[jbrichter]

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.

[raganwald]

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.

[jbrichter]

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.

[jaylevitt]

Didn't all that already happen when we created Facebook accounts?

[mikeash]

It certainly got me interested. After reading your post, I find myself wondering why any employer would tolerate the potential liability.

[guyzero]

If you're going to interview & hire people in Canada understanding human rights law is mandatory. And it doesn't require you to hire dead weight; it's to stop people from saying that being black, or gay, or a woman is a valid reason to not hire someone.

It actually puts a legal requirement to do the opposite - to hire the best candidate regardless of their race, national origin or their interest in yiffing at FurrCon.

[dspeyer]

That's the theory. Enforcement makes things harder.

At least in the US, (and I strongly suspect in Canada as well) it's up to a jury to decide if the given rationale is genuine or an excuse to cover bigotry. Anyone who knows anything about how to do the job is likely to get blocked at jury-selection. Imagine explaining to 12 literature majors why cubic-time lookup is bad, while opposing council wants to know how often you use key-value stores in your day-to-day work.

[orangecat]

It actually puts a legal requirement to do the opposite - to hire the best candidate regardless of their race, national origin or their interest in yiffing at FurrCon.

Not always. For example if you somehow learn that a candidate plans to take several months parental leave in the near future, they can't possibly be the best candidate, but you're forbidden from taking that into account.

[guyzero]

Why can't someone taking parental leave be the best candidate? THis statement doesn't seem to be true at all and seems like somewhat good proof that we need such laws.

[msg]

The one taking parental leave could be more skilled and qualified, yet be worse for the company.

If you believe for instance that

1) it takes 3 months of ramp-up time to do an effective job 2) after 3 months off the job, you need to ramp up again 3) the employee will leave in two months 4) the employee will be gone for twelve months

You could conclude that the next 17 months of this employee's tenure at the company will be ineffective.

You could contrast this with an employee that works straight through and will give you 14 effective months.

You might get an exceptional candidate taking the leave, but they have to make a huge impact in a short time to be better for the company on balance than an extra year of labor from a roughly equivalent candidate.

[fishtoaster]

Well, to be fair, I think the author is trying to provide newer arguments, as the "this is stupid, a huge invasion of privacy, and against Facebook's TOS" cases have already been made pretty heavily on the front page of Hacker News.

Further, if it's not plainly obvious that the practice is wrong to someone, it seems like stating the fact probably won't do much to convince them, so maybe alternative arguments might be more productive.

[roguecoder]

Corporations demand all employees abandon their morals and focus on maximizing profit. The easiest way to convince them not to do something blatantly and devastatingly immoral is to point out how it costs them money.

Or to take the approach advocated by Milton Friedman and pass a law to constrain their behavior. The infinite loop is introduced when corporations can influence which laws are passed...

[samstave]

"This is wrong" is completely valid and reasoned. Unfortunately "puts the business at risk, so much so I cannot hire in good faith and must resign" is FAR better understood by businesses - especially businesses do stuff that is wrong ALL the time.

[potatolicious]

It's the same reason why we have to codify "thou shalt not murder" into our laws - because some people are selfish, greedy, opportunistic assholes, and you have to twist their arms to get them to behave like civilized human beings.

In an industry (and this includes ours too, techies, don't be deluded into thinking otherwise) that's driven by the bottom line, practically without morality, perhaps the best argument you can make is something like this.

[mirkules]

What you describe is politics in a capitalist society. An argument can't be won on morality alone anymore - there must be strong financial incentive at play. Personally, I am at least glad that there is an "out" of this mess, however low the argument is.

[excuse-me]

"this is wrong" is a personal opinion. He might also think the company's logo is silly or it's sponsorship of a golf tournament is immoral.

The point he makes is - "this policy stops us writing quality software ". Now assuming writing quality software is a benefit to the company and it's shareholders this point has a lot more weight than his persona moral scruples.

[jbrichter]

Which is exactly the unfuriating thing.

[cinquemb]

Which is an issue that you should have with society in general, and not the author for such reasons. He at least tried to present his reasons from a objective standpoint for the company to actually be interested in doing something.