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."
This is easily avoided by simply refusing to participate in facebook and other social media. Actually, that solves a lot of really stupid problems. I highly recommend it.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Does the law force one to comply? I think a simple "pound sand" would suffice.
Granted, you maybe shit canned over it, but such is life.
I do not agree with the law. If they want it, they should have to go to court and require a judge to force it to be handed over. BS IMO.
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?
More worrisome, what about AdultFriendFinder, xtube, NAMBLA online forums, etc?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
And in particular, how do they know you aren't lying if that's what you tell them?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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
I think the bill should allow employers to have access to all your online accounts, computers, phones, cameras, any storage device electronic or physical, safe deposit boxes, all financial records, vehicles, residence, storage facilities. These rights should be extended to you friends and family members, er accomplices, etc. etc, with all investigations aided and supported by the police.
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?
The asshole senator that added this provision has already withdrawn it due to industry objections over possible privacy violations:
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-rejects-bill-that-would-allow-employer-access-to-Facebook-passwords-201316061.html
Frankly, if this became a law in my state I'd challenge it as a violation of unreasonable search and seizure so fast it would make the idiot senator's head spin. A warrant from a judge might be one thing, but some random employer just saying they requesting the info as part of an official investigation can GO FRACK THEMSELVES.
Just makes it easier to tell which employers don't respect their employees.
Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
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".
If the company hire a PI to do an investigation, doesn't Facebook already have provisions in their TOS that says they'll give up access to the account?
You will be legally required to register a facebook account and post your personal details to it.
What's the point of a "let people with money and their appointed agents spy on the sheep" bill without anything to spy on?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
Change your facebook password to "I-L0\/3-Tüü-ætP0O" and THEN give it to them.
Nobodies Prefect
Tidbits for Techs Technology Blog
Probably only a matter of time before "our" representatives introduce it again at the behest of their corporate overlords though.
Nobody should be asked to self-incriminate themselves. More importantly, your social life should have no bearings with your professional life.
but to be honest, so many idiots do their Facebook and other social stuff at work, morons.
Still, this is anti-constitutional.
In case you need a refresher from Schoolhouse Rock:
http://www.schooltube.com/video/fcde4d15a9276c9a09d3/
I don't participate but ... that's fucking insane. My house. Get a warrant.
\r
constitutional rights.
However, there is something about thios even more serious.
How is it that any politician can even consider such violations?
And even more important how is it that they are in office?
This is not looking after the rights, liberities and security of the people.
Even considering such should be viewed as expressing traitor intent, plain and simple.
Its not the violation to take primary note of but those with intent tp commit such acts.
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.
This is what happens when you legalize marijuana!
The term you're thinking of is "at-will employment". Right-to-work is a different animal.
Where did you get that idea? Facebook may not be as vocal as Google about denying requests they aren't required to comply with, but they don't just hand over the info to anyone who asks.
PIs don't have any special legal authority to access any information. The only thing a PI license allows you to do is to charge the client for investigative services. In that way, ot's just like a cosmetology license or a food handler's permit. Source - I used to be a PI.
Have gnu, will travel.
Well, technically I don't have the right to say no, I have the contractual obligation to say no. I'm subject to LinkedIn's and Facebook's terms of service which specifically forbid me from allowing anyone else to access my account that way. If I said yes, I'd be in violation of those terms of service. And since my employer would have to agree to those terms of service as a condition of their accessing my account, then they'll have violated those terms of service and their access is unauthorized. If they don't accept the terms of service, their access is likewise unauthorized. And it's the position of the US Federal government that unauthorized access in violation of the terms of service is a felony violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Plus, if the employer has a presence on those networks, they could find themselves in trouble for a separate violation of the terms of service for their own presence.
I'm pretty sure most terms of service say you won't share your password with anybody.
At 9am this morning the amendment was withdrawn, and the language of the bill changed to include that employers will be required to pay employees $500 along with any damages should they ask for their social media passwords. So no one is getting their social media passwords taken by employers.
See for your self
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=5211 It's under "In the house"
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwliveplayer&eventID=2013041032 If you don't believe that then watch the senate themselves withdraw the amendment and change the language of the bill
This amendment never had a chance in hell, and has been put to death.
What you do is give them your Facebook password and when your manager is away at a meeting and leaves the computer unlocked you sign into your account and post some hate speech or something else obscene. When the police or Facebook comes calling get them to find out what computer it came from. After all it was new behaviour and you just had to give your password away.
If you're badmouthing your employer all over the Internet, even on your own time, your employer might validly have some concerns about that.
It's called a search warrant. Get it from the court, and they can search anything in your possession: you cars, house, Facebook, even your porno collection. Anything less is just invasion of privacy.
This is Facebook we're talking about,
Not just FB, all social media*. Come on, Kimomaru, cough it up.
I've posted a few spicy tidbits about Boeing. I'm waiting for a knock at the door.
*OK, I suppose we could classify Slashdot as anti-social media.
Have gnu, will travel.
What if Facebook's TOS forbids logging in as another user? Would it then be legal for the company to do so?
You can submit comments about the bill yourself at:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5211&year=2013
Even though the amendment has already been withdrawn, it never hurts to add your voice in opposition such that it won't be reintroduced. The new system where the public can comment on pending legislation is pretty cool
This is why I keep a Facebook account with absolutely nothing in it, no friends, pictures or status posts of any kind. It's just for employers/law enforcement. My *real* fb account is locked down tighter than hell. :) /Moiself
Think of me when you shave your legs...
Where am I? Please tell me. This can't be the reality I thought I knew.
Agreed. At a minimum a court ordered subpoena should be required. An employer with a big government/military contract can do something stupid, get in a huge amount of trouble over it, then they bring in the lawyers and "investigate"/interview everyone under the guise of "protecting the interests of the employees". When they are done, they take all the information they've amassed and store it away in case they need it for legal proceedings, then usually fire everyone in the department.
I should never have to relinquishment my personal information to an employer. If they have a right to my password, that doesn't just give them the right to look at my information, they can also abuse my account.
Even if a subpoena were issued, that shouldn't give someone my password. The subpoena should be served to the hosting company, which then provides a copy of requested information within the scope of the court order.
Giving someone your facebook password allows them to change things, and not just to read.
This would allow my boss to outright plant things on me, and not just go snooping around.
If I had someone's facebook password and I wanted to compel them, I'd just post something compromising, change their password, and then threaten them with exposure if they didn't do what I told them.
This will allow bosses to coerce their workers into colluding with corruption.
Not just that, but passwords allow write access, not just read access.
I'm honestly more worried about my boss using my facebook password to plant something incriminating than I am about him snooping around.
Being able to set me up with a compromising photo and threaten to show the link to my wife would be a great way to try and force me to help him cook the books.
You want to search my house? Go to a judge and convince them, get a search warrant. Then c'mon in. Facebook password in a divorce case? Sure. Again, judicial oversight.
But my employer? NO. No, you can't search my house if you have an internal investigation going on me, and NO, you can't ransack my facebook either. If you want into either of those, take it to court like everybody else has to, prove to a judge that you need it.
I don't see a difference here. And neither should the law.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
"Congress does not have power to pass laws that either prohibit individuals asking such things from other individuals or require that anybody complies under any type of penalty to provide such information."
They already have passed such laws, and such laws have been enforced in the past.
"An employer can ask an employee for any of this info, an employee can absolutely refuse (or comply, up to him). Neither action nor response to either action should be legislated and the government officials that cannot recognise this simple fact should be summarily removed from power at once."
You fail to understand that in asking for the information, an employer can discriminate against someone based on their answer or refusal to answer. Corrupt/ignorant employers shouldn't be in a position to strong arm people into relinquishing their private information. If you don't put a stop to it, sooner or later every corporation will be abusing their employees and taking away their right to privacy, and there won't be jobs available that allow you to maintain your right to privacy.
Congress does not have power to pass laws that either prohibit individuals asking such things from other individuals or require that anybody complies under any type of penalty to provide such information.
Which is highly irrelevant when talking about the actions of a state legislature.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Having noticed that there is no attribution to any specific politician in the summary I'm just going to assume it's a Democrat. Otherwise there would be a great big (R) next to state senator so-and-so's name.
I DID RTFA and you are exactly right. It was a Democrat. That's why it wasn't mentioned in TFS.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
That's it. That's all I wanted to say, Slashdot. Don't call me lame.
If you post it, they will read.
Okay, fine, you got me on that one ;)
For the record, blogs are not part of the same as the insidious mess we call social media.
The only reason a bill like this comes to a legislature is if there are some powerful lobbyists behind it. No state rep thought this up on his own.
It's more proof that our economic elite are a bunch of horrible human beings with a strong sense of entitlement, to your work, your time, your money, your personal information and your life. It's not enough that you give them your labor and your time, they've got to have everything. There has been so much corporate consolidation that in the absence of organized labor, the job market is now a monosopy.
They're not going to stop until the American workplace is one big Foxconn dormitory. It's not unprecedented, either. It wasn't that long ago that people lived in company apartments and shopped at the company store.
John Galt is a sociopath. The only thing ever devised that has made him behave is organized labor.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You didn't even notice the real issue with it, that is far greater than all privacy protections, real or imagined, combined.
Password will give your employer the ability to impersonate you. Then they can plant or destroy any evidence of anything, and spread any kind of misinformation supposedly from you. Internal investigations aren't announced to the public, law enforcement, regulatory agencies, etc., so company can do this impersonation in secret, then claim that it never happened.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
If they *do* give the password, it's an automatic disqualification; because the first rule of network security should be to not give up passwords that easily.
And if you object that it might be a fake password, or a throwaway facebook account - I'd point out that the ability to communicate "hell no, I'm not giving up a password that easily" is also an important skill.
It would consist of the following:
"I will fucking hunt you down and murder your entire family. Have a nice day."
I totally can't remember.
There is no need for such a law, all they have to do is install a key logger on the company's computers (it's their computer they can do that) and they'll have the employee's facebook password before lunch.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
Fuck 'em. I never did like Washington State much anyway.
"Sure, give me your password first, and also the username and passwords to your bank accounts so I can verify the company is financially sound."
Somehow when it's turned around on them, I don't think they would like it too much.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I don't understand why we try to make laws to make this illegal that are already illegal. One argument for this is social networks "...open an avenue for possible illegal activity by employees, such as divulging proprietary or consumer information to outsiders through social networks." Well ok, but that is illegal. And there are OTHER ways for someone to divulge the info. Figure some other way to collect the evidence.
In addition Washington is a right to work state. You don't need a reason to fire someone.
if they can get a FB password they can ask for your slashdot password.
Not just the 4th, but the 5th as well.
Do they intend to give employees the same powers to search the employers files? Is an employer supposedly more established or somehow in a higher social position than an employee? No way in hell! Equality of demands is something people need to think about. Frankly being an employer in America is an indicator that one is likely a criminal. Those that doubt that simply haven't been around the block enough times. I can take the help wanted section of a local newspaper and round up hundreds of businesses that commit ongoing fraud with ease. Watch how many try to hire people as independent contractors when in fact they are not independent contractors at all. Agencies and tax payers are robbed blind by that gimmick. For example these businesses do not pay Workman's Compensation claiming that they have no employees but only use independent contractors.
An employer SHOULD be able to discriminate against any employee, an employee SHOULD be able to discriminate against any employer, I don't have any role for government in private property and private contracts matters except for actually defending those rights (right to own and operate private property and contract law).
You can't handle the truth.
An employer SHOULD be able to discriminate against any employee
Just as you want an employer to be able to discriminate with their pay - or absence of pay - to employees at their own will and whim. You want employers to be able to force employees to work for no pay at all, as it is a gift in and of itself for an employer to allow an employee to work for them. You want to ensure that the power remains exactly where you want it - in the hands of those with the most wealth. Of course, in that state you would also end up powerless as your wealth is dwarfed by those who would gain the most from your dream faith-driven policies.
You want to concentrate power, and give power to the wealthy. You want to oppress the rest, delivering fascism for the people.
is that you don't talk about passwords. You never give your passwords to ANYONE. Anyone (other than you) who has a legitimate need to access your account shouldn't need your password (su or the equivalent.)
I'd _consider_ making an exception by locking a copy of my passwords in a safety deposit box (that can't be opened without a key in my possession) to accounts that I want my next of kin to be able to access after my death, or divulging those passwords to my attorney to be distributed after my death and kept confidential through attorney-client privilege until then.
A few year ago a similar act was proposed in Maine but abandoned after realizing that due to Facebook’s privacy policy and ToS agreements (at the time), By the employee giving his/her password to their employer and the employer accessing the account (which violated Facebook’s ToS because the employer was not the owner of that account), if Facebook wanted to, they could file criminal charges against the employer which due to the ToS would link the employer’s action to violating the computer fraud and abuse act
What FB and others need to do is have the ability to set two passwords
1 your normal day to day password
2 the "im being questioned by a LEO" password
if you use the Duress password
1 They do a reverse DNS on the ip address and make sure it belongs to some sort of Law Enforcement Organization
2 They pop up a box stating " Duress Password used Call 1-877-???-???? and provide the operator with verification string %string% to enable access for 72 hours"
3 if this fails then they refer the case to the FBI for prosecution under CyberCrimes
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
...I'm sure the next step will be a bill that allows employers to search employees homes and read their private mail.
Kythe
You are entirely mis-reading the proposed law, and it is not unconstitutional at all.
There would have been no search without a warrant, because this would not have been a governmental search. Therefore it would not have been unconstitutional. This would have been an employer asking an employee for information. It would not have been law enforcement or the employer going to Facebook and demanding the employee's information under the color of this law.
This law would have allowed the employer to ask the employee to voluntarily provide the information, because previously the law specifically disallowed the employer to ask.
This law would have returned to the status quo of several years ago, which is that the employer can ask the employee to voluntarily turn over certain information, or else employment is terminated.
I run corporate investigations, and the basic premise in at-will employment is "your continued employment is dependent on you answering our questions. You may choose to not answer them - that is your right; however, if you do not, it is our right to no longer employ you."
In at-will situations, that is allowed. You might disagree with that, but there is no constitutional implication here - it is a private employment issue between a company and an employee.
Which is where courts are supposed to use reasonable correlation. If you've had glowing performance reviews for the last few quarters, came out of the closet last week and were suddenly fired with no previous issues, then you've probably got a case for discrimination if the "official" reason for your firing was that your TPS report was late by 5 min.
Last time a potential employer asked me for my Facebook login, I said, sure! Give me the financials and personal Facebook account info of your CEO, CTO, CFO, CIO, etc. I'd like to do the same checking. They of course declined and I walked out of the door.
It will be used to hire and fire based on discrimination. They LEGALLY can't ask you if you're married, have kids, what church you go to, who you support politically, etc. etc.
But they can read it on Facebook and roast you for your associations.
I was told by a recruiter to just completely 100% and absolutely don't use social media and don't let any member of my immediate family use it. I said, I already do, and there are no "drunk pictures" or anything like that.
He was adamant. In the current hiring environment, employers will use ANYTHING to weed out anybody. Unless you're applying for a Social Media position--don't use social media. Employers who may want to send you around the world on a moment's notice doesn't want to find out you have children--or a spouse. If he wants to send you to Saudi Arabia--he pretty much CAN'T send you if you're a Jew. He may be a funny-mental-case Christian--he might let you slide if he thinks you're a luke-warm Xtian--but won't even THINK of hiring an atheist. You may not be gay, but if you have a family member who is out and proud, the employer may take exception. Did you "LIKE" Obama? In Virginia, there are people who have already been fired for that--LEGALLY! "LIKE" evidently isn't protected free speech--EVEN IF YOU WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT! (Yeah, a sheriff in Virginia Beach fired employees who supported Democrats last election--and used his investigative powers to do it. Right now they're investigating his use of his investigative powers, but the fired employees are still fired, because your political leanings aren't protected in matters of employment)
So, if you live in Washington--DO NOT LET YOUR LEGISLATORS VOTE FOR THIS BILL!
So who sponsored the amendment?
The bill itself, sponsored by a Democrat, specifically forbids companies from forcing employees to allow access to their social media accounts. The amendment created an exception. An earlier commenter mentioned that the amendment was proposed by somebody with a big (R) next to his name...
The trouble started with people willing to give up their 5th Amendment rights by consenting to a piss test as a condition of employment. Once that was accepted, the door was wide open.
One more gift from the Reagan era.
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
My key ring has keys to property I do not own. A neighbor down the street (walk the dog). A Facebook password grants access to content I do not own and have not authored.
A company may have serious liability issues because they trespass on property I have been given access to but do not have the rights to redistribute. i.e. they are demanding a violation of trust at a minimum.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.