Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senators Slam Firm For Online Background Check

Posted by Soulskill on from the please-defend-this-comment-you-posted-8-years-ago dept.

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."

6 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. Shocking. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    1. Re:Shocking. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:Shocking. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  2. Re:Employer viewing public info is a privacy conce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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"?

  3. Can you say "Copyright Infringement"? by maz2331 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Why doesn't copyright extend to Social Media? by ad454 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?