Judge Napolitano to discuss employer's demanding your social usernames and passwords

[Brian4Liberty]

Summary of interview:

- Government employees are safe. The Constitution prevents the government as an employer to do these things.
- Private employees are not safe. Employer can ask. If you don't comply, they can fire you.
- States can pass laws to make this illegal. Some are contemplating it.


Video at link:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/01/06...edia-passwords

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not sure why that SHOULD be illegal. I mean, freedom of association, right?

At any rate, Judge Nap should run for President in 2016. Someone I could actually vote for...

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm not sure why that SHOULD be illegal. I mean, freedom of association, right?

True. But is there a line that shouldn't be crossed, from a (State) legal perspective? Can an employer search your house on demand? Can your employer require you to drop your pants, bend over, and take whatever your superior wants to give you? Or maybe your employer prefers your spouse. Simply a request, if you want to keep your job. Now if you punch them in the nose, then you have initiated violence, so that would be a criminal act.

[DamianTV]

True. But is there a line that shouldn't be crossed, from a (State) legal perspective? Can an employer search your house on demand? Can your employer require you to drop your pants, bend over, and take whatever your superior wants to give you? Or maybe your employer prefers your spouse. Simply a request, it you want to keep your job. Now if you punch them in the nose, then you have initiated violence, so that would be a criminal act.

Whats okay for the slave owner is not okay for the slave.

[ghengis86]

i fired someone for their facebook post (at a bar, when they called in sick). should have fired them for not making their photos private (we weren't friends). Dumbass. I'd never ask for a username or password; i don't need it to bust your stupid ass. show up, do your job and we'll be fine. what you do on your own time is your own business.

[Brian4Liberty]

[ZENemy]

This story, or bit of information has been out on the internet for about 2 years now.

I cannot find mention of what companies asked these questions, I have interviewed a ton and many of my jobless friends are interviewing several times a week, Ive heard of nobody ever being asked for their passwords.

Did some companies actually ask this? is it just a big ass rumor?

[DamianTV]

Next Question:

What happens when Obamacare demands that your employer monitor your social networking activities and it is required by law? Thats what the world is quickly coming to. Its as if they want an even longer list of reasons to get rid of people. Make sure the people at the very bottom, who also need to pay their bills, fall off the ladder entirely and permanently.

Disposable People.

[ZENemy]

Next Question:

What happens when Obamacare demands that your employer monitor your social networking activities and it is required by law? Thats what the world is quickly coming to. Its as if they want an even longer list of reasons to get rid of people. Make sure the people at the very bottom, who also need to pay their bills, fall off the ladder entirely and permanently.

Disposable People.

I wouldn't put it past them!

"oh, we are sorry sir, we cannot cover this illness under your insurance because six months ago you posted that ate a snickers bar, your insurance is now void"

[HOLLYWOOD]

[July]

Personally I think it's outrageous that they would ask, and even more outrageous that people would think that's healthy or normal...but I think, the fact that this is even becoming an issue is a sign of the times I guess.... As a society, mutual respect for individual property and privacy is declining, and more and more employers don't trust their employees and vise versa. But in a society where the government thinks it's entitled to every little private detail and aspect of your life, and it's normal to be tracked 24/7, and normal to share every aspect of your personal life, why wouldn't private companies think they are entitled?

[Christian Liberty]

True. But is there a line that shouldn't be crossed, from a (State) legal perspective? Can an employer search your house on demand? Can your employer require you to drop your pants, bend over, and take whatever your superior wants to give you? Or maybe your employer prefers your spouse. Simply a request, if you want to keep your job. Now if you punch them in the nose, then you have initiated violence, so that would be a criminal act.

In a free society it would all come down to contracts, I think.

Judge's take on the situation from the modified OP seems about right, IMO.

[muh_roads]

Don't use social media. Or if you are going to use it, don't be an attention whore. Only post in closed / secret groups

Problem solved.

[DamianTV]

Don't use social media. Or if you are going to use it, don't be an attention whore. Only post in closed / secret groups

Problem solved.

Linkedin to sell DOJ unfettered access to every user

What good does Secret Groups do?

---

The Rights of Employers must end where the Rights of Employees begin. The direction we are going is leading to no individual having any rights what so ever. When that happens, the effects on those that would do the Infringing now have Unlimited Rights to do what ever they want, when ever they want, and all with Zero Accountability.

What happens when an Employee is terminated for applying for other jobs?

What happens when an Employee is terminated for a political belief? Or supports the "wrong" candidate?

What happens when an Employee is terminated for an illness or an injury unrelated to the job?

What happens when an Employee is terminated for violating demands made by Obamacare?

What happens when an Employee is terminated for believing the "wrong" religion?

Any of these things are absolutely possible. But when the Employers are asked for reason of termination, they can make up what ever reason they want. Inappropriate Conduct comes to mind. So does Work Performance, even if its not relevant. Most of the employees are paid so little that they have absolutely no ability to fight back against the offenses of employers. When the employees are afforded absolutely no Rights at all, there will be an increase in abuses by the employers.

Its just a matter of time until an employer has access to know when the last time an employee took a $#@! at home, showered, what they ate, and everything the employee does when they are not at work.

If that isnt the textbook definition of Slavery, I dont know what is.

[ItsTime]

Next Question:

What happens when Obamacare demands that your employer monitor your social networking activities and it is required by law? Thats what the world is quickly coming to. Its as if they want an even longer list of reasons to get rid of people. Make sure the people at the very bottom, who also need to pay their bills, fall off the ladder entirely and permanently.

Disposable People.

The Patriot Act already has the banks spying on your bank account and flagging it, like they flagged mine, for making regular payments via wire.

So this is not that far fetched.

[Anti Federalist]

Have some rep!

Could not have said it better myself.

Linkedin to sell DOJ unfettered access to every user

What good does Secret Groups do?

---

The Rights of Employers must end where the Rights of Employees begin. The direction we are going is leading to no individual having any rights what so ever. When that happens, the effects on those that would do the Infringing now have Unlimited Rights to do what ever they want, when ever they want, and all with Zero Accountability.

What happens when an Employee is terminated for applying for other jobs?

What happens when an Employee is terminated for a political belief? Or supports the "wrong" candidate?

What happens when an Employee is terminated for an illness or an injury unrelated to the job?

What happens when an Employee is terminated for violating demands made by Obamacare?

What happens when an Employee is terminated for believing the "wrong" religion?

Any of these things are absolutely possible. But when the Employers are asked for reason of termination, they can make up what ever reason they want. Inappropriate Conduct comes to mind. So does Work Performance, even if its not relevant. Most of the employees are paid so little that they have absolutely no ability to fight back against the offenses of employers. When the employees are afforded absolutely no Rights at all, there will be an increase in abuses by the employers.

Its just a matter of time until an employer has access to know when the last time an employee took a $#@! at home, showered, what they ate, and everything the employee does when they are not at work.

If that isnt the textbook definition of Slavery, I dont know what is.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

If I'm an employer and you give me that type of information, then I'm not going to hire you. If you're that nonchalant with yourself, then I'm not taking a chance on you. Same goes if an applicant would take a drug test. I'm not hiring you if you are willing to take a drug test.


Edit: Just throwing in a little hyperbole above. I would appreciate, however, an employee who would fight such a test.

The randomness of drug testing, however, does not work. It's just like randomness in life not working. You can also usually tell which employee is high. Drug testing is mostly outsourcing a management function and making it more ineffective.

[The Free Hornet]

This story, or bit of information has been out on the internet for about 2 years now.

I cannot find mention of what companies asked these questions, I have interviewed a ton and many of my jobless friends are interviewing several times a week, Ive heard of nobody ever being asked for their passwords.

Did some companies actually ask this? is it just a big ass rumor?

It is mostly a problem for GOVERNMENT employees. I did find an exception in an article. It was a LOBBYING firm. Big surprise.

Most people are snoockered by this story and assume it is a problem with companies and then you get impassioned posts like the one above* and I don't know where to throw my shoe in solidarity. The reality is that those who take our money by force are the ones demanding this information:

Asking for a candidate's password is more prevalent among public agencies, especially those seeking to fill law enforcement positions such as police officers or 911 dispatchers.

Back in 2010, Robert Collins (pictured above) was returning to his job as a security guard at the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services after taking a leave following his mother's death. During a reinstatement interview, he was asked for his login and password, purportedly so the agency could check for any gang affiliations.

Until last year, the city of Bozeman, Mont., had a long-standing policy of asking job applicants for passwords to their email addresses, social-networking websites and other online accounts.

And since 2006, the McLean County, Ill., sheriff's office has been one of several Illinois sheriff's departments that ask applicants to sign into social media sites to be screened.

Chief Deputy Rusty Thomas defended the practice, saying applicants have a right to refuse. But no one has ever done so. Thomas said that "speaks well of the people we have apply."

In Spotsylvania County, Va., the sheriff's department asks applicants to friend background investigators for jobs at the 911 dispatch center and for law enforcement positions.

"In the past, we've talked to friends and neighbors, but a lot of times we found that applicants interact more through social media sites than they do with real friends," said Capt. Mike Harvey. "Their virtual friends will know more about them than a person living 30 yards away from them."

E. Chandlee Bryan, a career coach and co-author of the book "The Twitter Job Search Guide," said job seekers should always be aware of what's on their social media sites and assume someone is going to look at it.

Bryan said she is troubled by companies ["companies"?!?! I'm troubled by her lack of research] asking for logins, but she feels it's not a violation if an employer asks to see a Facebook profile through a friend request.

The Department of Justice regards it as a federal crime to enter a social networking site in violation of the terms of service, but during recent congressional testimony, the agency said such violations would not be prosecuted. [This is the LOL part - you see the law is for when private citizens break the law, not when the law breaks the law.]

In New York, Bassett considered himself lucky that he was able to turn down the consulting gig at a lobbying firm.


http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/03...ook-passwords/

Note how government will save us from government so we will always be thankful for government:

The states that have acted to protect the privacy of social media passwords are:

Maryland -- Maryland enacted the first law passed, which became active in 2012: It prohibits an employer from requesting or requiring that an employee or applicant disclose any user name, password, or other means for accessing a personal account or service through specified electronic communications devices; bars an employer from taking, or threatening to take, specified disciplinary actions for an employee's refusal to disclose specified password and related information; and bans an employee from downloading specified information or data; etc.

Illinois -- The state law, passed in 2012 and enacted Jan. 1, 2013, also prohibits employers from demanding passwords from applicants and employees.

More: Sign Up For AOL Jobs' Newsletter
California -- Like Illinois, its new law went into effect at the beginning of the year.

Delaware -- Although many news outlets have reported that Delaware has a similar law, they tried to pass one and failed. The law that did pass prohibits educational institutions from demanding student passwords. Employees are not protected in Delaware.

Michigan -- Michigan's social media privacy law, which became effective at the end of 2012, contains exceptions for workplace investigations, theft of trade secrets or confidential information, employer-owned devices, and information that goes through the employer's network. This law also applies to educational institutions.

New Jersey -- New Jersey's new law, also effective as of December 2012, is so broad that it even prohibits employers from asking if employees use social media. Huzzah!

Laws pending: Delaware, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Washington all saw bills introduced in 2012 that are in various stages of passage. 2013 already has seen more states introduce or re-introduce legislation to prohibit employer demands for passwords. California has a bill pending that would apply the prohibition to the public sector. Colorado, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Texas and Vermont all have legislation pending in the 2013 legislative session on this important issue.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/01...dia-passwords/

Employees in a truly free market are better protected by common sense. So put your shoes on and get back to work.


* [DamianTV's - sorry - my definition of slavery involves violence - problem is that laws/regulations/patents/copyright give too much power to BIG business and so we are left to fight - and oddly - be thankful for not giving up a twitter password?! - that's bull$#@! and everyone should know it]

[emazur]

I'm not sure why that SHOULD be illegal. I mean, freedom of association, right?

I'll copy/paste what I said last time this topic came up (about proposed law to make it illegal):
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4799026
I'd vote for that law in a heartbeat. The main reason people have been cornered into surrendering their private information is b/c the government makes it so difficult to become self-employed and so we have to grovel to get employment from the outside. In a truly free market, employers would have to treat their employees a lot better b/c they would always have other options - cutting grass, painting houses, teaching a foreign language, teaching a musical instrument, walking dogs, house sitting, baby sitting, transferring analog audio and video to digital, all of the above and more - you name it and people would do it to escape from the rat race. Complications like getting your taxes and accounting straight for big brother, getting your government license, and regulations (you can't even stuff an advertisement in your neighbors' mailboxes to advertise your services without breaking the law) make people want to give up before they even get started.

So the government does break your leg, but if it actually is willing to also give you this crutch that would make your personal and working conditions more in line with what would happen in a free market, I say so be it.

And besides - $#@! privacy perverting companies.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Going full circle, almost there...

[DamianTV]

...

* [DamianTV's - sorry - my definition of slavery involves violence - problem is that laws/regulations/patents/copyright give too much power to BIG business and so we are left to fight - and oddly - be thankful for not giving up a twitter password?! - that's bull$#@! and everyone should know it]

Mostly semantics.

A person comes along and takes absolutely everything from you, its a direct form of violence.

You try to get back to work and start acquiring things you need to survive after everything has been taken by force. You're denied job after job after job because you are expected to have an address (yeah, took your house too) and will not hire you without an address. Its an indirect form of violence. Youre denied the ability to provide for yourself, as many people are. The only solution is to voluntarily put on a Chain of Obedience in the form of Dependancy on the charity of others, which, as it turns out, is just another form of theft. They take from people that have something to give it to you. Now, the indirect violence is carried out in your name, much the same way as Govt claims to take your Freedom in exchange for your Security.

Violence can take many forms, and not all of it is direct, and not all are physical.

Govt decree for santions to be placed on a Nation (people farm) is a form of violence against the people of that Nation.

Taxation is a form of violece. Try not paying your taxes and intentionally get caught. It costs more to incarcerate a person for not paying their taxes then to put them back to work and make them productive again. The Poor are just there to scare the $#@! out of the middle class into obedience, just as Tax Evaders are thrown in jail to scare the $#@! out of people who think they could spend their money more wisely than those that demand that money.

I'll try another one. A slave owner buys a Human Slave. The slave owner never has to physically injure the slave. But just because said slave has not been injured does not mean the slave is free by any means. Slavery is just as much a form of violence as Poverty, and the two states usually exist simultaneously. There are no filthy rich slaves. Slavery = Poverty = Violence.

Admittedly, they are not the same thing, but where you find one, you'll very often find the others. The direct forms of abuse, that which we consider violence, seems to be misdefined as only causing a physical injury to a person. Courts have to deal with this stuff all the time. He ripped me off. Financial Injury. They kidnapped me, raped and violated me until I lost my mind (criminal, not civil). Emotional and Psychological Injury. That guy over there is a Child Molester (when they arent). Libel and Slander. Injury to Social Standing. A kid has a dog and does not feed that dog. The dog starves to death. Did that dog not suffer? Is that not a form of abuse? Is that not a form of violence?

They are all forms of violence.

(Since there still might be some disagreement on the exact definition, this might be better splitting the thread...)

Everything after the debate on definition of slavery I agree with, it is BS and people should be smart enough to know it. I dont think that these people that should know it and dont actually understand what their Rights are. They definitely arent taught what their rights are in school. They think the 2nd Amendment gives them the "Right" to ask the Govt (the very entity that the 2nd was designed to empower the people to defend themselves against) for "Permission" to own a Gun. Most schoolchildren have absolutely no concept of what a Right is in any way shape or form. If you asked them what was important, they'd want the Right (by asking Permission) to Tweet. They'd want the Right to be shown advertisements. They'd want the Right to have the State (other people) take care of them. They'd want selfish BS that does not benefit anyone but themselves.

If we want to focus our energies somewhere, maybe we shouldnt bother to debate with each other, even if we slightly disagree, and try teaching the simplest explanation of rights I've come across: All Rights End Where Equal Rights Of Others Begin.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Going full circle, almost there...

Probably never really left. It's alive and well with a vengeance.

[Brian4Liberty]

And what do you know, your employer and the NSA are in luck! Turn over your password for your in-home camera system...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-all-it-s-here