BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 25
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 8, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 25 (Campos) - As Amended: May 1, 2013
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:8-2
P.E.R.S.S. 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill clarifies that legislation passed last year, to bar
employers from requiring or requesting an employee or
prospective employee to disclose their private username or
password for the purpose of accessing their personal social
media accounts, applies to public, as well as private employers.
FISCAL EFFECT
Negligible fiscal impact, as the bill simply clarifies a
recently enacted statute that itself had negligible fiscal
impact.
COMMENTS
1)Background and Purpose . AB 1844 (Campos)/Chapter 618 of 2012
prohibits an employer from requiring or requesting an employee
or job applicant to disclose a username or password for the
purpose of accessing his or her personal social media, to
access his or her personal social media in the presence of the
employer, or to divulge any personal social media content. It
was assumed in the legislative analyses of this measure that
it was intended to apply to both public and private employers.
After the bill was chaptered, however, the author was advised
that current case law requires the Legislature to explicitly
state that such measures, when placed in the Labor Code, are
intended to apply to public as well as private employers.
Although this interpretation may be disputed, and there are
many Labor Code provisions that do not explicitly state their
application to public employees but are nevertheless
understood to apply equally to public and private employers,
AB 25
Page 2
this bill merely clarifies the intent of AB 1844 to provide
the same measure of privacy protection to public employees as
to private-sector employees.
2)Opposition . Despite the clarifying nature of AB 25, several
law enforcement organizations are strongly opposed, and are
seeking an amendment to exempt law enforcement employers from
the law's prohibition. The California Police Chiefs
Association (CPCA) argues that "Persons in law enforcement
have positions of incalculable trust and power in our
communities: Front-line officers literally have the authority
to deprive a person of his/her freedom, use force when
appropriate and even take a life under certain circumstances.
Non-sworn personnel have access to information and records of
citizens that has the potential of being diverted to
inappropriate use."
3)In response , the Assembly Judiciary Committee's analysis
points out that background investigation screening tools of
prospective law enforcement personnel are already extensive.
The analysis notes that, not only was the amendment requested
by the CPCA a very broad exclusion for public employee privacy
rights, it would also likely be found to be unconstitutional.
Finally, the Committee argues that the requested exemption
clearly opens up a potential slippery slope, stating,
"Exempting a broad number of public employees in law
enforcement from the law's privacy protections would also
appear to create a substantial risk that such an exemption
would inevitably, and likely quickly, lead to many other
public employers seeking similar exemptions from the law's
privacy protections, such as teachers and social workers, and
perhaps many others, on the grounds that many if not most
public employees work in jobs that could affect public
safety."
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081