"Pre-Crime" Comes To the HR Dept. 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."
And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:2, Insightful)
I take it this screening company dont mind a few lawsuits for deformation and libel ?
The new "rationality" test. I support this test. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Learn To Cheat (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Look at it this way (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
How unoriginal (Score:5, Insightful)
In a bad economy, sticking it to the individual worker through HR seems to always creep up.
Nice profession (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pardon my ignorance... (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people simply share pretty much everything.
Re:The more reason to legislate against it. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Monoculture is not resistant to disaster (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If you are smart you will cheat. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Choices (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Thats a great idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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:And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:5, Insightful)
Hah! For that to happen, they would have to notify the people they defame.
I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
... 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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
some people need to get over themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (Score:5, Insightful)
Credit should go to Phillip K. Dick (Score:5, Insightful)
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 forced to reference this in all similar cases (Score:5, Insightful)
That is all.
(Goddamn filters for caps.)
Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. It would be just like life before 1995.
Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (Score:1, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Look at it this way (Score:4, Insightful)
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:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (Score:3, Insightful)
> 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.
Law != Sensible, not always. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your phrase people who selectively adhere to the law as they see fit sounds to me like a euphemism for "people who think". I know that's not how you intend it, and I'm not sure if the opinions in your post are yours, or your view of how employers operate, but it bears noting that laws are sometimes ridiculous, sometimes capricious, sometimes arbitrary. Frankly, I wouldn't *want* to hire someone who blindly follows all laws, without regard to how sensible they are -- not least because such a person would very likely be bad company. I'd much prefer hiring someone who thinks.
Granted, that can be difficult to ascertain from an online profile. But online evidence of lawbreaking wouldn't automatically rule someone out for me -- depending on the law(s) in question. Being discriminating is not in and of itself a bad thing; it's all in how one goes about it.
Cheers,
Depends on company size (Score:3, Insightful)
Large enough companies can get away with it for general enough positions. Sometimes they're only sort of doing it anyway. Many have a policy that you have to tender and "consider" outside applicants for a position you crafted entirely as a promotion for someone within the company.
I'm not defending the practice, I'm just pointing out that it's not irrational.
Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:2, Insightful)
It doesn't matter. The assault on workers happening in the U.S. is going to continue unabated until those well-fed people you see on TV marching around dressed as Sam Adams figure out that there are bigger villains out there than the black guy in the White House. With labor unions under all-out attack by the Chamber of Commerce types and the middle class being crushed by trickle-down economics, you're going to see all aspects of employment become more intrusive, more toxic, and less fair.
It used to be that only people who were applying for sensitive jobs that had their credit checked. Now, if you're applying to be a machinist you better make sure that you've never been late on a payment. They do it because they can. It's the New Feudalism and the poster boy is John Boehner. The "Second American Revolution" is nothing short of a renegotiation of the social contract.
Work camps are already back in style, now run by private corporations instead of Mississippi chain gang bosses. Count on seeing the widespread return of work camps and ten percent unemployment being the new normal. Because it's good for business.
Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Choices (Score:3, Insightful)
That's ethical? I say long term pragmatic.
Recent friend had a misidentify issue (Score:2, Insightful)
After clearing this up he took my advise of removing all work friends from his account and making his profile more private.
Oh please (Score:3, Insightful)
1. And you're answering that to a post which actually said it'll be used to do some covert racial or religious or political discrimination.
It already happens too. If you think someone surely can't just happen to find more flaws online for blacks or foreigners than for blacks without getting sued... guess what? It already happens. In a study, for the same resume they found out you had about 50% more chances to get called for a job interview with a name like John than a name like Ulambongo, and nobody gets sued for those uncannily non-uniform results. Welcome to the new world of online checking, where you don't even have to guess by name, and can just look on Facebook for whether that guy is a black or muslim or whatever you don't like.
But at any rate, the relationship to your retarded rant is... what? Are you willing to claim that racial and religious and political profiling (which are the kind of things the GP predicted) are actually necessary to predict who'll shoot up the place? Or did you have your canned rant and just had to use it whether it fits or not?
2. And your argument is... wait, what? The tiny percentage of workplace deaths? According to CDC data [cdc.gov], that's an average of 800 per year, with the maximum being about 1000 in 1994, and the minimum just over 500 in 2006.
That's 500 in 310,000,000 people or roughly 1.5 per _million_ people.
So you're going to justify discrimination against literally tens of millions of people to maybe prevent a tiny percentage of 500 deaths a year? Even as scaremongering attempts to justify why someone else needs to bend over for the good of the corporate or government overlords, this has to take the cake for failed sense of proportions.
Cretin. Seriously, what a cretin.
Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:5, Insightful)
The assault on workers happening in the U.S. is going to continue unabated until those well-fed people you see on TV marching around dressed as Sam Adams figure out that there are bigger villains out there than the black guy in the White House.
I'm continually surprised how many /.ers are really right wing, pro-corporate, anti-union, anti-tax freeloaders. 40 years of "government is bad" has become a lifestyle for a lot of people here.
Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (Score:3, Insightful)
What you say about yourself and who you associate with is a pretty clear indicator of who you are, and I can't fault the company too much for being able to research things publicly posted.
How is this relevant to being a drug user? You assume they're derelicts hanging out in opium dens or something, when they're just the guy building the next ecommerce platform.
What if it's *not me*? (Score:1, Insightful)
There are other people who share my name. One of them is a big drinker.
If there were only pictures, one might see that it wasn't me, but how do potential employers know that the guy they read about isn't me and how do I tell them? Yeah, I can tell them up front, but that seems sort of like a Streisand effect waiting to happen. I mean, what if clients of theirs saw that? Even if they know it's not true, well... better to go with somebody "safe" ...
Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:5, Insightful)
Most likely they'll provide a series of risk factors with a score for each on a scale of 0 to 100.
Drugs: 30 Violence: 6 Judgment: 45 ------------- Overall: 27 (risk: moderate)
Huge difference between that and "this person is a druggie with lousy judgment".
Why not? They already have the general public by the balls based on FICO scores. And just how is a FICO Score calculated?
"Your FICO score is calculated each time it is requested according to a proprietary formula by Fair Isaac Corporation, based on information reported by the three credit reporting agencies, Experian, TransUnion and Equifax. Each time it's calculated, it uses the most recent information held by these credit bureaus."
The exact factors use to calculate FICO score depend on the person."
You can't dispute a FICO score because the exact process is proprietary.
Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:5, Insightful)
They are right-wing, anti-union, anti-high-tax citizens. The left wing faction unfairly tacks on "pro-corporate" and "anti-tax freeloaders" to demonize them.
Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (Score:5, Insightful)
You really haven't been paying attention for the last forty years if you think that bad practices will be competed out of the market. I mean, really?
Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:1, Insightful)
You think trickle-down economics doesn't work?
When has "bubble up" economics in a welfare state ever worked?
Re:Thats a great idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering it's HR would you actually want them working on the real problems? Given the ineptitude that permeates most HR departments, I'm thankful that they're not actually in charge of anything mission critical.
Hiring the people that do the actual work isn't mission critical? Try getting your job done with the wrong people.
Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:4, Insightful)
They are right-wing, anti-union, anti-high-tax citizens. The left wing faction unfairly tacks on "pro-corporate" and "anti-tax freeloaders" to demonize them.
It's not that unfair. While no one can speak for me or my views any more than I can speak for his, "small government" types usually think that government should be small across the board--including regulation of corporations. This is effectively pro-corporation, as few corporations have ever demonstrated self-restraint. Worse, there aren't many real "small government" politicians anymore. Conservatives (/Republicans) used to be, but the neocon movement has somewhat changed that.
Personally, I'm more of a populist, which is an ideology which is demonized by both liberals and conservatives.
Re:How are they getting this info? (Score:3, Insightful)
I only use FB for people I talk to and see frequently. I wouldn't add such a person as you described. If I haven't met you in person, or I don't remember you, you're not getting added. If we used to be friends and we don't talk anymore, you're not getting added; and if you already are I'll remove you after a year or so of no contact.
Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:3, Insightful)
More correctly, these days the "small government" claim only applies to areas that involve the speaker. So if the person loudly requesting a small government is a white gunowner with a moonshine still in his garage, he specifically means that government should stay out of taxing him, take away (or make it harder to use) his guns, or stop him from making moonshine, but feel free to go all "big government" on the hispanics down the road. It's narcissism in a very refined state.
Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (Score:0, Insightful)
Or maybe post 95'ers may have to grow up and learn a harsh lesson - being an adult means there are consequences for your actions.
NOW GET OFF MY LAWN !!!
Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:3, Insightful)
Came here to say this.
I would pass any drug test and may pass this online screening. May not of course... ;)
But if getting a job depended on either of things I'd probably tell the company to go to hell.
The problem comes when they're the only game in town or if everyone starts doing it. Then it gets very very hard to fight unless you can make a lot of people care about it and effectively revolt (politically or physically). Unfortunately that's most unlikely. People are mostly willing to bend over and be shafted so long as they can feed their family.
Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:3, Insightful)
Great comment.
I'll add another name to your list: Ralph Nader.
I'd be willing to guess that most people might be willing to give a chance to someone they might disagree with on many issues but still respect because their positions are genuine and not bought and paid for by corporations or unions, etc.
But those people don't get to have their voice heard because the media decides they aren't serious candidates based on polling data. Funny though, how "mainstream" candidates get to be in the top tier regardless of their polling performance.
And if anybody should ever break out, the media just pulls out some old (or new) tape, puts it on a loop, and ridicules that candidate (Dean and others).
Not necessarily speaking specifically in favor of Dean or anyone else. Just about the ability of the media herd to destroy anyone their coolest peers decide they don't like.
Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, you mean the same Europe where they are trying to pay of the same financial abuses of the their Financial system by sticking to the little people rather than accumulating debt and then sticking it to little people like the US. Yep, in Europe those cheeky Europeans are refusing to be stuck with the debt and burden of the rich and greedy and are forcing those governments to rethink their choices and basically stick it to the rich and greedy for screwing up the financial system.
Sure looks like the rich and greedy in Europe aren't going to get the "we take all the profits and you take all the risks" free ride, whilst in the US it is all "please sir may I have another" from the bottom while the top whine they still don't have enough. The free ride for the rich in Europe is certainly coming to an end and no amount of mass media bullshit will stop the free exchange of thought going on between the majority via the internet and then taking it to the street as a public show of determination.
Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:5, Insightful)
I match two of your three criteria. I suppose pretty much all three since I brewed beer a couple times. Thanks for calling me a racist narcissist. That's really awesome of you.
I'm assuming that you are simply uninformed or confusing people that believe in small government with today's Republican party. They are not the same thing.
Democrats and Republicans disagree on many things but there are some fundamental issues where they are in lockstep.
They agree that the First Amendment is not as important as the needs of the federal government.
They agree that there is no problem that cannot be solved with enough tax revenue (even though they disagree about where to get it).
They agree that it's totally fair for government employees to retire a full decade before the rest of us, and they agree that only an idiot would rely on Social Security when you can vote yourselves nice pensions funded by the taxpayers.
If you look at your 1040 and are happy with what you see, good for you. As for me, the value I receive for the money I spend really pisses me off.
Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:5, Insightful)
And, oddly enough, that "evil" Democrat Bill Clinton's administration probably had the best economic policies out of the last four Presidents' (inclusive of the current one) administrations.
Yeah, but he had sex. Little things like a balanced budget, reducing the deficit, a strong relationship with our allies and the lowest unemployment in decades .... don't get fooled into believing those are good things.
Re:Pardon my ignorance... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
And if I don't have a rich online experience that can be publicly related to me (using pseudonyms and such), does it make me a freak, a suspect or both?
Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (Score:4, Insightful)
And you get +1 funny instead of insightful. This is how reliable the "online experience" is. Good luck explaining to your boss why "someone on the Internet" called you a rapist.
Re:The more reason to legislate against it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, so let's say I decide that it's in my interests to have no online presence (not that I have much of one now). I will delete and disown everything about me that is online. How long before having no online presence is seen as subversive behaviour? Nothing to hide nothing to fear right? Well if I'm not showing something then I must be hiding it...
Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:5, Insightful)
-- Margaret Thatcher
Both Europe AND the US needs leaders like that now more than ever.
I hope you're kidding. People like Maggie Thatcher are what got us into this mess.
Re:The more reason to legislate against it. (Score:2, Insightful)
c) anyone you know, and indeed anyone you don't know agreeing to a terms of service, then posting unverified claims that you did something that a random person might object to. This isn't just reading what individuals have written online about themselves.
Still, well done for posting as anonymous in your case. Because if I write "Joe Bloggs takes illegal drugs" then anyone called Joe Bloggs has that on his search results from now on. Just as well I didn't know your name to use instead.
Re:Pardon my ignorance... (Score:3, Insightful)
You just made that up. I dislike Facebook as much as the next paranoid geek, but I just don't believe you.