There are a lot of jobs that deal with sensitive HIPPA information, have access to national security issues or, in my opinion, our most precious resource. Children.

Some of us feel that letting our backgrounds be checked to make sure the wrong kind of people can't get into the Federal Emergency Operations system that deals with Nuclear emergencies is worth it.

If you are one of those people who need the secrecy, I would not be comfortable handing that access out.

One pedo creeper can damage dozens or even hundreds of children in their lifetime. I would not allow just anybody access to our children.

If they are changing rolls on a paper winder, I wouldn't care if someone had a penchant for goats or thought Timothy McVeigh was a hero. I wouldn't care what they were into when off work. As long as they kept it out of work.

But knowing what people who have access to your customers financial or health information are into off work can save you massive legal trouble if someone with a gambling addictions steals some account passwords.

Would I rather trust people? Absolutely. Can I afford too? No way in hell.

That is leaving a fox in the hen house so you don't offend the hens by spying on them.

They are not spying on you, they are trying to protect themselves and you from people disguised as you. Your cooperation helps them find bad guys faster. Your lack of cooperation gives the bad guys more camouflage to hide in. Unless you are a bad guy, then you need the protection of privacy to operate in.

---

The fact that arguments like these are made by Americans and accepted without flinching by Americans that I have gotten to the point where I almost don't care if this nation just dies so we can start over again from scratch.

---

I don't actually hope that, of course. I just get discouraged sometimes. [boxing]

---

To be honest, I wouldn't mind a revolution and restructuring of things from the ground up if there were little to no violence involved. Although I suppose for such a thing to be productive, we'd probably want a lot less stupid people in the world when it comes time to form a new government.

Trust is a funny thing.

No one can be made to trust another person. If you have to be told, you aren't trusting. Rules of law, therefore, are both evidence of a lack of trust and an encouragement not to trust.

Trust has to be earned, some say. But is it trust that has to be earned, or is it a willingness to risk that has to be adopted if true trust is to occur? Trust is an act of faith about what the future holds. But the future, by its nature, is uncertain. Past behavior is an indicator of future behavior, but part of human nature is the possibility of change (for good or for bad).

So if one is to trust, one must be willing to accept that trust may be misplaced. One must recognize that the person trusted may fall short of trustworthiness. They may fall short because of venality, because of an inability to resist temptation, because of family worries, or a hundred other possible reasons. But whoever the person trusted is, ANYONE can fall short of trustworthiness. I'd go so far is to say that every one of us has and will fall short of trustworthiness on more than one occasion. What, after all, is a broken promise, but a failure of trustworthiness, and who among us can say they have never broken a promise.

If any of us is to extend trust to anyone, it is not because the person is 100% to be trusted. It is because we believe the person is worthy of our faith even though we know that person will at some point fall short.

God is 100% trustworthy (for those of us who believe in Him). But none of the rest of us are.

In some ways, capital-T trust in God is easier than small-t trust in a fellow human being. God being omni-everything, we know He can be Trusted. But to trust each other, we have to do so knowing we can't. We have to trust not just in the person's trustworthiness, we have to trust that the inevitable betrayal won't hurt too much.

And so trust, for each of us, because a function of how much pain (for ourselves or for others) of betrayal can be handled.

It took me several decades to learn that not only that by most people's standards I trust too much, but to learn that I was okay with the consequences. I realize that I am always going to be more gullible, more taken advantage of, more ripped off, than the average person, because I tend to start from a position of trust. Because I tend to trust people until they show otherwise. And, because I believe people can change, I tend not to weigh what "they've already done" before I met them particularly highly.

It took me awhile to realize I would be a disaster in a position like Dexter's. Because while he might trust too little, I would trust too much.

I think this may be part of the reason I scorn political and "let's pass a law" solutions so often. Laws are passed because people don't believe certain other people can be trusted to do the right thing. Politicians are in the business of doing things because other people can't be trusted to make the right choices. And this doesn't sit well with me. For me, it is better to err on the side of trusting too much than on the side of trusting too little.

And I think that's why it bugs me particularly hard when people don't trust me or my judgment (e.g. at my current job). Not because I think I"m worthy of 100% trust. I'm not. But because people seem like they wouldn't consider me worthy unless they knew ex ante worthy of 100% trust -- a standard that I can never meet.

But I can't make them trust me. I can't make anyone trust anyone.

The only level of trust I can change is the one I myself decide to extend.

---

I fall into this category and I am absolutely against giving up my right to privacy when it comes to handing over my passwords. I don't have anything to worry about, but it's the principle of the idea. Freedom comes with some risk folks, always has.

Formo is 100% right. I did NOT say they should have the right to passwords ETC.
What i meant is this: ANYTHING you put on a computer MIGHT be hacked, and used against you. Pictures, info, whatever. So you are accepting the risk just by putting it out there.
It's like telling a secret to a "friend". The friend may promise not to tell anyone, but that friend MIGHT just break that promise, and before you know it, it's out there for the whole world to see.
With computers, it's REALLY out there for all to see.
NO company should be able to demand access to your accounts. On the computer, or otherwise.

But anything you put out there, MAY be gained access to by somebody.

Someone hacked my old email account, and i lost all the info i had in it, and can't access it anymore. I have NO idea who did it, or why.

And as far as companies not hiring you for whatever reasons.....they can, and do discriminate. They can just make up other reasons as to why they didn't hire you.
PROVING discrimination is nearly impossible, unless you can get some HR guy to admit on tape that he didn't hire someone for discriminating reasons. And good luck with that happening.

---

Speaking from the other side of the coin here.. I think it is vital for an employer that you ask prudent questions to evaluate prospective employees, but there is a line that you just don't cross.

I don't care how loaded the market is with prospective employees currently, digging into their personal life for most jobs just isn't good business. Sooner or later your going to carry a type of scarlet letter and you will find yourself drawing from a lower quality labor pool.

Yes, as an employee, you should be just as selective of an employer as they are as an employee if we are talking about a career type job.. not just a stepping stone or a ladder type position.

That said.. we few in IT, by nature of our position see things about people we wish not to see.. some people just don't get the concept of how networks, routers, and IP traffic really work. lol. If they did, they would be more cautious in their computer activity upon a domain. Mail and spam filters are even worse. lol.

---

After thinking about this for a bit, if during the application process for a job I truly wanted this issue came up, I would simply say that I consider the request inappropriate and while I'm happy to let them look through my profile after I log myself in, my password is not something I do or will give out. Either way the request would make me a bit wary. If they're willing to exercise a little flexibility, awesome. I don't post anything on facebook that's particularly embarrassing or private, there might be the inappropriate comment here or there but if they're going to not hire me over something like that, it's not a company I want to work for anyways.

I said I don't think everyone should be open to scrutiny.

Just people in positions where a bad person can do some critical damage.

I posted National Security, Financial and Medical records and access to Children as examples of areas of concern.

I don't think a job where that isn't a concern should have someone's personal life be open to scrutiny.

Because frankly, anytime you write a check, use a credit/debit cared, pay a bill or use a toll card, you leave a roadmap of your life. Anybody with clearance already knows what you are paying for. They could know how many and which kinds of movies you down load all the way down to how many times you chew gum.

You should hope the people who have access to those records were screened as thoroughly as possible.

Because I wouldn't want someone who wasn't screened handling my credit, gaining access to nuclear power plants or watching my kids.

---