I'm not going to give you my Facebook password and here is why you still want to hire me.
When people interact with me and message me in social media, there is an implicit trust to keep their information confidential.
Similarly, when employees leave your company, certainly there is information you expect them to keep confidential.
If I were willing to give you this information, that would tell you that I am willing to betray the trust of others in my attempts to get a new job. The fact that I am willing to risk this job opportunity here shows that I can be trusted whereas the other candidates who comply are likely to violate your trust in the future if properly incentivized.
That is why you want to hire me."
Unfortunately, this sort of policy specifically selects for employees that, if pressed, will betray these companies in the future.
I really want to have a court examine whether or not it is legal for your average citizen to conduct themselves in the same way police do without the warrant. Isn't the warrant supposed to be the special permission police get to essentially break the law? If they don't need a warrant, can I not do the same thing?
The guy brought before the court was selling legally purchased books. I'm having a hard time understanding how that is reasonable and how that doesn't set a horrible precedent that couldn't affect selling all sorts of foreign made goods...