To the Honorable Greg Walden,
With respect to the "Protecting The Passwords of Online Users" amendment, I've read the text:
SEC. 5. PROTECTING THE PASSWORDS OF ONLINE USERS.
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.

If I understand it correctly, and please help me out here, I'm not a lawyer, this doesn't instruct the FCC to pass a rule protecting user privacy. Instead, it simply states that nothing in the bill it was to be attached to can prevent the FCC from making such a rule.

As such, you said (and again correct me if I have the quote incorrect, or the site misquoted you):
Your amendment doesn’t protect them. It doesn’t do that. Actually, what this amendment does is say that all of the reforms that we are trying to put in place at the Federal Communications Commission, in order to have them have an open and transparent process where they are required to publish their rules in advance so that you can see what they’re proposing, would basically be shoved aside. They could do whatever they wanted on privacy if they wanted to, and you wouldn’t know it until they published their text afterward. There is no protection here.

Now, for your claim to be true, that would mean by publishing the rules ahead of time, and having a transparent process, would some how prevent or restrict the FCC's ability from making such a rule, or making rules in general. I don't understand how making something transparent can impact what it can make.

That is, unless there's another portion of the bill that does restrict their ability to make rules, which I'm not aware of.

Please, help me understand here. It seems this might have given the house a way to pressure the senate and president to pass the bill, as you could point and say it gives the FCC the powers needed to prevent this kind of abuse, and why they shouldn't vote that down, or veto the bill.

That said, the point is somewhat moot now, though I would like to understand your argument. As such, and as you said "I think it’s awful that employers think they can demand our passwords and can go snooping around. There is no disagreement with that." when should I expect a bill from you with a laser like focus on this practice. It needs to be bigger than just Facebook and social networks, it needs to include personal e-mail and websites.

I would expect it to be approximately 1 page long, saying in essence, employers and government agencies cannot coerce the disclosure of user credentials of any person's personal accounts.

That would protect bank accounts, social media, website accounts, e-mail and future innovations, including but not limited to systems that may not use a username/password log in in the future.

It also would address the current confusion various courts have with respect to demanding log ins for phones and personal accounts. To me it is not feasible to prove people remember their log in credentials, so to punish people who may forget their information, especially under the stress induced by an investigation, is deplorable.

I will now use this argument against Socialism too. Thanks. :)

Enough of the hyperbole. Facebook only has as much on you as you let them have. No one died in the transition from MySpace to Facebook and no one is going to die when Facebook goes the way of MySpace.

People just want to be lazy about their lives and blame others when things go wrong for doing so. Facebook can't share anything with anyone I don't let share myself to begin with.

Oh, wait. Nevermind. I assume you're not already a Mac user, so the cost is higher.