Employers defy privacy by using Facebook
By:
Ashley Cerasaro
Editorial, Tennessee Journalist
Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Elliot Zuckerberg
defines the site as a social utility that connects people with friends
and others who work, study and live around them.
He doesn't call it a glass house for employers to
spy on job applicants.
But that's exactly what many employers are using
it for.
A survey
from Toronto, Canada found 12 percent of employers always or usually
use online job search engines and social networking sites to research
job candidates. Only 32 percent report they do so on occasion. The
information on the survey came from 281 hiring managers and human
resource professionals, and 511 workers.
The survey also reported approximately 19 percent
of employers say they are likely to start using or increase their
use of these resources to research job candidates in 2008. Nineteen
percent doesn't seem like a big deal, but look what happens when
the number of employers surveyed increases.
Vault.com's
Social Networking Web Site Survey of 700 employers showed 44
percent are using social networking sites as an informal part of
the referencing process. This percentage is a big deal.
According to the Federal Trade Commission, government
agencies in the United States, Canada and Europe have been studying,
over the past quarter century, how entities collect and use personal
information. Their research resulted in some guidelines representing
widely-accepted principles of fair information practice - guidelines
employers using Facebook for background checks should take note
of.
Consent is the second principle of such practice.
Customers must have a chance to learn how entities use personal
information collected from them.
Some entities let consumers opt-in or opt-out. In
online environments, privacy settings are a more common form of
consent.
Zuckerberg gives users multiple privacy settings
to choose from. These settings allow users to control who can see
what on their Facebook profiles. But users need to be aware that
these privacy settings aren't foolproof - and employers have already
found ways
around them. Most users rely on the "Network" privacy
setting, but this is an easy setting to bypass.
A more shielding option for users is the "Friends"
privacy setting. When selected, this setting prohibits individuals
from viewing a user's profile unless they are confirmed to be a
"Friend" of that user.
Employers may figure out a way to bypass this setting
as well, but they should be aware, that by doing so, they are participating
in an unfair business practice and are showing a complete disregard
of that user's right to consent.
Lance Choy, director of the Career Development Center
at Stanford University, told The Stanford Daily that employers use
Facebook to check up on job candidates for several reasons:
* Employers might be able to confirm background
information.
* Students write about their interests; employers might want to
check on whether this supports their job application.
* Employers might try to learn something about the student's personality
and whether it would be appropriate for the job.
However, information on Facebook not relevant to
the job may be used inappropriately by employers to assess a candidate.
It doesn't matter what their motivations are. These
"online background checks" are unfair and invasive. Employers
argue that if applicants post information about themselves on a
public domain, they have forfeited their right to privacy.
If a pregnant woman goes to a restaurant where wine
is being served, and she drinks it simply because it's available,
do we justify her doing so?
Employers can easily access information on applicants
by viewing their Facebook profiles, but the fact that the information
exists doesn't justify their accessing it. Besides, most students
aren't using Facebook to expose themselves to the world - they're
using the site to keep in touch with friends.
Students shouldn't be penalized for using advanced
technology to help them do something that's hard to do with their
busy schedules.
Employers taking advantage of this are acting like
peeping Toms and should be ashamed.
|