Reflective tag: This essay dives into the issue of employers asking employees for passwords and usernames to online accounts as well as the process of profiling.  For this essay, each paragraph is discussed based off the source.  It helped me get my thoughts together, especially for the research essay.

Hyperlink: exploritory essay

Online Privacy against Employers

            In today’s world, so much information can be found online through networks such as Facebook, Twitter, and Linkedin. As the amount of users for social media has expanded, employers are using these websites to background check and examine their current and future employees. These employers have taken two different ways of checking on their employees. They have either profiled them online or asked the employee for their usernames and passwords in order to gather insight on their accounts. I am approaching this stage of life where I will be soon attending interviews for jobs and internships. This idea of profiling and asking for my personal information has raised concern about my perception of privacy creating the question, are either of these methods of social media background checks truly an invasion of privacy?

Paula McDonald and Paul Thompson go in depth regarding this issue of profiling in their article “Social Media(tion) and Reshaping of Public/Private Boundaries in Employment Relations”. Paula McDonald is a professor at QUT Business School (McDonald). The authors define profiling as, “Profiling involves the gathering of information by employers on employees via online search engines or individual social media sites in order to select an appropriate job applicant” (McDonald 71). In other words, employers are using online sites to gather information about a future employee before an interview. This practice is not surprising. A study conducted by Microsoft Corporation found that “four out of five” organizations have used this method for background checks in the U.S. (McDonald 71). According McDonald and Thompson, some courts are not questioning privacy because the information the employer is gathering has been posted publicly; however, the courts are more worried about what a particular post says about the establishment the employee works for (McDonald 71-72). Meaning, if the employee uses social media to talk negatively about the business they are working at or an employer at the business.

This article gives good insight in the practice of profiling and researching potential employees. After reading this article, I understand the concept of profiling. This method is similar to a background check that the police are able to do with the difference being the ability to conduct a more personal search. Profiling allows business to examine the future employee in regards to their hobbies, interest, and their behavior on social media. I do not believe this method is a violation of privacy because the information they find is public. If employees do not want this occurring, then it is their responsibility to be concerned about what they post publicly. Businesses have a right to gather information that is open to the public to view. This idea of profiling should not be considered a violation of privacy as people should expect and anticipate this behavior from future employers.

A survey was conducted by Dr. Michael Curran, a professor at Strayer University who received his doctorate in “Science Information Systems and Communications”, in order to look into college students knowledge and opinion regarding this issue of employments profiling in his article “College Students and HR Professionals: confliction views on information available on Facebook” (Puko). Curran conducted his study by asking several questions about what students have available publically on Facebook, their knowledge of profiling, and their opinion on profiling. The results showed that the students believe that their profiles are “somewhat accurate” when asked if their “Facebook posting reflect your actual status” (Curran 448). Meaning, that what students post on social media is mostly true about themselves. Also the information available is usually about relationship statue, sexual orientation, and hobbies rather than their drug use, economic statue, or religions affiliation (Curran 447). The information that these business would collect is not a lot about the person personally but more about simple hobbies. The results also found that 75% of the students are okay with profiling and 60% knew that this was a habit for employers (Curran 446, 450).

This survey relates back to similar ideas discussed in McDonald and Thompson’s article regarding profiling. The survey, however, shows the perception from college students. I think that this survey gives good insight on profiling. It proves that college students who have been raised in this digital age do not find a problem with profiling. It also answers my question regarding privacy relating to profiling. These college students and I, find that profiling is not an invasion of privacy. We understand it as employers gathering information that we have allowed to be public. Instead, we expect businesses and employers to use our social media accounts as a background reference.

“Employee Internet Privacy: A Proposed Act that Balances Legitimate Employer Rights and Employee Privacy” written by Susan Park, J.D., focuses on the idea of employers asking for usernames and passwords from their potential employee. Susan Park is an Assistant Professor at Boise State University who works with legal studies in businesses (Park 779). Park uses her knowledge of law to argue in her article for the laws that are instated already in some states and the importance of a federal law. She also goes in depth to discuss the difference between varies laws.

Park opens her argument up with describes three different incidents occurring in three different states where future employees were asked to disclose their personal information to their social media accounts (Park 779). For example, Robert Collins was asked for his usernames and passwords from his supervisors while being interviewed at Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to determine if he was ability to return to work at the Correctional Services after a leave of absence (Park 779). Not only does this sound wrong to me, it also sounded wrong to the Maryland General Assembly. The Maryland General Assembly passed a law to prohibit this behavior by employers soon after an incident occurred and sixteen states followed up with similar legislation (Park 782). The laws that are in place all have different variations regarding the same issue. The laws already establish discuss what sites the employer cannot gain access to, whom this law applies to, and “prohibited acts” ; however, these could be different in each state (Park 788). For example, Illinois statue protects only “social networking website” while other states such as New Mexico protect “online personal accounts” (Park 789). The fact that laws are in place and legislations are currently in process in Congress, shows the importance of this issue. Currently there are two legislations that are passing through Congress, the Password Protection Act and the Social Networking Online Protection Act (7 Park 83).

This issue, I believe, does violate privacy because the employer cannot force a future employee to show their personal information that they have reserved for their friends and family. Employees have the right to use the privacy settings that are available and should not be forced to disclose the information that they have reserved as private. Hearing that laws are in place answers the question of the importance of privacy on the Web. It also shows invasion of privacy these employers have tried to implement in their interview process. The issue, however, is inconsistence among the states. Congress needs to continue reviewing the legislation currently being circulated so that a national law is established.

After reading these articles, I can answer my question. Profiling is not an advantage of privacy because they are only able to collect a certain amount of information. On the other hand, asking for the passwords and usernames are an invasion of privacy because otherwise that information is not public. You can compare it to an employer asking to look through your phone. It is your personal, private information that you choose who sees it similar to Facebook and other social media. It is important that laws are being put into place; however, there needs to be a federal law so that it is consistent across the nation. Overall, there needs to be limitations on employers access to social media especially as its popularity and use continues to grow.