Pols defend social media privacy bill panned by police

State legislators are defending a proposed social media bill now under fire from law enforcement officials, arguing it protects privacy rights.

“It is important we have the ability to have our social media account be private and to get a job or go to a school to not have that school or employer say we have to give them our private information,” said Sen. Cynthia Stone Creem (DNewton), the sponsor of the bill. “We don’t have people looking through our homes and mail. There is a certain level of privacy people expect.”

Creem’s legislation would prohibit schools and employers from asking or requiring students and potential employees to hand over access to social media accounts. But the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association argues the bill would limit the ability to give full background checks to police recruits and view their social media for racist or homophobic posts.

The backlash comes amid rising scrutiny of social media posts from law enforcement officials. Earlier this month, state police suspended trooper Matthew Sheehan indefinitely without pay as officials investigate whether he wrote posts under the screen name “Big Irish” that disparaged minority communities and discussed the use of force on the job.

“We strongly believe that the integrity of police organizations across this Commonwealth outweighs privacy implications under certain circumstances,” MCOPA legislative chairman and Chelsea police Chief Brian Kyes said.

An amendment filed by Sen. Michael Moore (D-Worcester) would allow chiefs to delve into the social media history of a potential recruit if they learned that the candidate has harassed or discriminated against someone. It would also allow access to a current employee’s social media if there is a credible allegation that harassing or discriminatory content was posted.

But local chiefs said the change still handcuffed them, because it would already be too late.

“When we’re entrusting people, giving them this responsibility, we should have added protections,” Moore agreed. “My amendment was trying to find a compromise.”

The bill, which passed 36-0 in the Senate on March 15, is now in the House. Moore said both sides can hammer out a better compromise bill.

“We have to deal with new personal policies resulting from the continued advancement of technology,” Moore added. “The policemen might not be happy. We’ll try to get a new policy that will address their concerns regarding public safety and the concerns from individuals concerned about losing privacy protections.”

Rep. Peter Durant (RWorcester), a member of the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security, said, “I don’t believe employers should be allowed to demand passwords to get into someone’s site . ... It’s a privacy issue.”

‘I don’t believe employers should be allowed to demand passwords to get into someone’s site. It’s a privacy issue.’ — Rep. Peter Durant