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."
Privacy is not dead, it's just losing the war.
Take arms and fight back!
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.
We actually need a law for this?
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?
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.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
FB users make a legally binding agreement not to share their passwords as part of the ToS for having a FB account.
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.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
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.
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.
The celebration over AB 1844 is premature. Governor Brown has not yet signed it.
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.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
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.
Want my vote this November? Post your FB password here:
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
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)?
Log in or piss off.
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.
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.
If you can find it, since I don't use my real name and photo, you may find out alot about my dog.
Get up!
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.
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?
This, if you don't own a facebook account nowadays, you're clearly a terrorist pedophile serial killer mime who hates freedom.
...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
Not really if you work in the security industry...or need a special govt. clearance.
They understand....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........