California Employers Can't Ask For Your Facebook Password

J053 sends word that California has passed legislation making it illegal for both colleges and employers to request social media account access from students, employees, and prospective hires. "Assemblymember Nora Campos, who authored the bill, called AB 1844 a 'preemptive measure' that will offer guidelines to the accessibility of private information behind what she calls the 'social media wall.' ... According to Campos' office, more than 100 cases currently before the National Labor Relations Board involve employer workplace policies around social media. Facebook has also said it has experienced an increase in reports of employers seeking to gain 'inappropriate access' to people's Facebook profiles or private information."

Comments

Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Privacy is not dead, it's just losing the war.

Take arms and fight back!

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[gurps_npc]

You can have my password when you pry it from my cold, dead hand.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

You wrote your password down?

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[N0Man74]

You can have my password when you pry it from my cold, dead hand.

And that's the problem with biometric authentication.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[littlebigbot]

Where's the other hand?

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[daem0n1x]

I find it really incredible that you Americans need a specific law for this. This is outright illegal in my country.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[CanHasDIY]

I find it really incredible that you Americans need a specific law for this. This is outright illegal in my country.

Yea, well, technically it's illegal here thanks to the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to our Constitution. Thing is, apparently corporations are exempt from following the law.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Reverand Dave]

The first step is to break these idiotic FB chains in the first place. It's pretty easy.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[jhoegl]

Corporations are exempt from a lot of things.
Try being a fat lady and applying for a job at a strip joint.
Ever wonder why Flight attendants are so skinny? Yeah.
Ever wonder why it is illegal to fill out your age or for corporations to ask you about your health status? They can, but it is illegal to ask. However, if they get it, it isnt illegal to have.
We are a "right to work society", meaning we have no right to work. It isnt, as politicians like to say, an entitlement.
But Jebus help you if you dont have a job! Because then you are an entitlee to the rich persons pocket book and a 47%er...

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[__aaltlg1547]

It can only be illegal if there is a specific law. Lacking that, the proper response is to laugh in the face of the interviewer asking such a question. Then tell them, "I don't know YOU. Even my MOTHER doesn't get access to my social media accounts! I don't want to work for s company that has no concept of appropriate privacy and security."

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Applekid]

Those constitutional amendments limit the power of the government, not private industry.

But either way, you're right, because the government routinely ignores them anyway.

When I see folks from other countries baffle at the madness going on here, I wish they could understand the US citizenry was tricked and had their country taken over by power-hungry demagogs for the last 100 years (well, 99 years this December), and that we're simply powerless to stop the machine at this point.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[oodaloop]

Soooooo...you have and need a law for it too? Were you just trolling with that?

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

If we don't have a right to work, then why is it called a "right to work" society? That sounds like the exact opposite of what it means.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[defaria]

My Facebook password is "Fuck you - I'll find work with another company who is not a fucking asshole!". I know, I know. Kinda long but I'm security conscious!

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Dog-Cow]

Technically you are utterly ignorant. The Constitutions, along with its amendments, applies to the (Federal) Government, not to private corporations or individuals. So, no, an employer asking for your Facebook password is not and cannot be violating the Constitution.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't even understand how this is a discusion item. Asking for personal account information, why don't they just ask for my bank account login? Or my email password?

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[rwv]

That sounds like the exact opposite of what it means.

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[iluvcapra]

The SHA1 of that is 3daf4cf98356e6438aaa38ccf38a77027a69db05 for you kids at home updating your rainbow tables.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like the "Clean Air" Act? Congratulations on working out the Republican modus operandi!

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[iluvcapra]

We have a constitution, and the right to privacy is there.

In the US, you are protected from government searches, but there is no right to "privacy" from any and all, except for those things carved out of substantive due process, which are neither "in" the Constitution or positive Constitutional law.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

So by 'outright illegal' you mean it's against a specific law?

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't even understand how this is a discusion item. Asking for personal account information, why don't they just ask for my bank account login? Or my email password?

They don't need to ask you personally for your bank account login - they get all the info they need about your finances when you give them your SSN for a credit check, and they take that to the credit rating agencies. And have you ever been fingerprinted for a criminal background check? So yeah, there's quite the precedence for companies prying into prospective employees' private lives.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Right to Work" is the name of the law (in some states only) that makes it illegal for an employer to require (or prohibit) union membership as a condition of employment.
Unions and their political allies don't like this, because they want to be able to strongarm employers into signing closed shop agreements.
On the other hand, exploitive employers do like it.
I think I can see which side jhoegl is on, but flight attendants are unionized, right?

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[DragonTHC]

Amendment IV

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.

tell me where in that statement does it clarify only for government and not for citizens or corporate entities?

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Slashdot, where do you think his other hand is?

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[SuricouRaven]

The bill of rights limits the actions of government, not individuals or corporations. At the time of writing it didn't matter, because there were no national mega-corps of the type of all-controlling scope that we know today - government was the big threat to liberty. It could be argued though that in these times some corporations have so much power that they could be considered almost governmental in nature, and so should be subject to the same restrictions.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[jbmartin6]

It was government agencies asking for Facebook passwords, not corporations.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[SuricouRaven]

In full, it means 'right to work regardless of union membership.' It refers to laws which prohibit businesses from requiring union membership as a condition of employment, which many unions do otherwise demand as a means to secure their own influence. Advocates of such laws argue that they are needed to prevent a union from effectively taking control of a company by dictating hireing practices. Opponents argue that they serve only to undermine the power of unions by ensuring that if there is a strike, the employer can simply fire everyone and hire new workers.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it really incredible that you Americans need a specific law for this. This is outright illegal in my country.

Yea, well, technically it's illegal here thanks to the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to our Constitution. Thing is, apparently corporations are exempt from following the law.

Thing is, corporations are not congress.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

When corporations became recognized as persons by judges legislating from the bench, then they could apply that "right of the people to be secure" argument to their own workforce.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[DNS-and-BIND]

The "right to work" laws vary from state to state. The other kind of state REQUIRES workers to join a union and pay dues (a kind of non-government tax) in order to get a job. If you don't join the union, you have no right to work. Sucks, doesn't it? Basically, unions got so politically powerful in certain states that they used their unfair advantage to bribe politicians to pass laws in the unions' own interest, forcing workers to join them, in order to increase their own power.

Article 23.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."
The phrase "the right to work" was coined by the French socialist leader Louis Blanc in the 19th century.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Xaedalus]

You're blaming Woodrow Wilson and the isolationist Congress/Senate of 1912 for everything that's happened in our country since?

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[NatasRevol]

It doesn't need to 'clarify' it, because it's intrinsically FOR the government alone. That was the whole fucking purpose of the Constitution & it's articles.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Rob the Bold]

We have a constitution, and the right to privacy is there. And we have a labour legislation that guarantees employers don't have fuck to do with their employees private lives. We don't need to write a specific law for something that's blatantly abusive!

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

It is not as easy as you might think. I spent about 15 minutes looking for how to delete my FB account.
Finally I had to google for how to do it.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[CanHasDIY]

Technically you are utterly ignorant. The Constitutions, along with its amendments, applies to the (Federal) Government, not to private corporations or individuals.

Oh, cool, so that means if I run into in the street, I can just start going through your pockets, and there's nothing you can legally do to stop me? Or is it only that I can rifle through your belongings if you're on "my" property?

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[CanHasDIY]

It doesn't need to 'clarify' it, because it's intrinsically FOR the government alone. That was the whole fucking purpose of the Constitution & it's articles.

Um, have you ever actually read the Constitution? From the sound of it, I'm going to guess a resounding "no."

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[CanHasDIY]

Ever wonder why Flight attendants are so skinny?

'Cuz the aisles are so narrow, duh.

Fat bitch with a food cart wouldn't stand a chance.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[NatasRevol]

Want to show me where I'm wrong?
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Article I, Section1:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[JackieBrown]

We have state and federal laws for that.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[daem0n1x]

Don't you have anything better to do, asshole?

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[CanHasDIY]

The bill of rights limits the actions of government, not individuals or corporations.

Where, precisely, is it defined that the Constitution / Bill of Rights does not govern the actions of individuals and corporations? Keep in mind, the guys that wrote this document were pretty damn slick, and did a fine job of specifically delineating what group had what powers.


Note, nowhere in the US Constitution are corporations mentioned, meaning that they, according to the Constitution, have no rights or powers. History buffs know why, though I doubt many others pay enough attention...

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[chemicaldave]

I wish they could understand the US citizenry was tricked and had their country taken over by power-hungry demagogs for the last 100 years (well, 99 years this December), and that we're simply powerless to stop the machine at this point.

I think some of the blame should fall on the willful ignorance of so many apathetic voters.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you fool. Don't you see? Corporations are people my friend. Who needs to be involved to change a law? Judges and legislators.
Who gives them money so they can keep their jobs? Corporations.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[CanHasDIY]

Try Article IV, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, plus Amendments IX and X.

That should put ya on the right track.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Reverand Dave]

Sorry I didn't mean to imply that ridding yourself of your actual FB account was easy, I just meant that it's much easier to keep things private when you don't have the great satan of FB on your back. Deleting a FB account is notoriously difficult. It's not quite herpes, but it's pretty close to it.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

FTFY:
Food cart wouldn't stand a chance with a fat bitch.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Dragonslicer]

Oh, cool, so that means if I run into in the street, I can just start going through your pockets, and there's nothing you can legally do to stop me? Or is it only that I can rifle through your belongings if you're on "my" property?

If the Constitution were the only law in the country, then yes, you could. Fortunately, we have other laws that cover theft, murder, and other such stuff.

Also, stealing someone's pocket change isn't usually a federal crime.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

What your saying is that while the Federal Government is bound to follow the rules, a state government does not need to follow the Constitution, only its own state constitution? So they could specifically choose to ignore amendments? I hope that's not the case.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[oodaloop]

So you have a law for it before we do. Good job mate. But don't act high and nighty because it's already illegal. It's illegal because you have a law for it. That's what we're doing!

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[daem0n1x]

No. We have fundamental rights that already cover this possibility.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a union employee? Being one myself, i see your explanation a little differently.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

It used to be. It was the Fourteenth Amendment (or more specifically, precedent established by a Supreme Court ruling regarding it) that applied the other amendments against the states.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Jessified]

In BC, you can opt not to join the union, but you still have to pay the equivalent of the dues to a charity of your choice. The point being that the decision to not join a union should be one of personal belief rather than monetary.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, not really. But there actually IS an applicable Federal law for this. You agree to not share your password when you sign up for a Facebook account, and Facebook only gives YOU permission to access that account. If someone Facebook has not given permission to accesses that account it is technically a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

I just want to reinforce what NatasRevol said.

You are a fucking moron. Turn in your U.S. citizenship, leave, and reenter as a foreign national.

See you in 12 years when you take your citizenship test. Hope you know more then than you know now.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[NatasRevol]

Good thing that's not talking about rights granted by or to the government.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

There IS a law, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act says that if you access a system without the permission of the owner of that system, you have committed a felony. Facebook grants access to the owner of the account only, nobody else, that's why there is a password involved.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple solution: FIRE ALL Those who require user's passwords. They clearly have no grasp of what they are doing or how to go about it.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[hazah]

Are you seriously conflating what's most likely a blatant disregard for ones own health and the surrounding perception into some sort of conservative agenda? You don't see fat ladys in strip joints because it will only ever appeal to a very small number of individuals. Nothing wrong with that, it's just that for the rest of us, it's a show stopper, and it makes no business sense to offer something no one wants. As for flight attendance, is it just me, or is it simply not obvious that airplanes have limited space internally? I can only imagine what a 400 pound man/woman would look like (read inefficient) strolling those isles. Look, there's enough unfairness, racism, sexism, and asshattery to go around, no one is going to deny that in general, but some of that shit makes no sense. At the end of the day, some people simply do not take care of themselves. It takes active effort to keep 400 pounds on. No one else should get a free lunch, so I'm not really all that appaled that someone like that gets a 'no'. "It doesn't look like you can take care of yourself, we will not trust you with the responsibility of making us money" sounds like a reasonable business decision.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, I make about 40k/yr w/ a wife (stay at home mom) and three kids. I am a 47%'er. Amusingly, I can actually balance my budget (unlike the SOBs in office) and the only money I owe anyone in the world is my mortgage (which I have never once been late on). But yeah, I'm a VICTIM.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying biometric authentication isn't a valid authentication method because your body parts can be taken after you're dead???

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[CanHasDIY]

Oh, cool, so that means if I run into in the street, I can just start going through your pockets, and there's nothing you can legally do to stop me? Or is it only that I can rifle through your belongings if you're on "my" property?

If the Constitution were the only law in the country, then yes, you could. Fortunately, we have other laws that cover theft, murder, and other such stuff. Also, stealing someone's pocket change isn't usually a federal crime.

I never said anything about stealing, I was just wanting to conduct a search. You know, for my own "safety."

What particular statutes make it illegal for me to search people who enter "my" property?

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[CanHasDIY]

It doesn't need to 'clarify' it, because it's intrinsically FOR the government alone. That was the whole fucking purpose of the Constitution & it's articles.

Good thing that's not talking about rights granted by or to the government.

I'm sorry, what? Either I missed something, or you're switching gears faster than a tweaker in a funny car...

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[DocSavage64109]

Unfortunately, nobody knows what you mean since you didn't explain it yourself.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Dragonslicer]

What particular statutes make it illegal for me to search people who enter "my" property?

None that I'm aware of. If you tell someone that they can't enter your home without your searching them, then either they allow you to search them, or they don't enter your home. If you let someone into your home, then tell them that you're going to search them and refuse to let them leave until they agree, you could potentially face criminal charges for kidnapping, wrongful imprisonment, or some similar law. The charges would be independent of your request to search them, though.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

What is wrong with making a monetary decision to not join the union? My belief about unions is that they should provide more value to the member than the dues they collect. Employees who don't join the union should have to negotiate their compensation themselves. Maybe they can get more, maybe they take less.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[oodaloop]

As much as I'd love to continue arguing semantics with you, I have a four year old I need to argue with. I think I might have better luck with him.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

How is living in the middle of nowhere?

(Not saying the middle of nowhere isn't a great place to live, but unfortunately some of us do have no choice but it live in cities to get that 40k job.)

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Those amendments are between you/us and the government, not corporations.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[eugene ts wong]

He probably did, or maybe he tattooed them onto his knuckles, or maybe he's talking about some kind of sign language.

It's hard to visualize without a car analogy.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[eugene ts wong]

Also, if we're talking about a 400 pound woman, vs 100 pound woman, then we're talking about 300 surplus pounds. The extra fuel to fly that around would cost a lot, I think. It wouldn't be a deal breaker, but it is extra. Multiply that by another 4 women, then multiply that by the length of the trip, and the many other trips. I could imagine this costing hundreds [if not thousands] of dollars over the life of the careers.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

In BC, you can opt not to join the union, but you still have to pay the equivalent of the dues to a charity of your choice

Eh? Citation required

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you cannot rifle through my pockets. Laws the government has passed makes that illegal. The government on the other hand is bound by the constitution. They therefore cannot make it legal for them to rifle through my pockets.
They of course ignore this provision in the constitution, because they find it inconvenient. That does not invalidate the point though.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

They can ask for you password, and you can refuse to give it.
They are not required to hire you though.

Technically, per the TOS you agreed to you are REQUIRED BY LAW not to give them it.
If I was ever asked for it, I'd ask them why they were asking me to violate a contract that I agreed to, and if it was SOP for the company to violate contracts.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[CanHasDIY]

What particular statutes make it illegal for me to search people who enter "my" property?

None that I'm aware of. If you tell someone that they can't enter your home without your searching them, then either they allow you to search them, or they don't enter your home. If you let someone into your home, then tell them that you're going to search them and refuse to let them leave until they agree, you could potentially face criminal charges for kidnapping, wrongful imprisonment, or some similar law. The charges would be independent of your request to search them, though.

Alright, we're getting somewhere - so, with that in mind, what law/statute specifically names businesses as "persons," with respect specifically to Constitutional rights? Note that the SCOTUS decision in the Citizen's United case pertained specifically to political contributions, and did not particularly define corporate entities as "persons" for the purpose of general Constitutional rights-granting. At least, not as far as I can tell, IANAL after all.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The TOS you agreed to states that you won't share your password.

By sharing your password, you're violating the TOS and no longer have legal rights to use the system. If they log in to your account (with or without your permission), they are accessing a computerized system without authorization and committing a felony.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[daem0n1x]

We don't need to create a specific law to forbid employers to ask enterviewees for social network passwords. That's silly. I can imagine a bunch of laws being broken by that request, laws that already existed decades before social networks were even dreamed of. And I guess it shouldn't be much different in the US.

Do you have a law specifically forbiding employers to ass-fuck prospective employees in enterviews? You better look that one up before attending an enterview. One can never know...

I find it strange to be attacked so violently by you and others because of my posts. Did I hit a nerve?

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Dragonslicer]

Clearly I've lost the thread here. Your original point was that the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes it illegal for an employer to ask for a prospective employees password. That may be true if the employer is a government agency, but it does not apply to non-governmental employers. This does not, however, preclude a state government from passing a law to make it illegal even for private employers.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Killjoy_NL]

You may not be a lawyer, but I like the way you think good sir :)
Too bad I can't answer your question though, since I live in the Netherlands.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[CanHasDIY]

Not a win-lose situation here - I'm just trying to point out that the framers of the Constitution were very, very specific in who got which powers and rights - they are divided up among the Federal Gov't, the States, and the People, respectively. Corporations, which (many people are apparently unaware) are not a new concept, were not enumerated any rights whatsoever, and I'm pretty sure our founders had a damn good reason for leaving them out.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[CanHasDIY]

That, or I've got so many different things running through my head right now it's hard to keep them all straight...

TGIF!

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is illegal in your country, that means you have a law for that. We didn't, so that means we needed a law for that. So how is this incredible?

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Dragonslicer]

I certainly agree that corporations shouldn't necessarily have all of the rights that a person does. At the same time, though, it isn't feasible for corporations to only be able to do what the law explicitly allows them to do. Thus, we have (a whole lot of) laws that prohibit certain actions.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire constitution is a document that involves the governments interactions with the citizens, PERIOD. If you think otherwise, go back to school and take a constitutional law class.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[CanHasDIY]

At the same time, though, it isn't feasible for corporations to only be able to do what the law explicitly allows them to do.

Having some trouble parsing this concept, can you elaborate?

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you certain?

As far as I'm aware, that decision allows you to set aside the portion of dues the union does not use for union activities (eg political donations, giving money to greepeace, etc) and instead donate that to the charity of your choice. The membership in the union is still required. The keywords to search for are "Merv Lavigne".

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a constitution, and the right to privacy is there. And we have a labour legislation that guarantees employers don't have fuck to do with their employees private lives. We don't need to write a specific law for something that's blatantly abusive!

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Wait 'til he gets going!

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Dragonslicer]

The most obvious example I can think of is the first company to manufacture some product, say, the first television. Without a law allowing a company to manufacture televisions, nobody can manufacturer televisions. So if a company wants to produce this new thing called a "television", they'd have to get a law passed to allow it. That would inform the public, including potential competitors, what they're planning, which most companies would rather not have happen.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[CanHasDIY]

Fair enough, thanks for clarifying.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[paramour]

You're blaming Woodrow Wilson and the isolationist Congress/Senate of 1912 for everything that's happened in our country since?

He's referencing the Dec 23, 1913 Federal Reserve Act, creating "The Fed" and letting it print money. I don't think this had much to do with isolationism.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[green1]

Incorrect. You must pay the money TO THE UNION even if you are not a member.
There is no way to not pay union dues if you work at a unionized company in Canada.

There is a theoretical exemption that works the way you suggest, but it's only if your religion does not allow paying dues to a union, and it is almost impossible to prove it to the satisfaction of the union, so you likely still end up paying union dues to the union.

This all comes from the "Rand" decision where Justice Rand issued a decision in one specific court case that suggested non-unionized members should still pay dues to the union because they also got the benefits from the union. Justice Rand did go on to say that he did NOT believe that this should be precedent setting, and that the one case was quite unusual. Unfortunately it DID set a precedent, and we're stuck with it now.
A more recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada showed that this violates The Charter of Rights and Freedoms' section on Freedom of Association, more specifically the freedom to not associate, however in the same decision they decided not to reverse the previous decision, their logic was basically that unions were too powerful and allowing people to avoid paying dues could result in violence from the unions. (better to pay the protection racket then stand up for our rights I guess)

Additionally, union dues are set by the union at whatever rate they choose, and they can use them in whatever way they choose without having to account for the money to anyone. meaning that most of the money raised by your union dues will be used for various things that are not in any way related to your employment, and that you want nothing to do with.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[green1]

If you give up your password then you give permission to access the account.

That said, I have a hard time believing that there wasn't some other law about what private information they can ask for, I highly doubt that they would have been able to ask you for your private diary before hiring you, and this is essentially similar.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not exempt they just know the risk/benefit game. They will get hundreds of passwords long before they have to pay a penalty if they ever have to pay a penalty.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Xtifr]

The California State Constitution lists privacy as one of the inalienable rights. This actually came up in one of the landmark cases that lead to the state's sodomy laws being struck down.

What makes this particularly amusing is that Facebook, Google, and even Klout are all based in California! (The last one may go beyond amusing into appalling territory.)

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Jessified]

That was quite the conspiracy rant.

I don't know about a court decision nullifying the option to not pay dues, so I can't really talk about that. I haven't met anyone that tried to do that.

I'm an executive at large in my union.

I'm not sure about any threats of violence (on either part). I am aware of employers in the distant past threatening employees with violence or actually hurting employees. I'm also aware of managers that were following around employees (spying on them) at a non-union site before they opted to join our union, because they were organizing. Probably somewhere in the history of unions there was an ugly situation where unions engaged in nasty tactics. I know that at one time unions were involved in turning in "Japs" to be interned. Unions have bad history as well as good...because they are made of people and people can be good and bad. But not as one sided as you make it out to be though.

As far as unions doing whatever they want with the money...that's a pretty big claim, and patently false. In my union, any member can make a motion and then there is a vote. We meet a minimum of 9 times per year, with a minimum quorum and all. Annual meeting too. Every position on the executive is elected. People get voted out. Not sure where you're getting your "facts" or whatever you want to call them, but you are way off base.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[drsmithy]

tell me where in that statement does it clarify only for government and not for citizens or corporate entities?

Your "security" from those things comes from not taking a job with that corporation.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[green1]

The unions were pretty big against the latest bill in parliament that would force them to open their books to their members.

If you want to read up on the other decision referenced, it was in regards to mandatory dues in the quebec construction unions.

As a big union supporter, I'm sure you're already familiar with Rand's judgement.

If you can find me a court decision, or any piece of law allowing someone who doesn't want to join a union to not pay dues in Canada, please put it forward, there are thousands of people interested. Many of us never chose to be represented by a union, were certified through backroom antics instead of free votes, and are tired of spending thousands of dollars a year to an organization who deliberately are acting against us at every turn.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[__aaltlg1547]

They can ASK. That should get the same response I recommended above.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Jessified]

As I said I don't know about opting out, and any court decision. Have you tried and failed? Tell me about your experience. Which union are you?

As far as them acting against you...well I don't know your union. It sounds like you are against unions as a matter of principle. But might I suggest that you attend some meetings and put forth suggestions that you feel would benefit members? Stomping your feet isn't going to do anything.

That's what I did. I felt like my union wasn't being fair to a certain type of worker. I made a stink, and got some changes.

If they genuinely aren't working for you you could always section 12 them (or the equivalent in your province). That's when you sue them for not representing you.

If they aren't accommodating your religious belief (against unions) you could take them to human rights tribunal. My employer deducts the union dues and gives them to union, so I'm not even sure if it's the unions decision to let you opt out, it might be the employer. Again I've never met a person that wanted to opt out of our union (not to say they don't exist).

It's hard to take someone seriously who thinks unions are all bad. I've recognized that unions can be a force for bad. Likewise employers/managers can be a force to good and bad as well, it depends on the people. If you want to carry this conversation forward then you should recognize the good unions have brought society, as well as the bad.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[green1]

And I must say it's even harder to take someone seriously when they go about spouting off falsehoods about the legal status of dues payments. Research the law and you will find there is no way to avoid union dues in a unionized company in Canada. Please quit propagating this falsehood. I have researched this extensively, and your assertion that you can get out of paying union dues is an outright lie.

I will recognize the good unions brought to society over 100 years ago. I will also recognize that since the introduction of provincial and federal labour laws they have done far more harm than good in the private sector. (Public sector unions are a different issue, and there are arguments to be made on both sides of that one)

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[green1]

Where I live there are very specific things that companies are and aren't allowed to even ask during the hiring process, and I would be very surprised if this didn't fall in to the "aren't allowed" category.
I'm allowed to volunteer information, but they aren't even allowed to ask for such things as age, marital status, sexual orientation, race, gender, or religious beliefs (probably others as well) now some are hard to hide in an interview, such as gender, approximate age, and skin colour (indicator of race) but that doesn't mean it's ok for them to ask.
If I say, "btw, I'm 30 years old" that's ok. but if they ask "how old are you?" they've broken the law before I even contemplate answering.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of us Americans find it absurd too. But, in America the employer chooses to be an adversary to the employee. We are a "necessary evil" instead of a valuable asset. Very few U.S. employers care about their employees. Mine tried to get away with making our cell phones subject to inspection (call log, texts, etc). I made it very clear that if they are not paying the bill, they don't get to search, or even touch my phone.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Jessified]

I'm in a public sector union. I have no experience with unions in the private sector. On the other hand, for every example of a union doing harm to a company you could bring forward, I could probably find just as many examples of companies doing actual physical harm to employees due to unsafe working practices that probably wouldn't happen with a union to protect them (for example, employees feeling compelled to chase after gas and dashers or dine and dashers so that it won't come out of their paycheques, or so they won't lose their job). I need not go further than around the corner either to find such businesses. But notice that I'm not saying that all private sector companies are guilty of putting their employees at risk, or even that private sectors employees are "net bad." I can also provide examples of companies that are great without a union. In fact, in general I would say that unions probably only form when there is substantial reason for the employees to organize. Who would want to form a union, paying unions dues and perhaps risking getting fired for their efforts, when they are perfectly happy in their job? If companies don't want a union to form then perhaps they should consider treating their employees fairly. If they don't want to do that, then they shouldn't complain when their employees organize.

In contrast, you are essentially writing off unions, at least in the private sector. I think there is more nuance to this discussion than "private sector unions are net bad" (with the point being we should abolish them altogether? If that's not your point then I have no idea what your point is.)

And why 100 years? What has happened in the last 100 years (i.e. since 1912)? Well the civil rights movement, gender pay equity (or moving closer to it), the right for women to vote, minimum wages, attempts to gain a living wage, pension reform, universal healthcare in Canada, equal rights for gay and transgender, rules/laws concerning child labour. I could go on, but if you really want to roll back the changes many unions have had a heavy hand in over the last 100 years, that is if you want to roll back labour practices to 1912, then I don't know how we can carry this conversation forward.

Also I've said repeatedly I don't know about opting out of dues in practice. You should re-read my comments. I stated the law as I understood it in my first post. And then I acknowledged repeatedly that I don't know about how it works in practice. I am not spouting falsehoods, rather I am acknowledging that I don't know. I would appreciate you speaking to what I have said rather than taking down an imagined strawman.

I don't feel like looking it up case law because I don't care. But I am not spouting falsehoods. And I will point out that while you say you are well researched on this matter, it's hard to take you seriously, because if your comments about what I have said are any indication of your reading comprehension in general, I find it hard to believe you've understood the law and rulings as a court would.

Anyways I'm done with this discussion, and I will not be responding anymore, nor will I read your response if you choose to make one. Life is not black and white, good and evil. There are pros and cons to everything and you would do well to remember that.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[green1]

On the other hand, for every example of a union doing harm to a company

I'm not talking harm to companies, I'm talking harm to society, and to their own members.

examples of companies doing actual physical harm to employees due to unsafe working practices that probably wouldn't happen with a union to protect them

Unions have repeatedly failed to stop any of the behaviour you use in your examples, however it's all illegal under federal and provincial laws, and the employees have recourse through the labour relations board, but only if they aren't unionized. If unionized they have to hope that their union will take up their appeal (which depends on the priorities of the union leaders, and their perception of you as a good union member)

in general I would say that unions probably only form when there is substantial reason for the employees to organize. Who would want to form a union, paying unions dues and perhaps risking getting fired for their efforts, when they are perfectly happy in their job?

Unfortunately you need to look up union recruiting tactics. Unions are under no obligation to act truthfully, or morally during recruiting drives, nor is it necessary to have a vote before a union is certified. Typical union tactics include outright lies that people will get a raise if they join (unions can't guarantee that), or stating such garbage as that it won't cost anything because union dues are optional, or all sorts of other lies. Of course the most despicable tactic, widely used by unions is sending people in to your house and refusing to leave unless you sign a union card. which once signed can not be revoked and is all that is needed to certify a union. Unfortunately the process for decertifying a union is far more onerous.

Also I've said repeatedly I don't know about opting out of dues in practice.

Which has not stopped you from lying and stating that it is possible. you sound like a union recruiting drive.

You should re-read my comments. I stated the law as I understood it in my first post.

which only shows that you have never even glanced at the law, nor have you dealt with it in any way. Your refusal to back down on this point further clarifies your stance as a typical union goon. spouting lies and refusing to bow to superior knowledge.

I am not spouting falsehoods, rather I am acknowledging that I don't know.

Then quit repeating what you don't know with the implication that it is the truth. you are wrong in every single way on this point. you need to quit repeating it as you may cause someone some real financial harm if they believe you.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The only amendment in the Bill of Rights that is explicitly limited to Congress is the 1st Amendment. James Madison original wrote this amendment (which, at the time, was the 3rd Amendment) to apply to both state and federal government, but this was changed when the Bill of Rights passed through the senate. It is generally accepted that this was done to allow the slave states to imprison people that spoke against the slave system, which they proceeded to implement.

Any reasonable person reading the Bill of Rights would suppose that the other amendments were intended to apply to both federal and state governments. This was certainly the intention of Madison. If you study how he was elected to Congress, you'll find that he was elected in districts that were deliberately drawn by the State of Virginia to make most of the voters Anti-Federalist, which should have guaranteed a resounding defeat in the elections for a Federalist such as Madison. However, most of the voters in those districts were Methodists, and Madison had in earlier years championed their cause AGAINST the State of Virginia, which had attempted to violate its own Bill of Rights in passing anti-Methodist laws. See Richard Labunski's book on the history of the Bill of Rights for details. These people elected Madison to Congress, contrary to their Anti-Federalist leanings, because they trusted him to protect their current and future rights from both the federal and the state governments.

Historically, the slave states attempted to later argue that the Bill of Rights did not apply to them, only the federal government, however everyone with a brain recognized that this was a political lie. Such was the enormous influence of this group that they were able to get away with this lie for a very long time. Neither the Civil War nor the 14 Amendment (which was intended to kill the lie) really ended things: it took the Civil Rights movement of the 60's to finally set this issue to rest. Today, any informed person with integrity will recognize that the Bill of Rights (except for the 1st Amendment) was always applicable against government at all levels: anyone making a claim to the contrary is either ignorant or making a false claim as a result of ethical conflict of interest.

Fortunately, Madison wrote the Bill of Rights to be open-ended, by means of the 9th Amendment (rights retained by the people) and the 10th Amendment (rights reserved to the people). This allows for the assertion of fundamental rights by the people. Rights retained by the people, by definition, are retained by the people. They can not be stolen by any government at any level. Such rights can also be asserted against entities other than government, such as businesses, that attempt to infringe individual freedom. Thus, it is entirely consistent to hold that the Bill of Rights prohibits employees from invading the privacy of their workers.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

You wrote your password down?

It doesn't matter. Before long they will be able to "read" a dead brain just like a deleted HD.

wow

[daenris]

If a business I worked for or was interviewing at asked me for my passwords to anything not work related, I wouldn't be working there anymore.

Re:wow

[realsilly]

Some people don't have a choice, they need the work.

Re:wow

[kiriath]

This, over and over again this.

I would question their reasoning. I would demand to see THEIR facebook pages, then jet.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. "BTW, we'd also like the keys to your house and car - to look around and make sure you're the right fit for our company."

Seriously though, I'm wondering if this is one of those things that has been blown out of proportion. Are there really more than a handful of companies that tried to do this?

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a convenient excuse for a lot of immoral activities.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the corporate world. Not been here long?

Personally I set up my own company because I couldn't do it anymore, but I did have the financial security to be able to not everyone is so fortunate.

Re:wow

[kiriath]

What ever happened to "Give me liberty, or give me death"

People too often just go with the flow, allowing themselves to be trampled by corporations and government. No one willing to take a stand for what is right and just.

I applaud the decision. (To make it illegal)

I am appalled by the problem.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta love the armchair rebels who belittle people for making practical decisions. It's easy to do so from down in mommy's and daddy's basement.

Re:wow

[tehcyder]

That's a convenient excuse for a lot of immoral activities.

It's not an excuse. Until they recreate society so that you don't need money, you have to work.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I had this happen in virtually every job interview I had once I graduated college. At the time, I didn't bother with a FB or Twitter ID, and I'd get told to just leave the interview room because they did not want fossils who were not on the cutting edge. To interviewers, no FB was like not having a phone or E-mail address.

So, I got a FB account. What is the first thing during the next round of interviews at over 4-5 jobs? Asking for the userID/password for three things: "security reasons, "making sure an employee is a proper fit to our corporate culture", "we don't want to just be friended because it is easy to hide stuff", or "making employees are not linked with undesirables."

Ironic that the job I took never asked for any of that info.

Re:wow

[realsilly]

Some people don't have a choice, they need the work.

I personally don't agree with the practice and to a degree, I misspoke.

A person always has a choice, but many people will let go of information about themselves for purposes that are their own. Many people who are unemployed and are desperate for work will happily give up that info just for the chance at work.

Many people are good and decent people found in horribly hard times and need the work to support themselves and their family, so they are willing to provide the info for they may feel it's their only chance.

I find the practice deplorable by corporations and I personally would rather walk away from the opportunity of work, but I'm not in that situation and haven't been faced with it.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost everyone needs to work. Around the turn of the last century, with the industrial revolution, America decided that "we need to work" was not going to mean laborers are treated like property. Weekends, education, anti-child labor laws, etc. were fought for and well earned.

Seems that the old idea that "If I cut you a check, I own you, your time, your dignity ..." has been getting stronger for the past 15 years or so. We'd do well to kill that idea.

Re:wow

[RobertLTux]

the best answer to that is

Im sorry but it is a violation of Federal Law for you to ask for this due to my having groups/friends that are listed for religious reasons (or ethnic reasons).

Just remember if it gets to a lawyer you were not hired/ fired for being part of a "protected class".

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck trying to pay rent with morals

Re:wow

[Applekid]

What ever happened to "Give me liberty, or give me death"

People too often just go with the flow, allowing themselves to be trampled by corporations and government. No one willing to take a stand for what is right and just.

I applaud the decision. (To make it illegal)

I am appalled by the problem.

That's the thing with idealists, leaders, and revolutionaries. They're a tiny tiny fraction of the population as a whole. The true stubborn independent spirit, the willingness to fight and die for one's ideology, is actually a pretty rare thing.

Re:wow

[TheGratefulNet]

worse than that.

I have some hardware and software designs that I created entirely on my own, when I was NOT on a job. I've been thinking of productising the idea but have not gotton to the manufacturing stage quite yet.

here's the csb part: when I applied for a job somewhat recently, I had a recruiter friend of mine review the contract. he suggest I not sign it as it gave the company rights to ALL inventions of mine, even things not related to corp business and even things done on my own time using my own gear.

they thought there was nothing wrong with this! we went 2 or 3 rounds of edits on the contract and they would not give in.

we tried going with fulltime. did not work. very restrictive agreement. we tried contract: slightly better but they would still not give up ownership of my ideas that I bring to the company before I even join. we tried other arrangement. nothing worked.

I walked away and did not take the job.

fwiw, when I checked on the status of that hiring mgr, he no longer works there. interesting...

at any rate, be very careful about what the contracts says. much of it will be unfair and stacked against you. and very rarely do they allow line-crossouts on the paragraphs. unless they absolutely need you, they won't give in.

Re:wow

[daem0n1x]

It's funny that I keep hearing all the time how we should have the same labour regulation of the US, because companies need to be able to fire anyone they please at their whims, because then they'll be less fussy about hiring people and that will lower the unemployment rate.

Yeah, it shows pretty well.

Re:wow

[TheGratefulNet]

lawyer?

lol.

grow up.

this isnt sue-able. you cannot prove a god damned thing!!

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you can't fight them, join them. That's what they say, right?

Re:wow

[SuricouRaven]

Probably a good thing too. I'm sure the psychology of the person willing to fight for their freedom isn't that far off from the psychology of the person willing to, for example, shoot a doctor for performing abortion. Strong loyalty to a cause can be a great and dangerous thing.

Re:wow

[jbmartin6]

You don't need to prove anything to sue, you just need to file the paperwork. Lots of crap gets settled out of court.

Re:wow

[tatman]

It sure is. Cops "Im just doing my job" as they search through your stuff without warrants (Im sorry, probable cause is abused).

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the practice deplorable by corporations and I personally would rather walk away from the opportunity of work, but I'm not in that situation and haven't been faced with it.

Personally I'm surprised companies would even bother with shit like this in the first place. Once you get into the habit of demanding that employees and job applicants give you access to information that could lead you to gain knowledge of any attributes protected under equal employment opportunity laws, you're opening yourself up to lawsuits from anyone that you fire or refuse to hire. Just not worth it.

Re:wow

[NatasRevol]

The guy who said "Give me liberty, or give me death" was a rich white guy.

He didn't need to work.

He also was a landowner and slave owner. Therefore, a hypocrite.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people work as social media bloggers for corporations. In that specific case, if they were using their personal account for work, I suppose I could see a business or individual thinking there was some sort of justification.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

The IT company I work for has mislabeled everyone salaried exempt to get out of paying overtime, has us working 80hour weeks, with weekends and although they give us 4 weeks vacation we never get time to take it. We are also expected to carry a cell phone and be available 24x7x365 with a minimum response time of 1 hour.

When confronted with this the response was "be glad you have a job"

And they wonder why so many people are quitting.

Re:wow

[RobertLTux]

and besides i said IF it gets to a lawyer then ...

Re:wow

[Jason Levine]

Actually, I think that the best response to this would be: "I take password security very seriously. If I were to give you my password right now, it would give the impression - rightly so - that I'm the sort of person who would give up confidential information. I'm not that sort of person. When I'm given confidential information, I only give it out to authorized personnel. You are not authorized personnel when it comes to my social media passwords, therefore I cannot give those to you. If my employment is to be terminated should I refuse, then it is clear that you are only looking to employ people who are unable to hold onto confidential information and - as I am not one of those people - it would be best if we part ways."

Re:wow

[Billly Gates]

What ever happened to "Give me liberty, or give me death"

People too often just go with the flow, allowing themselves to be trampled by corporations and government. No one willing to take a stand for what is right and just.

I applaud the decision. (To make it illegal)

I am appalled by the problem.

When your wife is ready to leave you, your kids are crying because they are hungry and all you have is mac n cheese and top ramen, the repo man is giving you a 48 hour notice to take your car, all because ypu have been out of work for over a year!

What are you going to do? Stand by your priciples?! How about taking care of your family!

Sadly in thiseconomy I just described 20 million people! They are either under or unemployed.

Re:wow

[phantomfive]

Yeah, but you can start looking for another job, even while you're working. You'll find one.

Re:wow

[Billly Gates]

I would more respect people willing to give up liberties and put up with it to feed their families. If you have been out of work for more than 6 months they need to come first. Sacrafice in this economy is unfortunate but inevitable.

When they are hungry and about to go homeless you need to suck it up if you care about them. If this were 1999 I would agree

Re:wow

[Archangel Michael]

The problem with "probable cause" is that there are too many "laws" that outlaw things that shouldn't be outlawed. Crime is what causes harm to others, and carrying a joint is not causing harm to others, period. Smelling like Marijuana is not "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. "Looking Suspicious" is not a crime.

Crime Prevention is, quite frankly, the road to tyranny. Want to "prevent crime"? Start by removing laws criminalizing things that cause no harm to anyone else, all those "crimes" will now disappear. Then, step up REAL punishment of criminals. Don't just lock them up in a comfy prison, make prison a horrible place to be. Make the prisoners earn their probation by working at jobs nobody else wants to do. Screw the panty waist "cruel and inhumane" designation for anything that doesn't cause real pain. Put tents up in the desert and a barbwire fence and call it good. If our Troops can live in that condition, then our prisoners can too.

THEN we'll have a handle on crime.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

is actually a pretty rare thing.

And from all accounts, becoming rarer with the under 30. For whatever reason, those who have grown up with the likes of Facebook seem far more willing to surrender constitutional rights than any other recorded generation.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid much? Basically you just compared our founding fathers and those who fought in the American Revolution with blind, stupid, killers.

Critical thinking is clearly not your strong point..

Re:wow

[kiriath]

If you're that hungry - you don't need to be wasting time on facebook anyway.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

What ever happened to "Give me liberty, or give me death"

People too often just go with the flow, allowing themselves to be trampled by corporations and government. No one willing to take a stand for what is right and just.

I applaud the decision. (To make it illegal)

I am appalled by the problem.

That's the thing with idealists, leaders, and revolutionaries. They're a tiny tiny fraction of the population as a whole. The true stubborn independent spirit, the willingness to fight and die for one's ideology, is actually a pretty rare thing.

You act as if the idealists are all-in-all better people. Would you call someone noble who let their child starve or not receive medical treatment to improve their life "noble"? That's a real choice people make every day when they decide whether or not it's worth standing up for themselves.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure if troll but what the heck...

Think about all the ID theft etc. that can be done in your name if you reveal your password to anyone.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

That is because most of the under 30s were never taught about the Deceleration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in their high school civics class, and if they were, it was a teacher who most likely didn't see any advantage in explaining why they are so important and should be defended. In addition they were not taught about the important things, instead they were prepared for the "real world" of mindless repetitive tasks and not thinking for themselves by being taught how to take a test. moreover they are indoctrinated into the falls reality that emphasizes the adherence to strict scheduling and no independent thinking.

also poor parenting is to blame for the Facebook generations lack of true social skills, but not as much as Facebook itself.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

So give it to them and state that since they now know your marital status, sexual preference, political affiliation, and race, you'll assume that if you're denied the job it will be because of those factors because "why else would you want my Facebook password?"

Re:wow

[Minupla]

Waitaminute... immoral?

We're talking about someone choosing to give up their PII as a consensual act.

That's my right to choose to trade information about myself.

Ill advised? Arguable. Immoral? No.

Min

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you want to work at the place that had to be threatened to hire you due to their improper hiring tactics? I mean, I need a job as much as the next guy, but can you say hostile workplace?

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, aside from some people being so desperate for work they'll do it despite not wanting to, is that most people don't care and just go along with the request. It's the same for drug testing at work in occupations where there's no good reason for it. Personally, I would and have declined to interview with corporations that do this, but I know that I'm the tiny minority.

Re:wow

[ktappe]

You are assuming he asks his employees for their Facebook password. I'd be willing to bet he doesn't.

Re:wow

[Eil]

Some people don't have a choice, they need the work.

In general, I have a problem with this statement. While I agree with the base assertion that many people can't afford to be terribly picky about their employment options, it is almost universally applied from the point of view, "the poor are completely helpless and it is therefore the government's responsibility to regulate (or give money to) corporations for the purpose of providing comfortable jobs for them."

Give. Me. A. Break. Good jobs are earned, not given. If you are not happy with your current job, stick with it for as long as you can, but work behind the scenes to find a better one. Don't whinge on about how the government, or anyone else, needs to make your job more comfortable for you.

Before anyone gets the wrong impression (and to get back on topic), I do applaud the state of California for making it illegal for companies to ask for your Facebook password. It is a ludicrously small step toward acknowledging individual privacy rights, but a step nonetheless. (The cynic in me is positive that it was already illegal, just under some slightly more complex language in the legal code.)

Finally, there is an easy option that nobody has mentioned yet: lie. Lie your sweet little head off, there's nothing illegal or wrong with legitimately protecting your privacy. Tell them you don't have a facebook account, tell them they found someone else's profile, tell them you lost your password and haven't used it in ages. If there's enough information on the public version of your page for them to dispute any of it, then you left your private life wide open to the world and you can truthfully tell them that they don't need a password to get any of it anyway.

Re:wow

[eugene ts wong]

Also, a very subtle aspect is the fact that he had an audience. An emotional and eloquent speaker has a story to tell.

Most people live the lives as meaningless statistics. A meaningless statistic dead in a low rent apartment has his story written for him.

Also, people who say such things and then insist on a revolutionary war in this day and age are labelled extremists. Anybody who insists on continuing with unemployment [i.e. liberty] vs employment [i.e. death?!? really??] is just nuts.

Re:wow

[tatman]

exactly :)

Re:wow

[toriver]

Now that sounds like prostitution to me.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

mj might cause you to question the government, church or corporations which have control over you though, too much independent thinking is dangerous.

You have legal alcohol though, which, although unhealthy, is acceptable for consumption since it only makes you stupid and is enough to placate you after a long and meaningless work day. A few broken families and dui deaths are less dangerous than a bunch of creative and independent thinkers running around... you should know that.

Re:wow

[Applekid]

That's the thing with idealists, leaders, and revolutionaries. They're a tiny tiny fraction of the population as a whole. The true stubborn independent spirit, the willingness to fight and die for one's ideology, is actually a pretty rare thing.

You act as if the idealists are all-in-all better people. Would you call someone noble who let their child starve or not receive medical treatment to improve their life "noble"? That's a real choice people make every day when they decide whether or not it's worth standing up for themselves.

Call them noble? Maybe, it's definitely noble to sacrifice oneself for your child. But IMHO, it's more noble to sacrifice oneself in the fight to make life better for countless strangers they aren't related to and may never know.

Re:wow

[shentino]

And corporations are able to use this as leverage.

Re:wow

[shentino]

Powerful companies seeing the writing on the wall of the unemployed and taking advantage of our desperation to grab us by the balls and try to force us to cough up our souls.

Re:wow

[epp_b]

You were off to a good start there. I have mod points and I almost used them.

Yes, "probable cause", "suspicion" and alike pretexts are indeed a real problem because they are fake crimes. They are completely open to interpretation by enforcers who have a vested interest in abusing them.

Yes, we need a mass disposal of things that aren't real crimes, because pretend crimes still create real criminals.

But then you quickly went downhill. Have you ever thought of what causes people to commit atrocities or do you just assume everyone who does is just a bad person?

It stems from circumstances of birth and upbringing. Those born with a mental disorder, those raised in poor conditions or with poor morals ... these are the people who populate prisons for real crimes.

But does sticking them in a box solve anything? Occasionally, yes, but only by accident. Tough-on-crime stances, permanent records, registries and you're-on-your-own attitudes only cause the problem to snowball. Someone makes one mistake, one bad choice and the legal system sees to it that they never have the opportunity to become productive ... where is the logic in that?

You want to stop crime from happening in the first place? Wipe pretend crimes off the books, decriminalize pretexts, equalize society, get rid of poverty, treat the mentally ill with genuine care for their well-being and forgive wrongdoings by purging records.

We have a system that reacts and punishes bad behaviour. We need an absolute reversal of that: one that is proactive and fosters good behaviour. But, is any of that actually going to happen? Unlikely, as it would actually involve critical thought and hard work, two things you can be sure you'll never see from a politician. It's just easier to lock people in a box and let the next elected jerkoff deal with it.

Re:wow

[kiriath]

The "Mommy and Daddy's basement" cliche is so overused... I've never known anyone to actually live in a basement underneath their parents. I'm sure there are people that do, but I bet the ratio is much smaller than people seem to imply.

I work for a living and have been since I was 16... I've been unemployed from time to time, and if chunking out my personal passwords for ANYTHING was required I would have walked any job or interview.

I feel for the jobless that truly want jobs, and applaud the decision by the state to keep employers from intruding on their personal lives. However selling your soul to the devil for a job is beyond my reasonable thought process. Employers preying on people's desperation to intrude on their private lives is also beyond my reasonable thought process.

So me, sitting here in this chair that I paid for myself that is decidedly NOT in my parents basement is saying that you can't give in to corporate privacy invasion because if you do they will keep doing it and the problem will get m u c h w o r s e.

Re:wow

[kiriath]

Obviously someone did as a law has been passed to stop the practice.

There is that side of the coin, then there is the OVERWHELMINGLY large amount of the populous (spanning all demographics) that lives off of food stamps, welfare, continually popping out large numbers of children because they can't seem to grasp simple contraceptive concepts and they are P E R F E C T L Y content with that. You have these people to thank for not having enough food for your kids, because if they weren't abusing the horse poop out of the system, the system would be able to support those whom it is supposed to support - people who have been out of work for a year and need a leg up until the rest of the country gets their head out of their asses and stops exporting all of our jobs to another country.

All of *that* aside, yes, on top of everything else that has been done to you, don't let them steal your private life too. Write a congressman and tell them you don't like your privacy being invaded as a requirement for employment.... Modern day 'revolution' isn't taking up arms and fighting 'the man' it is taking up a cause and telling them why you believe what you do.

If you just take it, they'll think you like it and keep feeding it to you.

Re:wow

[Billly Gates]

I do not agree with the policy. I am just saying I would sign it over and quit facebook if I had too in order to escape that horrible situation. People who blame employees for this are either living at home in a basement or a drom in college or have a nice job and never been jobless before.

I doubt anyone would be content in this situation but I hit an unemployment slump last year. Worst year of my life and I have seen and walked that life. That is a lot of leverage and pressure on you to accept it and shutup!

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, but when someone has a family to support the issue gets cloudy.

Re:wow

[Archangel Michael]

Poverty doesn't cause crime. I've been poor, I didn't commit crimes. I know plenty of people that are poor, and don't commit crimes. Excusing bad behavior on poverty is a huge disservice to the poor people who don't commit crimes.

We've had our "war on poverty" for two generations now, we have moved the "poor" goalpost, and yet, we still have "poor" because the nature of the moving goalposts. We still have crime. You can never get rid of Poverty, because what is Poor now, is not what was Poor 45 years ago. And if you want to see REAL poverty, go to any third world county and see REAL poverty. I don't feel sorry for anyone in the US or Europe that is "poor", for they are richer and more secure than 50% of the world.

Poverty does not cause crime.

Unbelievable

[Anonymous Coward]

We actually need a law for this?

Re:Unbelievable

[Anonymous Coward]

We actually need a law for this?

Probably not. It sounds like the employers this could be applied to, are already conspirators to violate CFAA, so just prosecute them under that.

And before anyone says CFAA wouldn't apply to Facebook, I think 1) Facebook is almost certainly a "financial institution" thanks to the Patriot Act. 2) Facebook (and their advertisers) is almost certainly "used in or affecting interstate commerce", especially ever since the Gonzales decision, but possibly even by the original intent of the constitution.

Re:Unbelievable

[Anonymous Coward]

Try to imagine the feudal asshole demanding the passwords of their employees. That is probably only the tip of the iceberg. There should really be a list of companies out there that is actually enforcing such rules - I will certainly not want to have a business relationship with them

I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[franciscohs]

Really, I live in a (arguably) much less "free" country and I couldn't imagine anyone would ask something like this as a requirement for hiring.

What kind of idiot asks this?, what kind of idiot accept it?

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[Rob the Bold]

what kind of idiot accept it?

The kind that desperately needs or needs to keep a crappy job in a crappier economy in an even crappier place he can't leave since the housing market went to crap. Or as we prefer to say: "the perfect employee".

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[Anonymous Coward]

You never need a job THAT bad. You aren't going to starve without a job, so if everyone would just grow a fucking backbone and say "no", this wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

The real problem is that nobody seems to have a moral backbone, so we let companies and the government run roughshod over us and they get away with it. You cannot fix that with laws, because laws are reactive: they are always behind, and there is always something bad to do that isn't yet illegal. It can only be fixed if people actually care about it and act accordingly.

This is a bad law and should not be passed.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[TheGratefulNet]

from early age (in the US, and I bet most countries) you are taught to FOLLOW ORDERS. especially if its an authority figure.

this is drummed into you at every chance. school is most about 'training' you to be obedient.

religion endures mostly because people are forced to follow orders, forced (mentally) to accept absurd ideas and 'truth'. taught not to question even strange ideas.

no wonder that, when an employer or cop asks you for X, most people don't even question or resist.

you can't foster free thinking AND 'follow my orders, dammit!' at the same time.

which society do we want to be?

(don't answer. I already know. and nothing ever changes when it comes to controlling people. there are those that control (and see it) and those that get controlled).

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[Anonymous Coward]

Because when certain people here in the States talk about how free 'merica is, they are really talking about corporations and millionaires. Actually leveling the field in any way for the plebs is socialism.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[pavon]

Yes, and if people were perfect we wouldn't need any government at all. Heaven forbid we actually punish corporations for abusing their power in ways that are harmful to society. What a horrible law.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[Anonymous Coward]

don't answer

OK

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[Desler]

Yes actually people do need jobs that bad. Many people who do not overspend beyond their means or rack up lots of debt still only just barely get by from paycheck to paycheck.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[Anonymous Coward]

So get one at a company that doesn't do this. Most (the overwhelming majority of) companies do NOT ask for your FB password. Pick one of those. If everyone does, the companies that ask for FB passwords will either go out of business or change their policy.

I changed jobs about 5 months ago, interviewed at 6 companies, and was never once asked for a FB password. It isn't that hard to find a job at a company that doesn't do this.

People need to grow a fucking backbone.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[TheGratefulNet]

You aren't going to starve without a job

nice denialist.

come spend time in any major city and see the homeless.

in the bay area, some homeless were even IT people that got pushed out of their jobs.

btw, as a person, YOU SUCK. you have less compassion than a shark. I hope - and I really do - you find yourself blacklisted and jobless someday. and I hope you have to borrow $2 for a tin of tuna to eat that day.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[PraiseBob]

There is a current presidential candidate who earlier this year was disdainful of people who feel "entitled to food". He represents a sizeable segment of society who believe that people should starve to death if they refuse to work.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[wonkey_monkey]

religion endures mostly because people are forced to follow orders, forced (mentally) to accept absurd ideas and 'truth'. taught not to question even strange ideas.

Not forced. Humans come pre-programmed to accept the word of their elders, and it's been a highly successful survival strategy for the species. Unfortunately it's been co-opted, intentionally or not, to spread some pretty wacky memes, but it's not something we'll last very long without.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time an employer asks for this, try this response:

"Do you realize that what you just asked me to do is a felony? Facebook required me to agree to never give the password out to anyone, and violating a TOS is illegal at the federal level."

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope - and I really do - you find yourself blacklisted and jobless someday. and I hope you have to borrow $2 for a tin of tuna to eat that day.

Then you're a worse person than you accuse the grandparent of being.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[jdastrup]

You are abosultely correct. You should starve if you refuse to feed yourself. You should also die if you jumped off a 10 story bulding. You should also bleed if you stabbed yourself with a fork.

According to the the constitution of the country that this presidential candidate is vying for, citizens are not entitled for food, therefore this candidate you speak of is following that constitution he is campaigning to protect and uphold. I think some other entitlements, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are specifically stated. Here are some entitlements that are missing from that document: food, shelter, medical insurance, and cell phones. If enough people think those should be a right, then the constitution needs to be changed. Otherwise, leave those things out of the federal governments hands and leave it up to the states and the people.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[jareth-0205]

So get one at a company that doesn't do this. Most (the overwhelming majority of) companies do NOT ask for your FB password. Pick one of those. If everyone does, the companies that ask for FB passwords will either go out of business or change their policy.

I changed jobs about 5 months ago, interviewed at 6 companies, and was never once asked for a FB password. It isn't that hard to find a job at a company that doesn't do this.

People need to grow a fucking backbone.

What the hell is wrong with you? Is it really so impossible for you to imagine not everyone is in the same position as you? There simply aren't enough jobs to go around, and some people around the bottom of the pile are in the position of supporting a family, bills, etc and have very limited options.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[Anonymous Coward]

Not forced. Humans come pre-programmed to accept the word of their elders, and it's been a highly successful survival strategy for the species.

I wonder about this. I'm not a parent myself, but I've spent time around very young children. It seems to me, looking in from the outside, that kids are certainly not pre-programmed to obey their parents, let alone random elders.

On the contrary, adults seem to be hard-wired to obey children - at least initially. There have been studies that demonstrate the sound of a crying baby (and conversely, a meowing cat, because they're crafty bastards who have picked up on it) is pointedly one of the most jarring things imaginable to the human mind. I assume evolution figured having adults do anything to stop the crying would be a good thing. (Which it is, unless you're in the middle of the Korean War. IT WAS A BABY!)

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[robot_love]

Well said, Jareth. I'd have modded you up but have no points.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[mcgrew]

I wouldn't say "lacking compassion," I'd say he's probably one of those people born with a silver spoon in their mouth, someone who was born on third base and thinks he hit a home run. It isn't that the rich lack compassion, it's simply that they have no clue what it's like not to be born with lots of contacts and no chance of ever being homeless and hungry.

He is right in that you most likey won't starve without a job, there are breadlines and such, but who in their right mind, after being homeless and eating at soup kitchens for months, would turn down the chance of having some place to live, especially if you have a family? What he said was completely unrealistic, but then, he's ignorant. Rather than bashing him, educate him.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[Anonymous Coward]

+1, to hell with the troll mod

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[dunkelfalke]

I'd really like to see for how long you'd be able to exercise your right to life without food.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[shentino]

Laws don't mean shit if they aren't enforced.

When the powers that be let the elite get away with things while cracking down on joe blow and throwing the book at him, you have selective enforcement.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[shentino]

Unfortunately it's called being vulnerable to companies grabbing you by the balls.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[shentino]

I think that you should starve if you refuse to feed yourself.

I do *not* think you should starve if you simply fail but still try.

There is a LOT of shit that needs done, and there is plenty of work for everyone.

Sadly, two things

1) our governments are bureaucratic numbskulls with their heads up their asses

2) the elite LOVE having the disadvantaged by the testicles and being in a position to force them to sell their souls for a pittance of pay.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[shentino]

I think that babies learned it from cats :)

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[shentino]

Any employer stupid or abusive enough to ask you for your facebook password is also going to be stubborn enough to send you packing from his office if you don't cough it up, and isn't going to give a rat's ass about why.

Unless you're desperate for a job and thus vulnerable to this sort of manipulation of bending over and selling your soul, your best bet is to jump ship and let the bastard sink.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified

[Anonymous Coward]

He is a t-bag... err tea party clown... its a disease... and you are at low risk of getting infected unless you engage in high risk behavior such as moving to isolating, predominately white suburbs.

Even when it's not illegal

[fustakrakich]

You're a spineless asshole if you give it up. You only make more difficult for the rest of us. You're giving up our rights! Yet another strike against majority rule.

Re:Even when it's not illegal

[TheGratefulNet]

what about piss tests?

I say the same thing: if you accept pissing in a bottle to get a job, you have sold yourself (and many of us) out. you make it easier for the company, government to continue to assume you are 'bad' unless proven otherwise.

"but I don't do this or that! why should I object?"

either you understand this concept or you don't. its not about your behavior and choices. its about say NO to those that want to invade privacy at every turn, almost always unjustified.

Re:Even when it's not illegal

[daem0n1x]

I think this may be a test to spot employees that will put the company's security at risk without even thinking twice about it.

Re:Even when it's not illegal

[geekoid]

As has been seen time and time gain, people have got to eat. In order to eat, people need money. You really end up in a place where it's give them what they want, or you can't eat. And this sorts of practices become common among all business.
That is why we need a law. So the employees have a grounds to stand on.

Re:Even when it's not illegal

[fustakrakich]

what about piss tests?

Precisely the same. Until you cause an accident or are obviously intoxicated on the job, nobody has a right to bother you about your personal habits.

Re:Even when it's not illegal

[fustakrakich]

So the employees have a grounds to stand on.

Resistance is a much more substantive 'ground' than the law. We have to show we don't need a corrupt government to protect our rights.

Re:Even when it's not illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Skippy, I want train engineers to piss in the bottle, thank you very much. And pilots, and school bus drivers, and workers in nuclear power plants. And... it goes on.

Asshat.

Re:Even when it's not illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Piss tests are a little different, as being for example a crack addict, may well affect your ability to do the job they're hiring you for. You will not get passed over because your piss test came back "gay positive".

Facebook, on the other hand mostly offers the opportunity to screen candidates based on race religion, political views, or innocent associations. Passing out your Facebook password could get you passed over because you have a Muslim fiend.

Re:Even when it's not illegal

[shentino]

Not quite always.

In most cases your boss has sovereign immunity of a sort in that they represent the people who own the computer.

Kinda like how Terry Childs only coughed up the password to the mayor and nobody else.

Unfortunately, as his trial proves, doing the right thing isn't always in your own interest and someone in a better bargaining position is free to punish you for not kowtowing to his demands.

Tell them to contact FB and pound sand

[Anonymous Coward]

FB users make a legally binding agreement not to share their passwords as part of the ToS for having a FB account.

Re:Tell them to contact FB and pound sand

[firewrought]

FB users make a legally binding agreement not to share their passwords as part of the ToS for having a FB account.

I think the courts have been inconsistent in their recognition of click-thru ToS agreements, so I don't think the legally-binding part is accurate.

However, it is pretty staggering when you think about it: in order to assess your trustworthiness, these employers are asking you to do something that proves yourself untrustworthy. If anything, they should turn it around and only hire the people who won't give them their passwords.

Compounding the irony is that the employers most likely have written policies that forbid password-sharing ("upon penalty of termination") that are identical to the one they are asking you to break.

Is it just a lost concept that--if an individual is willing to lie to another person, he'll be willing to lie to you too?

How is this possible

[trybywrench]

I'd like to see one of these cases in detail because I can't get my mind around how an employee would feel compelled to give up their facebook (or other) private passwords to their employer. Nor can I get my mind around an employer thinking it's within their power to make such a request.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but an employee is protected by law to not even have to tell their employer if they have kids or not let alone access to private information.

Re:How is this possible

[Desler]

When many people live in states with no right to work the employer can easily let you go and make up a reason to get you denied unemployment. So people will just give in rather than risking termination and having to fight for benefits. People rail on about the 'evil' unions, but the balance of power is hugely against the employee.

Re:How is this possible

[geekoid]

Companies will do whatever the can get away with to control and monitor their employees.

And it's hard to say no when you have to eat.

Re:How is this possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's stop this myth right now. It is not "companies" pulling this shit, it's people. Someone has decided that they want to disrespect privacy and snoop on people, and they're using the corporate umbrella to hide their reasons. So stop blaming companies and start naming names! Once the HR director, or CEO that orders this stuff has their name all over the news, the practice will stop very quickly.

Re:How is this possible

[TheGratefulNet]

this is why we need unions.

corporations were being somewhat tolerable after the union days, 50-100 yrs or so ago. things go measurably better; pretty much for all of society.

we have fallen backward, though; and we need to restart the fight for employee rights.

if the republicans have their way, they'll make us all slaves. we cannot allow this trend to continue. please! this is breaking the backs of the working man.

just another example of unrestrained corp power over the common man.

Re:How is this possible

[Anonymous Coward]

"Right to Work" is the anti-union law.
And California doesn't have one; they allow closed shops.

Re:How is this possible

[YrWrstNtmr]

When many people live in states with no right to work the employer can easily let you go and make up a reason to get you denied unemployment.

As many do, you are confusing 'right to work' with 'at will'.

Right to work involves not being forced into a union as a condition of employment at a certain place.
At will mean a) they can fire you, just because, and b) you can quit, just because.

Re:How is this possible

[jbmartin6]

It is sad to see the claims of how evil corporations are all over this discussion. AFAIK there was only ONE case of this, and it was a government agency not a corporation (Maryland Department of Corrections). The closest i read about to a second case was a company that encouraged applicants to allow their Facebook app to get notified of future openings (Sears?). Corporations would generally avoid this I think, it would be a huge minefield. What if you accessed someone's FB and saw that they wanted to have kids? Here comes the lawsuit saying 'they didn't hire me because I said I wanted to have kids in the next few years'. Or any of dozens of other scenarios. I'm sure that this could happen if people's profiles were public of course.

Re:How is this possible

[jbmartin6]

To clarify: one case of employer asking for Facebook passwords. This bill covers a lot of other behavior involving social media.

Re:How is this possible

[Billly Gates]

I know a woman who used to work for a law office in southern california. What many employers do is abuse the waive to privacy on their computers to sniff out passwords. They sniff the passwords then log in secretly to check!

I told her that is illegal! They can't do that since the only thing you can monitor is what an employee does on company time. Not use that login outside of work hours. However she said, "The loophole is that they agreed that logging in and using passwords on company equipment and they can do that whenever at the employers desecration!" ... in other words employers can wire tap you and the laws against hacking do not apply as you voluntarily agreed to do so and then check your gmail or facebook privately.

I was shocked as I agree employers need to monitor and discipline employees to protect themselves against sexual harassment lawsuits but to use that to sneak around is a whole other matter. I NEVER check my gmail at work during lunch hour anymore as a result. That is too far

Re:How is this possible

[Billly Gates]

Corporations provide goods and work for people. This is not about socialism at all but the fact that employers have waaaay too much bargaining power in a crappy economy.

It is not socialism to tell employers to fuck off. Especially if it is not during working hours but rather taking advantage of desperate people. Employers sniff out passwords using their waive to privacy agreement to check on email and facebook all the time. You didn't know that? You agreed to it in the agreement?

My friend works in a law office in Southern California and they do just that and advise employers on how to word it so they can not get hit with wire tapping laws. Sorry but that is evil! Unless someone did it at work you can;'t then use that privately. This is the example too that this law was intended to stop.

Re:How is this possible

[green1]

Company owns the computer, they can do whatever they want.
If you don't like it, don't log on to personal accounts from a work computer! (on a side note, they are probably breaking the law if they log in to your accounts to check, but not by gathering the passwords, and you are likely breaking your employment contract by using a work computer for personal use, even if outside of working hours)

I'm ok with my employer having control over what I do while I'm at work, and with them having control over all equipment that they own. None of that interferes in any way with my rights. The problem is when they ask for control over either my personal equipment, or what I do on my own time. The only restriction I have accepted in my employment contract that affects me while outside of work hours is a non-compete clause which says I won't start up a company that directly competes with a business that my employer is in. Beyond that I can do anything I want when I'm not at work, or on my own equipment.

Re:How is this possible

[shentino]

It's called having a hungry desperate job applicant by the balls and not having much competition for their time.

If I have something you're desperate for (a job), I'm in a position to make you pay through the nose to get it (your soul).

A good remedy is to bring competition into the job market, and make it so that someone else could sell you a job (or conversely, buy your labor) under more favorable conditions.

In a booming labor market, asshole bosses will find themselves deprived of labor if they have to fight for it by being nicer than their competition. In a down economy where jobs are scarce, you can be a jerk and get away with it.

Re:How is this possible

[shentino]

Unions are not the answer, though they can be a good karmic backlash when people want them badly enough.

The answer is more jobs. Bosses should have to fight for labor just like their companies fight for customers. Labor is a resource, and as such it should be subject to the open market like anything else in capitalism.

When asshole bosses get away with being jerks because their victims don't have a choice to flip them the bird and go elsewhere, it indicates a shortage in the labor market.

Oddly enough, we have a price floor called minimum wage. I'd rather replace it with some form of welfare. If the purpose of minimum wage is to keep workers from being shafted, why make the company itself foot the bill? After all, when someone can simply say "fuck it, you're not worth what I'm paying you" and fire you, the real minimum wage is actually zero.

Burdening a business with a floor on the payroll bills stifles creation of new jobs. If you lower minimum wage, more businesses will want to hire.

Of course wages can suck, and people need to eat. So be decent and help them out. But screwing with the labor market's invisible hand is not the answer. A boost on the EIC and wage matching or something like that would give the same benefits without the adverse side effects on a company's payroll.

Payroll is a HUGE item on the budget of a business. Even bigger for someone looking to start their own business.

And anyone wanting to scream at me for advocating the abolishment of minimum wage, pay attention to the fact that I'm advocating the shortage in wages be offset by comparable benefits that don't take a bite out of a company's budget.

Re:How is this possible

[shentino]

Very good way to wind up on a blacklist.

And blacklists being illegal doesn't stop people from doing it. For that you need teeth on the laws.

Unfortunately the dentists are on the take with bribes from the same companies maintaining those blacklists.

Re:How is this possible

[Billly Gates]

So if I were your boss I could log into your email accounts and you would be ok with that?!

I agree they own your time which is why you get paid and yes own the computers. However, using a sniffed password to later check up on your facebook and gmail accounts should be illegal. That is your own time. Looking up what comes up on the screen at work is one thing but using it to check up should have them be thrown in jail for hacking and trespassing!

I for one only check one professional gmail account at work. But still ....

Re:How is this possible

[green1]

If you sniff my personal email password while I'm using a work computer, that's my fault for breaking company policy and accessing personal email from a work resource. I would be ok if you fired me for that offence.

If you use that password to log in to my account without my permission you are breaking several laws and you deserve to be prosecuted under them.

I know it's a pretty fine distinction, but I did note both those points in my original post.

A more likely reaction would be that you don't fire me, and in exchange I don't prosecute you. Instead I learn my lesson, change my passwords, and quit using work resources for personal purposes.

Federal version was voted down

[recoiledsnake]

The federal version was voted down in the House by the Republicans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/facebook-password-protection-amendment-congress_n_1384045.html

Re:Federal version was voted down

[Anonymous Coward]

Appropriately so, this kind of thing should be handled at the state level. The federal government should only be concerned with interstate commerce, international policy, etc. States handle everything else.

Re:Federal version was voted down

[Desler]

It's cute that you think that was their reason for opposing rather than the lobbyist money.

Re:Federal version was voted down

[CanHasDIY]

Appropriately so, this kind of thing should be handled at the state level. The federal government should only be concerned with interstate commerce, international policy, etc. States handle everything else.

Yea, I can't imagine the federal government having jurisdiction over for-profit websites that are accessed from across state lines...

C'mon, now, if a small government, strict Constitutionalist such as myself can recognize such an obvious thing, no one else really has much excuse.

Re:Federal version was voted down

[Lucky75]

I do believe that's up for debate. Some people don't feel quite the same way, you know.

Re:Federal version was voted down

[Lucky75]

You also haven't explained WHY that's appropriately so. Or are we just parroting what we've heard?

Re:Federal version was voted down

[geekoid]

And the shot down the Veterans jobs bill:
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/2/193

As they have stated, they will completely shut down the government and destroy this country as long as Obama doesn't get a second term.

Re:Federal version was voted down

[Anonymous Coward]

And if Obama does get a second term, the Republicans will try even harder to destroy the country.

Re:Federal version was voted down

[SecurityGuy]

So, the UN should have jurisdiction, then? You don't think people only access social media sites from your country, do you?

Re:Federal version was voted down

[iluvcapra]

The UN is not a legislative body and has no "legal jurisdiction." You've invented a new Troll Federalist argument, though: Reductio ad UNum.

Re:Federal version was voted down

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. Dreaming of a NWO here.

Re:Federal version was voted down

[Mashiki]

Better tell that to the UN General Assembly. Because they just came back into session and their first meeting was to try and figure out how to tax stocks, bonds, trade, slap a 1% tax on billionaires, royalties on minerals/oil more than 100mi off shore of any nation, and supersede national sovereignty and so on. There's other sites picking it up now. But foxnews was first to break it, despite the whining that people on /. like to make. So credit goes to them first.

Re:Federal version was voted down

[fafalone]

That idea was put to rest with Wickard v. Filburn back in '42. Now "interstate commerce" means damn well anything they can imagine. The employer does business with clients in other states? More than sufficient under current jurisprudence.

Besides, do you really think that the Republicans voted against it because of their desire for a more strict interpretation of the commerce clause?

Re:Federal version was voted down

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to elaborate? In my view this is about human rights. Even more so with employers asking for the passwords it appears to me, that freedom of speech is violated. It's almost as if they demanded the key to your house and to be mentioned in your will

Re:Federal version was voted down

[s.petry]

No matter what they claim the post you responded to is correct. If the UN declares power to tax, the US needs to leave the UN. They are not a Government, and have no authority over any country which volunteers to be a member (and of course is approved). The purpose of the UN is strictly for resolution of dispute.

If you believe your own rhetoric, you are guilty of treasonous thought. Please go report yourself to your local police department and tell them you should be arrested for treason. Any politician backing thoughts similar to yours (I do realize that the rhetoric is not yours, you are simply repeating) is also guilty treason, and needs to be put be arrested and punished appropriately.

There is no "but.. but.. but.." to my comments regarding it being treason. Read the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Think about the ramifications of a politician making the US sub servant to the UN, there is nothing more treasonous.

Re:Federal version was voted down

[mcgrew]

How many employers do you know with more than a dozen employees that don't engage in interstate commerce? Lawn care, a minority of restaraunts, barbershops and the like is pretty much it. Any manufacturing plant is going to do interstate commerce.

Re:Federal version was voted down

[Mashiki]

No matter what they claim the post you responded to is correct. If the UN declares power to tax, the US needs to leave the UN.

Oh I agree. Though I expect that the US won't leave, I would expect Canada to leave before the US if something happened like that though, especially since we're a massive export nation. We seem to be having much more of a backbone over sovereign issues with the UN than you guys down in the US are these days. And we don't have a constitution or bill of rights like you do.

Re:Federal version was voted down

[shentino]

The internet IS interstate commerce.

Interesting how they claim "interstate commerce" as an excuse to meddle, but when something good comes along they conveniently lose their balls.

Head shaking moments

[tnk1]

What I don't understand is why employers even think this is reasonable. Yes, yes, I know, corporations bad, but corporations are still made up of humans and you would think some of those humans would understand that this is overreaching into people's private lives.

I don't see what someone's social media accounts have to do with their ability to work. Sure, they may party hard, or bad mouth their employers, but it's not exactly uncommon and it's not going to stop just because people don't put that on their FB account.

I suppose I am not surprised that someone would try this, what I am more surprised about is that they have gotten this far with it. Forcing people to turn over personal information should be something that a corporate legal department knows is going to get them in legal hot water.

Re:Head shaking moments

[TheGratefulNet]

hang on, there's not one employer out there who thinks its REASONABLE.

why do they do this? because, 1) they often can get away with it ('you want that job, don't you?') and 2) they want as much power over you (bargaining) as they can get.

they don't think its reasonable. but they do it because, quite often, they CAN. and they can benefit from it.

business has no ethics. none. its not part of a business to BE ethical and fair. at least not in the dog-eat-dog world of the US. we even seem to revel in the idea that business and ethics are orthogonal.

if a business can line its pockets (pay you less, for example) then it will continue to do such and such behavior.

if we want honest and ethics in business, we have to redefine business. (and you'd have to eliminate the republican concepts, of this age, before you could even attempt to fix this issue).

Re:Head shaking moments

[drinkypoo]

corporations bad, but corporations are still made up of humans and you would think some of those humans would understand that this is overreaching into people's private lives.

This is how bureaucracy works. It claims that there are needs for it to do new things, and then uses those things to justify its existence. HR employees are not your friend, even if they were before you got into a relationship where they're in HR and you aren't. Put people in charge of treating people as resources, and they will apply that view to every situation.

Re:Head shaking moments

[gurps_npc]

Hiring an employee is an incredible crapshoot. You are risking a LOT of money on them. You want every possible shot ant finding and weeding out the bad apples. This is why corporations used to pull crap like not hiring women (afraid they would get pregnant and quit), etc. etc. Corporations do not have the job of enforcing the law. If there is no clear law on something, they will push it to the edge.

Re:Head shaking moments

[cdrguru]

Right. Asking or demanding this from the prospective employee is just wrong. It is like insisting on a urine test - but saying "right here, right now". I'm not surprised there is a backlash against that sort of thing.

On the other hand, there is information there and it may be relevant to a hiring decision. Employers want as much information as they can get because choosing wrong is expensive and sometimes even dangerous. So there will be services that deliver this sort of stuff. Where are they going to get it? Well, I bet FaceBook would turn over access for a fee.

Re:Head shaking moments

[tnk1]

If I kept a diary, I'm certain there would be information that they would want to see in there too. That doesn't mean they get it. That's the point here.

Of course, Social Media is social, and you can get some information just by browsing to the page (if it is public). If HR did the search and found me toking up in a FB picture on my own publicly available page, I don't think I could blame them for passing on me. I also would be annoyed, but still not outraged, if someone else posted a picture of me on their own site and it was found and caused me to not get hired.

On the other hand, forcing me to give out something that would be inaccessible to them, even if the information is on a "social site", is an invasion of privacy. Sure, I get that you can take the job or leave it, but that has never been an excuse for forcing unacceptable hiring practices on people. They might as well discriminate against me because I was a woman or black, I consider this at that level of inappropriateness. The only way this might be even possibly acceptable is if you were going for a high level government clearance. And at that point, they just hook you up to a polygraph and simply ask you if you smoke pot or you are an Islamic terrorist.

Re:Head shaking moments

[Dog-Cow]

If a (potential) employer asked for a urine test and said "right here, right now", they'd be getting a piss in the face.

Re:Head shaking moments

[TheGratefulNet]

you risk very little, in fact.

most states are 'at will' and corps can fire you pretty easily and make it stick.

and so, I really wonder why they spend so much time on this. we spend less time and effort searching for a president of the US than some companies spend on hiring.

if the employee is not a good fit, you fire him. LIKE YOU ALWAYS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO.

hiring isn't a marriage. you can end it nearly instantly.

corps are primadonnas, these days. everything on a fucking platter for his and her highness.

makes me puke.

Re:Head shaking moments

[PraiseBob]

Hiring an employee typically costs thousands of dollars in headhunting fees, possible hiring bonuses, and training time. Not to mention a bad choice that doesn't work out means wasted time, and a possible lost opportunity on "the right candidate".

Also when you hire an employee, they now represent your company. If they do something stupid, your company can be sued for what they did. If they sexually harass other employees, they don't get sued - you get sued. If they break the law, your company is liable. You could be on the hook for millions in damages based on one wrong choice, or decision made too quickly.

Simply put, in our litigious society, making the wrong choice can destroy your company. That being said, it doesn't make snooping on a persons private life reasonable or right.

Re:Head shaking moments

[Anonymous Coward]

Also when you hire an employee, they now represent your company. If they do something stupid, your company can be sued for what they did. If they sexually harass other employees, they don't get sued - you get sued. If they break the law, your company is liable. You could be on the hook for millions in damages based on one wrong choice, or decision made too quickly.

If your default position is to believe that all of your employees going to wreck your company out of their own sheer stupidity, then you probably deserve to go out of business anyway.

Re:Head shaking moments

[Anonymous Coward]

In MD this came up for prison guards. The employer was looking for evidence of gang affiliation on social media.

Re:Head shaking moments

[Billly Gates]

When you have 100 applicants applying looking for grammar and pics of being drinking a beer can be a great filtering mechanism. Also it does not surprise me if insurance companies are making them.

Perhaps if he is a flirt he is more statistically likely to cause a sexual harassment lawsuit (just an example) and the employer would have to filter him out if they want to stay insured.

Just like criminal background checks, civil lawsuits checks, pissing in a bottle, etc. They do it not because of a genius HR executive gave the order too. It is because the insurance companies told them DO IT OR WE WONT INSURE YOU!

Remember the HIPPA act in 1994? We had it because insurance companies were just starting to force to screen applicants for learning disabilities, psychological disorders, and health problems. If Clinton did not do that quickly we would be screened out for taking prozac etc.

Re:Head shaking moments

[Billly Gates]

In my economics class they used statistics to show it takes 4 - 6 weeks for a new hire to start to provide a ROI that hits the break even point! So that means the first month you cost your employer more money than you take it. Even if you are competent at your job there are procedures and things that are different.

In addition it is also taught that if you fire someone productivity actually GOES UP. That is because a bad employee has a negative return and hurts the productivity of the other good workers who are correcting his or her mess and explaining them for the 9th time how to do their job.

This my friend is why entry level jobs require +5 years experience and it blows goatballs if you are fresh college grad. Employers trying to go around this law in economics want someone who can be as productive immediately! That wont happen but at least reduce the 4 weeks into 1.5 weeks and underpay as well as a jr x.

Re:Head shaking moments

[Billly Gates]

Clearly someone who has never owned a business. Yes a few bad employees can force a company to go under. Cough ... HP under Fiona, Apple under anyone but Jobs, Nokia etc.

I gave the examples of CEOs but in smaller companies with 10 or less employees which are the biggest employers (believe it or not) a bad apple can easily throw you under the boss as your revenues are tiny slims of profit in the %5 to 10% range!

If you own a warehouse and you hire an asshole who tells just 1 out of your 10 customers to go fuck themselves you are done! Now your 6% margin is -4%. That my friend is business 101. Maybe Apple has insane margins but most companies only dream of that luxury.

Re:Head shaking moments

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't understand is why employers even think this is reasonable. Yes, yes, I know, corporations bad, but corporations are still made up of humans and you would think some of those humans would understand that this is overreaching into people's private lives.

I don't see what someone's social media accounts have to do with their ability to work. Sure, they may party hard, or bad mouth their employers, but it's not exactly uncommon and it's not going to stop just because people don't put that on their FB account.

I suppose I am not surprised that someone would try this, what I am more surprised about is that they have gotten this far with it. Forcing people to turn over personal information should be something that a corporate legal department knows is going to get them in legal hot water.

At least it gives the HR department a good stash of pictures to post on 4chan.

Re:Head shaking moments

[Killjoy_NL]

You know, this is the only reason I can see that would make me think about this practice being reasonable.

Re:Head shaking moments

[evolutionary]

Quite right, but history shows its not whether something is illegal/immoral that deters, but whether the intended victim has any teeth and is ready to bite. Which of course explains why it would be necessary to have a law specifically forbidding turning over access to PRIVATE, PERSONAL data which is irrelevant to performing their professional duties.

Re:Head shaking moments

[shentino]

They know damn fucking well they are stickign their nose where it doesn't belong.

Thing is they know that most people are desperate enough for a job that they can get away with it.

And legal probably doesn't reign it in because they know most people desperate enough to cough it up in the first place are also submissive enough not to make a stink about it, and that people with enough of a backbone to refuse aren't going to wind up on the payroll in the first place.

Im screwed....

[Anonymous Coward]

I refuse to use any social media site with exception of Linkedin... So if they ask I have to say no... And the next thing out of their mouth will be. Thank you for coming in....

Re:Im screwed....

[tehcyder]

I refuse to use any social media site with exception of Linkedin... So if they ask I have to say no... And the next thing out of their mouth will be. Thank you for coming in....

Linkedin is more intrusive and annoying than facebook, it's just not as popular, except with people in Sales and Marketing..

Re:Im screwed....

[PPH]

So, don't say "No". Just stand up and walk out. You're screwed anyway. So you might as well make a (non verbal) statement about how incredibly stupid this request is.

We can only hope that employers like this end up with entire staffs of brain-dead morons who will hand over passwords like this.

Re:Im screwed....

[TheGratefulNet]

defend your position.

I don't see your point at all.

how is linked-in more intrusive?

(not a FB user but I am on LI)

Premature Celebration

[DERoss]

The celebration over AB 1844 is premature. Governor Brown has not yet signed it.

Re:Premature Celebration

[Anonymous Coward]

NPR claims he signed it yesterday and logged on to facebook, twitter and some other place to announce the signing.

Re:Premature Celebration

[Anonymous Coward]

In California the Governor has to veto a bill for it to not become law. Even if he never signed it, it'd become law.

Re:Premature Celebration

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Brown knows what freedom is supposed to feel like. He will make the right decision.

Re:Premature Celebration

[qubezz]

That was actually the state HR department logging into his Facebook.

Re:Premature Celebration

[Anonymous Coward]

The celebration over AB 1844 is premature. Governor Brown has not yet signed it.

Uh, if you actually read the linked articles:

"California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a pair of privacy bills making it illegal for employers and colleges to demand access to social media accounts."

I would ask a potential employee for this...

[MadCow42]

And if they actually agreed, I wouldn't hire them (and I wouldn't actually let them give it to me). If they can be so easily coerced into sharing confidential information and giving up their rights, they don't have the backbone I expect in my employees.

Now, in my job people are given significant authority and responsibility that needs to be safeguarded, so that's a real concern. In other jobs maybe that's not a criteria for hiring decisions.

MadCow.

Re:I would ask a potential employee for this...

[alphax45]

Good idea!

Re:I would ask a potential employee for this...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't work for someone who felt the need to ask for it, even if it is just to see how I would react.

Re:I would ask a potential employee for this...

[Anonymous Coward]

A leader needs employees with backbone. But employees need to be able to trust their leader, too.

If you are willing to use those lame tactics on a first interview, I don't want to know what you are willing to do when you get "confident". I would not work for you.

Re:I would ask a potential employee for this...

[SecurityGuy]

This is one of those things that sounds like a good idea, but isn't.

Here's why.

There is probably real and tangible damage that would occur if someone disclosed confidential information on your company. There may or may not be if they disclose their social media profile information to you. It's really not for YOU to assign a value to THEIR resources any more than it is for THEM to assign value to YOURS.

Your test is also not one of backbone at all, but one of perceived value and desperation. As I said, you may be asking them to give up something they don't value, so they don't mind doing it. Not just perceived, but actual, in many cases. I have older relatives whose facebook profiles are barren. They almost never log in and have 8 friends who also almost never log in. They could post their login and password to the world and not actually lose anything. You may also be interviewing someone who desperately needs to bring some money in to keep a roof over their heads or feed their kids. Everyone has a backbone when the cost of stiffening it is low. Everyone has a point when they have to bend. I will NOT give you my facebook password...unless it's the difference between my kids eating or not. I will NOT give up my right to free speech...but I might shut up now and speak later if you're going to shoot me.

That's actually why laws like this are good. Asking people who really need a job for information you shouldn't is implicitly coercive.

Don't play games like this with people. You turn interviews not into true tests of what people are made of, but a silly multilevel thinking exercise where I have to figure out if you're just some jerk who doesn't respect my privacy, or someone who thinks *I* should and is just testing me. Understand that your candidates don't have a way to know which of those people you are.

Re:I would ask a potential employee for this...

[Anonymous Coward]

So...are you currently hiring?

Re:I would ask a potential employee for this...

[shentino]

And what will you do with the guy who sees your request as horseshit and walks out the door?

Re:I would ask a potential employee for this...

[shentino]

Hell, giving out a password is granting WRITE access.

If I'm your boss and I have your facebook password...I can set you up for any crime I see fit.

You don't want to work overtime? Fine, I'll just log into your facebook and friend you to some hotties and then threaten to call your wife. Don't want to cover up for a blatant case of fraud? Fine, I'll just plant CP on your facebook and call the cops.

People ranting and raving about intrusions into privacy are overlooking this. It grants a HELL of a lot more than just a sneak peek at your personal life. It also gives your boss leverage to set you up or tinker with your account.

I will never give out my facebook password simply because it does a hell of a lot more than let them snoop around.

Re:I would ask a potential employee for this...

[SecurityGuy]

It's very easy to say that, but I stronly suspect if you're ever a month from being on the street with your kids, you'd cough up those passwords in a second if it's what it took to land the job.

That's exactly why I support laws banning the practice. People will bluster on internet forums like this about how they'll NEVER give out their passwords. Real people in real life don't always have a choice. Or put another way, the only choice they have makes giving up things they shouldn't have to look reasonable.

Re:I would ask a potential employee for this...

[shentino]

Indeed. Mostly I wanted to point out that privacy is hardly the biggest thing at stake when you share a password.

It is wrong and therefore should be illegal, even more so because of this.

People who think that exposing their marital status, sexual orientation, political affiliation, and so on to a nosy boss is bad enough need to realize that giving someone your house keys so they can snoop around also lets them set up a meth lab in your basement and then put the blame on you if the feds ever find out about it.

Similiarly, forking over the passwords can do a lot more damage than simply rob you of privacy. It also gives a vindictive or oppressive boss leverage against you that they can use to set you up if you displease them.

It isn't even a theoretical case. It actually happened when a disgruntled worker hacked his boss's computer with CP and then turned him in to the feds. It took a very long time before the hack was discovered, and the damage had already been done thoroughly enough that it was still mission accomplished even after the hacker was busted.

Considering this was possible with a hack job, I can only begin to imagine what is possible when you blow the gates wide open by forking over your password.

Totally off topic

[tehcyder]

But is anyone else finding that ticking the "disable advertising" box is having exactly the same effect as not ticking it, i.e. advertising is being displayed regardless?

Re:Totally off topic

[Stan92057]

Cookies

Re:Totally off topic

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the last box you'll ever need to tick honey.

http://adblockplus.org/

Illinois has a law like this signed already

[Dwedit]

In Illinois, a law like this has already been signed, and will take effect on January.

Reading the text of that law, it doesn't ban employers from using packet sniffers.

Re:Illinois has a law like this signed already

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel it is ok for the employer to use packet sniffers. After all you are on their network and they should be aware of what is going on within their environment. Social Media on the other hand happens when you are not at work...presumably....therefore should be outside the scope of your employers reach in most cases.

Re:Illinois has a law like this signed already

[TheGratefulNet]

good point! worth repeating.

but not only sniffers, man-in-the-middle attacks.

one interview I had (years ago) with a certain bay area 'security' company was bragging about how they can fool users into accepting ssl certs from their 'firewall'. and once you have their cert, they spy on everything you do (if they so wish).

once I saw that and understood it, I now ASSUME that every company has a mitm gateway and unless I have a fully clean path that I, personally, installed from trusted media and own the root account, I will not use corp lans to login to personal mail, etc!

please be aware. if you are on a corp lan and even if you see the 'lock' icon, UNLESS YOU DID YOUR OWN INSTALL, there may be a preinstalled cert on your work provided workstation.

assume there is.

I hate having to say and think this, but the war on privacy is on and we're NOT winning it.

Re:Illinois has a law like this signed already

[PRMan]

Most of the places I worked couldn't even set up a PC correctly. As a software engineer/architect, I can assure you that 90% of companies do NOT have the skill or time in the IT department to do MITM attacks. But if they ask for your passwords in the interview...

If I were an employer

[Lucky75]

If I were an employer, I'd ask for the password just to see what type of idiot's actually give them up. Then I'd hire the ones that stand up for their rights, but politely.

Re:If I were an employer

[Dog-Cow]

And deface the pages of the idiots who gave you the passwords. I hope! :-)

Re:If I were an employer

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

For easy and fun, just chance their relationship status, and sexual orientation.
It doesn't matter what they are currently. Just change them to something different.

Re:If I were an employer

[Billly Gates]

So you would be willing to screw over someone whose wife is about ready to leave, house is 40 days from being foreclosed on, kids are living on top ramen, and the repo guy is about to take his car in 48 if he doesn't pay up 3 months worth of payments now!

That my friend is what life is like for the un and under employed right now in this economy. I have been long term unemployed and no employer will touch you! Yes, anyone with a half a brain cell would be happy to sign that not because they have no spine but because they have a spine and are willing to sacrifice it for their kids!

I give my hats off to those who would do it as it shows character and a willingness to sacrifice out of love for his wife and family. I think it is assholish and cruel to demand such things as I support the law in California. It is just a sad fact of life in a bad economy that the employer has the bargaining power and society still expects someone to be responsible and pay the bills.

Re:If I were an employer

[mcgrew]

If I were an employer, I'd ask for the password just to see what type of idiot's actually give them up.

If you were an employer I'd run like hell the fisrt time I saw an idiotic illiteracy like "see what type of idiot's actually give them up".

Calling people idiots while showing idiocy, man that's priceless!

How the f...

[Guru80]

...uck can ANY business ask for your password to a personal website as a requirement for employment? Completely mind boggling to me that it's even asked, let alone required and completely ridiculous that people have actually given it. My personal email, facebook acount, ect is my own personal life where I share things with my friends. It isn't a street corner where I air my business for the world to see.

Before someone makes the point that it's exactly what it is, it's not. I have my facebook locked down as well as an inmate can hope to clamp his anus shut in a prison shower and the ones I do share it with are limited in number.

Re:How the f...

[Anonymous Coward]

They should be able to ask, but you should be able to say "no". Grow a backbone. There are plenty of companies that don't do this. Let the sheep work for such companies - in the end, companies who hire people who aren't mindless drones will do better.

Re:How the f...

[Guru80]

Sure, you can ask anyone anything you want and has nothing to do with a backbone. I wouldn't ever work for such a company and find it beyond ridiculous that people are willing to subject themselves to such invasion of privacy for employment.

Re:How the f...

[Anonymous Coward]

I absolutely hate facebook, but claiming that using it means you don't deserve privacy is idiotic. Finding a gaping security hole in some network does not legally entitle you to a bunch of credit card numbers; buying a cheap lock does not mean burglars can't be arrested for stealing your TV; having a Facebook account does not mean others are entitled to your password.

The Real Effect

[TheSpoom]

This just means that if employers want that sort of access, they have to go through official Facebook channels. Why else do you think Facebook supported this?

why is this even an issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

a facebook account, just like any other account in the universe is your private fun. i really wonder how this can even be worth any discussion in the US. if an employer in europe asked you for your private password to anything you would just laugh at them and leave.

*shakes head*

So it's illegal..

[Falkentyne]

...but what happens when they ask anyways? Is the company or school fined? What form of punishment do they face? I actually read the article which was the side salad equivalent of a story.

Hey Mit!

[PPH]

Want my vote this November? Post your FB password here:

Even without this law

[dmomo]

What if the Terms of Service forbids someone allow third party access to their account? What if the Terms of Service forbid the company from accessing an account they do not own? Can Facebook hold the employer accountable?

Re:Even without this law

[Todd Knarr]

No, it's you that violated the ToS, so it's you they'll hold accountable. IMO if the TOS forbid allowing a third party access to my account, my response to an employer asking for access would be "I'm sorry, the terms of service forbid me from doing that. And would you really want me if I demonstrate I'm willing to violate agreements I've made? Like for instance the confidentiality, non-disclosure and non-compete agreements you're going to ask me to sign as part of my employment?". I'd think that'd bring any HR rep up short right there. In my profession confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements are no small deals.

Fine, so they see only the "public" side

[cdrguru]

Or at least until you "friend" someone at the office.

The problem is, today employment is a high-risk business. You employ the wrong person, fire them and they come back and shoot up the office. Or they may sue for some misunderstanding. Remember, the US is a society where people get ahead by suing and getting a big settlement.

There is also the simple fact that choosing the wrong person to hire results in a lot of costs with just job related things. It costs time and money to train someone and if they do not work out and leave after six months that time and money were wasted, possibly affecting scheduled and having a real impact on revenue.

All this makes employers want as much information as they possibly can gather about prospective employees and make no mistake about it, you aren't going to change that desire with some laws about social media. If employer's can't get this directly there will soon be services to deliver the information indirectly just as now you can get a complete background check of someone from the Internet. When there is a need that people are willing to pay for, someone is going to fill that need.

Why is social media relevent? Because the expectation is that you may post things in an unguarded manner that reflect more of your true personality than at a job interview. If the employer can avoid hiring someone that is going to be a problem, they just saved a bunch of money and possibly saved a project from being delayed. You can consider this to be the new sort of "personality test" that was all the rage back in the 1970s.

Oh, and face reality. The prospective employer probably doesn't care that you got drunk once and someone took some stupid pictures. Now, if you have people publicly commenting about what a drunk you are and how you can barely drag yourself into the office that becomes relevant. Having a comment about how much of a jerk you were to someone isn't all that interesting, but again if you have a bunch of stuff that indicates you're an intolerant child that has to have everything your way... well, you get the picture. It is the same thing as a background check that shows a speeding ticket - not all that relevant. But if you are driving on a restricted license because of a license suspension that might be interesting. Having recently been released from shooting up your former employer's business might just be relevant as well.

Is all this relevant to being able to do the job? Probably. If you come across as a nice, easy going person in an interview but are in fact quite different on the job it could be a big problem and how is an employer supposed to know? And because of all the problems the employer really wants to know as much as they can. And the information is out there for someone to gather for them.

Privacy? Once you start exposing yourself online, you have none so you may as well just get over it.

Re:Fine, so they see only the "public" side

[erroneus]

I have some issues with that perspective. One issue is where the line should be drawn? I don't have a facebook that is in active use. ALLOWING that sort of behavior gives other people who are privacy conscious an unfair edge because (1) they are willing to give up their facebook information and (2) make everyone else look dishonest or all manner of other negative adjectives for even denying that one exists.

People with moral objections end up looking like the bad people in the end. At this office, we have "jeans for charity" on Fridays. If you wear demin pants, you are expected (actually, required) to donate a minimal amount to a company selected charity. I have moral objections over the creation of these star-bellied sneeches. I want my charity to be anonymous and not recorded by any group in the position to judge me as a person. I also feel that it's not "charity" if there is a payment for a privilege or any sort of expected return. I choose not to participate. But then when I don't, it makes me "stand out" as someone who doesn't donate to charity. To me, this is the very definition of a hostile work environment where people are forced into a choice of "comply or be visibly identifyable."

And this exchange of information isn't even equal. It's completely one-sided. If they want my information, shouldn't I be entitled to theirs as well? I'm willing to bet no HR executive is willing to hand out their private data and credentials to job candidates.

It's not their business to know things which are private. It is unfortunate that people litigate far too often in this country, but it doesn't mean that an appropriate response is to put additional burden on employees and to further cause distance and mistrust as a result not to mention weeding out people with moral convictions against this sort of behavior in the first place.

"Can you lift 50lbs or more?" They aren't allowed to ask if you have any disabilities. There's a lot of things they aren't allowed to ask. Why are religious objections protected while moral objections are not? Seems unfair.

Re:Fine, so they see only the "public" side

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, today employment is a high-risk business. You employ the wrong person, fire them and they come back and shoot up the office. [google.com]

The rate of that happening is no higher today than it was 100 years ago. The difference is now you hear it on the news while its happening where as 100 years ago it took time and effort to get out of the area it happened.

The world is no different today than it was 100 years ago, you just know more about whats going on and that scares you. Ignorance is bliss for some.

Re:Fine, so they see only the "public" side

[shentino]

I'm still not giving them the keys to my social life.

It's like giving them the keys to my house.

Even if I don't care about my privacy I still don't want some two bit stranger setting up a meth lab in my place.

Similiarly, I don't want someone else having a chance to plant CP on my facebook because I blew the whistle on something. Or friending me to a pack of hotties and then threatening to call my wife if I won't work during christmas.

See how forking over my password can put more than just my privacy in the toilet?

Even if I don't care who reads my personal affairs, only I should be the author of it.

Re:Fine, so they see only the "public" side

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, however did we make it these last few thousand years without facebook to tell us that the new guy hangs with the wrong crowd?

FORM 1A2B3: Seekeing employment at $company

[Anonymous Coward]

Question 1: You you with to be employed at $company? [ ] YES [ ] NO
Question 2: Are you legally allowed to work in the US? [ ] YES [ ] NO
Question 3: Are you out of your free well offer Facebook verification? [ ] YES [ ] NO
Question 3a: If you selected YES above, list your Facebook ID and Password: ID: ____________ / Password: _____________

Something missing

[c]

Is it just me, or did they miss the opportunity to make it illegal for public school officials to browbeat Facebook passwords out of children (with or without the aid of law enforcement)?

Re:Something missing

[Anonymous Coward]

Senate Bill 1349 will be signed into law alongside Assembly Bill 1844 (the employment one). SB 1349 is the one protecting students.

See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1301-1350/sb_1349_bill_20120327_amended_sen_v98.html

Re:Something missing

[c]

Yes, I read it. It's protecting postsecondary students and employees. Elementary and secondary students aren't mentioned. Maybe there's covered under another law in California. Hence the reason I ask.

Re:Pussies

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans are increasingly conditioned NOT to grow a spine. We need rules like this "to protect us" because too many people simply do as they are told with no apparent ability for consideration of what it means for them personally or for society at large.

The problem is that there are an infinite number of ways to be abused, and there's no way to make them all illegal (and they all shouldn't be illegal, after all). People need to start (1) not working for such companies (2) not buying from such companies as a customer, and (3) severing business contacts with such companies if you are in another company.

So yes, we're a bunch of pussies, but the more we become a bunch of pussies, the more we NEED such laws because we have lost the ability to act in our own best interest. We need the nanny state because we're too dumb to not need it.

Needs to be broadened a bit

[Todd Knarr]

It needs to forbid not just asking for passwords from the candidate, but asking for any kind of access in excess of what an ordinary member of the public would have from anyone (the candidate, the social media site, associates of the candidate, etc.). No requiring the candidate to let you watch him viewing his profile. No asking the social media site to grant you behind-the-scenes access to candidate's profiles. No asking friends of the candidate to let you watch them view the candidate's profile. No special access, period. If the candidate is keeping it from public view, as an employer you don't get special privileges to bypass that.

But if the candidate's dumb enough to leave it open to the general public, it's fair game. Ditto if his friends post things about him and identify him in them. Though if you trust things other people say about him and they turn out to be false you don't get to avoid any liability that'd attach to that either, so you may not want to go trusting the unsubstantiated word of random people you find on the Internet.

Misleadingly blames the Republicans

[Jiro]

Slashdot covered that before.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/03/29/1249215/house-kills-effort-to-stop-workplace-requests-for-facebook-passwords

The Slashdot story blamed the Republicans as well, but some posters were smart enough to do the research to figure out what had actually happened:

Re:Misleadingly blames the Republicans

[Jiro]

Second link got eaten.

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2754473&cid=39508965

Re:Misleadingly blames the Republicans

[dywolf]

Mod up.
If your vitriol and bias lets you.

Facebook wins

[GeekWithAKnife]

You think this is a privacy win? think again!

If your employer wants your Facebook details he'll have to pay Facebook like everyone else. No more shortcuts!

This should be legal...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a good way to learn if you want to work for a company...if they make request like that, you can disqualify them before it's too late

Fine have it

[raind]

If you can find it, since I don't use my real name and photo, you may find out alot about my dog.

If an employer asked for my FB PW

[kurt555gs]

Personally, even asking is a direct insult. It shows they don't value me. I would simply tell them, "go fuck yourself" and walk out, never to return.

Problem solved.

Re:Pussies

[TheGratefulNet]

Has no one told the HR person to fuck off when asked this?

2 cases:

1) you live in a hire-rich area and have lots of choices.

2) you live where the employers call the shots and you are chattle

you don't always luck out with #1.

(just sayin')

Has anyone actually been asked for their password?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone cite a confirmed instance of any hiring manager or HR person actually asking for someone's password?
All this talk is about "what if someone asks." And obviously, asking for any personal password is, at the very least, a security nightmare.
However, I've yet to see someone standing up and saying, "Yes, Person A at Company X actually asked for my password, and here's what happened."
Until then, this is all silly talk.

Even easier...

[cayenne8]

...I figure yet another reason not to have a Facebook account....bypasses the problem (and many other privacy issues) entirely.

Re:Even easier...

[Anonymous Coward]

Im with you brother.

Re:Even easier...

[hazah]

Doesn't that get you on one of them watch lists now-a-days?

Re:Even easier...

[partyguerrilla]

This, if you don't own a facebook account nowadays, you're clearly a terrorist pedophile serial killer mime who hates freedom.

Re:Even easier...

[ktappe]

...I figure yet another reason not to have a Facebook account....bypasses the problem (and many other privacy issues) entirely.

Except not having a FB account at all is apparently reason for employers to reject you now. Seriously. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/08/06/beware-tech-abandoners-people-without-facebook-accounts-are-suspicious/

Re:Even easier...

[Anonymous Coward]

"...And now we'll just need your Facebook password. We'll let you know in the next day or two what our decision has been."

"Ah, well I don't have a Facebook account."

"Well, if you're not going to cooperate by giving us your password, we'll have to decline to offer you this job."

"No, but seriously I don't have a Facebook account."

"We do not tolerate deceptive behaviour among our employees. Please leave now."

Re:Even easier...

[cayenne8]

Except not having a FB account at all is apparently reason for employers to reject you now.

Not really if you work in the security industry...or need a special govt. clearance.

They understand....

Re:Even easier...

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks to me like the employers are doing a good job of letting the type of person that does not have a facebookthing that they really really wouldn't like to work there. Southpark had it right, I really don't want to get sucked in.

Re:Even easier...

[hovelander]

Holy Shit...

I just clicked a link for a Forbes article that linked and referenced a slashdot submission, inside this discussion inside this slashdot submission.

I'm afraid that I might walk out the door here and enter the same way I just left...

Yes, it is a basement den. How did you know that? 42 what?

Finally

[Phusion]

I have a friend who has recently begun training to be an EMT and for fire service. Several months ago, when he began his schooling and training, he told me he had to clean out his facebook account. I figured it was a good idea, since they could look at it, but I told him he could just change his privacy settings to keep anyone that wasn't on his friends list from viewing his wall/timeline. He then explained to me, that on his application, he had to supply his facebook login and password. I was immediately appalled at the notion of handing over your personal social networking credentials over to any company/organization. I told him it was very illegal, but he didn't want to start any trouble as a new recruit. I told him to make a fake account, but he wasn't having it. Now there's a specific law making it illegal, I made sure to tell him the second I read this article. It is a shame we need a specific law for this...

FB does't want you to give employer your acct info

[CrowdedBrainzzzsand9]

...because FB would rather sell your private data to them and others.

Oops! [was: Premature Celebration]

[DERoss]

Sorry.

This morning's Los Angeles Times reports that Governor Brown signed the bill yesterday. It often takes about 2-3 days for the Web site that tracks California legislation to be updated. At this time of year, when the Governor is facing a deadline to sign or veto all bills passed during the just-concluded legislative session, the backlog can be a week or more.

Along with AB 1844, which applies only to employers, the Governor signed SB 1349, which applies to colleges and universities and prohibits them from requiring students to expose their social networking. Unfortunately, neither bill provides any penalty for violating these new laws.

Why only social media?

[hobarrera]

Why did they forbid asking for password only to social media? They could have stated "any personal account", so as to include email, and lots of other things. It's like they deliberately left out an equally important privacy issue.

It's just a way of getting around other laws

[mtrip]

They are barred by law from asking your age, marital status, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc.. When they look at your FB they can get all of that info without having to ask. Do we know if there have been any successful discrimination suits resulting from this? Like from a gay dude or someone who's old but doesn't look it, who was denied work even though they are qualified and have good references, or anything like that?

Re:Has anyone actually been asked for their passwo

[neminem]

Amusing juxtaposition with the person who posted immediately after you. I'm aware that, given they posted -after- you, you couldn't see it when you posted that, but yes, someone has said that (or at least said that it happened to an immediate friend), and they're right above you. :)

Does this actually happen?

[jfengel]

I see a lot of outrage about preventing it, which is well and good and just.

But is it outrage about a real thing? Are employers actually asking for Facebook passwords?

Why Facebook? Why would any employer willing to ask for your Facebook password not also ask for your email password, your various blogs, and your signature on a blank check? Why wouldn't they ask for naked pictures of your spouse, and then disbelieve you when you claim there aren't any?

I'm sure that assholes exist, so it's probably happened. But is it actually widespread, or is this just an opportunity to get pleasantly outraged?

Re:Does this actually happen?

[durdur]

Yes, it does.

You can have my facebook password...

[nighthawk243]

If you give me the valid password to every server and user in the company.

4 Republican and 1 Democrat senators voted no

[ffflala]

No Assemblypersons opposed AB 1844, but California State Senators Joel Anderson, Rep. (Southeastern CA, District 36), Sam Blakeslee, Rep. (Central Coastal CA, District 15), Lou Correa, Dem. ( inland SE of LA including Anaheim, District 34), Ted Gaines, Rep. (northeastern CA, including Lake Tahoe), and Mimi Walters, Rep. (inland from Laguna Beach, District 33) were the only five legislators who voted no on the bill. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1801-1850/ab_1844_vote_20120828_1040AM_sen_floor.html

The only stated opposition to the bill came from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA )http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1801-1850/ab_1844_cfa_20120829_144715_sen_floor.html, which reads in full:

According to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), while this bill is well-intended, it conflicts with the duty of securities firms to supervise, record, and maintain business-related communications as required by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). They argue that if this bill passes in its current form, firms will be in the untenable position of having to violate either state law or their FINRA obligations. SIFMA argues that while they have no interest in accessing employee accounts that are used exclusively for personal use, the problem is that many people use the same account for both personal and business activity.

SIFMA contends that in order to protect investors, FINRA requires, among other things, that securities firms supervise, record and maintain their employees' business communications - including those disseminated on social media sites. They argue that these requirements are spelled out in several different FINRA rules and regulatory notices and denying securities firms access to social media accounts where business is being conducted directly conflicts with FINRA regulations. Additionally, they argue that it also puts customers at risk, as it will be much harder for firms to detect serious problems, including (1) misleading claims by an employee, such as the promise of an unrealistically high rate of return on investment; (2) insider trading, Ponzi schemes and other fraudulent activity; and (3) inappropriate conduct such as the selling of investment products that are not approved by the firm.

Furthermore, SIFMA argues that the bill does not address the increasingly common scenario where a financial services employee seeks and obtains firm approval to use his or her personal site for business use. In these instances, firms must have the ability to monitor, record, and retain these employee communications. Therefore, the opponents are requesting an amendment to carve-out financial service firms from the requirements of the bill which would allow them to access a personal social media accounts or devices of a financial services employee. They believe that this carve-out would allow them to comply with both this bill and FINRA regulations.

Draw your own conclusions about what this says of the interests of these particular Senators. While I believe the argument is actually describes a reasonable concern, it seems the easy approach is not to complicate the law by carving out a statutory exception for certain industries, but rather for these firms to adjust their policies accordingly. For example, they could both prohibit the use of personal personal networking accounts for business purposes, by making it a firing offense, and actively warn investors to contact them if any investment-related claims appear on the personal accounts of their employees.

Seems like these "be pro-business and reduce government red tape!" types are those most interested in creating complicated laws and regulations to suit their special snowflake needs.

Re:4 Republican and 1 Democrat senators voted no

[PPH]

For example, they could both prohibit the use of personal personal networking accounts for business purposes, by making it a firing offense, and actively warn investors to contact them if any investment-related claims appear on the personal accounts of their employees.

That's the way its done now. If a trader can make a good case for using social media to stay in contact with customers, the company will set up a (FINRA compliant, monitored) account for their use. My broker has a company web page, cell phone and e-mail for exactly this reason.

Besides, do they really think managers are going to plow through each employee's social networking account traffic (on numerous different sites. Not everyone uses FB) to search for business transactions?

Question for you all

[_8553454222834292266]

Are you all as outraged by drug testing as by this? Pissing in a cup for job is even worse but everyone seems to accept that now. Personally, I wouldn't accept either of these to get a job.

Re:Question for you all

[Billly Gates]

I have news for you.

The insurance companies REQUIRE it. So get used to it as no one will insure an employer who doesn't in the next couple of years.

Facebook already does this...

[WhackAttack]

Facebook will already sue any employer who asks an employee for the password. I guess it is different from being an actual law but I would expect Facebook has some pretty damn good lawyers...

This is scary.

[Ihlosi]

I mean ... it's scary that they need a law for that. What's next, employers asking for your credit card information, atm card pin numbers, preferred sex position and another gazillion of very private bits of information that have no relation whatsoever to the job?

Re:This is scary.

[cod3r_]

agreed.. Why is this even a thing?!??

"Can I have your Facebook credentials?"

[toriver]

"No.

First, doing so would violate the terms of service for Facebook so I would have to close the account immediately.
Second, if I did I would show an inclination to divulge confidential information for a reward - in this case, a job - and would you really hire such a person?
Third, even if I told you, what would you need it for? If you used it to log in and in effect impersonate me, you would have committed computer fraud. Is that something you would like to have on your record?

Now if you'll excuse me, I will go and offer my skills to a more ethical company."

This law won't make a difference

[UnclePickle]

Don't cheer yet. This isn't going to make it any easier for a privacy-conscious person to find a job. I'm sure every state will eventually adopt this law because the issue is just stupid. It's not even controversial; the invasion of privacy here is beyond ridiculous. However, just because they can't ask you for your password anymore doesn't mean that they're going to change their ways. Facebook is now the ultimate head-hunter's tool and employers aren't going to ignore it. There's an company out there right now skipping over a perfectly capable individual just because his Facebook profile is set to private. Expect "public profiles" to be added to every HR department's filter, along with degrees and job experience. Your best bet is to adapt. Clean up your Facebook while you're job hunting; remove undesirable friends (we all have them) and pictures and set your profile to public. Show them you have nothing to hide. Then, once you get hired, you can set it right back to private.

How will this even solve the problem?

[DancesWithWolves]

> The bill prohibits employers from demanding user names and passwords from employees and job applicants.

Now all an employer has to do is "suggest" that you "voluntarily" give up your Facebook password, but that your refusal will not have any impact on their hiring decision. And by a strange coincidence, no one who refuses will get hired.

Business as usual in the Land of Unfettered Capitalism

I was asked my religion one time

[Stan92057]

I was asked my religion one time didn't bother me but should have sent a warning signal as that Boss was by far the biggest asshole ive ever worked for and was very happy to stick the bastard with a 0 day quitting notice. I was young 24 ,36 years ago lol,at the time and seen a driving job with no experience needed. Turned out there was a reason as anyone who drove a truck in that area all know the bastard lol and couldn't get experienced drivers. I could go into details but my point is If you get an interview and they ask a question they shouldn't be RUN not walk out the door. If they are willing to break the law in interview its my experience they break alot more then that law. No amount of money is worth the hassles none.

This is a no-brainer ! ! !

[sgt_doom]

A friend of mine in Seattle, around the time of the dot com meltdown (early 00s), need any type of work to make his rent, and he finally found a part-time, data-entry temp position in a sparse-employment time/area at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Fran.'s annex in Seattle.

His manager there would ask he for his password every few days, and require him to obtain a new one, claiming it was for "testing purposes" --- he advised her it was considered a security breach, contacted his retarded temp agency each time to make a note of it, but dutifully handed it over. Sure enough, this manager (later to have to go in hospital for nasal passage replacement surgery --- 83% of time such surgery results from cocaine addiction) complained to his agency he was signing onto the Internet while on his part-time temp job at the Fed --- a definitely lie, as this guy, although the manager had specifically volunteered it was OK to sign on to the Internet -- this fellow considered the Fed's network security to be a joke, so was afraid to do so for malware/virus reasons.

Since he never signed onto the Internet, and couldn't comply with their complaint to the agency which had notified him of this, he never returned to that position, although bizarrely enough, after said phony complaint, they for some supposedly strange reason wanted him back there (a rather obvious setup by yet another cocaine-addicted Federal Reserve employee, more common than you'd suppose). He retained an attorney who contacted the useless IG at the Fed. Reserve of San Francisco, the FBI, and that manager, but couldn't reach her at the time due to her hospital stay, so sent the necessary documentation warning against any further actions on her part, etc.

That's exactly why one never gives up their password to anything to anyone, especially any corporation, bankster or the banksters' front office, the Federal Reserve.

Re:Has anyone actually been asked for their passwo

[shentino]

Waiting for actual harm is folly if what you're trying to stop is actually wrong.

Kinda smacks of "one free bite" laws where vicious dogs get away once with mauling someone.

Simply the fact that there's an incentive to do something bad is reason enough in my book to stop it.

Ummm, then why do you even have an account.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, then why do you even have an account.

Re:Ummm, then why do you even have an account.

[shentino]

Because I signed up for one in the days before their chicanery became known.

And because when I found out later and tried to delete it, they refused to purge it.

I felt rather like a mouse struggling to get out of a trap after it had already sprung.

Just tell them you do not have a Facebook account

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem solved.