×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"Pre-Crime" Comes To the HR Dept.

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the you-wouldn't-work-out dept.

Privacy 554

storagedude writes "Like something out of the Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report, a startup called Social Intelligence is mining social media to weed out job applicants based on their potential for violence, drug abuse or just plain bad judgment. The startup also combs sites like Facebook and Twitter to monitor current employees, presumably to monitor compliance with company social media policy, but as the criteria are company-defined, anything's possible. Just one more reason to watch what you post, folks."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

554 comments

And if the information is wrong or fake (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33740866)

I take it this screening company dont mind a few lawsuits for deformation and libel ?

Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (4, Insightful)

spazdor (902907) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741070)

Hah! For that to happen, they would have to notify the people they defame.

Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741452)

crap! they're deforming people now? i don't WANNA be a carrot!

Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741316)

I take it this screening company dont mind a few lawsuits for deformation

I don't think so, no. I think they'll quite happily sue someone who's deformed them.

The new "rationality" test. I support this test. (4, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#33740890)

It's better than the "IQ" test if it predicts behavior.

It's better than the "drug" testing because not every drug user is a drug addict.

It's highly focused on what actually matters.

If you are rational you won't go online saying and doing stupid things in a way in which it's linked to your workplace persona. If you are irrational and completely lack self control then you might, but then you might be like that Barksdale Google engineer and I'd rather people like that guy be filtered out than to continue with hiring irrational but brilliant.

That being said nobody is rational 100% of the time, but those people who are at work using their work computer to search for pornography -1, those people who are spouting idiocy under their real name -1, those people who don't protect their name, their reputation, as they would protect their company -1.

Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (5, Funny)

Potor (658520) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741026)

I am in favour if they are testing for spelling and grammar.

Otherwise, not so much.

Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (4, Insightful)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741188)

sucks if your dyslexic though

Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741274)

In soviet Russia, you suck if you're dyslexic

Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (5, Funny)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741516)

Or contraction challenged for that matter.

Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (5, Interesting)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741096)

TFA makes a point that invalidates yours though - they specifically mention the fact that if you're tagged in an image your boss is contacted. At that point it doesnt matter if you're rational...every single person in your social network, no matter how extraneous, is having their discretion and rationality tested. Go to a party and have a couple of pictures taken and tagged of you messing around, harmlessly, and forwarded to a boss who perhaps disapproves of heavy drinking/smoking/you kissing guys/stupid pictures of people pretending the Eiffel tower is between their palms...pretty much anything really, and you run the risk of disciplinary action.

At that point the only rational choice is to not participate online at all, or allow pictures to be taken, comments to be made, anything that relates to you. What a sad life that seems.

Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (4, Insightful)

freeze128 (544774) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741270)

At that point the only rational choice is to not participate online at all, or allow pictures to be taken, comments to be made, anything that relates to you. What a sad life that seems.

Yeah. It would be just like life before 1995.

Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (1, Troll)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741380)

At that point the only rational choice is to not participate online at all, or allow pictures to be taken, comments to be made, anything that relates to you. What a sad life that seems.

Yeah. It would be just like life before 1995.

He already said it was sad, no need to be redundant.

Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (5, Funny)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741424)

That's my point, we don't live pre-'95 anymore and the richness of the online experience has become integral to our modern lives.

Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (4, Insightful)

TarPitt (217247) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741344)

they specifically mention the fact that if you're tagged in an image your boss is contacted

What a great way to get rid of workplace rivals! This will enable a whole new level of viciousness in company politics!

Seriously, it would take very little work and very little risk to completely ruin someone's career.

Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741390)

That kind of practice can't really last, though, as the businesses that fall victim to this trap will be out-competed by their rivals that don't.

Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741148)

The thing is, more people get caught in the crossfire for no reason. For example your boss might object to your political stance, or he might not like you being a atheist, or he might think you're a drunk when there's only one picture of you at your birthday. Maybe he sees you dressed as a woman at a halloween party and fires you because he's homophobic. If your name is John Smith, good luck cleaning up your online identity.
Sure, some of those things are technically illegal reasons for firing, but really, in the US it isn't that hard to fire you for any reason (sometimes even no reason). Until the position descriptions have "24hr company representative and diplomat" in them (with appropriate pay), what you do on your own time and dime is your business. This just smacks of companies trying to squeeze people by the balls even harder.

Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (5, Insightful)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741168)

And best of all, you can find out things through Facebook that you are prohibited by law from asking your employees. Want to discriminate against employees on the basis of religious or political beliefs? Gotcha covered!

It's highly focused on what actually matters.

What actually matters is job performance, period.

Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (-1, Troll)

pgmrdlm (1642279) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741496)

Why don't you tell that to the families of people that have died from work violence. You know, the type that show up with a gun and start shooting people. Want to bet many had good job performance reviews?

Bet you don't care about those people though do you. Let them die is your motto. Just don't fuck with anything that YOU consider private. EVEN if you post it online.

I can understand the argument of people getting set up. All I have to do is look at fuck wads like you to see that possibility. But to arrogantly say, all that matters is job performance?

Asshole. Seriously, what a mother fucking asshole.

Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741292)

Not every drug user is an addict, but every drug user is willing to violate federal law of their own free will.

Employers are less concerned about junkies applying for jobs, and more concerned about people who selectively adhere to the law as they see fit. Can that same person be expected to follow the rules while working for you? Would they thumb their nose at privacy laws or other policies that would harm your business? Will they use drugs on the work site and cause injury that you could be liable for?

For an employer, checking for drug use is just common sense.

Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741530)

> Employers are less concerned about junkies applying for jobs, and more concerned about people who selectively adhere to the law as they see fit.

Sounds like just about any senior executive.

Some of them will not only selectively adhere to the law but will continue to violate the law when caught and fined by the feds because it is cheaper to just pay the fine.

Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741340)

those people who are spouting idiocy under their real name -1

"Idiocy" means "stuff I don't like/agree with".

Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (1)

testadicazzo (567430) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741370)

You're either far more cynical than I am, or far more naive. You're post leaves both as possiblities.

It's possible that you're terribly cynical, and that you feel like you should not, nor should you be able to, communicate ideas and thoughts which might lead to negative workspace repurcussions -- regardless of whether or not those thoughts are well thought out, rational, and in your own (or your classes) self interests. I.e. you feel that there is no need or merit to stand up to private power.

Or your hopelessly naive, in that you think that this is a positive and harmless development because, after all, these companies are justy looking for hopelessly destructive and anti-social behavior, and this sort of thing is in no way a burden and restriction on your freedom of speech, especially not your freedom to analyze the power structure of America, or to in some way attack the interests of the corporate and wealthy elite.

Which is it?

Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741454)

Aside from the obligatory XKCD, you're committing a No True Scotsman fallacy right here. I consider myself rational, and I do go online and do what I want, stupid or otherwise, and very, very rarely make any attempt to avoid linking it to my true identity -- I can stand by what I said, or I can admit to being wrong.

Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them irrational. Just because they do something bold does not automatically make it rash.

I do support this test in one respect: If they weed me out because of something I've said, that's one less place I'd have wanted to work anyway. If they can accept who I am, warts and all, we can do business.

Re: The new "rationality" test. I support this tes (1)

memnock (466995) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741464)

or you might just expect to be able to have a few (or several dozen) drinks on the weekend or whenever you feel like (not on work time obviously) and not think that makes you a poor employee or candidate. drinking for most working adults is not illegal and is perfectly normal. how does that sully one's character? telling jokes, good or bad? perfectly human. drug use is illegal, a.f.a.i.k. so, telling someone, 'oops you drank too much this weekend, you're on probation', is bullshit. what the hell does it matter what you do on your own time, if it's not illegal?

people talk about a nanny state. this is where it really starts. someone needs to sink that company quick.

i run. if i run 50 miles out in a remote park, that might seem irrational to someone else who's scared of the outdoors. is it risky behavior? yes, i suppose it could be construed that way if you don't know anything about fitness or the outdoors. but if i didn't do something like that, i might do something really risky, such as smashing equipment or hardware at work. everybody's got an outlet that for the most part is not going to affect their work life. while i think these social sites are a waste of time, what's worse is the fact that now they're set ups for surveilling people's recreation and the worrisome impacts of such fun. they're outlets for people to talk shit to each other or gripe or whatever. now they're being used a litmus test for the perfect person. ridiculous.

Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741502)

irrational by whose definition?
lack self control by whose definition?

brilliance often comes with an offbeat personality. you're not going to find brilliance in joe schmoe conformers. I don't see why employers should care so long as the work output is adequate. Of course, most policy is set by conformists who still haven't grown out of high school cliquery, so things like dress codes, 'team spirit' propaganda meetings, and other such drivel are the norm.

finally, employers should have no say in what an employee does in his free time. If the activities affect work performance, then tell the employee his work sucks. usually, in this case, the employer doesnt care why, only that the employee improve. This reasonable stance does not require Total Surveillance.

Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741560)

Your online behavior doesn't necessarily reflect on how you act in the 'real world'.

"That being said nobody is rational 100% of the time"

Considering that most humans run on illogical emotions, it's more like 6% of the time.

"their reputation"

Why should you care about what other people think of you? You should be questioning if your decisions were logical ones, not if other people didn't like them.

Eh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33740902)

Wonderlic Personnel tests have been billed as able to predict unwanted behavior in prospective employees for a long time now. I guess the niche here is reviewing someones social networking persona, which doesn't strike me as anything particularly newfangled and amazing.

The more reason to legislate against it. (3, Interesting)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 3 years ago | (#33740906)

Unless they provide a full & accurate report as to what information was collected on you(and how it was used), it shouldn't even be happening.

Re:The more reason to legislate against it. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741020)

Guess what? You are advertising yourself.
You agreed to it when you signed up.
You agreed to it when you decided posting your life on line was a good idea.
Not only to future employers but to the marketers who are sold your data from Facebook, Twitter, et al.

You already sold your right to privacy by:
a) agreeing to the terms of service.
b) thinking there are no consequences for permanent and historical archiving your stupidity.

Companies already have the option to fire you for most any reason they see fit. You've just now made it easier.

hey sexy bbbaby (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33740914)

i'm touching my wenis

Pardon my ignorance... (5, Interesting)

ScientiaPotentiaEst (1635927) | more than 3 years ago | (#33740926)

... but how do these "trawlers" get to see what's on, say, a Facebook page if viewing permission has been given only to a limited set of trusted people? Does Facebook permit trawlers access to such restricted information? Do they use subterfuge to get past the restrictions? How?

Re:Pardon my ignorance... (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741012)

Most people simply share pretty much everything.

Re:Pardon my ignorance... (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741060)

And if you have any of your info set up as visible to "friends of friends", all they need to do is make a fake profile with a sexy girl photo, and spam friend requests.

Re:Pardon my ignorance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741492)

My wife is a music professor and orchestra director for a local University. She used to do a facebook search for instrument names to see if any non-music major students to see if they would be interested in playing for the orchestra. She quit about a year ago because all the students had their profiles locked down and see couldn't find anything. If the rest of world isn't catching on, college students are.

Re:Pardon my ignorance... (2, Interesting)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741250)

I heard somewhere that there's a Private Investigator exemption for super-user type viewing, and that a lot of big name companies' HR departments have someone to do that for "identity verification".

Learn To Cheat (5, Insightful)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 3 years ago | (#33740932)

Create a persona that is unbelievably wonderful. Give that persons a handle and its own email account. Then if you are asked if you go online give them that persona's handle and email address. Your live in uncle must own all those other handles and he uses your PC a lot. But you are the one who constantly emails about rescuing orphans and stray dogs and cats and attends all patriotic functions ad nauseum.

If you are smart you will cheat. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#33740978)

These sorts of tests should be called idiot detection testing. The point of the test is to filter out the irrational type people who can bring down the honor and reputation of any business. A business is represented by the behavior of it's employees. A business has the right not to hire employees who have irrational or just plain stupid behavior.

Re:If you are smart you will cheat. (5, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741036)

They do, however there are limitations on what they can do. They can require a drug screening and back ground check, references, but something like this is questionable at best.

Basically sounds to me like their trying to find a legal way of going back to pre-affirmative action times and hire people based upon things other than fit and qualification. Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but this looks like a convenient way to not hire minorities.

Re: Learn To Cheat (4, Interesting)

istartedi (132515) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741412)

No. Don't bother learning. Just hire an "online presence consultant" and let them do it for you. Prices and quality of service will vary based on how much is at stake. In the future, smart students will do real socializing at ball games and keggers while AI-bots make sanitized FaceBook postings on their behalf. Sign up for PersonaBot now. $29.99/mo.

Look at it this way (2, Insightful)

ThorGod (456163) | more than 3 years ago | (#33740948)

If a company is so restrictive and intrusive that they can't take a couple crazy, sleep-deprived 3 am posts maybe they're not the best place to work?

From the company's point of view, any information they can gather on a potential employee is helpful. I just hope who ever uses that type of service is wise enough to not take it too, too seriously.

Re:Look at it this way (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#33740998)

If a company is so restrictive and intrusive that they can't take a couple crazy, sleep-deprived 3 am posts maybe they're not the best place to work?

From the company's point of view, any information they can gather on a potential employee is helpful. I just hope who ever uses that type of service is wise enough to not take it too, too seriously.

If you are smart you wont have to worry about it even if they take it absolutely seriously.

Now if they started looking and judging us by the music we listen to or the politics we talk about, then I would say there is a problem. But lets be honest, who wants to hire a complete irrational moron? They have to be smart enough not to strip naked on facebook and talk BS on twitter.

Re:Look at it this way (3, Insightful)

compro01 (777531) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741486)

Aside from the fact these people are monitoring pictures tagged with your name, which are not necessarily posted by you. Are you going to walk around in an invisibility cloak all the time to keep people from taking pictures of you?

And how are you supposed to know if someone decides not to hire you because you're a catholic/wine taster/gay/republican/metalhead/model/democrat/atheist/country fan/jew/bagpiper/brewer/etc. I think you put far too much faith in the rationality of managers.

Re:Look at it this way (1)

qwijibo (101731) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741518)

I'll bet someone could draw some pretty reasonable conclusions from all of the non-regulated information. Even if they're wrong in their assumptions, they can still misuse the information. If you know someone listens to country or rap, there's probably correlations with skin color and religion that you can draw.

By wanting people who have the least character, it fits with the trend of hiring more mediocre people based on cost and risk avoidance rather than abilities. 10% of the ability for 70% of the cost sounds like a good deal if there's a negligible chance that the person will embarrass the company. Unless, of course, you count the bad PR associated with gross incompetence. 9 out of 10 people we interview outright lie on their resumes about their experience with computers, so good thing we'll have a new tool to nail that last guy with.

Re:Look at it this way (1)

citylivin (1250770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741548)

"If a company is so restrictive and intrusive that they can't take a couple crazy, sleep-deprived 3 am posts maybe they're not the best place to work?"

Yes but what if everyone does it, or it becomes standard practice, the way some companies do credit checks, or criminal record checks... No more working in corporate america for you!, lest you change your name. Sure who wants to work in corporate america anyway? you can starve for a few months right?

"I just hope who ever uses that type of service is wise enough to not take it too, too seriously."

Picture yourself as an HR person. When you have stopped screaming, think which would look better to your bosses: You taking a chance on dr drinksalot, or rejecting him with evidence, which then makes you look like a) your being super thorough, (basically stalking people in their personal lives) and b) trying extra hard to get the mythical perfect employee for mother company.

You will never get in trouble for not hiring someone based on your "instinct", but you may very well get in trouble for hiring someone who doesnt work out. Which is the safest choice for you to make in that situation?

The solution here has been known since at least 1990, DONT USE YOUR REAL NAME ONLINE!
kids today all want to be god damned famous. You reap what you sow childrens!

local newspapers... (2, Interesting)

markass530 (870112) | more than 3 years ago | (#33740954)

so what if "someone i know" is from as small boring ass town that printed a mini article (full of bs, mostly) about one of his D.I.P's and now that is #4 when you google his name (mark stolzoff) how do you fix that?

Re:local newspapers... (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741032)

Do a bunch of notable stuff and get into some bigger newspapers with a higher PageRank?

It's not like it's not already being done (2, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#33740970)

You don't think when you apply for a job that the people hiring you are not already looking at social media (and of course Google) to see what kind of person you are?

Now I'm against HR doing this by policy as they will come up with some absurd guidelines that a real person closer to the hiring would be able to make a judgement call on. But that doesn't mean your social media footprint has not already affected your ability to be hired, for some time now.

Re:It's not like it's not already being done (1)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741144)

And what if they can't find anything because all the info is private?

Then nothing (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741226)

And what if they can't find anything because all the info is private?

Then nothing at all will happen.

But most people don't careful pour over privacy controls the way you or I would. They just open the kimono wide for all to see. If they find a setting they just set it more open.

Truth to tell, I don't even bother changing Facebook privacy settings. I just treat anything I post there as utterly public, that I don't care about every person on earth seeing. And if you are smart that is true for all forms of electronic communication, including email.

People here always say "information wants to be free" but then whine about privacy. Not sure why they live in contradiction.

Re:Then nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741512)

Then nothing at all will happen.

Or it'll be like your credit score where your "social score" will be zero without any history.

Or you're hiding something. Or you're antisocial. Or...

It's not even like it's an excuse to not hire someone. Look outside, there's ten more lined up, one of them has twice the experience and is more desparate^W^Wwilling to work for less. All it is, is an excuse for HR to not do any work.

Systemic unemployment? THIS IS THE SYSTEM.

How unoriginal (4, Insightful)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 3 years ago | (#33740972)

In a bad economy, sticking it to the individual worker through HR seems to always creep up.

Re:How unoriginal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741356)

Instead of interviewing 5 candidates well many outfits in these times switch to interviewing 50 badly and picking one that peaks the most desired points in the resulting random data set. This is bad HR. No doubt in many cases this tool will just be another random input into a broken process. Paradoxically this kind of process often results in hiring average people.

Nice profession (2, Insightful)

KnightBlade (1074408) | more than 3 years ago | (#33740980)

So now stalking is officially a profession. "Don't call us stalkers! We believe in the well being of our clients so we want to stop crime before it happens. We are doing a noble deed here."

This is why facebook and twitter were invented. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741052)

The purpose of social networking sites is to create and get a glimpse of your social fingerprint. This is a lot cheaper than hiring private investigators and doing a real backround examination.

Re:This is why facebook and twitter were invented. (2, Interesting)

KnightBlade (1074408) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741098)

I wonder how long before "Pay us and we'll keep others from finding information about you" kinda companies show up.

Re:This is why facebook and twitter were invented. (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741446)

I've been getting spams from them for over two years, so, about negative two years.

some people need to get over themselves (4, Insightful)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741170)

sorry there are a small number of jobs that require any background checks and a much smaller number of ones that require serious background checks - sounds like a lot of HR dept's in the states have a vastly overinflated sense of their importance.

Movie, not book? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33740988)

Am I the only one that thinks about the Philip K Dick story before they think about the movie? The book is almost ALWAYS better than the movie!

Really, would you want to work for.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33740996)

Just elect to pass on this type of employer.
If the HR department is this intrusive, imagine what your manager will be like.

Don't create an online profile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741018)

I don't have one, and any information about me is going to be pretty hard to get to without a court order. I don't feel I'm missing out one bit. Oh wait, I don't get to play farmville. My loss.

It makes me sick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741028)

I'm sure that this is only going to pick out those idiots who admit to wrongdoing on their Facebook pages.

No doubt it would never, ever be used to weed out those who "wouldn't fit in the company culture". That would be wrong.

I got a job from /. posting... (4, Interesting)

notthepainter (759494) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741030)

My name is shared with a very famous (dead) person so I'm hard to google. But of course he had my email address. From that he found my geocaching account, liked that I made puzzles (he was looking for a game developer) from that found my /. postings, liked what he saw.

Yeah, I got the job and it was fun, but it creeped me out. I hardly ever post anywhere anymore.

Except, of course, for this...

Re:I got a job from /. posting... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741132)

Notthepainter, could you come see me in my office? I want to talk about your public discussions of my web stalking activities.

-the boss

Monoculture is not resistant to disaster (2, Insightful)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741034)

The big danger of judging people by their character as a fit to a culture is that a particular character type becomes over-represented, and all decision-making could basically be made interchangeably by any member of the organization. Just as a gene pool that has little diversity is much more vulnerable to disaster, so to is the organization that believes that it will be more effective by stereotyping people according to their determination of their character.

Choices (5, Insightful)

Andy Smith (55346) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741042)

Just one more reason to watch what you post, folks

Or one more reason to make ethical career choices, such as not working for a company that doesn't respect your right to a private life.

Re:Choices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741466)

explain to me again how a random company can monitor one's fb account which isn't set to public?

wait 30s...

post!

idiots (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741046)

When will people learn not to give out your private information to people that have total control over your earning power? It doesn't even matter if you do anything illegal, just something that can be construed as bad for the company image. Have a photo on Facebook of you drinking MGD at a party while you work for A-B? Sorry dude, you added your boss as your friend, and he just fired you.

Why do we need facebook/myspace/etc anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741064)

Here's a tip: Just don't get on those kinds of social sites. We did perfectly well before those things, and they obviously are causing more trouble than it's worth. So refuse to partake in the herd mind. Be free!

Thats a great idea (5, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741068)

The hardest thing about being in HR is justifying your existence. The HR department where I work spits out a constant stream of useless projects, purely so they can claim to be doing something. For example we have a program to encourage employees to find people to apply for jobs at our company, but there are no positions open to apply for. The list goes on.

Snake oil products like this are ideal for HR. They take maybe a fifth of an HR person to administer, so it looks great on the HR managers resume (always looking for that next job, go home and update your resume). They use money (administered a budget of $DOLLARS, also great on the resume). They sound like a good idea. Its sounds really web 2.0 and hip to be involved. Really, it can't fail.

It just won't work.

Re:Thats a great idea (3, Interesting)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741152)

that sounds like HR in my organization, always cluelessly creating non-working program to solve inexistent problems while totally ignoring the real problems.

It's better to have applicants and not need them (1)

Rix (54095) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741290)

Than to need applicants and not have them.

Re:It's better to have applicants and not need the (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741472)

Of course case 1 can lead to case 2 once word gets around that you are just jerking people around.

europe under attack by gay muslim missionmarys (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741088)

not hard to guess whois next? the hate can't get any bigger than this?

you call this 'weather'?

the search continues;
google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=weather+manipulation

google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=bush+cheney+wolfowitz+rumsfeld+wmd+oil+freemason+blair+obama+weather+authors

meanwhile (as it may take a while longer to finish wrecking this place); the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their (slippery/slimy) 'platform' now. see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

never a better time to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

I wonder... (2, Insightful)

holiggan (522846) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741118)

... what the Facebook/Twitter/media-stuff profiles of the people involved in that company look like.

What was the expression? "Eat your own dog food",was it?

Unintended effects (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741128)

If these people can't get a job, what motivation do they have to change? If you've got nothing to lose and no prospects of anything better, why not commit crimes? Do we really want violence prone drug addicts wandering the streets with nothing to do?

How are they getting this info? (2, Interesting)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741156)

I would never allow anyone I work for (or with) to be friends with me on Facebook, and if I haven't added you all you can see is my name, picture, and a link to message me and request to be added as a friend.

Re:How are they getting this info? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741504)

That's naïve. You can't possibly stop information leaking from people you trust, and the more people you know, the greater the probability that they in turn know someone and share something from you that you'd prefer they didn't. There's an old saying that the probability of a secret getting out is equal to the number of people who knows it, squared. You should think about that. If you want privacy, don't ever create any stupid accounts anywhere where you reveal private information, and pray to God nobody you know does either. If you want details, you could try asking Sir John Sawers. ;)

Credit should go to Phillip K. Dick (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741192)

Shouldn't we be giving credit to Phillip K. Dick for authoring this story idea instead of Spielberg who, undoubtedly, has enough credits to his name and merely directed this film?

Re:Credit should go to Phillip K. Dick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741528)

Shouldn't we be giving credit to Phillip K. Dick for authoring this story idea instead of Spielberg who, undoubtedly, has enough credits to his name and merely directed this film?

I am hard pressed to find evidence that Spielberg ever had an original idea in his life.

Phillip "kike" Dickhead strikes again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741562)

Kike, Kike!

Weasel-like,
scheming since a hook-nosed tyke,
counts his pennies day and night,
squeals if one rolls out of sight.
Promotes a thousand Social ills...
For which you'll have to foot the bills. ...Eventually in love, he falls...
And weds a shrew who swipes his balls...
Soon this pair of whining scum...
will beat their breasts just like a drum...
and cry about the loved ones lost,
in a myth they call "The Holocaust."
Coarse and pushy...
Greedy and trite...

Beware the JEWISH PARASITE.

You mean publishing idiocy can be damaging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741194)

Who knew saying stupid things in public could be damaging?

The Plus Side (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741212)

You know, there may be a bit of a masked positive side to this kind of behavior...depending on how you look at things. Sure, you may not be able to get just any job you apply for anymore. On the other hand, this helps act as a bit of a filter for you, by weeding out employment solicitations from companies that you wouldn't enjoy working for in the first place. I know that if a company I otherwise found interesting was extremely biased towards folks with, say, unpopular political views, I wouldn't want to work there because I tend to sample and research unpopular political views out of curiosity. Any company that considers such curiosity to be a detriment to their product or business model is not a company I'd want to work for.

So yeah, the double-sided sword cuts both ways. You may not get a job because of your lifestyle or online behavior or whatever, but "Company X" might not get a good employee because of their overly restrictive HR-imposed stereotypes. In that case, it's their loss.

Proof (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741228)

based on their potential for violence, drug abuse or just plain bad judgment.

Posting anything on Facebook or Twitter is proof of bad judgement.

a dur factor 5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741302)

another reason not to go by your real life name for social network reasons
-- you should always have at least 2 separate accounts in my opinion
1 with completely false info and sure friend your personal life real life friends ,put your drunk and crunk pics up on the site..
the 2nd account should be a professional one with your name if you need one to network with people in the same industry or business if needed
and or to keep your life separate.

   

dont do it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33741328)

or just dont post anything at all? i have a really sparse online persona, and my real persona is not connected to it. in fact, my real name cant be found on the internet!
imagine that?

Automating it makes it gameable (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741346)

Remember all the stories about fake twitter accounts, e.g. David Miliband [editorsweblog.org] and fake FB accounts?

With automated systems using these, I wonder if it doesn't make it more likely plain rotten people will create fake accounts under the name and place of people they don't like, as a revenge tactic.

Mining data from social networks is one thing.... actually authenticating that data or verifying the actual identity of the poster reliably, is hard.

I am a gammer (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741350)

mm so I play war games ie battles with model soldiers so is that "Demonstrating Potentially Violent Behavior" one of the alleged things they look for.or do i just counter claim that social intelligence are obviously loony lefties and unpatriotic commies to boot. now where did I put that Daily Mail reporters mail address or should I ring up Sarah Palin/Local Tea party and mention that thease pinko's in california.

"based on... just plain bad judgment." (1)

Sir Realist (1391555) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741368)

"based on... just plain bad judgment."

You mean like, they had a Facebook account with their real name on it?

pitifully easy to create a false persona online (1)

VTEngineer (1033634) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741482)

so create one and use it exclusively. Maintain your real name persona as dull and lifeless. Corporate goodness ensues. Honestly, I fail to see the validity in this. Just too easy to be a different age, profession or even gender online. This test will trap the morons, but not much else. No excuse for due diligence in the hiring process. There just is no substitute for doing the hard research on an applicant.

This will root out those same people (1)

barfy (256323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741488)

That don't realize that the new guy with the camera crew is somehow not the Undercover Boss?

Back in the good old days, reputation mattered (1)

Sowelu (713889) | more than 3 years ago | (#33741506)

Yeah. In small towns, word gets around. People know who you are, people talk about people, you get a rep--even if you haven't been convicted of doing anything wrong. And I kind of think that's a good thing. The Internet means that everything is right next door...and everyone's your neighbor. Is that really such a bad thing? Don't be a twit in public.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...