WA State Bill Would Allow Bosses To Seek Facebook Passwords 316
An anonymous reader writes "A bill amendment proposed Tuesday could allow employers to ask for a worker's Facebook or other social media password during company investigations. The provision was proposed for a bill that safeguards social network passwords of workers and job applicants. The measure bars employers from asking for social media credentials during job interviews. The amendment says that an employer conducting an investigation may require or demand access to a personal account if an employee or prospective employee has allegations of work-place misconduct or giving away an employer's proprietary information. The amendment would require an investigation to ensure compliance with applicable laws or regulatory requirements."
Solved! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is easily avoided by simply refusing to participate in facebook and other social media. Actually, that solves a lot of really stupid problems. I highly recommend it.
Do not bother (Score:5, Insightful)
Those filthy employers who do wish to dig up some dirt would not hire someone without a Facebook account. It'll be considered too "creepy and suspicious".
Re:Do not bother (Score:4, Interesting)
It'll be considered too "creepy and suspicious".
As opposed to having current and former employers stalking our facebook pages, which isn't creepy at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Logging on as somebody else onto a thing like facebook is really a form of impersonation on a computer network anyway, and there are laws against that. These bosses that take other p
Re:Do not bother (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is though - whoever proposed this amendment should be run out of town on a rail, removed from public office, and their name shouted from the rooftops as an example of WHAT WE DON'T WANT our government to be getting into!
Re:Solved! (Score:5, Funny)
I think you forgot to check the Post Anonymously box.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you forgot to check the Post Anonymously box.
So did you. And as for me... well, LEEEEEERRRRRooooooy Jeeeenkins!
Re:Solved! (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if my employers didn't already know, which they do, then so be it. I prefer not to associate with anyone who can't handle the concept of somebody choosing not to use facebook anyway.
One of the things that a lot of people don't seem to grasp is that at some point, you need to just accept that your choices might have consequences you don't like, and just move on. I choose not to use facebook, twitter, and most of that other garbage. Sometimes I do this in venues that could be traced back to me personally. If somebody has a problem with it, I'll cross that bridge when I get there. What I won't do is start using services I don't have any interest in and don't like just because some hypothetical stranger thinks I'm weird unless I do.
Re:Solved! (Score:5, Insightful)
No because the law is still unjust whether or not it affects you personally, dipshit.
Re:Solved! (Score:5, Insightful)
This has the potential to affect everyone in enormous ways because it takes firm root in a huge crack in our civil liberty protections. We are all aware that there is an enumerated list of things the government is (supposedly) not allowed to do, like conduct searches without a warrant. If they do, that evidence is poisoned and is not supposed to be used at trial (*). But what many people don't know is that private non-governmental agencies are not bound by these rules (**).
Thus it is entirely possible for the government to wink and nod at an "internal" investigation, or even encourage it, because such an investigation would go beyond government's constitutional boundaries. When the private entity turns over the information so obtained to the government, the government doesn't have a "fruit of the poisonous tree" problem and the evidence can be used in court. The potential for such abuse is huge, especially by megacorps who essentially own the government to the point that whatever is in their own interest, is almost certainly in the interest of the state.
And of course, this will extend to any password (if not immediately, shortly thereafter) -- email, slashdot, whatever.
If this law was written such that employers could search people's homes, closets, photoalbums, etc., people would probably understand its breathtaking scope better. From a functional standpoint, people's digital closets and photoalbums should be just as off limits.
(*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree [wikipedia.org]
(**) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#Limitations_of_the_rule [wikipedia.org]
Re:Solved! (Score:5, Funny)
This has the potential to affect everyone in enormous ways because it takes firm root in a huge crack in our civil liberty protections.
It has been proven by many /. posters that civil liberty is something for people who sit at home and do nothing and doesn't apply to people who work, have Internet connection, a credit card, or leave their property. So I'll just repeat the main argument for you:
As soon as you get a job, you agree to a contract. Which means, your body, spirit, and soul belong to the company and they can do to you whatever they want. If you don't like that, you should look for a different owner or wait for the invisible hand to correct the market and retract itself from your cavities. There is just no other way. It might not be perfect, but it is the best system there is.
Asking for civil rights at the work place is asking for government interference with the market. This leads to mismanagement and a too powerful nanny state that takes direction from any anonymous voter instead of fully invested share-holders. If companies are blocked from accessing your private data, they also lose the ability to fully control you, which might interfere with profit. Anything interfering with profit is a violation of the free market and destroys our most valued freedoms. This ultimately leads to socialism and mass starvation like currently in Europe.
Re: (Score:3)
Democrats are the New GOP and the old GOP is just a parody of itself.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious what happens if you say you don't have an account and they don't believe you. Would they be permitted to not hire you?
Re: (Score:3)
Well it says they cannot ask during the interview phase, but in theory they could hire you then immediately investigate you for misconduct.
Re:Solved! (Score:5, Insightful)
No one ever gets fired because they are black/white, male/female, handicapped/able bodied, whatever/whatever-else. They are fired for whatever piddly thing that they can come up with. If they want you fired, they'll find something. Weren't able to come in an work the mandatory overtime? Forget to use the new TPS report format? Didn't check with your 8 bosses when you did something?
Re:Solved! (Score:4, Insightful)
You're talking about a protected class. People who have passwords is not such a class.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, people who have passwords are a protected class of sorts. Contract Law. These companies would be guilty of tortious interference of contract and unauthorized computer access, by law - the former a civil matter and the latter a criminal one.
Re:Solved! (Score:5, Funny)
When they came for reddit, i didn't care because i used throw-aways
When they came for 4chan, there was no one left but slashdot....
When they came for us, there was no one left at all.
Re: (Score:2)
When they came for us, there was no one left at all.
That's because they all installed Tor [torproject.org] and continued on their merry, man.
Re:Solved! (Score:5, Funny)
Wrong, you forgot the 5 of us over at Google+.
Re:Solved! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Solved! (Score:4, Funny)
I just added you to my foes list. Not for any reason. I agree with your dislike of this bill, just thought you should have an enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
A law like this would be ineffective for the stated purpose. Anybody passing corporate secrets through the internet would set up a dummy account to do it. It's more likely that they would use a usb memory stick or a mobile phone to smuggle out data.
Re:Solved! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Solved! (Score:4, Insightful)
yeah this sounds exactly like giving police powers to the employer.
does the employer have the right to conduct random spot searches at the employees apartment? no? why the fuck should employer get email, storage etc access..
Re: (Score:3)
What "details"? They can read my comment history. Is there some secret functionality of Slashdot that I don't know about where all the drug deals and private scandal go down?
Well, does the law force compliance? (Score:5, Interesting)
Granted, you maybe shit canned over it, but such is life.
I do not agree with the law. If they want it, they should have to go to court and require a judge to force it to be handed over. BS IMO.
Re: (Score:3)
Granted, you maybe shit canned over it
You're looking at it all wrong. This is a weapon to get your least favorite office mate shit canned over it.
Re:Well, does the law force compliance? (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, you maybe shit canned over it, but such is life.
So basically what you're saying is... if you have money, you can ignore the law, but if you're poor (and thus can't afford to lose your job), you're forced to go along with whatever freedom-eschewing measure your local legislator is cooking up this week to screw you over?
Yeah... sounds about right.
Re: (Score:3)
Granted, you maybe shit canned over it, but such is life.
So basically what you're saying is... if you have money, you can ignore the law, but if you're poor (and thus can't afford to lose your job), you're forced to go along with whatever freedom-eschewing measure your local legislator is cooking up this week to screw you over?
Even better... it's a means to keep the poor very poor, because now they can justifiably fire someone based on what is found after one hands over their passwords, or justify that firing if you don't hand it over, thus there are no unemployment fees to pay.
In many states, you can be shit canned for no reason at all (aka. "at will employment"). However, if you're shit canned with no reason, you can file for unemployment, and the employer pays half of that. That often deters employers from doing so (and I've s
Re: (Score:2)
Not likely, around here the employers pay the insurance cost and the people that do the adjudication are well aware of that fact. The double standard is just astonishing. They'll require all sorts of evidence from the person trying to claim benefits, but will take the word of the HR troll who may not even have seen any of the evidence.
Anybody up for unemployment would be well advised to get an attorney as the employer has one in the adjudicator.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps this depends on the state, but when I last filed for unemployment the state withheld it for several months. When I finally got hold of someone there they said my former employer claimed they'd given me a big severance package so I wasn't eligible. I laughed and said I'd not only NOT gotten a severance package, but it was like pulling teeth to get my last regular check from them. The person from unemployment said, "Oh. Okay, you're approved. You should see a direct deposit in a couple days for the fu
Re: (Score:3)
I am an employer in WA state. The way it works is that you pay the Department of Employment Security a base amount for your employees based on wages. If you lay someone off and they become entitled to Unemployment Compensation, your rates go up a little. If you have no claims over a certain period your rates go down a little. Claims affect an employer's "experience rating" which is a factor
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, kids, a bill is NOT a law (Score:2)
In case you need a refresher from Schoolhouse Rock:
http://www.schooltube.com/video/fcde4d15a9276c9a09d3/ [schooltube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Instead of telling your employer to pound sand, you only have to tell them that Facebook's terms of service clearly prohibits you from sharing your password.
Agreed, anyone who would violate the ToS and hand over their password is not an employee you want to keep. The one that tells you to go pound sand, now there is someone you know you can trust.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how the law could force you to comply. You have signed a binding contract with Facebook to not reveal your password to anyone else, and to do so would therefore be breach of contract, ie. illegal. The law is not allowed to force you to do something which is illegal.
Re:Well, does the law force compliance? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe not. The 5th Amendment limits what the government personal can do in a investigation – this is specifically covering a private corporation investigating it’s own employee’s – so I am not sure the 5th comes into play,
It still stinks in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
The 5th would not apply because the gov't is simply defining what is a reasonable contract, or, in you want to look at it the other ways, what is not an unjust termination. If this law passed, the employee can choose to not comply and suffer the ultimate consequences of the implied threat of termination.
Strong libertarians all likely to fall all over the map on this one.
Re:Well, does the law force compliance? (Score:5, Interesting)
his is specifically covering a private corporation investigating itâ(TM)s own employeeâ(TM)s â" so I am not sure the 5th comes into play,
It's actually a thorny problem. A cursory examination of Washington's case law didn't come up with anything, but other courts have held that "The Fifth Amendment ⦠is not concerned with âmoral and psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official coercion.â(TM)" In other words, statements coerced by non-governmental entities do not violate the privilege. Boyd v. State, 1987 OK CR 211, 743 P.2d 674 In fact, there is case law that specifically looks at employers. In Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 166-170, 107 S.Ct. 515 (1986), the court held "outrageous behavior by a private party seeking to secure evidence against a defendant does not make that evidence inadmissible."
So basically, a company can put you over a barrel, threaten you, extort you, fire you, levy fines and penalties against you, and it's all totally legal. And thus, a law allowing them to demand these things, and the penalties being any of the above sanctions, would also be legal... even without the law. The law, as it were, is superfluous: Employers can do this right now without fear of reprisal.
Re:Well, does the law force compliance? (Score:4, Informative)
So basically, a company can put you over a barrel, threaten you, extort you, fire you, levy fines and penalties against you, and it's all totally legal. And thus, a law allowing them to demand these things, and the penalties being any of the above sanctions, would also be legal... even without the law. The law, as it were, is superfluous: Employers can do this right now without fear of reprisal.
The bill [wa.gov] in question is actually the other way around - it tries to make it illegal for companies to extort employees, at least over this one specific thing. Quote:
"It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or the state of Washington, its political subdivisions, or municipal corporations to require, directly or indirectly, as a condition of employment or continued employment, that any employee or prospective employee submit any password or other related account information in
order to gain access to the employee's or prospective employee's personal account or profile on a social networking web site or to demand access in any manner to an employee's or prospective employee's personal account or profile on a social networking web site."
The controversy is over a proposed amendment to that bill, which would exempt "company investigations" from the above clause.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that if not under color of law enforcement, they have no right to demand personal passwords at all.
Coming up next (Score:5, Insightful)
Coming up next... An amendment to allow companies to request the keys to your home and vehicle if they are investigating allegations of work-place misconduct. Along with your personal phone records, and a strip search.
What's the difference?
Re:Coming up next (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the difference?
The frog isn't warm enough.
Re:Coming up next (Score:5, Insightful)
What's really bad is, frogs aren't actually this stupid, despite the myth. A frog in a pot of water will jump out if it gets too hot. They may be just frogs, but they're not that dumb.
But apparently people are.
Re: (Score:3)
You have to use a double boiler.
And a lid.
Re: (Score:2)
They already do.
The double boiler is at will employment, and the lid is you being too piss broke to defy your boss when they demand you fork over your facebook password.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And who boils live frogs anyway? Wouldn't crab or lobster make for a much better analogy?
Only if you're a terrible chef
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What's the difference?
The difference is most of these legislators are ancient and neither want, nor care, about this newfangled "internet" thing. They still use flip phones and eschew anything with more than about 15 buttons on it. As a result, they go along with whatever their sponsors tell them about it. "It's totally not like that!" "Er, okay... *stamp*". We won't be able to fix these kinds of brain-damaged decisions until these dinosaurs are dead.
Unfortunately, by then we'll have an entire generation that's grown used to the
Work-Place misconduct defined: (Score:5, Insightful)
Work-Place misconduct defined:
If you are Representative Mike Sells, and you introduce a critically stupid amendment like this, you have engaged in workplace misconduct, and you are required to give the people of the State of Washington, who are your employers, all your social media passwords.
PS: The linked story from the OP has a comment which states that it was withdrawn. I imagine he pulled on his left ear with his right hand, and his right ear with his left hand, and the loud popping noise was his head coming out of his rear.
Re: (Score:2)
Is slashdot included? (Score:2)
What if you don't use facebook? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How about... eat a bag of d***s? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I do outside of work, on my own time, is not my employer's business. You guys can try passing this law if you want, but it'll be political suicide and the courts will shoot it down faster than you can say "republican in a public restroom caught with a man."
Re:How about... eat a bag of d***s? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that's some extremely optimistic thinking on your part. Why would the courts be willing to strike down something that's so beneficial to corporations? The courts are just as corrupt as the rest of the government.
Re:How about... eat a bag of d***s? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would the courts be willing to strike down something that's so beneficial to corporations? The courts are just as corrupt as the rest of the government.
True, but the corruption that sticks around is the corruption that goes unnoticed. Let's assume they pass this law, and for some reason it actually is upheld. There will be nobody in a few years using their real name on the internet... a new darknet will spring up promising anonymity and security, because the fact is: Social networking is so massively popular and useful that people won't willingly give it up. What they will do, is manage the risk. Remember Fucked Company back during the dot com bubble? They were being served so many legal subpoenas and warrants a day that they had someone hired to stand at the door and sign for them. Very few of those court actions went anywhere, because they never could track down who made the postings. And that's how it'll be again.
The laws cannot change human nature. They can only frame and channel it -- and the more it goes against the flow, the greater the amount of force required. The government, for its massive bulk and power, cannot contend with the inertia of the general public. If it wants something, all the guns, bullets, tanks, and laws in the world amount to exactly dick. You cannot stop 300+ million people saying "No." You can only hold back so much before the dam breaks.
The irony of it all is this cozy relationship between corporations and the government, with each co-opting our liberties for the benefit of the other, is pushing people to embrace new technologies and ways of maintaining their own independence from the superstructure. Look at the "Silk Road". It wouldn't have been possible to create a hidden website on the internet that passes tons of drugs around every day worldwide if it hadn't been for governments trying to restrict the freedoms of the average person. By censoring everyone, enough social pressure was created to cause the invention of a new technology to circumvent that attempt.
And as a result, not only did the censorship fail, but it also decreased the level of control the government (all governments, actually, worldwide) had over the black market trade of drugs. Laws that do not abide by the commonly-held values of the population it serves become poison to those who try to enforce them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not necessarily true (Score:2)
If you're badmouthing your employer all over the Internet, even on your own time, your employer might validly have some concerns about that.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're badmouthing your employer all over the Internet, even on your own time, your employer might validly have some concerns about that.
If you're doing it all over the internet, they don't need your passwords to see it happening. There's no reason you shouldn't be able to badmouth them to your friends via the internet, which is the only thing they might conceivably learn about due to this law. If they think you're engaging in corporate espionage, they can already subpoena your social networking records as relates to same. This is useful only for fishing.
The Bill doesn't go far enough (Score:2, Funny)
I think the bill should allow employers to have access to all your online accounts, computers, phones, cameras, any storage device electronic or physical, safe deposit boxes, all financial records, vehicles, residence, storage facilities. These rights should be extended to you friends and family members, er accomplices, etc. etc, with all investigations aided and supported by the police.
Both ways? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional. (Score:5, Informative)
The asshole senator that added this provision has already withdrawn it due to industry objections over possible privacy violations:
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-rejects-bill-that-would-allow-employer-access-to-Facebook-passwords-201316061.html
Frankly, if this became a law in my state I'd challenge it as a violation of unreasonable search and seizure so fast it would make the idiot senator's head spin. A warrant from a judge might be one thing, but some random employer just saying they requesting the info as part of an official investigation can GO FRACK THEMSELVES.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with your sentiments, I think your idea that this would amount to unreasonable search/seizure is off because we're not talking about behaviour of the government. The bill of rights don't incorporate to private behaviour, alas.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem in this case was not with the law.
The law itself is good - it prohibits companies from demanding a password from you. And yes, you do actually need that law - "unreasonable search and seizure" is a limitation on government, not on private entities. Companies, being the latter, can make rather arbitrary terms for employment contracts that they offer to you, so long as they don't discriminate against protected classes as defined in Federal law. Obviously, people with Facebook accounts are not on t
Can't they already do this? (Score:3, Interesting)
No. That would be illegal (Score:3)
PIs don't have any special legal authority to access any information. The only thing a PI license allows you to do is to charge the client for investigative services. In that way, ot's just like a cosmetology license or a food handler's permit. Source - I used to be a PI.
How to solve the problem (Score:5, Funny)
Change your facebook password to "I-L0\/3-Tüü-ætP0O" and THEN give it to them.
This bill has been withdrawn (Score:2)
Probably only a matter of time before "our" representatives introduce it again at the behest of their corporate overlords though.
Re:This bill has been withdrawn (Score:5, Informative)
Erp, the *amendment* was withdrawn. The bill it was attached to (SB 5211, meant to *prevent* employer access to social media accounts) is still alive.
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Washington-House-panel-rejects-push-for-passwords-4406954.php [seattlepi.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Crap! (Score:2)
but to be honest, so many idiots do their Facebook and other social stuff at work, morons.
Still, this is anti-constitutional.
Weed. (Score:2)
Somebody ... (Score:2)
Wouldn't this violate TOS? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, boss, I'd love to give you my password. However, since it's a violation of the TOS, if you access my account, we both would potentially be committing a felony under the CFAA.
Therefore, even though I'd love to give it to you, I'm afraid I can't. For our protection AND the company's protection.
Re: (Score:3)
And as far as DoJ is concerned, a violation of a ToS is a crime: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/11/15/1821238/doj-violating-a-sites-tos-is-a-crime [slashdot.org]
Of course that's just a slashdot summary, and we all know how accurate those are sometimes.
The issue has been solved, and is over (Score:3)
See for your self
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=5211 It's under "In the house"
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwliveplayer&eventID=2013041032 If you don't believe that then watch the senate themselves withdraw the amendment and change the language of the bill
This amendment never had a chance in hell, and has been put to death.
A conflict with this. (Score:2)
What if Facebook's TOS forbids logging in as another user? Would it then be legal for the company to do so?
If you're a Washington State resident.. (Score:2)
You can submit comments about the bill yourself at:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5211&year=2013 [wa.gov]
Even though the amendment has already been withdrawn, it never hurts to add your voice in opposition such that it won't be reintroduced. The new system where the public can comment on pending legislation is pretty cool
technical problem (Score:3)
Giving someone your facebook password allows them to change things, and not just to read.
This would allow my boss to outright plant things on me, and not just go snooping around.
If I had someone's facebook password and I wanted to compel them, I'd just post something compromising, change their password, and then threaten them with exposure if they didn't do what I told them.
This will allow bosses to coerce their workers into colluding with corruption.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There may be conflicting law against the employer.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference [wikipedia.org]
It could be argued that agreeing to the terms of Facebook establishes a contract with Facebook. That contract prohibits disclosing one's password to anyone else. Anyone trying to force a violation of that contract could be committing tortious interference, which could be actionable in civil court.
It might be that Facebook would have no losses in such a violation, but one's friends would have information
these are employers, not judges (Score:3)
You want to search my house? Go to a judge and convince them, get a search warrant. Then c'mon in. Facebook password in a divorce case? Sure. Again, judicial oversight.
But my employer? NO. No, you can't search my house if you have an internal investigation going on me, and NO, you can't ransack my facebook either. If you want into either of those, take it to court like everybody else has to, prove to a judge that you need it.
I don't see a difference here. And neither should the law.
new Social Media Feature: Duress Password (Score:3)
What FB and others need to do is have the ability to set two passwords
1 your normal day to day password
2 the "im being questioned by a LEO" password
if you use the Duress password
1 They do a reverse DNS on the ip address and make sure it belongs to some sort of Law Enforcement Organization
2 They pop up a box stating " Duress Password used Call 1-877-???-???? and provide the operator with verification string %string% to enable access for 72 hours"
3 if this fails then they refer the case to the FBI for prosecution under CyberCrimes
Re: (Score:2)
You will be legally required to register a facebook account and post your personal details to it.
What's the point of a "let people with money and their appointed agents spy on the sheep" bill without anything to spy on?
Re: (Score:2)
Constitutional Rights? The current POTUS does not believe in our constitution...based on his statements & actions.
Troll, Troll , Trolling....The truth is so hard to take.
Re: (Score:2)
The term you're thinking of is "at-will employment". Right-to-work [wikipedia.org] is a different animal.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, technically I don't have the right to say no, I have the contractual obligation to say no. I'm subject to LinkedIn's and Facebook's terms of service which specifically forbid me from allowing anyone else to access my account that way. If I said yes, I'd be in violation of those terms of service. And since my employer would have to agree to those terms of service as a condition of their accessing my account, then they'll have violated those terms of service and their access is unauthorized. If they don
Re: (Score:2)
This is Facebook we're talking about,
Not just FB, all social media*. Come on, Kimomaru, cough it up.
I've posted a few spicy tidbits about Boeing. I'm waiting for a knock at the door.
*OK, I suppose we could classify Slashdot as anti-social media.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. At a minimum a court ordered subpoena should be required. An employer with a big government/military contract can do something stupid, get in a huge amount of trouble over it, then they bring in the lawyers and "investigate"/interview everyone under the guise of "protecting the interests of the employees". When they are done, they take all the information they've amassed and store it away in case they need it for legal proceedings, then usually fire everyone in the department.
I should never have t
Re: (Score:3)
Not just that, but passwords allow write access, not just read access.
I'm honestly more worried about my boss using my facebook password to plant something incriminating than I am about him snooping around.
Being able to set me up with a compromising photo and threaten to show the link to my wife would be a great way to try and force me to help him cook the books.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Congress does not have power to pass laws that either prohibit individuals asking such things from other individuals or require that anybody complies under any type of penalty to provide such information."
They already have passed such laws, and such laws have been enforced in the past.
"An employer can ask an employee for any of this info, an employee can absolutely refuse (or comply, up to him). Neither action nor response to either action should be legislated and the government officials that cannot recog
Re: (Score:3)
The law [wa.gov] is actually pro-worker - it prohibits employers from demanding passwords (which is something otherwise legal in "at-will" states).
The abomination was not the bill itself, but an amendment [wa.gov] that would grant the exemption in question, effectively rendering the bill useless.