Privacy Or No Privacy Analysis

Employers on our social media, this is a fact that everyone in this age accepts but do not necessarily like or want. Some people say it is okay to check social media when looking for who to hire, but this infringes on privacy rights. If an employer finds something discriminating on a profile and decides not to hire the person this is not okay, even though some may say it is because you want to know what you are getting into. An employer could find information that was not even true on social media, this would not work in favor of employment. It is not okay to check social media when employers are hiring because it invades privacy, discriminates and the information provided on the site could be false.

According to a survey report done by the Kelly services with 170,000 people from 30 different countries, 55% of all the participants believe that the use of social media for both the personal and professional posts can cause problems in the workplace (Bennett, 2012). According to a study done by the proof point, many US companies that have hired the employees more than 1000 in number face a real problem with their employees to use social media (Ostrow 2009). Almost 17% of these companies had faced serious disrepute due to the offensive comments on the social media websites (Ostrow 2009). Almost 13% of the US companies have investigated the use of personal text messages that have been found to infringe the company’s law (Ostrow 2009).

A growing hot topic, and cause for concern is the increasing use of social media in the workplace. The landscape for communication has changed, and the line between personal and professional communications has been blurred. How will your employer manage the risks associated with the use of social media and at the same time, gain the benefits that this media form provides? While many employers were initially concerned that employees would use company time and equipment for socializing with friends, they are quickly learning that many social networks can also be used directly for work purposes.

I am personally not concerned about others being able to watch and track what I do online because I have nothing to hide. I do believe that if an employer were to see a post on social media that jeopardizes the job, character, or work environment that it

Although the Privacy Act and PIPEDA exist to regulate what personal information is collected in order to protect the employee, these legal means are not enough. The common thread between the two is that the information collected should be collected and used for the stated purposes. The Privacy Act applies to federal institutions, whereas PIPEDA applies to the private-sector, yet neither specifically state social media. As mentioned in this article, the person’s privacy rights should not end simply because the technological advancements are not incorporated into our legislation. However, privacy laws should be able to incorporate social media as it is one of society’s most common method of communication. As society changes, our laws should accommodate. I believe the current criteria are not specific enough, if just cause can be proven and if there is no discrimination, that is seen to be enough for termination. I think that the better option would be the proposal set in this article.

The objective of this study is to examine the importance of not sharing patient information through social media. According to the work of Adler (2011) many physicians are violating HIPAA and do not know it. Dimick (2010) writes that nurses at the Fargo, ND-based healthcare system in 2008 were using Facebook to "provide unauthorized shift change updates to their co-workers. What once would have been a conversation became an update on their personal Facebook pages. It was a convenient tool, because the nurses had "friended" each other through Facebook and thus could quickly read what each other wrote on their pages. They did not use patient names, but they did post enough specifics about patients so that the incoming nurses could prepare for their shift. The problem was that everyone else "friended" to their Facebook pages could also read the information." (p.1) The use of social media to talk about work "sharing sensitive patient or proprietary business information that same easy use and powerful reach broadcasts guarded information to large numbers of people." (Dimick, 2010, p.1) Release of information that is sensitive over social media can result in great harm to the reputation of an organization, violations of HIPAWA and ultimately result in "breach notifications and hefty fines." (Dimick, 2010, p.2) Dimick writes that Kaiser Permanente published "an organization-wide social media policy that explains appropriate staff

Every day, more than a billion people worldwide use social networks. This habit has also invaded the workplaces and some research has established that four out of five employees use social networks for private purposes during working hours. Surprisingly, although this type of distraction can potentially harm the welfare of the organizations, no studies of this relationship have been made so far. In recent years, the phenomenon of social media, particularly Facebook and Twitter, is booming and occupies more space in the lives of individuals. So much so that interactions with these media are increasingly in the workplace, employers seeing the cause is often unproductive. Indeed, if a physician’s spends a lot of time surfing the Internet for personal

On the other hand, many employees more and more feel violated and disrespected. The world has become more digital which involves many aspects of a person’s life to be online. Over a billion people use Facebook regularly, where they upload personal information. The question is, do companies have the right to search Facebook to discover more about the person. In the article, Employers Use Facebook Too, for Hiring by Mary Oleniczak et al., Oleniczak demonstrates the lack of privacy workers are receiving. People on social media never post their whole story. Only some aspect of their life show up. If an employer looks at the site, they see one side of a person, they see a personal side that does not involve their work life. Also everyone is human, which means people can be selfish and rude. So maybe on a person’s site, that person seems great but another person keeps bashing them because for some reason that person does not like the other person. The basher makes the person look bad even if it is only the basher’s point of

One major issue with the current use of social media is the policy of employers investigating their employee’s social media accounts. As Michaela Whitbourn of The Age notes, “The use of social media accounts to assess candidates for work, education and other opportunities was "an area of growing concern"(Whitbourn 1). In a world where political correctness and social justice reign supreme, businesses want to ensure that they are legally secured in the case of any negligence an employee may incur. Today, many companies would consider risqué or controversial social media posts as forms of negligence. There have been many occurrences over the last few years when an employee has been fired after making an insensitive, inappropriate, or immodest post on Facebook or Twitter. For example, “Ehling, a paramedic and nurse was terminated from her employment and sued… the key issues revolved around a Facebook post she made suggesting… paramedics should have allowed a patient with offensive political views to die”(Malouf 2). In fact as evidenced in another example, social media can disable someone from obtaining employment in the

Today’s biggest ethical issue in the United States is employers and coworkers posting on social network websites costing themselves and others to lose their job. Due to the misuse of social networking by employees, employers across the country are setting policies regarding employee’s use of social network. Employers are setting policy as to what employees can and cannot say on social websites when they are on or off duty. An example is a news article I came across while browsing the web, article name: Waitress fired after complaining about bad tips on Facebook.

In Zupek’s article, “How social media can hurt your career” she shows how business and corporations are becoming more apparent on social media. With the uprising of more companies being on social media, there is also an increase in monitoring on employees Facebook and twitter pages. Zupek gives direct tweets exchanged between employer and employee and tells the story of Kimberly Swanson. Swanson was an employee at Ivell Marketing and Logistic and worked in Clacton, U.K. and posted a status on Facebook expressing how boring she thought her job was. Days after this post was made, Swanson was called into her manager's office and fired for what she said on Facebook. Zupek concludes the article by giving tips on what not to do on social media and also claims that posts showing negative feelings towards one job should not be posted to be seen by the

Why are surveillance cameras used if it has a negative effect on people’s daily lives? People who do not want to remain watched by cameras and want to keep their lives private, view surveillance cameras as an invasion of privacy. Advancements of worldwide technology allow the usage of innovative surveillance cameras in public places. Even though, several people believe that surveillance cameras influence a safer environment; Other people believe that the disturbing surveillance cameras invade people’s privacy. Barry Steinhardt, the author of "Public Surveillance Cameras Violate Privacy Rights," Glenn Greenwald, the author of "Why Privacy Matters," and Laurent Belsie, the author of "Public Surveillance Cameras Violate Privacy," all agree that surveillance cameras in public places became a violation of privacy. It's unlikely that consensus will ever be reached regarding the use of surveillance cameras, but these authors all agree that surveillance cameras can affect people’s

Social media in the workplace has become a very controversial topic. Employers are having to fire employees because of social media issues. Some employees do not know the boundaries of what they can and can not post because there was not a social media policy in place when they got the job. An employer’s rights should end to dictate what their employees post when they ask the employee for their log in to their social media account because it is disrespect of an employee’s privacy, it decreases trust, and it causes arguments at the workplace.

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

My second reason for why I believe job employers should have the right to look at social media accounts of potential employees is because it allows the employer to find out if the candidate presents a positive professional image and good communicative skills. If an employers chooses to look at someone who bullies others on social media it could show that that applicant has a poor character. If they look at someone who is illiterate or inappropriate with images or words that could show a potential problem with maturity. If an employer looks at someone who has positive feedback from peers and shows an active involvement in the community, it could show the employer that the candidate has the ability to help the company grow.