Is Facebook your white knight?
This is an inter-business conflict not a conflict between the citizen and business, or more over the individual and business.
It's in a totally different realm of the law -- two business's suing each other versus a civil rights case against a business, versus the entire legitimacy of law in the first place.
they have no right to ask that. talk about obviously unethical.
I see it more broadly, this is like corporate espionage. If a spy in war gets another person to give them information through seduction, influence, lack of loyalty, or something else does this make the spy "unethical"? -- by his own military's standard he is being "ethical" because he is helping his own side win the war. And there are many people who view business competition like a kind of non-violent war or competition to be "won" -- to outsell the competition and so forth.
right but this is, your employer asks you specifically for your personal social network password. on an individual level: flat out wrong.
No its not, your making the assumption the person in question doesn't want to give out their password.... WHAT IF THEY DID WANT TO GIVE OUT THEIR PASSWORD for some reason? Is it still flat out wrong? What if they are purposefully giving out their password to lead someone on? Is it still flat out wrong?Originally Posted by Loki
I think it's wrong for the employer to ask and put the employee or potential employee in the situation where they have to say "yes" in order to have a job there. Whether or not they want to doesn't matter--it isn't right to ask. Other than that I mean it also doesn't respect Facebook's terms of use so I totally see why Facebook would have a problem with that. It's an unethical business practice and given that it goes against Facebook's t.o.u. it's actually rather shady and dirty and underhanded. I don't think I'd think very much of a company that asked me to do that. If they're willing to be unethical here, where else are they willing to be unethical? If they can't understand that they don't have a right to my personal accounts, then I'm not sure there's any hope for them to really understand anything I consider common sense.
Well you can always refuse and if enough people refuse the company will go out of business unless they change their policy. If people decide to give in to those terms aren't they kind of trading their privacy for a job the way a prostitute will trade her body for some money to survive. Paying for a prostitue isn't the same as committing rape... if a person pays for a prostitute their is a willing exchange, if a person rapes another it is unwilling. In the same way if a company asks to trade a job for someone's privacy and they consent that's different from a company hacking into your facebook account or something similar where you didn't consent.
I don't see how it's ABSOLUTELY wrong since the kind of force you are suggesting isn't explicit, it's part of deal which a person can free willingly accept or deny. I'd be kind of inclined to deny it personally but I don't think it's just some kind of absolute moral evaluation.
Just because something's a "deal" doesn't mean it's not a shitty thing to do. I see this as exploitation.
You'd might as well request a photocopy of candidate's ballots. The vanishing point for free speech.
HLD, you really ruin your reputation by playing DA like this.
Well, um, there aren't any negative consequences to the company really from that. I mean no one knows how the candidate voted. However 600 people could know when the candidate posts damning things about their employer on their FB page. That's the other thing, it's not just shitty (and I feel, wrong) but it's so wussy. They are so afraid that they want control over their employee's FB account. Some might call this pathetic. So it's not just that they obviously don't respect or trust me (the respective employee) but that they are wimps. That really makes me feel secure I suppose.
So I can assume facebook is your white knight?
It's not stupid enough to side with unpopular forces, at least.
so facebook is your white knight and your white bishop is popularity? What is your white pawn? Or maybe what is your white queen or rook.
That's partly what I am saying -- how do you define exploitation. Does it occur if someone willingly consents to something against their own interest? How does a person even willingly consent to something against their own interest? If that were the case it would overthrow the entire idea that people are solely motivated by self-interest, and it would put the nail in the coffin for certain economic principles based on the entire notion of people doing things entirely out of self-interest. Every single economic principle founded on this axiom would not longer apply.
Yet I've noticed much of what anarcho-capitalism thought is based around is this idea of self-interest, everyone approaches the market out of self-interest, derived from certain economic models or ideas..... even john nash explored game theory from the perspective of a self-interested individual... the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma, seems to show that two individuals acting solely out of self interest will actually converge individually to the worst solution for them both, while converging to what is the best solution cooperatively yields the best solution for them both.
To someone who understands the value of cooperation, this means it's in their self-interest to cooperate. However you have to be careful what you mean by cooperate.... cooperate with who? If in the prisoner's dileema you cooperate with your captures then you screw yourself over and your fellow captives.... if you cooperate with your fellow captives, you are serving your self-interest.
The question isn't whether it's exploitation or not, the question is who is exploiting who? Is facebook your fellow captive or is facebook your capture, are they locking your information in, or keeping the bad guys out?
Last edited by male; 03-24-2012 at 05:35 AM.
Ugh. I don't care about FB, other than how employers are asking employees to violate their terms of use. I care about the employers asking the employee to surrender their personal and private info/access. It's a dirty thing to do and if you can't see that I can't help you.
We have to be our own theoretical "White Knight." No one will do it for us. This is coming from someone who has prevailed against their own employer. Trust me -- no one else is going to give a shit about your own personal welfare, other than close family and friends, especially any business. I am not saying businesses are bad. They are not generally bad, but that is of debate among many. It is that their main focus usually lies in their original agenda, business model type, and what they know they can fall back on in terms of legal contract/agreement/policies.
I think Lucid's last question could be found in FB's business model, either implicitly or explicitly, but I think it is a seperate question.
It would be funny if a social media became a natural monopoly, which is probably not possible, but... lol. A state-sanctioned social media source would be pretty funny in a movie.
Dont forget that there are current lawsuits against schools 'requesting' students' facebook passwords.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
hah, fruity. Is it a pervasive occurence or a singular occurence? The lines get really fuzzy when civilian, govt., and business entity get mixed.
From what Richard was telling me (he's the one who reads the news), it was a wide spread occurance. Not just one county/state.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Weird. I know that in past 2 decades, various schools have infringed on autonomy at random. For example, getting into a fight after leaving from school but on personal property on the way home, putting cameras into take-home laptops, or weighing in on personal occurences of unlawful behavior on the weekend. Etc, etc so on and so fth. However, a wide spread occurence of this behavior into the business landscape is a whole new ballgame where society as a whole could change. Eh... =/
Yea I think Jadae has a pretty good grasp at what I'm saying --
I'm not saying I like the idea of companies asking employees for access to their facebook pages -- I'm saying I'm skeptical if facebook is doing it to be your own "white knight" as the article sensationalizes. I think facebook has a clear vested interest to doing this -- they don't want people mining users for data that they could sell instead and they don't want people getting access to what their developers can see. Also partly they don't want users to be upset so that they can keep their customer base happy. They are trying to keep their product alive and part of that is security and law -- their business model is to create a social network platform, their business model isn't to be your best friend.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote