Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WA State Bill Would Allow Bosses To Seek Facebook Passwords

Posted by Soulskill on from the no,-go-away dept.

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."

25 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. Solved! by Miseph · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Solved! by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think you forgot to check the Post Anonymously box.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    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 spire3661 · · Score: 4, Funny

      When they came for facebook, i didn't care because i didn't have a facebook account.

      When they came for reddit, i didn't care because i used throw-aways

      When they came for 4chan, there was no one left but slashdot....

      When they came for us, there was no one left at all.

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re:Solved! by DesertBlade · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    5. 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
    6. Re:Solved! by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    7. Re:Solved! by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wrong, you forgot the 5 of us over at Google+.

    8. Re:Solved! by formfeed · · Score: 5, Funny

      This has the potential to affect everyone in enormous ways because it takes firm root in a huge crack in our civil liberty protections.

      It has been proven by many /. posters that civil liberty is something for people who sit at home and do nothing and doesn't apply to people who work, have Internet connection, a credit card, or leave their property. So I'll just repeat the main argument for you:

      As soon as you get a job, you agree to a contract. Which means, your body, spirit, and soul belong to the company and they can do to you whatever they want. If you don't like that, you should look for a different owner or wait for the invisible hand to correct the market and retract itself from your cavities. There is just no other way. It might not be perfect, but it is the best system there is.

      Asking for civil rights at the work place is asking for government interference with the market. This leads to mismanagement and a too powerful nanny state that takes direction from any anonymous voter instead of fully invested share-holders. If companies are blocked from accessing your private data, they also lose the ability to fully control you, which might interfere with profit. Anything interfering with profit is a violation of the free market and destroys our most valued freedoms. This ultimately leads to socialism and mass starvation like currently in Europe.

  2. Well, does the law force compliance? by hsmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Well, does the law force compliance? by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    2. Re:Well, does the law force compliance? by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Interesting

      his is specifically covering a private corporation investigating itâ(TM)s own employeeâ(TM)s â" so I am not sure the 5th comes into play,

      It's actually a thorny problem. A cursory examination of Washington's case law didn't come up with anything, but other courts have held that "The Fifth Amendment ⦠is not concerned with âmoral and psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official coercion.â(TM)" In other words, statements coerced by non-governmental entities do not violate the privilege. Boyd v. State, 1987 OK CR 211, 743 P.2d 674 In fact, there is case law that specifically looks at employers. In Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 166-170, 107 S.Ct. 515 (1986), the court held "outrageous behavior by a private party seeking to secure evidence against a defendant does not make that evidence inadmissible."

      So basically, a company can put you over a barrel, threaten you, extort you, fire you, levy fines and penalties against you, and it's all totally legal. And thus, a law allowing them to demand these things, and the penalties being any of the above sanctions, would also be legal... even without the law. The law, as it were, is superfluous: Employers can do this right now without fear of reprisal.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  3. 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?

    1. Re:Coming up next by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's the difference?

      The frog isn't warm enough.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Coming up next by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's really bad is, frogs aren't actually this stupid, despite the myth. A frog in a pot of water will jump out if it gets too hot. They may be just frogs, but they're not that dumb.

      But apparently people are.

  4. How about... eat a bag of d***s? by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:How about... eat a bag of d***s? by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that's some extremely optimistic thinking on your part. Why would the courts be willing to strike down something that's so beneficial to corporations? The courts are just as corrupt as the rest of the government.

    2. Re:How about... eat a bag of d***s? by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why would the courts be willing to strike down something that's so beneficial to corporations? The courts are just as corrupt as the rest of the government.

      True, but the corruption that sticks around is the corruption that goes unnoticed. Let's assume they pass this law, and for some reason it actually is upheld. There will be nobody in a few years using their real name on the internet... a new darknet will spring up promising anonymity and security, because the fact is: Social networking is so massively popular and useful that people won't willingly give it up. What they will do, is manage the risk. Remember Fucked Company back during the dot com bubble? They were being served so many legal subpoenas and warrants a day that they had someone hired to stand at the door and sign for them. Very few of those court actions went anywhere, because they never could track down who made the postings. And that's how it'll be again.

      The laws cannot change human nature. They can only frame and channel it -- and the more it goes against the flow, the greater the amount of force required. The government, for its massive bulk and power, cannot contend with the inertia of the general public. If it wants something, all the guns, bullets, tanks, and laws in the world amount to exactly dick. You cannot stop 300+ million people saying "No." You can only hold back so much before the dam breaks.

      The irony of it all is this cozy relationship between corporations and the government, with each co-opting our liberties for the benefit of the other, is pushing people to embrace new technologies and ways of maintaining their own independence from the superstructure. Look at the "Silk Road". It wouldn't have been possible to create a hidden website on the internet that passes tons of drugs around every day worldwide if it hadn't been for governments trying to restrict the freedoms of the average person. By censoring everyone, enough social pressure was created to cause the invention of a new technology to circumvent that attempt.

      And as a result, not only did the censorship fail, but it also decreased the level of control the government (all governments, actually, worldwide) had over the black market trade of drugs. Laws that do not abide by the commonly-held values of the population it serves become poison to those who try to enforce them.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  5. Both ways? by Nkwe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  6. Unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Do not bother by ElusiveJoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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".

    1. 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??
  8. How to solve the problem by toygeek · · Score: 4, Funny

    Change your facebook password to "I-L0\/3-Tüü-ætP0O" and THEN give it to them.

    --
    Nobodies Prefect
    Tidbits for Techs Technology Blog
  9. Re:This bill has been withdrawn by chiefmojorising · · Score: 5, Informative

    Erp, the *amendment* was withdrawn. The bill it was attached to (SB 5211, meant to *prevent* employer access to social media accounts) is still alive.

    http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Washington-House-panel-rejects-push-for-passwords-4406954.php

  10. Work-Place misconduct defined: by tlambert · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.