2.3 You may download or copy the Content and other downloadable items displayed on the Services for personal use only, provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein. Copying or storing of any Content for other than personal use is expressly prohibited without prior written permission from The New York Times Rights and Permissions Department, or the copyright holder identified in the copyright notice contained in the Content.
We all know that putting personal information about ourselves on the web can come back to haunt us.
It appears a new company has now taken on the task of being the filter for potential companies considering new employees for hire. The company takes the name of the potential candidate and runs it through searches looking for what that have posted on Social Media sites. You know places like twitter, Facebook, blogs and forums.
This information can and will be used by potential employers in helping them decide who they hire to work for their company.
More than ever we need to be careful about what we share online. If you are going to share just make sure you remain anonymous. Here are a few ways to protect yourself.
* Don't use your real name.
* Don't use the same email for signing up to comment. Emails are used to track people.
* Don't give out personal info. If you feel the need to share...change the names, places etc.
* Don't give your address or phone # to people on the web.
* Don't leave a trail like talking about your place of work, city you live in etc.
* Don't use the same screen name all over the web, this makes it easier to track you.
Here is the link to the article I found online about this company currently doing these investigations for employers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/technology/social-media-history-becomes-a-new-job-hurdle.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all
So what do you think?
Here is what I got from the article:
Potential employers have always used criminal background checks as part of their employment application. They have also used things like credit reports and some even do online searches on prospective employees. Now their is a company that does social media background searches.
A young company called Social intelligence searches the Internet for anything they can find on prospective employees. It appears they are looking for anything you may have said under a certain criteria. Things like racist remarks, references about drugs, photos that are sexually explicit, text messages and videos. They also are looking for key words related to weapons, bombs and violent activity.
Max Drucker is the chief executive of the company and claims they are not detectives. He claims they are only putting together information that is publicly available on the web. The Federal Trade Commission looked into the practices of this company and found they are in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
It has been reported that potential employees have been denied jobs because of the information that was found about them online.
In the full article their is more information if you are interested.
The point is that have you ever considered what you say online could potentially come between you and the job you would really like to have? It's even been documented that the company found people who belong to certain groups and this threw up a red flag for the employer considering that individual for a job.
Would being a member of MWOP keep you from getting a job?
I'm not saying it would...I'm just wondering if things like this could be used against people looking for jobs.
In the full article their is more information if you are interested.
The point is that have you ever considered what you say online could potentially come between you and the job you would really like to have? It's even been documented that the company found people who belong to certain groups and this threw up a red flag for the employer considering that individual for a job.
Would being a member of MWOP keep you from getting a job?
I'm not saying it would...I'm just wondering if things like this could be used against people looking for jobs.
17 comments:
the link wants my email address LOL and I'm not giving it :)
What is the name of the company? I'd rather Google it. I don't provide my information easily these days :)
Thanks for the heads up. It's a way different world out there, isn't it!
Or don't post anything online that would get you in trouble. It's actually pretty easy.
-Anonyo
"He said much of the negative information about job candidates comes from deep Web searches that find comments on blogs and posts on smaller social sites, like Tumblr, the blogging site, as well as Yahoo user groups, e-commerce sites, bulletin boards and even Craigslist. "
That right there is why no one's actual name should be on this website. Has anyone we've discussed honestly done anything that should stop them from getting a job? Yes, someone could put the pieces together except that blogs have been deleted. Twitter handles have been changed. FB pages have been locked up. Picasa accounts made private. That information goes away when that happens. However, we are leaving a permanent record of people's faults that could cost them their livelihood forever because we don't like their behavior.
Can we live with that?
Anonymouse
Lauren,
I think my long comment went into spam; would you mind checking, please?
Thanks!
~Anonymouse
Well Duh!!
Makes sense not to put anything out there that can bite your ass one day.
Isn't C&P'ing articles for publication considered theft?
Reminds me of a certain mommy blogger.
Lizzie.
Lizzie:
She cited her source, it's not stealing.
In terms of posting on the internet: How about if you don't act like an idiot or an asshole, you shouldn't have to hide behind fake screen names, etc. Everything you post should be something you would stand behind.
Thanks,
kelly
Kelly,
It certainly is stealing. Citing your source doesn't mean you get to cut and paste an article to avoid registration. It certainly doesn't qualify as "Fair Use." http://www.copyrightDOTgov/fls/fl102.html
Thanks,
Anonymouse
I tend to look at things from the stand-point of a business owner, having been one for many years and personally, I'd like knowing everything I can about a person before I hire them. That said, I'm possibly a rarity in that I'd not discount hiring someone for having controversial personal views that aren't mine, as given in the example of the press 1 for English or someone who may assert themselves as being anti-(insert race or religion). The rules of the job apply and if they can't follow them, they're fired. Otherwise, what they do on their own time is their own business in my world. Sadly, not all employers think that that, though, and it's wise to put nothing out there you won't stand behind, as Kelly said. I say things some people don't like but I'll stand behind what I've said and if it means an employer won't hire me, then it's not a place I'd be a good fit at anyway. It's best we both find that out early on. The more info you can get on a prospective employee, though, the better, imo.
From the last post:
Alex, I totally get what you're saying and have often thought that could be a vast relief to just spill my guts about certain things to people who aren't staring at me. I can imagine the slight impersonality of not having to cope with hugs and pats and looking at everyone's uncomfortable faces made it much easier for you to do so.
AW is JM? Now, that's funny. Weird, but funny.
Yes, you really should just cite a small portion of the article and then put a link... you don't want the copyright police coming by, they are very expensive. :)
Coco, if you're reading, I responded to a comment on the last post. Hope you'll hop back over and read. I hope it clarifies a little bit.
Thanks,
-ABC
FYI..
I gave credit to the source and I did not copy and paste the entire article.
Lauren
NY TImes still requires permission, even if you don't print the entire article. From their FAQ:
Use of article excerpts is possible with permission from The New York Times, without alteration to the intended meaning of the original text.
That is why you should only use a bit of the article (like a small summery and then lead to the link. Otherwise it violates their policies. Blogs all over the world have found out that the Times enforces takes these kinds of things very seriously.
Here are some other articles:
http://www.dailyblogtips.com/copyright-law-12-dos-and-donts/
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2011/06/14/understanding-copyright-and-licenses/
Its up to you what you want to do, but just because you didn't copy the entire article, does not protect you.
And personal use does not protect you either, because the courts look at it as you are preventing the Times from getting their "click"
That's how the Associated Press case was decided too.
Just finished reading the last post.
So basically, we're now down to either being Lauren (who is Tina), Shannon, Lisa, Shelmo for real or in disguise, any variation of Shell and J-fricking-M in disguise?
It seems as if most anons have now caught on to the concept of a signature. Yet the guessing, second guessing and drifting off into fairyland of undisguising posters remains?
The conversations last week on here seemed so civil and constructive. Forget about who may be who on MWOP, Bbop or TeenBeat...
Kate, read last week again. The undisguising of anon and named posters was in full swing. Some people knit, or write poetry, or paint, some look for conspiracies amongst the blogosphere.
-- Jane Dough
Interesting article.
What you tweet, write, where you shop or who you associate with can also have a positive affect, especially if you are in the marketing/communications field.
Companies are looking for people to do their social media who put themselves out there have opinions and reach a wide audience.
Coco
I slept on this overnight. Originally, I agreed with Lauren; lock everything down and keep it that way. Then I started thinking about if people did that there would be no accountability on anyone's part to be a decent human being. So I am going to fall back on don't do/say anything online that you wouldn't do/say with an audience.
While I don't agree companies should be researching every single aspect of an employee's online life (Even if everything about the person is on the up and up I think it could lead to subconscious discrimination) it's here and it isn't going to go away. The internet is forever.
Good Grief,
Charlie Brown
Post a Comment