> I don't put my religion on my CV and would not want any prospective employer
> knowing about it - not because I'm ashamed about it, just that it's private
> information which isn't relevant to how good (or otherwise) a job I'll do.
That's the point. Giving them your usernames and passwords to
- wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> From: wjhon...@aol.com
> A little silly when the article quotes someone saying that you could find
> out a person's religion.
I don't put my religion on my CV and would not want any prospective employer
knowing about it - not because I'm ashamed about it, just
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:38 PM, wrote:
> A little silly when the article quotes someone saying that you could find
> out a person's religion.
>
> I think most of us would clearly be wary of it because you could find out
> what sort of *porn/sex* I like. I don't care if you know my religion (I'
A little silly when the article quotes someone saying that you could find
out a person's religion.
I think most of us would clearly be wary of it because you could find out
what sort of *porn/sex* I like. I don't care if you know my religion (I'm
the spawn of Satan.)
I mean just imagine if so
/us/AP-US-Internet-Background-Checks.html
- "Nathan" wrote:
> From: "Nathan"
> To: "English Wikipedia"
> Sent: Friday, 19 June, 2009 16:12:59 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
> Portugal
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] US city requires Internet account pa
> Hmm! Maybe the people they should be hiring are the ones who openly
> refuse to answer. ;-) They are the ones with the courage and
> integrity to be trusted with sensitive information.
Heh, not how I thought you were gonna end that. I thought it would
read more like this:
"Hmm! Maybe the pe
Siobhan Hansa wrote:
> Amory Meltzer wrote:
>
>> I doubt it'll last. The ACLU is correct on the page when they say "I
>> liken it to them saying they want to look at your love letters and
>> your family photos," it's just excessive. It's also largely against
>> the TOS for most of these sites.
Amory Meltzer wrote:
> I doubt it'll last. The ACLU is correct on the page when they say "I
> liken it to them saying they want to look at your love letters and
> your family photos," it's just excessive. It's also largely against
> the TOS for most of these sites.
It's also pretty dumb from a
I doubt it'll last. The ACLU is correct on the page when they say "I
liken it to them saying they want to look at your love letters and
your family photos," it's just excessive. It's also largely against
the TOS for most of these sites. It's an interesting view at the sort
of importance and clou
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/6/19 Nathan :
>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/19/us/AP-US-Internet-Background-Checks.html
>>
>> New employees, and perhaps current ones (?), are being asked to provide
>> details of all web-based accounts, including forums and social networking
>> sites.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> "[The city] says it won't hold it against anyone for refusing to provide
> it."
>
> If it's not compulsory, I don't see a problem, as long as that fact is
> made clear to people. I don't see the point in asking if it isn't
> compulsory, th
2009/6/19 Nathan :
> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/19/us/AP-US-Internet-Background-Checks.html
>
> New employees, and perhaps current ones (?), are being asked to provide
> details of all web-based accounts, including forums and social networking
> sites. Details are meant to include user
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/19/us/AP-US-Internet-Background-Checks.html
New employees, and perhaps current ones (?), are being asked to provide
details of all web-based accounts, including forums and social networking
sites. Details are meant to include usernames and passwords. Maybe w
13 matches
Mail list logo
