I am torn on legislation like this. This fits the bill (pun intended) for my requirement of what I think government should be doing. This also fits the bill of what I think the government should not be doing (allow the market to decide if they want to work for employers who demand access to their web 2.0 stuff).
Passwords should be treated like any privacy law. Maybe, like criminal record checks, we can think of situations where it would be valid for the company to need such access (though I have trouble), but otherwise requiring such information for employment seems like a fairly gross violation.
I have interviewed dozens, maybe even hundreds, of people.
The only thing you need to know, to find someone on facebook, is their name and location.
I find this law to be stupid, after thinking about it. If an employer really wants to get into someone's business, they can create a dummy account, set the location to the applicant's area, and friend them. Then, bam, insta-access to that person's account. There's nothing illegal about that since the person accepted the friend request. There is no law against lying about your location on a web 2.0 website.
I taught a section of intro psych this year, and I am involved in the marking/other TA stuff for a couple of different classes. If my Facebook contained really terrible things that reflected poorly upon the University or on myself as an employee of the University, I'd think they have the right to moderate it to some degree. For instance, if I were to insult students or the school, that probably isn't ok. I can't imagine why they would need access to the account though...
I do not see why your personal life would matter...even in the web 2.0 environment. What you do on your own time with your friends is none of their business. Posting, "Man, the University of Winnipeg is run very poorly", is none of their business. Additionally, I believe your law protects you from the organization infringing upon those rights (CCRF...section 2b, iirc..your equivalent of our First Amendment).
However, I do think they should be able to require you make your postings, photos, etc. private. You can set your settings on Facebook to only show up to people you have marked as friends. IMO, setting that stuff to private still allows you your freedom and the school it's privacy.
However, a private institution should be able to require anything it wants from people, in their personal lives...as long as it does not infringe upon any of the elements in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedom. If the law puts an undue burden, and it can be shown to be so, then the organization should have the right to terminate or not hire the person. Only a precedent has to be set: not every private organization would have to prove this.
certainly, I didn't mean to imply that their only option should be to outright ban things.
this is already a violation of the Charter, there are lots of personally identifying things that potential employers are not (technically) supposed to ask employees based on our laws (age, race, gender, I think some things involving pregnancy, etc).
I would find this similar to a company requiring a key to your car or home to work there. Maybe there are some weird security jobs or sensitive materials jobs where this would be relevant, but not something a regular employee should reasonably be subject to. Just because it is a private company doesn't mean they have carte blanche to violate your privacy rights.
My bad, I did not mean to imply that you implied that.
I was commenting on the American debate of, "Employers can require you not post about your job, when you're off the clock."
It is certainly different in Canada. I think you have better 'speech' laws there.
However, I personally think that a private organization (for instance, a private university or not a publicly traded organization) should be able to suppress their employees' or associates' speech as much as they want as long as employment, on both ends, is voluntary (meaning, if either party is dissatisfied with what the other is offering, they can terminate their agreement with no repercussions).
I think that an employer that has a legitimate need to have access to your dwelling would be a reason to for them to have access to your dwelling (like...lol at that statement).
I can't think of any examples except for people that like to house data-centers in their basement.
That's true for the most part, though. However, the fear is taking something out of context or applying a maligned interpretation to something benign, and the originator getting in trouble over it.
IIRC, that was the political philsophy behind wanting freedom from privacy invasion in the US. That might have had something to do (the interpretation of the laws) with what happened during the French revolution.
Fair enough. I'd say its more like, an employer should be able to stop you from insulting them in public. Maybe, I guess... this can get into stuff like whistleblowing or whatever, and I'm not really sure a minimum wage employer like McDonalds should have the right to suppress the speech of like a burger flipper...
we have more restricted speech, yes
That might be ideal, but for a lot of people, work really isn't a volunteer type of thing. If we are talking about low income people who do jobs as opposed to having a career, or people doing temp stuff, especially if they have kids, then I don't think the power dynamic in that relationship between employer and employee is really a "mutually voluntary" one. In a situation like that, unless it is something egregious, I really don't think a bar has the right to censor a server if she goes home and bitches on her facebook. and hell, maybe that will encourage employers to treat their low income employees better
My sister did some engineering work at a nuclear power plant a few years ago, and she said every day her car was searched in the parking lot, and she had to leave the hood up so they could check the engine. I'm not sure if it was a full search, or if she left it unlocked vs them having a key, but thats sort of what I was thinking. A nuclear power plant may have the right to restrict you more than a desk job should be allowed to.
With this issue in the UK, the recent ruling was that employees absolutely had the right to ask for social network details- and the employee absolutely has the right to refuse to do so.
Settles it, I think.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on May 1st, 2012 at 06:48 PM
KMC Community Forums
Apr 30th, 2012 05:10 PM
