The Children's Charities' Coalition on Internet Safety, backed by charities including NCH and the NSPCC, has raised concerns over the practice of looking for information about potential employees on sites such as Bebo and MySpace, comparing it to looking at someone's diary.
In the letter, sent to Labour MP Margaret Moran, the coalition secretary John Carr writes: "When young people put up their personal profiles they are not thinking about job applications or university applications. Typically they are simply talking to their mates. Employers or admissions tutors who delve into these places are being highly and inappropriately intrusive."
He goes on to ask Moran if she would raise the issue with the government, and consider a Private Member's Bill, saying: "We believe the practice should be outlawed or, at the very least, major employers...should make clear that it is an unacceptable practice in their own organisations."
Research published by the Office of the Information Commissioner last November found that 71% of people aged between 14 and 21 would not want colleges or employers to do a web search on them before they had removed some material, and a report in The Times this year found that it was commonplace for employers to check social networking site profiles.
Comments
Quite simple, keep your information private and realise that some networking sites are very public. Its not the same as reading someone's diary, these people choose to put their information in a public domain.
it's not always that simple melanie, what if someone 'tags' you in a photo that they choose to post? you could be blissfully unaware of a compromising photo languishing online, out there for employers to see.
most people use social networking for their personal friendships and relationships, which is not always something you'd share with an employer, and rightly so.
genuis - how would this work exactly?
"ok, we won;'t check as it is banned - ooops sorry, we checked anyway and you can't have a job but we'll pretend it's for something else"
surely like our better clients, we need to have consistent brands? If you don't want someone (anyone) to see stuff don't do it in the first place... If an employer isn't going to likje something about you, why do you want to work there?
i agree, it is not the same at all as looking at someones diary, however, employers should not use these sites to make judgements on potential future employees. How people are outside work can be very different to how they are at work. The two shouldn't effect one another.
To be fair, the letter started by raising the problem that the people using social networking sites might not get the right profile, or find one that had been maliciously uploaded. I think that's fair enough - given the lack of relevant expertise among the people likely to be looking, I'd feel sorry for someone who was wrongly penalised for content they hadn't uploaded, or that simply wasn't them.
After all, my namesake does voices for The Fimbles...(sigh)
A ban on 'someone' searching for something (or 'someone' else) via information is online in the public domain? How daft is that?
It's getting so a raft of NGOs, quangos, government departments and most of today's media... certainly BBC Breakfast News... would collapse for lack of content without a call to get knickers in a twist over, and then an attempt to ban something. Followed by spirited debates all round involving 'experts' that serve only to drive ratings. Quite a lucrative industry, and one set to grow even more in the future, I suspect.
I just have to agree with Johnny R... how exactly would this WORK... IN PRACTICE? It is, by almost any measure, impossible to police. While I am sure a raft of well-funded do-gooders have decided anti-ageist hiring practices are now neatly sorted and filed under 'Job Done' via EU box-ticking rules, the reality is a bit different. So yet again the process is all that matters, with the result irrelevant. At least in this case there is some merit in the legislation, and a slim chance of it being policed.
I am not saying that many hiring processes and practices may be anything from flawed to venal, and need to be discussed, but such credence to calls for things that are frankly impossible seem essentially pointless, at least in the po-faced forms the original PR gets issued.
'Unacceptable practice'? Bless. This needs referring to the Ministry of Dim Views Being Taken, which is now hiring all the talents from Board to Local Officer level.
CJ - 25/03/2008
My namesake is a gay Children's TV presenter (even bigger sigh)
On a lighter note...
One of my namesakes is an investigative reporter who, amongst other things, I think once did an expose of the Russian Mafia.
Hence I always am a tad sensitive to large Beemers with smoke glass windows cruising around the 'hood. I just have to hope that when they do a Google search for relevant hits (geddit?) they actually think about what they get before acting on the top line results.
That said, my website (Firebird.com) attracts 2/3 weekly demands via the feedback e-addy on how to fix Billy-Bob's TransAm, and there is zero anywhere to suggest it's involved with the car at all.
I guess people just see what they expect, which saves engaging brain before acting.
Isn't it incredible how "unintended consequences" of modern developments so often lead to calls for banning the un-bannable?
Employers are already "banned" from utilising almost any characteristic of an applicant in selection for a job (including even, in some circumstances, capability of or experience in doing the job!).
The only real winners of all this lunacy are the lawyers, ever eager to find another ambulance to chase.
If you don't want someone to find it, don't put it in the public domain. (Rushes off to remove personal profile from Swingers-R-Us.com before meeting with bank manager tomorrow)....
Comments
Melanie Chapman - 25/03/2008
Quite simple, keep your information private and realise that some networking sites are very public. Its not the same as reading someone's diary, these people choose to put their information in a public domain.
alex parr - 25/03/2008
it's not always that simple melanie, what if someone 'tags' you in a photo that they choose to post? you could be blissfully unaware of a compromising photo languishing online, out there for employers to see. most people use social networking for their personal friendships and relationships, which is not always something you'd share with an employer, and rightly so.
johnny rambleton - 25/03/2008
genuis - how would this work exactly? "ok, we won;'t check as it is banned - ooops sorry, we checked anyway and you can't have a job but we'll pretend it's for something else" surely like our better clients, we need to have consistent brands? If you don't want someone (anyone) to see stuff don't do it in the first place... If an employer isn't going to likje something about you, why do you want to work there?
pixie x - 25/03/2008
i agree, it is not the same at all as looking at someones diary, however, employers should not use these sites to make judgements on potential future employees. How people are outside work can be very different to how they are at work. The two shouldn't effect one another.
Aidan Cook - 25/03/2008
To be fair, the letter started by raising the problem that the people using social networking sites might not get the right profile, or find one that had been maliciously uploaded. I think that's fair enough - given the lack of relevant expertise among the people likely to be looking, I'd feel sorry for someone who was wrongly penalised for content they hadn't uploaded, or that simply wasn't them. After all, my namesake does voices for The Fimbles...(sigh)
Peter Martin - 25/03/2008
A ban on 'someone' searching for something (or 'someone' else) via information is online in the public domain? How daft is that? It's getting so a raft of NGOs, quangos, government departments and most of today's media... certainly BBC Breakfast News... would collapse for lack of content without a call to get knickers in a twist over, and then an attempt to ban something. Followed by spirited debates all round involving 'experts' that serve only to drive ratings. Quite a lucrative industry, and one set to grow even more in the future, I suspect. I just have to agree with Johnny R... how exactly would this WORK... IN PRACTICE? It is, by almost any measure, impossible to police. While I am sure a raft of well-funded do-gooders have decided anti-ageist hiring practices are now neatly sorted and filed under 'Job Done' via EU box-ticking rules, the reality is a bit different. So yet again the process is all that matters, with the result irrelevant. At least in this case there is some merit in the legislation, and a slim chance of it being policed. I am not saying that many hiring processes and practices may be anything from flawed to venal, and need to be discussed, but such credence to calls for things that are frankly impossible seem essentially pointless, at least in the po-faced forms the original PR gets issued. 'Unacceptable practice'? Bless. This needs referring to the Ministry of Dim Views Being Taken, which is now hiring all the talents from Board to Local Officer level.
CJ - 25/03/2008
My namesake is a gay Children's TV presenter (even bigger sigh)
Peter Martin - 25/03/2008
On a lighter note... One of my namesakes is an investigative reporter who, amongst other things, I think once did an expose of the Russian Mafia. Hence I always am a tad sensitive to large Beemers with smoke glass windows cruising around the 'hood. I just have to hope that when they do a Google search for relevant hits (geddit?) they actually think about what they get before acting on the top line results. That said, my website (Firebird.com) attracts 2/3 weekly demands via the feedback e-addy on how to fix Billy-Bob's TransAm, and there is zero anywhere to suggest it's involved with the car at all. I guess people just see what they expect, which saves engaging brain before acting.
Fred Perkins - 25/03/2008
Isn't it incredible how "unintended consequences" of modern developments so often lead to calls for banning the un-bannable? Employers are already "banned" from utilising almost any characteristic of an applicant in selection for a job (including even, in some circumstances, capability of or experience in doing the job!). The only real winners of all this lunacy are the lawyers, ever eager to find another ambulance to chase.
David Lofts - 13/05/2008
If you don't want someone to find it, don't put it in the public domain. (Rushes off to remove personal profile from Swingers-R-Us.com before meeting with bank manager tomorrow)....