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 ebakke on 10/1/2012 1:25:37 PM , Rating: 0
You voluntarily gave your urine, but vehemently oppose supervised access to your online profile?! If nothing else, I'm very much intrigued why your decision making process.


By ebakke on 10/1/2012 1:26:01 PM , Rating: 2
*by your

(No edit!)


By mcnabney on 10/1/2012 1:43:01 PM , Rating: 2
Well, one uncovers prior criminal activity (I don't believe it should be criminal, but the law is the law) and the other is essentially providing the employer with the equivalent of a wire tap or mail interception.

In addition, an employer can discover a number of things in your online profile which it is ILLEGAL for them to ask. Stuff like:
your age
your religion
your political affiliation

It also gives them access to content from your 'friends' which your friend has not given them permission to view.


By ebakke on 10/1/2012 2:10:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Well, one ... and the other ...
But both require your voluntary agreement to move forward with employment (assuming your employer wants your credentials). And I'm intrigued that he's willing to give his urine/DNA, but not his online profile. Moreover, that he supports legislation to bar employers from collecting one but not the other.

Interesting points in the later half. I suppose one could've argued that it was already illegal based on the information they would find. In essence, that the employer was asking for your age, religion, political affiliation, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if someone were able to win on those grounds.

But all that would do is prove that this new law is superflous.


By SlyNine on 10/1/2012 4:26:11 PM , Rating: 2
Because one is just DNA. The other is who you are as a person, whether your gay, atheist, hate president Obama. None of that stuff has anything to do with your ability to perform a job. Its stuff you might post on your facebook and it is none of their business.

Since they fail to see this, we have a new law.


By Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer on 10/1/2012 2:43:05 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm. I mean, you're actually raising a decent point here (no offense, but you're not managing to do that with all your posts), so let me actually give you a reasoned answer here.

First of all, I don't believe that employers should be able to require urine tests, but they are legally allowed to. It's not a law I agree with, but it's a law. I also don't believe that recreational drugs should be illegal (certainly not ones you can grow, like pot or shrooms). That being said, I don't use them, so it was kind of moot for me except in a hypothetical, "in an ideal world" kind of a way.

quote:
Moreover, that he supports legislation to bar employers from collecting one but not the other.


I don't support drug-testing legislation, so don't be putting words in my mouth. Since one could argue that drug-testing laws are a win for employers infringing on your rights, where's the disconnect in my supporting a law that is a win for employees' rights? We don't need to be letting companies walk over us more than they already do.


"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














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