Password Protection Act: Bans Bosses Asking For Facebook Passwords 247
An anonymous reader writes "On the heels of a similar bill introduced last month. A group of Democrats today introduced legislation in both the House and Senate to prevent employers from forcing employers and job applicants into sharing information from their personal social networking accounts. In other words, Maryland may soon not be the only state that has banned employers demanding access to Facebook accounts. The Password Protection Act of 2012 (PPA) would also prevent employers from accessing information on any computer that isn't owned or controlled by an employee, including private e-mail accounts, photo sharing sites, and smartphones."
And now.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And now.. (Score:5, Informative)
That would be covered under
Prohibits an employer from forcing prospective or current employees to provide access to their own private account as a condition of employment.
Re:And now.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure how I see this falling into the interstate commerce clause? I mean, a person works in his state....money paid to him in a state in which he is responsible for state taxes, etc.
I would think this would have to be done on a state basis, and not a federal one?
Sorry, but these days...I'm questioning every law the feds are trying to pass, and trying to understand where the constitutional authority is for these mandates/laws.....
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And now.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure how I see this falling into the interstate commerce clause? I mean, a person works in his state....money paid to him in a state in which he is responsible for state taxes, etc.
Internet social networking sites have a multi-state presence; the federal government has long claimed to have the jurisdiction over regulation of telecommunications services, see FCC. In Facebook's case, it's a terms of use violation to share your password.
They are essentially passing legislation that forbids employers from interfering with citizens' private relationship with certain other companies.
The legislation is broken though, because it's specific to social networking. This should apply to all sites.
Including online banking sites, and sites where you pay your utility bills. This is a form of consumer protection and privacy protection for interstate commerce.
Your private dealings are not your employer's business.
Your employer has no business seeing who your friends are, who your banks are, what your account balances are, which cable package you subscribe, to, what book you ordered from Barnes and Noble or Amazon, what your viewing history is on Youtube and Netflix, etc.
And if some of employers are trying to pry anyways and demand passwords to personal accounts their company has no right to, then it certainly is the feds' job to reign in the abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Your employer has no business seeing who your friends are, who your banks are,
what your account balances are, which cable package you subscribe, to,
what book you ordered from Barnes and Noble or Amazon,
what your viewing history is on Youtube and Netflix, etc.
Your employer usually wants to know what one of your bank accounts is so that they can pay you. (They might not be very keen on this part, but all but the most rabid scum recognize that failing to pay is a good way to encourage employees to seek employment elsewhere and bring lawsuits.)
Re: (Score:2)
While I am all for this type of legislature, I have to ask myself, on what authority do the FEDS have to make this law? I'm not sure how I see this falling into the interstate commerce clause? I mean, a person works in his state....money paid to him in a state in which he is responsible for state taxes, etc.
And the server is in another state.
The law isn't about regulating the server (a third party) but rather the employer and employee, who are most certainly in the same state for the purposes of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
> That would be covered under
>| Prohibits an employer from forcing prospective or current employees
>| to provide access to their own private account as a condition of employment.
Is the "provide access to" broad enough to cover the latest loophole? That's the one where the employer demands that you log in to your account, and he looks over your shoulder while you scroll through your timeline, photo albums, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
"Provide access to" means requiring the (potential) employee to grant access to the employer, that which they do not already have access. Courts could disagree, but my interpretation, and my defense is that prevents requiring me to accept a friend request, or another other access which is not available to everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
Great questions. I've asserted multiple times that we shouldn't need this law, that the "unreasonable search" clause of the 4th Amendment prohibits this. Others have argued (incorrectly I believe) that the 4th Amendment only apples to the government, not to individuals or corporations. So, there is currently some debate. My contention is that while the US Constitution in general limits the power of the federal government, the rights guaranteed to individuals shall not be violated by anyone. Case law support
Re: (Score:2)
what you will, and then restrict them to see only the safe content.
It's a bitch, but can be done.
Easier on Google+, however.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretty hard to do considering I don't have a Facebook account. If they want to make having a social media presence a condition of employment, I guess that's just not the job for me...
I seriously don't understand why people even admit to having one to a prospective employer in the first place. Kids, just say no! Worst case scenario, you don't get a job offer at a place that you probably wouldn't want to work at anyway.
Let's not pretend, though, that something like this is going to modify employer behavior
10 Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this the domain of the United States Congress?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's an election year.
Re:10 Amendment (Score:4, Interesting)
Business practices that seem to want to coerce people to provide information they normally would not do for their job, or to actively violate laws (e.g., federal laws that prohibit, at least in letter, sharing of passwords for online resources) in order to interview for a job, things like that? You know, laws that the Congress passed in the first place?
Shouldn't take too much lobbying by US Chamber of Commerce, et al, to make sure this bill doesn't even make it out of committee or otherwise dies a quiet procedural death. But, because it's sponsored by (D)'s, even if it did make it to the floors, it's going to be voted down just because.
Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
it is illegal to ask a large number of questions that are not directly relevant to the job
False.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong you are. Pretty much the only prohibited questions are ones that could lead to a person being discriminated against. A prospective employer cannot ask for any of the following information BEFORE hiring you. After you have been hired you will have to provide some of this information for payroll/tax purposes.
Race
Color
Sex
Sexual Orientation
Religion
National origin
Birthplace
Age
Disability
Marital/family status
Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:5, Informative)
That's why it is illegal to ask a large number of questions that are not directly relevant to the job
It's not illegal. It's just inadvisable. If one of your questions exposes membership in a protected class, there is a risk that there may be liability / possibility of a discrimination suit.
However ill advised, if you want to refuse employment to a janitor who never played Chess or Checkers, can't remember the rules to the game Go, or can't beat the interviewer in a poker game, the employer can do that, as long as they are consistent and require the same of every candidate.
It just happens that employers are in the business to select employees, and any irrelevent question is a waste of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they are NOT required to be consistent at all.
As long as they're not violating civil rights of a protected class, they can hire AND fire whoever they damn please.
Re: (Score:3)
Blah blah blah ... prove it. Prove it's me and NOT YOUR LACK OF SKILLS OR OTHER QUALIFICATIONS! prove it Asshole!
Go back, reread your post. With a little luck, you'll see what your problem is.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it's the catch-all "necessary and proper" thing. Honestly, you're not going to get anywhere with this argument--that ship has sailed. Congress does whatever it wants except when the executive decides just to ignore them or the courts decide to overturn them. One of the worst drawbacks to judicial review is that by relieving Congress of final responsibility for the constitutionality of laws, it promotes an attitude of "pass it, brag to the folks back home about it, and if the Court overturns it,
Re: (Score:3)
Congress has been allowed to do more than merely interstate commerce for 220 years. States have not been semi-autonomous regions for 150 years.
Re:10 Amendment (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Regulating commerce is not the same as regulating the entire commercial entity. Of course, that's not the road we've been going down for a very long time. It's much easier to consolidate power in Washington where the lobbyists have a one-stop shop. On the other hand, actually respecting the 10th Amendment would require an informed and intelligent electorate, so I guess my point is moot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:10 Amendment (Score:4, Informative)
There's a commentary on the Constitutional support of right to privacy [umkc.edu] at U Missouri KC (and that, I had not expected, but hey, score one for democratic discourse)
Re: (Score:2)
Because pretty much every one in the US who uses Facebook does not live in the same state the servers are located in, and even if they do it is still very possible that the connection crosses state lines before getting back to the server. That means that this is more of an interstate commerce issue. This also isn't a "States Rights" issue, hence the 10th Amendment does not apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow...are you that ignorant of law? It's the domain of the federal government the same way that sexual harrassment is, for example. Or racial discrimination in the workplace. Or any number of abusive practices by employers that are prohibited by the federal government. OSHA? Yeah, all that. EEOC? Yep. That too! And so on. Come to think of it...say, isn't there something called the "Department of Labor?" Hmmm...I wonder what THEY regulate...
If corporations are people (Score:5, Insightful)
If corporations are people, these laws probably exist already.
Regardless of laws, the audacity of demanding personal passwords as a condition of employment just boggles my mind.
We're employees hired to do a job and go home. We're not paid to room and board our employer in our underpants.
Re:If corporations are people (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what happens when you have...
1. (Relatively) high unemployment.
2. A government that is pro-business and anti-employee rights for years and years.
3. Companies more and more feeling what an employee does on their personal time is their business because "it might reflect badly on the company".
Re:If corporations are people (Score:4, Insightful)
And then someone rats them out and they get fired for lying about it.
Expecting employees to lie is not a viable workaround, and neither is any other ethically questionable action.
Re: (Score:2)
request that they suspend the interview so that you can consult a lawyer.
You'd probably break the record for fastest mid-interview shit-canning.
Re:If corporations are people (Score:4, Informative)
(1) Manage your Facebook password with a password management application, so you can legitimately tell them you "don't know" any Facebook passwords, they were randomly generated and are stored securely in a password manager at home and tied to that web browser.
(2) Enable Facebook 2-factor authentication [facebook.com] with a second cell phone. Don't bring that phone to any job interview.
Even if you have the correct FB password, you cannot login to FB on a new unknown device without receiving the SMS message, and entering the security code that Facebook sends you via SMS.
Re:If corporations are people (Score:4, Insightful)
Manage your Facebook password with a password management application, so you can legitimately tell them you "don't know" any Facebook passwords
"Well, I guess you're not hired then".
Geeks have this idea that if you just answer a question in a way that is literally accurate but not what the other guy wants, that's the way to win. The real world doesn't work that way except in a very small number of cases, of which this is not one. If the employer asks for your Facebook password, as far as he's concerned, either you provide it or you don't. "Honestly, I rigged up some system where I can log into my Facebook account but truthfully say I don't know the password" counts as not providing it. The fact that the statement "I don't know the password" is truthful makes no difference whatsoever.
Re: (Score:3)
4. A population too stupid to make a throw-away account to give the employer, that talks about how much the prospective employee likes cute puppies. Post something to it once a week or so, give it some friends.
Or, you know, just tell them you don't have an account. Even if you do, what are they going to do? Not hire you? Oh noes!!!
Although, I admit, a throwaway account would be pretty funny if you went completely overboard with it. Plaster it with a metric shit-ton of Christian imagery and talk about how much you love Jesus, church, and capitalism. That's sure to impress most any major employer in the U.S..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Job app and interview true. Resume not so much. It's understood to be a marketing document and is judged as such. Outright lies are stupid, but everybody expects lies of omission and spin.
You wouldn't want to hire someone who can't sling BS would you?
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell you that there's no better employee than one who overstates his accomplishments to the point of very nearly outright lying. Yessir - that's the kind of person who's a joy to have as a coworker, and a joy to manage.
Re: (Score:2)
2) "I'm sorry, I will not provide you with that information, because it's none of your concern what I do in my personal time on my personal accounts."
This should be:
2) "So you're seeking employees who are willing to violate contracts they made with business entities, inasmuch as TOSes count as contracts?"
Of course, the conversation should end with the type of statement you made, but it warrants more discussion with your interviewer than beginning with a refusal.
Re: (Score:3)
Lying is stupid and unethical.
So is any potential employer that would warrant it in the first place by asking for shit they have no right to ask for.
I mean, employers outright lie to their employees all the time, and a job interview is often a competition in blowing smoke up the ass on both sides. How many people have been told one thing in an interview only to find out that reality is completely different once they're actually employed there? A padded resume versus the bullshit lie that most any given company is 'family oriented' (be
Re:If corporations are people (Score:5, Insightful)
What about when they ask for Slashdot account info? You may not think you're participating in social media, but you are.
Re:If corporations are people (Score:4, Funny)
No, they don't (Score:2)
Nothing stops me from demanding you give me your Facebook password. If you refuse, I can then refuse to provide you with whatever I feel like, such as access to my house, help with things you might need and so on. I can make it a prerequisite that to be my friend in real life, you give me your Facebook password.
Now of course if I do that, all that will happen is I have no friends. Being that as individuals we are on a relatively equal power footing we can work it out between ourselves.
What is happening is t
So is reading not your thing? (Score:2)
You appear to have responded to a hypothetical post in your head, rather than what I wrote.
My statement was one on the law as related to the parent: He figured that if companies were people, it would already be illegal for them to ask for the password to a Facebook account. I'm showing that no it isn't, it is perfectly legal just as it is legal for any person to ask for the password.
The reason the law is being created, and I quote my post here is that "companies have an unequal power balance in this equatio
Re: (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2)
Did this actually happen, or is it a modern urban legend that employers were requiring passwords? And if it really happened, aren't there existing privacy laws in place that could have been used to sue these businesses out of existence?
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it actually happened [zdnet.com]
No, it's not. See above
Unfortunately not yet. But there could be soon.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can ask these sorts of questions. The law does not prohibit asking. It prohibits using the information in making a hiring decision. Because it is VERY difficult to support the claim that although you asked about , but did not factor that into your decision-making, smart employers have a POLICY against asking such things - but it's not illegal.
IANAL, but as far as I know, although many of these "sorts" of questions are not strictly prohibited, there is a specific prohibition against asking any pre-employment questions about any disability (including pregnacy) including the nature of any obvious disabilitly unless it is essential to the qualifications of the job (aka BFOQ or bona fide occupational qualification) that cannot be accommodated. This exception was carved out by the American with Disabilities Act and made any of these types of question
Re: (Score:2)
why another bill? (Score:2)
Re:why another bill? (Score:4, Informative)
That happens a lot - similar bills are introduced, debated in committee, etc. Some are better than others, and if the process isn't completely broken (not even going there...) the various ideas get consolidated into something that meets everyone's needs and is then introduced to the floor.
In this case, it seems like a law protecting any of your password-protected/private information (email, photo sharing, online backups, whatever) would be much more powerful than the previous one that focused mostly on your "social networking" accounts...
Re: (Score:2)
What's different is it was reworded to try and avoid another GOP obstruction-- or at least sneak in under the radar.
Is it a typo, or just leaving huge loophole open? (Score:2)
prevent employers from accessing information on any computer that isn't owned or controlled by an employee...
So, they are trying to prevent employers from asking for my Facebook/Gmail/etc. password, because it's there in the magical "cloud" and not owned/controlled by me; but it is totally OK for my employer to insist on having a password to my *home* computer, just because it is owned and controlled by me??? Which, by the way, likely has a cookie to authorize accessing my identity "out there"... Or should
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is it a typo, or just leaving huge loophole ope (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, it didn't make sense. After reading the article, it was clearly a typo, and should have said "from accessing information on any computer that isn't owned or controlled by an employer". Ie. employers can still demand you hand over passwords on *their* systems, which seems reasonable enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it didn't make sense. After reading the article, it was clearly a typo, and should have said "from accessing information on any computer that isn't owned or controlled by an employer". Ie. employers can still demand you hand over passwords on *their* systems, which seems reasonable enough.
Of course that means you might still have a problem if you want to work for a social networking company that you actually use... Of course said company already has your data, but if you are part of the 99% that uses the same password everywhere, you are kinda screwed if you actually hand over your password.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No need for a password when you have access to the user database...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Anyway, where I was going with this is handing over your password or asking for another person's password is in violation of Facebook's TOS. It currently stands that asking for your password or asking to even see your FB acc
Re: (Score:2)
When I was much younger my life's dream was to invent a new crime.
The 'Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.' makes anything involving computers that a judge thinks should be illegal, illegal. 'Ips Post Facto?' never heard of it.
I now have to invent a new crime that doesn't involve computers. Best I've got is programming an electric car to make the 'cross now' sound as it drives around. Which sucks as I can't make any money at that and I don't have anything against blind people. Plus it involves computers.
Summary Confusion (Score:4, Informative)
The Password Protection Act of 2012 (PPA) would also prevent employers from accessing information on any computer that isn't owned or controlled by an employee, including private e-mail accounts, photo sharing sites, and smartphones.
I assume the summary meant to say that the act prevents employers from accessing information on any computer that is owned or controlled by an employee.
Re:Summary Confusion (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, from TFA it sounds like they meant to say it prevents employers from accessing personal information on any computer that isn't owned or controlled by an employer. I'm pretty sure the intent is that an employer should still be able to access and demand passwords to servers it owns, even if the employee runs them, etc, and anything else is none of their business.
Re: (Score:2)
...except if it's public or otherwise willingliy disclosed, in which case there's no reason to prevent employers from accessing the information. Such prevention is, IMHO, a bad idea, as it introduces the possibility of accidentally breaking the law (say a prospective employee connects with a first-stage interviewer on LinkedIn before the second stage of the interview process, or the prospective employee becoemes friend of a friend of the CEO - or just a fan of the company - on Facebook).
The 4th isn't enough? (Score:2)
I would have thought the 4th amendment would have covered this, so all I see is grandstanding politicians pretending they care about the people while ignoring their own Constitution.
Re:The 4th isn't enough? (Score:5, Informative)
No, the Fourth Amendment only covers state action; it doesn't address searches by third parties (unless they are being used as agents of the state).
The 4th isn't enough! (Score:5, Informative)
You would have thought wrong, since the 4th Amendment imposes no restrictions on private conduct.
Nice Sentiment (Score:3)
Sure, in theory you could refuse, and when you get fired (or not hired in the first place) in theory you could drag them into court, but in practice the vast majority of working folks can't afford to lose the job in the first place, and can't afford the lawyers in the second.
This would be about as effective as most workplace safety laws - sure you can refuse to do dangerous work, but when there are a hundred people lined up who are prepared to climb on a four story roof with no safety harness you'll find yourself unemployed very fast.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the argument of the coward. Just stay quiet while your rights are violated because its too dangerous to stand up for yourself.
Tell that to the countless workers that fought for their rights, some of whom paid for it with their lives. Are you saying they should not have bothered?
Re: (Score:2)
If it's just one employer being a dick, you really don't need the government to step in. The problem comes when you have "collusion on terms of employment", which happens far too often: every employer in some industry ends up having the same bullshit. And in that case, as long as whatever regulation affects all companies equally, employers are generally OK with it (since their competition is equally affected).
Pardon me but... (Score:2)
Pardon me, but...
Don't they have something better to do?
This is like Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burns.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't they have something better to do?
You realize that our elected officials in D.C. are capable of dealing with more than one issue at a time? There are probably many 1000's of bill that get written, debated on, tabled and passed every year.
Overbearing government intrusion! (Score:2)
Hey, how about Nevada? (Score:2)
I hear the government there allow employers to demand sexual intercourse as a condition of employment.
(Fortunately, the rest of America disagrees!)
Wait a sec (Score:4, Insightful)
The Password Protection Act of 2012 (PPA) would also prevent employers from accessing information on any computer that isn't owned or controlled by an employee, including private e-mail accounts, photo sharing sites, and smartphones."
Shouldn't that be isn't owned or controlled by the employer or company instead? An employee's personal computer (and I'm using personal here to mean one that belongs to the employee) shouldn't be accessed by the employer either.
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't that be isn't owned or controlled by the employer or company instead? An employee's personal computer (and I'm using personal here to mean one that belongs to the employee) shouldn't be accessed by the employer either.
Haven't you heard? Nobody keeps their stuff on their PCs anymore. They upload it to social networking sites, which they don't own, and don't keep backups. Then they fret about what they're going to do if Facebook ever goes away [slashdot.org] and how they'll get all their stuff back.
Technically already a felony? (Score:3)
If you log into my friend's account and you're not my friend, you now have access to information in my profile that I did not give you permission to.
Facebook's ToS explicitly prohibits doing this.
Violating a website's ToS in order to gain access to information you don't have permission to access is, I think, some sort of federal crime.
Any lawyers care to chime in on this one?
Re: (Score:3)
Technically yes, as it is considered unauthorized access. But unless it caused bodily injury or financial loss, most agencies wouldn't care.
Same with opening a new account with the name resembling your long lost friend/relative etc. and tried to gain access to your profile by tricking you to accept them as friends. This could remotely consitutes identity theft.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only illegal if you do it, but not if big business or the government does it.
Re: (Score:3)
They must be.... americans.
1) Americans is always capitalized.
2) Congress Critters are not Americans, at least not in spirit or action.
3) I take that as a compliment. Taking action and creating laws to protect somebody's privacy is always a good thing. Neither governments or corporations should have access to private information that has nothing to do with job, not performed while on the job, or performed on equipment or services not provided for by the corporation.
Security and background checks for some jobs might require a little
Re: (Score:2)
Well I am the CTO. So my opinion is all that really matters.
Of course instead of brow beating everybody into submission I tend to offer paths of least resistance. Just about every employee has a smartphone, and some have tablets. The management especially has tablets and usually the douchy iPads which they are under the assumption can be used for business.
I set up any employee with the public wifi for everything they have. That usually ends the arguments right there since they got what they wanted and I
Re:Game it (Score:4, Interesting)
the constant stream of news about police brutality, unjust situations, erosion of rights, destruction of the economy, etc., etc. has left me hopeless, with only the prospect of gaming the system instead of fighting it.
Not me. These things have made me start looking for jobs outside the USA.
Re:Here's an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
And when you tell them this, they believe you are lying and don't hire you. Or hell, consider that a personality flaw and don't hire you for being anti-social.
"Or.. Gasp... Be careful and keep it safe for work at all times. "
Because living in fear is exactly what we should all aspire to, right?
"One really should not put anything online that you would not want EVERYBODY to be able to read."
Bit of a difference between, say, posting on a blog, and being pressed into giving someone else a password to your private accounts. Would you be against letting them scan your hard drive for anything they might find objectionable? After all, what's the difference? Your computer is connected to the internet.
"Everything you put online, pictures, comments, blogs, chats etc. is going to be public information forever, or at least it CAN end up out living you. Remember that every time you are tempted to post."
Does that apply to spineless pro-corporate shilling on slashdot?
I kind of see this all as a non-issue. In some ways the loss of privacy is a bad thing... in other ways it is good. We didn't see much motion in the gay rights movement until people started to come out. I think the same is going to start to happen in other parts of society - the petty prejudices aren't going to hold up so well in an age where everyone is more open. Not to say I am for invasions of privacy, but it is going to happen, and it isn't all bad. I also can see being closed off as becoming something itself considered undesirable and I think rightly so.
Re: (Score:2)
All of tha only matters if you believe there is some "private" area on Facebook. Since there really isn't, your rant is sort of irrelevent. Now, when it comes to some email I sent 10 years ago, that's where I wish we had stronger privacy protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is "don't post pictures of your balls and / or tits on Facebook" 'living in fear'?
Treat these services as public spaces - if you wouldn't walk down main street in your hometown with your balls hanging out, don't do it on Facebook. If you wouldn't walk down main street in your hometown smoking a crack pipe, don't post a picture of yourself doing the same thing on Facebook. This isn't "living in fear," this is "taking sensible
Re: (Score:2)
Since the most extreme case is not the only case. Translation: because the straw man wasn't alive to begin with.
How about seeing pictures of you at a political rally? Seeing you seem to know a lot of Muslims? Seeing you like some sort of objectionable media? Especially when you consider this is pretty much going to happen if you do those things. You're not the only person able to reveal what you're up to and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> So your solution is don't use social media and you won't have to hide it - even
> though as I said that will not work because they will rightly assume
> you're probably lying (it is simply not the common case),
[...deletia...]
> The end point of this is that almost everyone now uses social media
Wrong. Check out http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-statistics/ [socialbakers.com] Most English-speaking countries are at approx 50% of the population. As of the time of posting...
* USA 50.72%
* UK 49.63%
* Canada 53.39%
* Au
Re: (Score:2)
just dont go crying when they see that picture of you smoking a blunt
Re: (Score:2)
(Note - No judgement here on whether this particular act should be illegal or not, just that it currently is)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're not. Not if it is illegal to do so, which is what this law is about. I consider it simply a question of this: do they do the job? If they do, then shut the fuck up. If they do not, you have no need for other reasons to not hire/fire them. That means you have no right to decide what they do in their personal lives just because they work for you some of the time. But I suppose it is easy to believe you do when YOU are not the one who i
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, there are entire classes of people I don't want working for me, with me or near me.
Sorry, dude. The law won't let you refuse to hire people just because they're one-legged French-speaking black presbyterians.
Re: (Score:3)
Simple solution: modify your facebook password to match a section of your DNA. Then asking for any of those things would require you to surrender your facebook password.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking and entering, in the case of them snarfing your password, is something the FBI loves to prosecute. Contact your friendly FBI today, and ask about our two for one special.