Employers Banned From Asking For Social Media Passwords In California

[sailingaway]

http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/27/employers-banned-from-asking-for-social-media-passwords-in-california/

[Dr.3D]

I have always wondered how they would respond if the employee told them he didn't have any social media accounts.

[dannno]

I would remind my employer of the TOS of Facebook


Facebook responded to the media frenzy by reminding schools, governments, and businesses that giving away passwords was expressly forbidden by their security rules.

[Dr.3D]

I would remind my employer of the TOS of Facebook
Then they would put a gold star on your forehead and tell you, you passed their hiring test.

[phill4paul]

I would remind my employer of the TOS of Facebook

Maybe, that is what employers are trying to figure out when you answer the question? Whether or not the employee is 1) An idiot or 2) An idiot that can't follow contracts of use.
Probably not. Still, that is what I would determine based on their answer.

ETA: Beat me to it. :p


Then they would put a gold star on your forehead and tell you, you passed their hiring test.

[sailingaway]

I have always wondered how they would respond if the employee told them he didn't have any social media accounts.

One person was actually turned down by a school or something for NOT having facebook...

[RickyJ]

I have always wondered how they would respond if the employee told them he didn't have any social media accounts.

You would be reported to the HSD as a suspected terrorist and agents would arrive to take you away within hours.

[Dr.3D]

One person was actually turned down by a school or something for NOT having facebook...
Doubt I would want to go to such a school anyway.

[Anti Federalist]

I would remind my employer of the TOS of Facebook


Facebook responded to the media frenzy by reminding schools, governments, and businesses that giving away passwords was expressly forbidden by their security rules.

We'll take care of giving you that password and data - FarceBook.

[CaptainAmerica]

One person was actually turned down by a school or something for NOT having facebook...
oh really?

[sailingaway]

oh really?

Something like that. I figured it would be the logical extension. Avoid it all together and that is 'suspect'. I don't remember the precise circumstances.

[Danke]

My password is "GoFuckYourself."

[dbill27]

Fuck a business that asks for your password as condition of hire. That said though, it's two voluntary parties, no need for the government to get involved.

[Dr.3D]

My password is "GoFuckYourself."
You really should make it more secure, like this..... "GoFuckYourself1000Times."

[DamianTV]

If that was the case, the next thing that should be on everyones shit list is mandatory drug testing for the lowest employees but somehow the CEO's are always excluded.

[coastie]

One person was actually turned down by a school or something for NOT having facebook...

A similar battle may be brewing for me in my current Web Design class...I'm the only one in the class that doesn't have FB, should be interesting. NOWHERE in the college catalog for the course description (or her syllabus)did it say ANYTHING about having to have a FB acct, but friends that have already taken the class say she requires it, eventually. ORLY? I say....because that aint happening, ever.

I really hope they don't make me get all lawyer on their ass, I have a tendency of doing that when people try me with bullshit like this...


And why the hell would you want to work ANYWHERE that wants your passwords????

[Anti Federalist]

And why the hell would you want to work ANYWHERE that wants your passwords????

You wouldn't.

Just like most people wouldn't want to work for an outfit that randomly drug tests you.

But that is rapidly becoming the norm, without any law requiring it whatsoever.

So it will be with this as well.

[Kregisen]

I would probably tell the company "If I can't even keep my own personal information private, how do you expect me to keep the company's information confidential?"

There is no need for a law for this. If that question really is too much to ask (which it might be for me) then simply refuse...if the company chooses not to hire you because of that, then they are stupidly missing out on an employee better suited than the next person down the list. Companies would start thinking twice if more people refused.

[sailingaway]

I would probably tell the company "If I can't even keep my own personal information private, how do you expect me to keep the company's information confidential?"

There is no need for a law for this. If that question really is too much to ask (which it might be for me) then simply refuse...if the company chooses not to hire you because of that, then they are stupidly missing out on an employee better suited than the next person down the list. Companies would start thinking twice if more people refused.

a bad economy is the perfect time to 'standardize' unreasonable employment requirements.

[Mundane]

I'd ask which one he wanted. All my Facebook accounts are fake. Absolutely nothing on them is neither truthful nor accurate...intentionally...and I'd be happy to explain to them why not. If that means no job, oh well. I don't think I'd want to work there anyway.

[Anti Federalist]

a bad economy is the perfect time to 'standardize' unreasonable employment requirements.

Exactly.

You're getting foreclosed on, your wife is getting ready to leave you, you're three months behind on the car payments...guess what, you won't be in a position to walk away.

[The Free Hornet]

The whole issue is bogus. This has generally been a problem with government-based employers, e.g., from one of the links "Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services". Publicly-funded schools and police have been implicated as well.

In the spin, employers gets morphed into businesses and then legislatures pass another restriction on our freedom. I should have the right to ask you for a million dollars and a blow job and you should have the right to tell me to 'fuck off'. That's how it ought to work.


I cannot find the bill text (it is at Lexus-Nexis, F that), one link suggests criminal penalties for a broad range of activities:


California Governor Jerry Brown today signed a pair of bills criminalizing would-be employers and educators who demand social media account information.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120927/california-rules-against-employers-unis-requirin

It looks broad to me, what if the job requires managing a company's Facebook page or monitoring their forum (yes mods, you could be getting paid)? It isn't clear if it is "usernames or passwords" or "usernames and passwords". Regardless, this was something goverment employers effed up and now everybody has to live with a government "solution" (in California).

For the record, I hate Facebook, Twitter, and whatever fads that will replace them.

[sailingaway]

The whole issue is bogus. This has generally been a problem with government-based employers, e.g., from one of the links "Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services". Publicly-funded schools and police have been implicated as well.

In the spin, employers gets morphed into businesses and then legislatures pass another restriction on our freedom. I should have the right to ask you for a million dollars and a blow job and you should have the right to tell me to 'fuck off'. That's how it ought to work.


I cannot find the bill text (it is at Lexus-Nexis, F that), one link suggests criminal penalties for a broad range of activities:



It looks broad to me, what if the job requires managing a company's Facebook page or monitoring their forum (yes mods, you could be getting paid)? It isn't clear if it is "usernames or passwords" or "usernames and passwords". Regardless, this was something goverment employers effed up and now everybody has to live with a government "solution" (in California).

For the record, I hate Facebook, Twitter, and whatever fads that will replace them.

I agree there will be unintended consequences, and agree criminal is a bit much. But I also think making prying into people's off time discussions 'normative' is wrong.

[RonPaulMall]

Isn't it already a Federal Crime to violate any TOS? That's how they prosecuted that lady that bullied the kid on Facebook or whatever. This btw, is a good example of the consequences of laws like this. The best solution to the poster upthread's problem of being required to have a Facebook page for a college class would be to simply open a page under a false name and a junk email for the specific use of the class. But although millions of people do just that, it is a violation of Facebook's TOS and thus everyone who does it, is committing a felony. Not that it matters since i'm sure 99.9% of us on this board have already committed this particular felony a million times over by now.

[sailingaway]

it isn't a federal crime to violate TOS. It gets your account banned if the server feels like it. It is a breach of contract, if it causes the site damage, as well. They persecuted her for stalking etc. the TOS were used to show she was on notice that it was wrong, I believe. But that case was dicey all around.

[thoughtomator]

Time to start a business creating and maintaining fake Facebook accounts of people living normal, boring, employable lives.

[truelies]

Fuck a business that asks for your password as condition of hire. That said though, it's two voluntary parties, no need for the government to get involved.

One of the parties is a corporate 'person' and the State being their 'maker' can do as it will with them.

[acptulsa]

a bad economy is the perfect time to 'standardize' unreasonable employment requirements.

And let us not forget who trashed the economy. Deliberately.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

You really should make it more secure, like this..... "GoFuckYourself1000Times."

"GoFuckYourself1000Times!" Is much more secure.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

it isn't a federal crime to violate TOS.

No, it would be a civil matter, not a criminal one.

[MikeStanart]

I would never, ever work for a company that required this.