Michigan Makes It Illegal To Ask For Employees' Facebook Logins 132
An anonymous reader writes "Michigan joins Maryland as a state where employers may not ask employees or job applicants to divulge login information for Facebook and other social media sites. From the article: 'Under the law, employers cannot discipline employees or decline to hire job applicants because they do not give them access information, including user names, passwords, login information, or "other security information that protects access to a personal internet account," according to the bill. Universities and schools cannot discipline or fail to admit students if they do not give similar information.' There is one exception, however: 'However, accounts owned by a company or educational institution, such as e-mail, can be requested.'"
However.... (Score:5, Interesting)
You can be sure that 9 times out of 10, the job will go to the guy/gal who does hand over the info.
Re:However.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. I would take such a case pro bono, or at a small contingency. It's not often I'm handed a slam-dunk win.
Re: (Score:3)
Except now they aren't allowed to ask at all to begin with. If they ask, it's grounds for what seems like a complaint and a fine, just as if the employer asked what religion you are a member of or how old you are.
Employers can NOT ask how old you are? Seems that would matter in some jobs. Porno industry would be one. Any job that serves or sells alcohol.
Plus most jobs have your fill an application, which requests your date of birth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Love the 'loophole': accounts owned by a company or educational institution, such as e-mail, can be requested.
You work for companyA.
You do an interview with companyB.
companyB: Give us the username/password to your email account at companyA.
Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
They can ask if you are over an age.
And porno includes all ages.
Re:However.... (Score:5, Funny)
And porno includes all ages.
You might want to reword that.
Re:However.... (Score:5, Informative)
"They can ask if you are over an age."
No, they can't, unless being a certain age is a demonstrable job requirement. And there aren't many fields in which it's a legitimate job requirement. They can ask if you are of legal age to sign a contract. Not much more than that.
Re: (Score:2)
The parent was replying to a post that mentioned the porn industry, or jobs serving alcohol. I think the quoted bit was meant to cover those specific situations, where yes you can be asked if you are legally able to work in those categories.
Re: (Score:2)
"The parent was replying to a post that mentioned the porn industry, or jobs serving alcohol. I think the quoted bit was meant to cover those specific situations, where yes you can be asked if you are legally able to work in those categories."
I see. But it's still mostly state-specific. You can't sign a contract if you're under 18, so you can't be in porn anyway. As for serving alcohol, where I live you don't have to be 21 to just be a server (although you do to be a bartender).
Re: (Score:2)
"The standard rule of thumb is that they are allowed to ask if - and only if - it's a bona fide occupational qualification."
Correct. I stated this myself already, in another post.
But my point was that as far as porno is concerned, they can't sign a contract anyway unless they are 18. So if they are old enough to sign a contract, they are old enough to do porno. There is no need to ask about age except to ask if they are legal to sign a contract.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they can't, unless being a certain age is a demonstrable job requirement.
They're probably OK. The ADEA prohibits against discrminating against people over age 40; and the age anti-discrimination law doesn't apply to anyone younger than that. It is OK to favor an older worker over a younger one, or refusing an applicant because they are too young -- but not because they are too old (unless there is a local law prohibiting this).
What the federal law prohibits is favoring a younger worker over a
Re: (Score:2)
You'd better make sure they are over 18 before asking them to take their clothes off, or you could find yourself in prison for a very long time.
Re: (Score:2)
"Plus most jobs have your fill an application, which requests your date of birth."
The forms I hate most are those that ask for both your DOB and your age.
"be seeing you."
Vote for number 6 to be the new number 2
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have never seen a job application that did not ask for Date of Birth.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, having obtained that information (as required by the state), the employer can now be sued for age discrimination if they ever terminate the
Re: (Score:2)
However, asking for it on an application is de facto asking how old you are. No two ways about it: it's definitely against Federal law.
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody who put those on their application forms these days is just asking to be sued.
It's stupid also: age can be deduced from the resume. Someone who finished high school in 1995 like me is not going to be 18 nor 60.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Employers can NOT ask how old you are? Seems that would matter in some jobs. Porno industry would be one. Any job that serves or sells alcohol."
This is one of the questions that are in a short list of things an employer may NOT ask when interviewing, according to Federal discrimination laws.
However, these rules don't apply when the factor at issue is a demonstrable requirement of the job. Then they aren't discriminating! So your porno example would never occur in the real world.
Another example: in order to be a firefighter, it is legitimate to require that they can carry a certain minimum amount of weight. That's not discriminating against wo
Re: (Score:2)
So your porno example would never occur in the real world.
The porn industry is just part of the much larger entertainment industry, they are allowed to ask for a female midget, if that's what the part calls for.
Protected categories (Score:2)
Employers can NOT ask how old you are? Seems that would matter in some jobs.
No. Companies have to tread very carefully when asking about age, marital status, race, gender and a number of other protected categories. Indiscreet questions expose the company to potential liability for discrimination should someone want to pursue it. There are ways of dancing around this issue while staying within the law but significant care is required.
Plus most jobs have your fill an application, which requests your date of birth.
You can provide this after being interviewed.
Re: (Score:2)
Employers can NOT ask how old you are? Seems that would matter in some jobs. Porno industry would be one. Any job that serves or sells alcohol.
Plus most jobs have your fill an application, which requests your date of birth.
The info will be on the application. If there is a legally mandated age requirement, the application will be sorted out citing the rule.
The interviewer cannot ask you that question about your age, to make the decision; this will generally be enforced by company policy, in orde
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If someone is willing to break a TOS and allow a third party complete, unfettered access to their account, then the employer hiring on that basis deserves what they get. Someone willing to break one set of rules has displayed the readiness to possibly break NDAs should circumstances permit.
I've walked out on interviews because of this, telling the would-be HR person that if they want my FB info, they can go and get a motion of discovery, and pay FB for a neatly packaged folder with the info. Oh, not to me
Re: (Score:2)
Posting AC, as my Christmas "present" due to an internal reorg was my ass tossed on the street, so having to play this game.
Those fucking people deserve a place in the Special Hell.
I had two friends in the last 4 years fired the week before X-Mas. I mean, seriously, who the fuck comes up with that idea?
Re: (Score:2)
I had two friends in the last 4 years fired the week before X-Mas. I mean, seriously, who the fuck comes up with that idea?
The Shareholders.
Re: (Score:3)
I had two friends in the last 4 years fired the week before X-Mas. I mean, seriously, who the fuck comes up with that idea?
The Shareholders.
Another silly person who thinks that because corporations have elections, that makes them democracies.
It's not one person one vote, it's one share, one vote. Most corporations have the bulk of their shares concentrated in the hands of a few individuals and/or organizations. So of all the various parties interested in one way or another in a corporation: employees, customers, shareholders, vendors, the ones whose votes count are almost always a scant, narrow-minded minority.
In any event, when was the last ti
Re: (Score:2)
I had two friends in the last 4 years fired the week before X-Mas. I mean, seriously, who the fuck comes up with that idea?
The Shareholders.
Another silly person who thinks that because corporations have elections, that makes them democracies.
It's not one person one vote, it's one share, one vote.
Even less. Perhaps you have recieved a "proxy vote" letter, where they tell you what and who you are going to vote for during the upcoming meeting?
Re: (Score:2)
Even less. Perhaps you have recieved a "proxy vote" letter, where they tell you what and who you are going to vote for during the upcoming meeting?
Yes. But that's only how "you" will vote if you don't explicitly vote your proxy. The proxy is simply a way of registering votes without having to attend the actual shareholder meeting. The only insidious thing about that is that if you don't choose, the choice will be made for you.
Most shareholder meetings have some sort of provision where shareholders can introduce more or less whatever issues they want to be voted on as long as they actually attend the meeting. Some companies even hold meetings in inconv
Re: (Score:2)
It's no better getting it after Xmas. My first real job was the Tuesday after New Years. Personally I would rather have been fired a month before. People (me at least) have a tendency to go whole hog for the holidays. If you know there is an end in site, it might keep you in line. I also had a contract end on Dec 31 but I knew about that mid November that it was being cut.
Re:However.... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is outright illegal in my country. Don't you Americans have any basic right to privacy?
Anyway, I'd never hire anyone so stupid as to give me their passwords. Would you trust someone like that your company data? And I'd never want to work for a company so stupid to ask for that. It's a clear sign of control-freak, unfocused management.
Re:However.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is outright illegal in my country. Don't you Americans have any basic right to privacy?
Welll..... what we fought so hard for, and so many of us have died for, was the idea of freedom. That includes privacy and anonymity. It was not more than a hundred years ago or so that people had real privacy and became pretty upset when somebody violated it. Was considered very rude and improper.
I would say that we have a deep tradition of privacy, that it's a basic human right, and that our Constitution supports it.
However, our current government has clearly said, "fuck all that liberty shit". Whatever information we can get, in any way we can get it, we are going to do in the name of either profit or national security. Pick an excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
"This is outright illegal in my country. Don't you Americans have any basic right to privacy? "
There is no Federal law, but many states have outlawed the practice, and I believe many more will.
Keep in mind that in the U.S. there is a division between what the states can legally do vs. what the Federal government can legally do.
Having said that: yes, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that we do in fact have a right to privacy. But you would not know that, looking at certain recent acts of Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Presuming the summary is correct, by many you mean two.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:However.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Nope. We have a bunch of fucking sociopaths running the corporate world these days. Another 10 years of this shit and we're all going to be stuck in some neo-dickensian nightmare. The only "people" who have rights anymore are the corporations. The rest of us are just cattle unless you happen to have a high-enough net worth.
Re: (Score:3)
"You can be sure that 9 times out of 10, the job will go to the guy/gal who does hand over the info."
Who cares? If they ask me for something like that, they're not somebody I'd work for anyway!
Re: (Score:2)
Asking for User Names vs. Passwords (Score:2)
User names? Maybe, depending on the service. Password? No thanks, I've got no desire for somebody who claims to be offering me a job to be able to impersonate me or change my settings, and doing so would destroy the integrity of the information they'd be looking for anyway. And since I've usually done computer security as at least part of any job I've had since high school, I would expect any company I gave my real passwords to to have the sense not to hire me, and would presume that any company that di
Re: (Score:2)
You can be sure that 9 times out of 10, the job will go to the guy/gal who does hand over the info.
No... If they do give it to a guy/gal who handed over the info, AND they asked you to hand over the info, AND you didn't, AND they didn't hire you; then you may be able to sue them, and then they will have to prove that their choice to hire the guy/gal instead had nothing to do with handing over the login info.
Re:However.... (Score:4, Informative)
I thought it was a sign of being a terrorist or something like that. For most positions, that is a reason to not hire. I'm so glad I'm self-employed.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/07/29/1627203/facebook-abstainers-could-be-labeled-suspicious [slashdot.org]
Re:However.... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, like that idiot Neil deGrasse Tyson [facebook.com]. You're clearly way smarter than he is.
Re: (Score:2)
Neil Tyson earned his degrees and made accomplishments long before becoming a facebook poster. his best work behind him, brain power declining, winding down in late middle age, he now posts on facebook.
Feeding the troll :-) (Score:4, Insightful)
Alternatively, it's a sign of having relatives who use Facebook to communicate, just as having a Myspace account is a sign of having nephews who had a heavy metal garage band. And besides, Facebook was the next place to go after Orkut had become a wasteland :-)
SSN? (Score:1)
So that includes Social Security Numbers, too?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not my own SSN. The only people that have that are those with a legal requirement to report financial information to government entities.
What employer doesn't have a legal requirement to report financial information about their employees to at least one government entity?
Re: (Score:2)
With out the SSN the government doesn't know who to apply the tax number to.
And you suggestion doesn't change a damn thing, it just creates another UID.
Frankly, anyone using the ID for ANYTHING BUT tax purpose should be given a mandate to stop using it and have the number erased in 12 months.
No Entity should be able to share A persons unique ID with any other entity. So you have one for each institution.
Re: (Score:3)
What the fuck I want to know is why my Internet provider, my natural gas supplier, my power company, etc. needs my fucking SSN for "security" purposes?
My job? I get it. That's for tax reporting purposes. My bank? It's so the government can audit me and they can report as well.
The power company? Whey the fuck do you need my entire social?
It's not for security purposes. It's to have a single UID for the 3 credit reporting agencies that collect more information on US citizens than most companies combined. In f
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the whole point of the social security number was so that the employer could deduct taxes and pay them to the correct place. Where I live we have a National Insurance Number which is pretty much the same thing, and my employer is about the only person I give it to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If a headhunter is charging *job seekers* money, then it's a scam and you should stay the hell away regardless of any promises they might make. Legit recruiters get paid by the companies they recruit for, not the potential employees.
A NO-Brainer (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me get this right... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's against the law to ask employees or prospective employees for login info for social media sites, unless those accounts are owned by a company or an educational institution.
So I guess the question is, do you own your facebook account? Do you own your gmail account? How about your iTunes account?
I would guess that those companies would say No.
Re: (Score:2)
I wondered about that too but chalked it up to being a slashdot summary. I'm guessing the law is going to be a little clearer on what entities are subject to request. I'm thinking it means that an employer could ask a former employer which ran its own email service, if it could have a copy of any emails it still has on file. I'd guess a bit of reluctance on the part of the former employer, but you can always ask. Same thing for a school.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunatly, TFA was not any clearer on this issue. It used the same sentence:
There is one exception, however: 'However, accounts owned by a company or educational institution, such as e-mail, can be requested.'"
Without digging up the legislation itself, I suspect it meant asking for the login information to a Corporate Facebook account by the owning corporation would be permitted, In effect to prevent an employee from holding the account hostage.
Similarly, a university or high school might demand a student surrender their password. (Although you would have to be a pretty clueless sys admin to need such authority.
I'm pretty sure it didn
Re:Let me get this right... (Score:5, Informative)
The law [mi.gov] states:
Sec. 5. (1) This act does not prohibit an employer from doing any of the following:
(a) Requesting or requiring an employee to disclose access information to the employer to gain access to or operate any of the following:
(i) An electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the employer.
(ii) An account or service provided by the employer, obtained by virtue of the employee’s employment relationship with the employer, or used for the employer’s business purposes.
(b) Disciplining or discharging an employee for transferring the employer’s proprietary or confidential information or financial data to an employee’s personal internet account without the employer’s authorization.
(c) Conducting an investigation or requiring an employee to cooperate in an investigation in any of the following circumstances:
(i) If there is specific information about activity on the employee’s personal internet account, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with applicable laws, regulatory requirements, or prohibitions against work-related employee misconduct.
(ii) If the employer has specific information about an unauthorized transfer of the employer’s proprietary information, confidential information, or financial data to an employee’s personal internet account.
(d) Restricting or prohibiting an employee’s access to certain websites while using an electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the employer or while using an employer’s network or resources, in accordance with state and federal law.
(e) Monitoring, reviewing, or accessing electronic data stored on an electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the employer, or traveling through or stored on an employer’s network, in accordance with state and federal law.
(2) This act does not prohibit or restrict an employer from complying with a duty to screen employees or applicants prior to hiring or to monitor or retain employee communications that is established under federal law or by a self-regulatory organization, as defined in section 3(a)(26) of the securities and exchange act of 1934, 15 USC 78c(a)(26).
(3) This act does not prohibit or restrict an employer from viewing, accessing, or utilizing information about an employee or applicant that can be obtained without any required access information or that is available in the public domain.
Sec. 6. (1) This act does not prohibit an educational institution from requesting or requiring a student to disclose access information to the educational institution to gain access to or operate any of the following:
(a) An electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the educational institution.
(b) An account or service provided by the educational institution that is either obtained by virtue of the student’s admission to the educational institution or used by the student for educational purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see much that is objectionable.
Re: (Score:2)
The only loophole I see is this so called "Legitimate investigation" which appears to allow them to demand your Gmail account login, or what ever. So, want access, simply start an "investigation". Its a small loop hole, just barely big enough to drive a battle ship and an aircraft carrier through, side by side.
Who gets to decide "Legitimate investigation"?
Re: (Score:2)
I would presume that if the company could not provide that "specific information", the employee could either (A) fail to cooperate, or (B) file a grievance or lawsuit.
Re: (Score:3)
If they have specific info let them show it to a judge.
This is too wide open for a state government to grant authority to a private company to search your private Internet accounts on nothing more than that same company's say so.
Re: (Score:2)
Demanding involvement from the password holder gets around some ethics problems and makes things legally muddy instead of more obviously illegal. No matter what terms of service you have there are often laws to stop people trawling through private emails even if they are on a commercial or school owned server.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I wondered about that too but chalked it up to being a slashdot summary. I'm guessing the law is going to be a little clearer on what entities are subject to request. I'm thinking it means that an employer could ask a former employer which ran its own email service, if it could have a copy of any emails it still has on file. I'd guess a bit of reluctance on the part of the former employer, but you can always ask. Same thing for a school.
ya, slashdot summary of a website that did a bad job. Here is the bill:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billenrolled/House/htm/2012-HNB-5523.htm [mi.gov]
And it says different.
Roughly, it says that Employers, prospective employers and educational institutes can NOT ask for login info from employees, prospective employees and students. If it does, you can take them to civil court for a max of $1000 in damages.
This is the exemptions:
Sec. 5. (1) This act does not prohibit an employer from doing any o
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess the question is, do you own your facebook account? Do you own your gmail account?
No, the question would be, does "Bob's Meat Market" own the facebook or gmail account of someone who applies for a job there, and I think the answer to that is a pretty solid "no".
But Michigan State University DOES own the domain "msu.edu", and email addresses at that domain do belong to them. So, they have the right to ask about email accounts at msu.edu when someone applies for a job there.
Re: (Score:2)
" So, they have the right to ask about email accounts at msu.edu when someone applies for a job there."
no they don't.
The fact that they own the domain doesn't mean I have to divulge I have an account there.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the question would be, does "Bob's Meat Market" own the facebook or gmail account of someone who applies for a job there, and I think the answer to that is a pretty solid "no".
Even stronger, if you apply for a job at Facebook, or you work at Facebook, they cannot ask you about Facebook accounts, except those that you have as a Facebook employee.
Re: (Score:2)
"... unless those accounts are owned by a company or an educational institution."
I believe by "owned" is meant "he account holder". Let's hope the actual language of the law is not that ambiguous.
Re: (Score:2)
If the account was set up for use by a business for business purposs but you administer the account, they can ask you for the login info. So, if you worked for xxx and had you set up an account linking to your email account or used the account to represent xxx, you can alsi be asked for the login info. You personal account is off-limits.
Moot for me (Score:2, Insightful)
The law is moot for me.
I would never EVER tolerate being asked this question. If asked, the interview would be over. If they were half-sane enough to retract the question and apologize, the apology would not be accepted.
If any employers want my advice (and admittedly, they usually don't), they would fire anyone who thought this was part of something they should know.
On the plus side, I don't have a facebook account - but I'd still walk out of any interview where it came up. Anyone who thinks this is at all
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How nice to be in a position to storm out of job interviews. Some people have it a little tougher than that these days.
I wonder what happens _if_ you are asked. You could refuse to answer and/or sue for $1000 in damages, but that would probably mean no job. Are you allowed to lie to such questions?
Re: (Score:2)
If I could line up 10 such interviews a month, I'd probably be content with that.
Re: (Score:2)
"How nice to be in a position to storm out of job interviews. Some people have it a little tougher than that these days."
I've done it, even when I was pretty desperate for work, during the recession started in 2001. For different reasons than this, but that still had to do with personal privacy.
I'd do it for this reason, too.
Re: (Score:2)
How nice to be in a position to storm out of job interviews. Some people have it a little tougher than that these days.
Since when have principles been cheap?
Tell Your Password and Be Banned (Score:1)
It's already against the terms of service of every online account to hand out your log on info to anyone, let alone allow someone to use your account. If I ever interviewed anyone, I might ask and then wouldn't hire anyone who was willing to give me the info.
For companies, how are they justifying the legal risks? If I gave someone my password, I can claim any future post can from them.
Re: (Score:2)
TOS for free online services are not binding contracts. Violating their terms don't pose any real risk for the violator.
redundent redundent redundent redundent redundent (Score:2)
All this did was give employers who did it in the past ex post facto immunity against most lawsuits.
This can't be right (Score:2)
the government is in corporate pockets! people on slashdot say so.
You've got to be shitting me (Score:2)
Is it April 1st already? Since when does the Court ever defer to common sense -- especially when computers or the Internet is involved?
I'd better go read the article myself, the submitter probably dun goofed.
Hooray Michigan!!! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Employee's private lives aren't the business of an employer!
Unless your job requires a US Federal Government security clearance. Then your private life is their business. You know, like, if you are getting it on with your biographer and Florida socialite. Federal laws probably trump this Michigan law.
Re: (Score:2)
Or unless you like to bring your private live to work with you, or just no show up for work because your private life got the better of you.
Security Clearances vs. Employer (Score:2)
It's been decades since I had a security clearance, but while I had to fill out reams of information for the Feds themselves, I don't think most of it was actually visible to my company. That doesn't mean they didn't know about some issues, e.g. one coworker had recently gotten out of college, and had admitted on the form that he had used marijuana (gasp!), and that led to a six-month delay in getting the clearance approved, but that was back before Nancy Reagan had bullied Corporate America into doing dru
This can't be true! (Score:2)
Medical Marijuana Still Discriminated Against (Score:1)
But why... (Score:3)
So what? (Score:2)
Does this mean that if they ask you, you refuse and they then decline your application for any alleged other reason, you have grounds for a lawsuit? Otherwise this is pretty toothless.
Re: (Score:1)
There is no constitutional right to privacy, nor to work. Therefore employers, including the government, have a right to know what you post on Facebook.
Posted by an Anonymous Coward. How ironic.
Re: (Score:1)
I have a Facebook account, haven't logged on to it in a year, and was hoping a future employer would ask me so I could say no.
Oh well.