May 27th, 2009Persistence of stupidity
There is a lot of hype in the media of late about privacy, big brother state, Google street view, state owned data base on phone calls and internet use. There has also been some on social networks and gate crashing parties. But on closer examination there is more in common between state / corporate privacy issues and social networking that you might think.
Let’s talk about something we all understand first. If a young college student is doing child care studies, with the goal of becoming a child minder or nursery nurse, goes out and gets very drunk, falls over into someone else and a fight breaks out, a drunk and disorderly (or even GBH) charge may result. She will now fail the CRB check required to work with children. Mind you in extreme circumstance putting you bin out in the wrong day could also cause you to fail future CRB check!
Now apply this to social networking like Facebook, or ANY photo sharing service which allows tagging , naming and comments on photos, Flickr, Picasa Twitpic to name a few..
Now let’s re-visits the above scenario. A young college student is doing child care studies, with the goal of becoming a child minder or nursery nurse, goes out and gets very drunk, falls over, and is then sat in a pool of her own vomit with her underwear on show to everyone. Out pops all the camera phones, and with-in minutes that photo, she would rather forget, is posted ALL over the internet. Add some powerful internet search engine and you have a personal brand problem which is much harder to deal with than any official or corporate database will ever be.
Oh and just to make it worse, you have just been stitched up by your mates, not some organisation out to make money…..
You have been warned !!
May 27th, 2009 at 12:57
I think this is a problem that we as a society are just going to have to find a way of dealing with.
Your CRB point is interesting – passing the test doesn’t prove that you’ve never done wrong, it just proves that you’ve never been caught doing something wrong. That seems to me a strange basis upon which to make employment decisions, especially given the roles that CRB checks are required for.
Anyway, I digress. My point was about your facebook example above. We’ve moved on from Warhol’s idea of people having 15 minutes of fame. Now we (or our actions) are famous for ever. It seems to me that we’ll end up with most people having the kind of branding problem you mention above – in which case I guess it ceases to be a problem. An online picture of me sitting in some sick is a problem if I’m the only candidate for the job with such a claim to fame. If every candidate has an online picture of them sitting in some sick it ceases to be an issue. The post still has to be filled.
Politicians seems to have some kind of statute of limitation – maybe citizens should have the same? Whenever a youthful misdemeanour comes to light they brush it off with “Oh, but I was young then, and surely I’m allowed to move on blah blah..” Even if the misdemeanour was something that had they have been caught doing they might have been arrested and charged for and thus now be in the position of failing a CRB check. Which kind of brings me back to where I started.
I’m sure there’s a deeper point in there but I’m struggling to crystalise it.
May 29th, 2009 at 6:37
Great tale. I think I have the answer to the problem. When the pants are on show, make sure they’re firmly on the head. Then, so long as they be fairly plain, unidentifiable pants, I reckon the wearer is safe…ish. Terry’s point about CRB is a good one. Also, until recently I hadn’t appreciate that you need a different CRB check for every CRB-able duty you perform. I’m sure there’s an inherent system weakness in there too…?
May 29th, 2009 at 8:56
Lessons to be learnt from social networking:
- what goes on the web tends to stay on the web (in archives, etc) – persistance, as Lee says
- some information/images from the past can follow you onto the web, e.g. when people scan and upload old photos, documents, etc
- be aware what others have posted up/tagged about you
- employers and potential dates now often check the web for information about you
- a person’s reputatation can be made or sabotaged via social networking
Questions to ask about the future of social data:
- do we want providers/social networking sites to take more repsonsibility for human behaviour regarding sharing information and security, as the edges blur between the physical and virtual world? i.e. physical privacy, virtual spying, data protection, mis-information, crime
- do web-users need to be better educated about the value of the data trail they create?
- How do we manage our own data on the web?
- should it be made easier to find and correct or remove errors, out-of date info or malicious comments about ourselves?
- who ‘owns’ our data anyway and should they be allowed to use it any way they like?
June 26th, 2009 at 15:47
“Let’s talk about something we all understand first. If a young college student is doing child care studies, with the goal of becoming a child minder or nursery nurse, goes out and gets very drunk, falls over into someone else and a fight breaks out, a drunk and disorderly (or even GBH) charge may result. She will now fail the CRB check required to work with children.”
Fail might not be the right word, as it would not be an automatic bar to working with children, employers could still employ her, and there are teachers with drunk and disordely on their CRB’s, Some places consider the pattern for offences not relevant to children. Someone with lots of drunk and disorderly cuations will find it far harder to find employment, though still not barred.
I am in the same boat as her and terrified, I got into an arguement with a doorman over an offence he was committing tried to leave, and ended up arrested to prevent a potential breach of the peace as I was the drunker one and got upset, and did not know enough to make it clear that whilst me and him were having the circular argument with the police to just point out I was leaving the area and was going to report him when I get home, and it was only the arrival of the police that meant that I had not made it away already. So now like that girl I am stigmitised and in effect afriad my career is over as the police feel my citing section 9 of the private securties industry act to a doorman was making him alarmed and distressed (he shouted louder) I shoted louder, the police did not difuse it by getting out there pocket book and write down his licence number, as per preocedures or saying to me continue on your way you will be arrested as a potential breach of the peace if you return for any reason. Instead they arrested me, then released me without charge (telling me it was a non recordable civil offence. But like the girl enhanced CRB can show and others interpret what the police write, be it a theft of a mars bar in 1974 to a drunk and disorderly caution, to assault (all these mean people make judgements, they may well think the girl was stupid drunk and she would be expected to disclose her caution, but think well there are not lots, or is that sort of person suitable, they may think that my argument with a doorman is bad due to local forces information, despite that everyone says, the police let you walk, well three months of stress and sleeping pills says otherwise. Somoene with assualt even less likely regarless of information on if they were charged or not, though if they call that person in and find out 10 years ago she threw something at someone at school they may think good character since, someone comming in with yet another bruise from another fight they might think otherwise. Then you have the total no no’s somoene comming in with a rape conviction, or indeed an arrest without charge even if genuinly innocent would probably not have a chance of a job if not already actually barred.