Should Job Seekers Tell Employers To Quit Snooping?

onehitwonder writes in with a CIO opinion piece arguing that potential employees need to stand up to employers who snoop the Web for insights into their after-work activities, often disqualifying them as a result. "Employers are increasingly trolling the web for information about prospective employees that they can use in their hiring decisions. Consequently, career experts advise job seekers to not post any photos, opinions or information on blogs and social networking websites (like Slashdot) that a potential employer might find remotely off-putting. Instead of cautioning job seekers to censor their activity online, we job seekers and defenders of our civil liberties should tell employers to stop snooping and to stop judging our behavior outside of work, writes CIO.com Senior Online Editor Meridith Levinson. By basing professional hiring decisions on candidates' personal lives and beliefs, employers are effectively legislating people's behavior, and they're creating an online environment where people can't express their true beliefs, state their unvarnished opinions, be themselves, and that runs contrary to the free, communal ethos of the Web. Employers that exploit the Web to snoop into and judge people's personal lives infringe on everyone's privacy, and their actions verge on discrimination."

Comments

No, they don't

[Anonymous Coward]

"... and their actions verge on discrimination."

No, legal terms have legislated meanings, ad you don't get to make them up as you go along. Googling someone to see if they're a Nazi child molester on the no-fly list is perfectly legal, and as a hiring manager, you can bet I'm going to keep doing it.

Re:No, they don't

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure that doing a web search is really "snooping" either--after all, what you put on the web is information you put out there. If you didn't want people to know it, you shouldn't have put it out there for everybody in the world to see.

Now, if employers are breaking into your private disk space, that's different...

Maybe I'll post this anonymously, so it can't be used against me...

Re:No, they don't

[Nick Ives]

In any case, if you are going to be so stubborn about infringing on our privacy, we are just going to have to pass legislation criminalising your behaviour, aren't we?

But how will you know if a firm passed you over because of something you said online? It'd be impossible to enforce.

It's just best not to worry about it. Firms who discriminate against people who aren't ashamed of their life and like to talk openly about it will wind up full of drones leaving all the creative people to assemble elsewhere. I hope.

Re:No, they don't

[afidel]

Good, if you disqualify my because of an opinion I have is different to yours I didn't want to work for you anyways! Really, who wants to work for close minded yes men? Personally I've always treated interviews as being mutual and have turned down jobs due to not liking the tone of the interview. I know that's easy to say but I actually did in during what turned out to be a 7 month stint of unemployment during the last recession. I found it's much better to find a job you love then it is to jump at the first opportunity, assuming you have your finances in order.

Re:No, they don't

[N1AK]

When I go for a job I do extensive research about the company I am applying to. During the process I will get as much information on who they employ, and then try and get as much information on any who seem relevant. This isn't uncommon, in fact almost anyone would say not investigating a possible employer is a big mistake. So why is it that we are worried if the employer treats hiring in the same way?

The majority of people who are going to suffer by having people look for them online are people who don't attempt to maintain a separate internet persona and are also publicly doing things that deserve to get them in trouble. If I look up a candidate and find them on Slashdot (on the assumption it can be verified as them) and they regularly flame or troll then you can bet that would effect my hiring decision. At the same time if I found that they often gave good and tolerant answers it would also effect my decision, except this time in a positive manner.

If you post information in public then expect employers to see it. If your employer was using devious methods to get hold of something you thought was private then yes it's an issue.

Re:No, they don't

[HangingChad]

Politely or by Cease & Desist, depending on your relationship.

Do you have ANY idea how difficult that is? Or how much it costs? Just the research alone can take hours. Sending them a C&D is fairly easy, you can do that yourself, if you can find an address to send it. Otherwise you're going to have to get their name, a trick all by itself, and use that to get an address. That might mean hiring an investigator...$50-$60/hour these days. But following up with legal action to get it enforced would cost thousands. How many unemployed people do you think can afford that? Unless you're going to do it all yourself. And, let's suppose you blunder through the morass of the legal system and manage to get a judgment, then all you have to do is figure out how to have it properly served and enforced. By the time you get done with all that, you could almost go to law school.

That's answer is right up there with the pompous douchebags who say, "If you don't like the law get it changed." Thoughtless twits.

Re:No, they don't

[Hordeking]

Potential employer "After reviewing your qualifications, we have decided not to pursue your application. Thank you for considering SpumCo"

Fixed that for you.

Fixed that fixed that for you for you.

Unfortunately, the reality is that potential employers almost literally never give any sort of reason, and very little useful feedback anymore, even if it would be positive or useful.

Well

[bigsexyjoe]

Is it good to take a stand? Yes.

Am I going to sacrifice my own career for this cause? No.

While they shouldn't snoop, It isn't going to stop. Don't you snoop out your potential employers?

Just don't let any non-friends see your Facebook.

Re:Well

[plover]

Is it good to take a stand? Yes.

Am I going to sacrifice my own career for this cause? No.

Damn. I thought I was going to get that job after you announced you were taking a stand.

"It's good for you to take a stand. Good for me, that is."

Re:Well

[tsm_sf]

Or, and I know this is not a hugely great idea in a depression, only apply to jobs run by clueful people. The very idea that any law firm or financial institution that's been around since the seventies would find any of our generation's "excesses" shocking is, frankly, laughable. Get a few martinis in any old secretary and you will hear stories you will not fucking believe. We are amateurs.

Of course, those of us who have opted to not have children (so far? who the hell knows) will always find it easier to stand on their principles. Welcome to Lifestyles of the Rich and Childless.

If it's public it isn't snooping.

[DerekLyons]

The subject line says it all - if it's public, it isn't snooping.

Yeah, good luck with that.

[holophrastic]

First, I'm an employer. Welcome to well-rounded individuals. Try writing good things around the web, and perhaps your potential employers will prefer you because of your life. Write crap, and don't be surprised.

But really, are you going to turn down a job offer because the potential employer searched for you? You can "tell" potential employers that you don't want them snooping, but that doesn't give them any negative for doing so -- you'll still accept the job offer.

But you do have boat-loads of control over your own personal freedom and civil liberties. If you don't want others to judge you, you get to be the judge. Start your own business, and run it any way you choose.

But if you're looking to benefit from someone else's proven model, someone else's money, and someone else's risk, then yeah your liberties are going to go unrespected because you're the one throwing them away.

You want liberty, take a look at what it's like to have complete freedom over a business of your own. You'll find that it ain't liberating in the ways that you were hoping.

By the way, it's excellent, and it's amazing, and I love every minute of it -- now I own and operate two and a half businesses because it's so great.

As always, take the risk, stake your life, then you can have it your way. You want to be an employee, and have your employer tell you what to do and even pay your taxes for you (well, most of them anyway), then you'd better believe that employer is going to look into you.

Besides, what's this liberty on the web crap? Public domain is the name of the game.

Re:Yeah, good luck with that.

[arkhan_jg]

But if you're looking to benefit from someone else's proven model, someone else's money, and someone else's risk, then yeah your liberties are going to go unrespected because you're the one throwing them away.

I take exception to this remark; you're saying that only business owners get to have human rights - which is unvarnished bullshit.

I work as a sysadmin in a private school. This is advantageous for both of us; they get a specialized person who can do a job no-one else there can, and I get to spend all my time working on the job I'm good at, instead of spending half my time on drumming up business and paperwork.

I've worked for big companies, I've worked for small companies, I've even run a my own (very small) company. As an employer, you get to judge me on my public life; that's why it's public. You don't get to dig up my private and family life as bluntly, it's none of your damn business. I don't give up my right of free speech and right to privacy (which IS a human right in the EU) just because you pay me money to do work you can't.

Re:Yeah, good luck with that.

[yttrstein]

I'm also an employer, and I disagree with you completely. I operate by a more modern meme; the one that states beyond repute that an employee that trusts his or her employer is an employee who themselves can be trusted. An employee who does not trust their employer *will* result in lost revenue in some way; be it by slacking off most of their day, all the way up to walking out with equipment.

I would never "check up" on the personal life of any employee, prospective or hired. And I've torn up contracts with companies who think it's somehow alright for them to not only research the personal lives of MY employees, but also to discuss their (negative) opinions of their private lives with me.

As a result, the churn around these parts is very close to zero. I don't have to spend a fortune training new employees all the time. I don't have to pay anyone exorbitant salaries to keep them honest and loyal. And I've managed to assemble a rock-solid, brilliant team who individually may or may not be involved in some pretty weird shit after work.

But it's none of my business. I don't care, because the whole point of business is to make money. Whether or not Jonas or Pip are doing bonghits with shorn goats whilst listening to devil music in their underpants after work is none of my concern at all, so long as they do their job, do it well, and get everything done on time.

It's all I ask, and it's precisely what I get.

Re:Go look for another job.

[palegray.net]

We all benefit in many ways from the fact that our society is becomingly increasingly interconnected. However, that comes at a price. While I appreciate your opinion on the matter, I can assure you this trend is only going to accelerate.

People need to understand a simple concept: if you wouldn't feel comfortable saying something in front of a packed auditorium, you probably shouldn't say it in a public forum online. I absolutely defend an individual's right to express his views as he sees fit; similarly, I absolutely defend an employer's right to base his hiring decision on all publicly available information.

For some, increased transparency is a good thing. For others, it may prove more a hindrance. It's up to the individual to be conscious of how public actions may impact future opportunities.

Re:Go look for another job.

[StingRay02]

People need to understand a simple concept: if you wouldn't feel comfortable saying something in front of a packed auditorium, you probably shouldn't say it in a public forum online.

Absolutely. If you're comfortable voicing the opinions you put online anywhere else, then you're probably going to be miserable working for a company that refuses to hire you based on those opinions. If you're an asshat who likes to piss people off, then you're not likely to be working for anyone too long, anyway.

I'm not a big fan of the trend towards using online personas against people, but I see it as a reverse filtering effect. "You don't like me. I don't like you. Glad we know this now."

Protected classes

[Harmonious Botch]

But how will you know if a firm passed you over because of something you said online? It'd be impossible to enforce.

Unfortunately, that's not true. It seems to make sense that there is no way that one could know why an employer did something. But certain legislators don't think that way.
For a number of classes of people ( genders, ethnic groups, etc ) the mere act of not having the right number of people of a certain class can be construed as proof that there was discrimination.
So, someday, after you have posted a picture of yourself butt-naked sharing a twelve-pack with your buddies outside the local convent, and you remain unemployed, you will be able to sue. All you will have to show is that X percent of the population does such things, and if a particular employer has significantly less than X percent of such people among their employees, they are therefore guilty of discrimination.

Obligatory xkcd

[ElectricTurtle]

http://www.xkcd.com/137/

Re:Employers Aren't Interested in the "Web Ethos"

[Kjella]

Really, unless you are a public figure then why do you have to put your real name out there along with whatever it is that you say? Use a pseudonym and say what you want, but be careful to never connect it or allow it to be connected to your real name ever. First rule of the web: never provide your real identity when a fake will do.

Because it's really, really hard to compartmentalize your life that way. There's a reason the government runs into a million miles of red tape when they do. For example, it's pretty hard not to talk so much about yourself that you could verify whether a suspected person is or is not the one hiding under this nick. That makes it quite dangerous even if they can do nothing more than to hook your pseudonyms up with the pseudonyms of your friends. Let me try to make an example:

Say you're part of a small WoW clan with your real life friends. Obviously your friends know your real identity but they won't reveal it and you don't need the WoW world at large to know so you use a pseudonym and since it's a gaming forum you never really tell much about yourself. And you post on slashdot under the same pseudonym. Then in some post you mention in a comment to a gaming article that you played in a WoW guild with friends.

Now comes an asshat, searches your slashdot history, finds that reference and the nicks of the others in the clan. No biggie, nothing much interesting there. But then he digs on their nicks, and they've been a bit careless and sloppy, finding their real names hooked to those nicks. Using that it's not so hard to find real world connections, and among them there's you. So far it's really all speculation on using the same nick and whatever but then he starts matching the real life with your slashdot posts and if it's a match he posts it up. Game over, everything you ever said on slashdot is now linked to your real world identity even though you've been really careful. And any other pseudonym you ever linked to your slashdot identity again and so on.

I don't think what I've described here is so unusual - you have your real life persona, you have your pure online identities but then you have all these places where you meet somewhere in the middle like a pseudonymous blog about real life and online communities with real life friends. Unless you're really, really careful they will link all of this together and these are like dams that can only be broken, never rebuilt. And most people don't realize until the tidal wave is coming.

Re:Go look for another job.

[Jurily]

People need to understand a simple concept: if you wouldn't feel comfortable saying something in front of a packed auditorium, you probably shouldn't say it in a public forum online. I absolutely defend an individual's right to express his views as he sees fit; similarly, I absolutely defend an employer's right to base his hiring decision on all publicly available information.

Shouldn't they be looking at, say, your ability to do the job and stay the fuck away from your personal life?

Workplaces are juntas?

[gravos]

One thing you should keep in mind is that although we our government is democratic in America, our workplace is not. And frankly it's at work that we spend the majority of our hours, the majority of our days. You might even say that our workplaces are ruled by a king, or at least a junta, whose powers are very much in the medieval mold.

Re:Workplaces are juntas?

[tomhudson]

although we our government is democratic in America, our workplace is not

Really? You don't have a vote into whether you have to stay there? Usually, your boss has a vote on it, and you do. You want to leave, your vote overrides his. He wants to fire you, his vote overrides yours. In other words, you have more say in one way, they have more say in another, so it's "checks and balances" time.

Employers who use irrelevant criteria in their hiring decisions will pay the price long-term, in lower-quality hires, since they'll be disqualifying some high-quality candidates for stupid reasons., The market will work it out, as they go out of business, replaced by employers with saner hiring policies.

And frankly it's at work that we spend the majority of our hours,

Holy crapola, Batman, this person really IS a serf. They spend more than 4,380 hours a year at work! That's way more than the 40-hour week. Hope you're at least getting overtime.

Re:Workplaces are juntas?

[xappax]

There is no analogy: workplaces are literally dictatorships, with a top-down hierarchy based around obeying your superiors and gaining obedience from your subordinates. Workplaces where the employees get to choose their boss are very, very rare, despite our profound commitment to exactly that process in politics.

tomhudson suggested that such an organization is democratic because, after all, you can leave if you want to. That reflects a pretty profound misunderstanding of what democracy is.

I can find work somewhere else

[GameboyRMH]

My opinion is that if a place won't hire me over petty personal stuff, I don't need to work for them that badly. I spent my childhood and so far most of my youth studying so I'd be worth hiring, you can be sure I'm going to enjoy the benefits now.

For my current job I rolled up to the interview in a beat up old track car (I've heard it's a common practice in North America to rent a shiny new car just to drive to an interview) with shaggy hair. I was shaved, dressed nicely and otherwise well-groomed though. I gave straight honest answers to everything. I sent my resume from my personal email address - my slashdot username at gmail. That alone is enough for some people to scoff at, one previous place that interviewed me commented on it (although the work environment there seemed far too uptight for my liking). A search for my username would have turned up my Slashdot posts, me shootin' the shit in various forums, right down to the lolcats and dirty humor, my hobbies, along with a few positive things like me giving tech advice etc. Searching for my real name would turn up little or nothing. I don't have a Facebook page or anything like that, I value my privacy more than that.

So I let them have that, and they hired me. It's been a pretty good fit so far. Let's say I got a job at the place that scoffed at my username - would I want to work at a place so uptight if I had a choice?

So on the topic, I don't think employers should disqualify a potentially good worker on personal grounds - while totally within their rights, it's just wrong.

"Well Mr. Smith looks perfect on paper, he's got a clean criminal record and good references, but I've found photos of him "cosplaying" here - my informal research indicates this is a common pasttime for sexual deviants - and you can see he enjoys violent videogames here, he shows interest in a hacker forum here, and he jokingly doctors this photo of a fat woman on the back of a motorcycle here. I don't think we want this type in our company."