"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 ?
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Better to go after the employer who fires you based on activities outside of work... though that isn't likely to succeed either unfortunately.
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: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: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: (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: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.
Not quite (Score:3, Informative)
Not really.
The "full decade before the rest of us" part applies in practice to people under the Civil Service Retirement System. That system stopped taking new members more than 25 years ago. If you're in the CSRS and you don't have a mountain of debt that encourages you
Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:5, Interesting)
They're pro-corporate in that they vote for pro-corporate candidates. They may believe they aren't "pro-corporate", but their actions betray them.
However, it isn't just the right-wingers; the left-wingers are pro-corporate too. With Democrats in power since '07 in Congress and '09 in the White House, we've seen the auto industry get taxpayer money, we've seen the health insurance companies (that do nothing to improve people's health) get a giant giveaway from Obamacare, we've seen more favorable legislation for the copyright mafia, we've seen the banking industry and AIG get a giant bailout for the mortgage meltdown, etc. The left-wing liberals are just as pro-corporate as the right-wingers.
Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:5, Interesting)
If you worked with the idiot crybabies I worked with in the steelworker's union, you'd hate unions too.
I've never met a group of losers quite like that. The fact that they kept their jobs because of the union is enough to turn me against unions for life. I got singled out in the shop I was in because my starting wage in 1989 was higher than theirs was in 1960. It drove them CRAZY. It's all they ever talked about. Several of them tried to knock me into mills I was running and cause me to get maimed.
I didn't set the fucking wage, the damned union did. Yet they acted like I did something to fuck them over.
Unions need to go. Their time has come and gone. I was 19 at the time. That experience made me decide to go back to college. That's what unions are good for, so you join one and realize you need to do anything you can to not have to work in a union job.
Thank god there are no IT unions. I'd clean bathrooms before I worked in an IT union. Unions are nothing but worker communism put in place so people that suck can't get fired.
Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it's our own fault for constantly reelecting the same douchebags into office, or voting based on the color of one's skin (see: Duval Patrick, Barack Hussein Obama), or how handsome someone is (William "Bill" Jefferson Clinton), or how "texan" someone is (both Bushes). The truth is there isn't much of anything I like about the last four presidents as they have all seemed to be against growth of the American economy, and pro-offshoring.
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.
The truth is, we need good sound business management mentalities in the Oval Office and Congress now - people who are truly old-school thinkers who value long-term growth over the quick buck.
We need people with patriotic interests at heart, somewhat like H. Ross Perot and Ron Paul in office, but tempered with better communication and diplomatic skills. We need to vote for the best candidate for every regardless of faith color or creed, and regardless of whether or not the guy is "popular" in a celebrity sense. I don't care whether a candidate looks like Fabio or Steve Buscemi. I care whether or not that candidate recognizes that the making of an excellent leader is someone who is looking to serve rather than to be served.
Re: (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
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: (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 shaf
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Go to Europe some time. Those Northern European socialists are eating the US's lunch, economically.
Ever been to Israel? There's another Socialist success story.
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)
-- 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: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:4, Informative)
Parent is 100% correct. The score is completely dependent on your financial transactional activities
There is no "magic" key or bias
Disclaimer: I work for FICO.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The exact factors use to calculate FICO score depend on the person."
Meanwhile, inside the FICO facilities...
An alarm buzz sounds. A pigeon grabs a white card from a stack. Next to it, an operator reads the card and types it in a nearby computer.
A few miles away...
Sorry, sir, your FICO score tells us you're disqualified.
Re:And if the information is wrong or fake (Score:4, Funny)
I'd like to go to their office and show them my potential for violence face-to-face.
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.
Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (Score:5, Funny)
I am in favour if they are testing for spelling and grammar.
Otherwise, not so much.
Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (Score:5, Interesting)
At that point the only rational choice is to not participate online at all, or allow pictures to be taken, comments to be made, anything that relates to you. What a sad life that seems.
Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. It would be just like life before 1995.
Re:The new "rationality" test. I support this test (Score:5, Funny)
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 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: (Score:3, Funny)
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: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.
Oh please (Score:3, Insightful)
I am forced to reference this in all similar cases (Score:5, Insightful)
That is all.
(Goddamn filters for caps.)
Re: (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,
Re: (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.
Re: The new "rationality" test. I support this tes (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a former military officer - armored cav for much of my career, with stints in intelligence and signal slots and wartime service. I was once asked by an interviewer who was already aware of this from my resume "Have you ever had any life or death decision-making responsibilities?" A little discussion revealed he did not think literal life or death responsibility for the 30+ people in the unit under my command, in wartime, in actual combat, counted. He meant decisions or responsibilities that could have cost significant money, and nothing else. I could easily have answered that one to his satisfaction - signing for training equipment alone when I was the leader of an advance detachment meant there had been times when I was the person responsible for easily more than 100 times the value of his whole company (M1 tanks and Apache helicopters and such add up fast). Instead I walked out of that interview.
I mention this because that person is precisely the person that company will doubtless delegate to go through some potential employee's facebook pages.
The more reason to legislate against it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless they provide a full & accurate report as to what information was collected on you(and how it was used), it shouldn't even be happening.
Re:The more reason to legislate against it. (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.
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...
Pardon my ignorance... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people simply share pretty much everything.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you have any of your info set up as visible to "friends of friends", all they need to do is make a fake profile with a sexy girl photo, and spam friend requests.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pardon my ignorance... (Score:5, Interesting)
... but how do these "trawlers" get to see what's on, say, a Facebook page if viewing permission has been given only to a limited set of trusted people? Does Facebook permit trawlers access to such restricted information? Do they use subterfuge to get past the restrictions? How?
Maybe they don't need to get past restrictions. Perhaps there's already enough info out there to hang you with. Go search for yourself at www.pipl.com [pipl.com]. It's frightening... I just searched and found a usenet posts I made in '97. Thankfully they're just posts to technical discussions (hardware, programming, etc).
I once spoke to a woman who said she uses pipl.com to attempt to gather information proving people are fraudulently obtaining worker's compensation benefits, such as a person who says they can no longer walk, but post photos this week of them out dancing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
actually they don't need to. a simple google search gives you the answer.
facebook policy is that if a company advertises on facebook, they have 100% access to any and all profiles - regardless of your privacy settings..
so as long as this company takes out an ad on facebook, your profile is completely accessible to this company.. yet one more thing facebook doesn't make very public.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
so as long as this company takes out an ad on facebook, your profile is completely accessible to this company
I can find no credible links to verify this, please post them if you have them.
Re: (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.
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.
If you are smart you will cheat. (Score:2)
These sorts of tests should be called idiot detection testing. The point of the test is to filter out the irrational type people who can bring down the honor and reputation of any business. A business is represented by the behavior of it's employees. A business has the right not to hire employees who have irrational or just plain stupid behavior.
Re:If you are smart you will cheat. (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.
Re: Learn To Cheat (Score:5, Interesting)
No. Don't bother learning. Just hire an "online presence consultant" and let them do it for you. Prices and quality of service will vary based on how much is at stake. In the future, smart students will do real socializing at ball games and keggers while AI-bots make sanitized FaceBook postings on their behalf. Sign up for PersonaBot now. $29.99/mo.
Look at it this way (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.
Re: (Score:2)
If a company is so restrictive and intrusive that they can't take a couple crazy, sleep-deprived 3 am posts maybe they're not the best place to work?
From the company's point of view, any information they can gather on a potential employee is helpful. I just hope who ever uses that type of service is wise enough to not take it too, too seriously.
If you are smart you wont have to worry about it even if they take it absolutely seriously.
Now if they started looking and judging us by the music we listen to or the politics we talk about, then I would say there is a problem. But lets be honest, who wants to hire a complete irrational moron? They have to be smart enough not to strip naked on facebook and talk BS on twitter.
Re:Look at it this way (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: (Score:2)
I hope this too, but this hope is hopelessly naive.
local newspapers... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Do a bunch of notable stuff and get into some bigger newspapers with a higher PageRank?
Re: (Score:2)
Call a lawyer, try to get the story taken down?
By not being a drunkard, Mr Stolzoff (Score:2)
That's how.
It's not like it's not already being done (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't think when you apply for a job that the people hiring you are not already looking at social media (and of course Google) to see what kind of person you are?
Now I'm against HR doing this by policy as they will come up with some absurd guidelines that a real person closer to the hiring would be able to make a judgement call on. But that doesn't mean your social media footprint has not already affected your ability to be hired, for some time now.
Re: (Score:2)
And what if they can't find anything because all the info is private?
Then nothing (Score:2)
And what if they can't find anything because all the info is private?
Then nothing at all will happen.
But most people don't careful pour over privacy controls the way you or I would. They just open the kimono wide for all to see. If they find a setting they just set it more open.
Truth to tell, I don't even bother changing Facebook privacy settings. I just treat anything I post there as utterly public, that I don't care about every person on earth seeing. And if you are smart that is true for all forms o
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)
This is why facebook and twitter were invented. (Score:2)
The purpose of social networking sites is to create and get a glimpse of your social fingerprint. This is a lot cheaper than hiring private investigators and doing a real backround examination.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
some people need to get over themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
I got a job from /. posting... (Score:5, Interesting)
My name is shared with a very famous (dead) person so I'm hard to google. But of course he had my email address. From that he found my geocaching account, liked that I made puzzles (he was looking for a game developer) from that found my /. postings, liked what he saw.
Yeah, I got the job and it was fun, but it creeped me out. I hardly ever post anywhere anymore.
Except, of course, for this...
Re:I got a job from /. posting... (Score:5, Funny)
Notthepainter, could you come see me in my office? I want to talk about your public discussions of my web stalking activities.
-the boss
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The mis-identification problem is a big issue. If you have an uncommon but not unique name you can be in trouble. For a while a Google search on my name returned writings of a neo-nazi in Germany. This is of course a problem when people manually search the internet for social information on someone, but there is a tendency to trust results from automated systems because of the assumption that "someone" made sure this problem didn't happen.
Monoculture is not resistant to disaster (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's ethical? I say long term pragmatic.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or run your own business.
That's not illegal (yet).
idiots (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (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.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can go on interviews for jobs I don't want of the off chance that I might be wrong.
It's not completely irrational but has a cost in that I'm likely wasting their time and am certainly muddying the waters for future job searches.
Then again handled carefully it can lead to possible future opportunities.
On the other hand I did at one point just flat out lie on applications just to waste the time of real assholes (lawyers).
Claimed I was an lawyer with years of experience in import/export then did a r
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
How are they getting this info? (Score:3, Interesting)
I would never allow anyone I work for (or with) to be friends with me on Facebook, and if I haven't added you all you can see is my name, picture, and a link to message me and request to be added as a friend.
Re: (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.
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?
The Plus Side (Score:2)
Proof (Score:2)
Posting anything on Facebook or Twitter is proof of bad judgement.
Crap "background checks" (Score:5, Informative)
It's these low end "background checks" and "clearances" that suck. I used to be in the aerospace business, working for a company that did business with the 3-letter agencies. I've been through the clearance process for the higher level clearances. [clearancejobs.com] At that level, there are real background checks, where Government investigators go out and quiz your neighbors, friends, previous employers, and creditors in person. Fingerprints are taken and checked. Police records are checked. Birth certificates are checked; not only do you have to show yours, they check it against the hospital birth records. There are interrogations, lie detector tests, and an interview with a shrink. The whole process takes about a year.
But because the high level clearance process is reasonably thorough, it's not as random as the low-end stuff. It's not "competitive", in the hiring sense. There's a limited list of things the security people worry about, and they're the items that, historically, have caused people to sell or give secrets to the enemy - relatives in an enemy country, vulnerability to blackmail, financial problems, gambling or drug or alcohol abuse history. They don't care if your Facebook page makes you look like a jerk.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Automatically classification feedback loop (Score:4, Informative)
But won't "watching what we post" only serve to lessen the dilution of social media "behaviour", making it even easier for classifiers to pick out outliers?
Put another way, if we act ashamed of ourselves and play cards close to the chest, won't this simply encourage conformal social behaviour and help to undo the social upheaval of the 60's?
In other words, while I agree that making yourself look stupid on the internet is not the smartest move, I would also say that asking everyone to "watch what they say" for fear of future repercussion sounds somewhat doubleplusungood [wikipedia.org] to me.
In other words, we need to figure how to let teenagers be teenagers. It scares me, but I agree with Eric Schmidt that it might one day be necessary to let people change their name [slashdot.org] when they get to a certain age, similar to how we let people clean their criminal record at 18.