5 states will have 'social media privacy law' or 'facebook password law'

[heavenlyboy34]

There's an easy way around this, you know. Just set up a fake FB page and never use it except when employers ask for it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Spoken like a man who has never even considered running his own business. If you had any idea the mountain of law and regulation and punitive taxation that a small business owner must endure to remain on the right side of the law, nothing like the above statement could ever pass your keyboard without sarcasm.

This^^ Tpoints, I suggest you build a business plan for an imaginary (self-employed) company as an exercise. That way, you'll learn all the shit business owners have to go through.

 

[LibForestPaul]

Until there is no place left to work or conduct business that does not "require" this.

Actually, more likely the state will REQUIRE certain individuals to give their employers access to private social media sites. This law easily can be turned. Why should teachers and cops be able to hide DANGEROUS or PERVERTED activities from PUBLIC employement? Think of the children! If a law can be made by the state to stop the dissemination of information, it can easily make a another law to force that information disseminated.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

When my boss gives me thier password I'll give mine. Just so I know who i'm working for.

 

[tttppp]

I'm an ancap, but I hate when people use the private companies have the right to do "x" to you argument as if corporations are private businesses to begin with. Well guess what? Private companies also have the right NOT to hire you if they can't get access to your private information. In my opinion and in any reasonable person's head, privacy for an individual far outweighs a private business's right to snoop.

Its not always snooping. Seeing your facebook account can provide valuable information to employers. For example, if they know your likes and dislikes that could give them a better idea if you can fit into the culture. If you have opinions on everything, you might not fit into a shut your mouth corporation. There are valid reasons for using it. But I admit large corporations will abuse it and use it as a tool to prevent hiring people.

 

[Tpoints]

Do you deny there are regulations and licensing fees?

No, I deny they are bad enough to prevent people from doing it. With two exceptions I'm aware of: taxi driving and alcohol serving. Oh, and even then, licensed users know how to make their money back, and sharing it around, it's called employing people.

 

[Tpoints]

It's now a federal crime to decorate a cake in a non-federally approved kitchen. Never mind baking a cake, I'm talking about decorating a cake. This in response to a salmonella outbreak that came from--guess where--a government-inspected commercial kitchen.

Are you seriously arguing that the government hasn't made it exponentially harder to be self-employed in the last century? Seriously? Hell, eighty years ago you could work for yourself without having a clue how to pay a 'self-employment tax'. Get real.

Cite me the law, and/or tell me how hard it is to be federally approved.

 

[jkr]

fuk dat!then i get to see theirs...
better everyone mind their OWN business
this is a defacto end around of the rights we keep bitching about

 

[Tpoints]

Spoken like a man who has never even considered running his own business. If you had any idea the mountain of law and regulation and punitive taxation that a small business owner must endure to remain on the right side of the law, nothing like the above statement could ever pass your keyboard without sarcasm.

To the contrary, I have run several. To my admission, not always licensed and registered, but I managed to pay my bills. I'm not saying everybody must survive on the amount I was making, but to make the excuse that government is keeping you from working for yourself is ridiculous.

 

[Tpoints]

fuk dat!then i get to see theirs...
better everyone mind their OWN business
this is a defacto end around of the rights we keep bitching about

nobody is forcing you to seek employment with them.

 

[LibForestPaul]

To the contrary, I have run several. To my admission, not always licensed and registered, but I managed to pay my bills. I'm not saying everybody must survive on the amount I was making, but to make the excuse that government is keeping you from working for yourself is ridiculous.

you lose. I could make plenty of money running dope too. lol

 

[Tpoints]

you lose. I could make plenty of money running dope too. lol

Didn't say you couldn't. But I can say I report my earnings to the IRS, good luck with that

 

[thoughtomator]

To the contrary, I have run several. To my admission, not always licensed and registered, but I managed to pay my bills. I'm not saying everybody must survive on the amount I was making, but to make the excuse that government is keeping you from working for yourself is ridiculous.

Why are you so obstinate about accepting that you could not have done it at all if you actually adhered to what the law demanded of you, and that even cutting corners as you did, most people couldn't even live on the little income you managed to live on?

The government doesn't need to physically prevent you from working for yourself in order to make it so burdensome that it's not worth it. Why would anyone bother, if they could get a job working for someone else and not have to deal with the mountains of bullshit involved with self-employment? It's clearly nowhere near a government-neutral proposition whether you are self-employed vs. working for someone else.

They want you working for someone else, that way they have a prior claim on every dime you make before you see it.

 

[Tpoints]

Why are you so obstinate about accepting that you could not have done it at all if you actually adhered to what the law demanded of you, and that even cutting corners as you did, most people couldn't even live on the little income you managed to live on?

Because I don't see the regulations that either didn't apply to me, were unworthy to enforce, or when enforced, were negligible in harm, to be excuses not to work for yourself. If you can't or don't want to do something, fine, but don't say "I would if there were less regulations", that's bullshit, I can speak from personal experience.

For example, the guy who brought up the cake decorating, or I will throw in the taxi cab and alcohol serving part. While it's true there are licensing and registration fees to legitimize your business, it's do or don't. If you don't make enough money to warrant the licensing fees, don't do it, and you'll never matter to the regulators. If you DO make enough, go for it. The regulations aren't "Stopping you" from doing what you want, they may hurdle you a bit, but it's no different than many other risks you take inherent to the business.

The government doesn't need to physically prevent you from working for yourself in order to make it so burdensome that it's not worth it. Why would anyone bother, if they could get a job working for someone else and not have to deal with the mountains of bullshit involved with self-employment? It's clearly nowhere near a government-neutral proposition whether you are self-employed vs. working for someone else.

Why would anybody bother? because the freedom and responsibility is great. I can't force anybody to do it, but I won't care to listen to their whining.

They want you working for someone else, that way they have a prior claim on every dime you make before you see it.

Self employment is not tax free, so it's hardly the reason they "want you to work for somebody else".

 

[Dr.3D]

nobody is forcing you to seek employment with them.

Can that be said if all of them were doing the same thing?
There comes a time when one is being forced to work just to earn a living. If there are no jobs available except from those employers who wish to stick their nose in your business, you are being forced to seek employment with them.

Now don't tell me I should start my own business. I am a controls engineer and my experience lends itself to working for others. My political and religious beliefs are none of the business of any employer I might decide to work for.

 

[Tpoints]

Can that be said if all of them were doing the same thing?

Yes, because nobody owes you a job, nor your well being. The government isn't forcing you to be employed either. So, not only are they not forcing you to seek employment WITH THEM, nobody is forcing you to seek employment AT ALL. If it were actually illegal to work for yourself or not not work, you'd have a point.

There comes a time when one is being forced to work just to earn a living. If there are no jobs available except from those employers who wish to stick their nose in your business, you are being forced to seek employment with them.

And living is a choice, isn't it?

Now don't tell me I should start my own business. I am a controls engineer and my experience lends itself to working for others. My political and religious beliefs are none of the business of any employer I might decide to work for.

They don't owe you your employment either, the man with the money makes the rules, it's called capitalism. If you had something of value, without competitors, they'll have to be "forced to" employ you even if they hate your guts. When I hear people make arguments like yours, I'm starting to think of the anti-discrimination laws imposed by liberals and communists that force people to employ blacks and homosexuals, nothing that is guaranteed in the Constitution. And I can't help but think, why not make the same argument that you can't afford to find or build "private roads" and therefore, we must force everybody to public rules of public roads (speed limits, stop signs, driving age...etc)?

 

[Dr.3D]

And living is a choice, isn't it?

Is it? Are you suggesting I might hold my breath and die since living is a choice?

Fortunately, I am retired now and none of this will be a problem for me. If I were still looking for a job, it still wouldn't be a problem, as I never had nor will have a 'social media' account.

 

[malkusm]

No, I think I am entitled to keep my private affairs and personal effects private, free from the snooping eyes of anybody.

That includes government, an employer, an ex-wife, you...it doesn't matter.

Oh, that steps on Mega-Global-Hyper-Corp's "human resources" data mining operations?

Boo fucking hoo.

Isn't that why you're not on Facebook, though?

I mean, personal responsibility has to play a role here. An employer can already conduct a background check, drug screening, etc. prior to hiring an individual. Not all employers do this, but if you want to work for one that does, you have to submit for their terms. You always have the option of refusing the service of your labor to any such employer.

I can't believe some here are advocating for blatant government intervention in employment contracts...

 

[Tpoints]

Isn't that why you're not on Facebook, though?

I mean, personal responsibility has to play a role here. An employer can already conduct a background check, drug screening, etc. prior to hiring an individual. Not all employers do this, but if you want to work for one that does, you have to submit for their terms. You always have the option of refusing the service of your labor to any such employer.

I can't believe some here are advocating for blatant government intervention in employment contracts...

and their argument seems to be "We need government to stop this because one day government will use it" "we need government to interfere because one day I'll be left with no choice" "we need government to protect me from my choices because government made it impossible for me to work for myself"...sounds a lot like people who advocate for GMO mandatory labeling or Civil Rights equal protection crap.

 

[malkusm]

Now, that said, I'm all for a bill that says "No private information, including information available on social media accounts, shall be required as a precondition for employment in any governmental agency, or contractor thereof.

But private enterprise....nope.