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."

24 of 363 comments (clear)

  1. Finally, a law recognizing privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    Take arms and fight back!

    1. Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You wrote your password down?

    2. Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy by N0Man74 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      And that's the problem with biometric authentication.

    3. Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy by daem0n1x · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    4. Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    5. Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy by Applekid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    6. Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy by defaria · · Score: 4, Funny

      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!

    7. Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy by Dog-Cow · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy by rwv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That sounds like the exact opposite of what it means.

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

    9. Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    10. Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      "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?

    11. Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    12. Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

  2. Re:wow by realsilly · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
  3. I can't even believe it has to be clarified by franciscohs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Funny

      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".

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified by jareth-0205 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  4. Tell them to contact FB and pound sand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  5. Federal version was voted down by recoiledsnake · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  6. Head shaking moments by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. I would ask a potential employee for this... by MadCow42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  8. Re:wow by realsilly · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
  9. Re:wow by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  10. Re:Even easier... by partyguerrilla · · Score: 4, Insightful

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