Slashdot Mirror
House Kills Effort To Stop Workplace Requests For Facebook Passwords
An anonymous reader writes "House Republicans today defeated an amendment introduced yesterday that would have banned employers demanding access to Facebook accounts. While the practice isn't widespread, it has caused a big brouhaha after reports surfaced that some organizations were requiring workers to hand over Facebook passwords as a condition of keeping their current job or getting hired for a new one."
When is the last time Congress passed *any* law that benefited consumers at the expense of corporations? If a near national economic collapse can't even get Congress to reinstate Glass–Steagall, you think ANYTHING is going to get through without the coporatocracy's seal of approval?
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Oregon Republican Representative Greg Walden responded to Perlmutter during the floor debate by saying:
I think it’s awful that employers think they can demand our passwords and can go snooping around. There is no disagreement with that. Here is the flaw: Your amendment doesn’t protect them. It doesn’t do that. Actually, what this amendment does is say that all of the reforms that we are trying to put in place at the Federal Communications Commission, in order to have them have an open and transparent process where they are required to publish their rules in advance so that you can see what they’re proposing, would basically be shoved aside. They could do whatever they wanted on privacy if they wanted to, and you wouldn’t know it until they published their text afterward. There is no protection here.
I'm not so naive as to take his reasoning at face value, but neither am I so cynical as to assume it's a lie outright. The one thing the text does show me is that I don't know enough about how things currently stand or how the amendment is worded to make an informed decision on whether I would have supported it or not.
Walk out of interviews where you're asked for these details, then post online so people in the sector know not to even apply there.
Ironic "Boycott Facebook login details requests at interviews" Facebook group anyone? We made Rage Against the Machine Christmas No. 1... Surely we can apply this logic to something which actually matters.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
OK, so Congress thinks it's perfectly OK for employers to demand access to employee social media accounts, right? Let's think about that for a second:
Who is Congress' employer?
Time to start flooding congresscritter inboxes with requests for their facebook passwords.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Here's why it was voted down. Nobody disagreed with banning the practice, just the implementation:
"I think it’s awful that employers think they can demand our passwords and can go snooping around. There is no disagreement with that. Here is the flaw: Your amendment doesn’t protect them. It doesn’t do that. Actually, what this amendment does is say that all of the reforms that we are trying to put in place at the Federal Communications Commission, in order to have them have an open and transparent process where they are required to publish their rules in advance so that you can see what they’re proposing, would basically be shoved aside. They could do whatever they wanted on privacy if they wanted to, and you wouldn’t know it until they published their text afterward. There is no protection here." - Greg Walden (Oregon GOP rep)
Isn't Facebook planning to sue companies that do this in a civil court? And aren't there laws in place that effectively prohibit this? (the Stored Communications Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act come to mind - especially since if you RTFA the Justice dept is already looking into whether these would apply)
I'm all for some Republican-bashing, but we should really consider whether we already have a law in place for this before we add new ones. The legal code is cryptic and mountainous enough as it is without adding unnecessary cruft.
It also may not have been appropriate as an amendment to this particular bill - note that the article states that Republicans would consider separate legislation.
"Not all who wander are lost" -- JRR Tolkien
Teacher Aide fired in Michigan.
“in the absence of you voluntarily granting Lewis Cass ISD administration access to you[r] Facebook page, we will assume the worst and act accordingly."
Since a request such as this would violate your 4th Amendment rights, it is fully within the purview of the Congress to legislate against such an intrusion. All corporations are within scope as they are creations of legislatures.
After reading the article, you can tell submitter left off a significant portion of the context in the summary. Even in the Republican's statement of opposition to the amendment, it's clear that they don't want employers access to employee passwords. It's probably useful to also look up the bill that the amendment tries to fix. H.R. 3309 is a bill that outlines new procedure for the FCC in its rule making process. It mostly has to do with transparency, 30-day public overview of new regulations, etc. You can read it here http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3309/text
So in a bill that is altogether unrelated to pro-privacy legislation, some rep proposes a highly specific instance where the FCC would be immune to the outlined procedure. It's kind of like adding an amendment to a general police powers bill that suspends proper procedure in a highly specific instance like when they catch a carjacker. Sure that sounds good to people who have suffered from car jacking or are afraid of what carjackers can do, but does it make sense to be in this bill or would it be better in a separate bill? I understand the sense of urgency that people feel, and I'd probably agree with those who want some federal rules on what employers can demand of their workers. However, it's also not unreasonable when you read the amendment to think that it doesn't really belong in this particular bill.
The more I think about the context, the more it looks like a way for a rep on one side to embarrass the other side without trying to do anything significant. You can probably put this in the same category as "think of the children" amendments that come from the Republican side meant to embarrass their opposition politically in the realm of public opinion. Only this time it comes from the Democrat side. What saddens me is that since the summary puts Republicans in a bad light, we at /. are more willing to take the summary at face value, and don't get as many nitpickers willing to pore through the context to find the bullshit.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Heh, there was an article in our local paper yesterday about how our local police and fire departments do this and are proud of it. Well, they don't ask for the credentials, they have you log into your account in front of them and then hand the machine over so they can browse around to their liking. They called it an "in-depth background check" or something like that, and touted the usual "it's for the children!" BS. They have implemented this practice for all potential new hires, and have also said they will begin doing it for all current employees as well in the next month or so. Sigh.
needs to be a law. corporations ONLY fear laws. they don't fear market pressure since they completely control that.
only something with teeth (legal stuff) will force a corp to change, these days.
this is why the redundant law is needed. to 'send a clear message'. again. and yes, it IS redundant but the first law didn't scare the corps enough, it seems.
it will help employees a lot more if they can say 'you know, they just passed a new LAW about forbidding to ask these details...'. that will silence the company much more than your walk-out protest ever will.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I'd be curious if any big companies are doing this. This seems like the kind of thing a small shop would do. It seems legally dubious enough that big companies would fear lawsuits.
Well the Virginia State Police is not a company at all, but they are a pretty large employer. They don't ask you to turn over your passwords, but they do require you to log into your account so they can check out your postings. In fact, from what I have seen, it appears that most of the organizations doing this are government organizations like police departments and government agencies.
So this whole thing is misguided, as they are targeting private companies for the restriction, when in fact all of the examples of employers do this that I have seen are actually government bureaucrats themselves, which of course are always exempted.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
re: "Frankly, the employer ought to be able to ask any damn think they want in an interview."
Wow!
Are you a Christian?
What denomination?
How much did you give to your church last year?
Do you have children?
How many children do you have?
How many hours a week do you spend helping them with homework?
Does your spouse work?
How old are your parents?
How much time do you spend caring for them each week?
re: "If some protections are really necessary, this is entirely within the power of the individual States."
Do you (or your spouse) use or have you ever used Birth Control for the purpose of preventing pregnancy? (Arizona)
Plus, it's not like corporations operate within one state. So, in one state they couldn't ask for my Facebook login and in another they can? How does that make sense? So, if I get hired in New York and then transfer to [insert nutty state here (plenty of them lately)] they can tell me they want my social media login information or can ask about private matters such whether or how someone in the family uses birth control?
Wow!
The same is a federal crime under the 1984 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 USC Sec. 1030) if the computer accessed is a "protected computer", including a government computer or, more relevantly, one "used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States".
Well, unauthorized access per se isn't a crime, but if one does almost anything with that access it is a crime, including if one "obtains...information from any protected computer".
And, as well as a crime, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act also provides a civil cause of action for anyone who "suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section" (note that conspiracy is also covered under the same section, so the civil cause of action would seem to be available if the damage was caused by a conspiracy to gain unauthorized access that didn't actually lead to unauthorized access, such as retaliation -- by refusal to consider for a job or, even more clearly, dismissal from one -- for failure to provide a password contrary to an agreement with the computer's owner.)
In what way? This is nominally personal, even private (if marked so) information. Consider it part of your "papers." You may share your odd manifasto - or your party pics - with close friends, or only with yourself. Those are not necessarily public information.
Unless there is a formal complaint that you are exposing privileged information (which is not the case) there is no right or expectation that private work is accessible to an employer. If it is a matter of sharing confidential information, they should be able to produce proof of the breach (screen shot of the offending material, for example), since if it was made public, it is publically viewable. If it is a criminal proceeding, then the defendant my be served with a warrant or discovery notice.
This is as simple as asking if you could do it in meat space: can your current employer or prospective employer ask you - as a condition of employment - come to your house and open up your personal draw of photos and correspondence for review. Neither is allowed, primarily due to workplace regulations mentioned elsewhere in this story discussion.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Thing is, the modern Republicans demand strict conformity to an arbitrary standard of political correctness. If you miss out in any dimension, you're a "Republican In Name Only" and they'd rather expel you from their gated paradise.
It goes along with their moral relativism, where Romney's health care plan designed by the Heritage Foundation becomes "unconstitutional" when promoted nationally by Obama - not because it's morphed into something other than Heritage and Romney designed, but because it was passed by Democrats, and so is guilty by association with them.
The GOP used to be a diverse group of free thinkers who highly valued liberty. It's become a conformist cult that worships only power, whose only allegiance to liberty is wanting the world to be free from any power or influence other than their own. Which is tragic. We'd be far better off with at least two viable parties competing to truly server the interests of the majority of citizens. We need better Republicans, badly. Or else we need them to go the way of the Whigs and a new, better party to arise.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
If you work for a living, Republicans are not your friend. If your color spectrum falls outside 'beige', Republicans are not your friend. If your language is something other than English, Republicans are not your friend. If you're a woman, Republicans are not your friend. If your religion is something other than "Christian", Republicans are not your friend. If you don't toe the ENTIRE party line completely and unquestioningly, Republicans are not your friend. You may think you share their values, but if you fall into the above categories they do not like you and will never like you. They will say they do because you can't be THAT exclusionary and get anyone elected and they know that, but don't EVER think that they like you.
Go read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." This is what Republicans actually believe. The world they want to bring about is an awesome place if you're a rich white man. The fact that everyone else will be living in varying degrees of squalor is something that does not bother them. Perhaps they simply choose not to think about it -- they don't like to think about "those people" if they can avoid it.
If your employer starts asking for private passwords, start talking to the other employees about forming a union. Nothing makes employer assholes clench tighter than union-creating discontent in the ranks.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
And, as well as a crime, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act also provides a civil cause of action for anyone who "suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section" (note that conspiracy is also covered under the same section, so the civil cause of action would seem to be available if the damage was caused by a conspiracy to gain unauthorized access that didn't actually lead to unauthorized access, such as retaliation -- by refusal to consider for a job or, even more clearly, dismissal from one -- for failure to provide a password contrary to an agreement with the computer's owner.)
Ianal but that sounds a lot like if a potential employer asks for your facebook password you should:
1) inform them that they have just asked you to commit a federal crime
and 2) if you refuse and they retaliate(such as turning you down for the position) you can sue them.
Seems to me that the best way to nip this behavior in the bud is to make sure as many people as possible know that if an interviewer asks you for a password, you refuse and then don't get the job, you can sue.
The first time one of these gets to court, the legal department of every company in the nation will come down on HR like a ton of bricks to make sure it never happens again...
Unless you are employed by the government, you do not have a right to privacy. In fact, you don't have a right to privacy. You have a right to keep your things private. Privacy comes into play when you have 1 option: divulge. In this case you have 2 options: divulge or quit.
If I was interviewing a candidate for an IT position and that candidate freely gave me his passwords when I asked, there is no way I would hire him or her. In fact, if I was hiring for any position where the candidate would have access to sensitive corporate data or anything else that a company would not want disclosed to the public or competitors, I wouldn't hire an individual who gave up their password. If they offered to provide me with screen shots or print outs of their social networking pages, fine. But to hand over control of their account under any circumstances would automatically disqualify the individual for the job in my eyes. People like that are how users with just enough knowledge to be dangerous (or worse, someone with bad intent on a fishing expedition) end up with domain admin rights.
The best way to nip this in the bud is to apply at one of these places with protected information in your profile (age, sex, race, religion) then when they reject you sue them under the federal anti-discrimination laws. They'd have to prove they didn't look at any of that protected information when they accessed your account. Then after a few companies end up paying out a years salary to someone they never hired this will be so toxic an issue that the every companies legal department will hand down rules forbidding it.
Frankly I'm surprised a lawyer hasn't jumped all over this and isn't advertising all over the place asking people to come forward so he can win a slam dunk case and make a lot of money. Think about it for a minute, the company has to convince a jury that they didn't ask for, or look at the protected information when it's a critical part of the profile and there is absolutely NO way to review the profile without seeing the protected information. Frankly I don't see how a company could win a case when they asked for access to that very information they aren't allowed to ask for.
The real seats of power in Congress are the Committe Chairmanships, currently assigned by the party leadership in majority, usually by seniority. Wanna shake up the system? Random drawings for Committee leadership seats at the beginning of every new Congress and after every major break. I'd go one more and have the drawings done from all Congresspersons, not segregated by party, as the worst thing that happened in US politics was the ossification of just two parties that are now quasi-branches of FedGov. Of course, the only way this would happen would be after the revolution when all the current porkbarrelers are, uh 'brusquely excused' from power.
This entire fiasco is stupid. It's already completely illegal to request someone's Facebook login information as a condition of hire, since it divulges restricted information (marital status, age, orientation) that it is already illegal for them to ask of you. You can already tell them "I'm sorry, but that would divulge my marital status, age, and other information that is illegal for you to request."
If you can't ask them to follow one law, what makes you think that you'll be able to ask them to follow a new law? This entire law is redundant, and it is quite right that it was eliminated.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
All they have to do is prove/claim that even if they came in contact with that information, it wasn't used to influence a hiring decision. Companies collect that kind of information from applicants all the time (i.e. to support audits on job retraining programs, veteran employment, equal opportunity employment laws).
Companies with large enough HR teams do this by compartmentalizing access. A company might designate an HR rep to handle information pertaining to protected classes. So long as the hiring manager doesn't see that information it's not a big deal.