By: Mariola Bak
On February 6th, 2013, a short article appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle about a proposed legislation that the state of Rhode Island is currently considering. The bill, if accepted, would “prohibit companies from demanding a potential employee's user names and passwords to social media sites like Facebook and Twitter.” (SF Chronicle) So far, similar legislation has already been enacted or has been introduced in at least twenty-six states (NCSL website), but the controversy remains.
The issue this debate spurs that directly corresponds to our class readings and discussions is the extent to which the continuously expanding corporate policing and surveillance practices limit our privacy. In order to elaborate on this statement, I will first comment on the issue and then connect it to the assigned readings.
It is apparent that employers who require the applicants and/or employees to provide login information to their social media sties are crossing the boundaries of an individual’s right to privacy. Social media sites such as Facebook are predominantly utilized for individual and personal interactions. Employers’ claim that having access to an applicant or employee’s account provides insights about one’s character and personality is an absurd. One could learn a lot about person’s character and personality by analyzing the person’s spending habits, yet asking about login information to an online banking is considered a direct violation of one’s privacy. The fact is that the twenty-six states, which have passed or are in the process of legislating laws that prohibit employers form requesting the login information to social media sites of their employees or applicants, are emblematic. Not only do they constitute the most supportive example of the idea that such practice is an unwarranted invasion of one’s privacy, but they also symbolize resistance against the corporate policing practices in the form of legal activism, a concept discussed briefly by Professor Musheno on February 12th.
The presented issue is the most relevant in connection with “privacy paradigm” and “need based claims” notions introduced in the Overseers of the Poor. The welfare recipients, although felt that the welfare system invaded their privacy, understood that meeting their basic needs and taking care of their children was the most important. In order to survive, they had to give up their privacy. A similar claim may apply to individuals in the states in which the legislation that would prevent employers from requesting the login information to social media sites from their employees or applicants have not been passed yet. Because the US economy continues to struggle and high unemployment rates affect the lives of many, obtaining a job is a crucial necessity. If meeting the basic needs by obtaining an employment comes at a price of providing social media login information to a potential employer, than many individuals will consent to this practice, just as the welfare mothers consent to the requirements of the welfare system apparatus.
Corporate practices of surveillance and policing unquestionably limit our privacy, but it is possible, through legal activism for example, to limit the extent to which they do so.
While I agree that people should be careful with that they put on the internet, the use of login information by companies is an obvious invasion of privacy and also a misuse of power because of the necessity of having a job. - Maria Campos
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it is absurd for employers to require possible employees to provide them with their login information to access their personal information on social media sites. Even though some claim that doing so allows employers to determine whether or not potential employees will make good employees, this claim fails to take into account that in fact, a lot of people are good at keeping their personal and private lives separate, and even if their personal life involves, let's say, partying, it does not mean that the individual will not prove to be a reliable employee. My point is made evident especially here in UC Berkeley. Plenty of students enjoy the party life yet when it comes down to it, they manage to get good grades, make excellent interns, etc.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I find it reasonable to compare potential employees to welfare recipients in their response to the constant surveillance they face--one that involves a form of resistance that consists of omitting information that can be used against their surveillers. For example, the welfare recipient fails to include certain income, household members etc. in their welfare applications in order to avoid getting their benefits cut, while the potential employee may fail to put up potentially incriminating pictures on social networking sites in order to prevent an employer from accessing such information about them.
Your point is well taken that legislatures can be a source of pushing back against the expansion of corporate surveillance strategies or at least ways of bringing some legal boundaries to these activities. You are also right that corporations create strong incentives for citizens to ignore their privacy rights.
ReplyDeleteIn my mind, companies who demand login information from their employees to social media sites are undoubtedly violating the personal privacy of its employees. There is a very fine line between what companies and other potential employers should be able to have access to, but things like social media sites have privacy settings for a reason. Trying to get around these settings by demanding employees to provide login information is unethical to say the least. It actually comes as a surprise that that there needs to be a bill passed to prohibit this kind of action.
ReplyDelete- Donald Chan