FTC Okays Social Media Background Check Company

nonprofiteer writes "The FTC has dropped its investigation of a new company that runs social media background checks and ongoing Internet/social media monitoring of employees, determining its compliant with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. So make sure your gun photos are private and that you're not part of any 'Legalize marijuana' Facebook groups."

Comments

and it begins

[Dyinobal]

And it begins muahahhahahha. First your boss makes you friend him on face book, now your future boss wants to know everything about you that isn't his business.

Re:and it begins

[bigstrat2003]

Here's a great laughable tidbit from TFA: they weren't willing to help a company in Colorado check for if someone was gay not because it's illegal (apparently it's not), but because it would be unethical. I'm sorry, guys, but drop the pretense. You were willing to help another company go on a witch hunt for those whose political beliefs they disagreed with, you have no sense of ethics.

"I like to think we are providing a service not just by screening for employers, but in helping to protect job applicants by creating a standard process for online background checks and a service that presents them with reports on negative material." Actual quote from the company's COO. He's either a complete imbecile, or a monster.

Re:and it begins

[retchdog]

in an indirect way he's right. if they manage to corner the market, they become a magnet for public outcry and possibly lawsuits which is about as good as accountability gets in the US.

or: a known target is easier to manage than an unknown target.

i don't think that's what the coo meant, but maybe it was... nowadays reaching a size enough to be "regulated" is probably the best way to achieve security for a company. at least in the short-term.

Re:and it begins

[MoonBuggy]

"I like to think we are providing a service not just by screening for employers, but in helping to protect job applicants by creating a standard process for online background checks and a service that presents them with reports on negative material." Actual quote from the company's COO. He's either a complete imbecile, or a monster.

I suppose they do a fairly effective job of flagging companies managed by megalomaniacs and/or morons. If they released their entire client list under the heading "Companies you really, really don't want to work for:", I'd probably cut them some slack.

Re:and it begins

[QuasiSteve]

they weren't willing to help a company in Colorado check for if someone was gay not because it's illegal (apparently it's not), but because it would be unethical. I'm sorry, guys, but drop the pretense. You were willing to help another company go on a witch hunt for those whose political beliefs they disagreed with, you have no sense of ethics.

Although I have no doubt that they have very low standards of ethics - especially as I rather suspect that the only way to see the reports they have on you, like a credit check report, is going to cost you a pretty penny - I can see their point made there.

Your political preference is a choice. Yes, you may have grown up in a conservative family and surrounded by conservatives all your life and the school you went to may be largely filled with people (students and faculty staff) who are conservatives), but it's still your choice as to whether you'd vote Tea Party or Republican or Independent or Democrat or whatever.

Your sexual preference, however, tends not to be a choice. This has been debated to hell and back, of course, but last I knew the consensus among scientists at least was that it's far less nurture than it is nature.

Screening for either is kinda effed up - compared to screening for things that could, or would, directly affect the employer - but it's less ethical to do screening on sexual preference than it is to screen on political preference.

Re:and it begins

[Scarletdown]

I prefer the North Korean accountability. Just shoot the bastard.

That video does indeed show one interesting way to handle the situation. Still, I am not 100% certain the North Korean technique is the best way to go about it.

The Libyan technique, which more closely follows the KISS philosophy, may be more effective in the long run.

Re:and it begins

[QuasiSteve]

The illegality for screening against a particular vote or political preference may very well be established. But nobody can deny that e.g. color of skin is also screened against, despite the law leaving no room for interpretation there. More often than not, there's also nothing you can do about it as rarely would an employer say "we're not hiring you because you're X". You just get dismissed with a "we have reviewed your application and we regret to inform you that you did not make the selection process." with no particular reason given at all.

Thus given the realities of the world, what is legal vs what is not legal rarely gets into play at all.

Which leaves the question of ethics.

Now my ethics are unlikely to be your ethics which are unlikely to be the ethics of any other random person.

But in my view, without detailing specifics, I find screening against something a person has no reasonable control over a display of lower standard of ethics than it does screening against something where the person makes a clear choice.

Re:and it begins

[cultiv8]

You're absolutely [filtered], I couldn't [filtered] more with your statement. It reminds me of the other day when I [redacted, don't want nobody to know this], which goes to prove [filtered] and [filtered] about my boss and the company for which I work. He may be a [filtered] but he always [filtered] and [filtered] and even [filtered] when [filtered] enters the room and says [filtered].

Good god is this what my online conversations are going to become in the name of preserving and protecting my job?

Re:and it begins

[Jane Q. Public]

I think any company that aggregates information about individuals should be required, upon request, to give that person a copy of said information.

I have checked into my own "background" with online "background check" companies, only to find that the information -- the public information, that is, not the stuff they charge for -- is wildly inaccurate. Which is inexcusable, really, considering that my real name is not exactly common. There was some accurate information, but it was years out of date, and it was mixed with grossly inaccurate information in such a way that there was really no good way to distinguish the good information from the bad.

Given that experience, I have to wonder just how bad the stuff they charge for is. And that is why I think people should have a right to see the information that has been gathered on them... if for no other reason than to verify its accuracy.

Re:and it begins

[shutdown -p now]

In the case of this particular company, it would seem that they would gladly answer your request to provide a copy of information by giving you a link to your Facebook page.

Re:and it begins

[lgw]

Political party is not a protected status. You can be fired because of who you vote for (if you admit it, or donate money), and have no recourse (at least in an at-will state). There was a high-profile firing of a Playgirl editor when she admitted to her coworkers that she was Republican.

And screening for anything not work-related is just evil.

Re:and it begins

[pjabardo]

There are two kinds of of tea partiers: the rich ones and the dumb ones. If someone is applying for a job that does this sort of screening we know for certain to what category of tea partiers this person belongs and dumbness certainly is a good criteria to eliminate someone on a job interview.

Re:and it begins

[Jane Q. Public]

But that is my point. What if they give me my Facebook page, and several other Facebook pages that they say are mine, but which really are not?

That was the kind of "inaccurate" information I was referring to: more than one "background check" service has me linked to activities in states where I have never set foot. For example, I am reported as owning and running a business in a state I have never been to, in an industry with which I have never actually had any dealings.

Is that damaging in some way? Well, it could be. What if the owner of that business (or one of the other people I am supposed to be) robs a bank, or becomes a child molester or something of that nature? It could do serious harm to my reputation, even though I had nothing to do with it.

Re:and it begins

[RockDoctor]

1. Set up innocuous but vaguely credible profiles for lots of common names on [insert name of a "social network"].
2. Advertise under a banner like "Scottsville High identities - keep your boss off your back"
3. Sell the id, password and some small amount of boring data to clients whose name and school match.
4. I think you're onto a line of profit already.

In a little more detail ... for a pretty low outlay you can set up a batch for a relatively large local school. You do nothing until someone contacts you wanting "their" name to feed to a rapacious Boss. Obviously, you set up common name profiles, or use a school yearbook, or something to improve your hit rate. When you've sold half your batch for "Scottsville High", you do another batch of them (e.g. the next year?), maybe bigger, and another batch for the other school in town.

Added (and charged-for!) services - maintain a stream of boring posts to "Joe Blogg's" account. "Went for walk in park, met Fred" sort of innocuous stuff.

The rapacious Boss gets bored and harasses someone else. The customer retains their job. You make a profit. Well, you make a profit if you price your time right, develop appropriate tools (one mouse and keyboard simultaneously driving ten browsers on ten FB "managed" accounts, is it possible?), outsource to starving Filipino children, etc. And if the customer very occasionally posts something to the profile, you're probably still (just) within the ToS as you're acting as an agent for the person who "owns" the profile.

Probably hard to get a business going. Might be easier doing it at a workplace with a particularly dick-waving Boss than advertising to the general populace. Might just become a morally defensible version of pulling the wings off flies (the Boss). Might work to obtain enough evidence of harassment to have the guy arrested in Church one Sunday.

Me, I'd just punch the Boss in the teeth (Hi, Mike. [grins]) after giving his wife and daughter the clap. Different forms of clap. But I'm not afraid of my Boss. And IIRC, his daughter isn't terribly ugly ; don't know about his wife though.

No way.

[MrEricSir]

Now I'm going to join every offensive group on Facebook that I can just so I know who's spying on me.

Why guns?

[cayenne8]

Why would you need to 'hide' your gun photos?

There's nothing illegal about owning and being proud of guns (at least in the US)...so I don't get this comment on the article.

It isn't like being a gun owner would prevent anyone from getting a job or anything...never heard of that one.

Re:Why guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing illegal about supporting the legalization of pot.

Or supporting the other political party than your boss does.

Or being gay. Or black. Or having gay or black friends.

Or not turning your back and shunning old friends just because they may be leading a sketchy life.

Or having a medical condition which might prove costly to the companies insurance plan.

Or being a hunter. Or being a vegan.

All of which are reasons you will lose you your job thanks to this service. (Of course, they wouldn't openly fire you for being gay, but clever HR knows how to tapdance).

You aren't allowed to keep home and work seperate anymore, and that's sad, and will lead to future generations of stressed out slaves, all under the eye of the bossman 24/7.

I don't have a facebook account. The gag is, I work in advertising and write a lot of facebook apps!

Re:Why guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it was the context of the picture rather than the alcohol. I have never heard of anyone being denied a job because they were photographed having a glass of wine with dinner. However, I might think twice before hiring someone for a professional position if their Facebook page is full of pictures of them doing a handstand on a keg while drinking from the tap.

Re:Why guns?

[rcuhljr]

We just arranged an employee trip to the shooting range a month or two back to get new shooters into the sport. Although by the same logic how many companies don't have a group that meets at the bar after work? I can't imagine any non public facing job where you drinking would come up in an interview. Although I do think our neo-prohibitionist stance that rears up any time a teacher is seen drinking is pretty stupid.

Re:Why guns?

[contrapunctus]

Why would you need to 'hide' your gun photos?

i know right? i spent a lot of hours in the gym on those guns.

Re:Why guns?

[SanityInAnarchy]

And why would you do that? What does someone's personal life have to do with their ability to conduct themselves professionally?

I mean, I can understand if they included that picture on their resume, but really?

Re:Why guns?

[Flea of Pain]

Here you go then, fired for having a few drinks, and one expletive on a private facebook page.

Re:Why guns?

[gnick]

What does someone's personal life have to do with their ability to conduct themselves professionally?

It depends. If you're hiring a high-school teacher, or a cop, or appointing a public official, for example, a picture of the candidate doing a keg-stand could damage their credibility if made public and impair their ability to effectively do their job.

Re:Why guns?

[Applekid]

From TFA (yeah, I guess I'm a square because I checked it out):

...as long as it complies with the Fair Credit Reporting Act to ensure that its clients let job applicants know when something that turned up in a background check had an adverse effect on their getting employed, or rather not getting employed.

So if they reported to your potential employer that you love cake and that caused your employer to think you'd grab more than one slice during employee functions that contain cake and therefore could not possibly be hired, they will be required to tell you that your cave love is what did you in.

Then I suppose it's up to you and your local Equal Opportunity Office to determine if the employer broke the law, whether those who love cave are a protected group, and what the punishment is.

Personally, I'd like to know who Social Intelligence Corporation's clients are so I can know which employers seek to be the employee's parents and I can save myself the trouble of including them in my job searches.

Re:Why guns?

[Lunix Nutcase]

However, I might think twice before hiring someone for a professional position if their Facebook page is full of pictures of them doing a handstand on a keg while drinking from the tap.

Why? If they have no history of showing up to work drunk and are competent in their profession why is it any of your business what they do when they aren't working?

Re:Why guns?

[QuasiSteve]

Well was the applicant just drinking a beer on a terrace? If so.. hey, great, they know how to enjoy themselves a little.

But what if they were shitfaced, doing shots off some scantily clad young lady clearly much younger than them, in a dark bar with a bunch of other obviously drunk people around them? Now that person is a potential liability.

Similarly, if somebody is a registered firearm owner, part of a (sports) shooting club, etc. Hey, not my cup of tea, but good on them.

But if they're posing with guns 'gangsta style' in front of a collection of guns that wouldn't look out of place in military cache and one of their facebook friends is a down-with-the-man type collection of anti-corporate individuals, perhaps I'd rather avoid the situation that might occur when the person gets let go by simply not hiring them in the first place.

Now, of course, that person at the terrace might get shitfaced at home with a friend who works for the competition. And somebody who has never touched a gun can develop a rage the world has not witnessed before, buy themselves a firearm and go postal, too.

But at least they have the sense to keep such events or inclinations out of the social media sphere.

So yes, I can understand why companies might screen applicants' social media presence.

I do think it's ridiculous and rather invasive (since not everything in the social media sphere is under the applicant/employee's control), however. But there's no way to put that genie back in the bottle.

Re:Why guns?

[Firehed]

Employers make a lot of (often invalid) assumptions based around that kind of thing. You know, like that employees will be useless on Monday until 2pm because of the hangovers, etc. Or less severely, maybe it just indicates a poor cultural fit (or a great one - there's no reason these photos can't work in your favor)

Re:Why guns?

[gnick]

All of which are reasons you will lose you your job thanks to this service. (Of course, they wouldn't openly fire you for being gay, but clever HR knows how to tapdance).

No tap dancing necessary depending on the state. TFA specifically points out that Colorado does not prohibit selective employment based on sexual orientation. Just because what you're doing is legal doesn't necessarily mean that your activities in your private life can't legally be used to refuse you employment or fire you. That doesn't necessarily make it right, it just makes it legal.

Re:Why guns?

[metlin]

I see a lot of big words, but no real reason. You think high school teachers, cops, and public officials did not do keg stands in college? Or that none of them partied?

Damaging someone's credibility amongst a certain stuck-up demographic need not impair their ability to do their jobs -- I'm curious to see how you made that connection.

Re:Why guns?

[Obfuscant]

but you don't have a right to demand that the straights and squares not be uncomfortable around you,

Straights and squares won't be uncomfortable around someone who has pictures of himself on facebook holding a gun or using it in some manner. It's only the nutcases who think pictures of someone holding a gun equate to "a point of public pride", or "confidence and discretion issues" that one needs to worry about.

a gun is an ugly tool whose responsible usage is always grim and sober.

Bullshit.

don't look at a gun hater for this assessment,

Why not? You're the only one I've ever heard say something as stupid as that.

look to a responsible gun owner for this assessment

A responsible gun owner is going to say that a gun is a tool that can be used for good things, and can provide enjoyment and recreation just like any other sporting implement. They certainly won't think it is "grim and sober" when they go out shooting skeet, they do it for fun.

so i seriously wonder about the mindset of someone who finds great joy in celebrating their public image with a tool of carnage.

Meanwhile, you leave your "mindset" completely open for the world to see and laugh at.

maybe i don't want to work with such a person

And more importantly, maybe THEY don't want to work in a hostile environment where they face the possibility of retaliation from a gun hater just because they enjoy a legal, safe sport.

Re:Why guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone who has a need to display their gun as a point of public pride, to me, is someone who has confidence and discretion issues i don't really want to deal with

Just because someone posts a picture of something doesn't mean they had some deep-seated "need" to display it, or whatever "issues" you choose to make up and assign to them. You are NOT capable of divining someone's personality from their Flickr feed, and to imagine that you are is both dishonest and stupid.

Re:Why guns?

[lwsimon]

Can I get the address of these companies?

Re:Why guns?

[lwsimon]

So, the pictures on my Facebook page of my competing in organized shooting competition makes me immodest and vulgar?

Re:Why guns?

[circletimessquare]

i'm talking about handguns, you're talking about rifles

which, in a way, is my fault for not clearly enunciating

so, if everywhere you saw "gun" you read "handgun" instead of "hunting rifle", do you have any argument with what i said?

Re:Why guns?

[circletimessquare]

if the picture you choose to show the world is you with a gun, you really are telling the world something about your personality, whether consciously or subconsciously

Re:Why guns?

[Obfuscant]

So, the pictures on my Facebook page of my competing in organized shooting competition makes me immodest and vulgar?

No, as long as you are grim and sober the entire time and get no pleasure from winning any such competitions, and understand that the straights and squares will be scared of you, you're fine. And make sure you abhore the carnage you create by blowing holes in pieces of paper or shattering clay disks...

Re:Why guns?

[gnick]

I'm saying that a high-school student may not have the same level of respect for a teacher once they've seen them doing a keg-stand - College pics are one thing, but if your teachers comes in with bloodshot eyes and the students have pictures of him/her in a drunken stupor taken over the weekend, they may not give the same level of respect as they might otherwise. And I'm sure you've noticed how damning those pictures of Weiner have been for him, although it doesn't appear that he broke any laws by sharing them.

I'm not saying that it's right or that I agree with it - In a perfect society a person's personal activities should not affect them outside of their private life. But our society bears little semblance to one with that rigid divide. Right or wrong, especially for people in public positions, allowing your private life to become public can cripple you.

Re:Why guns?

[circletimessquare]

actually, no, and i apologized to another person who replied as well

i was thinking handguns, you were thinking rifles, the only word used was "gun"

so if you replace "handgun" everywhere i wrote "gun", then we are ok

again, apologies

Re:Why guns?

[TehDuffman]

i'm talking about handguns, you're talking about rifles

which, in a way, is my fault for not clearly enunciating

so, if everywhere you saw "gun" you read "handgun" instead of "hunting rifle", do you have any argument with what i said?

Yes you're still wrong. I have shot handguns many time for the enjoyment of it.

re:Why guns?

[SlappyMcInty]

Because the submitter is an anti-gun ninny?

Re:Why guns?

[idontgno]

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

-- Robert A. Heinlein

Re:Why guns?

[Ihmhi]

One company I worked for did something similar, arranging a trip to a private rifle range out practically in the middle of nowhere. Unfortunately, layoffs and a general pay cut were announced the week before.

Incidentally, there's several openings in management-level positions.

Re:Why guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe because for many of us, gun toting is synonymous with crazies and losers.

By "many of us", you really meant "stupid, worthless bigots like me who take refuge in willfully ignorant stereotypes because we are terrified of confronting the complex nature of a reality where people cannot be accurately judged on superficial criteria".

But I can see how you'd want to save some typing.

Re:Why guns?

[Obfuscant]

i'm talking about handguns, you're talking about rifles

You didn't say "handguns", I didn't say "rifles". You said "guns", I said "guns". In one place I said 'shooting skeet', which can be done using a handgun or rifle, but is more often done using shotguns, but that was only an example and not an exhaustive list of "guns".

so, if everywhere you saw "gun" you read "handgun" instead of "hunting rifle", do you have any argument with what i said?

Yes, and that's why I called what you said "bullshit" when I posted my response. Handguns, rifles, shotguns; your attitude towards the owners thereof is assinine and insulting.

Re:Why guns?

[Obfuscant]

so tell me what you see: http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=thug+handgun&oq=thug+handgun

So, you search the web for pictures of thugs holding guns and extrapolate that to all gun owners everywhere.

What I see is a moron gun-hater who has no clue about real life.

If you didn't want to know what I see, you shouldn't have asked me.

Re:Why guns?

[circletimessquare]

stop changing the subject

if you see a facebook profile of a guy holding a handgun, what is your reaction?

Re:Why guns?

[Obfuscant]

you're changing the subject i'm talking about a facebook profile with a guy holding a handgun

I'm done feeding the troll. You weren't talking about a facebook profile, you were talking about a google search for images that were tagged with the word "thug" and "handgun". And at first, you were talking about finding a picture of someone holding a gun on facebook.

Re:Why guns?

[circletimessquare]

actually, my attitude is fine. because i'm talking about what guns are intended for. you're talking about a sport which is not the primary purpose of guns nor what their intended design is for

it's like i say "if you speed in a car you are an idiot" and you react angrily because you're a race car driver

well of course my comment has nothing to do with that sport. but my comment has to do with what cars are used for in general society, and is therefore perfectly fine

same with guns, and same with this conversation

stop replying to my comments as if i'm attacking the sport of skeet shooting. it just means you can't keep track of a topic of conversation. you extrapolate a subtopic, and think that's the most pertinent issue. you're arguing from a tiny subculture, not the primary point of what gun ownership and use is about: handguns, and committing/ countering crime

i have no argument with skeet shooters. i have no argument with biathletes. i have no argument with hunters

so stop making an argument that doesn't exist, and admit that a guy posing with a handgun on facebook has NOTHING to do with what you are talking about

Re:Why guns?

[doesnothingwell]

When you can't tell if your a douchebag type boss, its best to make sure your underlings aren't well armed.

Re:Why guns?

[circletimessquare]

that's because anyone who has to hold a gun on his facebook profile is a thug

Re:Why guns?

[Obfuscant]

so stop making an argument that doesn't exist, and admit that a guy posing with a handgun on facebook has NOTHING to do with what you are talking about

And it had nothing to do with what you were talking about, until you got slapped down for exhibiting such a closed-minded assinine view of an entire segment of the population you have no clue about and obviously little concern to learn about. THEN you tried changing your rant to "google images with 'thug' and 'handgun' in the title", which got you another slap down, so now you are whinging about something else.

You have no clue about people who own guns or why their pictures might be on facebook, and even less ability to judge their motivations or hold a rational discussion. YOU are the textbook example of why it IS dangerous to one's well-being to post images of anything that any pinhead might find objectionable.

Goodbye, troll. And to think, I had mod points I could have modded you out of the discussion with.

Re:Why guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's simply the editorial Slashdot bias slipping through accidentally. For you see, they believe guns are bad.. therefore it is shameful to have them... therefore it's something you would hide.

Re:Why guns?

[circletimessquare]

actually, a number of people have modded me down already. i've lost my excellent karma a number of times on slashdot arguing with gun lovers. i'll do it again

and besides:

"So make sure your gun photos are private and that you're not part of any 'Legalize marijuana' Facebook groups."

that's the top level post. i haven't changed the topic. you have

i am obviously not the only person concerned about assholes posing with handguns as the most important picture they choose to show the world on facebook

which is my point, and it is a correct one, that many agree with. of course, the gun loving slashdot contingent doesn't agree: it takes a special combination of love for guns and low social abilities not to get the simple basic point: pose with a gun, make that your most important photo, and you're communicating something to the world which is a turn off

xoxoxoxoxoxoxox

Re:Why guns?

[scarboni888]

That doesn't impress me when I'm looking for a job candidate who doesn't own guns. But thanks anyway.

Re:Why guns?

[vonwilkenstein]

p> It isn't like being a gun owner would prevent anyone from getting a job or anything...never heard of that one.

...yet

Re:Why guns?

[Dcnjoe60]

I see a lot of big words, but no real reason. You think high school teachers, cops, and public officials did not do keg stands in college? Or that none of them partied?

Damaging someone's credibility amongst a certain stuck-up demographic need not impair their ability to do their jobs -- I'm curious to see how you made that connection.

Other than the picture sent to a teen, what did Weiner do that was illegal? Nothing. He sent pictures of himself in various states of undress, but that isn't illegal (unless to minors or employees). So, if he were applying for a job at your place of business, such behaviour would not cause you some concern?

If people want to post pictures, that is fine -- give access only to your friends. If you feel a real need to make the pictures available to the whole world, that is fine, too. However, you should be willing to suffer the consequences of such revelations. People do have the right to privacy. However, once you post your personal or private life for the whole world to see, you have voluntarily given up that right.

Re:Why guns?

[mosb1000]

This is a truly stupid way to think. You're basically just picking through to choose people who have the same interests and habits as yourself under the assumption that they would be more reasonable than everyone else. I've got news for you, everyone does stupid shit. You can't tell who's going to make a mistake just based on what sort of person they seem to be based on your own myopic world view. I reality, everyone is going to let you down at some time or another. You have to work with people individually rather than painting with such a broad brush.

Re:Why guns?

[blincoln]

"There's nothing illegal about owning and being proud of guns (at least in the US)...so I don't get this comment on the article."

You are joking, right? And it just went over my head?

There are plenty of people in the US who hate guns to the point that if they saw a photo of a job applicant online with one or more firearms, they would discount them immediately, just like there are plenty of people in the US who would discount an applicant immediately if they saw a photo online revealing that underneath the long-sleeved shirt they were wearing to the interview, they had tattoos.

It doesn't have to be illegal to be something that you might not want to broadcast to the world. But that's true of whether there is a company dredging things up using automated tools or not.

Re:Why guns?

[Javit]

First of all, your reactionary argument is incongruous for someone who doubtless considers himself a leftist. Second, the politics of private gun ownership have nothing to do with identity politics. That term is used to describe politics based on one's perceived self-interest as an intrinsic member of a social group. Broadening it to cover ideological groups would render it meaningless, in which case you might as well remove the reference anyway.

That aside, I think your post says a lot more about you than it does about the hypothetical fellow posing with a handgun. His possible motivation is limited only by the imagination of the guesser. From my experience, I can tell you he probably doesn't think his handgun is "an ugly tool," its usage "always grim and sober." He probably thinks it's pretty cool in the same way certain men (and women) like monster trucks or rocketry. He will only ever shoot it recreationally, and probably expects to use it in self defense about as often as he expects his house to burn down. To be clear: never.

When I see a picture of someone with a gun, I have about as much a sense of foreboding as when I see a children's marshal arts class. I'm sure if you owned a gun and used it recreationally, or lived with someone who did, you wouldn't find them so fearful either.

Re:Why guns?

[Jane Q. Public]

Haha, you have just confirmed what others were saying about you.

What if the person holding the gun is a gold-medal-winning target shooter, and proud of that fact. Is that person a "thug", too?

The fact is, despite all your protests, what you just wrote was that guns = thuggery.

Re:Why guns?

[Jane Q. Public]

Unlike some of the others here, my personal opinion is that the most wrong thing you have been stating, is that a facebook photo is somehow important.

Re:Why guns?

[circletimessquare]

a facebook photo IS unimportant

but to certain people, it is important

ergo, you have an insight into what unimportant people think is important about themselves

Re:Why guns?

[ColdWetDog]

Ha. I just Googled +circle +square +thug and boy, it's pretty pathetic....

Re:Why guns?

[TheABomb]

and that's sad, and will lead to future generations of stressed out slaves, all under the eye of the bossman 24/7.

To have the job security (or in this economy, prospects) of a slave! Wouldn't that be the life?

Re:Why guns?

[Parafilmus]

Why would you need to 'hide' your gun photos?

Cursory googling reveals a Wisconsin teacher suspended from her job because of a facebook picture of herself aiming a rifle:

http://www.wkow.com/global/story.asp?s=9801650

Re:Why guns?

[chiph]

I know someone who was fired for being a gun owner. All it took was someone saying "I feel threatened by him" and security walked him out.

Wrong? Damn straight. But there's no recourse.

Re:Why guns?

[shutdown -p now]

I suspect that any such law is effectively illegal under the 14th Amendment (many states have laws on the books which are not constitutional - you don't find out unless and until you challenge it).

Re:Why guns?

[lwsimon]

That doesn't change anything - I compete in IPSC and IDPA. Nary a rifle to be found.

Re:Why guns?

[brainzach]

Someone who conducts themselves professionally knows not to post pictures of themselves doing keg stands.

Re:Why guns?

[index0]

You can be fired for any reason. An interesting story I recently read was that you can be fired for medical marijuana use, even if it is not affecting your job performance. http://www.komonews.com/news/local/123571074.html (Supreme Court: Medical marijuana users can be fired)

Re:Why guns?

[tombeard]

Where I live, you can go from non gun owner to gun owner in about 15 minutes. I don't think you are any safer.

Re:Why guns?

[Nursie]

Maybe we ought to make everything public. I mean everything. Then we could finally lose this stupid bloody hypocrisy.

If we could all see that almost everyone drinks too much once in a while, tried something illegal when they were in college, slept around a bit etc etc, then maybe we could stop being so judgemental. As a bonus we could then call out the people who never did any of this stuff for what they are - boring and uptight, not "moral" and certainly not "normal".

Of course back in the real world all it would mean was more imbeciles shaming each other and trying to restrict behaviour even further.

Re:Why guns?

[Pharmboy]

The 14th Amendment covers actions by the State, not by the individual. It is very specific about this, and mentions "the State" many times as a qualifier. As an individual, you have the right to discriminate all you want. As an employer, there are other laws that cover this, but not the Constitution itself. The whole purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power the Government, not the people.

Re:Why guns?

[Bob Uhl]

How is a handgun not a tool that can be used for many things, good as well as evil? How is pistol shooting not a legal, safe sport (in the US)?

Re:Why guns?

[EvilStein]

Or a soldier. Many of whom enjoy working with firearms. They're all now thugs too?

Ah. Stop feeding the troll, folks.

Re:Why guns?

[Applekid]

Oh please, nobody on Slashdot can be that gullible.

You were indeed not hired because of your love of cake. That's 100% the exact reason for them choosing not to hire you.
What they will tell you, if anything (which in itself is doubtful) is that they simply found a better applicant, that your education didn't fit the position they were hiring for, or whatever other BS reason they come up with on their chart of "legal reasons to not hire someone".

The Fair Credit Reporting Act allows you to see what creditors see (your credit report in full) if they deny you credit. It doesn't matter what the reason is. If you're denied employment and the employer had pulled a Social Report, you will be allowed to see it in full and it doesn't matter if they tell you what the reason for not hiring was or wasn't.

I honestly don't see reputable businesses using it because if the report even contains one mention that you support gay rights (for example), they open themselves to accusations of sexual-orientation prejudice. Why generate the paper trail and compliance headache when research on social networks can remain an in-house operation?

A much better move from the FTC would be to require social media sites keep logs of who saw you (which they probably already do, at least IP addresses, much more likely "current logged in user") and make those logs available to you. That way you can pull documentation that a potential employer scoped out your political leanings.

Re:Why guns?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Yeah, and why is that? Why must a person's Facebook profile be "professional"?

Someone might very well conduct themselves professionally during every single working hour, and get a bit crazy on weekends. I see nothing wrong with that, and no reason they shouldn't share that. It seems considerably better to focus on that candidate than the one who has an impeccable image because they can present the appearance of conducting themselves professionally, yet are unable to actually handle some responsibility.

Re:Why guns?

[SanityInAnarchy]

If one cannot control their personal finances such that they have a decent credit rating, that may already be negatively impacting themselves as a candidate. If one cannot obey the law and has a criminal record, that may already be negatively impacting themselves as a candidate.

Both of these have something to do with the ability to conduct ones self responsibly. Paying your debts and following the law are things that it makes sense for a company to care about.

How drunk you get in a country where it is legal to get drunk, and whether you are willing to share that, is pretty much irrelevant. I'm really not sure how "discretion" factors in here, either -- it isn't as though this is something I need to be keeping secret.

You may not like it, but the individual is often the image of the company they represent.

I not only don't like it, I see evidence to the contrary all over the place -- tons of people with private blogs where they are careful to mention that this doesn't reflect their employers' opinion.

For what it's worth, I don't even drink. I still don't like this -- there are tons of opinions I'm going to have and share online, most of which have nothing to do with whether I can do my job effectively. What's next, rejecting me because of something like a recent change to "Relationship Status: Single" because I couldn't keep a girl, or because I'll be too depressed to do my job effectively?

No

[creat3d]

How about making sure you don't work for someone that'll fire you for being part of a legalize marijuana FB group?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.

"Excrements" is not a word. I believe you're looking for "feces" or "excreta". Or, alternatively, "A grammar Nazi is to this community what a pile of excrement is to gold."

Re:No

[Hatta]

When real unemployment rates are over 15%, and forclosure rates are the highest in recorded history, how picky can you be about your employer?

Re:No

[MrEricSir]

Yeah, who cares about personal freedom? It's totally worth selling your soul to get a job.

Re:No

[drpimp]

No shit, I couldn't agree with you more. Not to mention I know MANY people that support it (albeit maybe not on FB group), that don't smoke or never have, but aren't necessarily against it. Isn't that what drug tests are for?

Re:No

[Hatta]

I'm on your side here. I think it's appaling that one has to choose between speaking their mind in public and potentially endangering their economic welfare. But such is the world in which we live.

If you really want people to be free to speak their minds, we need not only the political freedom to do so, but the economic freedom to do so. I don't think this can be accomplished under Capitalism. As long as there is economic inequality there will be political inequality as well.

Re:No

[Tumbleweed]

This is the kind of environment in which rights erode quickly, right in public view. 9/11, the economy, etc. See also: The "Patriot" Act, Wisconsin union-busting, etc.

Re:No

[rjhubs]

I would never work for a company that would discriminate based on what I choose to do outside of work hours. However, I am able to realize that not everyone is in as good a position as I am and that my current lifestyle is not just a product of my hard work but also some fortunate circumstance. So I would hate for anyone who needs to get a job to feed their family to be discriminated against based on their outside of work activities. Why should they have less personal freedom than I?

The point GP was making is that some people are not in a position to be picky about their employer. So this acceptance of social media background checks hurts them the most. Selling your soul is one thing, but not having a soul and being indifferent to the plight of those less fortunate than you is much worse.

Re:No

[Hatta]

Indeed. Economic depression played no small part in Hitler's rise to power. I don't expect the end of American hegemony to be any prettier.

Re:No

[QRDeNameland]

Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.

"Excrements" is not a word. I believe you're looking for "feces" or "excreta". Or, alternatively, "A grammar Nazi is to this community what a pile of excrement is to gold."

Wiktionary disagrees...it notes "excrements" as plural to "excrement". Also note..."excrement" can refer to any bodily waste product, so even if one considers "excrement" as a mass noun in most contexts, it still could make sense to say "excrements, like sweat, urine, or feces" (similar to fish vs. fishes as a plural).

Re:No

[Hatta]

Because public debate is essential to a functional democracy. Is that a hard concept for you?

Re:No

[yuhong]

It is possible. For example, there are already more than one employer who allow employees to criticize their products.

Re:No

[creat3d]

I don't know what field you're in, but none of my employers ever gave a flying fuck what I did outside of the workplace. And no, I never worked at McDonald's.

Re:No

[cela0811]

Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.

"Excrements" is not a word. I believe you're looking for "feces" or "excreta". Or, alternatively, "A grammar Nazi is to this community what a pile of excrement is to gold."

Wiktionary disagrees...it notes "excrements" as plural to "excrement". Also note..."excrement" can refer to any bodily waste product, so even if one considers "excrement" as a mass noun in most contexts, it still could make sense to say "excrements, like sweat, urine, or feces" (similar to fish vs. fishes as a plural).

A grammar Nazi is to this community what a pile of crap is to gold. There, I fixed it. :)

Re:No

[creat3d]

I would change my sig to "pile of crap" if only it didn't mean giving in ;)

Re:No

[creat3d]

You must be a terrorist. Or one of them liberal islamofascistbrownies, same as TERRRRRIST!

Re:No

[creat3d]

I would decry your comment being modded down but then I noticed you were a coward. Nevermind!

Or not

[TheCycoONE]

So make sure your gun photos are private and that you're not part of any 'Legalize marijuana' Facebook groups."

Or the opposite to ensure that you're only hired by people that share your values or won't spy on your social media.

Re:Or not

[TheCycoONE]

Sure there is a lot of people without jobs right now, so if you have no way of distinguishing yourself from them you might be tempted to settle on something you hate doing for someone you hate working for - on the otherhand if you've distinguished yourself you can be quite picky.

If you're in a position where you can't distinguish yourself, then you can further blend in by not posting anything that could be disliked by anyone on your facebook and ensure that all your web comments are 'annonymous' or you could move/get creditation/start a business or whatever it takes to make your resume stand out and at the same time be yourself. Who knows, you may get a job with the association for gun carrying marijuana users.

This kind of thing could kill facebook...

[Lohrno]

This should be illegal. This is pretty much why I have a Facebook account, but don't use it often. Everything I post or do goes through a filter of "Is this going to be detrimental to my future?"

Re:This kind of thing could kill facebook...

[bigstrat2003]

This should be illegal.

Quite. The fact that this is being allowed to go on is sickening. What an employee does in his/her free time is none of the employer's damn business.

Re:This kind of thing could kill facebook...

[sakdoctor]

Yeah illegal.
It's not a technical shortcoming of facebook's that you can't compartmentalize your presence, like we do ... in real life.

Re:This kind of thing could kill facebook...

[swanzilla]

@anonymouscoward twitter doesn't work that way #whatisaweenier #yourdoingitwrong

Re:This kind of thing could kill facebook...

[jbonomi]

Diaspora does this with the whole "aspects" thing. I really, really want that to take off...

Re:This kind of thing could kill facebook...

[Lohrno]

Yeah but how far is it okay for employers to look into their employees? How about DNA testing? I do compartmentalize my presence, but as a side effect I don't use Facebook much. Should employers be able to now ask your friends (who's contact info they obtained and you didn't give) about you? What about your ex-friends from high school? Not the ones you still keep in touch with, but the ones who you decided were pretty much morons and didn't want much to do with anymore. Sure all that doesn't relate to FB directly, but it seems like lately we must give up more and more of our personal info and given the job market, the compulsion to always conform to some standard would get extreme.

Re:FTFS:

[iamhassi]

It's not illegal to own a gun, but an employer can fire you because of it. Hell, they can fire you for wearing a yellow shirt, they can fire you for almost anything and call it a "performance" issue.

Don't bring your home life to work

[odin84gk]

I will not work for a company that wants to bring their home drama to work with them. Simple as that.

Re:Don't bring your home life to work

[Anonymous Coward]

You have therefor been flagged as "unhirable" by Social Intelligence for this comment. They check /. too!

Re:Don't bring your home life to work

[Jiro]

Well, if you don't want to work for them, the company is glad to oblige and not let you.

People take jobs because they need to eat and pay the rent. As such, "I don't want to work for them" may be irrelevant if you want starving and going homeless even less.

Re:Don't bring your home life to work

[preaction]

This is bringing your work life home. You are now judged on your home life whether you are worthy to have a work life.

Re:Don't bring your home life to work

[yuhong]

It reminds me of those who boycott companies because their CEO has a political opinion they disagree with.

Re:Don't bring your home life to work

[houghi]

I will not join an online community that forces me to use my real name. Simple as that.

Funny thing is that if they search for my real name, I am apparently a marathon runner.

Luckily I was early aware about the risks of having whatever you do out in public for always and ever and have tried to avoid it as much as possible.

Re:Don't bring your home life to work

[yuhong]

It is not just about donations.

Obligatory

[SanityInAnarchy]

It just keeps getting more relevant.

Re:Obligatory

[fyngyrz]

Yes. Unfortunately, it is also very bad advice.

The exposed nail gets hammered down, and very much so in US employment today.

Re:Obligatory

[creat3d]

There's such a thing as employment in the US today? Really, outside of the DHS??

Re:Obligatory

[Randle_Revar]

I was going to post that if no one else had. Although I admit I do not currently have anyone from work as friends on FB (goes against my general policy of, "no I will not friend you just because we know each other", I don't really do any social things with any of my coworkers)

What is wrong with legalization of marijuana?

[cjonslashdot]

What is wrong with legalization of marijuana? That is a political opinion. In fact, the Kato institute supports legalization. See http://www.cato.org/drug-war

facebook may have peaked...

[romanval]

since they lost 6 million users in the last month alone.

People are starting to realize that too much information can be a bad thing. (Aside from how many times you need to hear some long lost classmate bitching about their job or kids).

Re:facebook may have peaked...

[DigiShaman]

Now that HR is asking for the user/password to Facebook accounts from perspective job hunters, I can see how that might be a problem.

Re:facebook may have peaked...

[jcoy42]

While pictures of you at the keg party might be popular when you're in high school/college, you might not want them showing up when you're hunting for a job. I'd attribute most of it to that.

For Lulz

[chrisj_0]

A new LulzSec target :D

Facebook is for the clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone with a brain saw this coming long before now.

Whether it is legal or not is beside the point. If you use Facebook
you are providing info about yourself to a very large number of
people you don't know, and ( here is a clue for you ) not all of these
people will act in a friendly manner toward you.

There's no real reason to use Facebook, and the smartest people I know
already know this. If you want to keep up with your friends ( no you don't
have 800 friends ) you use email and the phone. If you want to disseminate
info about yourself to a select group of people, you put up your own web page
and make sure those in the select group know not to share the login password.

If you use Facebook, you deserve each and every nasty thing which results.
Welcome to the real world, where there are consequences for stupid actions
whether you think that's "fair" or not ( here's a second clue for you : there is no
such thing as "fair" in the real world ).

Re:Facebook is for the clueless

[MrEricSir]

Some of us actually have friends though, so your solution won't work for us.

Re:Facebook is for the clueless

[Obfuscant]

Some of us actually have friends though, so your solution won't work for us.

Quite astute of you, sir. It was nearly impossible for anyone to have any friends before Facebook was created, and likewise nearly impossible to keep in touch with any of them prior to Mr. Zuckerberg's fine accomplishemt.

And now that Facebook has been created, all previous forms of communications that any of the very very few people who DID have friends have been disabled, effectively preventing anyone who is not on Facebook from having any friends at all.

Re:Facebook is for the clueless

[MrEricSir]

Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying if you have friends, you don't want to be "that guy" who shits on everything (whether it be Facebook or whatever) because if you pull that shit, pretty soon you won't have any friends.

Re:Facebook is for the clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could be aware that anything you post to Facebook may become public regardless of privacy settings. I only joined Facebook to keep in touch with friends that were all on Facebook. Convincing your peer group that using Facebook is a bad idea sounds like a lot of fun.

What do you say when you ask a girl for her phone number and she responds are you on Facebook? Do you explain to her about your choice to avoid Facebook and then give her the URL to your site with the instructions not to give the login & password out to her friends (like she would, a bit narcissistic there)?

Maybe I don't have 500 friends, but the 450 random "friends" I made on Facebook provide noise to my signal buddy.

Re:Facebook is for the clueless

[Obfuscant]

Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying if you have friends, you don't want to be "that guy" who shits on everything (whether it be Facebook or whatever) because if you pull that shit, pretty soon you won't have any friends.

I went back to reread the comment you replied to where you said "that wouldn't work", and I find absolutely nothing about shitting on facebook. I see a suggestion that you avoid facebook and use email or put up your own web page. That is what I assumed you were saying wouldn't work for you because you actually have friends.

Do you really imagine that any friends you might have would abandon you if you were to withdraw from Facebook, or better, never join it? I don' t mean all those people who send friend requests so they can get their count up above 100 or 1000, but real friends?

Would you really count anyone who would drop you as a friend because you didn't join Facebook as a friend? I would not.

Re:Facebook is for the clueless

[DMUTPeregrine]

I don't use Facebook. I don't because I don't trust Facebook, I value privacy, I disagree with the way they treat their users (repeatedly changing the ToS without notice) and I find the service unnecessary. While pretty much all of my friends use Facebook they all understand my reasoning. They respect my choice, because they are my friends, not just people I hang around in the hopes of looking cool and fitting in.

Re:Facebook is for the clueless

[jeffc128ca]

I will admit to agreeing with a lot of your post, but that does not mean a Facebook account is evil and Facebook users deserve what ever evil befalls them. When I was in the army and taking Comm's training they told us to always assume the enemy is listening. I treat Facebook the same way regardless of privacy setting. I say nothing on Facebook or any other site that I could not handle being asked about in a job interview.

Unfortunately there are lots of people who have not made that connection. Their drunken escapades are displayed for all to gawk at. It is these people who do not deserve our pity. But don't tarnish all Facebook users for that idiocy of some.

Re:Facebook is for the clueless

[Pollardito]

It was also possible for people to be investigated by PI's and have their character assassinated by too-freely-shared pictures before Facebook

I have an old Slashdot comment on the problems

[yuhong]

This reminds me I posted an old comment months ago on some of the common HR problems:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2082332&cid=35811494

Re:I have an old Slashdot comment on the problems

[Requiem18th]

It was also a very bad comment.

Gun photos set to private?

[Montezumaa]

Why the hell do I need to make sure my "...gun photos are private..."? Owning and/or carrying firearms is a perfectly legal activity, and actually is a US Constitutionally protected right. An employer could not fire me for owning or carrying firearms, unless they do not allow it on company property(which does not cover parking lots, at least in Georgia). I support the fact that employers, just like other private property owners, can decide on who and what is allow on their private property, just as I am free to not support business that do not believe it supporting all rights of US citizens.

I am sorry if some of you live in countries that have disarmed the citizenry, that isn't the case in the United States. If you believe you need to hide pictures of firearms, or you holding firearms, then I feel bad for you.

Being a part of a "legalize marijuana" group no more means that I use or possess marijuana than being a part of a firearm's rights group means that I use, own, or possess firearms. Perhaps I just support that groups goal of ceasing to make criminals out of non-criminal behavior. As far as I am concerned, we should do away with all malum prohibitum laws, as they do nothing but criminal behavior that is not inherently unethical or immoral.

I suffer from severe pain, and I would support making it easier for people like me to gain easier access to chemicals that will easy pain and suffering. The current setup is horseshit.

Re:Gun photos set to private?

[Hatta]

I think you'll find that in most states, your employer can fire you for any reason, as long as that reason is not your membership in a protected class.

Re:Gun photos set to private?

[magamiako1]

It is perfectly within an employer's right to not hire you except within the bounds of discrimination laws, and even then they can usually get away with most things unless you can actually prove it.

Also, racial employment is only really counted company-wide. So if a particular manager hates black people, as long as there's enough black people in the rest of the company he's free to discriminate.

Don't you just love our laws?

Cave Love

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be a great band name

Re:credit rpt as Job applicant sifter

[DewDude]

I tried that argument.

I was told "well, if you can't pay your bills then obviously you're not responsible enough to work here"....ok, yeah, the fact I held the same job for over 8 years and there's a report of being an identity theft victim tells you I'm an irresponsible person.

They say unemployment is down, yet every employer these days wants to run credit-checks to disqualify everyone. It's a downward spiral that doesn't seem to want to fix itself, because the employers are still making money hand over fist.
It's been tried in the past, I'm pretty sure. My lawyer told me "it's not worth the hassle...we're not going to win and we'll go bankrupt trying to win".

Simple solution:

[Joe Snipe]

I always register my accounts in my Boss's name. Apparently he is into some pretty weird stuff...

Why anything?

[fyngyrz]

The current American mentality is witchhunt first, then never, ever forgive. Felon? Employment-wise, you're hammered. Forever. Sexual *anything* to do with the law? Employment-wise, you're hammered. Forever. Anything that the social retards think isn't Good for the Children? I'm talking drinking, drugging, tattoos, piercings, partying, "planking", nudity of any kind, shooting, marching for any particular cause, flash mobbing, pranking, sexting, imitating the cognitively-impaired people on Jackass, extreme sports... or even being THERE when someone ELSE is doing any of these things... employment-wise, you're hammered.

And if, for some reason, things aren't quite that bad yet, don't worry, they'll very likely pass ex post facto laws to make it so later; just as they already have with guns and the various lists -- do not fly, do not sell to, violent/sexual offender, terrorism. And they'll conflate ridiculous things too - 17-year-old == child == peeing in bush, etc. You can do the most innocuous thing that you think is perfectly ok -- like photograph your cute little infant in the tub -- and end up with your mug shot right next to Victor the Vaginal Butcher, unemployable and forced to move into a box under that bridge downtown you've been throwing your coffee cups over the past few years.

So... you don't appreciate StupidBook becoming a threat to your job and you life and your family? Get out before it happens. Delete everything on your page before you go, and un-friend everyone. It's all you can do. It won't be enough - this is truly becoming a permanent record society that never, ever forgives, criminalizes the ridiculous, and no longer even gives lip service to the ideas of forgiveness or rehabilitation - but it's a start in the right direction.

Also - speaking as a photographer of many years - stop photographing people. Just stop. Nature, old, non-governmental architecture, that's the thing to shoot. Photography is turning into the next minefield. Same thing goes for video, if you're into video. Not just because it might harm you; but because it also might harm them. You might photograph someone in a place they really would prefer others not know they were, for whatever reason... you might catch that funny drunk guy, share the pic, and cause him to lose his job and livelihood and really, really hurt his entire family... or you might shoot that lovely government building you paid for and find yourself answering very hard questions from very hard people about why there is a bottle of bleach under your sink and ammo for your 22 cal. match rifle in your closet, said people showing up right at your job, complete with warrant from their pet oath-breaking judge. Followed immediately by your very own pink slip, because employers are hugely threatened by such events. And now you're unemployable. Welcome to America 2011.

Re:Why anything?

[mosb1000]

I don't think it's entirely fair to blame Facebook for the irrational behavior of our overlords. But if everybody puts all there shit on there, eventually it will get to the point where those assholes won't have anybody to work for them anymore. So they'll have to bite the bullet and get real. That would be a good thing in end.

Re:Why anything?

[xero314]

But if everybody puts all there shit on there, eventually it will get to the point where those assholes won't have anybody to work for them anymore.

Not that I would want to work for a company that does this, but since it's going to happen anyway I'm glad I'm one of those people smart enough to not be on facebook, or part of any other social network (outside of real life). Once all the facebook users are fully discriminated against I should end up in high demand.

Re:tell me what you see:

[mister_playboy]

lack of confidence, insecurity, immodesty, lack of discretion, borderline personality disorder, anger management issues, immaturity, explosive hostility

people who have a need to pose with a handgun are communicating character weaknesses i don't want to deal with in a job environment

People who have a need to try and build a personality profile (full of diagnosis that only a psychologist who has spent time with the person is qualified to make) of someone they don't know based solely on Facebook photos are doing nothing more than projecting their own biases onto others and then denying that this perception was entirely self-manufactured.

A better question would be

[Dcnjoe60]

Why would you need to 'hide' your gun photos?

There's nothing illegal about owning and being proud of guns (at least in the US)...so I don't get this comment on the article.

It isn't like being a gun owner would prevent anyone from getting a job or anything...never heard of that one.

A better question would be why would anybody give open access to their photos on something like FB instead of only granting access to their "friends?" It is amazing how much personal stuff people put out in the open on the internet. As an employer I would be more concerned about people's overall lack of discretion than the actual content of most social networking postings. Lack of discretion relates to ones judgment and could be indicative of one's job performance.

Re:A better question would be

[tlhIngan]

A better question would be why would anybody give open access to their photos on something like FB instead of only granting access to their "friends?" It is amazing how much personal stuff people put out in the open on the internet. As an employer I would be more concerned about people's overall lack of discretion than the actual content of most social networking postings. Lack of discretion relates to ones judgment and could be indicative of one's job performance.

Because once it's on the internet, it's effectively out for the world. "Friends" doesn't mean much unless you vet every friend you have before hand. A photo can be easily reposted by a "friend" who has their photo setting to "everyone".

Or a friend can play an app that rapes the photo albums of all their friends.

Facebook's privacy settings don't exist. Remember, Facebook sells personal information. To encourage people to put up that information, they invent "privacy" settings so people think they can reveal all.

Remember, once it's on the internet, it's for the entire world to see. Facebook's just been a lot more obvious of this rule lately by making every new feature available to "everyone" by default, and you have to lock things down. But by then, Google et. al. have scraped it.

My Facebook account has barely any information on it at all - just a neutral profile photo, and that's about the extent of my public information. The other information available is what I'm comfortable with the world knowing (email addresses, etc). I have this so I have an account and can remove myself from photos and such. And I vet my friends very closely - I only have 9 people in it. And there's 5 others in my invitation queue because I'm not sure if I even want them in (people I've met in person, but whom I might not be comfortable letting into my profile).

The first rule of being online - never post online what you don't want everyone to know - has been around since the modem was invented. It's still true today.

Re:FTFS:

[creat3d]

Yeah... hi... we need to talk about your TPS reports. See, we're putting new coversheets on them from now on... so if you could do just that, we won't fire your ass. Mmmmkay? Great.

New business idea, for anyone who wants it:

[SlowGenius]

It seems like it would only be fair to collect the names, phone numbers, addressess, friend lists, family info, credit information, and general background info along with as much dirt as possible on all of the employees of Social Intelligence Corporation, starting with managerial/executive level ones. Place a few ads offering to sell said information to anyone who wants it, particularly targeting those who believe they were fired or weren't hired as a result of this SICk company's 'service', et voilà: karmically sublime $profit.

Re:Now you see what happens without a union

[ColdWetDog]

This is what happens without unions.

Facebook?

Re:Now you see what happens without a union

[xero314]

This is what happens when people allow anyone to step on their freedoms. Unions are just one, very valid, way of defending your freedoms against people or organizations that have more power than you do individually.

But don't worry about it too much. It's all part of the cycle. The good thing is that this means if we have to deal with the crappy part of the cycle then our children won't, and seriously they deserve something good after having to deal with the legacy we are bound to leave behind.

And this is why...

[Kargan]

...I don't have a facebook/myspace/twitter/socialnetworkingsiteofthemonth account.

Can't find what's not there!

this again?

[KingAlanI]

there seems to be a Stormfront-inspired AC post on Slashdot every so often...

As for most peoples' strident disapproval thereof, I admit it's an interesting question as to whether it's right to shout down any viewpoints, even those that are this extreme. (Westboro Baptist Church would be another example.)

Sadly not..

[cheros]

.. because you leave the door wide open for someone else to create a page using pictures of you to thoroughly trash your reputation. This is the problem with this insane idea: suddenly it is possible for complete strangers to screw up your life proper. A bit like politicians, but without you having any voting rights..

Re:hypocrisy

[TaoPhoenix]

I got tangled in the hall of mirrors.

So it's okay for anyone / some random company to work as hard as they can to break all anonymity on the net, then sell that info to employers / other for the sole intent to breach privacy with?

So that of course means it's just crispy for *us* to do the same with that company right?

Let's start with posting a list of every senior member of that company. Then let's get LulzSec to pulverize them with beautiful data gathering. Then we hand copies of the dossier to the net for every prospective employee to have to take to interviews.

  -

HR: "As a condition of employment, this company uses $Snooping_Company to determine if you are a Fast Tracked candidate for hiring.
You:"Hi there. $Snooping_Company, Hmm? Their CEO had an affair with the secretary, the CIO sold people's tax data to his shell company, the CFO kept four books in violation of GAAP, and it looks like YOU went to a sports party with their HR sales rep."

End Of Line.

Re:imbecile or monster.

[TaoPhoenix]

Monster.

We have to quit giving monsters the benefit of the doubt of being dumb. Fast.

The new face of Monsters is that they've gotten better and turbo-spinning their ploys to make us "sorta" believe them.

It's Fridge Logic from TV Tropes. It doesn't quite hold together, but it sounds good enough that you can't quite figure it out in twelve seconds with someone thundering "You'll either do this or you're a terrorist".

Also, from another angle, when we can deride stuff as dumb we get to forget about it. But even creaking along at 30% effectiveness is enough to cause enough Big Brother mayhem to absolutely chill us.

Restrictions?

[black soap]

So will this coumpany be bound by any restrictions as to what they can report on?

In an interview, the company can not legally ask me about certain things: race, color, sex, religion, national origin, birthplace, age, disability, Marital/family status, etc. Some of these things they can probably guess pretty accurately by looking at me when I walk in the door, but they aren't allowed to ask and damn well better not be using as hiring criteria.

If the company will be getting that info as part of the background check, it will make it very difficult to prove discrimination claims, because they can fall back on the "we knew about X, but that is not the reason we fired him."

Background checks for employment should be more heavily restricted: only reporting to the company what is legal for the company to make employment/termination decisions based on. If the employer is getting a list of lots of information about my outside life, it leads to the natural assumption that the company is using that information.

This is SIC

[TheGreatMcCluck]

I think it's very telling that the acronym for Social Intelligence Corporation is SIC. Sure, they're short one "K", but this company is coming up short in just about every other way that matters too, so I guess we can forgive them that. You have to appreciate comments like this (from TFA): "If the company makes you feel creeped out, think about the fact that most employers are already doing this. In surveys, most employers admit that they check out applicants’ Facebook pages, blogs, and Google footprint." I'm so relieved now. Plenty of people are doing it. I no longer have any reason to dislike what SIC is doing. There were thousands of people out rioting in Vancouver last night (over a frickin' hockey game!), I guess riots are OK too. The important thing to remember here folks, is this: If plenty of people are doing it, it's perfectly acceptable. I think I'm going to see if I can convince a large number of people to not pay their taxes next year...