New Illinois Law Protecting Social Media Rights In the Workplace 147
sl4shd0rk writes "Illinois (USA) Governor Pat Quinn signed a new law this week protecting employees' privacy rights concerning social media. Bill 3782 makes it illegal for an employer to request an employee's or job candidate's social network login credentials, in order to gain access to their account or profile. 'Members of the workforce should not be punished for information their employers don't legally have the right to have,' Governor Quinn said. 'As use of social media continues to expand, this new law will protect workers and their right to personal privacy.'"
Wait. What? (Score:5, Funny)
Illinois did something that makes sense? WTF?
Re:Wait. What? (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't make sense at all. They can't ask for credentials? So they will ask to be "friended" or "circled" just to get an interview. Sucks for me, since I don't have a Facebook account and will be excluded as if I am hiding something...
Re:Wait. What? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is arguably a difference between 'doesn't make sense' and 'will be relatively easy to evade'.
Most worker protection legislation suffers from the basic problem that there are just so many innocent-sounding reasons to get rid of someone for reasons wholly unrelated to any legally protected trait.
Whistleblowers, assorted wage/salary/time-worked accounting shenanigans, occupational hazards, harassment, and virtually anything else all fall into that category.
Trouble is, unless you've got a bold plan to achieve an enormous restructuring of the economy (at least to the point where the labor market is a seller's market, perhaps even to the point where most people aren't 'employees'(and no, the 'oh, he's an "independent contractor" because those are cheaper than employees, he just resembles an employee in all other ways'/permatemp doesn't count)), the condition of employees in your economy will be one of the greatest determinants of the welfare(and even the day-to-day freedom) of most of the population.
That makes ignoring the problem a bit... unpalatable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it doesn't make sense.
If an employer wants my Facebook Password, it is really simple, "NO". I don't need a law to protect me.
And in fact, should anyone ever ask for my password, I'd start passing that info on to the social networking sites as a warning to others. We don't need government creating idiotic laws that will last well beyond the technology's life span.
If everyone acted the same way, with the same level of outrage, the problem would go away on its own. We don't need government to fix stu
Re:Wait. What? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wait. What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
1). Where does an unemployed person find the money for a lawyer?
2). In just about every "Right to Work" state there is, the employer does not actually have to state the reason why they are firing you. Leaving the burden completely on you to prove that the fired you because of not handing over the FB password. And likely they will have something else stored away for just such an occasion, like a violation of the "Network Acceptable Use Policy" (He browsed Slashdot at work!).
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty who will do it for a cut if it looks likely to win. Firing someone for refusing to violate the law? Multi-millions right there.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you have to be able to actually prove it. That's not going to be easy.
Re: (Score:2)
I know several people that make a decent living just off of suing somebody or 4 or 5 years. Sad but true. If you get fired for not turning over a FB password, that is a legitimate lawsuit, IMHO.
Re: (Score:3)
Going on Twitter or Facebook and marketing "I was fired for not giving my Facebook Password" would create enough backlash that the company would lose in the end
Unlikely. That doesn't mean that the person shouldn't spam every news outlet and social media site with the info, I just don't think it would have the effect you believe it would.
And why would you want to work for such a company in the first place?
I'm going to assume he enjoys paying rent and eating food. Not everyone has the perfect job mobility you apparently do, and some people really do have to tough out very shitty jobs for a while. This is just a measure to cut down on the abuse and make those jobs a little less shitty.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you could sue, because even in "right to work" states, there are laws protecting workers.
There are not yet laws protecting workers from their employers requiring their login for social media. That is why they are proposing this law in Illinois. To create those protections. Which, from your previous posts, you seem to indicate you are opposed to (or think is unnecessary?). I am a little confused about what your position actually is.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it would... If you had a huge loyal social media following. If you just have twenty friends on Twitter, Facebook, or Google+ then those 20 friends will get outraged. Some of them might pass it on and some of those people might feel mildly upset about it. Perhaps one or two of them will pass it on, but it would peter out quickly. Yes, social media can amplify your audience. Your friends, by sharing your post, can get you a larger audience for your thoughts. It can't, however, get you a huge audien
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wait. What? (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope that thought gives you comfort while you're starving in a gutter.
Re: (Score:2)
They can create this law, but they won't create a law to prevent your employer from asking for your bank and investment accounts (SEC regulation). The Federal government will usurp this law under the guise of terrorism prevention.
Re: (Score:3)
We don't need government to fix stupidity, we just need an educated public.
There's this thing called a legislature. People elect other people to go and make laws in the legislature. It makes it easier for people to get things done so they don't have to organize a concerted show of outrage towards companies. Instead they argue the merits of such a law and the elected persons make it so.
Re: (Score:3)
No the worst from a tyranny is when you don't have the freedom to even do that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, not even close.
I do computer security work (Score:2)
If I asked somebody for their Facebook password in a job interview, and they gave it to me, that would tell me that they don't have enough clue to be worth hiring :-)
Asking for their Facebook user name is different - There are jobs for which it may make sense to see what somebody's public profile looks like (as opposed to what they're showing their friends.) There are HR people who there who would also want to look at who their friends are, which is getting into creepy, of course. And there are jobs that
Re: (Score:3)
If I asked somebody for their Facebook password in a job interview, and they gave it to me, that would tell me that they don't have enough clue to be worth hiring :-)
If you are out of work for almost 2 years, and you're insanely desperate for any kind of paycheck, you'd do almost whatever they'd ask to try and get a job. And people like you would look down on them for this.
And if you REALLY need the job? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are out of work, really need a job, and an employer is making an unreasonable (but still legal) demand, you are in a rather unequal bargaining position. It's all well and good to stick up for yourself if you have the luxury of turning down a new job or aborting a promising interview, but not everyone is in that position. The law levels the playing field by prohibiting employers from even asking for something they have no business getting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you want to work for such a place?
Probably because they like paying rent and eating rather than starving in a gutter.
It is just asking for more heartache and headaches in the future.
Not nearly as much as one where you don't have a place to live or food in your belly.
Get it through your fucking head: NOT EVERYONE HAS THE ABILITY TO TURN DOWN JOBS. Should these people simply be fucked over like this, just because they can?
Re: (Score:2)
You must be a boomer.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't need a law to protect me
If the company can refuse to hire you because you refused to provide a password, even if they are violating the Facebook TOS, and if there is no legal recourse against that company for how they are behaving then yes, you need the law to clarify its position (which is more what this is).
Worse still is if governments have ruled through various agencies that they *can* ask for your passwords legally - which they probably cannot, and this clarifies that they aren't allowed to do that. Keep in mind that laws wi
Re: (Score:3)
If an employer wants my Facebook Password, it is really simple, "NO". I don't need a law to protect me.
What if you need the job? And what if the employer next door wants your password too?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why no jobs ever drug test, right?
I say no now, but I know if I ever end up hungry I too will take a wizzquiz.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it doesn't make sense.
If an employer wants my Facebook Password, it is really simple, "NO". I don't need a law to protect me.
Prior to this law, you could be fired for giving that answer in Illinois.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, no one has any balls today. People have been brainwashed into believing that "there should be a law". Hence - we have a myriad of nonsense laws to "protect" us. Strange how all those laws designed to "protect" us can be used to hammer us senseless when we come to the attention of law enforcement officials.
Yes, I'm all for an educated public. Unfortunately, the departments of education around the country are largely responsible for the brainwashed condition of the masses.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the problem is that employees have very little bargaining power compared to employers today, and that many of them still like to eat.
I hope the idea that you still "have balls" would provide you comfort when you're unable to find a job.
Re: (Score:3)
YOU might not. Recognize that not everyone has the same position you do, and there are people who are very desperate for a job.
But I forgot, that infringes on your ideals of "Fuck them, I've got mine."
Re: (Score:2)
There will always be a sucker willing to give up their FB info, who is "good enough" to fill a position that you want.
Re: (Score:2)
And unless there is a law to protect you, that NO will send your resume into the round file every single time. Eventually, as you stand in the rain digging ditches for minimum wage, you will break.
OTOH, if it is illegal for them to even ask, you won't face that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
North Dakota (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's only because a number of reviewers disappeared and lots of people were paid or threatened to keep their mouths shut.
Re:Wait. What? (Score:4, Informative)
Neither Oklahoma nor Texas has recently had a governor arrested, prosecuted, and found guilty of felony misdemeanors. That's not to say that those states don't have corruption problems, but we can make a damned convincing argument that Illinois might be the most corrupt state.
Re: (Score:2)
It really does depend on what those charges are. In the case you're talking about, they were corruption charges. But there are a number of felony misdemeanors, or any felonies for that matter, which wouldn't really show corruption. A governor getting arrested for a DUI, for example, would probably show that said governor is an idiot, but not necessarily that they are corrupt. If anything, I'd almost say that their conviction on that charge might prove the opposite.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Illinois here. I have not had *a* governor arrested recently.
I believe I'm up to 6.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1865681,00.html [time.com]
Try to keep up, haters!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Illinois is corrupt. Look up "Corruption" in a dictionary and the entire entry is in the shape of the state of Illinois.
Note: The federal government didn't "stamp out organized crime" in the 20's and 30's. Organized crime simply stepped into local government because they could get away with more and it was more lucrative.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> Illinois did something that makes sense?
The legislature is like the monkeys with the typewriters...
Re: (Score:3)
Like the Chicago Cubs say, "you can't lose 'em all." Actually, I've found Illinois politicians actually listen to their constituents (some are better than others, of course) and the constituent doesn't have to be a campaign contributor, or even in the same party (which party's primary you vote in is a matter of public record in Illinois).
As to Illinois doing something that makes sense, do farms make sense? Most of the state is famland. Does subatomic particle physics make sense? Before the LHC, Illinois had
Full text of the law (Score:5, Informative)
Read the full text of the law here [ilga.gov]
At least they cited the bill number. I hate it when news outlets don't tell you the bill and have to go searching for it.
Sensibility (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sensibility (Score:4, Insightful)
Additionally, sharing your Facebook password is against the TOS [facebook.com] (Section 4, subsection 8). You can tell an employer/prospective employer that you will reveal your credentials if they assume the legal responsibility for breaching the contract.
That should get them off your back. Whether you get hired/fired, that's an entirely different matter.
Re: (Score:3)
Are/Were companies doing this because it's cheaper than running a background check?
Some companies are doing this because they like to think of themselves as having control over their employees outside of work. It's the same impetus as drug testing: Sure your work performance might be great, but we don't want you if you smoke pot on the weekends or have an account on Fetlife or went to a political protest for a cause the company doesn't agree with.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine that drug testing has little to do with work performance than it does liability. If an employee is high or has drugs on company property, it would give the police cause to do a full search. Probably just to the employee's work area, but it's something the company wants to avoid.
IANAL or a LTE, but makes sense to just not hire someone who refuses a drug test than assume the risk and have something happen later on. I imagine this was the same rationale for giving up your social network credential
Re: (Score:3)
So instead they can use that information to not hire you because they can tell you are diabetic, or have some other medical condition or smoke or drink or do other legal but detectable things.
Drug testing is far more intrusive than asking for a Facebook password. I think both should not be legal, until after something has happened and should be done by a court not your employer.
Re: (Score:2)
You still have no right to know what he does on his off time.
I do not use drugs, but I will not take such a test. It would let you know way too much about me and my medical state. I will not let you search my house either, which I guess would be another way to see if someone breaks the law.
Re: (Score:2)
You are absoutely right that a company does not have a right to know what you do in your off time. That is why they don't show up at your house and make you take a drug test. That send you from work to go get a drug test.
No matter what you do in your free time, you do not have the right to go on their property with illegal substances in your system that may cause issues to the way you perform your job duties or possibly cause an unsafe environment for those around your. If you are taking drugs that rema
Re: (Score:2)
They should not have the right to examine your bodily fluids anymore than to strip search you.
Read my posts, I am not taking drugs, I am however aware that those same fluids tell a lot more about a person than just if they use illegal drugs or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding 2 and 3, there are many LEGAL substances which do the same thing. Alcohol has a demonstrable negative effect on a person's mental faculties. If that was the reason they were drug checking, then why not check for alcohol? I'd imagine it'd be just as common, if not more so, than weed.
I can see not wanting people to be under the influence while at work, and that would be perfectly ok.
"I'm going to choose the guy without a substance habit, because there's less likelihood the "sober" guy is going to sp
Re: (Score:2)
For the record, the only recreational drugs I've ever used are (a) caffeine and (b) alcohol, neither of them even close to excess.
If an employee is performing poorly, then I don't need to go testing the contents of his urine to find out why, I can just fire him. It's not my job to act as a DEA agent, a police officer, or a therapist, my job is to achieve maximum performance for my team.
Re: (Score:2)
people who have detectable traces of illicit drugs in their bloodstream/urine:
But it's cool if they're legal? You imply that legal are not destructive.
1) Are breaking the law by using illegal drugs; (You can certainly argue that it's a stupid law, but at this point, it's the law of the land);
People also break the law by speeding, not signaling, not reporting income. All of those things affect more than just that person...
2) Are voluntarily ingesting a substance with demonstrable negative effects on the employee's mental faculties;
Legal substances also do this too. Alcohol. Your stance has no problem with functional alcoholics and pill poppers, after all it's legal!
3) Are engaging in behavior that is *often* self-destructive and leads to additional sickness, absenteeism, and possibly even crime;
Absenteeism: parents, additional sickness: parents of small children especially, possibly even crime: people who squander time at work by gabbing, using social media, mak
Re: (Score:3)
Interviewer: Oh, by the way, we need your Facebook credentials.
Me: I'm sorry, that's a violation of the TOS, and if you used them, you could potentially be commiting a felony by violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. At which point, I would be an accessory to the felony. So, no, you may not have them.
Re: (Score:2)
Interviewer: Well, it's been nice meeting you. We've decided to go with Ben over here, who really needs the job, and is willing to surrender his credentials. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
Re: (Score:2)
Is This For Real? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is This For Real? (Score:5, Insightful)
When you have so many job seekers and a real unemployment up in the 12-15% range employers start to think a bunch of new things are acceptable!
This is just one of them. Another is having an unwritten policy that they won't hire anyone that is unemployed. Another is an unspoken policy that they'll make job descriptions so tight they can use H1-B visa holders. The list goes on and on.
It's still amazingly stupid (Score:3)
Asking for their Facebook user name is one thing - a company might want to see the public profile the person presents, and a creepy HR department might want to see who their friends are. But any HR department that wants your password is exposing the company to legal liability for misuse of the information, and really has some 'splainin to do about why they want it the ability to forge the job candidate's information.
I do computer security - anybody dumb enough to give us their password is too dumb to hire,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that.. there were all types of employers that have been telling applicants to give up your Facebook password or we will not hire you, period. I haven't even heard of any specific cases dealing with prisons.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would far, far, far rather employers be told "NO! You can't do this! Bad employer!" pre-emptively than for the practice to actually take hold. It would be a lot harder to get rid of it, and business would bitch and moan even more how saying they can't do it is "anti-business".
Definition (Score:5, Interesting)
Great, now I have to look up the definition of electronic mail. Is it going to be things which talk rfc822? Or it is going to be things which transmit messages between different users? (I just checked Facebook and it has some kind of messaging thing in it; would be hilarious if Facebook didn't qualify.)
I bet most sites which use logins, could be made to become social networking. Even banks, if you get creative.
I hate laws like this, which are so needlessly specific to handle ephemeral trends. Why didn't they just make it illegal to impersonate other people? Who profited by lobbying against that?
Re: (Score:2)
I hate laws like this, which are so needlessly specific to handle ephemeral trends. Why didn't they just make it illegal to impersonate other people? Who profited by lobbying against that?
Actors. Actors often have to "impersonate" another person - see anyone acting in a biographical movie, for instance.
So once again, we can blame Hollywood! Yay Slashdot!
Re: (Score:2)
I hate laws like this, which are so needlessly specific to handle ephemeral trends. Why didn't they just make it illegal to impersonate other people? Who profited by lobbying against that?
Debt collectors and private investigators.
Employers and Facebook (Score:4, Insightful)
And if you are out of work? (Score:2)
Standing up for your rights when an employer asks you to do something legal, but unreasonable is all well and good if you are actually in a position to refuse. But if you are out of work, and really need the money, refusing an offer or aborting an interview because of crap like this is quite a bit harder.
Re: (Score:2)
It is legal now to break contracts? And I thought, pacta sunt servanda.
If you sign up with Facebook (or any other site), you are contractually bound by the Terms of Services. Facebook's ToS explicitely state that you are not allowed to give your credentials to anyone else. If your future employer asks you to break contracts, you are fine with that?
Re: (Score:2)
If your future employer asks you to break contracts, you are fine with that?
Depends. How long since I was last able to afford food?
Seriously? (Score:2)
Hmmmm.... you can choose between:
A) Impending foreclosure, unemployment, hunger, and bankruptcy.
B) Making sure you keep to a strange term in a unilateral contract that you are being asked to violate under duress.
Gee... such a tough decision.
There are times to draw a line in the sand, and turning down much-needed employment in order to enforce Facebook's ToS isn't one of them.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
let market forces end this practice
You still believe in the easter bunny, don't you ?
Re: (Score:3)
On the other, I think it would be stronger to let market forces end this practice
No, it wouldn't Not with the high unemployment levels we're currently experiencing.
If enough people simply stand up and walk out when asked to cough up their facebook information, the practice would stop immediately because the company would be unable to hire anyone
No it wouldn't. They'd simply claim there's no qualified applicants, and get an H1-B visa to do it.
If the work force were more united and less divided, market forces could dictate more workplace friendly policies
That would be a great thing. Unfortunately half the workforce has fallen under the influence of the ultra right-wing, Tea Party, "not allowing business to do whatever they want is anti-business!"
However, because Americans live in such abject fear, most are likely to just aquiesce so we need a law to provide a security blanket for the fearful.
Or, it's because of reality, and the fact that most people simply do not have the bargaining position necessary to rebuff these request
This Practice is Already Illegal Under Federal Law (Score:2)
This practice is, arguably, already illegal under the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act [wikipedia.org]
It all depends on whether your employer would be considered "authorized" to access the computer just because you coughed up your credentials.
If giving your credentials to other people is against the TOS of the site, one might argue that your employer is not authorized and, furthermore, that you might be guilty of "Knowingly and with the intent to defraud, trafficking
Re: (Score:2)
Simple solution: Facebook should set up a "panic password" which you can hand over, the first time this is used it locks the account down, records the IP etc and flashes up a big page informing the "hacker" that they have broken laws X,Y and Z, that the authorities and the original user have been i
Re: (Score:2)
You forget that Facebook is not the product. It's users are the product.
A panic password does little to nothing for Facebook and only creates more work for them.
In this case, we would need a law to force Facebook and others to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still like the idea of explicitly telling employers, "NO! You can't do this!"
Finally (Score:2)
Emphasis on the part that I felt was entirely overdue.
HB 3782 prevents employers from screening potential job candidates or reprimanding current employees based on information from their social network accounts that would otherwise be private.
ie. They can't just friend you or your friends in order to glean info off of your account and then fire you for it. I would imagine that if you have the info set to openly public it might be in the gray area.
Now if we could get them to remove the stipulation in affirmative action laws that allow them to decide what they think you are (race/gender/etc) and document it after you choose to opt out of offering them the information. (I've had several issues w
Re:Meh.. Darwin at work.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would argue that their right to personal privacy is given up when they decide to broadcast information on a public international communications network.
Social networks is the worlds largest experiment in removing the safety labels on devices.
my 2c.
If the information were publicly broadcast, I wouldn't need to ask you for your credentials in order to access it, would I? Unless I'm much mistaken, the bill doesn't protect you from being axed for those public pictures of you sucking a skull bong(which can be accessed without login, or with an arbitrary set of credentials), it just prevents me from demanding your access credentials.
Re:Meh.. Darwin at work.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a number of folks have thier profiles locked down to the point where all you can see is that they have a profile (without friending them)
so unless FB decides to rejigger the settings and "accidentally" set everything to World Visible there can be a lot of stuff you have on FB that folks can't see.
Re: (Score:2)
Username, meh, password, Darwin (Score:3)
It's one thing to ask for somebody's Facebook user name, so you can see if they're posting embarrassing pictures of themselves and friending inappropriate people, and so you can look at their Mom's Facebook page to see if you can find her maiden name.
It's something entirely different to ask for their password, so you can post embarrassing pictures of them on their Facebook account, friend inappropriate people, and write stuff on their Mom's Facebook page wall.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not everything on a Facebook profile is public.
Re: (Score:2)
how is broadcasting publicly inherently linked to loss of privacy? it's possible to do it without losing privacy.. if you meant 'should' instead of 'is', then I disagree. in such a society, there'd be no privacy unless you hole up in a closet for life.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are one of the uber controlling assholes who would dare not hire someone because they won't let you do something illegal, I hope your business goes bankrupt and brings you down with it, leaving you to live under an overpass.
Re: (Score:2)
companies like yours are the other half of the orwellian statist leftarded mentality. without you, they couldn't take our rights away with each passing bill.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's already public and accessible, then why are they asking for my password?
There's more stuff on a FB account that might not be public. Direct messages, for one.