Beta

×

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!

FTC Okays Social Media Background Check Company

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the coming-back-to-haunt-you dept.

Facebook 229

nonprofiteer writes "The FTC has dropped its investigation of a new company that runs social media background checks and ongoing Internet/social media monitoring of employees, determining its compliant with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. So make sure your gun photos are private and that you're not part of any 'Legalize marijuana' Facebook groups."

cancel ×

229 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

and it begins (3, Informative)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455178)

And it begins muahahhahahha. First your boss makes you friend him on face book, now your future boss wants to know everything about you that isn't his business.

Re:and it begins (2)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455430)

Here's a great laughable tidbit from TFA: they weren't willing to help a company in Colorado check for if someone was gay not because it's illegal (apparently it's not), but because it would be unethical. I'm sorry, guys, but drop the pretense. You were willing to help another company go on a witch hunt for those whose political beliefs they disagreed with, you have no sense of ethics.

"I like to think we are providing a service not just by screening for employers, but in helping to protect job applicants by creating a standard process for online background checks and a service that presents them with reports on negative material." Actual quote from the company's COO. He's either a complete imbecile, or a monster.

Re:and it begins (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455462)

in an indirect way he's right. if they manage to corner the market, they become a magnet for public outcry and possibly lawsuits which is about as good as accountability gets in the US.

or: a known target is easier to manage than an unknown target.

i don't think that's what the coo meant, but maybe it was... nowadays reaching a size enough to be "regulated" is probably the best way to achieve security for a company. at least in the short-term.

Re:and it begins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455536)

I prefer the North Korean accountability [youtube.com] . Just shoot the bastard.

Re:and it begins (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455672)

"I like to think we are providing a service not just by screening for employers, but in helping to protect job applicants by creating a standard process for online background checks and a service that presents them with reports on negative material." Actual quote from the company's COO. He's either a complete imbecile, or a monster.

I suppose they do a fairly effective job of flagging companies managed by megalomaniacs and/or morons. If they released their entire client list under the heading "Companies you really, really don't want to work for:", I'd probably cut them some slack.

Re:and it begins (2)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455792)

they weren't willing to help a company in Colorado check for if someone was gay not because it's illegal (apparently it's not), but because it would be unethical. I'm sorry, guys, but drop the pretense. You were willing to help another company go on a witch hunt for those whose political beliefs they disagreed with, you have no sense of ethics.

Although I have no doubt that they have very low standards of ethics - especially as I rather suspect that the only way to see the reports they have on you, like a credit check report, is going to cost you a pretty penny - I can see their point made there.

Your political preference is a choice. Yes, you may have grown up in a conservative family and surrounded by conservatives all your life and the school you went to may be largely filled with people (students and faculty staff) who are conservatives), but it's still your choice as to whether you'd vote Tea Party or Republican or Independent or Democrat or whatever.

Your sexual preference, however, tends not to be a choice. This has been debated to hell and back, of course, but last I knew the consensus among scientists at least was that it's far less nurture than it is nature.

Screening for either is kinda effed up - compared to screening for things that could, or would, directly affect the employer - but it's less ethical to do screening on sexual preference than it is to screen on political preference.

No way. (2)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455194)

Now I'm going to join every offensive group on Facebook that I can just so I know who's spying on me.

Why guns? (4, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455204)

Why would you need to 'hide' your gun photos?

There's nothing illegal about owning and being proud of guns (at least in the US)...so I don't get this comment on the article.

It isn't like being a gun owner would prevent anyone from getting a job or anything...never heard of that one.

Re:Why guns? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455250)

drinking isn't illegal, but people have been refused jobs because the employer saw a photo of the applicant drinking alcohol.

Re:Why guns? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455326)

Maybe it was the context of the picture rather than the alcohol. I have never heard of anyone being denied a job because they were photographed having a glass of wine with dinner. However, I might think twice before hiring someone for a professional position if their Facebook page is full of pictures of them doing a handstand on a keg while drinking from the tap.

Re:Why guns? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455364)

And why would you do that? What does someone's personal life have to do with their ability to conduct themselves professionally?

I mean, I can understand if they included that picture on their resume, but really?

Re:Why guns? (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455464)

What does someone's personal life have to do with their ability to conduct themselves professionally?

It depends. If you're hiring a high-school teacher, or a cop, or appointing a public official, for example, a picture of the candidate doing a keg-stand could damage their credibility if made public and impair their ability to effectively do their job.

Re:Why guns? (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455554)

I see a lot of big words, but no real reason. You think high school teachers, cops, and public officials did not do keg stands in college? Or that none of them partied?

Damaging someone's credibility amongst a certain stuck-up demographic need not impair their ability to do their jobs -- I'm curious to see how you made that connection.

Re:Why guns? (2)

gnick (1211984) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455722)

I'm saying that a high-school student may not have the same level of respect for a teacher once they've seen them doing a keg-stand - College pics are one thing, but if your teachers comes in with bloodshot eyes and the students have pictures of him/her in a drunken stupor taken over the weekend, they may not give the same level of respect as they might otherwise. And I'm sure you've noticed how damning those pictures of Weiner have been for him, although it doesn't appear that he broke any laws by sharing them.

I'm not saying that it's right or that I agree with it - In a perfect society a person's personal activities should not affect them outside of their private life. But our society bears little semblance to one with that rigid divide. Right or wrong, especially for people in public positions, allowing your private life to become public can cripple you.

Re:Why guns? (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455486)

Employers make a lot of (often invalid) assumptions based around that kind of thing. You know, like that employees will be useless on Monday until 2pm because of the hangovers, etc. Or less severely, maybe it just indicates a poor cultural fit (or a great one - there's no reason these photos can't work in your favor)

Re:Why guns? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455658)

What does someone's personal life have to do with their ability to conduct themselves professionally?

It is not uncommon to have a background check as a job requirement. If one cannot control their personal finances such that they have a decent credit rating, that may already be negatively impacting themselves as a candidate. If one cannot obey the law and has a criminal record, that may already be negatively impacting themselves as a candidate.

While the keg-stand itself may not be grounds to suspect one may not be able to do their job, their willingness to post it on Facebook may indicate they lack the discretion that is often required by a professional

You may not like it, but the individual is often the image of the company they represent. Some companies are aware of that.

Re:Why guns? (4, Informative)

Flea of Pain (1577213) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455440)

Here you go then, fired for having a few drinks, and one expletive on a private facebook page. [wsbtv.com]

Re:Why guns? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455476)

However, I might think twice before hiring someone for a professional position if their Facebook page is full of pictures of them doing a handstand on a keg while drinking from the tap.

Why? If they have no history of showing up to work drunk and are competent in their profession why is it any of your business what they do when they aren't working?

Re:Why guns? (1)

rcuhljr (1132713) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455338)

We just arranged an employee trip to the shooting range a month or two back to get new shooters into the sport. Although by the same logic how many companies don't have a group that meets at the bar after work? I can't imagine any non public facing job where you drinking would come up in an interview. Although I do think our neo-prohibitionist stance that rears up any time a teacher is seen drinking is pretty stupid.

Re:Why guns? (2)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455900)

One company I worked for did something similar, arranging a trip to a private rifle range out practically in the middle of nowhere. Unfortunately, layoffs and a general pay cut were announced the week before.

Incidentally, there's several openings in management-level positions.

Re:Why guns? (2)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455480)

Well was the applicant just drinking a beer on a terrace? If so.. hey, great, they know how to enjoy themselves a little.

But what if they were shitfaced, doing shots off some scantily clad young lady clearly much younger than them, in a dark bar with a bunch of other obviously drunk people around them? Now that person is a potential liability.

Similarly, if somebody is a registered firearm owner, part of a (sports) shooting club, etc. Hey, not my cup of tea, but good on them.

But if they're posing with guns 'gangsta style' in front of a collection of guns that wouldn't look out of place in military cache and one of their facebook friends is a down-with-the-man type collection of anti-corporate individuals, perhaps I'd rather avoid the situation that might occur when the person gets let go by simply not hiring them in the first place.

Now, of course, that person at the terrace might get shitfaced at home with a friend who works for the competition. And somebody who has never touched a gun can develop a rage the world has not witnessed before, buy themselves a firearm and go postal, too.

But at least they have the sense to keep such events or inclinations out of the social media sphere.

So yes, I can understand why companies might screen applicants' social media presence.

I do think it's ridiculous and rather invasive (since not everything in the social media sphere is under the applicant/employee's control), however. But there's no way to put that genie back in the bottle.

Re:Why guns? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455320)

There's nothing illegal about supporting the legalization of pot.

Or supporting the other political party than your boss does.

Or being gay. Or black. Or having gay or black friends.

Or not turning your back and shunning old friends just because they may be leading a sketchy life.

Or having a medical condition which might prove costly to the companies insurance plan.

Or being a hunter. Or being a vegan.

All of which are reasons you will lose you your job thanks to this service. (Of course, they wouldn't openly fire you for being gay, but clever HR knows how to tapdance).

You aren't allowed to keep home and work seperate anymore, and that's sad, and will lead to future generations of stressed out slaves, all under the eye of the bossman 24/7.

I don't have a facebook account. The gag is, I work in advertising and write a lot of facebook apps!

Re:Why guns? (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455470)

From TFA (yeah, I guess I'm a square because I checked it out):

...as long as it complies with the Fair Credit Reporting Act to ensure that its clients let job applicants know when something that turned up in a background check had an adverse effect on their getting employed, or rather not getting employed.

So if they reported to your potential employer that you love cake and that caused your employer to think you'd grab more than one slice during employee functions that contain cake and therefore could not possibly be hired, they will be required to tell you that your cave love is what did you in.

Then I suppose it's up to you and your local Equal Opportunity Office to determine if the employer broke the law, whether those who love cave are a protected group, and what the punishment is.

Personally, I'd like to know who Social Intelligence Corporation's clients are so I can know which employers seek to be the employee's parents and I can save myself the trouble of including them in my job searches.

Cave Love (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455764)

That would be a great band name

Re:Why guns? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455918)

...your cave love is what did you in.

The cake is a lie.

Re:Why guns? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455930)

Oh please, nobody on Slashdot can be that gullible.

You were indeed not hired because of your love of cake. That's 100% the exact reason for them choosing not to hire you.
What they will tell you, if anything (which in itself is doubtful) is that they simply found a better applicant, that your education didn't fit the position they were hiring for, or whatever other BS reason they come up with on their chart of "legal reasons to not hire someone".

Re:Why guns? (5, Insightful)

gnick (1211984) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455506)

All of which are reasons you will lose you your job thanks to this service. (Of course, they wouldn't openly fire you for being gay, but clever HR knows how to tapdance).

No tap dancing necessary depending on the state. TFA specifically points out that Colorado does not prohibit selective employment based on sexual orientation. Just because what you're doing is legal doesn't necessarily mean that your activities in your private life can't legally be used to refuse you employment or fire you. That doesn't necessarily make it right, it just makes it legal.

Re:Why guns? (4, Funny)

contrapunctus (907549) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455354)

Why would you need to 'hide' your gun photos?

i know right? i spent a lot of hours in the gym on those guns.

Re:Why guns? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455402)

In some companies, particularly companies out of Vally AL, or West Point, GA; pictures of you at with a gun, or at a teabagger rally will get you hired, perhaps even in management.

Re:Why guns? (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455660)

Can I get the address of these companies?

Re:Why guns? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455452)

It doesn't matter what's legal or not legal. It only matters what the HR person/boss likes or dislikes. They will - of course - find some unrelated reason to get rid of you, one that will stand up in court even though it is ridiculous by any standard ("lack of work" being the most common, even if you walk in later you find someone else, preferably lower paid, doing the exact same work).

Re:Why guns? (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455498)

any responsible, sober gun owner understands their gun is a tool, not a form of in-your-face identity politics

anyone who has a need to display their gun as a point of public pride, to me, is someone who has confidence and discretion issues i don't really want to deal with

a reason to deny someone a job? no

a reason to feel uncomfortable around the person? sure. and then to choose another equally qualified job candidate who doesn't make you feel so uncomfortable? sure

you have a right to be as immodest and vulgar about your identity politics as you want

but you don't have a right to demand that the straights and squares not be uncomfortable around you, exactly at the same time as you purposefully seek to make the straights and squares as uncomfortable as you can

make your choice about what you display to the world in life, and then live with the consequences. you have no right to complain about how you are judged, when you purposefully elicit those judgments with your public displays of pride in things which, perhaps, you shouldn't be so proud of

a gun is an ugly tool whose responsible usage is always grim and sober. don't look at a gun hater for this assessment, look to a responsible gun owner for this assessment

so i seriously wonder about the mindset of someone who finds great joy in celebrating their public image with a tool of carnage. maybe i don't want to work with such a person if another more discrete and modest and confident potential employee's resume is sitting right next to yours

Re:Why guns? (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455614)

but you don't have a right to demand that the straights and squares not be uncomfortable around you,

Straights and squares won't be uncomfortable around someone who has pictures of himself on facebook holding a gun or using it in some manner. It's only the nutcases who think pictures of someone holding a gun equate to "a point of public pride", or "confidence and discretion issues" that one needs to worry about.

a gun is an ugly tool whose responsible usage is always grim and sober.

Bullshit.

don't look at a gun hater for this assessment,

Why not? You're the only one I've ever heard say something as stupid as that.

look to a responsible gun owner for this assessment

A responsible gun owner is going to say that a gun is a tool that can be used for good things, and can provide enjoyment and recreation just like any other sporting implement. They certainly won't think it is "grim and sober" when they go out shooting skeet, they do it for fun.

so i seriously wonder about the mindset of someone who finds great joy in celebrating their public image with a tool of carnage.

Meanwhile, you leave your "mindset" completely open for the world to see and laugh at.

maybe i don't want to work with such a person

And more importantly, maybe THEY don't want to work in a hostile environment where they face the possibility of retaliation from a gun hater just because they enjoy a legal, safe sport.

Re:Why guns? (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455698)

i'm talking about handguns, you're talking about rifles

which, in a way, is my fault for not clearly enunciating

so, if everywhere you saw "gun" you read "handgun" instead of "hunting rifle", do you have any argument with what i said?

Re:Why guns? (1)

TehDuffman (987864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455786)

i'm talking about handguns, you're talking about rifles

which, in a way, is my fault for not clearly enunciating

so, if everywhere you saw "gun" you read "handgun" instead of "hunting rifle", do you have any argument with what i said?

Yes you're still wrong. I have shot handguns many time for the enjoyment of it.

Re:Why guns? (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455872)

so tell me what you see:

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=thug+handgun&oq=thug+handgun [google.com]

i'll tell you what i see: lack of confidence, insecurity, immodesty, lack of discretion, borderline personality, anger management issues

aka, someone i don't want to hire

am i wrong?

Re:Why guns? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455620)

Tell us how you really feel about guns

Re:Why guns? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455642)

anyone who has a need to display their gun as a point of public pride, to me, is someone who has confidence and discretion issues i don't really want to deal with

Just because someone posts a picture of something doesn't mean they had some deep-seated "need" to display it, or whatever "issues" you choose to make up and assign to them. You are NOT capable of divining someone's personality from their Flickr feed, and to imagine that you are is both dishonest and stupid.

Re:Why guns? (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455706)

if the picture you choose to show the world is you with a gun, you really are telling the world something about your personality, whether consciously or subconsciously

Re:Why guns? (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455676)

So, the pictures on my Facebook page of my competing in organized shooting competition makes me immodest and vulgar?

Re:Why guns? (2)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455716)

So, the pictures on my Facebook page of my competing in organized shooting competition makes me immodest and vulgar?

No, as long as you are grim and sober the entire time and get no pleasure from winning any such competitions, and understand that the straights and squares will be scared of you, you're fine. And make sure you abhore the carnage you create by blowing holes in pieces of paper or shattering clay disks...

Re:Why guns? (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455770)

i apologized to you already, read my response above. i meant "handgun", not "rifle." surely you can agree a guy with a need to pose with a handgun has issues

Re:Why guns? (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455742)

actually, no, and i apologized to another person who replied as well

i was thinking handguns, you were thinking rifles, the only word used was "gun"

so if you replace "handgun" everywhere i wrote "gun", then we are ok

again, apologies

Re:Why guns? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455514)

Unless they are illegal in the US...

Re:Why guns? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455518)

Maybe because for many of us, gun toting is synonymous with crazies and losers.

Types of folks who coddle their guns:
1) Cowards who are afraid of stuff and think they need a gun to protect them from the stuff they are afraid of.
2) Losers who get their kicks killing things. Like Palin shooting carabou from a plane and leaving them to die slowly, and their carcasses to rot (or poison scavengers with lead).
3) Trailer trash who feed their families on found road kill, and the squirrels their kids manage to pick off with the .22.
4) Crazies with "lists"

So, nothing illegal, but do you want to be associated with these crazies and losers? You really think that association will help you get that job (professional jobs assumed)?

Re:Why guns? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455938)

Maybe because for many of us, gun toting is synonymous with crazies and losers.

By "many of us", you really meant "stupid, worthless bigots like me who take refuge in willfully ignorant stereotypes because we are terrified of confronting the complex nature of a reality where people cannot be accurately judged on superficial criteria".

But I can see how you'd want to save some typing.

Re:Why guns? (0)

scarboni888 (1122993) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455710)

"It isn't like being a gun owner would prevent anyone from getting a job or anything...never heard of that one."

I wouldn't hire a gun owner. There's a lot of people who got upset and then brought their guns to work. Situations like that have caused a lot of lost productivity and I hate to imagine the lost profits from incidents like that. No - I want to know exactly who's a gun owner and who isn't. Easy to be responsible and rational when everything's going well but you just don't know when a person is going to snap - especially if you fire them.

Re:Why guns? (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455898)

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

-- Robert A. Heinlein

re:Why guns? (1)

SlappyMcInty (688145) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455894)

Because the submitter is an anti-gun ninny?

tell me what you see: (-1, Redundant)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455916)

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=thug+handgun [google.com]

i'll tell you what i see:

lack of confidence, insecurity, immodesty, lack of discretion, borderline personality disorder, anger management issues, immaturity, explosive hostility

aka, someone i don't want to hire

am i wrong?

people who have a need to pose with a handgun are communicating character weaknesses i don't want to deal with in a job environment

Re:Why guns? or pot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36456052)

And pot should have been legalized long ago. I guess I'm old enough that my online persona is still a fake one. I never took to facebook because they wanted real info. I still converse with my friends via their online avatars. Real info never goes out online

No (4, Insightful)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455212)

How about making sure you don't work for someone that'll fire you for being part of a legalize marijuana FB group?

Re:No (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455350)

Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.

"Excrements" is not a word. I believe you're looking for "feces" or "excreta". Or, alternatively, "A grammar Nazi is to this community what a pile of excrement is to gold."

Re:No (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455538)

When real unemployment rates are over 15%, and forclosure rates are the highest in recorded history, how picky can you be about your employer?

Re:No (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455564)

Yeah, who cares about personal freedom? It's totally worth selling your soul to get a job.

Re:No (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455766)

I'm on your side here. I think it's appaling that one has to choose between speaking their mind in public and potentially endangering their economic welfare. But such is the world in which we live.

If you really want people to be free to speak their minds, we need not only the political freedom to do so, but the economic freedom to do so. I don't think this can be accomplished under Capitalism. As long as there is economic inequality there will be political inequality as well.

Re:No (1)

rjhubs (929158) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455832)

I would never work for a company that would discriminate based on what I choose to do outside of work hours. However, I am able to realize that not everyone is in as good a position as I am and that my current lifestyle is not just a product of my hard work but also some fortunate circumstance. So I would hate for anyone who needs to get a job to feed their family to be discriminated against based on their outside of work activities. Why should they have less personal freedom than I?

The point GP was making is that some people are not in a position to be picky about their employer. So this acceptance of social media background checks hurts them the most. Selling your soul is one thing, but not having a soul and being indifferent to the plight of those less fortunate than you is much worse.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455970)

Who cares about eating? It's totally worth starving to "stick it to The Man".

Re:No (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455798)

This is the kind of environment in which rights erode quickly, right in public view. 9/11, the economy, etc. See also: The "Patriot" Act, Wisconsin union-busting, etc.

Re:No (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455934)

Indeed. Economic depression played no small part in Hitler's rise to power. I don't expect the end of American hegemony to be any prettier.

Re:No (1)

drpimp (900837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455730)

No shit, I couldn't agree with you more. Not to mention I know MANY people that support it (albeit maybe not on FB group), that don't smoke or never have, but aren't necessarily against it. Isn't that what drug tests are for?

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455810)

No, drug testing is about breaking civil liberty by invading privacy. Drug testing only punishes marijuana users. Cocaine, amphetamines, and heroin are all out of your system in 2-3 days, while marijuana is in there for weeks to months.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455962)

Very easy ... in the bay area the job market is always booming. If you are in tech there are companies dying to fill spots. I don't stop getting calls from recruiters and companies and I have never even published my number.

I would *NEVER* work for a company that gives me a problem about smoking pot. Where I currently work its very openly discussed because ... hell, its San Francisco. You wouldn't have anyone to hire if you made a big stink about it.

FTFS: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455214)

So make sure your gun photos are private.

So it's illegal to own a gun now?

Re:FTFS: (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455348)

It's not illegal to own a gun, but an employer can fire you because of it. Hell, they can fire you for wearing a yellow shirt, they can fire you for almost anything and call it a "performance" issue.

Or not (2)

TheCycoONE (913189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455224)

So make sure your gun photos are private and that you're not part of any 'Legalize marijuana' Facebook groups."

Or the opposite to ensure that you're only hired by people that share your values or won't spy on your social media.

Re:Or not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455310)

Yes, because in an age where McDonalds will get a million responses to an offer of 10,000, low-paid, crappy jobs there's obviously more than enough jobs around for everyone to be picky.

Re:Or not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455950)

ensure that you're only hired by people that share your values or won't spy on your social media.

Yeah, because there are more than enough jobs to go around, and we can be picky.

This kind of thing could kill facebook... (1)

Lohrno (670867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455290)

This should be illegal. This is pretty much why I have a Facebook account, but don't use it often. Everything I post or do goes through a filter of "Is this going to be detrimental to my future?"

Re:This kind of thing could kill facebook... (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455324)

This should be illegal.

Quite. The fact that this is being allowed to go on is sickening. What an employee does in his/her free time is none of the employer's damn business.

Re:This kind of thing could kill facebook... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455442)

Yeah, if I want to tweet pictures of my weenier to friends, it's none of my employer's business.

Re:This kind of thing could kill facebook... (1)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455558)

@anonymouscoward twitter doesn't work that way #whatisaweenier #yourdoingitwrong

Re:This kind of thing could kill facebook... (3, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455358)

Yeah illegal.
It's not a technical shortcoming of facebook's that you can't compartmentalize your presence, like we do ... in real life.

Re:This kind of thing could kill facebook... (1)

jbonomi (1839286) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455624)

Diaspora does this with the whole "aspects" thing. I really, really want that to take off...

Glad I forgot my slashdot login years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455318)

I would be more interested in using this to find out which potential employees think that facebook privacy settings protect them.

If you put it on facebook, it is there for someone to see and they can share it. Ask the Weiner guy about twitter.

Don't bring your home life to work (3, Interesting)

odin84gk (1162545) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455368)

I will not work for a company that wants to bring their home drama to work with them. Simple as that.

Re:Don't bring your home life to work (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455406)

You have therefor been flagged as "unhirable" by Social Intelligence for this comment. They check /. too!

Re:Don't bring your home life to work (1)

Jiro (131519) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455482)

Well, if you don't want to work for them, the company is glad to oblige and not let you.

People take jobs because they need to eat and pay the rent. As such, "I don't want to work for them" may be irrelevant if you want starving and going homeless even less.

Re:Don't bring your home life to work (1)

preaction (1526109) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455566)

This is bringing your work life home. You are now judged on your home life whether you are worthy to have a work life.

Re:Don't bring your home life to work (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455626)

It reminds me of those who boycott companies because their CEO has a political opinion they disagree with.

Re:Don't bring your home life to work (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455758)

I will not join an online community that forces me to use my real name. Simple as that.

Funny thing is that if they search for my real name, I am apparently a marathon runner.

Luckily I was early aware about the risks of having whatever you do out in public for always and ever and have tried to avoid it as much as possible.

What is wrong with legalization of marijuana? (1)

cjonslashdot (904508) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455456)

What is wrong with legalization of marijuana? That is a political opinion. In fact, the Kato institute supports legalization. See http://www.cato.org/drug-war [cato.org]

facebook may have peaked... (4, Informative)

romanval (556418) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455458)

since they lost 6 million users [telegraph.co.uk] in the last month alone.

People are starting to realize that too much information can be a bad thing. (Aside from how many times you need to hear some long lost classmate bitching about their job or kids).

Re:facebook may have peaked... (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455546)

Now that HR [hrwebadvisor.com] is asking for the user/password to Facebook accounts from perspective job hunters, I can see how that might be a problem.

Re:facebook may have peaked... (1)

jcoy42 (412359) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455606)

While pictures of you at the keg party might be popular when you're in high school/college, you might not want them showing up when you're hunting for a job. I'd attribute most of it to that.

Re:facebook may have peaked... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455636)

Can you believe it! My son fired me from my job today after he saw the picture of me on Facebook doing a kegstand with a fully loaded Browning Automatic Rifle!

Re:facebook may have peaked... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455686)

Where is the new up and coming site now? Need to keep up with the fads so I can say I was there.

Watch what you post on slashdot too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455472)

Don't think they won't see you trolling here!

Keep the foxes honest.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455528)

This will be just fine, only if the reporting agency is held to a exceptionally high standard of diligence in regard to accuracy and fact-checking.
Otherwise, let them fight off hordes of civil litigation...

For Lulz (1)

chrisj_0 (825246) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455594)

A new LulzSec target :D

Facebook is for the clueless (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455600)

Anyone with a brain saw this coming long before now.

Whether it is legal or not is beside the point. If you use Facebook
you are providing info about yourself to a very large number of
people you don't know, and ( here is a clue for you ) not all of these
people will act in a friendly manner toward you.

There's no real reason to use Facebook, and the smartest people I know
already know this. If you want to keep up with your friends ( no you don't
have 800 friends ) you use email and the phone. If you want to disseminate
info about yourself to a select group of people, you put up your own web page
and make sure those in the select group know not to share the login password.

If you use Facebook, you deserve each and every nasty thing which results.
Welcome to the real world, where there are consequences for stupid actions
whether you think that's "fair" or not ( here's a second clue for you : there is no
such thing as "fair" in the real world ).

Re:Facebook is for the clueless (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455694)

Some of us actually have friends though, so your solution won't work for us.

Re:Facebook is for the clueless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36456010)

"Some of us actually have friends though, so your solution won't work for us."

What you really mean is that you're so stupid you think Facebook
is a necessary component of having friends.

That's some of the most pathetic shit I've seen in years.

Gun photos set to private? (1)

Montezumaa (1674080) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455646)

Why the hell do I need to make sure my "...gun photos are private..."? Owning and/or carrying firearms is a perfectly legal activity, and actually is a US Constitutionally protected right. An employer could not fire me for owning or carrying firearms, unless they do not allow it on company property(which does not cover parking lots, at least in Georgia). I support the fact that employers, just like other private property owners, can decide on who and what is allow on their private property, just as I am free to not support business that do not believe it supporting all rights of US citizens.

I am sorry if some of you live in countries that have disarmed the citizenry, that isn't the case in the United States. If you believe you need to hide pictures of firearms, or you holding firearms, then I feel bad for you.

Being a part of a "legalize marijuana" group no more means that I use or possess marijuana than being a part of a firearm's rights group means that I use, own, or possess firearms. Perhaps I just support that groups goal of ceasing to make criminals out of non-criminal behavior. As far as I am concerned, we should do away with all malum prohibitum laws, as they do nothing but criminal behavior that is not inherently unethical or immoral.

I suffer from severe pain, and I would support making it easier for people like me to gain easier access to chemicals that will easy pain and suffering. The current setup is horseshit.

Re:Gun photos set to private? (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455688)

I think you'll find that in most states, your employer can fire you for any reason, as long as that reason is not your membership in a protected class.

credit rpt as Job applicant sifter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36455704)

When the credit company tells that info to an employer, knowing full well that you aren't applying for a loan, they are commiting fraud because they have no evidence that the credit worthiness corrolates to good job performance in a specific job.
Anyone who gets turned down for this in a non financial job should band together for a class action slander suit. They should include the potential employer & nail them w/ RICO. That's the only way to stop this nonsense.

Re:credit rpt as Job applicant sifter (1)

DewDude (537374) | more than 3 years ago | (#36455928)

I tried that argument.

I was told "well, if you can't pay your bills then obviously you're not responsible enough to work here"....ok, yeah, the fact I held the same job for over 8 years and there's a report of being an identity theft victim tells you I'm an irresponsible person.

They say unemployment is down, yet every employer these days wants to run credit-checks to disqualify everyone. It's a downward spiral that doesn't seem to want to fix itself, because the employers are still making money hand over fist.
It's been tried in the past, I'm pretty sure. My lawyer told me "it's not worth the hassle...we're not going to win and we'll go bankrupt trying to win".

Simple solution: (1)

Joe Snipe (224958) | more than 3 years ago | (#36456016)

I always register my accounts in my Boss's name. Apparently he is into some pretty weird stuff...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>