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.'"

18 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. Easy enough to avoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)

    1. Re:Easy enough to avoid by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      4) Have two names, one for work and one for home.

      (I learned this the hard way, since people called Archimedius Thrublepants-Kopovski aren't exactly common).

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Easy enough to avoid by JLavezzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've never understood the appeal in social networking.

      It's the white-listed email system everyone was speculating we'd need when spam got too bad.

    3. Re:Easy enough to avoid by mlts · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Easy enough to avoid by chickenarise · · Score: 4, Informative

      Getting sick of Farmville notifications? Click the Hide button next to the notification then click the Hide Farmville button silly! Quit complaining about a problem you can solve with 2 clicks.

      --
      One convenient locations...in Africa.
  2. Good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  3. This seems a little overblown by grahamsz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This seems a little overblown by exhilaration · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

  4. Re:Jeebus - just block facebook, it's not that har by dancingmilk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. 'Learning" Social Networking by whisper_jeff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?...

  6. Hardly enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...).

    1. Re:Hardly enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      WARNING! REPUBLICAN ALERT! REPUBLICAN ALERT! REPUBLICAN ALERT! WARNING!

      A WARNING TO ALL MEN: Protect your bumholes! There are Republicans out and about! Do not enter airport washrooms. Do not enter churches. Be on the alert for unprovoked sodomy. Keep your pants on at all times.

      A WARNING TO ALL WOMEN: Stay away from coat hangers, especially if pregnant. Hanging up clothes may be mistaken to be an abortion in progress.

      A WARNING TO ALL CHILDREN: Keep all science and math textbooks hidden, especially science texts that delve into evolution. Wrapping such books in a fake Bible cover is recommended.

    2. Re:Hardly enough. by iamhassi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Perhaps you should actually learn about our founding fathers views [wikipedia.org] on slavery before you condemn them."

      Did you even read the article you linked to?
      "According to historian Stephen Ambrose: "Jefferson, like all slaveholders and many other white members of American society, regarded Negroes as inferior, childlike, untrustworthy and, of course, as property. Jefferson, the genius of politics, could see no way for African Americans to live in society as free people.""

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    3. Re:Hardly enough. by twidarkling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How's that a strawman? The GGP said "The exact same views." The GP pointed out a view that the founding fathers had, and pointed out how that exact view is no longer universally acceptable. That immediately destroys credibility, since you can't hold *all* the *exact* same views, unless you're down with slavery.

      Further, anyone who thinks the constitution is a dead document, never to be altered or changed is a fucking moron, in my books. The founding fathers never could have conceived of the world we live in today, nor of what would become hotly contested issues, and so never addressed it in the document. To hold today's world to a piece of paper that was never meant to address the state of current society is narrow-minded and specious at best.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    4. Re:Hardly enough. by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The founding fathers never could have conceived of the world we live in today, nor of what would become hotly contested issues, and so never addressed it in the document.

      Once, while I was advocating the government taking a greater role in regulating the Internet (in terms of infrastructure, i.e. Verizon, not in terms of content), a Republican relative of mine complained, "If the founding fathers wanted the federal government regulating the Internet, they would have put it in the Constitution!"

      I literally face-palmed on that one. When I reminded him that they didn't really know about the Internet in the early 19th century, he said something like, "Well they didn't say anything about cars or telephones either!" Double face-palm.

      Finally I pointed out that the most advanced technology that they would have had at the time was someone carrying a handwritten letter by horseback, and that the Constitution had specifically given the government the power to get involved in those kinds of communications. Essentially, the Constitution gave the government the power to build the most advanced communication and transportation infrastructure available at the time: to hire people to carry letters all over the country and even build a network of roads for them to travel over. He didn't believe me, and asked, "Ok smart guy. If the government was allowed to do that, why didn't they ever do it?" I would have tripple face-palmed if I had three hands.

    5. Re:Hardly enough. by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Qxe4
  7. This is not just happening INSIDE the workplace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:This is not just happening INSIDE the workplace by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Qxe4