Password Protection Act: Bans Bosses Asking For Facebook Passwords

An anonymous reader writes "On the heels of a similar bill introduced last month. A group of Democrats today introduced legislation in both the House and Senate to prevent employers from forcing employers and job applicants into sharing information from their personal social networking accounts. In other words, Maryland may soon not be the only state that has banned employers demanding access to Facebook accounts. The Password Protection Act of 2012 (PPA) would also prevent employers from accessing information on any computer that isn't owned or controlled by an employee, including private e-mail accounts, photo sharing sites, and smartphones."

Comments

And now..

[Severus Snape]

They'll demand you add them as a friend!

Re:And now..

[gstrickler]

That would be covered under

Prohibits an employer from forcing prospective or current employees to provide access to their own private account as a condition of employment.

Re:And now..

[Lisias]

what you will, and then restrict them to see only the safe content.

It's a bitch, but can be done.

Easier on Google+, however.

Re:And now..

[Galestar]

So? I'll add them and won't give them access to see anything.

Re:And now..

[AngryDeuce]

Pretty hard to do considering I don't have a Facebook account. If they want to make having a social media presence a condition of employment, I guess that's just not the job for me...

I seriously don't understand why people even admit to having one to a prospective employer in the first place. Kids, just say no! Worst case scenario, you don't get a job offer at a place that you probably wouldn't want to work at anyway.

Let's not pretend, though, that something like this is going to modify employer behavior in any way. I know people in HR that have using Facebook as an unofficial reference on potential applicants since not long after it was open to non-edu accounts. Proving this in court, especially in a discrimination case, is a pipe-dream. No lawyer would take the case in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good thing to have actual regulations on the books if it helps the .000001% of cases that actually get brought to trial. I'm just too realistic to see this as any sort of panacea at all.

Re:And now..

[Anonymous Coward]

And now...

countless riders will be added to the bill

Re:And now..

[cayenne8]

While I am all for this type of legislature, I have to ask myself, on what authority do the FEDS have to make this law?

I'm not sure how I see this falling into the interstate commerce clause? I mean, a person works in his state....money paid to him in a state in which he is responsible for state taxes, etc.

I would think this would have to be done on a state basis, and not a federal one?

Sorry, but these days...I'm questioning every law the feds are trying to pass, and trying to understand where the constitutional authority is for these mandates/laws.....

Re:And now..

[C0R1D4N]

Not that I disagree with you, but this trail was already blazed with OSHA.

Re:And now..

[mysidia]

I'm not sure how I see this falling into the interstate commerce clause? I mean, a person works in his state....money paid to him in a state in which he is responsible for state taxes, etc.

Internet social networking sites have a multi-state presence; the federal government has long claimed to have the jurisdiction over regulation of telecommunications services, see FCC. In Facebook's case, it's a terms of use violation to share your password.

They are essentially passing legislation that forbids employers from interfering with citizens' private relationship with certain other companies.

The legislation is broken though, because it's specific to social networking. This should apply to all sites.

Including online banking sites, and sites where you pay your utility bills. This is a form of consumer protection and privacy protection for interstate commerce.

Your private dealings are not your employer's business.

Your employer has no business seeing who your friends are, who your banks are, what your account balances are, which cable package you subscribe, to, what book you ordered from Barnes and Noble or Amazon, what your viewing history is on Youtube and Netflix, etc.

And if some of employers are trying to pry anyways and demand passwords to personal accounts their company has no right to, then it certainly is the feds' job to reign in the abuse.

Re:And now..

[Anonymous Coward]

While I am all for this type of legislature, I have to ask myself, on what authority do the FEDS have to make this law?

I'm not sure how I see this falling into the interstate commerce clause? I mean, a person works in his state....money paid to him in a state in which he is responsible for state taxes, etc.

I would think this would have to be done on a state basis, and not a federal one?

Sorry, but these days...I'm questioning every law the feds are trying to pass, and trying to understand where the constitutional authority is for these mandates/laws.....

You don't think Facebook counts as inter-State commerce?

Re:And now..

[knorthern knight]

> That would be covered under

>| Prohibits an employer from forcing prospective or current employees
>| to provide access to their own private account as a condition of employment.

Is the "provide access to" broad enough to cover the latest loophole? That's the one where the employer demands that you log in to your account, and he looks over your shoulder while you scroll through your timeline, photo albums, etc.

Re:And now..

[hantms]

They'll demand you add them as a friend!

No matter; you are aware of Facebook's 'List' feature right?

Just add your boss on the same list as your mom and your wife and any others that shouldn't see what you're really up to. :P

Re:And now..

[gstrickler]

"Provide access to" means requiring the (potential) employee to grant access to the employer, that which they do not already have access. Courts could disagree, but my interpretation, and my defense is that prevents requiring me to accept a friend request, or another other access which is not available to everyone.

Re:And now..

[coaxial]

While I am all for this type of legislature, I have to ask myself, on what authority do the FEDS have to make this law?
I'm not sure how I see this falling into the interstate commerce clause? I mean, a person works in his state....money paid to him in a state in which he is responsible for state taxes, etc.

And the server is in another state.

Re:And now..

[dkf]

Your employer has no business seeing who your friends are, who your banks are,
what your account balances are, which cable package you subscribe, to,
what book you ordered from Barnes and Noble or Amazon,
what your viewing history is on Youtube and Netflix, etc.

Your employer usually wants to know what one of your bank accounts is so that they can pay you. (They might not be very keen on this part, but all but the most rabid scum recognize that failing to pay is a good way to encourage employees to seek employment elsewhere and bring lawsuits.)

Re:And now..

[dkf]

While I am all for this type of legislature, I have to ask myself, on what authority do the FEDS have to make this law? I'm not sure how I see this falling into the interstate commerce clause? I mean, a person works in his state....money paid to him in a state in which he is responsible for state taxes, etc.

And the server is in another state.

The law isn't about regulating the server (a third party) but rather the employer and employee, who are most certainly in the same state for the purposes of the law.

Re:And now..

[daem0n1x]

Why the hell you have to create a specific law for this issue? Forcing people to give their passwords is outright illegal. Don't you have a Constitution? Don't people have basic privacy rights in the US?

Re:And now..

[Anonymous Coward]

No. And I also believe the commerce clause had a limited intent, not that it gives unlimited power over anything that has anything to do with "interstate commerce". Maybe it was more likely they were trying to normalize commerce between the states...

Re:And now..

[gstrickler]

Great questions. I've asserted multiple times that we shouldn't need this law, that the "unreasonable search" clause of the 4th Amendment prohibits this. Others have argued (incorrectly I believe) that the 4th Amendment only apples to the government, not to individuals or corporations. So, there is currently some debate. My contention is that while the US Constitution in general limits the power of the federal government, the rights guaranteed to individuals shall not be violated by anyone. Case law supports that interpretation with many people and companies having been found guilty of civil rights violations for infringing on someone's constitutionally guaranteed rights.

On the other hand, the fact that an employer actually demanded this information, and the fact that some people still believe that the civil rights in the Amendments don't apply to everyone suggests that we do need a law just so there is no question about it.

Re:And now..

[BVis]

No, we don't, really. The choice is, let us invade your privacy or you don't get the job. You have a right to privacy in that you don't have to give them your password, but you exercise your right at your own peril (in this case, not getting the job). There are already several questions that you are not allowed to ask during a job interview; this just adds to that.

Re:And now..

[arth1]

While I am all for this type of legislature, I have to ask myself, on what authority do the FEDS have to make this law?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This is a clarification of what "secure in their [...] papers" and "unreasonable searches" means, which is clearly a federal domain.

Re:And now..

[cayenne8]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Ah...but that is applicable only to the government...not to between private parties. That clause is pertaining to the law enforcement officials and restrains them (or the military) from raiding your home on a whim, without a warrant.

Granted...THAT part is being eroded too, but still...it wasn't written to apply to private entities that don't have the force of law behind them.

Re:And now..

[s73v3r]

The computer systems the employers would try to access would usually be in a different state. Unless Facebook has somehow gotten datacenters in all 50 states.

Re:And now..

[s73v3r]

They only need to know the account number. They need to know absolutely nothing about how the account is used.

Re:And now..

[s73v3r]

But in order for the employer to actually use the information, they have to contact a server which is in another state.

Re:And now..

[s73v3r]

I think, especially in this day an age, you would be extremely hard pressed to argue that employers don't have an incredible power of force behind them, especially over someone who is desperate for a job.

Re:And now..

[s73v3r]

Why the hell you have to create a specific law for this issue?

Because business will keep doing it until we explicitly tell them to stop.

Don't people have basic privacy rights in the US?

No, not really.

Re:And now..

[s73v3r]

Worst case scenario, you don't get a job offer at a place that you probably wouldn't want to work at anyway.

When you've been unemployed for a while, and want to continue eating and having a roof over your head, the list of "Places You Probably Wouldn't Want to Work At Anyway" tends to get pretty damn small.

Re:And now..

[arth1]

Ah...but that is applicable only to the government...not to between private parties.

Where in the constitution does it say that the rights only applies versus the government?
As far as I know, the "private search doctrine" only applies to whether the results of a private search can be used by the government (they can), not whether the search itself breaks an individual's rights (outside the scope of a criminal case).

I could be wrong, but I don't think there's ever been a case where the fourth has been found inapplicable in a civil suit. Given the wording of the bill, and that other bills are very specific in stating "by the United States or individual States" when they mean the government, I would presume that it's a universal right, not a narrowly specified right.
I mean, the amendments give me the right not to become a slave too - that surely doesn't make it OK for private entities[*] to enslave me?

[*] Except wives.

Re:And now..

[miscGeek]

And will promptly be told to thanks but no thanks. At least by me. This bill is a good start though at least.

Re:And now..

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say that unless the person works in California or whatever state Facebook's Servers are physically hosted, then the use of Facebook is across state lines. There is also the assumption that Facebook would (most likely) have multiple server farms, not necessarily in the same state, therefore the California user may be accessing his or her account on a New York server farm, etc.

Re:And now..

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't see any harm in this legislation. Purism is never a good thing.

Re:And now..

[cayenne8]

LOL...I like your footnote!

:)

Well, again...I want these types of laws, I don't like the intrusiveness companies are trying to impose, but I think IMHO, that the constitution is basically written with the thought specifically to grant only limited powers to the feds, it doesn't grant rights...you have them already...but it is supposed to grant limited, enumerated powers to the feds. It isn't written for private entities....I suppose with the thought that you aren't forced to working for a private entity or interact with them...but the govt. does have force of law behind them, and can put you in situations that you can not voluntarily get out of....you can't go to jail for refusing to work at a company that asks for this intrusive information.

I may be wrong, but that's the gist of my understanding of the situation....

Re:And now..

[Anonymous Coward]

Many corporations are multi-state, while you may be being hired by one entity in your state, your employment is with a corporation headquartered in another - hence interstate commerce...

Facebook itself is interstate commerce, and any corporate access to said site would be considered interstate commerce.

Re:And now..

[Anonymous Coward]

No they don't. Employee's CHOOSE to share banking information to have money paid directly to said accounts. A person may not even have a bank account. An employer does not demand this and will pay you by check otherwise.

Re:And now..

[AngryDeuce]

Very true...and that would include, in my opinion, places that tell a potential applicant "give us your facebook information, or else."

Re:And now..

[mysidia]

Your employer usually wants to know what one of your bank accounts is so that they can pay you.

Last I checked you don't need to know someone's banking details to cut them a check.

And the employer doesn't discover their details when you deposit the paycheck from the employer.

Re:And now..

[LionMage]

" employer and employee, who are most certainly in the same state for the purposes of the law"
Except when they aren't, such as when someone is hired to work remotely.

Re:And now..

[Anonymous Coward]

cayenne8, you are right. We should let each state decide if they want slavery, or women/minorities to vote in state or local elections.

10 Amendment

[misfit815]

How is this the domain of the United States Congress?

Re:10 Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an election year.

Re:10 Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Business practices that seem to want to coerce people to provide information they normally would not do for their job, or to actively violate laws (e.g., federal laws that prohibit, at least in letter, sharing of passwords for online resources) in order to interview for a job, things like that? You know, laws that the Congress passed in the first place?

Shouldn't take too much lobbying by US Chamber of Commerce, et al, to make sure this bill doesn't even make it out of committee or otherwise dies a quiet procedural death. But, because it's sponsored by (D)'s, even if it did make it to the floors, it's going to be voted down just because.

Re:10 Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Interstate commerce

Re:10 Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a clearer case of inter-state commerce than many. Would you prefer there be no law, or a hodge-podge of state laws?

Re:10 Amendment

[Oswald]

I suppose it's the catch-all "necessary and proper" thing. Honestly, you're not going to get anywhere with this argument--that ship has sailed. Congress does whatever it wants except when the executive decides just to ignore them or the courts decide to overturn them. One of the worst drawbacks to judicial review is that by relieving Congress of final responsibility for the constitutionality of laws, it promotes an attitude of "pass it, brag to the folks back home about it, and if the Court overturns it, we get to do it all over again."

Re:10 Amendment

[Darinbob]

Congress has been allowed to do more than merely interstate commerce for 220 years. States have not been semi-autonomous regions for 150 years.

Re:10 Amendment

[JoshuaZ]

Interstate commerce, covered in Article I of the Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Clause. The websites in question are large sprawling entities like Facebook which have people in all states and have offices in multiple states. Once that's a common setup, regulation is almost certainly Constitutional. And even when websites are all in one state, packets and the like go very far afield. There might be an argument that they can't regulate an in-state employer wanting a password from a completely in-state website, but that case is both unlikely to come up, and even if it did, courts would likely consider that to be a a weak argument.

Re:10 Amendment

[Lehk228]

interstate commerce, the same way the federal government has laws against computer fraud and abuse

Re:10 Amendment

[Gimbal]

There's a commentary on the Constitutional support of right to privacy at U Missouri KC (and that, I had not expected, but hey, score one for democratic discourse)

Re:10 Amendment

[rhook]

Because pretty much every one in the US who uses Facebook does not live in the same state the servers are located in, and even if they do it is still very possible that the connection crosses state lines before getting back to the server. That means that this is more of an interstate commerce issue. This also isn't a "States Rights" issue, hence the 10th Amendment does not apply.

Re:10 Amendment

[misfit815]

Regulating commerce is not the same as regulating the entire commercial entity. Of course, that's not the road we've been going down for a very long time. It's much easier to consolidate power in Washington where the lobbyists have a one-stop shop. On the other hand, actually respecting the 10th Amendment would require an informed and intelligent electorate, so I guess my point is moot.

Re:10 Amendment

[AvderTheTerrible]

Given the widespread, nationwide abuse of this practice by employers, I believe this might actually be a justifiable use of the ol' "Necessary and Proper" clause.

Re:10 Amendment

[Shoten]

Wow...are you that ignorant of law? It's the domain of the federal government the same way that sexual harrassment is, for example. Or racial discrimination in the workplace. Or any number of abusive practices by employers that are prohibited by the federal government. OSHA? Yeah, all that. EEOC? Yep. That too! And so on. Come to think of it...say, isn't there something called the "Department of Labor?" Hmmm...I wonder what THEY regulate...

Re:10 Amendment

[_8553454222834292266]

Would you prefer there be no law, or a hodge-podge of state laws?

Yes

Re:10 Amendment

[_8553454222834292266]

Way to completely miss the point of what he was asking.

Re:10 Amendment

[Bigby]

But they aren't regulating Facebook in this case. They are regulating the employers, which could be in just one state...

Re:10 Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire internet is interstate commerce, as it involves the use of a network of interstate 'tubes'. :) OK replace tubes with wires and radio waves, but it is is still interstate.

Just as the FCC can regulate TV (crosses state boundaries), phones (long distance), and satellite communication, it can regulate anything on the internet.

This makes sense when you think about it - would you want to have different regulations about what is allowed on the internet? Would you want to have different rules for people that live in Utah than in the New York?

They are regulating the use of the internet, not the business.

Re:10 Amendment

[evilRhino]

Under the original Confederacy, doing business across state lines was impossible due to tariffs and differing currencies. The fact that interstate commerce is so ubiquitous now is a testament to the Constitutions success. I would argue that since you don't know which state an internet service is based makes holding accounts interstate commerce.

Re:10 Amendment

[Rinisari]

I meekly proffer the 4th Amendment, but recognize that the relevance is weak since the intention of the 4th Amendment is to prohibit government from unreasonable search and seizure, not employers as a condition of employment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I suppose that prohibiting employers from asking for network account passwords unrelated to one's job falls under the same rationalization as what prevents employers from asking about another things in your life -- the same logic permitting the federal government's anti-discrimination laws (which may be tied to financing, which is why states then adopt the laws themselves and actually do the enforcement).

Re:10 Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Business practices that seem to want to coerce people to provide information they normally would not do for their job, or to actively violate laws (e.g., federal laws that prohibit, at least in letter, sharing of passwords for online resources) in order to interview for a job, things like that? You know, laws that the Congress passed in the first place?

Shouldn't take too much lobbying by US Chamber of Commerce, et al, to make sure this bill doesn't even make it out of committee or otherwise dies a quiet procedural death. But, because it's sponsored by (D)'s, even if it did make it to the floors, it's going to be voted down just because.

You are right and should be modded up more. Here in the UK I was actually quite shocked and found it deplorable that an employer would behave like this.

Way to go, guys!

[ultranaut]

Introducing bills to fix problems they think they might have seen a thing about, somewhere...

Re:Way to go, guys!

[s73v3r]

I'd much rather have businesses get the idea that this sort of behavior is completely unacceptable BEFORE it starts to become a widespread practice. After it's a common thing, it'd be much harder to get rid of.

And you're in

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if only Congress would extend the same protection to bodily fluids and samples. No more urine, hair, and saliva tests.

Re:And you're in

[Surt]

Simple solution: modify your facebook password to match a section of your DNA. Then asking for any of those things would require you to surrender your facebook password.

Re:And you're in

[DarwinSurvivor]

That's just dumb. The only way you could use that argument is by TELLING them your password is part of you DNA sequence, in which case you've already serendered a portion of your password.

Re:And you're in

[Surt]

I did assume in this scenario that not getting caught by the drug testing is more important than your facebook password.

Not that it really matters, as you have plenty of DNA to hide your password in.

They must be...

[Anonymous Coward]

americans.

Re:They must be...

[EdIII]

They must be.... americans.

1) Americans is always capitalized.
2) Congress Critters are not Americans, at least not in spirit or action.
3) I take that as a compliment. Taking action and creating laws to protect somebody's privacy is always a good thing. Neither governments or corporations should have access to private information that has nothing to do with job, not performed while on the job, or performed on equipment or services not provided for by the corporation.

Security and background checks for some jobs might require a little more... but how many Americans actually work in jobs that are that regulated and require security clearances? Not that many.

This is why I am a staunch advocate of giving separate Internet access at work for employees and having a very well spelled out policy that nothing personal is ever performed on corporate equipment, ever. Nothing corporate ever makes it to personal equipment either. Violation can result in punitive actions all the way up to dismissal. When they are on break and in the break room, feel free to use their smartphones or tablets connected up to the public wi-fi and do whatever they want.

Strict segregation works perfectly fine and is only a problem for the new "hip" techies that have an idealistic vision of bring-your-own-equipment. Which all that really translates to is your company is too fucking cheap to purchase the required hardware and they let their idealism allow all the users to get abused by management that only sees reduced costs. That's my opinion at least, feel free to flame and mod away.

Re:They must be...

[Jeidon]

While I totally agree with you regarding the segregation. A lot of times, the worst offenders especially in smaller companies, is the management. People above a certain level feel like they should be able to watch/share their YouTube videos with their coworkers. I've been in all three positions 1. The floor rep who just goes to work, has NO internet aside from work related tasks, does their job, and goes home. Everyone expected to have no internet, everyone was fine. 2. The lowest level of upper echelon management. Everyone expected to have internet, facebook, online banking, etc. 3. The tech. I've been the one telling the management staff that they can't have facebook because there's no freaking reason to have it. 90% of the time, if they can get the owner/CEO/VP or whatever on their side, they win. Casting aside all security concerns in their wake. So again, I totally agree with you but the people who get to finally decide are really the ones that matter.

Re:They must be...

[EdIII]

Well I am the CTO. So my opinion is all that really matters.

Of course instead of brow beating everybody into submission I tend to offer paths of least resistance. Just about every employee has a smartphone, and some have tablets. The management especially has tablets and usually the douchy iPads which they are under the assumption can be used for business.

I set up any employee with the public wifi for everything they have. That usually ends the arguments right there since they got what they wanted and I got them not doing it on corporate hardware. As for YouTube on a personal basis, that does allows everyone to do whatever they want since they are using their own phones to share video. Quite a number have tablets ranging from inexpensive Nooks and Kindles all the way up to iPad3's and Transformer Primes and are quite satisfied with YouTube and Netflix on them.

YouTube, as a business consideration, is totally different. A select few have access to YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter to manage any content.

As for the owner and CEO, I don't have any problems once I explain my reasoning, and most importantly, the alternative to allow people some freedom, flexibility and privacy.

Re:They must be...

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be working for a serious business company if the CTO is doing new employee IT setups.

Re:They must be...

[EdIII]

Or.... I could be referring to policy and not direct action.... It's called context. Try it :)

If corporations are people

[flaming error]

If corporations are people, these laws probably exist already.

Regardless of laws, the audacity of demanding personal passwords as a condition of employment just boggles my mind.

We're employees hired to do a job and go home. We're not paid to room and board our employer in our underpants.

Re:If corporations are people

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nice and all until a company, that isn't a corporation, asks you for your password.

Believe it or not, there are lots of businesses that are not corporations.

Re:If corporations are people

[SeaFox]

That's what happens when you have...

1. (Relatively) high unemployment.

2. A government that is pro-business and anti-employee rights for years and years.

3. Companies more and more feeling what an employee does on their personal time is their business because "it might reflect badly on the company".

Re:If corporations are people

[Anonymous Coward]

If you did room and board with your employer, you wouldn't need a car. That would be so much more eco-freindly for the Environment, just like the china people.

Employers must be required to provide on site room and board for all employees!

Re:If corporations are people

[Anonymous Coward]

...

4. A population too stupid to make a throw-away account to give the employer, that talks about how much the prospective employee likes cute puppies. Post something to it once a week or so, give it some friends.

Seriously, do we need a law about this? Really? Can people not take just the most tiny bit of responsibility for their own lives, or do we need the nanny state to tell us how to eat and breathe now too?

Throw-away account. It isn't hard.

Re:If corporations are people

[shentino]

And then someone rats them out and they get fired for lying about it.

Expecting employees to lie is not a viable workaround, and neither is any other ethically questionable action.

Re:If corporations are people

[registrations_suck]

Or no account at all. I have no Facebook, Google, MySpace, FourSquare, Instagram, or other "social media" account. Don't want or need one either. If I want to "share something" with a "friend" I'll just use good ole e-mail.

Re:If corporations are people

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not ethically questionable nor is it lying. It would still be your facebook account. If they ask for ALL facebook accounts that would be different, at that point you ask them to put it in writing their request and request that they suspend the interview so that you can consult a lawyer.

Re:If corporations are people

[AngryDeuce]

4. A population too stupid to make a throw-away account to give the employer, that talks about how much the prospective employee likes cute puppies. Post something to it once a week or so, give it some friends.

Or, you know, just tell them you don't have an account. Even if you do, what are they going to do? Not hire you? Oh noes!!!

Although, I admit, a throwaway account would be pretty funny if you went completely overboard with it. Plaster it with a metric shit-ton of Christian imagery and talk about how much you love Jesus, church, and capitalism. That's sure to impress most any major employer in the U.S..

Re:If corporations are people

[Concerned Onlooker]

What about when they ask for Slashdot account info? You may not think you're participating in social media, but you are.

Re:If corporations are people

[DarwinSurvivor]

request that they suspend the interview so that you can consult a lawyer.

You'd probably break the record for fastest mid-interview shit-canning.

Re:If corporations are people

[DarwinSurvivor]

Lying about ANYTHING on your resume or during an interview is immediate grounds for dismissal. If you feel comfortable working at a company that could fire you the instant they google your name, then go ahead.

Re:If corporations are people

[Anonymous Coward]

2. A government that is pro-business and anti-employee rights for years and years.

Wasn't the employer that asked for facebook passwords a government agency? Were there any actual private businesses asking for them?

Re:If corporations are people

[blackraven14250]

Any company with an employee (you know, the ones who'd be interviewing potential employees) is almost guaranteed to be registered at a minimum under a LLC - just like the vast majority of small businesses.

Re:If corporations are people

[HornWumpus]

/. is antisocial media you retarded festering douchbag full of puss.

Re:If corporations are people

[HornWumpus]

Job app and interview true. Resume not so much. It's understood to be a marketing document and is judged as such. Outright lies are stupid, but everybody expects lies of omission and spin.

You wouldn't want to hire someone who can't sling BS would you?

Re:If corporations are people

[Anonymous Coward]

Lying is stupid and unethical.

The only time, "I'm sorry, but I don't have an account on Facebook," is a legitimate answer is if you really do not have an account on facebook. If you have to lie to your employer, then you either don't deserve the job, or they are an organization whose values are so out of whack with your own that trying to work for them will be a tremendously negative experience for you.

If you do have an account, and you're asked for an account password, there are two ethical responses:
1) "Here is my password." (This is the dumb response, but if you're okay with them looking at your Facebook account, well... that's your business.)
2) "I'm sorry, I will not provide you with that information, because it's none of your concern what I do in my personal time on my personal accounts."

They are wrong to ask; You are just as wrong if you lie about it. Letting a slimy employer induce you to compromise your own ethics and lie is never right.

Re:If corporations are people

[mysidia]

(1) Manage your Facebook password with a password management application, so you can legitimately tell them you "don't know" any Facebook passwords, they were randomly generated and are stored securely in a password manager at home and tied to that web browser.

(2) Enable Facebook 2-factor authentication with a second cell phone. Don't bring that phone to any job interview.

Even if you have the correct FB password, you cannot login to FB on a new unknown device without receiving the SMS message, and entering the security code that Facebook sends you via SMS.

Re:If corporations are people

[cloudmaster]

I can tell you that there's no better employee than one who overstates his accomplishments to the point of very nearly outright lying. Yessir - that's the kind of person who's a joy to have as a coworker, and a joy to manage.

Re:If corporations are people

[Anonymous Coward]

They're just trying to broaden the number of things you can be terminated for.

Added flexibility ;->

Re:If corporations are people

[White Flame]

2) "I'm sorry, I will not provide you with that information, because it's none of your concern what I do in my personal time on my personal accounts."

This should be:

2) "So you're seeking employees who are willing to violate contracts they made with business entities, inasmuch as TOSes count as contracts?"

Of course, the conversation should end with the type of statement you made, but it warrants more discussion with your interviewer than beginning with a refusal.

Re:If corporations are people

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators, stop being stupid twats! The parent post is informative, not trolling.

Re:If corporations are people

[Jiro]

Manage your Facebook password with a password management application, so you can legitimately tell them you "don't know" any Facebook passwords

"Well, I guess you're not hired then".

Geeks have this idea that if you just answer a question in a way that is literally accurate but not what the other guy wants, that's the way to win. The real world doesn't work that way except in a very small number of cases, of which this is not one. If the employer asks for your Facebook password, as far as he's concerned, either you provide it or you don't. "Honestly, I rigged up some system where I can log into my Facebook account but truthfully say I don't know the password" counts as not providing it. The fact that the statement "I don't know the password" is truthful makes no difference whatsoever.

Re:If corporations are people

[Compaqt]

There's nothing that says sole proprietors can't hire employees. You can open a business bank account, have an employer TIN (tax ID #), pay payroll taxes, pay sales taxes, and have a "company name" ("doing business as" or DBA), all as a sole proprietor of a business.

Re:If corporations are people

[Confusador]

You'd be surprised how many sole proprietor accounts I've run into working at a bank. (And yes, of places that would have employees.)

Re:If corporations are people

[AngryDeuce]

Lying is stupid and unethical.

So is any potential employer that would warrant it in the first place by asking for shit they have no right to ask for.

I mean, employers outright lie to their employees all the time, and a job interview is often a competition in blowing smoke up the ass on both sides. How many people have been told one thing in an interview only to find out that reality is completely different once they're actually employed there? A padded resume versus the bullshit lie that most any given company is 'family oriented' (because we all know how often that is true), telling them you have no social media accounts versus them telling you that they promote based on merit alone (because we all know how often that is true)...I could go on and on...

Re:If corporations are people

[AngryDeuce]

The better question is: do you want to work for a company that is constantly going behind your back digging into your personal life?

There are worse things in life than being fired. Working for an employer like that in the first place is probably one of them...

Re:If corporations are people

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to act like the corporations are doing nothing wrong, shill.

There's a difference between "personal responsibility" and claiming "it's ALWAYS the victim's fault for being STUPID"

Re:If corporations are people

[Anonymous Coward]

THANK YOU! I've been seeing posts here and there throughout the replies to the effect of "well what if I don't have facebook", or like you said, "don't actually know my password", or a million other contrived methods by which to avoid being able to either give them the password, or so they only have extremely limited access.

You're not the last fish in the sea to them. THAT'S THE PROBLEM! There's a hundred people lined up outside their door right now. In their eyes, you don't give the password, get the fuck out. Have a profile that has next to no information, get the fuck out. No facebook, get the fuck out. It's not like they need to bend the rules to allow your answer. If you're even the slightest bit non-accomidating, I'm sure one of the other hundred people wanting the job will be a bit more forthcoming with the information.

What's that? You're two months behind in rent, haven't eaten more than Mr. Noodles in a week, and have a kid on the way? Well shit son, looks like that moral ground you're standing on avoiding giving the company all of your personal passwords is getting pretty unstable, now isn't it?
THAT'S why there need to be rules against this... to stop the obvious and horrendous abuse of power.

Re:If corporations are people

[Anonymous Coward]

What about when they ask for Slashdot account info? You may not think you're participating in social media, but you are.

Yeah, but just try to track me down on it.

Re:If corporations are people

[HornWumpus]

Like everything else, it's a balance.

There are few employees worse then the self rightous 'I always tell the harsh truth, even in front of clients and competitors' idiot. They usually are the most self deluded fools too. They never even see the truths they don't like.

Re:If corporations are people

[s73v3r]

The throw-away account IS NOT AN ANSWER. Giving them a throw-away account only reinforces the idea that they have a right to this information.

Re:If corporations are people

[s73v3r]

The problem with any of these solutions is it still reinforces the idea that they should be able to ask for this information. They shouldn't be able to think about asking for it in the first place.

Re:If corporations are people

[s73v3r]

Even if you do, what are they going to do? Not hire you? Oh noes!!!

To someone who's desperate for a job, this would actually be a big deal.

Re:If corporations are people

[s73v3r]

If the choice is between that, or starving under the overpass because I can't afford food or rent, then quite possibly, yes.

Protections like these are NOT in existence for those of us that can say no, and have another job offer by the end of the day. They're for those of us who don't have any power, those that are desperate, whom business would completely bend over and take advantage of. Those people have a right to work too.

Re:If corporations are people

[miscGeek]

I agree and honestly I wouldn't want to work for a company that asked this. Times are tough and if you are out of work and have been a long time it would make it hard to stand your ground on this one. I would be tempted to ask the interviewer for a login account to the companies servers in return. After all I need to make sure the company doesn't have something on their servers that I would object to. That would be fair right?

Re:If corporations are people

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah; a pox on your house, sir!

I just bought a 1976 Plymouth Gran Fury ex-Florida highway patrol car. Original cop package car with the 440 engine (Its the 440 with the A-727 torqueflite. I actually drove it the 60-some miles from where it was at back to where I lived. Needs a tune up and a good carb cleaning, but runs like a bat out of hell. I am going to have quite a lot of fun with this one ^_^).

Body, meh, bit rough looking, but runs great. Trying to decide if I want to restore it to original FHP livery or make a bluesmobile clone out of it. Either way, it still somehow managed to retain its original black and white paint and hasn't been butchered outside of a little rust and a sun-baked interior.

Really?

[Dan East]

Did this actually happen, or is it a modern urban legend that employers were requiring passwords? And if it really happened, aren't there existing privacy laws in place that could have been used to sue these businesses out of existence?

Re:Really?

[mark-t]

Yes, it actually happened

No, it's not. See above

Unfortunately not yet. But there could be soon.

Re:Really?

[PRMan]

Most people's Facebook status includes their Marital Status, Religion, etc., several things that are not allowed to be asked in of a prospective employee. So I would think somebody could have gotten them on that.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold on. The article in TFL was about an employer going after an employee who allegedly posted an obnoxious photo of a co-worker on her Facebook account. Most of the comments are about employers asking for passwords as a matter of course. Citation still needed.

Re:Really?

[registrations_suck]

You can ask these sorts of questions. The law does not prohibit asking. It prohibits using the information in making a hiring decision. Because it is VERY difficult to support the claim that although you asked about , but did not factor that into your decision-making, smart employers have a POLICY against asking such things - but it's not illegal.

Re:Really?

[slew]

You can ask these sorts of questions. The law does not prohibit asking. It prohibits using the information in making a hiring decision. Because it is VERY difficult to support the claim that although you asked about , but did not factor that into your decision-making, smart employers have a POLICY against asking such things - but it's not illegal.

IANAL, but as far as I know, although many of these "sorts" of questions are not strictly prohibited, there is a specific prohibition against asking any pre-employment questions about any disability (including pregnacy) including the nature of any obvious disabilitly unless it is essential to the qualifications of the job (aka BFOQ or bona fide occupational qualification) that cannot be accommodated. This exception was carved out by the American with Disabilities Act and made any of these types of questions illegal. The other types of potentially discrimantory questions are certainly unadvised to ask as well even if not illegal. Of course take this advice (as any other advice) with a grain of salt as you heard it on the internet.

Re:Really?

[DarwinSurvivor]

In Canada it's actually illegal to even ask. Trust me, I checked after being told I was no longer getting the position because somebody higher up found out a family member also works there.

Re:Really?

[mark-t]

Meeting you in person or even often just knowing your name offers an employer sufficient information to discriminate against you based on your gender. I'm not in favor of employers asking employees for their Facebook info in any way whatsoever, but I think it's straining credibility to presume the request is to actually otherwise unlawful discriminate against a person.

Re:Really?

[s73v3r]

Yes, it has happened. And even if it's just one or two isolated incidents, I'd far rather have this practice nipped in the bud now, rather than wait until it's commonplace and it'll be much harder to get rid of.

why another bill?

[million_monkeys]

So the summary notes there was already a similar bill. What happened to that? What's different/better/more-likely -to-get-passed about this one?

Re:why another bill?

[Dahamma]

That happens a lot - similar bills are introduced, debated in committee, etc. Some are better than others, and if the process isn't completely broken (not even going there...) the various ideas get consolidated into something that meets everyone's needs and is then introduced to the floor.

In this case, it seems like a law protecting any of your password-protected/private information (email, photo sharing, online backups, whatever) would be much more powerful than the previous one that focused mostly on your "social networking" accounts...

Re:why another bill?

[im_thatoneguy]

What's different is it was reworded to try and avoid another GOP obstruction-- or at least sneak in under the radar.

Is it a typo, or just leaving huge loophole open?

[PaulBu]

prevent employers from accessing information on any computer that isn't owned or controlled by an employee...

So, they are trying to prevent employers from asking for my Facebook/Gmail/etc. password, because it's there in the magical "cloud" and not owned/controlled by me; but it is totally OK for my employer to insist on having a password to my *home* computer, just because it is owned and controlled by me??? Which, by the way, likely has a cookie to authorize accessing my identity "out there"... Or should I say that it's actually my wife's computer?

Or my reading comprehension is really bad today, unlikely though!

Paul B.

Summary Confusion

[Githaron]

The Password Protection Act of 2012 (PPA) would also prevent employers from accessing information on any computer that isn't owned or controlled by an employee, including private e-mail accounts, photo sharing sites, and smartphones.

I assume the summary meant to say that the act prevents employers from accessing information on any computer that is owned or controlled by an employee.

Re:Summary Confusion

[chmod a x mojo]

Actually, with the wording as it is in the summary it COULD be better.

With the summary wording it means no prospective employer could do a background / credit / social network check because all of that information is on computers that the employee does NOT own.

And if anyone wants to look on my personal PC they are just going to see random crap, my landscape photos I take, and tons of encryption everywhere.... so good luck to them on finding anything other than my tinfoil hat.

Re:Summary Confusion

[Dahamma]

Actually, from TFA it sounds like they meant to say it prevents employers from accessing personal information on any computer that isn't owned or controlled by an employer. I'm pretty sure the intent is that an employer should still be able to access and demand passwords to servers it owns, even if the employee runs them, etc, and anything else is none of their business.

Re:Summary Confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be worded so that no one may ask for ID/password on computers owned by others (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) as well as computers owned but the applicant (iPad, iPhone, notebook or desktop computers, etc.). No employer has a legitimate right to access my online content, nor do they have a right to anything on my private computers or other devices.

Re:Summary Confusion

[cloudmaster]

...except if it's public or otherwise willingliy disclosed, in which case there's no reason to prevent employers from accessing the information. Such prevention is, IMHO, a bad idea, as it introduces the possibility of accidentally breaking the law (say a prospective employee connects with a first-stage interviewer on LinkedIn before the second stage of the interview process, or the prospective employee becoemes friend of a friend of the CEO - or just a fan of the company - on Facebook).

Re:Summary Confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

And if anyone wants to look on my personal PC they are just going to see random crap, my landscape photos I take

... which are shit, BTW.

Now get back to work!

Signed,
    Your boss,

Game it

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it better to game the system by creating a fake facebook page which you salt with glowing comments about the prospect of working in some company, industry, whatever? maybe salt with other fake postings demonstrating your intelligence, etc.? I dunno....the constant stream of news about police brutality, unjust situations, erosion of rights, destruction of the economy, etc., etc. has left me hopeless, with only the prospect of gaming the system instead of fighting it.

Re:Game it

[Grishnakh]

the constant stream of news about police brutality, unjust situations, erosion of rights, destruction of the economy, etc., etc. has left me hopeless, with only the prospect of gaming the system instead of fighting it.

Not me. These things have made me start looking for jobs outside the USA.

Re:Game it

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the job boards in Europe are pretty interesting where they explicitly ask your age and refuse to hire people who are not a certain age.

Re:Game it

[s73v3r]

No, because that just reinforces the idea that a company has the right to demand such information.

Re:Is it a typo, or just leaving huge loophole ope

[Script_God]

As an applicant, you are not yet an employee. If they want to demand that I give them that information after I am an employee, and I refuse, I would not be surprised if there can be a wrongful termination lawsuit.

Here's an idea

[bobbied]

Just don't use social media and you won't have to hide from your employer... Or.. Gasp... Be careful and keep it safe for work at all times.

One really should not put anything online that you would not want EVERYBODY to be able to read. Everything you put online, pictures, comments, blogs, chats etc. is going to be public information forever, or at least it CAN end up out living you. Remember that every time you are tempted to post.

Re:Here's an idea

[bky1701]

"Just don't use social media and you won't have to hide from your employer"

And when you tell them this, they believe you are lying and don't hire you. Or hell, consider that a personality flaw and don't hire you for being anti-social.

"Or.. Gasp... Be careful and keep it safe for work at all times. "

Because living in fear is exactly what we should all aspire to, right?

"One really should not put anything online that you would not want EVERYBODY to be able to read."

Bit of a difference between, say, posting on a blog, and being pressed into giving someone else a password to your private accounts. Would you be against letting them scan your hard drive for anything they might find objectionable? After all, what's the difference? Your computer is connected to the internet.

"Everything you put online, pictures, comments, blogs, chats etc. is going to be public information forever, or at least it CAN end up out living you. Remember that every time you are tempted to post."

Does that apply to spineless pro-corporate shilling on slashdot?


I kind of see this all as a non-issue. In some ways the loss of privacy is a bad thing... in other ways it is good. We didn't see much motion in the gay rights movement until people started to come out. I think the same is going to start to happen in other parts of society - the petty prejudices aren't going to hold up so well in an age where everyone is more open. Not to say I am for invasions of privacy, but it is going to happen, and it isn't all bad. I also can see being closed off as becoming something itself considered undesirable and I think rightly so.

Re:Here's an idea

[lgw]

All of tha only matters if you believe there is some "private" area on Facebook. Since there really isn't, your rant is sort of irrelevent. Now, when it comes to some email I sent 10 years ago, that's where I wish we had stronger privacy protection.

Re:Here's an idea

[bky1701]

If that's true, why do they want passwords to begin with? Perhaps from a purely absolute perspective nothing is private, but there are relative levels of it.

Re:Here's an idea

[bobbied]

Personally I don't see the point of social media beyond saying "hi" and "how are you" so I participate, but I DON'T post the kind of stuff I've seen some post. (I'm just guessing, but some of them are going to be sorry they posted some of the photos I've seen, but that's beside the point.) It might be a good idea to not post stuff online that might make a future employer think twice about you, just in case it slips out or your account gets hacked or something.

My point was that anything you post, can and some will likely outlive you online, even if you "delete" it or think you are posting it privately. I don't think I'd willingly give up my passwords to an employer either, but I try not to have anything to hide in the first place so it's not a huge issue for me. I'm just guessing here, but if an employer wanted to bad enough, they have enough information to obtain just about anything they want on you, including having somebody impersonate you to get any passwords, account numbers and access to just about all available information on you. All it takes is a lack of scruples, $$ and enough starting information and they are going to have everything anyway.

About my personal laptop? Well... Nothing to hide there, but if they asked the answer would be no.

Problem with all this is that they have to be careful anyway. There are a whole host of questions they simply cannot ask and if their attempts to obtain information like this borders on getting answers to questions they are not allowed to ask. I think the courts would take a very dim view if they somehow seemed to be not hiring folks because of their marital status or some other protected area so I don't think this law is necessary.

Re:Here's an idea

[Americano]

Because living in fear is exactly what we should all aspire to, right?

Since when is "don't post pictures of your balls and / or tits on Facebook" 'living in fear'?

Treat these services as public spaces - if you wouldn't walk down main street in your hometown with your balls hanging out, don't do it on Facebook. If you wouldn't walk down main street in your hometown smoking a crack pipe, don't post a picture of yourself doing the same thing on Facebook. This isn't "living in fear," this is "taking sensible precautions to maintain control of the details of your own private personal life."

I would still refuse to give a prospective employer my password on principle. But the fact is that, even if they were to hack their way in, the most shocking thing they'd be able to glean from my Facebook account is that I occasionally go to a bar with some friends, have a few drinks, and listen to some music. And I also occasionally chat with my family and some friends to catch up on what's new. All of these are, fortunately, completely legal pastimes.

If you entrust Facebook with information that could embarrass you if it became public knowledge, you're pretty much asking to be embarrassed or damaged by the accidental disclosure of that data at some point. Keep your secrets secret, don't publish them to a networked publishing and sharing platform and rely on a poorly designed "this is private" checkbox to keep you safe from embarrassment.

Re:Here's an idea

[bky1701]

So your solution is don't use social media and you won't have to hide it - even though as I said that will not work because they will rightly assume you're probably lying (it is simply not the common case), yet you also don't have anything to hide, so you really wouldn't know. Kind of circular. I am not really sure if you're arguing "if you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide" or just generally "do nothing potentially objectionable". I don't like either, of course, but the second seems to be the gist of it - which goes back to what I said about living in fear.

The end point of this is that almost everyone now uses social media and huge numbers of those people post things that conventional wisdom says they shouldn't. My guess? Conventional wisdom will change and that will be good for society at large. That still doesn't mean anyone gets a password to anything I have, from my personal servers to my facebook account. I see it less a matter of privacy and more a matter of forcing me to give unwarranted access to my own reputation; after all, if they have a password to my facebook account, little stops them from making me look like an ass.

Re:Here's an idea

[bky1701]

"Since when is "don't post pictures of your balls and / or tits on Facebook" 'living in fear'?"

Since the most extreme case is not the only case. Translation: because the straw man wasn't alive to begin with.

How about seeing pictures of you at a political rally? Seeing you seem to know a lot of Muslims? Seeing you like some sort of objectionable media? Especially when you consider this is pretty much going to happen if you do those things. You're not the only person able to reveal what you're up to and short of excommunicating anyone with loose lips, people are going to know you have done objectionable activities. The option is basically live perfectly in accordance to what you want everyone to know (which I'd call living in fear, personally, since it is what drives that kind of life), or deal with the fact people are going to see objectionable facts about you.

I see this more as a generational issue. People on both sides are going to have to grow up and accept that what you do on your own time is your own life, because the number of squeaky-clean job applicants is nowhere near large enough to fill even just the CEO positions of the world. That doesn't change that a company has no business at all asking for access to my private accounts - no matter how precariously so they might be - and that needs enshrined in law.

Re:Here's an idea

[knorthern knight]

> So your solution is don't use social media and you won't have to hide it - even
> though as I said that will not work because they will rightly assume
> you're probably lying (it is simply not the common case),

[...deletia...]

> The end point of this is that almost everyone now uses social media

Wrong. Check out http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-statistics/ Most English-speaking countries are at approx 50% of the population. As of the time of posting...

* USA 50.72%
* UK 49.63%
* Canada 53.39%
* Australia 51.48%
* New Zealand 51.40%

That's number of accounts divided by population. Stuff that isn't supposed to happen, but does...
* children under 13 with accounts; they merely lie about their age
* people with multiple accounts. E.g. a squeaky-clean one for their employer, and a "real account" under a different name, and multiple accounts to rig Farmville, etc.
* There aren't supposed to be a bunch of bot-accounts, but you can go out and buy 1,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 "Likes". What does that tell you?

Normally, these bogus accounts can hide in the background. But for small countries it really stands out. Note that Monaco has accounts for 124.31% of its population. Don't believe the 900 million crap you hear.

BTW. I'm not on Facebook.
Wonder why I don't trust Zuckerberg?
It's because I'm not a dumb fuck

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/09/20/100920fa_fact_vargas?currentPage=all

Re:Here's an idea

[wvmarle]

Of course nobody believes there are 900 mln unique users for Facebook. There may be 900 mln unique accounts though.

Anyway even if the actual number of unique users is just half of the number of accounts, that's still a significant number, and will easily put Facebook on top of the pack.

Re:Here's an idea

[Hognoxious]

if you wouldn't walk down main street in your hometown with your balls hanging out, don't do it on Facebook.

I like the use of "if", the implication being that there are places where it's perfectly normal to wonder round with your knackers on display ;-p

Re:Here's an idea

[Americano]

Well, nudity is allowed, expected, even the norm in some places. There are some communities where you'd look distinctly out of place wearing pants while walking down main street. Point was, if it's a shocking contravention of social norms in your community (or worse, illegal in your community)... don't post pictures of yourself doing it on Facebook.

Re:Here's an idea

[Americano]

You're not the only person able to reveal what you're up to and short of excommunicating anyone with loose lips, people are going to know you have done objectionable activities.

So then why the hubbub about Facebook? If it's such "common knowledge" that you do objectionable things, an employer will find out about them anyway, won't they? Why is *Facebook* being singled out here as a privacy threat? Why not make it illegal for employers to do any background checks at all, and simply hire people blind in the hopes that they'll do a good job, and if they don't, well, fire them for poor performance?

The option is basically live perfectly in accordance to what you want everyone to know (which I'd call living in fear, personally, since it is what drives that kind of life), or deal with the fact people are going to see objectionable facts about you.

Here's the thing: this entire line of argument starts treading on the rights of those private employers. They have freedom of association, and their money (via a job) is not yours to do with as you please. If I'm a staunch Democrat, why should I be forced to hire somebody who is a "Birther"? If I'm an ardent advocate for pro-choice policy, why should I be forced to hire somebody who protests at Planned Parenthood clinics every weekend? If I own a McDonald's why should I be forced to hire the kid who attended a G20 protest a month ago, when that same group of protestors smashed my windows and tried to light my store on fire? If I'm a black business owner, why should I be forced to hire somebody who sympathizes with the KKK? (You see, don't you, how this cuts both ways? It's not just 'Evil bigwig CEOs will refuse to hire poor little democrats because they have an Obama sticker on their Prius!')

You see, there's a difference between "discriminating against someone for what they are (gay, black, mexican, transgender, handicapped, etc.)" and "discriminating against someone for their choices and associations (socialist, neo-con, pro choice, pro life, Birther, Truther, anarchist, apolitical housewife)." The former are simply unchangeable facts - who you are. The latter are choices and associations you make based on your values.

You have the right to associate with anybody you please; You do not have the right to compel other people to associate with you (and pay you for the privilege).

That said, I agree that employers should not be able to ask for access to your private and personal accounts, based on the principle that it's simply none of their business if I keep my personal activities personal, and my job performance does not suffer as a result of those activities.

Where we part ways is with this notion that people should have blanket protections for any activities they do outside the workplace, period. If your "objectionable activities" come to the attention of management in a *privately owned* workplace, you should not have any specific protections for those activities. It's YOUR responsibility to keep them private, and out of the view of an employer who may find them objectionable, and if they do find out, and object, they have the same freedom of association you do.

So really, your options regarding those objectionable activities are:
1) Be circumspect in the activities you know are objectionable, and make an effort to keep your personal life personal (and hope your employer doesn't find out about those activities);
2) Be blatant in your participation, and work for an employer who doesn't care, or actively supports and encourages your activities;
3) Don't participate in objectionable activities, period.

Whether it's Facebook posts, bumper stickers, ironic message t-shirts, blog posts, reading material - or anything else that might serve to announce your activities and beliefs to the world - if you know your employer is going to 'disapprove' of an activity, and you're concerned about the impact of that disapproval, you're going to need to 'live in fear,' as you put it, or 'be sensible about where and how you disclose your activities,' as I put it.

Re:Here's an idea

[s73v3r]

While that is very good advice, that's not really what's being talked about here. They're talking about the private information on the account, like your private messages and such.

Re:Here's an idea

[s73v3r]

I'm sorry, but your scenario is completely and utterly ignoring the fact that employers have far, far more power than the employees in these situations. There is not an equal balance of power.

And, since it is a requirement to survive, I believe that EVERYONE has the right to work. And that right trumps whatever entitlement you feel you have regarding controlling the political beliefs of your employees.

Re:Here's an idea

[Americano]

A paycheck is not a requirement to survive. You can quite happily live as a subsistence farmer off the land, growing & hunting your own food, building your own shelter, and making your own furniture, clothing, and tools. People did it for centuries, and survived quite happily. WORK - i.e., productive effort - is required to survive, but there is nothing saying that that work must be done for pay for somebody else. Everybody *has* the right to work already. What they do not have is the right to demand that other people write them a check for their efforts.

Unless you're proposing complete nationalization of all industries, along with a complete redistribution of wealth, then discrimination laws need to remain quite narrow, and focused on unalterable physical conditions and genetic makeup - i.e., you can't choose to be not black, you can't magically become "not a paraplegic," and you can't just decide (despite the protestations of some fundamentalist ministers) to not be gay. You *can* decide whether or not you're going to support an organization's political aims, and associate with those people.

As I said above, and you blithely ignored, please remember that if you want to claim "those OWS protesters have a RIGHT to a paycheck from Bank of America, it's their right!" Then you must also concede that "that KKK member has a RIGHT to a paycheck from a Jewish business owner," and "that Birther has a *right* to a paycheck from MSNBC." If everybody has a right to a paycheck (a position that seems strangely popular here on Slashdot), then that includes Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter, and yet I see countless comments suggesting that nobody would bat a single eyelash if all four of those people (plus everybody employee of Fox News) suddenly found themselves unemployed, simply because they hold unpopular-on-Slashdot opinions. This argument cuts both ways, and it is not one that you should be making lightly - I don't think you've though through this position very well, as it's clear you wish to ignore the full consequences of implementing it.

Re:Here's an idea

[s73v3r]

A paycheck is not a requirement to survive.

In every practical sense of the word, yes it is. This renders the entirety of your post moot.

Re:Here's an idea

[Americano]

In every practical sense of the word, yes it is. This renders the entirety of your post moot.

That's an odd way to concede that I'm correct, but thanks for your concession all the same. I guess you missed the point where I said that "WORK - i.e., productive effort - is required to survive, but there is nothing saying that that work must be done for pay from somebody else."

Since you have offered no reason why it's impossible for someone to earn a living via productive work without requiring a paycheck from a corporate employer, you've fallen far short of demonstrating that a "paycheck from an employer" is a necessary requirement of survival. I guess this renders your whole argument moot.

This summary gave me a headache.

[Anonymous Coward]

Could someone do a rewrite?

Here's a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies (and you) can go and fuck right off. None of you have any business dictating what I can and cannot do in my personal life.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Osgeld]

just dont go crying when they see that picture of you smoking a blunt

Re:Here's a better idea

[The1stImmortal]

If you're posting evidence of yourself committing a criminal act online then you've got bigger issues than what your employer thinks about it...
(Note - No judgement here on whether this particular act should be illegal or not, just that it currently is)

Re:Here's a better idea

[registrations_suck]

You can do whatever you want. But companies are also free to make decisions about you concerning what you do in your personal life - as well they should. Frankly, there are entire classes of people I don't want working for me, with me or near me. You're free to make your decisions - I'm free to make mine.

Re:Here's a better idea

[bky1701]

"You're free to make your decisions - I'm free to make mine."

No, you're not. Not if it is illegal to do so, which is what this law is about. I consider it simply a question of this: do they do the job? If they do, then shut the fuck up. If they do not, you have no need for other reasons to not hire/fire them. That means you have no right to decide what they do in their personal lives just because they work for you some of the time. But I suppose it is easy to believe you do when YOU are not the one who is being scrutinized by someone with the power to rip away your livelihood if you do or say something potentially objectionable. I don't consider that freedom and I doubt any sane person would, either.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Fned]

Frankly, there are entire classes of people I don't want working for me, with me or near me.

Sorry, dude. The law won't let you refuse to hire people just because they're one-legged French-speaking black presbyterians.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Again: fuck you. The second you start *prying* into my personal life to extract information your concerns stop being legitimate. But by all means, keep up the asshole-ish behaviour. I find it fascinating how quickly employers will jump on stuff like this in order to gain yet another upper hand against their employees. Americans still have it pretty good these days and union membership is at an all time low, but if employers keep treating employees like shit things can turn around pretty quick.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because if you post an ad, you're suddenly required to hire anyone who applies and matches the published qualifications - even if you and everyone who works for you hates them. That whole "workplace morale" thing is crap, and screw anyone who doesn't want to hire a person who is technically qualified for a poorly-written ad, but is a complete jerk. In fact, it should be illegal to even have interviews. Everyone who applies for a job is obviously qualified; no one just sends out resumes in bulk to every ad with the word "and" in the description. If they can muddle through the job in any way, you should be required to hire them. That's their *livelihood*, for heaven's sake!

Re:Here's a better idea

[s73v3r]

No, not really. Because in that situation, you have far, far more power than I do, and as such, you would be seen as forcing your beliefs and lifestyles on me. That should not be acceptable.

The 4th isn't enough?

[msobkow]

I would have thought the 4th amendment would have covered this, so all I see is grandstanding politicians pretending they care about the people while ignoring their own Constitution.

Re:The 4th isn't enough?

[KiahZero]

No, the Fourth Amendment only covers state action; it doesn't address searches by third parties (unless they are being used as agents of the state).

Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can ALWAYS find an excuse not to hire someone.

Um, I'm sorry Jamal Yosephef green, it's not that you're Black it's ust that you don't have the skills we're looking for.

I'm sorry Mr. Jones, it's not that you're old, it's just you're over-qualified.

I'm sorry Ms. Stacy Jones, you don't have the 10 years of experience in: Java, DB2/2, C#, Objective-C, COBOL, MS-SQL & Oracle, Linux & Windows & OS/2 & OSX & AIX & CICS skills we're looking for.

Unfortunately, there are no Americans who can fill those qualifications but low and behold, there are 10,000 Indian IIT graduates who can. We'll have to move to India.

Yours -

Big American Based IT Services Firm.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[bky1701]

That's why it is illegal to ask a large number of questions that are not directly relevant to the job; it is an unjustifiable source of potential bias. This law really isn't needed, what we need is a more general one outlining ALL cases to this effect, rather than several laws trying to specific specific things you cannot ask.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry people don't want to hire you. To me you sound like an asshole so I wouldn't hire you either. Learn to like yourself first and then other might start liking you too.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Local ID10T]

it is illegal to ask a large number of questions that are not directly relevant to the job

False.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Ol Olsoc]

Blah blah blah ... prove it. Prove it's me and NOT YOUR LACK OF SKILLS OR OTHER QUALIFICATIONS! prove it Asshole!

Go back, reread your post. With a little luck, you'll see what your problem is.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[rhook]

Wrong you are. Pretty much the only prohibited questions are ones that could lead to a person being discriminated against. A prospective employer cannot ask for any of the following information BEFORE hiring you. After you have been hired you will have to provide some of this information for payroll/tax purposes.

Race
Color
Sex
Sexual Orientation
Religion
National origin
Birthplace
Age
Disability
Marital/family status

Re:Doesn't matter.

[mysidia]

That's why it is illegal to ask a large number of questions that are not directly relevant to the job

It's not illegal. It's just inadvisable. If one of your questions exposes membership in a protected class, there is a risk that there may be liability / possibility of a discrimination suit.

However ill advised, if you want to refuse employment to a janitor who never played Chess or Checkers, can't remember the rules to the game Go, or can't beat the interviewer in a poker game, the employer can do that, as long as they are consistent and require the same of every candidate.

It just happens that employers are in the business to select employees, and any irrelevent question is a waste of time.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[shentino]

Actually they are NOT required to be consistent at all.

As long as they're not violating civil rights of a protected class, they can hire AND fire whoever they damn please.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[cvtan]

You are also allowed to ask what languages a person speaks, but not how they learned them.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bitter much? No wonder you've spent much of your career unemployed.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[delt0r]

He is not the asking for a job, he is the one that may or may not give you a job.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Those items are strictly prohibited, ie no debate. However, any question or test that does not (provably) relate to your ability to do the posted job can be in question. For instance. If you issue an "IQ" test, you could be sued (and you will lose) if you cannot prove that the results of the test issued relate to the ability to perform the stated job. A lot of companies do crap that violates this fuzzy area, but should they turn down someone who is lawyer/sue happy they can be in a world of hurt.

Of the above, "strictly prohibited" some can be thrown out if it can be proven that they relate to the ability to perform the job. It is generally accepted that they cannot, but there are rare cases where some of them can. However, there is a different asking if someone can lift 20 lbs and asking if someone has a "disability".

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends. In right to work states, yes. Some states have actual worker protections.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[s73v3r]

Technically, it is illegal only to use the information received from answering those questions when considering whether or not to hire someone. However, I believe you would be incredibly hard pressed to prove that the knowledge was not in the back of your mind when making the decision, and you would not ask those questions in the first place unless you wanted to use that information.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Local ID10T]

Technically, it is illegal only to use the information received from answering those questions when considering whether or not to hire someone. However, I believe you would be incredibly hard pressed to prove that the knowledge was not in the back of your mind when making the decision, and you would not ask those questions in the first place unless you wanted to use that information.

False. It is legal to use any information that is not specifically legally protected (such as race, sex, age, disability, etc.) The burden is on the complainant to prove that discrimination based on protected criteria occurred.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[s73v3r]

If you asked one of the questions with the intention of gaining access to that protected information, you would have to prove that you did not base your decision on that information. Which is why most companies simply tell their interviewers not to ask those questions.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Local ID10T]

AHA!

You are referring to a (large) list of specific questions that should not be asked... not to a (large) quantity of questions that are not directly relevant to the job the person is applying to...

Re:Doesn't matter.

[mysidia]

Actually they are NOT required to be consistent at all.
As long as they're not violating civil rights of a protected class, they can hire AND fire whoever they damn please.

Inconsistency has a danger -- if the employer fails to hire someone who conincidentally also happens to be a member of a protected class, and a complaint is raised; there will be a presumption of guilt, if the membership in the class is obvious to the interviewer, once the inconsistency comes to light, the employer's defense will be weak.

If the employer consistently asks/tests and rejects all candidates equally who have or lack certain non-protected characteristics, the defense will be stronger, "It's just their policy", in interviewing for this particular position; and the rejection can be shown to be unrelated to the protected class membership.

Nice Sentiment

[rueger]

Of course the reality is that if you really need that job you have pretty much no option but hand over whatever the boss asks for.

Sure, in theory you could refuse, and when you get fired (or not hired in the first place) in theory you could drag them into court, but in practice the vast majority of working folks can't afford to lose the job in the first place, and can't afford the lawyers in the second.

This would be about as effective as most workplace safety laws - sure you can refuse to do dangerous work, but when there are a hundred people lined up who are prepared to climb on a four story roof with no safety harness you'll find yourself unemployed very fast.

Re:Nice Sentiment

[Anonymous Coward]

God bless the free market!

Re:Nice Sentiment

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the argument of the coward. Just stay quiet while your rights are violated because its too dangerous to stand up for yourself.

Tell that to the countless workers that fought for their rights, some of whom paid for it with their lives. Are you saying they should not have bothered?

Re:Nice Sentiment

[lgw]

If it's just one employer being a dick, you really don't need the government to step in. The problem comes when you have "collusion on terms of employment", which happens far too often: every employer in some industry ends up having the same bullshit. And in that case, as long as whatever regulation affects all companies equally, employers are generally OK with it (since their competition is equally affected).

Re:Nice Sentiment

[Anonymous Coward]

... really need that job you have pretty much no option but hand over whatever the boss asks for.

Then, if one doesn't get the job, sue them for discrimination. Since they are not allowed to judge your private associations, like who you email/befriend.

Re:Nice Sentiment

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's illegal to do so, the question won't come up, sparing applicants from a very difficult dilemma.

Re:Nice Sentiment

[Kjella]

This would be about as effective as most workplace safety laws - sure you can refuse to do dangerous work, but when there are a hundred people lined up who are prepared to climb on a four story roof with no safety harness you'll find yourself unemployed very fast.

Usually what happens here in Norway is that someone takes a picture and report it, then the work site gets instantly closed down. Then you get to have a nice talk with the health & safety inspectors who'll make sure everything is up to code which usually costs more time and more money and then usually a solid fine on top. I've no idea how much shit they pull on the inside of buildings, but you don't see much of that shit in plain view anymore.

Re:Nice Sentiment

[Bigby]

What is this? The government does it too. Wait till you work for a bank and have to hand over all your bank & investment accounts.

Re:Nice Sentiment

[s73v3r]

Banks are not part of the government.

Re:Nice Sentiment

[s73v3r]

No, but I think he's bringing up the unfortunate reality that not everyone has the resources available to do so.

Re:Is it a typo, or just leaving huge loophole ope

[Dahamma]

Yeah, it didn't make sense. After reading the article, it was clearly a typo, and should have said "from accessing information on any computer that isn't owned or controlled by an employer". Ie. employers can still demand you hand over passwords on *their* systems, which seems reasonable enough.

The 4th isn't enough!

[DragonWriter]

I would have thought the 4th amendment would have covered this

You would have thought wrong, since the 4th Amendment imposes no restrictions on private conduct.

Re:The 4th isn't enough!

[msobkow]

I must admit I'm surprised by this difference. In Canada, the Charter of Rights portion of our Constitution is considered to be legally applicable to everyone and everything (Corporations are NOT people!) The idea being, of course, that if everyone has rights, everyone has to respect those rights, not just the government.

Re:The 4th isn't enough!

[s73v3r]

I've always found that to be extremely stupid, because as we've seen, private entities can take away your rights just as easily as any government. The main difference being that we have influence on our government, and can change who makes it up.

Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not indulge in social networks?
Or could it be seen as a mild form of sociopathy and prevent you from getting a job, or even get you fired?
For not having a Facebook account :-)

I banned them all

[Anonymous Coward]

When I had a Facebook account I systematically blocked all the people who I had to work with. When I moved to an other department/company/project I unblocked them (did it with friends and no friends alike).

I do not think work and social networking belong together at all. I honestly think Facebook should be banned at all workplaces, but before I judge: I allow my programmers/dbas to use it freely in my department. I would however be happy to see it gone from work hours altogether, with Twitter and all the time-killing crap people should be using in their free time. As for me: I closed my account because when you have it you will use it. And yes, I live abroad with all my friends left home. When I care I contact them, but daily crap about nothing is just .. ahm .... a waste of time for me.

On TFA and issue: it does not fit into my head. Your account, your private info, the companies should fuck off and get out of your private life. But it should go both ways: if you wan this, you should never-ever-ever log into your Facebook or Twitter or MySpace from the company computer. Either way, if you do, they can catch your pass 999 ways (security camera, keycatcher, sniffer (non-SSL logins) and you actually deserve it.

Re:I banned them all

[lightknight]

Breaking and entering, in the case of them snarfing your password, is something the FBI loves to prosecute. Contact your friendly FBI today, and ask about our two for one special.

No, they don't

[Sycraft-fu]

Nothing stops me from demanding you give me your Facebook password. If you refuse, I can then refuse to provide you with whatever I feel like, such as access to my house, help with things you might need and so on. I can make it a prerequisite that to be my friend in real life, you give me your Facebook password.

Now of course if I do that, all that will happen is I have no friends. Being that as individuals we are on a relatively equal power footing we can work it out between ourselves.

What is happening is the government is saying that companies have an unequal power balance in this equation, and thus this is something they can't demand.

Remember it isn't as though companies are abducting people off the streets at gunpoint and forcing them to hand over their password, that would be illegal for a company or a person to do.

What they are doing is saying "You wanna work here? Then you have to hand over the password." If you refuse, they won't hire you. That would be the same as me saying "You wanna come in for movie night? Then you have to hand over your password." If you refuse, I tell you to go home, you can't come and watch movies with the rest of us.

Right now, both are legal. If this passes, the company won't be able to make the demand, though I still can. The reason is that if I pulled that shit with movie night, it wouldn't matter, nobody would come, I'd watch alone and that is that. However a job is more important, it isn't movie night, so employers aren't going to be allowed to play that game.

But I want them to ask!

[Anonymous Coward]

That way I don't even have to finish the interview; I can just get up and walk out.

Why dont they

[flytripper]

Just ask us to bend over while they lube up a finger?

Pardon me but...

[lophophore]

Pardon me, but...

Don't they have something better to do?

This is like Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burns.

Re:Pardon me but...

[Frosty Piss]

Don't they have something better to do?

You realize that our elected officials in D.C. are capable of dealing with more than one issue at a time? There are probably many 1000's of bill that get written, debated on, tabled and passed every year.

Re:Pardon me but...

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that our elected officials in D.C. are capable of dealing with more than one issue at a time? There are probably many 1000's of bill that get written, debated on, tabled and passed every year.

I noticed you didn't mentioning any reading of these 1000's of bills....

Re:Pardon me but...

[lophophore]

The evidence indicates that our elected officials on D.C. are not capable of dealing with much at all. The evidence indicates they are mostly interested in political grandstanding (ala facebook passwords) and getting re-elected.

Re:Is it a typo, or just leaving huge loophole ope

[slew]

Yeah, it didn't make sense. After reading the article, it was clearly a typo, and should have said "from accessing information on any computer that isn't owned or controlled by an employer". Ie. employers can still demand you hand over passwords on *their* systems, which seems reasonable enough.

Of course that means you might still have a problem if you want to work for a social networking company that you actually use... Of course said company already has your data, but if you are part of the 99% that uses the same password everywhere, you are kinda screwed if you actually hand over your password.

Wait just a second here...

[EmagGeek]

"The Password Protection Act of 2012 (PPA) would also prevent employers from accessing information on any computer that isn't owned or controlled by an employee, including private e-mail accounts, photo sharing sites, and smartphones."

Well, that's all well and good, but what about computers that ARE owned by the employee, such as their personally-owned laptop, home computer, or personal smart phone? Does the act also prevent an employer requiring access to those?

Seems to be a glaring omission to me...

Overbearing government intrusion!

[truavatar]

This sounds like overbearing government intrusion into the private market to me. Employers should be free to demand whatever they want as a condition of employment, from high-school transcripts to semen samples! If you don't like it, find another place to work!

Re:Overbearing government intrusion!

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like someone who has never needed a job in their life. Live with mom? Work for Dad? Fuck you.... Hey, I own a company, and I demand you bring your wife to me for sodomizing as part of the interview! Don't like it, go work somewhere else!

Re:Overbearing government intrusion!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately most white republicans fit that profile nicely. America is too rich.

Re:Overbearing government intrusion!

[s73v3r]

I'm 65% sure the parent post was sarcasm.

Wait a sec

[SilverJets]

The Password Protection Act of 2012 (PPA) would also prevent employers from accessing information on any computer that isn't owned or controlled by an employee, including private e-mail accounts, photo sharing sites, and smartphones."

Shouldn't that be isn't owned or controlled by the employer or company instead? An employee's personal computer (and I'm using personal here to mean one that belongs to the employee) shouldn't be accessed by the employer either.

Re:Wait a sec

[SeaFox]

Shouldn't that be isn't owned or controlled by the employer or company instead? An employee's personal computer (and I'm using personal here to mean one that belongs to the employee) shouldn't be accessed by the employer either.

Haven't you heard? Nobody keeps their stuff on their PCs anymore. They upload it to social networking sites, which they don't own, and don't keep backups. Then they fret about what they're going to do if Facebook ever goes away and how they'll get all their stuff back.

Re:Is it a typo, or just leaving huge loophole ope

[DarwinSurvivor]

Seeing as they screwed up the employee/employer thing farther up as well, that makes sense.

Technically already a felony?

[Fned]

If you log into my friend's account and you're not my friend, you now have access to information in my profile that I did not give you permission to.

Facebook's ToS explicitly prohibits doing this.

Violating a website's ToS in order to gain access to information you don't have permission to access is, I think, some sort of federal crime.

Any lawyers care to chime in on this one?

Re:Technically already a felony?

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

Technically yes, as it is considered unauthorized access. But unless it caused bodily injury or financial loss, most agencies wouldn't care.

Same with opening a new account with the name resembling your long lost friend/relative etc. and tried to gain access to your profile by tricking you to accept them as friends. This could remotely consitutes identity theft.

Re:Technically already a felony?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and I don't think this new law is necessary when we already have this. Also do any lawyers out there know if there are laws about government agencies asking you to violate some existing laws (possibly even foreign laws) to gain employment? The government may ask me to do something like this.

Re:Technically already a felony?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you log into my friend's account and you're not my friend, you now have access to information in my profile that I did not give you permission to.

Facebook's ToS explicitly prohibits doing this.

Violating a website's ToS in order to gain access to information you don't have permission to access is, I think, some sort of federal crime.

Any lawyers care to chime in on this one?

It is questionable whether or not the company is bound by the TOS unless they have a facebook page. It is most likely violation by the person who is giving their password. If your work demands your password, and you want to comply with Facebook's TOS, you have the option of not having a Facebook.

The company could ask you to sign some kind of power-of-attorney to operate your Facebook account as you. I'm not sure how that would legally jive with Facebook's TOS.

Re:Technically already a felony?

[shentino]

It's only illegal if you do it, but not if big business or the government does it.

Re:Technically already a felony?

[wvmarle]

If your work demands your password, and you want to comply with Facebook's TOS, you have the option of not having a Facebook.

Which is probably going to be a problem if ever you registered an account there. After all Facebook will never delete anything you put there - at most they hide it from view.

Re:Technically already a felony?

[s73v3r]

They would be bound by the TOS when they attempt to log in as you. And since they are not you, they do not have permission to do so, hence they are in violation of the TOS.

If your work demands your password, and you want to comply with Facebook's TOS, you have the option of not having a Facebook.

Fuck that idea. Fuck it right in it's ear. My work should have no bearing whatsoever on whether I can have a Facebook, or anything else I do in my private life. That's like saying my work should be able to tell me if I can have a Mini Cooper or not.

Re:Is it a typo, or just leaving huge loophole ope

[Bengie]

IANAL - Last I checked, the DOJ ruled violating the TOS is criminal and goes against Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. An appeals court ruled violating a TOS is not criminal, but several other appeals courts have. It is now going to the supreme court, but it currently stands to be criminal

Anyway, where I was going with this is handing over your password or asking for another person's password is in violation of Facebook's TOS. It currently stands that asking for your password or asking to even see your FB account is criminal, and I'm pretty sure it is illegal to require a potential employee to participate in something illegal.

I also thought it was illegal to require an employee or potential employee to violate a legally binding contract, such as a TOS.

So is reading not your thing?

[Sycraft-fu]

You appear to have responded to a hypothetical post in your head, rather than what I wrote.

My statement was one on the law as related to the parent: He figured that if companies were people, it would already be illegal for them to ask for the password to a Facebook account. I'm showing that no it isn't, it is perfectly legal just as it is legal for any person to ask for the password.

The reason the law is being created, and I quote my post here is that "companies have an unequal power balance in this equation." I also point out the reason, again quoting my post "The reason is that if I pulled that shit with movie night, it wouldn't matter, nobody would come, I'd watch alone and that is that. However a job is more important, it isn't movie night, so employers aren't going to be allowed to play that game."

So shut the fuck up about my "libertarian fantasy" that exists only in your head, and read my damn post next time before responding. My point was to show that no, companies AREN'T prohibited from doing this right now under some other law and that the reason a new law is being made is the unequal power balance between a company an a person.

Re:Is it a typo, or just leaving huge loophole ope

[blackraven14250]

Depends on what algorithm they use. It's not like they're going to get your password out of MD5.

Facebook just wants to be paid for your data

[Anonymous Coward]

Your Facebook data is given to businesses every day; Facebook gives it to them without your knowledge. Where is the outrage about that?

The only thing this law does is to ensure that the employer has to pay Facebook for the data, that you can't give it to them for free.

Hey, how about Nevada?

[sonamchauhan]

I hear the government there allow employers to demand sexual intercourse as a condition of employment.

(Fortunately, the rest of America disagrees!)

Re:Is it a typo, or just leaving huge loophole ope

[HornWumpus]

When I was much younger my life's dream was to invent a new crime.

The 'Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.' makes anything involving computers that a judge thinks should be illegal, illegal. 'Ips Post Facto?' never heard of it.

I now have to invent a new crime that doesn't involve computers. Best I've got is programming an electric car to make the 'cross now' sound as it drives around. Which sucks as I can't make any money at that and I don't have anything against blind people. Plus it involves computers.

Re:Is it a typo, or just leaving huge loophole ope

[Dahamma]

No need for a password when you have access to the user database...

WRONGO!

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a public school in the Michigan school district. Other examples have been prisons.

So this is a problem with PUBLIC/GOVERNMENT Schools and GOVERNMENT PRISONS. These are leeches not employers.

Naturally, government's solution to a problem of its creation is to pass a law covering private employers.

Re:WRONGO!

[s73v3r]

I fail to see your point. The private sector has no business doing this either.

Re:WRONGO!

[Anonymous Coward]

My point is that we ought not to be passing laws affecting everyone for imaginary problems. Government can regulate itself very easily. It controls enough money (as a state or federal institution), to get the agencies, departments, districts, and contractors to abide by a "best practices" approach.

There is a cost to every law passed and I suspect the desire for social network passwords will be even more of a passing fad than the social networks themselves (not ALL of them, but the specific dominance of one of them).

Here is an article describing the problem for STATE TROOPERS:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-27/big-brother-wants-your-facebook-password

State legislators jumped on this because they have nothing better to do. It is a non problem and it will make it look like they are protecting us from the big, bad corporations. The reality is that it was a bad idea to ask for these but the bad idea is so new, the requestors haven't had enough time for it to sufficiently bite them in ass.

Borders

[Sean]

Now make it that way at borders.

Re:Borders

[Geeky]

Now make it that way at borders.

You have to give your Facebook password to buy a book? Wow, things have got bad

Feds? protecting privacy?

[moeinvt]

All I can do is laugh at the idea of the U.S. Federal government protecting people from privacy violations.

How about they ban themselves and their renegade espionage and law enforcement agencies from committing egregious privacy violations before they start meddling in private relationships?

Redundant, just scoring political points

[Bugler412]

Isn't this sort of activity by employers already illegal under federal law under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? If so, this is just another political point scoring sideshow, like banning guns that are already banned under a different and older law.

Already a Felony?

[fadethepolice]

Isnt' accessing facebook and pretending to be someone else already a felony prosecutable by federal law? I was under the impression that accessing a computer system while pretending to be someone elase, violating the terms of service, was already a felony.

Re:I have a job asshole.

[Anonymous Coward]

I gotta job

gotta means have to in the vernacular...so you 'have to job'?

Fucking moron. I bet you think Inglush classes are wurthless 2?!?

mmmhmmm....

Now add my.

[Anonymous Coward]

Credit record. they are not giving me credit. its a damn job.
I want to cut the fucking throat of the next one who ask for it.

Re:Is it a typo, or just leaving huge loophole ope

[blackraven14250]

Yeah, but the GP is talking about using the same password everywhere, which is only an issue regarding the password, and not the data behind it.

passwords

[Anonymous Coward]

Password? Okay. I'll give you my password if you give me your SSN and credit card numbers.

Is law needed? Can they ask for your home keys?

[lpq]

Yeah... what I don't understand, is do we need a special law? Can employers ask for you home keys so they can search through it -- or any other privately owned property?

So they pass a law restricting facebook passwords -- then employers require you to install a monitoring app on your iphone or gphone...that monitors who you connect to and what you download -- just so they can be sure you aren't leaking company secrets, of course.

If there are no laws controlling employer acquisition of personal information and/or property, then banning facebook is pointless, as it doesn't address the problem -- it just gives publicity to 1 website about to go public...

Wonderful...

Proposed Law a Joke

[Transaction7]

“The Password Protection Act of 2012 (PPA) would also prevent employers from accessing information on any computer that isn't owned or controlled by an employee, including private e-mail accounts, photo sharing sites, and smartphones." [Emphasis added] This doesn’t make any sense. Are you sure the word “employee” should not have been “employer?” Any computer, phone, or heart pacemaker your employer or prospective employer graciously decides to permit you to bring to work, or to any other premises over which they may have control, is “controlled by an employer.” The only reason your car is not, even though parking on company property is clearly subject to its control, is that this might expose the employer or prospective employer, and thus their wealthy and powerful insurance company, to liability for an accident. My law school dean was fond of Will Rogers’ comment “When Congress tells a joke, it’s a law, and when Congress passes a law, it’s a joke.” Employment law is a sick joke. You can fire practically anyone, except a few people with a lot of money and political “suck,” for “good cause, no cause at all, or an evil and malicious cause,” regardless of any promises you may have made to get them to take the job. You can’t refuse to hire, or fire, someone for being black or over 40 or Jewish or disabled but qualified, but the odds of an employer, much less a large and influential employer, getting called to account legally if that is your real reason are slim to none in the real world if you’re smart enough to document the very common fact that they are also “over-qualified,” or have never done some rare procedure in the field that they may have to do on this job, and that anyone could do, and don’t hire them, or that they refused to participate in criminal conduct, or that they left their post to save the life of a child within sight. Whistle-blower laws are being construed so narrowly that they offer little of the protection intended, or which the voters thought was intended, by Congress or state legislators. The courts have gone so far toward gutting the Americans with Disabilities Act that Congress amended it largely to restore the clear original intent of the law. They’re already starting to gut the law as amended again. It doesn’t make any difference, because, like long-promised privacy protection legislation, it doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of being passed in any form that would actually address and solve the problems. Oh, sure, something with a high-sounding name will get passed, but, by the time the lobbyists get through rewriting it, it will have about as much effect as barking at the moon.