I was hoping Marisa Mayer would bring Yahoo¹ into the twenty-first century.

This is one piece of evidence that tips the scales very far in the opposite direction, and will probably cost Yahoo a few good employees.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act prohibits, among other things, accessing a computer without authorization or in excess of authorization. Employers have been known to use it against employees where the latter has used a company database to poach clients for a new venture or otherwise used proprietary company information for personal benefit and to the employer’s detriment.

The Reuters article correctly points out that many jurists look at such issues as employer/employee matters undeserving of criminal prosecution, at least to the extent that they don’t violate other laws pertaining to trade secrets, securities law, and other potentially-applicable law.

I agree: an employee’s exceeding authorized access to further goals contrary to the company’s interests, unless the information retrieved is properly considered a trade secret or otherwise is protected, should be a firing offense but not a prosecuting one.

Zoe Fox, writing at Mashable:

Employers may suspect that an applicant’s absence from the social network means the account is so full of offensive material that it had to be deleted.

But what if I deleted my Facebook account because my friends’ accounts were so full of offensive material? Regardless, I certainly don’t want to work for someone who makes psychological judgments about me 1) without a relevant degree or experience making such diagnoses and 2) without any significant interaction with me.

Today’s job market, unfortunately, may leave some people without a choice: create and maintain a net-positive Facebook account or risk being overlooked for an interview. Then again, one study does not scientific fact make. And there’s my generally positive Twitter presence, for what it’s worth.