California Employers Can't Ask For Your Facebook Password 363
J053 sends word that California has passed legislation making it illegal for both colleges and employers to request social media account access from students, employees, and prospective hires.
"Assemblymember Nora Campos, who authored the bill, called AB 1844 a 'preemptive measure' that will offer guidelines to the accessibility of private information behind what she calls the 'social media wall.' ... According to Campos' office, more than 100 cases currently before the National Labor Relations Board involve employer workplace policies around social media. Facebook has also said it has experienced an increase in reports of employers seeking to gain 'inappropriate access' to people's Facebook profiles or private information."
Finally, a law recognizing privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Privacy is not dead, it's just losing the war.
Take arms and fight back!
wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people don't have a choice, they need the work.
Head shaking moments (Score:5, Insightful)
What I don't understand is why employers even think this is reasonable. Yes, yes, I know, corporations bad, but corporations are still made up of humans and you would think some of those humans would understand that this is overreaching into people's private lives.
I don't see what someone's social media accounts have to do with their ability to work. Sure, they may party hard, or bad mouth their employers, but it's not exactly uncommon and it's not going to stop just because people don't put that on their FB account.
I suppose I am not surprised that someone would try this, what I am more surprised about is that they have gotten this far with it. Forcing people to turn over personal information should be something that a corporate legal department knows is going to get them in legal hot water.
Re:wow (Score:3, Insightful)
What ever happened to "Give me liberty, or give me death"
People too often just go with the flow, allowing themselves to be trampled by corporations and government. No one willing to take a stand for what is right and just.
I applaud the decision. (To make it illegal)
I am appalled by the problem.
Re:wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Gotta love the armchair rebels who belittle people for making practical decisions. It's easy to do so from down in mommy's and daddy's basement.
Re:wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Almost everyone needs to work. Around the turn of the last century, with the industrial revolution, America decided that "we need to work" was not going to mean laborers are treated like property. Weekends, education, anti-child labor laws, etc. were fought for and well earned.
Seems that the old idea that "If I cut you a check, I own you, your time, your dignity ..." has been getting stronger for the past 15 years or so. We'd do well to kill that idea.
Fine, so they see only the "public" side (Score:3, Insightful)
Or at least until you "friend" someone at the office.
The problem is, today employment is a high-risk business. You employ the wrong person, fire them and they come back and shoot up the office. [google.com] Or they may sue for some misunderstanding. Remember, the US is a society where people get ahead by suing and getting a big settlement.
There is also the simple fact that choosing the wrong person to hire results in a lot of costs with just job related things. It costs time and money to train someone and if they do not work out and leave after six months that time and money were wasted, possibly affecting scheduled and having a real impact on revenue.
All this makes employers want as much information as they possibly can gather about prospective employees and make no mistake about it, you aren't going to change that desire with some laws about social media. If employer's can't get this directly there will soon be services to deliver the information indirectly just as now you can get a complete background check of someone from the Internet. When there is a need that people are willing to pay for, someone is going to fill that need.
Why is social media relevent? Because the expectation is that you may post things in an unguarded manner that reflect more of your true personality than at a job interview. If the employer can avoid hiring someone that is going to be a problem, they just saved a bunch of money and possibly saved a project from being delayed. You can consider this to be the new sort of "personality test" that was all the rage back in the 1970s.
Oh, and face reality. The prospective employer probably doesn't care that you got drunk once and someone took some stupid pictures. Now, if you have people publicly commenting about what a drunk you are and how you can barely drag yourself into the office that becomes relevant. Having a comment about how much of a jerk you were to someone isn't all that interesting, but again if you have a bunch of stuff that indicates you're an intolerant child that has to have everything your way... well, you get the picture. It is the same thing as a background check that shows a speeding ticket - not all that relevant. But if you are driving on a restricted license because of a license suspension that might be interesting. Having recently been released from shooting up your former employer's business might just be relevant as well.
Is all this relevant to being able to do the job? Probably. If you come across as a nice, easy going person in an interview but are in fact quite different on the job it could be a big problem and how is an employer supposed to know? And because of all the problems the employer really wants to know as much as they can. And the information is out there for someone to gather for them.
Privacy? Once you start exposing yourself online, you have none so you may as well just get over it.
Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Try being a fat lady and applying for a job at a strip joint.
Ever wonder why Flight attendants are so skinny? Yeah.
Ever wonder why it is illegal to fill out your age or for corporations to ask you about your health status? They can, but it is illegal to ask. However, if they get it, it isnt illegal to have.
We are a "right to work society", meaning we have no right to work. It isnt, as politicians like to say, an entitlement.
But Jebus help you if you dont have a job! Because then you are an entitlee to the rich persons pocket book and a 47%er...
Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Those constitutional amendments limit the power of the government, not private industry.
But either way, you're right, because the government routinely ignores them anyway.
When I see folks from other countries baffle at the madness going on here, I wish they could understand the US citizenry was tricked and had their country taken over by power-hungry demagogs for the last 100 years (well, 99 years this December), and that we're simply powerless to stop the machine at this point.
Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
That sounds like the exact opposite of what it means.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified (Score:4, Insightful)
You aren't going to starve without a job
nice denialist.
come spend time in any major city and see the homeless.
in the bay area, some homeless were even IT people that got pushed out of their jobs.
btw, as a person, YOU SUCK. you have less compassion than a shark. I hope - and I really do - you find yourself blacklisted and jobless someday. and I hope you have to borrow $2 for a tin of tuna to eat that day.
Re:How is this possible (Score:4, Insightful)
this is why we need unions.
corporations were being somewhat tolerable after the union days, 50-100 yrs or so ago. things go measurably better; pretty much for all of society.
we have fallen backward, though; and we need to restart the fight for employee rights.
if the republicans have their way, they'll make us all slaves. we cannot allow this trend to continue. please! this is breaking the backs of the working man.
just another example of unrestrained corp power over the common man.
Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified (Score:5, Insightful)
So get one at a company that doesn't do this. Most (the overwhelming majority of) companies do NOT ask for your FB password. Pick one of those. If everyone does, the companies that ask for FB passwords will either go out of business or change their policy.
I changed jobs about 5 months ago, interviewed at 6 companies, and was never once asked for a FB password. It isn't that hard to find a job at a company that doesn't do this.
People need to grow a fucking backbone.
What the hell is wrong with you? Is it really so impossible for you to imagine not everyone is in the same position as you? There simply aren't enough jobs to go around, and some people around the bottom of the pile are in the position of supporting a family, bills, etc and have very limited options.
Re:I would ask a potential employee for this... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is one of those things that sounds like a good idea, but isn't.
Here's why.
There is probably real and tangible damage that would occur if someone disclosed confidential information on your company. There may or may not be if they disclose their social media profile information to you. It's really not for YOU to assign a value to THEIR resources any more than it is for THEM to assign value to YOURS.
Your test is also not one of backbone at all, but one of perceived value and desperation. As I said, you may be asking them to give up something they don't value, so they don't mind doing it. Not just perceived, but actual, in many cases. I have older relatives whose facebook profiles are barren. They almost never log in and have 8 friends who also almost never log in. They could post their login and password to the world and not actually lose anything. You may also be interviewing someone who desperately needs to bring some money in to keep a roof over their heads or feed their kids. Everyone has a backbone when the cost of stiffening it is low. Everyone has a point when they have to bend. I will NOT give you my facebook password...unless it's the difference between my kids eating or not. I will NOT give up my right to free speech...but I might shut up now and speak later if you're going to shoot me.
That's actually why laws like this are good. Asking people who really need a job for information you shouldn't is implicitly coercive.
Don't play games like this with people. You turn interviews not into true tests of what people are made of, but a silly multilevel thinking exercise where I have to figure out if you're just some jerk who doesn't respect my privacy, or someone who thinks *I* should and is just testing me. Understand that your candidates don't have a way to know which of those people you are.
Re:Even easier... (Score:4, Insightful)