Posted on 04/23/2013 9:32:05 AM PDT by BenLurkin
An attempt to ban US bosses from asking employees to hand over their Facebook login details has been blocked by Congress.
A last minute alteration to the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) that would have prevented employers demanding that prospective employees disclose social media passwords as a condition of employment was voted down in the house of representatives.
The proposal, put forward by Democrat Ed Perlmutter was defeated by a 224-189 majority....
Perlmutter said of his amendment before it was defeated: 'It helps the individual protect his right to privacy and it doesn't allow the employer to impersonate that particular employee when other people are interacting with that person across social media platforms.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
It is a violation of the license agreement with Facebook to give out such passwords, therefore, employees and candidates should sue the company and file federal charges of wiretapping and computer hacking.
“No one has a right to be employed by the entity of their choice.”
Yes, they do. Settled law. Grow up.
The time difference makes it difficult to call, and I don’t like to write letters.
I prefer the computer. Easy and quick.
You also can’t easily see pictures of their kids. On facebook, I get to see the pictures of kids: graduations, weddings, grandkids!
It’s not for everyone, but I like it!
My kids’ school is going to iPads next year. I’ve heard rumors that the kids are supposed to give the administration their passwords.
I won’t let my kids do that.
It’s a private school, and we are going to have to buy the iPads.
No way would I let them have the passwords!
“Let the states deal with this. Washington State is getting ready to make it illegal.”
I wonder if employers could demand your personal bank and credit card account information as well in states that permit this. As long as they don’t steal your money, are they entitled to see how you spend it?
I once worked for an employer that made us fill out applications for a Corporate AMEX card. Only came to learn years later while applying for a mortgage that they used the info I had provided for that purpose to go and check my credit report any damned time they felt like it.
It was a job where I was responsible for a good bit of money, so I could see where they were going with that. But the sneaky cloak-and-dagger BS really cheesed me off. Unfortunately they had gone out of business by that time so I could not sue.
Good one.
Or, do you own a gun? We don’t hire gun owners.
Once you acknowledge that employers are free to pick their employees then you acknowledge there is no right to work. Right to work IS right to demand work. Nobody is surrendering constitutional rights, there is no right to not be asked for your password.
Quite a few employers don’t allow guns in the work place. It’s not a violation of anybody’s second amendment. We also have employers that don’t allow their employees to smoke, not just at work but period. Again not a violation. Nothing in a voluntary relationship is EVER a violation of rights, because you always have the right to refuse. Rights can’t be violated by requests because you always have the option to say “no”, as long you opt in you can always opt out, rights are only violated when there is no opt out.
That’s ALL there is. They can ask and you can say no. And interviews are two way, I have refused jobs because I didn’t like the culture they presented during the interview. Nothing sour grapes about it, simply exercising my right in a voluntary relationship to say “no”. And I prefer getting every opportunity to find out I should say “no”, which means granting them every freedom to ask questions I don’t want to answer.
I didn’t raise a strawman, I pointed to real world reality, and I haven’t shut down debate. Meanwhile you’ve gone from strawmen to well poisoning. Once again, if you have to have logical fallacies that says something about your position.
Hm, well, we may have misunderstood each other. I was being sarcastic. I didn’t mean that I don’t do Facebook, only that I would refuse to admit to an employer that I have a FB account. And my privacy settings are such that I cannot be found via Facebook or by a Google search for Facebook. There are quite a few people with my name.
I got into Facebook as a way of staying in close touch with my daughter when she was away at university. She wanted to show me her life, her friends, her activities. It was fun. We still use it to communicate, to IM each other and share pictures.
Later I realized that FB has some important business uses. I know I don’t have several hundred friends but I do have several hundred potential customers. I also use FB to network with other conservatives and with those who share interests in my faith and in culture. I can adjust my postings so that only those who are interested will see them—that is, the friends who are interested in the same faith see news about faith, the ones who share interests in our common sports see those, the ones who are interested in politics or history or science see those, specifically. Most of my FB connections are conservatives. I have made quite a few real-life friends, have found cousins I didn’t know I had, and have made contact with valuable business and professional sources.
We are not the kind of people who post pictures of our breakfast or shopping. That’s a misconception. If you’re the sort of person who thinks his breakfast is interesting and everyone wants to know about it, then you probably have friends who think the same way. I don’t.
So, yes, it’s basically a good thing, as long as you don’t reveal data you don’t want the world to know about. I’m selective about what I put out there. Sad fact is, the powers that be already know where I live and what my credit rating is. They know what brand of toilet paper I use and how much I have in the bank, too. With or without Facebook, they collect data on you.
Your resume and no bad presence on google would prompt a phone call for further consideration.
You certainly have every right to pursue employment wherever you want. However, you do not have a right to be employed wherever you want.
1. The employer is asking the candidate to violate the terms of agreement with Facebook by handing over a password. The terms state that only the account holder may access the account, and they are not permitted to share passwords. The employer would be asking the candidate violate a contract, which is unethical as a condition of employment.
2. As a candidate, I would ask the employer to hand over his company password to the candidate. I'd follow it up with asking the employer if they can be fired for divulging their own passwords, then why would they want to hire someone who handed over one of his or her own?
-PJ
Trash, aren’t they. Another good reason for boycotts and replacement of leadership in business. Have fun. Enjoy the slide.
No what I saying is there is no violation of Constitutional rights. You need to stop lying about that. The Constitution limits the GOVERNMENT and ONLY THE GOVERNMENT. It NEVER governs VOLUNTARY relationships. It’s not a view, it’s a FACT. The most of you have a right for in employment is CONSIDERATION, you don’t have a right to the job, and they have a right to ask you whatever dumb questions they want, and you have the right to refuse. That’s Constitutional law, not a view.
Now you finally got it right “considered”, that’s the totality of your right. And they can base their considerations on whatever they want limited by well defined discrimination laws. Asking you for your password is NOT a violation of your Constitutional rights, the more often you say that the more deeply you show that you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. Which of the first 10 amendments say you don’t have to give a prospective employer access to personal information? Understand before you try to answer that that background checks and credit checks are not uncommon requests during the consideration process. If they have the right to find out your credit score they clearly have the right ask for your password. And of course you have the right to say no to either request.
There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. And even if there was since the Constitution limits the government this wouldn’t violate that, because again you can refuse.
If a company doesn’t want to hire gun owners that is their right. Voluntary relationship. And I want them to be ABLE to ask that question too, again so I know not to volunteer for this relationship. I want them to be able to ask EVERY question, ESPECIALLY the ones I don’t want to answer, so I know to take my talents elsewhere. I pointed out the guns in the workplace because it’s part of the gun continuum, some places have even banned gun from their parking lots, which has the potential to be problematic for gun owners.
No you don’t have a right to expect to be able to work. Qualifications for a job involve a lot more than just the skill set. There’s a cultural issue, some people wouldn’t mind working for someplace that has their FB password, most would. By asking that question they’re finding the qualified candidates.
You might not agree with it, but it’s a fact. There ARE places that will not hire smokers, which is their right. They’ve made a choice of the culture (and insurance premiums) they want and have acted pursuant to that. Your slippery sloped question is another fallacy and pointless. Businesses CAN make this choice and HAVE made this choice and it has proven legal if logistically difficult.
No one is demanding you surrender your right to privacy. They are ASKING and you can say no.
It’s not sour grapes, that’s you making crap up again. Just as I said, interviews are 2 way, I am interviewing the prospective employer as much as they are interviewing me. If their questions lead me to decide I don’t want to work in that environment I remove myself from consideration, no sour grapes, thanks for your time, thanks for the consideration, but I don’t think I’d fit in your organization good luck filling the position. I’ve done it, and later worked with the same people whom I’d rejected at other jobs. My industry is way too incestuous for sour grapes.
And now you’ve moved to ad hominems. You’re cruising through the whole list of logical fallacies. My position is accurate with current Constitutional law. You can tell because that’s how things are now, the law being considered would CHANGE the situation, removing their right to ask the question. If your position were correct they wouldn’t want the law.
They’re not means testing a Constitutional right. Again, the Constitution ONLY limits the GOVERNMENT.
You did not give a reasonable example. You asked if they could discriminate based on race, which of course is obviously a no because it’s illegal, which you were then hoping to hook around to this discussion which has nothing to do with discrimination. Strawman.
I’m not surrendering a right that never existed. You’re making new rights up, and trying to apply the Constitution out of designed scope.
Sure, but to say employers can stipulate classes of people they will not hire is illegal and for good reason. If you don’t like those laws then there is also nothing that says you have to be in business. Slavery is illegal as well. If a business cannot operate without demanding total ownership of their employees then they do not need to be in business as many businesses operate just fine without such immature insecurity.
Hu Flung Pu
Seymore Butts
Ben Dover
Aliq Muhdik
Peter Dangles
Dick Swinger
Clint Torres
Hugh Jass
Or, do you own a gun?
Not today...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.