So I mentioned to you before that I completely demolished my Facebook page back in 2007 when I was “friend requested” by one of my clients’ CEOs. Deactivating my profile was the right thing to do for the right reasons at the time. I was scared, and not being well educated in privacy controls or in the social media space, again, it was absolutely the right thing to do.
But yesterday when I was accepting a friend request from someone I met at a local tweetup, I started thinking:
“You have a friend request:
XXXXXX (random named person)
From Network : Seattle, WA
Add to list: Work 1
Work 2
Confirm Ignore”
I stopped. Work 1 or Work 2? Really Jessica? Why the heck do you have these privacy restraints? And what are the restrictions?
I set up “Work 1″ months and months ago as a way to protect myself from any pictures surfacing from way back in the day. I was afraid of getting tagged (terrified that my colleagues/clients may see me with a martini in hand and/or see a wallpost from a friend referencing said martini).
“Work 2″ soon followed as a way to selectively disseminate personal information to my social media contacts that I met along the way (either on Twitter or at Tweetups). Why on earth would they need to see my wall posts? They wouldn’t, right? Who in my work sphere needs to see my friends telling me how ridiculous I am? They’d think less of me, surely.
Months later (today) I browsed through my privacy constraints. If you landed in my Work 2 list that means no images. I started to rifle through my pictures.
What’s embarrassing? Hm. What’s embarrassing enough that I wouldn’t want “Work 2″ to see? Well, to the normal person, probably a lot of my pictures (due to me not being the most photogenic in the world). I continued…
What could be deemed compromising? I flipped through. Geez. Nothing juicy. Not a dang thing.
I’ll give you the secret. I have nothing to hide. Well, I mean, not really. I learned my lesson with the CEO. I haven’t done anything “compromising” in years, if ever. So why the privacy controls?
We’ve all done things in the past that we’re not especially proud of, taken pictures that weren’t necessarily the most flattering or under the best of circumstances. But, I’ve never done anything questionable, or that would eliminate me from becoming a politician (not that I have any immediate interest). And that’s because I’ve chosen to take care of myself. I don’t want to feel ashamed of anything I’ve done. I don’t want to have a reason to hide from anyone about anything, and as it stands, I don’t. Thank goodness.
Scary truth: Privacy controls on Facebook can only eliminate so much.
If you behave badly it’s only inevitable that it will get tweeted, twitpic’ed, tagged as a picture on Facebook (and even if you untag it, it’s still in your friend’s photo album titled “What happens in Vegas stays on Facebook”). So I ask you, what is your image and/or personal brand worth? What are you worth?
I’ve decided (for myself), and with a clear conscious might I add, that if anything I do publically that may require privacy controls when posted to Facebook to re-evaluate. It’s added stress long term, and just not worth it. Facebook privacy controls have made me become a better me (or at least more aware of my actions). And in PR it’s all about being transparent, anyway. Isn’t it?
It has become common practice to look at the facebook, twitter, other social accounts of applicants during hiring, especially in those professions where the position requires the applicant to be sort of a “public agent” for the hiring company. More simply — A job where you have a real opportunity to make them look bad.
While most of us accept this practice as a qualification for employment, others (mostly those denied position because of the content on their sites) have challenged the validity of these practices under the Consumer Reporting Act. The federal Act was amended in 1998 by the “Consumer Reporting Employment Clarification Act of 1998.” The legislature, recognizing the essential “make-or-break” function that a background check can play in gaining employment, wanted to make sure that REASONABLE PROCEDURES were used to create these reports.
The law was created most likely to deal with use of urinalysis, credit, and criminal history for the purposes of qualification for employment. The conventions of the internet and social networking sites were not likely contemplated, and the broad language of the Act has left interpretation of legislative intent to the Courts.
The case law, however, indicates a very deferential standard, and as mentioned earlier, the reporting agency need only use REASONABLE PROCEDURES, the specific report need not be accurate. For example, in one case a credit reporting agency accidentally reported the bankruptcy of another person with the same name as the applicant. The court held that even though the report was inaccurate, the Agency’s procedures for collecting and reporting generally accurate, and was not held liable.
Is looking at Facebook or Twitter an ACCURATE PROCESS? Further, even though the owner of the site posts the information, is it 3rd party information because it’s collected from a website and not the person directly? — There are different standards of liability if it is. Facebook and Twitter are account based, is this information private and therefore should not be subject of a background check?
These are some of the questions that the court’s are dealing with, but it seems that most will allow the use of such information in background checks. Again, I want to reiterate the test is whether the procedure was accurate, and not whether the report that is subject of litigation is correct. So what if the report was wrong, collected partial information, or was the account of a completely different person? — Even if a court holds that the procedures used are were unreasonable, damages are limited.
Most courts have held that the act does not afford injunctive relief (the Act is silent). So basically, even if the report was wrong, the court can’t force the employer to hire you. (I’m not sure if you would want want to work for someone you sued anyway). Legal damages are also limited and you probably won’t be able to get lost salary.
In the end, most judges realize that importance of professionalism and will probably find that looking at your accounts is a reasonable procedure. In the end, you have no one to blame but yourself; you allowed that information to be posted, and you should know by now people will be looking at it. Good Luck.
Consumer Reporting Act, 16 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.
Salazar v. Golden State Warriors, F.Supp.2d 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (allowing the use of videotape surveillance without consent for grounds for firing).
Sarver v. Experian Information Solutions, 390 F.3d 969, 971 (7th Cir. 2004)(reasonable procedures in credit reporting).
Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass’n v. USIS Commercial Servs., Inc., 537 F.3d 1184, 1193 (10th Cir. 2008)(“Industry standards” are admissible to show a process was reasonable).
Washington v. CSC Credit Svcs., 199 F. 3d 263, 268 (5th Cir.)(no injunctive relief under the Act).
16 C.F.R. Appendix, Part 600, at 516 (2009)(transactions and experiences exception explained).
Jessica, Thank you for this honest look into your growth with a public profile. So many of us are learning daily the ups and downs of an online presence. I know that you are not alone in this quest to find the right balance of personal and professional.
Jessica – Great post and I’m on the same page in regards to a lot you’ve mentioned. I think you need not be afraid of who you are – that said, a bit of privacy tweaking on FB can go a long way. Commenter above – great writeup as well…
[...] Believe me, I’ve been there, and I’ve untagged a fair amount of photographs in my day. As I mentioned before, I even once deleted my entire Facebook account and started over just so I wouldn’t have to [...]