Slashdot Log In
Should Job Seekers Tell Employers To Quit Snooping?
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Mar 04, 2009 01:14 AM
from the easy-for-you-to-say-you-have-a-job dept.
from the easy-for-you-to-say-you-have-a-job dept.
onehitwonder writes in with a CIO opinion piece arguing that potential employees need to stand up to employers who snoop the Web for insights into their after-work activities, often disqualifying them as a result. "Employers are increasingly trolling the web for information about prospective employees that they can use in their hiring decisions. Consequently, career experts advise job seekers to not post any photos, opinions or information on blogs and social networking websites (like Slashdot) that a potential employer might find remotely off-putting. Instead of cautioning job seekers to censor their activity online, we job seekers and defenders of our civil liberties should tell employers to stop snooping and to stop judging our behavior outside of work, writes CIO.com Senior Online Editor Meridith Levinson. By basing professional hiring decisions on candidates' personal lives and beliefs, employers are effectively legislating people's behavior, and they're creating an online environment where people can't express their true beliefs, state their unvarnished opinions, be themselves, and that runs contrary to the free, communal ethos of the Web. Employers that exploit the Web to snoop into and judge people's personal lives infringe on everyone's privacy, and their actions verge on discrimination."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
No, they don't (Score:4, Insightful)
"... and their actions verge on discrimination."
No, legal terms have legislated meanings, ad you don't get to make them up as you go along. Googling someone to see if they're a Nazi child molester on the no-fly list is perfectly legal, and as a hiring manager, you can bet I'm going to keep doing it.
Re:No, they don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, if employers are breaking into your private disk space, that's different...
Maybe I'll post this anonymously, so it can't be used against me...
Parent
Re:No, they don't (Score:5, Interesting)
But what about the information other people have put out about me?
Parent
Re:No, they don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Politely or by Cease & Desist, depending on your relationship.
Do you have ANY idea how difficult that is? Or how much it costs? Just the research alone can take hours. Sending them a C&D is fairly easy, you can do that yourself, if you can find an address to send it. Otherwise you're going to have to get their name, a trick all by itself, and use that to get an address. That might mean hiring an investigator...$50-$60/hour these days. But following up with legal action to get it enforced would cost thousands. How many unemployed people do you think can afford that? Unless you're going to do it all yourself. And, let's suppose you blunder through the morass of the legal system and manage to get a judgment, then all you have to do is figure out how to have it properly served and enforced. By the time you get done with all that, you could almost go to law school.
That's answer is right up there with the pompous douchebags who say, "If you don't like the law get it changed." Thoughtless twits.
Parent
Re:No, they don't (Score:5, Funny)
Potential employer "We saw some bad stuff about you on the Internet."
You: "Well, I saw some pretty crappy stuff about you too, but I certainly don't believe everything I read on the Internet. Or did you really have sex with a goat AND a chicken?"
Employers that are that clueless and can't adapt to the new realities won't last, so you're better off looking elsewhere anyway.
Parent
Re:No, they don't (Score:4, Insightful)
Potential employer "We saw some bad stuff about you on the Internet...
... so we threw your resume in the trash and you don't get a rebuttal."
Fixed that for you.
Parent
I can find work somewhere else (Score:5, Insightful)
My opinion is that if a place won't hire me over petty personal stuff, I don't need to work for them that badly. I spent my childhood and so far most of my youth studying so I'd be worth hiring, you can be sure I'm going to enjoy the benefits now.
For my current job I rolled up to the interview in a beat up old track car (I've heard it's a common practice in North America to rent a shiny new car just to drive to an interview) with shaggy hair. I was shaved, dressed nicely and otherwise well-groomed though. I gave straight honest answers to everything. I sent my resume from my personal email address - my slashdot username at gmail. That alone is enough for some people to scoff at, one previous place that interviewed me commented on it (although the work environment there seemed far too uptight for my liking). A search for my username would have turned up my Slashdot posts, me shootin' the shit in various forums, right down to the lolcats and dirty humor, my hobbies, along with a few positive things like me giving tech advice etc. Searching for my real name would turn up little or nothing. I don't have a Facebook page or anything like that, I value my privacy more than that.
So I let them have that, and they hired me. It's been a pretty good fit so far. Let's say I got a job at the place that scoffed at my username - would I want to work at a place so uptight if I had a choice?
So on the topic, I don't think employers should disqualify a potentially good worker on personal grounds - while totally within their rights, it's just wrong.
"Well Mr. Smith looks perfect on paper, he's got a clean criminal record and good references, but I've found photos of him "cosplaying" here - my informal research indicates this is a common pasttime for sexual deviants - and you can see he enjoys violent videogames here, he shows interest in a hacker forum here, and he jokingly doctors this photo of a fat woman on the back of a motorcycle here. I don't think we want this type in our company."
Parent
Re:No, they don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Potential employer "After reviewing your qualifications, we have decided not to pursue your application. Thank you for considering SpumCo"
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that fixed that for you for you.
Unfortunately, the reality is that potential employers almost literally never give any sort of reason, and very little useful feedback anymore, even if it would be positive or useful.
Parent
Re:No, they don't (Score:4, Interesting)
A friend of mine filed bankruptcy a while back. The court website has his name which shows up on the first page of a google search of his name.
They won't do anything about it. He didn't put it online yet it's there.
Parent
Re:No, they don't (Score:5, Interesting)
Googling someone to see if they're a Nazi child molester on the no-fly list is perfectly legal, and as a hiring manager, you can bet I'm going to keep doing it.
Just out of curiosity, is it just as legal if your google search finds the person posts on an online forum for, say, cancer patients, to use that as a pre-screen for who might be unacceptable insurance risks? I wouldn't be surprised if it was.
Unfortunately, I think it is ultimately wise to divorce your real identity from anything you do online however innocent it might be. (An exception could be made for strictly employment-related or technical stuff, but one should think really hard anytime they put real identity info online.) You never know what information could be used against you in some future situation.
Parent
I agree with you, hiring mangerman (Score:5, Interesting)
I have worked as a software contractor for a few years, and I have seen some disfunctional companies. I have to agree with your practices, captain HR sqeakyclean, because I do the same to you.
The boss I work for, the CIO, even you, get the same treatment you give me. So, if you are having problems with talent passing on your critical positions, well...you gave us the idea. Cat's out of the bag, good luck.
To Slashdot: Yeah, I am sort of being ironic and cute turning the parent poster's idea around. But, really, do this. I have been called in for contracts where half the company is suing the other half, I have worked with religious right wing bigots, and I almost went to an interview with Infinnium labs before I found out about their craziness. As embarrassing as some photos of a drunken kegger might be for you, your employers probably have a whole lot more to hide than you do.
Parent
Re:No, they don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Where does hypocrisy begin? (Score:5, Interesting)
How so?
Well, the people posting silly stuff about themselves tend to do so while thinking of a certain context and/or being in a particular state of mind (at home, relaxed, with friends, feeling in the mood for some snarkiness). So ... more often than not, context is half the message (if not more). But all and any context is lost in transmission via the Internet, thus loosing about half the message.
Suppose on the other hand that someone *really* has something to hide. They would take exceptionally good care not to leave tracks that are easily available for a hiring manager with some time on his hands and itchy keyboard fingers. They would even change their name if necessary.
Therefore Internet presence is likely to give false positives while false negatives are all but guaranteed. Whilst there might be some justification for Googling to see if people are "a Nazi child molester on the no-fly list", it's really unlikely that you'll find any such clear-cut evidence and for anything less what you find is hearsay evidence at best. It's not illegal, but neither is Tarot reading to screen applicants. But who cares, right?
Hypocrisy, double standards, and CYA ("Cover Your Backside") tactics are as American as apple pie. And the impact on people trying to land a job is simply not the issue for the ones responsible for hiring someone.
Why not?
Well, how would you like to be the manager responsible for hiring someone who subsequently has an industrial accident (while cold sober), and whose web presence shows him/her writing something snarky about getting soused on the job? Or who is subsequently investigated for having one single marijuana plant at home and who has blogged about the virtues of said weed for relaxation? Or someone who creates racial tensions after being hired while his (somewhat racist) blog is there for the world to see? Or (if you work in catering or manufacture baby food) someone who turns out to be sloppy with hygiene when his Facebook page shows him in a messy kitchen?
Would you feel comfortable when the word "due dilligence" is used around you afterwards? Would you like to hear your ambitious rival mouthing hypocritical guff about "putting the company first", "exercising commonsense when hiring people", or "being net-savvy" afterwards?
No?
Then you'd better use *all* online information you can Google your hands on in 5 minutes, right?
I don't think that managers hiring people really believe that an unfortunate scrap of Facebook material makes someone unsuitable. It's just that they've got a choice to make (if they're hiring at all) and they can't waste all morning on it. Any reason to weed someone out that doesn't reflect poorly on them (better yet, which makes them look "savvy") in the eyes the only audience that counts (other executives) is a help.
Fear of being unreasonably second-guessed is a major justification for a whole host of useless security boondoggles, and I firmly believe that it's also why we see employers Googling for people that send in their resume.
Parent
Re:No, they don't (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, if you are going to be so stubborn about infringing on our privacy, we are just going to have to pass legislation criminalising your behaviour, aren't we?
But how will you know if a firm passed you over because of something you said online? It'd be impossible to enforce.
It's just best not to worry about it. Firms who discriminate against people who aren't ashamed of their life and like to talk openly about it will wind up full of drones leaving all the creative people to assemble elsewhere. I hope.
Parent
Protected classes (Score:4, Insightful)
But how will you know if a firm passed you over because of something you said online? It'd be impossible to enforce.
Unfortunately, that's not true. It seems to make sense that there is no way that one could know why an employer did something. But certain legislators don't think that way.
For a number of classes of people ( genders, ethnic groups, etc ) the mere act of not having the right number of people of a certain class can be construed as proof that there was discrimination.
So, someday, after you have posted a picture of yourself butt-naked sharing a twelve-pack with your buddies outside the local convent, and you remain unemployed, you will be able to sue. All you will have to show is that X percent of the population does such things, and if a particular employer has significantly less than X percent of such people among their employees, they are therefore guilty of discrimination.
Parent
Re:No, they don't (Score:5, Insightful)
The majority of people who are going to suffer by having people look for them online are people who don't attempt to maintain a separate internet persona and are also publicly doing things that deserve to get them in trouble. If I look up a candidate and find them on Slashdot (on the assumption it can be verified as them) and they regularly flame or troll then you can bet that would effect my hiring decision. At the same time if I found that they often gave good and tolerant answers it would also effect my decision, except this time in a positive manner.
If you post information in public then expect employers to see it. If your employer was using devious methods to get hold of something you thought was private then yes it's an issue.
Parent
Re:No, they don't (Score:5, Funny)
What you mean like taking out a loan to pay for your US college education ?
Parent
Re:No, they don't (Score:4)
Nope it was in fact a reply to the parent post, that's why I clicked reply there, and not reply to your post.
Wow, aren't you pissy today? I don't know if you've noticed, but slashdot isn't exactly the most user-friendly forum to follow, especially in lengthier threads. That's why most of us QUOTE what we are responding to. We try to make it clear to fellow slashdotters instead of yelling things about "overinflated egos" and the like.
Seriously, it's posts like yours that really really make it hard to come back to slashdot. For every 10 great posts, there are a couple like yours--pointless, mean, and somehow trying to boast how much smarter you are than the rest of us.
Parent
Workplaces are juntas? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Workplaces are juntas? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? You don't have a vote into whether you have to stay there? Usually, your boss has a vote on it, and you do. You want to leave, your vote overrides his. He wants to fire you, his vote overrides yours. In other words, you have more say in one way, they have more say in another, so it's "checks and balances" time.
Employers who use irrelevant criteria in their hiring decisions will pay the price long-term, in lower-quality hires, since they'll be disqualifying some high-quality candidates for stupid reasons., The market will work it out, as they go out of business, replaced by employers with saner hiring policies.
Holy crapola, Batman, this person really IS a serf. They spend more than 4,380 hours a year at work! That's way more than the 40-hour week. Hope you're at least getting overtime.
Parent
Re:Workplaces are juntas? (Score:5, Insightful)
tomhudson suggested that such an organization is democratic because, after all, you can leave if you want to. That reflects a pretty profound misunderstanding of what democracy is.
Parent
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I going to sacrifice my own career for this cause? No.
While they shouldn't snoop, It isn't going to stop. Don't you snoop out your potential employers?
Just don't let any non-friends see your Facebook.
Re:Well (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it good to take a stand? Yes.
Am I going to sacrifice my own career for this cause? No.
Damn. I thought I was going to get that job after you announced you were taking a stand.
"It's good for you to take a stand. Good for me, that is."
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
Is it good to take a stand? Yes.
Am I going to sacrifice my own career for this cause? No.
If found this comment interesting. While I'm not commenting on you personally, the comment made me think of a Thomas Jefferson quote (of all things) that I think is especially poignant given recent events:
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for[ another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.
When we live on or near the brink of destitution such that we are totally dependent on our jobs (read, debt and utter lack of savings), businesses/employers/government have all the power and the people will lack the courage to stand up for what is right.
I'm not trying to be a doom-sayer here. Just pointing out a trend that I see where people often cite something unethical they see in their company or their industry in general but then never say anything about it because the potential retribution would lead to their economic demise. That, and I think that is one of the best Thomas Jefferson quotes ever.
Parent
Re:Well (Score:4, Interesting)
All that needs to happen at this point is someone who's got some sort of acumen in public relations needs to head up (or just throw it up themselves) a site that contains a "blacklist" of companies who engage in such practices.
I imagine a cross between the consumerist and fucked company.
If it becomes "cool" to check such a place before even dreaming of applying for a job at a specific company, and if thereby enough people take part, it will scare the bejeezus out of the few big fish needed to get the ball rolling.
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, those of us who have opted to not have children (so far? who the hell knows) will always find it easier to stand on their principles. Welcome to Lifestyles of the Rich and Childless.
Parent
Re:Absoutely correct (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Absoutely correct (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Go look for another job. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Go look for another job. (Score:5, Insightful)
People need to understand a simple concept: if you wouldn't feel comfortable saying something in front of a packed auditorium, you probably shouldn't say it in a public forum online. I absolutely defend an individual's right to express his views as he sees fit; similarly, I absolutely defend an employer's right to base his hiring decision on all publicly available information.
For some, increased transparency is a good thing. For others, it may prove more a hindrance. It's up to the individual to be conscious of how public actions may impact future opportunities.
Parent
Re:Go look for another job. (Score:5, Insightful)
People need to understand a simple concept: if you wouldn't feel comfortable saying something in front of a packed auditorium, you probably shouldn't say it in a public forum online.
Absolutely. If you're comfortable voicing the opinions you put online anywhere else, then you're probably going to be miserable working for a company that refuses to hire you based on those opinions. If you're an asshat who likes to piss people off, then you're not likely to be working for anyone too long, anyway.
I'm not a big fan of the trend towards using online personas against people, but I see it as a reverse filtering effect. "You don't like me. I don't like you. Glad we know this now."
Parent
Re:Go look for another job. (Score:4, Insightful)
I work with a LOT of people whose personal and political opinions I do not share. Some of them I do not like as a person. That does not mean I do not value their work.
Parent
Re:Go look for another job. (Score:5, Insightful)
People need to understand a simple concept: if you wouldn't feel comfortable saying something in front of a packed auditorium, you probably shouldn't say it in a public forum online. I absolutely defend an individual's right to express his views as he sees fit; similarly, I absolutely defend an employer's right to base his hiring decision on all publicly available information.
Shouldn't they be looking at, say, your ability to do the job and stay the fuck away from your personal life?
Parent
Actually this can be very informative (Score:5, Funny)
... in the hiring decisions. It's a good thing I checked on Slashdot before we ended up hiring Anonymous Coward.
If it's public it isn't snooping. (Score:5, Insightful)
The subject line says it all - if it's public, it isn't snooping.
Yeah, good luck with that. (Score:5, Insightful)
First, I'm an employer. Welcome to well-rounded individuals. Try writing good things around the web, and perhaps your potential employers will prefer you because of your life. Write crap, and don't be surprised.
But really, are you going to turn down a job offer because the potential employer searched for you? You can "tell" potential employers that you don't want them snooping, but that doesn't give them any negative for doing so -- you'll still accept the job offer.
But you do have boat-loads of control over your own personal freedom and civil liberties. If you don't want others to judge you, you get to be the judge. Start your own business, and run it any way you choose.
But if you're looking to benefit from someone else's proven model, someone else's money, and someone else's risk, then yeah your liberties are going to go unrespected because you're the one throwing them away.
You want liberty, take a look at what it's like to have complete freedom over a business of your own. You'll find that it ain't liberating in the ways that you were hoping.
By the way, it's excellent, and it's amazing, and I love every minute of it -- now I own and operate two and a half businesses because it's so great.
As always, take the risk, stake your life, then you can have it your way. You want to be an employee, and have your employer tell you what to do and even pay your taxes for you (well, most of them anyway), then you'd better believe that employer is going to look into you.
Besides, what's this liberty on the web crap? Public domain is the name of the game.
Re:Yeah, good luck with that. (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you're looking to benefit from someone else's proven model, someone else's money, and someone else's risk, then yeah your liberties are going to go unrespected because you're the one throwing them away.
I take exception to this remark; you're saying that only business owners get to have human rights - which is unvarnished bullshit.
I work as a sysadmin in a private school. This is advantageous for both of us; they get a specialized person who can do a job no-one else there can, and I get to spend all my time working on the job I'm good at, instead of spending half my time on drumming up business and paperwork.
I've worked for big companies, I've worked for small companies, I've even run a my own (very small) company. As an employer, you get to judge me on my public life; that's why it's public. You don't get to dig up my private and family life as bluntly, it's none of your damn business. I don't give up my right of free speech and right to privacy (which IS a human right in the EU) just because you pay me money to do work you can't.
Parent
Re:Yeah, good luck with that. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would never "check up" on the personal life of any employee, prospective or hired. And I've torn up contracts with companies who think it's somehow alright for them to not only research the personal lives of MY employees, but also to discuss their (negative) opinions of their private lives with me.
As a result, the churn around these parts is very close to zero. I don't have to spend a fortune training new employees all the time. I don't have to pay anyone exorbitant salaries to keep them honest and loyal. And I've managed to assemble a rock-solid, brilliant team who individually may or may not be involved in some pretty weird shit after work.
But it's none of my business. I don't care, because the whole point of business is to make money. Whether or not Jonas or Pip are doing bonghits with shorn goats whilst listening to devil music in their underpants after work is none of my concern at all, so long as they do their job, do it well, and get everything done on time.
It's all I ask, and it's precisely what I get.
Parent
Use it to your advantage. (Score:5, Funny)
1. Set your facebook/irc/whatever status to reflect your positive attitude towards your corporate masters.
2. Blog and upload photos on your various social accounts showing how dedicated you are to working over time and how you're doing it for the team dispite not getting paid!
3. ??
4. Profit!
Yes! (Score:4, Funny)
In fact answer all interview questions with: "None of your business" or "I don't see how that's relevant". If pressed act paranoid and ask if they're secretly with the government.
I also recommend walking in and setting the interviewer's desk and chair on fire. After all you need a way to distinguish yourself from other candidates. If you still aren't sure you'vet made an impression you can poke them in the eye just to be absolutely certain.
Well either that or you can just realise that everything on the web is public and that when you're interviewing for a job any employer might not be able to by law hire at their whim, but in practice that's how it works. If you're a professional keep your public information respectable, or use a pseudonym that isn't easily traced back to you. Drunken photos and rants about sexual exploits are not a good career move. In some circumstances participating in a flame war is inadvisable.
name != unique identifier (Score:5, Funny)
Why should they stop snooping (Score:5, Interesting)
If an employer doesn't like what they find, I don't want to work for them.
I even have a "best way to google my name" section on my resume:
"Greg Barton" java -indonesia -kayak -mozart -football
i.e. I'm the Greg Barton who's a java programmer, but not the Indonesia expert, olympic kayaker, football coach, or Mozart scholar.
That actually helped me get in the door on my current job. :)
Re:Why should they stop snooping (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm.... From that search string I would guess you are:
'Greg Barton', and not 'Greg "Farton" Barton' as your schoolmates used to call you. (And then proceeded to google-bomb unquoted searches for your name) Last summer you had a really nice vacation to Java and all, however it quickly turned bad after arriving in Indonesia.
The Java vacation photos: Good.
The Indonesia vacation photos: Bad, especially the ones where you've got white powder remains under your nose and two (rather cute) young Indonesian boys on each arm. (Legalities keep you safe)
That kayak accident? Real nasty. A moments of inattention and the world lost one of the best piano players of Mozart's great works. You every right in the world to blow up like that, he was just plain _rude_.
You love football. The one where they use their feet.
Parent
Re:Why should they stop snooping (Score:5, Funny)
I have something similar in my resume to help employers filter out the irrelevant things:
"John Doe" -drunk -idiot -fired -"bad worker" -theft -stole
Parent
Employers should be required (Score:5, Interesting)
The explanation can be as simple as "others were more qualified". There is nothing wrong with this explanation. But if the real reason is different ("I liked the look of Potential Secretary X's legs better", then they should not lie about it... although they will anyway. The point is that they should not, and there should be a rule saying that they should not. It distorts the employment market, which is detrimental to commerce and to society in general.
This would solve a lot of problems. It would help prospective employees actually find out what their weak spots are as far as the job market is concerned (rather than just being told "we picked somebody else"), and thus it would help match up companies with the employees they are actually looking for. Note that someone who is job hunting cannot improve their skills to get a good job if they are misled about what skills are in demand.
Also, if there were actually a law about it, if someone felt that they were rejected for unfair reasons ("the other candidate gave me oral sex"), they would actually have some recourse. Hard to prove? Sure. But if they CAN prove it, then at least they could get some compensation... as they should be able to, because by being rejected under false pretenses, they not only lose a potential job but they are not given the information they need to improve themselves so that they can get another.
I am not talking about discrimination here. I am talking about honesty in hiring. Two very different things. Discrimination laws might (in some cases) make it illegal to hire the person who gave you oral sex, if others were more qualified. My proposed law is not about discrimination at all. As long as you told the rejects honestly why they were rejected, then you would have nothing to worry about... except those discrimination laws of course, which you would have to worry about anyway.
Obligatory xkcd (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory xkcd (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
In case you don't know... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Employers Aren't Interested in the "Web Ethos" (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, unless you are a public figure then why do you have to put your real name out there along with whatever it is that you say? Use a pseudonym and say what you want, but be careful to never connect it or allow it to be connected to your real name ever. First rule of the web: never provide your real identity when a fake will do.
Because it's really, really hard to compartmentalize your life that way. There's a reason the government runs into a million miles of red tape when they do. For example, it's pretty hard not to talk so much about yourself that you could verify whether a suspected person is or is not the one hiding under this nick. That makes it quite dangerous even if they can do nothing more than to hook your pseudonyms up with the pseudonyms of your friends. Let me try to make an example:
Say you're part of a small WoW clan with your real life friends. Obviously your friends know your real identity but they won't reveal it and you don't need the WoW world at large to know so you use a pseudonym and since it's a gaming forum you never really tell much about yourself. And you post on slashdot under the same pseudonym. Then in some post you mention in a comment to a gaming article that you played in a WoW guild with friends.
Now comes an asshat, searches your slashdot history, finds that reference and the nicks of the others in the clan. No biggie, nothing much interesting there. But then he digs on their nicks, and they've been a bit careless and sloppy, finding their real names hooked to those nicks. Using that it's not so hard to find real world connections, and among them there's you. So far it's really all speculation on using the same nick and whatever but then he starts matching the real life with your slashdot posts and if it's a match he posts it up. Game over, everything you ever said on slashdot is now linked to your real world identity even though you've been really careful. And any other pseudonym you ever linked to your slashdot identity again and so on.
I don't think what I've described here is so unusual - you have your real life persona, you have your pure online identities but then you have all these places where you meet somewhere in the middle like a pseudonymous blog about real life and online communities with real life friends. Unless you're really, really careful they will link all of this together and these are like dams that can only be broken, never rebuilt. And most people don't realize until the tidal wave is coming.
Parent