Background Check via Socialmedia/Web

RobertKaucher

New Service Adds Your Drunken Facebook Photos To Employer Background Checks, For Up To Seven Years - The Consumerist

If you intend on responding in this thread, please DO NOT simply rehash all the same old ideas about things that are freely available on the web being fair game or that employers are already doing this sort of screening. I know employers google their potential employees. My concern here is that an established company such as this gives the practice legitemecy and when the information is being gathered and interpreted - i.e. given context - by a bot it makes me very unhappy. A person being graded as "potentially violent" because he is interested in Medieval history or the American Civil War is just disturbing.

So what do you think of the existence of this type of service?

Bl8ckr0uter

Interesting. Well I am only concerned if they make a back alley deal with facebook/google/twitter and start circumventing privacy settings.
I guess this is the problem with being "social". It opens you up for my areas of attack. Personally as long as a person passes a criminal background check and MAYBE a credit check (even this is a bit ridiculous) then that should be all that should be allowed.



It's sickening to watch my country turn into a police state before my very eyes. Oh well.

RobertKaucher

What I see as really frightening is the potential of having your career destroyed by an angry individual and well placed Google bombs.

NetworkingStudent

RobertKaucher wrote: »

New Service Adds Your Drunken Facebook Photos To Employer Background Checks, For Up To Seven Years - The Consumerist

If you intend on responding in this thread, please DO NOT simply rehash all the same old ideas about things that are freely available on the web being fair game or that employers are already doing this sort of screening. I know employers google their potential employees. My concern here is that an established company such as this gives the practice legitemecy and when the information is being gathered and interpreted - i.e. given context - by a bot it makes me very unhappy. A person being graded as "potentially violent" because he is interested in Medieval history or the American Civil War is just disturbing.

So what do you think of the existence of this type of service?

I have heard that they can go back 7 years. That’s a long time if you think about. How do they know that the person in the background check didn’t grow or change in the past seven years from the posts the company found? It’s just silly...

Next they will have a health check

Do you smoke?
Do you drink?
Are you over weight?
Yes to all 3
I’m sorry we found someone else..
Ect.. ect… ect…

Just thinking about it sometimes makes me want to **** all social media except TE exam forums. I already know employers look me up… it’s already hard enough to get a job, why employ a social media background check?

white96gt

^^ Well said. Whatever happened to feeling out a person through interviews? These background checks are getting out of hand. What I find funny is that HR and the managers hiring are perfect people and have never done something stupid in their lives. Education, certificates and experience should be the main concerns. The only thing people who are hiring should worry about is if the person they are interviewing can do the job.

Plantwiz

white96gt wrote: »

^^ Well said. Whatever happened to feeling out a person through interviews? .... The only thing people who are hiring should worry about is if the person they are interviewing can do the job.

Maybe it has something to do with some of 'those' folks who are doing the hiring are not qualified to be in their respective job, and relying on 'technology' to do their job for them.

I am saddened each day by the growing number of folks who are unable to think without Google, drive without GPS, and ever growing need to post every single photo they ever took on the Internet, but are angered by having that information used for and/or against them.

You post it, you own it (and all the copyright violations, and upset caused by posting or reposting material).

I don't wish to consider how many continue to feel it is ok to download other's music without paying for it (when it is not provided freely from the artist).

There have been many neat things that have come along in the past few decades with technology, but just because we 'can' doesn't mean we 'should' use it all.


And this is the drawback for working 'for' a company. As a candidate and maybe eventual employee, depending on how the handbook is constructed, you agree to 'not embarrass' the company...ever. So, before accepting the position, the pay, and the benefits, know this up front and negotiate it, or simply find a better fit for your personality and goals.

A military person may be disciplined for obtaining a sunburn...becaused THEY damaged govt property.

So, why is it odd to have a private company disapprove of an employee found taking a bong hit on FB? Depending on the company, their image, and their stand on this matter I think they can remove the employee if this had been spelled out prior to the job offer being accepted (or at least in the first 90 days).

A corrections officer, (at least at in the jurisdictions I looked at decades ago), is always on the job even when they are NOT on the clock. You are expected to carry yourself in a professional matter. Respond to activities that are endangering or damaging others or their property and some required you to carry 24/7. Some of this may have changed, but talk about taking a stressful (and exciting) job and making it into something you do ALL THE TIME? But you'd look not very credible if the perp you are dealing with recognized you for taking a bong hit from FB, and you are busting him for pot.

I'll still stand by my thoughts on taking my chances on deciding who I find to be good and trustworthy over what some automated system decides based on a questionnaire, bot or such. I'll take my chances flying and chances that the other passengers are also in good mind to be on the plane with the airline holding the ability to deny service to anyone they feel they do not wish to service. Considering the amount of air travel, accidents/attacks are pretty low.

Likewise, I'll take my chances on hiring someone based on their ability to build a resume, be a decent person (and let the rest of the team have a say in whether or not they want this person on the team) and if they can do the job.

I want to keep my right to make a mistake (for example in hiring the wrong candidate) and deal with the consequences (removing the employee). Rather than have someone dig up every last piece of dirt and no context for the information (perhaps it was a spoof, prank or maybe it was real). Regardless, this is why in the old days...one would hire friends of friends and good teams were built because everyone enjoyed the others company and all worked to complete the task.

afcyung

I think the real lesson is don't make your personal life so public. FB is nice but there is a rising counter culture to stray away from everything internet and its important to strike a balance. Its really only a mater of time before someone is discriminated against based on one of these background checks and sues.

undomiel

Seems like another excuse for an employer to filter people out rather than doing their job and finding talent. It's hard waiting for talent to come to you.

I wonder how difficult it will be to check your own file on this. If you aren't already you should be taking a look at your online presence.

djfunz

It's really best to just not upload incriminating photos to social media sites. Problem solved.

Turgon

RobertKaucher wrote: »

New Service Adds Your Drunken Facebook Photos To Employer Background Checks, For Up To Seven Years - The Consumerist

If you intend on responding in this thread, please DO NOT simply rehash all the same old ideas about things that are freely available on the web being fair game or that employers are already doing this sort of screening. I know employers google their potential employees. My concern here is that an established company such as this gives the practice legitemecy and when the information is being gathered and interpreted - i.e. given context - by a bot it makes me very unhappy. A person being graded as "potentially violent" because he is interested in Medieval history or the American Civil War is just disturbing.

So what do you think of the existence of this type of service?

Unstoppable Im afraid. All the more important to have a CV and results that speak for themselves in the face of people scooping up what is out there and profiling an individual. At the same time any clown can say what they like about someone online and we dont have time or money to sue the world. Do people believe what they see online? Is it currency now? Hopefully there are enough sensible people left in the world.

veritas_libertas

Bl8ckr0uter wrote: »

Interesting. Well I am only concerned if they make a back alley deal with facebook/google/twitter and start circumventing privacy settings.
I guess this is the problem with being "social". It opens you up for my areas of attack. Personally as long as a person passes a criminal background check and MAYBE a credit check (even this is a bit ridiculous) then that should be all that should be allowed.

This is my main concern. It appears that at this time they don't, but what if it happens in the future? I'm not active on Facebook, Twitter, or even Google+ at this time. I have accounts with them, but I really don't post all that much.

It's sickening to watch my country turn into a police state before my very eyes. Oh well.

You are certainly not the only one.

Plantwiz

djfunz wrote: »

It's really best to just not upload incriminating photos to social media sites. Problem solved.

Unfortunately, you may not have been the one to upload the images...it may have been a friend or just someone else at the same place as you were and you're in the frame....upload...done.

veritas_libertas

Plantwiz wrote: »

Unfortunately, you may not have been the one to upload the images...it may have been a friend or just someone else at the same place as you were and you're in the frame....upload...done.

Exactly. Even if you avoid bad situations, it doesn't mean someone won't take a picture of you in a less favorable light. Just watch a political race and see how one photo can change everything.

djfunz

Plantwiz wrote: »

Unfortunately, you may not have been the one to upload the images...it may have been a friend or just someone else at the same place as you were and you're in the frame....upload...done.

I was thinking about this after I posted my reply but in that case how would the photo still be incriminating? The photo would have to be "tagged" or linked to me somehow. In order of for that to happen, I would have to be networked to the person doing the uploading. One cannot tag a person who is not in the approved network. If there is a photo that I don't wish to have uploaded to the net, I simply ask the uploader to remove the photo. To my understanding, these bots have no way of acquiring my information any other way. Another added security measure is to keep casual social network profiles such as Myspace and facebook private. As a default photo, upload a professional picture and this will further alleviate problems. Just my perhaps misinformed opinion.

L0gicB0mb508

So what you're saying is, I should delete those pics of me standing by a dead hooker that's stuffed in the trunk of my car? Now what am I going to do for a display picture?

keenon

adding that site to my daily

colemic

http://www.csoonline.com/article/681165/checking-job-candidates-fb-pages-can-come-back-to-haunt-you-legal-experts-say?source=rss_data_protection

While not exactly the same, it provides some good, relevant information.

RobertKaucher

Turgon wrote: »

Unstoppable Im afraid. All the more important to have a CV and results that speak for themselves in the face of people scooping up what is out there and profiling an individual. At the same time any clown can say what they like about someone online and we dont have time or money to sue the world. Do people believe what they see online? Is it currency now? Hopefully there are enough sensible people left in the world.

Is it unstoppable? Perhaps it is. But I really think this goes to the heart of our lack of critical thinking and our inability to properly evaluate the value of information we are given. I think at its best this sort of information is noise and at its worst it is out-right misleading and we are just giving up and creating a service legitimizing a system that is too easily misdirected.

djfunz wrote: »

I was thinking about this after I posted my reply but in that case how would the photo still be incriminating? The photo would have to be "tagged" or linked to me somehow. In order of for that to happen, I would have to be networked to the person doing the uploading. One cannot tag a person who is not in the approved network. If there is a photo that I don't wish to have uploaded to the net, I simply ask the uploader to remove the photo. To my understanding, these bots have no way of acquiring my information any other way. Another added security measure is to keep casual social network profiles such as Myspace and facebook private. As a default photo, upload a professional picture and this will further alleviate problems. Just my perhaps misinformed opinion.

And what do you do when the person who uploaded the pictures refuses to remove them?

And what if there is a spiteful individual who knows you and wishes to cause problems for you? I had a girlfriend in my late teens that would have totally created false profiles using my name in an attempt to revenge her perceived injuries had this technology existed back then.

Also, there are individuals whose entire careers are beginning to gravitate to social media. Take a look at Brent Ozar. Without blogging, FB, and Twitter he would likely not enjoy the sort of career he currently has. But I recall once seeing a slide deck used in a Quest Software presentation of him holding two knives looking silly and insane. I was a clear joke. But algorithms cannot judge humor. The bot finds pics of him on the web holding knives and comments intended to be jokes about him going postal and the next thing you know his resume is not even making it to HR because an automated system is kicking it out of the queue because his "potential for workplace violence" score is set too high. How is he even supposed to know what is going on or that there is even a problem?

Not participating in social media in this day and age is not a valid answer to this problem. Thinking that you can control the content of the Internet is naive at best.

cdmcg

You know, the only problem I have with this, and being in the computer animation industry I know all about social media "background" checks. What a person chooses to do in there free time, unless its illegal, in no way truely reflects there ability to work and function in a professional environment. Everyone has the right to relax and kick back every once in awhile. Now I will admit people who friend there boss on facebook then complain about their job on facebook maybe dont deserve what they have.

L0gicB0mb508

In honor of this thread I have decided to change my avatar.

down77

If they are FCRA compliant, does this mean we get access to a free yearly report?

This goes to show why MY rule #1 is "leave no evidence." I tend to untag all the pictures my wife puts up with me in it. This is soley based on the capability of others to use social engineering tactics to do exactly what this company is trying to achieve.

As far as photographs are concerned, I may talk with a friend who deals with legal issues surrounding digital media. This may be a good time to ensure a copyright is placed on all images you upload (watermark and embedded in exif data) as a best practice. This way you may reserve your right to take action against unauthorized reproduction of your work. Unfortunately, we can't control the actions of others but we can control our own actions.

Again, Refer to Rule #1.... leave no evidence!

Turgon

RobertKaucher wrote: »

Is it unstoppable? Perhaps it is. But I really think this goes to the heart of our lack of critical thinking and our inability to properly evaluate the value of information we are given. I think at its best this sort of information is noise and at its worst it is out-right misleading and we are just giving up and creating a service legitimizing a system that is too easily misdirected.

I agree to a large degree. In some senses I think the world is still adjusting to all the noise that's on the internet. Hopefully some sophistication evolves in time and people get a life, stop making stupid assessments about others based on what is posted someplace, get out the house, start using their brains again and spend less time on computers.

RobertKaucher

L0gicB0mb508 wrote: »

In honor of this thread I have decided to change my avatar.

I know that is you in the trunk.

L0gicB0mb508

RobertKaucher wrote: »

I know that is you in the trunk.

That's a dead hoo..i mean yeah thats totally me in the trunk.....yeah......*****carrier lost*****

WafflesAndRootbeer

RobertKaucher wrote: »

New Service Adds Your Drunken Facebook Photos To Employer Background Checks, For Up To Seven Years - The Consumerist

If you intend on responding in this thread, please DO NOT simply rehash all the same old ideas about things that are freely available on the web being fair game or that employers are already doing this sort of screening. I know employers google their potential employees. My concern here is that an established company such as this gives the practice legitemecy and when the information is being gathered and interpreted - i.e. given context - by a bot it makes me very unhappy. A person being graded as "potentially violent" because he is interested in Medieval history or the American Civil War is just disturbing.

So what do you think of the existence of this type of service?

I think it sucks for everyone else but it does not affect me in the slightest.

RobertKaucher

L0gicB0mb508 wrote: »

That's a dead hoo..i mean yeah thats totally me in the trunk.....yeah......*****carrier lost*****

I know its you because I recognize the skirt.

L0gicB0mb508

RobertKaucher wrote: »

I know its you because I recognize the skirt.

keep it down man! I gotta pay for those certs somehow!

Devilsbane

Plantwiz wrote: »

Unfortunately, you may not have been the one to upload the images...it may have been a friend or just someone else at the same place as you were and you're in the frame....upload...done.

Personally I'm not very concerned. I don't have frequent drunken escapades or anything, don't do drugs, and I'm always concious of my appearance. Even if I would have a bizarre night and lose track then I would be smarter than adding those pictures. Even if some of them would slip through, 99% of people have been in that same position at some point. I'm sure it will happen a bit because people are hypocrites, but I like to believe in the good of people to say something like, "So what he had a good time there, I've done it too." If all my pictures were a "good time" then I completely understand with their different opinion.

I also recently started using privacy settings to prevent people that I don’t know from snooping on me (had a problem with a girl awhile back and decided enough is enough). As long as they don’t start circumventing those (which would involve hacking facebook) then I would be good anyway.

Mike-Mike

to play the Devil's Advocate.... do you all think maybe employers need to employ these tactics to weed out some of the lames? I mean think about it, everyone of us has had a job at some point and thought, "how did this guy get hired?"

Maybe some people are really sweet at interviews, but not so much on the job side of things... They kill at the interview, get hired, and then are just lame on the job.. you've invested all this money in hiring and training, do you just go ahead and fire him? Or hope he picks it up?

How many times do you get burned that way before you think, man I need a new way to check out potential employees...

RobertKaucher

Mike-Mike wrote: »

to play the Devil's Advocate.... do you all think maybe employers need to employ these tactics to weed out some of the lames? I mean think about it, everyone of us has had a job at some point and thought, "how did this guy get hired?"

Maybe some people are really sweet at interviews, but not so much on the job side of things... They kill at the interview, get hired, and then are just lame on the job.. you've invested all this money in hiring and training, do you just go ahead and fire him? Or hope he picks it up?

How many times do you get burned that way before you think, man I need a new way to check out potential employees...

I don't think googling and compiling information like this is wrong. I think it should be done and any hiring manager who does not do web based research on a strong potential candidate is just a fool.

I am not even opposed to a service that collects information for clients in this way. I am concerned about how the information is evaluated and used. If it is done by a service like this and the evaluation of certain things is automated by a bot then we have a problem. I don't trust people to make the right choices when it comes to things that have wide societal implications and I expect them to be open systems so that they can be evaluated by societly for their usefulness.

I think it's too late in the game for people to suggest that you just "opt out" and not post things online. That's not an answer. I mean this sort of thing allows employers to easily circumvent every fair hiring law that exists. Now it's so easy to find out if candidate X is a member of protected class Y and just discard their resume as if I never received it. We at least need to look at it as a potential problem. Suggesting people should earase their digital identities is just dumb. Social media is too important a force and the fact that someone is a white, middle class 20 something who does not get drunk every Friday night and therefore could never be misevaluated by this type of system () does not build any confidence in me.
Here is a perfect case of inadvertant racial stereotyping perpetuated by technology:

I actually had to deal with a return at the Best Buy I worked at for a Sony, I believe, that was doing the same thing. More than 1/2 of the pictures taken by the couple, Chinese descent, would pop up a similar message and they were not happy.

Don't tell me this problem is too complicated to be solved so we should either just opt out or just accept it.

Ahriakin

There's really 2 discussion points here:

1. Is it okay for 3rd parties to collect and publish this information on demand?
2. Is this information really relevant to the suitability of the candidate?

The answer to #1 is yes...simply because it was voluntarily posted on a public forum of some kind. It's fair game. Personally I have much more issue with companies running credit checks on employees (and mine is fine btw ) as it's information that you don't post publicly being collected by 3rd parties that you did not knowingly or directly authorize to do so (the agencies must have some of the greatest lobbyists on the planet for just how unethical this is and not to be illegal) who then place the onus squarely on you to fix their mistakes when they screw up. But, for better or worse it's an accepted part of the process - this kind of online scraping pales in comparison to that level of invasiveness imho.

The answer to #2 depends entirely on the context. In many cases I agree that points often seen as social negatives have no bearing on most jobs and are a simple sign of laziness on the employer's part. But there are some in which it does matter. I think the real issue here is that context will be lost with automation.