My question i relevant. Unless Obama is requiring applicants to divulge all of their internet postings in order to comply with the Patriot Act, then your question is not relevant to the topic at hand. Is it relevant?

 

 

I asked my question first. When you are willing to answer mine, I'll answer yours.

If there's something you don't want known don't apply. If he was doing this to common folk I could see your point.

Are common folk not welcome to apply for jobs with the Obama adminsitration? What about this requirement is any different than requiring applicants to submit a record of their video rentals or public library activities?

 

Is it so hard for liberals to disagree on such a clear violation of job applicants' right to privacy? If George W. Bush had asked for this information, Obama supporters would be outraged. Instead, they are either ignoring the question or defending The One's onerous job application process.

I asked my question first. When you are willing to answer mine, I'll answer yours.

I will pass because the question seems off topic, as you have not established its relevance.

I will pass because the question seems off topic, as you have not established its relevance.

 

 

No problem. Maybe someone else will answer.

 

For those of you just tuning in:

 

Do you agree with the Patriot Act?

I didn't say common folk shouldn't apply. What I was trying to say is that if they start checking out people that haven't applied then I would have a problem with it. Don't employers have the right to set job requirements? Isn't the Patriot Act a good name for invasion of privacy?

Here's an interesting article offering advice to job seekers.

 

In fact, 77 percent of recruiters recently surveyed reported using search engines to find background data on candidates. And of that number, 35 percent eliminated a candidate because of what they found online, an increase over the prior year’s total of 26 percent. Those were the findings of a survey of 100 executive recruiters conducted by ExecuNet, an executive job search and recruiting network.

 

 

Our HR department has been doing this ofr over a year.

Here's an interesting article offering advice to job seekers.

 

 

 

 

Our HR department has been doing this ofr over a year.

Does your HR department require applicants to provide a list of all aliases used to make anonymous posts on the internet and complete lists of each post made? Or do they merely search for what can be found using the applicant's name?

I didn't say common folk shouldn't apply. What I was trying to say is that if they start checking out people that haven't applied then I would have a problem with it. Don't employers have the right to set job requirements? Isn't the Patriot Act a good name for invasion of privacy?

Unless somebody like Obama's friend Bill Ayers applies for a job in the new Obama administration, then I believe that this is an entirely separate issue from the Patriot Act. The federal government is not just any employer, Obama will be paying salaries from tax revenues. Discriminating against applicants on the basis of anonymous web posts is an unwarranted invasion of privacy, IMO.

Question, are you guys for or against the Patriot Act?

 

 

I understand it's potential advantages, but I am none too keen on it.

So if he hires someone and it later comes out this guy is a child porn king under of course an anonymous name who are you going to point the finger at? I'm not comparing the patriot act to getting a job just calling it an invasion of privacy.

Here's an interesting article offering advice to job seekers.

 

 

 

 

Our HR department has been doing this ofr over a year.

 

 

 

I find that to be dishonest, sneaky and stalkerish as well.

I find that to be dishonest, sneaky and stalkerish as well.

Make that two of us.

So if he hires someone and it later comes out this guy is a child porn king under of course an anonymous name who are you going to point the finger at? I'm not comparing the patriot act to getting a job just calling it an invasion of privacy.

 

 

If he didn't know this ahead of time, then he was simply duped. I have no issue with that. An employers can't and SHOULDN'T know every detail about a potential employee's background unless it is legal in nature or business related. Now in the hypothetical that you mentioned above the individual should be dismissed and tried for his crimes. Any fallout that may occur in public opinion is unavoidable, however I would not fault Obama for hiring him if he had good qualifications for the job.

I find that to be dishonest, sneaky and stalkerish as well.

 

 

It is public information though. Sneaky, dishonest and stalkerish would be obtaining information that wasn't available to the public. In the end, the internet never forgets. And it is a legitimate source of information.

It is public information though. Sneaky, dishonest and stalkerish would be obtaining information that wasn't available to the public. In the end, the internet never forgets. And it is a legitimate source of information.

Aliases are NOT public information.