Privacy Act Vs PIPEDA

Sure the internet is a great wat to express our self, but other may misconstrue they see on our social media sites. I sympathize with Mr. Lewis, because employers shouldn’t have the right checkup or screen employee’s social media, which that would be their personal life. An employees shouldn’t not be judged on the lifestyle they life after workhours. Depending on what kind of job you have or trying to acquire yes it may be required but you will be notified. The American is being so political correct, that is hard to be our self if you have differences views from the majority of the any group of people. In my opinion there should be laws dealing with cases when employees get fried do to something they posted in social media. Billy Graham agrees when she writes, Once you've lost your privacy, you realize you've lost an extremely valuable thing.” Basically, Billy Graham is saying losing your privacy is one of the worst things you can lose, it’s a pieces of yourself that you can free with no judgment. Many people me may disagree with me, but I stay with my opinion. Ms. Flynn clam that employers have the right to monitor their employees anything they see fit, rests upon the questionable assumption that would it be morally right. by doing all this would create a hostile work environment, I do not agrees on employers having so a say on what can and not say on social media. Being an American you have freedom speech that being said I truly believe that is a violation of my civil right and nobody should be about to dictate what can you say or not

The regulations on social media policies limit the employer’s ability to place restrictions on the staff

The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, establishes a code of fair information practices that governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by federal agencies. A system of records is a group of records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifier assigned to the individual.

In the article that I have read it states over the years they have been advising their company that the punishment of the employees will be on social media it has developed an uncertain professional business. The National Labor Relations Boards has made the position that the worker’s comment on the social media is very often protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act even after the verbal used is unsuitable or

The NLRB has made findings regarding the use of employee posts on Social Media sites to discipline or terminate those employees. Typically these cases occur when an employee posts “negative” information about their current employer or boss. Sometimes these are “public” and other times the employer uses “spies” or “fake friending” to see the Facebook page of the employee.

In 1990, Tim Berners Lee invented the World Wide Web, since then a huge uprising in technology and social media has allowed us and others to invade the privacy of one another. Due to this massive growth, social media became widespread in today’s society, allowing easy access to people’s private information. Sadly, this information may be the reason someone is looked over after a job interview, because employers go through social media to evaluate a potential employee’s behavior. Is it a good thing for an employer to invade the privacy of a current or future employee, as a tool to evaluate ones character?

POLICY: This policy provides guidance for employee use of social media, which should be broadly understood for purposes of this policy to include blogs, wikis, microblogs, message boards, chat rooms, electronic newsletters, online forums, social networking sites, and other sites and services that permit users to share information with others in a contemporaneous manner.

While social media platforms present avenues for the freedom of expression, the rules or regulations that guide the privilege may sometimes be curtailed or applied wrongly. Employees and organizations are facing the dilemma on what to post or not to post on these platforms. An employee may decide to air something through these public arenas without the knowledge that their actions may surpass their rights and thus infringe on others’ rights or cause damages to other people (Boyce, 2014). On the other hand, an organization may control the communication of employees on social media platforms to the extent that it violates their rights and privileges. It is in this respect that this paper explores the Facebook and Praxel cases as they are related to these matters.

In our digital age, people are increasingly using social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace to share personal experiences, relati onships, opinions, and accomplishments with family and "friends." They view their Web sites as private and their right to voice their opinions or post pictures of themselves as protected free speech. Should employers have the right to terminate employees based on personal information that the employee has posted online? In most cases, the answer to this question is "no."

A law wouldn’t be necessary because not all employers, colleges, or even universities ask about information regarding social media. People should less conspicuous on social media because they should know everyone is watching, not just their friends and family. “A dozen states have already passed legislation prohibiting an employer from requesting or requiring an employee or a prospective employee from disclosing password information that would provide access to one's personal social media account” (Blanke). Although it’s still happening to citizens who are applying for jobs, it’s slowly degrading because laws are being passed to prohibit the right to

The use of social media has greatly influenced how people communicate. Facebook, one of the largest social media platforms, has over one billion active users. Employers find social media both useful and challenging. Companies now have a platform to reach millions of potential users of their products for marketing purposes. The downside is their employees also have access to millions of users. In the case of Peter Whitney, Peter’s employer terminated Peter for disparaging comments about co-workers on his personal blog. He views his termination as unfair. As this technology develops, employees need to self-censor their social media to prevent termination.

Technology today has enabled employers to protect confidential human resource matters, financial information, and trade secrets. It also enables companies to monitor employee efficiency, and avoid possible harassment/discrimination lawsuits. However, some employees believe that management has exceeded their need for control and replaced it with an invasion of privacy.

Social media is more and more used to make presumptions and decisions about people. If I get to know someone I will go to Google and try to find out what can be found instead of waiting how all info itself will arouse by time passing. It’s debatable if it is ethical to spy about people in social networks because behavioral patterns witnessed there belong more to private sphere. But if person is willingly giving away his rights to privacy?  Also we seldom think of privacy issues when applying for “bonus” card to get 5% discount. It seems that sometimes people need to be protected against themselves and until there are no new and relevant social norms aroused, this is were policymakers should puzzle and offer solutions. Of course the balance is a key issue.

Social networking sites such as Twitter or Facebook have created a new ethical dilemma for many businesses. Corporations, small businesses, and even universities are struggling create policies to manage their employees social networking behaviors. Social networking access, particularly for recruiters, can provide personal information about potential employees, which would otherwise not be available. A business must follow statutes and guidelines when disclosing information to the public. Individuals on social networking sites have no such constraints. Employees can and do make comments about their employers online. Employers can and do watch what employees post online. Any individual can send or post potentially damaging information

Almost everyone in developed countries, during this day and age, has social media accounts. There are many platforms of social media including but not limited to: facebook, twitter, instagram, snapchat, myspace, linkedin, etc… And there are many reasons for using these social media platforms such as: keeping contact with old friends and distant relatives, meeting new people and sharing life experiences with people around the globe, or stalking that cute girl at work but never making contact. Among these reasons, and many more is the controversial topic of whether job employers should be able to use of social media to look up applicants. I believe job employers have a right to look up potential employees because doing so would allow them to