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."

Comments

Solved!

[Miseph]

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.

Re:Solved!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Solved!

[anagama]

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

Re:Solved!

[formfeed]

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.

Coming up next

[vux984]

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?

Unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This bill has been withdrawn

[chiefmojorising]

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

Re:Do not bother

[Wolfrider]

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!