Let's discuss ethical issues on the internet. Let's say that a
grad student interviews for a law firm, but gets turned down. When he asks his
friend who works at the firm what happened, the friend reveals from
the confidential interview that the firm found a picture posted by another
friend of the grad taking an illegal substance. The graduate did not even know
the photo existed. So, who's to blame and is everyone's positions in this issue
justified?
There are a few different aspects in this case. The college
grad, let’s call him Jack, the friend at the law firm, Ben, the
friend who posted the picture, Kyle and the law firm Jack and Daniels
Incorporated.
Jack who attended the interview went in believing the firm
would focus on what was on his resume and his interview. However, that was not
the case. There is no law that states a company cannot search potential and
current employees on social media. Everyone can use the internet for their own
personal reasons or for those of a company/business. The laws of the internet
are new, flexible and fragile. While employees find it unfair that businesses
can look into their personal lives with just a click of the mouse, who’s to
stop them? Everyone has rights on the internet that no one wants to step on, so
there is no reason why they cannot. There is the old fashioned way of thinking
that the business world and your personal lives are completely separate,
however, with the advance of technology, the line has become very blurred.
Jack underestimated the privacy of the internet, the line between
his professional and personal life, and the people who post pictures of him. He
might have thought that the firm would not search on Facebook for him. If he
knew they would and he removed any suspicious pictures or posts, he forgot to
factor in what his friends may have posted. From his point of view, this is
unfair because he was unaware of the picture and the friend posted it years
ago. Anything on Facebook, nowadays, stays on Facebook and the internet for
years due to the new update “Timeline” if it was not taken down before the
update went into place.
The friend hat told the college graduate why he did not get the
job, Ben is also at fault. The interview was supposed to be confidential to
prevent any lawsuits against the firm for things probably exactly like this. Ben
should have never mentioned the reason behind not getting hired. Because he did
tell Jack why he did not get the job, Ben has put himself in a tough situation.
If Jack decides to sue the firm for a breach of privacy, Ben could get sued by
the company for telling confidential information. While Ben was being a good friend to Jack, he
was being a bad employee to the company.
The firm, Jack and Daniel’s Incorporated, wanted employees that
are dedicated and won’t bring any “bad press” to the company because of their
personal life. Mindflash.com claims that “45% of companies use social media sites
to screen their employees”.
I believe that is why most businesses search you on the internet before they
hire you. They want what is best for the company at all times. While it may be
considered a breach of privacy, their employees make them money and bad
employees that have a questionable background can decrease that amount of money.
Most of what a company finds on social media is 35% negative and only 15%
positive. Of that 35%, incriminating photos or information make up 53%.1
For the friend that posted the pictures on to Facebook, Kyle, it
was his right to do so. Again, everyone and anyone can post what they want,
when they want. It is not the fault of Kyle. However, if Kyle did not tag Jack in
the photo, then the blame does fall Kyle. This would have alerted Jack to the incriminating
picture’s existence and he would have promptly asked for the photo to be taken
down. If Kyle did not tag Jack in the photo, then he is partially at fault.
Everyone is a little at fault here. Jack for not checking his Facebook, Ben for telling Jack the reason for not hiring him, Jack and Daniel's firm for slightly violating his private life, and Kyle for posting the picture without tagging Jack. While Jack is in a sticky situation, his best shot would be to
save money, go through all his social media and delete any and all suspicious
posts, pictures or comments. This is the high road. If Jack truly feels wronged
by the company, then it is up to him to decide what to do.
"Social
Screening: How Companies Are Using Social Media To Hire &Fire Employees |." Mindflash.
N.p., 3 Aug. 2011. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.mindflash.com/blog/2011/08/social-screening-how-companies-are-using-social-media-to-hire-fire-employees/>.
No comments:
Post a Comment