Slashdot Mirror
New Illinois Law Protecting Social Media Rights In the Workplace
sl4shd0rk writes "Illinois (USA) Governor Pat Quinn signed a new law this week protecting employees' privacy rights concerning social media. Bill 3782 makes it illegal for an employer to request an employee's or job candidate's social network login credentials, in order to gain access to their account or profile. 'Members of the workforce should not be punished for information their employers don't legally have the right to have,' Governor Quinn said. 'As use of social media continues to expand, this new law will protect workers and their right to personal privacy.'"
Illinois did something that makes sense? WTF?
Read the full text of the law here
At least they cited the bill number. I hate it when news outlets don't tell you the bill and have to go searching for it.
We don't live in Shouldland.
Some sensibility in lawmaking. That's refreshing.
There's nothing like $HOME
It wouldn't be against the proposed law to ask employees to make all that information public, would it? Law might be too specific.
I would argue that their right to personal privacy is given up when they decide to broadcast information on a public international communications network.
Social networks is the worlds largest experiment in removing the safety labels on devices.
my 2c.
I'm glad I have a Right not to hire people in Illinois!
This doesn't make sense at all. They can't ask for credentials? So they will ask to be "friended" or "circled" just to get an interview. Sucks for me, since I don't have a Facebook account and will be excluded as if I am hiding something...
Actually, it doesn't make sense.
If an employer wants my Facebook Password, it is really simple, "NO". I don't need a law to protect me.
And in fact, should anyone ever ask for my password, I'd start passing that info on to the social networking sites as a warning to others. We don't need government creating idiotic laws that will last well beyond the technology's life span.
If everyone acted the same way, with the same level of outrage, the problem would go away on its own. We don't need government to fix stupidity, we just need an educated public.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
> we just need an educated public.
Mod parent funny.
What are these jobs that make you surrender your personal login credentials? Is this really happening? How would this ever be considered acceptable practice?
Actually, it doesn't make sense.
If an employer wants my Facebook Password, it is really simple, "NO". I don't need a law to protect me.
And in fact, should anyone ever ask for my password, I'd start passing that info on to the social networking sites as a warning to others. We don't need government creating idiotic laws that will last well beyond the technology's life span.
If everyone acted the same way, with the same level of outrage, the problem would go away on its own. We don't need government to fix stupidity, we just need an educated public.
In Illinois?!?!?!
Always funny with a post and it's sig contradict each other.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
Actually it makes perfect sense.
Illinois is the spawn of corruption. Corruption uses social media. Corruption likes to hide.
You see the connection now? The most corrupt state in the union was the first to sign more privacy laws when it comes to social media. That doesn't set off any bells or alarms in your head does it?
You have the right that everything you post to a public forum is therefore public and accessible. Or else, why did you post on a public forum in the first place?
Nothing to see.
There is arguably a difference between 'doesn't make sense' and 'will be relatively easy to evade'.
Most worker protection legislation suffers from the basic problem that there are just so many innocent-sounding reasons to get rid of someone for reasons wholly unrelated to any legally protected trait.
Whistleblowers, assorted wage/salary/time-worked accounting shenanigans, occupational hazards, harassment, and virtually anything else all fall into that category.
Trouble is, unless you've got a bold plan to achieve an enormous restructuring of the economy (at least to the point where the labor market is a seller's market, perhaps even to the point where most people aren't 'employees'(and no, the 'oh, he's an "independent contractor" because those are cheaper than employees, he just resembles an employee in all other ways'/permatemp doesn't count)), the condition of employees in your economy will be one of the greatest determinants of the welfare(and even the day-to-day freedom) of most of the population.
That makes ignoring the problem a bit... unpalatable.
what next the right to work people 39.5 hours and not give them any paid time off or health care.
With high presser sales like stapes?
Great, now I have to look up the definition of electronic mail. Is it going to be things which talk rfc822? Or it is going to be things which transmit messages between different users? (I just checked Facebook and it has some kind of messaging thing in it; would be hilarious if Facebook didn't qualify.)
I bet most sites which use logins, could be made to become social networking. Even banks, if you get creative.
I hate laws like this, which are so needlessly specific to handle ephemeral trends. Why didn't they just make it illegal to impersonate other people? Who profited by lobbying against that?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
And what about in a state like where I live, NC? Employeer "I want your facebook information" me "no" Employeer "ok you are fired" me "doh!" a lot of states are right to work states where they can fire you for nothing if they so chose to. Even if not they can find something to fire you for in no right to work states.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Politicians protecting themselves from investigation. The legislators likely doesn't want the state to ever ask for their facebook credentials.
They can create this law, but they won't create a law to prevent your employer from asking for your bank and investment accounts (SEC regulation). The Federal government will usurp this law under the guise of terrorism prevention.
If an employer wants my Facebook Password, it is really simple, "NO". I don't need a law to protect me.
Good luck with that.
And in fact, should anyone ever ask for my password, I'd start passing that info on to the social networking sites as a warning to others.
Look at all the people who will care! QUICKLY OR YOU WILL MISS THEM.
We don't need government creating idiotic laws...
This is far from an idiotic law; in fact, this is one of the few types of legislation the government should be passing.
... that will last well beyond the technology's life span.
You get points for that, at least - unfortunately, politicians are generally idiots when it comes to technology. Witness how prefixing anything with i- or e- means new laws, new patents, etc.
If everyone acted the same way, with the same level of outrage, the problem would go away on its own.
Oh, certainly, that's the perfect solution. And it's entirely possible. It's not like civilization evolved politicians and governments because people inherently have differing opinions or anything.
We don't need government to fix stupidity, we just need an educated public.
Tell me, are your Facebook posts about midget crossdressers you love making you more educated than Suzie Q. Boringasfuck?
Signs point to no. Educated, oh lord. That word doesn't mean 'people who agree with me to my advantage' like you seem to think it does.
They have precedent for such protections.
Of course without protection they can just fire you on the spot.
Or they could wait a few days and simply downsize, eliminate your position, or get rid of you for some other reason. There's no such thing as a perfect employee, and they can always get rid of you for some reason, even just a I don't think things are working out here, see you.
We don't need government to fix stupidity, we just need an educated public.
There's this thing called a legislature. People elect other people to go and make laws in the legislature. It makes it easier for people to get things done so they don't have to organize a concerted show of outrage towards companies. Instead they argue the merits of such a law and the elected persons make it so.
Nothing like saying the most corrupt state in the country is uneducated. They know which side the bread is buttered on...
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
If I asked somebody for their Facebook password in a job interview, and they gave it to me, that would tell me that they don't have enough clue to be worth hiring :-)
Asking for their Facebook user name is different - There are jobs for which it may make sense to see what somebody's public profile looks like (as opposed to what they're showing their friends.) There are HR people who there who would also want to look at who their friends are, which is getting into creepy, of course. And there are jobs that want to see your Klout score, for which xkcd has already covered the topic..
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If in an interview I am ever asked to friend a potential employer or give out my login credentials, I will politely say, "Thank you very much for your time and consideration but I am no longer interested in employment with your company." On one hand, I like the idea of making this illegal. On the other, I think it would be stronger to let market forces end this practice. If enough people simply stand up and walk out when asked to cough up their facebook information, the practice would stop immediately because the company would be unable to hire anyone. If the work force were more united and less divided, market forces could dictate more workplace friendly policies. However, because Americans live in such abject fear, most are likely to just aquiesce so we need a law to provide a security blanket for the fearful.
It's one thing to ask for somebody's Facebook user name, so you can see if they're posting embarrassing pictures of themselves and friending inappropriate people, and so you can look at their Mom's Facebook page to see if you can find her maiden name.
It's something entirely different to ask for their password, so you can post embarrassing pictures of them on their Facebook account, friend inappropriate people, and write stuff on their Mom's Facebook page wall.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Meanwhile the education department doesn't even have money to pay teachers! Get your head out of your ass please!
If you are out of work, really need a job, and an employer is making an unreasonable (but still legal) demand, you are in a rather unequal bargaining position. It's all well and good to stick up for yourself if you have the luxury of turning down a new job or aborting a promising interview, but not everyone is in that position. The law levels the playing field by prohibiting employers from even asking for something they have no business getting.
>> Illinois did something that makes sense?
The legislature is like the monkeys with the typewriters...
Standing up for your rights when an employer asks you to do something legal, but unreasonable is all well and good if you are actually in a position to refuse. But if you are out of work, and really need the money, refusing an offer or aborting an interview because of crap like this is quite a bit harder.
This practice is, arguably, already illegal under the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
It all depends on whether your employer would be considered "authorized" to access the computer just because you coughed up your credentials.
If giving your credentials to other people is against the TOS of the site, one might argue that your employer is not authorized and, furthermore, that you might be guilty of "Knowingly and with the intent to defraud, trafficking in a password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization."
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
The worst form of tyranny are from those that say "There ought to be a law".
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Emphasis on the part that I felt was entirely overdue.
HB 3782 prevents employers from screening potential job candidates or reprimanding current employees based on information from their social network accounts that would otherwise be private.
ie. They can't just friend you or your friends in order to glean info off of your account and then fire you for it. I would imagine that if you have the info set to openly public it might be in the gray area.
Now if we could get them to remove the stipulation in affirmative action laws that allow them to decide what they think you are (race/gender/etc) and document it after you choose to opt out of offering them the information. (I've had several issues with this in the past few years)
Asking for their Facebook user name is one thing - a company might want to see the public profile the person presents, and a creepy HR department might want to see who their friends are. But any HR department that wants your password is exposing the company to legal liability for misuse of the information, and really has some 'splainin to do about why they want it the ability to forge the job candidate's information.
I do computer security - anybody dumb enough to give us their password is too dumb to hire, unless it's a fake honeypot account, in which case if we're dumb enough to risk logging in then we deserve whatever happens to us. HR may think that the link showing they've made Godfather really goes to the real Mafia Wars, but it's a job offer they can't refuse.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I don't need a law to protect me
If the company can refuse to hire you because you refused to provide a password, even if they are violating the Facebook TOS, and if there is no legal recourse against that company for how they are behaving then yes, you need the law to clarify its position (which is more what this is).
Worse still is if governments have ruled through various agencies that they *can* ask for your passwords legally - which they probably cannot, and this clarifies that they aren't allowed to do that. Keep in mind that laws will be written to say blandly generally things like 'the police force should use all due diligence to ensure only reputable people are hired', so then some civil servants in an agency will try and interpret 'due diligence' and 'reputable' every year, and s/he doesn't want to get fired for not doing enough diligence.
The law isn't in this to protect the data on your facebook account, which is what you're talking about being able to protect yourself. It's about first protecting you from discrimination for refusing to do something stupid (and potentially illegal), and secondly it's protecting the government (and companies) from being on the losing side of a lawsuit for doing something they shouldn't have been doing.
Governments frequently grapple with the question of what employees are to do if they're given instructions they don't think are lawful or within the terms of their contract. This isn't just 'don't torture people because the vice president said it was ok', it's things protecting employees who demand gloves and sweaters when they work in freezers, or when laws are very very complicated, or overlapping or the like, and who trumps who and so on. You as a prospective employee need to be protected from being punished just because you're following contracts you signed, which was that you wouldn't give up your facebook password when you agreed to facebooks TOS.
If everyone acted the same way, with the same level of outrage, the problem would go away on its own.
No. It could very well go the other direction. If the bureaucracy makes a rule, and no one successfully challenges it (and remember, they might actually be authorized to demand your password if the law granting them authority was unintentionally over reaching) then you need to make new laws. Otherwise demanding your social networking passwords could easily become routinely allowed.
You can't authorize somebody to access Facebook's servers unless you work for Facebook. Access is granted in the T&C for users when they sign up, but it explicitly forbids giving others your login details.
Simple solution: Facebook should set up a "panic password" which you can hand over, the first time this is used it locks the account down, records the IP etc and flashes up a big page informing the "hacker" that they have broken laws X,Y and Z, that the authorities and the original user have been informed, and that Facebook will assist the user in pressing for prosecution and compensation.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Like the Chicago Cubs say, "you can't lose 'em all." Actually, I've found Illinois politicians actually listen to their constituents (some are better than others, of course) and the constituent doesn't have to be a campaign contributor, or even in the same party (which party's primary you vote in is a matter of public record in Illinois).
As to Illinois doing something that makes sense, do farms make sense? Most of the state is famland. Does subatomic particle physics make sense? Before the LHC, Illinois had the world's biggest atom smasher. Oh, and Lincoln, Reagan, Obama, and Seven of Nine are all from Illinois. Of course, Reagan didn't make much sense, but he had Alzheimer's.
Now, Quinn signing a bill that makes sense, or getting anything at all right, now THAT'S weird! The saddest thing is, he's the best governor we've had so far this century (the previous two are in prison).
Free Martian Whores!
Hilarious. The "backlash" would amount to a tempest in a teapot. NOTHING would happen, except you would be out a job. What fantasy world do you live in where an offhand "tweet" from some twat is going to get a company to change their policy?
And what about in a state like where I live, NC? Employeer "I want your facebook information" me "no" Employeer "ok you are fired" me "doh!" a lot of states are right to work states where they can fire you for nothing if they so chose to. Even if not they can find something to fire you for in no right to work states. Sounds like you were fired for cause, and an unjustified cause at that. I'd hire a lawyer. They can't fire you for refusing to break the Facebook's Terms of Service.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
If an employer wants my Facebook Password, it is really simple, "NO". I don't need a law to protect me.
What if you need the job? And what if the employer next door wants your password too?
Which is why no jobs ever drug test, right?
I say no now, but I know if I ever end up hungry I too will take a wizzquiz.
Actually, it doesn't make sense.
If an employer wants my Facebook Password, it is really simple, "NO". I don't need a law to protect me.
Prior to this law, you could be fired for giving that answer in Illinois.
No the worst from a tyranny is when you don't have the freedom to even do that.
If you think Illinois is corrupt, you should check Oklahoma and Texas.
The problem is, no one has any balls today. People have been brainwashed into believing that "there should be a law". Hence - we have a myriad of nonsense laws to "protect" us. Strange how all those laws designed to "protect" us can be used to hammer us senseless when we come to the attention of law enforcement officials.
Yes, I'm all for an educated public. Unfortunately, the departments of education around the country are largely responsible for the brainwashed condition of the masses.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Neither Oklahoma nor Texas has recently had a governor arrested, prosecuted, and found guilty of felony misdemeanors. That's not to say that those states don't have corruption problems, but we can make a damned convincing argument that Illinois might be the most corrupt state.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Your point? You'd be out of a job? Poor chump - if you cave in to illegal and unethical demands from your "employer", then you don't have a "job". You're a fucking SLAVE, idiot!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
You forget that Facebook is not the product. It's users are the product.
A panic password does little to nothing for Facebook and only creates more work for them.
In this case, we would need a law to force Facebook and others to do this.
We don't live in Shouldland.
I blame Chicago.
I see your point, but actors are listed as impersonating someone else in the credits. It is identical to plagiarism vs quotes and cited sources.
YOU might not. Recognize that not everyone has the same position you do, and there are people who are very desperate for a job.
But I forgot, that infringes on your ideals of "Fuck them, I've got mine."
It really does depend on what those charges are. In the case you're talking about, they were corruption charges. But there are a number of felony misdemeanors, or any felonies for that matter, which wouldn't really show corruption. A governor getting arrested for a DUI, for example, would probably show that said governor is an idiot, but not necessarily that they are corrupt. If anything, I'd almost say that their conviction on that charge might prove the opposite.
"we just need an educated public" - Why not just ask for a utopia?
There will always be a sucker willing to give up their FB info, who is "good enough" to fill a position that you want.
I don't know if the wording of this bill addresses it either, but your TOS point would arguably be defeated just by asking the employee/candidate to login themselves.
My webcomic
Going on Twitter or Facebook and marketing "I was fired for not giving my Facebook Password" would create enough backlash that the company would lose in the end
Unlikely. That doesn't mean that the person shouldn't spam every news outlet and social media site with the info, I just don't think it would have the effect you believe it would.
And why would you want to work for such a company in the first place?
I'm going to assume he enjoys paying rent and eating food. Not everyone has the perfect job mobility you apparently do, and some people really do have to tough out very shitty jobs for a while. This is just a measure to cut down on the abuse and make those jobs a little less shitty.
Whatever he's smoking, it's making him very optimistic. I would love to be so blissfully happy.
I hope that thought gives you comfort while you're starving in a gutter.
1). Where does an unemployed person find the money for a lawyer?
2). In just about every "Right to Work" state there is, the employer does not actually have to state the reason why they are firing you. Leaving the burden completely on you to prove that the fired you because of not handing over the FB password. And likely they will have something else stored away for just such an occasion, like a violation of the "Network Acceptable Use Policy" (He browsed Slashdot at work!).
No, not even close.
The company I work for has inserted themselves as at Trusted Root Certification Authority in Internet Explorer. They can easily do this since they deploy IE to the desktop.
Now, when you go to Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc. they do a Man-In-The-Middle attack and present their Cert as authenticating the site.
So it you were to look at the secure certificate for Faceboook, you'd see:
The certificate is issued to Facebook.com
But The certificate is issued by internalServer.myEmployer.com
Between you and the site they're decrypting the data and re-encrypting using their own certificate before they present it to you. Then the reverse takes place when you send data. This trick captures logins and passwords as well as any other "secure" browsing over SSL. The lock symbol appears, so most users wouldn't bother to look closely at the certificate since it's "valid".
Does anyone else know of other companies doing this?
No, the problem is that employees have very little bargaining power compared to employers today, and that many of them still like to eat.
I hope the idea that you still "have balls" would provide you comfort when you're unable to find a job.
Then you could sue, because even in "right to work" states, there are laws protecting workers.
There are not yet laws protecting workers from their employers requiring their login for social media. That is why they are proposing this law in Illinois. To create those protections. Which, from your previous posts, you seem to indicate you are opposed to (or think is unnecessary?). I am a little confused about what your position actually is.
"1). Where does an unemployed person find the money for a lawyer?"
There are plenty who will do it for a cut if it looks likely to win. Firing someone for refusing to violate the law? Multi-millions right there.
Great Intellect...
I still like the idea of explicitly telling employers, "NO! You can't do this!"
Again, you have to be able to actually prove it. That's not going to be easy.
Actually, Illinois is not the most corrupt per capita. Recent surveys have put North Dakota or Louisiana at the top.
Hmmmm.... you can choose between:
A) Impending foreclosure, unemployment, hunger, and bankruptcy.
B) Making sure you keep to a strange term in a unilateral contract that you are being asked to violate under duress.
Gee... such a tough decision.
There are times to draw a line in the sand, and turning down much-needed employment in order to enforce Facebook's ToS isn't one of them.
So at the national laboratory in IL that I work at, they told us at new employee orientation to *expect* to have no privacy electronically. They said they wouldn't be asking for passwords or anything, but they archive 100% of all traffic in and out of the facility, such that they can easily pick people's logins, etc out. They furthermore said that if in event law enforcement wanted the passwords, the lab would willingly turn them over, as that data is technically the lab's....
Given the stories of "fake users", bots and the like currently doing the rounds, you'd think it would make sense for them to at least make an attempt at linking accounts to their owners. There's little point advertising the latest cosmetics to the 56 year old male boss of an 18 year old female...
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
If the lawyer will take the case for a cut of the proceeds, what do you have to lose? Time? What's it worth to you when you are unemployed?
I know several people that make a decent living just off of suing somebody or 4 or 5 years. Sad but true. If you get fired for not turning over a FB password, that is a legitimate lawsuit, IMHO.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Yeah. Illinois is corrupt. Look up "Corruption" in a dictionary and the entire entry is in the shape of the state of Illinois.
Note: The federal government didn't "stamp out organized crime" in the 20's and 30's. Organized crime simply stepped into local government because they could get away with more and it was more lucrative.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
That even the employers are jumping that train.
Just that any American company would think they could invade your privacy over employment.
I work for myself because I never have wanted a job that bad.
I dont submit to drug screen or background checks fuck um I would rather starve.
Illinois here. I have not had *a* governor arrested recently.
I believe I'm up to 6.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1865681,00.html
Try to keep up, haters!
From the Facebook user agreement: "You will not share your password (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account." Simply explain that giving the password is a violation of the contract and that you wouldn't want to hire people who don't follow the rules.
And unless there is a law to protect you, that NO will send your resume into the round file every single time. Eventually, as you stand in the rain digging ditches for minimum wage, you will break.
OTOH, if it is illegal for them to even ask, you won't face that problem.
No, I'm not ok with such an employer. But I'm even LESS ok with losing my house, car, etc.
I'd probably bail as soon as possible, but in the meantime the proverbial beggars can't be choosers.
If the lawyer will take the case for a cut of the proceeds, what do you have to lose?
That's a pretty big IF. And the fact that you have to prove said wrongdoing makes it less likely that IF will happen.
Yes, it would... If you had a huge loyal social media following. If you just have twenty friends on Twitter, Facebook, or Google+ then those 20 friends will get outraged. Some of them might pass it on and some of those people might feel mildly upset about it. Perhaps one or two of them will pass it on, but it would peter out quickly. Yes, social media can amplify your audience. Your friends, by sharing your post, can get you a larger audience for your thoughts. It can't, however, get you a huge audience of people banging down your employer's door demanding that they reverse their policy unless 1) you have a huge audience to begin with, 2) you are close friends with someone who has a huge audience, or 3) you happen to get lucky and your post goes viral. Don't count on 3 happening every time... or at all. It may happen, but it is far more likely that it won't.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
it violates the social media sites terms of service, so you can't share the password. simple.
...
That is why they are proposing this law in Illinois.
Thay didn't just propose it, it passed and Governor Quinn signed it into law yesterday.
I see he's a democrat. I can't picture a republican passing a law which would limit the ability of companies to spy on their employees. It's too bad. I used to think the republican party was the party of small government and less government intrusion. Seems that's changed since it got hijacked.