Can posting here ...

[kenny weir]

As a current job seeker, this story - in today's Melbourne Age - gave me pause for thought.

Happily, I don't think anything I've posted here or elsewhere would/will harm me.

But still ... and it makes me see merit in not using one's own name on BBs.

Too late for that now, eh, Kenny? You freaking jerk. That's K-E-N-N-Y, followed by Weir, W-E-I-R.

Sheesh!

*****************

Digging up dirt: Facebook spies for hire

Asher Moses

April 17, 2009 - 10:17AM

Large companies and government departments are employing a new Sydney-based company to dig up dirt on staff by spying on Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and YouTube posts.

SR7 specialises in "online risk and reputation management" and claims to be the only company in Australia that actively monitors social networking sites on behalf of companies.

It was formed about eight months ago in response to the growing trend for people to take conversations they would have traditionally had with mates at the pub on to their social network profiles.

Few people realise these seemingly private sites are still public spaces. If controversial posts leak to the media, it can lead to brands suffering immense damage to their reputations.

SR7 director James Griffin said business was booming following recent public relations disasters sparked by the stupid social network behaviour of a few rogue employees. The firm's clients included "a number of blue-chip companies in a variety of industries" and "government departments and agencies".

This week, two Domino's employees were sacked and arrested after they published videos of themselves on the web fouling up customers' food. Late last year, three scantily clad Californian teens were fired from their jobs at KFC for publishing photos of themselves on MySpace bathing in a KFC basin.

But these are extreme cases, and there are scores of other instances where staff have been disciplined for seemingly innocuous posts, such as announcing in their Facebook status that they are tired of work.

David Vaile, executive director of UNSW's Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre, believes SR7 may be acting unethically and said he suspected companies were using dirt gathered from social networking sites as an excuse to fire people due to the challenging economic climate.

He said the practice could backfire when the economy turns around as people would refuse to work for or trust companies that spied on staff.

He said the issue raised questions over where the boundary is between public and private comments.

"The boss is operating on the basis that this is some sort of global publication that reflects on their company, but that's not the intention of the person," said Vaile.

"It's not the person pretending to be a spokesperson for the company, they're just letting of steam, everyone does it, you hear it in the pub - maybe employers have just got to handle it."

Griffin acknowledged privacy concerns but said companies had a right to protect their brand and reputation online.

"If there's a competitor or if it's a company of interest to a journalist and they stumble across [controversial posts], then it's out there and it's gone," he said.

"I think that whilst employees have the right to have their personal conversations, if they're going to mention or say something or do something ridiculous online in relation to a company, then that's what they've got to deal with."

Griffin argued that monitoring social networking sites was no different to using traditional tools such as Media Monitors, which tracks online and print media reports.

Griffin said the company used both automated tools and human analysis. Once SR7 has met with the client and discussed potential risks, an automated system searches social networking sites and blogs for certain keywords.

Results are then analysed by staff members, who can provide reports to the client on a weekly or daily basis.

Griffin said that for sites like Facebook, where communications are more nuanced, human analysts would scour the site, staff members' profiles and related groups for questionable postings. He did not agree that this was an invasion of privacy because people could change their privacy settings to prevent outsiders from viewing their posts.

"If their privacy settings are set so it's publicly viewable for Joe Average to go on there then yes, we will do that," he said.

Vaile said people, especially younger age groups, did not yet appreciate the legal, professional and commercial consequences of publishing material on the web. He called on social networking sites to modify their terms of use to say that "comments are not intended for industrial reporting or extraction for republication elsewhere".

Steven Penning, a partner with Turner Freeman with two decades of experience in workplace law, has said people who are sacked over social network comments could have grounds to file an unfair dismissal claim, as employment contracts rarely cover staff use of social networking sites.

"What employers are doing is they're scrambling and trying to make out that present policies can be stretched to cover these new areas, and in many respects they can't," Penning said.

[Joe G]

I have to wonder about my young cousin, now attending college. The most recent thing I saw her put up on facebook was a photo album of her very own "hash bash". Not the wisest of moves, afaic.

[clifford_thornton]

I'm sorry and call me insensitive, but if it were a company that would fire me over a facebook profile, it's not one I'd want to work for anyway.

[Hot Ptah]

I know people who work for large companies and they say that all of their employers routinely check the Facebook and MySpace sites of everyone who is interviewed for a job.

[Jazzmoose]

Well, if you damned kids had just stayed off my lawn and off of that internet thingie...

[ejp626]

I know people who work for large companies and they say that all of their employers routinely check the Facebook and MySpace sites of everyone who is interviewed for a job.

If you're stupid enough to post damaging and even criminal goings on on the web, you just have very poor judgement. And this might carry over into work. I know a lawyer who got canned for what she had written in an email (can't recall if it was a work email or personal email). The problem is that young people make very poor decisions all the time. It is part of growing up, but now the evidence is there floating about forever (nothing really disappears on the Web).

[Tom Storer]

What you put on the web is public. We should never forget that. Therefore, refrain from posting anything that is potentially embarassing, be it compromising photographs, foul-mouthed diatribes, admissions of extreme, illegal or unethical behavior, etc. If you're on Facebook, configure your privacy settings to allow only your "friends" to see what you post.

A gray area is discussing your politics, religion, or sexuality, for example on a message board. Of course there will be times when a prospective employer, having googled you, will say, "This person is a conservative/liberal/monarchist/radical; a religious fanatic/one of those atheists/a religion I don't like; a homosexual/heterosexual/fetishist/prude. Therefore, I will reject this candidacy." Does that mean we should avoid talking on the web about these things? Or just be glad we don't end up working for people who are ready to reject us for such reasons?

[BruceH]

Well, if you damned kids had just stayed off my lawn and off of that internet thingie...

"Get off my internet lawn, dagnabbit!"

[medjuck]

My son posted something I thought was inappropriate on his Facebook page. I e-mailed him to tell him what I thought. His response was to remove me as a "friend" on Facebook so I can no longer see his page.

Edited April 17, 2009 by medjuck

[Tom Storer]

That'll teach you: no good deed goes unpunished!

[Niko]

A gray area is discussing your politics, religion, or sexuality, for example on a message board. Of course there will be times when a prospective employer, having googled you, will say, "This person is a conservative/liberal/monarchist/radical; a religious fanatic/one of those atheists/a religion I don't like; a homosexual/heterosexual/fetishist/prude. Therefore, I will reject this candidacy." Does that mean we should avoid talking on the web about these things?

Or just be glad we don't end up working for people who are ready to reject us for such reasons?

i like to think the latter - hope i won't regret it one day... on a related note, i always wonder whether i should delete being a jazz fan from my profiles...

[Jazzmoose]

Well, it certainly marks you as an oddball; that can't help!

[BillF]

As my nextdoor neighbor said, "I can hear you're a jazz fiend" :blush2:

[AndrewHill]

What you put on the web is public. We should never forget that. Therefore, refrain from posting anything that is potentially embarassing, be it compromising photographs, foul-mouthed diatribes, admissions of extreme, illegal or unethical behavior, etc. If you're on Facebook, configure your privacy settings to allow only your "friends" to see what you post.

A gray area is discussing your politics, religion, or sexuality, for example on a message board. Of course there will be times when a prospective employer, having googled you, will say, "This person is a conservative/liberal/monarchist/radical; a religious fanatic/one of those atheists/a religion I don't like; a homosexual/heterosexual/fetishist/prude. Therefore, I will reject this candidacy." Does that mean we should avoid talking on the web about these things? Or just be glad we don't end up working for people who are ready to reject us for such reasons?

Good point. One needs to exercise good judgment when posting...and that goes for anything. If you want to keep your nose clean, then be sure that whatever you post on-line, that you can live with it because it will be there forever.