[TodPunk]

"I don't like X unenforceable thing" is the mark of our generation. Every tweet is public, and if anyone thinks they've protected them somehow, that is both unlikely to be true in all cases and definitely is missing the point that making your tweets private is a different statement entirely.

This isn't even anything new. We used to ask for references, and we'd follow up further if the stakes were high enough. I got interviewed by a police officer from another city because my neighbor had applied to the department. Said neighbor didn't know that everyone in his life they could get a hold of would be asked questions about him, but it makes sense.

Privacy is so rarely what we think it is, and the new generations (of which I'm a part) have so very little shared understanding of the consequences of doing something publically in a world where all of it is likely recorded and shared in a nicely indexed format. The answer to this is not regulation or other bullshit feel-good answers. The answer, as it so often is, is education. I realize that is going to help very few people, but then again, regulation on something as ambiguous as this will help 0.

[pluma]

Except this kind of behaviour is very likely to be illegal in Germany. Sure, violation is hard to prove if it isn't blatant but this kind of regulation prevents the behaviour from becoming socially acceptable.

Case in point: try asking an employee in Germany to give you a urine sample. There are very few jobs where a legal case can be made for mandatory drug testing and even fewer where the employer is allowed to receive medical information.

It is my understanding that in the US photos on resumes are generally frowned upon and often sufficient grounds for rejection because of the high risk of anti-discrimination litigation. How can it then be acceptable for a landlord to take your social media accounts into consideration before making a decision?

Yes, public social media content is public, but the same argument can be made about anything you do in public. Yet nobody would think it acceptable to follow you around in public and take careful note of everything you do or say in the open. That the Internet makes the digital equivalent of this behaviour easier doesn't mean it becomes more appropriate.

But such ideas of basic decency and common courtesy appear to be lost on the generation that made "doxing" and revenge porn a thing.

[vezzy-fnord]

lost on the generation that made "doxing" and revenge porn a thing

Ostensibly, "revenge porn" dates back at least to some of Hustler's columns in the 1980s. The practice of spreading pornographic images without the model's consent is doubtlessly much older.

"Doxing" is simply leaking one's personal information over the Internet. It's not like public outings have never been done before, only the medium is different this time. Doxing but only leaking to a client is basically the entire job of a private investigator, since the 19th century.

Basic decency and common courtesy were lost long before us Millennials, I'm afraid.

[vinceguidry]

> "I don't like X unenforceable thing" is the mark of our generation.

A ban of this sort of thing could easily be enforced. They already prohibit discrimination, and there's already a body of precedent to help adjudicate grey areas. Make it a civil rights violation for landlords to ask for social media handles in applications. Then anyone who wants this kind of anonymity can simply avoid tying their real name to the service.

As social media posts could be used to glean protected information, I don't think it's even be that hard politically to get such a law passed in many states.

[mc32]

What civil right would the lessor be violating, I'm curious. I would be taken aback by being asked for social media identities, but I can't imagine what civil right asking for that would violate.

I imagine it'd be similar to banning asking for phone number or social media handles of someone you're trying to chat up for fear it could lead to harassment.

Badness can only happen with what they do with the information, not the information itself.

[vinceguidry]

> What civil right would the lessor be violating, I'm curious.

Privacy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy

[mc32]

Can it be claimed information published on the www for everyone to see as "private"?

It's like saying my name is private. Moreover, when they do background checks they get private information on me which I would actually have to pay for even when the information is about me. I don't think its as clear cut as you make it out to be.

[vinceguidry]

There's a difference between searching for someone's name online and figuring out what's public, and asking for identifying information so that you can do a targeted search, failure to furnish means you will be refused a place to live.

Though I don't think in this case not having a Twitter account would cause you to be unable to rent in NYC. She could have simply said she didn't have one. Not sure if that would make you legally culpable or not.

> I don't think its as clear cut as you make it out to be.

I don't mean to be rude, but these kinds of questions are exactly what the judicial system and the body of civil rights law and precedent are aimed at answering. We pass the law, then it's the judicial system's job to work out the particulars by adjudicating individual cases. It's the whole reason they exist.

[mc32]

It's not rude and that's a good point. We may yet have to decide what's allowable and what's not.

On the other hand, when they do a background check, any competent service is going to find that information for the lessor anyway. I don't see a difference in result.

Of course I dont like the idea of using people's online personae as helping decide whether they are tenant worthy or not.

[pluma]

Aw, spoilsport. How is the Valley meant to disrupt markets if they have to respect basic rights like these?

[vinceguidry]

It's not the Valley that has to respect rights, it's landlords.