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
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.
What are these jobs that make you surrender your personal login credentials? Is this really happening? How would this ever be considered acceptable practice?
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.
If the information were publicly broadcast, I wouldn't need to ask you for your credentials in order to access it, would I? Unless I'm much mistaken, the bill doesn't protect you from being axed for those public pictures of you sucking a skull bong(which can be accessed without login, or with an arbitrary set of credentials), it just prevents me from demanding your access credentials.
Always funny with a post and it's sig contradict each other.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
So you are ok with them asking for your email password? After all, you give up privacy when you send all those bits across the internet right?
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I hope that thought gives you comfort while you're starving in a gutter.
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!