DEMOCRAT lawaker wants employers to have your Facebook password

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#1
Nice of the AP to bury the scumbag's affiliation at the end of the story.

http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2013/04...employers-to-seek-workers-facebook-passwords/


File photo of a computer logged into Facebook. (credit: Chris Jackson/Getty Images)
SEATTLE (AP) — 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 was introduced at the House Labor Committee at the request of business groups.
The Associated Press reported last year that some employers around the country were asking applicants for their social media information. In 2012 and this year, seven states banned employers from asking job applicants and employees for their social network passwords, with some exceptions.
Another 33 states are considering similar laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
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.
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.
Under the amendment, employees would be present when their social network profiles are searched and whatever information found is kept confidential, unless it is relevant to a criminal investigation.
“Rather than just referring everything to law enforcement, we have the opportunity to work with the employee and to investigate,” said Denny Eliason, who is representing the banking industry.
He said his clients have had cases where employees transferred sensitive information via email. He was not sure if Facebook or other social networks have been used.
Pam Greenberg of the National Conference of State Legislatures says similar bills being considered around the country have similar provisions allowing for disclosure of passwords during investigations.
California’s law allows “requests” of passwords during investigations. But Washington amendment goes beyond that, said Dave Maass of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based online privacy advocacy group.
This amendment “says they have a right to enter your digital home,” Maass said. “It’s astounding that they would try to codify this and that all employers could do this… the national trend is to move away from this. It’s shocking that the amendment is going in the right opposite direction.”
Maass said it’s not only an employee’s privacy that is violated, but also those he has connections with in a social network site.
The amendment “would turn this bill into a privacy bill into an employer fishing expedition,” said Shankar Narayan of the Washington chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. “That’s the not the bill we signed up for.”
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.
University of Washington law professor Ryan Calo, who studies emerging technologies, said companies have federal, state and common laws that protect proprietary information.
“At first blush, it looks pretty common sense. If you’re trying to investigate what happened and you suspect one of your employees, it seems like common sense you should be able to do this, however, there are legal mechanisms,” he said.
Cole said the amendment has broad language, such as “work-related misconduct.”
“It’s up to the employer to define what that constitutes,” he said.

(© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
 

Sinn Fein

Infidel and White Interloper
Wackbag Staff
Aug 29, 2002
31,800
2,355
898
Florida's Nature Coast
#2
Glad I live in a state that would tell anyone with such an idea to go shit in their hat.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
79,424
27,780
898
Seattle
#3
This is why you don't put shit in your facebook and keep two accounts.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,455
438
The Inland Empire State
#4
Nice of the AP to bury the scumbag's affiliation at the end of the story.
Ummm...you realize the bill's sponsor didn't introduce the amendment right?

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.
And that the original bill was actually designed to PROTECT passwords from being forced to be revealed. There's even a provision for an employee to sue if they were wronged by this action.

SENATE BILL 5211
_____________________________________________
State of Washington
63rd Legislature
2013 Regular Session

By Senators Hobbs, Eide, Kline, Ranker, Hatfield, Harper, Billig,
Hasegawa, Kohl-Welles, Shin, Keiser, Frockt, Rolfes, Hill, Conway, and
Nelson

Read first time 01/23/13. Referred to Committee on Commerce & Labor.

AN ACT Relating to social networking accounts and profiles; adding
new sections to chapter 49.44 RCW; and prescribing penalties.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 49.44 RCW to read as follows:

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or the
state of Washington, its political subdivisions, or municipal
corporations to require, directly or indirectly, as a condition of
employment or continued employment, that any employee or prospective
employee submit any password or other related account information in
order to gain access to the employee's or prospective employee's
account or profile on a social networking web site or to demand access
in any manner to an employee's or prospective employee's account or
profile on a social networking web site.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 49.44 RCW to read as follows:
In a civil action alleging a violation of section 1 of this act the court may:

(1) Award a penalty in the amount of five hundred dollars to a
prevailing employee or prospective employee in addition to any award of
actual damages;
(2) Award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to the prevailing
employee or prospective employee; and
(3) Pursuant to RCW 4.84.185, award any prevailing party against
whom an action has been brought for a violation of section 1 of this
act reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees upon final judgment and
written findings by the trial judge that the action was frivolous and
advanced without reasonable cause.
And, as a side note:
Senators Hobbs, Eide, Kline, Ranker, Hatfield, Harper, Billig, Hasegawa, Kohl-Welles, Shin, Keiser, Frockt, Rolfes, Hill,Conway, Nelson
Out of the 15 sponsors of this bill, only one was a Republican (Hill). :haha7:

And you realize the amendment was put in there at the request of business owners only to address concerns of leaking proprietary information, or possible criminal activity by the employee. Actually sounds kind of reasonable to me.
The amendment was introduced at the House Labor Committee at the request of business groups...

...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.

Under the amendment, employees would be present when their social network profiles are searched and whatever information found is kept confidential, unless it is relevant to a criminal investigation.
And also, what's a Democrat lawaker? :haha7:

So tell us Don, who told you that you should be outraged at this story? Rush? Levin? Drudge?
:haha7: :haha7: :haha7:
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
143,814
50,736
644
#6
I believe the proper response is "no chance of this getting passed." I also would have accepted, "Isn't it it better that representatives waste time on stuff like this?"
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#7
I came here to see OAPC and Faildog carry water for piece of shit democrats, and wasn't disappointed.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#8
I believe the proper response is "no chance of this getting passed." I also would have accepted, "Isn't it it better that representatives waste time on stuff like this?"
Except it will be passed in Washington. You missed the democrat part.

Nice try.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
143,814
50,736
644
#9
http://kfor.com/2013/01/02/facebook-password-laws-go-into-effect-in-6-states/

Employers in six states will no longer be able to require their employees hand over personal Facebook account passwords thanks to new laws passed this year.
California, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan and New Jersey all passed similar bans, reported Reuters. The California and Illinois’ laws also include job applicants.
California and Illinois? Those bastions of conservatism!

Except it will be passed in Washington. You missed the democrat part.

Nice try.
I don't think you got the gist of my post but nice try yourself.
 

Falldog

Wackbag's Best Conservative
Donator
May 16, 2007
19,306
6,874
568
Nothern VA
#12
I don't think it's irreverent at all. This is serious stuff.

And it's absolutely RELEVANT.
So what you're saying is that this would be okay if a Republican proposed it. Got it.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,455
438
The Inland Empire State
#14
http://kfor.com/2013/01/02/facebook-password-laws-go-into-effect-in-6-states/

California and Illinois? Those bastions of conservatism!

I don't think you got the gist of my post but nice try yourself.
Out here in California the bill was proposed by a DEMOCRAT and signed by a DEMOCRAT governor. Nice of the Sacramento Bee to BURY the political party of the sponsor in the middle of the article.

December 7, 2012

Bill extends social media protections to public-sector workers
Public-sector employers in California wouldn't be allowed to ask their employees or job applicants for access to personal social media accounts, such as Twitter and Facebook, under the provisions of a measure introduced this week.

Assembly Bill 25, authored by Assemblywoman Nora Campos should be a slam-dunk. The San Jose Democrat wrote a similar measure that sailed through the Legislature virtually unopposed during the last session. Gov. Jerry Brown signed it in September to take effect Jan. 1.

AB 25 tweaks that new law, which failed to specify that government employers may not request social media usernames or passwords from their employees or prospective hires. The amendment also bans disciplining, terminating or otherwise retaliating against anyone who refuses a request for their social media information.
Here's the bill language:
Assembly Bill 25

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2012/12/california-bill-would-extend-twitter-facebook-protections-to-public-sector.html#storylink=cpy

 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
143,814
50,736
644
#15
Out here in California the bill was proposed by a DEMOCRAT and signed by a DEMOCRAT governor. Nice of the Sacramento Bee to BURY the political party of the sponsor in the middle of the article.
Facts hurt.
 

Falldog

Wackbag's Best Conservative
Donator
May 16, 2007
19,306
6,874
568
Nothern VA
#16
And you realize the amendment was put in there at the request of business owners only to address concerns of leaking proprietary information, or possible criminal activity by the employee. Actually sounds kind of reasonable to me.
It undermines key aspects of the bill. It's ripe for abuse. Imagine our warrant system if they removed the requirements of evidence and judicial oversight and it became "We received an anonymous tip so we're going to look look around your house and if we see something we think is applicable then we're going to take it."
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#17
Did you read the original bill proposed by the 14 Democrats and 1 Republican? It PROHIBITS employers from asking for passwords.
This isn't about the Bill. It's about the amendment, proposed by the democrat controlled committee.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,455
438
The Inland Empire State
#18
It undermines key aspects of the bill. It's ripe for abuse. Imagine our warrant system if they removed the requirements of evidence and judicial oversight and it became "We received an anonymous tip so we're going to look look around your house and if we see something we think is applicable then we're going to take it."
I see that point too. I think the employer had to have more evidence of an "anonymous tip." As it stands now, they can just refer any evidence of wrong doing to the authorities anyway.

And to quote LiddyRules, I believe the proper response is "no chance of this getting passed." I see the bill passing but the 14 Democrat and 1 Republican sponsors kicking this out of the final bill.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,455
438
The Inland Empire State
#19
This isn't about the Bill. It's about the amendment, proposed by the democrat controlled committee.
You're backpedaling now Don. You thought that the Democrat sponsor of the bill was the one who came up with this. Isn't that why you called the honorable Sen. Hobbs a "scumbag?" Otherwise you would have titled the thread "Democrat lawakerS want employers to have your Facebook password."
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#20
It undermines key aspects of the bill. It's ripe for abuse. Imagine our warrant system if they removed the requirements of evidence and judicial oversight and it became "We received an anonymous tip so we're going to look look around your house and if we see something we think is applicable then we're going to take it."
Hey, look, an intelligent post making a point. And I agree with it.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
143,814
50,736
644
#21
I believe you mean, "I agree with this post. Therefore, it's intelligent."
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#22
You're backpedaling now Don. You thought that the Democrat sponsor of the bill was the one who came up with this. Isn't that why you called the honorable Sen. Hobbs a "scumbag?" Otherwise you would have titled the thread "Democrat lawakerS want employers to have your Facebook password.
Yeah I got them confused. Doesn't change the facts of the case.

Also, since I need to spoon feed everything to you people, the entire premise of the thread is an answer to droogie's retarded "guess the party" posts. I saw the story, then saw his latest retarded post, and decided to make a thread real quick.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#23
I believe you mean, "I agree with this post. Therefore, it's intelligent."
Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Take a look at the other active thread. I disagree with Biv and AH there and said they were making intelligent points.

 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,455
438
The Inland Empire State
#24
Yeah I got them confused. Doesn't change the facts of the case.
Don admitting a backpedal. Awesome.
Also, since I need to spoon feed everything to you people, the entire premise of the thread is an answer to droogie's retarded "guess the party" posts. I saw the story, then saw his latest retarded post, and decided to make a thread real quick.
Spoon fed us what? I'm the one who did the research on the original bill (and posted the link). You're the one who got all frothed up by what you thought was this poor "scumbag" Democrat's attempt to invade our privacy. You were so quick to post it you even spelled the title wrong. LOL.

And besides, this is totally not applicable to a "guess the party" thread. A gun-grabbing story, yes, but a story about protecting privacy is pretty much something that Democrats (and lib-leaning organizations like the ACLU and EFF) are always advocating. And even plenty of Republicans agree too, so it's kind of one of the few things both sides of the aisle can agree on. Now go find us a gun-grabbing thread so we can tee off on radical leftists and we can all sing kumbaya. :action-sm
 

Falldog

Wackbag's Best Conservative
Donator
May 16, 2007
19,306
6,874
568
Nothern VA
#25
Don admitting a backpedal. Awesome.

Spoon fed us what? I'm the one who did the research on the original bill (and posted the link). You're the one who got all frothed up by what you thought was this poor "scumbag" Democrat's attempt to invade our privacy. You were so quick to post it you even spelled the title wrong. LOL.

And besides, this is totally not applicable to a "guess the party" thread. A gun-grabbing story, yes, but a story about protecting privacy is pretty much something that Democrats (and lib-leaning organizations like the ACLU and EFF) are always advocating. And even plenty of Republicans agree too, so it's kind of one of the few things both sides of the aisle can agree on. Now go find us a gun-grabbing thread so we can tee off on radical leftists and we can all sing kumbaya. :action-sm
Don needed to fulfill his daily "Democrats are eeeeeevil" quota for the day.