backtop


Print 70 comment(s) - last by ebakke.. on Oct 3 at 10:25 AM


  (Source: rudebaguette.com)
Laws protect workers and students

California Governor Edmund Brown Jr. recently signed a new law into effect designed to protect the privacy of social media users. Governor Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 1844 and Senate Bill 1349. These new laws will prevent universities and employers from requiring that applicants give up e-mail or social media account passwords. 
 
Over the last year, there has been a significant increase in the number of job applicants and college students being forced to surrender passwords to social network sites such as Facebook and others to be considered for acceptance to the college or to be offered a job. Privacy advocates argue that this is a clear violation of privacy.
 
Governor Brown said, "The Golden State is pioneering the social media revolution, and these laws will protect all Californians from unwarranted invasions of their personal social media accounts."
 
Assembly Bill 1844 prohibits employers from demanding usernames, passwords, or any other information related to social media accounts from employees and any other job applicants. The bill also bans employers from firing or disciplining employees who refused to divulge this information. The law does not provide protections for passwords or other information used to access employer-issued electronic devices.
 
Senate Bill 1349 adds a similar privacy policy for post-secondary education students for social media. The bill stipulates the public and private institutions can't require students, prospective students, and student groups to disclose usernames, passwords, or other private information for social media. Senate Bill 1349 passed without opposition in the legislature.
 
Supporters of Assembly Bill 1844 said that it is a common sense measure needed to clarify questionable business practices.

Source: Gov.ca.gov



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Rukkian on 10/1/2012 11:51:13 AM , Rating: 2
And then when you don't get the job that you need to support your family, what then.

I really wish it would not be needed, but there are plenty of instances of this happening. Courts are not holding your private information online the same as private information other places.

I think having states have the right to make a law such as this (even if it just clarifies what should be common sense from the constitution makes sense). Much better than the federal government getting involved.


By ebakke on 10/1/2012 12:03:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And then when you don't get the job that you need to support your family, what then.
You get a different job!

quote:
I think having states have the right to make a law such as this (even if it just clarifies what should be common sense from the constitution makes sense). Much better than the federal government getting involved.
Sure. If one were to create a law saying we can only buy apples on Sunday afternoons, I'd prefer that be at the state-level too. But supporting federalism and supporting this law are separate issues.


By Techslave on 10/1/2012 12:38:45 PM , Rating: 2
You must work at a lot of gas stations. The "just get another job" argument doesn't fly in career fields involving more specialized disciplines. When you have a. An economy with a dearth of jobs and b. Employers abusing current or potential employees because of a., then yes laws like this are needed.

It's unfortunate, but true.


By ebakke on 10/1/2012 12:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'm certainly not going to go to my government overlords and demand they go do my dirty work for me. The "just get another job" argument does too work. I didn't like my last job, for a variety of reasons, so I left. And before that, I left. All the way back to my first paper route. Unless you've worked the same job your whole life, or only left because of your employer's choosing, you've also taken part in my wild and crazy idea.


By ebakke on 10/1/2012 12:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
Furthermore, if your argument is "this law is needed because the economy sucks" then I suggest addressing the problem and not the symptom.


By Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer on 10/1/2012 1:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
So because Sudafed (the real stuff that they make meth out of, not the crappy replacements) only helps the symptoms of a cold without actually attacking the virus that causes it, we should suffer through the sneezing and postnasal drip while the virus runs its course?

Given that you can't get over the cold (the bad economy) overnight, how is it a bad idea to treat the runny nose (employer abuse) palliatively in the meantime? Sheesh, it's like people think we live in some kind of ideal world, here...


By Techslave on 10/1/2012 1:14:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not going to argue with a paper boy. Like another post had stated, everyone gets it but you. Maybe some day you'll be old enough to figure it out.

Or maybe not.


By ebakke on 10/1/2012 1:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
Oh snap! So apparently a debate of the ideas is out then. Shame.


By SlyNine on 10/1/2012 4:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
You're idea sucks anyways. I bet you're anti union and anti workers rights. You seem to forget why we got both of them in the first place.

Obviously with the internet, new laws are going to be created. What are you, an anarchist? Id bet you'd be the first one to fall in such a world.


By Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer on 10/1/2012 1:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When you have a. An economy with a dearth of jobs and b. Employers abusing current or potential employees because of a., then yes laws like this are needed.

Precisely. If we lived in an ideal world where everyone could simply choose to not work for an employer that seeks to violate their privacy, this legislation wouldn't be necessary.

Since we don't, it is.


By SlyNine on 10/1/2012 4:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, I think most people are agreeing with this law. Maybe you need to start your own country if you don't agree. It makes about as much sense as telling people to start their own company.

You seem to have a function fixation issue. Most people are not for expansion of the government, but I'm not for letting companies do whatever they want either. Corporations have ALL the power in this country. Yet you are all for letting them walk all over people because you don't want a simple piece of federal law that actually helps people


By ebakke on 10/1/2012 4:46:13 PM , Rating: 2
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but you sir (or madam) are an idiot.

* Whether or not other people agree or disagree with this law is irrelevant to my opinion of it.
* I can't go start another country. The land has been claimed. Starting another company however, is something countless people do every single day.
* Corporations don't have the power, the people have the power. However, they're all too willing to give it up to someone else under the guise that this other person will look out for their best interests.
* I'm not letting corporations walk over anyone. I'm advocating individuals stand up for themselves.
* It's a California (that's one of the 50 states) law.


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki