If you set your privacy settings correctly, nobody but who you allow will see anything about you (bar your name, profile picture, gender, networks, and username {which are visible to everyone}).
I would not have a hard time saying no to this at all. There are limits which you can assert without being rude or coming across as paranoid. What's next, access to all your private emails?
Some private content like facebook could add to their liability for discriminatory hiring practices. Imagine if they figure out your sexual preference, or veteran status. Seriously, recruiters would be foolish to pry like this into the personal lives of recruits.
Do some recruitment agencies actually do that?! They expect you to hand over your password? I'm speechless!
I would have a hard time saying "no", but ultimately, giving someone your login details is like giving them the keys to your house: a lot of people use the same login for many (if not all) websites, including their email.
YouTern would never suggest giving login information to an employer, or anyone else. And it highly unlikely -- unheard of, even -- that a recruiter would ask for login info or passwords.
We've heard of several applications that contain fields for links to social media sites, including Facebook... so assuming the commenter used "login" when they actually meant "URL" or "link".
Really? You believe that people are that talented to keep their FB privacy private? The "norm" of FB users do not take the time to set their privacy correctly...
The article is NOT about how good you keep your life private...its about PERCEPTION. These HR folks are not Rocket Scientists...they are humans that use FB also. Again...Really with this comment?
I don't use Facebook, but couldn't they search for your name used as a tag in photos? Yes, this would mean that they'd need to be friends with your friends, but if your friends are working in the same industry, know some recruiters and are less privacy-conscious...
AFAIK you can't (at least not yet...) search for a user's photos, and they aren't indexed in any search engine. You have to click on the photos link on a user's profile to see the photos they're tagged in. (So you're pretty safe.)
However, if they can view the photos of someone who has uploaded one of you or tagged you in one, they'll be able to find you in them eventually (by browsing through them, or if you're feeling really paranoid, they could automate the process and scrape through all of a user's photos' web pages to find your name tagged), but it'd be a lot of work.
That's a tricky situation, and I hope it never happens. Ultimately, it's a bit of a breach of your privacy, isn't it? They aren't your friends, really.
I'd say that I don't have one. (This would mean giving them a different email than the one I've got my Facebook account set-up with.)
If I'm forced to provide one, I'd make a new one and only add them as a friend.
(However if you do accept them as a friend on your real account, it'd be simple to set the privacy options to give them a customized view of your profile.)
I use a completely different name for my facebook profile and have a gmail account (unconnected) associated with it. I routinely get job offers for security work even though I have everything set to private.
I'm assuming that this is me showing up as linked to other people that are not so cautious.
I get on average about a message every 3 months from recruiters looking for 'fresh meat'. What I think they're doing is they're looking at friends on facebook, then their networks and making the assumption that the person will have a gmail account, then guessing what it might be. Sometimes I'm cc'd into variants of potential spelling like firstname.lastname@gmail, flastname@gmail etc. but most of the time it's a bcc. If you bear in mind that my profile has a distinctly odd name which used to be a googlewhack and that most of my friends friends on facebook are in the UK and in the same industry (I use multiple profiles for multiple purposes).
Clearly this is going on, but the article seems a little sensationalist. I highly doubt my ex wife or my pet is being used as a measure of recruitability.
I have everything in friends only.. even friends list. I have a public twitter though. I see no reason why they should not hire a human being. We are all human and if they are clinging on to a 1950s view of Man then maybe I should not work there. I am quite professional and accomplished but I always speak from my heart.
My biggest gripe with HR is in their ability to understand transferrable skills. I may have x years and a masters degree in y but they are looking for y'.
I have faith that with my generation, politicians and businessmen alike will stop pretending they are "perfect" people. Then finally we can get past these old ideas of how everyone should exist.
That innocuous phrase "hire a human being" masks serious problems for a world without workplace privacy.
The modern world's move to capitalism from feudalism, circa 1800-1900 involved a move from dictators (feudal lords) who could demand anything from their vassals on a life-long basis to a world in which workers and professional entered into definite contracts with employers for limited purposes.
Capitalism, even according to its proponents, is an adversarial system. It's just hopefully a adversarial system to brings benefits to all concerned at the end of the day. But you don't get those benefits if you surrender in the middle of the day - "negotiate not and ye shall not receive..."
It's problematic if your employers has demanded to hire a "human being of their choice" rather than a human being who will competently accomplish a codified job in a competent manner.
Try the phrase "I don't see what's wrong an employer giving a human being a job evaluation" in contrast to "I expect to be evaluated based on my ability to accomplish a job" For a human being, "I didn't like their hair" might be legitimate as a complaint. But
Your employer is giving you something limited a wage. You owe them something limited too -
This is as much for the benefit of the employer as the employee. An employer who works according to objective criteria is going to accomplish their money-making tasks better than one that gives in to arbitrary criteria and demands. Sometimes it the employees who need to remind the employers of this.
Its a very HOT topic found in many areas right now. Those who listen will have a leg up from those who still say "FMJ" on the site they have so many colleagues "friended".
As evidence that these facebook-reference checks are actually occurring, Here is an example of a recruiter friending me during an interview process:
Elizabeth Nuzzo,
Senior IT Recruiter @ Professional Alternative Inc.
Studied at University of Connecticut,
Lives in Boston MA
Born on May 23, 1982
It feels wrong for the hive mind to discuss Elizabeth Nuzzo's behavior against her will. But hey, it's a two edged sword.
It is a bit jarring for everyone on the internet be able to expose you and your innermost personal preferences, what you do, and how you work, why, and evaluate you based on this against your will. I figure it is inevitable that privacy becomes a thing of the past, we might as well embrace it and remember that what you do online is as important as how you present yourself during an interview.
You are never off-stage, your entire life is an interview. Sleep with one eye open.
Every time I read an article describing any practice of recruiters, I lose more respect for them. Whether it be discriminating against un-employed job-seekers or mining facebook to eliminate candidates, their practices just seem terrible. Employers expect employees to keep a barrier between their personal and professional lives, but do not respect that barrier in the other direction.
still have pictures of the intoxicated you with your shirt off in 23 degree weather with the ‘A’ from “WILDCATS” painted on your chest during a football game (not exactly their idea of a “team player”).
How in the world does that affect ones ability to perform a job?
If the HR person DOESN'T like the Wildcats...you are NOT getting the job.
Seriously...think outside your little world. HR folks are people who get to be a God for a moment and choose who they want their boss to interview.
HR practices to schedule an interview was based on how many "key words" appeared in your resume....count the words and if there are enough move them to the interview.
Seriously...HR folks may be the receptionist at the front desk, the mail boy who got the resume, an intern who wants the job someone is applying for....HR folks are PEOPLE...think about this folks!
Poorly researched article.