House votes down law to stop employers from asking for Facebook passwords

A proposed amendment that would have prohibited employers from demanding potential hires' usernames and passwords to social networking sites was shot down Wednesday in the U.S. House of Representatives, a day after its proposal, reports TechCrunch. The amendment lost with 236 votes against 184.

The legislation was proposed by Representative Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), and would have been added onto the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2012, H.R. 3309. This amendment would have allowed the FCC to stop employers from asking job applicants for confidential information like their usernames and passwords to social networking sites like Facebook.

The amendment was quickly proposed following media controversy of such corporate behavior, which is apparently becoming more common with the rising prevalence of social networking. Facebook itself weighed in on the issue just last week, and the company's opinion was not surprisingly quite unfavorable toward the practice.

Rep. Perlmutter explained the issue when he introduced the amendment:

"People have an expectation of privacy when using social media like Facebook and Twitter. They have an expectation that their right to free speech and religion will be respected when they use social media outlets. No American should have to provide their confidential personal passwords as a condition of employment. Both users of social media and those who correspond share the expectation of privacy in their personal communications. Employers essentially can act as imposters and assume the identity of an employee and continually access, monitor and even manipulate an employee's personal social activities and opinions. That's simply a step too far."

Almost all House Democrats voted for the amendment, with only two voting against. Only one House Republican voted in favor of the change. Most Republicans argued that the proposed legislation wouldn't actually help the issue, but that they would be willing to collaborate on new legislation later in the future.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

More rumors of next Playstation console surface

Next Story

Lumia 800 gets new software update; boosts battery life

87 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

completly insane that this is such a problem that a law needs to be passed !
Employers that do this should be ashamed ..you people are dirt.
respect peoples privacy.

Now if its your girlfriend or wife etc then screw em lol
slap a keylogger on their machine and spy away
works great i did that before and caught my pos skanky ex sneaking around like a slut
Should seen the look on her face when i confronted the cow with it Muahahhaha ha

Since it seems that most of the posters here can't be bothered to actually look at the links to see the wording of the part of this that the Republicans voted against, I'll copy it here:


Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall be construed to limit or restrict the ability of the Federal Communications Commission to adopt a rule or to amend an existing rule to protect online privacy, including requirements in such rule that prohibit licensees or regulated entities from mandating that job applicants or employees disclose confidential passwords to social networking web sites.

As stated earlier, this would not have had any direct effect on the situation. As it stood, it did nothing. It for sure didn't directly do anything to protect privacy or passwords.

Solution:
Create a special FB-account for scumbag cu nts like that.
Make the password: ifckedyomama

No, but seriously;
If any nazi fu ck employer tried that, i would consider it an invitation to come back later that night and burn his scumbag company down to the ground.

You know, for the benefit of mankind.

I think I wish this would have passed... Didn't hear much about the law so I'm not sure if anything it tacked on.... But anyways... If an employer asks for my facebook account and I say I don't have one. Is that considered lying on an application? (If I have everything hidden or not pictures they can so so they know it's me?)

Simple solution.

1.) Grow Up
2.) Delete Facebook
3.) Meet Women
4.) Talk to them with your mouth instead of a keyboard
5.) Profit

VoX said,
Simple solution.

1.) Grow Up
2.) Delete Facebook
3.) Meet Women
4.) Talk to them with your mouth instead of a keyboard
5.) Profit


I use Facebook to keep up with family and friends that live hundreds of miles away from me. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one either.

all of the government workers are TECHNICALLY employed by the people, maybe we can start asking them for their personal information

Could someone please explain how companies really think they have the right to ask for your username and password? What's next? asking for the PIN to my ATM card? I'm sorry but if someone asked me in an interview for my facebook account info, I'd tell them it's none of their business. My private info is my own, and I'm not giving up my log in for anything to anyone.

What I don't understand was at what point did someone at a job say to themselves. "Hey I've got a great idea!, Lets ask/force every new employee to to fork over their personal Facebook account info. Not only that they have to give us their password as well!"

I wanna punch that guy in the dick.

In that case, since all Federal, State, City and County employees payroll is payed from MY/OUR tax dollars, then that means we are their employers.

So starting with the President, I want access to everyone's Facebook page. Let's use the Freedom of Information Act to get them.

Since we don't have a right to privacy, then they don't either.
If my employer or perspective employer asked me for my FB info, the only facebook info he/she would get is a book in their face.

Why would an employer want such? What I say to my friends in anger or play, does not give you an idea what type of person i would be at work. Facebook is MY time, not your time or any of YOUR business. I suggest you don't ever ask for mine.

If one does not wish to provide their Facebook password, they do not have to apply for the job in the first place. On the other hand, if the talent pool is reduced due to a company requiring Facebook passwords, the company would no longer be competitive to companies that do not require Facebook passwords. Liberty will sort this out.

I find it quite funny when employers ask for personal info, as if what I do at home has anything to do with what I do at work, or how well I do it. On a few occasions when I have been asked for personal info, etc. I have simply stated; "You first." If they don't trust me, or if they want to search my personal life, then obviously I need to not trust them and dig into their personal life.

Of course this means I don't get that position... as if I wanted it at that point.

Almost all House Democrats voted for the amendment, with only two voting against. Only one House Republican voted in favor of the change.

So, which party represents majority of its voters better? Either republicans represents minority of corporation owners or all republican voters agree to give their passwords to employees.

EJocys said,

So, which party represents majority of its voters better? Either republicans represents minority of corporation owners or all republican voters agree to give their passwords to employees.

Would someone PLEASE read the law?? LOL All you have to do is read the NAME of the legislation they were tacking this onto and you should question the quality of this amendment... Good grief!

M_Lyons10 said,

Would someone PLEASE read the law?? LOL All you have to do is read the NAME of the legislation they were tacking this onto and you should question the quality of this amendment... Good grief!


Forget it. People around here are so brainwashed that any time they hear that Republicans voted against something, they automatically assume that the thing they voted against was actually good.

M_Lyons10 said,

Would someone PLEASE read the law?? LOL All you have to do is read the NAME of the legislation they were tacking this onto and you should question the quality of this amendment... Good grief!

You're howling at the moon. They can't be bothered to even look at what is in front of their face much less apply any level of critical thought to this.

M_Lyons10 said,
Would someone PLEASE read the law?? LOL All you have to do is read the NAME of the legislation they were tacking this onto and you should question the quality of this amendment... Good grief!

Looks like answer from 3 republicans who can't say anything constructive themselves so they just point others to somewhere else . Please read the title, which I've used to form my VALID question: "House votes down law to stop employers from asking for Facebook passwords".

EJocys said,

Looks like answer from 3 republicans who can't say anything constructive themselves so they just point others to somewhere else . Please read the title, which I've used to form my VALID question: "House votes down law to stop employers from asking for Facebook passwords".

Huh? So, instead of actually basing your opinion on the facts of the matter, you are going to base it on the extremely biased (and inaccurate) headline here? I quoted the exact wording of the proposed amendment below, if you can't be bothered to actually look at the links in the article. The proposed amendment would have done nothing in and of itself.

Wow, a bunch of technophobic luddite old farts who don't even know what the Internet is, voted against this law... what a surprise.

rpsgc said,
Wow, a bunch of technophobic luddite old farts who don't even know what the Internet is, voted against this law... what a surprise.

If you read the law, you'll understand why. It didn't address the issue.

Personally,
This is an absolutely ignorant idea to even be brought as far as suggesting it at this level, let alone going through with and voting on it!!

How come these morons can't act as fast on something important like the national debt and crap like that?

Here's the part that most of you won't like as far as my opinion on employers being able to ask for this info when reviewing potential hires. Hell yeah they should be able to, and for the idiot who regards his crap on some ignorant social networking site more important than a job, I wouldn't hire you either!!

cork1958 said,
Personally,
This is an absolutely ignorant idea to even be brought as far as suggesting it at this level, let alone going through with and voting on it!!

How come these morons can't act as fast on something important like the national debt and crap like that?

Here's the part that most of you won't like as far as my opinion on employers being able to ask for this info when reviewing potential hires. Hell yeah they should be able to, and for the idiot who regards his crap on some ignorant social networking site more important than a job, I wouldn't hire you either!!

Well, first, the reason this got drafted so quickly and the national debt and arguably much more important things aren't is because those other things are hard...

As for employers having access to your Facebook, I have to disagree. I have no problem with them looking at the public information on my Facebook, but they don't need to be going through my messages, photos that only myself or friends can see, etc. It's unnecessary because it is private and cannot negatively impact the company. If my profile is public then that's my own fault. lol

But for the sake of argument, let me just give you an example of something I went through not too long ago. I had a coworker snoop on my Facebook profile. They couldn't see much, as my page is private (Not that there was much to see anyway), but apparently not everything is private on there. He came to the understanding that I was in a relationship with another man. I nearly lost my job, and it was 2 weeks of hell. There were meetings, a lot of drama, and quite honestly, I didn't think I was going to be here today. It was a hostile work environment to say the least. So, until you've seen the abuses something like this can lead to, I don't know that you really understand the ramifications. For the record, I'm a very conservative person, and didn't have pictures of parades or anything up. I live a very normal, low key life. I didn't deserve this.

I think if this was a term of a job application, id either make up a fake profile, or delete my profile altogether, as they have no right to request that information! That's like saying "We want your card and bank pin number" - makes NO logical sense!!!

No job is worth that, and if you "really" needed the job, just delete the whole facebook profile, then they'd have nothing.

If this were closer to next week I'd laugh and cry April fool. Alas its not so I cry WTF?! Employers expect employees to give them their Facebook passwords. Sure...no problem, right arteries let them sleep with my wife and give them my credit card.

Sad there has to be a law against this.

It should be as common sense for an employer as you don't even think about asking new recruits if they can hand over their household keys so they can take a look first before hiring...

change password to 'FCUKYOU' or 'SUCKMYCCOK' better yet somethin on the lines of 'IBANGEDYOURWIFEANDSHELIKEDIT'.But before I went i would post pics of me doin crazy stuff like me skydivin while lickin dognuts on the way down.Point is FAAAAAAYOOOUUUUUU. unless of course if I get to play Cityville on the job in that case im in.

tbob121 said,
change password to 'FCUKYOU' or 'SUCKMYCCOK' better yet somethin on the lines of 'IBANGEDYOURWIFEANDSHELIKEDIT'.But before I went i would post pics of me doin crazy stuff like me skydivin while lickin dognuts on the way down.Point is FAAAAAAYOOOUUUUUU. unless of course if I get to play Cityville on the job in that case im in.

That reminds me of when I used to have a Linksys Router and of course they were wrought with problems so I was on the phone with support all the time. They did a screenshare once and asked me what my password was to the router's management page so that they could enter it in and I had to tell them it was "LinksysSucks"... Talk about awkward...

M_Lyons10 said,

That reminds me of when I used to have a Linksys Router and of course they were wrought with problems so I was on the phone with support all the time. They did a screenshare once and asked me what my password was to the router's management page so that they could enter it in and I had to tell them it was "LinksysSucks"... Talk about awkward...

Now thats funny

The problem is that if you don't get the job, the employer has no defence against any discrimination case you launch against them. Many places have strict anti-discrimination laws for workplaces. Employers need to be careful, IMO any sensible company would not expose themselves to the risk.

This actually flies in the face of many of the companies corporate IT policies. I would simply ask if they have a policy of employees not sharing network passwords, and proceed to tell them that you simply don't subscribe to any social networking sites they query access to.

Anti discrimination laws are a joke and don't do anything.

I work a huge company in America very huge. My company discriminates all the time. Even my boss told me that. One time he would not hire someone because they where gay. He also will not hire people of certain ethnicity. The people in the room he told us it we asked isn't the company worrying about being sued with discrimination laws. He said no because all he has to say is they are not qualified and there is no proof he is discriminating. We have one lesbian who works at our location so the other 60 people can all be angelo saxon whites.

America is the worst nation when it comes to workers rights in the entire industrialized world. Anyone who has worked in another 1st world country would easily agree. I laugh but also find it sad when Americans think they have workers rights.

American workers have NO rights to a paid vacation it is only a privilege of the company is nice enough o give you a paid holiday. American workers also have no right for the company to provide healthcare. No right to paid maternity leave. Can be fired for any reason etc. USA is a joke.

nukenorman said,
...I work a huge company in America very huge. My company discriminates all the time. Even my boss told me that. One time he would not hire someone because they where gay...

Unfortunately, sexual orientation and gender identity are still not protected in many states in the US. There's certainly no federal amendment on the books, so it's up to individual states and municipalities to have laws on the books protecting these minorities. Race, however, is protected federally, but I'm not sure how easy or practical it would be to sue a company for discrimination.

AstareGod said,

Unfortunately, sexual orientation and gender identity are still not protected in many states in the US. There's certainly no federal amendment on the books, so it's up to individual states and municipalities to have laws on the books protecting these minorities. Race, however, is protected federally, but I'm not sure how easy or practical it would be to sue a company for discrimination.

Exactly, and it should be protected. It's ridiculous. I almost lost a job because a coworker snooped on my Facebook and came to the understanding that I was in a relationship with a man. The discrimination is very real.

wise up people,

Gender identity != actual gender = mental health problem

AstareGod said,

Unfortunately, sexual orientation and gender identity are still not protected in many states in the US. There's certainly no federal amendment on the books, so it's up to individual states and municipalities to have laws on the books protecting these minorities. Race, however, is protected federally, but I'm not sure how easy or practical it would be to sue a company for discrimination.


I don't have a Facebook account; what do these employers do about people that don't use it or lie about using it?

Arkose said,
I don't have a Facebook account; what do these employers do about people that don't use it or lie about using it?

No job for you!

Arkose said,
I don't have a Facebook account; what do these employers do about people that don't use it or lie about using it?

I have to agree. I don't have one either. At what point are you discriminated against because they believe that you are lying?

Too bad we can't cooperate and just "stop doing anything" for at least 3 days.. worldwide or at least nationwide. I'd LOVE to see the world stand still and cause some heart attacks.

Simple solution to a such non-sense: Don't have a FB account.
And no I would not give them my neowin account password or my hotmail....lol

Currently the ACLU is after the Virginia State Police from now asking for access to Facebook if you have one as a way to check on you're back ground.

M_Lyons10 said,

Which the employer wouldn't have agreed to I'd imagine.


Actually, if that employer is going to be using Facebook in order to check up on their employees, then they would have had to agree to the TOS.

sexypepperoni said,
Its time people just outright lie they have a Facebook account.

They would just see if they could find you on facebook meaning you would always need a fake image up and if your fb is linked via email you cna normally find someone.

Personally as i said before i would not give them my facebook email and password and if that ment no job then so be it, end of the day fb is ment to be used by who set it up not by your employer. Next they will be saying they want recording of all your phone calls, copys of texts, email account passwords and anything else you cna think about.

Hell why not just have all your mail sent to your employer and sign them up for "extra" spam =P

sexypepperoni said,
Its time people just outright lie they have a Facebook account.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing the whole time I'm reading this. I have a 2nd FB account I setup years ago to test my privacy settings and see what "the public" sees on my account. This 2nd account has nothing more than a bunch of Farmville posts, a bunch of unknown people who play FV as friends, and like 3 pictures. If I ever get asked for my FB login and I've been unemployed for some reason (which is the only way I'd ever consider cooperating) then this is what I'm providing. My real FB doesn't even have a picture of me on it so no worries there. Funny thing is that I have 2nd accounts on a lot of sites for various reasons so I could probably provide a whole set of logins that contain nothing but junk. Sure I'll look like a social retard with no friends or family but I'm willing to accept that over an invasion of privacy.

Tim Dawg said,
Funny, I was thinking the same thing the whole time I'm reading this. I have a 2nd FB account I setup years ago to test my privacy settings and see what "the public" sees on my account. This 2nd account has nothing more than a bunch of Farmville posts, a bunch of unknown people who play FV as friends, and like 3 pictures. If I ever get asked for my FB login and I've been unemployed for some reason (which is the only way I'd ever consider cooperating) then this is what I'm providing. My real FB doesn't even have a picture of me on it so no worries there. Funny thing is that I have 2nd accounts on a lot of sites for various reasons so I could probably provide a whole set of logins that contain nothing but junk. Sure I'll look like a social retard with no friends or family but I'm willing to accept that over an invasion of privacy.

HAHAHA +1

This is a tough one, I am all for some control on this issue, however Im not quite sure government is the proper place for this. I am fairly desperate for a job in my field however I feel that if I get asked to expose my password I will refuse a job, that is simply taking it too far. I am fine signing confidentiality agreements for companies and facebook posts and I am fine having to set my privacy settings, but allowing a company to see my personal info is too far. Setting your stuff to private is fine in my opinion

wv@gt said,
This is a tough one, I am all for some control on this issue, however Im not quite sure government is the proper place for this. I am fairly desperate for a job in my field however I feel that if I get asked to expose my password I will refuse a job, that is simply taking it too far. I am fine signing confidentiality agreements for companies and facebook posts and I am fine having to set my privacy settings, but allowing a company to see my personal info is too far. Setting your stuff to private is fine in my opinion

Yeah, I've had issues in the past where coworkers tried to make things hard for me after snooping around on my Facebook and trying to "out" me within the company. I have since adjusted my settings, but can you imagine what an unscrupulous employer could do with this? Or an employee in whatever department would handle this? I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. I agree that legislation should be put in place barring this, but this legislation clearly was not it. I hope something is drafted that actually addresses the issue at hand.

As usual, the devil is in the details. Read the actual text of the amendment - it doesn't create a law that bars employers from asking for potential hires' usernames and passwords. It states that nothing in the law it is being amended TO would prevent the FCC from initiating a rule or changing an existing rule to prohibit employers from asking.

That means it can be turned on and off at will by either party that happens to be in charge of the Executive Branch by simply having the FFC "amend" whatever rule it created to handle the issue.

Republicans voted against it because a) it doesn't actually deal with the issue directly and b) states are already moving to enact their own laws, so why does the federal government need to be invloved.

AtriusNY said,
Republicans voted against it because a Democrate proposed and obviously they didn't have anything in mind to ask in return.
And the other points? Or is this just a R vs. D thing for you? Nevermind. The answer is fairly obvious.

SiLeNtDeAtH said,
And the other points? Or is this just a R vs. D thing for you? Nevermind. The answer is fairly obvious.

It definitely is.

AtriusNY said,
Republicans voted against it because a Democrate proposed and obviously they didn't have anything in mind to ask in return.

True true my friend. This is absolutely ridiculous-- this issue is not a partisan issue, republicans should not have acted like this. Asking for social networking logins is a total violation of one's freedom to privacy.

Of course the Republicans are going to vote against this they are most likely the ones asking for the passwords.

America shot themselves in the foot in the midterms I think it's called when they started believing the rich media about Obama and decided to vote Republican effectively creating a government that cannot do anything.

SiLeNtDeAtH said,

Republicans voted against it because a) it doesn't actually deal with the issue directly and b) states are already moving to enact their own laws, so why does the federal government need to be invloved.

Yep, unfortunately too many people will just see this as an R vs. D thing and crucify the Republicans for actually doing the right thing here. Tacking this on to a completely unrelated FCC bill makes no sense at all to begin with. If it was done at the federal level, then it should be a separate bill in its own right, and be very specific in what it does (banning employers from asking for passwords unrelated to their jobs).

AtriusNY said,
Republicans voted against it because a Democrate proposed and obviously they didn't have anything in mind to ask in return.

Oh don't be ridiculous. SiLeNtDeAtH posted a well thought out statement as to why this was voted against by members of the Republican party. It's very unfortunate that legislation couldn't be written that actually addressed this properly, and instead legislation was attempted to be snuck through that once again gave government more power (Seems to be a trend in Democrat drafted bills). My initial thought (Per my post above) was that this seemed like a rather strange bit of legislation to tack this onto, as it didn't make any sense. Now we know why one party chose to try to do it this way.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that there is ONE party in Washington looking out for the interests of the citizens and they get chastised for it (Hint: It's not the Democrats). In fact, if you look at the bills the Republicans voted against over the last year, they all were poorly written or written to allow abuses by government. If games like that weren't played, there would be more support from the Republican party.

roadwarrior said,

Yep, unfortunately too many people will just see this as an R vs. D thing and crucify the Republicans for actually doing the right thing here. Tacking this on to a completely unrelated FCC bill makes no sense at all to begin with. If it was done at the federal level, then it should be a separate bill in its own right, and be very specific in what it does (banning employers from asking for passwords unrelated to their jobs).

Exactly. It's nice to see someone with some sense.

You must really like kool-aid

roadwarrior said,

Yep, unfortunately too many people will just see this as an R vs. D thing and crucify the Republicans for actually doing the right thing here. Tacking this on to a completely unrelated FCC bill makes no sense at all to begin with. If it was done at the federal level, then it should be a separate bill in its own right, and be very specific in what it does (banning employers from asking for passwords unrelated to their jobs).

M_Lyons10 said,

Oh don't be ridiculous. SiLeNtDeAtH posted a well thought out statement as to why this was voted against by members of the Republican party. It's very unfortunate that legislation couldn't be written that actually addressed this properly, and instead legislation was attempted to be snuck through that once again gave government more power (Seems to be a trend in Democrat drafted bills). My initial thought (Per my post above) was that this seemed like a rather strange bit of legislation to tack this onto, as it didn't make any sense. Now we know why one party chose to try to do it this way.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that there is ONE party in Washington looking out for the interests of the citizens and they get chastised for it (Hint: It's not the Democrats). In fact, if you look at the bills the Republicans voted against over the last year, they all were poorly written or written to allow abuses by government. If games like that weren't played, there would be more support from the Republican party

It's cool - at least he's honest about it. Little does he realize though that he and people like him who only care about political party are the problem and why we can't seem to get anything done in Congress.

In the end this was a stunt, nothing more. If they had a shred of intellectual honesty, they would put forth a proper bill instead of trying to do something silly designed only to be a political weapon used to divide the nation further.

roadwarrior said,

Yep, unfortunately too many people will just see this as an R vs. D thing and crucify the Republicans for actually doing the right thing here. Tacking this on to a completely unrelated FCC bill makes no sense at all to begin with. If it was done at the federal level, then it should be a separate bill in its own right, and be very specific in what it does (banning employers from asking for passwords unrelated to their jobs).

They see it that way, because it is that way. Are you blind or stupid or both? Every thing the D's propose the R's turn it down, unless they have something to gain in return. The R's are voting against several bills they all were for when Bush was in office. Now that a Democrat is in office, they all of a sudden dont want them even tho they wanted them before. Why the about-face all of a sudden?

The reason we cant get nothing done in Gov't isn't becaus eof the Preseident own choice, its those crazy, careless, greedy, nasty, stupid, old guys that are ALL Republicans.

if I was the President, when that one guy shout out you lie, I woudl have had him cuffed and locked up for the rest of my term for open disrespect for my office as being the leader of the country.

Republican are proof of why certain people on this planet should be dumped in the ocean and fed to the sharks.

M_Lyons10 said,

Oh don't be ridiculous. SiLeNtDeAtH posted a well thought out statement as to why this was voted against by members of the Republican party. It's very unfortunate that legislation couldn't be written that actually addressed this properly, and instead legislation was attempted to be snuck through that once again gave government more power (Seems to be a trend in Democrat drafted bills). My initial thought (Per my post above) was that this seemed like a rather strange bit of legislation to tack this onto, as it didn't make any sense. Now we know why one party chose to try to do it this way.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that there is ONE party in Washington looking out for the interests of the citizens and they get chastised for it (Hint: It's not the Democrats). In fact, if you look at the bills the Republicans voted against over the last year, they all were poorly written or written to allow abuses by government. If games like that weren't played, there would be more support from the Republican party.

Exactly. It's nice to see someone with some sense.


Another blind clueless person. I feel sorry for you. Let's draw up all the countless bills Republican have voted for that helps them but hurts us as citizen. You actually think Republican care about you? Unless you are rich, they don't.

If they had it their way, we would all be strip of all out privacy. Look what Bush did and what was his party? And how many of them spoke against what he did? Hmmm! Just what I thought.

TechieXP said,

if I was the President, when that one guy shout out you lie, I woudl have had him cuffed and locked up for the rest of my term for open disrespect for my office as being the leader of the country.

Republican are proof of why certain people on this planet should be dumped in the ocean and fed to the sharks.


Ahh, glad to see where you stand. So, you advocate repealing the 1st amendment and also murder of anyone who opposes your viewpoint. Sounds a bit like a dictatorship to me.

Great example if how libs argue. Disregard your points and rely on name calling and class warfare/fear tactics. Nice.

Nobody is saying the R's are perfect but they are the only party that is even close to standing for small government and less government controls on our lives be it personal or economic freedom.

TechieXP said,

Another blind clueless person. I feel sorry for you. Let's draw up all the countless bills Republican have voted for that helps them but hurts us as citizen. You actually think Republican care about you? Unless you are rich, they don't.

If they had it their way, we would all be strip of all out privacy. Look what Bush did and what was his party? And how many of them spoke against what he did? Hmmm! Just what I thought.


markti said,
Great example if how libs argue. Disregard your points and rely on name calling and class warfare/fear tactics. Nice.

Nobody is saying the R's are perfect but they are the only party that is even close to standing for small government and less government controls on our lives be it personal or economic freedom.



Exactly. Quite honestly, I feel embarrassed for people like this. They never educate themselves or see how the Democrats wrote legislation that did nothing for anyone but CLAIMED it was the same as legislation Republicans supported previously (even though it wasn't even close) and then when Republicans vote against it, ignorant libs give them a hard time... They never once wonder why Democrats opposed the legislation when the Republicans where supporting it... And rather than READ or learn what's going on, they just call people names. They're happily ignorant and I just don't understand that. I guess it must just be over their head.

CMG_90 said,
do the members of the house even know what facebook is?

They don't know what the internet it. How should they know what facebook is?

dogmai79 said,
Wow, I'm glad to not live there. I would just deny the job myself if they demanded my personal information.

This.

They can suck it if they only want those who are desperate or not intelligent to turn this crap down.

Guess they want the bright heads to go somewhere else.

GS:mac

warwagon said,
****
Ok then, now we just need every member of the house to give us their facebook password.

could work if you could get a lawyer to take them on regarding the people of their respective state being their boss. they are Government workers, payed by taxpayer money. " For the People, By the People "

warwagon said,
****

Ok then, now we just need every member of the house to give us their facebook password.


Wow you actually think they know their own password. Just like most of the stars they have someone that does it for them. I am sure that there is a small majority of them that actually do it themselves.

warwagon said,
Ok then, now we just need every member of the house to give us their facebook password.

US Government officials have said time and time again that they don't know how this internet thing works.
They even asked to get some of those geeks types in to explain SOPA/PIPA.
I would say that most of them don't even have FB accounts unless they were created by their team.

The Scarecrow said,

Wow you actually think they know their own password. Just like most of the stars they have someone that does it for them. I am sure that there is a small majority of them that actually do it themselves.

Actually, I think they do know it, and it's the same password they use all over the internet.

Seems an odd bit of legislation to tack this on to... Here's hoping the do pass similar legislation banning this practice in the future.

M_Lyons10 said,
Seems an odd bit of legislation to tack this on to....

You seem surprised. That's how gov't works.
This is how some of the most nefarious legislation gets passed.