Youngstown Daily Legal News

ACLU of Ohio backs banning companies from requesting social media passwords

TIFFANY L. PARKS
Special to the Legal News
Published: September 17, 2013

The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio has endorsed a Bexley lawmaker’s call for banning employers requiring applicants or existing employees to provide access to their private electronic accounts such as Facebook.

“The problem of employers snooping on employees and applicants is a dilemma not limited to any political ideology or party, race, religion or any number of other factors,” said Gary Daniels, ACLU of Ohio associate director.

“None of us would allow employers to go through our mail, email, wallets or purses or homes. Neither should we allow them to do the same with our participation on social networking sites and other electronic accounts.”

Pegged as the Social Media Privacy Protection Act, Senate Bill 45 would apply to employers, employment agencies, personnel placement services and labor organizations.

“The ACLU of Ohio Supports SB 45 as legislation necessary to preserve the personal privacy of employees and job seekers in Ohio,” Daniels said.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Charleta Tavares, a Democrat, previously introduced the proposal as Senate Bill 351 in the last legislature.

Tavares said the bill was drafted to reverse trends in Ohio and throughout the country of employers requiring current staff and potential employees to hand over their passwords to various social media sites where they have a public profile.

“This bill is an effort to correct the invasion of the privacy of individuals who simply want to work,” she said. “Employees should not have to give the keys to their personal and private information just to gain or maintain employment.”

SB 45 states that it would be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any employer, employment agency, personnel placement service or labor organization to recklessly ask or require an applicant or employee to disclose usernames or passwords associated with a private electronic account of the applicant or employee.

It would also be unlawful to discharge, discipline, threaten to discharge or discipline or otherwise penalize an employee if the employee refuses to disclose usernames or passwords associated with a private electronic account or if the employee refuses to provide access to their private electronic account.

The bill defines a “private electronic account” as a collection of electronically-stored private information regarding an individual, including such data stored on social media Internet websites, electronic devices and email accounts.

A “social media Internet website” is defined as a site that allows individuals to construct a public or semipublic profile within a bounded system created by the service and create a list of other users with whom the individual shares a connection within the system.

They’re also sites that allow individuals to view and navigate the list of users with whom the individual shares a connection and those lists of users made by others within the system.

“Indeed, more and more people utilize social media on a daily basis for such purposes as networking among their friends, families and peers, looking for employment, seeking romance, posting and sharing of photos and music and a wide array of other uses that continues to grow,” Daniels said.

Through the public’s collective use of social networks, Daniels said people often reveal a lot of personal information.

“Everything from our political preferences, religious beliefs, sexual orientations, medical conditions, income, friends and acquaintances, and the thoughts we care to share about everything and anything can be found online,” he said.

“Wisely, many of us only share this information with people we have pre-approved, limiting access in a way that is solely our decision. Unfortunately, a disturbing trend is developing across the country whereby prospective and current employers demand access to usernames and passwords of these websites and related electronic accounts.”

While the ACLU of Ohio supports SB 45 as introduced, Daniels said the organization has proposed two changes to the bill including removing the word “recklessly” from the ban against requesting a password.

“As written, our concern is the inclusion of this vague term will only serve as a counterproductive defense for employers who are investigated, cited or fined,” Daniels said, adding that the organization also wants to see schools, universities, colleges and similar entities added to the list of those forbidden to demand access to usernames and passwords.

“Students deserve these same protections and the problem SB 45 seeks to remedy is an issue for them as well,” he said. “Such requirements are unnecessary, unwelcome, intrusive and would end if SB 45 were passed into law.”

The bill is before the Senate Commerce and Labor committee.

[Back]