House committee passes Senate bill to protect social media privacy

By Ron Feemster
— February 24, 2014

A bill to prohibit employers from asking for access to job candidates’ or employees’ social media passwords passed out of the House Labor Health Committee this evening by a vote of 8 to 1. Only Rep. Norine Kasperik (R-Gillette) voted “no.”

Senate File 81, authored by Sen. Leland Christensen (R-Alta), protects the privacy of workers and especially job applicants, who need not refuse to hand over social media passwords. The bill passed third reading in the Senate 28-2.

“If a potential employee says ‘no’ in a job interview, he is up against it,” Christensen said. “But if the employer cannot ask, the job applicant does not have to say ‘no.’”

When Christensen began reading about the issue, he thought about how he uses Facebook. He began to see reasons to pass legislation to protect passwords. As he pointed out to the committee, states around the country and both houses of Congress are debating legislation about social media privacy.

“I applied the bill to myself,” Christensen said. “If I had to give up my password to an employer and they got into my messages, they might find constituent issues or family issues that are not public. At the level people now use social media for communication, I think they deserve a shot at privacy.”

The bill defines social media very broadly to include “videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or internet website profiles or locations.”

Exceptions are made for situations in which a person is applying for a job in law enforcement — Christensen has served as a county sheriff’s deputy — if an investigation complies with federal or state laws, or in cases of “employee misconduct.”

An amendment suggested by Dan Neal, executive director of the Equality State Policy Center, to add the phrase “serious misconduct” was not proposed or voted on. Neal also objected to the idea that a law-enforcement job candidate could be required to give up his passwords. Linda Burt of the Wyoming Civil Liberties Union also supported the “serious” amendment.

What if, Neal wondered, there were a picture on Facebook of a candidate engaged in legal activities like drinking beer or gambling at the Wind River Casino, and a potential law enforcement employer did not want to hire a person who drinks or gambles?

Christensen sees the bill as a first step into what he calls an “emergent area of the law.” The law, assuming it passes, may need to be revisited in future sessions as social media evolves and Wyoming citizens and lawmakers acquire experience with the statute.

“This bill does not go all the way,” Christensen said. “It does go a long way. It identifies the problem and takes a first step at addressing it.”

SUPPORT: If you enjoy WyoFile’s 2014 coverage of the Wyoming Legislature and would like to see more quality Wyoming journalism, please consider supporting us. WyoFile is a non-partisan, non-profit news organization dedicated to in-depth reporting on Wyoming’s people, places and policy.
REPUBLISH THIS STORY: For details on how you can republish this story or other WyoFile content for free, click here.

WyoFile's goal is to provide readers with information and ideas that foster constructive conversations about the issues and opportunities our communities face. One small piece of how we do that is by offering a space below each story for readers to share perspectives, experiences and insights. For this to work, we need your help.

What we're looking for:

Your real name — first and last.
Direct responses to the article. Tell us how your experience relates to the story.
The truth. Share factual information that adds context to the reporting.
Thoughtful answers to questions raised by the reporting or other commenters.
Tips that could advance our reporting on the topic.
No more than three comments per story, including replies.

What we block from our comments section, when we see it:

Pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish, and we expect commenters to do the same by using their real name.
Comments that are not directly relevant to the article.
Demonstrably false claims, what-about-isms, references to debunked lines of rhetoric, professional political talking points or links to sites trafficking in misinformation.
Personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats.
Arguments with other commenters.

Other important things to know:

Appearing in WyoFile’s comments section is a privilege, not a right or entitlement.
We’re a small team and our first priority is reporting. Depending on what’s going on, comments may be moderated 24 to 48 hours from when they’re submitted — or even later. If you comment in the evening or on the weekend, please be patient. We’ll get to it when we’re back in the office.
We’re not interested in managing squeaky wheels, and even if we wanted to, we don't have time to address every single commenter’s grievance.
Try as we might, we will make mistakes. We’ll fail to catch aliases, mistakenly allow folks to exceed the comment limit and occasionally miss false statements. If that’s going to upset you, it’s probably best to just stick with our journalism and avoid the comments section.
We don’t mediate disputes between commenters. If you have concerns about another commenter, please don’t bring them to us.

The bottom line:

If you repeatedly push the boundaries, make unreasonable demands, get caught lying or generally cause trouble, we will stop approving your comments — maybe forever. Such moderation decisions are not negotiable or subject to explanation. If civil and constructive conversation is not your goal, then our comments section is not for you.