Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Maryland Bans Employers From Asking For Facebook Passwords

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the state-bird-tweets-a-lot dept.

Facebook 211

Freddybear writes with news that yesterday Maryland passed a bill through both houses of the state legislature that would forbid employers from requiring job applicants or employees to provide access to social media accounts. The bill now awaits only the signature of governor Martin O'Malley. "The bill is the first of its kind in the country, and has shined a spotlight on the practice of employers demanding personal social media passwords from potential hires, [said Melissa Goemann of the ACLU]." Similar legislation is being developed in California, Illinois and Michigan, according to the Washington Post.

cancel ×

211 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not a problem (5, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639747)

Just accept that friendly request from that HR lady as a condition of employment.

Just last night I saw an ad on craigslist where the employer wanted me to click on a emloyment site that used Facebook as a login and requirement. I figured it was a scam. But it did offer a new password that you could choose different from Facebook but you had to friend the site first ... and the employer can check to see if you have a pic drinking or do a grammar and spelling check on your casual entries etc.

Re:Not a problem (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39639779)

Well, you're a nigger so we *all* know that you wouldn't get hired anyway. With all the "ho" this, and "thug life" that. For shizzle my cracker.

Too many "be verbs". "He she", "she be", "we be". That's a fact.

Re:Not a problem (4, Funny)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639791)

Just last night I saw an ad on craigslist where the employer wanted me to click on a emloyment site that used Facebook as a login and requirement. I figured it was a scam. But it did offer a new password that you could choose different from Facebook but you had to friend the site first ... and the employer can check to see if you have a pic drinking or do a grammar and spelling check on your casual entries etc.

Such trolling opportunities. Fake facebook account, with goatse et al shared to "friends only".

Think further. (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640487)

Focus your Facebook account on your off-hours hobby of DJ'ing for gay Jewish inter-racial couples retreats.

Then let them explain themselves if they don't hire you. They'd have to demonstrate how your off-hours activity did NOT influence their hiring process.

After they kind of implied that your off-hours hobbies WOULD influence their hiring decision.

It's a lose-lose for them. I don't see why any company with any intelligent HR person would even broach the subject of "social media" with applicants.

Re:Think further. (4, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640719)

That is the problem right there.

HR has switched from finding the best talent for a position to mean discluding any and I mean any reason not to hire someone and then claim they couldn't find qualified applicants.

They are scared that if they make a bad hiring decision that it will reflect poorly on them and are obsessed with liabilities. In the great recession they got a tremendous boast of having many and sometimes hundreds of applicants to filter through for each position. Social media makes the job even easier.

Witness the case of requiring experience first? 30 years ago you left college applied for a job and it was understood that your grades and dedication proved trainable. Today, you can even be trained but it has to be percisely what the position requires in the exact same way or they are not interested.

Doing something for X long doesn't make you good at the job. Someone with the right smarts and work ethic does. HR needs to change their ways

Re:Think further. (4, Interesting)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641083)

HR has switched from finding the best talent for a position to mean discluding any and I mean any reason not to hire someone and then claim they couldn't find qualified applicants.

Dead on. I work full time and am finishing grad school and looking for a new job and that's the impression my friends and I have had of the majority of people we interact with from potential employers. They blatantly go out of their way to find reasons NOT to interview / hire people instead of finding the best candidate for the job.

Witness the case of requiring experience first? 30 years ago you left college applied for a job and it was understood that your grades and dedication proved trainable. Today, you can even be trained but it has to be percisely what the position requires in the exact same way or they are not interested.

Again, 100% accurate. The overwhelming majority of "entry level" positions won't even look at your resume if you don't have 3-5 years of experience doing the EXACT things listed on the job posting - nevermind that some of them may include specialized software that only someone who's previously held the position would have ever used, you MUST know how to use it for an entry level job.

Doing something for X long doesn't make you good at the job. Someone with the right smarts and work ethic does. HR needs to change their ways

That's why I told a friend the other day that eventually I want to be a hiring manager - because so many of them do it wrong, I want to show people how to do things right.

Re:Think further. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39641225)

Again, 100% accurate. The overwhelming majority of "entry level" positions won't even look at your resume if you don't have 3-5 years of experience doing the EXACT things listed on the job posting - nevermind that some of them may include specialized software that only someone who's previously held the position would have ever used, you MUST know how to use it for an entry level job.

This, this, and this. I had a pretty good job going on for two and a half years where i dealt with some fairly uncommon stuff (not hyper-specialized, but not ubiquitous like Java or C++), but I got laid off when my company hit some financial problems. I ended up being unemployed for two years after that before a tiny, tiny startup took a chance on me. Why? Because everything, even the entry-level positions, wanted a few years professional experience in stuff I either hadn't even touched or had only used in college--and I had more than a few recruiters and hiring managers tell me that college experience doesn't count. Oh, I still applied for anything that even remotely sounded like I'd be able to pick up, but nobody was interested in hiring me.

Re:Think further. (5, Interesting)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640923)

Focus your Facebook account on your off-hours hobby of DJ'ing for gay Jewish inter-racial couples retreats.

Then let them explain themselves if they don't hire you. They'd have to demonstrate how your off-hours activity did NOT influence their hiring process.

After they kind of implied that your off-hours hobbies WOULD influence their hiring decision.

It's a lose-lose for them. I don't see why any company with any intelligent HR person would even broach the subject of "social media" with applicants.

There are third party services that'll google you and search for public social network information. These services are the ones who see your actual information and they black out anything that is illegal to be used - i.e., if you have a normal photo of yourself, your face and hands (but not, say your T-shirt) will be blacked out to prevent revealing race, age, and gender. Any other information that reveals it will also be blacked out.

Here's an example one someone ran [gizmodo.com] .

So the company can claim ignorance by presenting this stuff.

Of course, things that invalid this check would be asking for you password directly (since they could access it). Which s why these companies don't do that - they just seek out blogs, profiles and other stuff publicly accessible.

Re:Not a problem (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639831)

So make a dummy Facebook account.

Re:Not a problem (2)

Mitreya (579078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640099)

So make a dummy Facebook account.

I believe that violates Facebook TOS (which may or may not be a felony, depending on if and how POTUS rules on that) in the same way as asking someone to provide their password to Facebook violates TOS.
Isn't it illegal to ask such things at an interview, since Facebook account likely to have some nuggets on your age/religion/etc?

Re:Not a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640313)

I think you mean SCOTUS.

Re:Not a problem (1)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640383)

I HOPE he means SCOTUS!!?!

Re:Not a problem (-1, Flamebait)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640703)

He probably DID mean POTUS, given the recent comments from the POTUS to the SCOTUS regarding their obligation to overturn unconstitutional laws passed by both houses and signed by the POTUS.

And if GWB said the same thing, the liberals would have gone apeshit crazy (rightfully so) but alas they accept the former LAW PROFESSOR's weasel excuse to what he "really" meant {wink wink}

Re:Not a problem (5, Informative)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640153)

No, just create a "People That Suck" group, set your default privacy policy to exclude that group, and add your employer to that group. To your employer, it'll just look like you never use Facebook.

Re:Not a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640919)

As if they would hire someone with no friends or social activities at all!

Re:Not a problem (5, Insightful)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640151)

"and the employer can check to see if you have a pic drinking"

and they can look at it all they want, they are not my mother and I am well beyond legal age to drink, they dont like it then they can kiss every square inch of my ass cause I would not fit in to their "sand vagina" culture anyway.

Re:Not a problem (3, Funny)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640397)

Sand Vagina. That's rough.

Re:Not a problem (3, Insightful)

Renraku (518261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640781)

Many states are at will employment. They don't want to have to worry about the small chance that you might have a problem with alcohol and sometimes maybe come in late for work on Monday morning due to a hangover. They might also have religious reasons for regulating your drinking. If they exclude you because you drink, they can probably find ten more people similar to you that might claim not to drink, or might simply just not drink.

Everyone thinks that it will be epic when/if marijuana is legalized, but you bet your ass insurance companies will still employers to test for it or they won't insure them. Nothing is preventing them from simply not hiring people that like to smoke it.

Re:Not a problem (3, Interesting)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640857)

I grew up in, and still live in a "right to work" state, which really means the employers have absolutely no reason to even give you a reason as they boot you out the door. Monday morning hangovers have never been an issue, and I have worked for a few places that do not require a drug test at all with reasonable insurance, though you show up after lunch, glassy eyed and giggly, up your gone.

somehow its never been a problem, maybe becuase I know better, and am not a retard who thinks just because I got a job one day, I deserve it for life

Re:Not a problem (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641221)

...do a grammar and spelling check on your casual entries etc.

You know, that might actually be relevant if the job you're being considered for includes writing things that customers get to see. If you can't be bothered to check the spelling and grammar on your Facebook page, there's a good chance that you'll forget to do it at work. And, of course, if your grammers bad at Facebook, it might just be because you don't know any better, and that would be very important when considering who to hire for such a job.

Re:Not a problem (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641255)

but you had to friend the site first

Possible Facebook ToS violation? You don't "friend" sites, you "like" sites.

And when you friend someone, you can add them to a "group". For example, you can have your privacy settings configured so that most of your info, wall, photos, etc, are only visible to certain groups

Do employers really ask for your fb password? (2)

locopuyo (1433631) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639763)

I've never heard of an employer asking this before. Do they try to save money buy using it as an alternative background check or something? Asking for someone's password seems ridiculous.

Re:Do employers really ask for your fb password? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39639807)

I've never heard of an employer asking this before. Do they try to save money buy using it as an alternative background check or something? Asking for someone's password seems ridiculous.

In the words of Bill Hicks, "Where's all this shit happening?!"

I keep reading about this but have never seen it happen myself or talked to anyone whose had it happen to them.

Re:Do employers really ask for your fb password? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39639873)

Yes, the most likely explanation is not that you only encounter a subset of people, but that the media is exaggerating a non-existent problem or even inventing it out of whole cloth.

Just like the moon landing. Faking it, even though it'd cost billions more to do, would be more likely than actually landing on the moon.

Re:Do employers really ask for your fb password? (5, Informative)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640033)

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department requires it for one that I know of personally.

Seattle as well. (3, Interesting)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640505)

The Seattle police department had (as of last year) a similar requirement as part of their background check on applicants.

In that specific case I can see it being more reasonable. After all, they're already going to interview your friends and family and dig through your financial history.

Re:Do employers really ask for your fb password? (3, Informative)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640335)

My daughter applied for a job and they asked to see her Facebook page.

Re:Do employers really ask for your fb password? (2)

KevReedUK (1066760) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639813)

I'm thinking (hoping) more of a security/sanity check. i.e. If you're daft enough to give it to them, they'll drop you from the interview list as a high risk to social engineering attacks against them.

Re:Do employers really ask for your fb password? (2)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639839)

It would let the firm/gov see everything you may keep private. Images, friends, interests, chat logs - depending on service e.g. IM, web 2.0. Links, fan art, body art, politics can all be hidden under some 'clean' public versions of sites.
That clean site of a 30 yo with security clearances, a nice family, an open source project as a hobby and a musical background ...
Might have a long lost hidden/forgotten/friend/past developer with ...... interests that could make them very very risky.

Re:Do employers really ask for your fb password? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39639899)

If the employee is genuinely risky to real business, the employer should know.
If it's just a bunch of prejudice stuff, it's none of their business.

Re:Do employers really ask for your fb password? (5, Insightful)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640003)

In British Columbia, Canada there is actually a list of things an employer is NOT allowed to ask you (age, marital status, religion, sexual orientation, etc), and almost all of them can be answered by viewing your facebook account.

Re:Do employers really ask for your fb password? (1)

Formalin (1945560) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640379)

I think most of those are also forbidden in the US.

We've got another one though... drug testing is generally not allowed in Canada (exceptions for things like heavy machinery operators [incl. professional drivers], probably cops and judges, etc.)

I'm not sure how far they can stretch the hazardous duty clause though. Does someone writing code for something mission critical count? Who defines mission critical?

Anyway, better still avoid idiots tagging you in photos with bong-hits in the background.

Re:Do employers really ask for your fb password? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640023)

>> If the employee is genuinely risky to real business, the employer should know.

Yes, they should. Maybe they should be allowed to search my house too!
Why are you so paranoid....Risky to business? Whatever!

Re:Do employers really ask for your fb password? (4, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640019)

The Maryland government police were asking for facebook passwords. Then it was discovered some private employers do the same, so the Legislature stepped forward and did its job (banned the practice). Now we just need to get the other 49 Member States of the union to do the same. :-)

Re:Do employers really ask for your fb password? (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640059)

Oh and the 27 states of the European union (just to be thorough).

Re:Do employers really ask for your fb password? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640089)

I've never heard of an employer asking this before. Do they try to save money buy using it as an alternative background check or something? Asking for someone's password seems ridiculous.

You know what seems even more ridiculous? The fact that we've discussed this very topic here before multiple times, it's been plastered all over media, even hit the news, and now we have active legislation going on, and yet people keep asking if this is happening.

Short answer is yes. It is happening. Read a few posts here or on other similar pages for evidence. Might not be mainstream, but with this kind of bullshit, let even one company do it, and talk about HR policy going "viral"...

Re:Do employers really ask for your fb password? (2)

javascriptjunkie (2591449) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640425)

Yes. They do. It was part of why I left my last job. Social media marketing companies in particular are notorious for wanting to snoop around. They also do things like create social media profiles in your name that they swear will change when you go. And their word is as good as the paper it's printed on. Personally, I wouldn't work with any company that demanded my facebook information. While not technically illegal everywhere, it's in bad taste.

So (0)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639775)

Exactly how much pull does Facebook have? This seems way to timely and motivated for government workers/politicians, it reeks of Facebook making a "request".

I hope it isn't too specific. (2)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639777)

I hope they were smart enough to write this law fairly broadly. Employers should not be allowed to ask for passwords to any account, social media or otherwise. If they wrote it specifically for social media accounts, then they'll just have to write it all over again the next time some other type of account becomes the target of unscrupulous employers.

Re:I hope it isn't too specific. (5, Informative)

TheBlueCrab (801925) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639845)

It seems like its broad enough. Here's the actual bill itself [state.md.us] .

Re:I hope it isn't too specific. (2)

knorthern knight (513660) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640913)

> It seems like its broad enough. Here's the actual bill itself.

I've heard that some employers get around the password stuff by requiring THE EMPLOYEE to login during the interview, and then they shoulder-surf as the employee goes through his private photos and postings. Is that loophole covered?

We really had to make a law for this? (3, Insightful)

xQx (5744) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639815)

The surprising part about this news is that they actually had to pass a law making this practice illegal!

You would think this is such an obvious invasion of privacy that it would be covered by existing laws.

Still, if the great US of A is lecturing the world about "Internet Freedoms" while simultaneously perusing wikileaks for "terrorism", trying to pass laws like the SOPA, PIPA and shoving the ACTA down the throats of the rest of the world, I guess we shouldn't take anything for granted.

Ahh, where else but America... "The land of the free".

Re:We really had to make a law for this? (1, Insightful)

SaroDarksbane (1784314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639957)

You would think this is such an obvious invasion of privacy that it would be covered by existing laws.

It's not really an invasion of privacy if you hand over the information yourself.

Re:We really had to make a law for this? (1)

Mitreya (579078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640135)

It's not really an invasion of privacy if you hand over the information yourself.

True, but I think it is a discrimination issue, since access to Facebook would like provide answer to a host of questions they are explicitly forbidden to ask (e.g., age)

Re:We really had to make a law for this? (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640333)

They are NOT forbidden to ask. What is forbidden is using the answer to deny employment. Its fairly distinct. Its not simply "they asked me how old i was so they are automatically guilty of something." If it can be proven you were denied the job for protected reasons, THEN it is an issue.

But the onus is on them at that point. (2)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640545)

They are not FORBIDDEN to ask but they will usually AVOID those questions because once they have that information they have to demonstrate that they did NOT refuse employment based upon it (should they not hire you and should you sue them).

The legal system being what it is ... it is just safer for them to not ask and therefore there is no way they could be using that information in their hiring decision.

Remember, HR is not there for YOU.
HR is there to protect the company from lawsuits that you can bring.

Re:But the onus is on them at that point. (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640933)

Yes, exactly. Asking the question merely opens up a possible legal attack vector, nothing more.

Re:We really had to make a law for this? (2)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640285)

It's not really an invasion of privacy if you hand over the information yourself.

No, it simply makes it an abuse of power. You NEED this job eh? Right, well as we have a few people to pick from, how about we pay you half the going rate, but hire you today? That's another abuse of power. No different really. People in a tight place will do just about anything to get out and sadly there are many people quite happy to use that to their own advantage.

Re:We really had to make a law for this? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640769)

In Central Florida if you search I.T. jobs you will find 80% of them pay below market average with many that pay half. A few pay the correct wage but there are so many applying for them that it is near impossible.

$13 an hour for an MCSE certified, computer science background, Cisco router certification a plus, SQL Server administration, etc. No benefits

Re:We really had to make a law for this? (3, Insightful)

stretch0611 (603238) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640299)

It's not really an invasion of privacy if you hand over the information yourself.

Is it still not a privacy invasion if you haven't been able to pay the rent/mortgage for a few months, your water and electricity are about to be shut off and somebody says "give me your password if you want this job..."

Re:We really had to make a law for this? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641261)

oh it's still a privacy invasion and a breach of contract with another entity(fb).

just like it's invasion of privacy and forbidden of them to ask access to your house in order to decide if they want to employ you or not. they're an employer and they're bound by some rules, it would be different if it was someone refusing to be friends with you if you didn't invite them over to your house..

Re:We really had to make a law for this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39639983)

This was part of the Freedoms for Business Initiative. It's a pretty wide-reaching program in the US.

Things like "at-will employment", "right to work", and all that jazz.

Re:We really had to make a law for this? (2)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639995)

Exactly.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Why would any employer would think it's legal, ethical, or justifiable to ask to perform a search of your private accounts (papers and effects), any more than searching your home, vehicle, bank account, or diary without a warrant? It's absurd. Shouldn't need any additional law.

Furthermore, disclosing your password is a violation of the FB ToS, so they're asking you to breach your contract with FB (or other provider).

Re:We really had to make a law for this? (2, Insightful)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640035)

Because private entities aren't required to abide by the Constitution since the Constitution sets the framework for government.

Re:We really had to make a law for this? (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640791)

Because private entities aren't required to abide by the Constitution since the Constitution sets the framework for government.

You should look up unlawful detention? Retailers used to not let you leave the store if they catch you shoplifting until the police arrive. SOmeone used the Constitution claiming unlawful imprisonment and won!

If you steal anything the retailer can't stop you! All they can do is talk to you to distract you while the police arive.

If businesses are under the power of the constitution than this would be also.

Re:We really had to make a law for this? (2)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640835)

Civil rights guarantees apply to everyone, not just the US Govt. It's illegal for any person to deprive you of your civil rights, and has been repeatedly found to apply to individuals as well as businesses and government.

Re:We really had to make a law for this? (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641245)

Only true for a very narrow definition of "civil rights" - basically, what's covered by the 14th Amendment. Most certainly, neither 1st nor 2nd nor 4th control how private entities may restrict their employees.

Re:We really had to make a law for this? (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640103)

Constitutional law only applies to the U.S. Government (and by extension of SCOTUS case law... State governments). It has no application to private entities. That is why neither Congress not the Legislature may limit your free speech, but this website, your employer, or a private store/business most certainly can.

There are probably laws that forbid employers from asking for PINs to your credit card or bank account. Perhaps you could prosecute them for asking for your "PIN" on facebook, but I have no idea. It might not get far.

Re:We really had to make a law for this? (3, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640109)

Because they aren't the government and hence the 4th amendment is irrelevant.

Also note that the 4th amendment doesn't say that the government can't ask to look at your stuff - just that they can't force you to let them (without probable cause/etc). So even if it was relevant it wouldn't stop a potential employer from asking.

Re:We really had to make a law for this? (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640995)

Civil rights apply to everyone. Just try violating someone's civil rights and you'll find out just how much.

This wasn't a "request" by any standard. This was give us the info or else. RTFA.

Re:We really had to make a law for this? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641213)

I can't violate someone's 4th amendment rights, since I'm not an agent of the government.

I can't seize their stuff. Or go through their personal belongings without permission. Or seize them. Those things are illegal but not due to the 4th amendment.

It was "or else we won't give you the job". Which I agree should be illegal, but the 4th amendment doesn't make it so (well in the exact case in the article it might because it was a government job so it was in fact the government doing the searching, but that's not the general issue I'm talking about).

Re:We really had to make a law for this? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640349)

For the millionth time, after everyone realized it was a ToS violation they simply ASKED THE APPLICANT TO LOG IN THEMSELVES.

Gotta love this gem from the law as written (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639827)

"AN EMPLOYER MAY REQUIRE AN EMPLOYEE TO DISCLOSE ANY
26 USER NAME, PASSWORD, OR OTHER MEANS FOR ACCESSING NONPERSONAL
27 ACCOUNTS OR SERVICES THAT PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE EMPLOYER’S INTERNAL
28 COMPUTER OR INFORMATION SYSTEMS."

the 'terry childs' portion...

can you enter in financially binding transactions with your account? like a stock broker? well-- good luck proving it wasn't you if your password for work accounts MUST be known...

Fyi to the above-- (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639865)

if you don't get it? equate it to requiring a ink stamp with your legally binding signature.....

Re:Gotta love this gem from the law as written (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39639923)

IANAL, but couldn't one argue they could possible require your facebook password if it's accessed from within the company's network.

(sod off chrome, I'm not capitalising facebook.)

Re:Gotta love this gem from the law as written (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640061)

Keyword was NONPERSONAL ACCOUNTS. So not unless your facebook account is a work account owned by the company (e.x. if you have the account which controls the company's facebook page). Your personal account is safe.

Does the submitter know how laws are made? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39639853)

"Maryland Bans Employers From Asking For Facebook Passwords" and then says "awaits only the signature of governor Martin O'Malley"

Which is it?

Re:Does the submitter know how laws are made? (4, Informative)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640325)

Which is it?

Neither and both. This is the final stage in the law-making process. It has passed through both houses of the state, which means that all the folks have agreed to it as it is. While the Govenor *could* veto it, even not signing it means it passes into law. While it is possible that this falls over through a veto, it is one of those one in a million chance things. So, effectively, you can say once both hosues agree, it has passed, but is still awaiting the formality of the boss' signature.

Re:Does the submitter know how laws are made? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640843)

Agreed. I doubt the governor is THAT desperate to sabotage his political career.

In the employers' defense... (2)

Cazekiel (1417893) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639917)

...there's no piss-test for Farmville addiction.

Re:In the employers' defense... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640123)

...there's no piss-test for Farmville addiction.

In the defense of Common Sense, maybe there fucking should be.

Re:In the employers' defense... (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640803)

As long as it is not at work who CARES?!

who the hell agreed to this to begin with? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39639927)

why would anyone say yes?

What if (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639971)

You don't have a Facebook account or any other social media account? What then?

Re:What if (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640039)

You'd be my first pick. Can't stand fadbook, it's like AOL for retards. AOL is like the web for retards. The web is like the Internet for retards. As for the Internet...Al Gore is a retard. It all makes sense now.

Re:What if (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640113)

I think you're more likely to see the employer that ask for Facebook passwords think "he's hiding something" "he's anti-social" "he's a luddite"

Re:What if (2)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640045)

I've said it before and apparently I'll say it again. This is how the interview would go:

HR Person: "Please provide your login credentials for Facebook."
Interviewee: "I don't use Facebook."
HR Person: "Right. 'Refused to provide Facebook login credentials.'"

Result: Circular file.

Re:What if (4, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640193)

I've said it before and apparently I'll say it again. This is how the interview would go:

HR Person: "Please provide your login credentials for Facebook." Interviewee: "I don't use Facebook." HR Person: "Right. 'Refused to provide Facebook login credentials.'"

Result: Circular file.

Not for me. Here's how it would go:

HR Person: "Please provide your login credentials for Facebook."
Me: Have a nice day (as I stand to leave)
HR Person: Where are you going?
Me: To interview with better companies.

Re:What if (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640469)

I would prefer to point out that the terms/contract I agreed to when sigining up for Facebook said I wasn't allowed to give my password to anyone. Then I'd point out by accessing my account they'd be in violation of the terms they agreed to and ask them if breaking contracts with other businesses was something they regularly do at their company.

If they aren't pissed at me yet or didn't quickly change the subject, I'd keep at it until they were pissed. I wouldn't expect to get an offer and it's unliekly I would accept one if I did. I'd also post on Glassdoor that they asked for the account details.

FYI: There's almost nothing on my Facebook page. I only have it so old acquaintances have a way of finding me if they want to (I signed up early when it was still .edu only).

Re:What if (3, Funny)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640653)

Yeah, like it would hurt them so much. A better alternative:

HR Person: Please provide your login credentials for Facebook.

ME: How's your kid?

HR Person: What?

ME: Such a nice kid. Aren't you worried about him straying from the school grounds? It's a terrible world out there, you know.

Re:What if (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39641161)

A better response would be to ask them to provide their login and password to their work computer.

Re:What if (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640659)

It's one thing when we say that we "don't use" something that popular --people take it to mean we're outright lying, or just STOPPED using the product and want knowledge / pics away from prying eyes --but facebook permalinks can remain forever without being "removed" from what I hear.

A better thing, on the other hand, is when "google can't link to my facebook because I've never been a member." The only good choice is not to create new accounts online. The hardest part is keeping yourself from joining all these free services. But it's hard and annoying to decline friend requests and confronting family and close friends in person year after year about holding out.

Information is like a timeless minefield: get inevitably killed even if a mine gets loaded years after your foot left that spot. One day you join Google chat for some one-time need... down the road a Google Buzz-type leak lets someone know about stuff you'd forgotten existed.

Re:What if (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640997)

HR Person: "Please provide your login credentials for Facebook."
Interviewee: "May I have that request in writing? Nothing fancy, just an email or a memo."
HR Person: "Why do you want it in writing?"
Interviewee: "So that I can forward it, with a highlighted copy of 18 USC 1030 and facebook's TOS to the federal prosecutor. If the memo is to much to ask, I can turn on my phone's recorder and you can ask for verbally again."
HR Person: "I won't give you the memo."
Interviewee: "That's not really my problem. You've already committed a federal felony. It's just a matter of them collecting the evidence now."

----

18 USC 1030 (a) (2) (c) Whoever— intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains— information from any protected computer; shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

18 USC 1030 (b) Whoever conspires to commit or attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

18 USC 1030 (e) (2) (B) As used in this section— the term “protected computer” means a computer— which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;

Re:What if (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39641199)

Actually, they phrase it as, "Refused to comply with reasonable requests from management," according to a friend who was fired for not having a Facebook account.

They asked all of the temp staff in the warehouse to give their FB details (but not passwords) to HR by lunchtime so HR could check their public profiles for references to work. After lunch, he was called in, sat at a PC, and told to log in to FB to show them what he was hiding. When he said he didn't have an account, he was fired on the spot and escorted out.
In a warehouse of over 200 staff on all shifts, he was the only one without a FB account, so I suppose firing him was easier than trying to come up with a real policy.

Simple (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640057)

There's no law requiring anyone to have a Facebook account (yet, anyway). And anyone who has their real name as their Facebook account is naive at best.

Re:Simple (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640297)

And anyone who has their real name as their Facebook account is naive at best.

What about people who think using pseudonyms on Facebook -- or on Slashdot, for that matter -- actually protects their privacy?

We don't need laws for this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640125)

In the past couple of weeks, national awareness of this practice has skyrocketed. Businesses will be put on blacklists and shamed away from the practice.

We don't need more regulation to cover this. Let the national media do the work.

Re:We don't need laws for this. (1)

black3d (1648913) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640337)

Kony who? The media moves on faster than anything. Awareness in "the past couple of weeks" means nothing for two weeks time. You DO need legislation to prevent this, because otherwise it'd be right back again.

This story itself has been circular - comes up at least once a year for the past few years. Everyone gets all upset it about it then it dies down and companies keep doing it.

Maryland? Now moving.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640129)

Oh, well, good: My employer's just moved across the river.

Re:Maryland? Now moving.... (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640601)

Oh, well, good: My employer's just moved across the river.

Problem is, it was across the Anacostia, which puts you in an even worse shithole than MD.

It's already illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640187)

It's against the law to discriminate based on Age, Sexual orientation, physical impairment, family situation, or Race. All of these things can be determined via facebook. You can't ask for this information so you can't ask for facebook access. Done.

Not felony to violate terms of EULA, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640235)

or so SCOTUS has now ruled. Wanna bet we now get a ruling that it's OK for employers to demand passwords? This is "employment-at-will" good ol' USofA, you know.

Takes bets on how many days 'til...

Maybe I'm wrong on this... (2)

scream at the sky (989144) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640267)

But I just can't help but think that any company who's core values are so completely fucked up that they request this, is someone who I just simply wouldn't want to work for in the first place?

Re:Maybe I'm wrong on this... (1)

Formalin (1945560) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640415)

Nice in theory, but when hard times come, people end up prostituting their souls, if nothing else.

It gets more problematic when there are less employers that don't do this, as well.

Re:Maybe I'm wrong on this... (1)

scream at the sky (989144) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640457)

I've been through the hard times, and was looking for work in the hard times, and, walked out of an interview during the hard times because a company wanted access to a password protected area of my personal website.

when I refused the job, I told them exactly why, and thanked them for their time, and went to work for a competitor.

(Really? I have to do this?) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640433)

I for one welcome out IT overlords.

These are dark days indeed... (4, Insightful)

nobodyman (90587) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640833)

...when even Facebook is saying "hey guys, this seems like you're crossing a line with people's privacy".

The "chilling effect" is what Facebook fears (4, Insightful)

knorthern knight (513660) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641099)

> ...when even Facebook is saying "hey guys, this
> seems like you're crossing a line with people's privacy".

Mark Z doesn't give 2 hoots about your privacy. He only cares about Facebook's bottom line. Facebook's product is personal information about you, e.g. your "Likes", sexual orientation, political leaning, and other demographic data. If employer-access to your FB account becomes widespread, then...

1) people will either leave FB in droves, or refuse to join in the first place; bad for FB

2) many people that stay will "sanitize" all their FB info, to avoid getting fired/refused when employers look in. This will pollute FB's database. This is just as bad, if not worse than people quitting.

Follow the money. This isn't about your privacy, it's about FB's bottom line.

Sharing Password (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640957)

First, we all know not to share passwords because we are responsible for what happens on our account since it does have a password.

But I would love to ask at an interview where I am asked for my password, are you willing to sign a confidentiality and liability agreement to protect me from any action that your company might take that violates and terms of use or laws while utilizing the information required.

Pity. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39641037)

I've been considering asking potential employees for their FB passwords.

If they fork them over, they don't get hired,

The first rule of passwords is you don't share your passwords.

The second rule of passwords is you don't share your passwords.

The thirty fourth rule of passwords is pretty sexy.

(* Unless they provide documented proof that they have kicked the CEOs of the businesses who started this shit in the nuts. Video is preferred.)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>