kylewebs

Facebook might be headed back to court, for not going to court. Some employers have been requesting Facebook passwords before hiring so they can internet stalk their candidates. ACLU Lawyer Catherine Crump explains:

“it’s an invasion of privacy for private employers to insist on looking at people’s private Facebook pages as a condition of employment or consideration in an application process. People are entitled to their private lives. You’d be appalled if your employer insisted on opening up your postal mail to see if there was anything of interest inside. It’s equally out of bounds for an employer to go on a fishing expedition though a person’s private social media account.” 

Facebook commented on the issue, saying:

“you should never have to share your password, let anyone access your account, or do anything that might jeopardize the security of your account or violate the privacy of your friends….As a user, you shouldn’t be forced to share your private information and communications just to get a job. And as a friend of a user, you shouldn’t have to worry that your private information or communications will be revealed to someone you don’t know and don’t intend to share with just because that user is looking for a job.”

Although Facebook is clearly against the idea of sharing passwords, they have done nothing legally to protect their users, and that’s where they might get in trouble. But why should they? Because it’s the right thing to do. They have enough money to do it. They don’t have to take everyone’s back, but unleashing hell on a few repeat offenders will send a message to the rest of them. But let’s be real here. That won’t happen. Why? Because it’s the right thing to do. See, if doing the right thing were important, then this wouldn’t even be an issue because it wouldn’t be happening.

If multiple friends’ privacy is broken, then they will post less frequently because they will not have trust in their friends’ internet privacy. And you get where it goes from there, right? The network falls apart and someone like Google+ can jump in - which, by the way, I still have faith in. It takes patience. But that’s not what this is about. Why else should Facebook do it? Restoring the trust that has been lost through the countless privacy issues over the years will benefit them.

Employers are not going to stop just because a privacy officer at Facebook told them to. They need to go to court with some of these users. Having access to employers Facebook pages will give them information they could never legally ask for in an interview, or on an application: sexual orientation, relationship status, religious views, political views, who they hang out with, what their private conversations are about, and so forth. 

Starting November 1st, Coca-Cola is temporarily reversing the color of their cans. The white can shown below is part of their new campaign to help protect the arctic habitat of their winter mascot, the polar bear.

The world’s largest beverage company will initially donate $2 million to the campaign. It will then match up to a million dollars that Coke drinkers are expected to donate through text messaging.

The Coca-Cola Foundation has donated more than $451 million in support of community initiatives worldwide. Just this last Tuesday, the company donated more than $1 million USD toward relief efforts in eastern Turkey after a 7.2 magnitude earthquake struck the area Sunday. The very next day they pledged $500,000 to the Atlanta Women’s Foundation to support economic empowerment initiatives impacting Atlanta’s women and girls.

Nicola Kettlitz, president of Coca-Cola Ltd., said “We’ve done this for many years and it’s a part of who we are. We understand that without sustainable communities, we really do not have a business. It cannot just be greenwashing, We need to do it (action to protect the environment) and then maybe say it, but to do it is an important aspect.”

Coke hopes that since the arctic is warming, and two-thirds of all polar bears now live in Canada, that their funds will help scientists to understand what the environment will be like in the future so we aren’t rushing last minute to protect the animals. They also hope the money will help protect the communities affected.

Facebook is getting more strict on their terms of service. All sorts of companies have been known to give away prizes in exchange for Facebook likes, and mention this blatantly on their page. However, Facebook doesn’t only not like it, but it is against their terms of service.

According to Facebook, page owners cannot set up contests for a product giveaway and register users by asking them to “Like” a page. Cadburry, French Connection, and Pizza Hut have learned this the hard way when their pages were removed. Facebook has reportedly sent letters to other companies, warning them that they are in violation of the terms.

Mahesh Murthy, Founder of Digital Brand Management says that using the Like feature as contests to promote your brand results in “updates they never wanted - and a bad user experience for all.”

Other blogs have reported this being a new policy, however, it is not. Facebook has, for a long time said, “You must not use Facebook features or functionality, such as the Like button, as a voting mechanism for a promotion; You must not notify winners through Facebook, such as through Facebook messages, chat, or posts on profiles or Pages; and You may not use Facebook’s name, trademarks, trade names, copyrights, or any other intellectual property in connection with a promotion or mention Facebook in the rules or materials relating to the promotion…”

Instead, you can promote using App(s) on Facebook on a Canvas Page or an app on a Page Tab, with apps, “approved by Facebook,” according to social media catalyst and co-founder of Avignyata. You also must acknowledge that the promotion is not sponsored, endorsed or administered by, or associated with, Facebook.

Companies still need to ask some questions before declaring a winner. For example, a winner cannot be declared based on chance or luck - which could be seen as a violation, since it could be misconstrued as gambling.

Comcast has once again been awarded as the Worst Company in America!

They have been awarded with the following letter and trophy:

Dear Comcast,

Congratulations on winning the coveted Consumerist.com reader-awarded Worst Company in America prize. Mazel tov! (We apologize for the delay in sending this letter. We know how fustrating it can be to wait around for something that never shows up.)

Your consistent dedication to providing low-quality service at ever-rising prices, and aversion to upholding basic internet principles while also buying off Washington and lobbying against net neutrality has earned you a place in our hallowed pantheon. Kudos!

After several years of making it to the final rounds only to be squeezed out at the last minute, in 2010 you leapt ahead to clinch the brass ring, represented herein as the Golden Poo. We hope that it may find a place as special as the one reserved in our hearts for you. Perhaps on a mantel over a perpetually burning fireplace, or next to the Newton’s cradle on Brian’s desk.

On behalf of the entire staff at and readers of The Consumerist, I salute you.

Sincerely,
Ben Popken
Managing Editor
The Consumerist

P.S. Why’d you get rid of that Frank guy? He was great.

Final Note: feel free to leave your complaints about Comcast below, but don’t expect a response from them. Comcast, I’d like to thank you for the shitty service I’ve experienced first hand. You are more than deserving of this award. Congrats!