Canadian Political Party Demands Candidate's Social Media Logins To Run For Office

from the really? dept

We recently covered a legal battle in Maryland over demands of a government agency to a prospective employee to hand over his social media usernames and passwords for a background check. Apparently the NDP political party in British Columbia thinks that all candidates running for the leadership must also hand over their passwords to all social media accounts. This came out when one of the politicians, Nicholas Simons, refused to hand over that info. He pointed out that it clearly violated his privacy, as well as the privacy of all of his friends/family on Facebook. Eventually, the party backed down and said Simons didn’t have to hand over the passwords, but the Privacy Commissioner in BC has already begun an investigation into whether or not the request itself violated the law. Whether or not it violated the law, it’s difficult to think of why the party would think this is a reasonable idea.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Canadian Political Party Demands Candidate's Social Media Logins To Run For Office”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
:Lobo Santo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Well… some people have led amazingly boring puritanical lives–giving them no skeletons in their closet! And zero real-world experience at anything. I, for one, would prefer a self-professed used-to-be scumbag who’s turned away from the dark-side and is well aware of every loophole as well as every flavor of scam which can be pulled.

weneedhelp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“some people have led amazingly boring puritanical lives”
Yeah, they are the people that secretly smoke weed, have unusual sexual preferences, sneak vodka into their water bottles, have huge porn collections, etc. Everyone has something to hide, may not be illegal, but has something they dont want the community to know.

“I, for one, would prefer a self-professed used-to-be scumbag”
Eh, maybe. If the lure of easy money is too much for a “normal” politician what would a criminal do?

Ahnold S is a perfect example. Had all the money one could ask for. Ran on not being able to be bought by special interests. Got in office and what happened? Yep, sold out.

Brian B. (profile) says:

It got quite good exposure on the radio yesterday. Basically, as commentary states, it’s not about allowing access to his account, it’s the subsequent access to his friends that he didn’t want to allow.

Of course, the other side of the coin is that if you are going to use your Facebook account to represent a brand (the party), then they should have some control over the brand.

The easy solution is for him to make a new Facebook account to use during the campaign that can be controlled by the party to make sure the message stays consistent.

Jeff Scott (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Actually it wouldn’t be that easy: Facebook does not allow duplicate accounts. Creating a secondary account or handing over the password to the real account both violate Facebook’s ToS, and beyond that, I think it’s despicable to ask for this kind of access. Why not also ask for the password to email accounts and voicemail? While we’re at it, how about asking for the keys to the house? The privacy invasion this represents is astounding to me. Of course people have secrets, and if they don’t give them up before running for office they can be brought down once elected just like everybody else, because if the party does not have access to EVERYTHING the person EVER created, access to some of it is constitutes both a serious violation AND a useless violation of their rights.

btr1701 says:

Re: Re: Pages

> Actually it wouldn’t be that easy: Facebook
> does not allow duplicate accounts.

Sure they do. A friend of mine is a somewhat famous actress and she has both a personal account under a name people other than her friends and family don’t recognize and her “official” page for all the fans to “like”.

Pretty common practice, actually. Shouldn’t be too hard for a politician to do the same thing.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Of course, the other side of the coin is that if you are going to use your Facebook account to represent a brand (the party), then they should have some control over the brand

Why, though? By taking a public job, you are using yourself to represent the brand – but the brand does not take control of every aspect of your behaviour and communications. This is the classic fallacy of treating Facebook as somehow different and separate from everything else, when really it is just another way that people interact.

V says:

Do as I say, not as I do...

Since handing over your password would violate most – if not all – of the social networks terms of service, and accessing their account would also be a ToS violation – I can’t see how this can be legal.

Or is this a “do as I say, not as I do” instance, where politicians ignore the law while prosecuting the woman in Megan’s suicide for ToS violation.

Nice to know they’re not hiding the double standard any longer.

Now that it’s out in the open, we can openly revolt!

Anonymous Coward says:

You can ignore the facebook TOS because facebook does.

Do you think Obama is the only person with the password to his account, along with hundreds of other public people that have their social identity managed by a marketing firm. Most of the these public figures don’t even know the password to their own accounts, it is all managed by a third party.

fogbugzd (profile) says:

What do they hope to find

I wonder what people expect to find on social networks when they ask for the ability to snoop through records.

Fist, most people I know are somewhat discrete about what they post to social networks. Sure, there are cases where people brag about robbing a bank or doing a drug deal, but I think those types of people are probably telegraphing a bunch of other warning signs that there is a problem without any assistance from Facebook.

Second, would the bean counter checking my Facebook status recognize a problem if they saw it? Sure, my bookie, my loan shark, and my drug dealer are all on my friends list. However, FB isn’t an ideal environment for arranging drug deals and shady loans, and having friends who do illegal things is not a crime. Where is red flashing light that says there is a problem?

Third, how much of what they find would be actionable or valid in a legal defense about why a person was rejected in the screening process? You might see some things that suggest some problems, but it’s unlikely there is going to be enough to prove anything. If you look closely at anyone’s social media persona you could probably find lots of things that suggest a problem, but finding actual proof of a problem would be pretty rare.

Finally, having access to the account could backfire big time on the bean counter who demands the password. The law of unintended consequences is likely to kick in. For example, there are a lot of questions that someone being hired for a job is not allowed to ask because just asking the question might show a bias or intention to not hire someone based on some form of discrimination. If the reviewer runs across the answers to the questions they are not allowed to ask, then would the applicant have the right to sue based on discrimination?

Brian White says:

Facebook and politics.

The NDP party has factions and they are having a leadership race.
Many inside the party council faction wants Dix (another candidate) to win. Simons belongs to the faction which deposed the last party leader. Reasons to want his facebook passwords includes finding things to use against him, and getting access to who his real friends are. (Like a clients list from a salesman). They have also successfully stalled on giving him access the the party member list so Simons cannot make his case directly to people who can vote in the leadership contest because he does not know who who they are.
So it is a dirty game and they are playing as close to the edge as they can.

Add Your Comment

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

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...