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.'"

Comments

Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This seems a little overblown

[exhilaration]

It might serve as a wake-up call to people who share too much publicly.

So I'm a software developer, in my early 30's, pretty tech-savy. It took me about 45 minutes (a long time, I think) digging around Facebook's privacy settings to properly hide everything. Not only do you have to go under "Privacy", but also "Application Settings" - would the average user know to do that? Apparently "Group" privacy settings are under applications??? Those settings are complicated And even now I can't hide 1) my friends list from the public 2) my pages from the public. So my point is it's hard to NOT share too much publicly with Facebook.

This is not just happening INSIDE the workplace

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This is not just happening INSIDE the workplace

[phantomfive]

If she is already employed, follow these steps:

* Ignore it. If people ask her, tell them, "oh yeah, I'll get right on that." Often in large bureaucracies weird requirements come up, but no one actually cares about them so they go away if you ignore them.
* Incidental to that, don't be emotional. If you passionately object, suddenly people will start to take a personal interest in you, and then it gets harder to ignore. Bureaucratic nonsense is never worth getting emotional about.
* If that doesn't work, and someone comes to you and insists that you do it, give them a task to distract them. Say, "Have you checked with the legal department about it? Can you do so please and tell me what they say?" If you are lucky, it will seem like too much work for them and they will give up.
* If that doesn't work, try amending the contract with a pen. Cross out every part you don't agree to. Or, my preference, add a line that says, "I don't actually agree to this." Write it in cursive and if you are lucky, the corporate drone will decide, "good enough" because in reality, they are just trying to fulfill the stupid requirements someone gave them.
* If that doesn't work, try to talk to a supervisor. Try to escalate it to the person who actually created the policy (since they are the ones who understand the reasoning behind the policy). Once again, don't be emotional, and be respectful. Try to understand their position. You can also try escalating to the person above them.
* If that doesn't work, just refuse. In this case, they can't really fire you, because it's illegal. Once again, try not to be emotional, and be respectful, because otherwise it will be easy for them to make your job annoying in other ways. It's harder if you are respectful.
* It's extreme, but there is always the option to quit.

THAT is how you deal with bureaucracies.

Re:Easy enough to avoid

[mlts]

Even without someone posting slanderous FB profiles, I have had a large number of HR people ask me in job interviews about my Twitter/FB/MySpace accounts. In the past, when I told them that I didn't have one, I got looked at like I was completely insane. One interview actually got ended when the interviewer told me that I was a fossil and too behind the times to be part of their company because I didn't have accounts.

So I created some dummy accounts. These days, I do use FB because it is a good tool for events, but I don't bother with any other social networking site.

Re:Hardly enough.

[phantomfive]

I heard a historian discuss that very topic, and he said there was really no excuse for Jefferson to hold those views. In his day, there were already black and indian intellectuals, and Jefferson went to great length to try to explain why the black intellectuals weren't really that impressive (although he seemed to like the indians). Not to mention his lover and children were very likely black. But then, men don't always respect their lovers, either.

I don't take this to mean that Jefferson was a horrible person, he was heroic in some ways, but in other ways a bigot and a coward. This is OK, and it should give us hope, because all of us have a bad side, all of us have weaknesses, and yet this does not preclude us from being heros in our own way. Everyone has a heroic side, too.