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!

California Employers Can't Ask For Your Facebook Password

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the californian-employees-like-this dept.

Privacy 363

J053 sends word that California has passed legislation making it illegal for both colleges and employers to request social media account access from students, employees, and prospective hires. "Assemblymember Nora Campos, who authored the bill, called AB 1844 a 'preemptive measure' that will offer guidelines to the accessibility of private information behind what she calls the 'social media wall.' ... According to Campos' office, more than 100 cases currently before the National Labor Relations Board involve employer workplace policies around social media. Facebook has also said it has experienced an increase in reports of employers seeking to gain 'inappropriate access' to people's Facebook profiles or private information."

cancel ×

363 comments

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

Fr1st Ps0t!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488293)

Frosty Piss Y'all!

Finally, a law recognizing privacy (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488313)

Privacy is not dead, it's just losing the war.

Take arms and fight back!

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy (2, Funny)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 2 years ago | (#41488343)

You can have my password when you pry it from my cold, dead hand.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488391)

You wrote your password down?

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy (5, Funny)

N0Man74 (1620447) | about 2 years ago | (#41488497)

You can have my password when you pry it from my cold, dead hand.

And that's the problem with biometric authentication.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy (4, Funny)

defaria (741527) | about 2 years ago | (#41489039)

My Facebook password is "Fuck you - I'll find work with another company who is not a fucking asshole!". I know, I know. Kinda long but I'm security conscious!

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy (1)

littlebigbot (2493634) | about 2 years ago | (#41488507)

Where's the other hand?

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy (5, Interesting)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 2 years ago | (#41488745)

I find it really incredible that you Americans need a specific law for this. This is outright illegal in my country.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy (5, Informative)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#41488819)

I find it really incredible that you Americans need a specific law for this. This is outright illegal in my country.

Yea, well, technically it's illegal here thanks to the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to our Constitution. Thing is, apparently corporations are exempt from following the law.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy (2, Insightful)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#41488891)

Corporations are exempt from a lot of things.
Try being a fat lady and applying for a job at a strip joint.
Ever wonder why Flight attendants are so skinny? Yeah.
Ever wonder why it is illegal to fill out your age or for corporations to ask you about your health status? They can, but it is illegal to ask. However, if they get it, it isnt illegal to have.
We are a "right to work society", meaning we have no right to work. It isnt, as politicians like to say, an entitlement.
But Jebus help you if you dont have a job! Because then you are an entitlee to the rich persons pocket book and a 47%er...

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | about 2 years ago | (#41489003)

If we don't have a right to work, then why is it called a "right to work" society? That sounds like the exact opposite of what it means.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy (5, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | about 2 years ago | (#41488949)

Those constitutional amendments limit the power of the government, not private industry.

But either way, you're right, because the government routinely ignores them anyway.

When I see folks from other countries baffle at the madness going on here, I wish they could understand the US citizenry was tricked and had their country taken over by power-hungry demagogs for the last 100 years (well, 99 years this December), and that we're simply powerless to stop the machine at this point.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy (4, Informative)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 2 years ago | (#41489069)

Technically you are utterly ignorant. The Constitutions, along with its amendments, applies to the (Federal) Government, not to private corporations or individuals. So, no, an employer asking for your Facebook password is not and cannot be violating the Constitution.

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy (3, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#41488939)

It can only be illegal if there is a specific law. Lacking that, the proper response is to laugh in the face of the interviewer asking such a question. Then tell them, "I don't know YOU. Even my MOTHER doesn't get access to my social media accounts! I don't want to work for s company that has no concept of appropriate privacy and security."

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy (1, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 2 years ago | (#41488951)

Soooooo...you have and need a law for it too? Were you just trolling with that?

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy (-1, Troll)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 2 years ago | (#41489101)

Why should I be trolling? We have a constitution, and the right to privacy is there. And we have a labour legislation that guarantees employers don't have fuck to do with their employees private lives. We don't need to write a specific law for something that's blatantly abusive!

Re:Finally, a law recognizing privacy (2)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | about 2 years ago | (#41488831)

The first step is to break these idiotic FB chains in the first place. It's pretty easy.

wow (3, Insightful)

daenris (892027) | about 2 years ago | (#41488315)

If a business I worked for or was interviewing at asked me for my passwords to anything not work related, I wouldn't be working there anymore.

Re:wow (5, Insightful)

realsilly (186931) | about 2 years ago | (#41488333)

Some people don't have a choice, they need the work.

Re:wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488501)

That's a convenient excuse for a lot of immoral activities.

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488523)

Welcome to the corporate world. Not been here long?

Personally I set up my own company because I couldn't do it anymore, but I did have the financial security to be able to not everyone is so fortunate.

Re:wow (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#41488645)

That's a convenient excuse for a lot of immoral activities.

It's not an excuse. Until they recreate society so that you don't need money, you have to work.

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488967)

Good luck trying to pay rent with morals

Re:wow (3, Insightful)

kiriath (2670145) | about 2 years ago | (#41488577)

What ever happened to "Give me liberty, or give me death"

People too often just go with the flow, allowing themselves to be trampled by corporations and government. No one willing to take a stand for what is right and just.

I applaud the decision. (To make it illegal)

I am appalled by the problem.

Re:wow (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488633)

Gotta love the armchair rebels who belittle people for making practical decisions. It's easy to do so from down in mommy's and daddy's basement.

Re:wow (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488707)

Gotta love the armchair rebels who belittle people for making practical decisions. It's easy to do so from down in mommy's and daddy's basement.

Gotta love the armchair shills who belittle the plebs for not wanting to suck their overlord's cocks. It's easy to be a shill from down between Uncle Corporate Sam's thighs.

There, FTFY. Cocksucker.

Re:wow (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488813)

Yeah, except I don't support companies doing this. I also don't begrudge people caving because they decided it was easier to do so. In the real world, people actually have to work in order to pay their bills rather than the cheetos vacuums like yourself. Nice trolling, though, basement boy.

Re:wow (2)

Applekid (993327) | about 2 years ago | (#41488995)

What ever happened to "Give me liberty, or give me death"

People too often just go with the flow, allowing themselves to be trampled by corporations and government. No one willing to take a stand for what is right and just.

I applaud the decision. (To make it illegal)

I am appalled by the problem.

That's the thing with idealists, leaders, and revolutionaries. They're a tiny tiny fraction of the population as a whole. The true stubborn independent spirit, the willingness to fight and die for one's ideology, is actually a pretty rare thing.

Re:wow (4, Interesting)

realsilly (186931) | about 2 years ago | (#41488749)

Some people don't have a choice, they need the work.

I personally don't agree with the practice and to a degree, I misspoke.

A person always has a choice, but many people will let go of information about themselves for purposes that are their own. Many people who are unemployed and are desperate for work will happily give up that info just for the chance at work.

Many people are good and decent people found in horribly hard times and need the work to support themselves and their family, so they are willing to provide the info for they may feel it's their only chance.

I find the practice deplorable by corporations and I personally would rather walk away from the opportunity of work, but I'm not in that situation and haven't been faced with it.

Re:wow (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488787)

Almost everyone needs to work. Around the turn of the last century, with the industrial revolution, America decided that "we need to work" was not going to mean laborers are treated like property. Weekends, education, anti-child labor laws, etc. were fought for and well earned.

Seems that the old idea that "If I cut you a check, I own you, your time, your dignity ..." has been getting stronger for the past 15 years or so. We'd do well to kill that idea.

Re:wow (1, Redundant)

kiriath (2670145) | about 2 years ago | (#41488335)

This, over and over again this.

I would question their reasoning. I would demand to see THEIR facebook pages, then jet.

Re:wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488399)

No kidding. "BTW, we'd also like the keys to your house and car - to look around and make sure you're the right fit for our company."

Seriously though, I'm wondering if this is one of those things that has been blown out of proportion. Are there really more than a handful of companies that tried to do this?

Re:wow (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488677)

I had this happen in virtually every job interview I had once I graduated college. At the time, I didn't bother with a FB or Twitter ID, and I'd get told to just leave the interview room because they did not want fossils who were not on the cutting edge. To interviewers, no FB was like not having a phone or E-mail address.

So, I got a FB account. What is the first thing during the next round of interviews at over 4-5 jobs? Asking for the userID/password for three things: "security reasons, "making sure an employee is a proper fit to our corporate culture", "we don't want to just be friended because it is easy to hide stuff", or "making employees are not linked with undesirables."

Ironic that the job I took never asked for any of that info.

Re:wow (2)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 2 years ago | (#41488833)

the best answer to that is

Im sorry but it is a violation of Federal Law for you to ask for this due to my having groups/friends that are listed for religious reasons (or ethnic reasons).

Just remember if it gets to a lawyer you were not hired/ fired for being part of a "protected class".

Unbelievable (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488323)

We actually need a law for this?

Re:Unbelievable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488943)

We actually need a law for this?

Probably not. It sounds like the employers this could be applied to, are already conspirators to violate CFAA [wikipedia.org] , so just prosecute them under that.

And before anyone says CFAA wouldn't apply to Facebook, I think 1) Facebook is almost certainly a "financial institution" thanks to the Patriot Act. 2) Facebook (and their advertisers) is almost certainly "used in or affecting interstate commerce", especially ever since the Gonzales decision, but possibly even by the original intent of the constitution.

I can't even believe it has to be clarified (4, Interesting)

franciscohs (1003004) | about 2 years ago | (#41488375)

Really, I live in a (arguably) much less "free" country and I couldn't imagine anyone would ask something like this as a requirement for hiring.

What kind of idiot asks this?, what kind of idiot accept it?

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified (5, Funny)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 2 years ago | (#41488561)

what kind of idiot accept it?

The kind that desperately needs or needs to keep a crappy job in a crappier economy in an even crappier place he can't leave since the housing market went to crap. Or as we prefer to say: "the perfect employee".

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488691)

You never need a job THAT bad. You aren't going to starve without a job, so if everyone would just grow a fucking backbone and say "no", this wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

The real problem is that nobody seems to have a moral backbone, so we let companies and the government run roughshod over us and they get away with it. You cannot fix that with laws, because laws are reactive: they are always behind, and there is always something bad to do that isn't yet illegal. It can only be fixed if people actually care about it and act accordingly.

This is a bad law and should not be passed.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified (1)

pavon (30274) | about 2 years ago | (#41488795)

Yes, and if people were perfect we wouldn't need any government at all. Heaven forbid we actually punish corporations for abusing their power in ways that are harmful to society. What a horrible law.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41488881)

Yes actually people do need jobs that bad. Many people who do not overspend beyond their means or rack up lots of debt still only just barely get by from paycheck to paycheck.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41489099)

So get one at a company that doesn't do this. Most (the overwhelming majority of) companies do NOT ask for your FB password. Pick one of those. If everyone does, the companies that ask for FB passwords will either go out of business or change their policy.

I changed jobs about 5 months ago, interviewed at 6 companies, and was never once asked for a FB password. It isn't that hard to find a job at a company that doesn't do this.

People need to grow a fucking backbone.

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified (2, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#41488697)

from early age (in the US, and I bet most countries) you are taught to FOLLOW ORDERS. especially if its an authority figure.

this is drummed into you at every chance. school is most about 'training' you to be obedient.

religion endures mostly because people are forced to follow orders, forced (mentally) to accept absurd ideas and 'truth'. taught not to question even strange ideas.

no wonder that, when an employer or cop asks you for X, most people don't even question or resist.

you can't foster free thinking AND 'follow my orders, dammit!' at the same time.

which society do we want to be?

(don't answer. I already know. and nothing ever changes when it comes to controlling people. there are those that control (and see it) and those that get controlled).

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488835)

don't answer

OK

Re:I can't even believe it has to be clarified (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488777)

Because when certain people here in the States talk about how free 'merica is, they are really talking about corporations and millionaires. Actually leveling the field in any way for the plebs is socialism.

Even when it's not illegal (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41488381)

You're a spineless asshole if you give it up. You only make more difficult for the rest of us. You're giving up our rights! Yet another strike against majority rule.

Re:Even when it's not illegal (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#41488725)

what about piss tests?

I say the same thing: if you accept pissing in a bottle to get a job, you have sold yourself (and many of us) out. you make it easier for the company, government to continue to assume you are 'bad' unless proven otherwise.

"but I don't do this or that! why should I object?"

either you understand this concept or you don't. its not about your behavior and choices. its about say NO to those that want to invade privacy at every turn, almost always unjustified.

Re:Even when it's not illegal (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41488905)

what about piss tests?

Precisely the same. Until you cause an accident or are obviously intoxicated on the job, nobody has a right to bother you about your personal habits.

Re:Even when it's not illegal (2)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 2 years ago | (#41488791)

I think this may be a test to spot employees that will put the company's security at risk without even thinking twice about it.

Re:Even when it's not illegal (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41488877)

As has been seen time and time gain, people have got to eat. In order to eat, people need money. You really end up in a place where it's give them what they want, or you can't eat. And this sorts of practices become common among all business.
That is why we need a law. So the employees have a grounds to stand on.

Tell them to contact FB and pound sand (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488413)

FB users make a legally binding agreement not to share their passwords as part of the ToS for having a FB account.

How is this possible (2)

trybywrench (584843) | about 2 years ago | (#41488431)

I'd like to see one of these cases in detail because I can't get my mind around how an employee would feel compelled to give up their facebook (or other) private passwords to their employer. Nor can I get my mind around an employer thinking it's within their power to make such a request.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but an employee is protected by law to not even have to tell their employer if they have kids or not let alone access to private information.

Re:How is this possible (2)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41488683)

When many people live in states with no right to work the employer can easily let you go and make up a reason to get you denied unemployment. So people will just give in rather than risking termination and having to fight for benefits. People rail on about the 'evil' unions, but the balance of power is hugely against the employee.

Re:How is this possible (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41488889)

Companies will do whatever the can get away with to control and monitor their employees.

And it's hard to say no when you have to eat.

Federal version was voted down (5, Informative)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 2 years ago | (#41488433)

The federal version was voted down in the House by the Republicans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/facebook-password-protection-amendment-congress_n_1384045.html [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:Federal version was voted down (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488527)

Appropriately so, this kind of thing should be handled at the state level. The federal government should only be concerned with interstate commerce, international policy, etc. States handle everything else.

Re:Federal version was voted down (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41488717)

It's cute that you think that was their reason for opposing rather than the lobbyist money.

Re:Federal version was voted down (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#41488729)

Appropriately so, this kind of thing should be handled at the state level. The federal government should only be concerned with interstate commerce, international policy, etc. States handle everything else.

Yea, I can't imagine the federal government having jurisdiction over for-profit websites that are accessed from across state lines...

C'mon, now, if a small government, strict Constitutionalist such as myself can recognize such an obvious thing, no one else really has much excuse.

Re:Federal version was voted down (1)

SecurityGuy (217807) | about 2 years ago | (#41489091)

So, the UN should have jurisdiction, then? You don't think people only access social media sites from your country, do you?

Re:Federal version was voted down (1)

Lucky75 (1265142) | about 2 years ago | (#41488743)

I do believe that's up for debate. Some people don't feel quite the same way, you know.

Re:Federal version was voted down (1)

Lucky75 (1265142) | about 2 years ago | (#41488771)

You also haven't explained WHY that's appropriately so. Or are we just parroting what we've heard?

Hey Mit! (2)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#41488797)

Want my vote this November? Post your FB password here:

Re:Federal version was voted down (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41488937)

And the shot down the Veterans jobs bill:
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/2/193 [nytimes.com]

As they have stated, they will completely shut down the government and destroy this country as long as Obama doesn't get a second term.

Re:Federal version was voted down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488969)

And if Obama does get a second term, the Republicans will try even harder to destroy the country.

Head shaking moments (5, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | about 2 years ago | (#41488463)

What I don't understand is why employers even think this is reasonable. Yes, yes, I know, corporations bad, but corporations are still made up of humans and you would think some of those humans would understand that this is overreaching into people's private lives.

I don't see what someone's social media accounts have to do with their ability to work. Sure, they may party hard, or bad mouth their employers, but it's not exactly uncommon and it's not going to stop just because people don't put that on their FB account.

I suppose I am not surprised that someone would try this, what I am more surprised about is that they have gotten this far with it. Forcing people to turn over personal information should be something that a corporate legal department knows is going to get them in legal hot water.

Re:Head shaking moments (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#41488803)

hang on, there's not one employer out there who thinks its REASONABLE.

why do they do this? because, 1) they often can get away with it ('you want that job, don't you?') and 2) they want as much power over you (bargaining) as they can get.

they don't think its reasonable. but they do it because, quite often, they CAN. and they can benefit from it.

business has no ethics. none. its not part of a business to BE ethical and fair. at least not in the dog-eat-dog world of the US. we even seem to revel in the idea that business and ethics are orthogonal.

if a business can line its pockets (pay you less, for example) then it will continue to do such and such behavior.

if we want honest and ethics in business, we have to redefine business. (and you'd have to eliminate the republican concepts, of this age, before you could even attempt to fix this issue).

Re:Head shaking moments (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#41488807)

corporations bad, but corporations are still made up of humans and you would think some of those humans would understand that this is overreaching into people's private lives.

This is how bureaucracy works. It claims that there are needs for it to do new things, and then uses those things to justify its existence. HR employees are not your friend, even if they were before you got into a relationship where they're in HR and you aren't. Put people in charge of treating people as resources, and they will apply that view to every situation.

Re:Head shaking moments (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 2 years ago | (#41488811)

Hiring an employee is an incredible crapshoot. You are risking a LOT of money on them. You want every possible shot ant finding and weeding out the bad apples. This is why corporations used to pull crap like not hiring women (afraid they would get pregnant and quit), etc. etc. Corporations do not have the job of enforcing the law. If there is no clear law on something, they will push it to the edge.

Re:Head shaking moments (2)

cdrguru (88047) | about 2 years ago | (#41488867)

Right. Asking or demanding this from the prospective employee is just wrong. It is like insisting on a urine test - but saying "right here, right now". I'm not surprised there is a backlash against that sort of thing.

On the other hand, there is information there and it may be relevant to a hiring decision. Employers want as much information as they can get because choosing wrong is expensive and sometimes even dangerous. So there will be services that deliver this sort of stuff. Where are they going to get it? Well, I bet FaceBook would turn over access for a fee.

Re:Head shaking moments (1)

tnk1 (899206) | about 2 years ago | (#41489055)

If I kept a diary, I'm certain there would be information that they would want to see in there too. That doesn't mean they get it. That's the point here.

Of course, Social Media is social, and you can get some information just by browsing to the page (if it is public). If HR did the search and found me toking up in a FB picture on my own publicly available page, I don't think I could blame them for passing on me. I also would be annoyed, but still not outraged, if someone else posted a picture of me on their own site and it was found and caused me to not get hired.

On the other hand, forcing me to give out something that would be inaccessible to them, even if the information is on a "social site", is an invasion of privacy. Sure, I get that you can take the job or leave it, but that has never been an excuse for forcing unacceptable hiring practices on people. They might as well discriminate against me because I was a woman or black, I consider this at that level of inappropriateness. The only way this might be even possibly acceptable is if you were going for a high level government clearance. And at that point, they just hook you up to a polygraph and simply ask you if you smoke pot or you are an Islamic terrorist.

Im screwed.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488475)

I refuse to use any social media site with exception of Linkedin... So if they ask I have to say no... And the next thing out of their mouth will be. Thank you for coming in....

Re:Im screwed.... (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#41488599)

I refuse to use any social media site with exception of Linkedin... So if they ask I have to say no... And the next thing out of their mouth will be. Thank you for coming in....

Linkedin is more intrusive and annoying than facebook, it's just not as popular, except with people in Sales and Marketing..

Re:Im screwed.... (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#41488827)

defend your position.

I don't see your point at all.

how is linked-in more intrusive?

(not a FB user but I am on LI)

Re:Im screwed.... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#41488631)

So, don't say "No". Just stand up and walk out. You're screwed anyway. So you might as well make a (non verbal) statement about how incredibly stupid this request is.

We can only hope that employers like this end up with entire staffs of brain-dead morons who will hand over passwords like this.

Premature Celebration (3, Informative)

DERoss (1919496) | about 2 years ago | (#41488543)

The celebration over AB 1844 is premature. Governor Brown has not yet signed it.

Re:Premature Celebration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488837)

NPR claims he signed it yesterday and logged on to facebook, twitter and some other place to announce the signing.

Re:Premature Celebration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41489001)

In California the Governor has to veto a bill for it to not become law. Even if he never signed it, it'd become law.

I would ask a potential employee for this... (4, Interesting)

MadCow42 (243108) | about 2 years ago | (#41488559)

And if they actually agreed, I wouldn't hire them (and I wouldn't actually let them give it to me). If they can be so easily coerced into sharing confidential information and giving up their rights, they don't have the backbone I expect in my employees.

Now, in my job people are given significant authority and responsibility that needs to be safeguarded, so that's a real concern. In other jobs maybe that's not a criteria for hiring decisions.

MadCow.

Re:I would ask a potential employee for this... (1)

alphax45 (675119) | about 2 years ago | (#41488715)

Good idea!

Re:I would ask a potential employee for this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488991)

I wouldn't work for someone who felt the need to ask for it, even if it is just to see how I would react.

Totally off topic (0)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#41488583)

But is anyone else finding that ticking the "disable advertising" box is having exactly the same effect as not ticking it, i.e. advertising is being displayed regardless?

Re:Totally off topic (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about 2 years ago | (#41488863)

Cookies

Re:Totally off topic (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488897)

This is the last box you'll ever need to tick honey.

http://adblockplus.org/ [adblockplus.org]

Illinois has a law like this signed already (2)

Dwedit (232252) | about 2 years ago | (#41488699)

In Illinois, a law like this [ilga.gov] has already been signed, and will take effect on January.

Reading the text of that law, it doesn't ban employers from using packet sniffers.

Re:Illinois has a law like this signed already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41489029)

I feel it is ok for the employer to use packet sniffers. After all you are on their network and they should be aware of what is going on within their environment. Social Media on the other hand happens when you are not at work...presumably....therefore should be outside the scope of your employers reach in most cases.

If I were an employer (1)

Lucky75 (1265142) | about 2 years ago | (#41488719)

If I were an employer, I'd ask for the password just to see what type of idiot's actually give them up. Then I'd hire the ones that stand up for their rights, but politely.

Pussies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488759)

The fact that has to be legislated shows you how much the entire USA has become a bunch of pussies. Has no one told the HR person to fuck off when asked this? Has no one wildly publicized how company X wouldn't give you a job because you didn't provide them your facebook password despite meeting all other qualifications? Does the public not react to this with great hostility toward company X? Has no one even attempted a law suit? You know, you can sue anyone for anything... And being sued over HR matters is a really bad thing for a company.

Fucking bunch of pussies. I'm a USA citizen. I don't live in California. I live in the northwest Arkansas area, and I've worked at that faggotty Wal-Mart corporate office. Even those fucking sheep that work there have more balls than this. Wal-Mart fires people for not taking their breaks on time to avoid breaking labor laws. No one that works there would ever give this information up. This idea that any company would ask for a facebook password blows my fucking mind. Is this just an issue in big costal cities or something?

Maybe it's because I've worked at this small business for 5 years, and I forgot what it's like to deal with corporate culture and office politics. I don't know. I've never had a facebook account.

Grow a fucking spine, people.

Re:Pussies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41489013)

Americans are increasingly conditioned NOT to grow a spine. We need rules like this "to protect us" because too many people simply do as they are told with no apparent ability for consideration of what it means for them personally or for society at large.

The problem is that there are an infinite number of ways to be abused, and there's no way to make them all illegal (and they all shouldn't be illegal, after all). People need to start (1) not working for such companies (2) not buying from such companies as a customer, and (3) severing business contacts with such companies if you are in another company.

So yes, we're a bunch of pussies, but the more we become a bunch of pussies, the more we NEED such laws because we have lost the ability to act in our own best interest. We need the nanny state because we're too dumb to not need it.

How the f... (1)

Guru80 (1579277) | about 2 years ago | (#41488761)

...uck can ANY business ask for your password to a personal website as a requirement for employment? Completely mind boggling to me that it's even asked, let alone required and completely ridiculous that people have actually given it. My personal email, facebook acount, ect is my own personal life where I share things with my friends. It isn't a street corner where I air my business for the world to see.

Before someone makes the point that it's exactly what it is, it's not. I have my facebook locked down as well as an inmate can hope to clamp his anus shut in a prison shower and the ones I do share it with are limited in number.

Re:How the f... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41489043)

They should be able to ask, but you should be able to say "no". Grow a backbone. There are plenty of companies that don't do this. Let the sheep work for such companies - in the end, companies who hire people who aren't mindless drones will do better.

The Real Effect (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | about 2 years ago | (#41488775)

This just means that if employers want that sort of access, they have to go through official Facebook channels. Why else do you think Facebook supported this?

It's Official: Cold Fusion is dying! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488781)

It is now official - Netcraft has confirmed: ColdFusion is dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered Adobe/ColdFusion community when recently IDC confirmed that CF accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that CF has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. CF is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict ColdFusion's future. The hand writing is on the wall: ColdFusion faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for ColdFusion because ColdFusion is dying. Things are looking very bad for ColdFusion. As many of us are already aware, ColdFusion continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

All major surveys show that ColdFusion has steadily declined in market share. ColdFusion is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If ColdFusion is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. ColdFusion continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, ColdFusion is dead.

Fact: ColdFusion is dead.

why is this even an issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488783)

a facebook account, just like any other account in the universe is your private fun. i really wonder how this can even be worth any discussion in the US. if an employer in europe asked you for your private password to anything you would just laugh at them and leave.

*shakes head*

So it's illegal.. (1)

Falkentyne (760418) | about 2 years ago | (#41488789)

...but what happens when they ask anyways? Is the company or school fined? What form of punishment do they face? I actually read the article which was the side salad equivalent of a story.

Even without this law (1)

dmomo (256005) | about 2 years ago | (#41488799)

What if the Terms of Service forbids someone allow third party access to their account? What if the Terms of Service forbid the company from accessing an account they do not own? Can Facebook hold the employer accountable?

Fine, so they see only the "public" side (2, Insightful)

cdrguru (88047) | about 2 years ago | (#41488821)

Or at least until you "friend" someone at the office.

The problem is, today employment is a high-risk business. You employ the wrong person, fire them and they come back and shoot up the office. [google.com] Or they may sue for some misunderstanding. Remember, the US is a society where people get ahead by suing and getting a big settlement.

There is also the simple fact that choosing the wrong person to hire results in a lot of costs with just job related things. It costs time and money to train someone and if they do not work out and leave after six months that time and money were wasted, possibly affecting scheduled and having a real impact on revenue.

All this makes employers want as much information as they possibly can gather about prospective employees and make no mistake about it, you aren't going to change that desire with some laws about social media. If employer's can't get this directly there will soon be services to deliver the information indirectly just as now you can get a complete background check of someone from the Internet. When there is a need that people are willing to pay for, someone is going to fill that need.

Why is social media relevent? Because the expectation is that you may post things in an unguarded manner that reflect more of your true personality than at a job interview. If the employer can avoid hiring someone that is going to be a problem, they just saved a bunch of money and possibly saved a project from being delayed. You can consider this to be the new sort of "personality test" that was all the rage back in the 1970s.

Oh, and face reality. The prospective employer probably doesn't care that you got drunk once and someone took some stupid pictures. Now, if you have people publicly commenting about what a drunk you are and how you can barely drag yourself into the office that becomes relevant. Having a comment about how much of a jerk you were to someone isn't all that interesting, but again if you have a bunch of stuff that indicates you're an intolerant child that has to have everything your way... well, you get the picture. It is the same thing as a background check that shows a speeding ticket - not all that relevant. But if you are driving on a restricted license because of a license suspension that might be interesting. Having recently been released from shooting up your former employer's business might just be relevant as well.

Is all this relevant to being able to do the job? Probably. If you come across as a nice, easy going person in an interview but are in fact quite different on the job it could be a big problem and how is an employer supposed to know? And because of all the problems the employer really wants to know as much as they can. And the information is out there for someone to gather for them.

Privacy? Once you start exposing yourself online, you have none so you may as well just get over it.

FORM 1A2B3: Seekeing employment at $company (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41488839)

Question 1: You you with to be employed at $company? [ ] YES [ ] NO
Question 2: Are you legally allowed to work in the US? [ ] YES [ ] NO
Question 3: Are you out of your free well offer Facebook verification? [ ] YES [ ] NO
Question 3a: If you selected YES above, list your Facebook ID and Password: ID: ____________ / Password: _____________

Something missing (2)

c (8461) | about 2 years ago | (#41489011)

Is it just me, or did they miss the opportunity to make it illegal for public school officials to browbeat Facebook passwords out of children (with or without the aid of law enforcement)?

Needs to be broadened a bit (3, Interesting)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 2 years ago | (#41489093)

It needs to forbid not just asking for passwords from the candidate, but asking for any kind of access in excess of what an ordinary member of the public would have from anyone (the candidate, the social media site, associates of the candidate, etc.). No requiring the candidate to let you watch him viewing his profile. No asking the social media site to grant you behind-the-scenes access to candidate's profiles. No asking friends of the candidate to let you watch them view the candidate's profile. No special access, period. If the candidate is keeping it from public view, as an employer you don't get special privileges to bypass that.

But if the candidate's dumb enough to leave it open to the general public, it's fair game. Ditto if his friends post things about him and identify him in them. Though if you trust things other people say about him and they turn out to be false you don't get to avoid any liability that'd attach to that either, so you may not want to go trusting the unsubstantiated word of random people you find on the Internet.

frist S7op (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41489095)

by BSDI who 5ell
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>