Handing Over The Facebook Keys

By now you’ve probably heard of some employer who is asking potential employees for access to their Facebook accounts as a condition of employment. It’s become widespread enough that Maryland recently became the first state to prohibit employers from asking employees and applicants for social media passwords and login information. The law would prohibit an employer from taking or threatening any form of adverse action based on an employee’s or job applicant‘s refusal to provide a user name or password to a personal account.  Senators from New York and Connecticut are moving towards doing something similar on a national level.  Think this is just hypothetic?  A teacher’s aide in Michigan was let go from her job after a school administrator demanded that she turn over her Facebook password and she refused.  I have two thoughts and would love to hear yours.

Image representing Facebook as depicted in Cru...

Image via CrunchBase

First – good for the legislature.  Second – how pathetic are the employers who would do this and how desperate have the folks become who feel they must acquiesce?

I’ve hired many people over the years, most of them before Facebook (or the Internet).  While I’ll admit there were a couple of duds in the mix, I wouldn’t have figured that out had I had access to their personal relationships, photos of them on their own time, or an understanding of what videos they watched, music they played, or articles they read.  To me this is the equivalent of demanding the keys to someone’s home to do a complete search of their wardrobe, their books, their medicine cabinet, and their kitchen. None of that is necessary to do a good hire and asking about some of it is already illegal.

Yes, it’s important to check out prospective employees, and that’s way easier today than it has ever been.  Most people are careless about leaving footprints in cyberspace and it’s relatively easy to find out if the candidate who says they are one thing are, in fact, something quite different.   For those who are careful, there are services available – as there have always been – to help with background checks.  Frankly, anyone evil enough to tell big lies about themselves is probably crafty enough to keep the lies off the web.  Besides – even if my buddy says you can check out his Facebook mail, I didn’t give you permission to look at what I sent him – that’s another set of issues completely.

What do you think – would you ever give up access to your account to get a job?  Would you ever demand that access before you hire someone?

Enhanced by Zemanta

1 Comment

Filed under Helpful Hints, Huh?

Who Doesn’t Like Cookies?

I know it’s not Friday, but let’s ask about cookies today.  Who doesn’t like a nice cookie?  Well, if you believe a recent survey, almost no one.  Web cookies, that is.  The folks at Econsultancy ran a survey and found that just 23% of web users would say yes to cookies.  They asked based on some new rules about cookie-based tracking that are going in to place in the E.U. and part of those rules will be much greater visibility to users about what tracking is going on:

That 69% of survey respondents are aware of what cookies are and why websites use them may cheer some marketers, but it still leaves a large chunk of web users that may react with puzzlement when they see messages about cookies and privacy on the website they visit.

It also found that a good chunk of users are already managing their cookies via browser settings and that 17% of users won’t accept cookies under any circumstances.  Roughly 60% of users might take a cookie but they’ll need to understand why they should.  In short, it’s the “what’s in it for me” test.  I don’t buy that consumers are happy when they see more targeted ads, which is sometimes cited as a reason why cross-domain tracking is a good thing.  I think the “creepy” factor is off the charts, frankly.  Saving site settings for improve a shopping experience or allowing a site to count visitors and understand site usage might be OK in most folks’ minds – it is in mine – but the survey found that any use that isn’t related to a user’s concerns doesn’t pass the smell test.

I keep waiting for the year in which everyone is going to get serious about balancing privacy concerns with the need for data.  The fact that we’re still amazed when unscrupulous people sell “undeletable” cookies and even businesses that use these services claim no knowledge about what a privacy invasion they are is ridiculous.  Maybe this is the year, although what the E.U. is doing is not really a great solution.  Still, as an industry, if we’re not going to act with users in mind, their representatives are going to force imperfect solutions in the absence of grown-up behavior.

Sour milk with those cookies?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media, Huh?

No Good Deed…

For our Foodie Friday Fun piece I want to look at something Whole Foods announced a month or so ago. On the surface it seems as if it’s very much in keeping with their brand positioning and is something that will make a positive contribution in sustaining the food chain. Why, then, are so many people questioning both their motives and the effectiveness of what they’re doing? A quick examination is useful in raising issues we can all think about as we try to move our businesses forward.

Atlantic cod fisheries have collapsed

Atlantic cod fisheries have collapsed (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

First the facts.  Whole Foods announced that they will stop selling fish caught from depleted waters or through ecologically damaging methods.  They won’t carry wild-caught seafood that is “red-rated,” a color code that indicates it’s either overfished or caught in a way that harms other species.   This will impact the sale of octopus, gray sole, skate, Atlantic halibut and Atlantic cod caught by trawls, which some say can destroy habitats. Instead, they say they’re going to sell sustainable replacements like cod caught on lines and halibut from the Pacific.  Pretty straightforward, right?  Hopefully by not selling the fish that’s most threatened or whose capture might damage the environment, Whole Foods is marching in step with their brand image and their customers’ mindset.

Except maybe not.  First, for those of us on the east coast, Pacific fish needs to be flown here.  Without having the “is global warming manmade” fight, let’s just assume it’s better to eat locally sourced ingredients for a lot of reasons, the environment and taste among them.  Next, it ignores items such as scallops which are not endangered but are caught using many of the same methods (dredging) that are being excluded.  Third, the list the chain is following is produced by the Blue Ocean Institute and the Monterey Bay Aquarium in California which some attack as having their own agenda.  Finally, the more cynical (read that as New England fisherman) commenters question if the whole thing isn’t just a PR stunt to get some good out of the fact that cod and other of the “red-rated” fish will be hard to find and very expensive so to mitigate the lack of availability the chain is just tossing it out completely.

I have no clue which position is right or wrong.  I raise the discussion because it’s a great example of how even what seems to be a company trying to do some good can involve an awful lot of issues to which technology gives a lot of visibility.  What about the fisherman whose livelihoods are affected?  What about other local jobs that support them and the excellent work most local fishing communities are doing to preserve the fishing beds (which obviously they should have started a long time ago or we’d not be having this discussion!)?

We’ll file this one under no good deed goes unpunished, I guess.  It’s all of our jobs to try to do good as we’re doing well.  The trick is to make sure that others see it the same way and if they don’t, that at least you’ve considered their positions and are prepared to discuss your reasoning.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under food, Reality checks