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."
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.
You wrote your password down?
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.
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.
You can have my password when you pry it from my cold, dead hand.
And that's the problem with biometric authentication.
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.
I find it really incredible that you Americans need a specific law for this. This is outright illegal in my country.
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
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
The SHA1 of that is 3daf4cf98356e6438aaa38ccf38a77027a69db05 for you kids at home updating your rainbow tables.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
"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.
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.
testing out my trending skills