Slashdot Mirror
"Pre-Crime" Comes To the HR Dept.
storagedude writes "Like something out of the Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report, a startup called Social Intelligence is mining social media to weed out job applicants based on their potential for violence, drug abuse or just plain bad judgment. The startup also combs sites like Facebook and Twitter to monitor current employees, presumably to monitor compliance with company social media policy, but as the criteria are company-defined, anything's possible. Just one more reason to watch what you post, folks."
I take it this screening company dont mind a few lawsuits for deformation and libel ?
It's better than the "IQ" test if it predicts behavior.
It's better than the "drug" testing because not every drug user is a drug addict.
It's highly focused on what actually matters.
If you are rational you won't go online saying and doing stupid things in a way in which it's linked to your workplace persona. If you are irrational and completely lack self control then you might, but then you might be like that Barksdale Google engineer and I'd rather people like that guy be filtered out than to continue with hiring irrational but brilliant.
That being said nobody is rational 100% of the time, but those people who are at work using their work computer to search for pornography -1, those people who are spouting idiocy under their real name -1, those people who don't protect their name, their reputation, as they would protect their company -1.
Wonderlic Personnel tests have been billed as able to predict unwanted behavior in prospective employees for a long time now. I guess the niche here is reviewing someones social networking persona, which doesn't strike me as anything particularly newfangled and amazing.
Unless they provide a full & accurate report as to what information was collected on you(and how it was used), it shouldn't even be happening.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
... but how do these "trawlers" get to see what's on, say, a Facebook page if viewing permission has been given only to a limited set of trusted people? Does Facebook permit trawlers access to such restricted information? Do they use subterfuge to get past the restrictions? How?
Create a persona that is unbelievably wonderful. Give that persons a handle and its own email account. Then if you are asked if you go online give them that persona's handle and email address. Your live in uncle must own all those other handles and he uses your PC a lot. But you are the one who constantly emails about rescuing orphans and stray dogs and cats and attends all patriotic functions ad nauseum.
If a company is so restrictive and intrusive that they can't take a couple crazy, sleep-deprived 3 am posts maybe they're not the best place to work?
From the company's point of view, any information they can gather on a potential employee is helpful. I just hope who ever uses that type of service is wise enough to not take it too, too seriously.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
so what if "someone i know" is from as small boring ass town that printed a mini article (full of bs, mostly) about one of his D.I.P's and now that is #4 when you google his name (mark stolzoff) how do you fix that?
You don't think when you apply for a job that the people hiring you are not already looking at social media (and of course Google) to see what kind of person you are?
Now I'm against HR doing this by policy as they will come up with some absurd guidelines that a real person closer to the hiring would be able to make a judgement call on. But that doesn't mean your social media footprint has not already affected your ability to be hired, for some time now.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In a bad economy, sticking it to the individual worker through HR seems to always creep up.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
These sorts of tests should be called idiot detection testing. The point of the test is to filter out the irrational type people who can bring down the honor and reputation of any business. A business is represented by the behavior of it's employees. A business has the right not to hire employees who have irrational or just plain stupid behavior.
So now stalking is officially a profession. "Don't call us stalkers! We believe in the well being of our clients so we want to stop crime before it happens. We are doing a noble deed here."
Am I the only one that thinks about the Philip K Dick story before they think about the movie? The book is almost ALWAYS better than the movie!
Just elect to pass on this type of employer.
If the HR department is this intrusive, imagine what your manager will be like.
I don't have one, and any information about me is going to be pretty hard to get to without a court order. I don't feel I'm missing out one bit. Oh wait, I don't get to play farmville. My loss.
I am in favour if they are testing for spelling and grammar.
Otherwise, not so much.
I'm sure that this is only going to pick out those idiots who admit to wrongdoing on their Facebook pages.
No doubt it would never, ever be used to weed out those who "wouldn't fit in the company culture". That would be wrong.
My name is shared with a very famous (dead) person so I'm hard to google. But of course he had my email address. From that he found my geocaching account, liked that I made puzzles (he was looking for a game developer) from that found my /. postings, liked what he saw.
Yeah, I got the job and it was fun, but it creeped me out. I hardly ever post anywhere anymore.
Except, of course, for this...
The big danger of judging people by their character as a fit to a culture is that a particular character type becomes over-represented, and all decision-making could basically be made interchangeably by any member of the organization. Just as a gene pool that has little diversity is much more vulnerable to disaster, so to is the organization that believes that it will be more effective by stereotyping people according to their determination of their character.
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
Just one more reason to watch what you post, folks
Or one more reason to make ethical career choices, such as not working for a company that doesn't respect your right to a private life.
When will people learn not to give out your private information to people that have total control over your earning power? It doesn't even matter if you do anything illegal, just something that can be construed as bad for the company image. Have a photo on Facebook of you drinking MGD at a party while you work for A-B? Sorry dude, you added your boss as your friend, and he just fired you.
The purpose of social networking sites is to create and get a glimpse of your social fingerprint. This is a lot cheaper than hiring private investigators and doing a real backround examination.
Here's a tip: Just don't get on those kinds of social sites. We did perfectly well before those things, and they obviously are causing more trouble than it's worth. So refuse to partake in the herd mind. Be free!
The hardest thing about being in HR is justifying your existence. The HR department where I work spits out a constant stream of useless projects, purely so they can claim to be doing something. For example we have a program to encourage employees to find people to apply for jobs at our company, but there are no positions open to apply for. The list goes on.
Snake oil products like this are ideal for HR. They take maybe a fifth of an HR person to administer, so it looks great on the HR managers resume (always looking for that next job, go home and update your resume). They use money (administered a budget of $DOLLARS, also great on the resume). They sound like a good idea. Its sounds really web 2.0 and hip to be involved. Really, it can't fail.
It just won't work.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
TFA makes a point that invalidates yours though - they specifically mention the fact that if you're tagged in an image your boss is contacted. At that point it doesnt matter if you're rational...every single person in your social network, no matter how extraneous, is having their discretion and rationality tested. Go to a party and have a couple of pictures taken and tagged of you messing around, harmlessly, and forwarded to a boss who perhaps disapproves of heavy drinking/smoking/you kissing guys/stupid pictures of people pretending the Eiffel tower is between their palms...pretty much anything really, and you run the risk of disciplinary action.
At that point the only rational choice is to not participate online at all, or allow pictures to be taken, comments to be made, anything that relates to you. What a sad life that seems.
... what the Facebook/Twitter/media-stuff profiles of the people involved in that company look like.
What was the expression? "Eat your own dog food",was it?
"A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"
If these people can't get a job, what motivation do they have to change? If you've got nothing to lose and no prospects of anything better, why not commit crimes? Do we really want violence prone drug addicts wandering the streets with nothing to do?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The thing is, more people get caught in the crossfire for no reason. For example your boss might object to your political stance, or he might not like you being a atheist, or he might think you're a drunk when there's only one picture of you at your birthday. Maybe he sees you dressed as a woman at a halloween party and fires you because he's homophobic. If your name is John Smith, good luck cleaning up your online identity.
Sure, some of those things are technically illegal reasons for firing, but really, in the US it isn't that hard to fire you for any reason (sometimes even no reason). Until the position descriptions have "24hr company representative and diplomat" in them (with appropriate pay), what you do on your own time and dime is your business. This just smacks of companies trying to squeeze people by the balls even harder.
I would never allow anyone I work for (or with) to be friends with me on Facebook, and if I haven't added you all you can see is my name, picture, and a link to message me and request to be added as a friend.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
And best of all, you can find out things through Facebook that you are prohibited by law from asking your employees. Want to discriminate against employees on the basis of religious or political beliefs? Gotcha covered!
It's highly focused on what actually matters.
What actually matters is job performance, period.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
sorry there are a small number of jobs that require any background checks and a much smaller number of ones that require serious background checks - sounds like a lot of HR dept's in the states have a vastly overinflated sense of their importance.
sucks if your dyslexic though
Shouldn't we be giving credit to Phillip K. Dick for authoring this story idea instead of Spielberg who, undoubtedly, has enough credits to his name and merely directed this film?
Who knew saying stupid things in public could be damaging?
You know, there may be a bit of a masked positive side to this kind of behavior...depending on how you look at things. Sure, you may not be able to get just any job you apply for anymore. On the other hand, this helps act as a bit of a filter for you, by weeding out employment solicitations from companies that you wouldn't enjoy working for in the first place. I know that if a company I otherwise found interesting was extremely biased towards folks with, say, unpopular political views, I wouldn't want to work there because I tend to sample and research unpopular political views out of curiosity. Any company that considers such curiosity to be a detriment to their product or business model is not a company I'd want to work for.
So yeah, the double-sided sword cuts both ways. You may not get a job because of your lifestyle or online behavior or whatever, but "Company X" might not get a good employee because of their overly restrictive HR-imposed stereotypes. In that case, it's their loss.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
FUCK. THAT. SHIT.
That is all.
(Goddamn filters for caps.)
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
And what if they can't find anything because all the info is private?
Then nothing at all will happen.
But most people don't careful pour over privacy controls the way you or I would. They just open the kimono wide for all to see. If they find a setting they just set it more open.
Truth to tell, I don't even bother changing Facebook privacy settings. I just treat anything I post there as utterly public, that I don't care about every person on earth seeing. And if you are smart that is true for all forms of electronic communication, including email.
People here always say "information wants to be free" but then whine about privacy. Not sure why they live in contradiction.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Posting anything on Facebook or Twitter is proof of bad judgement.
Yeah. It would be just like life before 1995.
That's how.
Than to need applicants and not have them.
Not every drug user is an addict, but every drug user is willing to violate federal law of their own free will.
Employers are less concerned about junkies applying for jobs, and more concerned about people who selectively adhere to the law as they see fit. Can that same person be expected to follow the rules while working for you? Would they thumb their nose at privacy laws or other policies that would harm your business? Will they use drugs on the work site and cause injury that you could be liable for?
For an employer, checking for drug use is just common sense.
another reason not to go by your real life name for social network reasons ,put your drunk and crunk pics up on the site..
-- you should always have at least 2 separate accounts in my opinion
1 with completely false info and sure friend your personal life real life friends
the 2nd account should be a professional one with your name if you need one to network with people in the same industry or business if needed
and or to keep your life separate.
or just dont post anything at all? i have a really sparse online persona, and my real persona is not connected to it. in fact, my real name cant be found on the internet!
imagine that?
"Idiocy" means "stuff I don't like/agree with".
they specifically mention the fact that if you're tagged in an image your boss is contacted
What a great way to get rid of workplace rivals! This will enable a whole new level of viciousness in company politics!
Seriously, it would take very little work and very little risk to completely ruin someone's career.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
Remember all the stories about fake twitter accounts, e.g. David Miliband and fake FB accounts?
With automated systems using these, I wonder if it doesn't make it more likely plain rotten people will create fake accounts under the name and place of people they don't like, as a revenge tactic.
Mining data from social networks is one thing.... actually authenticating that data or verifying the actual identity of the poster reliably, is hard.
mm so I play war games ie battles with model soldiers so is that "Demonstrating Potentially Violent Behavior" one of the alleged things they look for.or do i just counter claim that social intelligence are obviously loony lefties and unpatriotic commies to boot. now where did I put that Daily Mail reporters mail address or should I ring up Sarah Palin/Local Tea party and mention that thease pinko's in california.
mate you forgot the irony tags there
"based on... just plain bad judgment."
You mean like, they had a Facebook account with their real name on it?
It's possible that you're terribly cynical, and that you feel like you should not, nor should you be able to, communicate ideas and thoughts which might lead to negative workspace repurcussions -- regardless of whether or not those thoughts are well thought out, rational, and in your own (or your classes) self interests. I.e. you feel that there is no need or merit to stand up to private power.
Or your hopelessly naive, in that you think that this is a positive and harmless development because, after all, these companies are justy looking for hopelessly destructive and anti-social behavior, and this sort of thing is in no way a burden and restriction on your freedom of speech, especially not your freedom to analyze the power structure of America, or to in some way attack the interests of the corporate and wealthy elite.
Which is it?
Yeah. It would be just like life before 1995.
He already said it was sad, no need to be redundant.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
That kind of practice can't really last, though, as the businesses that fall victim to this trap will be out-competed by their rivals that don't.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
That's my point, we don't live pre-'95 anymore and the richness of the online experience has become integral to our modern lives.
will only make you being chased by blue butterflies.
Aside from the obligatory XKCD, you're committing a No True Scotsman fallacy right here. I consider myself rational, and I do go online and do what I want, stupid or otherwise, and very, very rarely make any attempt to avoid linking it to my true identity -- I can stand by what I said, or I can admit to being wrong.
Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them irrational. Just because they do something bold does not automatically make it rash.
I do support this test in one respect: If they weed me out because of something I've said, that's one less place I'd have wanted to work anyway. If they can accept who I am, warts and all, we can do business.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
or you might just expect to be able to have a few (or several dozen) drinks on the weekend or whenever you feel like (not on work time obviously) and not think that makes you a poor employee or candidate. drinking for most working adults is not illegal and is perfectly normal. how does that sully one's character? telling jokes, good or bad? perfectly human. drug use is illegal, a.f.a.i.k. so, telling someone, 'oops you drank too much this weekend, you're on probation', is bullshit. what the hell does it matter what you do on your own time, if it's not illegal?
people talk about a nanny state. this is where it really starts. someone needs to sink that company quick.
i run. if i run 50 miles out in a remote park, that might seem irrational to someone else who's scared of the outdoors. is it risky behavior? yes, i suppose it could be construed that way if you don't know anything about fitness or the outdoors. but if i didn't do something like that, i might do something really risky, such as smashing equipment or hardware at work. everybody's got an outlet that for the most part is not going to affect their work life. while i think these social sites are a waste of time, what's worse is the fact that now they're set ups for surveilling people's recreation and the worrisome impacts of such fun. they're outlets for people to talk shit to each other or gripe or whatever. now they're being used a litmus test for the perfect person. ridiculous.
"To stop the terrorists."
Of course case 1 can lead to case 2 once word gets around that you are just jerking people around.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
so create one and use it exclusively. Maintain your real name persona as dull and lifeless. Corporate goodness ensues. Honestly, I fail to see the validity in this. Just too easy to be a different age, profession or even gender online. This test will trap the morons, but not much else. No excuse for due diligence in the hiring process. There just is no substitute for doing the hard research on an applicant.
That don't realize that the new guy with the camera crew is somehow not the Undercover Boss?
irrational by whose definition?
lack self control by whose definition?
brilliance often comes with an offbeat personality. you're not going to find brilliance in joe schmoe conformers. I don't see why employers should care so long as the work output is adequate. Of course, most policy is set by conformists who still haven't grown out of high school cliquery, so things like dress codes, 'team spirit' propaganda meetings, and other such drivel are the norm.
finally, employers should have no say in what an employee does in his free time. If the activities affect work performance, then tell the employee his work sucks. usually, in this case, the employer doesnt care why, only that the employee improve. This reasonable stance does not require Total Surveillance.
Yeah. In small towns, word gets around. People know who you are, people talk about people, you get a rep--even if you haven't been convicted of doing anything wrong. And I kind of think that's a good thing. The Internet means that everything is right next door...and everyone's your neighbor. Is that really such a bad thing? Don't be a twit in public.
Or contraction challenged for that matter.
Support SETI@home
> Employers are less concerned about junkies applying for jobs, and more concerned about people who selectively adhere to the law as they see fit.
Sounds like just about any senior executive.
Some of them will not only selectively adhere to the law but will continue to violate the law when caught and fined by the feds because it is cheaper to just pay the fine.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Your online behavior doesn't necessarily reflect on how you act in the 'real world'.
"That being said nobody is rational 100% of the time"
Considering that most humans run on illogical emotions, it's more like 6% of the time.
"their reputation"
Why should you care about what other people think of you? You should be questioning if your decisions were logical ones, not if other people didn't like them.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Kike, Kike!
Weasel-like, ...Eventually in love, he falls...
scheming since a hook-nosed tyke,
counts his pennies day and night,
squeals if one rolls out of sight.
Promotes a thousand Social ills...
For which you'll have to foot the bills.
And weds a shrew who swipes his balls...
Soon this pair of whining scum...
will beat their breasts just like a drum...
and cry about the loved ones lost,
in a myth they call "The Holocaust."
Coarse and pushy...
Greedy and trite...
Beware the JEWISH PARASITE.
Your phrase people who selectively adhere to the law as they see fit sounds to me like a euphemism for "people who think". I know that's not how you intend it, and I'm not sure if the opinions in your post are yours, or your view of how employers operate, but it bears noting that laws are sometimes ridiculous, sometimes capricious, sometimes arbitrary. Frankly, I wouldn't *want* to hire someone who blindly follows all laws, without regard to how sensible they are -- not least because such a person would very likely be bad company. I'd much prefer hiring someone who thinks.
Granted, that can be difficult to ascertain from an online profile. But online evidence of lawbreaking wouldn't automatically rule someone out for me -- depending on the law(s) in question. Being discriminating is not in and of itself a bad thing; it's all in how one goes about it.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Large enough companies can get away with it for general enough positions. Sometimes they're only sort of doing it anyway. Many have a policy that you have to tender and "consider" outside applicants for a position you crafted entirely as a promotion for someone within the company.
I'm not defending the practice, I'm just pointing out that it's not irrational.
Re: your post:
0/10, obvious troll is obvious
Re: your sig:
0/10, obvious troll is obvious
I agree with most of what you said. Not every drug user is a drug addict, but they are drug users which in many fields is a BAD thing regardless of casual/addict. What you say about yourself and who you associate with is a pretty clear indicator of who you are, and I can't fault the company too much for being able to research things publicly posted. It does feel like a huge invasion of privacy though, despite being one that people bring upon themselves. I still haven't taken the plunge into internet social networking because I really don't want strangers knowing anything about me, and I don't feel the need to tell 100 of my closest friends about the nice dinner I just ate. Guess I'm getting old.
Pardon me, I need to go make Facebook profiles for a bunch of my enemies.
Support SETI@home
My real problem with this is that people are flawed to begin with. If you cannot express yourself without fear of reprisal now or in the future then what is the point? Not to mention people make mistakes, learn from them, and hopefully grow as a result. To expect perfection or a squeaky clean pedigree is faulty reasoning to begin with. I understand wanting the best people, but sometimes those people are the ones who made the biggest mistakes. Life is NOT nor will it ever be black and white, rather shades of grey.
I wasn't writing a thesis
RTFA.
"Because it's illegal to consider race, religion, age, sexual orientation and other factors, the company (Social Intelligence) doesn't include that information in its reports. Humans review the reports to eliminate false positives. And the company uses only publically shared data -- it doesn't "friend" targets to get private posts, for example. "
Besides, if you really think that these (outside of age) are pervasively discriminated in hiring policies, I suggest you have bigger things to worry about, say aliens or bigfoot.
After all, god forbid you interview someone and call References. Then check those references.
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
The worst judgement call of all would be to engage a company with such a contradictory name as Social Intelligence (like military intelligence - hah!). Especially if they think they can extrapolate from what people write about themselves to how they will perform in a work environment. You might as well employ palmistry and phrenology as a way of selecting low-risk candidates. They were fact-free fads in their time, too.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
If your name is John Smith, good luck cleaning up your online identity.
Actually, if your name is John Smith, just claim (quite plausibly too) "It wasn't me!".
In regards to his signature, I'm pretty sure Tim will be upset that he's being sent to jail because of what I download...
My sig can beat up your sig.
Soon as you weed out applicants you leave yourself with either less skilled or more expensive employees. Any potential damage to your business has to out value that loss. The reality right now with the state of the economy is businesses can be picky.
"but every drug user is willing to violate federal law of their own free will."
Federal law has nothing to do with right or wrong. Who is going to challenge these idiotic laws if not people? It's fairly obvious that drugs are only hurting them. Just because they've broken one law (an idiotic law in this case), that doesn't mean they'll break 'sensible' ones.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I'm sorry if you know someone who died from workplace violence but if we make dieing such an overriding factor in our rights we won't have much worth living for.
If soulless companies are allowed to data mine the world to spy on there employees, not only now but across their entire lives, what else will we give up for safety?
I don't want to cut my steak with a butter knife. I don't want safety scissors. I don't want the government spying on me and I definitely don't want corporations spying on me.
I concede that it is inevitable and already happening. It just makes me sad that there are so many people who don't care and even sadder that so many people are pushing us down an already slippery slope. Even if it seems like there is a good justification for it.
At that point the only rational choice is to not participate online at all, or allow pictures to be taken, comments to be made, anything that relates to you. What a sad life that seems.
Yeah. It would be just like life before 1995.
He already said it was sad, no need to be redundant.
When I first read that, I thought he said it would be just like life before 1985. Or well, the year before, by George!
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
I guess, you're talking about gun crazy freaks who make posts like this one:
I'll take you up on that. Give me your email, and I will email you both my name and address. Bring a gun, because I will be waiting with one.
Right, there should be a way to sort those out and fire them as soon as possible
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1799288&cid=33696920
How do they even know if they have right name?
How many time have you goggled your name to find others with just about the same name?
Absolutely. Also, better get somebody to tail them while driving to see if they're one of those scofflaws who routinely violate speed limits. Anyone with such flagrant disrespect for the law has no business making my sandwich.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
You wouldn't let friends talk about you before 1995? or take your picture? they're doing these things online now, you know
Just one more reason to watch what you post, folks
Or use a fictitious online identity. You didn't really think that Skapare was my real name and 16644 was my real number, did you?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Would they thumb their nose at privacy laws
Come on seriously? An argument for violating an employees privacy is so you can know if they would thumb their nose at privacy laws. Wow, just wow.
Did you not read the terms of service? Facebook owns your info and shares it with 3rd parties (advertisers, marketers, etc). It's how they make revenue.
"Trawlers" don't need access. Facebook sells them the data.
I'm in the Libertarian Party and one of my County Libertarian Party Officers had an issue with work checking his Facebook. He is a "fan" of several pages that are pro-decriminalisation of drugs. His co-workers then assumed he was a user of drugs. It took some a large amount of clarification for them to realise that a person could be pro-freedom and yet not desiring to exercise those freedoms in certain areas. I could really see this service misidentify individuals under similar circumstances.
After clearing this up he took my advise of removing all work friends from his account and making his profile more private.
HTC EVO 4G LTE w/ CM 10.2 | NookColor w/ CM 10.2 | Samsung Epic 4G w/ CM 10.1
1. And you're answering that to a post which actually said it'll be used to do some covert racial or religious or political discrimination.
It already happens too. If you think someone surely can't just happen to find more flaws online for blacks or foreigners than for blacks without getting sued... guess what? It already happens. In a study, for the same resume they found out you had about 50% more chances to get called for a job interview with a name like John than a name like Ulambongo, and nobody gets sued for those uncannily non-uniform results. Welcome to the new world of online checking, where you don't even have to guess by name, and can just look on Facebook for whether that guy is a black or muslim or whatever you don't like.
But at any rate, the relationship to your retarded rant is... what? Are you willing to claim that racial and religious and political profiling (which are the kind of things the GP predicted) are actually necessary to predict who'll shoot up the place? Or did you have your canned rant and just had to use it whether it fits or not?
2. And your argument is... wait, what? The tiny percentage of workplace deaths? According to CDC data, that's an average of 800 per year, with the maximum being about 1000 in 1994, and the minimum just over 500 in 2006.
That's 500 in 310,000,000 people or roughly 1.5 per _million_ people.
So you're going to justify discrimination against literally tens of millions of people to maybe prevent a tiny percentage of 500 deaths a year? Even as scaremongering attempts to justify why someone else needs to bend over for the good of the corporate or government overlords, this has to take the cake for failed sense of proportions.
Cretin. Seriously, what a cretin.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Want to bet many had good job performance reviews?
No, but I'd be only too ready to take the opposite bet.
Workplace shootings are usually the result of impending workplace doom, usually preceded by bad workplace reviews and exacerbated by bad workplace sociology. Often preceded by firing and outright interpersonal conflict.
People who do well at work usually kill their families, not their coworkers.
People didn't take pictures of their friends before 1995?
"That kind of practice can't really last, though, as the businesses that fall victim to this trap will be out-competed by their rivals that don't."
Given the greediness of CEOs, oh yes, it will work because their rivals will be doing exactly the same.
Yeah. It would be just like life before 1995.
Except that before 1995, you didn't have to freak out every time someone pulled a phone on the odds they would take a photo, you didn't have to explain to friends why you won't talk to them online, you didn't have to explain to everyone who might have been interested why you have no web presence... in other words, you didn't have to put on a digital tinfoil hat that nobody around you is going to understand.
This isn't regressing yourself, and only yourself, back through time, it's becoming a paranoid nutcase with a persecution complex--merely because you might actually be right and unreasonable people might actually use random things against you.
Not that I agree that's the right course of action. Would you really want to work for anyone with that mindset anyway?
Even many educated, intelligent, digitally-connected people don't know to do this. Even many who have considered it don't have any idea HOW to do it. There is no crime in having a similar, or even identical, name on-line as someone else. For example, someone posts here as Squigly. Who or what stops someone else from posting elsewhere as Squigly and possibly tarnishing the original's rep, or maybe making it better accidentally? There are a lot of names that are quite popular as well, leading to easy confusion. So how, exactly, does one 'protect their reputation' on-line?
I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!
Persecutors will be violated!
I don't use these crazy social networking things like most people.... Is there a chance that I could be rejected for a job because is not enough information exists to determine what type of person I am? Or will I just be labeled anti-social?
I smell a post-facebook age coming about where people have all these crazy pseudo-names and crap
And after their software finds that post you probably won't have to worry about being asked to do so either.
/rimshot
What you say about yourself and who you associate with is a pretty clear indicator of who you are, and I can't fault the company too much for being able to research things publicly posted.
How is this relevant to being a drug user? You assume they're derelicts hanging out in opium dens or something, when they're just the guy building the next ecommerce platform.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
This service isn't doing anything your own HR department or company couldn't do themselves. Your rights don't magically change just because some information-gathering process becomes automated or outsourced. If your company was using your public Facebook info ethically or unethically before, using this service to accomplish the same thing is just as ethical or unethical.
Yesterday, before you learned about this service, you knew that being a dick on Facebook was a poor career decision, but the law prevents employers from using certain personal beliefs as a firing excuse, whether you expressed those beliefs on Facebook or on a streetcorner. Today, the same is true.
(This assumes the Facebook skimmer service has no special access privileges. If it somehow gains access to stuff you post with an expectation of privacy, the picture changes.)
I consider myself rational, and I do go online and do what I want, stupid or otherwise, and very, very rarely make any attempt to avoid linking it to my true identity -- I can stand by what I said, or I can admit to being wrong.
I choose the alternative path, I use consistent variations of a theme for user names and spout off on whatever I feel. Linking the personalities probably wouldn't be too challenging but solidifying that those personalities are who I am in real life would be a much more difficult challenge. I do this because it simplifies my life, I don't have to worry about employers finding out things about me because it would be too much effort. No point in fucking up my paper chase when I can just as easily get my point across with aliases.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
+5 if you can touch it to your nose.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
What I can't conceive is a manager parenting his/her employees by using a monitoring tool that keeps tabs on them on the Internet.
But really, it's Darwinism in action: should a company start getting rid of good employees thanks to what may seem to be an indicator or a "devious" personality, it'll get what it deserves eventually. No one even remotely good will want to work for them. Their workforce will be made of prudes, people with weak personalities, or people who need the job too desperately and hence are willing to put up with ridiculous shit like that.
There are other people who share my name. One of them is a big drinker.
If there were only pictures, one might see that it wasn't me, but how do potential employers know that the guy they read about isn't me and how do I tell them? Yeah, I can tell them up front, but that seems sort of like a Streisand effect waiting to happen. I mean, what if clients of theirs saw that? Even if they know it's not true, well... better to go with somebody "safe" ...
It's better than the "IQ" test if it predicts behavior.
It's better than the "drug" testing because not every drug user is a drug addict.
It's highly focused on what actually matters.
If you are rational you won't go online saying and doing stupid things in a way in which it's linked to your workplace persona. If you are irrational and completely lack self control then you might, but then you might be like that Barksdale Google engineer and I'd rather people like that guy be filtered out than to continue with hiring irrational but brilliant.
That being said nobody is rational 100% of the time, but those people who are at work using their work computer to search for pornography -1, those people who are spouting idiocy under their real name -1, those people who don't protect their name, their reputation, as they would protect their company -1.
Well, I don't think that any of those arguments are valid. Throughout any point in a working day I am multiple people. I am the person that deals with the CEO, I'm the person that deals with the meeting room, I'm the guy that wrote the design. but when I'm home I'm whatever the hell I want to be to unwind from having to deal with the ludicrous nature of office politics. What I do in my free time has little bearing in what I do professionally, otherwise I'd have a beer at my desk at work on monday afternoon, I'd go to work in my dressing gown, and I'd occasionally turn up hung-over.
Problem is that people get lazy and companies like Google keep gathering and analyzing more and more information. Do you use that handle anywhere else? As soon as that name gets tied to a particular email account they might already have enough information to figure out who you are, but even if they don't they can just see what else is associated with that email address.
You need to be incredibly paranoid in this day and age in order to avoid having something traced back to you. Look at how quickly 4chan can find someone with little more to go on that a youtube video of someone who did something that pissed off the collective users of the site. Computational power keeps getting cheaper and people don't seem to be getting any smarter and it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that in twenty years software will be sophisticated enough to do this by itself.
A basic Google search for that handle turns up a wikipedia user page using the same name. If I cared to I could read your previous posts and wikipedia activity to see if you're both the same person. From there I might find something else that gives me a few clues about your physical location or where you work. Hell, after following one link from the wikipedia page I might have your real name.
I could also be completely wrong and the wikipedia user page isn't you, but if I find something bad enough I could just assume it is you and not give you a job, etc. Hell, if you were bored enough you could probably figure out who I am too. Imagine what kind of resources a government either already has access to or will in the next ten years and even if you're incredibly careful they'll still be able to find you.
You would only consider this a fair test if you would pass the test yourself.
My dyslexic? I don't have a dyslexic. "Dyslexic" is not even a noun.
If it weeds out the self-important douches who need to status-update everything they do in their life, then I'm all for it!
Your shtick needs a bit of finesse. Aside from that, you still draw a few chuckles now and then.
Practice, practice...
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
And it's rational to follow it if the costs of not following it outweigh the benefit. Most drug use laws you wont get prison time for breaking. Drug dealing and trafficking are a completely different story.
Everyone has broken the law before, either because they didn't know the law existed or because they were young, or because they did a calculation where following the law was of a great immediate cost.
Thats exactly the kind of company I want to start.
OK, so never drink around other human beings under any circumstances, never socialize outside the most prudish and formal situations possible, basically never ever do anything with anyone who might potentially be entertaining unless it's inside closed doors and you've already searched everyone and forced them to keep their phones and cameras locked away?
Seems like a reasonable option, there.
Maybe if we stopped hiring average people for critical positions we wont have so many problems.
My dyslexic? I don't have a dyslexic. "Dyslexic" is not even a noun.
Sure it is - "Dyslexics of the world, untie!"
DATABASE WOW WOW
Even many educated, intelligent, digitally-connected people don't know to do this. Even many who have considered it don't have any idea HOW to do it. There is no crime in having a similar, or even identical, name on-line as someone else. For example, someone posts here as Squigly. Who or what stops someone else from posting elsewhere as Squigly and possibly tarnishing the original's rep, or maybe making it better accidentally? There are a lot of names that are quite popular as well, leading to easy confusion. So how, exactly, does one 'protect their reputation' on-line?
Hire an online reputation management consultant.
My employer has a vendor that has a "lite" version of discriminating on the base of religion. Basically, if you are known to be the wrong faith, then the powers that be simply watch you closer, looking for a reason to terminate. As in, you have to be extra careful not to step on any toes, and everything gets scrutinized a little more than if you were the "right" faith.
Companies should hire stoners, drunks and binge drinkers, cheats, violence freaks, gang bangers covered with gang tats, thieves, and other sorts of wholesome responsible adults. It's the only way to have a well diversified workforce.....
You really haven't been paying attention for the last forty years if you think that bad practices will be competed out of the market. I mean, really?
It's better than the "IQ" test if it predicts behavior.
It's better than the "drug" testing because not every drug user is a drug addict.
It's highly focused on what actually matters.
Like other tests, these tests are hogwash. The only, and I mean ONLY, way to know how a person will act or react is by observing them it specific situations. That foolish person always taking risks and being cocky may very well start weeping when the bullets are whizzing overhead. And that meek or cowardly seeming person may be the hero when those bullets are flying.
If you are rational you won't go online saying and doing stupid things in a way in which it's linked to your workplace persona.
If you are rational you won't go online and say stupid things, things that can get you in trouble, period. Wasn't HP caught spying on board members? Nor will they spend a lot of tyme doing things online at work they shouldn't be doing. Emailing or chatting with the spouse during lunch is one thing but spending even five minutes perusing pornography websites while you're on the clock is something else. As is spending lunch doing so in an open area. Nor is it good to be on Slashdot while working unless it's work related.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Bet you don't care about those people though do you. Let them die is your motto
To be fair, your boyfriend was a cunt. He had it coming.
You're either far more cynical than I am, or far more naive. You're post leaves both as possiblities.
It's possible that you're terribly cynical, and that you feel like you should not, nor should you be able to, communicate ideas and thoughts which might lead to negative workspace repurcussions -- regardless of whether or not those thoughts are well thought out, rational, and in your own (or your classes) self interests. I.e. you feel that there is no need or merit to stand up to private power.
Or your hopelessly naive, in that you think that this is a positive and harmless development because, after all, these companies are justy looking for hopelessly destructive and anti-social behavior, and this sort of thing is in no way a burden and restriction on your freedom of speech, especially not your freedom to analyze the power structure of America, or to in some way attack the interests of the corporate and wealthy elite.
Which is it?
Anything you say can and will be used against you, and not necessary just by the police. I don't care about class this or class that. I only care about how much money I can make or can't make and whether or not I'm following the law. We work to make our bosses and our company look good.
We fail at that and then we are being irrational. It does not matter what you think personally, if you say it under the company name, (your name is the company name if you are an employee), then you are representing the company at all times.
If you have something to say then say it under another name.
This is why anonymity on the internet is essential.
Maybe you shouldn't do any of those stupid things. You don't have to go to parties and act stupid and if you decide to go to parties and act stupid then you live with the consequences.
I think you're missing the point. Alot of things can be taken out of context or you could be discriminated against just for the way you live. I could be the most productive person in the world and also spend every night at a rave, why does it matter to my employer if im a lush outside of work if I do my work well? This just highlights how corporations are moving in on areas they should have absolutely no say in. Between this and FICO scores determining who is hire-able, we're on the road to causing long term harm to people's livelihoods over a simple mistake, misunderstanding, or simply someone not liking you. This trend scares me. Alot.
Personally I'd rather have my idiots at home glued to the TV than out doing idiotic things
Pre-Facebook you would interview a candidate and, based on some very subjective feelings about them, decide whether or not interviewing would proceed. If you were the hiring manager, you got some input from 2-3 people and make (again) a very subjective decision.
The problem has always been that there is finite time to interview people and infinite (or nearly so) candidates. Most of them are hopelessly unqualified, a few are qualified but hopelessly out of touch with working in the environment. Things like people having worked on lots of unpaid volunteer open source stuff but never, ever actually worked with another person. Or having lots of experience with MS Visual Studio but no experience with xdb when the job requires Unix and not Windows.
So finally you get down to a few candidates and some of them just "feel" better than others.
Wouldn't it be better to sort this list based on something a little more objective, especially when this is information the candidates themselves have chosen to make public?
You really haven't been paying attention for the last forty years if you think that bad practices will be competed out of the market. I mean, really?
Unfortunately today businesses get government to bail them out. Bad actors are bailed out and every one else picks up the tab.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
At that point the only rational choice is to not participate online at all, or allow pictures to be taken, comments to be made, anything that relates to you. What a sad life that seems.
Or you could try working at a place that doesn't treat you like an elementary school student. Look at small businesses in particular (though there are many such large businesses as well). And don't give me the excuse of a poor job market, either-- if you can't find work, it means you need to loosen your job requirements to fit the market. Accept a lower salary, consider relocation, diversify your skills, or become self-employed. It's all a matter of priorities.
Fuck, shit, goddamnit!! I guess I shouldn't have posted on Facebook about all that heroin I smoked last weekend. That might get me in trouble, or maybe I'll get fired for last night, since I was so cracked out and cranked up that the guy I shot might be able to finger me, if he comes out of the coma. But I only posted about that on Myspace, so no one will read it anyway.
Thanks for the warning, I won't tweet about my political subversion and devil worshiping anymore, if it isn't too late. Tweets disappear immediately though, right? Like my one about all the money I "re-appropriated" into my Italian automobile "research" fund at work, and the one about how I hate Glenn Beckkk and Christian puppies?
I'm a former military officer - armored cav for much of my career, with stints in intelligence and signal slots and wartime service. I was once asked by an interviewer who was already aware of this from my resume "Have you ever had any life or death decision-making responsibilities?" A little discussion revealed he did not think literal life or death responsibility for the 30+ people in the unit under my command, in wartime, in actual combat, counted. He meant decisions or responsibilities that could have cost significant money, and nothing else. I could easily have answered that one to his satisfaction - signing for training equipment alone when I was the leader of an advance detachment meant there had been times when I was the person responsible for easily more than 100 times the value of his whole company (M1 tanks and Apache helicopters and such add up fast). Instead I walked out of that interview.
I mention this because that person is precisely the person that company will doubtless delegate to go through some potential employee's facebook pages.
Who is John Cabal?
I sense elucido is planting evidence that he is rational and supports this new system in order to push his rationality score higher.
Hard to measure before you hire the person; afterwards, I agree with you.
You know it was a book written by Philip K Dick before it was a movie made by Steven Spielberg...
Nothing. I was making two separate points.
Incidentally, the company selling these reports to companies will soon be offering reputation management services to individuals.
Capitalism. It's all about creating a market for you to jerk-off on.
Meh, my boss is too stupid to use this Social Intelligence thing.
(posting anon in case he is not)
Now some obligations under the law:
You spelled favor wrong!
--
windows codec pack
It does not matter what you think personally, if you say it under the company name, (your name is the company name if you are an employee), then you are representing the company at all times. If you have something to say then say it under another name.
As someone else linked upthread, Fuck that shit.
I'm Canadian, you insensitive clod.
Just one more reason not to link your real identity to your on-line identity(s).
a completely drunk photo may be a sign of poor judgment, in the same way as failing the EE bachelor exam may be a sign of poor EE knowledge.
Seeing both actions make me anticipate a certain performance. Normally companies don't hire some failed EE engineer on a job where they need to get the job done directly and they don't hire somebody with poor judgment for PR. The correlation between anticipation and job performance in both cases is far from 100% but probably also far from 0%.
Yeah. Just Photoshop a picture of your least favorite co-worker in a very embarrassing position, stick it in a Facebook profile somewhere, wait for it to get tagged, and that employee is gone.
It's these low end "background checks" and "clearances" that suck. I used to be in the aerospace business, working for a company that did business with the 3-letter agencies. I've been through the clearance process for the higher level clearances. At that level, there are real background checks, where Government investigators go out and quiz your neighbors, friends, previous employers, and creditors in person. Fingerprints are taken and checked. Police records are checked. Birth certificates are checked; not only do you have to show yours, they check it against the hospital birth records. There are interrogations, lie detector tests, and an interview with a shrink. The whole process takes about a year.
But because the high level clearance process is reasonably thorough, it's not as random as the low-end stuff. It's not "competitive", in the hiring sense. There's a limited list of things the security people worry about, and they're the items that, historically, have caused people to sell or give secrets to the enemy - relatives in an enemy country, vulnerability to blackmail, financial problems, gambling or drug or alcohol abuse history. They don't care if your Facebook page makes you look like a jerk.
So, you're saying they are patriots with a clear vision of the rights of the individual trumping the oppression inflicted by the criminals in Washington.
Yes, I can definitely see how that would lead to my selecting them over another prospective hire. People of vision; of honor; of principle.
The most important thing these reports could provide is the information whether someone has been previously employed as a legislator or judge. For in that case, I'd have solid evidence of not only incompetence, but the direct intent, with action taken, to do others harm.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
-10 for being a teenager in the 21st century?
...it will be considered a sign of anti-social and possibly criminal behavior if you AREN'T active on FaceBook and such sites. So you won't be able to just avoid the shit and cover your head.
You'll have to hire a company to create fake profiles all over the net for you and routinely post things to them that make you seem like the model worker and/or citizen. And of course it will have to be tailored towards your type of work.
Hospital work? Patient, caring, giving.
Stockbroker? Sexist, cracks sick jokes, and laughs at other people being fucked over.
This space available.
The answer is always "I wouldn't really want it, but I'd want even less to not be able to eat and pay rent".
Damned right, they may skimp the mustard!
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
Yea. I thumb my nose at all of them that I disagree with.
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
My only real online identity is my minimalistic web site, personal email address, and professional interest blog. The rest is all fictious and any nyms for online forums have no relation to the real me.
Googling for my name on Google finds a lot of people with the same name as me but does not turn up anything about me.
Googling for my email address does find lots of references to me but nothing that would be a major issue.
Googling for my phone number shows nothing useful
I dont have a profile with any of the major sites (Facebook, Myspace, Linkedin, YouTube etc)
I have a twitter account that I never post to which I set up for a reason I cant remember.
I have never been in trouble with the cops, taken illegal drugs, consumed anything much in the way of alcohol or done anything else notably bad.
If a company has a problem with the fact that I like to reverse engineer computer games for fun then its not a company worth working for.
Or maybe post 95'ers may have to grow up and learn a harsh lesson - being an adult means there are consequences for your actions.
NOW GET OFF MY LAWN !!!
Do you really believe that?
It might have slightly higher staffing costs and turnover but that's no guarantee at all of anything. This magic hand of the market is a falsehood. Especially if it takes off and everyone does it.
And what if it turns out that this policy results in less sick days or some other less tangible benefit?
And then does that make it right and moral?
At that point the only rational choice is to not work for an asshole.
There, fixed that for you.
But won't "watching what we post" only serve to lessen the dilution of social media "behaviour", making it even easier for classifiers to pick out outliers?
Put another way, if we act ashamed of ourselves and play cards close to the chest, won't this simply encourage conformal social behaviour and help to undo the social upheaval of the 60's?
In other words, while I agree that making yourself look stupid on the internet is not the smartest move, I would also say that asking everyone to "watch what they say" for fear of future repercussion sounds somewhat doubleplusungood to me.
In other words, we need to figure how to let teenagers be teenagers. It scares me, but I agree with Eric Schmidt that it might one day be necessary to let people change their name when they get to a certain age, similar to how we let people clean their criminal record at 18.
I hope you are aware that in most of these cases ( as in school shooting ), there were absolutely NO PRIOR INFORMATION that this could have happened. It even baffles their friends. Notwithstanding that in most cases its even happening AT the work place in question which made the guy go nuts. Thats like saying you can catch terrorist by the same method, but watching for religious zealousness.....
This is probably going to be a karma hit, but...
The answer is always "I wouldn't really want it, but I'd want even less to not be able to eat and pay rent".
The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy
I mean, I get it. But it's hard for anyone who's actually worried about this--being screened through social media--to really say they are worried about not eating.
If you can't get a job in your chosen field, get a crappy job to pay the bills, and cut down expenses.
If you can't get a crappy job where you live, move somewhere you CAN get AT LEAST a crappy job.
If you can't get any job no matter where you go, take in unemployment--and use that social network that got you into trouble to mooch off of friends or family.
We live in the first world. You don't see whole cities starving to death in the first world. The people around you are getting by, and if you can't, there's probably (not definitely, but probably; a lot of unfair situations exist) something you're doing wrong. Explore your options.
OK, so never drink around other human beings under any circumstances, never socialize outside the most prudish and formal situations possible, basically never ever do anything with anyone who might potentially be entertaining unless it's inside closed doors and you've already searched everyone and forced them to keep their phones and cameras locked away?
Seems like a reasonable option, there.
Drink in a bar in the proper fashion with class. Don't act like a fool and expect it not to catch up with you. And don't get drunk in public no matter what!
Maybe you shouldn't do any of those stupid things. You don't have to go to parties and act stupid and if you decide to go to parties and act stupid then you live with the consequences.
I think you're missing the point. Alot of things can be taken out of context or you could be discriminated against just for the way you live. I could be the most productive person in the world and also spend every night at a rave, why does it matter to my employer if im a lush outside of work if I do my work well?
This just highlights how corporations are moving in on areas they should have absolutely no say in. Between this and FICO scores determining who is hire-able, we're on the road to causing long term harm to people's livelihoods over a simple mistake, misunderstanding, or simply someone not liking you.
This trend scares me. Alot.
So stop living like a moron and you wont be discriminated against. Live your job.
Really? You don't think people understand that there are many people with the same name? You don't think that the simple act of having (or a pre-emptive measure of putting) your name in Facebook along your current city, employer, education doesn't make that differentiation?
Oh no, if they weed out bad judgement how will firms fill all the spare HR positions. Now that's irony.
I think you have that backwards. From wikipedia:
Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, sex or national origin"[1] into consideration
So affirmative actions is discrimination by race, sex, etc.
"Live your job."
You must be such a douche.
I can just picture you sitting alone in front of the TV on a Sunday morning replete with shirt, tie and cardigan.
And you should be the first to be worried about companies checking online postings. You freely admitted to backing illegal activities. Hope you lose your job over your postings. Public postings are for anyone to read.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
Typical hypocrite slash doter. Run to bigoted comments when all else fails.
Do you type Niger and fagot as a AC because your a fucking coward to?
This I freely say and am more than willing for anyone to see, including where I work. The only good bigot is a dead one. I would pay to watch the people you seem to hate so much kill you in the most painful way.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
I guess this is a company that will absolutely NOT obtain any of MY funding or patronage. Granted, one should not advertise negative things about themselves, but on the other hand, mistakes occur, identities are routinely stolen, slander and misinformation happens. If I am to be damned, then I will be so for who I am, and not as someone would like me to be. I absolutely REFUSE to be some corporate robot without a soul, I AM a human being, deal with it.
Making information public on facebook is little different than walking down the street, yelling out your address, handing out fliers or standing on a soap box in the park corner saying crazy sh*t about the government.
You sign over your right to privacy when you enter the public square. Contract or not, this is always the case.
Slashdot posts are search-able. You obviously have some concept of this with the pseudonym epyT-R.
Read the terms of service for this very site: "EACH USER WILL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO HIS OR HER COMPUTER SYSTEM OR LOSS OF DATA THAT RESULTS FROM THE DOWNLOAD OF ANY SUCH MATERIAL."
You waive your right to sue.
The idea that you broadcast something publicly and expect privacy in the same breath is looney.
Really?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngGUFNYYPiQ
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
Why? Because I don't hold your views? To bad coward.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
"Live your job."
You must be such a douche.
I can just picture you sitting alone in front of the TV on a Sunday morning replete with shirt, tie and cardigan.
A job is a way of life, a lifestyle. If you don't want that lifestyle don't accept that job. Be a bartender if you like hanging out in bars.
A job is a way of life, a lifestyle. If you don't want that lifestyle don't accept that job...
You must be great fun at par--...
Oh, nevermind.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
#5 is now this page
I would pay to watch the people you seem to hate so much kill you in the most painful way.
Please post your real name, recent photo, street address, and home phone on Facebook so I can invite you to my next party.
learn to swim. If he had made it across the river they never would've busted him...
I'll repeat myself. I wasn't talking about facebook specifically. Posting as anon, you must care about privacy too. I shouldn't be able to waive any rights, contract or no contract.
I don't see what's so hard to understand. If 'pre-crime comes to the HR dept' we effectively lose our rights. Having defined them on paper only to have to turn them over in order to gain basic necessities (money for work in this case) makes them null and void. For the last time, I'm not just talking about inanities like facebook. Of course, if membership in one or more of these sites becomes one of those sneaky, implied social requirements....
What kind of excuse is that for poor spelling?! Don't you have have schools up there anymore?
if I only had mod points now... For me: +1 insightful
nosig today
Everybody selectively adheres to the law as they see fit, most do so knowingly. I have yet to see a persion uphold to the law perfectly.
About this drug screening: does alcohol count? Because it causes many kinds of bad behaviour.
nosig today
Ah, but what if one visits a country where using marijuana is legal and partakes? Said person will have violated no laws, but will fail a drug test. By your example that person would be fired.
Exactly. This shit is just another ploy for boring, dry corporate assholes to make everyone act like them.
I'm usually the oddest person in whatever office I work in by virtue of being the geek. If they saw some of the legal but strange shit (that has NOTHING to do with my ability to perform my duties) I did and said outside the office, I'd probably never get a job again. I won't change who I am for anyone.
... to watch who you work for.
Of course, you have the option of simply restricting what data you allow to exist out there on social media sites. I have a Facebook page and a Myspace profile, but I seriously doubt any employer would ever be able to locate either one. Even if I handed them direct links, they'd see essentially blank pages. Even if they somehow got on my friends list, they wouldn't see anything of consequence.
I think what it really comes down to is taking responsibility for the fact that stuff you post online is available for anyone and everyone to see. If you don't want people like your mother or a potential employer to see it, you should either post it under a name which cannot be connected to the real you or just not post it at all. And if someone else posts something like a picture with you in it that you don't wish to have out there, remove the tags of you (and if it's really bad, ask them to take it down and edit it).
Seriously, invest a small bit of time in protecting information you want protected. It's not like places like Facebook don't make it shit simple to do.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Also never express any type of religious, social or political view.
There are similar issues with any religious organisation, as they are very dependant upon maintaining a reputation as pure and moral in all things. Their religious clients will not react well if they find out the company is hireing employees who advocate abortion rights in their own time, for example.
>
If you are rational you won't go online saying and doing stupid things in a way in which it's linked to your workplace persona.
I wonder if you a rational to such a degree that you you post absolutely nothing personal on the Web: what score do you thing the "rationality test" should offer as a result? (I'm guessing here: "Nothing found! Highly suspect?!?")
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
That's my point, we don't live pre-'95 anymore and the richness of the online experience has become integral to our modern lives.
And if I don't have a rich online experience that can be publicly related to me (using pseudonyms and such), does it make me a freak, a suspect or both?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
it's worse though since you wouldn't be able to EVER let anyone take your picture, even if it's perfectly innocent. Lets say they take your picture. Later that week they take pictures at the crazy bash where everyone drinks heavily (except you avoided that bash knowing it would be a bunch of drunks). Pictures go online and get tagged with names. Too bad your picture is mixed up in the same upload with the blow-out.
So which sounds less batshit crazy to everyone, can't be photographed because that devil box will steal your soul or because you're afraid of facebook?
And you get +1 funny instead of insightful. This is how reliable the "online experience" is. Good luck explaining to your boss why "someone on the Internet" called you a rapist.
Yes, it's sarcasm. Deal with it!
Outside of America, there are u's in certain words that don't exist in American English.
It's a cultural shift thing, you'll get used to it.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
So what about speeders? They are selectively adhering to the law as well.
How about social drinkers? They're willing to drink at dinner, so they might also drink before operating heavy equipment...
They sometimes use the restroom. Will they spend all day in there when they're at work?
Oops, John has a cold, better fire him before the health insurance goes up.
they specifically mention the fact that if you're tagged in an image your boss is contacted
What a great way to get rid of workplace rivals! This will enable a whole new level of viciousness in company politics!
Seriously, it would take very little work and very little risk to completely ruin someone's career.
Mandatory course on the "progressive universities" MBA track: Photoshop Essentials, eh?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Something out of the Philip K Dick novel Minority Report, Spielberg shouldn't get credit for the ideas.
This trend scares me. Alot.
So stop living like a moron and you wont be discriminated against. Live your job.
That's funny! What number has the Constitution amendment that allows discrimination against morons?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
And best of all, you can find out things through Facebook that you are prohibited by law from asking your employees. Want to discriminate against employees on the basis of religious or political beliefs? Gotcha covered!
Yeap. I'm about to setup a Dionysus church: getting drunk is worshiping... and that's forbidden to discriminate against!
Who's joining?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
The best bosses I've ever had, and the ones who seemed to run their bailiwicks most effectively, were those who were not scared by the capabilities of others. Instead, they were eager to capitalize on the strengths of those on their team, and were happy to give people as much free rein as was appropriate for the job and situation.
As your post implies, however, such managers are sadly not as common as one might like.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Or alternatively: don't take jobs from employers who think that being a perfectly average normal human being is unacceptable. Seriously.
Yes, if you behave like a complete idiot -- your employment-chances might go down. Did you think this wasn't the case prior to social media ? Most communities aren't -that- huge, and your reputation matters, and no, your work reputation and private reputation aren't magically completely separate.
Besides, if you're passionate about what you're doing, odds are your online presence will help you more than it'll hurt. If potential employers choose to google me, they'll find I care deeply about openness, they'll find I've contributed to various open source software for more than a decade, they'll find I've participated in public hearings on technology-topics, they'll find I have a strong net of contacts in unlikely places, and they'll find several examples of work I've performed at earlier employers.
Yes, they'll also find that I was once dressed up as a CHICKEN on a treasure-hunt, while studying, and that I'm the world record-holder for most ridicolous-looking windsurfing fail. But honestly, if that sort of stuff is going to stop them from hiring me, I don't want the job in the first place.
Or hyphen-challenged.
the people they defame.
[emphasis mine] ;-)
Don't you mean the people they deform?
Yeah, I know...you can spell, assuming that was a misspelling.
R U shur?(I think that the odds of your assumption being correct, are overwhelmingly in your favour)
Sometimes pedantry can clarify an issue, but admittedly, most times it just 'stirs up the puddle'.
BTW, you make a valid point.
*hint: no mod points currently*
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
... and who you associate with is a pretty clear indicator of who you are...
You don't always get to choose your "associates".
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Once the house is on fire, there's fuck all you can do in the short term.
If it's old and decrepit(to stay in context), then let the fscker burn down!
Rebuild it better.
Rinse and repeat.
Only stagnant, still water breeds blood sucking mosquitoes...think about it.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Let's try this on for a size: You reqruit somebody with potential and let them work their way up. Of course this is not going to work if you mis-treat your employees. So, basically this company sells a service that would have been redundant if the companies treated their employees decent. Good to know. When faced with bad employers I usually say "Screw you guys, I'm going home." (In a more polite way, anyway.) .
Troll has been trolled. Ah, the delicious ironing.
they specifically mention the fact that if you're tagged in an image your boss is contacted
What a great way to get rid of workplace rivals! This will enable a whole new level of viciousness in company politics!
Seriously, it would take very little work and very little risk to completely ruin someone's career.
If somebody can destroy your career like that, you are in the wrong career.
This I freely say and am more than willing for anyone to see, including where I work
You do realize that your parent was logged in, right?
'The Spice MUST flow!'
Who is this 'Margaret Thatcher' person?
A National scion?
A Galactic scion?
A Universe scion?
Maybe she's a big fish in a small brane, but she is irrelevant in this 'here and now'.
Past history, old chap.
*Hint: yer references shouldn't come from ONE reference/source...it displays yer cause/agenda like a badge...Deal With It!*
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
If a company is hiring and using "social media" as a benchmark:
- does it count against you if you have a small footprint.
- can you be dismissed for embellishing your profile (LOL)
- would the company apply this background check to it's current employees (note: HR department, this applies to you too)
- this is biased against (stereotyping) a younger segment of the population.
There are CURRENTLY other options.
But stupid shit like this tends to become the norm. Perfect example: Nowadays, even cleaning trash cans at McDonald's requires pre-employment drug testing.
Citation?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I am a jackass
Signed,
elucido
A technophobe
Your obeisance to power is depressing.
I have one name for you: Rosa Parks.
I understand your point, but sometimes the way to go about changing a law is by disobeying it. This is not so much ignoring that the law exists, but rather acknowledging it, and deciding purposefully to not follow it.
I think that very much depends on the person and the circumstances. Which leads me back to part of my previous statement: it's best to be discriminating, in the carefully-thinking-things-through meaning.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
You have a Facebook account. This shows "just plain bad judgment". You are fired.
Make up a plausible false name. Tell your friends what it is. Use it on Facebook instead of your real one.
Yes, I agree -- my original point was simply that lawbreaking, in and of itself, would not necessarily be a dealbreaker for me in a hiring situation. It would depend very much on what the law was, what the reasoning was behind the infraction, and what contexts in which the person feels it appropriate to break the law(s) in question.
As in translation (my business), context is everything. :)
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
You do realize coward that the parent is a primary example of why companies SHOULD be data mining FaceBook and other web sites about their employees. MaskedSlacker is a primary example of someone that should not be hired based on his online postings.
Postings such as that show the possibility of hostility to fellow workers or customers because of their sexual preferences. How many customers will be lost because of this hostility. Will MaskedSlacker attack someone they work with because he doesn't agree with their sexual preference.
But in typical slash dot mentality, nobody cares about that. But everyone here will be the first to complain when masked slacker or someone like them does cause law suits or harm to someone. The company should have recognized the behavior. The company should have never hired the person.
Your an idiot.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
"You didn't really think that Skapare was my real name and 16644 was my real number, did you?"
I did not, Phil.
A job is a way of life, a lifestyle.
See, that's the problem. Some of us don't want to be sycophants, and actually have some sort of existence outside the office.
anonymity is a fundamental pillar of a functioning, free society. And why it is such a threat to Corporate/Government/Religious interests.
And someone going through your slashdot postings won't hire you due to being needlessly angry, obnoxious, aggressively opinionated, and displaying very poor writing skills.
Even though you may not be like that in person, and possibly just a bit drunk. See how that works?
You just said you would pay to see him killed in front of you.... by your own logic you should be unemployed for the rest of your life?!
It never has, if you can be bothered.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Are you deliberately aiming for "Asshole of the Year" award on slashdot? Because, although you've got a lot of competition from the various hardware/software/political/religious zealots here, you're really in a fucking class of your own, so you get my vote..
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You are correct to state that if someone cannot find work it is their responsibility to fix it, not whine to the world.
That said, forcing them to accept the blame in the process isn't fair, especially if their job prospects have been handicapped through no fault of their own.
With regards to people being treated like school students, if employers like the intel they dig up through social network snooping they will keep doing it. If you're desperate for a job, you will bend over and yield to the fact that your boss is richer, has more power, and has your potential career in his hands. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
This is one of the reasons that labor unions were formed.
If your boss wants to fire you, he'll fire you.
And if he was wrong, he'll have to live with the penalty of losing a good worker.
But...since he's got a million other candidates waiting to take your place he isn't going to care, now is he?
The only one who suffers from a case of mistaken identity on line is the poor sap who gets joe jobbed to the curb. Not the boss who was too impatient to investigate, and certainly not anyone who posted it on purpose.
Worse yet, FICO scores are zero for someone who has no credit history.
So someone who is smart enough to stay away from credit cards is going to lose out to the poor schmuck who's establishing a good payment history as a consumer.
I wonder if pushing FICO scores is just another way to lock wage slaves into also being credit slaves.
Most people prefer to pass tests.
It's just common sense self interest.
The same thing that makes employers think it's ok to snoop in the private lives of their workers.
And people used to think I was stupid for not having a facebook page!
Oh shit, now I'll be busted for psychological issues. DELETE! DELETE!
And it does.
All I'm seeing here is that your online reputation is visible to anybody you're likely to meet.
As long as accountability and reputation work in a vaguely consistent manner, the potential for abuse is reduced.
The companies you're worried about not hiring you are subject penalties enforced by reputation, too:
"Don't go work for Evilbastards Inc.; you can do much better here."
"Don't accept any contract except T&M for Passthebuck, Ltd., bill them net14, and walk off the job when they miss the first check."
"If you take a PO from Mortgagedtothehilt, LLC; make them prepay."
Welcome back to the small town.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Not really.
The "full decade before the rest of us" part applies in practice to people under the Civil Service Retirement System. That system stopped taking new members more than 25 years ago. If you're in the CSRS and you don't have a mountain of debt that encourages you to continue working for full salary, you can retire at 55. (You can retire even earlier, for a much-reduced pension, if your job is being RIF'd, aka Reduction in Force, the govt equivalent of laying people off. You can also retire after 20 years if you're in a law enforcement position and at least 55 years old.)
The last CSRS employees are starting to leave the government now. Mostly, they are hanging around past 55 because they can't afford to retire yet. Still, in 10 years, they'll almost all be gone. Any public debt load their pensions represent will then start falling as they die off.
For the last (nearly) 30 years, federal U.S. govt employees have been under the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS), a hodge-podge of a (very) small pension, a govt version of a 401k, and social security. Theoretically, when all three are added together, employees should be able to retire at 55 with a reasonable income. But such early retirements are never going to be common. In reality, every time most FERS employees look at their retirement options, they realize they're going to have to work a few more years than they hoped before they can afford to retire.
IOW, the vast majority of federal employees who have been hired in the last three decades are not going to be retiring at 55. Their retirement package, in total, sucks so bad they can't afford to. Some will be thrifty and save additional money outside of their job, then invest wisely. Those folks will be able to retire at 55. Those folks are also, in government and outside of it, pretty rare birds.
So, yeah, it's theoretically possible for govt employees to "retire a full decade before the rest of us." But the present-day reality is that it's quite uncommon; in the future, govt employees who retire at 55 will be vanishingly rare.
> you can find out things through Facebook that you are prohibited by law from asking your employees
Well, unless the (prospective or actual) employees have sensible privacy settings, namely everything Friends Only. Assuming they're careful of who they add as such 'friends'.
Wow... you're either 13, or a mennonite... 'cuz no one else can possibly be this naive. Or this dull and uninteresting.
This means in a few years I should be able to get MY PICK of job, because everybody else will have proven themselves to be twits, crackpots, nutcases and psychos online.. and I 'only' have lousy credit, a less than stellar ancient (10+ years ago) work history), and lack a college degree -- but 'google' me and you come up with nothing.
So has everyone who has copied that floppy. Or downloaded an unauthorized .mp3. Or brought alcohol across state lines. Or driven 70mph on the George Washington Parkway. Big deal. Willingness to violate the law is a poor distinguisher.
Would replying with LOL get me fired?
If not: LOL.
The greedy ceo should be the one who won't engage in such a practice because he wants to make more money.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Nice.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
It makes you the latest person I pointed out to the FBI, you terrorist!
Enjoy Guantanamo!
Mod parent up; this describes everything perfectly
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
First: excessive "accountability" can go both ways: Suppose employees started collection personal financial information on their bosses? I'm sure the world would condemn that. (OMG!!! MY PRIVACY!!! If I have back taxes not paid that is MY business!!!! Waaaaaa!)
Second, if a company goes data mining their employees private lives they're going to be eventually held responsible for things they find right? Eventually an (say) IBM employee will go postal, and (say) IBM's HR department will be questioned about why they didn't notify authorities about irregularities/rants/etc that could have warned authorities now that they collect all a postal employee's personal info. If companies knew what a Pandora's box they were opening, they just wouldn't go there.
It's happened time and again. Lots of bad banks under new ownership, etc. The times this hasn't happened are the exception, not the rule.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Yea, I do believe that the death I described should be one of the official penalties for hate crimes. Allow the victims to return the hate that has been directed at them in as vicious of a manner as possible.
Coporal punishment for hate crimes. And yes, I would pay to see him die in the method I described.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
I've heard that companies don't like it if you have zero online presence with your real name - like me. They see it as "suspicious." There are a probably a few facebook images with my name tagged without my consent, my real name might appear on some motorsport blogs, but that's it. No facebook, linkedin, twitter, or any other social media crap.
I wish social media was a fad but it probably isn't :-(
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
That is frightening. How did he justify his interpretation to you, knowing full well that you're a former military officer?
Also, what rank did you hold upon leaving active duty? If you were signing for cav vehicles, I imagine you were probably an O-5? Which would make his question even more ridiculous
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Mistakes like your/you're and there/their/they're aren't like spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors, which can be made out of laziness. They're using a completely wrong word in the wrong context. Even saying left instead of right would be better, because at least your sentence would make logical sense in english.
Just get a lot of pictures of you at your desk with the caption "Working late, as usual!"
Instead I walked out of that interview.
Haha, good, could you imagine working for that douche? I can only picture him as the "hot-shot exec" from Avatar now.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Ok, I watched the movie. Lots of sad school shootings. Sad sad story, which I don't wish to anyone. Now, on to more pragmatic matters: where exactly does it say that prior intelligence would have stopped them ?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/creating-an-online-presence-is-essential-for-job-hunters
Many similar articles can be found, including some that talk about how HR sees a lack of an online presence as "suspicious."
I recently submitted an application for a job I would really like knowing full-well that googling for my real name will turn up little to nothing. I hope they won't see this as a bad thing...but if they do, fuck 'em.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Nope: read again the "online experience that can be related to me by anyone in the public".
I'm sorry. (Not a flamer, just a Star Gate fan!)
There are plenty of places where a military background is more then enough to make people question your judgment. I've worked at three places like that. Any mention of military anything was enough to send a resume into the trashcan.
Wake me up when I am allowed to create an identity for professional purposes. I don't act like an idiot at work or amongst work colleagues. If, on the other hand, I bump into those same colleagues at (for example) a strip club on the weekend, I don't go talking about that at work.
If I had a separate "work" identity, then work would stay at work, and I could get on with being myself the rest of the time.
At least nobody would tag me in stupid photos under my professional identity, and if somebody linked the two, I could just sue them for defamation.
Many drugs are legal you know.
For example Alcohol & tobacco, & even Oxy-Contin & MS-Contin arn't hard to get legal prescriptions for if one knows what one is doing. BTW in many countries Diacetylmorphine (the pharmaceutical name for heroin) is a legal prescription drug, including in both the UK & Canada.
Actually I have a friend of mine that's been a editor of a successful magazine for over a decade, all while being on prescription heroin program with the UK's NHS.
Incidentally one can legally consume GHB by simply putting a couple of drops of acetone-free nail polish remover in one's mouth & washing it down with a glass of water. Acetone free nail polish remover + water = GHB. As long as one doesn't mix the Acetone-free nail polish remover with the water before consuming them, one isn't even breaking federal laws in regards the manufacture, possession & use of a controlled substance.
It seems you're saying that if the country you reside in legislated away your freedom & the law said everyone of your ethnicity must reside in death camp, the rational thing to do would be to comply, because otherwise one would be breaking the law, making one a convict, because a convict is a convict.
Yeah. It would be just like life before 1995.
No it wouldn't. You didn't have to try and opt out pre-95. You could participate in life without having to worry about it following you forever (well, not worry as much anyway).
Pre-95... go to a party, get drunk, act like a complete imbecile. Most of your friends know and give you a hard time about it for awhile and it goes away.
Post-95, five years after that party, the company you're apply to work at finds pictures of you being said imbecile, no job for you.
Pre-95, don't have to worry about your friend taking a picture. The number of people ever seeing it is small.
Post-95, Anyone anywhere could see that picture for the rest your grandchildren's lives.
Social sharing on the Internet is much more invasive than implied by previous statements. It will likely provide more culture changes than any of us can possibly imagine (for good and bad, I'd lean toward mostly good). It would be really interesting to see what will happen in a couple generations.