Slashdot Mirror
New Software For Employers To Monitor Facebook
An anonymous reader writes "The NY Times reports that a new service called Social Sentry has been released to monitor employees' Facebook and Twitter accounts for $2 to $8 per employee. The service also plans to support MySpace, YouTube and LinkedIn by this summer. 'Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, a research and advocacy group, called the automatic monitoring of social networking a "disaster," and predicted that it would lead to people being fired for online griping, the airing of political views and other innocuous conversation. There is a tendency to react to an off-color joke or complaint that appears online more harshly than to the same comment made in a cafeteria or company picnic.'"
1. Don't use Facebook on company computers
2. Keep your profile private
3. Don't post work related topics on other user's profiles (they may not be private)
Hey, people in the work place have to keep their mouths shut already about politics without Facebook.
I've never used any of those services. Everyone told me I needed to take my tinfoil hat off when I told them that this would eventually happen.
I'm outraged that slashdot.org monitoring is being left out of this! We must petition this company to include /. in the monitoring! That way we can feel safe in the knowledge that we must all bow down to our-Facebook-Myspace-LinkedIn-Twitter-/.-monitoring Overlords
In particular it seems that this service is monitoring publicly available posts and also flagging how many of them happen during work hours. Considering employers are likely within their rights to monitor when their networks are used to make private posts, this doesn't really seem so bad.
It might serve as a wake-up call to people who share too much publicly.
Don't abuse your employees and "friend" them for free.
For only $1 to 7$ per seat I shall give you a 'web browser'.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
If there is a work-related reason an employee needs to have access to facebook, I have yet to hear it. Just don't allow people to visit the godforsaken vector on company resources. Problem solved.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
It's called FIREFOX. $3 per employee.
"Social Sentry draws only on publicly posted information on Facebook and Twitter;"
Talk about a cash cow. Trolling public information that may or may not be your employee is risky (duplicate names). Perhaps this will remind folks that use social networks to set their security settings up is a good thing.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
Communications manager who uses Facebook for the company's Facebook group.
There's a reason for you. One of many in my place of work. Facebook access is blocked for the average drone, but there are a few folks that have reasons to use it for work purposes.
This isn't about monitoring people facebooking at work, it's about monitoring facebook profiles around the clock to check up on your employees' personal lives and rants.
Easy answer: Drunken sales people.
As an employer, I would be quite happy to know how much time is being wasted by employees on social networking sites. Of course keeping up with current events (Suff that matters) would not be included. The comments my employees make are public and I have the same right to see them as anyone. In addition, the time and resources they spend on personal items while getting paid by me is no less than stealing.
"There is a tendency to react to an off-color joke or complaint that appears online more harshly than to the same comment made in a cafeteria or company picnic"
Of course, because such as comment isn't a one-off thing in close company, but posted for everyone to see until it is removed -- rather like a sign hung from the break-room bulletin board.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
From the comments at the New York Times site it's clear many people there failed to Read The Fine Article. Why should Slashdot readers do any better?
Set up Facebook privacy so only friends can see your stuff. Crisis averted.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
that they won't be monitoring the mygoatse site, where we all expose our, uh, management potential...
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Prior to Facebook, social networking sites were pretty much utilized only by the "geeks" of society. Now, with Facebook, everyone and their mom and their grandma has a page. With this flood of people unaccustomed to "life on the internet", people are learning how to conduct themselves on social networking sites all over again. Not only are the non-geeks learning how all this techno-babble works - geeks are also learning how the new social networking environment works. For example, prior to Facebook, on other sites (LiveJournal, for example), my contacts understood that what I said there was to remain there. They were virtual conversations with my friends. Now, however, I'm realizing that the people I have on Facebook do not have that innate understanding of "how it works." Things I say on Facebook, just as a venue to vent, become an issue. I'm being forced to re-evaluate how a social networking site "works" because of all the people who are now using it who just don't understand how it _should_ work.
All of this is to say that it's a very dangerous time to be active on a social networking site. _YOU_ may understand how it all works. Your _FRIENDS_ may understand that you're just venting about a shitty day at work or whatever. Can you be certain your MOM or your BOSS similarly understands these things?...
Allow access, then any employee who posts "my company sucks" to their own company's facebook or twitter page automatically gets fired, not for squaundering $0.000005 of the company's valuable resources, but for being a dumbass.
If you insist on blocking, I should be able to contract out my finely-tuned dumbass-detection skills to you for big bucks. Profit! And zero false positives, for the most part.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
1. Private profile - the security/privacy settings are there for a reason 2. Don't friend boss/manager - why would you ever do this? It could only lead to bad things 3. Don't use work equipment to access social networks - if they are not already blocked
K Man
If we know which companies subscribe to the service, we have new additions to the list of companies to avoid working for.
What could possibly go wrong?
That's hardly enough. Suppose you're an American who holds Democratic views. Your superiors happen to be hardcore Republicans (the fucking crazy kind).
They're monitoring your social media profiles, and see that you've joined Facebook groups supporting health care reform, joined some groups opposing the illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, you've made some comments suggesting you think it's fine for homosexuals to marry and adopt children, and you once twittered a pro-abortion news article link.
Now, they wouldn't have known this about you otherwise. But now they do know. Even if they don't fire you outright, they'll treat you differently, for sure. Maybe they won't trust you. Maybe they won't give you tasks that would allow you to further your career. After all, they probably don't like you any more, just because some political views you expressed differ from theirs.
All that can happen without you using your account at work, without you discussing work-related matters, and even if you keep your profile "private" (which for Facebook these days seems to mean it's open to just about anyone...).
Smart employers don't give a crap whether their employees go to Facebook or MySpace or whatever, so long as the work gets done. Nitpicking over every minute is an idiot's response to an unproductive workplace.
In cases like Facebook and Myspace, I am not sure what good these services would be. Think about it, these services can only monitor information that is either open for everyone, or if you are a friend. So, by simply making all your info for friends only, it sort of negates anything software like this can do... unless I am missing something?
My action step moving forward: turn off all public info and make private. *Note to self: don't accept friend requests to automated monitoring services*
End of story. Nothing to see here, move along...
I read the article (yes, I know.....)
Anyone using a social site in working hours deserves what they get, even if they access it during their lunch. However, colour me paranoid, but the drift I got was that the software was intended to monitor "employees" activities whenever, to ensure that they toed the company line whenever the company was mentioned, and to monitor their social behaviour and political opinions.
We have the old "In Soviet Russia" jokes, but its time for a new meme.
In Corporate America, company owns YOU!
Nothing being said about monitoring slashdot!
you know, just like unix... very user friendly, but particular about its friends.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
This only means that what everyone else is doing got to NYT -- people are using their work computers for work, and their iPhones for stuff they don't want monitored. The software will only shift devices, not time spent.
Sorry but by monitoring my face book account (I personally don't have any social site accounts) while I'm off work hours is nothing more the stalking me which last time I checked is against the law. Whats next you gonna pay someone to watch what I do in public off work hours to see if it violates your companies rules or your own beliefs? Now if its on work hours and your wasting a time on face boom then you got no one but yourself to blame for the consequences.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Its not what people post on FB that causes my company issues. Frankly they could care less. Its more about how much time the average worker is willing to waste sitting on Facebook doing 0 work. Probably quite similar to how I'm spending my time now, but at least /. can be a learning experience about 0.05% of the time (Once in a blue moon there is a good Ask Slashdot post). I don't think anyone learned anything of value from playing Farmville all day.
A person should not be able to be fired for what they say in their own time, unless the comments are un-true and they are causing a loss to the company due to their online comments, this is where the company could have a case for defamation, or the person is leaking company secrets which is just plain wrong. People need to be careful what they say on-line and only say something if they have evidence/support to back up their comments. If you put something in the public space, it is open slather, and if a company wants to bother monitoring public commentry it is their choice. It is a waste of resources in my opinion. People are plain stupid if they are using social networking during work hours on a work pc, unless it is in their job description.
register as anonymous coward, and cowardly say shit about them
If your profile is public you deserve what you get.
If the software includes falsifying information to 'friend' an employee, that should be a violation of Facebook's terms of use.
Of course, that being SGI around 1999/2000, the people who got canned over BA were just a few months ahead of most of the rest of the company, but you take my meaning.
So the inference we should draw is that any company that squanders effort on such misguided snooping is mere months away from going down the crapper? Good to know, good to know...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
This is not just happening in the workplace. Some employers are actively watching their employee's social networking pages when they are outside the work environment!
My girlfriend was recently given a series of "guidelines" in which was outlined, procedures for proper social network use. Amongst those outlined, the guidelines state she cannot speak negatively of her employer, and may not even speak of public information such as stock price of the company. It also goes so far as to say she cannot make politically or religiously opinionated posts, and she may not post such content anonymously,
At the end of this document composed of "guidelines" (their term) is a signature and date field, followed by the threat of termination of these guidelines are not followed. Guidelines my ass, it's a contract to limit her free speech outside the work place.
We're at a lost as to what to do. Thus far she's refused to sign the document, and has attempted to contact the ACLU and several other organizations. Nothing yet so far.
If there is a work-related reason an employee needs to have access to facebook, I have yet to hear it.
I work for Facebook, you insensitive clod!
Is that still ok?
Way to miss the point. This is companies spying on people on their own time, out of the office.
But by your name you're probably a packy, who just says "oh yes jolly well kind sir" to anything management say.
Maybe you should hire adults then, and not people who can't get their work done because they get easily distracted by shiny things.
if you went to Facebook and searched for Mr. Thrublepants. Oh, just me? Never mind, then.
Use your laptop at work and an ssh tunnel to your home sever. Then browse the net.
Or maybe he should RTFA. Sure, it mentioned monitoring usage during work hours (you don't need some new shiteware to do that anyway), but it goes several double-decker buses further than that.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
1) Why would you use your Real Life name on an Internet social forum?
2) Why in the Nine Hells would you tell your boss your Internet nickname on said social forum??
---dragoness
Hey, can I get this company to hire a private detective to follow my employees around all day? How much would that cost?
I just want to know what they're saying about my company in their off time, and find out whether anyone is sharing sensitive company information. There's no problem with that, right?
Don't have links, and too lazy to look, but I've seen stories of just this sort of thing happening, and it's actually really fucking frightening.
I, for one, am looking forward to the inevitable
I put my name into it, and it showed me a driver's license with a monkey on it.
What is to prevent them from merely listing the reason as "inadequate performance" or some other description?
When you have a job, your employer has you by the short and curlies and can more or less dictate whatever the fuck they want - in one way or another - if you want to keep the job. Its not fair or right in any sense, but it is Capitalism in action. Only in cases of outright discrimination, or where the employer has been remarkably stupid, do you end up with any legal recourse if they violated the law. Any smart employer can fire you for any reason they want while saying its for some other reason I am sure.
The solution is not to work for an employer who is that fucked up if at all possible.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Before you tout Jefferson as so awesome, how's this?
Jefferson's wife was already a widow at 23 when they hooked up after her previous husband died in an "accident."
She went on to have six of Jefferson's children, which of course provided only a small fraction of the fucking T.J. required. That's where one of Jefferson's slaves, Sally Hemings came in. The affair between the two never even found an official denial despite heavy press coverage, though he never officially admitted to it, either. It is thought that Jefferson's deathbed confessional treatise, "I Like Big Butts; And I Cannot Lie" was burned by those close to him before it could be publicly released. Since then, inconclusive DNA testing has been done and has found links between the Jefferson and Hemings' offspring, though not with ol' Tom-boy himself.
To make things even juicier for Jeff, she was purportedly his wife's half-sister. Did we mention his wife was his distant cousin? Put it all together and you have a recipe which, when left to bake in the heat emitted by Jefferson's nut sack, rises to become an extremely kinky layer cake being eaten in the White House.
http://www.cracked.com/article_15706_the-5-pimpingest-historical-figures.html
Or how about: http://www.cracked.com/article_16688_historys-6-greatest-examples-financial-fail.html
Dude was fucking *rich,* and spent it on a house that bankrupted him, and featured several ways to get by without having to look at his slaves.
So, an adulterer, poor financial planner, and couldn't be assed to even have his slaves bring him a fucking bottle of wine in person. Yeah, great guy there.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
My strategy is to just not worry about it. I post whatever I fee like on the internet and if my employer decides to fire me over it, tough shit for him. I'm an awesome employee and there's plenty of companies that would gladly hire me with full knowledge of my dirty liberal ways. Of course my stance is made easier by the fact that the software industry tends to be pretty relaxed about ideological stances or weekend indiscretions that don't effect job performance.
Hikery.net - The best hiking site ever. Made by yours truly.
Allow access, then any employee who posts "my company sucks" to their own company's facebook or twitter page automatically gets fired, not for squaundering $0.000005 of the company's valuable resources, but for being a dumbass.
ah so one shouldn't gripe about his employer because it is dumb to gripe about one's employer because he can fire you for being a dumbass for griping about.............
nice loop there. I know you want to justify a strict authoritative hierarchy because it helps cover up your own insecurities, but it still isn't right. if employers don't want people griping about them, then they need to quit being douchebags in the first place.. same goes for any authority.
If you don't want the whole world to know something about you, don't post it on the internet for the whole world to read. Seems like common sense to me.
By the simple fact that you connect to the site via SSL (https) would mean that it digitally secure and would technically fall under a DRM scheme? Then logic would follow that just by snooping your company is in direct violation of the DRM laws?
What you have observed is a common Republican debating technique.
Instead of debating the issue or issues under discussion, they focus on the "rules" of debate. This is mainly done because their arguments are weak, and full of obvious holes.
So they throw out false accusations of their opponent(s) using "strawmen", or "ad hominem attacks", and so forth. Soon the debate is focusing on how the debate should be held, rather than on the original topic itself.
We see this at the highest levels, with them threatening to filibuster on a near-constant basis. Since they can't partake in honest, open, legitimate debate about real issues, Republicans do whatever they can to debate something trivial.
(I'm not a Democrat, by the way. But for whatever reason, they don't seem to stoop to the level of Republicans when it comes to using this technique. They will actually discuss issues.)
If the company doesn't want unfavorable things posted about it by its employees on such sites, and doing so using company resources, then the solution is to block all access to said sites from the company network. With the previously mentioned "authorized" access by the PR department maintaining the "official" site for the company on these networks.
Or allow inbound-only (read-only) viewing. Anyone using these means as a way to send an urgent, important, and/or private message to someone while they are at work should use the proper means to do so -- the phone.
Wiretapping in the US has a much stronger legal position in terms of expectations of privacy than does _any_ use of a company owned computer, network, mail server, disk space, or any other resource.
Anyone using this "service" should be seriously considered for canning, not because it is immoral or unethical or even illegal (e.g. cyber-stalking or cyber-bullying), but because it is far more expensive than paying your network admin to implement firewall rules to block access to/from these sites.
I'm certain at some point, an FB or MS user will file suit against these clowns for "cyber-stalking" as well as naming their entire customer base as co-defendants (who likely have deeper pockets than this start-up).
It would be interesting to hear their explanation as to how "monitoring" someone's personal website is somehow exempt from the various states' legal definitions of a "cyber-stalking" criminal offense.
Not to mention a FB or MS TOS violation to use another user's information to potentially and likely cause significant financial harm to that user (i.e. cause them to lose their jobs).
I also wonder if this company has a Private Investigator license in each of the home states of their "persons of interest" whose accounts they are monitoring.
Also, one has to wonder about the priorities of any company seriously worried about what people (some of whom also happen to be their employees) might be saying outside of working hours, when they are not representing the company in any way, (nor being compensated to do so as well), and not only worried, but worried enough to spend money hunting them down in order to take action against them.
That must be one really, really influential employee for their FB or MS pages to have that much financial impact to the company's shareholders.
Anyone who doesn't have a problem with this shit, doesn't want or understand freedom and liberty.
This shouldn't be modded funny, it should be modded insightful or informative.
This is hardly new. There is a company named Awareness Technologies, www.awarenesstech.com that has been invading your privacy for years now. They've been able to capture ALL activity from any website, not just Facebook. The difference is, they didn't get the press this company got. It's funny how some crappy unknown company and crappy software makes it onto the internet with such buzz, while other quality products just keep going on with their business even though they've been doing it for a much longer time --- with much a much more quality product.
I use my iPhone for such things. It's safer in the long run.
Until someone comes up with a rogue cell repeater they can tap into.
...your mom starts using the nickname on everything.
My legal first name is five letters and frequently (as in "always" outside my family) mispronounced. Searching it straight also brings up a website I don't want my employer or my parents to see. So I went with a three letter nickname. Easy to pronounce, works great, a romance author has the same name. My elderly mother likes it so much she now uses it on everything. The point was to keep work and non-work life separate--and she's blurring the lines. Oh well, it could be worse.
Hey, i get an hour lunch break and 2 other contractual/legal breaks.. I have a phone.. Leave my personal time out of it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It's the farce of "at-will" employment. You're not really free when expressing your political opinions outside of work could cause you to lose your job.
So what do you purpose to replace "at-will" employment?
Maybe we could replace "at-will" employment with "Equal Employment Opportunity" which could prohibit employment discrimination based on anything except how you do your work? The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 puts it quote nicely: "personnel actions can not be based on attributes or conduct that do not adversely affect employee performance".
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html is a good start, but more and more people feel that like the Ninth Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights the enumeration of EEOC protections for certain employee attributes and conduct which does not adversely affect employee performance should not be allowed to deny or disparage EEOC protection for other employee attributes or conduct which do not adversely affect employee performance.
So if you found out one of your employees was a member of the KKK, you'd keep him on the payroll?
If he only excercises his KKK conduct outside the workplace, then he shouldn't be able to be fired for it. The military's "don't ask don't tell" experience should have made it clear that some people really can keep their personal attitudes separate from their work place and some.
Teneros should be kicked where the sun don't shine. Social Sentry should be boycotted. Actually both need to be boycotted. This clearly is a lawsuit in the making. This is not right or moral. I hope it does turn into a Teneros disaster. May their business end up in a pit of sewage where they belong.
The views expressed by your employees on their own time do not represent your company unless you take the time and energy to point it out and MAKE it so. No reasonable person would think that a Walmart employee's ranting on his/her facebook page represents the official views of Walmart. Of course, nobody should say who their employer is on Facebook or any other such site. But we know that's not going to be a prerequisite for firings. People have and will be fired for their online content even when they don't mention their job/employer. What's to stop Domino's pizza from firing an employee because she is pro-choice?
There is going to come a point where the First Amendment will need to be incorporated onto the actions of private actors like big corporations. Frankly I think we're well past that point.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
> I'd feel like I was deceiving people. I always use my real, full legal name when doing things online and writing posts on social websites.
> by nine-times (778537)
Your mother must have a strange sense of humor... ~
a) There is a reason i do not use Facebook b) for sure it pisses your employer more off if you step visibly for millions of people out of line than if you step a little out of line in the cafeteria or at a picnic. (even if you get completely drunk at some company celebration - as long as you dont post a video on facebook its probably not so bad) c) Always keep you business, your private and you political life separated. You private life, when mentioned in the internet does not have a name. It does not have an identifiable Job. And it does not have pictures of you making it identifiable. End of the Story. Doin it otherwise screams for people monitoring you.
Most companies have an AUP that forbids personal use of company network resources, and also doing things from company IP addresses that would make it appear as if you spoke on behalf of the company.
The network belongs to the Company, and they have every right to dictate how you may and may not use it. I see no problem with this.
Add me :)
Except that most HR departments and managers live in perpetual fear of wrongful dismissal lawsuits. Most companies will bend over backwards to not have to fire people unless there is a pretty blatant or illegal transgression. Firing someone for "inadiquate performance" usually takes months (or years) of detailed performance records, how management tried to address them, performance improvement plans, blah blah blah. It soon becomes such a massive inconvienence and massive volume of paperwork and documentation that virtually no one bothers.
My strategy seems to be clearer and clearer. 1) have a facebook account in your real name for old friends and new acquaintances to find you. Don't put many details there. Check to make sure no one is taggin photos of you under your real name as well. 2) When people friend you there, send them to your relaxed, open other facebook account under an alias where they can discuss and post photos under your alternate ID relatively freely. Period. Why people accept any system that forces them to use their real name on internet forums is beyond me. The Australian "sheeple" term comes to mind.
Maybe include it as part of the employment contract. In fact I'd want to go as far as to require this freedom of speech when discussing the employer too, for both positive and negative posts, for both anonymous and non-anonymous posts, and I would not limit it to social media. Basically the freedom to disclose anything that isn't marked confidential or secret. I wonder how many employers will go for it.
Except that virtually every company of any size these days has layoff cycles. It is virtually impossible for an employee to prove that he/she was discriminated against in a layoff (unless the company is stupid enough to lay off only people who meet very specific criteria, and even then it's tough). If you want to get rid of an employee for any reason, all you do is wait for another round of layoffs to come around (probably not more than about 3-6 months away, possibly much sooner) and presto! When I was laid off from HP, I got a printout telling me how many people of what ages and racial types were laid off during that cycle, which I suspect was an effort to "prove" it wasn't age/race discrimination. Funny how very few companies seem to want to hire a 50 year old these days, though. Other than as a security guard or a store greeter, of course.
-Mike
I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
Maybe the reaction to online griping is harsher because, unlike griping in the cafetaria, it's not visible to ten inside people, but to pretty much the world ? How do you think your boss would react if you badmouthed him in on the frontpage of a newspaper ?
What a depressingly stupid machine.
I'd like to note that my company is the most productive, innovative, and beneficient organization in the history mankind. Indeed, my managers are such paragons of humanity that I have no doubt that were they to control all of society, we would be living in a golden age which would rival, nay exceed, even the most fantasic utopias portrayed in literature.
Nine, you are a true hero.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You are the same kind of employer/manager that will also demand from their employees to work long hours and weekends.
I know the type, it sounds like you.
But then it is not called stealing, because somehow companies abusing people in this way is never bad and there are even legal provisions that allow it in some localities.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... to stop other people saying things about me? I don't seem to find it.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Not that I made my profile private my friends will stop talking about me and publishing those pictures where I am making an ass of myself (in a party in my own private time).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I will write some guidelines to bar black people from working on my company.
And I will demand to sleep with the daughters of all my employees if they wish to continue to be employed by me.
It is so good to get such great advice from Slashdotters....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Ironic smarty pants cynical bastard.
Archived.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Yea, there is a fundamental flaw here that I was thinking of for a while now. Anyone can guess what it is?
Generally the IT guy doesn't have any control over who his company hires...