House Kills Effort To Stop Workplace Requests For Facebook Passwords 275
An anonymous reader writes "House Republicans today defeated an amendment introduced yesterday that would have banned employers demanding access to Facebook accounts. While the practice isn't widespread, it has caused a big brouhaha after reports surfaced that some organizations were requiring workers to hand over Facebook passwords as a condition of keeping their current job or getting hired for a new one."
Was anyone suprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
When is the last time Congress passed *any* law that benefited consumers at the expense of corporations? If a near national economic collapse can't even get Congress to reinstate Glass–Steagall [wikipedia.org], you think ANYTHING is going to get through without the coporatocracy's seal of approval?
Re:Was anyone suprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
'Consumers' is just a code-word used by deep cover leftists to disguise the fact that they are really talking about "the masses", just like commies. Thus, the only way to Preserve Freedom is to avoid aiding these so-called 'consumers' in any way. Since, by definition, it's only oppression when the state does it, any bad things that should happen to happen to them during interactions with corporations are 100% non-oppressive.
Re:Was anyone suprised? (Score:5, Funny)
Super robot monkey whoosh hyperforce go!
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Was anyone suprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Was anyone suprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are jumping to conclusions: It is not the corporatocracy, nor is it a conspiracy. It is just dickering over the reins of power.
I, for one, am tired of the huge number of bills passed by our lawmakers. Many journalists this week commented on the number of laws passed each year, and most of them agree that we don't even know what they are, so we can't always be sure we are in compliance. In trying to pass comprehensive bills, our lawmakers are trying to "program" human behavior and they use lousy tools. (Imagine trying to write a program to make everyone and everything do exactly what you want done. Now imagine trying to write it in a language that only describes what is NOT allowed.)
I imagine a day will come when laws are written in explicit classes as objects with explicitly testable functions. (Right...not in My lifetime..)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd prefer to see this plan executed successfully before trying it myself, thanks.
Re:Was anyone suprised? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd prefer to see this plan executed successfully before trying it myself, thanks.
Why?
Just take a day off of your current job to do a circuit of interviews at random places.
Then sue the ones that took the bait.
You're not jeopardizing your employment by doing that. And hell, you may actually be offered a job better than your current one.
Re:Was anyone suprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
My "if I could change the world" fix is this:
1) Create standard formatting rules for a bill. X page size, maximum X words per page, etc. (To prevent any of that squeezing of the margins etc.)
2) For every X measurement (say every page) a bill is long, that is one day that it cannot be voted on. So a 3 page bill cannot be voted on until 3 days later.
3) Only one bill can be in the queue at a time for each house.
4) On the leadup to a bill being put in the queue for debate, it can (as usual) be amended, changed, debated, etc. Once that bill is "locked in" and put up for vote, it sits around and cannot be change. A bill being entered into the queue has to be voted on, so it prevents politicians from creating a thousand page bill or something to abuse their power.
5) Failure of a bill to pass will render any and all provisions in it unable to be placed in a subsequent bill for a period of at least one year.
My system would generally encourage people to think about bills and make them as concise as possible. It'd rein in a lot of corruption, too. Add in some potential for citizen commentary during that period and you've got a real winner.
Sad that it doesn't look terribly likely to happen. Maybe I'll get lucky and a Slashdotter will get in Congress or the House.
Oh, and if you can find any flaws with my little plan, please share 'em. I enjoy thinking things through.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll see you and raise you (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Was anyone suprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
consumers
It's a labor issue, not a consumer issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like political posturing (Score:5, Insightful)
After reading the article, you can tell submitter left off a significant portion of the context in the summary. Even in the Republican's statement of opposition to the amendment, it's clear that they don't want employers access to employee passwords. It's probably useful to also look up the bill that the amendment tries to fix. H.R. 3309 is a bill that outlines new procedure for the FCC in its rule making process. It mostly has to do with transparency, 30-day public overview of new regulations, etc. You can read it here http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3309/text [govtrack.us]
So in a bill that is altogether unrelated to pro-privacy legislation, some rep proposes a highly specific instance where the FCC would be immune to the outlined procedure. It's kind of like adding an amendment to a general police powers bill that suspends proper procedure in a highly specific instance like when they catch a carjacker. Sure that sounds good to people who have suffered from car jacking or are afraid of what carjackers can do, but does it make sense to be in this bill or would it be better in a separate bill? I understand the sense of urgency that people feel, and I'd probably agree with those who want some federal rules on what employers can demand of their workers. However, it's also not unreasonable when you read the amendment to think that it doesn't really belong in this particular bill.
The more I think about the context, the more it looks like a way for a rep on one side to embarrass the other side without trying to do anything significant. You can probably put this in the same category as "think of the children" amendments that come from the Republican side meant to embarrass their opposition politically in the realm of public opinion. Only this time it comes from the Democrat side. What saddens me is that since the summary puts Republicans in a bad light, we at /. are more willing to take the summary at face value, and don't get as many nitpickers willing to pore through the context to find the bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because heroic Republicans never attach unrelated crap amendments to a bill and then attack Democrats for voting against it.
Consumer protection laws that burden corporations (Score:2)
Maybe not the most last, but recent examples include:
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010)
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010)
HITECH Act (part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act) (2009)
Re: (Score:3)
It's a good thing that the House killed this bill.
If a potential employer asks to see your Facebook page then you'll have a pretty good idea of their other official (and unofficial) policies. I'd like to have as much insight as possible into the employers intrusive tendencies during the interview process than after I've been hired.
Think of it as a litmus test.
Re:Was anyone suprised? (Score:5, Informative)
Also, my FaceBook includes information that is protected under a few employment acts. It includes things like race, sexual preference, age, and religious affiliation. By asking, they are breaking employment law.
Re:Was anyone suprised? (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder how federal hacking laws would apply. As you point out, its a clear violation of the TOS, it is, in fact, explicitly unauthorized access.
Ooh... so since the user who agreed to the TOS and the employer are acting together for this unauthorized access to happen, would that be conspiracy?
Existing Federal Law: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (Score:3)
The same is a federal crime under the 1984 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 USC Sec. 1030) if the computer accessed is a "protected c
Re:Existing Federal Law: Computer Fraud and Abuse (Score:4, Interesting)
And, as well as a crime, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act also provides a civil cause of action for anyone who "suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section" (note that conspiracy is also covered under the same section, so the civil cause of action would seem to be available if the damage was caused by a conspiracy to gain unauthorized access that didn't actually lead to unauthorized access, such as retaliation -- by refusal to consider for a job or, even more clearly, dismissal from one -- for failure to provide a password contrary to an agreement with the computer's owner.)
Ianal but that sounds a lot like if a potential employer asks for your facebook password you should:
1) inform them that they have just asked you to commit a federal crime
and 2) if you refuse and they retaliate(such as turning you down for the position) you can sue them.
Seems to me that the best way to nip this behavior in the bud is to make sure as many people as possible know that if an interviewer asks you for a password, you refuse and then don't get the job, you can sue.
The first time one of these gets to court, the legal department of every company in the nation will come down on HR like a ton of bricks to make sure it never happens again...
Re: (Score:3)
The best way to nip this in the bud is to apply at one of these places with protected information in your profile (age, sex, race, religion) then when they reject you sue them under the federal anti-discrimination laws. They'd have to prove they didn't look at any of that protected information when they accessed your account. Then after a few companies end up paying out a years salary to someone they never hired this will be so toxic an issue that the every companies legal department will hand down rules fo
Re:Existing Federal Law: Computer Fraud and Abuse (Score:4, Informative)
All they have to do is prove/claim that even if they came in contact with that information, it wasn't used to influence a hiring decision. Companies collect that kind of information from applicants all the time (i.e. to support audits on job retraining programs, veteran employment, equal opportunity employment laws).
Companies with large enough HR teams do this by compartmentalizing access. A company might designate an HR rep to handle information pertaining to protected classes. So long as the hiring manager doesn't see that information it's not a big deal.
Re:Was anyone suprised? (Score:4, Informative)
Precisely the point. There are existing laws which make the request for account passwords illegal, including the fifth amendment and that pesky little clause about search and seizure.
The problem is, the way the US handles enforcement of such laws means that the corporations will continue to get away with it until the ACLU or EFF or someone else helps a citizen file a lawsuit over the issue.
After several years of fighting, the judge(s) will eventually declare that the corporations actions were illegal, someone will get their willie slapped, and things will go back to "normal".
But not until you've put up with YEARS of abuse of your rights as citizens.
Re:Was anyone suprised? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, it is perfectly legal for them to ask you about those things....however, it is illegal for them to discriminate against you on those things.
It is VERY difficult to prove that is what they used as criteria to not hire you....and if they don't ask them, even more difficult, hence, they generally don't ask questions about that type of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
From the text. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oregon Republican Representative Greg Walden responded to Perlmutter during the floor debate by saying:
I think it’s awful that employers think they can demand our passwords and can go snooping around. There is no disagreement with that. Here is the flaw: Your amendment doesn’t protect them. It doesn’t do that. Actually, what this amendment does is say that all of the reforms that we are trying to put in place at the Federal Communications Commission, in order to have them have an open and transparent process where they are required to publish their rules in advance so that you can see what they’re proposing, would basically be shoved aside. They could do whatever they wanted on privacy if they wanted to, and you wouldn’t know it until they published their text afterward. There is no protection here.
I'm not so naive as to take his reasoning at face value, but neither am I so cynical as to assume it's a lie outright. The one thing the text does show me is that I don't know enough about how things currently stand or how the amendment is worded to make an informed decision on whether I would have supported it or not.
Re:From the text. (Score:5, Informative)
SEC. 5. PROTECTING THE PASSWORDS OF ONLINE USERS. Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall be construed to limit or restrict the ability of the Federal Communications Commission to adopt a rule or to amend an existing rule to protect online privacy, including requirements in such rule that prohibit licensees or regulated entities from mandating that job applicants or employees disclose confidential passwords to social networking web sites.
I'm not even sure if Walden read the amendment, because I can not in any way see how he derived his criticisms from this text. On a personal note, this is sad. I'm starting to think that Republicans are actively trying to drive us moderate Republicans away. I know at this point in the election process they play to the far right, and they won't really care about the middle until the general election, but they need to realize that if they keep going like they are, pretty soon there won't be any of us left to listen. We'll have already left.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At this point, American politics has become so partisan and so self-destructive with your elected officials taking more and more extreme positions on endlessly unimportant issues that I'm amazed any of you are willing to support the Republicans or Democrats.
Re:From the text. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm starting to think that Republicans are actively trying to drive us moderate Republicans away.
Wow, you're just now catching on to that? They've been doing that since the 80's. The reasoning behind it is to increase party discipline and put the Dems on the defensive by playing a strong offense. I would say that's crazy, but I have to give it to them, the strategy has worked VERY well. By tightening up the party and eliminating moderate voices, the Republican party has become VERY disciplined--to the point when they can control Congress even when they're in the minority. Compare that to the Democrats, who are so fractured and undisciplined that they can't pass a law even when they have a clear majority. What's more, by driving their party farther to the right (so much so that Reagan probably couldn't even run in the modern Republican Party), they have driven the Dems to the right too. The modern Democratic party is further right than the Nixon Administration at this point.
Crazy a strategy as it looks on paper, you can't argue with success.
Right: You're a RINO (Score:3)
Thing is, the modern Republicans demand strict conformity to an arbitrary standard of political correctness. If you miss out in any dimension, you're a "Republican In Name Only" and they'd rather expel you from their gated paradise.
It goes along with their moral relativism, where Romney's health care plan designed by the Heritage Foundation becomes "unconstitutional" when promoted nationally by Obama - not because it's morphed into something other than Heritage and Romney designed, but because it was passed
Re: (Score:3)
Are you kidding, that was PERFECT for them! They got to duck out on the worst recession in decades and blame it all on the Dems.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I left years ago. The republican party now panders to social conservatives. If you're fiscal or believe in small government it's not for you.. In fact, there is no party that's good on fiscal or small government issues anymore. Libritarians try, but most of them have some crazy social agenda as well.
Since everyone wants it to be about social issues, I vote that way now. That means unfortunately for democrats. i don't believe the government should tell people what to do with their bodies or in their bed
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, unfortunately for you (and the rest of us), the Democrats and Republicans both agree the government should tell you exactly what you can and cannot do with your own body.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, what I love is the current trend. Getting called out on being "big government" while wanting a small government? Move the "big government" laws to the state level. See? State, not fed. It is small by definition?
Re: (Score:3)
I left years ago. The republican party now panders to social conservatives. If you're fiscal or believe in small government it's not for you.. In fact, there is no party that's good on fiscal or small government issues anymore. Libritarians try, but most of them have some crazy social agenda as well.
This is what has been driving me crazy the most: the hypocracy of the Republican "leadership" (by this I mean more the most prominent Republicans). WHen we have things like healthcare or redistributive policies, they scream big government and socialism. But when it comes to things like abortion or gay marriage, they want to pass legislation affecting these issues. It was like when Bachmann said that legislation allowing abortions would be forcing some one else's beliefs on her. What I want to scream in
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Moderate Republicans?" Is that a Republican who thinks contraception is permissible by married women with the consent of their husband? Or one who would allow a Muslim to convert to Christianity rather than killing them outright? Heal gays rather than hang them? Use conventional munitions against Iran rather than nuking them outright?
In the party that put forward Sarah Palin in 2008 and packed Congress with Tea Party freshmen in 2010, just what exactly makes one a "moderate?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then, respectfully, you guys better start making some freaking noise in your party.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Moderate Republicans?" Is that a Republican who thinks contraception is permissible by married women with the consent of their husband? Or one who would allow a Muslim to convert to Christianity rather than killing them outright? Heal gays rather than hang them? Use conventional munitions against Iran rather than nuking them outright?
In the party that put forward Sarah Palin in 2008 and packed Congress with Tea Party freshmen in 2010, just what exactly makes one a "moderate?"
I know you're trolling, but I'll feed you anyway. A moderate Republican is someone who doesn't think the government has a right to tell you who you can marry, or whether or not you can ahve an abortion. A moderate Republican is someone who is willing to pay taxes, but wants to keep most of their money that they earned without the governmetn telling us what to do with it (like forcing us to purchase health insurance). A moderate Republican is someone who doesn't go out looking to start wars, but is willin
Re:From the text. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Basically, saying one is a 'moderate Republican' is saying "I don't agree with much of what my party proposes, but I'm too much of a pussy to oppose them, and I'm too good to be a stinkin' liberal."
The day I don't get a massive headache from modern politics is the day every religion-based candidate, and every politician that doesn't observe common sense and decency is 6 feet under. So basically, not in my lifetime.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it was the "Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall be construed to limit or restrict the ability of the Federal Communications Commission to adopt a rule or to amend an existing rule to protect online privacy" in a bill designed to limit the ability of the FCC to do things without advance publication of proposed rules....
Face it, "limit or restrict" is w
Re: (Score:3)
I'm starting to think that Republicans are actively trying to drive us moderate Republicans away.
I'm not trying to be snarky or sarcastic here, but you are only just now starting to think that? The nutty fringe of your party is taking over my friend. And unlike some liberals, people like you don't scare me. I can work with you. I can compromise to get things done with you. If you guys don't confront the nuts soon, we're all in trouble because either the nuts will take over everything in a Christian Taliban kind of way, or the Republican party with crash and burn. And honestly, I think we need you guys
Make the point moot. (Score:5, Interesting)
Ironic "Boycott Facebook login details requests at interviews" Facebook group anyone? We made Rage Against the Machine Christmas No. 1... Surely we can apply this logic to something which actually matters.
Re:Make the point moot. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are of course problems with this.
Yes, I personally would tell an employer to go pound sand. I don't even have a facebook account, but the fact that they do that as part of their interview process would mean it's not a company I want anything to do with.
I'm also in a position where I can probably find another job after leaving the interview. A lot of people arn't. Times are tough right now, and if it's a choice between losing the house or standing up for your ideals.. a lot of people are going to go for the former. Also worth noting that in a lot of companies, the HR department and the people you are actually working for are very different. The HR guy might be an ass, but the company itself might be great.
Further to that, right now it is a rare practice. If it catches on it'll become hard to find a decent job without this kind of requirement and we won't get to be smug either.
I definitely think the law needs to limit what employers can use on the net in the same way they limit things like race/sexuality questions.
Re: (Score:2)
* giving up a password to get the gig or losing your house and standing up for your ideals :(
Tell them you don't have an account (Score:2)
Say "Facebook? What's that?"
Re: (Score:2)
This is not something that you can just rely on everyone else to do. Everyone has to stand up for their own privacy rights or they don't exist.
Re:Make the point moot. (Score:4, Informative)
The few times I have done this, the HR person has been genuinely surprised. In one case I was offered the job, but declined. That request (which came down from the top) was not the only short sighted thing they were doing, by far. Often, this question is a symptom of how the company is managed, and in that case it is good to know early.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You have things to hide. You may think you don't and that's the problem.
You don't determine what another person may care about. For all you know you could be the literal median Amerian, but it's the person snooping on you who decides if thatsl is a 'good or bad' thing.
Re:Make the point moot. (Score:5, Informative)
Are you a member of any protected class? Display that information prominently on your Facebook page. When you are asked for your account information, give it to them. When you don't get the job, sue them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think that American workers need to do more to stand up for themselves. As hard as it might be to do it, you need to be willing to walk away when being asked to something want to do. Some may choose to do this through collective bargaining, and that is OK if your issue applies broadly to all or most employees. But in general we need to stop looking to the government to solve problems with our employers. If more people would just take a stand and quit, businesses will change their tune quickly.
And if refusing the job or quitting in protest means you have to dumpster dive for meals and get your kids' clothes from GoodWill, that's okay? I direct your attention to the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire [wikipedia.org]. That's how "not looking to the government to solve problems with our employers" works out. It seems that no one reads Santayana anymore. sigh!
Which business lobby killed this one? (Score:2)
Businesses just hate it when they can't use dirty pool against workers.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be curious if any big companies are doing this. This seems like the kind of thing a small shop would do. It seems legally dubious enough that big companies would fear lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd be curious if any big companies are doing this. This seems like the kind of thing a small shop would do. It seems legally dubious enough that big companies would fear lawsuits.
Well the Virginia State Police is not a company at all, but they are a pretty large employer. They don't ask you to turn over your passwords, but they do require you to log into your account so they can check out your postings [businessweek.com]. In fact, from what I have seen, it appears that most of the organizations doing this are government organizations like police departments [daytonsnewssource.com] and government agencies. [msn.com]
So this whole thing is misguided, as they are targeting private companies for the restriction, when in fact all of the
Catch-22 (Score:4, Funny)
Who is Congress' employer?
Time to start flooding congresscritter inboxes with requests for their facebook passwords.
Re:Catch-22 (Score:5, Interesting)
Who is Congress' employer?
The campaign contributors, aka the same corporations that ask for passwords to your personal accounts.
Re: (Score:3)
Who is Congress' employer?
The campaign contributors, aka the same corporations that ask for passwords to your personal accounts.
Yep. Your employer is the one who pays you. The public is just the HR department.
Re:Who is Congress' employer? (Score:2)
The Corporations of course. So there's no catch-22 at all.
Re:Catch-22 (Score:5, Informative)
Coercing credentials and accessing foreign computer systems with them is already illegal. So why forbidding it again?
If your potential employer asks you for the password, tell him, that you would infringe on Facebook's Terms and Condition, and if he succeeds, he is infringing on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Re: (Score:2)
speaking of TOS, that's your perfect excuse right there.
tell your employer you never joined because the TOS is unacceptable to you.
and it is! to all of us, here. its honestly not acceptable what they list in the TOS and it shows integrity that you understand this.
there. say that and you have an 'honorable' way to say 'no, fuck off, you asshole company!'
Re: (Score:2)
If your potential employer asks you for the password, tell him, that you would infringe on Facebook's Terms and Condition, and if he succeeds, he is infringing on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Suggestion retracted; I like your way of looking at it better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the article? The amendment was defeated because it decreased transparency and oversight at the FCC under the guise of "privacy". The GOP is open to considering this sort of legislation in a separate bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the article?
Skimmed it; obviously missed that part.
The GOP is open to considering this sort of legislation in a separate bill.
new legislation is superfluous; as Sique pointed out, the practice is a violation of the existing Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as well as facebook's ToS.
No need to create new laws if we actually enforce the existing ones.
Re: (Score:3)
Why (Score:5, Informative)
Here's why it was voted down. Nobody disagreed with banning the practice, just the implementation:
"I think it’s awful that employers think they can demand our passwords and can go snooping around. There is no disagreement with that. Here is the flaw: Your amendment doesn’t protect them. It doesn’t do that. Actually, what this amendment does is say that all of the reforms that we are trying to put in place at the Federal Communications Commission, in order to have them have an open and transparent process where they are required to publish their rules in advance so that you can see what they’re proposing, would basically be shoved aside. They could do whatever they wanted on privacy if they wanted to, and you wouldn’t know it until they published their text afterward. There is no protection here." - Greg Walden (Oregon GOP rep)
Re:Why (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Debate on the floor of the house is about the bill under consideration, not a place to introduce new legislation at the drop of a hat. You can't just say, "I'd do it this way," because that would be meaningless in the context of debate about an amendment currently being discussed.
You bring up your version of the bill/amendment in committee, at a later time, following the procedural rules of the house/senate.
And yes, he did explain why it was a bad amendment, he just didn't explain it to someone who has no c
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, let me see if I can explain this. The amendment was to a bill that is supposed to ensure that the FCC has transparency in its rule making process, and that proposed rules are clearly identified and open for review before being implemented.
This amendment didn't say, "No one can request your password as a condition of employment." It said that the entire language of the bill that was trying to force the FCC to be transparent, was out the window as long as the FCC was making a rule about 'privacy'.
The am
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not every dramatic headline requires a law (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't Facebook planning to sue companies that do this in a civil court? And aren't there laws in place that effectively prohibit this? (the Stored Communications Act [wikipedia.org] and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act [wikipedia.org] come to mind - especially since if you RTFA the Justice dept is already looking into whether these would apply)
I'm all for some Republican-bashing, but we should really consider whether we already have a law in place for this before we add new ones. The legal code is cryptic and mountainous enough as it is without adding unnecessary cruft.
It also may not have been appropriate as an amendment to this particular bill - note that the article states that Republicans would consider separate legislation.
Re: (Score:3)
but we should really consider...
I think you found the problem. We do not consider, we react. It sure makes it easy for the when we do it, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Teacher aid FIRED for not allowing Facebook access (Score:5, Interesting)
Teacher Aide fired in Michigan. [wsbt.com]
“in the absence of you voluntarily granting Lewis Cass ISD administration access to you[r] Facebook page, we will assume the worst and act accordingly."
Re: (Score:2)
allowing access by a CURRENT employer and allowing logins by a future employer are galaxies apart (one can be done by simply Friending your employers account)
Re: (Score:3)
In what way? This is nominally personal, even private (if marked so) information. Consider it part of your "papers." You may share your odd manifasto - or your party pics - with close friends, or only with yourself. Those are not necessarily public information.
Unless there is a formal complaint that you are exposing privileged information (which is not the case) there is no right or expectation that private work is accessible to an employer. If it is a matter of sharing confidential information, they sho
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you are employed by the government, you do not have a right to privacy. In fact, you don't have a right to privacy. You have a right to keep your things private. Privacy comes into play when you have 1 option: divulge. In this case you have 2 options: divulge or quit.
Re: (Score:2)
Police/Fire dept doing this now (Score:5, Informative)
Republicans Are Anti-Labor (Score:5, Insightful)
If you work for a living, Republicans are not your friend. If your color spectrum falls outside 'beige', Republicans are not your friend. If your language is something other than English, Republicans are not your friend. If you're a woman, Republicans are not your friend. If your religion is something other than "Christian", Republicans are not your friend. If you don't toe the ENTIRE party line completely and unquestioningly, Republicans are not your friend. You may think you share their values, but if you fall into the above categories they do not like you and will never like you. They will say they do because you can't be THAT exclusionary and get anyone elected and they know that, but don't EVER think that they like you.
Go read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." This is what Republicans actually believe. The world they want to bring about is an awesome place if you're a rich white man. The fact that everyone else will be living in varying degrees of squalor is something that does not bother them. Perhaps they simply choose not to think about it -- they don't like to think about "those people" if they can avoid it.
If your employer starts asking for private passwords, start talking to the other employees about forming a union. Nothing makes employer assholes clench tighter than union-creating discontent in the ranks.
IT Professional would give up a password??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Redundant Law (Score:3, Informative)
This entire fiasco is stupid. It's already completely illegal to request someone's Facebook login information as a condition of hire, since it divulges restricted information (marital status, age, orientation) that it is already illegal for them to ask of you. You can already tell them "I'm sorry, but that would divulge my marital status, age, and other information that is illegal for you to request."
If you can't ask them to follow one law, what makes you think that you'll be able to ask them to follow a new law? This entire law is redundant, and it is quite right that it was eliminated.
Re: (Score:2)
What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Right. The employer can assume you have something to hide and only consider the suckers who hand over their FB accounts.
That's why legal action is needed. Once employers are allowed to do this everybody gets screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not a matter for the federal government (Score:4, Insightful)
needs to be a law. corporations ONLY fear laws. they don't fear market pressure since they completely control that.
only something with teeth (legal stuff) will force a corp to change, these days.
this is why the redundant law is needed. to 'send a clear message'. again. and yes, it IS redundant but the first law didn't scare the corps enough, it seems.
it will help employees a lot more if they can say 'you know, they just passed a new LAW about forbidding to ask these details...'. that will silence the company much more than your walk-out protest ever will.
Re:Not a matter for the federal government (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow!
Are you a Christian?
What denomination?
How much did you give to your church last year?
Do you have children?
How many children do you have?
How many hours a week do you spend helping them with homework?
Does your spouse work?
How old are your parents?
How much time do you spend caring for them each week?
re: "If some protections are really necessary, this is entirely within the power of the individual States."
Do you (or your spouse) use or have you ever used Birth Control for the purpose of preventing pregnancy? (Arizona)
Plus, it's not like corporations operate within one state. So, in one state they couldn't ask for my Facebook login and in another they can? How does that make sense? So, if I get hired in New York and then transfer to [insert nutty state here (plenty of them lately)] they can tell me they want my social media login information or can ask about private matters such whether or how someone in the family uses birth control?
Wow!