6 ms·
Integrity is standing on principle, even when you don't like the outcome. Thus integrity requires me to point out that in this case, Maryland is violating peop
by nirvana 15y ago
Integrity is standing on principle, even when you don't like the outcome. Thus integrity requires me to point out that in this case, Maryland is violating people's rights.
While I think employers should not ask for these passwords, and don't have a "right" to, I also have the right-- freedom of association-- to not give them the password, and not work for companies that would even ask.
Maryland is interfering with these rights. Maryland is violating freedom of association by dictating what terms people might choose to associate under. I doubt the Maryland constitution gives them the power to do that, and certainly many interpretations of the Bill of Rights have claimed that they restrict state's lawmaking ability.
I don't know what employers might reasonably want this information. Possibly an employer might wish to conduct a background check for a highly security intensive position, and this check might involve access to some website (lets assume it is not Facebook) that the applicant feels perfectly comfortable with them seeing. Further, this access could be conducted with the employee present, with the employee changing the password immediately before giving the access and then changing it again immediately after, resulting in no ongoing access. I don't know what situation someone might find it reasonable to do this-- I can't know.
But neither can the government of Maryland. The problem with these kinds of laws is that they always have unintended consequences, and at the end of the day, any violation of peoples rights-- even with "good intentions" (though I bet this law exempts the state of Maryland itself) -- will result in less optimal outcomes.
For instance, consider the situation where this law is challenged and then upheld. That would establish a precedent that says the state can interfere with freedom of association, and such precedent might be used to undermine freedom of association in areas where we do care about preserving it. This has happened many times in the past-- for instance the "interstate commerce clause", which doesn't actually grant broad powers, but very narrow ones, has been rewritten via precedent to give the federal government essentially unlimited power, even where no commerce between states occurs.
I expect to be down voted for expressing this unpopular opinion. But hopefully Hacker News is the kind of place where making an argument -- even if most people disagree with it-- is respected. (and I'm curious to find out, having recently seen instances of it going both ways.)
- barrkel 15y agoEmployers usually have significant power advantages over those they employ, and they may abuse that power. In particular, discrimination for reasons of race, religion, sexuality, ethnicity, etc. is pernicious and has been a demonstrated historical problem in lots of different places all over the world. With access to a person's Facebook, a prospective employer most likely has all the information they need to act on their own prejudices. For background checks, frankly I believe a licensed, disinterested third party should perform them where they are necessary. (I downvoted you because I strongly disagreed with you. Freedom of association is a poor defense for permitting discrimination, particularly where employment is concerned, IMO.)
- nirvana 15y ago> (I downvoted you because I strongly disagreed with you. Freedom of association is a poor defense for permitting discrimination, particularly where employment is concerned, IMO.) Exactly, you don't wish to engage in intelligent discussion, you're punishing me for not being politically correct. > Employers usually have significant power advantages Unlike this and the other assertions you made, I actually made arguments to defend my position. What you've given here is the standard liberal ideological beliefs. Don't worry, you're not the only one-- this is true of everyone else who responded to me. You all chose convenience over principle, you all ignored my argument and you all gave me unintelligent answers. Hacker News is not a place for intelligent discussion.
- barrkel 15y agoMy "assertion" comes from real-life experience. It's been demonstrated to me in substance, not as some "liberal ideological belief" - that kind of insult has no place in an intelligent discussion either. I expounded further here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3826441 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3826441 You could do with re-reading the guidelines - http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - specifically: Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you. Your specific baiting played a significant part - perhaps 70% - in my decision to downvote, the other 30% was because the comment was so high on the page (it was first IIRC), and such a wrongheaded comment (by my experience, not my ideology) being afforded such prominence disturbed me. PS: value is highest for me from HN when I ignore politicized topics like this one. But sometimes I get sucked in. Don't leave in a huff simply because of this; it's not worth it.