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."

4 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. Coming up next by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  2. Re:Solved! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No because the law is still unjust whether or not it affects you personally, dipshit.

  3. Re:Solved! by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  4. Re:Do not bother by Wolfrider · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The thing is though - whoever proposed this amendment should be run out of town on a rail, removed from public office, and their name shouted from the rooftops as an example of WHAT WE DON'T WANT our government to be getting into!

    --
    .
    == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??