Recommended Posts

Social Spooks
 

Quote

 

It's not really a secret that the FBI is in the business of monitoring social media posts. What's less clear is why, after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asked for records related to that surveillance, the bureau refused to acknowledge their existence. That's just one question a lawsuit filed yesterday by the ACLU and its Northern California affiliate seeks to answer.

...

the bureau responded to the ACLU's FOIA request by saying it "could neither confirm nor deny the existence of records responsive to your request."

The ACLU is also suing the departments of Justice, State, and Homeland Security, as well as three agencies under the DHS umbrella: Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Of particular issue to the ACLU are the government's alleged efforts to more closely monitor immigrants' social media profiles. The defendants "have ramped up the monitoring and retention of immigrants' and visa applicants social media information, including for the purpose of conducting what the Trump administration has called 'extreme vetting' or 'visa lifecycle vetting,'" the suit reads.

For instance, EPIC points out that the State Department has been asking visa applicants to disclose their social media handles.

 

It's weird and creepy that they won't just admit it. Like this:

My social media handle is often Publius but I'm really Tom Ray.

As a landlord, I always check for social media posts from tenant applicants. I check criminal records and stuff too. After finding an undisclosed and disqualifying criminal record in one case, I went on to find FB posts from this guy asking how to conceal his illegal pit bull breeding operation from landlords. No thanks.

Of course information like that is useful to cops and if they're doing their jobs, they collect it all the time.
 

Quote

 

"There's a growing trend at the Department of Homeland Security to be snooping on the social media of immigrants and foreigners and we think it's an invasion of privacy and deters freedom of speech," Adam Schwartz, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told BuzzFeed News at the time.

The ACLU suit asks the court to search for and release all records related to the defendants' social media monitoring. "It's unacceptable for the government to withhold details about this domestic spying," ACLU attorneys Hugh Handeyside and Matt Cagle write in a blog post about the suit. "The public needs to know how the government is watching us—and we shouldn't have to think about self-censoring what we say online."

 

I very seldom disagree with EFF and ACLU at the same time on a privacy issue but that's just crap.

If you post something online, you've published it. It's like complaining that you put a giant sign in your yard and people who are passing by are reading it. Umm... yeah. Because you put it there.

I can agree with half of the last sentence. The FBI advertises looking for employees to do social media monitoring and won't admit that they put those people to work. That's weird and creepy and they should admit that those people are working and what they are doing for us.

But we do have to think about self-censoring what we say online. Those of us who do it under our real names do it a bit more, but those of you who think you're really anonymous are kidding yourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hard part about social media isn't the obvious case of someone doing something stupid.  The woman who was bragging to the game warden on Tinder about killing a "Bigo Buck" is pretty simple.  How to hide and illegal dog fighting ring from your landlord might be problematic.

But what about the kid wearing the confederate shirt from six years ago or something else that is now considered offensive?  Romney's dog is another example.  The Internet never forgets and, as citizens, we LOOOOOOOVVVEEE to bash people for stupid things they do - schadenfreude and all that. It makes us feel good about ourselves.  How do you get past the stupidity of youth when you'e not allowed to erase the stupidity of youth?  The answer is you don't.  Youth don't get to BE youth anymore.  They get to make big ole adultish decisions from the moment they open their accounts, regardless if their wee little emotional selves are ready for it.

We like to bash the Chinese about their 'social media' credit score - but at least they're honest about it. 

 

29 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

But we do have to think about self-censoring what we say online. Those of us who do it under our real names do it a bit more, but those of you who think you're really anonymous are kidding yourselves.

I like that observation and agree completely.  I don't believe in 'anonymous' at all online.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

How do you get past the stupidity of youth when you'e not allowed to erase the stupidity of youth?  The answer is you don't.  Youth don't get to BE youth anymore.

Many of us have said, "Glad there were not cameras everywhere back then!"

Then we tell what happened anyway.

If there had been cameras, there would be pics or video to go along with the stories.

Would it really be so bad? 16 year olds who are immortal and know everything are out there doing stupid shit right now. In 40 years, they'll know it was stupid and laugh about it like we do. And they'll have some really funny pictures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's bad for the same reason you just said.

 

10 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Many of us have said, "Glad there were not cameras everywhere back then!"

Then we tell what happened anyway.

The stories that get shared are stories that YOU chose to share today.    That's still adult YOU creating the narrative.  I happened across an interview of Mike Tyson and why he doesn't work out anymore.  Should people be allowed to move on and become different or is he always 'Iron Mike', even though that person was filled with anger and violence, directed at everyone around him?

 

 

To cross metaphors, what does a world look like where Red dies, hanging from a rafter in a transition house instead of fleeing to Mexico?  What does a world that doesn't forget actually look like?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't hunting/searching for peoples social media stuff for real world purposes a bit stalky/creepy/fascist?

Best way to curtail freedom of speech is to make people afraid of other people misusing it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting S.O.B., so someone publishes for public consumption and anyone who seeks it out is somehow stalking?

Walk us through that leap of logic if you please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or is it a reasonable check to see if the person is who they present themselves as? When we had neighborhoods/small towns, everyone knew what everyone said and did so the ability to misrepresent themselves was much smaller.  Today, we're too separated to have than kind of knowledge so a quick check seems reasonable.  What HAS changed, however, is the growth of "authenticity" where a public person is expected to adhere to a consistent philosophy and morality their entire life, allowing no mistakes or growth. That, with a tolerance of OUR villains while decrying THEIR villains, is a reason for the spectacular falls of some of our public figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Isn't hunting/searching for peoples social media stuff for real world purposes a bit stalky/creepy/fascist?

More than a bit. I often learn more than I cared to know about people and their friends.

Like whether they ask their friends for advice on concealing dog breeding from landlords. And whether their friends help.

Ignorance would have been bliss in that case. For a while. Then expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Isn't hunting/searching for peoples social media stuff for real world purposes a bit stalky/creepy/fascist? 

It's also awkward at times. I had one tenant who didn't think he had revealed all that much VERY personal information to me during application. The look on his face when he realized I knew most everything he had ever posted on FB was pretty priceless. It must have never occurred to him.

I only had one person so far who was careful enough to have virtually no digital footprint. A page about him on the website of his employer. That's it. He's into his second year now.

The top post on one guy's FB page was a selfie video (by someone else) depicting the use of a giant, glass bong contraption that was designed so you inhale through your nose. I didn't know we had that technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

More than a bit. I often learn more than I cared to know about people and their friends.

Like whether they ask their friends for advice on concealing dog breeding from landlords. And whether their friends help.

Ignorance would have been bliss in that case. For a while. Then expensive.

when landlords do it.

Employers will do it

insurance companies

Schools

Sailing clubs

Any clubs

Great way to recreate what we've striven to get rid of for years, prejudice,elitism and social engineering.

Not to mention people being mysteriously denied jobs and housing because your prospective boss or landlord  doesn't like your politics or colour...should be a law against social media snooping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel safer now. If you don't have anything to hide then you should be okay with big brother watching and recording everything you do! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

when landlords do it.

Employers will do it

insurance companies

Schools

Sailing clubs

Any clubs

Great way to recreate what we've striven to get rid of for years, prejudice,elitism and social engineering.

Not to mention people being mysteriously denied jobs and housing because your prospective boss or landlord  doesn't like your politics or colour...should be a law against social media snooping.

Not to mention cops doing it but not admitting they're doing it.

When you first arrived here, there was the usual speculation about whose sock you were. I remember stalking you on FB, I think at your suggestion. It worked.

You know you're social media snooping right now if you're reading this, right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, of course, people will eventually started quantifying you based on that history.  Maybe even create a database.  Almost like a credit score based on past behavior.

Naw.. that could never happen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mickey Rat said:

I feel safer now. If you don't have anything to hide then you should be okay with big brother watching and recording everything you do! 

Or at least everything you voluntarily display to the world.

If Big Brother activates the camera on my computer and starts shooting video without my knowledge, I'd have a huge problem with it.

If cops are looking around on social media for criminal behavior, that's good. I'm paying them to do that and wish them luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

And, of course, people will eventually started quantifying you based on that history.  Maybe even create a database.  Almost like a credit score based on past behavior.

Naw.. that could never happen.

 

I know you're referencing the Chinese system, parts of which are a long way from happening here.

But as current 16 year olds, even those who thought they were anonymous, will learn over the coming decades, that's happening whether we like it or not. And if we don't like it, we'll stop posting it in public for all to see. I haven't stopped. I think I'll pause for a while and go act like a 16 year old in a boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Social Spooks
 

It's weird and creepy that they won't just admit it. Like this:

My social media handle is often Publius but I'm really Tom Ray.

As a landlord, I always check for social media posts from tenant applicants. I check criminal records and stuff too. After finding an undisclosed and disqualifying criminal record in one case, I went on to find FB posts from this guy asking how to conceal his illegal pit bull breeding operation from landlords. No thanks.

Of course information like that is useful to cops and if they're doing their jobs, they collect it all the time.
 

I very seldom disagree with EFF and ACLU at the same time on a privacy issue but that's just crap.

If you post something online, you've published it. It's like complaining that you put a giant sign in your yard and people who are passing by are reading it. Umm... yeah. Because you put it there.

I can agree with half of the last sentence. The FBI advertises looking for employees to do social media monitoring and won't admit that they put those people to work. That's weird and creepy and they should admit that those people are working and what they are doing for us.

But we do have to think about self-censoring what we say online. Those of us who do it under our real names do it a bit more, but those of you who think you're really anonymous are kidding yourselves.

I agree.  I have no issue with LEO looking at social media.  If people are stupid enough to put it out there, it's there for all the world to see.  Including the cops.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Or at least everything you voluntarily display to the world.

If Big Brother activates the camera on my computer and starts shooting video without my knowledge, I'd have a huge problem with it.

If cops are looking around on social media for criminal behavior, that's good. I'm paying them to do that and wish them luck.

Like illegal drug use? I'm all for that!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

But we do have to think about self-censoring what we say online. Those of us who do it under our real names do it a bit more, but those of you who think you're really anonymous are kidding yourselves.

It's for this precise reason why I've probably made a grand total of 15 FB posts in the last 12 years.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Not to mention cops doing it but not admitting they're doing it.

When you first arrived here, there was the usual speculation about whose sock you were. I remember stalking you on FB, I think at your suggestion. It worked.

You know you're social media snooping right now if you're reading this, right?

 

No Tom, I posted my FB page..in other words I invited anyone here to check my bonefides on FB..and I'm a member of this little club. 

Unless a prospective tenant gives you permission, searching for them online is an invasion of their privacy . You know this to be true.

It's one of those grey moral areas and only the snooper knows whether they can be impartial with the information they find.

There's people here who's integrity I'd trust..others..not so much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Or at least everything you voluntarily display to the world.

If Big Brother activates the camera on my computer and starts shooting video without my knowledge, I'd have a huge problem with it.

If cops are looking around on social media for criminal behavior, that's good. I'm paying them to do that and wish them luck.

that camera on your PC watching you is a bit of a fuphy BTW..I read somewhere that you'd see a light on the lens if anyone were spying on your nose picking :D

Re FB..there are privacy settings..my FB page is private....but I think I'll read through this just to make sure 

https://www.techlicious.com/tip/complete-guide-to-facebook-privacy-settings/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shortforbob said:

that camera on your PC watching you is a bit of a fuphy BTW..I read somewhere that you'd see a light on the lens if anyone were spying on your nose picking :D

Nose picking, is that what you call it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shortforbob said:

that camera on your PC watching you is a bit of a fuphy BTW..I read somewhere that you'd see a light on the lens if anyone were spying on your nose picking :D

Don't believe everything thing you read.  Ed Snowden showed us otherwise.  It's why I have a piece of tape over every laptop camera device I own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dogballs Tom said:

Or at least everything you voluntarily display to the world.

My problem is that I feel if you share something, you should also have the ability to retract something.  That's where the asymmetry of our current system doesn't work for me.  The current system doesn't allow for redemption.

Part of the whole idea of America was the ability to 'reset' the clock and start over.  That includes good and bad.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Don't believe everything thing you read.  Ed Snowden showed us otherwise.  It's why I have a piece of tape over every laptop camera device I own.

I can't see the point of spying on someone typing on a keyboard..pretty boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

I can't see the point of spying on someone typing on a keyboard..pretty boring.

Polly - People do and say ALL sorts of stuff in rooms with computer cameras and microphones present.  There was a recent NPR story about the ability for even semi-reasonably tech savvy entities being able to surreptitiously turn on your smartphone mic and record everything that is said within listening distance of the phone.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dogballs  which service do you use for background checks ....are you going to be on the EC beach this year ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Polly - People do and say ALL sorts of stuff in rooms with computer cameras and microphones present.  There was a recent NPR story about the ability for even semi-reasonably tech savvy entities being able to surreptitiously turn on your smartphone mic and record everything that is said within listening distance of the phone.  

Yeah...but I can type without spelling the words out loud :D

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Don't believe everything thing you read.  Ed Snowden showed us otherwise.  It's why I have a piece of tape over every laptop camera device I own.

Snowden is a traitor for exposing the truth! You have no right to know that information! Folks that "have a piece of tape over every laptop camera device I own" are Putin's lap dog.  :angry: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

Isn't hunting/searching for peoples social media stuff for real world purposes a bit stalky/creepy/fascist?

Not if you're going to entrust them with one of your rentals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peeping Toms don't have to mess with windows, weather, and dogs anymore. 

I love it when posters using their real names brag about it. Hey! The key is under the flower pot, and the pot is in the medicine cabinet along with the oxy left over from that last knee replacement I mentioned recently to all 7 billion of you. Gun safe is open this weekend for guests. Come on by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

There's people here who's integrity I'd trust..others..not so much. 

There are people whose grammar corrections I'd trust...others...not so much. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Don't believe everything thing you read.  Ed Snowden showed us otherwise.  It's why I have a piece of tape over every laptop camera device I own.

You should have done your phone, we all get to see you taking a crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

There are people whose grammar corrections I'd trust...others...not so much. :P

I'll 'splain that to ya shorty if needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, justsomeguy! said:

Not if you're going to entrust them with one of your rentals.

That's what agents are for.

I'm not sure I'd trust even myself to fairly consider a tenant if I discovered they were an actual red had wearing, rally attending Trump Supporter...Or more likely in my case, a Clive Palmer or Pauline Hanson supporter...I think we all have our little prejudices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

I'll mansplain that to ya shorty if needed.

FTFY..not required thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

That's what agents are for.

I'm not sure I'd trust even myself to fairly consider a tenant if I discovered they were an actual red had wearing, rally attending Trump Supporter...Or more likely in my case, a Clive Palmer or Pauline Hanson supporter...I think we all have our little prejudices.

Spoken like someone who doesn't have to pick business partners.

Yes, you can contract that out. No, not a great idea unless you really trust the agent.

Tenants are business partners and it's just prudent to look into them.

It's also foolish to base choices on hat color. The surprised man I mentioned above is a big Bernie guy and a gay black man, so we didn't see eye to eye politically sometimes. DIfferent perspectives on some things but not the important one for a tenant: He's a responsible person and I could tell it from his FB feed and I was right.

The jackass with the dog breeding operation was a jackass who was lying to me. Should I have snooped in government records to find out about the crimes he didn't tell me about? I don't see a problem. They're public government records. What's so different about looking at his FB?

10 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

No Tom, I posted my FB page..in other words I invited anyone here to check my bonefides on FB..and I'm a member of this little club. 

Unless a prospective tenant gives you permission, searching for them online is an invasion of their privacy . You know this to be true.

It's one of those grey moral areas and only the snooper knows whether they can be impartial with the information they find.

There's people here who's integrity I'd trust..others..not so much. 

I know you posted your FB and was joking about "stalking" you by following your link. I'm "stalking" tenants in the same way. They send me all kinds of personal information and ask me to look into whether I want to rent to them. They pay to get credit and background checks done and presented to me for the same purpose. The idea that I'm not supposed to look into them in light of the fact that they're paying to have me look into them is just weird and indicates you have little experience outside taking a government check.

Picking tenants is the most important thing a landlord does. Pick right and you can make money. Pick wrong and you will lose. It's real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

Picking tenants is the most important thing a landlord does. 

You can say that again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Re FB..there are privacy settings..my FB page is private....but I think I'll read through this just to make sure 

https://www.techlicious.com/tip/complete-guide-to-facebook-privacy-settings/

Private is a relative term. I wouldn't call any FB page private. It's as private as your friend and Facebook's technicians and all their heirs forever decide it should be. I think things are private when I'm in charge of how private they are. That's why nothing private will ever be posted online nor written in an unencrypted email by me.

My wife locked her FB down for a while and it was super annoying. She posted a pic of me with a fish and I could see it and comment but not share. So I swiped the image, put it on my server (which is actually hers) and shared it with the world. She wasn't in charge of the privacy of that image once it was on my screen. I was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, cmilliken said:

My problem is that I feel if you share something, you should also have the ability to retract something.  That's where the asymmetry of our current system doesn't work for me.  The current system doesn't allow for redemption.

Part of the whole idea of America was the ability to 'reset' the clock and start over.  That includes good and bad.  

Although there were not cameras everywhere, we never had the ability to retract things we've done or said. We can apologize, correct ourselves, learn, do lots of things, but we can't go back in time and undo or unsay things.

As mentioned, I bet Tulsi wishes she could go back and undo and unsay some things. She can't. Is she beyond redemption? Not to me. Looks like she has escaped her father's mind control regime. That's redemption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, badlatitude said:
On 1/19/2019 at 5:52 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

Don't believe everything thing you read.  Ed Snowden showed us otherwise.  It's why I have a piece of tape over every laptop camera device I own.

You should have done your phone, we all get to see you taking a crap.

Hey, if you want to watch me pinch off a loaf to satisfy your hardsports fetish...... I'm happy to help you out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2019 at 5:49 PM, Shortforbob said:

Re FB..there are privacy settings..my FB page is private....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!

Stop it Meli, seriously you're killing me!  :lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Hey, if you want to watch me pinch off a loaf to satisfy your hardsports fetish...... I'm happy to help you out.  

So the paranoia of putting tape over the camera in your devices was just entertainment, or phony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2019 at 1:47 PM, Shortforbob said:

No Tom, I posted my FB page..in other words I invited anyone here to check my bonefides on FB..and I'm a member of this little club. 

Unless a prospective tenant gives you permission, searching for them online is an invasion of their privacy . You know this to be true.

It's one of those grey moral areas and only the snooper knows whether they can be impartial with the information they find.

There's people here who's integrity I'd trust..others..not so much. 

People get googled online all the time, for professional and personal reasons. If they’ve put something online in the public domain, it’s up there for the world to see. 

Don’t like it? Don’t put it online. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mad said:

Don’t like it? Don’t put it online. 

Words to live by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2019 at 1:49 PM, Shortforbob said:

that camera on your PC watching you is a bit of a fuphy BTW..I read somewhere that you'd see a light on the lens if anyone were spying on your nose picking :D

Re FB..there are privacy settings..my FB page is private....but I think I'll read through this just to make sure 

https://www.techlicious.com/tip/complete-guide-to-facebook-privacy-settings/

This is probably more useful. 

https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-hack-check-if-account-affected/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2019 at 8:47 AM, Shortforbob said:

Unless a prospective tenant gives you permission, searching for them online is an invasion of their privacy . You know this to be true.

It's one of those grey moral areas and only the snooper knows whether they can be impartial with the information they find.

 

On 1/19/2019 at 7:32 PM, dogballs Tom said:

Should I have snooped in government records to find out about the crimes he didn't tell me about? I don't see a problem. They're public government records.

I'm still wondering about this. That applicant gave me the information he wanted to share about his criminal history.

I went snooping around and found more information.

Am I a bad man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 3:13 PM, Shortforbob said:

absolutely ...nosy too :D

Absolutely not.  If you post something on FB, you might as well take an ad out in the newspaper or buy billboard space.  Its just as much public record.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Absolutely not.  If you post something on FB, you might as well take an ad out in the newspaper or buy billboard space.  Its just as much public record.  

Even a caveman can see that. But not Bob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2019 at 7:40 AM, Shortforbob said:

Isn't hunting/searching for peoples social media stuff for real world purposes a bit stalky/creepy/fascist?

Best way to curtail freedom of speech is to make people afraid of other people misusing it.

It's common for employers to request social media IDs and peruse posts as part of a hiring process. If you're going for a clearance, disclosure is required if requested. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

It's common for employers to request social media IDs and peruse posts as part of a hiring process. If you're going for a clearance, disclosure is required if requested. 

I'm curious. What sort of things do employers seek on someones social media that may be relevant to a job application that they can't find elsewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

It's common for employers to request social media IDs and peruse posts as part of a hiring process. If you're going for a clearance, disclosure is required if requested. 

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

I'm curious. What sort of things do employers seek on someones social media that may be relevant to a job application that they can't find elsewhere?

Say..self-posted pictures of you, a white, male applicant, on Faceboob at a party dressed in blackface, sporting false boobs and wearing a headscarf and a sweatshirt saying "Katrina Victim".  That will get you rejected, even in the Chesapeake.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Say..self-posted pictures of you, a white, male applicant, on Faceboob at a party dressed in blackface, sporting false boobs and wearing a headscarf and a sweatshirt saying "Katrina Victim".  That will get you rejected, even in the Chesapeake.  

well it shouldn't. Much as one must abhor the above, no one has the right to deny such a person work...if they bring such behaviour into the workplace a six - twelve month probationary period should suffice to "out" any such leanings..and fire them if it effects either their work performance or their work environment. Your private life has nothing to do with your employment unless it brings your business into disrepute. 

Here, an employer can request a police check on prospective employees, or require a "working with children" "licence" through the national database (I have one), a landlord can access a tenancy record  through the real estate body. No need for snooping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

I'm curious. What sort of things do employers seek on someones social media that may be relevant to a job application that they can't find elsewhere?

One real world example I came across a few years ago.    A job applicant had posted on FB of her plans to get wasted that night using wine and ‘left over’ prescription narcotics.    The job involved handling confidential information and controlled substances.    I understand she got taken off the interview list.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lark said:

One real world example I came across a few years ago.    A job applicant had posted on FB of her plans to get wasted on a Friday night using wine and ‘left over’ prescription narcotics.    The job involved handling confidential information and controlled substances.    I understand she got taken off the interview list.   

If she want's to get wasted on friday night but comes in on monday fit and competent, is it anyone else's business but hers?

If you applied that to any employee in their 20's you'd have a rather elderly workforce...of course, stupidity should be apparent in the interview phase.<_<

The theft issue is another matter.

HR personnel are lazy enough already re job application screenings. I don't think we should be giving them yet another excuse for spending work time on social media.:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

a landlord can access a tenancy record  through the real estate body. No need for snooping.

Would it include things like soliciting advice from friends on how to best conceal an illegal pit bull breeding operation from a landlord?

I think that kind of thing, and the responses from friends, indicated a need for snooping. It wasn't my business and I'm glad it didn't become my business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Would it include things like soliciting advice from friends on how to best conceal an illegal pit bull breeding operation from a landlord?

I think that kind of thing, and the responses from friends, indicated a need for snooping. It wasn't my business and I'm glad it didn't become my business.

and how fast could you evict him if he did such a thing? I assume you have the right to inspect your property? I don't think the personal convenience of one person justifies the invasion of privacy for commercial purposes of everyone.

I've been a landlord, admittedly had some problems with some tenants when using an agency..never with those I interviewed myself...and I had no need to snoop..there was no social media then. All I could do was call their referees, ask for evidence of employment and use a friendly but astute face to face interview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

If she want's to get wasted on friday night but comes in on monday fit and competent, is it anyone else's business but hers?

If you applied that to any employee in their 20's you'd have a rather elderly workforce...of course, stupidity should be apparent in the interview phase.<_<

The theft issue is another matter.

HR personnel are lazy enough already re job application screenings. I don't think we should be giving them yet another excuse for spending work time on social media.:rolleyes:

Mixing narcotics and alcohol is poor judgement at best.   Leftover narcotics being used for recreational purposes is illegal, even if legally prescribed to the woman.    Using somebody else’s medications is illegal.   Bragging about a crime an open media shows a poor verbal filter and flawed judgement.   Hiring an addict means missing drugs, DEA investigation, nonestop paperwork, liability for overdoses on drugs not secured from the addict, and for anything the lady with poor judgement discloses while under the influence.   It seems to me that there is a lot at risk, too much not to look for information voluntarily placed in view by the applicant.  Not only would another applicant be preferable, no applicant would be preferable.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

well it shouldn't. Much as one must abhor the above, no one has the right to deny such a person work...if they bring such behaviour into the workplace a six - twelve month probationary period should suffice to "out" any such leanings..and fire them if it effects either their work performance or their work environment. Your private life has nothing to do with your employment unless it brings your business into disrepute. 

Here, an employer can request a police check on prospective employees, or require a "working with children" "licence" through the national database (I have one), a landlord can access a tenancy record  through the real estate body. No need for snooping.

What’s a real estate body?   I’ve been landlord and tenant, but never had access to such a body,   Is she good looking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Lark said:

What’s a real estate body?   I’ve been landlord and tenant, but never had access to such a body,   Is she good looking?

You need a licence to practice.  I should have said "a" real estate body..there's multiple data bases Agents access to check tenants ..tenants have access too of course. To rent a property legally in Victoria, both parties must sign a standardised lease agreement and put the security deposit (usually the value of a months rent) in a gov trust.

Provides certain rights and obligations of both the landlord and the tenant.

Australia is much more regulated than the USA ...Pustralia, nanny state..whatever...but you pay a price for the lack of regulations. Can't have things both ways.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shortforbob said:
8 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Would it include things like soliciting advice from friends on how to best conceal an illegal pit bull breeding operation from a landlord?

I think that kind of thing, and the responses from friends, indicated a need for snooping. It wasn't my business and I'm glad it didn't become my business.

and how fast could you evict him if he did such a thing? I assume you have the right to inspect your property? I don't think the personal convenience of one person justifies the invasion of privacy for commercial purposes of everyone.

About two months, at the cost of thousands in legal fees and lost rent. Assuming no serious damage, which is a heroic assumption.

I don't think his lying should be protected at the cost of thousands of dollars to me.

Looking at a person's public activity isn't an invasion of privacy of any kind. You're trying to convince me it's wrong and I should risk my family's money out of respect for the "privacy" of public acts. No.

7 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

I've been a landlord, admittedly had some problems with some tenants when using an agency..never with those I interviewed myself...and I had no need to snoop..there was no social media then. All I could do was call their referees, ask for evidence of employment and use a friendly but astute face to face interview.

So we've both had bad experiences with your earlier suggestion to hire an agent and have both discovered that the perils of our own prejudices are better, huh? Then why did you suggest the use of agents again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

About two months, at the cost of thousands in legal fees and lost rent. Assuming no serious damage, which is a heroic assumption.

I don't think his lying should be protected at the cost of thousands of dollars to me.

Looking at a person's public activity isn't an invasion of privacy of any kind. You're trying to convince me it's wrong and I should risk my family's money out of respect for the "privacy" of public acts. No.

So we've both had bad experiences with your earlier suggestion to hire an agent and have both discovered that the perils of our own prejudices are better, huh? Then why did you suggest the use of agents again?

I was overseas.

Seriously, if you can't vet your own tenants without considering and rejecting an illegal   pitbull breeder without the aid of social media snooping..can I sell you a boat :D

Surely there are "decent" people would want your fine dwelling?

I last rented a house to a single mum..best tenant I ever had...I didn't even increase her rent for the 4 years she lived there..on a Melbourne market..she was so good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Seriously, if you can't vet your own tenants without considering and rejecting an illegal   pitbull breeder without the aid of social media snooping..can I sell you a boat

Seriously, what happened was

 

On 1/19/2019 at 5:15 AM, dogballs Tom said:

After finding an undisclosed and disqualifying criminal record in one case, I went on to find FB posts from this guy asking how to conceal his illegal pit bull breeding operation from landlords. No thanks.

And you still haven't answered my question about whether it was wrong to go snooping through the public criminal records to reject him prior to knowing about the pit bull thing.

He obviously didn't want that public information shared with me, so I'm guessing you think that looking in public criminal records violates some right to privacy in public or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Seriously, what happened was

 

And you still haven't answered my question about whether it was wrong to go snooping through the public criminal records to reject him prior to knowing about the pit bull thing.

He obviously didn't want that public information shared with me, so I'm guessing you think that looking in public criminal records violates some right to privacy in public or something?

not at all, here you can do a police check..if you have access to public criminal records go for it. if you found evidence of criminal activity, then you have no need to snoop social media did you?.

Come off it Tom, you found out he had a crimminal record and natural curiosity got the better of you...but you didn't have to.

I looked up you on the internet once, but only to see if you were in the path of a hurricane as you hadn't posted for a while. I was concerned.  

The internet is an interesting tool, It can be used for good or evil. It puts restraints on all of us ..or not. only you (collective) can decide if you're snooping without good reason.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

if you found evidence of criminal activity, then you have no need to snoop social media did you?.

Come off it Tom, you found out he had a crimminal record and natural curiosity got the better of you...but you didn't have to.

Well, no, I open multiple tabs at once. Closed the public records tab and there's the FB page. I was mildly amused that he was so stupid.

His girlfriend and her co-worker were great and I would have loved to have rented to them. Without him.

16 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

only you (collective) can decide if you're snooping without good reason.

I'm not part of the Borg but agree. Taking on a tenant is an opportunity and a risk and I do research for good reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lark said:

One real world example I came across a few years ago.    A job applicant had posted on FB of her plans to get wasted that night using wine and ‘left over’ prescription narcotics.    The job involved handling confidential information and controlled substances.    I understand she got taken off the interview list.   

Apply to join the police force in the UK? They will check social media of not only you, but also your associates if they have suspicions. Apply to move to ant-terrorism, undercover or firearms units etc? Don’t be surprised if they look again and maybe a little harder. 

Apply for any job requiring government SC clearance such as the above and working in the some of the R&D world and some nuclear sectors  they will also be looking at your bank accounts, your family background, your spouses background etc etc. 

1 person failed because of his girlfriends family activity, told to ditch girlfriend , wait a year and reapply if serious. it started as social media issue being enough for the authorities to become suspicious and dig a little deeper. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chinese Debtor App

Quote

If you're the sort of upstanding citizen who always wants to know if some deadbeat debtors happen to be lurking nearby, then there's good news—at least if you live in China's Hebei province. Last week the Higher People's Court of Hebei introduced a mini-program on WeChat messaging, social media, and mobile payment app targeting "debt dodgers." The app, dubbed a "deadbeat debtors map," enables users to identify and locate any debtors who come within 500 meters. Specifically, it identifies people who have been failing to pay such legal obligations as court-imposed fines, divorce settlements, rent, and loans.

Some of that stuff would be public record here, so accessible but there's no app for it that I know about.

Unpaid rent? How does it know?

Their social credit system is more than a bit creepy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Chinese Debtor App

Some of that stuff would be public record here, so accessible but there's no app for it that I know about.

Unpaid rent? How does it know?

Their social credit system is more than a bit creepy.

China's becoming a bit more than creepy.Trump better hurry up...Eastasia is a happening thing already :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

well it shouldn't. Much as one must abhor the above, no one has the right to deny such a person work...if they bring such behaviour into the workplace a six - twelve month probationary period should suffice to "out" any such leanings..and fire them if it effects either their work performance or their work environment. Your private life has nothing to do with your employment unless it brings your business into disrepute. 

Here, an employer can request a police check on prospective employees, or require a "working with children" "licence" through the national database (I have one), a landlord can access a tenancy record  through the real estate body. No need for snooping.

Yeah, good luck with that, Polly.  I recall a couple of years ago there was a teacher who was fired from a religiously affiliated school for having a picture on FB with a drink in her hand in a group pics with friends while on vacation somewhere.  IIRC, she got fired because of that one pic.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2019 at 7:40 AM, Shortforbob said:

Isn't hunting/searching for peoples social media stuff for real world purposes a bit stalky/creepy/fascist?

Best way to curtail freedom of speech is to make people afraid of other people misusing it.

 

 

Don’t people put things on social media so they can be seen in the real world?

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence. And freedom of speech also comes along with a freedom to stfu. If one doesn’t want ones words to be used against them, they should keep those words to them self. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yeah, good luck with that, Polly.  I recall a couple of years ago there was a teacher who was fired from a religiously affiliated school for having a picture on FB with a drink in her hand in a group pics with friends while on vacation somewhere.  IIRC, she got fired because of that one pic.  

As part of my clearance, I was asked if I have any Facebook etc accounts.....it was intimated that it’s preferable not to, which is fine for me. Just put a tick in the no box and avoid the whole long-winded, keep your social media secure bullshit. 

And they're not private!! The background team snoop around and can open anything they feel like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah - it's 2/3 of Socialist. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hadn't looked at it like that but I bet Boob did. Her stance on this issue is kinda puzzling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2019 at 5:19 PM, Shortforbob said:

I'm curious. What sort of things do employers seek on someones social media that may be relevant to a job application that they can't find elsewhere?

Comments indicating character,  confidentiality ( ie oversharing),  personal tendencies, and in the case of clearances - opportunities to be compromised. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2019 at 7:44 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Comments indicating character,  confidentiality ( ie oversharing),  personal tendencies, and in the case of clearances - opportunities to be compromised. 

Or violations of company ethics policies, rules, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2019 at 12:35 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

You know you're social media snooping right now if you're reading this, right?

No, we're not. We're engaging in socialisation on social media. Snooping would be "investigating furtively in an attempt to find out something, especially information about someone's private affairs". Most people in PA are not here to find something out, let alone to do so without drawing attention to themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now