Senators Slam Firm For Online Background Check

GovTechGuy writes "Social Intelligence Corp's online employment screening service, which preserves users' social media profiles and other data for use by potential employers, infringes on consumers' privacy and could be a violation of the law according to Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Al Franken (D-MN). The Senators wrote to Social Intelligence Corp on Monday demanding answers to a host of questions about the service and how it collects data."

Comments

Shocking.

[NeutronCowboy]

Or, really not. That's why I have a Facebook account with a believable, but fake name. Good luck to all companies trying to find my social network presence. You get LinkedIn, and that's it. To any company that requires my social network information to hire me: No, you don't. And I'd rather not work for you, if you think you do.

I'm really wondering where this is headed. Dual SN-profiles for the tech-savvy, single profiles for the rest? Mandatory ID check and real name requirements before signing up for a social network? I guess Google is halfway there, but quite frankly, if they ban my profile for not being a real name, I have little use for their social network.

It looks like some of the more distopian Internet futures might be around the corner: especially those with a dark net, where a lot of communication is encrypted, private and only between vetted members of a group.

Re:Shocking.

[HexaByte]

If they gather information from publicly accessible social networking sites, no problem. Just because too many retards are posting "I went out partying last nite and slipped a mickey in some hot girlz drink and F)*&*(d her all nite long! She woke up not knowing where she waz or what we did! WOO HOO!" doesn't mean we should ban potential employers from looking at there stupidity.

Smarter people are doing like Neutron Cowboy, living under assumed IDs. Some of us just don't give a rat's arse about social media, so they won't find us!

Re:Shocking.

[amicusNYCL]

I like how this is a story about privacy, and the article includes an example report sent to a client. But it's OK, because they blur out everything in the report. They blur out "parkerpdx", for example, so that you can't tell that the report is about someone called "parkerpdx", who incidentally has a Facebook page under that name (hi, Parker Bell, good luck with your Oxycontin biz). They also helpfully blurred out "Test Company" in the name (why bother?) and I may be able to figure out the guy's hotmail.com address if I want to spend that much time (it starts with "lynch").

So yeah, great job on protecting privacy guys, especially in the story about how this company is a threat to privacy.

Re:Shocking.

[Aeiri]

Tech savvy Indian people, at least those around me, already have 2 facebook accounts. 1 for real use, with a fake name like you say, and one for family. Apparently families in India are crazy about facebook stuff.

Re:Shocking.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you want to work for a company which feels justified in snooping and spying on their employees in the first place?

Re:Shocking.

[Fluffeh]

I don't really quite know where to step in on this argument. I personally think that companies that do these sort of background checks are taking the wrong approach to human resource management, but I also can't really stand up for someone that posts utter dribble online then whines about not getting that professional job they want because they aren't professional..

I would personally like to have to take neither side here. Companies shouldn't be doing this, and idiots should be bitter about getting what they deserve.

Re:Shocking.

[NeutronCowboy]

It isn't so much about posting illegal stuff. What concerns me far more is that some moronic hiring manager might object to me posting stories about AGW, or that I think it's great that Obama won. I generally wouldn't want to work for him in the first place, but just in case I really, really need that job, I don't want that to be an issue.

Ergo, fake name.

Re:Shocking.

[PeanutButterBreath]

Or, really not. That's why I have a Facebook account with a believable, but fake name. Good luck to all companies trying to find my social network presence. You get LinkedIn, and that's it. To any company that requires my social network information to hire me: No, you don't. And I'd rather not work for you, if you think you do.

That's fine until they get social networks to institute policies that, with the backing of new laws if nec., make it impossible to social network while misrepresenting your true identity. Then, companies will either have your real social networking history, or they will have a "reasonable" suspicion that you are either a misanthrope or hiding something, and in either case, a poor fit for their company culture.

Next thing you know, you will be reminded when patronizing "responsible" companies that they only hire "verified" employees, i.e. not shadowy types with unknowable motivations.

Think it can't happen?

Re:Shocking.

[Seumas]

Real name or not, it only takes a minimal amount of effort for data gatherers to work together or pool data together and derive an identity from you. That's one of the benefits (for the data miners) of having, say, the Facebook connect/like/whatever stuff on EVERY WEB PAGE IN EXISTENCE. Know a couple or so pieces of information about a person (doesn't have to include their name) and you can be pretty certain about who you are zero-ing in on.

Re:Shocking.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it concern you that Obama-bashing AGW questioners might be in the same hypothetical boat? Or it isn't about the principle, but it is about who is popular?

Re:Shocking.

[NeutronCowboy]

Absolutely. It's a problem that cuts both directions. For me, it cuts in this direction. But the problem is that this type of filtering exists, not what the exact filters are.

Re:Shocking.

[Seumas]

You no longer need to ask awkward or illegal questions to discriminate. Just google 'em. "I don't want no libertarians! I don't want no republicans or democrats! I don't want no atheists or jews or wiccans! I don't want no avid video gamers! I don't want no single people! I don't want me no people with children working here!

Of course, these companies "blur out information that could raise legal concerns for the employer" and there's certainly no way the employer could expound on that initial information on their own or anything...! *cough*

Re:Shocking.

[Seumas]

You know, when my parents and grandparents were starting into the job market, they were "employees".

Now we're "resources".

That kind of says it all.

Re:Shocking.

[BitterOak]

Real name or not, it only takes a minimal amount of effort for data gatherers to work together or pool data together and derive an identity from you. That's one of the benefits (for the data miners) of having, say, the Facebook connect/like/whatever stuff on EVERY WEB PAGE IN EXISTENCE. Know a couple or so pieces of information about a person (doesn't have to include their name) and you can be pretty certain about who you are zero-ing in on.

Absolutely. The GP is kidding himself if he thinks that by simply using a fake name the data mining companies, whose job it is to mine data from social networks, can't find you.

And even if you are successful in hiding behind a fake name, it will be harder and harder to find work if you don't have a Facebook page. As the Facebook generation enters the workforce, it will be increasingly rare for a job candidate to not have a Facebook page. Why would an employer choose the one person in the pile who they can't find anything about to interview? This is why people need to build a strong online identity in high school and college when they have lots of friends. Otherwise, you might look a bit strange down the road when you're looking for a job.

Re:Shocking.

[Cwix]

Built up a strong one on myspace, didn't pan out, wont do that again.

All I got was headaches and annoyances.

I don't have a facebook page and I had no prob landing a good job. Employers appreciate good references, not lotsa friends that you never talk to and don't really know. Frankly I think HR is prob more interested in weather or not you can keep private stuff private. Which with no facebook your doing good.

Re:Shocking.

[Fluffeh]

Yup, totally agree. There was once a time when everyone was encouraged to do the absolute best, to do things better than they were - and it that meant spending a few extra dollars/days/employees to get the job done, then it was done. Now we live in a "that's more than good enough" landscape where sub-par is considered above average.

Re:Shocking.

[Amouth]

personally i agree with you - as for the start of this story - i find it funny that they thing it should be a crime, ~1 year ago a friend used me as a reference for a Top Secret Clearance, the person from DHS came in with all my finances for several years including a rental i don't claim as one (not required to). She also questioned me about Facebook & LinkedIn (which i don't use). She was very curious about any online aliases i go by - and people who i talk to online.

for them to say this should be a crime - they need to look close at them selves..

Re:Shocking.

[ohnocitizen]

The problem isn't what you may or may not post under a profile with your real name (or a fake name). What happens when a friend of yours decides to tag you at a political protest, or tags a non pg-rated picture with your name? Does it matter whether its really you? Or whether the "friend" who tagged it is really a friend? The article mentions "racially insensitive" material is a flag - what if you are a stand up comic on the side? It mentions "sexually explicit" - who determines what that line is?

So there are several lines you could cross to get flagged, and you don't even need to actually cross it yourself to get flagged in Social Intelligence Corp's system. Good on Franken and Blumenthal for looking into this and raising the issue.

Re:Shocking.

[amicusNYCL]

Whoops, that report is not in TFA, it's on a page linked to in TFA (here).

Re:Shocking.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

.. but I also can't really stand up for someone that posts utter dribble online then whines about not getting that professional job they want because they aren't professional..

There is something wrong when a profession seeks to regulate conduct beyond the bounds of the profession, whether formally or informally. If you do the job well, but you also, for example, have a drunk driving record, or a civil disobedience record, or even a felony murder record but you've served your time, why shouldn't you be able to be a doctor or lawyer where, for example, none of this has ever interfered with your duties to a patient or client?

We prohibit discrimination on the basis of race or sex or national origin. Why not prohibit discrimination based on, for example, the presence of racy photos of you online?

Re:Shocking.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Now we live in a "that's more than good enough" landscape where sub-par is considered above average.

I'm not sure there was such a time, although it was certainly more common in certain cultures fifty years ago.

Also, if you come in under par, aren't you above average?

Re:Shocking.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

A political body fails to demonstrate the type of action it requires of others?

Shocking.

Re:Shocking.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Why would you want to work for a company which feels justified in snooping and spying on their employees in the first place?

Because you can make a lot more money than working for a company that doesn't?

Re:Shocking.

[retchdog]

I agree completely, but to play devil's advocate: it might be good to consolidate the filtering in a few specialized firms like this.

There was a gizmodo (?) article which described the results of running this service on their staff; iirc, it picked up only the illegal stuff like drug use. They explicitly don't report on things like "normal" partying and even pregnancy (which some companies discriminate).

Since this company has invested resources and specialized, they take on liability; you can sue them and moreover they are an easy target for class action if they screw up. I think this is probably a big improvement over leaving it to the potential prejudices of each individual firm's yokel HR department. Still not ideal, of course, but an improvement.

Re:Shocking.

[Fluffeh]

We prohibit discrimination on the basis of race or sex or national origin. Why not prohibit discrimination based on, for example, the presence of racy photos of you online?

Because most employers aren't hiring people to work by themselves without any contact whatsoever to anyone - whether other employees or customers.

I think if a person posts online saying that they did , then employers SHOULD be able to look at it and include that in their review of the person to see if they will fit into their company. Remember, this isn't about whether or not drunk driving, civil disobedience or felony murder are reviewed - all of those things can't really be hidden online. This is about posts made on social networks. If the person posted that they were "sick of getting breath tested and drink driving should be allowed" or "I simply had to kill that bitch, she had it coming..." even after serving the right time, wouldn't you feel that it is a VALID insight into the person and an employer should be allowed to see that person as they portray themselves to the public?

Again, while I think that interviews should be kept in the interview room, I do think that if you think it's okay to post things on social media networks - companies looking to employ you are within their rights to look at them.

Re:Shocking.

[Nursie]

There's a difference between security clearance for working on state secrets, and a selection procedure to be an office monkey.

In general we let state security services do things we don't let private individuals and businesses do.

Re:Shocking.

[Nursie]

"I do think that if you think it's okay to post things on social media networks - companies looking to employ you are within their rights to look at them."

Even if only shared with friends and spirited out of there by subterfuge?

I know that we on slashdot are aware that if you put it online, even locked down or under a pseudonym, it should be regarded as published to the world, but I was under the impression that was a grudging acceptance of reality, not a position to be approved of.

Re:Shocking.

[NotSanguine]

I don't really quite know where to step in on this argument. I personally think that companies that do these sort of background checks are taking the wrong approach to human resource management, but I also can't really stand up for someone that posts utter dribble online then whines about not getting that professional job they want because they aren't professional. [snip]

[Emphasis Added]

Here's where I have an issue. Why is it my employer's concern what I do when I'm not working? I can see criminal background checks, verification of employment and references and even (although it sticks in my craw) drug testing. The first two are okay because people lie and these areas may impact job performance and/or other employees. The third also may impact job performance, but is really not anyone's business (that being said, if you can't stop long enough to pass an employment drug test that you've been warned about, you may well have a drug problem).

What difference does it make to your job performance it we don't act, as you say, "professionally" in our leisure time? I don't work 24x7 and when I'm not working, I do decidedly non-professional things. What they are and who I do them with is nobody's damn business but mine and those with whom I'm doing those things. My employer is my employer and pays me to perform services for them. When I'm not performing services for them (i.e., not paying me), they have no say as to what I do or don't do.

Any employer who wants to check my SN profile(s) is in for a rude shock. Unless you're my SN "friend" you don't see anything. Period. Beyond that, if a prospective employer attempted to access my SN profile(s) or paid someone else to do so and I find out about it, they will need to find someone else to fill that vacancy. Not because I have anything to hide especially, but if an employer thinks that's their purview then it's a strong sign that I don't want to work for such people.

Work/Life balance is more than just making sure you're home to tuck the munchkins in at night.

Re:Shocking.

[rastoboy29]

If you have any pictures of yourself on your pseudonymous Facebook account, it is only a matter of time (and a fairly short time, too, I'll wager) before  your real identity is known.  Facial recognition has come a long way.

Re:Shocking.

[cerebis]

In the world of network science this strategy is about as effective as putting a pseudonym on your mailbox and expecting to function as a effective hideout.

Re:Shocking.

[dragonturtle69]

Also, if you come in under par, aren't you above average?

Yes, the saying seems backwards from its apparent literal meaning. From dictionary.com:

Also, under par . Not up to the average, normal, or desired standard. For example, I am feeling below par today, but I'm sure I'll recover by tomorrow . This term employs par in the sense of "an average amount or quality," a usage dating from the late 1700s.

It all goes to the passion shown by the leader. If there is none, then good enough to not be terminated becomes the goal. If there is passion to do as well as possible, and everyone is engaged, then the acceptable goal becomes to do as well as possible.

I have worked for several of both types of leader, and led my own teams as the latter (have pride, do as well as possible), in the last twenty years.

Re:Shocking.

[Runaway1956]

Exactly. What I do, what I say, or what I don't do or say, for x number of hours each day, is the business of my employer. When I clock out, nothing that I do, or don't do, is any business of theirs. Nothing. If I want to dress in tights, and swing from the chandoliers at the local watering hole, that is the business of myself, the owner of the watering hole, and any customers who might be present. The ONLY thing my employer needs to know, is whether I am competent to perform my duties while on the job. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re:Shocking.

[rossz]

A resource is printer paper and pens. It can be purchased in a retail store, or bought in large quantities from an office supplier. If you call the people who work for you "resources", you do not respect them as people. I do not wish to work for you because I am not a resource.

Re:Shocking.

[Fluffeh]

I know that we on slashdot are aware that if you put it online, even locked down or under a pseudonym, it should be regarded as published to the world, but I was under the impression that was a grudging acceptance of reality, not a position to be approved of.

I actually think that there is a middle line to be drawn here. If we post something to a group of friends on (lets assume) a SN that allows for things to be sent to only selected people, then it won't ever get on to such sites as in the article. They cannot simply access your private conversations. A person whose online pseudonym has no relation to their name and who doesn't post linking information won't ever worry about it. What is going on here is that the senators are taking up a asinine position on something that rattles some public outcry/sympathy.

If you post something up, under your own name, for everyone to see, it is free for anyone to view.

That includes the people that you didn't expect to look at it and that also means that you are responsible for your actions and that those actions may bleed across into aspects of your life you didn't expect them to - such as your potential employment. No-one seems to mind being asked "What are your personal interests and activities outside of work?" during an interview. They don't really care whether you like to knit scarves or skydive - they want to see if you will likely fit in with the rest of the team. I don't see them looking at your online personality as being any different.

Re:Shocking.

[yuhong]

Personally, I believe that in most cases the problems needs to be fixed, a lot (but not all) of professionalism is overrated, and the illusions that celebrities are perfect is a bad idea.

Re:Shocking.

[Anonymous Coward]

Otherwise, you might look a bit strange down the road when you're looking for a job.

What if I look strange and don't want them to know =P I really hope facebook is a passing fad.

Re:Shocking.

[aztracker1]

If they are including permission to login to your account or be added to your friends list for continued employment, that is akin to setting up surveillance in your home... They're looking into private conversations among friends. It's not appropriate. I don't trot out every detail of my life online, but that still doesn't make it right. If you aren't in a role of spokesperson for said company, it is wrong to even think of such an intrusion.

Re:Shocking.

[tlhIngan]

There was a gizmodo (?) article which described the results of running this service on their staff; iirc, it picked up only the illegal stuff like drug use. They explicitly don't report on things like "normal" partying and even pregnancy (which some companies discriminate).

The Gizmodo article is http://gizmodo.com/5818774/this-is-a-social-media-background-check

In fact, if you look at his report (he posted the entire thing online), they did a good job redacting stuff that doesn't matter, and stuff that employers should not know about (like ethnicity, sex, etc). They blacked out his face and his hands to hide his skin color, blacked out irrelevant things, etc.

Truth is, a company is probably more likely to use these services because they ensure privacy - stuff that cannot be asked, is hidden. This benefits the company by sparing a possible discrimination lawsuit (always a big problem) than if some HR lackey used Google.

In effect, it's more of a safe search for Google - they tell you why they think this guy matches the description (e.g., address match), and hide the details that could prejudice the issue.

Of course, another issue is unscrupulous companies...

And always - if you don't want the world to know, don't post it online. This was true in the 70s, it's still true today. There's no such thing as privacy - "privacy" is a social networking term to get marks to reveal more information to strangers than they normally would.

Re:Shocking.

[Feyshtey]

How about the empoyer that chooses not to hire you because you posted on some forumn somewhere that you dislike the current president's policies.....

Re:Shocking.

[bjwest]

Yeah, and people who bought things were customers, now we're consumers. The citizens of this country used to be human beings, now we're just another resource for corporations to exploit, whether it be to consume their crap Made in China, or fill the few positions they still find cheaper to keep here in the U.S.

I fear within the next ten to twenty years, if things keep going the way they are now, the U.S. will be little more than a third world country being used by the multinationals for it's farmland and (what's left of it's) natural resources.

Re:Shocking.

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is why people need to build a strong online identity in high school and college when they have lots of friends. Otherwise, you might look a bit strange down the road when you're looking for a job."

Jesus H Christ, if the next generation of kids are so incapable of determining someone's worth of hire based upon MEANINGFUL things like Work Experience, College Degree, Certifications, Trade Degree's, Professional Accomplishments they consider a well-established "Facebook profile" to be a major part of that, W-T-F? "I need some kind of number on a website to determine your social worth, you know, to measure your total number and level of soft-skills". There's an HR manager that needs beaten repeatedly with a baseball bat.

The real reason social engineering is important to big companies:
- They don't want people who will blow the whistle and either go to a regulatory agency, the law, or a lawyer when they get stepped on.
- They do not want smart, capable, driven people who self-invest constantly and, after putting in the hours, becoming utterly invaluable, and figuring out the company just wants to leech on them, leave for a better job after becoming business-critical, thus forcing them to compete for labor. They want smart people with no brains, or they want to surround themselves with mediocrity to feel safe.
- They want to intertwine into your social life, allowing for further control. After-all, if you've got friends at work, then you've got something to lose; if you've got no friends you're a dangerous loaner.
- It adds more (very illegal) hiring metrics to a work search (ask any head-hunting agency; see AMightyRiver.com, HRM...It's lawsuit heaven as far as I'm concerned.). Black person from the Bronx or South Side of Chicago? Why'd I want to hire them when I can have Mr Indian applying on a H1-B Visa for half the price? Can't I just bring the Darkie in for an interview to make it look like I'm checking around and can't find anyone qualified before hiring Mr Indian?

Re:Shocking.

[Ash Vince]

personally i agree with you - as for the start of this story - i find it funny that they thing it should be a crime, ~1 year ago a friend used me as a reference for a Top Secret Clearance, the person from DHS came in with all my finances for several years including a rental i don't claim as one (not required to). She also questioned me about Facebook & LinkedIn (which i don't use). She was very curious about any online aliases i go by - and people who i talk to online.

for them to say this should be a crime - they need to look close at them selves..

Getting clearance to work somewhere where you have access to top secret information is very different to getting a normal job. The worst case scenario regarding leaking top secret information is that people actually die. The worst case scenario about most companies leaking information is that the company makes less money and loses its competitive advantage. I would defend to the hilt the right of government to vet prospective employees going into sensitive work to the level you describe as my safety may well depend on it.

I would even go so far as to say that recent events with regard to some diplomatic cables show that they are not doing a good enough job so may need more vetting in future. I might think some of the information released belongs in the public domain but the manner in which it got there was entirely wrong and should not have happened.

Companies on the other hand should have far fewer rights to go wandering into my private life, and those rights should certainly not include vetting me based on who my friends are. I have some people in my wider circle of friends who I have known for many years but who would scare a great many people (drug dealers, environmental terrorists). These people bear no relation to how well I do my job, I am just not willing to cut them off now I have grown up.

These people would probably make some HR manager who came from a sheltered middle class back ground very nervous but I would never let the interfere with my job under any circumstances so it is easier for them not to know. Otherwise we end up living in a society where there is no route for people who come from certain backgrounds to turn their lives around without disowning their entire family.

Re:Shocking.

[Anachragnome]

"I generally wouldn't want to work for him in the first place, but just in case I really, really need that job, I don't want that to be an issue."

If they are really that discerning, you're not going to get the job anyways.

The town I live in has an "Independent Automotive Shop Association" that essentially pools information to lock down the vast majority of automotive repair shop jobs. They simply share information, kinda like what is happening with social media, but more pervasive (in a local sense) and far more malevolent--if a single person in that association decides they don't like you (say, for example, you were late a lot and got fired from a shop that participates in the Association), you are pretty much precluded from working at ANY of the shops that are in the association. They ALL do drug testing, so that if you fail a UI applying for one shop (accurate test, or no), you have zero chance of employment anywhere in town. Forever. You are added to the database. Worse, they are all right-wing, conservative Christians that will not hire someone that doesn't fit that mold and thus unfairly impose religious/political beliefs on the entire population of mechanics in the area. When people ask me for shop references to have work done on their vehicles (I used to be a mechanic), I tell them one thing--"Look for the IASA logo in the window. If it's there, go somewhere else." Most do, from what I've seen.

I speak from experience--after admitting to my employer I do not go to church, when I finally left that shop I couldn't get so much as an interview in this town. I didn't realize what was going on until a potential employer called me by my first name...when I hadn't even given it to him. Two and two quickly became four. He knew I was coming, and knew who I was before I even introduced myself.

Using social media is simply an INVITATION to have assholes like these ruin your life over a mistake/life choices that differ from theirs.

Slashdot is the closest I get to social media, and I am sure that if someone really wanted to, they could glean a wealth of information from my post history--possibly even figure out who I really am. It isn't really a big deal since I have made choices that rule out working for others anyways--best choice I have ever made. Even still, I don't take chances because I realize there are potential risks nobody has thought of yet.

But, as you point out, it doesn't really matter if you REALLY don't care about working for assholes like that...until everyone is doing it. THAT scares me. The potential for global "cabals" that are essentially what I just described, but, well...global, could marginalize entire sectors of the population. It has occurred to me that World War III could be a war of economies. If so, marginalizing a workforce is a pretty powerful weapon.

Re:Shocking.

[JosKarith]

If you post it on a publically accessible site then it's basically out in the public domain. Don't post what you don't want people to see.
IMHO if a potential emplyer read my profile and took exception to "Had an awesome weekend. Went to Fran's 21st which got a "little" out of hand, enjoyed a great day with my wife on sat and kicked ass @ LARP on sunday" then I _really_ don't want to work there.

Re:Shocking.

[JosKarith]

In my job, being charged with any criminal act is grounds for an immediate disciplinary hearing. That's fine - it's basically the company covering its ass. Finding out that I've been passed up for opportunities because I like to party hard at the weekend wouldn't be.

Re:Shocking.

[AmiMoJo]

Unfortunately discrimination is almost impossible to prove. If someone turns you down for a job because of your Asian name there isn't much you can do. The only option is to try to make society as a whole not discriminate.

Sometimes life just isn't fair.

Re:Shocking.

[Amouth]

i wasn't the one getting the "state secrets" but rather just someone who knew him.

also very few jobs i consider "office monkey" require background checks. (except in financial institutions)

Re:Shocking.

[Amouth]

Except I wasn't the person getting clearance - i was just someone he put down as someone he knows.

Re:Shocking.

[Pf0tzenpfritz]

There was. Not even so long ago, It was until the mid-nineties that you broke something or used it up and took it for granted that the replacement you bought was a lot better than what you had before. And no, we did not use to wear onions on our belts, these days...

Re:Shocking.

[omnichad]

Wow, yeah, complete FAILURE to blur anything. I didn't even have the slightest trouble reading parkerpdx

Re:Shocking.

[omnichad]

Facebook does have a setting to disallow public sharing of photos where other people have tagged you. The photos are still public, but they don't all come up when someone clicks from your profile.

Re:Shocking.

[GameboyRMH]

Worse, most companies now consider us "consumable resources," but they're not using that term on paper...yet.

Re:Shocking.

[sgt scrub]

everyone was encouraged to do the absolute best

They still are. However, now it is a requirement to show that you have done above and beyond what you were hired for. If you do not, you will be replaced.

Re:Shocking.

[GameboyRMH]

There's an HR manager that needs [to be] beaten repeatedly with a baseball bat.

You mean some don't!? :-P

Re:Shocking.

[gorzek]

Because your employer probably has a brand to protect, that's why it's their business.

I'll tell ya a little story. There was once a company that had an employee, and this employee was a mid-level manager. He was also the pastor at a local church that he owned and operated himself. Some accusations came up that he'd been diddling some of the young male members of his congregation, resulting in a lawsuit naming both him and the company as defendants. Now, even if the company hadn't been named as a defendant, newspaper articles still would've read "xxx, an employee at xxx," and now you've put the association out there that company xxx employs pedophiles, even if it's merely an accusation and even if the company knew nothing about it.

That is the sort of thing employers are trying to protect against: bad press resulting from the criminal actions of its employees both in the office and out. It may not be fair, but I can completely understand the logic behind it. Companies are risk-averse, by and large, and if they can find out what kind of person you are by vetting your Facebook profile, they would be failing to do their due diligence by passing up the opportunity.

I am pretty careful about what I post online since I'm either using my real name or a handle that can be traced back to my real identity without much effort. I also don't have anything posted that should give a potential employer pause, unless having a warped sense of humor is a dealbreaker. I rarely drink, I don't do drugs, I don't engage in risky behaviors, I don't post nasty things about friends and coworkers to Facebook or Twitter (or anywhere else), I don't put myself in situations where I'm doing something stupid and other people can take photos of it, upload them to Facebook, and tag 'em without my permission. It is really not that hard to avoid making an ass of yourself and keep from doing things that will screw you up down the road. And the government can pass all the privacy laws they want, but without locking down the technology to protect it, it will get out there. And I doubt Slashdotters would be in favor of going down that road, sacrificing the openness of the Internet with draconian measures to protect privacy.

Basically: don't be stupid. Don't do stupid things, don't let people take pictures of you doing stupid things, and don't post about doing stupid things on the Internet.

Re:Shocking.

[Runaway1956]

I've an attitude. Someday, it could cause me trouble, but so far, it hasn't. I do NOT acknowledge that my employer has any authority to "discipline" me. In fact, we recently got a new Employee's handbook. It states that the company employs people "at will". If and when the company or myself finds that further employment is not to our benefit, I walk. Simple as that. Discipline? No fekkiing way. I spent my time in the service, I was taught self discipline, and I exercise self discipline. The bunch of weenies who sit in the front office, whiling away the day on the phone, throwing darts, and drinking cold drinks has nothing to teach me about discipline. Nothing. Like the book says, when I get tired of working for them, I walk. When they get tired of me and my attitude, I walk. If any of those weenies gets uppity, and tries to teach me "discipline", I walk. And, I'd be happy to tell any or all of them, to their faces. There will never be a "disciplinary hearing" of which I am the subject. ;^)

Re:Shocking.

[Jumperalex]

My real problem with this issue is this part, "...then whines about not getting that professional job they want because they aren't professional." Of course I'm not "being professional", it is my "personal" life. Note that I'm not pointing a finger at you, I'm pointing it at the issue ... you are merely stating the issue.

Now of course don't think I don't understand how the thought process works ... it is now public info and your public info can be linked to your job which can be linked ot your employer which can make the employer look Bad(tm). But what ever happened to the old standard disclaimers like, "The opinions expressed personal and do not reflect the opinions of XYZ Incorporated." I mean really, it is an unfortunate reality but people do end up thinking to themselves, "gee this person is a complete idiot when he is out partying, so he can't possibly be trusted to perform his job at XYZ Inc."

Except the problem is that simply isn't true, or at least it isn't a causal relationship. How do I know? Because before social media we had plenty of idiots being idiots "in private" who then went on to magically perform their professional responsibilities without a hitch. Their idocy simply never gained wide spread publicity. Similarly, in the new world of social media, there are plenty of people who keep a "clean profile" who are complete sociopaths in the real world.

So to my OP, obviously I agree, they are taking the wrong approach to HR, and yes someone who posts questionable stuff on their profile, is in fact an idiot, but only because of the idiodic stuff they did. The fact that it is then somehow taken to imply they are unable to be professional at work simply does not follow.

Of course coming full circle I have to admit that KNOWING this stuff will be held against you, you are then in fact an idiot for posting it ;-)

Final note: Someday we will have a presidential race where all of the candidates had a social network profile when they were young ... as in young enough to not have been careful what they posted. In fact someday, there will be a race where more than one candidate had naughty pictures posted. That is the day when everyone will stop stressing about how horrible it is that people are posting such "scandelous stuff" such as drinking a lot and passing out, or consenting nudity.

Re:Shocking.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

can't really stand up for someone that posts utter dribble online then whines about not getting that professional job they want because they aren't professional..

Years and years ago, back in the stone ages before Facebook, you were expected to maintain your reputation if you wanted to get ahead - both at work and in your personal life. It was well understood that if you were out drunk in public every night, you were not going to enjoy the same opportunities for advancement as someone who's attending community functions, going to the communal deity worship on weekends, etc. Though it's fallen out of fashion, in many cases you couldn't advance too far without a spouse and children to prove you were a stable member of the community.

While some of those social restrictions have eased, a lot more is present than most people realize. So when you start acting like a jackass with your online persona (which is, in fact, an increasingly significant part of your real-world reputation - and justifiably so) of course it will affect your opportunities at work or with new employers.

I don't understand the mindset that makes people oblivious to this.

Re:Shocking.

[NotSanguine]

Thanks for your thoughtful post Gorzek. I am, in fact, aware of *why* companies do this sort of thing. I spent many years as a consultant and many companies for which I consulted did background checks, drug testing, extreme reference checking (ever have your grade school called to make sure you actually attended?), etc.

On the whole,. I don't have an issue with this. As you correctly pointed out, companies need to attempt to make sure that you're not going to be a liability to the organization. My point is that I don't like the idea of some HR lackey snooping around in my personal life -- and I'm not talking about whether or not I can pass a drug test or find three people to say something nice about me. Nor am I concerned about criminal background checks.

I don't have (m)any skeletons in my closet, not that it's any of your (or anyone else's for that matter) business. I don't need a job that badly that I need to put my social (networking) life up for judgement by a potential employer. I'm a professional you see. And that means that when I'm on the job, I'm doing my damnedest to make my employer successful. I have a long and proven track record of doing just that. If that's not enough, then I don't want to work for you.

You see how simple that is? I want to work for a company that has similar values to my own. I've always believed that while it may not be necessary to bet your job on the work that you do, you should be willing to do so. As I said before, if that's not enough, then I don't want to work for you.

That said, I don't necessarily fault companies for doing this sort of thing. In some ways it's an IQ test. Just like a drug test, if you know it's coming and you can't clean up before the test, then maybe there's some sort of problem. In my case, my SN profile(s) are locked down. Not because I feel I have to hide my life, but because I value my privacy.

We all have needs. Both employers and employees. I'm focused on my needs. One of which is privacy. I'm not really interested in the needs of corporations. That may sound selfish, but those corporations aren't concerned about my needs either. :)

Re:Shocking.

[gorzek]

I think it helps to understand why companies do this sort of thing so you can better protect yourself and give yourself the biggest advantage when looking for a job, so I agree with you. I don't think companies will be stopped from doing this, so your best bet is to keep everything locked down and only give access to people you trust. Even if it's made illegal to ask a prospective employee about their social networking accounts, it would be virtually impossible to enforce a prohibition on evaluating potential candidates based on their social networking information. Companies will just do it on the down-low to avoid problems, and if they see anything questionable in what they can find, you won't get a callback.

You should absolutely serve your own needs when looking for work, and if that means refusing to give out information regarding your Internet presence, so be it. Just be prepared to be passed over for some positions by particularly skittish employers.

Re:Shocking.

[Anonymous Coward]

"sometimes life isn't fair" - I HATE when people say that, becaue ... so what? in the case of the Asian name thing, assuming that's why, they have blatantly discriminated by ethnicity, which is illegal... and yes, life ISN'T always fair, but that does not mean yu acept that which CAN be changed... dunno, it just feels like blatant apthy to say something like that.

Re:Shocking.

[Anonymous Coward]

Say you were on digg and then gave your email to post on a cnbc news or la times news these folks are putting two and two together with large computer systems.
It is easier than you thing to figure out who you are by traces of where you been on your hard drive even if you clear them when you close ff.

Re:Shocking.

[Bucky24]

So you were someone who he said "yeah this guy vouches for me that I'm ok to give clearance to.". You were acting as a reference for someone getting clearance. If there was something wonky with you, then there's a chance there's something wonky with him as well.

Re:Shocking.

[Bucky24]

I think that's fine for a basic office worker (though not being popular with your coworkers prevents cohesion with the group and may impact production), but imagine if you're an executive of some company and you get arrested for some crime? That reflects back upon the company you work for, and I think in that case, since the company is directly impacted, some sort of discipline should be enacted.

Re:Shocking.

[Bucky24]

In my case, my SN profile(s) are locked down.

Is that entirely possible? I know in the case of FB, and I think google+ as well, you can lock down what is posted on your wall, but it's nigh impossible to lock down what you post on other's walls (including comments), since those are up to the privacy settings of the person to whom you are replying or posting. Like I could have my profile locked down tight, but if I have a friend who has opened his to the public, anything I post on his wall or any comment I make on his posts will be open to the world.

Re:Shocking.

[Bucky24]

Seriously though, how would you prove that? The employer could say "we didn't think he would fit in", which is something that you can't really prove or disprove without the full cooperation of the employer (and why would they cooperate if they don't want you anyway?).

Re:Shocking.

[flaming error]

Hypothetical boating rocks.

Re:Shocking.

[Ash Vince]

Except I wasn't the person getting clearance - i was just someone he put down as someone he knows.

I didn't say or think you were.

I was just saying that someone getting top secret clearance is entirely different to someone getting a job. I trust government far more than I trust companies.

Re:Shocking.

[Amouth]

so you thing CA's or say RSA shouldn't do back ground checks because it's just a "job" and doesn't require "top secret" clearance?

Re:Shocking.

[Inigo Montoya]

I'm a low id guy on slashdot.. just woke from a long coma... what's a social network?

Re:Shocking.

[Reservoir Penguin]

How is it different from "I do not work for M$ because they make evil closed source bug ridden software!" or "I do not work for Nokia cause they are sellouts!". or god forbid the company can prove (using Facebook) that you rejected their job offer because their CEO is an asian.

Re:Shocking.

[Ash Vince]

so you thing CA's or say RSA shouldn't do back ground checks because it's just a "job" and doesn't require "top secret" clearance?

Yes, because they are a company and the scope for abuse is too great. The scope for abuse is still large when government does this level of checking but that is a risk I am willing to take in order to save lives. I am not willing to take the same level of risk when the only thing on the line is a companies reputation and revenue, especially not when you may not actually end up working for said company.

Re:Shocking.

[Amouth]

you put too much faith in the government for me - sorry but i don't trust them any more than i trust a company.

Personally if you want to snoop and see what you can dig up on me that is "public" information then feel free to do it - if i didn't want people to see it i wouldn't put it in a public place.

Re:Shocking.

[Ash Vince]

you put too much faith in the government for me - sorry but i don't trust them any more than i trust a company.

Personally if you want to snoop and see what you can dig up on me that is "public" information then feel free to do it - if i didn't want people to see it i wouldn't put it in a public place.

You did not seem to notice my point about lives being at stake. That is why government needs to vet certain employees more closely than if it were just profits as in the case of a company.

Re:Shocking.

[Amouth]

in industry lives are at stake too - crane operator? what about a boiler tech? there are a lot of jobs whose actions/functions put lives at stake..

Re:Shocking.

[Anonymous Coward]

there stupidity

"their".

Re:Shocking.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell are you spelling "think" as "thing"? (You've done it in at least two posts so far.) It's not like "g" is right next to "k".

Employer viewing public info is a privacy concern?

[Meshach]

I am all for privacy but everything posted on Facebook that is public is, by definition, public information. If a person wants to keep something private do not post it on Facebook!

What is next, banning Googling the name of a candidate/employee?

Can we have the same thing for government?

[tomhudson]

Just asking, because it seems that ... oh wait, someone's at the doo#(*(*@&@&NO_CARRIER

Re:Can we have the same thing for government?

[tqk]

I was just wondering what they would think if you showed up at the interview (assuming you were offered one) with the same sort of background check on the interviewer. Perhaps a few of those stories hitting the newspapers would get them to think twice about this practice.

Why are they even bothering to check credit histories of applicants? It's a recession, the guy's looking for a job to pay bills. What's his credit history got to do with employment (assuming he's not going to be handling money)?

Re:Can we have the same thing for government?

[xstonedogx]

Sounds like a great way to get a job. "So, Bill, I see you like cosplay. Transvestite cosplay. Interesting. So, what kind of salary are you offering?"

Re:Can we have the same thing for government?

[sconeu]

In the Defense world, it's done because someone with a large amount of debt or crappy credit score is a potential security risk. Good luck getting a security clearance with credit problems.

Re:Can we have the same thing for government?

[GrumblyStuff]

You bring up a good point. Not only should the interviewer come clean but we need background checks and social media reports on employees of the company doing the screening. Maybe their values and social life doesn't match the company that hired them!

Re:Can we have the same thing for government?

[dave562]

I do research on any company that I interview with. Especially in this market, it is important to understand as much about the company and their industry as possible. With LinkedIn you can even learn about the individuals who might be on your team or even be your boss. I take my employment seriously, and just as interviews will have questions for me, I will have questions for them. Mostly I focus on budgets, revenues, five year plans and things like that. If the company cannot demonstrate that they are A) in a good position and B) thinking long term, I do not have any interest in working there.

Just the other day I was approached by a recruiter looking to fill a sysadmin position that pays 115k a year. Sysadmin, 115k a year. Sounds good. Too bad they are in the digital projector business, and their many clients are movie theaters and the government. With the economy contracting, fewer people are going to movies. With the budget messes in Washington DC, there are going to be fewer and fewer large contracts for non-critical things like digital projectors. I took a pass on that position.

Re:Can we have the same thing for government?

[Alex Belits]

Why would a person with "crappy credit score" a potential security risk? A person with $2000 of debt on his remaining $3000 credit card, for whom some tiny credit union canceled his second credit card after some internal error, and a mortgage check was once delayed in the mail will have an awful credit score (67% debt! Default! Major delinquency!), but would any of this motivate someone to commit a serious crime?

Re:Can we have the same thing for government?

[sconeu]

"Just do this one little thing for me, and you got $5000. Nobody will know, and it won't hurt anyone."

Re:Can we have the same thing for government?

[tqk]

Sounds like a great way to get a job. "So, Bill, I see you like cosplay. Transvestite cosplay. Interesting. So, what kind of salary are you offering?"

I like it. :-)

"Assuming I get the job, no-one need hear about that, 'kay?"

Re:Can we have the same thing for government?

[Alex Belits]

Do you seriously believe that having a credit card debt equal to two-weeks salary would in any way affect someone's willingness to do that?

If anything, you posting this on Slashdot says more about your suitability for such a job (hi, NSA! nice to see you googling here!)

Re:Can we have the same thing for government?

[tqk]

In the Defense world, it's done because someone with a large amount of debt or crappy credit score is a potential security risk.

Yeah, but it's still wrong. As a male Homo Sapien, I'm potentially lots of things, including the next Galileo or Jeffrey Daumer.

It ought to be something that ongoing background checks keep tabs on. Is my debt load shrinking? Does my bank acct. show any odd financial transactions or is my spending outstripping my salary and not reflected in my bank transactions?

Do they want the best, or just grey, featureless drones who can fly under the radar (a la Aldrich Ames)?

Re:Can we have the same thing for government?

[tqk]

"Just do this one little thing for me, and you got $5000. Nobody will know, and it won't hurt anyone."

"Deal!"

Then wire the living daylights out of all potential future meeting places (the fibbies will be overjoyed for the chance to help with that), and I'm a hero.

Re:Can we have the same thing for government?

[tqk]

I like this too:

You bring up a good point. Not only should the interviewer come clean but we need background checks and social media reports on employees of the company doing the screening.

"Do you have any questions for us?[*]"

"Yes. As you've just admitted you've been digging into my private life to see if I'm suitable for you, I'd like access to your files on the people I'd be working with, up to and including the CEO, to ensure they'll be suitable for me. Don't worry, it'll all be kept confidential. If I'm placing my professional reputation on the line, I deserve to know who I'll be dealing with. It's only fair."

[*] I have never known what to do with that question. "Do you use version control? What's the ratio of "quitters" vs. "fired" among your former employees/contractors? Who were my potential supervisor's last five employers, and what are their references' contact details? Who've held this position in the past, and what are their contact details?"

Cackle. Evil grin. Bwa, ha, haaa! >:->

Re:Can we have the same thing for government?

[tomhudson]

The problem is that people are open to blackmail over debt because the screeners make it an issue.

It used to be the same for being gay or lesbian - it was possible to blackmail people over their sexual orientation because the screening process raised a red flag if you weren't straight.

The *proper* fix is to not use debt as part of the screening process. A person may have fantastic credit because they're mobbed up, a crook, a cheat, etc.

Screen based on their capabilities, nothing more. That ends the possibility of blackmail based on a person's personal life.

Re:Can we have the same thing for government?

[rts008]

I've been reading this thread with much amusement, having recently left work for the day(night? I work an odd shift), and this conversation has brought some well needed chuckles. Thanks. :-)

I have to say, you seem to have the imagination and creativity needed to become a true BOFH.
My hat's off to you, good sir/madam.

Re:Can we have the same thing for government?

[enrgeeman]

One issue. You agreed to the deal, and therefore you would lose your clearance and job.

Re:Can we have the same thing for government?

[tqk]

One issue. You agreed to the deal, and therefore you would lose your clearance and job.

No I didn't. I just said, "Deal!" That doesn't mean anything.

Besides, even if I did, the cops are allowed to lie through their teeth to catch the bad guys. I'm just doing what they do. Bad guys don't deserve the truth, nor do they have any right to expect it.

Re:Can we have the same thing for government?

[enrgeeman]

I agree with you, but the security training does say otherwise. You're supposed to not say yes or no, then report it, and do what you're told, which may or may not include a sting operation.

Re:Can we have the same thing for government?

[Bucky24]

I suspect if someone has a salary that high they probably don't have that much debt.

Re:Can we have the same thing for government?

[Anonymous Coward]

Philip J Fry, hmmmmnn, hold out your hand while I implant your career chip ...

Re:Employer viewing public info is a privacy conce

[compro01]

If a person wants to keep something private do not post it on Facebook!

Furthermore, spy on everyone who knows your name to ensure that they don't post anything about you.

whatever happened to common sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

What you post on Facebook or whatever is PUBLIC. It's viewable by anyone with a web browser.

You could, you know, THINK, and not post all that crap there in the first place if you don't want people to see it. I don't even have a "social media profile" and I don't seem to have any problems communicating online with friends and family. You don't *have* to fork over all your private data to some for-profit company.

But I guess people would rather do something with trivially obvious consequences and then blame other people when those obvious things happen. Why not just exercise a little common sense and personal responsibility? Can no one think, any more?

Re:whatever happened to common sense?

[JordanL]

There are those people, yes. And unfortunately, those people tend to talk about other people, and the things they say about other people ALSO show up.

Re:whatever happened to common sense?

[Erect Horsecock]

You can choose to believe this if you want, but you don't have to even have a social media presence to be affected by it. I went to a bachelor party of a close friend 2 years ago and at this party there were 3 strippers hired for "entertainment". Over the evening one fella had been taking pictures of the girls and us drinking, playing pin the tail on the stripper, and other things. Fast forward a couple years and the asshole ups them to facebook and then TAGS MY REAL NAME IN THEM.
So when I went to interview for IT at a local medical care company the part time minister (yes seriously) asked if I drank regularly or "partied", I said I had in the past but not recently "Oh?". I was fuming. I knew instantly what was going on and was pissed at myself and the son of a bitch that upped them. My new rule before applying for any job is spend a couple days on a search engine searching for my own name.

YMMV

Re:whatever happened to common sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your anger was misplaced. It should have been directed to the asshole who thinks you are a supplicant, not an applicant. An asshole who thinks your personal habits are any of his business at all.

A big part of the problem is that they can't fire alcoholics as easily as in the past, so they are more careful about hiring them.

Re:whatever happened to common sense?

[xstonedogx]

Agree. I can't imagine sitting in that interview and not being pissed at the douche who said "Oh?". I don't know if the GP walked out right then, but I would have.

I'd also have a little talk with my 'friend'. :)

Re:whatever happened to common sense?

[Erect Horsecock]

After he hit me with that he shuffled my resume and paperwork together and then proceeded to give me a tour of the facilities. This was less than 10 minutes after entering his office and sitting down. I knew that I had lost the job since the only real questions were about my personal life and such (Are you married? Why not? Do you have kids? etc) before walking me down to the IT closet to show me the hardware I would never even touch. It's typical in this part of the country (Kentucky) that if you aren't married then you better go to church and find someone to marry and pump out kids otherwise you'll never get anywhere in some job places.

He was a revival minister for several local churches and I've been told he imbibes in more than a few ways like all religious hypocrites. Oh well, I'm wiping my ass of this part of the country in the spring anyway. Fuck it.

Re:whatever happened to common sense?

[erroneus]

This isn't about what's available. It's about what you should and shouldn't be looking at. The race of a person is ALSO publicly available and yet there are laws against discriminating on that basis. In my view, what a person does in his/her free time is his/her personal business and discriminating on that basis should be equally actionable.

Let's talk about what this is really about -- unfair presumption, prejudice and discrimination. It's not about "just looking at what's out there" that is the problem -- it's how it's used to harm people and by whom.

Re:whatever happened to common sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you need to pick friends who won't do stupid shit to you like that.

I know that's easier said than done, but in a way it's true: we need to start putting social pressure on people to act responsibly online, and that means NOT violating your friends' privacy without their permission. That's a downright shitty way to treat somebody, and I think if it starts costing people their friendships, maybe they'll start to learn.

Re:whatever happened to common sense?

[xstonedogx]

I wonder why you were interviewed in the first place. What was the correct answer? "Oh yeah, all the time!" and then pull out a flask?

Re:whatever happened to common sense?

[Erect Horsecock]

I thought about that too and just chalked it up to late discovery of the pictures. I applied on Friday, was called on Monday, and interviewed on Wednesday. Somewhere between 3pm monday and 10am Wednesday they found the photos I guess.

Re:whatever happened to common sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's talk about what this is really about -- unfair presumption, prejudice and discrimination.

Exactly so.

The "need" for SN checks to weed out the variously defined bad apples is FUD perpetuated by power-hungry HR types and others eager to instill fear among job seekers and control people's behavior in general.

Re:whatever happened to common sense?

[Erect Horsecock]

I didn't make that clear in the OP (very tired from helping someone move) but the person who took the photos and uploaded them was not my friend having the bachelor party but a friend of his I barely knew. We went to the same high school (I was a senior and he a freshman) but never hung out with each other or anything.

Re:whatever happened to common sense?

[The Good Reverend]

This is exactly why you SHOULD have a social media presence, and monitor it. If you don't have an account, your real name can be used and you can be tagged that way. If you do have an account, you can set your privacy settings so when someone tags you, no one else sees that tag.

This extends into the non-social media world too. If you have a blog or other website that you use regularly, or post with your real name on sites like this, a Google search for your name will turn them up. If you're a slashdot-style Luddite and keep every record of your existence hidden, then any asshole can write your name on a web page and suddenly that's all you're known for. It's much better to own your name and control what your employer sees than let someone else do it for you.

Re:whatever happened to common sense?

[cheekyjohnson]

I don't know. Even though I agree that they shouldn't care, I don't think the guy that uploaded the photos and then tagged them without permission (to be "respectful" or something) is blameless.

Re:Employer viewing public info is a privacy conce

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo. A couple weeks ago some script kiddie sort-of-but-not-really hacked a poorly-secured website that we run. Someone in our company was tasked with tracking down who the guy was. The script kiddie made it easy--he posted about it on facebook, under an assumed name. And without so much as a whiff of law-enforcement help, the guy in our company figured out not only who he really is, but his address, his employer, his parents' address, the church he goes to, the name and contact information of the person who hired him, etc, etc, etc.

If you don't want something to become public, don't post it online. Personal responsibility FTW!

Wasn't there a guy who said "never put in writing what can be spoken, and never speak what can be communicated with a gesture"?

Why pick on Social Intelligence Corp?

[e9th]

Why pick on Social Intelligence Corp? Let the feds clean their own house first and get rid of the Patriot Act. Then they can go after the small-time privacy infringers.

Re:Why pick on Social Intelligence Corp?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why pick on Social Intelligence Corp?

Because it can be used against Congresspeople, their staffers, and their lobbyists. SIC is just democratizing what the NSA/CIA/FBI have been doing for the past 10+ years, and that just cannot be tolerated.

Re:Why pick on Social Intelligence Corp?

[hedwards]

We don't get to vote for Social Intelligence Corp's executive officers. We do get to vote for the various politicians that voted for the Patriot Act, on top of that those politicians appointed most of the judges that are responsible for hearing suits and appeals relevant to it. I'm not aware of any similar power with SIC.

You'll notice that it's only a couple Senators that are looking into it, far fewer than the 51 Senators needed to pass a repeal or the 60 that are needed with the GOP's inevitable filibuster.

Re:Employer viewing public info is a privacy conce

[Theaetetus]

I am all for privacy but everything posted on Facebook that is public is, by definition, public information. If a person wants to keep something private do not post it on Facebook!

However, making copies of that public information may violate intellectual property laws.

Stop posting deeply sensitive material online

[Synerg1y]

It's as simple as showing some self control. Those pics from the party? Text them to your friends, don't post them online. Those naked pics? Don't text or post them online. It's that easy, exceptttt human nature factors in and people will be people, and NOT CARE that some creepy internet firm is harvesting this information.

Then again seriously, what kind of employer cares, I understand not wanting to hire a robber at a bank, or on a very long string, somebody w/ defaulted credit, but people's personal lives should not be a candidate as they have nothing to do w/ work performance, some people even react differently to tragedy in terms of their work, it's just not accurately measurable.

On that note, I'll be keeping my fb private and not adding management to my friends group!!

Re:Stop posting deeply sensitive material online

[Bloopie]

Those pics from the party? Text them to your friends, don't post them online.

No matter. Your friends, who have no conception of any need for privacy and would look at you blankly if you even brought up the matter, took their own photos at the party. And you were in them. And they will post them for all the world to see, without it ever crossing their mind that that could possibly be a bad thing.

Re:Stop posting deeply sensitive material online

[JonySuede]

If being a picture of you at a party is a bad thing at you work, please change of workplace;
now if the said picture, was showing you snorting cocaine off a naked prostitute back, please stop doing that, it is degrading to women and it's a waste of good cocaine !

Re:Stop posting deeply sensitive material online

[Synerg1y]

Facebook recently implemented something to address that, I believe you can untag yourself now from a friend's photos. Doesn't stop the friend from posting the crap, but it stops the troll from finding it :)

http://www.facebook.com/blog.php?post=467145887130

Re:Stop posting deeply sensitive material online

[Anonymous Coward]

But then you have people like my brother and myself who collects guns (mini 14, Tommy guns, real nice long range rifles, pistols, ARs, etc) because we grew up hunting and shooting. All are kept locked up in safes so no one can access them without our knowledge, practice and teach safety first to anyone we take out with us, reload our own ammo etc.

He has a bunch of pictures from gun ranges online, or posting with some of his collection. An employer may not hire him based on those pictures thinking he's a nut, even though that's completely incorrect. Plus its fully legal to have the guns he has... so they couldn't claim a legal grounds for not hiring him either.

So why shouldn't he be able to take and post the pictures of his collection, or shooting skills, etc without having to fear something like not being hired? Its not different than someone who collected cars and posts their photos of them with their collection...

Re:Stop posting deeply sensitive material online

[Cwix]

Once its tagged, its been archived.

You face has been scanned and entered in to a database that will be used for a new feature.. auto tagging.

Maybe not yet, but I think its the logical outcome.
So while the bots crawl facebook and tag every picture, you get to manually crawl facebook to untag them.

Re:Stop posting deeply sensitive material online

[Bucky24]

It's possible to prevent people from tagging you in pictures. I'm not sure if this stops the autotagger though.

Re:Employer viewing public info is a privacy conce

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried snapping my fingers...but my wife just blew up!

Common sense is lagging, not lacking.

[PeanutButterBreath]

Its not yet "common sense" to assume that employers are going to rummage through your personal life, even if they can.

After all, that is just a damned creepy thing for an employer to do to its employees, even if it is feasible and legal.

Re:Employer viewing public info is a privacy conce

[Meeni]

Distributing copies, which they might do when they disclose the report, but that could be worked around by giving only short citations of the "work".

Don't worry, Principal Skinner has your back...

[Tumbleweed]

"A certain ... agitator. For privacy's sake, let's call her 'Lisa S.' No, that's too obvious, let's say, 'L. Simpson.'"

Yeah right... and then they hire some 'lobbyists'.

[Anonymous Coward]

And then they hire some lobbyists to go to DC and line a few CONgressional pockets with "campaign donations", and any objections will get watered down to the point that the bill protects their right to do it.

Sen Franken

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it difficult to take him seriously.

Re:Employer viewing public info is a privacy conce

[Meshach]

I am all for privacy but everything posted on Facebook that is public is, by definition, public information. If a person wants to keep something private do not post it on Facebook!

However, making copies of that public information may violate intellectual property laws.

That would make all browser histories / search engine caches / proxy server's illegal. What is not permitted is distributing content in a way that violates the copyright holders rights.

Re:Employer viewing public info is a privacy conce

[xstonedogx]

The only value I can even see in seeking out this information is to get around the fact that they can't fire alcoholics as easily as in the past. Someone looks like they party? Well, they might be an alcoholic, let's not hire them. It's that absurd. But allow them to gather this information (no matter how public) and we're coming to this:

I won't hire you because you can't see the difference between acting on public information and actively seeking out personal information that happens to be public.
I won't hire you because you talk about Google online. We are a competitor!
I won't hire you because you quote Aldous Huxley! I think you are smarter than me!

Re:Employer viewing public info is a privacy conce

[Baloroth]

Well, Al Franken is a comedian...

Fake name

[sconeu]

That's already a violation of Facebook's TOS.

Re:Fake name

[Anonymous Coward]

For everyone using a second account with a fake name - you're kidding yourself if you think this makes you safer. All it takes is for one friend from your fake named acct to mention your real name/nick name or other linkable info and all your effort is for nothing. Even a pic of your real face on one of your fake name account's friends will be enough considering the facial matching apps that are already available. Unless all your friends are always as careful as you asked them to be, you're not as safe as you think you are. You do know for sure don't you?

Re:Employer viewing public info is a privacy conce

[Anonymous Coward]

I am all for privacy but everything posted on Facebook that is public is, by definition, public information. If a person wants to keep something private do not post it on Facebook!

However, making copies of that public information may violate intellectual property laws.

That would make all browser histories / search engine caches / proxy server's illegal. What is not permitted is distributing content in a way that violates the copyright holders rights.

The astute reader would see no distinction between what you said and I what I said, since I never claimed that browser histories were illegal.

Can you say "Copyright Infringement"?

[maz2331]

Facebook posts are copyrighted by the poster, the same as any newspaper article or photograph is, and if they use those copyrighted works in their reports, they are infringing - and good luck trying to make a fair use exemption fly if sued over it.

Re:Can you say "Copyright Infringement"?

[Kirijini]

That's an excellent point, and I'd mod up if I had points.

Facebook can sublicense your info to a third party ("you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook"), but that sub sublicense necessarily terminates when facebook's does - when/if you remove the info ("This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account..."), though there may be a loophole if you've "shared" the info with others ("...unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it"). What does "shared with others" mean? I dunno, but I imagine it means posting on a friends wall, or something of that sort.

Re:Can you say "Copyright Infringement"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, right! From Facebook's TOS...

"You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof."

Re:Can you say "Copyright Infringement"?

[Alex Belits]

Facts are not copyrighted, so this is not relevant. If anything, trying to enforce copyright would encourage "creative interpretation" of Facebook posts by such "investigators".

Re:Can you say "Copyright Infringement"?

[Tim C]

The original point still stands - you own the copyright on your posts, photos, etc, and grant Facebook a licence as described.

You have not granted Social Intelligence Corp any licence at all, so unless Facebook have they are quite possibly infringing. (IANAL of course)

Re:Can you say "Copyright Infringement"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright doesn't control the information in a post, only the form the expression takes. A report that merely describes the post would not have any danger of infringing copyright.

Re:Can you say "Copyright Infringement"?

[venril]

Facebook posts are copyrighted by the poster, the same as any newspaper article or photograph is, and if they use those copyrighted works in their reports, they are infringing - and good luck trying to make a fair use exemption fly if sued over it.

Uhm, no.

From FB TOS http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf

2 Sharing Your Content and Information

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:

1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

2. When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).

3. When you use an application, your content and information is shared with the application. We require applications to respect your privacy, and your agreement with that application will control how the application can use, store, and transfer that content and information. (To learn more about Platform, read our Privacy Policy and Platform Page.)

4. When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).

...

Why doesn't copyright extend to Social Media?

[ad454]

If corporations can get indefinite copyright protection for everything under the sun, why can't individuals get the same protections?

A user should be able to copyright their social profile postings, browsing history, purchasing habits, etc., and sue any corporation that uses it without authorization. Just because something is on the Internet does not mean that the rights holder gives up their copyright.

If a company like Sony music puts a song on the Internet for others to download, perhaps as a promotion, then a movie studio would not automatically have permission to use that song in a commercial film without written permission. So why can't I sue these online check firms for using my personal data without my written authorization?

Re:Why doesn't copyright extend to Social Media?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because your personal data is a bunch of facts, not an expressive work. Facts are not copyrightable.

Re:Why doesn't copyright extend to Social Media?

[digital photo]

the problem is that it isn't facts that the company is limiting its storing to, but postings by people on web and other social media sites.

There is also the problem of:
- dataset poisoning
- information taken out of context
- guilt through association
- account hacking

There also appears to be no way for someone to clarify or otherwise refute incorrect data.

They are opening themselves up to defamation lawsuits.

Re:Why doesn't copyright extend to Social Media?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the European Union you can do that with a good chance of success. In the United States you generally can't as it has a "different approach" to these issues. Which largely entails giving corporations whatever they want, and not much else.

Re:Why doesn't copyright extend to Social Media?

[failedlogic]

Write everything about yourself in a book format. Hmmmm.... that's an Autobiography. Copyright the book. Ta-daa, your life story is now copyrighted.

Re:Why doesn't copyright extend to Social Media?

[Anonymous Coward]

If corporations can get indefinite copyright protection for everything under the sun, why can't individuals get the same protections?

A good question. However ... Aren't corporations legally individuals now under the law in the US?

Re:Why doesn't copyright extend to Social Media?

[Anonymous Coward]

Terms of Service. The TOS for Youtube, Facebook, and most other sites that depend on "user-generated content" generally say that by uploading something, you give them ownership of it. If not ownership, then at least an "unlimited royalty-free license to modify, use, redistribute, sub-license, and make little origami ducks out of your Content (including in advertising material)". As such, Facebook might have a copyright infringement claim, but you probably don't.

Purchasing habits with a single vendor don't look very hopeful to me, either. The law generally treats companies like people (in that they can own property, enter into contracts, etc). If you went to Maw and Paw's General Store, there's no reason why Maw and Paw couldn't remember what you bought and speculate about what you were going to do with it. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Your browsing history across multiple sites is a different matter. Someone could see any one transaction you make in a brick and mortar store, but seeing all the transactions you make during a shopping trip would be stalking. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the whole, even if you don't with regard to any one part. Seems to me that the same principle should apply online.

Re:Why doesn't copyright extend to Social Media?

[MacWiz]

"If a company like Sony music puts a song on the Internet for others to download..."

Okay, now THAT is funny!

Re:Why doesn't copyright extend to Social Media?

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyrights COST money to "defend," and do not offer the same stringent protection that trademarks do. Social networks provide a different issue: "understanding what is not protected by copyright, including names, titles, simple recipes, short phrases, and ideas" (see this link).

Nothing given to us for free comes with any REAL rights, especially when you want those rights *by proxy.* Where henceforth referred to by the social network EULA as "the free-loaders" who think they can store those "names, titles, simple recipies and short phrases" indefinitely without anything to lose. We must remember that the services claim ownership of anything and everything you post --just like many employers who claim ownership of any of the unrelated code that you create AT HOME while "inspired" by being under their payroll.

Re:Why doesn't copyright extend to Social Media?

[Anonymous Coward]

'cause they have a sh**load more lawyers and money than you.

AC

Re:Why doesn't copyright extend to Social Media?

[xenobyte]

Because your personal data is a bunch of facts, not an expressive work. Facts are not copyrightable.

Turn your facts into a song or similar... Presto! - You have copyright for a few centuries (because they'll keep on extended it).

Re:Why doesn't copyright extend to Social Media?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because individuals (usually) don't have $millions to spend on lobbyists and lawyers.

Re:Why doesn't copyright extend to Social Media?

[Anonymous Coward]

read the tos

Re:Why doesn't copyright extend to Social Media?

[Rexdude]

I'd say it depends on whether or not you waive your rights to your own data when you sign up for the service, or allow them carte blanche to share it with 3rd parties.

No, it's not creepy

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

After all, that is just a damned creepy thing for an employer to do to its employees, even if it is feasible and legal.

I hire people to exercise fiduciary responsibility over large sums of money. I want to make very certain they don't have substance abuse, gambling, or other problems that could lead to temptations. Since I already do DOJ background and credit checks, there's nothing creepy about a Google/social media check. I also check the references you list and call the previous employers from whom you do not list a reference. Anything less is just sloppy hiring practice.

Re:No, it's not creepy

[number11]

I hire people to exercise fiduciary responsibility over large sums of money. I want to make very certain they don't have substance abuse, gambling, or other problems that could lead to temptations. Since I already do DOJ background and credit checks, there's nothing creepy about a Google/social media check. I also check the references you list and call the previous employers from whom you do not list a reference. Anything less is just sloppy hiring practice.

And since anyone coming to work for you is placing their trust in your company's financial stability and your own record of paying employees for time worked, it is only reasonable for them to do the same searches on you and the company principals and top executives. Right?

Re:No, it's not creepy

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Right! The more preparation and due diligence they have done before the interview, the better. They should check me out if they're going to work for me.

idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Franken is an idiot.

Re:Employer viewing public info is a privacy conce

[GrumblyStuff]

...but Michele Bachmann is the one making everyone laugh (then cry).

Re:Employer viewing public info is a privacy conce

[erroneus]

Actually, it is a privacy concern. Context is an important line between professional and personal life.

And let's turn the tables on these companies who think there is no such line. 1. Let's use company resources to do personal things. 2. Let's stalk the HR and C-level employees and print out various tid-bits of data that is discovered. A little of that goose vs gander should put things into proper perspective.

Respect needs to go two ways or it's not good respect. If your employer doesn't respect you, then what you are in is more along the lines of master-slave isn't it?

People worry about odd things

[The Good Reverend]

In the end, a company like this can only get a hold of web accessible information - i.e., information you (or someone else) puts out there.

But there are dozens of major companies out there that compile profiles on individuals based on public records, credit scores, social networking, police records, and private marketing data - you've got much more to "worry" about (if you're prone to such worrying) from them than you are from someone who's just looking at what you post publicly on Facebook.

Anyone can get an account with Lexis Nexis, among others, who compile data like this into handy little reports. The vast majority of it is public record, but anyone paranoid about something like Facebook would be scared shitless about all the information available in one place from companies like this.

Re:People worry about odd things

[dave562]

This is a good point. Lexis Nexis is no joke. I did not realize quite how evil they were until I was working for a non-profit, and the Lexis Nexis people were offering to profile the donors to the non-profit. They were going to provide metrics on their "capacity to give" based on a whole slew of semi-public financial information like real estate holdings, trusts, etc.

Re:People worry about odd things

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true. For our lead generation system (purchased through another vendor) I can tell you a lot about yourself...home ownership, income level, children, areas you've ordered products online from, general investment history, who your neighbors are, industry you work in, among a TON of other info. We only use a small portion of this data in a general sense to sort prospects that are likely to be interested. But we live in a computerized world and info about all of us is out there whether or not a person tries to keep it private. I echo everyone else in saying....don't be stupid on fb and understand and make use of a site's or company's privacy policy and then decide to be apart of that site or not. I think the issue is a company compiling all of that info about us in one convenient little report. Used for ethical purposes is one thing but anyone can subscribe to different companies and access this info for who knows what reasons.

Lobbying

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they advertising for donations from Google and Facebook?

I second the "idiots" volley

[EmagGeek]

Stuff you post on Facebook and elsewhere on the Internet is generally public. You know it is public, and you know you have no right to privacy for things you post in public.

If you don't want to get fired for the stupid crap you do, don't paste it permanently in public for everyone to see.

Re:I second the "idiots" volley

[nausicaa]

Well, the thing is, if it's not illegal, it shouldn't matter. If they use your opinion/religion/political views/favorite sports team/hobbies/whatever for something like this.. I honestly don't know what I'd do if they do it to me.. Of course, there are jobs where a bad credit rating, criminal record of a certain kind, etc, is a liability, but there are limits to what is relevant.

My view is.. boycott these kinds of employers

[Anonymous Coward]

If an employer doesn't want to employ me based off some social media info, than that employer's business practices are rather sketchy. The only thing that he should worry about is if the person he is hiring is able to work with his team and is qualified to do the job. What I may or may not post on some forum has nothing to do with him at all.

Therefore, boycott these kinds of employers. They will have no employees and fail miserably.

Re:My view is.. boycott these kinds of employers

[MLease]

Well, with the workplace violence and harassment issues that make a big splash in the news, an employer could be found negligent if they don't do a certain amount of background checking. You hire some guy who posts neo-Nazi crap or BDSM stuff on his Facebook page, and then he turns around and does something to another employee, you're gonna be held liable for hiring him.

Sometimes, you just can't win.

-Mike

Also misguided.

[PeanutButterBreath]

Just read around this thread and you will see how trivial it is for someone with actual malign intent to circumvent your social media check. The only people you snare are people who can't or don't want to hide anything. So you may "catch" the gambler who has done nothing wrong (gambling is not necessarily illegal) but might rip you off and be easily caught, but miss the embezzler who intends to rip you off and has a plan to get away with it.

It's creepy.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm worth a considerable amount. I'm also single. Beyond my personal health and safety I have a financial interest in making sure the women I date aren't out to screw me (well, in one sense). Do I stalk them before dating them? Fuck no, because I'm not a creep. Seriously, what if I said, "I already do a DOJ background check and credit check on them. So it's not creepy that I also stalk them on Facebook." I wouldn't want to practice sloppy dating practice! Or maybe I would. Too many double entendres when talking about dating...

What can you possibly learn from social networking that you can't learn from a DOJ background check, interview, and references? Nothing that is your business or will affect your business.

Sorry, but I just don't buy that you can tell someone has a substance abuse problem by a couple facebook posts. And even if you can, if their record is clean and their work record is exemplary, why does it even matter?

It's not about avoiding "sloppy hiring practice" it's about you (or whoever made this policy) having a personal problem with activity Y or just being a snoop.

Google Recaptcha Irony

[econolog]

http://imageshack.us/f/853/socialintelligence.jpg/

Re:Employer viewing public info is a privacy conce

[bigstrat2003]

This has nothing to do with whether the information is public or private. It has everything to do with the fact that if it happens outside of a person's job, it is none of their employer's goddamn business. If you choose to be married or single, that is (or might be) public information, but it's still illegal to not hire you based upon it.

So they're claiming its illegal...

[mysidia]

To mine publicly available information that cannot be considered "private" due to it being published? And present that information in a bundle to a paying customer based on search criteria....

Re:Employer viewing public info is a privacy conce

[surmak]

I am all for privacy but everything posted on Facebook that is public is, by definition, public information. If a person wants to keep something private do not post it on Facebook!

Most of what is on Facebook is not public. There is an access control system that, by default, limits your posts to friend of friends. You can adjust the permissions of every post to be accessible to whatever set of people you desire. I realize that they will do data mining, but that information is only used internally to target ads. I have no problem with any of this.

What I do have a problem with is when Facebook violates the agreement or when someone (a potential employer, for example) requires that you friend them as a condition for (continued) employment or any other reason.

Re:Employer viewing public info is a privacy conce

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, well when I tried snapping my fingers, your wife just blew me.

Re:Employer viewing public info is a privacy conce

[yuhong]

Yea, the illusion the celebrities are perfect is a bad idea, and I have been saying it for a while now.

Fortunately, I am an engineer.

[woodsrunner]

Facebook is a fake passport you self publish with engineered data. Better alma mater, highlights from my interesting past, fabrications of even more fantastic stuff. Friends with many olympians, nobel laureates, and big wigs, post in many languages. Don't really dwell on my living in a trailer, meth use or criminale past. No mention of life on the pogue, binge drinking, whoring or gambling... just well engineered posts of my frequent workouts and workday successes.

Re:Fortunately, I am an engineer.

[AliasMarlowe]

Facebook is a fake passport you self publish with engineered data. Better alma mater, highlights from my interesting past, fabrications of even more fantastic stuff. Friends with many olympians, nobel laureates, and big wigs, post in many languages.

Nice technique! I'm also an engineer (PhD), but averse to such immoderate self-aggrandizement.
The truth is in my LinkedIn profile, which contains no links to any pseudonymous accounts or references to any nom-de-net that I use. Even there, I don't present any links to our home web server, which is separate from all other web presences.

A bunch of bogus empty accounts exist on FaceBook, all with my real name or common mis-spellings of it (my name is quite distinctive, so this was a necessary defensive move). I have two Google+ accounts: one of them has my real name and is otherwise utterly empty - no friends/circles/content whatsoever; the other involves a pseudonym and is mostly empty. Similar pseudonyms are in use on a few other sites, none linking to either LinkedIn or our home server.

An aggregator might still make a link between some of these, but I take measures to make it difficult. I appear to be in two countries, use multiple PCs and browsers, all cookies (including LSOs) and history are cleared regularly, and so forth. Any ads I see online are usually irrelevant - health clubs, sushi offers, ballet shoes, American cars, and suchlike, and mostly in the wrong continent (especially the lawyers and life insurance).

Re:Employer viewing public info is a privacy conce

[antdude]

Or don't post anything online on the Internet!

Re:Employer viewing public info is a privacy conce

[rts008]

Hear! Hear!

BTW, I just tried to add you to my 'friends' list, but it did not work for some reason...
Wow, you really ARE stealthy! ;-)

Re:Employer viewing public info is a privacy conce

[cerberusss]

If a person wants to keep something private do not post it on Facebook!

That is one way. The other way is to have fun on Facebook, but maintain the correct privacy settings.

Better yet

[sourcerror]

Hiding from Google Streetview in your mom's basement.

More importantly

[xenobyte]

Would you want to work for a company that discriminate against your political views, sexual preferences or similar completely irrelevant things?

Hiding and faking things won't work in the long run and if you get caught later, the consequences are worse. Not only will you most likely get fired (either due to the screening matters itself or to the fact that your lied and hid it), but if your next employer screens you in relation to your previous employer they'll also know both your 'quirks' and that your tried to hide it by lying etc. - not too smart.

Re:More importantly

[CCarrot]

Would you want to work for a company that discriminate against your political views, sexual preferences or similar completely irrelevant things?

Hiding and faking things won't work in the long run and if you get caught later, the consequences are worse. Not only will you most likely get fired (either due to the screening matters itself or to the fact that your lied and hid it), but if your next employer screens you in relation to your previous employer they'll also know both your 'quirks' and that your tried to hide it by lying etc. - not too smart.

I'm sorry, are job interviewers allowed to ask about political views or sexual preference during a job interview where you come from?

As far as I'm concerned, a person's 'quirks' are none of an employers' business, unless those quirks affect the person's job performance. It is not 'lying' to use an alias online (like, oh, I don't know, 'xenobyte' for example), it is simply preserving your privacy in a post-Google cyberworld. The people you intend to share this information with will know who you are online, others (stalkers, employers, old ex-girlfriends, etc.) won't, simple as that. That way you can share your pride in your lifetime Beanie Baby Fan Club membership, without having to worry that someone will hold it against you IRL. :o)

Well...

[mfh]

If you put something online, then it's public. If your friends put something up about you, then it's also public.

No, you don't. And I'd rather not work for you, if you think you do.

My thoughts on this are that if you rely on employment rather than self-sufficiency you're missing out on something really cool happening. Regardless of everyone's age, I think we all grew up with the urgency to get a better education to get a better job. The problem with that is if everyone is equal, then nobody is better than anyone else. That means the contest comes down to who wants it or not.

Then shady types take over the job market and we see all the stuff happening in the world of finance where entire companies are folding because the rule of employment is to WANT IT more than anyone without knowing if you really should do so ethically or not.

Doing everything yourself is not new. It's really old. But guess what? It's the new oldness and it's going to change everything.

One day we'll all need to figure that part out, most likely. And those of you who are entrepreneurial are learning that DIY holds a large portion of the ebook market so it's awesome extra cash there.

My point is: we're entering an era where it will not matter what people think about your social profile because they will try to use it against you but the general public won't care about anything other than really big shocking things like the fact someone caught you drowning puppies.

Re:Employer viewing public info is a privacy conce

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just set your facbook stuff to "friends only".

You are spot on!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are spot on! Social Intelligence Corp is simply gather publicly available data and people need to wake up to the potential problems of spilling their guts. I have friends in law enforcement and face book is HUGE (free) intelligence gathering tool. There must at least a couple dumb criminals for every cunning criminal. IMO the the democrat senators are absolutely wrong on this. Social Intelligence Corp is completely legal and the senators are attempting to stifle freedom in the market.

Franken is a senator from my state and everyone who did not vote for him is embarrassed by him.

     

Trolling Social Net vs Hiring a P.I.

[Jumperalex]

"What you post on Facebook or whatever is PUBLIC. It's viewable by anyone with a web browser."

True indeed. But lots of "public" information is still not information that potential employers should (should = we as a society agree as a matter of polite society) nor are allowed (allowed = we as a society agree as a matter of law).

Don't quite see the connection? Ok let me ask you this. Before social media, would you think it ok for an employer to hire a P.I. to investigate you? Ignoring jobs requiring security where they do infact do that using a government "P.I." Even if that P.I. got the exact same social media available info by say, rumaging through your legally "public" trash? Following you to your local watering hole to observe your behavior? See what Church, or politcal groups you belong to?

If you said yes you think that would have been OK, then we are done talking because then you are at least being intellectually honest. On the other hand, if you think that would perhaps not be OK, then I ask you, "What is the difference?" Just because social media has made it easier and cheaper does not change the idea that it is wrong for a company to go digging into your personal life (note I didn't say private) about topics which have no bearing on your work performance. That is as opposed to credit and criminal past when applying for certain positions of public trust.

Re:Employer viewing public info is a privacy conce

[knorthern knight]

> Wasn't there a guy who said "never put in writing what
> can be spoken,
> and never speak what can be communicated with a gesture"?

Eliot Spitzer's "Golden Rule" as per http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/28/news/newsmakers/goldenrule_biz20_1205/index.htm

"Never write when you can talk. Never talk when you can nod. And never put anything in an e-mail."

He should have also added added that if you're a politician, don't fuck anybody but your wife...

* Eliot Spitzer
* Arnold Schwarzenegger
* Al Gore

marker for discretion

[nerdpocalypse]

And nobody is making it illegal nor very difficult to make an entirely fake online persona. Personally, most jobs I have had require a certain amount of social IQ*, this is a marker for people lacking that skill set. If my employees are either total party-tards or unable to put up a professional artificial front, they are really dangerous to me and my business. *LYING.