It’s dangerous to Google someone and then not give them a job – particularly if you tell them what you found and also keep a copy somewhere. Here a potential employer blogged about not hiring someone because she tweeted “I can’t bludge anymore”. Commonsense says you wouldn’t want that person as an employee but what does the law say?

I did a co-presentation with Nick from Tresscox on the law and recruitment. Now I’m not a lawyer – I don’t even charge $$$ like one :P – but what he had to say about the Privacy Commission was interesting:

  • collecting tweets – e.g. copying and pasting them into a personnel file or a blog post is uncool
  • copyright – using material from the social networking site for business purposes might contravene Facebook etc. T&C
  • Collection includes “gathering, acquiring or obtaining personal information by any source and any means” is a no-no

most of this applies to companies with annual turnover of $3million or more. At that point I went back to sleep – wake me when I’m making that much.  Lawyers pfft. :P But the one message I did get was that Googling someone, finding their tweets and facebook stuff, making a decision on not hiring them due to that, then telling them that was the reason can get you into hot water. The example Nick gave was telling someone they didn’t get the job as they said they were pregnant on Facebook and the position couldn’t afford to give time off for maternity leave.

Here’s Jen Bishop’s Dynamic Business post:

We’ve been advertising for an online journalism intern for the website. On Friday, I was emailed what sounded like a very promising application from a second year uni student. I was about to get her in for an interview when I forwarded it to my colleague Dave, the web editor.

Social media-minded as ever, he checked out her Twitter profile. You would not believe her most recent tweet to a friend: “Did I tell you I can’t bludge anymore at work? My boss sits RIGHT next to me… I think he knows I do jack all!”

Two words: oh dear!

These days it’s pretty standard to Google people who apply for a job you’re advertising. It’s now the norm to check people’s Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn profiles, especially when you’re employing Gen Y people and when you’re a Gen Y employer, which I am. We were of course hoping to find out that someone applying for an online journalism internship was social media savvy. We weren’t trying to catch anyone out. But suffice to say she won’t be getting an interview. [LP italics]

The girl I mention is a student so some would say let her write what she likes in her personal Twitter profile, right? Maybe. But would you want her in your office after reading that?

Did I mention her Twitter bio simply says ‘potty mouth’?

I rest my case.

Now I don’t like putting Jen on the spot  but she won’t be the only potential employer that treads a fine line. She’s a smart cookie, and probably making less than $3m a year anyway. Other incredibly intelligent people – i.e. me mates  on Twitter – disagree with me on the danger:

DJackmanson My point remains. Just because they’re dumb enough to admit the reason publically doesn’t mean others will make the same mistake

RobIrwin But that’s not the employer giving a direct reason to the applicant, is it? For all we know, there could be some artistic license

Cacotopus might be, but try proving that is why you weren’t given an interview…

Caveat: pretty sure none of ‘em are lawyers either. Not sure what they do for gainful employment. Probably unemployable due to what they tweet. *end fake snark*

I think Privacy laws should be changed. Will make for a much more honest and transparent workplace though I guess our young non-intern might not appreciate that honesty… not now anyway.

Cisco Fatty story looks interesting in this light as well.

and one more time: I’m not a lawyer. If you take legal advice from me you are a complete and utter nutter.  This is just here to start a discussion…

here’s the Privacy Commission on Social networking:

Social Networking

  1. What are social networking sites? Answer
  2. Are there any privacy risks associated with using social networking sites? Answer
  3. Do I have rights under the Privacy Act when I use social networking sites? Answer
  4. I have a privacy-related complaint about a social networking site. Who can I complain to? Answer
  5. Are organisations allowed to use the personal information I post on social networking sites? Answer
  6. How long does my information stay on social networking sites? Answer
  7. What can I do to protect my privacy when using social networking sites? Answer
  8. What can I do if someone posts information about me on a social networking site that I want removed? Answer
  9. What can I do if I’m being threatened, harassed or defamed online? Answer
  • Where can I go for more help? Answer
  • Hat tip to Michael Axelsen for the Privacy Link.
    There’s probably two issues here – can employers use personal information (married/not married, gay/religion, pregnant) from social networking sites to base a decision on employment. I’m guessing no. Can employers google you then collate that information as part of your HR record? I’m guessing no again. If you publish – that word that noone but journalists understand – on a public broadcasting site (Twitter or an open Facebook account) that you hate the job you are going to and only doing it for the fat paycheck e.g. Cisco Fatty case above, I think you might be skating on thin ice.
     

    Got an idea for how to hook up your social media efforts with CG Lawyers? This is an exercise we do in my classes – find something  you want to say and someone you want to hook up with/link to, then find a common ground. That way the blog post (for corporates) is a  mixture of the company view and an influencer’s or other interested party.  Social networking is always about the common ground, the shared story. Me plus you in equal measures. I really like the way online social networking is gaining strength in the business world. We’ve all realised that Continue Reading…

     

    Following on from our discussions re:  the law and legal system being inflexible and unable to cope with how humans interact in online communities and social media sites. A juror who used Twitter to communicate his disapproval of the plantiff in a civil case has provoked an argument that could lead to a mistrial. Russell Wright’s construction company Stoam Holdings recently lost a $12 million dollar lawsuit brought by investors. But lawyers for the firm are arguing that juror Johnathan Powell’s Twitter updates broke the rules prohibiting jurors from discussing such cases with the public. However, Powell insists he didn’t Continue Reading…

     

    I think that one of the issues that David Galbally, QC and other lawyers of his ilk is that because they don’t understand social media, they don’t understand where it’s going. So calls to turn Facebook off in Victoria or to insist Facebook removes photots and videos and material relating to alleged suspects is niave at best. Irrespective what the courts say. Everyone had an opinion on what I should’ve said during the 7 minute piece in which I got about 3 minutes   Including: people can bypass with proxies, they will use other services and so on. But it Continue Reading…

     

    New software automatically reaches out of the screen and handcuffs you to Facebook until the court documents arrive. Oh, alright, that’s a fib… Oh, we love Nick Abrahams at Deacons. Well as much as one can love a lawyer Australian court serves documents via Facebook The big question about Facebook is does it have any valuable commercial application? Well it seems that the courts have found one. Today in what appears to be a first in Australia and perhaps the world, Master Harper of the ACT Supreme Court ordered that a default judgement could be served on defendants by notification Continue Reading…

     

    Leveraging social media sites for good – or evil. Here’s how you rob a bank: put an ad in Craigslist (social ads) asking for road workers, wearing a yellow vest, safety goggles, a blue shirt, and a respirator mask to take a job outside Bank of America at 11am on a specific day. Offer them $28.50 per hour for showing up. you, the bank robber, wear a yellow vest, safety goggles, a blue shirt, and a respirator mask run up to armored truck, pepper spray escape in an inner tube down a river. The police are said to be using Continue Reading…

     

    I’ve got a thing about lawyers. I don’t know what it is.. brainy? glasses? I think they were the original geeks, before technology came along. Anyway, I am downloading this right now as we speak. (from social customer manifesto) Social Networking for Business and the Law: A Podcast (iTunes) (MP3) Ok, that was fun. Had a chance to chat last week regarding social networking with a bunch of great folks, including: Kara Swisher, co-executive editor of All Things Digital Law.com bloggers and co-hosts, J. Craig Williams and Robert Ambrogi Eric Goldman, Director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Continue Reading…

     

    I am often asked at conferences what I think the future of defamation and copyright and privacy will be, legal-wise. I always feel like a right wally saying “the laws will change, I guarantee it”. It’s the one weak area of my presentation – people understand that change is coming but don’t believe that it will be that drastic. Maybe it will be individuals changing the laws, maybe a “higher power” like government. But I really want to yell out – FACE IT, PEOPLE, IT’S ALREADY CHANGED. We’re just waiting for the laws to catch up. Intel Official: Say Goodbye Continue Reading…

     

    From Lorelle‘s blog -see EDIT at bottom Center of contents dot com is scraping this blog, whacking Google Ads on it, and basically trying to drive up traffic using my content, unattributed. They will probably let the domain name “age” – get high up on Google Ranking around the keywords to do with – and then sell it to a content/community provider. Actually the words seem to be around online schools so they may have a client in mind already. By putting Google Ads on the site they are earning revenue as well. They also link their hundreds of splogs Continue Reading…

     

    I nearly took a job at Blake Dawson Waldron, Lawyers, about, oh, twenty years ago. But that’s beside the point: Avatars and Agreements Latest legal developments in marketing.Making marketing relevant in a consumer-driven world is the challenge for every organisation. Marketers are turning to new media as they look for novel and relevant ways to connect with consumers. Join Blake Dawson Waldron’s intellectual property team for an insight into the legal issues surrounding virtual online communities such as Second Life. The BigPond experienceJason Romney, National Manager Commercial StrategyBigPond, will share Telstra’s experience in developing a presenceon Second Life.Getting a life Continue Reading…

     

    Uhoh. Bad news for fakers – from The Times (hat tip: G2 New Zealand) Fake bloggers soon to be ‘named and shamed’ Hotels, restaurants and online shops that post glowing reviews about themselves under false identities could face criminal prosecution under new rules that come into force next year. Businesses which write fake blog entries or create whole wesbites purporting to be from customers will fall foul of a European directive banning them from “falsely representing oneself as a consumer”. From December 31, when the change becomes law in the UK, they can be named and shamed by trading standards Continue Reading…

     

    Some of Crimestoppers video footage about the Jesse James case has embed disabled (e.g. his mother’s appeal), but here is a CCTV one that isn’t. Added: December 21, 2006 From: jessiejamesappeal CCTV footage showing two young men wh… CCTV footage showing two young men who were seen riding to and from Broadfield park around the time that Jessie James was murdered. Do you know who they are? If you have information about the murder of Jessie James, please call any of the following numbers:Incident Room number: 0161 856 4343Confidential phone or text 07940 960215Crimestoppers 0800 555 111.People can also pass Continue Reading…

     

    The times, they are a-changin’: Amazon may offer DRM-free music from major labelsAmazon seems set to open a mainstream online music store as early as next month, and aims to follow the new EMI/Apple model of offering tracks unencumbered with DRM.The company already sells music from a number of independent labels, but has reportedly approached the majors with a proposal to offer unprotected MP3 tracks from their catalogues. EMI has already indicated a willingness to provide unprotected tracks in any format a retailer cares to sell, so it would be surprising if a EMI/Amazon deal wasn’t imminent. One card Amazon Continue Reading…

     

    I’ve been a little surprised at the furore created the Kathy Sierra story. Kathy received “death threats” from a deranged poster, over reacted (in my opinion) and pulled out of ETech. She then blogged about it, posting up the fotos (photoshopped with bondage thing on) herself, posted up copies of the emails (which were disgusting) and called for the blogosphere to control the speech of wierdos. Scoble has come out in support. BBC has reported on it. Traffic to her site has increased. What to do? Grab IP address (MAC if you can), email the ISP that manages it, notify Continue Reading…

     

    Defamation laws need to change. Or the courts will be swamped. Media distribution is now in the hands of everyone, and not everyone will behave themselves: Fuzzy Wikipedia Entry Leads to Zoeller LawsuitWikipedia founder Jimmy Wales declined to comment on the suit, but he said Wikipedia is no different from any Internet message board — meaning objectionable comments have to be posted before they can be removed. “We try to police it pretty closely, but people do misbehave on the Internet,” said Wales, of St. Petersburg, Fla.Pro golfer Fuzzy Zoeller is teed off over what he calls defamatory statements about Continue Reading…

    © 2011 Laurel Papworth Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha