[Business] Social Media Investigations

[Endus]

@Endus, and if you have a "private" booth in a restaurant and it turns out that your actions in there are sent to your prospective employer? Your average joe CANNOT see this, it is by definition not public and as OP states you have to be a company of fair size with a legitimate reason to even see this stuff.

A restaurant is, by definition, a public place. Being in a booth doesn't give you carte blanche.

Seriously, this is pretty standard in the professional world. I'm a teacher. We had a whole-day seminar during my degree about the importance of managing your public appearance on things like Facebook. They had concrete examples. Like one girl, who was fired from her teaching position, and her teaching license revoked, because of one pic on her public facebook that had her with a red solo cup and a pirate hat on, with the tag "drunken pirate". That's it. She appealed this in court, and lost.

If you've posted it to the Internet, it's public. If you say anything somewhere it could be overheard, it's public.

[Yunru]

Smart ppl dont use real names or their job email on facebook.

But you need too understand. A lot of ppl will say their boss is s*** , wich is usualy 95% true... so yeah if you go on the facebook profile and read this its pretty much private stuff. You can say anything you want outside the job, but not inside.

[Tradewind]

Where is all of this "requesting info from facebook" shit coming from exactly? All I see is someone saying that it would be the only way they could get anything...not that it's ever actually happened.

[Raiju]

A restaurant is, by definition, a public place. Being in a booth doesn't give you carte blanche.

Seriously, this is pretty standard in the professional world. I'm a teacher. We had a whole-day seminar during my degree about the importance of managing your public appearance on things like Facebook. They had concrete examples. Like one girl, who was fired from her teaching position, and her teaching license revoked, because of one pic on her public facebook that had her with a red solo cup and a pirate hat on, with the tag "drunken pirate". That's it. She appealed this in court, and lost.

If you've posted it to the Internet, it's public. If you say anything somewhere it could be overheard, it's public.

Except there are booths where you won't be overheard assuming you aren't screaming. It is an abuse of trust by telling people they have privacy. It is also a loophole in comparison to real-life where someone would require a legitimate reason and "oh I want to get to know the guy" to see. As mentioned I feel if you're suspicious about sick leave or their work performance I would find that more legitimate.

@tradewindNQ read the OP...

[breadisfunny]

it has happened though.

[Hyve]

If they're willing to drop you for a hidden tattoo I bet they'll drop you for liking pepsi instead of coca cola.

It depends on the situation and the position. If you've gone and got Love & Hate inked onto your knuckles, how can I put you into a business meeting with some prominent investors?

[smelltheglove]

Regarding the bolded part, it really isn't.

Again, I'm talking from experience from both sides of the fences. We put this policy in place and we continue to follow it because of issues related to that fact that people who do have more "wild" social lives are more prone to giving us issues and problems.

It is not uncommon for people to call in sick, and then go out and party. I've seen it loads of times, and as an employer in the U.K. I have to pay them for their sick leave, which angers me because I am giving away my hard earned money to someone who isn't willing to do their end of the deal. I don't tolerate that.

here's the thing hyve. if you want to tell me how to act or w/e 24 hours a day, then the pay has to reflect 24 hours. if it's high, like you are suggesting, then that's fine. you should also be able to demand some form of full disclosure from the applicant, not do an end-run around privacy settings. with many people/companies regarding the lack of a facebook page or lack of activity on the page as a "red flag", coupled with the ability to get around privacy barriers it becomes a company's ability to spy on its employees. while it may only be high end positions right now it will inevitably spread, as drug testing did

[Tradewind]

it has happened though.

Quite possibly for one reason or another, but I don't think anyone here has ever brought it up as it actually happening to them.

[Hyve]

Where is all of this "requesting info from facebook" shit coming from exactly? All I see is someone saying that it would be the only way they could get anything...not that it's ever actually happened.

I've said it happens, because that is how you get the information.

Some big corporations can (as far as I know) pay Facebook to access a certain number of profiles a day / month / year, while most companies need to request the information from Facebook.

[Raiju]

It depends on the situation and the position. If you've gone and got Love & Hate inked onto your knuckles, how can I put you into a business meeting with some prominent investors?

You never mentioned tattoos on the knuckles before, you just said tattoos. A good majority of people with tattoos have them in places where they can be hidden due to work purposes. You would never know these people had tattoos (unless they trusted you'd be ok with knowing) without prying into their private settings.

I think it's worth mentioning that very few things in this topic are black and white, but as you are the one suggesting seeing "private" settings is fine, I feel you should be the one explaining where you feel the line should be drawn clearly. Currently you are running into walls repeatedly with generalizing statements like the tattoos one.

[Rukentuts]

Some big corporations can (as far as I know) pay Facebook to access a certain number of profiles a day / month / year, while most companies need to request the information from Facebook.

Which, from what I linked earlier, appears to be a direct violation of their data privacy policy.

[Hyve]

here's the thing hyve. if you want to tell me how to act or w/e 24 hours a day, then the pay has to reflect 24 hours. if it's high, like you are suggesting, then that's fine. you should also be able to demand some form of full disclosure from the applicant, not do an end-run around privacy settings. with many people/companies regarding the lack of a facebook page or lack of activity on the page as a "red flag", coupled with the ability to get around privacy barriers it becomes a company's ability to spy on its employees. while it may only be high end positions right now it will inevitably spread, as drug testing did

We're not looking for people to act how we want them to all the time, but we're also not talking about the janitors here.

I deal with hiring people who are prominent figures of our company, people who, if they did go out and get drunk then attack someone, would have a direct impact on our company. It is peoples choice, as I have said. We let them know we're going to check them out, and we pay well above the minimum wage because we only take the cream off the top.

We don't want, nor will we settle for the sort of people who go out drinking all day and night. That is our policy. Having a laugh, meeting with your mates, these are things we want to see on Facebook profiles, it shows you're social, it shows you're someone to be around, but being someone who runs around naked all night and swearing at the police, is not something we tolerate.

[Endus]

Except there are booths where you won't be overheard assuming you aren't screaming. It is an abuse of trust by telling people they have privacy.

The restaurant is not "abusing your trust" because the booth they put you in isn't soundproof and invisible.

If you're doing/saying something untoward, and the guy next to you overhears/sees it and knows your boss and tells him, you're screwed. Because of how you acted in public.

[Hyve]

Which, from what I linked earlier, appears to be a direct violation of their data privacy policy.

Yet, we go through Facebook themselves?

[Rukentuts]

The restaurant is not "abusing your trust" because the booth they put you in isn't soundproof and invisible.

No, but when the restaurant says "We won't divulge anything you say, it's private!" then releases tapes to anyone who wants to buy them, that's abuse of trust.

[Tradewind]

I've said it happens, because that is how you get the information.

Some big corporations can (as far as I know) pay Facebook to access a certain number of profiles a day / month / year, while most companies need to request the information from Facebook.

Fair enough. Looking at their data policy it seems to be ambiguous enough to allow that.

[Rukentuts]

Yet, we go through Facebook themselves?

Exactly why I am alarmed. How are they giving you personal information when it clearly says they cannot without consent?

Maybe that's why I recently received an email from them of a settled class action suit?

[Raiju]

The restaurant is not "abusing your trust" because the booth they put you in isn't soundproof and invisible.

If you're doing/saying something untoward, and the guy next to you overhears/sees it and knows your boss and tells him, you're screwed. Because of how you acted in public.

Please tell me how if I'm talking at a normal level in an actual booth (those things with walls and doors) anyone is going to hear or see what's going on?

Also took out the bit rukentuts was referencing:

While you are allowing us to use the information we receive about you, you always own all of your information. Your trust is important to us, which is why we don't share information we receive about you with others unless we have:
received your permission;
given you notice, such as by telling you about it in this policy; or
removed your name or any other personally identifying information from it.

This doesn't include public information, but we aren't talking about public information here as described in their own terms.

The only clause I can see possibly effecting is "such as by telling you about it in this policy", but I do not feel informed about the details of this.

[Hyve]

You never mentioned tattoos on the knuckles before, you just said tattoos. A good majority of people with tattoos have them in places where they can be hidden due to work purposes. You would never know these people had tattoos (unless they trusted you'd be ok with knowing) without prying into their private settings.

I think it's worth mentioning that very few things in this topic are black and white, but as you are the one suggesting seeing "private" settings is fine, I feel you should be the one explaining where you feel the line should be drawn clearly. Currently you are running into walls repeatedly with generalizing statements like the tattoos one.

Well of course I will run into issues with my generalisations, because I didn't write out our entire company policy, and explain it in full on the front post, but this is why it is a discussion, and like normal human beings, we've cleared up and issue and now we know about it much more.

Again, the general line we draw is at extreme behaviour that may or may not eventually cause problems at work. Someone goes out for a nice drink every friday night with a few mates, fine by us, I don't care at all. Someone goes out every other night, gets smashed and has pictures of them molesting police officers, then we have a problem.

[Gamdwelf]

Exactly why I am alarmed. How are they giving you personal information when it clearly says they cannot without consent?

Maybe that's why I recently received an email from them of a settled class action suit?

Yeah Hyve you are going to have say exactly what kind of information you are getting from facebook.