Facebook follows the news just like you do. And it has been paying attention to the weird and worrying new trend that employers have asked prospective employees for their Facebook passwords during the hiring process.
On Friday, Facebook, in the name of “protecting your passwords and privacy,” has made it a violation of its Statement of Rights and Responsibilities to “share or solicit a Facebook password.”
“We don’t think employers should be asking prospective employees to provide their passwords, because we don’t think it’s right the thing to do,” Erin Egan, Facebook’s chief privacy officer, explains. “But it also may cause problems for the employers that they are not anticipating. For example, if an employer sees on Facebook that someone is a member of a protected group (e.g. over a certain age) that employer may open themselves up to claims of discrimination if they don’t hire that person.”
But! It’s not just that sharing or soliciting passwords is now a violation of Facebook’s terms of service. “We’ll take action to protect the privacy and security of our users,” Egan notes, “whether by engaging policymakers or, where appropriate, by initiating legal action, including by shutting down applications that abuse their privileges.”
In other words, Facebook will probably sue parties who ask for its users’ passwords.
The language also leaves open the possibility of suing users who voluntarily share their passwords with others: “You will not,” its says, “share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.” While, of course, it’s hard to imagine any scenario in which Facebook would actually benefit from suing one of its users for a password-share, the language suggests at least that possibility.
Which, whoa—I can’t think of anything that comes close to a precedent for this in terms of Facebook’s relationship with its users: suing people on users’ behalf! (And maybe even suing users on users’ behalf!)
Latest Politics Posts:
Except, of course, it wouldn’t be just on users’ behalf; the notional suits would be as much about protecting Facebook as about protecting its legions of account-holders. “If you are a Facebook user,” Egan notes, “you should never have to share your password, let anyone access your account, or do anything that might jeopardize the security of your account or violate the privacy of your friends.” The key phrase being, actually, violate the privacy of your friends. The policy update is a striking admission of the value of the connections that live and grow on Facebook’s platform: A violation of one user’s privacy through password access is, implicitly, the violation of the privacy of all of that user’s friends and family and coworkers and former coworkers and random acquaintances and elementary-school classmates and bowling-league teammates and former flames.
And, sure: It’s easy to see Friday’s announcement simply as a convenient PR play on the part of a network that is better known for violations, rather than defenses, of its users’ privacy. And that likely has at least something to do with the policy change. It’s more interesting, though, to see the update as a reminder of the core and crucial role of the network aspect of Facebook’s social network. On Facebook, privacy isn’t personal, and it isn’t private. It is collective. It is shared. And that means that the violation of privacy is shared as well.
What We're Following See More »
"The Trump administration is putting pressure on Senate Republicans to crack down on Democratic efforts to delay its agenda, fueling talk about the need for rules reform among Republicans on Capitol Hill. Republicans are in discussions with Democrats about bipartisan changes to Senate rules to speed up consideration of President Trump’s judicial and executive branch nominees, but if that effort flounders — as similar ones have in the past — they’re not ruling out unilateral action."
During his campaign, Donald Trump indicated to Washington Post reporters that he'd like to have White House employees sign nondisclosure agreements. That is, in fact, what he's done, according to a scoop by the Post's Ruth Marcus. "Some balked at first but, pressed by then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and the White House Counsel’s Office, ultimately complied, concluding that the agreements would likely not be enforceable in any event." The administration intended the agreements to remain in force beyond Trump's tenure. An early draft included penalties of up to $10 million.
"Trump is asking for a bill" that would effectively break the WTO. One of the core WTO principles — which has underpinned globalization and trade for 70 years — is an idea called 'most favored nation status.' Countries that belong to the WTO have all agreed to charge the same tariff rate for imports from all other WTO members." But Trump covets reciprocal tariffs "nation-by-nation, product-by-product." The GOP free-traders in Congress are unlikely to support such an effort.