Employee username and password privacy bill heard  3/4/19
Articles,  Blog

Employee username and password privacy bill heard 3/4/19


>>CHAIR: CHAIR LESCH WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THE BILL BEFORE TOGETHER BEFORE THE COMMITTEE>>REPRESENTATIV E LESCH: I WILL MME. CHAIR>>REPRESENTATIVE MOLLER: CHAIR LESCH WE HAVE THE BILL BEFORE US TELL US ABOUT YOUR BILL>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH:’S BILL [INAUDIBLE] COERCING THEIR EMPLOYERS TO DRIVE UP AGAINST PROVIDING ACCESS TO THEIR PERSONAL AND SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS. UNDER LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES [INAUDIBLE] SUBDIVISION TWO. IT ALSO PROHIBITS EMPLOYERS FROM THREATENING TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE FOR REFUSING TO DISCLOSE THIS INFORMATION . THAT’S IN SUBDIVISION TO KNOW EMPLOYERS MA Y ACCESS THE COMMISSION MET EMPLOYEE IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE SORT OF YOUR SITE UP AND ANYONE CAN SEE IT; THAT’S FINE. THAT’S IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. TO COMPLY WITH THE STATE AND FEDERAL LAW FOR EXAMPLE; SECURITY CL APPEARANCE ET REQUIRE AN EMPLOYEE UP AGAIN TO SHARE SPECIFIC CONTENT THAT’S REPORTED TO THE EMPLOYMENT FOR PURPOSE OF ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH LEGAL OR REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS OR TO INVESTIGATE CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS. ALSO TO PROHIBIT AN EMPLOYEE FROM USING A PERSONAL ACCOUNT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND TO BRING FINALLY TO PROHIBIT AN EMPLOYEE FROM OPERATING OR PERSONAL ACCOUNT DURING WHILE ON BUSINESS PROPERTY. SO THAT; THE BILL OF RIGHTS [INAUDIBLE] MECHANISM WHICH ALLOWS EMPLOYEES FOR TAKING ACTIONS OR [INAUDIBLE] THIS BILL IS SOMETHING THAT IS NEEDED IN THE DIGITAL AGE COULD A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE LIVING A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THEIR LIVES ON THE INTER-WEB IT’S AND THAT MEANS THAT PEOPLE CAN FIND OUT A LOT MORE ABOUT YOU THAN THEY USED TO WITH THE CLICK OF A BUTTON AND WE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWING EMPLOYERS INTO OUR PRIVATE LIVES THAT WAY. WE DON’T WANT OUR EMPLOYERS INTO OUR HOMES OR BEDROOMS . WE SHOULD NOT LET THEM INTO OUR OUR DIGITAL LIVES WITHOUT PERMISSION COULD I HAVE MR. BEN FIGHTS WITH THE ACLU OF MINNESOTA TO TALK ABOUT IT>>CHAIR: WELCOME BACK. GO RIGHT AHEAD>>TESTIFIER: MME. CHAIR; MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE BEN SYKES [INAUDIBLE] OF ACLU MINNESOTA. THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE LESCH FOR BRINGING THE BILL FORWARD AND TO THE COMMITTEE FOR HEARING THIS THIS EVENING. OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS THERE’S BEEN A STRONG BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS THAT WE NEED TO EMPOWER MINNESOTANS TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE PRIVACY AND BRING OUR DIGITAL PRIVACY LAWS INTO THE 21ST C ENTURY. WE BELIEVE EVERY PERSON OF THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHO THEY WANT TO SHARE PERSONAL PRIVATE INFORMATION WITH. PRIVACY IS NOT ABOUT KEEPING SECRETS. IT’S ABOUT MAINTAINING CONTROL OVER OUR OWN LIVES. TODAY MINNESOTANS ARE LIKELY TO USE SOCIAL MEDIA OR THE PERSONAL ONLINE ACCOUNTS TO COMMUNICATE TO A SELECTIVE AUDIENCE. THEY WILL THAT THEY USE THE TELEPHONE A GENERATION AGO. IN EXCHANGE OF IDEAS AND PERSONAL INFORMATION WILL BE COMPRISED OF EMPLOYE ES AND PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES KNOW THEY MAY BE FORCED TO PROVIDE EMPLOYERS WITH ACCESS TO THESE ACCOUNTS. THIS BILL CREATES AN APPROPRIATE BALANCE BY PROHIBITING EMPLOYER ACCESS UNLESS ONE OF THE NUMBER OF EXCEPTIONS APPLIES WHICH WE THANK IS A REASONABLE WAY TO G O FOR OUR STAY. WI TH THAT HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS BUT IT>>CHAIR: GREAT. MEMBERS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON.>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: ADAM CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE LESCH I WANT TO THANK YOU OVERALL. I REALLY AGREE WITH THE CONTEXT OF THIS BILL BUT I WAS SITTING HERE THINKING THERE MIGHT BE SOME EXCEPTION WERE MAYBE NEEDED TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION.. I CAN THINK OF A COUPLE OF SITUATIONS WHERE THE HIGH-SECURITY [INAUDIBLE] IN A RURAL THOROUGH BACKGROUND NEEDS TO BE DONE IN HIRING COULD I’M JUST WONDERING IF THERE’S ANY EXCEPTIONS IN THE BILL TO DO THAT?>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH: MME. CHAIR AND CHAIR JOHNSON; I THINK THOSE ARE EXCEPTIONS UNDER SUBDIVISION 4-2 OR THERE’S ONE OTHER SUBDIVISION. TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW SO SECURITY CLEARANCE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT; IT WOULD BE–THE FOLKS I KNOW THAT ARE SECRET OR TOP SECRET SECURITY CLEARANCE; THE HOOPS THEY HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH TO DO THAT THEY PUT MUCH KNOW THEIR LIFE. THERE IS NO PRIVACY. IF YOU HAVE A SECRET CL EARANCE YOU’RE AN OPEN BOOK AND THAT’S THE WAY THEY WANTED TO AND IT IS WHAT IT IS BUT I AGREE WITH YOU BUT I BELIEVE EXCEPTIONS ARE CRA FTED AND SHOULD BE ADEQUATE WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY INDICATION THEY ARE NOT.>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: MME. CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE LESCH I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. BECAUSE THERE IS OCCASIO NAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE MAY COME INTO PLAY AND I DON’T HAVE THIS LOBBY A PROBLEM.>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH: IF THAT WERE TO POP UP I WOULD BE WHEN THE FIRST WHO WOULD OFFER A AMENDMENT TO MAKE THAT AVAILABLE.>>CHAIR: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MEMBERS? REPRESENTATIVE HER>>REPRESENTATIVE HER: THANK YOU; MME. CHAIR. JUST A QUICK QUESTION. I KNOW WE DEFINE A SOCIAL MEDIA BUT MAYBE IT’S NOT FOR US TO INTERPRET AND THAT A COURT? POTENTIALLY AN ISSUE [INAUDIBLE] ARLINGTON IS THAT SOCIAL MEDIA. IT’S PROFESSIONAL KNOW HER. ARE THERE ANY CONCERN ABOUT ANY KIND OF DEFINITION AROUND THE WORD?>>REPRESENTATIVE LESCH: OKAY. YOU KNOW WHAT; MME. CHAIR MAYBE WE COULD JUST REFER TO RESEARCH. THOSE SMART PEOPLE JUST HAVE THEM SAY WHETHER OR NOT LINKEDIN . I THINK THE DEFINITION IS PRETTY VAGUE BUT LET’S SEE WHAT THEY SAY.>>CHAIR: MS. –>>STAFF: CHAIR MEMBERS THE DEFINITION OF A SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNT IN THE BEGINNING OF THE BILL IS FAIRLY BROAD. I THINK WOULD INCLUDE A LINKEDI N ACCOUNT AND OTHER COUNTS SIMILAR TO THAT.>>CHAIR: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MEMBERS? ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE WISH TO TESTIFY ON HOUSE FILE 1196? REPRESENTATIVE J OHNSON.>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: MME. CHAIR REPRES ENTATIVE LESCH TO CLARIFY YOUR INTENT IS THAT WE [INAUDIBLE] WOULD BE COVERED>>REPRESENTATI VE LESCH: YES; I THINK THAT SHOULD BE COVERED.>>CHAIR: ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO TESTIFY ON HOUSE FILE 1196? IT DOESN’T LOOK AT THERE’S ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE BILL SO

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *