Six States Outlaw Employer Snooping on Facebook

[Teamster Jeff]

>>>
Six states have officially made it illegal for employers to ask their workers for passwords to their social media accounts, reports CNET.com. As of 2013, California and Illinois have joined the ranks of Michigan, New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware in passing state laws against the practice, according to Wired.

With Congress not being able to come to agreement on the Password Protection Act of 2012, individual states have taken the law into their own hands. Both California and Illinois agreed on password protection laws in 2012, but the laws didn't go into effect until yesterday.

The laws are designed to prohibit employers from requiring an employee or job applicant to provide their username and password for social media accounts, such as Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram.
>>>

http://www.chicagodefender.com/index.php/business/15706-six-states-outlaw-employer-snooping-on-facebook

[ladjf]

1. That's progress. nt

[Cynicus Emeritus]

2. It's a good start but

Why would anyone join Facebook in the first place, and put their life history, their network of acquaintances, their activities, photographs, and expose their political and social beliefs, etc and put it all into a corporate database? This database will live on forever and that the user does not control or have any ability to delete. In reality the door to FB access can be shut in the face of the account holder forever at the whim of FB, unless the user continue to agree to their changing terms and conditions, and that will put your privacy at more risk.

The ultimate goal of FB Inc. is to profit from individuals' loss of privacy, to know everything about you, and to sell the rights to your life history and experiences to those who will use data analytics as marketing tools, that they will use to determine what makes you tick. They want the ability to use techniques that will convince you to buy what you don't need and convince you to vote for candidates that may not serve you best. Even more sinister would be the capability to use against you (for those who become more notable) what you may have done at a time when you were not as responsible. Many will come to rue the day that they saw Facebook as something beneficial and in their self interest.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. The networking possibilities are wonderful.

I've hooked up with teachers all over the country on FB. We share info, trade ideas and educate each other.

[Cynicus Emeritus]

5. There are other ways

to share information such as discussion forums like DU or other profession related user groups where users use pseudonyms, and the information you post is never tied directly to you the individual, and is not centrally archived and stored forever along with everything else about you to be used for marketing purposes, etc. Private messaging can be utilized for off line discussion.

But if FB suits you then use it, but beware that many teachers have lost their jobs over innocent ramblings. Even the Suckerbergs don't know exactly how privacy settings work as illustrated by the family photo that was recently shared. The more individuals invest in it the more docile they will become to demand by FB to more information because they don't want locked out. Why doesn't FB provide their users with an ability to download their complete database in the event they are locked out because they refuse to provide their cell phone, DNA or more private information. https://www.google.com/search?q=teachers+fired+for+facebook&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. Teachers have lost their jobs? Do you have any links?

I'd love to share that on Facebook.

[Cynicus Emeritus]

8. See links

I did provide a Google link in the above post which has multiple related links. Search Google "teachers lose jobs over facebook".

The only reason I would use Facebook is if I had a business and wanted exposure. Other than that an account would not exist under my real name. Good luck to you.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Did you look at any of those links?

First link - this teacher was NOT fired:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/teacher_can_be_fired_for_facebook_xRiQzYv3CR9Gi8XRtUjcML

This one was snooping on her students' Facebook page and was fired for refusing to allow them to go on a field trip:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/article1252326.ece

This one is a substitute teacher with a GED. She wouldn't be allowed to sub in most states:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/oct/29/teacher-fired-over-teen-pregnancy-facebook-flap/?page=1#

This is about an aide, not a teacher. They are hire/fire at will employees:
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/failing-provide-facebook-password-gets-teachers-aide-fired-642699

This teacher was suspended, not fired:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=8732333

This is a yoga instructor:
http://www.sfgate.com/technology/article/Yoga-teacher-fired-over-cell-phone-ban-at-Facebook-3694293.php

This is a column with some good information:
http://www.educationnation.com/index.cfm?objectid=72C543DE-4EA0-11E1-B607000C296BA163

Another story about the Facebook snooper mentioned above:
http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/274646/8/Teacher-Angelica-Cruikshank-fired-for-Facebook-snooping-I-didnt-deserve-it

This is about a controversy, not a firing:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/03/manatee-county-school-district-under-fire-for-teachers_n_1645875.html

This teacher go her job back and was then fired for incompetence:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/47994422/ns/today-today_news/t/teacher-who-called-students-loathsome-rat-like-fired/#.UOiMDI4QvrA

[theKed]

4. Why the fuck

is this even an issue?
Why the fuck would you ever give your private, personal password to a private, personal service. Just...no. Why does this have to be even entertained? If somebody asked me to do that in an interview, I would stand the fuck up and walk out.

[socialindependocrat]

6. Some people really want a job and some employers want a reason not to hire some employees

I know of cases where people are fired for because they signed petitions and
gave support to certain issues in an interview.

Similar to businesses who wanted to express their dislike for Obamacare and said
they would reduce employee hours. They want to use their businesses as leverage
to promote certain causes.

We can argue that people can be good, productive employees no matter what their beliefs
but some employers like the power and will use whatever is at their disposal. Not much
different than Scott Walker fro Wisconson. They don't care about what is fair, they just
want a world that fits their beliefs and the rest be damned.

I know what you are saying - If you don't like the boss why do you want to work for them?
Some people value the job and the security over the loss of self-expression in the workplace.

Just saying....