Senators Slam Firm For Online Background Check 196
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."
Shocking. (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Smarter people are doing like Neutron Cowboy, living under assumed IDs. Some of us just don't give a rat's arse about
Re: (Score:2)
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 the
Re:Shocking. (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 wel
Re: (Score:2)
.. 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
Re: (Score:2)
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 po
Re: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
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 som
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 dr
Re: (Score:2)
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. (Score:5, 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.
Re:Shocking. (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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 m
Re: (Score:2)
The Gizmodo article is http://gizmodo.com/5818774/this-is-a-social-media-background-check [gizmodo.com]
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 emplo
Fortunately, I am an engineer. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 mov
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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. (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoops, that report is not in TFA, it's on a page linked to in TFA (here [socialmediatoday.com]).
Re: (Score:3)
A political body fails to demonstrate the type of action it requires of others?
Shocking.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Fake name (Score:2)
That's already a violation of Facebook's TOS.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 ca
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
So
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Employer viewing public info is a privacy concern? (Score:3)
What is next, banning Googling the name of a candidate/employee?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 h
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
...but Michele Bachmann is the one making everyone laugh (then cry).
Re: (Score:2)
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, t
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, the illusion the celebrities are perfect is a bad idea, and I have been saying it for a while now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 y
Re: (Score:2)
Or don't post anything online on the Internet!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Can we have the same thing for government? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
"Just do this one little thing for me, and you got $5000. Nobody will know, and it won't hurt anyone."
Re: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Don't worry, Principal Skinner has your back... (Score:3)
"A certain ... agitator. For privacy's sake, let's call her 'Lisa S.' No, that's too obvious, let's say, 'L. Simpson.'"
Can you say "Copyright Infringement"? (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 wi
Why doesn't copyright extend to Social Media? (Score:4, 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?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
"If a company like Sony music puts a song on the Internet for others to download..."
Okay, now THAT is funny!
Re: (Score:3)
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.
People worry about odd things (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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.
So they're claiming its illegal... (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 ma
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Common sense is lagging, not lacking. (Score:2)
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.
No, it's not creepy (Score:2)
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.
Also misguided. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 filibuste
Re: (Score:2)
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