I hereby resign - <AUTHOR> http://raganwald.posterous.com/i-hereby-resign <comment><USER2> I think you would have been justified saying "This requirement is ethically suspect, I will not be a party to it, and if the business requires otherwise then our time together is at an end.", even if semi-coercively browsing folks' Facebooks was demonstrably a wonderful idea for the business. That said, bully for you, and if it takes more than thirty seconds to line up a new position in this market I'm sure many of us would be willing to assist.

<comment><USER3> I am not now, nor will I ever be, an employee of a company that compels a Director of Development to follow HR edicts about hiring practices without mutually respectful consultation.

<comment><USER4> Oh, this is where the on-topic discussion is. I had to wade through a pretty meaty Google flamewar to get here...

I have a question about this Facebook fiasco: what exactly does HR hope to discover and how would they plan to use such intelligence?

The reason I ask is that here in South Africa, when applying to a position (from my experience as a business intelligence consultant) I must release HR to check both my credit history as well as submit to having my fingerprints taken by an electronic device which connects to a governmental database and checks my criminal record for any misconduct.

Are these checks common place in your part of the world?

Can you see anything that HR in South Africa might gain by snooping through Facebook that wouldn't be outweighed by the information already available to them?

<comment><USER5> Wow, I've never heard of anyone in South Africa with a non-government job being asked to have their fingerprints taken. Admittedly, my background is mostly tech startups, but even friends who worked at big-ish companies (Didata, CS Holdings, &c.) have never mentioned it.

Credit history is a mostly used as a poor indication that you won't be tempted to sell company or user private information. It might also be an indicator of poor judgement or other bad traits, I guess. I think only one company ever asked this of me, and they were certainly the most backward of those I interviewed at.

Basically, companies are trying to avoid hiring bad people. Whether it's because they've bought into the "it is impossible to fire anyone" story or not, it is costly in terms of time and wasted effort and disruption. And, generalising from an admittedly small sample size, I'd say they're not as good or as introspective about how they hire as the few (admittedly really good) US companies I'm familiar with.

<comment><USER6> I, like anyone else wanting a work visa at the time, had to provide a clear HIV certificate to South African immigration.

Once I had the permit I spent 10 months in KwaZulu-Natal - an area with 40% HIV incidence, and at an employer with (anonymously tested) 20-25% incidence.

<comment><USER7> I'm in SA also. I thought that we are not legally obliged to disclose our HIV status to employers

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Its as simple as "There are certain questions you can't ask during job interviews". Its been illegal to ask these questions for 20 years, and nearly no one disputes this. A peak at the prospect's Facebook page answers _all of them_. This should be the biggest no-brainer in HR history.

<comment><USER9> NOTE: I don't think employers should be allowed to ask for special access to a candidate's Facebook page. I'm not arguing for Facebook access below, but rather I'm arguing that I don't necessary think current law can be construed to prevent it.

I'm not convinced that theory is correct. There's a difference between asking a prohibited question, and acquiring the answer to a prohibited question incidental to something else.

To give an obvious example, you can't ask about race and sex, but the employer is going to find out that information at the face to face interviewer by simply observing the candidate.

Or consider criminal background checks, which are allowed in some states. A criminal background check might turn up information that makes a candidate's sexual orientation, national origin, or religion apparent.

I don't think that an employer would find themselves in legal trouble for doing a criminal background check that turned up that information, because they weren't doing the background check to acquire the prohibited information.

As a practical matter, though, even if it is legal to look at Facebook, it is a bad idea. Suppose you do not hire a candidate, and the candidate sues claiming that you didn't hire them because of their marital status. During discover, the plaintiff finds some emails between employees containing disparaging remarks about people of his status.

If you have not looked at Facebook or otherwise snooped into their private life, you will offer as part of your defense that you did not know their marital status, and so could not possibly have discriminated on that basis. Even if you do have some managers who dislike people of the plaintiff's status, they could not have acted on that dislike in this case.

If you have snooped, then you no longer have that defense. You are in the much less desirable position of having to argue that your people (who have been caught disparaging people of plaintiff's status) did not use that information, even though they did have access to it.

I can easily see this being the difference between a plaintiff win and a defendant win.

<comment><USER10> > To give an obvious example, you can't ask about race and sex, but the > employer is going to find out that information at the face to face > interviewer by simply observing the candidate.

Even on those cases, it is not obvious. A person that looks like a man might consider himself a woman, for example. I'm currently working on the Chilean Census, and, even though we are supposed to ask for the person's sex, we can't make any judgment about it. If we enquire further than what the person says, we are in for a lot of trouble.

<comment><USER11> In the US gender isn't a protected class.

<comment><USER12> That's incorrect. Race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, familial status, disability, veteran status, and genetic information are all considered protected classes. In some states sexual orientation is also protected, but unfortunately it is not at a federal level at this time.

<comment><USER13> Thanks for that.

In England we have Sex, Sexual Preference, Race, Religion, Age, and Disability.

There's a Rehabilitation of Offenders Act which covers what you're allowed to do with people who have a criminal record.

<comment><USER14> And gender reassignment, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Even though the content of the letter wasn't anything new (the same thing we've been reading about frequently on HN and other tech sites in the last couple of weeks) I found that it was well written (and chilling!) to the point where if I needed to explain to someone why it is so bad for employers to request Facebook access, this is the page I would send them to.

Great read, thanks for taking the time to write it :)

<comment><USER16> As the first person to upvote, I started writing this comment, then realized I had nothing to say beyond "The best post I've read on the subject. That it's a letter of resignation is a bonus.". You sir get a hat tip from me for writing the comment I wanted to write but couldn't articulate.

Bravo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Sorry to be dense, but is this fiction or an actual open resignation letter? I don't know anything about raganwald.

<comment><USER3> Fictional. raganwald is too much of a slacker to be hired as a Director of Software Development

<comment><USER18> It wasn't quite clear to me. I know you write in metaphors sometimes, but it was hard to tell if this was real or not.

<comment><USER19> I liked the hint he dropped here:

"But today something went seriously wrong. I have been interviewing senior hires for the crucial tech lead position on the Fizz Buzz team, and while several walked out in a huff when I asked them to let me look at their Facebook, one young lady smiled and said I could help myself."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I have been reading about this and it not only seems like an absurd invasion of privacy, but in violation of several federal employment laws. Being somewhat familiar with employment law, I would be nervous to ask a prospective employee ANYTHING that was not directly related to past work or the position in question. Employment law is one of the most murky and sensitive areas of the law, and I'm convinced that the only reason there aren't more lawsuits is that most people simply don't know their rights.

Let me cite a specific example. I once sat in on a lecture by a former attorney-turned successful media entrepreneur who owned a fairly successful magazine. During a routine interview for an art director position, one of her staff members who was conducting the interview noticed that the candidate was wearing a Yarmulke. She said something to the effect of "During certain seasonal spikes, we have a huge increase in workload that can extend into the weekends. I see that you're Jewish, and I am too. Do you think working on weekends is something you can do?"

The interview concluded, and they exchanged goodbyes. The interviewer expressed interest but asked the candidate to send over some work samples, but the samples never came. Instead, after a few weeks a letter arrived from the candidate's attorney informing the magazine that they were being sued. They settled out of court for nearly $50,000.

That seems pretty egregious and the woman was pretty naive to bring up such a sensitive matter in an interview, but I don't see how it's any worse than demanding to see somebody's protected Facebook account.

<comment><USER21> This whole demanding to see somebody's facebook account thing - do they want to read my old love letters too? The last letter from my dearly departed Father? My online dating profile? What about my now unused university email account?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I have a stupid question. Has anyone ever been asked this in an interview? Or knows anyone that has been asked/asked this question? I've been reading a lot about this situation over the last month, but have never heard anyone say it happened to them or someone they know. Just stories that seem like rumors/gossip.

I do not know many people who are right out of college and interviewing (and that's who I assume would be asked this sort of question), so maybe my network is too small to have heard of it happening.

Also, I realize many people will sign NDAs about the interview process, I am not looking for juicy details of when/where/how it happened. I'd just love to know if people actually had this happen at one point in the last few years.

<comment><USER23> People are actually willing to do an NDA for an interview? Why would anyone want to work for a company like that?

<comment><USER24> I interviewed for a medical device company a few years back, I signed an NDA for it, they showed me some cool technology they were working on, I got to take a tour around the place, and actually see what was being developed, how their processes work, and how far along they are on certain things. How they design, and fab up their products. Companies that make you sign NDA's are really just protecting their back. How do they know I wasn't actually working for some rival company, and just got their interview to see what was going on. If that was the case, an NDA gives them a bit more leverage in court. If it was just some random joe like myself, no big deal. Corporate espionage probably does happen. (I say probably, as I can't say i've ever witnessed it though.)

<comment><USER25> We had a couple of engineers "working" for russian intelligence at our place for years, and no this is NOT a joke!

Edit: They even got convicted for it, belief it or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This exact same process is what kept me from applying to ycombinator this year. Asking for my Facebook url is the same considering everyone at ycombinator has whatever access they need.

Raised $20k in two weeks on my own instead, for a much less percentage than ycombinator would have.

<comment><USER27> You do know that anyone can already look up your Facebook page anyway right?

Y-Combinator isn't asking for you to give them access to log in as you on Facebook, they're asking for a link to your _public_ page.

<comment><USER28> Is it "public" knowledge that HN user eternalban is actually Mr. X in real life?

Btw, if that is not age discrimination -- "your facebook coordinates, please" -- I don't know what is .. /tongue/cheek

<comment><USER29> wouldn't tongue be in /cheek/?

<comment><USER28> (just saw this). Man, I labored over that order of precedence and figured (cheek (tongue (..) tongue) cheek) would map to /tongue/cheek /g

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm going to create my own employment law honeypot Facebook account today!

<comment><USER31> I am a gay fundie transgender black jewish pregnant woman with narcolepsy who has beat cancer, here is my FB passwd.

<comment><USER4> Are you insinuatIng that only black people can suffer from beat cancer?

As a white boy who has the funk, I take exception to that as I have lost a friend to beat cancer and let me tell you: it ain't no joke.

Watching your homie lose his beat step by step is a terrible thing and it leaves you with the worst feeling that maybe... just maybe, the rhythm really is going to get you.

<comment><USER31> Gloria Estefan tried to raise awareness to beat cancer with that famous charity song as well!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I find it infuriating that his argument against facebook spying isn't "this is wrong", but "we will have to hire dead weight, and could be exposed to legal liability." I of course don't mean to criticize the author personally; it's just sad how far culture has slid that this is the go-to argument.

<comment><USER3> Speaking as the author, this is not my go-to argument, nor do I suggest it be anyone's go-to argument. I assure you that in "real life," I would never agree to such an edict.

But it's like this: I felt that this particular argument hasn't received much notice, and I thought people would find it interesting to think about.

<comment><USER32> Well, at least I'm not the only one who took your post literally. The argument is interesting. I feel like the reason it's overlooked might be a realization that once you have to make such an argument, all is lost, evil has won, everything decent will come to an end, &c.

<comment><USER33> Didn't all that already happen when we created Facebook accounts?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I think a lawsuit of epic proportions would be the perfect thing to staunch the tide of this kind of fascist invasion of privacy.

If someone gets $5 million for this it would stop it pretty quick.

</comment><comment><USER35> Can someone explain in reasonable terms, why an HR manager would would choose to enact a policy that requires perspective employees to surrender their Facebook activity as a condition of employment?

I am really trying to understand what logical motivation is directing this latest craze. Was it a recent HR conference session that sold HR managers on the idea? An article written in an HR trade journal that cited definitive stats that sealed the argument?

<comment><USER36> The published examples that I have seen were teachers and prison guards. Employers of these folks want evidence of fraternization with students and inmate families, respectively.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I don't have a facebook account. I used to, but stopped using it about 4 years ago. I am looking forward to the day someone asks me that question. I wonder what their reaction is going to be. Possible scenarios:

\- They will believe me, drop the subject. \- They will ask to see my twitter/linkedin/etc. account instead. \- They will think that I am lying and stop the interview process, which is the most dangerous one.

<comment><USER38> 100% it'll be the later...it's expected that you have a facebook account..if you don't they'll just think you are lying...and it must be REALLY bad for you to lie about it...you are probably a drug user, or worse

<comment><USER39> Then that's a sign that the company doesn't understand the kind of anti- Facebook backlash that's come up in recent years. What else about the realities of today's world might they not grasp?

Every job interview is just as much an opportunity for you to get to know a prospective employer as vice versa.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Do you know why small startups/companies don't have an HR person right off the bat? It is because the damn concept is demeaning at the very least.

Who wants to be thought of as a "resource"? Above all else I feel like culture fit is the #1 priority in hiring someone. And if a company's culture encourages peeking into peoples' private lives that is disgraceful.

The modern corporation is a vestige of the 1900s where factory workers all had to show up to a central location and toil for hours on end.

Is it possible to create a future where a "company" has thousands of employees but still retain all the benefits of a small group? Already we see it happening. Perhaps the 21st century will bring about this dynamic shift.

<comment><USER41> The reason you'd want an HR person would be to keep the company from accidentally doing illegal stuff like what happens in this story. Startups can get away with it because they're small with few assets and their legal risks around hiring are smallish compared to their many other risks. As companies get larger, statistically rare events become more likely and at the same time they have more to lose.

So I'd say no, it's not possible in a large company to get by without HR, but there's still a lot of ways to improve the process.

<comment><USER42> I don't expect to ever be rid of HR, but can we as an industry at least collectively stop pretending that HR is on the side of the employees? This is a pervasive, explicit lie that's told by HR departments everywhere.

Sometimes I wonder how HR personnel sleep at night.

<comment><USER43> Oh, they sleep quite well: it's nice work, if you can get it.

The workload is incredibly low, and the hardest task is to find something new to do this year at the Christmas party. Because of huge legal responsibilities nobody will actually pay attention to, the salary is fairly good as well. Since the policies you enact are all drawn in accordance with (and full knowledge by) upper management, you can't be held _personally_ accountable of anything anyway, so when/if shit hits the fan, the company will cover you with all the power of their legal team.

The rest is all corporate doublespeak, not unlike what you'll experience in any other managerial job. I bet you met at least one direct superior, in your life, who told you he was on your side vs the company/upper management; chances are that he was being as honest as any HR personnel will ever be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> chao- I am not planning on being interviewed for a new job any time soon. Despite that, when the whole "Facebook disclosure during interview/hire" topic broke, I began preparing my short list of ways to act indignant/offended or to lay on some thick sarcasm that gets across just how horrible they should feel for even suggesting something of the sort.

This blows everything I had out of the water. Props for the creativity and execution.

<comment><USER44> As someone about to graduate college and interviewing at a number of firms I'm sort of hoping one of them asks for my Facebook password so I can laugh in their face while I accept one of the other several offers I've received.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> _Now of course, you would never refuse to hire someone because they plan to exercise their legal right to parental leave, would you?_

I'm sympathetic to the principal message of this post, but regarding the bit about parental leave: Has it really come to this? If someone takes a job intending to "exercise their legal right to parental leave" shortly after joining, it's the _company_ that's the bad guy for wanting to stop it? To my eye, such behavior identifies the employee a special interest parasite, feeding at the public trough with a smug sense of entitlement.

It's effectively illegal to ask a job applicant, "Are you intending to take an extended paid vacation shortly after starting?" That's not progress—it's madness.

<comment><USER46> I've thought about this a lot and I can't really come to any alternative solutions.

Three months ago you found out you're pregnant. Finally! you'd been trying for almost a year! Today you walk into work and find out the company is bankrupt, clean out your desk.

What are you supposed to to? Not look for a job for 6-7 months? Tell every prospective employer you're happy to start now, but in a few weeks you'll be out on prolonged leave?

The only possible thing that they can do with that information is discriminate.

<comment><USER45> I suggest avoiding the word "discriminate"—its emotional overtones are too strong. Here we're merely _differentiating_ between multiple candidates, and doing our best to be fair. Enshrined in law is the notion that it's unfair not to hire someone merely because she's planning to take maternity leave shortly after starting. I admit that calling this "unfair" confounds my intuition—forcing a company to subsidize a new mother strikes me as unfair, and neglecting to disclose a pregnancy borders on fraud—but perhaps I can trigger a sense of unfairness even without reference to the company's well- being.

Suppose Alice and Barbara both apply for a job for which they are equally qualified. Alice is newly pregnant, but (per the law) the prospective employer isn't allowed to inquire about this. If the company hires Alice, the company suffers— _and so does Barbara_. It's impossible to afford pregnant women special treatment without harming women who aren't (and perhaps don't plan to become) pregnant.

Life is full of choice and chance. When trying to legislate away the consequences, expect bad side-effects.

<comment><USER47> What if Alice didn't know she was pregnant -- or wasn't even pregnant -- at the time of the interview? The process of hiring can drag on for weeks and months for many industries and companies.

The employer made what you've described as a coin flip choice and have to stand by that decision. Life is never "fair" in the way you're defining fairness in this case.

<comment><USER45> It's the same basic situation, just not as severe. Alice undoubtedly has some inkling that she may become pregnant, even if she thinks it unlikely. If Barbara isn't pregnant or planning to become pregnant, and has taken steps to prevent pregnancy, she is still a better hire than Alice, all things being equal. In a competitive market for labor under complete freedom of contract, a company could ask both Alice and Barbara about their plans to become a mother. The employment contract could also include clauses contingent on pregnancy, such as indemnifying the company against the lost productivity caused by unexpected maternity leave. The details would be determined by the relative bargaining power of the company and prospective employee. Those offended by such practices could simply decline to apply to such companies.

In short, under freedom of contract, company policies with respect to pregnancy would depend on free negotiations between buyers (employers) and sellers (applicants). The solutions would likely vary widely, each tailored to the needs of its particular industry. In effect, the _status quo_ consists of a mandatory one-size-fits-all (or perhaps one-size-fits-none) solution that has many more negative side-effects that its proponents are prepared to admit. ( _Exercise_ : Show that compulsory compensation for maternity leave necessarily _increases_ unemployment and _lowers_ wages.) The idea that current policies necessarily benefit women is naïve at best, evil at worst.

Incidentally, there's nothing necessarily wrong with governments subsidizing procreation. But deciding whether and how to do so requires judgment and wisdom—qualities not particularly evident in those currently in charge.

<comment><USER47> As someone who became mother due to the lack of active prevention of pregnancy (call it a pleasant surprise), I am of course of a different opinion than yours.

There is nothing stopping either Alice or Barbara from lying about their procreation plans. Outside of abstinence, which cannot be proved or disproved by anyone other than the female in question (and it is not even something she has 100% control on -- unwanted sex do happen in this world), there is no foolproof birth control method. As such, and without trampling on employees' privacy, there's no point for an employer to inquiring about procreation plan.

I don't believe the clauses contingent on pregnancy is appropriate on employment contracts neither. If maternity leave is such a big loss on productivity that a company needs compensation for, one can argue either the market should already have a product for it (e.g. some form of "maternity insurance" provided to employers), or the government should subsidize the employer.

In Canada, where @raganwald and I currently reside, employers are not legally required to provide compensation for persons on maternity or parental leave. (Maternity leave is for mothers giving birth only; parental leave can be split between parents of either birth or adoption.) Instead, the government provides partial compensation. It's up to the employer to decide whether to provide additional compensation on top of government benefits. I don't know where you are located nor your local laws regarding maternity leave. In your opinion, would a policy similar to Canada's be suffice, or do you still want more protection for the employers?

I suppose you are opposed to Arizona's new birth control pill bill HB2625 then? [tongue in cheek]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> For anyone curious what this is in reference to, it's the news from a couple weeks ago regarding potential employers asking for Facebook logins as a part of interviews: [http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-03-20/job- appli...](http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-03-20/job-applicants- facebook/53665606/1)

</comment><comment><USER49> Well played Raganwald, well played.

The Nixon resignation letter was a nice touch. Perhaps the most interesting of times arises when firmly entrenched control structures are threatened. The Facebook login fiasco, and it is a fiasco, is one such example.

</comment><comment><USER50> This post points more to the absurdly litigious nature of hiring/firing. It's an interesting exploration of the matter. Approaching the problem of employee privacy at an oblique angle. It won't scare any HR departments though. Most have systems in place to create reasons for not hiring or firing. All that you've guaranteed is that the HR person will be making all hiring decisions.

Fundamentally your best defense against discrimination is being too good to ignore.

<comment><USER51> That may be the best defense against discrimination, but many people are discriminated against who simply aren't that good, yet are still good enough to deserve to make some kind of living at some kind of job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Is this a common thing in US? I can't think of any good reason for an employer to get access to a prospective employees account. Sounds like the equivalent of asking to access a person's home to make sure it is well kept and that they have good taste.

<comment><USER16> It's slowly becoming one. I suspect this will stop the moment someone sues. Because I have total confidence that person will win.

EDIT:

Let me go ahead and put emphasis on "slowly".

As waterlesscloud points out, right now it's very uncommon.

The only reason it's on the agenda at all is because there's been headlines about insane employers asking to see employees Facebook profiles.

<comment><USER53> What is infuriating is that there is no political will to put a legal stop to this practice. I suspect that this means that as businesses learn how to alleviate the OP's concerns that they will do it more and more as time goes on, until it becomes the new normal.

Libertarianism being the dominant political philosophy of the moment such encroachments seem inevitable.

<comment><USER54> _Libertarianism being the dominant political philosophy of the moment_

I fail to understand how one could look at the events of the last decade and determine that the major problems are that people have too much freedom and government has too little power.

<comment><USER55> When unemployment skyrockets and employers may begin colluding to wield all the indirect coercion they like, because threatening homelessness and possibly starvation is somehow more ethical than threatening violence, that's a libertarian policy towards non-state power.

<comment><USER54> Interestingly, most of the employers that have been specifically identified as demanding Facebook passwords are government agencies: [http://courantblogs.com/investigative-reporting/claim- check-...](http://courantblogs.com/investigative-reporting/claim-check- employers-asking-for-facebook-passwords/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I would never coerce anyone to look through their Facebook account (or email, or personal photo album, or their journal, etc) under any circumstance, especially a job interview where the candidate feels pressured to be obliging. What a shameful act!

</comment><comment><USER41> This is great as a work of fiction that vividly gets across the issues. In practice, I would expect companies that are legally on the ball to work around it somehow. I'm not a lawyer or an HR person, but the obvious answer is to outsource background checks to an outside firm that only includes legally permissible information in a written report to the hiring committee. (Don't they do that already for background checks?)

<comment><USER57> yes if you "need" to vet people there are procedures (and quite expensive ones) to do that. However 99% of companies don't "need" to vet any employees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Interesting that people are so up in arms about having prospective employers browse their facebook, but have no problem when asked if their employers can peruse their blood, hair, or urine under the guise of a drug test. Private, recreational drug use seems just as much nobody's business as private recreational drinking or sexual promiscuity that could be uncovered by facebook investigations...

</comment><comment><USER59> Is there a list of companies that admit to or have been accused of asking for Facebook passwords?

<comment><USER60> Orangecat linked to an investigation on the subject:

[http://courantblogs.com/investigative-reporting/claim- check-...](http://courantblogs.com/investigative-reporting/claim-check- employers-asking-for-facebook-passwords/)

Original post:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3791357>

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> I wonder what the employer's response would be to "I don't have a Facebook page?" Would I be required to get one in order to give them the password?

Also, it seems they would be selecting for people who were willing to trade passwords for money in the interview. The decision to trade sensitive data has already been made, it's now just a matter of negotiating price.

<comment><USER62> They're response would probably depend on whether they already know you have a Facebook account. But assuming you got away with it - if it's the type of company that is asking for Facebook passwords, then it's type the company that's likely to fire you later when they find out that you lied during the interview.

I haven't had to experience this yet, but I would like to think I'd just decline and say they are free to look at whatever public information is available on my Facebook page.

<comment><USER61> I wouldn't lie about it, in fact I can't see ever consenting to such a thing (giving out a password to any service to someone it doesn't belong to). But there are actually people out there that don't have a FB account. I was wondering how an employer would deal with that. Other people would probably ghost their FB, give up the password or friend an overseer, but never use the account again.

<comment><USER62> If you don't use FB then I suppose the company would be satisfied since they don't need to worry about what you post.

The whole thing is ridiculous. If they wanted to get dirt on most of us they'd probably find more here in our hackernews accounts. If they're going to do that we might as well give them our email password too so they can read all of our private correspondences.

I could barely believe it when I read that this was happening and people were putting up with it. I can't wait for some large company to get sued and shamed over this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> I know I'll probably get down-voted but.. isn't it unfair to take a new job and get away for 6 months for parenting purpose? And what about being lesbian.. why would a company not hire a women because of that?

I don't know, I somewhat believe that once you put something on the web, be it facebook or not, it's now public. Yeah, on my facebook I have pictures that I'd rather not show to any employers but if they choose not to hire me for _that_ , I'd rather not work at a place like this.

But, while writing this, I kind of realised that not everyone is in my position.. and not everyone is as open minded to accept homosexuals.. so I guess I understand what it's unethical.

<comment> T-hawk > isn't it unfair to take a new job and get away for 6 months for parenting > purpose?

There's a number of answers to that:

1) Biology is unfair. Birthing a child obviously takes much more effort and time from the mother than the father. We have societally chosen to make up for that a little bit by giving the mother a legally protected break from job demands.

2) It should come out in the wash on the back end. When it's time for reviews and raises, the new mother has three or six months less of productivity and accomplishments, so it's natural and not discriminatory for her to receive less reward here.

3) Maybe it IS unfair and that's why companies would seek to avoid hiring likely-to-become-pregnant women if they were not legally barred from doing so.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle of all these, in different situations. Some women can bear a child and not miss a beat in productivity at a job. Some perhaps do use maternity leave as an excuse for a vacation.

<comment><USER54> _We have societally chosen to make up for that a little bit by giving the mother a legally protected break from job demands._

In which case we should collectively pay for it rather than dumping the burden on her employer, especially since as you note that creates a disincentive to hire any woman of childbearing age.

 _When it's time for reviews and raises, the new mother has three or six months less of productivity and accomplishments, so it's natural and not discriminatory for her to receive less reward here._

Her attorney might see things differently.

<comment><USER64> > In which case we should collectively pay for it rather than dumping the > burden on her employer,

And that's how it is in most of Europe, for example. But companies are still known to try to avoid it because of the hassle of getting a replacement for the duration of maternity leave.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> So he goes along with it right up to the point where it affects him? He's outraged only when it makes his day worse?

Am I meant to applaud the protagonist in this this story? Because to me he sounds like a scumbag.

People are espousing some pretty weird morals these days.

<comment><USER3> Thanks, this was one of the ideas I was trying to get across, that by shrugging and going along with stuff like this, we're condoning and supporting it.

<comment><USER66> Thank you so much for writing it.

What is your interpretation of _why_ this protagonist allowed unethical activity to continue for so long? Just to keep his job? Or is there something more to it?

I think people have accepted a certain fatalism about corporate scumbaggery: corporate entities are complex and bound to have some unethical people within them, so why fight it? Sure; it's true that unethical people will exist in any sufficiently large set. I wouldn't quit a job at a 10,000-person company because I found out that one employee was unethical. Let's fire him and get on with our lives. But when scumbags are getting promoted in spite of, or even because of, their ethical depravity, it's a really bad thing.

I think most Americans believe that "work" and "life" are separate and that it's perfectly acceptable to be a scumbag at work because "everyone is like that". People who wouldn't even think of shoplifting have no problem damaging careers, teams, and entire companies for ridiculously short-sighted reasons.

I'd like to open a Work Court in which people can "sue" employers over the low- and mid-grade scumbaggery of the sort that isn't worth a real lawsuit. Instead of a suit taking years and burning up half the award in legal fees, it can be settled in an afternoon. This Court has no authority to collect judgments (if there are awards, they come from ad revenue) but it can censure, and the effect of the censure is to bring public exposure to unethical activity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> I read this an immediately thought 'this is an April 1st joke.'

Looks like it's science fiction :-) <http://twitter.com/#!/raganwald/status/186940946015993856>

</comment><comment><USER62> Last year we were looking for a new office manager. One girl applies & we found some public pictures she had posted on Facebook. One of them she was kissing the ass of a statue of a clown. We hired her immediately.

</comment><comment><USER68> Not only does this give companies a glimpse on how invasion of privacy is potentially bad for both parties, it also arms potential employees with a way to fight against policies that invade your privacy. Well done.

</comment><comment><USER69> Hang on a second, what if the interviewee doesn't have a Facebook account? Or just lies and says they don't have one? Would the next question be "why not" or "show us your email in-box"?

Don't tell me that not having a Facebook account now weighs against your eligibility in an interview? That would be sad. What next? Everyone must have a FB account by law?

And why didn't Braithwaite just not ask the candidates the FB question?

"Fired for refusing to invade interviewee privacy" is better than "resigns after invading interviewee privacy".

Edit... so apparently it's all fiction. Time wasted.

</comment><comment><USER70> The whole trend of bending the rules and pushing what's acceptable is rather frightening. Living in Ontario, Canada, I haven't heard of instances where any friends of mine were compelled to open up their Facebook profile. Could it be that it's just a matter of time ? It used to be that we worried about getting three good job references and not having a clean social network slate. Not having a FB account is looking pretty good to me, not that it didn't before.

</comment><comment><USER38> why do employers expect access to your facebook?

do they expect access to your email account? no...because that'd be invasion of privacy...so why is facebook different?

you are free to snoop on the public facebook page(even though thats not 100% ethical either, since you should be judging people for the way they perform at work)...but in no way should you even think of asking about getting access to private information

<comment><USER71> There are many employers who feel that they're entitled to your salary history. Some see this as a sensible request, but it always struck me as a spectacular invasion of privacy.

<comment><USER72> They feel they're entitled to ask for your salary history, which is a subtle, bur very real, distinction. (Much like some employers feel they're entitled to rummage through your Facebook account, apparently.)

By the same token, you should feel entitled to tell them your prior salary data is a personal matter, if you're uncomfortable sharing it during salary negotiations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> Anyone who actually does is this just scum. I want to invoke the obvious references but in order to avoid Godwin's Law, I will simply say being the one to actual "screen" the person's Facebook account is ... well I can't really come up with an accurate description without invoking the Law, just please infer for yourself. It violates just norms that it seems we should all have about decency. It's one thing to search for a prospective hire's social networking pages and if they have anything public, yes you use that against them to your heart's content. But to actively invade their privacy like this is just disgusting. Why not just ask for the cell phones and wallets so you can rifle through them, make sure you read every text message. It's extremely disgusting. It just crosses every line imaginable; I don't hyperbole is really possible for this sort practice.

</comment><comment><USER74> This has been rubbing me the wrong way for the past day.

It appears to state a false set of premises - that minorities have the bulletproof ability to threaten employers with being sued for discrimination unless they are hired, regardless of qualification. The focus on this ridiculous premise for rhetorical effect obscures the real danger of such requirements - that non-visible minority status leads to vulnerability to being discriminated against.

People in minorities are disempowered and denied equal consideration, not demanding special rights to be hired even if unqualified. It's frankly insulting to have an argument has been used completely seriously to argue against the existence of anti-discrimination laws by Republicans and Libertarians instead used for the purposes of satire.

</comment><comment><USER75> Exactly. Anti-discrimination is why this shouldn't happen.

Token vanity plug for when I said this (far less artfully) a few days ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3747875>

</comment><comment><USER76> "I was willing to go along with things and see how they panned out." - so much for the sincerity of your supposed indignation. at the end, all that drove you out is the fear of exposure of your own ass due to anti-discrimination laws. and even now, after leaving, you do not have the nerve to directly express any kind of stand regarding the invasion of privacy your COO requested you do. from your ambivalent "style" it is just as easily possible to conclude that you are "speaking out" against anti-discrimination laws. but, in the end, you are saying absolutely _nothing_. pathetic.

</comment><comment><USER77> Final sentence of the third-to-last paragraph: initiatng should be initiating

</comment><comment><USER78> I wholeheartedly agree with your point and you make it very well, but I'm afraid your preaching to the choir. I don't think anyone that finds this article (either through hn or otherwise) disagrees with the fact that the practice of scanning (potential) employees' personal facebook accounts is wrong and that nothing good could come of it. How do we reach the people that _do_ think it's a good idea?

</comment><comment><USER79> If you have to resign in order to have this HR policy changed the company you were working for was not worth working for anyway. I don't think it is right to work for companies that disrespect their employees on such a fundamental level. You did the right thing in resigning.

I am also somewhat surprised that you complied with the policy. Why would you comply when you knew it was wrong?

</comment><comment><USER80> Bone-headed HR move, _particularly_ in light of the prevailing laws but quite apart from them, too. It's invasive and uncomfortable, and probably not a place I'd feel welcome as an employee.

What it mostly reinforces to me, however, is just how terribly ignorant and wishful laws like that are. If I build a business and bottom out my bank account, kill myself with 100-hour weeks, and build my very life around making the company work, you better believe I have the right to know if the person I'm hiring plans to take off for 6 months right after being hired. And you better believe that weighs against them in the hiring process. I didn't set up the business as a facet of family planning services: I want to hire someone who's willing to work hard to build my business in exchange for pay. If a person knows they're going to take 6 months off immediately, then it's not time to apply for a job, because you're not going to be working; apply for something when you're ready to actually do it.

It continually amazes me how government largesse and layers of indirection break people's natural intuitions and allow them to condone forcing a third party to pay for their own life choices, in a vain attempt to mitigate the unfortunate trade-offs that accompany our constrained mortal existence.

Transparency is not a bad thing. There are people out there who want a solid job that pays well and fulfills their ambition while making good money; and there are employers willing to offer those things in exchange for solid performance, a reasonable salary, and reliability. Get out of our way with this red tape garbage and let us find each other and do great things.

<comment><USER80> Downvoting was expected, as my post runs counter to the prevailing view on social services and opposition to capitalism "red in tooth and claw," but some commentary on why would be appreciated.

My original post was relevant and not too inflammatory, I don't think. If you disagree with the substance of what I said, state your case instead of (or at least in addition to) downvoting.

A reaction of moral indignation without discussion on a logical basis is at the heart of virtually _everything_ wrong in modern US society. Break that, at least here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> Ethics aside, an employer asking for login access to your Facebook profile is a violation of Facebook's TOS.

That being said, I don't care how difficult the job market is--if a potential employer demonstrates that they have no regard for your personal privacy during the interview process, you should thank them for their time, smile and never look back.

</comment><comment><USER82> This is all incredibly ridiculous. How such a practice would become company policy is beyond me. Facebook has said they'd terminate a company's facebook page if it was found to be doing this. An interesting question though, would they fire an employee for not friending or liking the company page?.. Just ridiculous

</comment><comment><USER83> Really, Reginald, are you a fellow Ontarian?

That you might be living in Ontario was one of my surprises on first reading <http://raganwald.posterous.com/i-hereby-resign> ... i would not normally read you however i follow Martin Fowler and he wrote this today: [https://twitter.com/#!/martinfowler/status/18715905169883545...](https://twitter.com/#!/martinfowler/status/187159051698835458)

Did you really resign as Director of Software Development over this issue? Or, is that just you being a creative essayist? aside: when bloggers arrived, it seems essayists became extinct.

One thing is certain ... i now see at least one use for an iPad.

Also, apparently i made an error in judgement on removing the fact that i've been programming for 45+ years ... more if you let me count overtime. FWIW, i'm still learning to program ... it's nice to glean from your article that i might be better off to simply sue every prospect who fails to give me an interview. unfortunately, i, up to seconds ago, assumed that i could file a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights commission ... but as of a minute ago at <http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/issues/age>, i learned:

"On June 30, 2008, the role of the Ontario Human Rights Commission changed. The Commission will no longer accept complaints of discrimination."

The same page in the link above does tell me that i'm protected from age discrimination. Hmmmm. Perhaps i could complain to Bashir al-Assad? Hmmmm, again, i just noticed there's an Ass in al-Assad.

In November 2009, i began working for a company where i had four managers ... but then let's not talk about "corporate transition" ... i'm tempted to name that company here but then this comment could be in the internet-verse for decades to centuries baring some galactic or man made calamity destroying planet earth.

I probably should not mention my April 28th birthday because Jay Leno and the late Saddam Hussein share my birth date ... imagine some HR Letterman fan seeing my name coming up with Leno's in a Google-ish search!

Dear Reginald ... if you really did resign your position over such a machiavellian HR policy, then you've dewservedly earned my utmost respect.

Regards, Gerry Lowry <https://www.gerrylowryprogrammer.com/>

<comment><USER84> It's fiction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> I had to double-check it wasn't an April Fools' joke. And then I realized it was for real, that this is a software company we're talking company, presumably employing "educated" and "smart" people.

"Background checks", "Facebook stalking" etc etc, this is as close to living in a totalitarian and dystopian world as we can get.

<comment><USER86> It's actually fictional.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> Firstly, hats off to raganwald for another thought-provoking piece.

Whether or not the hypothetical interviewees in his letter could push the legal claims they threatened, companies may very well shy away from this violation of privacy simply to avoid the risk that they could be held liable later.

</comment><comment><USER88> This got me thinking, does a friend request from your boss constitute an inquiry with possibly the same effects?

Personally, I try to avoid sending friend requests to subordinates, but it wasn't necessarily for this reason.

</comment><comment><USER89> Who the hell actually is this guy? Google search results for his name appear to be useless, misleading and contradictory because they're currently ruined by the firehose of bloggernaut bullshit.

</comment><comment><USER90> This would have packed a lot more punch if you _actually_ resigned.

</comment><comment><USER91> If someone viewed my Facebook profile, based on my lack of usage they could only come to the conclusion I am a person with few friends and no interests.

Seems like a silly way to learn more about people.

</comment><comment><USER92> amazing. as a manager and someone who spends his time trying to make sure my actions and policies dont constrain our best people, this rings so true. Thank you for your thoughts on this issue and I wholly agree with you that these sorts of invasive practices will ultimately kill innovation and any real identity in a workplace.

</comment><comment><USER93> Did anyone in turn ask to look at your facebook profile? Shouldn't they know who they are applying to work for?

</comment><comment><USER94> I'm a longtime admirer of your work, and good for you for standing up. I deeply appreciate what you're doing.

</comment><comment><USER95> I would think twice about hiring someone that makes their resignation letter public like this. That being said, kudos for taking a stand (albeit only AFTER invading peoples privacy by reading their facebook).

My guess is that you decided you wanted to leave when the COO forced you to do this, but rather than quit then and there, you decided to teach her a lesson as a parting gift... am I wrong? :)

</comment><comment><USER96> Them: "I'll need to see your Facebook page."

Me: "OK, search Facebook for my name."

Them: "I'll need you to log in for me..."

Me: L.O.D. pause, walk out

</comment><comment><USER97> This exact same process is what kept me from applying to ycombinator this year. Asking for my Facebook url is the same considering everyone at ycombinator has whatever access they need.

Raised $20k in two weeks on my own instead, for a much less percentage than ycombinator would have <http://www.cloudromance.com>

</comment><comment><USER98> Orwell is laughing somewhere.

</comment><comment><USER62> Next thing you know they'll be asking for our 4chan passwords.

<comment><USER99> You just made me shit my pants!

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> I was expecting to see far more feedback from incredulous Americans in "at- will" states undergoing employment culture shock. It's nice to see that the Canadian point of view translates so well.

<comment><USER100> At-will employment doesn't overrule anti-discrimination laws, does it?

<comment><USER71> I'd expect that employees working in "at-will" states would be less likely to take a stand against their employers, even if the law were in their favour.

ps. I'd love to be wrong about this...

<comment><USER100> That's probably true in general, although if you _don't_ get hired due to discrimination and then sue, usually you avoid the conflict by asking for a cash settlement instead of a job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER101> Very interesting! Thank you for a good point of view on this social media topic. And as far as I know, even Y Combinator want's to check out your facebook profile when you apply, right?

</comment><comment><USER102> Mad props to the guy!

</comment><comment><USER66> Holy shit. Except for a few details, I could have written that.

I recently had a job I was "promoted" into a pseudo-managerial role and immediately asked to disparage people I actually really liked, in order to put a "unified front" about our history and our people before new management. Told it would be "insubordination" not to sign this "official version of events", even though it was full of factual inaccuracies. I was shocked and disgusted. (The company's engineers are great; this is a managerial ethics problem.) Resigned on the spot. No two weeks' notice, just walked the fuck out.

Half my friends think I'm a hero for not selling my soul. Half think I'm an idiot for firing myself to avoid harming others who were in someone's crosshairs already. I don't think I'm either. Hero and idiot both imply a choice. I had none. I am not going to do the wrong thing. Ever. Not for more equity in a company whose executives are okay with this kind of shit, not to keep a job. Just not fucking happening.

<comment><USER103> Just from the interwebs looks like you've had problems at two employers now including Google:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3783114>

Maybe the problem is you, not the employer?

<comment><USER66> I left Google voluntarily but, since you asked, I did blow the whistle on unethical management practices, and I was chagrined when absolutely nothing changed. That wasn't why I left. I left because I wanted to do functional programming and that wasn't going to happen where I was. I don't mind using C++ but I'd rather it not be my full-time job.

For my part, I don't like the creeping laxity of ethics that I've seen in technology startups (including Google) for the past few years. I really think that some of the slimiest actors are coming into our industry because they think engineers are easier to take advantage of (since we just want to code and a lot of us put our heads in the sand about office nastiness).

I'm glad that programmer salaries are finally starting to converge to what we're worth, but a lot of the worst elements are coming into VC-istan because of the money that's in it.

<comment><USER104> Have you ever worked in the finance industry? Those guys will kill their own family if it will get them a $5K raise.

I worked in the california mortgage industry before going to college. These guys would convince families living paycheck to paycheck to buy/refinance REALLY expensive homes. If they were on a 30 year fixed, we get them on an option-arm. If they are on an option-arm, we get them on a 30-year fixed.

This is all typical finance stuff. But here comes the kicker--they would actually outright LIE about interest rates and had a few shady notaries to back them. They would say you have a 1% interest rate (for 30 years) when it was really a 5 year option-arm and screw people. The worst part is, CA has some sort of law that protects mortgage lenders from unhappy customers after 5 years time (exactly when the 1% interest rate would fly to the market rate). Needless to say, several people left the company when we found out. Some folks reported them to the BBB--I don't know what happened to those scumbags though. I really hope people like that stay out of science.

<comment><USER105> > I don't know what happened to those scumbags though.

Unlike the S&L crisis, exactly none of them got indicted and all of them got bailed out, except Bernie Madoff whose schemes were totally orthogonal to the financial crisis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER106> Called this a week and a half ago. Anyone who's LGBT (or anyone period really) knows that there are reasons to keep things on FB private from friends, family, employers selectively, etc. I had mentioned this was likely illegal for this very reason. Numerous states in the US have similar anti- discrimination laws. When I was interviewed at Microsoft they basically told me I couldn't talk about certain things and they were specifically trained to not ask questions that could reveal information that could lead to these sorts of suits.

I don't understand the downvotes? I've seen at least 4 people downvote this. Do you not believe me? And to edit for the people below, I was more or less hint-hint told that this was at least including not wanting to force someone to reveal that they were LGBT. I know that at least the group I was with, they were forbid from asking if "you have a girlfriend" and it wasn't for fear of an interviewer hitting on someone.

<comment><USER107> "When I was interviewed at Microsoft"....Interesting given that MSFT has a long history of being a LGBT-friendly company.

<comment><USER64> Is not having a policy that reduces the risk of interviewers intentionally or subconsciously discriminating against someone who is LGBT _exactly_ the type of thing you would expect from an LGBT-friendly company?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER108> OK, from the linked-to piece:

> If you are surfing my Facebook, you could reasonably be expected to discover > that I am a Lesbian.

Obviously correct. However, they could also discover so much more about her that _doesn't_ relate to any civil rights legislation, such as that she drinks jaegerbombs or uses the wrong kind of power saw. Now, those would be terrible reasons to not hire someone, but they're _legal_ reasons, and can be brought up in court to dispute the claims they didn't hire her because of sexual orientation.

So, my point is, that's another reason the "Give us your Facebook password" is bad: It could easily undermine important civil rights legislation.

</comment><comment><USER109> While I have complete respect for @raganwald, I find it somewhat disturbing that he would even begin to implement or go along with this policy. I can't imagine asking an interviewee to login to their private facebook account, any more than their private email or dating website.

The answer should have been no at the first suggestion and I hope he amends his blog to indicate that even the few times he did this was completely wrong, in addition to placing the company in a tenuous legal situation. As an interviewee, I would be outraged and walk out.

<comment><USER16> He didn't. The letter is fictional.

<comment><USER109> Hmm. While thought provoking, this should be identified some in some way as fictional.

Anyhow, even in theory, complying with the policy for a moment would be unethical.

<comment><USER16> >Hmm. While thought provoking, this should be identified some in some way as fictional.

At the end maybe?

>Anyhow, even in theory, complying with the policy for a moment would be unethical.

The OP admits this in the comments here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER110> You got what you asked for.

</comment><comment><USER111> So, is the resignation due to fear of litigation or because of the moral quandary ? Clearly, the author was okay with looking at the FB profiles of the candidates and would have probably continued to do so, had he not been threatened twice on the same day. I wonder why he could not refuse to indulge the HR, especially since he held a pretty important position in the company.

<comment><USER112> To me, the resignation was linked to thinking of the consequences. At first the (fictional) manager just did what he was told, then quickly thought of it, and instead of fighting it, put a stop on it. Moral grounds, economic grounds (the fear of discrimination lawsuit is economic), etc.

This is all fiction, but while I always thought snooping on a (potential) employee via any way (including FB) was morally wrong, this fictional story just opened the eye wider why it is wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER113> Wimp.

The proper behavior is to refuse to perform an immoral or illegal act and to decline to follow an immoral or illegal direction.

That leaves your superiors with choices of their own: change their behavior, ignore you, or fire you.

If they change their behavior, great; the company is better for your convictions.

If they ignore you (denial) and continue bad actions, you can always look for another job and/or continue to advocate change from within. You are not participating in the bad behavior and have performed your duty to communicate the problem.

If they fire you, you may have wrongful termination recourse that you definitely won't have if you resign.

The cold walkout, on the other hand, only affects management teams capable of shame (unlikely if the leadership has corrupted values) or susceptible to public pressure.

Your specific challenge is incompetence, not morality. You will always be surrounded by incompetence, if not occasionally sharing your own. While incompetence may be a moral failing, people with good intentions can improve things if sufficiently motivated. Your leaving is unlikely to do that.

Instead of having a knock down, drag out, face-to-face, serious reality-check conversation, risking strong and unpleasant emotions en route to a new consensus, you ran away.

You bailed when the company obviously needs someone of your experience, skill, insight and expressiveness.

You may have other reasons to quit, but the one you gave showed cowardice in the face of a leadership challenge.

Next time, don't be a wimp.

Stand and hold your ground.

<comment><USER114> Hint: It's a fictional parable.

<comment><USER7> I took it to be a real story, although I was confused by the image (which was another story)</comment></comment></comment>


Spain's Bailout Is Already Doomed - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/europes-failout-4-reason-why-spains-bailout-is-doomed-already/258344/

<comment><USER2> What's with the "This being Europe" being repeated over and over?

<comment><USER3> Well...it's Europe. As a member of the Euro, Spain has vastly less control over their monetary policy than any truly sovereign state on the face of the planet. Conversely, as a member of the EU, they also have vastly less support from a central government than any province or state would have. They also face an incredibly sclerotic bureaucracy and a non-functional political process, dominated by groups and factions which (to put it mildly) do not have their best interests at heart.

To a first approximation, there is nowhere else on Earth where this debt crisis would be simultaneously so serious _and_ so hard to deal with. You can't treat this like you were dealing with the US, or China, South-East Asia. This is Europe and that means that, barring a miracle, we're all[1] probably screwed.

[1]: Well, anyone who relies on the global economy for income, goods, or services, anyhow. Which would be, uh, all of us on HN, at a minimum...

<comment><USER4> As a Swiss I have to say: I hope you're wrong. Unfortunately, all indicators say you're right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In my opinion Spain needs to hit the big reset button, Argentina style. There are a lot of very interested parties in finance that don't want to see that happen, but it'd serve the Spanish well. Digging out (which appears harder by the day) otherwise will take decades, and has no greater chance for succeeding. Pull the band-aid off quickly and get on with rebuilding and putting people back to work.

<comment><USER6> Yes, It'd be painful for a time, but they'd recovery much faster. But of course, there's the scare of that becoming the fall of the Euro. And also, the other countries are not very happy to receive a lot of Spaniards. And with Spain letting the Euro go there'd be a lot of immigrants (unless of course, they let the Schengen Agreement fall too).</comment></comment>


Rape and Porn – Will Censorship Make a Difference? - <AUTHOR> http://beachsideblues.com/rape-and-porn-availabilitywill-censorship-make-a-difference/ Will censorship, which is seen as a measure by the Indian government make a difference? Does increasing reports of rape cases mean increase in rapes? Check out this scientific exposition of the matter. <comment><USER2> Full title is "Rape and Porn availability—Will Censorship Make a Difference?". Edit your post.</comment>


Resolving the Fermi Paradox using quantum mechanics - <AUTHOR> http://www.jadeleaf.co.uk/resolving-the-fermi-paradox

<comment><USER2> I don't get it.

"If consciousness is what causes a quantum wavefunction to collapse..."

Surely things other than consciousness will cause a wave function to collapse.

<comment><USER3> It's one hypothesis. A weird one, and probably unscientific because I can't imagine how you'd prove or falsify it. Well, I guess you could falsify it by proving how wave function collapse _does work_.</comment></comment>


Avoiding Burnout in a Software Startup - <AUTHOR> http://www.tophatmonocle.com/blog/2010/12/20/avoiding-burnout-software-startup/

<comment><USER2> "Instead, taking at least one day off every weekend, even during crunch times, is key to us staying happy and effective."

"I've been working 12 hour days pretty consistently"

That's not an approach for avoiding burnout.

<comment><USER3> Sounds like slave labour :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's important to embrace the fact you do not feel like working. Too many coders, myself included, try to work through it but end up procrastinating.

If you don't feel like working - go and do something you feel like doing. You'll be a lot more effective when you feel like working again.

<comment><AUTHOR> I find that regulating my free time with something like the pomodoro technique to be very helpful. When I'm in a pomodoro, I am in my own world of code, but when the buzzer rings I make coffee, read a book, or take a walk.

Just having the span of 5 minutes to not think about work enables me to attack the problem with renewed vigor. Ultimately I get more done, and I'm happier for it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Go for a run, hit the gym or do some yoga. Runner's high does miracles for coming up with better approaches to tough problems. Even if it's midnight and you feel like passing out, just say fuck it and go for a jog - you'd be surprised how much energy you actually have.

<comment><USER6> This is good advice for starting a day, or ending a day. So many times when I get home from a long day I think I'm too tired to get any work done, but after a 30 min run or bike ride, my mind is ready to start hacking on a project again.

It's also not a bad idea after lunch. It's 4pm here and I just got done doing some pushups. Looking forward to doing some more before I leave.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have only a little experience here (I realized I very nearly burned out once but only after I narrowly avoided it mostly through luck) but personally I find the best way to ward off burnout is realistic planning.

He absolutely nails it when he says: _The best way to stop burnout is to avoid it entirely through balanced behavior and thinking._

It's definitely important for an employee to pace himself appropriately but it's also equally important for milestones from on high (whether they be one week or 2 months out (any non-vague deadline planned for longer than 2-3 months is bound to be ripe with failure)) to be both realistic and challenging. Not 24 hour death march challenging, challenging that you have to plan your time appropriately and, when working, you work efficiently.

In my experience the major driver of burnout is bad planning. I also think this is a large part of why our type prefer startups. Because startups do very little planning compared to BigCos, it's mostly up to the employees to manage their time effectively. Of course, the pressure is there to do as much as you can but it's tempered by not having completely arbitrary nonnegotiable deadlines that you absolutely have to come through on. (The deadlines you do have to come through on in startups are usually not arbitrary which makes a world of difference when trying to meet them.) When planning is out of sync with provided value it burns people out.

</comment><comment><USER8> _Work effective hours, not necessarily long hours..._

The best trick I have ever figured out for doing this is to separate all activities into "in front on my computer" and "away from my computer". If you are working ineffectively in either mode, switch modes. If you are still working ineffectively, consider a break.

I often sit in front of my computer, writing code, refactoring, or testing and realize that I'm getting nowhere. Then I conclude that the reason I'm not making progress is because I'm not quite sure _what_ to do.

Determining what to do is an activity that I have found much more effective away from the computer. So I log off, grab pencil and paper and go somewhere else, anywhere else. As soon as I have something I'm sure I want to code, then (and only then) do I return to the computer.

This works both ways. If I'm away from my computer, but feel I'm not creative enough, then I just decide to write something, anything, and go write it. Sometimes just getting the smallest things done opens the doors to getting bigger things done.

<comment><USER9> Confirmed! I find one of the most useful things to do when i'm not making much progress is to take a walk and think about the problem away from the computer. Often times I find a much simpler solution than what I was trying before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Working 6 days a week for 12 hours a day is how this guy avoids burning out? I think 72 hours a week qualifies as a death march.

</comment><comment><USER11> Agree re doing something completely different. I have an old diesel F350 that I work on. The work is physical, tangible and dirty as hell. I find I'm completely refreshed and ready for more 1's and 0's when I'm done.

Also, make sure you have a way to give yourself credit at the end of the day for all the work you've done. Often it feels like you've achieved nothing, but if you look at the list of checked off items on your TODO list, or your list of code checkins it'll give you a healthy sense of accomplishment.</comment>


Seeing with Your Tongue (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/15/seeing-with-your-tongue <comment><USER2> I've been following this project for a while. I have specifically been interested in replicating the device for my own purposes. I'd like to use something like this to overlay thermal camera data on my vision.

</comment><comment><USER3> [http://archive.is/6Cb2I](http://archive.is/6Cb2I)</comment>


Is the dollar toast? - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/14/markets/thebuzz/index.htm

<comment><USER2> I disagree with their interpretation of the S&P figures. The inverse correlation looks like the stock market maintaining pretty close to constant aggregate value against that basket of currencies, while the dollars that value is measured in fluctuates.</comment>


AI Predicted Trump's Dismal 100-Day Approval Rating Weeks Before He Took Office - <AUTHOR> https://www.dailydot.com/debug/donald-trump-ai-100-days-approval-rating/ <comment><USER2> What's most interest is that the A.I. made this forecast before Trump even took office - back on January 11.

</comment><comment><USER3> I thought we learned during the 2016 campaign that most polls misrepresent reality...</comment>


"Software is boring. Apps are cool." - <AUTHOR> http://robots.thoughtbot.com/career-day-at-sf-international-high-school/

<comment><USER2> > When we asked students why they didn't want to be software developers or > designers, we'd typically get one of the following responses:

> "I thought you had to be really good at math to do programming."

Not a bad thought.</comment>


Elon Musk Wants Tesla Gigafactory Employees to Live on Site in Mobile Homes - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedrive.com/news/24163/tesla-looks-to-expand-gigafactory-with-proposed-employee-housing-compound <comment><USER2> It's almost as if we didn't learn our lesson 100 years ago about the failings of the Company Town and Company Store. What's next? Will Tesla be paying its employees in scrip?

<comment><USER3> I'm genuinely curious in a breakdown of the good and bad of company housing _without also assuming company scrip_ if you'd actually like to put some content into this low-effort post.

Naively I'd imagine there's some sort of argument that company housing is good for both the employees and the rest of the community. If Tesla moves in and uses the general housing market, rents go up whether you work at Tesla or not. Even if they increase their salaries to accommodate, it doesn't help you if you work at the local hardware store. Conversely, if Tesla mitigates their own employees' shock to the housing market by adding Tesla-only housing stock, hardware store guy's rent doesn't go up by as much.

What am I missing?

<comment><USER2> Well, if losing / leaving your job means you also lose the roof over your head, effective immediately or on short notice, that gives the company a whole hell of a lot more leverage over employees.

And if you have to live in company housing in order to take your job (or have access to it within a vaguely reasonable commute), the company has a lot more leverage over you as tenant than a typical landlord would.

<comment><USER4> I'm not settled on whether I consider this idea good or bad. Probably a mixed bag. But these points are critical. It MUST be handled very carefully to avoid being a really bad thing. Like, up front contract giving you 3-6 months to move after end of employment (no matter the cause). Even better, have some portion of the lots be empty with hookups, for employees to park their own mobile home or RV.

[Edit to add: Your name is tongue-twisting my brain. Make it stop.]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why should employees worry about housing? About what to do with their lives? Why should they worry about managing their finances?

I propose the idea of WorryFree, a new form of employment. They give you home, food and handle all your money. You don't need to get paid, they provide everything you need. In exchange you only have to work for them.

</comment><comment><USER6> not just mobile homes, but "kind of high-quality" mobile homes

sheezus, couldn't he have pitched this a little better?

"mobile homes", in the popular imagination, already connotes something of lower quality than just "homes." and, if you want to attract people to something like that, you don't say "kind of" you go all the way. you say "extremely" or "high tech and modern" or something.

finally, just don't use the term "mobile home" at all. say "top quality, pre- built, modular" or something. and if you're Elon Musk, paint your vision for creating the world's largest factory for constructing high-tech modular housing in the next state over.

I don't think that even was the real Elon Musk. This guy is an imposter.

<comment><USER7> I think that was a direct verbal quote. Elon is kind of an awkward guy with public speaking, but he's honest (from what I can tell of his body language and etc.). Saying "kind of high-quality mobile homes" is probably just a vague summation of what he wants for housing. He may have not totally figured it out yet, or he may have been trying to lessen the impact of the "mobile homes" part, or most likely both.

<comment><USER6> ok. yeah. makes sense. he tends to speak in an unfiltered way, sometimes to his own detriment, but often that unpolished directness is refreshing. i guess that was the real Elon Musk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Only if you join us, Mr Musk.

</comment><comment><USER9> Fantastic idea for tech to try new ideas in housing and health care. Two sectors of the economy that are increasing inequality and driving lower life expectancy. With all their wealth and resources, the lack of focus on these basic issues is surprising.

<comment><USER10> This is hardly a new idea.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> is he finally showing signs of sleep deprivation? and is he aware?</comment>


Microsoft Officially Launches Office for Android Phone - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/24/microsoft-officially-launches-office-for-android-phone/ <comment><USER2> > Office was once tied largely to Windows PCs, but the company today is > working to make sure its flagship productivity suite works anywhere its > users are – even on competitors' OS's.

Huh? Office has been on the Macintosh for decades. This isn't really new.

Heck, Office was on the Mac _before it was on Windows_.

<comment><USER3> Office for the Mac was hamstrung in a way that made it usable for home users, but difficult for businesses. There was no Outlook, no Visual Basic, and IIRC: No pivot tables in Excel, no OOXML until 2011 (4 years after Office for Windows), less integration with Microsoft's backend servers (Sharepoint, etc.), and some other missing features. I'm also thinking that Group Policy management didn't work or not as well.

Much of that was later fixed, but for a long time it was another powerful reason for businesses to use Windows.

<comment><USER4> As a home user of Office on Mac (and therefore didn't bother with these things), I have to ask: What has been fixed, and what hasn't?

<comment><USER5> Try the Office 2016 Beta for OSX. Its going to be a launch day first class citizen of the Office family, and is a complete UI/UX rewrite to match what Windows does now.

I'm using it, it's ahead of the non-Beta Office that Office 365 currently ships for Windows.

<comment><USER6> Any word on when that's gonna launch?

My mac users are freaking out because we just switched from gApps to Exchange (I know, don't even) and Outlook 2011 is a joke compared to what my windows peeps are getting. (not to mention the fact that I have to create a second set of instructions just for them)

<comment><USER5> Office365 and Office365 for Business's OSX installer already ships the new Outlook by default, Excel and Word and the rest are available as optional downloads, and will ship in the main installer, from what I've heard, early next year.

Compared against Windows' current version of Office, it is a refinement. Compared against Office 2011 for Mac, it is a massive upgrade, like day and night.

<comment><USER6> We're part of a university and are bound by their license agreements which until July 1st are just for Office 2013 and Office 2011, in a week from today that mercifully changes to Office 365 and a much tighter integration with onedrive for business support and larger mailboxes (until now it's been 8gb a piece) + an easier overall installation process.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Definitely the best spreadsheet implementation available today when running on a Galaxy S6 - beats out other Android options as well as Office on Windows Phones or iOS, etc. It's actually really usable which is the first time I've thought that for a mobile spreadsheet.

Very nice.

<comment><USER3> Would you kindly provide details?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I applaude them for finally doing this but I do wonder if it's too late in that I've gotten hooked on GDocs and Drive based on their ease of use. I suppose for corporate users of Office this is great news.

<comment><USER9> For google docs, sharing is easy, collaboration is stupidly easy. My org has moved to google tools from office and I would say it's for the better. Previously everything was handled through emails and windows network drive (and this from an org with tens of subsidiaries and presence on every inhabited continent). Docs get lost a lot less nowadays. One can scream that content management is old stuff but google made it easy enough for corporate users just to jump aboard without expensive retraining.

That said - oh for the love of god, google docs writer editor is so bloody horrible for anything but simplest of documents and even structuring larger document bases through hyperlinking is awkward.

<comment><USER10> > google docs writer editor is so bloody horrible

You can thank it to the broken ContentEditable HTML API. Google Docs v1 used it, for v2 Google reinvented the wheel by coding a word processor render engine using one DIVs per line. If only the browser vendors would fix the ContentEditable API, then a Google Docs implementation would need just a few lines of code. Multi column, multi page would be no problem with contenteditable. [http://caniuse.com/#feat=contenteditable](http://caniuse.com/#feat=contenteditable)

Sadly, three of the big four browser vendors have a competitive advantage if their own cloud office suits cannot be reimplemented with a few lines of code.

<comment><USER11> Apparently ContentEditable is unfixable:

[https://medium.com/medium-eng/why-contenteditable-is- terribl...](https://medium.com/medium-eng/why-contenteditable-is- terrible-122d8a40e480)

<comment><USER9> Thanks for the link. I wish all serious discussions about software design would take the time to enumerate the axioms (even if only implicit) used in the design.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Shouldn't this be "re-launches"? Office Mobile for Android phones has been around for a year or two.

<comment><USER13> I think it's mostly because the previous versions were considered a preview / beta.

<comment><USER12> Wasn't a beta; it was a totally different app.

It was a Holo app... here's what it looked like: [http://www.gsmarena.com/microsoft_releases_office_mobile_for...](http://www.gsmarena.com/microsoft_releases_office_mobile_for_office_365_android_app- news-6495.php)

It originally required an Office 365 subscription, but they later lifted that requirement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Really? These are "premium" features requiring a subscription??

• Change page orientation

• Insert page and section breaks

• Highlight table cells with custom color shading

• Enable columns in page layout

<comment><USER15> What? Microsoft is asking money for a product so that they can pay their employees ? </sarcasm>

<comment><USER16> That could be done with one time purchase. But subscription?

No, thanks.

<comment><USER17> They don't want people paying mobile app prices for their office suite.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is one step closer towards an effective full Office Suite on Linux, which I would be very happy about.

<comment><USER19> > This is one step closer towards an effective full Office Suite on Linux

Are you referring to Microsoft Office specifically?

LibreOffice is a full-fledged office suite, is feature-complete for just about 99% of things you can do in MS Office, is free (both, as in beer and freedom), and runs very well under Linux.

<comment><USER20> I've noticed a considerable performance difference between Excel 2013 and the latest LibreOffice Calc, on my dual boot Ubuntu + Win8 PC.

While I'm not saying a Linux port of Office would be just as fast as on Win8, it is a noticeable difference.

<comment><USER19> > While I'm not saying a Linux port of Office would be just as fast as on Win8

Why would it not be as fast on Linux?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> And now the worst Office version is on Windows Phone.

I'm sure Windows 10 will improve that...eventually.

<comment><USER22> To be fair, the version coming for Windows Mobile 10 will adapt to provide a desktop-like experience when you connect your phone to a monitor or TV. The release cycles are just out of phase.

<comment><USER23> Yes. Because Microsoft is so likely to nail that user experience well, for a market that is 2% of the mobile market on its best day.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Has anyone given presentations directly from your phone or tablet? I'd love to hear your experience with the process -- setting up, projecting, navigating, presenting.

More generally, I'd like to know if we have gotten to the point where work (maybe not yet for coding and other heavy-duty stuffs) can be done on phones and tablets, so you don't need to lug around your laptops. What are the main hindrances? Screen size?

<comment><USER25> Somewhat related to screen size, but the biggest problem (at least for my use case) is multitasking.

For instance, sometimes I translate documents, which requires an editor (displaying original / result texts), a dictionary, a browser (for reference, etc.) and maybe other texts and images open at the same time -- and switching between those, let alone seeing them side by side is nearly impossible. (And this is probably specific to Android's limitation, but when I switch back and force between apps, there is no guarantee I will be getting back to where I was -- I might have to open the app again, open the document, which makes it a lot more disruptive than working on PC for most simple translation projects.)

Maybe this will improve, but simple copy and paste across different apps on the phone is frustrating enough that I wouldn't personally do anything beyond simple quick tasks on my phone.

<comment><USER24> This is just an FYI. The Android issue you pointed out is actually an app issue. In Android, there is a mechanism for saving the state of your app, so that you can get back to the same place when you switch away from and then back to the app. Some apps don't implement that (as a good practice), and it is quite annoying when you run into it. I've seen that issue often, even in apps built by large well-known companies.

I know what you mean regarding copy/paste. Maybe it is due to the touch-based interface, but it is annoying regardless of whether it is on iOS or Android.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I replied to Microsoft's tweet asking if they fixed the credentials issue.

Waiting to hear back. Tweet: [https://twitter.com/Microsoft/status/613753678453846016](https://twitter.com/Microsoft/status/613753678453846016) Original issue: [http://bit.ly/1646Fkp](http://bit.ly/1646Fkp)

<comment><USER27> I doubt it, the credential issue is due to the acquisition of Acompli. The Outlook app is actually inherited from their app, and the architecture Acompli used required you to provide the app (and their web service) with your credentials.

The Office apps, I believe, all hook into Azure Active Directory, which means they'll use your Windows Live credentials, ADFS credentials, or otherwise to sign in. If your business uses ADFS, your password won't go to Microsoft.

<comment> o0-0o I can't believe they are still storing my Acompli username after cancelling my account months ago. Accompli is a joke, and was developed in China. I wonder if my user info is still stored there. Sigh.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I've been using google docs instead of office on PC and android for 6 months now, no regrets.

<comment><USER29> It's only a matter of time before Google shuts public docs down as well.

<comment><USER9> What? Google is pushing it's drive and docs heavily to corporate users. I don't see how shutting docs would help those sales.

<comment><USER30> He is referring to the fact that Google has closed a lot of apps it made in the past. If you start a Google app, make sure you have a path to get off it.

<comment><USER9> Hmm, are there any that were actually sold as corporate tools . Wave etc. were freemium experiments as far as I can recall...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> iirc there was an official MS Office for Android way before this, at least was planned/developed.

</comment><comment><USER32> Silly Microsoft, it's just called "Android", not "Android Phone".

<comment><USER33> You may be surprised that a number of apps for Android work only on tablets, while some others have separate versions for phones and tablets.

<comment><USER7> Sure, but that's not Android's fault. It would be like blaming Microsoft if developers released 'Windows 17" screen' and 'Windows 24" screen' versions of applications instead of just putting both UI layouts in the app and switching. Although I guess on Windows you have the 32bit and 64bit versions of applications available for download half the time...

Android actually makes it easier to do that (define custom UIs for different device settings) than any other platform I know of, so it's definitely the developers fault if you see that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> These are still crippled and written from scratch "mobile" apps, that don't share many of the desktop Office's features, right?

<comment><USER35> No. They actually share >95% of the desktop code-base: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HROqnw- nf4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HROqnw-nf4)

<comment><USER5> Of all the comments so far on this, this is maybe the coolest. You can really see how Office on OSX has shaped up (if you follow the beta; identical Windows and OSX support on launch day instead of OSX getting it 2 years later like it's been for the past decade), but I'm surprised Android also shares a significant amount of the code base.

It cuts down on bugs, and also makes sure the bugs that are on the desktop are also the same ones on my phone (principal of least surprise at work).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The apps are pretty bloated coming in at over 100MB for each app. Although, it looks like they finally figured out that you don't release a tablet only app for Android, but an app that adapts to the device you're using.

It's still disappointing that they allow dropbox saves and not Google drive, though. But, this is easily remedied by saving the file locally.

<comment><USER37> Not integrating with Google Drive isn't really the main issue - it's not integrating with the system-wide file dialog that would automatically enable Google Drive support.

If this is the casualty of politics then it's a big thing to throw under the bus.

<comment><USER16> Incidentally, they do use system-wide file dialog since this version. It is possible to use storage access framework providers now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is because of the impending LibreOffice for Android. [https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Android](https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Android)

<comment><USER39> I highly doubt that. Microsoft has been embracing a lot of things lately. Moving towards Open source and open platforms. I don't believe it has anything to do with LibreOffice but everything to do with change in their attitude.

<comment><USER40> I'd say that competition prompted that change of attitude. LibreOffice is part of it. We've been raised with Word and Excel, then we discovered that LO and GoogleDocs were enough in the vast majority of cases and Windows was not necessary. Microsoft could be late with going were people moved to. Not too late, but they can count they money they didn't get.

<comment><USER41> To say that LibreOffice was anything more than a very marginal part of Microsoft's decision to refocus is laughable. The real threat to Microsoft is the movement towards BYOD for corporate customers. If users are bringing their own devices, then Office has to work on whatever devices those users have. Corporate customers aren't switching from Microsoft Office to LibreOffice. They're switching from Microsoft Office to Google Apps, or other hosted systems. Bringing (a better) Office experience to Android is Microsoft building a bulwark against Google Docs, not LibreOffice.</comment></comment></comment></comment>