Congress aims to outlaw employers from requiring Facebook passwords

[Rick]

In response to a recent (and dubious) phenomenon where employers require employees to fork over the proverbial keys to their online accounts, U.S. House Democrats are working to pass legislation which will prohibit this practice all together.

The Password Protection Act of 2012 is poised to put nosey employers on time-out, forbidding businesses from requiring subordinates to divulge their personal, online account passwords. Here's a synopsis of the bill (pdf), drafted and supported by a number of Democratic congressional and senatorial members.

"The Password Protection Act would make it illegal for an employer to compel or coerce access to any online information stored anywhere on the Internet if that information is secured against general public access by the user." [...] "This is accomplished by prohibiting employers from compelling or coercing access to, and subsequently retrieving information from, the online servers where private user information is stored. (These servers are referred to as 'protected computers' in the legislation.) "

Additionally, while the proposal aims to stop such invasive snooping techniques, it tries to do so without crippling an employer's authority over their own systems.

Protects Employer Systems, NOT Employer Actions. The Password Protection Act preserves the rights of employers to control access to their own hardware, as well as any internet software operated on behalf of the employer for work purposes

The practice of employers leveraging social media websites in order to vet future employees and keep tabs on existing ones has long been commonplace. Want to find out more about a person? Check out their Facebook page. Want to see what someone has been up to? Pay a visit to their Twitter page. In more recent times though, employers have taken that ritual to the next level -- you either give them your password or forget about being employed. 

For example, this account by a Maryland corrections officer highlights what is quickly becoming the norm for sensitive positions.

In the past, Facebook has frowned upon this activity. In March, the social networking giant updated their terms of service in order to expressly prohibit employers from requesting passwords. It's not unreasonable to believe this practice hurts the Facebook brand as college students everywhere second guess uploading those drunken frat party pictures from last night.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/48543-congress-aims-to-outlaw-employers-from-requiring-facebook-passwords.html

 

[cliffordcooley]

WTF, why is it so difficult to outlaw some BS regulation that violates personal privacy? Don't think about it, make it happen.

 

[Guest]

because it's easy to confuse people... especially when there are more important issues. This is a pretty good distraction to confuse a mass of people. I say you treat your facebook like it is ALWAYS public, then there is no problem. It'll be hacked or has already been hacked, and your personal information has or will be used for someone's financial or personal gain of some sorts already.... if that made any sense.... I'm probably confused tho

 

[Vrmithrax]

Well, I'm glad they made it a larger blanket than just preventing employers from requiring passwords of their employees. It would have been rather easy to get around that, by just requiring the employee to "friend" the employer, and then you have the inside track into their dark and naughty secrets again. It's a common sense maneuver to include the coercion restraint in the legislation, but the blatantly technological clueless nature exhibited by our legislators has become readily apparent over the last few years, so I never expect common sense to be followed by them.

 

[captaincranky]

Or, you could just stay away from Facebook altogether.

Sorry, I realize the impracticality and blasphemous nature of that statement. Sometimes s*** happens, I lose control, and blurt out things like that. It's like Tourette's syndrome for the computer age.

 

[Tygerstrike]

@Capt.

Im right there with you. Just dont have a facebook account. I didnt fall for myspace, I didnt fall for Facebook. I personally believe that the rest of the world doesnt need to know my business. If I did I would just rent a billboard. As for keeping in touch with ppl, thats why we have things like phones and.......letters.....

 

[TJGeezer]

@Capt
Welcome to the Curmudgeon Generation. Member Fred Reed, a former Wash. DC crime reporter, put it this way: "Apparently the social media like Facebook, all of which I abhor, are useful in flogging ebooks. I would rather have untreatable tuberculosis." (link for attribution, not to flog Fred's book: http://www.fredoneverything.net/Dawson.shtml)\

 

[SNGX1275]

Why does this even need to be a law? There are far more important issues to be addressed than this.

 

[captaincranky]

Why does this even need to be a law? There are far more important issues to be addressed than this.

Not necessarily. The way the local news explained it, more and more employers are using a prospective employee's Facebook page, to create a behavioral analysis work up on the individual. In other words, you're being "profiled". Since jobs are scarce, employers think they can get away with this type of behaviour, and your private business, is anything but.

You can't escape by not having a Facebook page, since then you have that demeaning "loner" tag attached, and God knows how dangerous every recluse is.

For example, a hard core "loner" might post something in a forum that would have to be removed by the moderators. And might ask something as controversial as, "where the hell did my "rolleyes" and "suspicious" emoticons go"? And then divulge something really incriminating such as, "they're the only ones I really liked".

But really, behavioural psychologists are getting more dangerous to the individual by the day, as they descend further into the "nature trumps nurture" school of thought. They think they can predict criminal behaviour by genetics, while the nurture school of thought based psy-ops teams, get hired to work in the human resources department, and analyze your behavioural defects via your Facebook and Twitter postings

 

[Tygerstrike]

As an employeer I find other employers using this tactic to be reprehensable. Facebook is a persons private lives. For the most part any prospective job you go after, unless we are talking high security job, should have no need of any information on Facebook. Half of what goes on FB is crap anyways. I know a few ppl who use FB and most of what they post is "overdramatised". So if someone was just looking at FB you would think that person is incredible when they are mediocre at best. Its a unfair judge of an individuals character.
I know I have been told to use FB when an employee calls out sick to be sure they arent actually just skipping out for the day. I wont do it. I refuse. Ok so they called out sick. If they are that sick then they should be able to get a doctors note. If not, then I guess working isnt what they wanted to do. FB is social MEDIA. Its not an accurate reflection of anything except ppls need to share their lives. Now they just share those lives with thousands of ppl a day instead of a handful of family.

 

[Guest]

Even if the president of the United States demanded my Facebook password I wouldn't give it to him.

 

[DriverJ]

It's sad that it has come to this. What we do on our own time isn't any business of our employer.