Slashdot Mirror
WA State Bill Would Allow Bosses To Seek Facebook Passwords
An anonymous reader writes "A bill amendment proposed Tuesday could allow employers to ask for a worker's Facebook or other social media password during company investigations. The provision was proposed for a bill that safeguards social network passwords of workers and job applicants. The measure bars employers from asking for social media credentials during job interviews. The amendment says that an employer conducting an investigation may require or demand access to a personal account if an employee or prospective employee has allegations of work-place misconduct or giving away an employer's proprietary information. The amendment would require an investigation to ensure compliance with applicable laws or regulatory requirements."
Coming up next... An amendment to allow companies to request the keys to your home and vehicle if they are investigating allegations of work-place misconduct. Along with your personal phone records, and a strip search.
What's the difference?
What I do outside of work, on my own time, is not my employer's business. You guys can try passing this law if you want, but it'll be political suicide and the courts will shoot it down faster than you can say "republican in a public restroom caught with a man."
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Seriously - I wouldn't use Facebook if they paid me to log in to their massive privacy violation engine.
So if I think the company may be leaking my personal information or doing something improper do I get the password to the HR and Financial systems, so I (or my lawyer) can investigate my claim?
Those filthy employers who do wish to dig up some dirt would not hire someone without a Facebook account. It'll be considered too "creepy and suspicious".
Granted, you maybe shit canned over it, but such is life.
So basically what you're saying is... if you have money, you can ignore the law, but if you're poor (and thus can't afford to lose your job), you're forced to go along with whatever freedom-eschewing measure your local legislator is cooking up this week to screw you over?
Yeah... sounds about right.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Maybe not. The 5th Amendment limits what the government personal can do in a investigation – this is specifically covering a private corporation investigating it’s own employee’s – so I am not sure the 5th comes into play,
It still stinks in my opinion.
No because the law is still unjust whether or not it affects you personally, dipshit.
Work-Place misconduct defined:
If you are Representative Mike Sells, and you introduce a critically stupid amendment like this, you have engaged in workplace misconduct, and you are required to give the people of the State of Washington, who are your employers, all your social media passwords.
PS: The linked story from the OP has a comment which states that it was withdrawn. I imagine he pulled on his left ear with his right hand, and his right ear with his left hand, and the loud popping noise was his head coming out of his rear.
Wrong. They will demand your personal email password (since it is tied to G+) and your slashdot password and your ftp server password and your webhosting password. It is a slippery slope.
Half of writing history is hiding the truth.
It's even easier than that. If an employer has sufficient reason to believe an employee has broken a contractual commitment, they can sue them and get a subpoena or warrant for the info. There's no reason to allow fishing expeditions.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
This has the potential to affect everyone in enormous ways because it takes firm root in a huge crack in our civil liberty protections. We are all aware that there is an enumerated list of things the government is (supposedly) not allowed to do, like conduct searches without a warrant. If they do, that evidence is poisoned and is not supposed to be used at trial (*). But what many people don't know is that private non-governmental agencies are not bound by these rules (**).
Thus it is entirely possible for the government to wink and nod at an "internal" investigation, or even encourage it, because such an investigation would go beyond government's constitutional boundaries. When the private entity turns over the information so obtained to the government, the government doesn't have a "fruit of the poisonous tree" problem and the evidence can be used in court. The potential for such abuse is huge, especially by megacorps who essentially own the government to the point that whatever is in their own interest, is almost certainly in the interest of the state.
And of course, this will extend to any password (if not immediately, shortly thereafter) -- email, slashdot, whatever.
If this law was written such that employers could search people's homes, closets, photoalbums, etc., people would probably understand its breathtaking scope better. From a functional standpoint, people's digital closets and photoalbums should be just as off limits.
(*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
(**) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#Limitations_of_the_rule
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
No one ever gets fired because they are black/white, male/female, handicapped/able bodied, whatever/whatever-else. They are fired for whatever piddly thing that they can come up with. If they want you fired, they'll find something. Weren't able to come in an work the mandatory overtime? Forget to use the new TPS report format? Didn't check with your 8 bosses when you did something?
You're talking about a protected class. People who have passwords is not such a class.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Even if my employers didn't already know, which they do, then so be it. I prefer not to associate with anyone who can't handle the concept of somebody choosing not to use facebook anyway.
One of the things that a lot of people don't seem to grasp is that at some point, you need to just accept that your choices might have consequences you don't like, and just move on. I choose not to use facebook, twitter, and most of that other garbage. Sometimes I do this in venues that could be traced back to me personally. If somebody has a problem with it, I'll cross that bridge when I get there. What I won't do is start using services I don't have any interest in and don't like just because some hypothetical stranger thinks I'm weird unless I do.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
yeah this sounds exactly like giving police powers to the employer.
does the employer have the right to conduct random spot searches at the employees apartment? no? why the fuck should employer get email, storage etc access..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.