Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Privacy issues of Social Networking Sites
Legal and ethical issues of employee monitoring
Importance of privacy for social networking
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Privacy issues of Social Networking Sites
A few questions have sparked discussion by many people. The first question being, should employers be able to check what possible employees have posted online? The second question, should employers be able to see what employees are doing on company computers during work hours? The final question being, should employers be able to check what employees are doing on their own time? These questions have become highly talked about subjects and people have different views on each topic of what is right or wrong for employers to check. I believe future employers have the right to check what prospective employees have posted online. The employers should have an understanding of whom they are hiring and how they will represent their company. All social media accounts are public and if you do not want anyone to see the information you post you have the option of making your profile private. I believe if you do not make it private, then you are fine with anyone seeing your information. “People are responsible for what they post. It’s unreasonable to make personal information available to the whole world and not expect employers to look at it.” (Lee.) I do believe to an extent that employers should not believe everything they find on the Internet. “When they do find information, they should keep in …show more content…
While at work you are getting paid to do your job, not browse through the Internet, check social media, etc. The companies are paying you to work and to do your job so the company runs smoothly. I believe that the employers have the right to check what you are doing on their computers during the work hours. “If the employer owns the computers and runs the network, the employer is generally entitled to look at whatever it wants on the system, including emails.” (Bussing.) They have the right to know what you are doing on the clock because they are the ones paying
Most individuals use these social networks and applications as an outlet to connect with old friends and family, share media, and keep up with everyday topics. Sometimes, employees exchange social media accounts if they become friends at work, which is acceptable. But, if an employer decides to review an employee or potential employee’s personal account without their permission, that is an invasion of privacy. Also, a person’s social media account should not have to be monitored or reviewed by an employer, especially if it does not relate to the job itself. Everyone deserves privacy, and if an employee’s social media account(s) have to be monitored, the same should apply to the employers as
Over half of the applicants found on search engines and nearly two-thirds of the applicants found on social networking sites were not hired as a result of the information found on the sites. (Source H) Things found on the internet or social media are almost always taken out of context and doesn’t show what the person applying is actually like. Admission offices and employers are more likely to start and use social media to look up applicants. This can make it harder to get into a school or business if you have a social media account. According to and NACAC article, Eighty-eight percent of admission offices believed social media were either “somewhat” or “very” important to their future recruitment efforts. (Source B) Colleges now a days always look to see if applicants have a social media account that means that if they get access to the account there is a 38% chance that, that person does not get accepted. One-fourth of colleges surveyed indicated that they used Web search or social networking
Social media companies have complete control a their users information and can do what they want with it. Now if those companies went spreading the information, no one would use their sites but they can make changes to privacy setting that make it easier for anyone to view information of other users. For example, Facebook has privacy settings so your information is not out for public viewing, but a while back they changed the default privacy setting to make all your information viewable to the public unless you changed it. There was an uproar and everyone felt they were trying to be sneaky about it because they did not give any notice when they did it, but Facebook claimed they were not trying to do anything fallacious.
One negative example illustrates how employers rejected candidates based on data found outline (p.552) – which by the way is not supported in any paragraph. Let me support Andrews’ essay. According to Forbes Magazine in the article, “The 10 Skills Employers Most Want In 20-Something Employees,” The National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) ran a survey where it asked 200 hiring managers what skills they prioritize when they hire. They agreed on 4 points which are teamwork, problem-solving, the ability to plan, and the ability to communicate. No matter how people did in school or what they have studied (including what they search for in the internet – I’m looking at you Lori Andrews). Recruiters said that if people demonstrate that they have those skills through their cover letters, resumes and interviews they will be hired. Overall, the essay emphasizes stereotyping in data aggregation, how people are mistreated because of their actions in the web, how people are “weblined,” segregated from the opportunities, and judged because of being themselves. What Andrew’s argument fails to recognize is that people are not that naive. People are able to change their IP addresses whenever they want. Hotspot Shield a well-known software company has an article fully committed into changing the IP address for a
My personal opinion is that this is a complete invasion of information privacy and that I would rather not have any third party knowing where I’m planning to travel or what items I’m planning to buy online. Also in the future when I have my career I would like to keep my personal life completely out of my work life. I wouldn’t want my boss knowing my personal passwords to my social media or even giving him the access to what I did before and what I am doing now, that’s what my professional resume is for. All of this might not seem like a big deal now but again you have to understand that this is just the start and if we continue to allow data mining or any type of invasion of personal information there will be no one to draw the line the line between personal and public information.
Collecting personal data about people is an invasion of privacy. Certain personal info such as birthday, age, social security numbers, license plates. and gender should be kept out of reach. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, in Jersey City (with a population of 250,000), 10 million license plates numbers were stored as of August 2012 (“You Are Being Tracked.”). The policy states that these license plates are stored for 5 whole years (“You are Being Tracked)! Also, employers have access to private information such as credit card, bank, and medical records (“Unauthorized Transmission and Use of Personal Data”). Why should employers be able to get all of this data? You might think that employers should be able to get these facts because they have a right to know who their future employees are. However, employers also have access to your medical records (“Employment Background Checks: A Jobseeker’s Guide”). How is your medical history even relevant to whether or not you should get a certain job? Collecting data on innocent people is definitely an invasion of privacy.
Employee Monitoring: Is There Privacy in the Workplace? . (6/3/2004)
Sometimes there is no middle ground. Monitoring of employees at the workplace, either you side with the employees or you believe management owns the network and should call the shots. The purpose of this paper is to tackle whether monitoring an employee is an invasion of privacy. How new technology has made monitoring of employees by employers possible. The unfairness of computerized monitoring software used to watch employees. The employers desire to ensure that the times they are paying for to be spent in their service is indeed being spent that way. Why not to monitor employees, as well as tips on balancing privacy rights of employees at the job.
One type of surveillance is employee monitoring. Many employers monitor their workers’ activities for one reason or another. Companies monitor employees using many methods. They may use access panels that requires employees to identify themselves to control entry to various area in the building, allowing them to create a log of employee movements. They may also use software to monitor attendance and work hours. Additionally, many programs allows companies to monitor activities performed on work computers, inspect employee emails, log keystrokes, etc. An emerging methods of employee monitor also include social network and search engine monitoring. Employers can find out who their employees are associated with, as well as other potentially incriminating information. (Ciocchetti)
He has attributed the issue of heavy employee monitoring to contributing to bad relationship between management and employees. For instance, he shows that employees are monitored through their phone calls, voice mail and videotaping, which has led to issues of privacy at workplace. This topic helps us to comprehend the changing context of work at workplace where employees increasingly perceive their privacy being violated by their
An example of the pros and cons of privacy in the work place while during the hiring process is in 2012, a company in Maryland decided to ask job seekers to log into personal profiles and search through wall posts. As this is becoming more of trend many creative ways to monitor the posts. Another example within this sector is the athletic program at the University of North Carolina, “Each team must identify at least one coach or administrator who is responsible for having access to and regularly monitoring the content of team member social networking sites and postings”
...randpa and grandma, aunts and uncles , friends and neighbors. We can not spying on others and take it as advantageous to be successful or use it for any purposes to against our loved ones. It isn’t right. For example, the character in “ Nothing But Net ” was asked to spy other employees for proof of wrongdoing. At this point , I understand that the company wants to eliminate who can be detrimental to their business. Even though, we should understand that everybody is equal and we have to respect their privacy.
There are many ways that employees can be monitored by their employer. This can include drug testing, personality testing [,] and control over the employee’s email, phone calls[,] and internet usage (Mateja, G. 2017). If an employee is believed to be using drugs, they can be referred to a doctor for drug testing and if found to be using, this could be grounds for termination. Email and computers can be monitored for all user activity and the employer can discover what their employee is doing throughout the workday. Telephones may be monitored for outgoing/incoming calls, times[,] and dates of calls made and/or received and the duration of the conversation.
But, these laws always changing, depending on the work setting or policies set by any specific organizations. Because there are so many different work environments, each claim of privacy has to be evaluated based on the actual conditions of the workplace (Smith & Burg, 2015). This is why policies must be set according to the CEO needs. If the organization does not allow the use of the internet for any personal use, than the employee must follow such guidelines. This eliminates employee privacy right violations, because the policy will informs them of the monitoring during the hiring
According to the PRC (Privacy Rights Clearinghouse), “Employers are not required by law to disclose to their employees that such monitoring is being conducted, with the exception of Connecticut where a state law requires employer disclosure.” Some examples of workplace monitoring is as follows: “video surveillance, telephone monitoring, e-mail and voice mail monitoring, computer keystroke tracking, internet web site monitoring, location tracking using badges worn by employees, and satellite tracking of the company fleet.” Although workplace monitoring seems extreme, it is necessary for solving crimes in ongoing investigations. However, what makes matters alarming is that these systems can be deployed secretly and invisibly. In today’s real world, the recent case with Apple and the FBI is a relatable example of these issues.