Facebook will take action to protect the privacy and security of their users(facebook.com)
facebook.com
Facebook will take action to protect the privacy and security of their users
https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-and-privacy/protecting-your-passwords-and-your-privacy/326598317390057
11 comments
Every once in a while Facebook does the right thing. Is there any sort of self-motivating factor that I'm missing here? (other than good PR)
I guess it's in Facebook's interest to get users to share without the fear of a future employer looking into it.
I interpreted this two ways:
1. Facebook gets more of people's personal info.
2. Only Facebook gets this info.
1. Facebook gets more of people's personal info.
2. Only Facebook gets this info.
This is it right here.
[deleted]
Their only asset is their users' data, and they don't want anyone else getting at it for free?
/cynicism
/cynicism
"Facebook Introductions™, coming this spring 2014, gives employers a unique way to get to know candidates before hiring them. Don't worry, we don't share anything private – Introductions just allows subscribing businesses to see your Timeline as a friend would.
It's the perfect way for employers to find the best cultural fit quickly, and can even be a great conversation starter for interviews."
It's the perfect way for employers to find the best cultural fit quickly, and can even be a great conversation starter for interviews."
I really doubt it. This kinda of thing would be received very, very poorly costing Facebook users. Furthermore I don't think Facebook is in the market of selling individuals personal information, they sell aggregate information, and provide targeted ads.
People like to paint Facebook as an antagonist who is working to degrade personal privacy, but really they are acting in their own interest of making money by providing a service that people want to use. Facebook is not working against you, it also isn't working for you.
People like to paint Facebook as an antagonist who is working to degrade personal privacy, but really they are acting in their own interest of making money by providing a service that people want to use. Facebook is not working against you, it also isn't working for you.
Yes, but it is in Facebook's best interest to ablate your instinct to privacy; the more you share online, the greater value Facebook is to you, and the more value you are to Facebook.
They're only doing the right thing for them, this move seems to incidentally benefits users too but not really. it prevent outcomes such as users 1) closing their account / switching to another website 2) creating an additional fake profile only for work.
This article [1] is imho quite right, this is mostly a non-issue turned into PR.
1:http://rexriepe.com/2012/clever-pr-facebook-bends-a-non-stor...
This article [1] is imho quite right, this is mostly a non-issue turned into PR.
1:http://rexriepe.com/2012/clever-pr-facebook-bends-a-non-stor...
Is good PR not enough? I'd say that bad reputation is actually one of the biggest threats to Facebook in the long term. If they could reinvent themselves as an organization as trustworthy as a bank with your private information, a big reason for going elsewhere would be eliminated.
In the short term, the network effect holds their site together, unless they mess up really bad. In the long term, however, these things do matter and Facebook knows that.
In the short term, the network effect holds their site together, unless they mess up really bad. In the long term, however, these things do matter and Facebook knows that.
I would think the fear of current or potential employers using your data against you is just one more thing to add to any unease people may already have about sharing more and more of their personal information with Facebook. These things add up, and I'm sure FB have seen at least a small bump in account deactivations coinciding with the recent spate of articles on this subject.
It is good PR for Facebook, they get to build upon their walled garden in the name of protecting your privacy so there's no downside to them taking a stance on this at all.
It just so happens that "the right thing" happens to line up with Facebook's self-interest this time but I would not couch it as FB doing the right thing because it was the primary reason to do so.
It just so happens that "the right thing" happens to line up with Facebook's self-interest this time but I would not couch it as FB doing the right thing because it was the primary reason to do so.
"... Is there any sort of self-motivating factor that I'm missing here? (other than good PR) ..."
Exposure to litigation, PR is a positive side effect.
Exposure to litigation, PR is a positive side effect.
If an (prospective) employer asked for a email/social account password, you should leave immediately, period.
The trouble, as always, are the more vulnerable people in society. Folks who may not have a lot of options, or really need to stay at a current job. They are more vulnerable to this sort of exploitation. I wish facebook would organize an advocacy group or class action lawsuits against a list of these employers.
Or give you a second password to show a cleaned up profile.
Then they will require that you give them two passwords.
Or, to crib from jwz: now you have two problems.
Or, to crib from jwz: now you have two problems.
The other issue is these requirements are not listed on job postings and rely on a potential hire to report that it happened.
What if it is for national security, like working for the CIA or MI5?
Then they don't need to ask you for it.
If you're even being considered for a job at the CIA et al, you have a long history trailing behind you that they can dig through. Getting your Facebook information likely wouldn't give them any more relevant data than is already available to these agencies.
While I completely agree that this is unacceptable and applaud facebook for their attempt at protecting users, there is a bit of irony in this move. Wasn't it Zuckerberg who has repeatedly expressed the idea that privacy is no longer a social norm, almost to the point of fatalism.?
Zuckerberg is financially interested in getting your info, not giving it out.
This was my thought exactly, along with, with respect to Erin the Chief Privacy Officer, I won't believe it unless Zuckerberg co-signs this.
Sort of a corollary of Sagan's law: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Critical company statements need to be signed by the CEO.
Sort of a corollary of Sagan's law: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Critical company statements need to be signed by the CEO.
Has anybody heard of or personally experienced a company actually doing this?
Well, it's nice and all but some privacy policy isn't legally binding in any sense whatsoever in most countries.
its simply understanding your client`s pain point(s) and providing a solution.
Thing is there`s 2 users here
1) facebook user. demanding inappropriate access to their personal life is invasive - todays memo... check.
2) employer/potential employer. Understanding the character of the candidate. Facebook offers a premium service e.g. say $10k/seat that offers more in-depth access. similar to LinkedIn`s premium account.. yet users dont feel violated.
Todays note address 1) maybe 2) will be addressed in the future. Im sure that would be quite the cash cow.
Thing is there`s 2 users here
1) facebook user. demanding inappropriate access to their personal life is invasive - todays memo... check.
2) employer/potential employer. Understanding the character of the candidate. Facebook offers a premium service e.g. say $10k/seat that offers more in-depth access. similar to LinkedIn`s premium account.. yet users dont feel violated.
Todays note address 1) maybe 2) will be addressed in the future. Im sure that would be quite the cash cow.
Isn't one of the issues not about obtaining passwords but rather being pressured into befriending the (prospective) employer's representative/HR person? Allowing them to trawl thru your wall and so on...
I'm still confused how employers could ever justify doing this. Do they ever explain what they're looking for?
[deleted]
Smart publicity play on their part
[deleted](1)