{"id":959,"date":"2012-09-09T16:12:34","date_gmt":"2012-09-09T16:12:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=959"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:54:08","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:54:08","slug":"access-denied-proposed-federal-legislation-takes-aim-at-employers-requesting-employee-social-network-passwords","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/access-denied-proposed-federal-legislation-takes-aim-at-employers-requesting-employee-social-network-passwords\/","title":{"rendered":"Access Denied: Proposed Federal Legislation Takes Aim at Employers Requesting Employee Social Network Passwords"},"content":{"rendered":"

Tuesday, September 4, 2012 by Laura Arredondo-Santisteban
\nEarlier this year, Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) introduced into the House of Representatives and Senate a bill amending the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act called the Password Protection Act of 2012<\/a>.\u00a0 The bill would make it a federal crime for employers to \u201cknowingly and intentionally\u201d coerce any person to authorize access, such as provide their password, to a computer that is not the employer\u2019s computer for the purposes of hiring, promoting, or firing.
\n\u201cIn an age where more and more of our personal information\u2014and our private social interactions\u2014are online, it is vital that all individuals be allowed to determine for themselves what personal information they want to make public and protect personal information from would-be employers,\u201d Senator Schumer said in an Associate Press statement<\/a>.
\nThe American Civil Liberties Union hails the bill as a \u2018Good Start Against Employer Snooping,\u2019<\/a> but states that the bill still contains many weaknesses, such as a lack of protection for students.\u00a0 The ACLU notes that the bill would not cover student-athletes, for whom it is now common for coaches to monitor and access their social media networks.\u00a0 In the wake of the 2011 NCAA investigation<\/a> of UNC\u2019s football team, many other university sports programs began banning<\/a> or actively monitoring their student-athletes\u2019 social media sites.
\nApart from not offering protection to students, the bill also leaves room for employers to compel employees or job applicants to grant access to their personal sites through employer\u2019s computer that does constitute a \u201cprotected computer<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 This is significant in cases involving \u2018over the shoulder browsing,\u2019 in which employers compel potential employees to log into their personal online accounts on an employer\u2019s computer for the purpose of reviewing the content together.<\/p>\n

In an age where more and more of our personal information\u2014and our private social interactions\u2014are online, it is vital that all individuals be allowed to determine for themselves what personal information they want to make public and protect personal information from would-be employers,\u201d Senator Schumer<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

While criticized as weak in the extent of its coverage, one of the Act\u2019s strengths is that the protections offered are not limited to solely social media sites, but also includes private email accounts and photo-sharing sites.\u00a0 The ACLU praises the Act as being largely technology-neutral, allowing it to remain applicable despite the constant evolution of technology.
\nSeparately, states<\/a> have begun enacting their own privacy measures in an effort to protect workers\u2019 and their online social networking accounts.\u00a0 This past May, Maryland<\/a> became the first state to sign into law a bill, which prohibits employers from requiring employers or job applicants to provide their usernames, passwords, or any other access to personal sites as a condition for employment.\u00a0 The bill was drafted in response to stories, like those of Robert Collins<\/a>, who was required to turn over this Facebook password to his employer upon reapplication for his job.
\nMaryland is not the only state to have enacted legislation protecting workers online privacy.\u00a0 In August 2012, Illinois<\/a> enacted House Bill 3782, which makes it unlawful for employers to request social network account information, like a password or username, from potential or current employees.\u00a0 Around the same time, California\u2019s<\/a> state senate unanimously voted in support of a bill similar to Maryland and Illinois, banning employers from requiring access to employees\u2019 and job applicants\u2019 social media accounts, as well as to barring employer retaliation if requests to grant access are denied.
\nIn an age where more and more people are choosing to share personal information with a selected group of viewers online, such legislation at the federal and state level is an important<\/a> step at reestablishing boundaries between a person\u2019s private and work life.\u00a0 However, the legislation is not without its flaws and should be recognized for what it is: a good step.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Tuesday, September 4, 2012 by Laura Arredondo-Santisteban Earlier this year, Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) introduced into the House of Representatives and Senate a bill amending the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act called the Password Protection Act of 2012.\u00a0 The bill would make it a federal crime for employers to \u201cknowingly and …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/959"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=959"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/959\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7705,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/959\/revisions\/7705"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=959"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=959"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=959"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}