Nicole:

I don't think people ever should be forced to give up their passwords to any account for any reason. Employees have a right to privacy outside of work and it's up to the legislature or the courts to put a stop to this.

But if they can't or won't, then it's up to Facebook to provide a limited pass to a person's FB page. This would allow the employre to see a limited part of your public account, but they can't access private messages and they can't go outside the limits of your account (to your friend's accounts).

An employer pass would save you from giving up your password and the employer couldn't go mucking around in your private affairs (or the private affairs of your friends).

It would be limited in scope and it would expire.

As I say employers *shouldn't* have this right period, but we live in strange times and we may have to come up with ways to deal with this kind of thing in the future. This is just one idea.

Hi Paul. The ACLU's attorney did post a statement recently. Here it is:

It's an invasion of privacy for private employers to insist on looking at people's private Facebook pages as a condition of employment or consideration in an application process. People are entitled to their private lives. You'd be appalled if your employer insisted on opening up your postal mail to see if there was anything of interest inside. It's equally out of bounds for an employer to go on a fishing expedition through a person's private social media account.

Nothing the rest of us haven't said. But it's good to have the ACLU on this. Also, the article I linked above notes that "the ACLU of Maryland is fighting for a social media privacy bill in the state."

Facebook has replaced the email with too many CC's and Replies to All.

Great insight...I think that is correct...even GMail has evolved into what is basically a threaded forum.

I think it's ironic that some people want to have as many 'friends' as possible as this is essentially breaking this useful function.

This seems like the Achilles Heel for Facebook as a marketing device.   How do you reconcile "broadcasting" commercial media to a structure designed to filter out all but personal non-commerical messaging?

Also, I guess I am not a fan of software that tries to model itself too close to the domain.  The best programs are not a one to one mapping, but create their own reality.  In that sense, Facebook outplays Google because it is what it is.   But saying that...how do you charge admission...

"You sound like an advertisement for Google+"

Very ironic as I'm not too active on it, relatively speaking, nor am I very impressed with its business or marketing capabilities.

And Facebook does allow different levels of how public statements are, by the way.  Sure, people generally don't use it because the interface for it is horrible, but it's there.

Consider how much data everyone is pumping out every minute of every day.  Even though sharing is incredibly powerful, the sharing limitations is one of the reasons why social media has become popular.  After all, if we wanted to share everything with everyone before social media, we had email with waaaay too many CC's that got ignored by a lot of people.

Facebook has replaced the email with too many CC's and Replies to All.  At the same time, the 'friending' element has also been important as the Gatekeeper, restricting the flow of information.  I think it's ironic that some people want to have as many 'friends' as possible as this is essentially breaking this useful function.

You sound like an advertisement for Google+

Google has more "structure" to its social circles and information control.

Maybe it's the all or nothing issues with Facebook.

All friends in the same pool...rather than, as you suggest, very tailored disclosure, or "need to know".

@Jabilo:  I DO make a living within an industry which requires a degree of information sharing, and while I make all my data public I could just as easily operate with various degrees of how open my data is.

On top of that, it's actually beneficial from a business perspective to actually limit what kinds of data is shared.  Because my Facebook network is made up of friends and co-workers, I have to respect how much and what kinds of data I am potentially including into their news streams.

My peers don't need to know about the kinds of video games I play unless there is some marketing or data elements of interest.  For my friends, my opinion is a little more meaningful as many are game players and it lets them know which ones we might be able to do together online.  (My immediate family is barely on Facebook, my in-laws are a little more active but we don't have too many shared interests).

So when it comes to required sharing, it's even more important to restrict access to data, not for privacy but simply because some parties won't care to know about things -- not respecting this just pollutes their data.  If the block me because my updates are too frequent or too meaningless, that only weakens my network and what use is that?  Far better that I respect my audience -- even if it's just personal -- than to be totally open and full of noise.

In closing:  NO to requiring password disclosure, NO to having access to all the data out there in an unorganized way, and NO to 'always sharing'.  The former is a violation of privacy, the latters are to prevent noise pollution and preserve network integrity.

"But how else to control this kind of abuse?"

Wel in such a circumstance, we will normally go for the lesser of the two evils. This anti-social behavior is so unacceptable and should be nip in the bud before it goes wild. So crafting a legislation against it will be a first response.

What has been the response of the ACLU and the EFF?

I'm not really sure if you're reconciling organizations and individuals properly or with as much detail as is needed to answer the issue.

You are arguing about individuality and privacy, but what happens when you want to make your living within a group that demands some degree of information sharing?

As I stated to Nicole, giving out passwords is extreme and unnecessary, but with Facebook, I believe you can make all your data public, which is the real question.

Jabailo, I disagree entirely; a problem inherent with one system will not be fixed by introducing a problem into another system.

This is coming from someone in marketing and data is part of what I do.  It is my belief that it's in the best interest of organizations to keep data anonymous and unidentifiable, not only as a respect of privacy but also as a security measure.  If you can't tie the data to anyone, you're less accountable if someone steals it from you.

At no point does anyone have the right to demand a login or password information.  As a general rule people are not intelligent or responsible enough to properly use any of the information they gather.  I wouldn't trust myself to remain impartial, never mind anyone with the entitled gall to think they should be able to rummage through my things.  I have nothing to hide in my Facebook profile and I wouldn't stand for that kind of nonsense. 

The problem here isn't social, it's the control freaks who can't stand the idea that each individual has the power to be heard. Yes, some people abuse it, but demanding access is worse because it also assumes guilt without proof of innocence.   The people demanding passwords are the ones who should be banned from the very networks they wish to covet, or be forced to give up their passwords so they can truly understand the reason why this is wrong.

Nicole, the States is the country of tolerance, and fight any discrimination, What if I have  double or triple identity and every of them needs its own profile?:)))))