Let's talk about facebook first. In the recent months (on the internet), there has been a rising trend of employers asking prospective hires (unemployed people looking for jobs) to hand over their facebook information. Not just the basic profile page url or anything like that, but the account information, including username and passwords. Many companies have reasoned that this is merely "shoulder-surfing", no altering of any details already on the profile. They have also defended this policy by saying it is no different from a standard background check, one that all companies do before hiring to look out for issues such as past criminal activity or drug use, etc.
Without even researching, we'd know the consequences of this to most of us. This reflects a incredible breach of privacy for the employees, shifting much of the power to the employer.
But what about the employers doing the snooping?
This (fictional) resignation letter highlights the possible impacts for the companies, possible conflicts of interest that may arise due to this arrangement. That was an amazing read for me and I literally gasped when I read that the woman could sue the employer while being so casual about handing over her FB information.
Without going too deep into the legal or even moral aspects of this issue, I do have some questions regarding the "background check" aspect of (almost) every hiring.
It's interesting that most people think there is such an obvious reason for background checks. "Well, I definitely don't want to hire an ex-convict". Granted that they are actual valid reasons for denying such people, due to perhaps security reasons. There's no way we could justify hiring a person with a criminal record for issues pertaining to national security, such as in Defence ministries, or even as simple as guarding important people like the President of the United States.
But how far can we stretch such a reasoning? Isn't denying jobs to ex-convicts as discriminatory as denying them to a lesbian? Anti-discrimination laws were set up to provide equality for everyone, but when companies pick their hires, they still have some kind of bias regarding these issues. The fact that handing over facebook information simply streamlines the process for them. It's not as if they don't already check out your profile page on facebook before deciding. When they do that, it's not discrimination because there's no paper trail regarding them checking you out, but in their mind, they would have had the same decision processes with or without your password. It's just a matter of admitting outright whether they do look at your profile. I'll admit that forcing employees to give up passwords imply that their posts are scrutinized no matter what, instead of being able to decide who sees what.
Facebook also presents a new element to the background checking process. The idea that your thoughts and opinions can be ascertained through your profile. Traditionally, it was very black-and-white type of information. Male/Female, Age, Criminal Activity, Past accomplishments, etc. Now, everything you ever decided to post on public is up for grabs, that includes your political ideology, your attitude, whether you're divorced or committed adultery. There really is no one person who is at fault for such a scenario. On one hand, you could blame the company for snooping around for such information, but on the other, you could blame the user for posting his thoughts on facebook, knowing very well that it can be accessed by everyone (or at least compromised to such a degree). The company is looking at information you chose to post for everyone to see, as opposed to stealing records or hiring private investigators to get that information. Who should be responsible for this? I don't know.
So with that, I leave you with more questions that you came here with. Good night.
Oh and I'll talk about the rape thing in another post because this is becoming too long.
No comments:
Post a Comment