Slashdot Mirror
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."
FB users make a legally binding agreement not to share their passwords as part of the ToS for having a FB account.
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
This space for rent.
The celebration over AB 1844 is premature. Governor Brown has not yet signed it.
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.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
...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/
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007