×

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!

WA State Bill Would Allow Bosses To Seek Facebook Passwords

Soulskill posted 1 year,20 days | from the no,-go-away dept.

Privacy 316

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

316 comments

Solved! (5, Interesting)

Miseph (979059) | 1 year,20 days | (#43352761)

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.

Do not bother (4, Insightful)

ElusiveJoe (1716808) | 1 year,20 days | (#43352893)

Those filthy employers who do wish to dig up some dirt would not hire someone without a Facebook account. It'll be considered too "creepy and suspicious".

Re:Do not bother (3, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353457)

It'll be considered too "creepy and suspicious".

As opposed to having current and former employers stalking our facebook pages, which isn't creepy at all.

Re:Solved! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353095)

I agree 1000%! "Social media" websites only exist to collect personal information so it can be sold to advertisers.

Re:Solved! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353157)

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

Re:Solved! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353219)

Ahhh yeah, Miseph, this is ahhh your boss here, and that sounds VERY suspicious... so I'm opening up an investigation so why don't you go ahead and ahhh drop by my office with your Slashdot account password. That would be great.

Re:Solved! (1)

hedwards (940851) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353223)

I'm curious what happens if you say you don't have an account and they don't believe you. Would they be permitted to not hire you?

Re:Solved! (2)

firex726 (1188453) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353255)

Well it says they cannot ask during the interview phase, but in theory they could hire you then immediately investigate you for misconduct.

Re:Solved! (4, Funny)

spire3661 (1038968) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353293)

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

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

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

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

Re:Solved! (4, Insightful)

DesertBlade (741219) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353311)

Wrong. They will demand your personal email password (since it is tied to G+) and your slashdot password and your ftp server password and your webhosting password. It is a slippery slope.

Re:Solved! (1)

camg188 (932324) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353331)

FTA:

Proponents say that the original bill would open an avenue for possible illegal activity by employees, such as divulging proprietary or consumer information to outsiders through social networks.

A law like this would be ineffective for the stated purpose. Anybody passing corporate secrets through the internet would set up a dummy account to do it. It's more likely that they would use a usb memory stick or a mobile phone to smuggle out data.

Re:Solved! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353435)

Frankly they should be required to purchase their employees' passwords to their Facebook accounts for $100-billion. For that, I might be willing to set up a Facebook account and set its password to "considerthismyresignation" or "thanksforthegoldenparachute". Seriously, they should have to pay for insulting their employees' intelligence.

Well, does the law force compliance? (4, Interesting)

hsmith (818216) | 1 year,20 days | (#43352771)

Does the law force one to comply? I think a simple "pound sand" would suffice.

Granted, you maybe shit canned over it, but such is life.

I do not agree with the law. If they want it, they should have to go to court and require a judge to force it to be handed over. BS IMO.

Re:Well, does the law force compliance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43352913)

Seems kind of against the spirit of the 5th Amendment.

If they want it they should ask a court to compel Facebook to give them access.

Re:Well, does the law force compliance? (3, Insightful)

alexander_686 (957440) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353067)

Maybe not. The 5th Amendment limits what the government personal can do in a investigation – this is specifically covering a private corporation investigating it’s own employee’s – so I am not sure the 5th comes into play,

It still stinks in my opinion.

Re:Well, does the law force compliance? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353105)

An obvious oversight, the constitution wasn't written with giant megacorps in mind. Even the government likes to ride horse and coaches through it on a whim.

Re:Well, does the law force compliance? (1)

Comrade Ogilvy (1719488) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353431)

The 5th would not apply because the gov't is simply defining what is a reasonable contract, or, in you want to look at it the other ways, what is not an unjust termination. If this law passed, the employee can choose to not comply and suffer the ultimate consequences of the implied threat of termination.

Strong libertarians all likely to fall all over the map on this one.

Re:Well, does the law force compliance? (2)

sheetsda (230887) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353003)

Granted, you maybe shit canned over it

You're looking at it all wrong. This is a weapon to get your least favorite office mate shit canned over it.

Re:Well, does the law force compliance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353099)

You have issues. Why are you trying to get your coworkers fired? Learn to get along with them, man.

Re:Well, does the law force compliance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353135)

----> Point of the grandparent post


----> Your head

Re:Well, does the law force compliance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353227)

I'm glad somebody gets it.

Re:Well, does the law force compliance? (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353039)

Granted, you maybe shit canned over it, but such is life.

So basically what you're saying is... if you have money, you can ignore the law, but if you're poor (and thus can't afford to lose your job), you're forced to go along with whatever freedom-eschewing measure your local legislator is cooking up this week to screw you over?

Yeah... sounds about right.

Re:Well, does the law force compliance? (2)

unrtst (777550) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353155)

Granted, you maybe shit canned over it, but such is life.

So basically what you're saying is... if you have money, you can ignore the law, but if you're poor (and thus can't afford to lose your job), you're forced to go along with whatever freedom-eschewing measure your local legislator is cooking up this week to screw you over?

Even better... it's a means to keep the poor very poor, because now they can justifiably fire someone based on what is found after one hands over their passwords, or justify that firing if you don't hand it over, thus there are no unemployment fees to pay.

In many states, you can be shit canned for no reason at all (aka. "at will employment"). However, if you're shit canned with no reason, you can file for unemployment, and the employer pays half of that. That often deters employers from doing so (and I've seen many cases of this)... it's more palatable to them to pay more for a warm body and get a little something out of it, than to pay half as much into unemployment. I'm currently assuming this law could be a way around that (and that's simply awful).

Re:Well, does the law force compliance? (1)

hedwards (940851) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353285)

Not likely, around here the employers pay the insurance cost and the people that do the adjudication are well aware of that fact. The double standard is just astonishing. They'll require all sorts of evidence from the person trying to claim benefits, but will take the word of the HR troll who may not even have seen any of the evidence.

Anybody up for unemployment would be well advised to get an attorney as the employer has one in the adjudicator.

Re:Well, does the law force compliance? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353055)

In nealry all cases where someone is "allowed" to ask, that means the person asked "may" go get a coffee and come back 15 minutes later. Repeat until they stop asking or you die from caffeine overdose.

Re:Well, does the law force compliance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353151)

Yeah, this is already covered by getting a subpoena. The only reason I can think of for why we should give employers a lower burden for this because they're paying our campaign expenses, but most of us aren't politicians.

Re:Well, does the law force compliance? (1)

cob666 (656740) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353315)

Instead of telling your employer to pound sand, you only have to tell them that Facebook's terms of service clearly prohibits you from sharing your password.

Coming up next (5, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | 1 year,20 days | (#43352779)

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?

Re:Coming up next (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | 1 year,20 days | (#43352857)

What's the difference?

The frog isn't warm enough.

Re:Coming up next (4, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353011)

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

But apparently people are.

Re:Coming up next (1)

C0R1D4N (970153) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353177)

And who boils live frogs anyway? Wouldn't crab or lobster make for a much better analogy?

Re:Coming up next (1)

manicb (1633645) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353415)

And who boils live frogs anyway? Wouldn't crab or lobster make for a much better analogy?

Only if you're a terrible chef

Re:Coming up next (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353413)

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

But apparently people are.

Survival instinct doesn't equate intelligence.

Re:Coming up next (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43352949)

I would also like to know how work-place misconduct is defined. I'm sure most people have broken some minor rule at the place they work regarding smoking, swearing, stealing red paper-clips or some other insignificant rule.

Work-Place misconduct defined: (4, Insightful)

tlambert (566799) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353169)

Work-Place misconduct defined:

If you are Representative Mike Sells, and you introduce a critically stupid amendment like this, you have engaged in workplace misconduct, and you are required to give the people of the State of Washington, who are your employers, all your social media passwords.

PS: The linked story from the OP has a comment which states that it was withdrawn. I imagine he pulled on his left ear with his right hand, and his right ear with his left hand, and the loud popping noise was his head coming out of his rear.

Re:Coming up next (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353215)

So YOU'RE the bastard who stole all the red paper-clips!

Re:Coming up next (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353221)

I would also like to know how work-place misconduct is defined.

Probably a violation of the employee handbook (or similar document)... which usually has a clause that the latest version available via some obscure and probably broken link, or via official signed request to HR, always applies, so they can change it at will.

Re:Coming up next (1, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353017)

What's the difference?

The difference is most of these legislators are ancient and neither want, nor care, about this newfangled "internet" thing. They still use flip phones and eschew anything with more than about 15 buttons on it. As a result, they go along with whatever their sponsors tell them about it. "It's totally not like that!" "Er, okay... *stamp*". We won't be able to fix these kinds of brain-damaged decisions until these dinosaurs are dead.

Unfortunately, by then we'll have an entire generation that's grown used to their chains and shackles, and may not be capable of embracing digital freedom again, nor bridging this artificially-created rift between the digital world, and the real one. We could be looking at the start of a new era in human evolution, but just like the last major leap forward (The Renaissance), it may be preceeded by a long Dark Age because a small group of people didn't want to release their stranglehold on power when their time was up, or were simply too set in their ways to adapt and forced a catacalysmic social event because of it.

Re:Coming up next (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353043)

I'm sure there have been instances of cars being searched, and there was that incident involving the prank caller to the McDonald's who pretended to be a police officer.

Is slashdot included? (2)

larry bagina (561269) | 1 year,20 days | (#43352801)

More worrisome, what about AdultFriendFinder, xtube, NAMBLA online forums, etc?

Re:Is slashdot included? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353359)

Unrelated: AdultFriendFinder is not a proper place to post "looking for fourth to join active role playing group. Familiarity with wide variety of games preferred. Current game styles: Hack n' Slash and Monty Haul."

Not registered (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43352809)

So what's to stop someone from denying that they even have a Facebook account, or just not being registered on facebook at all?

Re:Not registered (1)

Adriax (746043) | 1 year,20 days | (#43352951)

You will be legally required to register a facebook account and post your personal details to it.
What's the point of a "let people with money and their appointed agents spy on the sheep" bill without anything to spy on?

Re:Not registered (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353327)

In that case, you could register a decoy account and post fake info to shut them up.

What if you don't use facebook? (1)

mark-t (151149) | 1 year,20 days | (#43352821)

And in particular, how do they know you aren't lying if that's what you tell them?

Re:What if you don't use facebook? (1, Insightful)

deadweight (681827) | 1 year,20 days | (#43352867)

Seriously - I wouldn't use Facebook if they paid me to log in to their massive privacy violation engine.

Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43352823)

I can live without facebook, if it's come to that.

How about... eat a bag of d***s? (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,20 days | (#43352855)

What I do outside of work, on my own time, is not my employer's business. You guys can try passing this law if you want, but it'll be political suicide and the courts will shoot it down faster than you can say "republican in a public restroom caught with a man."

Re:How about... eat a bag of d***s? (4, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353027)

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

Re:How about... eat a bag of d***s? (4, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353131)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:How about... eat a bag of d***s? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353073)

It won't be shot down. It's a question of the employer's right to ask, and doesn't indicate that the person being asked is in any way compelled to answer.

Re:How about... eat a bag of d***s? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353381)

I don't agree. Or perhaps I don't understand.

Employers don't generally need a law to ask things of their employees. The employer can ask their employee to wear open-toed sandals. And the employee can say No. So long as it's not a reasonable work requirement, not a safety issue, and not unconstitutional.

My guess is that this proposed law is unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable.

not necessarily true (1)

Chirs (87576) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353367)

If you're badmouthing your employer all over the Internet, even on your own time, your employer might validly have some concerns about that.

The Bill doesn't go far enough (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43352865)

I think the bill should allow employers to have access to all your online accounts, computers, phones, cameras, any storage device electronic or physical, safe deposit boxes, all financial records, vehicles, residence, storage facilities. These rights should be extended to you friends and family members, er accomplices, etc. etc, with all investigations aided and supported by the police.

Both ways? (4, Insightful)

Nkwe (604125) | 1 year,20 days | (#43352875)

So if I think the company may be leaking my personal information or doing something improper do I get the password to the HR and Financial systems, so I (or my lawyer) can investigate my claim?

Unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43352889)

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:Unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional. (1)

Improv (2467) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353365)

While I agree with your sentiments, I think your idea that this would amount to unreasonable search/seizure is off because we're not talking about behaviour of the government. The bill of rights don't incorporate to private behaviour, alas.

Can't they already do this? (2, Interesting)

adamchou (993073) | 1 year,20 days | (#43352923)

If the company hire a PI to do an investigation, doesn't Facebook already have provisions in their TOS that says they'll give up access to the account?

No. That would be illegal (2)

raymorris (2726007) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353199)

Where did you get that idea? Facebook may not be as vocal as Google about denying requests they aren't required to comply with, but they don't just hand over the info to anyone who asks.

PIs don't have any special legal authority to access any information. The only thing a PI license allows you to do is to charge the client for investigative services. In that way, ot's just like a cosmetology license or a food handler's permit. Source - I used to be a PI.

Re:Can't they already do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353417)

Why should they? they ain't law enforcement.

Show up with a subpoena or EAT DICKS (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43352959)

There's no goddamn reason for this law - if there's an actual need, the employer can come up with a subpoena.

How to solve the problem (4, Funny)

toygeek (473120) | 1 year,20 days | (#43352967)

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

Re:How to solve the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353093)

Make your password something like:

lI|||lIIIlIIIII|||llIII

then make a .gif of it and send that to them.

This bill has been withdrawn (1)

chiefmojorising (114811) | 1 year,20 days | (#43352973)

Probably only a matter of time before "our" representatives introduce it again at the behest of their corporate overlords though.

Re:This bill has been withdrawn (5, Informative)

chiefmojorising (114811) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353021)

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 [seattlepi.com]

Re:This bill has been withdrawn (1)

Eightbitgnosis (1571875) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353325)

The amendment was alive for less than 24 hours, but many news sites seems to have shat their pants over it still

Crap! (1)

houbou (1097327) | 1 year,20 days | (#43352979)

Nobody should be asked to self-incriminate themselves. More importantly, your social life should have no bearings with your professional life.
but to be honest, so many idiots do their Facebook and other social stuff at work, morons.
Still, this is anti-constitutional.

Re:Crap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353079)

no it's not. It's dumb, but not anti-constitutional. The courts have long held that civil matters are not held to the same standards as criminal matters. For example, in a civil judgement, you do not need a unanimous jury verdict. You only need a majority.

they can ask now (1)

griff199 (162798) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353061)

there's nothing illegal with your employer asking for your LinkedIn or Facebook password, you just have the right to say no, and in a right to work state, they have the right to tell you your services are no longer required. why so upset? - you've got all kinds of rights

Re:they can ask now (1)

CrashPoint (564165) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353193)

and in a right to work state, they have the right to tell you your services are no longer required

The term you're thinking of is "at-will employment". Right-to-work [wikipedia.org] is a different animal.

Re:they can ask now (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353287)

Well, technically I don't have the right to say no, I have the contractual obligation to say no. I'm subject to LinkedIn's and Facebook's terms of service which specifically forbid me from allowing anyone else to access my account that way. If I said yes, I'd be in violation of those terms of service. And since my employer would have to agree to those terms of service as a condition of their accessing my account, then they'll have violated those terms of service and their access is unauthorized. If they don't accept the terms of service, their access is likewise unauthorized. And it's the position of the US Federal government that unauthorized access in violation of the terms of service is a felony violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Plus, if the employer has a presence on those networks, they could find themselves in trouble for a separate violation of the terms of service for their own presence.

So I've heard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353065)

... this facebook thingy was pretty big in the USA, is it any good?

Who cares? (0)

Kimomaru (2579489) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353087)

Honestly, who cares? I mean, really? Seriously?!

This is Facebook we're talking about, a platform that's either for people to do stupid things on or for intelligent people to either ignore or use to the absolute least degree possible.

This is, like, a First World Problem. You can't tell me this ranks up their with serious issues when the only intelligent thing to do with Facebook is to completely disregard it. People who go on FB and act wrecklessly with their private information have a whole host of problems LONG before the Facebook privacy "issue". This isn't an issue. Starvation is an issue.

Re:Who cares? (1)

PPH (736903) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353387)

This is Facebook we're talking about,

Not just FB, all social media*. Come on, Kimomaru, cough it up.

I've posted a few spicy tidbits about Boeing. I'm waiting for a knock at the door.

.......

*OK, I suppose we could classify Slashdot as anti-social media.

good luck naming my friends by their photos. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353103)

at least there's that.

This would clearly be a violation of (1)

3seas (184403) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353115)

constitutional rights.

However, there is something about thios even more serious.

How is it that any politician can even consider such violations?
And even more important how is it that they are in office?

This is not looking after the rights, liberities and security of the people.
Even considering such should be viewed as expressing traitor intent, plain and simple.

Its not the violation to take primary note of but those with intent tp commit such acts.
 

Re:This would clearly be a violation of (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353159)

Constitutional Rights? The current POTUS does not believe in our constitution...based on his statements & actions.

Troll, Troll , Trolling....The truth is so hard to take.

Make a "I want to F*** my Boss" group on FetLife (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353195)

Then give them that password.

Ok, why is the US going to shit so rapidly? (0)

Nexion (1064) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353197)

A slow decline was always in motion, but all of a sudden we re-elect Obama, Sandy Hook hits, the gun grabbers look to further infringe, the CIA, NSA and DHS all have an anal probe up my butt tracking EVERYTHING and one state seems to think it can establish a state religion!

W T F!

It is like we need to go all nanny on the nanny state types and deliver some spankings to all the politicians and put them in timeout until they can stop acting like, as Dianne Feinstien accused someone of treating her, like a bunch of damn 6 YEAR OLDS!

I mean what? Is the union collapsing now? Are we to all just move on as our own independent states? Cause if we are I'm getting the hell outta Commiefornia for sure.

Somebody ... (1)

PPH (736903) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353207)

... has been leaking inside information about the 787 battery problems. And Boeing is pissed.

Odious new law? No attribution? Guess who... (0)

Tailhook (98486) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353235)

I'm not going to RTFA to find out who is responsible for this POS. Having noticed that there is no attribution to any specific politician in the summary I'm just going to assume it's a Democrat. Otherwise there would be a great big (R) next to state senator so-and-so's name.

Assuming I'm right, we can extrapolate; the bastard will claim ignorance; "I had no idea that was in there."

Patterns emerge after you've seen enough of this bullshit.
 
....

Can't help myself. I have to look.

The bill's sponsor, Democrat Sen. Steve Hobbs of Lake Stevens, said Tuesday that he had not read the amendment, but he was aware of concerns from high-tech industries.

Uh huh.

The issue has been solved, and is over (2)

Eightbitgnosis (1571875) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353317)

At 9am this morning the amendment was withdrawn, and the language of the bill changed to include that employers will be required to pay employees $500 along with any damages should they ask for their social media passwords. So no one is getting their social media passwords taken by employers.
See for your self

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2013&bill=5211 It's under "In the house"
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwliveplayer&eventID=2013041032 If you don't believe that then watch the senate themselves withdraw the amendment and change the language of the bill

This amendment never had a chance in hell, and has been put to death.

Gov't has no authority to dictate either way (0)

roman_mir (125474) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353319)

Congress does not have power to pass laws that either prohibit individuals asking such things from other individuals or require that anybody complies under any type of penalty to provide such information.

The fact that government can even attempt to dictate any of it one way should be extremely disturbing, but I see that most people here object to the government imposing an obligation upon an employee, but I don't think most people would blink an eye if an obligation was imposed upon an employer.

An employer can ask an employee for any of this info, an employee can absolutely refuse (or comply, up to him). Neither action nor response to either action should be legislated and the government officials that cannot recognise this simple fact should be summarily removed from power at once.

Of-course so should any government officials that vote for things like the Patriot Act or NDAA or that work in the executive branch and use various unconstitutional tactics to get their desired results or SCOTUS that does not rule based on the constitutionality of a law but based on personal preference, party line or desire to be popular. So should POTUS that thinks he can just point a finger at a person and make that person disappear either in a prison without any evidence and access to a lawyer or by murdering them.

The thing to do (1)

CanadianMacFan (1900244) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353353)

What you do is give them your Facebook password and when your manager is away at a meeting and leaves the computer unlocked you sign into your account and post some hate speech or something else obscene. When the police or Facebook comes calling get them to find out what computer it came from. After all it was new behaviour and you just had to give your password away.

There's a solution already (1)

zoffdino (848658) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353375)

It's called a search warrant. Get it from the court, and they can search anything in your possession: you cars, house, Facebook, even your porno collection. Anything less is just invasion of privacy.

A conflict with this. (1)

dmomo (256005) | 1 year,20 days | (#43353389)

What if Facebook's TOS forbids logging in as another user? Would it then be legal for the company to do so?

First legal weed, now this (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#43353455)

While all the hippies are obsessed with legal weed, WA continues to pass bizarrely harsh laws that violate privacy.

Somehow I don't think any of them will be motivated to protest. Drug addicts never do the right thing for others, it's all self-motivated greed.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...