Sep 19 Posted 4 years ago
Hey guys, if you're going to run an article about a threat to privacy, you might want to do a slightly better job at blurring out personal info in your sample report. It's obvious that report is about "parkerpdx", and if you do a search on that name you find his Facebook page.
Jul 25 Posted 4 years ago
I've written a new blog post that provides more in-depth discussion of the practice of social screening, particularly by third-party firms. It's entitled "Social Screening of Job Candidates: Focusing on the Facts" and can be accessed via:
Courtney Shelton Hunt, PhD - Founder, Social Media in Organizations (SMinOrgs) Community
Jun 25 Posted 4 years ago
I certainly agree with your conclusions.
The list of content searched doesn't seem in line with what I'd want in a background search. What's the definition of "sexually explicit?" Why aren't they searching for indications of unethical or otherwise destructive workplace behavior? Why search only for racially insensitive remarks but not signs of intolerance based on gender, religion, sexual preference, and so on?
The example does not seem consistent with the list of content types searched. Supporting a change in the law is not illegal. If they are going to flag support for legalizing marijuana, will they also flag signs of support for all changes in the law, such as posts promoting prayer in the public schools?
I'm not objecting to employers reviewing information that candidates have put in public, but if you're gonna do it, do it right.
Jun 25 Posted 4 years ago "Can" isn't really the right word - it's "must." As a third-party background screening company, SI must keep records related to all searches they conduct in case of legal action. What that means is that if an employer conducts a background search on you as a prospective employee, SI must hold on to that data in an archive. It is not accessible by any other employer or for any other reason. So if another employer conducts a background check later, SI will conduct a fresh search. The FCRA rules are pretty strict, and are designed to protect individuals, and the FTC's recent action in this situation can generally be viewed positively. I'd be careful not to misrepresent it. For more of my thinking on social screening, including this recent development, check out tiny.cc/SocialScreeningPaper.
February 09, 2016An exclusive, live webinar from Social Media Today on Tuesday, February 9th at 12pm ET/9am PT. Social media has given brands the great gift of...
January 19, 2016An exclusive, live webinar from Social Media Today January 19th, 2016 at 12pm EST / 9am PST There is a fine line between an omni-channel market...
November 24, 2015An exclusive report brought to you by Social Media Today and Hinge These days, cutting edge companies know that if they aren't leveraging t...
November 23, 2015The 2016 Social Media Marketing planning guide includes a must-have checklist as well as a first-of-its-kind research study aiming to provid...