[ishkabible]

I almost can't wait 'till this happens to me so I can smugly say "I don't have a facebook account"

[Choscura]

I wrote a reply to the other reddit thread about this earlier.

to recap:

• give employer limited access rights (let them see profile information, but not personal correspondences) and don't give them the ability to write anything to your account (view only)
  
• charge them (higher salary, bonuses, etc) for using what is essentially priveliged information.
  
• get everything in writing

[negligible]

I saw this elsewhere, in a broader article rather than one guys anecdote, and I wondered how they intended to prove otherwise if you just simply claimed you did not use social media.

My Facebook isn't under my real name and it never has been.


Apparently some schools/colleges are also requiring this information in the US. They have an "social officer" who everyone is required to add as a friend (with rights to see all posts).

This post has been edited by negligible: 21 March 2012 - 11:56 AM

[SpartanGuy07]

negligible, on 21 March 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

Apparently some schools/colleges are also requiring this information in the US. They have an "social officer" who everyone is required to add as a friend (with rights to see all posts).

This would be ridiculous and a complete invasion of privacy.

Just reading this thread and thinking about it makes me want to cancel my facebook right now, not that I ever actually use it...I don't really give a crap where everyone else "checks-in" or what they did today or how their kids are little monsters or how their parents never buy them what they want...If I care I would ask you, not look to see if you posted that info for the world to see.

[jon.kiparsky]

negligible, on 21 March 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

Apparently some schools/colleges are also requiring this information in the US. They have an "social officer" who everyone is required to add as a friend (with rights to see all posts).

Okay, I'll bite. Links please.

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 21 March 2012 - 12:13 PM

[modi123_1]

Heh.. reminds me of the 12 year old suing people left and right..

https://www.zdnet.co...girl-sues/10350

[rgfirefly24]

jon.kiparsky, on 21 March 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

negligible, on 21 March 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

Apparently some schools/colleges are also requiring this information in the US. They have an "social officer" who everyone is required to add as a friend (with rights to see all posts).

Okay, I'll bite. Links please.

Took me a while, but i found an article about it Govt. agencies, colleges demand applicants' Facebook passwords

[modi123_1]

Would it make a difference if you didn't have to hand over your password but instead had to install an app that monitors posting? That UDilligence joint does that and tailors the app to the university's policies. See - no fuss and no muss and you still have the keys to your account secure!.

Quote

UDiligence does not require access to, or use of, the student-athlete's username/password or friending of anyone to monitor their accounts. Instead, UDiligence uses apps for each athletic department, working within the Terms of Use established by each social network. By installing the apps, the student-athletes grant UDiligence access, consistent with their athletic department's social media policy. The app process is an established protocol used by every social network app from popular games to media outlets.

http://www.udiligence.com/

[lordofduct]

Schools can go eat a bag of dicks as well.

When I was in high school the school demanded all sorts of odd things from random students on occasion. Including myself.

One most heinous, IMO, was when a kid in school was caught having made plans to blow up the school. This spurred a categorical lock down on specific children they deemed "unstable"... myself included. I was included mostly because one of the APs had it out for me and wanted me expelled, he had me before the county board on several occasions, each time his request turned down because my grades were perfects and my offenses were circumstantial and non-violent.

Anyways, the kid who wanted to blow up the school had been friends of a buddy of mine. Also because he was on said list of kids to watch, purely based on taste in music and style of clothing, they deemed it reasonable to demand watch on my buddy in and out of school. They even went through the police department to confiscate my friends family computer to make sure nothing illicit was on it (on the grounds that because they were possibly "friends" he MIGHT have had access though they had no proof the kid ever once stepped foot in my buddies house).



So schools, you can go eat a dick... or as the archetypical father has always said, "you wanna cry? How about I give you something to cry about!"

[jon.kiparsky]

Quote

Took me a while, but i found an article about it Govt. agencies, colleges demand applicants' Facebook passwords

Nothing in that supports the claim, though. The closest it comes is the reference to this policy which only says that the athlete's employer will watch their conduct in social media. As entertainers for hire, they should expect that their employer will monitor their public persona, that's part of the deal. (If they're still claiming to be students, we can all have a laugh and then get back to the real discussion)

What that policy does not say is that athletes will provide any access beyond ordinary public access that you and I have to this player's social media accounts.

The reference to "uDiligence" leads us to this:

Quote

UDiligence does not require access to, or use of, the student-athlete's username/password or friending of anyone to monitor their accounts. Instead, UDiligence uses apps for each athletic department, working within the Terms of Use established by each social network.

So they're denying the claim. The claim might yet be true, but at a cursory glance, I'm smelling a bit of a hysteria getting under way. After all, there's no reason why the monitoring described would require or even benefit from having password access to the players' account.

So, in the absence of any actual reporting backing this up, I'm staying pretty skeptical on this.
It's one thing to find a report of one or several employers wanting this - though I don't see the benefit to the employer, certainly not a benefit that outweighs the legal exposure they'd incur. It's another thing to start blowing it up to "schools are demanding this from students". No, what you've supported is the claim that schools which treat their athletic programs as cash cows try to protect their investment in their so-called "student athletes" by monitoring what they say publicly. I don't see that that's a big deal.

lordofduct, on 21 March 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

a kid in school was caught having made plans to blow up the school. This spurred a categorical lock down on specific children they deemed "unstable"... myself included. I was included mostly because one of the APs had it out for me and wanted me expelled, he had me before the county board on several occasions, each time his request turned down because my grades were perfects and my offenses were circumstantial and non-violent.

... they deemed it reasonable to demand watch on my buddy in and out of school. They even went through the police department to confiscate my friends family computer to make sure nothing illicit was on it (on the grounds that because they were possibly "friends" he MIGHT have had access though they had no proof the kid ever once stepped foot in my buddies house).

Okay, now we're talking about actual privacy violations. Thanks for illustrating the difference.

Listening to what someone says when they stand up on a soap box - not a privacy violation.
Breaking into someone's house and taking their private writings on the grounds of association with a supposedly suspicious character - definitely a privacy violation.

That should help to clear things up a little.

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 21 March 2012 - 01:30 PM

[lordofduct]

Applications like UDiligence are granted access to your private posts though. If I mark something as private, it's not public, it's not a soap box, it's private with me and the friends I've chosen to let hear it.

The App is essentially treated like a "Friend" in your friends list. So the App is merely a digital replacement of being forced to have a friend add with your coach. I'm not forced to appear as if I'm "soap boxing" to the school, when I had intended it not to be.

If they want to come by and see my PUBLIC posts, go for it, I've marked them public for a reason. But if they want to come by and see my friends only/private posts... well I've said many times what they can do then.




My reason for showing such an extreme case of school's invading privacy is to prove that BEFORE social media existed (note that story is from 1998) schools were more than willing to cross boundaries. I do NOT give such institutions any length of rope, may it only be a smidge (in the case of a FB app), because when you give such an institution a little, they'll certainly come back for a lot... as they've shown in the past.

And for what? So they can "protect their cash cow". Fuck their cash cow, not only do they treat athletes like indentured servants, dangling scholarships over their heads (note not all get scholarships, and not all are 100%) as if that's sufficient compensation for something they make several hundred fold in profits from... fuck you you get to breech my privacy.

I will not condone golden cow worship, now off with their foreskins!

You're in the business of having young people as your product branding. Sorry assholes, the fact children screw up some times is part of the risk YOU TAKE, not the risk the young person takes, their risk is suffering their own consequences!

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 21 March 2012 - 01:40 PM

[jon.kiparsky]

lordofduct, on 21 March 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

Applications like UDiligence are granted access to your private posts though.

Once again, they say different:

Quote

UDiligence does not require access to, or use of, the student-athlete's username/password or friending of anyone to monitor their accounts. Instead, UDiligence uses apps for each athletic department, working within the Terms of Use established by each social network.

Are they lying? Companies do lie, so it's not out of the question, but what makes you think they are?

[lordofduct]

The statement says it doesn't require password or username.

It doesn't say it doesn't have access to posts marked private. It says it works within the terms of use, and you should go see what the terms of use an APP is allowed when you add it to your account.

As I said, my wall posts can be considered "private". As I can choose who can or can't see them. Thusly it is not a public "soap box". Coercing me to add an APP is equivalent to coercing me to add an unwanted Friend.

[RetardedGenius]

Alternatively, disable all of the public features on your Facebook profile. Plausible deniability.

[jon.kiparsky]

Okay, going back to the article cited, we find this assertion:

Quote

Student-athletes in colleges around the country also are finding out they can no longer maintain privacy in Facebook communications because schools are requiring them to "friend" a coach or compliance officer, giving that person access to their “friends-only” posts.

Supported by this:

Quote

Schools are also turning to social media monitoring companies with names like UDilligence and Varsity Monitor for software packages that automate the task.

And it turns out that this is directly contradicted by the public statement of uDiligence. Again, they may be lying, but that's where things stand in terms of evidence presented.

Now, if you have anything material to add to that, that'd be interesting to read, but so far there's nothing beyond a random blog post saying "students say" this is happening (notice, no names or even anonymous quotes from actual students). The random blog post can't even spell the name of the company that's supposed to be doing this. If I'm supposed to be getting hot under the collar about this, I'm happy to do that. I enjoy a good righteous fury as much as anyone. I'd like to see something a little bit convincing though, just to get me in the mood.