Slashdot Mirror
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."
They'll demand you add them as a friend!
How is this the domain of the United States Congress?
Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. - John 14:6 NLT
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.
Yes, it actually happened
No, it's not. See above
Unfortunately not yet. But there could be soon.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
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.
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.
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.
Great Intellect...
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...
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).
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
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.
You would have thought wrong, since the 4th Amendment imposes no restrictions on private conduct.
"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.
Great Intellect...
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.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
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?
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.
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.