, CA has
some sort of law that protects mortgage lenders from unhappy customers after 5
years time (exactly when the 1% interest rate would fly to the market rate).
Needless to say, several people left the company when we found out. Some folks
reported them to the BBB--I don't know what happened to those scumbags though.
I really hope people like that stay out of science.

~~~
SkyMarshal
> I don't know what happened to those scumbags though.

Unlike the S&L crisis, exactly none of them got indicted and all of them got
bailed out, except Bernie Madoff whose schemes were totally orthogonal to the
financial crisis.

------
drivebyacct2
Called this a week and a half ago. Anyone who's LGBT (or anyone period really)
knows that there are reasons to keep things on FB private from friends,
family, employers selectively, etc. I had mentioned this was likely illegal
for this very reason. Numerous states in the US have similar anti-
discrimination laws. When I was interviewed at Microsoft they basically told
me I couldn't talk about certain things and they were specifically trained to
not ask questions that could reveal information that could lead to these sorts
of suits.

I don't understand the downvotes? I've seen at least 4 people downvote this.
Do you not believe me? And to edit for the people below, I was more or less
hint-hint told that this was at least including not wanting to force someone
to reveal that they were LGBT. I know that at least the group I was with, they
were forbid from asking if "you have a girlfriend" and it wasn't for fear of
an interviewer hitting on someone.

~~~
ShabbyDoo
"When I was interviewed at Microsoft"....Interesting given that MSFT has a
long history of being a LGBT-friendly company.

~~~
vidarh
Is not having a policy that reduces the risk of interviewers intentionally or
subconsciously discriminating against someone who is LGBT _exactly_ the type
of thing you would expect from an LGBT-friendly company?

------
derleth
OK, from the linked-to piece:

> If you are surfing my Facebook, you could reasonably be expected to discover
> that I am a Lesbian.

Obviously correct. However, they could also discover so much more about her
that _doesn't_ relate to any civil rights legislation, such as that she drinks
jaegerbombs or uses the wrong kind of power saw. Now, those would be terrible
reasons to not hire someone, but they're _legal_ reasons, and can be brought
up in court to dispute the claims they didn't hire her because of sexual
orientation.

So, my point is, that's another reason the "Give us your Facebook password" is
bad: It could easily undermine important civil rights legislation.

------
aneth
While I have complete respect for @raganwald, I find it somewhat disturbing
that he would even begin to implement or go along with this policy. I can't
imagine asking an interviewee to login to their private facebook account, any
more than their private email or dating website.

The answer should have been no at the first suggestion and I hope he amends
his blog to indicate that even the few times he did this was completely wrong,
in addition to placing the company in a tenuous legal situation. As an
interviewee, I would be outraged and walk out.

~~~
unimpressive
He didn't. The letter is fictional.

~~~
aneth
Hmm. While thought provoking, this should be identified some in some way as
fictional.

Anyhow, even in theory, complying with the policy for a moment would be
unethical.

~~~
unimpressive
>Hmm. While thought provoking, this should be identified some in some way as
fictional.

At the end maybe?

>Anyhow, even in theory, complying with the policy for a moment would be
unethical.

The OP admits this in the comments here.

------
victorbstan
You got what you asked for.

------
euphoria83
So, is the resignation due to fear of litigation or because of the moral
quandary ? Clearly, the author was okay with looking at the FB profiles of the
candidates and would have probably continued to do so, had he not been
threatened twice on the same day. I wonder why he could not refuse to indulge
the HR, especially since he held a pretty important position in the company.

~~~
hub_
To me, the resignation was linked to thinking of the consequences. At first
the (fictional) manager just did what he was told, then quickly thought of it,
and instead of fighting it, put a stop on it. Moral grounds, economic grounds
(the fear of discrimination lawsuit is economic), etc.

This is all fiction, but while I always thought snooping on a (potential)
employee via any way (including FB) was morally wrong, this fictional story
just opened the eye wider why it is wrong.

------
evanwolf
Wimp.

The proper behavior is to refuse to perform an immoral or illegal act and to
decline to follow an immoral or illegal direction.

That leaves your superiors with choices of their own: change their behavior,
ignore you, or fire you.

If they change their behavior, great; the company is better for your
convictions.

If they ignore you (denial) and continue bad actions, you can always look for
another job and/or continue to advocate change from within. You are not
participating in the bad behavior and have performed your duty to communicate
the problem.

If they fire you, you may have wrongful termination recourse that you
definitely won't have if you resign.

The cold walkout, on the other hand, only affects management teams capable of
shame (unlikely if the leadership has corrupted values) or susceptible to
public pressure.

Your specific challenge is incompetence, not morality. You will always be
surrounded by incompetence, if not occasionally sharing your own. While
incompetence may be a moral failing, people with good intentions can improve
things if sufficiently motivated. Your leaving is unlikely to do that.

Instead of having a knock down, drag out, face-to-face, serious reality-check
conversation, risking strong and unpleasant emotions en route to a new
consensus, you ran away.

You bailed when the company obviously needs someone of your experience, skill,
insight and expressiveness.

You may have other reasons to quit, but the one you gave showed cowardice in
the face of a leadership challenge.

Next time, don’t be a wimp.

Stand and hold your ground.

~~~
cheald
Hint: It's a fictional parable.

~~~
zaidmo
I took it to be a real story, although I was confused by the image (which was
another story)

