Social Networking Online Protection Act

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9235869/Laws-to-protect-Facebook-passwords-from-prying-employers.html

The SNOPA Bill (Social Networking Online Protection Act) would mean any current or prospective employer would face a $10,000 civil penalty if they ask for access to social networking accounts. Schools and universities would also be banned from demanding passwords as part of disciplinary or enrollment processes.

It follows a series of incidents in which job candidates have been told they have to hand over passwords as part of the interview process.

"There have been countless examples of employers requiring an applicant to divulge their user name and password as part of the hiring process," said Eliot Engel, one of the Democratic Congressman who introduced SNOPA on Friday.
"Additionally, some universities, and even secondary schools, have required the student either divulge their personal information, or grant the nstitution access to the personal account by ‘friending’ the student."

He said that private social networking content and passwords should have the same protection as email account passwords or banking information.

Good idea or bad idea?

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).

How would they know? Couldn't you just say, "I don't have a Facefart account"?

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.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How would they know? Couldn't you just say, "I don't have a Facefart account"?

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 sort of think about it like this:

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...

Originally posted by inimalist
I sort of think about it like this:

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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

"Loose lips sink ships"

If you want that really cool job that pays well, then make sure your clean. That is just basic.

However, on the other hand, companies should not be looking at what their employees are saying on their own time.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

You can make your facebook account invisible to any searches, I thought.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

certainly, I didn't mean to imply that their only option should be to outright ban things.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

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.

Originally posted by inimalist
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 agree. I didn't even know certain employers even requested such information. Weird....and creepy.

Originally posted by inimalist
certainly, I didn't mean to imply that their only option should be to outright ban things.

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."

Originally posted by inimalist
cthis 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).

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).

Originally posted by inimalist
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.

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.

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

Originally posted by Robtard
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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."

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...

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is certainly different in Canada. I think you have better 'speech' laws there.

we have more restricted speech, yes

Originally posted by dadudemon
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).

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 😄

Originally posted by dadudemon
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).

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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

That saying is pure crap based on false assumptions.

Originally posted by Robtard
That saying is pure crap based on false assumptions.

Are you trolling yourself? 😂 😛

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.

Dom, you see the offensive shit I put on Facebook. Just as well I can't be compelled to give my log in details to my employer.

They'd likely boot you out of the haggis factory.

Originally posted by jaden101
Dom, you see the offensive shit I put on Facebook. Just as well I can't be compelled to give my log in details to my employer.

Touché.

And you see the offensive sh*t I put on your facebook, as well. haermm